COULD THE ISS BECOME A RUSSO-EUROPEAN PROJECT?

From: Jim Oberg (jameseoberg_at_houston.rr.com)
Date: 08/05/04 

Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 13:31:52 GMT

COULD THE ISS BECOME A RUSSO-EUROPEAN PROJECT?

linked from http://www.spacetoday.net/

2004-08-05 16:37 MOSCOW. August 3. (RIA Novosti political commentator
Andrei Kislyakov.)

It is becoming increasingly difficult to tally US declarations about the
International Space Station (ISS) with reality. On the one hand, President
Bush and NASA have given repeated assurances that the US still sees the ISS
as a unique international project in manned space flight. On the other hand,
words alone cannot make equipment, especially sophisticated space equipment,
keep functioning. Money is needed for the final version of the space station
to appear in all its beauty, complete with new Russian and US-Canadian
elements, the European Columbus orbital facility and the Japanese Kibo
module.

However, are the requisite funds available? Until the US resumes shuttle
flights, all the ISS can do is try to survive. No matter how great Russia's
space capabilities may be, while the shuttles are grounded the station has
to operate on a minimum skeleton crew of two. So, it appears that before the
shuttles fly off into the sunset of a well-deserved retirement, a great deal
of work will have been done. Firstly, this means enabling astronauts to live
on the ISS on a permanent basis. Secondly, the further construction of the
US and Canadian modules is pointless without the shuttles, as the entire
orbital equipment was designed exactly for this transport system.

When commenting on NASA plans for the old shuttles, Nikolai Moiseyev, deputy
director of Russia's Federal Space Agency, quoted the US side as saying that
"considerable funds would be required for this, but Congress has not yet
approved them. The sum in question is about one billion dollars, which is an
issue for even such a wealthy country as the United States." So, there may
be some good intentions, but the cash is obviously a problem.

Finally, it looks like the Americans simply fear the ISS. Here is just one
example. A New York Times report featured a senior NASA official who
preferred to remain anonymous categorically rejecting the idea of using the
ISS as a shelter for shuttle crews in emergencies. The argument is based on
expert conclusions that the space station's present life-support system
could not cope with the increased demand for oxygen, water and food. The
figures are as follows: the experience of servicing orbital stations shows
that the average period a crew of nine can survive is 59.6 days. The
conclusion was that there would still not be enough time for another shuttle
to complete a rescue operation. Russian Soyuz rescue spaceships were totally
ignored, as if the Russian partners simply did not exist.

Perhaps the benchmark for NASA employees' qualifications has dropped? No,
this is not true. Perhaps the shuttles have technical problems that make the
experts wary about resuming flights? If this is the case, it should be
stated openly and a solution should be found together.

However, maybe the objectives have changed and NASA no longer cares about
the space station or the old shuttles? After all, there is Russia, which
alone carries the entire burden of the ISS programme, and has not intention
of stopping midway.

Moreover, it co-operates with the other ISS partners, i.e., the Europeans,
who no longer want merely to watch the beautiful trails left by US
spacecraft as they leave the Earth. A programme to launch European automatic
transport ships has been completely coordinated between the European Space
Agency and Russia's Federal Space Agency. The Arian-5 heavy carrier rocket,
Europe's leading craft, will orbit the first such ship, the Jules Verne, in
October 2005.

Accordingly, with its growing scientific and technological capabilities,
Europe intends to join the manned space flight programme. And Russia's
position on the ISS is perfectly clear. "We have expressed our principled
stand to our partners - the unconditional observance of our commitments to
all the participants is a major task for Russia," Nikolai Moiseyev said
recently. "At the same time, from 2005 it may be considered that all the
commitments have been honoured. Therefore, the development of the Russian
segment at the ISS and support for the activities of the Russian crew there
is becoming a priority for us."

It will be interesting to see if Houston reads this loud and clear.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "The Shuttle Was a Mistake"
    ... If they were abandoning the ISS ... > and were only sending up shuttles to fix the Hubble the same people would ... I'm a very strong proponent of our space program, but the Space Station ... to be used for this purpose. ...
    (rec.aviation.piloting)
  • Re: Return to the moon
    ... >> that they could buy into the pie.) ... >What bothers me is that this new moon effort looks like the Apollo playbook ... Sounds like they're pretty-much writing off the ISS ... and just using the shuttles for spare parts... ...
    (rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated)
  • Re: Save the Hubble
    ... >Two Shuttles fail,and instead of making a better spacecraft,they decide ... >they don't need to fix Hubble. ... ISS hasn't advanced from that point. ... If a space station was spun up to give a gravity effect and was a place to ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Save the Hubble
    ... >>Two Shuttles fail,and instead of making a better spacecraft,they decide ... ISS hasn't advanced from that point. ... >If a space station was spun up to give a gravity effect and was a place to ... Saw an interesting interview with an astronaut/cosmonaut recently. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: next shuutle flight fall 2006
    ... >Why not refit the remaining shuttles for unmanned launch and landing ... Continue to use unmanned shuttles as heavy lift vehicles to ... >resuppy the ISS until real heavy lift launchers are ready. ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)