Russia's Role in the ISS in Trouble

Uhh_Duh writes "cnn.com is reporting that the Russian space program has fallen on hard times and is no longer capable of launching independent missions due to budget problems. The article touches on the fact that their annual funding is about 309 million versus the U.S. budget of 15 billion. They've also announced that they will not be meeting most of their future deliverables for the international space station." (corrected, the title originally said "IIS" instead of "ISS)

Misnomer?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the title's wrong. Shouldn't it be "ISS", not "IIS"? /me thinks the /. editors have done too much MS-bashing to think straight.

They changed my title

[Uhh_Duh]

I hate it when slashdot changes the title of the story and makes ME look like a bafoon!! I submitted it as "Russia's Space Program in Trouble".

I've been framed as a spelling idiot!

In other news...

[Soft]

Russia agreed to double Soyuz production [themoscowtimes.com] starting in 2006. "The RSA's ISS partners will foot the bill". This is required to support the ISS from 2006 (end of previous agreement) to 2010 (availability of new US spaceplane to act as lifeboat instead of Soyuz), preferably with more than 3 crew.

Hmmm, are we looking forward to another "we need more money or the crew has to leave" every week, like before the service module was launched?

Re:write them off

[krlynch]

I don't think NASA can write them off if they have any plans to expand the station. One of the only major technical reasons the Russians were invited in the first place is that they were the only country that had rocket designs with the heavy lift capability necessary to loft all of the various modules into orbit. It is possible, I suppose, that all of the remaining modules can be lofted by other smaller capacity launch vehicles, but I'm doubting that.

300 mill = 1.5 bill in Russia

[alex733]

Income and prices for most strategic resources including people in Russia 5 times lower than in US. So I suppose in terms of money 300 mill $ sound like not enought, but in terms of resources available Russia has enought to keep most space and military programs running. More important is a problem of brain drain - it is not easy to keep engineers in if I can make $110K /yr in US working on stupid satellite radio project, comparable to $7K while working on military app. in Russia. If they could provide higher life standard back in Russia - many will be back, but when it happen many of us will be to old and kids won't go back.

Re:write them off

[RocketJeff]

The problem is that NASA can't write-off Russia for the ISS. Russia provides the only escape system for the long-term crews (via their Soyuz spacecraft).

Without the Soyuz capsules, the ISS can't have a full-time crew since there'd be no way to leave in an emergency. With the (non)reliability of the Space Shuttle, NASA can't depend on using it for rescue mission even if they had over a week notice.

There's also the issue of the periodic reboosts the ISS needs. Right now, the Progress cargo missions also boost the ISS back up to its optimal orbit. Without the Progress, the ISS will keep getting lower and lower (until eventually it does a bad impression of the Sklab...).

Re:I believe we've covered this before

[back@slash]

responsibility to the nation than can least afford to do it.

That responsibility was given to the nation that was the most qualified to do it. Do you honestly believe that bringing the Russians on board for this project was a bad idea? The Russians are far more advanced than NASA is when it comes to inhabiting space for long periods of time. You may call those who made the decision to include the Russians dumb but I disagree. They pulled off a major coup that saved years off of the time it would have taken NASA to get the ISS to the point it is now.

Re:The US now rules space

[Soft]

does anyone else have an opinion on the fact that the US is now THE power in space?

The Ariane 5 lifts more than any commercial US rocket; the very latest (Atlas 5, Delta 4) have just matched its performance, though hopefully the 10-ton version will up the bar again in two minutes; the Space Shuttle and Titan 4B have more capacity but cost two or three times as much.

Alcatel Space now builds over 50 percent of geostationary satellites.

The US manned space program, mostly the ISS, still depends on Russian Soyuzes (used as lifeboats) and will continue that way until 2010 at least.

Want more?

Re:Money Dependence

[Anonymous Coward]

Income and prices for most strategic resources including people in Russia 5 times lower than in US. So I suppose in terms of money 300 mill $ sound like not enought, but in terms of resources available Russia has enought to keep most space and military programs running. More important is a problem of brain drain - it is not easy to keep engineers in if I can make $110K /yr in US working on stupid satellite radio project, comparable to $7K while working on military app. in Russia. If they could provide higher life standard back in Russia - many will be back, but when it happen many of us will be to old and kids won't go back

Re:write them off

[Anonymous Coward]

The primary russian module is refueled only by Progress supply rockets ( unmanned versions of Soyuz) and when that module is out of fuel it will not be able to maintain station attitude and altitude. The current 200 ton station falls to earth at a rate of 1.5 miles per week. If the station is built up to the 300 ton size with all solar cells installed it will probably fall to earth at a rate of 2.5 miles a week. At that rate it will take less than 100 weeks ( 2 years to burn up. The US had had a boost module planned 2 years ago but it was canceled. It will probably take 4- 5 years to restart that project. High probability that the 100 billion dollar space station will fall to earth, thus ending the space program for Russia and US and leaving it to the Chinese who will have the only manned program left.

Re:think more

[axxackall]

I estimate that Baykonur Cosmodrome hires less than 0.01% of Russian engineers working on various space programs all over the place from Europe to Far East. Most of them work in Siberia.

Cosmodrome is the fastest way to burn money (fuel), Institutes and Manufacturing Plants is very slow way to do that (brains are cheapper than fuel) :)

Besides, Baikonur is not the only Russian Cosmodrome. Plesetsk is another one.

Finally, due to political reasons and/or due to the location reasons (Kazakhstan is still far away from the equator) Russia plans to move Baikonur lounch pad business to the equatorial part of Pacific ocean. There are some plans about a joint venture project with Australia and/or other countries.

All facts I know are from public russian sources. Don't call CIA - they should already know it :) CIA doesn't update/complete their World Fuckedbook just by political reasons - the Cold War is far from being over, it's just not for publicity now :(

Re:nope

[saskboy]

Actually AC, the Proton is the rocket, the Soyuz is the capsule.

http://www.flatoday.com/space/explore/stories/19 99 b/112299z.htm