Russia's Role in the ISS in Trouble 360
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)
I believe we've covered this before (Score:3, Insightful)
About the dumbest thing NASA (or the US) could do, get together a bunch of nations to build/launch/maintain a space station, then give the critical parts (life support, delivery of components) responsibility to the nation than can least afford to do it.
Brilliant, the IIS was doomed from the word go.
Money Dependence (Score:5, Insightful)
Future generations will look at us as petty and shortsighted, squandering finite resources we have no claim to with regards only to our own instant gratification. That is, if there are any resources left for the human race to survive on after a few hundred years.
Cynical? Not me. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to drive my SUV through a red light while talking on a cell phone.
Re:I say they should... (Score:5, Insightful)
I see nothing wrong with this idea. If pop stars are willing to pay for the station, and keep our (important?) research going, then, by god let them. I would rather the boy bands pay for it than my tax dollars.
Mistake (Score:2, Insightful)
NASA/USAF should have bought thier technology outright like LockMart did with the advanced trans-sonic S/VTOL Yak-41.
Re:I believe we've covered this before (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, it was better to let those rocket engineers and nuclear scientists go to some third-world country to produce a nuclear device. The ISS program is basically a way to keep Soviet engineers from doing just that.
SOVIET RUSSIA, n. (Score:1, Insightful)
"soviet USSR" would be redundant, as Soviet is the first "S" (or the middle "C" in CCCP).
I take "Soviet Russia" as the combination of a place and a time. "Russia between the years 1917 and 1992, more or less" or perhaps "Russia during the second half of the 20th century (the cold war years)"
Re:Money Dependence (Score:2, Insightful)
In Russia, they have no greater problems... (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact I think it is wonderful that they are given the oportunity to contribute to a world class effort like the ISS. Go and look at it. [heavens-above.com]. There isn't anything more spectacular in the space program than that, for the moment. Missions to the Moon are a long way off for NASA.
The discussion of space exploration always brings out the whiners about how much money it is costing, when it could be feeding the hungry. Oh, yeah? So could all the money put into the tobacco industry, and canceling cigarettes would actually benefit mankind, not removing our link to space.
Re:Time to dump the space station anyway (Score:3, Insightful)
I hate to say it, but it may be time to suck it up admit the reality that continued funding of the ISS is good money after bad. Whole careers have been poured into it, and AT LEAST $40 billion current-year dollars (prob. much more), and there's little prospect we'll have much to show for it. And no, it ain't no waystation to Mars or the Moon. This would largely ground the shuttle, but that wold also save big bucks.
For the same billions, we could mount really aggressive Mars and Europa programs and learn how to build a lunar colony.
BTW, please see [w3.org] next time you want to post a long URL.
Re:The US now rules space (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The US now rules space (Score:4, Insightful)
China? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They changed my title (Score:3, Insightful)
That's self-fulfilling. Only three L's, like in gulllible.
Re:The US now rules space (Score:2, Insightful)
Leaving aside from the somewhat gung ho attitude of this post, many other nations have active space programs. ESA are currently funding many advanced satellites and systems (although addmitedly manned spaceflight is not a high priority currently). Just because the USSR is having funding problems doesn't leave the field clear for the US.
And just in case you haven't noticed, you ought to keep an eye on the Chinese space program, they are very enthusiastic, and have the political will to push things onwards rapidly.
Re:Time to dump the space station anyway (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I believe we've covered this before (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I believe we've covered this before (Score:3, Insightful)
That responsibility was given to the nation that was the most qualified to do it.
Given the Russians' experience on Mir, I'd certainly insist on the life-support systems on my Mars ship being stamped 'Made in Moscow'. Trouble was, in order to get the US government to approve the funding for the station, sufficient pork-barrel spending had to be approved. So instead of simply sending the Russians a cheque for twenty million dollars for a life-support system proved by twelve years of extremely tough duty aboard Mir, they approve forty million to send to Lockheed to develop a new and unproved system from scratch - because that way the money goes to some congressman's voters.
Of course, there was no way in hell NASA could hope to build a station alone, so Congress had to be persuaded to write the Russians a cheque anyway. That's where the 'if they don't work for us, they'll work for Saddam' argument came in.
Still, though, most of the spending had to be done in the USA for political reasons. If America really wanted the best possible station as cheaply as possible, they would have had the Russians do the whole thing. As it was, it was a political compromise, with each senator bought off with a plum contract for his own voters...
Re:I believe we've covered this before (Score:3, Insightful)
Sick of payouts on russian space tech (Score:3, Insightful)
2. Everyone jokes about MIR. Remember SKYLAB? It fell out of the sky ages ago.
MIR lasted 2-3 times as long as it was supposed to. SKYLAB Didnt it was launched May 14, 1973, fell to earth July 11, 1979
MIR lasted 15 years!
Re:I believe we've covered this before (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not the best argument to use, given that we would have to put money into stabilizing Russia if it ever go into dire straits financially (not to mention, an economically strong Russia is a great market for US products.) Additionally, had we been able to build the ISS for cheap, we could have used the rest of the money to build other items of use in space, items that we could have designed and built in the US. Finally, we should look at return on investment for the US taxpayer, since whatever economic gains you have in the US will be offset by the taxes on that income.
Bottom line, unless we do no trade with Russia (not true, they buy our wheat, we buy their oil, they sell boosters and launch facilities to private corporations, enabling stuff like SeaLaunch, and millions of dollars to both US and Russian economies), spending dollars abroad is not throwing the money away. Note that's spending dollars abroad, as opposed to no-strings aid, which usually is feel-good band-aid fix, rather than a real solution.
The ultimate economic engine is if they opened space up to commercial enterprise. Mining, manufacturing (of space items, like ships, satelities, power generation, etc.) Problem is, all of the available launch tech is expensive. Had we been able to spend our dollars better (ie, develop a SSTO delivery system, and let the Russians build the space station modules), maybe we might have been able to lower the barrier into space. As it is, we're stuck in the same rut we've been for the last 25 years. Sad.
Re:Money Dependence (Score:1, Insightful)
It ended up with Sputnik and the Space Race, and eventually resulted in the first American manned missions to the moon. Of course, there was the whole 'oppressive communist government slaughtering countless millions of its own citizens' thing, but it did get us into orbit, and resulted in the hyper-accelerated development of science over those fifty year.
Re:write them off (Score:3, Insightful)
The only difference is that the Soyuz has been produced in the past 20 years (they still use the same technology)
The only problem with using the Apollo CM is that NASA would rather do it 'sexier' - witness the X-38 project. Instead of building simple, reliable (and cheap) Apollo-style CMs, they decided it would be better to design a ship from scratch that'd also use the largest Parasail ever.
Unfortunately, they didn;t have enough money to finish it. A slightly redesigned Apollo CM would probably have been done for less then they did spend on the X-38...
Re:The US now rules space (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, there is big difference between $500 mil spent by India and $500 mil spent by US. India can do considerably more than US with same money. Most of US money are wasted due to high overhead cost imposed by NASA, and general higher cost of IT and engineering. So I would not be surprised if India will soon accomplish as much as US by spending 30 times less.
As for expertise, Russia is still far away. Mir spent 15 years in space, and was continuously inhabited for 10 years. It will be long time till ISS match it.
Re:China? (Score:2, Insightful)
Considering that the competition between the US and the Soviet Union is what took us to the moon in 10-15 years, and competition between Nazi Germany and the rest of the world is what brought us rockets in the first place, I'd say some competition in the market could do us all some good.