ISS и Россия-США отношение

Gangleri

Только что читал на slashdot.org несколько интересных сообщений, хочу постить сюда:

"According to BBC News, Russia has announced that it will no longer ferry US astronauts to space for
free (It has been doing so for two years). From 2006 the US will be expected to pay."
That's sort of funny. I realize that we really shouldn't be bumming off of the
Russians to get to the ISS, but at the same time, we do sort of uh, foot the bill for most of the
station already. Plus, it isn't like the Russian rocket's weren't already going to ISS (as far as I
know.)
 Russia has also announced that it expects the US to hold up to its end of the
bargain and commit to finishing its sections of the International Space Station.
 As a
matter of fact, the Europeans are expecting the US to hold up its end of the bargain. They spent
millions of dollars on the ESA lab module for the ISS, and due to the grounding of the Shuttle
fleet, it is on the ground gathering cobwebs. What is really angering the ESA is NASA toying with
the idea of breaking their contract [adastragames.com] by permanently grounding the Shuttle fleet
and never lofting the lab.

Without the Russian's heavy lift capacity for re-supply, the ISS would have to be abandoned, which
entails a large risk that the station would undergo a catastrophic failure. NASA would actually like
to pay the Russians and have the funds to do so. Unfortunately, there is a slight obstacle in the
form of the Iran non-Proliferation Agreement of 2000 [adastragames.com]. [/quote] [quote] Here
[mos.org] is a picture of which countries were supposed to supply what though many pieces on this
picture will probably never make it in to space. Most of the important Russians parts did.

I assure you the Russians built the heart of the station that is there now, the Zarya [zarya.info]
Control Module and the Zvezda crew quarters. Zarya is called a U.S. component only because the U.S.
paid for it through Boeing but it was built in Russia.

The U.S. was supposed to build the Crew Return Vehicle which would have allowed it to be fully
manned but that was long ago cancelled. When it was the U.S. killed any prospect of the seven man
crew which pretty much killed the ISS as ever being useful. The current crew can barely maintain it
and don't do much research, not like its any good for any zero G research anyway.

The U.S. is building a lot of solar panels many of which are probably never going to fly and aren't
the most challenging part of the station.

Russia had a full functional space station for like a decade called Mir. Most of their expertise is
at the heart of the current ISS core. Not sure NASA could have successfully flown anything without
them. If you recall during the years Russia was in Mir, NASA and Boeing was churning out one failed
ISS design after another, none of which flew and all of which just filled Boeing's pork filled
belly.

I imagine Russia is regretting they deorbited Mir as a condition of joining ISS. It was past its
prime and on its last legs but at least it was all theirs. ISS is all shiny and new and flush with
squandered U.S. tax dollars but its probably going to end being pathetic and doing anything useful.
Russia was getting a whole lot more done with a whole lot less with Mir. I think the modules now
forming the core of ISS would have gone in to Mir2 if they could have scraped together the cash for
it. I imagine they have been a lot happier and got more done if they weren't bogged down in the
political morasse that is ISS.

Maybe the shuttle will fly again and the ISS will get kind of on track again but I really doubt it.
Its probably never going to get much beyond where it is today, and Russia will most probably have to
keep it alive while NASA's manned space program finishes cratering. Maybe thing will improve at NASA
with O'Keefe gone but I doubt it. Its pretty obvious his head was completely bent by the Columbia
disaster and he was totally paralyzed at the prospect of ... gasp ... risking anyone's left on space
exploration. He clearly should have been booted years ago. Fact is space exploration is dangerous,
do your best to make it less so but don't give up just because you can't make it 100% safe.
Astronauts aren't astronauts if they can't accept the risk they might get killed.
You
were paying to keep missile specialists and other assorted weapons designers from going to work for
dubious nations. That actually pretty much describes the entire purpose of Russian involvement: the
US wanted to keep rocket scientists from going to Iran after the fall of the USSR, so it paid them
to make space junk.
 I imagine that was a factor but I think you are really
underestimating the experience the Russians brought to the project. They have a couple decades of
hands on experience with long duration space station construction and operation. The Zarya and
Zvedza modules they built are the heart of the ISS. The U.S. had no space station experience other
than then the short duration Skylab flights 30 years ago which were mostly stunts to get rid of the
rest of the Apollo rockets.

It was pretty obvious the U.S. has since lost "the right stuff" to do a space station. First sign
... one failed space station design after another at huge expense over twenty years, with nothing
flown.

I think the "keeping Russian space scientists" employed was little more than saving face. In reality
I think the U.S. and Boeing came to the conclusion that using the experienced Russian engineers was
the only way to get actually get a working space station off the ground. They in fact paid them to
build a Mir2 and it became the heart of ISS. The U.S. sure did love to rant that the Russian modules
were behind schedule and over budget. Well this convieniently glosses over the fact that those were
two of the most complex and challenging modules in the station, and that the U.S. and Boeing had
flailed for nearly 20 years, squandered billlions and billions of dollars, and hadn't managed to
build ANYTHING. More than a little hypocrisy there.

I've seen more than a few people point out how the U.S. pays for everything on ISS. Well this is for
damn sure if you count the nearly 100 billion the U.S. wasted in those awful years when they didn't
building anything, and the billion dollar a pop Shuttle flights versus the tens of millions for a
Soyuz or Progress flight, and it probably costs 20-50 times as much to employ Boeing engineers to
build a component as it does Russian engineers. All in all I don't think the total dollars
squandered really counts for much other than to prove that nobody squanders money like NASA and
Boeing. The Russians have launched and run multiple successful long duration space stations for a
tiny fraction of what NASA and Boeing have wasted on ISS. I think they deserve a lot more kudos for
their frugality and their ability to get bang for the buck, versus the NASA/Boeing aptitude for
wasting billions of dollars.
--

Speaking to "the haves and the have-mores." George W. smirks: "Some people call you the elite, I
call you my base" [/quote] [quote] From TFA, the Russians will be paying off this debt by putting
in free man-hours in the next couple of years. Prior to the Columbia tragedy, the Russians &
Americans shared the burden of transport. The Americans moved passengers, the Russians moved
supplies. So yes, for the past two years, Russia has had to shoulder 100% of the transportation
costs. It sounds to me like they are open to negotiation on these terms. [/quote] [quote] I wouldn't
be suprised if this is reteliation for the USA's interference in Ukrainian politics on Russia's back
yard. It has appeared to many that the opposition has links to the US government and may have been
heavily funded by the USA to despose the current government for a pro-USA neo-liberalist government.

The irony is that Russia is almost in a better position to pay for sending people into space right
now. They may not have much money, but they're not at the serious risk of going bankrupt within that
next decade that the USA is. [/quote] [quote] As a US citizen, I'm curious if this is fallout from
our wonderful public relations. Half the known world is pissed off at us, and it wouldn't surprise
me if this isn't much more than Russia saying "You want to bum a ride? How much ya got for gas
money? The price of rocket fuel isn't going down, ya know."

Hint to the current and future US Presidents: you may be the elected leader of a technological
powerhouse, but you can't go it alone.

(it'll also pay for them to keep an eye out on Japan's technology, that the EU is becoming a
collected economic force to bruise egos, and China's locomative-esque economy with about a third of
the world's population, too, but who knows if they pay any attention)
  Just claim it
as their own. What's the US going to do? Kick 'em out?
It'd make an awesome weapon platform. They could event rent it out to the Chinese to use as a
stop-over on their way to the moon. Maybe even a step toward a Russian-Chinese joint-venture on an
eventual moonbase.
The US no longer has any power in space, and Russia, true to its nature, is taking advantage of
this.
Not surprising.
I don't understand how especialy the american can be reacting so
egoistic and selfcetered about the INTRENATIONAL spacestation.
Like they own the world, Actulay they own nothing they have big debts which only grow.
I wonder how long it will take before the rest of the world start realizing this sceme.
I am hoping i will see that day.
And americans become again sane people.
Okay, I did the math:
1 seat on the Russian taxi sells commercially for $25 M US dollars, however that included several
weeks of training, as the story goes.
I believe that the Soyuz is a 3-seater. Assuming all passengers are capable astronauts, It isn't
unreasonable to still expect the astronauts can travel for the same price as a civilian tourist.
At that price, let's round up and say the seven-person Space Shuttle ride equivalent is $200 M US
dollars. I believe that the cargo volume in the Soyuz is much smaller, so tack on $50-100 M US
dollars for an additional supply-only launch.
It sure seems to me like no matter how you jiggle the numbers, there really isn't much fiscal sense
to fire up the Space Shuttle, for routine, non-assembly missions. A billion-dollar Shuttle launch
means 1/3rd to 1/4th the investment value.
Part of the Strategic Arms reduction
treaty, Russia is scheduled to remove all 308 R-36M MIRV systems from active service. These are
hoisted by Dnepr boosters. Since 1999 the Russians have been looking for a commercial application
for the Dnepr launch system. They've had a few failures and a few problems, but who hasn't? (ESA
Ariane-5 for example).
So the Russians seem to have found a good use for the Dnepr system. But the remaining problem for
them is that the Russians want to stop using Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakstan and start using
Svobodny 18 in Far Eastern Siberia. Problem is that Svobodny 18 isn't built for the Dnepr.
The bottom line is that Russians need money to sustain their skill levels in space
technology by retaining the old and training the new engineers and scientists. Or else these talents
may end up in the darker side of the think-tank market.
I am in favor of paying them off for the lift. Heck, I'm surprised that we hadn't been so far.
I think this is very understandable. As said before, Roskosmos isn't trying to make
a profit off this, merely trying to break even. It would be in the best interest of international
relations and the future of the ISS to not let the Russian agency forced to stop contributing to the
project because they can't afford to bear the burden of it any longer. It's not like they're
demanding the money either. From the article,
"For 2005, Mr Perminov said, he had agreed a temporary barter scheme by which Russia pays off
man-hours it owes for work on the station - a collaborative project between 16 nations - by
launching US astronauts.
If they did have to back out then the burden placed on NASA would be that much greater and suddenly
the millions spent to fund the Russian launches would seem like pocket change. Would NASA be able to
continue to support the ISS then? There's already a lot of criticism that the whole idea of a
permanently manned space station is a waste of money. Plus what about just doing the right thing? It
is an International Space Station after all.
The comments so far seem to be a
flamefest on Russia. Personally, I think that Russia is justified on asking for money to pay to send
US astronauts into space. So what that the US is building most of the ISS personally? The Russians
could care less, the US' money isn't going torwards them, but to the building. All the Russians see
is that they're lugging an extra American and equipment into space at their expense. It should be
common courtesy to pay back a bit for their services. You'd be pissed if that guy in the carpool who
lives half an hour out of town didn't even say "Thanks" for picking him up every morning. The US
should realize that they can't rely on other countries to be their taxis forever while they stall on
the next generation of US spaceflight.
Sigh.
As usual we get the slew of high moderated posts about how the americans built everything, and how
the russians are now gouging them.
Some people blame the americans, others the russians. All didn't read the article.
Fact: The russians are currently ferrying everything to the station.
Fact: NASA is grounded.
Fact: The russians are very low on funds, and can't afford to keep doing this.
They've stated that they'll wait to see if NASA meets its May deadline to get their shuttles going
again.
They've stated that they want to negotiate something to ease the burden (such as bartering for the
man hours they currently owe for other work).
America's response hasn't been made clear yet.
Is this gouging? No. They haven't even entered negotiations yet.
Should they gouge? Some of you "capitalist or die" affictionados may think so, but that kind of
thinking is what drives the CEOs who only look to the next quarter's earnings, and what they can get
out of it before the thing collapses.
This doesn't work in world politics, as can be seen from the fallout of Iraq.
They
aren't trying to profit they are trying to break even. If Russia had the budget NASA has I would be
willing to bet they could create a reusable shuttle. How the hell does Bush think we can get to Mars
when we need to borrow Russia's space fleet to get to ISS? What a joke.
They
lessened democracy right after the terrorist attack of their school.

The US lessened democracy right after 9/11 - VISITUS + PATRIOT Act anyone?

They regarded the Ukraine as problematic, and instead went to have military operations with China.

The US regarded Iraq as problematic and went into military operations with total disregard to
international conventions and treatires.

Russia, the west isn't your enemy.

USA - The world is NOT your enemy!

freya83

ХаХаХа. Всю станцию построили, а летать не могут! Вот умора
Может у них и опыт до этого был, тип "Мир" тоже на 99% ихний был?

katush

Ха:
They
lessened democracy right after the terrorist attack of their school.
The US lessened democracy right after 9/11 - VISITUS + PATRIOT Act anyone?
They regarded the Ukraine as problematic, and instead went to have military operations with China.
The US regarded Iraq as problematic and went into military operations with total disregard to
international conventions and treatires.
Это типа сарказм был? :
Russia, the west isn't your enemy.
USA - The world is NOT your enemy!

Gangleri

Ну типа уже поняли роль России в проекте ISS. Это очень важно Ведь в США нормальные и хорошие люди всегда есть

natka234

Небезынтересный материал.
Надо заметить, что авторы (видимо, америкосы) недооценивают развал советской космической промышленности. С каждым днем шансы черепков Союза сохранить космос тают как снег весной.
Важно чрезвычайно:
The bottom line is that Russians need money to sustain their skill levels in space
technology by retaining the old and training the new engineers and scientists. Or else these talents
may end up in the darker side of the think-tank market.
Оставить комментарий
Имя или ник:
Комментарий: