More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

BWhite · 2004-08-04 12:46:51

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/08/04/ … l]Russians seek cash for ISS delivery and apparently propose a new module not part of original plans.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/iss_fgb2.html]FGB-2 link - - this thing is not part of current approved ISS plans as far as I can tell.

Mad Grad Student · 2004-08-04 22:14:29

I noticed on the FGB-2 link that it making it a commercially availible module was proposed. That got me thinking, and in a wild self-sustaining thought chain reaction it made me wonder, could it be an entirely autonomous space station? If they sent it up right now they could start sending space tourists up as often as they like (Or can afford) without getting into any of the arguments with NASA they have right now. Or they could sell it to the private industry and let them do whatever they like with it during their lease. Now that would be interesting.

Sorry if this kinda hijacks the topic, the FGB-2 isn't part of the current ISS plans right now.

Rxke · 2004-08-05 07:45:12

Now read this...

http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id … =0]Novosti

BWhite · 2004-08-05 08:00:46

Sorry if this kinda hijacks the topic, the FGB-2 isn't part of the current ISS plans right now.

Quick reply - - several months ago I rambled on at length about using FGB-2 (I called it the ISS-Zarya) mated to 1 or 2 Transhabs to build a space hotel to be served by Soyuz and Progress.

I also predicted that a major hotel chain might well pay a few hundred milion dollars for name rights.

= = =

Back on thead. I predict ISS politics will be getting very interesting.

Russia, the ESA and China do not appear willing to let the Americans run the whole show concerning humanity's future in space.

clark · 2004-08-05 08:06:39

Outside pressure to get NASA money?

I dunno, but what's the big issue here?

BWhite · 2004-08-05 08:35:31

I dunno, but what's the big issue here?

Iran; and

And the role of international cooperation in future US space policy.

clark · 2004-08-05 08:46:07

Well, I don't see a lot of international cooperation with the development of the CEV- that's the next decade.

At about the time CEV is ready, our involvement with ISS will be coming to an end (not to mention our obligations ending in 2010).

This might add some pressure to ammend the Iran non-proliferation treaty, but Iran itself can queer the deal if the Security Council imposes sanctions... it would be a hot topic.

I think we will be going it alone...

BWhite · 2004-08-05 08:49:26

Unless we start paying the Russians in 2005 or 2006, ISS is a goner. . .

Unless we just give ISS to the ESA & RSA now rather than later which is the point of the editorial Rxke linked to.

clark · 2004-08-05 08:54:53

Unless we start paying the Russians in 2005 or 2006, ISS is a goner. . .

I don't quite follow. How is ISS a goner if we don't pay the Russians? ESA and Russia both have a vested interest in keeping her afloat. Russia needs the ISS just so it can keep selling Soyuz to rich people. ESA needs it to have a few astronauts to parade around for national spirit and their budget.

ISS can't be completed without the Shuttle, and in a game of chicken, we will win. We won't be working with anyone for the next 10 years on CEV- we only work with them on the ISS- and we have to keep the Shuttle going to finish the ISS. Push to hard, and we have an exscuse to walk from the ISS, retire the Shuttle immedietly, and develop CEV now.

Unless we just give ISS to the ESA & RSA now rather than later which is the point of the editorial Rxke linked to.

We don't need to give it to them. This is the same stuff that has been happening since the inception of the ISS and the inclusion of the Russians. Russians complain, ESA pays, and NASA works a deal with ESA.

Palomar · 2004-08-05 09:00:14

*I've probably seen the figures before but forgot, etc., etc.

How much $ per annum does the U.S. pay for upkeep/maintenance, etc., of the ISS?

Just wondering if we're paying taxi service to an entity we essentially own and pay upkeep on, etc. Who's giving more, or are the costs split equally (I'll risk that sounding naive)?

I would say "If only NASA had minded its p's and q's (relative to the Shuttle), etc., etc"...

--Cindy

RobertDyck · 2004-08-05 09:17:46

That's an interesting article from Novosti. Very political.

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.

Politicians in Washington had claimed they carried the entire burden of ISS, and now Russia is making that claim. Touché

new Russian and US-Canadian elements ... further construction of the US and Canadian modules is pointless without the shuttles

Interesting, they make no distinction between Canadian and US elements. Canada hasn't provided a module to ISS, just the Space Station Remote Manipulator System including the arm, its track and transporter, and the dextrous hand.

Europeans...no longer want merely to watch the beautiful trails left by US spacecraft
Europe intends to join the manned space flight programme
Russia's position on the ISS ... "unconditional observance of our commitments to all the participants ... from 2005 it may be considered that all the commitments have been honoured."

They're trying to convince Europe to become a Russian ally rather than a US ally. Treating Canadian participation as indistinguishable from US they're trying to cut Europe from Canada as well. Remember Canada is the only non-European participant in ESA's Aurora program, and Canada is the only non-European country from which companies can bid on Aurora contracts. Political hardball indeed.

BWhite · 2004-08-05 09:28:59

Unless we start paying the Russians in 2005 or 2006, ISS is a goner. . .
I don't quite follow. How is ISS a goner if we don't pay the Russians? ESA and Russia both have a vested interest in keeping her afloat. Russia needs the ISS just so it can keep selling Soyuz to rich people. ESA needs it to have a few astronauts to parade around for national spirit and their budget.
ISS can't be completed without the Shuttle, and in a game of chicken, we will win. We won't be working with anyone for the next 10 years on CEV- we only work with them on the ISS- and we have to keep the Shuttle going to finish the ISS. Push to hard, and we have an exscuse to walk from the ISS, retire the Shuttle immedietly, and develop CEV now.

Yes and if Putin wants Bush to lose votes in Florida and Louisiana, he pulls the plug on ISS but only if he can blame Bush. If no more Progress/Soyuz to ISS then all of the return to flight money we have just spent is down the drain.

Why not cancel STS/ISS today? Because the GOP doesn't want to lose Florida electoral votes.

If the Europeans believe its only fair that Russia get cash for pulling America's weight during shuttle down-time then a Russian pull-out for our refusal to resume funding over Iran will cause the same diplomatuc damage as if we just cancelled ISS outright.

Its a big time hardball political move.

BWhite · 2004-08-05 09:32:07

Bush versus Putin at poker?

Bush has a fist full of American aces yet he is still the guy who traded Sammy Sosa.

Putin is ex-KGB.

Who would you bet on?

clark · 2004-08-05 09:35:00

Yes and if Putin wants Bush to lose votes in Florida and Louisiana, he pulls the plug on ISS but only if he can blame Bush. If no more Progress/Soyuz to ISS then all of the return to flight money we have just spent is down the drain.

The time frame dosen't pan out. Even with bellicose statements, Shuttle will be funded out in FY05 (all the money for Shuttle was included). So say Russia calls it quits- so what? It can't affect the election.

And assuming that worse case scenerio did happen, then just convert Shuttle to SDV and keep everyone gainfully employed. It's all bark, not bite.

If the Europeans believe its only fair that Russia get cash for pulling America's weight during shuttle down-time then a Russian pull-out for our refusal to resume funding over Iran will cause the same diplomatuc damage as if we just cancelled ISS outright.

The diplomatic poke in the eye would be to deny Astronaut transportation. in other words, US astronauts disallowed on Soyuz flights- including return.

Europeans will get caught in the middle of all of this, as this spat is really between Congress and RSA. It's the same chicken dance.

Edit- I would bet on Bush. Jesus is his co-pilot.

Palomar · 2004-08-05 09:44:20

Interesting, they make no distinction between Canadian and US elements. Canada hasn't provided a module to ISS, just the Space Station Remote Manipulator System including the arm, its track and transporter, and the dextrous hand.
...
They're trying to convince Europe to become a Russian ally rather than a US ally. Treating Canadian participation as indistinguishable from US they're trying to cut Europe from Canada as well. Remember Canada is the only non-European participant in ESA's Aurora program, and Canada is the only non-European country from which companies can bid on Aurora contracts. Political hardball indeed.

*Want to re-quote this:

Treating Canadian participation as indistinguishable from US they're trying to cut Europe from Canada as well.

And so trying to play Canada and the U.S. against each other.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2004-08-05 09:50:04

The diplomatic poke in the eye would be to deny Astronaut transportation. in other words, US astronauts disallowed on Soyuz flights- including return.
Europeans will get caught in the middle of all of this, as this spat is really between Congress and RSA. It's the same chicken dance.

I like this nuance even better than cancelling Progress and Soyuz to ISS.

What? Uncle Sam no pay for ticket? Then no ride.

ESA astronauts can still fly, of course.

= = =

Fulfilling the spirit as well as the letter of our ISS obligations is partly why I have been such an avid supporter of SDV.

A legalistic & petulant fulfillment of our ISS obligations is worse than just cutting bait today. And opens us up to diplomatic payback.

= = =

There are no plans to invade Iraq on my desk (I put them in the credenza this morning).

clark · 2004-08-05 09:55:09

A legalistic & petulant fulfillment of our ISS obligations is worse than just cutting bait today. And opens us up to diplomatic payback.

Ah, but we are open to payback only when we have no cards to play...

After ISS completition, and no Shuttle, we have no cards. We have to ammend the treaty by then in order to ensure we have a ride up there (unless of course we can get a ride on an ESA Soyuz, but who knows).

As long as we are needed to finish the ISS, and as long as we have the SHuttle flying, we have the ability to do what we want, or get up there.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-05 10:08:25

This may be just one more reason not to end involvement in the ISS and to either extend the useful life of the shuttle or of some SDV, due in part to the larger lift capability and for continualed changes to the ISS that could be made in some foreseeable future by any of the partner nations.

Palomar · 2004-08-05 10:13:25

This may be just one more reason not to end involvement in the ISS and to either extend the useful life of the shuttle or of some SDV, due inpart to the larger lift capability and for continualed changes to the ISS that could be made in some forseable future by any of the partner nations.

*And it could also be another reason to rethink international "cooperation" in space and the option of just going it alone.

Sorry, am feeling a bit cynical.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2004-08-05 10:14:08

A legalistic & petulant fulfillment of our ISS obligations is worse than just cutting bait today. And opens us up to diplomatic payback.
Ah, but we are open to payback only when we have no cards to play...
After ISS completition, and no Shuttle, we have no cards. We have to ammend the treaty by then in order to ensure we have a ride up there (unless of course we can get a ride on an ESA Soyuz, but who knows).
As long as we are needed to finish the ISS, and as long as we have the SHuttle flying, we have the ability to do what we want, or get up there.

clark, remember yesterday and your link about dropping the requirement that an orbiter always be on deck to "back stop" any orbiter actually flying?

The Russian hardball is already forcing a possible relaxation of CAIB compliance in preference to paying the Russians cash for Soyuz and Proton.

Again, had we been working on SDV full speed these last 18 months, we might not have been open to this leverage.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-05 10:16:49

I think though that everybody is hedging around whether the countries of the world want to be independent and isolative, or that some would want to have a unified world. Free from fear...

Palomar · 2004-08-05 10:24:11

I think though that everybody is hedging around whether the countries of the world want to be independent and isolative, or that some would want to have a unified world. Free from fear....

*Well...I suppose my last post did sound "isolationist." Although generally I'm not.

I've been following the ISS situation on and off. It seems any sort of "cooperation" with such high stakes/profile inevitably results in someone messing up, someone else trying to take advantage (I'm not sure that is what the Russians ARE doing btw), the Blame Game ensues, stalemate, it's the other party's fault, etc.

Time and energy, not to mention $, can be better spent in other ways, surely.

::shakes head::

Again, maybe going it alone is more effective in certain situations. Like space.

--Cindy

clark · 2004-08-05 10:24:20

clark, remember yesterday and your link about dropping the requirement that an orbiter always be on deck to "back stop" any orbiter actually flying?

Yeah, but I don't follow your connection...

They are evaluating the possibility of forgoing the "on-deck" after two flights (which just happens to be the magic number they can realistically do) and evaluate the possibility of night flights (to increase windows).

All of this is so they can meet the construction schedule of 2010, and has nothing to do with Russia. They are letting goals dictate over saftey concerns- in effect ignoring the CAIB because they believe 2 flights will prove that everything is okay now.

The Russian hardball is already forcing a possible relaxation of CAIB compliance in preference to paying the Russians cash for Soyuz and Proton.

I really don't see this (maybe I'm having an off day ). Proton can't take the ISS modules up. Only the Shuttle can finish the ISS. Our partners have been patient, but they want the ISS completed too. How does Russia making bellicose statements like this differ from previous instances? They've been doing this for years.

Again, had we been working on SDV full speed these last 18 months, we might not have been open to this leverage.

We are not open because we did not pursue SDV! Shuttle offers a means to get humans up to the ISS. It offers a means to get them down. It offers a means to complete construction of the ISS. If we ditched the Shuttle, that means we would be dependant upon russian soyuz for human transport- worst case scenerio, the Shuttle can fly as is (just not safely according to the CAIB). If we ditch the Shuttle, Russia can make us grab out ankles. With the SHuttle, we have some leverage to manuever.

BWhite · 2004-08-05 10:27:21

clark you say we have all the cards.

Why would Russia start work on their FGB-2? They say its for an additional ISS module. What purpose would that serve?

A refurbished FGB-2 could be the base module for a new space station built by the ISS partners plus China minus NASA. Who has the cards then?

ISS de-orbits. The shuttle is now entirely worthless as its "fundamentally unsafe" to fly anywhere except ISS and the new station is launched to 22 degrees inclination from Kouru.

Do we really want to go it alone?

= = =

Give me another reason to begin work on FGB-2.

clark · 2004-08-05 10:39:02

ISS de-orbits. The shuttle is now entirely worthless as its "fundamentally unsafe" to fly anywhere except ISS and the new station is launched to 22 degrees inclination from Kouru.

The ISS was placed at 51 degrees for Russia- why would they support a 22 degre, even with ESA involvement?

Why would Russia start work on their FGB-2? They say its for an additional ISS module. What purpose would that serve?

I might imagine that they could sell it. China comes to mind... Bigelow comes to mind...

They could attach it to ISS and use it as a "commerical" add on for paying tourists- NASA can't complain since it would ostenibly be Russian territory.

Ditching ISS as is means the ESA, Canada and Japan lose a lot of investment, time, and general cooperation in space.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-08-04 12:46:51

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#2 2004-08-04 22:14:29

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#3 2004-08-05 07:45:12

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#4 2004-08-05 08:00:46

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#5 2004-08-05 08:06:39

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#6 2004-08-05 08:35:31

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#7 2004-08-05 08:46:07

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#8 2004-08-05 08:49:26

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#9 2004-08-05 08:54:53

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#10 2004-08-05 09:00:14

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#11 2004-08-05 09:17:46

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#12 2004-08-05 09:28:59

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#13 2004-08-05 09:32:07

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#14 2004-08-05 09:35:00

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#15 2004-08-05 09:44:20

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#16 2004-08-05 09:50:04

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#17 2004-08-05 09:55:09

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#18 2004-08-05 10:08:25

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#19 2004-08-05 10:13:25

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#20 2004-08-05 10:14:08

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#21 2004-08-05 10:16:49

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#22 2004-08-05 10:24:11

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#23 2004-08-05 10:24:20

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#24 2004-08-05 10:27:21

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

#25 2004-08-05 10:39:02

Re: More ISS hardball - How does this affect US vision?

Board footer