ISS: Who's calling the shots?

Palomar · 2004-04-22 15:05:20

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/iss-04q.html]Read me

*Ooooo, yippee! Another ISS-related thread. Actually, I skipped over this article 3 times today, then decided to read it.

Nice that we can rely on the Soyuz rockets in lieu of the Columbia disaster.

But I have to admit I'm smarting a bit to read that the Russians are attempting to call the shots as to who will go aboard the ISS and who won't. Check out the reference to tourists potentially crowding out NASA astronauts.

Okay, we can argue there's not much to do up there anyway and that some of this might be NASA's fault for screwing up and not being on the ball.

However, ISS -is- jointly funded, no? What's the breakdown of how much money each participating nation pays per year to keep ISS afloat?

It seems (correct me if I'm wrong) that the Russians are seeking to enrich themselves ala civilian Soyuz rides, when in fact the ISS isn't a "hotel." Just because they can provide the ride right now doesn't mean they have the right to pick and choose who's going aboard the ISS and who isn't (even if "inadvertently"). You might own the taxi cab service, but that doesn't mean you own the Ritz the cab's going to.

If this is supposed to be a joint venture, funded jointly, then the tourist issue should be decided -jointly-. Right?

Comments? Am I missing something here?

--Cindy

clark · 2004-04-22 15:09:23

Nevermind then. Enjoy yourself.

Euler · 2004-04-22 15:26:56

http://www.geocities.com/i_s_s_alpha/Co … re.htm]ISS components

It is difficult to be sure of the exact expenses of all of the members, and that would be misleading anyway because Russia can do more with less money. When ISS is completed, Russia and US are supposed to each have 3 astronauts aboard, with the 7th spot rotating between Japan, ESA, and Italy.

Palomar · 2004-04-22 15:27:15

Here's another way to look at this:
How do you stop them if they decide to give us a big middle finger, and say that the guys up there, stay up there for a year?
Fight it out up there?

*Actually, that -did- occur to me (it's the jist of the matter, right?)...as it likely will to others as well. But thanks for trying to point it out anyway.

--Cindy

Euler · 2004-04-22 15:39:04

I don't think that NASA can force the Russians to rotate their cosmonauts every 6 months. However, it is also likely that Russia cannot force NASA to leave astronauts up for a year. I think we might end up with a compromise where Russians stay up for a year at a time, while the Americans stay up for only 6 months.

Palomar · 2004-04-22 16:09:31

Nevermind then. Enjoy yourself.

*Whatever.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2004-04-23 07:56:44

http://www.spacedaily.com/2004/04042222 … .html]This -isn't- a safety issue...okaaaay

*Not going to create a new thread for that. I dunno...can't maintain orbit on an even keel sounds kind of "iffy" to me...

Anyway, going back to the original basis for starting this thread: To me, this is like co-owning a car with a couple of neighbors for the express purpose of use ::only:: by the persons helping to make payments/upkeep on the damned thing, then Neighbor Smith decides he's going to take $50 from a friend -of his- to use the car for half a day...(without consulting co-owners prior, or telling them "to heck with you" if they complain).

I think this is the "shape of things to come" as international "cooperation" goes. :down:

It's not because it's Russia doing it...I'd be opposed if it were the U.S. doing this. Dependence isn't a good thing; hopefully NASA brass will wake up.

--Cindy

dickbill · 2004-04-23 08:30:15

Hi all,

the other issue with ISS is its complete inefficiency regarding to science done. The latest big news is that they send some worms, probably C-elegans, for experiment there.
This is exactly what Z said, "we don't need the ISS to breed salamander in zero g".
So, we are still breedding in zero g ? with 40 billions $ we can do the same than in a million rouble soyouz capsule !

A MIR size or even better a skylab size station is way better because it's easyer to maintain and it actually allows scientific experiment to be done because the crew has time to do something else than fixing things. The 40 billions $ ISS is all about "maintainance and completing the station" and very little about experiments.
The problem with the ISS is that it's so expensive and represent a so huge investment that it cannot be scrap for something better regarding the scientific experiments.

I think that a modern version of skylab, with maybe two or three 30/50 tons modules attached together, not more, is the best solution to make experiements in zero g. This at a price tag not exceding 1/10 the ISS price.

Mark Friedenbach · 2004-04-23 14:46:49

well a year long mission for the cosmonauts would mean a six month delay for the americans. each crew rotation is a chance to see the effects of long duration zero g on a new set of human beings, and we are learning new things. it's not at all clear yet that a year in space would be a safe thing to do

Euler · 2004-04-23 19:59:56

well a year long mission for the cosmonauts would mean a six month delay for the americans.

No, it would not affect the American crew rotation schedule at all.

it's not at all clear yet that a year in space would be a safe thing to do

The Russians seem to think that it is safe. After all, Valeri Polyokov spent 438 consecutive days on Mir in 1994-1995. 3 Russians have been in space for missions with a duration of greater than 1 year, and at least 7 have cumulative time in space of more than a year. I think that Sergei Avdeyev has the most cumulative time in space, with 3 trips to Mir totaling more than 2 years.

Rxke · 2004-04-24 01:11:17

To me, this is like co-owning a car with a couple of neighbors for the express purpose of use ::only:: by the persons helping to make payments/upkeep on the damned thing, then Neighbor Smith decides he's going to take $50 from a friend -of his- to use the car for half a day...(without consulting co-owners prior, or telling them "to heck with you" if they complain).

I think the Russians see it more like this:

Neighbour Alexei decides he's going to take $50 from a friend -of his- to use the car for half a day... Since Mike doesn't seem to do anything for the moment to keep the damn thing running, or paying Alexei for his efforts in still doing so... (WITH consulting co-owners Mike and Helmut, Kenji,... prior, and telling them "there is no other way" if they complain, it's the only way to keep the car going).

Sigh.... To be honest, I can't blame them... Mike seems to dislike the car, and there are rumours he wants to get rid of it, while Alexei still sees use for it...

Palomar · 2004-04-24 07:20:56

To me, this is like co-owning a car with a couple of neighbors for the express purpose of use ::only:: by the persons helping to make payments/upkeep on the damned thing, then Neighbor Smith decides he's going to take $50 from a friend -of his- to use the car for half a day...(without consulting co-owners prior, or telling them "to heck with you" if they complain).
I think the Russians see it more like this:
Neighbour Alexei decides he's going to take $50 from a friend -of his- to use the car for half a day... Since Mike doesn't seem to do anything for the moment to keep the damn thing running, or paying Alexei for his efforts in still doing so... (WITH consulting co-owners Mike and Helmut, Kenji,... prior, and telling them "there is no other way" if they complain, it's the only way to keep the car going).
Sigh.... To be honest, I can't blame them... Mike seems to dislike the car, and there are rumours he wants to get rid of it, while Alexei still sees use for it...

*I see your point, Rik. You're very good at showing another point of view.

Well, if anything, this will hopefully turn out to be a lit match under NASA's rump. Americans don't like being dependent on others...I sure don't (typical American). If NASA brass would have listened to underling's safety concerns, etc., we'd probably still have Columbia and wouldn't be in this situation.

But yes, I see your point. I try to be fair to everyone (not sure I always am...but I try).

--Cindy

dicktice · 2004-04-24 08:52:44

Cindy, you sweet thing: Russia's calling the shots . . . by default . . . not by choice. That iSS up there is what Earth has to work with, and they just happen to be in the driver's seat. What a gutsy bunch of space engineers, I admire 'em same as von Braun's bunch I assume you admire (you Saturn lover, you) in spite of their former affiliations, etc. And the Chinese bunch, with the same combination of motivations are coming up fast. Money isn't the only thing that talks, when it comes to space travel.

Rxke · 2004-04-24 09:26:17

*I see your point, Rik. You're very good at showing another point of view.

Argh... Does that make me a moderate?

Seriously, i get that comment a lot, sometimes with a wry added comment that it is hard to know what MY viewpoint is...

Well, I like to listen, and most people have their 'truth,' and most of the times it is, to serious extents very valid, so who am I to have my own 'chiseled in stone Truth?'

There is very possibly a lot going on behind the scenes we just can try to guess and get laughably wrong, anyway... For all we know they might have a delegation of troublesome Cydonia Martians stashed away on the ISS, and they want to come down, but not in a Soyuz, because they measure 8 foot or more... ???

Mark Friedenbach · 2004-04-24 14:59:46

well a year long mission for the cosmonauts would mean a six month delay for the americans.
No, it would not affect the American crew rotation schedule at all.

Not my point at all. The cosmonauts are up there as part of a joint russian-american research program, of which nasa's primary goal is the study of zero-gee health effects. And for the medical guys at nasa, two crews for six months each would provide much more useful data than one crew for a year, and they've expressed this. A year long stay would mean a delay in this research, and the station's only going to be up there for a finite period of time, so nasa has a legitimate reason to complain.

it's not at all clear yet that a year in space would be a safe thing to do
The Russians seem to think that it is safe. After all, Valeri Polyokov spent 438 consecutive days on Mir in 1994-1995. 3 Russians have been in space for missions with a duration of greater than 1 year, and at least 7 have cumulative time in space of more than a year. I think that Sergei Avdeyev has the most cumulative time in space, with 3 trips to Mir totaling more than 2 years.

That doesn't mean it's safe. Nobody is saying a year in space will kill them, but there's good reason to believe it might have permanent health effects. The fact is the russian space agency has been very secretive about the medical records of cosmonauts pre-ISS, and health effects are statistical anyway and vary greatly among the population. Problems are manifested in some people, but not in others. You simply cannot expect the experiances of three individuals to apply to the whole. We need more people, not more time in space. That's what nasa means by "more data points".

-----

"Showdown in space"? I don't think so. The russians are strapped for cash, they brainstorm a few ideas. They ask nasa what they think about a year in space. Nasa does consider it, but says they don't think it's safe, and that it'd delay their research program. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that all that's happened? Someone's overreacting, cause there are other ways of raising money.

dicktice · 2004-04-25 19:00:59

I'd like to hear it from the astrocosmonauts: What they're doing up there to make the ISS continue to function and remain habitable. And the geniuses who enable the Progress cargo ships to do what they do. Not to mention the Soyuz launch after successful, on schedule launch. God, how I envy them. You naysayers (you know who you are--it's hard to keep track) who now have stuff orbiting in LEO to criticize and bitch about, should remember the three generations of dreamers, experimenters and dedicated space travel fans who would have killed to be young and in your position today. This is pioneering, not as intended (when was it ever?), but headed in the right direction--which is (let's all say it together): Interplanetary Space!

Mark Friedenbach · 2004-04-25 20:19:22

well said dicktice

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-04-22 15:05:20

Re: ISS: Who's calling the shots?

#2 2004-04-22 15:09:23

Re: ISS: Who's calling the shots?

#3 2004-04-22 15:26:56

Re: ISS: Who's calling the shots?

#4 2004-04-22 15:27:15

Re: ISS: Who's calling the shots?

#5 2004-04-22 15:39:04

Re: ISS: Who's calling the shots?

#6 2004-04-22 16:09:31

Re: ISS: Who's calling the shots?

#7 2004-04-23 07:56:44

Re: ISS: Who's calling the shots?

#8 2004-04-23 08:30:15

Re: ISS: Who's calling the shots?

#9 2004-04-23 14:46:49

Re: ISS: Who's calling the shots?

#10 2004-04-23 19:59:56

Re: ISS: Who's calling the shots?

#11 2004-04-24 01:11:17

Re: ISS: Who's calling the shots?

#12 2004-04-24 07:20:56

Re: ISS: Who's calling the shots?

#13 2004-04-24 08:52:44

Re: ISS: Who's calling the shots?

#14 2004-04-24 09:26:17

Re: ISS: Who's calling the shots?

#15 2004-04-24 14:59:46

Re: ISS: Who's calling the shots?

#16 2004-04-25 19:00:59

Re: ISS: Who's calling the shots?

#17 2004-04-25 20:19:22

Re: ISS: Who's calling the shots?

Board footer