Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Space Station Cuts Hurts Canada's Space Science

Posted by timothy on from the unintended-consequences dept.

Darwin O'Connor writes: "This article from The Toronto Star says that cutbacks in US Space Station budget reduces the amount of science that can be done on the Space Station to the point that the international partners, like Canada, Japan and the EU will not be given the science time they agreed to in exchange for thier contrabutions to the project."

9 of 28 comments (clear)

  1. At the risk of souding US-centric... by Dimwit · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...which would be odd, considering I live in Luxembourg...I have the distinct impression everyone kind of expects the US to pay for everything. (For example, everyone's pissed that the US isn't paying what it's supposed to for the UN. That sounds bad, until you realize that the US was supposed to pay 25% of the operating costs by itself, with the other 200 some-odd members paying much, much less.)

    The European Union is, if taken as a whole, the largest economy in the world. The European Space Agency could pony up some money for this. I don't see why the US should get suck with an unfair portion of the bills...

    --
    ...but it's being eaten...by some...Linux or something...
    1. Re:At the risk of souding US-centric... by pubudu · · Score: 2
      It shouldn't be based on economy size, but on the number of problems in the world you cause OR are involved in (takes 2 sides to have a war). If you go by that number I'm fairly sure the US 25% is closer to the mark.

      Let me get this straight. The more conflicts you "are involved in", the more you should pay the UN to send you off into conflicts? The US fights under a UN mandate in the '91 Gulf War, causing a whole host of problems (mostly the result of leaving the losers alive to be pissed off about it), and so ought to contribute more to the UN so it can afford to send ... um ... the US off to ... well ... fulfill UN mandates. Conversely, the US did squat to stop the genocide in Rwanda, and so don't have to pony up nothin'.

      Hey, I like you plan! The more the US attacks helpless little villagers, the bigger its Attack Helpless Villager budget gets!

      --
      ~~~~~~

      under-paid karma whore

    2. Re:At the risk of souding US-centric... by T.Hobbes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is OT, but I'll rant nonetheless

      On the UN, you're forgetting a few things.. first, the US is a founding member of the organization, and certainly had much sway in the decisions regarding the dues calculations. The US is supposed to pay 1/4 of the UN's budget because it's economic output is approximatly 1/4 of the world's economic output, and the UN is a worldwide organization. You mentioned that the EU together forms the largest economy in the world. Have you looked at the total UN dues of EU members?

      Second, until very recently the US wasn't simply not paying what it was supposed to, it wasn't paying at all. After years of nonpayment, it agreed to pay only part of its back-payments in return for a downward change in its dues calculations.

      Third, the US has, throughout the life of the UN made extensive use of the UN when it was most expedient, and continues to exert great influence in UN decisions - witness the ousting of Boutros Boutros-Ghali by US veto or the active hinderence of intervention in Rwanda.

    3. Re:At the risk of souding US-centric... by Lars+T. · · Score: 3, Informative

      Funny you should mention, the US payed less than 12% of what the (2nd) Gulf War cost.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  2. The Point is They DIDN'T Pay for Everything by winterstorm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The point is that the USA did not pay for everything. However when they cut back their budgets they also denied other parties access to the station that was jointly paid for by the USA and other nations. Canada paid $1.4 Billion for their part of the stations and now they don't get to use it. The changes that USA is proposing are in direct violation of an agreement they had signed.

    1. Re:The Point is They DIDN'T Pay for Everything by Dimwit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The point is that the USA did not pay for everything. However when they cut back their budgets they also denied other parties access to the station that was jointly paid for by the USA and other nations. Canada paid $1.4 Billion for their part of the stations and now they don't get to use it. The changes that USA is proposing are in direct violation of an agreement they had signed.


      Only because they lose access to the US space shuttle. They could ask the Russians to fly them up there. There's also the issue that the US had to pay quite a bit more than it originally intended to because the Russians reneged on a lot of their payments. The other signatory parties need to complain to Russia, not the US.

      --
      ...but it's being eaten...by some...Linux or something...
    2. Re:The Point is They DIDN'T Pay for Everything by monkeydo · · Score: 2

      This is dead on. The US budgeted over $25 Billion for the station (I'm not sure if that includes the use of the Shuttle) compared to Canada's $1.5 billion. Now there are huge cost overruns to the tune of $5-10 billion and the US has said we aren't going to pay it. A lot of these overruns are due to the Russians not pulling their weight, but I don't hear Canada eager to pick up the extra tab.

      The nations have already agreed to rules for bringing non-astronauts on board, so why doesn't Canada shell out a couple of million to Russia for a ride on a Soyuz.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
  3. Re:US Dollars, US Contractors by monkeydo · · Score: 2

    Gosh, from what you are saying it sounds like the US twisted everyone's arm to get them onboard with the ISS. If the US had wanted our own space station we certainly could have done that, but the ISS is supposed to be buit and run by a coalition of countries. Like Canada the US has already made the agreed upon contirbution and then some. The US has been picking up the slack for the Russians for some time now. At this point no one wants to spend more money, and everyone will hae to make sacfrifices. It seems perfectly fair that those that made the smallest contributions should make the biggest sacrifice.

    Why do you think the ISS had such a great effect on the US economy. Surely any effect on the economy would have been greater if it was the USSS and not the ISS. AFAIK the parts of the ISS made by the other countries were made in those countries, and not by some US government "approved" list of contractors.

    The fact of the matter is that the ISS is now costing more and taking longer than anyone anticipated. The US is not going to bear all of that cost ourselves, if Canada does not want to pay in dollars, they will pay in the form of reduced access to the station.

    --
    Si vis pacem, para bellum
    The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
  4. I care about this -- do you? by dstone · · Score: 2

    Is the typical /.'er American and are they concerned about this? I'm Canadian, so I care about it, but Canadian stories don't get front-page /. billing very often. I'd like to see a poll of /. nationalities. I wonder how many people live in Cowboy Neal.