Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Russia's Role in the ISS in Trouble

Posted by chrisd on from the blame-lance-bass dept.

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)

43 of 360 comments (clear)

  1. I say they should... by craenor · · Score: 5, Funny

    Carry all of the boy bands into space for $100 million...then take bids on an open auction to leave them there...

    1. Re:I say they should... by rowanxmas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Carry all of the boy bands into space for $100 million...then take bids on an open auction to leave them there...

      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.

    2. Re:I say they should... by SpinyNorman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Really! They should go totally commercial - build a moon station and fill it with $20M/week tourists. One the infrastructure was in place maybe they could up the volume, lower the price, and start ferrying the rest of us poor schmucks up there too.

      One of my lifetime goals is to fuck in space.

    3. Re:I say they should... by saider · · Score: 3, Funny

      Fucking in space would be rather painful. I'd much rather fuck in a spaceship.

      0-G sex would also introduce control and fluid problems. If you want to try it, I know there are pilots who will take you up in a private airplane and let you join the Mile High club. They top it off by doing Vomit-Comet maneuvers to simulate microgravity.

      Russia should consider a porn in space. It helped with the proliferation of the internet.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
  2. write them off by Metaldsa · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So is NASA planning on writing off Russia totally? Do they get to use the Internation Space Station later on if they get funding (economy improves, etc)?

    1. Re:write them off by krlynch · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't think NASA can write them off if they have any plans to expand the station. One of the only major technical reasons the Russians were invited in the first place is that they were the only country that had rocket designs with the heavy lift capability necessary to loft all of the various modules into orbit. It is possible, I suppose, that all of the remaining modules can be lofted by other smaller capacity launch vehicles, but I'm doubting that.

    2. Re:write them off by RocketJeff · · Score: 5, Informative
      The problem is that NASA can't write-off Russia for the ISS. Russia provides the only escape system for the long-term crews (via their Soyuz spacecraft).

      Without the Soyuz capsules, the ISS can't have a full-time crew since there'd be no way to leave in an emergency. With the (non)reliability of the Space Shuttle, NASA can't depend on using it for rescue mission even if they had over a week notice.

      There's also the issue of the periodic reboosts the ISS needs. Right now, the Progress cargo missions also boost the ISS back up to its optimal orbit. Without the Progress, the ISS will keep getting lower and lower (until eventually it does a bad impression of the Sklab...).

    3. Re:write them off by RocketJeff · · Score: 3, Insightful
      What makes the Russian's Soyuz spacecraft any different than our Apollo CMs?

      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...

  3. I believe we've covered this before by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Rule #1: Never never never give any critical roles to bankrupt nations.

    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.

    --
    So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    1. Re:I believe we've covered this before by sabinm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course the reason that they did this was because Morther Russia had the most experience and expertise in those fields of Life Support and cheapest payload delivery souyez (don't know if i spelled it right), most information on long stays in orbit, and the infrastructure to be an immediate key player, and although poor, it is a relatively rich nation in resources.

      --
      http://cincyboys.blogspot.com/ Everything Cincinnati. Including the word 'Finnih'
    2. Re:I believe we've covered this before by meringuoid · · Score: 3, Insightful
      responsibility to the nation than can least afford to do it.

      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...

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    3. Re:I believe we've covered this before by joggle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's more than just politics behind the reason why Congress would want to keep manufacturing in the US. It's probably true that if the US wanted the cheapest possible space station, Russia could have been paid to build and launch the entire thing. However, all of the money flowing to Russia would probably have no economic impact on the US other than depleting our reserves. By manufacturing in the US, the money stays within the US economy, creating jobs here and generally having the same effect as the huge job contracts given by the government in the past (think FDR economics...) and, theoretically, improving the strength of the economy here (as opposed to improving the economy in Russia).

    4. Re:I believe we've covered this before by silentbozo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      By manufacturing in the US, the money stays within the US economy, creating jobs here and generally having the same effect as the huge job contracts given by the government in the past (think FDR economics...) and, theoretically, improving the strength of the economy here (as opposed to improving the economy in Russia).

      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.

  4. Ah well by Torinaga-Sama · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Their money is probably better spent feeding their people and counting their nukes at this point anyway.

    --
    (/local/home/curiosity)-#who -u|grep thecat|cut -c 44-49|xargs kill -9
  5. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  6. They changed my title by Uhh_Duh · · Score: 5, Informative


    I hate it when slashdot changes the title of the story and makes ME look like a bafoon!! I submitted it as "Russia's Space Program in Trouble".

    I've been framed as a spelling idiot!

    --
    -- People who hate Windows use Linux. People who love UNIX use BSD.
    1. Re:They changed my title by fobbman · · Score: 5, Funny

      Next time add a few obvious spelling errors in the post so that the editors don't have to add them themselves.

    2. Re:They changed my title by Plutor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > Self-fullfilling prophecy?

      That's self-fulfilling. Only three L's, like in gulllible.

  7. Tourists by selderrr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I guess that this will louden the cry for billionaire space tourism. IMHO the russians should make that stuff their top priority !

    Let the russians handle the tourist part, let the yanks handle the military sillyness and we europeans will do the real stuff :-)

    --
    When will I end this grieving ? When will my future begin ?
  8. Time to dump the space station anyway by Mothra+the+III · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The space program has become ridiculous, between failed attempts to launch boy bands into space and new projects like virtual planets http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=96&ncid =96&e=1&u=/space/20021210/sc_space/cyber_planets__ building_virtual_worlds_to_explore_signs_of_real_l ife it seems to have drifted far from actual space exploration. If they ever want public support for government dollars, they need to start looking at sending someone to Mars, or at least back to the moon,

    --
    Worst. Sig. Ever.
    1. Re:Time to dump the space station anyway by Cujo · · 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 next time you want to post a long URL.

      --

      Helium balloons want to be free.

  9. If they don't pay up... by esanbock · · Score: 5, Funny

    We better tell the Soviet Russians that if they don't pay up, all their space base are belong to us.

    Please try to keep posts on topic.

  10. The US now rules space by Nefrayu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So aside from all the typos and joking, does anyone else have an opinion on the fact that the US is now THE power in space? Although the article mentions India spending $500 mil on space, it doesn't come close to our spending or our expertise. Personally I think it's a good thing. Space is the next military battleground, or so it is said. So what are your thoughts?

    --
    Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.
    1. Re:The US now rules space by Psiren · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not content with bullying everyone here on Earth, you want to do the same in Space too? Give me a break, good thing my arse.

    2. Re:The US now rules space by Hamstaus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Personally I think it's a good thing. Space is the next military battleground So, to get this straight, you would like to see space turned into a war zone? I don't think you're going to find many opinions to agree with you on that part. Space holds mysteries we cannot even imagine. To see tiny human nations squabble over who "owns" it is something we should strive to avoid. If we put weapons in space, even to support earth-based combat, then we start on a slippery slope.

      --
      I moderate "-1, Fool"
    3. Re:The US now rules space by Soft · · Score: 5, Informative
      does anyone else have an opinion on the fact that the US is now THE power in space?

      The Ariane 5 lifts more than any commercial US rocket; the very latest (Atlas 5, Delta 4) have just matched its performance, though hopefully the 10-ton version will up the bar again in two minutes; the Space Shuttle and Titan 4B have more capacity but cost two or three times as much.

      Alcatel Space now builds over 50 percent of geostationary satellites.

      The US manned space program, mostly the ISS, still depends on Russian Soyuzes (used as lifeboats) and will continue that way until 2010 at least.

      Want more?

    4. Re:The US now rules space by mentin · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Although the article mentions India spending $500 mil on space, it doesn't come close to our spending or our expertise.

      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.

      --
      MSDOS: 20+ years without remote hole in the default install
  11. Problems from the Beginning by WatertonMan · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The whole way that NASA has run the Space Station program and the Mars program have been dismall. On the one hand the public doesn't really give a damn about science, so if NASA pursued fairly cheap science projects with a good return, they'd dry up quickly. At the same time though the space station is a solution in search of a problem - and one that is VERY expensive.

    To a degree all of this was just to help keep Soviet scientists around in Russia and not heading to the mid-east to develop nasty weapons. Further the military clearly had motives in keeping the Space Shuttle running. However now the Russians can't do much and haven't been able to move into commercial projects. Even in NASA the shuttles are wearing out with no replacements on the horizon.

    The big question is whether all of these problems are a good thing or a bad thing. When you consider the BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars spent on all this, one can ask what the return has been. (Say it in a Carl Sagan voice) There are plenty of good scientific projects. Further R&D on making space flight cheaper is a big deal. But space research itself needs to be seriously rethought.

  12. Money Dependence by PeekabooCaribou · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The global dependence on money is appalling and ridiculous. Money as motivation will only bring the human race so far, and probably in the wrong direction. What happens now, when such a major player in the space race is forced to resign because they cannot secure enough meaningless currency to further scientific research in space? It is a terrible waste of human potential.

    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.

    --
    "I'll say it again for the logic-impaired." -- Larry Wall.
  13. Reminds me of the old engineer joke... by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 4, Funny
    The Russians may have budget problems, but...

    An American astronaut in space in 1970 was asked by a reporter, "How do you feel?"

    "How would you feel," the astronaut replied, "if you were stuck here, on top of 20,000 parts, each one supplied by the lowest engineering bidder?"

    --
    When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
  14. Read slashdot - Avoid mistakes by ehiris · · Score: 3, Funny

    Based on this article confusing the ISS with IIS is due to reading slashdot too much. It's safe to assume the person who posted IIS isn't reading slashdot enough to be warned of BIG mistakes (considering the amount of invaluable posts moderated high) which could be made.

  15. Even if their ROLE is in trouble... by Tsar · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...can't they compensate with pitch and yaw?

  16. In Russia, they have no greater problems... by saskboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Russia has problems that plague the USA, and NASA. Just a few months ago, a person on the ground was killed when a Proton rocket exploded when launched. Less than 20 years ago, NASA lost 7 people to the Challenger disaster. I don't think Russia has any greater problems than NASA.
    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.. 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.

    --
    Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
  17. In other news... by Soft · · Score: 3, Informative
    Russia agreed to double Soyuz production starting in 2006. "The RSA's ISS partners will foot the bill". This is required to support the ISS from 2006 (end of previous agreement) to 2010 (availability of new US spaceplane to act as lifeboat instead of Soyuz), preferably with more than 3 crew.

    Hmmm, are we looking forward to another "we need more money or the crew has to leave" every week, like before the service module was launched?

  18. It really kinda sucks by core+plexus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you think about it, we need more scientists working to develop new technology. If the Russian space program, or that of any nation, tanks, then those scientists and skilled workers will be forced to seek employment elsewhere, and progress will surely suffer.

  19. China? by job0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Although China has announced that it's planning a permanently manned space station this seems like a waste of time, effort and money. I think it would make more sense to let China either take Russia's place or just let them join the ISS program. But I guess relations between the US and China need to improve before this could happen.

    1. Re:China? by Ma$$acre · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Okay, let's go from a bankrupt space program to one which despises us and will steal every bit of technology it can get to reinforce a non-democratically elected regime that is in many ways much worse than Soviet Russia in terms of human rights.

      --
      Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves, or we know where we can find information upon it. -Samuel Johns
  20. Won't this be frustrating... by Alethes · · Score: 5, Funny

    1) The International Space Station becomes the American Space Station due to the lack of participation from other nations.

    2) 10 years from now, the full project is launched. Yeah, this is hypothetical, just deal.

    3) Teachers get excited and want to show their students the breaking news at cnn.com.

    4) Censorware detects "ASS" all over the site and denies the teachers and students access to the biggest NASA news in years.

  21. The ISS is simply a WPA project by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm a former NASA nut, used to research the Soviet space program, etc., and so was very forgiving...
    This ISS program is a turkey, though, and we should cut our losses.

    The problem is simply that the ONLY reason for the existence of the ISS is to KEEP PEOPLE EMPLOYED. First of all, NASA itself as a beaurocracy has pushed and pushed for the only mega-project that it could keep getting funding for because a beaurocracy wants to EAT. They couldn't get funding for more sensible programs like a shuttle replacement, or other more mundane but necessary things, so they push for funding for the incredibly wasteful ISS because $15 billion a year wasted is $15 billion a year they WANT, no matter what it's for.
    If they can't have $15 billion a year for sensible things, they'll take $15 billion for non-sensible things, just so long as no one loses their job.

    As far as the Russian's involvement, it was actually the PLAN to get them involved simply to keep them employed! The Clinton administration changed the ISS from a US program, space station Freedom, to the ISS, almost exclusively to keep former soviet rocket scientists at their jobs instead of following money to other, more threatening sources. That was almost the sole reason for it.
    That, actually, made a least a LITTLE bit of sense. Sort of.
    Anyway, you could argue that with the Russian's participation the ISS has been more successful that it would have been otherwise, even WITH them dragging the program down - because with billions thrown down a rathole in either case, at least this way it was a bit more interesting, and did at least give the US and Russia something to strengthen our ties.

    --
    This space available.
  22. Sick of payouts on russian space tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1. Several years ago Russia was making good money from their space agency doing lots of foreign launches. As part of a US deal to supply aid to Russia one of the conditions was to scale back the amount of foreign launces they were doing as it was hurting NASA's profitability. More US economic terrorism.

    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!

  23. Manned Space Exploration is not Science orResearch by parabyte · · Score: 4, Interesting
    ,..one can ask what the return has been. [...] ...scientific projects...space research

    The wrong idea that sending people into space is science and research goes all back to the Apollo program, when after the first landing on the moon NASA tried to sell subsequent missions as "scientific missions".

    IMHO, sending a man to the moon was the highest cultural achievement of mankind in history so far, but as a piece of art, there is no much value in repeating it, and as nobody had the balls to admit that hundred billion dollars were spent for art, it had to be science.

    There is plenty of important science that happens in space, but you don't need people hanging around for that.

    Manned Space Exploration is about beeing there, and to feel how it feels to be there. It is about living there. It is about building houses, planting trees and fathering children out there. And cruising around with a cool car, if you are american.

    After Apollo 17 all space programs world started to decline, and there is no end in sight. The Space Shuttle program started by crippling Wernherr von Braun's original design that had a piloted, horizontal landing reuasable first stage by using a cheap throw-away fuel tank and reusable solid fuel boosters, ending up with a Space Shuttle with more expensive payload than using throw-away rockets. The buerocrats way of wasting money by budget cutting. And every news I heard about the ISS the last twenty years was about budget cuts and delays. I heard you need 2.5 people just to operate it, and there are three guys up there. SNAFU.

    It is sad, and I hope I will be wrong, but within a decade we will see:

    • The ISS will be abandoned a finally reenter the atmosphere
    • The last Space Shuttle will go out of service
    • There will be no more capabilities to send humans into orbit any more
    I just hope mankind will regain manned space travel before we will have depleted our natural resources here down on earth.

    --
    Without order, nothing can exist. Without chaos, nothing can be created.
  24. Re:think more by axxackall · · Score: 3, Informative
    I estimate that Baykonur Cosmodrome hires less than 0.01% of Russian engineers working on various space programs all over the place from Europe to Far East. Most of them work in Siberia.

    Cosmodrome is the fastest way to burn money (fuel), Institutes and Manufacturing Plants is very slow way to do that (brains are cheapper than fuel) :)

    Besides, Baikonur is not the only Russian Cosmodrome. Plesetsk is another one.

    Finally, due to political reasons and/or due to the location reasons (Kazakhstan is still far away from the equator) Russia plans to move Baikonur lounch pad business to the equatorial part of Pacific ocean. There are some plans about a joint venture project with Australia and/or other countries.

    All facts I know are from public russian sources. Don't call CIA - they should already know it :) CIA doesn't update/complete their World Fuckedbook just by political reasons - the Cold War is far from being over, it's just not for publicity now :(

    --

    Less is more !
  25. Re:nope by saskboy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually AC, the Proton is the rocket, the Soyuz is the capsule.

    http://www.flatoday.com/space/explore/stories/19 99 b/112299z.htm

    --
    Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.