Slashdot Mirror
Russia's Role in the ISS in Trouble
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)
Carry all of the boy bands into space for $100 million...then take bids on an open auction to leave them there...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
...can't they compensate with pitch and yaw?
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.
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...).
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.
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?
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.