Russia Is Complaining Again

The US has spent $55 billion on the ISS while the rest of our so called international partners have only spent $15 billion in total. Plus were supposed to spend more than $2 billion a year on the ISS for then next 5 years.

A real 'International' space station would only require less than a 50% contribution by the US instead of the US paying for nearly 79% of the cost.

Skylab only cost us about $10 billion in today's dollars while international cooperation for a space station has cost the US $55 billion.

The US needs to either end or dramatically reduce its financial commitment to the 'International Space Station' so we can get on with the job of building an 'American' Moon base.

"re-calculate ballistic parameters of flights by the Progress spacecraft". Come on, buy a Mac....

Unfortunately we will be at their mercy due to the "gap" for the next 7-10 years. Let's hope we come out of it with a kick butt launcher, and I don't mean Ares.

Unpredictability? I'm sure that the Russian space program has never had a launch delayed ( that sarcasm). Lets remember Russians were barely able to even pull off a shuttle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_(spacecraft)
type craft.AS poker players say "hey Russian space program ante up or leave the table" I'm not sure the weight in cargo is progress vs shuttle but I ponder to guess the difference is huge on the shuttle side by way of capacity. Does anyone have those figures?

We know the Shuttle is problem. It has no launch escape system, so NASA has to nail it every time, and there's a million ways it can be delayed.

But we've already commit to retiring it and replacing it, and we spend more on the Shuttle than Russia does on their entire program, to make sure it all works.

What else could we possibly do?

Throw caution to the wind and launch in bad weather?

Isn't that what made Challenger go bang? Launching in conditions that the SRBs weren't rated for because we were tired of delays?

Coming on the heels of shuttle extension discussions, I assume this is Russia's way of supporting the extension...

"...Module..."

More sleep or more coffee is in order.

:)

::The US has spent $55 billion on the ISS while the rest of our so called international partners have only spent $15 billion in total.

Er, you are faulting the partners, especially Russia that their hardware is much cheaper to operate than US ?
US expenditures come mostly from operating the STS, dont they ? Well, nobody _forced_ US to design all their pieces to be flown on STS only.

Our country has chosen to make ourselfs dependant on the Russians, even though we could funded American commercial crew capability. Even now when a very modest amt. of money is earmarked to advance commercial crew capability, our glorious leaders CHOSE to strip the money away, thereby extending our dependance on Russia. We are reaping what we sow.

Mr F Williams is either very young or doesn't remember his history. The main or even ONLY reason the US invited the EU & Japan (and later Russian) to participate in the ISS was to prevent them from developing their own hardware (this was acknowledged openly) and human access to space. And FYI, the use time (for experiments or crew opportunities) is pro rata of the respective contributions.

And (finally) the modules that are -actually- useful to something in the ISS (lab and scientific modules) are overwhelmingly (if not exclusively) the non-US ones, i.e. the ESA and JAXA ones. NASA nixed its own ones.

I hope people in the US are not all like you, otherwise this sure bodes well for the 21st century...

A.

The article is misleading. It says Russia 'bears the burden' etc. of launching people..... yet, they don't pay for their rockets; WE pay for their rockets. And they never pay for shuttle capability.

"Recalculating trajectories' has to be done regardless; it's a transparent, b.s. ploy for more money - and it's not deserved. If this is the quality of 'partner' they are, then we deserve better.

In my opinion......

What a joke! The Russians should be thanking the Space Gods that NASA seems deadset on "retiring the Shuttle" next year which will mean sending half the money NASA "saves" to keep Soyus/Progress space workers paid while laying off thousands of American space workers---brilliant! And how politically patriotic! And when I say "half", believe it---the Russian price for doing what one Orbiter per year could do in the Gap Years will suddenly go "sky-high" (literally!)--just wait and see! They never were no "dummies" and have learned Capitalism with a Capital C !!! We are the DUMMIES for propagating such a stupid idea! The Shuttle is flying (despite the continuing "foam problem" and the typical delays) better than it ever has---witness the fantastic Hubble Repair Mission and this latest visit to ISS! And yet some "economic geniuses" think we will "save" $$$$ by retiring it! In a couple of years, I guarantee the Russian price will skyrocket--due to "unforeseen technical problems, etc. etc."---and the price will be about half a Shuttle launch, for one quarter the efficiency and capability---and that's being generous!Hopefully Augustine & Co. will see through such a transparent ploy by our "friends" in Moscow---and explain it all to Charlie B!

We know the Shuttle is problem. It has no launch escape system, so NASA has to nail it every time, and there's a million ways it can be delayed.

The orbiters are irreplaceable, so even if they did have a launch escape system, NASA would be no less timid.

@Fred - Progress is a robot craft holding 2.3 tons of pressurized cargo. It stays on-station for 6 months, provides reboost, fuel transfer to SM and garbage disposal. Progress flies 4 times a year, providing consistent services. With Soyuz it is a remarkable system that has been improved upon for decades.

Shuttle is a piloted craft that carries about 25 tons exposed in the cargo bay (Spacelab, MPLM, pallets,etc) has the Canadarm and OMS, separate airlock but can only remain in space for 2-3 weeks. The two systems are very different but complimentary, launch delays included.

@Marcel - ISS is vastly more capable than Skylab. The US commitment to ISS should be supplemented from outside NASA as ISS becomes a National Lab, by unis, companies and other Federal agencies:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/science/nlab/

"The orbiters are irreplaceable, so even if they did have a launch escape system, NASA would be no less timid."

Weeelll I made that comment thinking about the recent delays, which I read were because the weather would hinder a return-to-launch-site scenario, which gave me the impression that it was a shuttle specific issue and another kind of stuck (capsule on LAS?) might be OK with it.

...That's not quite what I wrote, I'm just posting this cause I wanna ask if that makes any sense or if I'm way off here.

@Arnaud

First of all, I'm not against an International space station in principal. I'm just against the US footing 78% of the bill for that space station especially when the rest of its partners are collectively richer than the United States.

I was, however, strongly against US pressure on Russia to end their Mir space station program. I don't think we need just one space station in orbit. We need several space stations from a variety of countries in orbit.

But there really was no logical reason to fund a huge microgravity space station in the first place that was perhaps ten times more expensive than Skylab. The US should have spent that money setting up a Moon base.

TraKtor Factory 6 needs to have the lights kept on.....what a con. God I hope we don't end up at the mercy of these characters. We pulled their fat out the fire in the early 90's, but I am quite sure that the memories of our help have faded away.

Carl

Lets reverse the situation! The Russians would have to buy seats on the shuttle, how much would they pay? Would they even be able to afford what NASA would charge them?

"With relations between Washington and Moscow deteriorating, it’s become politically profitable to "bash the Russians" over allowing them to carry our astronauts into space."

Over all, he said, NASA wants to pay the Russians $60 million this fiscal year for new goods and services and then up to $150 million a year over the next four years as an aid to station construction. The $660 million is to help make up for money the Russians would have put forth themselves had their economy not fallen apart.

The $1.2 billion in emergency money, Mr. Rothenberg said, was much cheaper than loosing Moscow's help altogether. ''Any alternative you look at without the Russians would hit the program hard,'' he said, because their absence would delay the outpost's construction by years and add up to $2 billion in costs.

I seem to recall that in the '92-'93 time frame we abandoned the space station toilet that shared common parts with the extended duration orbiter (EDO) toilet in favor of using the Russian crapper. Didn't that work out nicely?

Of course, I also recall a meeting at Hamilton Standard in about '89 where someone asked the engineers working on the EDO and space station toilet how it was they knew when to charge to one number or the other. The answer was, "well, when we notice one program is running short of money we switch to the other number." It was very quiet in the room for a long time after that. It's funny with all the legal waste, fraud, and abuse that went on legally on space station that anyone even cared about this small amount of illegal double dipping. If we didn't spend all of our time straining out the gnats, we might possibly catch the camels sneaking through.

So 2.3tons x 4 trips a year .. so 9.2 tons over a year as opposed to 25 tons in one shot? And doesn't that mean it can take back more ? garbage etc. Now I'm not taking anything away from the Soyuz based system but isn't it possible for one shuttle to deliver a module for reboost and fuel transfer to SM ?So 2 trips on 2 shuttles over the same amount of time can do exactly the same thing as 5 Soyuz based launches? Now are the progress vehicles reusable? Sorry, I'm trying to understand why we should care if they are complaining other than the fact the shuttle is retiring. If the shuttle and station are extended there will be no beyond LEO flights except robotic missions :( for decades to come :(

The hell with the Russians. The United States carries their water the last 15 years by paying for their space program... and all they do is complain about it.

We should extend the Shuttle until the next manned vehicle is ready. Then we inform the other ISS partners that we're going to reduce our funds to the space station, so we can build American bases on the Moon and Mars. 100 billion dollars to build a group hug in LEO. What a waste of money. Welcome to the 21st century, Arnaud.

This is why the much vaunted "international cooperation" isn't the panacea so many people think it is.

And partnering with China would be worse than Russia has ever been.

The US should have cooperative space exploration ventures ONLY with reliable partners. Canada, Japan come to mind...

and India;)

This 'bickering' via press has been going on for a decade in my memory.

I've lost track of how many articles the US press dumped on Russia, RSA and their indeginous Mir2 plans. Don't give me that.

Boeing has also messed up on the Unity. The Challenger and Columbia, "them evil Russians again"?

Still, the station is still up there, working as ususal.

The Skylab was mostly and empty barrel, the ISS is the real deal.

I'd prefer 'hate/love' relationship from parties that can contribute/negotiate as we have for over a decade (and the Russians do contribute AND negotiate) than the nicely--nicley stuff that means nothing.

Just one question: Over the last decade, how many times has the shuttle been launched on time, on schedule, and without a delay? Maybe once?

Ask the same question about Russian launch vehicles and you'll find a punctuality rate of probably 98.5%. Whether heat, whether rain, whether freezing cold - they launch. The space shuttle does not. NASA built a spacecraft and then discovered - gee - there is weather!

Face it: even though both country's launch systems are based on technology developed in the 60s and 70s, the Russian system is reliable and punctual. The space shuttle is not. Period.

Fix that and we talk.

si_atwork "Skylab was mostly and empty barrel"

An ignorant statement like that makes all else you say worthless.

Editor's note: Cecil stop with the insults - NOW.

@ Juergen, when the Shuttle does launch it accomplishes more that a dozen Soyuz flights. Soyuz is a nice reliable old cramped taxi, Shuttle is a sometimes quirky but highly capable heavy hauling truck.

Cecil Trotter, right back at you. You have not said a single worthwhile thing. Mostly, I suspect, because you lack knowledge.

I did qualify my statement rd: Skylab with "mostly" because I was closely associated with Skylab instrumentation, there was very little science instrumentation, and I know that it WAS mostly an empty barrel with no altitute or attitude control or any science payload or modularity.

Please list the scientific instrumentation in Skylab:
go:
....

- and yes there was a geodesic telescope, and a 'kitchen', and a 'crapper' and a docking port.

But I stand by my statement, the Skylab was a useless empty barrel, plus it could never be expanded and that re-entered uncontrollably.

p.s. and then compare that to the sheer amount of scentific experiments by NASA and by the IPs, compared to the Skylab and its lonely telescope.

Skylab *was* just an empty dumb barrel compared to ISS.

BTW, Cecil Trotter you callled my opinion worthless because I offended your Skylab sensibilities in one phrase? But it was truth,
unless you tell me you were in the Skylab programs and 'lead me to the light' (but I was also in the Skylab prgram)

Just look at the interior of Skylab -- it's a huge TANK. Now look at average ISS module, it's full of science/training equipment (I know because I put some of it there)

Skylab did have attitude control (the first I believe to use large control moment gyros) as anyone who supposedly worked on it would have to know, but neither Skylab nor ISS had/has independent altitude control. Both depended on other vehicles for boosting their orbit.

And although Skylab wasn't originally designed for expandability there were plans to do so anyway had Shuttle flown in time to do so.

The Skylab solar telescope was it's primary scientific instrument, solar observation and medical research on the effects on the human body of long term weightlessness were it's major fields of study and in both Skylab expanded human knowledge exponentially. Pretty good for a "empty dumb barrel".

And BTW, had you originally stated that Skylab was an empty barrel COMPARED to ISS I would have agreed. You didn't.

Perhaps I should have made sure to get the "Xenophobic, anti-Russian comments in 1...2...3..." posted first. Sigh. Just like NASA, the Russian space agency has a limited amount of funds. So when the space shuttle is delayed for months due to technical issues or unacceptable weather conditions, Roscosmos has to reconfigure the cargo logisitics for supplies needed on ISS that the shuttle was suppose to deliver. That work creates additional expenses not covered by their funding and, like any private corporation or government agency, they want to have those extra expenses covered or reimbursed. That is not unreasonable. The "gap" is an illusory political relic of the Cold War used frequently by politicians to advance their own parochial interests. It is time to move past that and to work on producing a strong space program that will establish the US as a premier spacefaring nation. If that means NASA will be unable to launch astronauts on US platforms for several years, then so be it.

This has to happen before anything beyond LEO. cheaper to ---> LEO ----> LEO refueling and Assembly technology. After that space flight is a breeze.. Now that being said I wish it wasn't so hard . :|

If the US wasn't paying the Russian engineers to build ISS and Soyuz rockets after the collapse of the USSR, they would have gone elsewhere for the money... i.e. building ballistic missiles for 'rogue' nations...

Read some history people, and read Arnaud's post also.

The US designed an ISS that would can be assembled by using the STS, the rest followed in. This means that the US keeps the strategic advantage of having the only means to send ISS modules to space. In turn it has drawbacks like what happened after Columbia accident.

Same as it seems will go for Moon base. USA Ares (or whatever) for moving big stuff.
If you are whining for the ISS prepare to whine more in 20years for the Moon-base. Unless sth changes :-)

Cheers,
Read also Arnaud's post and some history (not space history).