Moderator: Are there any more questions? I see there are none. I thank Boris Petrovich and Sergei Nikolayevich, and I thank everybody. Our second guest today is the head of the Russian Space Agency, Yuri Nikolayevich Koptev. The government today discussed at its meeting the ratification of a series of documents related to our participation in the international space station project. As far as we know, concrete developments connected with that station are in the offing. So, we have invited Yuri Nikolayevich.

Koptev: Well, the government meeting today saw a fairly routine procedure. On January 29 an agreement was signed in Washington, an inter-state agreement on the international space station . In effect, the international project that was launched in 1984 and was legally sealed in 1988 -- it included practically all the same countries except Russia -- and the project called Freedom was proclaimed as a national project by President Reagan. But this idea did not produce any real results. Twelve billion dollars was spent and in 1993 the Americans and then all the other partners had to admit that such an ambitious project was not feasible and it could only be accomplished with the participation of Russia which has immense expertise, experience that no other country in the world has.

Beginning from 1992, the agreement signed by the two presidents, Bush of the United States and Yeltsin of Russia, provided for our joint work with the Americans in manned space flights. You know that for the four years we were successfully implementing the Mir -Shuttle Program which I think is of fundamental character. The program has shown that countries with different approaches, different cultures and different mentalities, not only in space matters but different national mentalities, could work successfully on such challenging programs.

The important of this program for us was that its implementation provided us with huge resources. The Americans have paid for these flights. We got about 600 million dollars for these flights, including also the European flights. That accounts for about 40 percent of the assets allocated for the program because the budget could not cope with all of our plans. True, our plans got support in the form of the law on the federal budget, but these laws were never fulfilled. Worse, the situation is deteriorating with every passing year. For instance, in 1996 we got some 78 percent of what we were supposed to get from the budget. The figure for last year was already 57 percent while this year we got only 33 percent so far.

It is natural, therefore, that it is of great importance to develop programs of international cooperation. The agreement was discussed. It is a result of four years of work, work by representatives of 15 countries. The agreement is a logical conclusion of this work.

In addition to this document there are also a whole number of bilateral agreements. They determine relations between national agencies. One of them deals with relations between the Russian Space Agency and NASA. All the details are spelled out in these agreements.

I must say that for us this agreement is of fundamental importance for two reasons. First of all, this is the only chance for Russia to take part in a long-term program of manned flight. This program spans a period of time till the year 2013. No matter how hard we try it will be much too optimistic to expect the station Mir to survive that long.

As you know, a special expert appraisal was conducted in 1996. This commission has headed by the President of the Academy of Sciences. This commission in accordance with a presidential decree examines all space programs. And they drew the clear conclusion that if we want to continue to engage in this area of space activity, the only optimum way in terms of cost, in terms of time and technical factors, in terms of access to world technologies, to results of scientific research, is the way of participation in the project of the international space station .

And today this was confirmed by the government. It was decided to submit this document to the Duma for ratification. Ratification is mandatory. There are three moments that are at variance with our legislation. This includes special customs treatment, the question of jurisdiction, the question of ownership.

This is on one side. On the other side we have our law on space activity which has now been specified and says that any international agreements dealing with space activity must be ratified by the Duma.

This is first. The second moment, I always speak about it, as a federal body responsible for space activities, a body that cooperates with about a hundred enterprises of the space industry, this is our entire industrial and research potential, well, because of the overall negative trends in our economy... this has affected the space and missile industry most of all. Why? Because of certain specificities this industry was oriented at monoculture, it was not diversified. And when this collapsed happened... the collapse is such that state support in the form of budget financing of military and civilian space activities is 14 times less than in 1989.

As to industry, considering the departure of Ukraine and Byelorussia, considering the natural process of loss of personnel, it has become twice smaller.

There are two things that we can do. For instance, we can state our displeasure, march to the humpbacked bridge and bang helmets on the pavement and so on. This, of course, is counterproductive. The other way is to look for opportunities to apply our experience, our knowledge and our technologies in the world.

The political situation for this was created in 1993 when within the framework of the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission we signed three agreements. That was in September 1993.

The first agreement was on Russia's participation in the big international project, on the merging of efforts in the program of manned space flights. The second was on Russia's emergence on the market of commercial launches. The third was on Russia's joining of the regimen of non-proliferation of missile technologies. All this functions as one package.

Thanks to this the Khrunichev Center carried out its 12th commercial launch on November 5th. The Proton launcher was used. It made some 600 million dollars on this. Thanks to the agreements we carried out a four-year program of joint flights with the Americans on the Mir station. I already told you about the money that this generated. Thanks to these agreements the portfolio of orders placed with Russian industry... these orders not only preserve our industry but advance it further. They make it possible to create new constructions, new hardware, to preserve the infrastructure and carry out modernization programs, that is to do the work that the budget cannot afford to finance now.

So, these three documents work together. And when one of them is removed, complications may begin in all other directions. We are aware of this and everybody understands the situation very clearly.

Speaking of the international space station program, it is tied up technically and in terms of design that if Russia falls out of this project, the project will have to go back by at least three years and require an additional $2.5-3 billion in investments. None of the governments, the US or Europe, can agree to this. So, in this case the project will have to be terminated.

It would be very hard in this case to expect for support for Russia's efforts to advance its technologies to the world market, especially taking into account the peculiarities of the national laws of the countries which provide payloads. So, in this situation we can say with a high degree of certainty that Russia's space activities would to come an end in 1.5-2 years, with all the consequences for defense, and the social and economic spheres.

I think it's absurd to speak about inventing a mechanism that would pay people for doing nothing. Any work collective exists and develops only when it does something. When it stops doing it, it begins to degrade very quickly.

And the last thing. There have been many publications and discussions saying that we are dumping Mir in favor of the ISS. This is ridiculous. Funding, that's what matters. No agreements with the Americans or with somebody else that we have to abandon Mir have been reached. But there are real facts. Perhaps, I have given you too many figures, but let me give you some more.

The operation of Mir -- I am giving you figures in the prices that existed in July, before the crisis because we expect that prices inside the country will grow by 30 percent by the end of the year, although the actual increase may be greater -- costs us 1.2 billion rubles.

In order to carry out the minimum amount of work -- we have failed to comply with the ISS schedule three times. In September and October we managed, with great difficulty, to reach an agreement on the fourth schedule. The first element will be launched in November. On November 20 we will launch the functional cargo block.

We expect that the service module will be launched in July or in the beginning of August. So all this depends on the availability of resources. In order to comply with this schedule, we will have to do work worth not less than 2 billion rubles in 1999.

This year the budget was first cut by one billion rubles as a result of a reformist approach. The budget gave us 3.8 billion and then it was cut to 2.8 billion and we were told to terminate all programs and leave only these two. But then everybody understood that this was not possible to do that and began looking for extra-budgetary sources. They found these sources and then August 17 came.

So what I am saying is that the total amount of funds we have received from the budget is about 1.2 billion rubles. But the amount of work for the ISS alone in 1998 is estimated at two billion rubles and 1.2 billion for Mir . We have not yet learned how to transform into Jesus Christ who managed to feed thousands of people with several breads.

So, I'd like to say once again that there is no any intention to abandon Mir in order to switch to the international space station . And I said it at the meeting today and it was supported by the chairman of the government.

It all comes to finding. Can the country continue to implement these two projects? I think it must find this money because this is not such a huge sum after all to be so critical to the budget. You need a magnifying glass in order to see these figures.

But if there is no funding, you have to choose. You have to make the right choice. I read newspapers and I can tell you that we have already made our choice. The responsibility of the Russian Space Agency is to ensure the survival and the development of the Russian space rocket industry.

Our participation in the ISS project allows us to keep about 70,000-80,000 jobs for 15 years. If we withdraw from this project, we would lose such an opportunity, because we cannot build our own new station, we would lose a chance to increase our presence on the market of space launches and other services. As a result, our space activities will come to a halt in two years or, by the most optimistic estimates, three years.

So, if it were possible to make the public think that this money has to be found in order to operate Mir for a year or two, but of course with full compliance with the ISS program. Thank you. I can take your questions now.

Q: You spoke about further operation of Mir . Is such a possibility being considered, to keep the station going after June, 1999?

And my second question. The US has provided $30 million (?), if I remember it correctly, as a compensation for using Russia's air space. Will this be enough to complete the service module, or will you need more funding?

Koptev: The question of terminating the Mir mission in June has been discussed since the beginning of this year. Government discussed this matter on May 28. How did this problem arise? It appeared because of the utter hopelessness of the financial situation. The debt for last year is 1.7 billion. And no allocations have been made this year.

We had to adopt the decision on what to do further in June and early August. It was utterly clear that we had to terminate the station's flight and bring back its crew. Then we would have an uncontrolled further flight of the station with all the possible unpleasant consequences, both for us and for the entire world community. Imagine if a space station weighing 140 tons falls nobody knows where in an uncontrolled fashion. Nobody knows what damage can be inflicted.

At the time we proceeded from the assumption that the service module will appear in orbit in April, that a segment of the international station will be formed. This means that the station could be habitable. The crew should have appeared on it early in April and the program of building it up further would be implemented. In other words, we would not lose the element of presence.

Since we were told that there will be no money for two programs, we studied the question of terminating Mir in a civilized way. This means to ensure controlled movement of Mir till the last moment and its descent from orbit in an organized manner. It was then that this theory of 270 million dollars appeared, the theory that this money could be found somewhere outside of the budget.

But today we have a different situation. At best, the service module will be orbited in July or early August. In this connection everything will be determined, I think the final decision will be made in the second half of December. Everything will depend on the 1999 budget, on how we complete the present year financially. At present work with the station Mir is being carried out on a credit basis mostly. Government told us to go ahead and take credits, that they will be repaid. Interest included.

That is why late in December we will decide what to do further with Mir . If money is found, out of the budget or from other source, I believe we will come to terms with our colleagues... incidentally, they are not raising this issue. What they are concerned about is our insolvency. The absence of money in the country naturally, makes them insist that the resources we get should go primarily to meet our obligations under the ISS project because they are a brake on the overall progress of the project. I can put it in another way. Every year of delay costs Americans 2 billion dollars. So, I can say that at the end of December, perhaps in early January, we will determine our position. The decision will be taken based on the country's potential for implementing these programs or finding alternative mechanisms of financing.

As far as the American question is concerned, yes, we have held negotiations. We have transferred part of the resources for three years. By the way, this causes allergy among many people. But for some reason, we don't mind that for four years between 30 and 60 percent of the resources at the station was used to implement the American program for which they paid. We considered that to be normal. Yes, if you don't have your own money and you borrow money you have to pay for it. The options for Russia today in the international program are either to cease to be a partner and to become a contractor. And this option is being considered, by the way. It's another question that it is difficult to implement.

But having said that, one must be aware that we will keep on working for a while, industrial capacity will be loaded and things will go ahead, but when it comes to flights to the station, we will be told to pay international prices in order to take part in the work at the station. So, we have hit on a softer option. I must say that we have met with understanding on the part of our American colleagues there. Perhaps, it was the only option because nobody wants the project to collapse and to terminate. Yes, certain resources in terms of crew time are allocated, three cubic meters of space for placing the equipment are allocated. All this is due to be revised by the time the station is built in 2003 when they will get their own crew, and their own space.

But I think that this process has not been completed. We will have to move forward on it because we take a realistic view of the country's potential. As for whether that would be enough, first of all, so far we didn't get 60, we got only 34. A group of American specialists is looking into the targeted use of all these assets. I think they will come away convinced that everything is good and proper. And then the question of additional allocations will be addressed.

We expect that the main amount of work on the service module will be financed by these means. But the question is less of the service module as of manufacturing the needed number of spaceships. About 8 of them will need to be built in 1999-2000. So, most of that money is needed to build these spaceships. 60 million will not be enough for that. In other words, we should look for our own sources and continue negotiations with our American colleagues.

Q: (Off mike.)

Koptev: The situation is a very negative one. While within the framework of the ISS project we manage to find some alternative ways of financing, for instance, agreements with our American colleagues, sale of frequencies, sale of a part of government-owned shares in Energia, in the Spektr program the situation appears hopeless. Our European colleagues who work in this project have done their part, they have invested several hundred million dollars into the creation of equipment. Now they are waiting for Russia to spend its own money on the creation of the necessary platform.

But considering the level of financing that we have, it is difficult to expect us to meet even the third postponed deadline. This deadline is late 1999-early 2000. But actually this will be much later because of lack of financing.

Miracles do not happen. One can count on miracles, of course, but in life no miracles happen. We are on the level of financing that can be compared with the level that exists in countries that cannot be categorized as leading ones. Let us take the example of American astronautics. In 1998 government support of space activities in the United States will amount to 27 billion dollars. Let us take Europe. Within the framework of European Space Agency Europe will spend 3.2 billion dollars. You should add to this national programs to the tune of about 2 billion dollars. These are Germany and France.

Let us take China now. It will spend this year about 1.7 billion dollars. Japan will spend some 2.5 billion dollars. India plans in 1999 to increase its financing of space activities by 54 percent. In short, it will amount to about 400 million dollars.

Such figures are a dream for us. On the other hand, we are in the market now. We have already felt all the negative consequences of the market. All the materials that we use and resources -- metal, fuel (kerosene), electricity have not just reached world prices, they have outstripped the world prices by 2-2.5 times. And we, together with the military, continue to support a group of 127 space apparati. We carry out about 30 launches a year, we hope to carry out as many this year. All this belongs to the realm of miracles. But they cannot continue endlessly.

So, if -- and for me it is not really the question of if, I for one believe that objectively this country is doomed to be engaged in rocketry and space exploration if we want to be a single state, if we want to be reckoned with in the world, if we want to protect our interests, if we want to be present in the world community of intellectually advanced countries. We are obliged to pursue these activities given our geography, resources, population and other factors. There is no alternative.

There is something called "national needs". If you call yourselves a state, regardless of who runs the state, the type of property and the ruling party there is objectively a set of functions that makes a state what it is. For instance, you must have common information space if you are to have a single state. And there are a number of other state functions.

Well, given the features of this country, if we use space assets, and in some cases there is no alternative to space assets, then certain functions are either fulfilled or not fulfilled. The optimal way is to use space assets. That is why 130 countries -- ranging from Gabon to the United States -- build satellite stations, use Iridium and all the rest of it.

And another special feature of this country is that we must see to it that we are able to defend ourselves. And in the actual conditions of today we can only defend ourselves if we retain the strategic component in the shape of the nuclear missile shield and the corresponding space information component. Well, this can only be achieved by a combination of measures that make it possible to preserve the industry, the infrastructure, science and all the rest of it. So, there is a minimum which a state if it wants to remain a state is obliged to find, just like it found in 1946, after a great war which inflicted heavy losses on us, it found the strength and the resources to start addressing this problem. Perhaps, this accounts for the fact that we have been enjoying 54 years of uninterrupted peace.

So, I very much hope that we will meet with understanding on the part of the government. In our interaction with the prime minister, with Yuri Dmitriyevich Maslyukov and a number of other government officials, we are meeting with understanding. We expect that a minimum of measures will be implemented. As a result, we will see Russia preserve its positions in missile and space technology and remain the leader in some space technologies.

Moderator: And the final question.

Q: Voice of Russia Radio. There are some eleven tons of scientific equipment on board the Mir station. Can this equipment be transferred somehow from Mir to the international space station ? How realistic is this. What is the situation with the Sea Launch program?

Koptev: A very correct question. We have some experience. You will remember that when the station Salyut-6 went out of control we managed for the first time ever to dock with a non-cooperating object and transfer a part of the station's equipment to the new one.

But we must proceed not just from our own interests, we must proceed from the interests of all the partners that are engaged in the program. Such an idea has appeared, the one that you mentioned. It appeared virtually some three weeks ago. I mean it was discussed only thus recently. And we put this question to our American colleagues. We worked on this question for some ten days. It was also studied in the United States.

What is the outcome? In order to transfer the equipment in the course of one flight, that is dock with Mir , collect the equipment and transfer it to the international space station . This makes it necessary to correlate the orbits of Mir and the international space station . This would make it necessary to change by ten hours the launching time of the cargo unit. This meant a change of phase.

When our specialists worked on this problem, not only from Energia but also from the Khrunichev Center, Tsniimash, the Flight Control Center, they said that a whole number of additional conditions would have to be met.

On some revolutions the orbits of Mir , the cargo unit and subsequent elements of the international space station will intersect. This will require additional control facilities, additional flows of telemetry. All the channels that the military now have on Molnia satellites would have to be taken over. There will be changes in conditions of the exposure of solar batteries to light, temperature conditions will change. Problems of power supply will arise. And similar problems will be encountered by our colleagues.

We were told that this would require changes in the launching schedule. This would mean the possibility of a launch not earlier than the 17th or 18th. In turn this will interfere with their schedules of repair and maintenance work at the launch center, and so on.

We studied all this very carefully and decided that we would not change anything, that is, we would launch the FGB as scheduled in a way that satisfies all participants in this program.

At the same time we asked our US colleagues, and agreed to sort it out together with them, what all this show in outer space is about. Why can't we live by the following scheme: for example a space shuttle goes on a flight and instead of delivering 50 kilograms by Soyuz or 400 kilograms by Progress, bring all this down by the shuttle, certify all this equipment here on Earth, restore it and take into account space scientists' opinion about whether it can be used for further missions and maybe to improve some things and take it back to the international space station . Why can't it be done by this scheme?

We have agreed in principle that we will study this option within the next two to three months, especially since the fulfillment of our obligations under the new program requires us to operate this complex at least until June or July, because this is when we are to carry out joint programs with France and Slovakia and no one will touch anything during this period without having the basic elements of the ISS in orbit. It's pointless to discuss all this unless we have first three modules up there. So, we will work by this scheme in the future.

On your second question, there have been considerable delays. They were caused by the fact that there were two failed launched of US Loral (sp?) satellites in China in 1996. This threw the possibility of using China's potential on the world market into doubt. They took all measures to investigate the incidents. In accordance with the generally accepted procedures the investigation was conducted with the participation of the customer so that he could make sure that everything was done correctly.

Apparently this discussion went too far and, as some publications indicate, it was said that the company Loral gave the Chinese company The Great Wall some materials on how to improve their launching technologies and that these were dual-purpose technologies which could be used for improving China's strategic missiles.

As soon as that version was set in motion, Congress stepped in. Congress has always welcomed any information that would enable it to tread on the President's toes. A special inquiry was carried out and two bills were tabled one of which limited and the other banned the use of Chinese missiles. Faced with this situation the State Department took stock of all the other projects and the idea emerged that Boeing could transfer some sensitive information under the marine launch program to Ukraine and Russia. Actually, if it ever came to that, the reverse would have been the case.

So, with this inquiry under way, work was suspended for four months. A special commission was set up. It did not make any serious findings, but Boeing was fined $10 million anyway. On October 30 a permit has been issued for continued work and Russian and Ukrainian specialists are on that base in California conducting preparations.

The other point is that Hughs which is the first supplier of payload is a little behind schedule. On the other hand, everybody was negatively affected by the recent Zenit accident although its causes are not in any way related to the machine that is being built for sea launch. The control system is absolutely different and in principle the kind of accident that occurred could not occur in that machine. All the same, the decision has been made that in order to confirm the viability of this launch scheme -- opinions vary on these matters -- it was decided that the first launch will be carried out in March, but not with real payload, but with a mock-up to be provides by Hughs and it will answer whatever questions remain. If the launch goes well, then, according to the 1999 plan, about four or five commercial launches will take place.

Moderator: Thank you.

Return to NASA Watch