By Terral Gordin
(ATTENTION: Lots of Abbreviations ahead. Try to remember them to avoid confusion.)
I have seen many articles bashing the space station left and right, due to the fact that it is gobbling up most of NASA's budget. Well, that is true, the space station is taking most of the agency's budget, but the ISS has many redeeming qualities, such as its ability to be added on to, and some of the research that could be gained from it. But I'm not writing about redeeming the ISS. The high price tag, however, is only because of the unreliability of our international "partners".
Take Russia, for example. Although, currently, Russia is the only nation other than the US capable of launching men into space, the former Soviet Union is a very poor country, and can hardly afford to launch spacecraft. Albeit that Russia is not the only partner, the others are even more unreliable, not having any manned spacecraft whatsoever. Most of the time, NASA is giving the Russian Space Program money to build its components of the space station. So, even though the parts are built in Russia, it was, for the most part, funded by American money. And you thought NASA's measly 2% of the American national budget was Bad... |
Space Shuttle Columbia on the pad
An older picture of the space shuttle Columbia on the launch pad... |
|
Spacecrafts
At present, with the American Space Shuttle out of service due to the Columbia incident, this means that the only vehicle that can launch people into space is the Soyuz TMA. Despite Russia's confidence in its craft, the Soyuz's track record is just as messy as the Space Shuttle's. That's certainly one reason NASA is so anxious to get the shuttles flying again. Also, the space station's orbit is slowly degrading, as all orbits do, and without the shuttle to continually boost it higher, it could be burning up, if we take the time to do a long, three year Challenger type investigation.
Since the shuttle is currently out of the picture, this also gets rid of Italy's main contribution, the Multi Purpose Logistics Modules, (referred to as MPLMs from now on). It carries supplies to the space station, like the Russian's unmanned Progress, but relies entirely on the Space Shuttle to take it into space and bring it back. A quick quote directly from the NASA homepage: "Twenty flights, which includes 16 space shuttle missions, have already occurred in the International Space Station era." So, without the shuttle, pretty much NO more modules can be launched to continue in its construction. Japan's NASDA (Note the D, to avoid confusion with American NASA) Kibo lab (Japanese for Hope, by the way) is nearly completed. But since the Space Shuttles are grounded, it has no way to get into space.
|
|
Other space agencies
The European Space Agency, or ESA, is even more helpless than NASDA. Sure, they have the Ariane 5 rockets, but those have been just as unreliable as the Space Shuttle lately. And most of the European designed modules couldn't get into space on their own, though some modules, like the Zarya and Zvezda were made to be launched into space, unmanned, and eventually rendezvous and dock with the main section of the space station. Most, however, are supposed to be attached by manned crews. The newest European built module is the Node 2, waiting to be launched aboard a Space Shuttle. Since both the Node 2 and the Kibo, to be connected in orbit, are waiting patiently for launch dates, NASA is giving the go ahead to link them together on the ground, to make sure if everything works right. This was done with no other ISS elements so far, mostly because it seemed like a waste of time. These modules, however, have plenty of time. Again, this means that if the US is out of the picture, they are, too.
Looking at a picture of the ISS depicting who owns what parts of the space station, it is obvious that America is at the center of the "partnership". Most modules are owned by the US and Russia, and even some of the Russian built modules are owned by the US. I'd say about 70% of the space station belongs to America, and, while that is good for Americans, also places over 70% of the cost on NASA. NASA's measly budget could be spent on better things than picking up the international tab on the space station, like preparing a site for a Mars landing, but the ISS could be a major tool in completing this objective. Though let's not get into that quite yet.
Copyright Terral Gordin, 2003
Conclusion
As you can see, just about all of the ISS program depends on NASA, or it can't function. Although America may be the "leader" of the project, that doesn't mean that if something should happen, such as Columbia, to hinder US participation, that the entire project should be stopped. As of now there are still two guys floating around up there, performing experiments and such. The only reason they are up there is because the launch was already scheduled to take place, before the Columbia incident. The Soyuz is due to be replaced every six months, and the new Soyuz should be headed there pretty soon. Hopefully, the Space Shuttles will be back in SAFE operation by then, and construction can continue. It's already nearly completed, and probably, like Mir and so many other space stations, will live a lot longer than its intended ten year life. I'm not bashing the other nations for not helping enough, but if it is an "International Space Station" it really should be international, and everyone should contribute, or at least try, as much as everyone else. And maybe, if someone important sees this, they'll realize how much they rely on America and possibly do something about it, but we all know how unlikely that is.
|
Proposed Spaceplane
The OSP, or Orbital Space Plane, has been propsed to take the weight off the shuttle's shoulders. |
|
|
