As usual, it's difficult to take statements by Russian officials at face value. Russia has been demanding more funding for its continued participation, relief from sanctions etc. And meanwhile, their Nauka module threatened to spin the whole station apart last month. So is this intended to support their haggling efforts, or deflect blame for state of the station? I have no idea. But I wouldn't count on Russian officials for an unbiased technical analysis, that's for sure.
I just hope that when the whole hab is scuttled and burns up or plunges into the ocean in a year or two, they will save out the new solar panels for another project.
ISS's reason to exist went away when the Shuttle was mothballed. The ISS was, in turn, the reason to keep flying the Shuttle. They tried to come up with a similar dodge for SLS, in the moon orbit base, but SpaceX pulled the rug out from under that. That would have been a boondoggle of dven more epic proportions than STS/ISS.
We still need to find a way to shut down the F-35 without needing to cancel all the subcontracts let for parts of it. Without saving those, it will never be allowed to die. (Using the afterburner destroys parts of the rear control surfaces, that have to be replaced at a cost of, what, tens? hundreds? of $thousands after the flight... if it lands.)
> ISS's reason to exist went away when the Shuttle was mothballed. The ISS was, in turn, the reason to keep flying the Shuttle.
This is a popular idea, but it can't really be proven. The decision to have ISS comes from many people and countries, and those people have different reasons - including, among others, employing Shuttle, former Soviet engineers and an accessible space outpost to conduct space experiments.
Roscosmos' Rogozin is rumored to be falling out of favor with Putin, and I see him as holding back US-Russian cooperation on ISS. Not sure why I'm bring this up other than wishing that cooperation would continue, but on the other hand being stuck in low earth orbit is also getting old.
I would assume that Putin would prefer to see the ISS fail and have the Chinese-Russian cooperation efforts succeed. Is this not the case? What would suddenly disincentivize Rogozin from cooperating with NASA? I would certainly prefer to see more cooperation.
vladTheInhaler|4 years ago
ncmncm|4 years ago
ISS's reason to exist went away when the Shuttle was mothballed. The ISS was, in turn, the reason to keep flying the Shuttle. They tried to come up with a similar dodge for SLS, in the moon orbit base, but SpaceX pulled the rug out from under that. That would have been a boondoggle of dven more epic proportions than STS/ISS.
We still need to find a way to shut down the F-35 without needing to cancel all the subcontracts let for parts of it. Without saving those, it will never be allowed to die. (Using the afterburner destroys parts of the rear control surfaces, that have to be replaced at a cost of, what, tens? hundreds? of $thousands after the flight... if it lands.)
avmich|4 years ago
This is a popular idea, but it can't really be proven. The decision to have ISS comes from many people and countries, and those people have different reasons - including, among others, employing Shuttle, former Soviet engineers and an accessible space outpost to conduct space experiments.
inshadows|4 years ago
Who needs government sponsored science? All hail the Musk!
pope_meat|4 years ago
"I said ship it!"
Luckily, no one is responsible if things go wrong!
travisporter|4 years ago
datameta|4 years ago
bellyfullofbac|4 years ago