This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
ISS News

Who Is Actually In Charge of the Space Station?

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
May 21, 2014
Filed under ,

As NASA seeks next mission, Russia holds the trump card, Houston Chronicle
“Such is today’s space Realpolitik that, while the United States paid for most of the $140 billion space station, launched nearly all of it into orbit, and controls most of its day-to-day operations from Houston, Russia still holds the trump card: access. “They have us right where they want us,” said three-time NASA astronaut Mike Coats. The mounting Ukraine crisis has highlighted the space agency’s vulnerability, but this state of affairs is not new. Russia began embracing NASA in a bear hug right after the space shuttle retired in 2011.”
NASA: Space station can work without Russia, AP
“There is no single partner that can terminate the international space station,” Bolden told reporters in Berlin, where he was attending the city’s annual air show. Bolden said that the cooperation between NASA and Roscosmos, the Russian space agency, on the International Space Station hadn’t changed “one iota” in recent years. The project has withstood the increasingly frosty atmosphere between Washington and Moscow that saw the U.S. impose sanctions on Russia over its actions in Ukraine. Still, Bolden indicated that if for one reason or other a country should drop out of the project, the others would seek to continue.

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

45 responses to “Who Is Actually In Charge of the Space Station?”

  1. John Kavanagh says:
    0
    0

    A rudderless ISS is emblematic of global foreign affairs in general these days, as the U.S. retreats from an assertive leadership role.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      What is the alternative? Are you suggesting the “new leadership” would write NASA a blank check while cutting taxes?

      • savuporo says:
        0
        0

        NASA doesn’t need a blank check, they already get ungodly amounts of money compared to any other national space program or other US civil research agencies.

        What they need is leadership, cutting the waste, stop trying to continue re-enacting Apollo, and once again empower the domestic aerospace industry.

        • dogstar29 says:
          0
          0

          Well, yes. But unfortunately Congress (and particularly our friend Frank Wolf, R-VA, Richard Shelby, R-AL, and Bill Nelson, D-FL) write laws telling NASA to do ridiculous things. At least in the last hearing Bolden stood up to them. But they pass the laws, and micromanage NASAto an extent not common in other agencies. So what leadership will change the situation? Apparently it has to start in Congress.

          • savuporo says:
            0
            0

            Blaming congress is cop-out – they are politicians, they act predictably.
            It’s NASAs leadership job to come up with politically workable proposals and planning, functional accounting and coherent vision.

            Was it the job of Congress to figure out contingency plans for ISS ? Or, even just how to deorbit the thing ? Did any NASA manager ever show up on the Hill saying US needs its own propulsion module ?

            Because from what it seems, the plans beyond 2020 seem to have constituted of crossing fingers and praying for an extension.

          • Jeff Havens says:
            0
            0

            Blaming Congress is a cop-out only if you lay sole blame on them. Downplaying their part is also unwise. It all part of the “Game of NASA”, and unless something radically changes with the way they are funded (they need to be taken out of the yearly budgetary fight), manipulated, manipulating the manipulation, and the overall mismanagement, the whole thing will end up like a J.R.R. Martin novel.

            And while I point out my opinion, I fully admit I have no solution to offer. My idea of completely scrapping NASA and creating a new agency from the ground up based on 5-10 year budgets, responsible contracts, and a minimal, workable management and accountability system is about as fictional as the aforementioned novel.

          • jamesmuncy says:
            0
            0

            Why should NASA be exempt from the annual funding process? I wrote a column for Omni back in 1993 calling for replacing NASA with several smaller agencies, but if they are spending public money then Congress is going to insist on annual reviews and control.

          • Jeff Havens says:
            0
            0

            Well, the idea comes from the basic “I don’t know what I’m talking about, but..” point of view that expenditures for having to fight for your budget every year could be better spent. It just seems like too many times the carpet gets yanked out from under research and progress because of non-scientist types (a.k.a. Congress) thinking that said progress isn’t fast enough, exciting enough, or interesting enough.

          • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
            0
            0

            To control projects that take 10 years you need money allocated for 10 years. The default has to be continue once started.

            If you permit the destination to be changed 4 or 5 times during the journey you are unlikely to arrive at the right place.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            Curious: do you know this for a fact- the assertion that NASA stands out as an emblem of meddling? I sure don’t; while I pay attention to space (and a small slice), I don’t pay attention to other parts of the government, other than Agriculture and extension offices, where I see very little meddling (at least in the very small slices I care about). Just wondering?

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            DOD, DOE, NIH, NIST, FAA, all federal agencies experience congressional pressure. DOD has on several occasions been forced to accept expensive weapons systems it does not want or need. DOE has been roadblocked in building a nuclear waste repository, even in the remotest desert. NIST has been forced to use inches and pounds. But NASA is unique in that it has a high profile and Congress has essentially taken control of its largest single R&D program, Constellation/SLS/Orion.

    • KeCo says:
      0
      0

      Given that the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan are costing us almost $6 trillion and we currently have something like 1,000 overseas military bases….how would plan to pay for this “assertive leadership role”??

      • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
        0
        0

        The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are over and most of the troops are home.

        • Casey Stedman says:
          0
          0

          While it is true that we are no longer engaged in combat operations in Iraq, The U.S. and NATO are still heavily involved in Afghanistan

        • KeCo says:
          0
          0

          Troops are being withdrawn but there are still more than 20,000 troops there. My point is though that even when the wars are nearly over, much of what was spent was borrowed so we will be paying for that for years to come.

          • duheagle says:
            0
            0

            This is, for the most part, untrue. The Iraq War was by far the more expensive of the two expeditions and was essentially over by the time GWB left office. His administration had diminishing deficits even as the war entered its most expensive years. The cause of ballooning deficits since is the epic wastrelism of the Obama administration.

          • KeCo says:
            0
            0

            Who fault you think it is is irrelevant and off-topic. The funds were borrowed and spent – and we will be paying the interest on the debt for decades to come, thus is not available for other projects (“assertive” foreign policy or the space program, etc.)

          • duheagle says:
            0
            0

            As I pointed out, the money for the wars came mainly out of then-current revenues as the deficits were shrinking even as the wars were ramping up. That renders your basic thesis factually wrong.

            Almost half of the total U.S. debt has been accumulated on Obama’s watch as he has bailed out banks, subsidized government employment at the state level, vastly expanded welfare and food stamp programs, subsidized endless crony losers in the “renewable energy” field, conducted a war on domestic energy production and entrepreneurship in general and engaged in other profligacies and lawless overreaches of regulatory authority such as the EPA’s completely illegal war on carbon. All this to the tune of over a trillion additional borrowed dollars for each year he’s been in office.

            Obama came into office fancying himself the second coming of FDR. Well, he was right. FDR’s first two terms were taken up by vigorous pursuit of policies that deepened and lengthened the Great Depression. Obama’s only two terms are going to be remembered – and not fondly – as Great Depression 2.0 for comparable reasons.

            Given Obama’s amply demonstrated dithering and incompetence in foreign policy, it’s just as well he doesn’t get a shot at two more terms like FDR. Obama’s equivalent of FDR: The War Years would probably end with the U.S. signing a surrender of Hawaii to the Chinese on the deck of the battleship Missouri.

          • KeCo says:
            0
            0

            This is completely off -topic and utter wrong. Much of those wartime costs were “off-budget” – NOT covered by revenue. Your Obama rants are irrelevant here.

          • duheagle says:
            0
            0

            You’re the one who brought up the “off” topic. I’m just pointing out that your assertions are false. The wars were not “off budget.” Their expenses were the main reason the defense budget increased so much during the Bush years.

            If you don’t like off-topic excursions, then don’t start any. But the rest of us have no obligation to let you post complete nonsense here without rebuttal.

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            I think we know why the NASA budget is politicized. It is because America is politicized. Otherwise how can we explain Republican support for a wasteful government monopoly with no definable mission (SLS/Orion) and opposition to a more efficient program that is largely private and competitive (commercial crew). Its true that Obama hasn’t been able to overcome Congressional roadblockers defending pork for their districts, but Bolden showed a lot more moxie in his last encounter.

          • hikingmike says:
            0
            0

            You mean the bailouts? That is another debate.

          • John Thomas says:
            0
            0

            Most of the money is spent for entitlements and for people not to work.

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        Umm, lemme see…take it off-budget? Yea, that’s the ticket!

        Oh, and I know! Get more money in by cutting taxes! Some people will never learn.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      Correct. We haven’t invaded anyone in years. What a bore.

  2. savuporo says:
    0
    0

    Russia currently has full control of

    – reboost and attitude control
    – crew access

    Indeed, who is in charge ?

    • SouthwestExGOP says:
      0
      0

      Your points are correct – though the US could do some attitude control with a docked Cygnus or Dragon, but that has almost certainly not been certified yet. Perhaps those vehicles could also do small reboosts? Still, that is a negotiation point.

      Hopefully in about 3 years (!!) the US can fly people up on Dragon, maybe we can stall that long?

      • Jeff2Space says:
        0
        0

        As Keith recently posted, the US had a couple of concepts for a permanent propulsion module for ISS. It was cancelled, same as the Crew Return Vehicle (CRV), sometimes referred to as the Assured Crew Return Vehicle (ACRV).

        The US made its ISS bed with the Russians and now we have to keep sharing it with them even if we’re ticked off at each other.

        • dogstar29 says:
          0
          0

          The Russians didn’t tell us not to build a propulsion module. Actually now, with the rapidly improving performance of hall-effect thrusters, we should use solar-electrics rather than hypergolics. That will vastly reduce the fuel required.

    • Lowell James says:
      0
      0

      Most attitude control is managed by the cntrol moment gyros in the US owned Z1. The Russians and other visiting vehicles can also assist using rocket thrusters though it is rarely done.

      Dragon Rider might be available in 18 months.

      • savuporo says:
        0
        0

        CMGs saturate and need propulsive desaturation. If Zvezda goes, attitude will not remain stable for long.

      • SouthwestExGOP says:
        0
        0

        savporo is right, the CMGs are useful but will saturate. Then you must have a thruster or something to unload them.

  3. John Gardi says:
    0
    0

    Folks:

    Do ‘Law of the Sea’ salvage rights apply? If the Russians leave…

    Also, Doesn’t NASA own the Zarya Functional Cargo Block attached to the Unity node? If so, the Russian would have to sever the relationship at the Zvezda/Zarya connection. With just the service module and a couple of docking modules, they wouldn’t have much of a station. Also, with a years long delay in bringing up their ‘Science Lab’ (another Functional Cargo Block), the Russian section won’t be expanding any time soon. If the work like mad, they just might be ready to be self sustaining by 2020.

    tinker

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      Or Russia can negotiate a collaborative agreement with China, assuming we choose not to do so.

    • ProfSWhiplash says:
      0
      0

      OTOH, all they’d need to do a “reversed” Law of the Sea salvage rights, is to send only Russians up on the next Soyuz or two, and then “encourage” the non-Russians (esp. Americans) to leave themselves.

      Remember their boss is Vlad P., KGB alumnus (after 16 yrs) and apparently a Fuhrer wannabe. Thus far, he’s been borrowing a lot from Hitler’s play book on dealing with a vacillating Europe and America, when reestablishing a thought-dead empire. You need to do a lot of hard rethinking if you believe he cares a $#!+ over the symbol of peaceful science and international cooperation of that facility. But OTOH, holding the High Ground is something that he would definitely understand, even if only for propaganda value.

      And so what if we actually paid-for and own those Russian sections, he’ll just as easily have his media call that a Western lie and that we are holding sovereign Russian territory hostage (or at least not paying billions of rubles in rent).

    • SouthwestExGOP says:
      0
      0

      NASA did pay for the Zarya though there is a Russian control room for it. They don’t always tell the US side what they have done, for instance several years ago they had stopped the software from responding to smoke alarms in the Zarya since they got a lot of false alarms. NASA found out about that some months after it happened. Smoke alarms in the US side and the “real” Russian side were not “turned off” but a fire in the Zarya would have taken longer to detect.

      • John Gardi says:
        0
        0

        Charles:

        Great tale of international cooperation!

        If the Russians do have to leave Zarya behind, it has it’s own propulsion system and most of the fuel storage too.

        tinker

        • SouthwestExGOP says:
          0
          0

          John Gardi – the Zarya prop system was turned off a long time ago and is no longer functional.

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      I believe the Outer Space Treaty, which both the U.S. and Russia signed, ( although it was the Soviet Union then.. did they resign?) says that hardware remains the property of whoever launched it.

  4. Lowell James says:
    0
    0

    I wonder if anyone has investigated the negotiations and agreements that got us to this point with the Russians and other international partners on ISS. It appears to my perspective that the US actually pays much of the cost of participation of the other partners. Is this per direction? Who’s direction? It would be worthwhile to understand so that in the future we do not get ourselves into the same difficulty.

  5. Half Moon says:
    0
    0

    Putin controls the ISS.

  6. Emil says:
    0
    0

    Let Moscow build their own space station.

    • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
      0
      0

      The Russians are certainly planning their own spacestation.

      The USA and Russia may end up in a race to launch their own new spacestation.