Even if Russia attepts to pressure NASA to launch before ready, it is up to NASA Management to not allow it to affect flight operations.

NASA has two outside monitoring groups so I don’t think the Shuttle program will fall victim to scheule pressures for the first few flights.

Russia needs the money but Russia knows the US governement can’t pay directly or indirectly. I’m not worried, the US just has to work out the legal stuff which won’t happen until congress is back in session.

http://www.space.com/news/okeefe_update_040830.html

The reason the Russians proposed a one year mission was to force the issue of no American flying on the Soyuz in April 2005. They were talking about flying two paying passengers in that flight.

The core issue is that Russia wants to force NASA to fly the Shuttle in early 2005 OR pay them to keep bearing the burden. Since the ATV will not fly until fall 2005, it does not solve NASA’s problems.

It would be interesting to know if there is any pressure within NASA on the launch date. O’Keefe job as NASA administrator would be to create a wall between spaceflight operations and external influences. After the partners meeting there was no indication that there was a problem in Russia continuing to assist NASA. However NASA did agree to 5 to 6 personnel on ISS but 2006. This would indicate some expectation to buy Soyuz services. ESA will be assisting in re-supply shortly so NASA will not be dependent on Progress ships.

As far as saying they won’t have a seat for an American available, this might be in retribution for NASA not wanting to extend missions to one year. In an interview with American ISS crew member, he said they would rather not be away from there family for an entire year.

The really interesting behind-the-scenes story is that because Russia has been bearing all of the crew transfer and cargo delivery burden for the past two years, they are telling NASA not to expect an available crew transfer seat on Soyuz 10, which launches in April 2005.

In effect they are telling NASA that if it wants a crewperson at ISS starting in April 2005, not April 2006, that the Shuttle will have to return to flight.

That sounds like “schedule pressure” to me.

What the blazes are you talking about re the Science Committee? The Congress doesn’t decide what the science goals are. It does have to provide funding, and it decides whether or not various projects are working well or not.

Have you read the Constitution? Do you realize that Congress has to appropriate funds? It isn’t just an automatic fraction of tax revenues!

Jeepers…

ISS is different from either of these with each country owning pieces of the station but the US is the controlling country. Unfortunately just like oil we are dependent on other nations for transportation and re-supply of ISS. The Mars Exploration Rovers have sensors from different countries but we ownership and responsibility of the main craft.

I think the kind of cooperation we have with other countries on MER, Cassini, Shuttle and ISS is the right way to go but we must not become dependent on other countries.

Yes, the US is also lagging on building a perpetual motion machine too…

nope