NASA administrator Michael Griffin has said on a number of occasions that while NASA is looking to reduce the number of shuttle missions to the ISS from the currently-planned 28, in order to retire the shuttle by the end of 2010, he remains committed to completing and utilizing the station. An example is a comment he made during a House Science Committee hearing last week:
As I sit here, a team of bright and dedicated engineers with substantial experience in the business and on space station in particular are looking at all of the available options by which we might complete the assembly of the space station consistent with our obligations to our partners and our research agenda while remaining within the requirement to retire the shuttle by 2010.
However, some of our partners in Russia seem unconvinced. Writing for the state-run news service RIA Novosti, political commentator Andrei Kislyakov seems unconvinced by the remarks of Griffin and others. “Despite declarations to the contrary, it seems that the United States is likely to pull out in the near future,” he writes, although there are few specifics in the article to back up his conclusion, besides references to the study to change the shuttle schedule as well as shuttle safety concerns. (Of course, why let facts, or the lack thereof, stand in the way of a good argument?) If Kislyakov’s skepticism is shared by his bosses in the Russian government, it would seem that Griffin and the US government have an uphill battle in front of them to convince the Russians—and perhaps the Europeans and other partners—of their sincerity on the ISS.
Griffin plans to halve the infamous schedule of 28 shuttle flights, so Kislyakov is at least half correct. Moreover, if his speculations are unsupported, so are Bush’s and Griffin’s assurances that the space station will still satisfy international obligations. These illogical and smarmy declarations are only plausible to certain American audiences.
Another ironic wrinkle the Russians have noticed the Republican propaganda line that Clinton’s invitation of Russia was the worst thing to ever happen to the space station. Although it is not completely false, it was meant more as a condemnation of Clinton than as any kind of statement about the Russian Space Agency. But now that kind of talk, which I’m sure the Russians noticed, is no help to Griffin or Bush.
Speaking of Dana Rohrabacher, just last August he said:
But now Rohrabacher wants to be realistic. Consistency is not the man’s strong suit.
Can’t blame the Russians for rubbing some salt in our self inflicted wounds now can we? The US critisized them for delays in Station construction and noted how poverty stricken their space program was. The US has been sanctimonious about their helping the Mullah’s build the bomb. The US side is now designing a space transportation system along the lines the Russian’s invented 40 years ago. Crew capusle for the crew and big dumb boosters for the cargo. So let the Russian’s smirk. The fact is without the US for the next 10 years supporting the station, no other combination of countries know the software for our stuff, nor the schematics, nor have the funding.