Bush's space plan

--- Al Globus wrote:
>
> On Jan 9, 2004, at 11:18 AM, Combs, Mike wrote:
>
> >> The one good thing clinton did with the ISS was
> to
> >> convert it from a primary US program with some
> >> international support to a truly international
> >> endeavor.
> >
> > While agreeing with many of your other points,
> what would prompt you
> > to say
> > this? The general consensus is that Clinton's
> decision to bring
> > Russia into
> > the program was a complete disaster, and rather
> than saving expense
> > instead
> > made the station more expensive for the US
>
> The ISS was nearly cancelled just before the
> Russians came on board, I
> think the margin in the House was about 3-5 votes.
> If they hadn't
> brought the Russians in, there probably wouldn't be
> a space station
> today -- which may have been a good thing.
> Actually, although the ISS
> is too expensive and not very capable, bringing the
> Russians in did
> exactly what it was supposed to do: improve ties
> between Russia and the
> US and keep at least some Russian technical people
> occupied NOT
> building bombs for third world dictators.
>
Thanks Al, this is one of the points. The other is
our ability to work with other countries. In the
1980s, we basically unilaterally screwed Europe on the
Ulysses mission. We had a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with ESA that we would perform a certain task.
In Europe, a MOU is treated just like a treaty and has
to be upheld. In the US, what congress approves one
year can be removed the next (as happened with
Ulysses).

When the ISS was being negotiated, Europe sought
stronger protections that the US would not back out of
their agreement. However, once again over the past
year or so we have been renigging again on those
agreements. Though now Europe is a heck of a lot more
powerful and not as reliant on the US. If we keep on
this course of not following through on our agreements
with other nations, soon it will be much more
difficult to pursue truly joint programs.

Ryan Z