why does you think it is good idea to make space station an international project
Answers
Answer:
Is it not a good idea to make a space station an international project?
Save taxes & secure your family's future, with a term plan.
It depends on who you ask and what criteria you are using to define ‘good idea’. Making the ISS ‘international’ increased the cost of creating and running the station… but then spread that increased cost among more nations. Without the Russian components, for example — NASA would have had to create one or more additional modules, as the Zarya and Zvezda were required components of the station. The Columbus (ESA) and Kibo (JAXA) modules provide additional utility to the ISS, but are not required as such.
The Russian Soyuz and Progress flights have obviously been critical to the ISS operation. The European ATV and Japanese HTV likewise were extremely useful in keeping the station supplied (although both of these supply programs have ended). Had the space station been created as a US-only project, not only would the station have been smaller (and quite different), it would have relied completely on the space shuttle for all resupply and crew rotation. This means that after the Columbia disaster — the ISS would have had to be abandoned until the shuttle program was flying again. Presumably (hopefully) it would also have meant that the U.S. would have developed another method of allowing astronauts on the station to evacuate to Earth (i.e. other than a Soyuz) or else they would have been stranded up there at that time.
I could go on with additional examples of how international partners affected the development and operation of the ISS, but the upshot is that international participation is really the only thing that made the ISS practical at the time. There were too many pieces ‘missing’ from NASA capabilities at the time for the U.S. to have created a viable station that could be maintained for an extended period of time. On the downside, the ISS is a hodge-podge of modules and technologies… which makes it more expensive to operate and maintain. This is causing more and more problems as the station ages.
With the COTS cargo program, the U.S. now has two independent means of supplying a space station, and shortly Sierra Nevada should join in the mix to make three independent methods. Once the COTS Crew program begins, we’ll have two independent means of crew rotation (and eventually Sierra Nevada might make three). Between those capabilities and the work of Bigelow Aerospace to develop space station tech using inflatable tech — it’s conceivable that creating a successor to the ISS would be possible as a U.S. government only (or even U.S. commercial companies only) would be both possible and desirable. This could produce a station that allowed the research of the ISS to continue but at a vastly lower cost to operate.
Answer:
It depends on who you ask and what criteria you are using to define ‘good idea’. Making the ISS ‘international’ increased the cost of creating and running the station… but then spread that increased cost among more nations. Without the Russian components, for example — NASA would have had to create one or more additional modules, as the Zarya and Zvezda were required components of the station. The Columbus (ESA) and Kibo (JAXA) modules provide additional utility to the ISS, but are not required as such.