Criticisms and Concerns

A broad spectrum of criticisms and concerns accompanied Russian inclusion on the ISS. Some voiced dismay over the move from a 28-degree orbit inclination to one of 51.6 degrees, questioning the expense of a Shuttle retrofit for an Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (ASRM). Others voiced concerns that the Americans might make themselves dependent upon another nation for ISS access or assembly, still others insisted on maintaining a leading edge in aerospace technologies above all else.

Congressman Sensenbrenner worried that NASA might use these changes to eke more money from appropriations, stating: “[N]ow, I think that increasing the inclination of the orbit. . . is going to cost money, and perhaps lots of money, because the higher the orbit, the more thrust is necessary with the rockets.” He continued asking, “Does this money come out of the existing NASA bud­get? And if so which programs will be cut? Or does the Administration plan to request a supplemental appropriation so that the lift capacity of the shuttle and the other Western rockets would be able to comport with sending a space station into a significantly higher orbit?”69 Sensenbrenner noted the fact that not only was NASA placing Russia on the critical path, they were paying the RSA directly for services—“something never considered with long-time allies.”70

Noting that the House of Representatives had already voted down the ASRM, Sensenbrenner voiced his concern over the flow of American dollars to Russia: “As the Cold War ends, a chilling irony remains. Even though some say America won the Cold War, it is clear from looking at space policy that the spoils of vic­tory are going to Russia.”71

Dana Rohrabacher, another member of the House, disagreed with Sensenbrenner over his concerns with the new ISS orbit. He pressed for total dependence on Russian launch vehicles. The real problem, he observed, was people who were overcommitted to the Space Shuttle (which he described as the most overpriced transport system in the history of man). Rohrabacher sug­gested that the use of the Energia Rocket system would “actually bring down the cost to the taxpayers.” Cooperation with the Russians, he predicted, “will not cost American jobs and [it] will not cost taxpayers for us to work with these new friends and to help cement democracy in what was the Soviet Union.” He cautioned instead against spending “hundreds of millions of dollars more on an antiquated space shuttle system.”72

Congressman Bacchus, on the other hand, supported cooperation in concept as good economic, foreign, and domestic policy. He added that, all the same, “my very strong view is that we must continue to focus on protecting American jobs, American technology, and an independent American space program even as we strive for cooperation with the Russians in space.” The United States must remain the senior partner with the Soviets, he cautioned, and it should not place the Russian Federation on the critical path. He suggested instead that coopera­tion with Russia be based on the same approach as that invoked with the other foreign partners: “I would like to see us design something in which we could plug in the Russians if they are around to be plugged in.”73

Under the auspices of the 1994-1998 Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission talks, NASA broke historic precedent, doing business with Russia in a substan­tially different manner. By taking on the Russian Space Agency as a subcontrac­tor for the International Space Station, officials made a notable exception to the “no exchange of funds” tenet of NASA’s international cooperation. In the August 1993 Economic and Technological Agreement on US-Russian Space Station Cooperation, NASA promised to compensate the Russian Space Agency $305 million in exchange for US astronauts’ training and time aboard the Russian Mir space station. This money was disbursed to the RSA in FY1995-1997—a cru­cial time for the Russians, who by then were not only maintaining and improving the aging Mir, but also developing their contributions to the ISS. US officials pre­sumed that much of the $305 million would be plowed back in Mir hardware for safety improvements, general maintenance, and retrofitting for Shuttle docking.

In June 1994, NASA released a joint statement on space station cooperation. It explained that “[a] definitized Contract Agreement was signed between the NASA and RSA for up to $400m of goods and services to be provided during Shuttle-Mir operations and during the early international Space Station assembly phase.”74 Thus, between 1993 and 1994 both US and Russian representatives realized that funds dispersed in and through Shuttle-Mir were intended to ease the financial burden of delivering space station equipment and services. While the $305 million was intended to support Mir systems upgrades, to help fund the docking module for Shuttle-Mir, and to help cover the added expenses of training and expanded management, the additional $95 million was considered a direct contribution toward the expense of “Phase II” activities, in particular, early development of ISS components. These included but were not limited to design costs for the joint airlock, service module, FGB Energy blok, power mast, Soyuz/ACRV.75 (See table 8.2 for a detailed listing of Shuttle-Mir, ISS, and other collaborative projects covered by this contract.)