Online NewsHour:

Other than Russia and the U.S., what contributions have been made by the other participating nations?

DR. DAVE AKIN: All 13 partner nations in the International Space Station contribute technology and components appropriate for their national technology skills and level of investment. For example, Canada became a leading nation in space robotics by contributing the large Remote Manipulator System (robot arm) used on the space shuttle. Their contribution to the International Space Station is a larger and more capable robot arm, along with a complete robotic maintenance system called the Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator, or SPDM. Much more information on international contributions, and in fact on all aspects of the ISS program, is available on NASA's Space Station Web site.

Online NewsHour:

What are the goals of this project?

DR. DAVE AKIN: That depends a lot on the individual you're talking to at the moment. Life sciences and microgravity researchers certainly see it as an end in itself, as a laboratory for advanced space research. Many in the space community see it as a necessary learning experience prior to sending humans to Mars, both from the technical side (keeping humans alive and well in space for months or years at a time) as well as operational (learning to work in an environment with other cultures from all over the planet.)

Online NewsHour:

Where did the idea for an international space station originate and why was it pursued? Was it a political decision?

DR. DAVE AKIN: The idea of shared international exploration of space dates back at least to the beginning of this century, with a fictional account of space travel written by Konstantin Tsiolkowsky, a Russian generally credited with being the "Father of Astronautics". The American Space Shuttle program has had strong international elements from its inception, and it was only natural to continue and expand these relationships for the Space Station program. The major change was forming a full partnership with Russia in the early 90's; I don't think too many people would object if this were called a political decision, as it kept the Space Station program alive in the U.S. Congress during some trying times.

Online NewsHour:

Due to all the delays by Russia and its financial crisis, should America or other nations have been given the chance to take over Russia's role in the project? Has Russia been unable to fulfill its obligation as a partner in the space station?

DR. DAVE AKIN: It depends on what you feel is an ethical way to treat a "partner". Certainly, if Russia were "just another contractor", NASA would have long ago pulled out and assigned their hardware to someone else. Russia, on the other hand, is a sovereign nation with a lot more experience operating space stations than we (Americans) have. Being understanding of the economic difficulties in Russia and helping them out on cash shortfalls can also be looked at as protecting our partners in their time of need. (On the other hand, there are voices saying that we are ignoring too much of the Russian experience in the way we're developing ISS, which is an entirely separate issue...)

Online NewsHour:

What happens if module 1 and 2 are sent up, and #3 isn't ready before the 400-day time limit?

DR. DAVE AKIN: NASA is already supporting the Naval Research Laboratory in the development of the Interim Control Module, which could replace the Russian Service module for period of time while Russia finishes their work. Probably a bigger issue is that NASA needs to continue to fly 5-6 shuttle missions per year to keep their crews trained and up to speed on flight operations. Most of the shuttle missions on the manifest for the next five years are Space Station support flights, and if station is delayed for a significant period of time, NASA will be hard pressed to find payloads to fill shuttle bays on short notice.

Online NewsHour:

Are Russia's problems overshadowing or diminishing the contribution of other nations?

DR. DAVE AKIN: I think it's fair to say that Russia's problems are overshadowing the entire space station program, at least in terms of news coverage. It's frustrating as a space enthusiast to only see Space Station coverage in the context of "Is Russia going to fulfull their part of the bargain?", without any discussion of the real (and significant) technical and programmatic challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.

Online NewsHour:

Is it financially efficient? Is there another way to find out this information?

DR. DAVE AKIN: Frankly, no, Space Station is not "cost-effective". But let's be fair here, NOTHING in space (except for information-based technology, like communications satellites and the Global Positioning System) is going to be cost-effective as long as the price of getting into space is calculated in terms of tens of thousands of dollars per pound in orbit.

In my personal opinion, we won't see many changes in the cost effectiveness of space exploration as long as the major aerospace companies can make many millions of dollars in profit selling launch vehicles that cost hundreds of millions of dollars per flight. For that reason, I believe the true future of space exploration lies with one or more of the "lunatic fringe" - a dozen or more companies that have been created in the last decade with the goal of dropping the cost of getting into orbit by a factor of 10 or more. When the cost for getting into space reaches $300-$500/pound, we won't be having discussions about the cost effectiveness of the International Space Station, we'll be buying tickets to spend a week in orbit as a tourist. (The language of choice in the hotel will probably be Japanese, though.)

Online NewsHour:

Has the public shown support for this project? Has John Glenn's mission affected public support in any way?

DR. DAVE AKIN: My observation is that, by and large, the American public is very interested in, and supportive of, space exploration. (This is ESPECIALLY true of young people, from preschool through college students!) However, we seem to have evolved a form of "governance by hot-button issues" - the issues that receive the most attention are those where a significant fraction of the voting public is monomaniacally passionate about it. Nobody is a single-issue voter on space issues; no one calls their congressperson and says, "If you don't vote in favor of space exploration, I'm going to spend my time, energy, and money making sure you get defeated in the next election."

The American public seems to like the idea of space in a vague and unfocused manner, and our representatives have given us a vague and unfocused program. (If you don't believe this, look at the plans from the early 1970's on where we would be in space today if we had maintained the support and enthusiasm of the Apollo program. For that matter, contrast the space development forecast in the movie "2001" - which seemed completely reasonable when it was released in 1968 - to the miniscule space presence we will actually have when 2001 comes around.)