Roscosmos says: ISS until 2024, then go separate ways

[Sampa]

Yeah, I asked because, the planes you fly in the modern world use 70s technology

[Kibble]

the planes you fly in the modern world use 70s technology

I think Xeno's point is that said jet planes aren't actually decades old (though built with 70s era technology)

[xenomorph555]

I think Xeno's point is that said jet planes aren't actually decades old (though built with 70s era technology)

A bit of both, a 15 year old jet built with 70's era technology is bound to have some problems and magnified when talking about space stations.

[Sampa]

fair enough...point well taken. Although, one of the most serious situations was caused by the station's own internal systems. The other was caused by a failure on the ground (crash of the Progress cargo capsule into Mir's solar panels and one of its modules).

[PakledHostage]

I think Xeno's point is that said jet planes aren't actually decades old (though built with 70s era technology)

I think you might be surprised... And while the media likes to make a fuss about 40 year old aircraft still being in regular service, most of those 20-40 year old aircraft are in better shape than your average 5 year old car. The difference is that aircraft (unlike spacecraft and cars) get better maintenance.

[Sampa]

I think you might be surprised... And while the media likes to make a fuss about 40 year old aircraft still being in regular service, most of those 20-40 year old aircraft are in better shape than your average 5 year old car. The difference is that aircraft (unlike spacecraft and cars) get better maintenance.

And you can thank the guys like me (when I get my A&P license) for that!

[Kryten]

fair enough...point well taken. Although, one of the most serious situations was caused by the station's own internal systems. The other was caused by a failure on the ground (crash of the Progress cargo capsule into Mir's solar panels and one of its modules).

That wasn't a ground failure. Progress docking is usually autonomous, but in this case they were testing a system for manual control from the station.

[Greenfire32]

stupid question: does anybody besides us Americans and the Russians even use the ISS anymore? Or is it mostly just the American/Russian "High Flyers Exclusive Clubhouse?"

[Sampa]

At this exact moment, only Russia and NASA uses it. However, preparations are being made to retrofit some new docking ports for some civilian companies to be able to access the station. Now, whether it is going to continue being maintained as a science outpost until retirement and then dropped back to Earth or instead turned over to the civilian population and reused as a space hotel (as were some plans for the ISS predecessor: Mir), I cannot say for sure.

Woot! 777th post!

[Kryten]

There's a JAXA and ESA module each, although each are legislatively american. ESA, CSA and JAXA astronauts go up every so often; again, they're legally treated as US crew members. JAXA provides HTV in return, CSA Canadarm, and ESA used to provide ATV and is going to provide the Orion SM is return. Also people can occasionally, when the schedule allows, pay for short visits; these people are legally russian crewmembers, though none so far have actually been russian citizens.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Kryten

[FishInferno]

stupid question: does anybody besides us Americans and the Russians even use the ISS anymore? Or is it mostly just the American/Russian "High Flyers Exclusive Clubhouse?"

Considering that only Russia can get there and back with people (currently), I would say that it is Russia's High Flier Exclusive Clubhouse. And even is NASA does pay for most of it, Russia could just flat-out deny us crewed access if they wanted.

[Mazon Del]

Denying the US access would be a fascinating legal issue. Namely, it would TECHNICALLY constitute an act of war. My understanding of space law (which is by no means definitive) is that while you cannot own celestial bodies (like the moon, asteroids, etc) the things that you put up there are in fact your property unless sold. An addendum to that is actually that the question of 'What countries common law applies on the ISS?' is answered by 'If you are in a section owned by the US, US common law applies, if you are in the Russian sections, Russian common law applies.'. This is because effectively the inside of modules is pretty much legally considered the sovereign territory of the country that owns the module.

Therefor, if Russia were to declare 'Nope, US cannot use the ISS anymore.' this would constitute, in the court of international law, a land grab. Annexation of US territory.

It would....certainly be an interesting problem.

[Kryten]

It would be breach of contract, but I'm pretty sure that's about it. The ISS isn't land, and even if it was stopping people from crossing your territory to enter it a bit isn't the same as annexation. Of course this is academic anyway, as cosmonauts would have no real clue how to maintain the US segment and the RUOS isn't self-sufficient.

[J.Random]

Does that mean that Japan invades everyone else's territory with humanoid robots from time to time?

[Albert VDS]

I was talking about Mir sized stations not MIR itself, and of course it had some incidents as it was 15 years old using 80's technology.

Of course it was old, but the ISS is older(not by much). Ok, not all modules are 16 years old, but the ones that are aren't "trying to kill the crew".

Money was the biggest problem MIR faced and the reason it was orbited.

The ISS isn't land, and even if it was stopping people from crossing your territory to enter it a bit isn't the same as annexation.

In terms of the Outer Space Treaty, States on whose registry an object launched into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over such object, and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a celestial body. Therefore, except where agreed otherwise by States (for example, in the case of joint projects) personnel of spacecraft in outer space are subject to the laws of the State of registry.

Source

So yes, you can consider it as land.

[Kryten]

Jurisdiction and control is not the same as land rights, or else you could annex a ship.

[Dkmdlb]

Denying the US access would be a fascinating legal issue. Namely, it would TECHNICALLY constitute an act of war.

Come on. Are you really qualified to make that claim?

[Bill Phil]

I thought all space was considered to be similar to International Waters...

[cpast]

I thought all space was considered to be similar to International Waters...

It is. And a ship in international waters is the sovereign territory of its flag state (international waters isn't a law-free zone; the law of a ship's flag state applies on board that ship).

[Bill Phil]

It is. And a ship in international waters is the sovereign territory of its flag state (international waters isn't a law-free zone; the law of a ship's flag state applies on board that ship).

So, the Russians can kick the USA off the Russian segment? But not the whole station?

[cpast]

So, the Russians can kick the USA off the Russian segment? But not the whole station?

Not quite: the US and Russia have a treaty saying, among other things, that

5. Each Partner shall assure access to and use of its Space Station elements to the other Partners in accordance with their respective allocations.

That generally supersedes normal sovereignty rules; Russia is in breach of the treaty if they refuse to let the US use ROS. The more detailed MoU between the agencies says that the agencies have to let their partners have access to their transportation systems (on a reimbursable basis). Russia can't legally kick the US out except by giving notice of withdrawal (which has to be at least one year's notice). They are expected to negotiate a withdrawal agreement, after which they can pull out their modules if they so choose. Russia doesn't own USOS, and can't control what the US does with it if they pull out; if they pull out they don't have to launch US astronauts, but the US can still launch US astronauts. If Russia withdraws, they also lose their rights to access USOS, because NASA owns USOS (they have treaty access, but if they leave the treaty they lose it).

In practice...well, this is a treaty, and the question is "how much do treaties bind countries?" Russia and the US both have a very strong interest in not screwing around with the ISS (bad things happen when your mission controls are fighting each other), and denying the US access means they're in breach of a treaty obligation (which has about as much force as any other treaty obligation, plus means they lose any money from NASA that they get from the ISS program). Suffice it to say that Russia legally can't deny the US access to ROS or Soyuz without withdrawing from the ISS agreement (which requires one years' notice), and Russia and the US have a strong history of cooperation in space, and messing around with politics with a joint crewed space mission is a really bad idea, and the people who run the programs understand this.

[magnemoe]

It would be breach of contract, but I'm pretty sure that's about it. The ISS isn't land, and even if it was stopping people from crossing your territory to enter it a bit isn't the same as annexation. Of course this is academic anyway, as cosmonauts would have no real clue how to maintain the US segment and the RUOS isn't self-sufficient.

This, ISS would be like an boat or more accurate an installation in international water owned by both.

[Mazon Del]

Come on. Are you really qualified to make that claim?

Qualified? Certainly not. However as others showed, depending on how you read the laws, then in the most stringent of cases you treat modules you own as sovereign territory (land). And in the most relaxed of circumstances you treat it as though it were a ship flagged by your nation. Stealing/annexing the module in either case is an act of war. Now don't get me wrong, just because someone commits an act of war doesn't mean that war breaks out. It basically means that if you decide to fight over it, you DO have something the international community recognizes as a 'valid reason' for going to war. My point is that it counts. Usually in such situations people get a little...annoyed. Thus the statement.

Lets say Russia were to declare the ISS is theirs, no US astronauts are going up to it anymore and they will be denying non-soyuz docking. They could probably make it happen in the current world. NASA would likely continue on working with them to keep the ISS running in the hopes that things would fix themselves. The US would use it as an excuse to pour hideous amounts of guns onto the Ukrainians, and would add more sanctions to Russia. I could even see the possibility (very, VERY low possibility) that maybe they try to forcibly retake it. It wouldn't be that hard to get to a stalemate situation. "We've got a shaped charge on it. We go back to the way things were, or we poke it full of holes you won't be fixing." Chances are though, we'd just stick with the sanctions and guns. Don't get political about if the US should or should not do the guns part, just accept that it's the strongest thing the US could do against Russia right now and we'd be in full on vengeance mode.

[Sampa]

Hence why America needs its own ship to get to the ISS

[Mazon Del]

There are many reasons we need our own way to get there, but to prevent Russia from stealing it is somewhat on the lower end. Even with all the posturing between us, there really isn't much chance of one of us actually taking the ISS 'by force'. If anything we might just offer to buy the Russian modules if we really wanted them.