Part 1: RSC Energia: Transcript of the telecast “Good Afternoon” about Mir and ISS on ORT channel l, 2 Feb 2001
| Announcer: |
Let’s continue our talk about the Mir orbital station. At first It is already as many as 70% of those who sent us their opinions First of all, I would like to ask the following question. Is |
| Anfimov: | It starts falling immediately after being injected into orbit and flying at such a high altitude. Sometimes it descends by 200 m a day, in some cases it falls by 400, 500 m. So it is a normal process. |
| Announcer: | It is not for the first time that we reboosted the Mir station to raise its orbit. |
| Solovyov: | Throughout the whole 15-year period we maintained regularly its specific orbit. |
| Announcer: | Why did you all of a sudden decide against maintaining the Mir station on orbit? Give me each your opinion once again and in brief. Why don’t we need the Mir station anymore in 2001, when the 3rd Millennium starts? |
| Solovyov: | Well, I would not put the question in the sense that the station is not needed any longer. Unfortunately, any technology becomes obsolete, it is a matter of common knowledge. Any equipment can, in principle, be reclaimed. An interesting question arises in this connection: how much will this refurbishment cost or, perhaps, it would be more reasonable to reevaluate its cost, design a brand-new equipment and operate it at higher efficiency? You see, it might be possible to maintain somehow the Mir station in a decent state, for example, remove the core module, replace it with a new one by investing enormous sums of money, billions of roubles, hundreds of millions US dollars in this undertaking. But the question arises: Is there any sense in it, whether it is advisable, is it a paying business? It is my understanding that all space explorations are aimed at making mankind’s life easier and better, aren’t they? |
| Announcer: | It is obvious that the decision has been made and the station splashdown will be implemented. In this connection, I want all our TV viewers and myself to change our attitude to this event, because the Mir station over the 15 years of its existence has become a sort of symbol for us, a symbol of statehood, respect for the country, power and we abandon this symbol. As You dwell upon the reasons for the station splashdown during the entire broadcast, I will receive calls from our TV viewers if possible. Long-distance call. Good afternoon! You are on the air. What would you like to tell our guests? |
| TV viewer: | Hello! It is Dmitry from Uglich calling. I watch with keen interest you talking on this subject. On the whole, I would like to find out if this talks on the air will lead to any results? Is it possible to save the station? Is there anything that could be done about it? Thank you. |
| Announcer: | Answer the question? Can the talks bring to any result? In my understanding, the result means being aware of what is happening and why it is happening. Perhaps, the TV viewers means something else by it? |
| Alexeyev: | I’ll tell you what. You know, it is the second governmental decision on the Mir station splashdown. The first decision was taken back in 1998; in May 1998 the Mir station was to be destroyed. But the public opinion was formed against it, just what you mentioned now. It was natural. Also Yuri Pavlovich Semenov, General Designer, stood his ground saying that it was not reasonable to destroy the Mir station, that the station could operate until it reached a 15-year service life. And the objective confirming that the manned stations could really exist at least 15 years was understandable. Is the situation any different now? With the public support available, time is practically lost. Both General Designer and RSC Energia realize that the situation cannot be improved, because there is no financial backup in the amount sufficient to provide a normal financing process. If this annual financing was approved and 1.5 bn roubles were appropriated to save the Mir station as was earlier foreseen, then, I think, this question would not be opened today. |
|
Announcer: |
We say that the time is lost, but imply the money. Have we lost the time regarding engineering capabilities? My question to You is the following: Have the Mir station passed that critical point following which it would be impossible to boost it into higher orbit, even if an enormous sum of money was found as if with a wave of a wand? And we would say: ‘Yes, we shall invest again in this station’. I know that you worked on such a program and you did the corresponding calculations. |
| Malyshev: | The point is that it is not without reason that the two decisions were taken. Maybe the first decision was not well thought out, the second decision was taken. I think that the third one is possible. Now let’s move on to the engineering capabilities. The cargo vehicle, which is injected into orbit, instead of braking the station could raise its orbit so high that station would be able to exist another half a year. During this a half-year period we could solve the problem of using stationary plasma engines or any other technology. We can offer now about seven various technologies for this purpose. There are some of them, which have not been employed even at the International Space Station. I mean that the time is not lost yet. The only thing we need is to have enough courage to turn a plane by 180*’ as our politician Yevgeny Maximovich Primakov did. It is not too late to do it. Next I think that there are an awfully lot of politics, stir about it. Let us suppose that the station lost attitude control. The Flight Director says: ‘We did so-and-so, therefore, the problem seems to have been solved.’ Then next, even more responsible person takes the floor. He says: ‘The station lost control.’ And makes no comment. Everybody is under the impression that nobody knows what to do. |
| Announcer: | Did you hear the comments? Has the station ever lost attitude control before? |
| Solovyov: | Such failures used to occur at the station and can happen any time, because it is a sophisticated space technology and it is a normal practise. However, as the Flight Director I can state that irreversible, as we say, events have been developing on the station, especially on the central core module, since last summer or during the last six months. Let us take, for example, thermal control system. It contains lots of pipelines welded securely to the body of the station. As these pipelines ‘grow older’ their tightness deteriorates. This tightness (pressure integrity) could be restored, despite the fact that 80% of the station surface cannot be repaired on the inside, because they are closed by the instruments. These instruments should be removed, but it would cost a pretty sum of money. Just imagine having heat supply, air-conditioning and other systems in your flat completely altered! Next comes the problem of the so-called inadvertent passage of commands, which manifested itself last summer, especially last fall. The remarks on this inadvertent passage of commands grew rapidly in number. The term may seem not quite clear to those who are not involved in space-related activities, but it may happen so that we are sitting at our desks, flying and at this time the light will go out. What if the main engine is fired? The main engine will be fired on its own, some commands will be generated inadvertently and all our people at MCC along with crew members will be deep in thought and guessing: ‘How is that? How long?’ |
| Announcer: | How can we save the lives of those who are flying on orbit? That is to say, reducing the above mentioned to a common denominator, one can say that ‘the game is not worth the candle’ (as our saying runs). Have you any comments? |
| Anfimov: | No comments. I just want to focus on the two aspects of this problem. The first aspect concerns establishing proper relationship between what we need to do to extend the station life (bearing in mind its economic potential) and what we shall get in return. But the second aspect being ignored for same reason is our responsibility for a possible environmental impact upon the Earth in the event of our failure to deorbit the station in a controlled way. Under international law it is the Russian Government who is considered responsible for the aftereffects rather than those currently present in the studio, cosmonauts, people, RSC Energia. |
| Announcer: | You see, we are receiving the correspondence from 98 countries. On the whole, our foreign correspondents are concerned about impact area of the Mir station. If we don’t give proper attention to what is going on, all normal processes, its fall trajectory, the press will make a stir. For instance, last year it was rumoured that the station would fall to Paris. Where will the station fall? |
| Anfimov: | As I represent the primary institute of Rosaviakosmos engaged in the entire complex of the above problems, it is safe to say that if the station is left to its own resources, then the station will fall to any location of the Earth with an equal degree of probability limited by the parallels of 52* NL and 52* SL. Moscow is outside this impact area. The station will not fall on Moscow. |
| Announcer: | Will you name any big cities so that our TV viewers can imagine? |
| Solovyov: | Paris, Rome, London, Tokyo. |
| Anfimov: | The area covers 85% of the whole Earth. |
| Alexeyev: | Nikolai Apollonovich, the same situation was with the Saliut station. |
| Malyshev: | Let me answer. The thing is that we look at the matter only on one side. That is to say, there is no alternative. We witnessed the fall of the 4 stations: 3 Saliuts, one Skylab. Skylab weighed 77 tons and NASA announced the competition for those who wished to find fragments. No fragments were found. |
| Solovyov: | They brought one and a half tons of the fragments and not the fragments, but rather- |
| Malyshev: | From the Skylab? |
| Solovyov: | Yes, of course. |
| Malyshev: | And, however, no- |
| Announcer: | I am not very good at technical issues as most of our TV viewers, but I am very concerned about personal attitudes towards the station: are you sorry about it? |
| Anfimov: | Of course, I am sorry about it, because it is our pride. It is quite an epoch in the development of Russia. |
| Solovyov: | It is painful to see that such a property is going to pieces. |
| Announcer: | Now let’s remember what the main achievements have been made over the 15 years due to the Mir station. |
| Alexeyev: | May I make a remark on this occasion? |
| Announcer: |
You may do it after the story. We wish to recall in our memory I welcome the guests joining us. This is Pyotr Ilyich Klymuk, |
| Anfimov: | Sitting here I might be very surprised to hear that, although it is not for the first time that Konstantin Petrovich expresses his opinion in this way- |
| Announcer: | Why? What is his logic? |
| Anfimov: | He should have given his viewpoint himself. As a matter of fact, an enormous number, more than 20 thousand experiments have been conducted. In 1997 the Academy of Sciences along with Rosaviakosmos performed a special review of the results produced aboard the Mir station; summarized at many sessions and in different organizations; published a fairly thick volume. Actually, extensive knowledge has been gained. Some people think that science gives nothing at all! You see, it is a narrow-minded view and it pained me to hear these words from are of the pioneers of space exploration. |
| Announcer: | Alexandr Alexandrovich, You have conducted a lot of research at the Mir station, haven’t You? |
| Serebrov: | Yes, you are quite right. I conducted research both at the Mir station, and Saliut station. Here is one thing I would like to show You. It is the same protein. The difference is in that the yellow protein was grown by the US specialists at the Marshall Space Center, while the green protein was produced by the Russian specialists. Our protein was grown under microgravity conditions and returned to Earth. All that was conducted with my participation. You can see it with your own eyes. No comments are needed. It is just one example which argues against the statement of Konstantin Petrivich. |
| Announcer: | That means that the Mir Station has been of see. |
| Serebrov: | Enormous number of new technologies. |
| Announcer: | We say that the station has depleted its service life, hasn’t it? |
| Klymuk: | I shall tell you what. Firstly, as Feoktistov sees it. Of course, it is regrettable to hear all this from Feoktistov, he is cosmonaut himself; he flew one time and got training for the second flight at the Cosmonauts Training Center. What is most striking, he is one of the orbital station developers, developer of the first orbital station. I also got training and one of the pioneers who visited the first orbital station. We have done a lot of work. Serebrov just showed the protein. This example clearly demonstrates the value of space experiments for our economy. Secondly, I would like to add the following. It is all very well to argue, when you are a passive contemplator. You can discuss everything and claim that know all. But when you are directly involved in work, then you must be responsible for it. As our cosmonauts undergo training at the center, I bear responsibility for each person as the Center Director. Of course, I want new flights and the orbital station flying on orbit and continuation of space-related activities for the benefit of people on Earth. However, we also must feel concern about crew safety on the station and here is just- |
| Announcer: | Let’s focus on what justifies the Mir splashdown. What is the most crucial point for you, human safety? |
| Klymuk: | It is very important for me. It is true, the station has been flying long enough. We must understand clearly the following: what if the station control failed? Let’s assume that the station will be in a spinning mode. If a spinning mode is more than 1 degree per second, we shall not be able at the Center to prepare crew for docking and cosmonauts will not dock with it. As Nikolai Apollonovich told, theoretically, it can fall to any location on our planet. We must assume full responsibility for it. Many cosmonauts would like the station to be flying as long as possible. But I repeat again that we must assume full responsibility for it. One may say to a Cosmonaut: ‘Yes, the station will fly’. As the Training Center Director, I must bear responsibility for the people I am training and for where the station will fall. Not only government, but also- |
| Announcer: | I wonder whether our TV viewers are sympathetic to what has been said. Good morning, you are on the air. Speak, please! |
| TV viewer: | Hullo! Good afternoon! |
| Announcer: | Our panelists speak openly about the station splashdown. |
| TV viewer: | In connection with this proposal, Mr Kiselev, the MAI Professor puts forward his proposal to provide moon landing rather than to land it on Earth or sink. |
| Announcer: | Why? |
| TV viewer: | Here is the article in the Soviet Russia newspaper detailing his reasonable statements. |
| Announcer: | Can you answer, why? It would inevitably entail huge expenses. Why should we go to such expenses? |
| TV viewer: | What expenses? |
| Announcer: | It seems to me rather ridiculous to send the Mir to Moon. In addition, it is pretty expensive. It’s no use. |
| Anfimov: | There is no such a launch vehicle that could do it today. |
| Announcer: | But the proposal was made, wasn’t it? Let’s listen to more opinions of the TV viewers. Speak, please. You are on the air. |
| TV viewer: | Good afternoon. The urgent problem in this connection is of ecological character. Can we carry out the station splashdown in the ocean or not? What will be an environmental impact? |
| Announcer: | On Pacific Ocean, in area between New Zealand and Australia. As far as I know, this area was chosen, wasn’t it? |
| Anfimov: | Between Australia and South America. What I can say is that a huge amount of space equipment was sunk in the ocean. But the total quantity is 100 times as much. The Mir Station is not going to fall as the whole structure, it will be split into an enormous quantity of fragments spreading over a distance of 6,000 km. They occupy a wide area- |
| Announcer: | How much stuff has stuck to it during so many years? |
| Soloviyov: | You see, after the burning in atmosphere it will be ‘absolutely sterile’. |
| Announcer: | Within Internet many users put forward unconventional proposals too. Let’s look at them. Here they are. To boost the Mir station into a 800-km orbit and the station will be in perpetual motion. |
| Anfimov: | No, I don’t think it makes any sense. No launch vehicle is available now to reboost it to raise the orbit as high as 800 km. Let’s recall the case with the Saliut-7 station. It was reboosted into higher orbit (460 km) and had to fly by estimate from 8 to 20 years, but fell to Earth 4 years later. The atmospheric conditions are changeable. Flying at a 800-km orbit will not last endlessly and for this purpose huge amount of fuel would be required. Let’s take, for instance, the Progress cargo vehicle docked now to the station for its splashdown. If the Progress vehicle was used to raise the orbit, it would raise by 60 km only. In order to lift the station through so many km, a lot of space vehicles would be required, which are not yet available. |
| Soloviyov: | Excuse my interruption, just a few words. You see, the point is that the Mir station requires permanent supervision even if it is reboosted into a 800-km orbit. It is necessary to occasionally monitor its flight. In what shape is it? How will it be returned to Earth? It seems to me that our descendants will hardly be very glad to get such a "gift". What is more, they will not be able to manage it. We are here having a thorough knowledge of the controlled object (i.e. the Mir station), can foresee a lot of options detailing its splashdown. We can sink it safely, effectively. We are very concerned by it ourselves. Consider a great number of off-nominal situations. If we hand over this safety problem to the next generation 3-5 years later, I am afraid, this generation will not be able to cope with this problem. We must bear responsibility for what we have done ourselves. |
