“Ralpha” Space Station Plan Takes Flight
The anxiously-awaited plans for a joint U.S.-Russian space station were revealed by the Clinton Administration last week. Informally called “Ralpha,” the joint station would link the U.S.-led space station “Alpha” with an upgraded Russian station. The Clinton proposal lays out a three-phase strategy for U.S.-Russian cooperation in space, culminating in a “world” space station effort involving the U.S., Russia, Japan, Canada, and Europe. The plan is described in an addendum to the “Program Implementation Plan” for Alpha.
The international space station would enable a permanent human presence in space by October 2001, two years earlier than the U.S.'s plan for Alpha alone. According to NASA, the joint facility would provide additional advantages over Alpha: 40 kilowatts more power, 25 percent more enclosed volume, a total of six crew rather than four, a better microgravity environment, and better Earth Observation from the 51.6 degree orbit. NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin estimated that it would save the United States $3 to $4 billion, mainly due to the shortened construction schedule.
The three-phase plan would begin with enhanced cooperation between the U.S. and Russia on shuttle flights and Russia’s MIR space station. This level of cooperation was agreed to last year, with the U.S. promising to pay Russia $100 million a year for four years for hardware and services. Phase I will include astronaut and cosmonaut exchanges, shuttle missions to MIR, and enhanced U.S. and Russian research on MIR.
Phase II will be an advanced orbital research facility with an early human-tended capability (by 1997.) Intended to become operational by the end of MIR-1’s useful lifetime, this phase will couple a second-generation MIR station with a U.S. lab. According to the proposal, this will eventually become “the core around which the international space station will be constructed.”
Phase III is the complete international space station, which will support permanent human presence by 2001, and have full operational and research capability. Designed to have an operational lifetime of about ten years, the station will be serviceable by both U.S. and Russian vehicles. Plans for assembly require 19 shuttle launches and 12 Russian booster launches. (This assumes an upgraded shuttle with an aluminum lithium tank and various performance enhancements, but without the Advanced Solid Rocket Motor.)
All command and control operations for the international station would be under the direction of NASA’s Mission Control Center at Houston, which would also maintain responsibility for overall program coordination, systems engineering integration, and safety. Back-up operations capability would be provided by the Russian Space Agency at Kaliningrad.
The proposal states that “the roles and responsibilities” of the U.S.'s current International Partners as determined by the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) and Memoranda of Understanding “will remain unchanged.” For Phases II and III, Russia will become a full International Partner and adhere to the existing IGA.
“Pending internal governmental procedures and final governmental decisions, and concurrence of the space station partners,” the proposal says, “it is anticipated that Russia and the U.S. will develop and conclude an interim arrangement by December 15, 1993.” Signing of the arrangement is expected to take place during a December trip to Moscow by Vice President Gore.
The reaction to the proposal by Members of Congress is difficult to anticipate. Senate VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee chair Barbara Mikulski has concerns about the level of Russian participation. As reported in FYI #134, the fiscal year 1994 budget language for NASA included a clause capping the amount of space station money NASA can spend until Congress has reviewed the joint station proposal.
While the ideas of a “world” space station and a “new world order” of cooperation with Russia seem to have buoyed support for the station, yet another congressional challenge is expected next week when further cuts to the FY94 budget are considered.
