US & Russian participation on the International Space Station.

[Jehanne]

Does it make sense that the United States is supplying high-tech weapons to Ukraine so that they can resist the Russian invasion of their homeland while continuing to participate with the Russians on the International Space Station:

EarthSky -- Leaky Soyuz at ISS in ‘good working order,’ NASA says

Why not have some moral backbone and ditch the ISS?  Bring all Americans and our equipment back ASAP and be done with it?!

[zebo-the-fat]

OK, so then the USA would have to beg the Chinese to use their space station if they wanted to do anything in low Earth orbit.

[Anomalocaris]

Does it make sense that the United States is supplying high-tech weapons to Ukraine so that they can resist the Russian invasion of their homeland while continuing to participate with the Russians on the International Space Station:

EarthSky -- Leaky Soyuz at ISS in ‘good working order,’ NASA says

Why not have some moral backbone and ditch the ISS?  Bring all Americans and our equipment back ASAP and be done with it?!

Bring American equipment back?  With what?

Also, it is a nominally international space station, so nominally the other partners besides Russia gets a nominal say.

The entire attitude of the US on Ukraine is not about moral back bone, but about realities of power.  Ditching the international space station would not not a power move.     That would leave the US, which it thinks is the rightful rule setter and entitled top dog on the world, without a space station, and China, the hateful opponent who doesn’t think the US is the natural rule setter forever, with one.

[Jehanne]

OK, so then the USA would have to beg the Chinese to use their space station if they wanted to do anything in low Earth orbit.

The Orion spacecraft could be used. Besides, what experiments still need to be performed in low Earth orbit?

[Jehanne]

Does it make sense that the United States is supplying high-tech weapons to Ukraine so that they can resist the Russian invasion of their homeland while continuing to participate with the Russians on the International Space Station:

EarthSky -- Leaky Soyuz at ISS in ‘good working order,’ NASA says

Why not have some moral backbone and ditch the ISS?  Bring all Americans and our equipment back ASAP and be done with it?!

Bring American equipment back?  With what?

Also, it is a nominally international space station, so nominally the other partners besides Russia gets a nominal say.

The entire attitude of the US on Ukraine is not about moral back bone, but about realities of power.  Ditching the international space station would not not a power move.     That would leave the US, which it thinks is the rightful rule setter and entitled top dog on the world, without a space station, and China, the hateful opponent who doesn’t think the US is the natural rule setter forever, with one.

American equipment will come back with the American astronauts, whatever they can carry. The pukes can have the rest. If the US does not have a space station, so what?? We have the sole 5 spacecraft on hyperbolic trajectories that will leave our Solar System, forever. The United States' legacy as a spacefaring power is secured, forever. We have nothing to prove, to anyone.

We should abandon the ISS, the sooner, the better.

[Anomalocaris]

Bring American equipment back?  With what?

Also, it is a nominally international space station, so nominally the other partners besides Russia gets a nominal say.

The entire attitude of the US on Ukraine is not about moral back bone, but about realities of power.  Ditching the international space station would not not a power move.     That would leave the US, which it thinks is the rightful rule setter and entitled top dog on the world, without a space station, and China, the hateful opponent who doesn’t think the US is the natural rule setter forever, with one.

American equipment will come back with the American astronauts, whatever they can carry.  The pukes can have the rest.  If the US does not have a space station, so what??  We have the sole 5 spacecraft on hyperbolic trajectories that will leave our Solar System, forever.  The United States' legacy as a spacefaring power is secured, forever.  We have nothing to prove, to anyone.

We should abandon the ISS, the sooner, the better.

Actually, the whole reason why there is a race with China to land a man on the moon again 53 years after Apollo is America’s legacy as a spacefaring power is only secure in America’s own pride, not at all secure where it in reality counts, which is in its ability to influence American international competitive positions  against its rivals.       In this America’s past legacy as a space faring power with unparalleled accomplishments counts as much as the Maritime prowess of the Phoenicians counts for the global influence of Lebanon.    It’s what the US is seen to be able to do now, and more importantly what others think the US would actually likely to be able to do in the future that counts.      

China’s pitch is eventhough china started much later than the US, China is on track to surpass the US in all fields of space exploration that sounds really cool by the 2040s.   the promised future Chinese stunts include sending planetary and asteroid sample returns, hyperbolic space crafts out of solar system, creating a total sky coverage space telescope image database with the resolutions that Hubble and GWST can only provide for only a tiny fraction of the sky over their service lives, and permanently manned space stations and manned flights to the moon and Mars.    And of course, cutting edge launch capability and launch economy in all weight classes with re-useable space launchers.    The Chinese just completely revamped their rival to the Saturn 5 and space launch system to make theirs super heavy lift rocket re-usable.

So the US would need to show it can continue to deliver more on each of the areas where China is striving to catch up and out do the US.    unilaterally ditching a nominally international space station would clearly not serve the greater national goal of power supported by being perceived as the more desirable, reliable and capable partner than China might be in the foreseeable future.

[Jehanne]

American equipment will come back with the American astronauts, whatever they can carry.  The pukes can have the rest.  If the US does not have a space station, so what??  We have the sole 5 spacecraft on hyperbolic trajectories that will leave our Solar System, forever.  The United States' legacy as a spacefaring power is secured, forever.  We have nothing to prove, to anyone.

We should abandon the ISS, the sooner, the better.

So the US would need to show it can continue to deliver more on each of the areas where China is striving to catch up and out do the US.    Ditching a nominally international space station would clearly not serve the greater national goal of power.

The Universe and even the Solar System are so vast that no nation will be able to explore everything, even if that is all that they did. If China wants to be "first", so what!??

[Anomalocaris]

So the US would need to show it can continue to deliver more on each of the areas where China is striving to catch up and out do the US.    Ditching a nominally international space station would clearly not serve the greater national goal of power.

The Universe and even the Solar System are so vast that no nation will be able to explore everything, even if that is all that they did.  If China wants to be "first", so what!??

China doesn’t just want to be first.   China wants, as the US and USSR wanted during the Cold War,to be perceived as a more promising long term partner in space endeavors because the she is seen as the ascending power with not only adequate capability and reliability now, but greater long term growth potential in the future.  Ie, you can reliably accomplish more in space in the long run if you build a partnership with China rather than the US.  

Ditching ISS would be an immediate shot in the own partnership reliability foot for the US, and also be perceived as a shot in the manned capability foot since the US would have no other manned mission until Artemis lands a man on the moon, which at current funding levels might not happen for a number of years.    In any case, people who look at space travels as more than a feather in cap would perceive manned space station as the bread and butter and raisin d’etre of manned space travel, lunar landing is just a stunt.

[Anomalocaris]

So the US would need to show it can continue to deliver more on each of the areas where China is striving to catch up and out do the US.    Ditching a nominally international space station would clearly not serve the greater national goal of power.

The Universe and even the Solar System are so vast that no nation will be able to explore everything, even if that is all that they did.  If China wants to be "first", so what!??

Also, another more subtle, but as sure as the sunset, evolution in the legal framework of space travel is the superficial bonhomie that existed since the dawn of space travel which proclaims space to belong to no one nation or private organization and to be a common patrimony of all mankind is slowly coming to an end.    We don’t want to perceive to be the one that ends it because of the optics, but we are certainly the one subtly driving the move to end it because for the moment our advantage in capability make it seems to us that we stand to benefit the most from its ending.   So gradually all solar system will not be free for all to explore.   Legal frameworks will be set up for nations and cooperations to cordon off parts of the solar system for exclusive economic benefit.   

To be able to assert this against China - the single nation most likely to possess both the capability and weight to contest our claims - the US needs to be seen as more desirable and reliable space partner by more nations than China.   So ditching ISS could potentially have more weight downstream consequences,