Norm Hartnett - 25/8/2006 10:50 AM1. We are still talking ten years, ITAR is already under attack as a short sighted ineffectual program that is doing more to hurt US science and industry than it is hindering "The Enemy".2. Hopefully the US systems can be switched over to local monitoring/control and/or the communications and control could be duplicated at ESA/Russian/JAXA centers.3. So you are conceding that the "army on the ground" is mostly a non issue except for the JSC MCC folks? 4. You keep saying "own the hardware" do you actually think the US will refuse to turn over the hardware if they abandon the ISS while our partners want to continue operations?5. MIR was not abandoned because it was getting old, it was abandoned because Russia could not afford to operate it at the time.
mong' - 25/8/2006 10:02 AMI think that would be the best idea, you don't just throw away something like the ISS, it would be great for other space agencies to have it, after all it is the "international" space station.
MKremer - 25/8/2006 11:28 AMIsn't most of that stuff "added" and not permanent hardware, though,? If so, would it be possible to strip the restricted and U.S.-centric stuff from Destiny (and maybe some from Node 1) without having to break up the station configuration and still keep it functioning as far as power/environment/control/comms go?
Avron - 25/8/2006 11:30 AMJimThere is zero chance that the US will pull out of the ISS and take kill a functioning ISS while the rest of the world is using it... if the US does not want US scam gear handed over.. if they where to pull out of the ISS... that gear can be switched to gear from other partners...
Norm Hartnett - 25/8/2006 11:39 AM Destiny ought to make a good bunk room. (US National Laboratory and Bunkroom, nice)
Jim - 25/8/2006 10:43 AMSo you would want a hacker to get control of the station or a tabloid listen in on the crew's medical conference? All of NASA spacecraft have scam gear on them.
Norm Hartnett - 25/8/2006 12:37 PMPutting proprietary equipment and software on an international project that can not be shared with the partners is irresponcible and dishonest.
tgrundke - 25/8/2006 12:29 PMWe are neglecting the ability of 3rd party/private organizations to take up the lead for NASA and continue to maintain the station.