Hello, Sergey! Our interview was conditioned by the following. On the one hand, at the beginning of the year American investment Bank Goldman Sachs decided that costs of launching ITP into space had drastically reduced. They talk about the reduction by orders of magnitude. On the other hand, public attention throughout the world is focused on Falcon 9 successful vertical landing on the floating drone ship. What is so remarkable and unusual about this ocean landing? Why does it keep public attention?
(
)
To begin with, it should be said that the costs of satellite launches have not reduced. Even if you consider the costs, which SpaceX has or, at least the costs promised by Elon Musk for 2016. If we talk about launching of communications satellites into the so called geostationary transfer orbit, SpaceX forecasts 11 000 dollars for a kilo. Europeans have 20 000 dollars for a kilo. As for our costs, we have about 10 000 dollars for a kilo. These are the costs we are having now. However, in the USA domestic market SpaceX is dropping prices dramatically – by three times, including the costs of launch in state purchase contracts. If we talk about the landing from the point of view of space launch market, especially the market of commercial space launches, this landing won’t affect it. There will be no impact because the market sells neither a rocket nor its technology. It sells space launch services. Space launch service is mass in a definite point with a given reliability. Strictly speaking, reusability decreases reliability. That is why complication increases and rocket technical characteristics are worsening. There is no unequivocal answer to the question how these factors may influence the cost. SpaceX is a secret company. It is not the first reusable system created in the world. Everything new is well-forgotten old. Remember Space Shuttle. It went its way as a reusable stage design. It was the sixties when this took place. Any reusable system justifies itself if it drastically increases payload lunched into space. Let’s say, you were able to launch a hundred, but you have to launch a ton a year. You are in dilemma: either you are to build another 10 plants producing rockets. Because the existing production can’t physically make so many rockets; or you have to build a rocket which will fly 10 times. In 1969 Americans were confronted with this question and decided that they would not build so many plants, but would make a reusable rocket. Space Shuttle was made. Space Shuttle did not justify itself as a reusable transportation means. It was very expensive. Space Shuttle kilo could have been cheaper if the number of launches had exceedingly increased. The number of launches is the problem Space X is confronted with now. It can be commercial launches or state purchase contract launches. 95% of commercial launch market is communications satellite launches.
Do we need so many communications satellites? Satellite cost-effectiveness has been increasing.
Actually the tendency is decreasing because satellite cost-effectiveness is growing. But the most important thing is that satellites compete with ground-based communications. It was quite a different thing when they were rivals with radio relays or with copper wires. When opto fiber appeared in the eighties, a new approach developed and other throughput formed. The main satellite communications market is the USA and Transatlantic market. To make it clear, commercial communications did not emerge from nowhere. The first commercial satellite was built in the USA in 1973. It were the seventies when an artificial market was organized for Space Shuttle though it did not fly at that time. It was under development and production. The project sagged. NASA repositioned Space Shuttle and started to represent it as a cheap rocket. But they were economical with the truth. They specified that Space Shuttle was going to have a cheap price for a kilo. Their idea was to launch commercial satellite and to push the market. They made cheap long-term loans lawfully accepted. As the result, satellite communications operators possessing one satellite sprang up in the USA. It did not matter if they were start-ups or not, it was possible to invest money and buy one apparatus with a launch. There were very many operators. It was so typical of the seventies and eighties. The tendency had increased by 1993 when Bill Clinton came to power. He reduced military expenditures, and large military industrial companies had to enter commercial markets. The nineties had witnessed boom in both launches and satellites up to 1999. Americans, Europeans, the Chinese and others appeared on the market; Russia with its rockets entered the market through American companies. There were forecasts that the market would constantly grow. But in 1999 everything stopped. This happened almost spontaneously and there were several reasons for that. First, some crashes occurred and insurance crisis followed, which was connected with the launch insurance. That is why beginning with 1999 due to the insurance component, recoupment grew from four years period of time to 7-8 years. The Iridium Company, which had built low Earth orbital communications system went bankrupt in 1999. There was another company ‒ Globalstar; at that time, such systems were positioned as an alternative to cellular communications.
Why was Iridium positioned as an alternative to cellular communications?
The story which happened to Iridium was multi-tiered. There is market of low geostationary transfer orbit satellite launches. They talked about 20-40 items a year. The potential market of low orbital launches turned up because satellites were lighter, the orbit was smaller. It became possible to launch satellites with the help of lighter rockets and the number of these satellites amounted to hundreds. The most interesting thing is that Bill Gates said he wanted to make space internet and 1000-2000 satellites. Bill Gates was not expected to tell lies and his forecasts were about 1200 satellites and 10-20% of the market. But everything ceased in 1999. It became clear that these satellite systems could not be price competitive with cellular communications operators. The fact is that when these systems were contemplated, the cost of mobile receiver was 10 000 dollars. Iridium had promised one thousand and they did it, but in 10 years. No doubt, Iridium provides communication in the Sahara Desert and in the Antarctic. But are there many customers? No. In fact, the company was made bankrupt. This was the second reason why the market collapsed. And the third reason was digital compression of radio signal which increased the transmission lines of the existing satellites by 6 times. Simultaneously. Everything happened during a year. After that the market did not grow at all.
And what about space tourism?
What is space tourism? To inhabit Mars? In this case, you really need thousands tons a year. Thousands tons a year now are very unlikely, especially as a business project. Horizon return of these expenditures is 50-100 years. What do 50-100 years mean? Recoupment for commercial satellite is 8 years, so you may compare these investments. I am very skeptical about the feasibility of this service.
Why then does Elon Musk promote the idea of space tourism?
Why do people promote space tourism is an interesting question. The legend says that Iridium was founded for the USA military purposes. As for Musk – why is he doing all this? What does the whole history of cosmonautics say? You make a rocket, its recoupment is about 100 launches during 10-20 years. The first items are very expensive. In addition, Musk has built his own plant. It is clear that recoupment has not been reached yet. Meanwhile he is dumping on prices. Why is he doing this? For instance, he will occupy the whole market and raise the price then. The plan is quite possible. Other plan is possible either. It seems to me, he will not receive the market of federal orders ‒ this market has been monopolized. Commercial market will not grow. So, I wonder why he needs all this. Nowadays consciousness of young people is based on comics and another idea is probable: here is a new superman, he will inhabit Mars. Howard Hews was the same in his days. Musk got easy money. People are likely to give him a lot of money easily. Perhaps, to some extent, it is done for satisfaction. I don’t know. What is his motivation is a real question. If we talk about tourism, it is clear that there is no space tourism as such. There are commercial cosmonauts who fly into space. It is believed that there have been 8 tourists. One or two out of eight were real tourists. What does a tourist do? He or she pays to take pleasure. They travel, see something or jump down the Eiffel Tower. They pay money for pleasure. They are not going to return money. If they try to have money back, they create blogs, advertise, and involve their companies. In this case, they are not tourists. In this case, it is PR-action. So, there have been one or two real tourists. That is all. Why did tourism stop? Because 20 million dollars is a large amount of money. But it is not only money that matters. You have to train for the flight during half a year or a year. You have to learn Russian. Only Russians launched tourists and they travelled on Russian Souz spacescrafts only. Moreover, your desire to fly should be great. The most important thing is that the more tourists fly, the less is the interest in these flights. There is no exclusiveness. If we look at the present day situation, we may see that there are no tourists. It also happens because a tourist pays much less, than NASA pays Russia for the launch of their astronauts into ISS. It is not profitable for us. To build a special spacecraft for tourists is not profitable: a rocket costs 40 million dollars and a spacecraft ‒ 80 million dollars. Approximately a spacecraft costs more than a hundred million dollars while a tourist pays twenty million dollars only. In my opinion, the price which might attract mass customers is about tens thousand dollars. But it will take a very long time. You can’t achieve it with the help of rocket technologies. No Musk and no reusability are able to provide this price level. Otherwise, there will be no mass customers.
Ok, Sergey, let’s talk about technical characteristics of SpaceX and Elon Musk’s achievements.
If we talk about the technical aspect, about the quality of the rocket, I think that Musk sometimes is economical with the truth. Either when he talks about technical properties or when he talks about prices. He says that they have done it because he reset the system of space technology development and production. The main thing, he says, is that they have retained safety. No doubt, reliability of such space technology, especially in the USA, is very high. Everyone is used to it. The system providing safety was shaped in the sixties according to a certain approach: how to design, how to control and which test beds to use. He reset this system. At least, he says officially that he uses general machine building technologies. He employs new approaches to provide quality and reliability at the expense of electronic design. Due to that, he saves. It might be so. Attempts to introduce something like that in Russia during the last 10 years have showed that reliability is dropping, at least at the beginning. If we look at the recent history, none of the companies got off cheap when shifting from paper design to electronic one. Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology took great pains to have the first rocket designed electronically. Fortunately, there were no deaths. Only huge costs and over-expenses. As for Proton, crashes of Poroton-M increased. Partially, it happened because the safety system has been changing.
Why is it changing? What is the idea of change?
The idea is to reduce cost of production. This may work. Let’s look at the origins when cosmonautics began. It began in the fifties – beginning of the sixties as an application of militant rocket production. It took great effort to develop cosmonautics both in our country and in the USA. The number of crashes was very high: only 2 launches out of 10 were successful. At the beginning of the sixties Americans surmised that something had to be changed. This coincided with Moon missions program and the investments into infrastructure. They built test beds, which cost tens trillion dollars in prices of that time. Now they cost hundreds trillion dollars. So by the end of the sixties they had reached high reliability. In Russia the failure of the Moon program made an impact on cosmonautics development. We invested huge money too: Americans invested about 24 trillion dollars, we invested about 18 trillion dollars. Costs were comparable. It were Americans who flew into the Moon though it cost enormous money. As for us, we were developing the industry: we built plants, like Baikonur in modern sense. But the results were discouraging: 4 breakdowns. We took the challenge and the fight for reliability began. As a response, unified design documentation was introduced in the seventies. What does it mean? We see a drawing. There are a title and signatures of some people. One person made this design and six people checked it. That is the system: six people check the work of one person. Reliability goes first and the rest goes after. That is, target parameters became less important than safety. The system began to work. In the eighties it provided almost 100% safety of space rocket technology. Now people, who are not familiar with this system, have come. They are the so called ‘efficient managers’. They say: “Ok, one person draws, and what do other six do?” ‒ “They check so that there are no mistakes in the drawings.“ ‒ “What for? We will introduce electronic system. In the electronic model of the product the absence of mistakes will be confirmed automatically”. In principle, it will. But one should understand that in this case we have to find specialists who will control the process and maintain this electronic system.
How did the market of space launches develop?
The situation in the eighties was very interesting. Americans adjusted commercial market to Space Shuttle and controlled it. These were American satellites for American companies and for American rocket. In 1986 “Challenger” crashed. “Space Shuttle” did not fly for two years. NASA announced they would not have commercial launches. But the market had been already shaped, a lot of satellites were produced and a long queue formed. Europeans had good luck then. At the same time, the Soviet Union tried to enter the market of space launches, first of all, with “Proton”. Americans said: “NO, we forbid to export satellites with American components to the Soviet Union”. But all satellites have American components. Fortunately, in 1991 perestroika came and we fraternized with the USA. An agreement was concluded which allowed us to launch 12 satellites until 2001. If we analyze how many launches were in reality, the figure will be 5-7 times more. Why? Because by that time a joint venture with Americans had been organized and it launched. Accordingly, profit was sent there, the company paid taxes there and all problems disappeared. Moreover, some American rockets flew with our engines. People worked, the plant was maintained, but profit remained there. Still it was better than to have nothing. At least we were able to cover a part of the infrastructure costs. On the other hand, if we do not have it today, no catastrophe will happen. It is important to understand that we have our own interests in space and we should have all these things ourselves. If we do not have our own rocket and satellite production, we will have nothing: neither commercial, nor private ‒ nothing. Many countries experienced the same ‒ no one will sell such technologies for nothing. Today, unfortunately, I am repeating, we are in a very difficult situation when companies are being joined within Roscosmos. Nothing can be achieved quickly. According to the existing normative documents, the minimum period of work, when you follow all the stages, to create a new product is three, three and a half years. This is the minimum. We know that in reality it takes tens of years. In Korolev’s days (in the fifties and beginning of the sixties) we used to do everything for half a year, and failures were 8 out of 10. So, 12 years’ work and 5 flights a year then. Now “Angara” has 5 flights a year in the medium term. Recoupment takes about 100 launches, that is another 20 years. This is the thirty two years’ program to reach recoupment. It is true that rockets are exploited for 40 years and longer. One should understand that it is a very specific branch of industry; you can’t easily enter it, you can’t borrow money in a bank for 32 years. Even this is not as important as another problem ‒ specialists. You should pay attention to Musk’s project: as far as technical aspect is concerned, the liftoff was sad. His first light-weight rocket was poor at flying. The problems were clear, but there were no dynamics specialists. Then suddenly everything went well. How was it possible? It means that people either from Boeing or from NASA came. It is not easy to get in touch with such people, because they sign confidentiality agreement. It means that they were allowed to come.
Let’s go back to Elon Musk’s project – why is vertical landing so unique?
The uniqueness is that they managed to make a very good rocket engine. In rocket technology mass minimum is the main quality criterion. It is an objective criterion because velocities are enormous. That is why any rocket engine is optimized for one work mode. Its design propulsion is 100 tons, so it is optimized for 100 ton propulsion. The engine can’t work normally at 80, 70 or 10 ton propulsion. It is not possible to turn the fuel up or down like in a car. It does not mean it will not work ‒ it will simply explode. To make an engine, which has such a wide range of propulsion is a great achievement. Americans made such an engine for “Space Shuttle”. It was the main hydrogen engine – a very expensive and unique engine. In the days of the Soviet Union it had fantastic characteristics in regard to reliability potential. They managed to do this with Falcon ‒ it lands with the main engine at low propulsion. The engine is really good. We attempted to make such an engine with serious propulsion changes for the Moon rocket H-1. This was the reason why Moon program failed.
Did we fail to make such an engine? What was the reason?
We shaped it up at the end of the seventies. Now some rockets fly with it, but not in such modes. As for the Moon rocket, the challenge was controlling propulsion change but no the landing itself. At that time there was no theory of combustion chamber processes, everything was checked at test beds. It took hundreds of engine samples. Tracking a stage during the flight is not easy too. Let’s go back to Falcon. They made it according to machine-building technologies as an item cheap in production. Let’s look at the ratio of payload weight mass to launching mass of the rocket. This ration shows technical perfection of the rocket. If we take Falcon’s parameter as 1, then it is 1,5-2 times better in any American rocket. It seems to be logical. That is why Falcon is cheap. Why is it cheap? Because Falcon’s construction is heavier, but it is simple. Fuel costs much less than construction. This is one of the approaches to low costs. There are, so to speak, two poles. Reusability is at one pole, and a primitive rocket and its primitive production are at the other. Space Shuttle was at one pole. It was not the Shuttle which they made in reality, but that one which had been designed as completely reusable. In the seventies at the other pole was another project, a German one. The idea was to make rocket clusters from gas pipes. As for clusters, they were not made, but one pipe flew. They took a steel pipe with a welded bottom, filled it with acid, kerosene and nitrogen for propulsion. The nozzle was the simplest; the chamber was the simplest too. The armature was standard and it was very heavy. They fire it and launch. That’s it - it flies. The idea was to have as many pipes as possible to make a multistage booster. Falcon was close to it. Suddenly they include the system, which provides reusability. It jumps from one pole to the other.
Does it look like the crisis of a genre?
No, the first approach was absolutely logical. Not to make a rocket for tourists only, but to make a cheaper rocket. The approach was clear. The rocket does not need reusability. So, there are two variants. Elon Musk thinks that launching mass will increase by 2 orders in magnitude. I don’t know why he thinks so. He says that he can produce 40 rockets at his plant. But production plan includes 40 rockets till 2017. 40 rockets with 10 flights each means 400 launches. A rocket lifts 10 tons, so it is 4000 tons.
Why does he need 4000 tons? He does not need satellites. Tourists do not fly. Is he going to fight a war? Who does he want to fight with?
It is unlikely. Maybe, he wants to have a base on the Moon. Somebody gave money to him. He does not have such money himself.
Do you mean extraterrestrial base on the Moon?
This is in theory. These are such orders of mass, which a base on the Moon requires. Now they are not feasible. This is the first variant. The second variant is the following. Somebody pays him for the technology development.
Military people perhaps?
This is a state customer. Probably, military people. It seems that for the USA Elon Musk’s initiative is an essential means of putting pressure on Russia. He can slightly push Russia on the market, which, I don’t know why, we think important. Though it is a problem market. We may suppose that it is important for us. Americans seem to think: “Ok, we will strip Russia of another 200-300 million dollars in this way. And that is not bad at all!” They expect that political effect is going to be greater. For example, to involve us into something, which we do not need at all.
Can it involve us into space race?
Into the race to make the first lander stage which no one needs. I can hardly imagine what we can attach it to and how much it will cost. Remember, we launched the first satellite in October, 1957, Americans in January, 1958. The difference is small. It could have happened that Americans had launched first and we a month later. I am sure everything would have been different. No one could predict the result of launching a satellite. But the effect was clear: everybody understood that there was Russia, the Soviet Union. It had many resources, lots of people. It was strong as a mass, but it did not possess technologies. The USA were a mass and they possessed technologies. It produced an effect, which had been stirred up by the USA military-industrial complex. This resulted in the foundation of NASA in the USA. NASA is a unique state production structure. For Apollo program they built state plants and state R&D offices. At the peak 40000 people worked and they were state workers. It is quite untypical of the USA. For them business is the core. That completely contradicted their ideology and the structure of their economy. They made up their mind and copied the Soviet system in this field. They won the Moon race thanks to that. But now NASA drags behind and one can do nothing with it. When the first satellite and then Gagarin were launched, the first task of cosmonautics, both in the USA and USSR was political propaganda. The rest was secondary. Even military application went the second. Science was at the third place. Benefit for the economy occupied the fourth place. Sure, we are still at propaganda war: “Look, we live in capitalism, we have free market economy and a person has made a unique thing with his own money. Can you see this? And you can’t do this”.
Is it the only idea?
It is difficult to say. Reusability is not talked about. Musk himself says that the stage is not good for recurrent usage. Wonders do not happen. It is an oxygen-kerosene rocket. As for tanks, you may wash them and wash them clean. As for the engine, kerosene burns together with soot, soot stuffs all the elements. That is why reusability of oxygen-kerosene engine is doubtful. Recurrent usage technologies are rather expensive. Their cost is comparable with the production cost of a new engine. Landing is accompanied by a strike. A lot of things are connected with flight loads. In addition, a rocket is made as non-reusable product. In general, the difference is simple. If we want to have flying life, we need lifetime things. In this case, a rocket becomes like an aircraft. We have to shift to bigger gauge of all load-bearing elements. It is clear that it will be heavier. Minimum mass is the main criterion for a rocket and spacecraft. It is economically justified. Imagine, a rocket has about 500-700 ton launching mass. Accordingly, costs of liftoff facilities and transportation infrastructure differ in proportion. You should add production complications too. That is why for healthy mind, it is profitable to reduce mass. Reusability together with mass is a horse of another colour. Then ‒ the number of flights. Shuttle was designed for 100 orbital flights. In normal years Shuttle launch cost about 300 million dollars. In the end it cost more than a billion. By the way, why more than a billion? Because you have to pay for infrastructure maintenance every year. At first, flights were frequent, then they flew less. Thus the flight cost formed. However, in order to save, Americans did such things, which we will never ever do. They land into the ocean. They fished out parachutes, washed them and used again. They washed them off salt water.
Did they wash parachutes?
Yes, they washed parachutes. By the way, they washed human-piloted spacecraft parachutes too. As for us, we would never have done it. Apollos landed on the ocean, they fished parachutes out, washed them and installed on another apparatus. As for the economy, in respect to reusable boosters it was less than a million dollars. The launch cost 300 million dollars and booster case and parachutes made the economy of less than a million dollars. So, the economy was a tiny one.
It makes no sense. Perhaps, it is happening because people do not quite understand it? Cosmos is considered as a show?
It is true. I give lectures to students, including lectures on space rocket service marketing. From the point of view of market specialist, Elon Musk is doing right. He is entering a competitive market with a new product and with a new brand. It is quite natural that he has to set a special market entrance price. He invests huge money into advertising, PR and promotion. Everything is right and effective on a normal market; everything is logical. It is clear that he has a goal of seizing the market and setting monopoly price. But his expenses are huge. Maybe it is only bravado and he spends the budget. Metaphorically speaking, Americans steal from profit. It is their tradition. If it is necessary to fly into the Moon, they will fly. They will try to do it even if it is 3 times more expensive than it might be. When the Soviet Union competed with the USA, we had to do the same. NASA consists of technocrats, they are interested in testing something constantly. The situation in Europe is a bit different. Traditionally, in Europe they steal from losses. They can do something during 20 years, receive no result and scatter. This is a widely spread practice. Unfortunately, everything is moving to the European side both in our country and in the USA. Programs are delayed. What have we done this year? We will start to work only when we are paid. In general, the situation in the industry is worse, in cosmonautics there is no drive, which used to be. Elon Musk gives fresh impetus. It may seem good. But we have to understand that we should not copy technical moves. In case with Musk, we have to reduce launch cost; we do not have to build reusable “Angara” at any expense. It is clear that for a large business this is the only strategy generally employed: nobody makes sharp moves, everybody copies what their competitors do. You can minimize your expenditures at least, and keep your market share in the balance. The market though is a mass one. Sharp moves are risky. To be a leader with a new product is difficult. For example, when “Buran” was under construction Valentin Glushko was the chief designer. When people said that it would be better to do something different, he used to respond: “ No, Americans are not fools. Do like Americans do”. Because before we had had a sad experience with the Moon. If you follow somebody’s steps, you can be somewhere near them. At that time they had a clear goal – you want to fly into the Moon, copy Americans and you will fly. And what is the goal now? To fight for the market which is unprofitable? It is nonsense. They draw a veil over this nonsense.
Is it just space and you simply need it?
There are many reasons. Our government is fond of moving everything to commercialization. In the USA the same happens at the government level. Elon Musk means commercial space. Are Lockheed and Boeing state companies? Sure, not! According to American understanding, Boeing and Lockheed are state military industrial complex. It is private but it is not marketable.
Give us budget and we will build Falcon 10!
One should give budget – there is no way out. There should be a clear understanding what they give money to. We may launch what we need with the help of old rockets. As for a new rocket, we can’t say that we need it. We have a problem with satellites. If the money invested into “Angara” had been invested into satellites, it would have been better. What did we win with “Angara”? We got ecologically safe fuel components and that is all. What do ecologically safe fuel components mean from the point of view of market? It is slightly lower than the price of insurance of those hurt by the fallen stage. It is very little money. When a stage fell down, killed some jerboas, we paid somebody some money. About 10 million dollars. To make a rocket costs 1,5-2 billion dollars. When will 10 million dollars return? 200 launches take 40 years. And this argument is quite seriously used. There are very good rules. Do you want to make a new rocket? It should be 2 times more powerful in respect to payload mass. In this case, it really creates new quality, resource and the rest. All successful rockets are made in such a way. Shuttle was twice larger than Titan-3. In mass, there were 15-17 tons against 30 tons. Zenith, which was supposed to substitute Souz was 14 tons against 7 tons. Zenith, though having many problems, survived in the nineties. Because it was made well, and found its niche. When we decided to substitute Proton with Angara, the latter had to be 40 tons. But we made the same 20 tons. That was a mistake.
No sense?
Angara will fly now, 1-2 launches a year according to the existing program. Suppose, we may retain a stage. We will make one Angara in 5 years. What will the plant, which can produce 20 items a year, do? You have made it and made people redundant. Who will make the second one in another 5 years? Elon Musk is going to have the same problem. If he really uses machine building technologies and can employ people from a car building plant, he will solve this problem. Supposedly, though I am in doubt if it is possible. When there is an order, there are jobs and people go there. As for rockets, the situation is different. In rocket industry personnel are unique, including engineers and workers.
Is the situation different in the rest of the world?
Before the situation was the same. Problems are alike. Personnel become older everywhere. Elon Musk says he employs people outside the industry, ‘from the street’. I don’t know if we should believe him or not.
Conveyor production is not possible in space, isn’t it?
If there are thousands of rockets, conveyor production is possible. One may put robots. If there are thousands of tons, it is possible to make reusable systems. They will justify themselves. So far thousands tons of payload a year is a mere utopia. It was like that in 1969, and it is like that now. It is a base on the Moon and a flight to Mars. But it is not the business of a private company.
Do you mean that government should share expenses?
Sharing expenditures is a question. If your task is to show off your uniqueness and superiority, you do not need to cooperate. Now there is ISS. It is the result of Bill Clinton’s policy. No one in the USA enjoys it. Russians launch Americans into the station and they blame NASA for that. They kind of pay us some money. Our industry does not enjoy it either. Lots of problems. For example, Americans are fanatic about safety, experiments are delayed. From a scientific point of view, the station was built for Americans. For example, center of mass is located in the middle of American laboratory module. Deep zero gravity is in the American laboratory module. Moving away from it, zero gravity diminishes. Accordingly, Americans make experiments easier than we do. And the list can be continued. They do not feel good and we do not feel good too. At any moment, the present day political conflict between Russia and the USA may add complications to ISS work. That is why a joint flight into Mars is hardly possible. It can be made, but only strong powers – China and the USA, or Russia and the USA can make it. When they reach such a state, then it will be possible. From a scientific point of view, it would be useful. Russian Academy of Sciences formulated perfectly well two tasks for cosmonautics, or two questions: the origin of the Universe and the origin of life. It is difficult to argue about these questions, they are the guidelines. They belong to fundamental science. Mars is a potential place where one can find the past life or current life, and decide whether they are different or the same. It is very important. If life is different at its basis, this may be the evidence of life existing everywhere. It is hardly possible to do this without a human being. But it is very expensive and no one will do it for the sake of science. Some other motivation is required, but it is missing now.
We have sent this article to SpaceX and hope to get comment.....