[FPSPACE] MirCorp's money for ISS ?

[Chris Jones]

David Anderman <davida@cwo.com> writes:

  I think that Mr. Jones here is missing the point.
  
I don't think so.

  MirCorp does not intend to subsidize ISS.
  
This is probably true.

  RSC Energia does not intend to re-invest any Mir profits into ISS.
  
This is less clear.  What is one to make of the following (taken from
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/001016162943.fjfp0iev.html, titled "Mir's demise
would halt Russian role in ISS space station: MirCorp"?

"'Russia is committed to launching 17 special missions to the ISS in 2001-2002,
but it is hard to believe the Russian government will be able to finance them,'
MirCorp boss Jeffrey Manber told a press conference here.

'The only way to fulfill these obligations is to assure the survival of Mir,'
he said, adding that private capital invested in the decrepit Soviet-era space
station could help finance Russia's participation in the ISS."

How does private capital invented in MirCorp help finance Russia's
participation in ISS without it being a subsidy?  By definition, that *is* a
subsidy: money provided by one party which lowers or eliminates the money
provided by another.

  The reality is that there is 1 (one) Soyuz/Progress assembly line, and only 
  1 customer paying for the assembly line to function. If that 1 customer 
  goes away, then there will be 0 (zero) customers paying for the 
  Soyuz/Progress assembly line. This would not be a good thing for ISS.

No it wouldn't.  The reality also is that only 1 (one) customer of the
Soyuz/Progress assembly line has commited to providing output from that line to 
ISS, and if that party reneges on its promise, the only way those spacecraft
can be built is if *someone else* (Energia, NASA, MirCorp, unnamed sugar
daddies) absorbs the cost.  I don't believe it is a case of the Russian
government being unable so much as being unwilling to pay for these flights,
especially if by crying wolf they can get someone else to do it.