The Senate approved by unanimous consent late Tuesday the amended version of S.1713, the legislation that allows NASA to purchase Russian hardware and services for the ISS. The Senate had previously approved the bill—also by unanimous consent—back in September, but had to go through the process again after the House amended the legislation somewhat when it approved it last month. The passage of the bill removes any uncertainty about the US presence on the ISS, which was in jeopardy if NASA didn’t have the ability to purchase flights on Soyuz missions to the station, something prohibited under the original Iran Nonproliferation Act. As NASA administrator Griffin put it in a statement, “The legislation passed by Congress reflects the U.S. government’s continuing commitment to nonproliferation objectives but also recognizes the value of international cooperation in space exploration.”
Any bets on where the money for commercial resupply of the Space Station now will go? If I were an alt.space prioneer, I’d be worried.
— Donald
Donald,
Remember, the Commercial Space Act of 1998 requires that NASA buy such services from a U.S. firm that is “50+% owned and controlled” by U.S. citizens. I doubt that Griffin is going to violate this law — since he says his purpose in doing this is to create a new U.S. commercial industry. (I also doubt that Griffin would allow a shell firm to resell cargo delivered on Progresses, HTVs or ATVs — as that would not demonstrate anything new. But I am betting some companies are preparing to do so right now.)
What is interesting is the possibility of an alt.space pioneer who uses Russian technology as part of their solution. SpaceHab has proposed such a solution in the past (They testified to the Aldridge Commission on this concept in 2004.) If this really is a commercial deal, and if they are demonstrating a brand new concept that can be launched on US launch vehicles, this should not be a problem. It is called free trade. Sitting on my desk is a computer, for which the screen is made in Japan, the ROM is made in Korea, and the mother board is assembled in Taiwan.
Other issues:
Such a company will need a license from the U.S. State Department under ITAR. This kind of license is not an easy or quick thing to acquire.
The White House space transportation policy requires the use of a U.S. launch vehicle, unless a waiver is granted. It is highly unlikely that Griffin will ask for a waiver (since he says the primary purpose is to help create a U.S. LV industry. Even if Griffin asked for a waiver, it is unlikely that White House will grant a waiver on this policy. Every launch vehicle manufacturer in the country would scream (SpaceX, tSpace, Lockheed, Boeing, etc.) Plus the DoD has made their position pretty clear, and they have a great deal of influence in this WH.
– Al
Thanks, Al, I guess that momentarily slipped my mind. Kistler also proposed using Russian engines, I believe derived from the old N-1 launch vehicle, via Aerojet. I also have no issue with using Russian technology as a component of an American launch vehicle, although I would like to see the United States retain an engine development capability.
— Donald
If an alt.space company uses not only Russian engines, but Russian engineers too, then it’s really cooking with gas.
But the pitch man can be an American. That part is native expertise.
November 5, 2005: Germany is warning German firms to be alert to Russian criminals stealing missile technology, and passing it on to Iran. While industrial espionage is not unusual, this appears to be a case where industrial spies were hired by a foreign government to go after weapons technology, and doing it through a third country (Russia.) It is believed that Russia was selected because the Russian government is eager to do more business with Iran, and less likely to crack down on the technology theft operation.
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/russia/articles/20051111.aspx
The ammendment allows NASA to purchase services from Russia as long as they are needed to meet US obligations under the ISS agreement. It’s extremely difficult to see how any US system, whether CEV or EELV based, could compete on cost with Russia for ISS logistics, since they have substantially lower launch costs and a system that is already functional for both crew and cargo. It remains only to be seen if Russia will market services through Energia or a joint venture like ILS. There is at least an opportunity now to enlarge the ISS to a crew of six, if the US will support it.
There is at least an opportunity now to enlarge the ISS to a crew of six …
Why is that a good idea?
There is at least an opportunity now to enlarge the ISS to a crew of six …
Why is that a good idea, assuming you mean the US should pay for flights of non-US astronauts?
Furthermore, since the ISS is not yet complete, how do we know that six of anyone’s astronauts, cosmonauts, or taikonauts can be effectively utilized aboard the ISS?
More people aboard the ISS means more logistics, too. Oh, I get it, your real agenda is to create demand for space station resupply services. OK.
Mr. Foust, here’s a good question to ask some ISS bigwig:
Sir or madam, how many more Space Shuttle flights delivering International Space Station structural components are needed before astronauts can start doing useful scientific research aboard the ISS?
Exactly eighteen flights?
Could useful scientific research begin aboard the ISS before eighteen more Shuttle deliveries of ISS structure are performed?
Here’s another suggestion for NASA: why not publish a prospectus and overview of scientific research plannned to be performed aboard the ISS. Please base this overview on year 2005 knowledge, not 1980’s or 1990’s plans for the space station.
After all, US taxpayers are going to be charged billions of $ for additional ISS Shuttle flights post-2005. Doesn’t the public have a right to know?
Yours truly, etc.