While the attention of most people has been focused on issues like food and fuel prices, the presidential campaign, and so on, a problem has been developing that potentially could have repercussions for space policy. In the last few weeks tensions have been rising between Russia and the former Soviet republic of Georgia over two separatist regions of Georgia. This has included reports of shooting down unmanned reconnaissance aircraft in Georgian airspace, either by the Russians or separatist groups. Yesterday the White House criticized Russia for its actions in the region in recent weeks. Russia’s envoy to NATO, meanwhile, claimed that Russia and Georgia were “very close” to war and that Georgia was to blame.
Should hostilities break out between the two countries, would it affect US-Russia cooperation on the ISS, and if so, how? Would Congress be less disposed to grant an extension to NASA’s ability to purchase Soyuz spacecraft after 2011, or put additional conditions of some kind on that capability? Or, fearing that such a move would effectively keep the US off the station until Orion or a commercial vehicle entered service, would they do nothing? Hopefully we won’t have to find out.
There are also concerns with Kazakhstan, which has had disputes with Russia over environmental damage from the Dnepr (SS-18) launch vehicle.
And there’s these items, which were underreported last year…
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/08/business/belarus.php
italy.usembassy.gov/pdf/other/RS22378.pdf
Russia wanted to raise the price of natural gas, the other countries wouldn’t agree, and so they cut off their petroleum pipelines to those countries. This behavior has been repeated in Georgia and Armenia. Does anyone seriously believe this could NOT happen with ISS launches?
Well, time travel to 2011, 2 years into an Obama Presidency and a big Democratic Congress. Nasa has had major spending cuts in support of Obama’s of stated hostility to human space programs. The gap is now 2017 at the earliest. Russia is now actively supporting a robust Iranian military and Congress slaps sanctions on key Russian companies. Russia retaliates by embargoing Soyus seats to American passengers only to lift it when the ISS needs American support. Then reinstates it as needed.
I think the Russians would enjoy the humiliations, after all the US has embargoed them for generations.
Of course if COTS comes online promptly, then all of this is mute.
spectator . . .
This is exactly what advocates of DIRECT need to tell both Obama’s campaign and McCain’s campaign since the exact same scenario applies regardless of who wins in November.
Suppose POTUS McCain funds Ares 1 at the Bush levels and POTUS Obama does not — for a 2011 or 2012 crisis it makes NO difference.
Whether it is 2015 or 2017 for Ares 1, both dates are “too late” and there are rumors of schedule slips beyond 2015 even with current funding levels.
The DIRECT people appear confident the Jupiter 120 can fly crew by the Fall of 2012. This needs to be independently verified by Congress but if true that solves the problem.
= = =
Politically, the scenario you describe is equally devastating to POTUS McCain or POTUS Obama as well as Congress and this needs to be emphasized to both campaigns AND all of Congress, Democratic and Republican.
Bill, don’t bother
if can’t demonize Democrats with space policy, we aren’t doing our job.
Ferris
Yes, this is a must strategy. Fear can be so motivating.
“Russia wanted to raise the price of natural gas, the other countries wouldn’t agree, and so they cut off their petroleum pipelines to those countries. This behavior has been repeated in Georgia and Armenia. Does anyone seriously believe this could NOT happen with ISS launches?”
Russia could raise the price of Soyuzes and Progresses many-fold and they would still be a bargain compared to the Shuttle.
“Obama’s of [sic] stated hostility to human space programs”
Obama has made no statement that he is “hostile” to human space flight. Obama has questioned the benefits and utility of NASA’s human space flight programs and would subject them to White House review. (And so would McCain as part of an across-the-board discretionary budget freeze and review.) But that’s a far cry from unmitigated “hostility”.
“Russia retaliates by embargoing Soyus seats to American passengers only to lift it when the ISS needs American support.”
For better or worse, NASA and RSA are joined at the hip on ISS. ISS requires ground support on the U.S. side as much as it requires Soyuz/Progress servicing. And RSA arguably needs NASA purchases to keep its human space flight program viable. A highly unlikely scenario.
The more likely scenarios are the one Mr. Foust alluded to (Congress does not grant NASA a Soyuz purchase extension) or that Soyuz has a bad day technically (as it just did last month) and is pulled from service for an extended time. Either leaves no physical means of human access to ISS, risking both astronaut lives on ISS and ISS control itself, which requires astronaut intervention for certain failure modes.
We really don’t need to resort to unlikely Russian political hypotheticals to make the case for pursuing alternative domestic means of human LEO access. American politics, Russian technical problems with Soyuz, the cost and risks of continuing Shuttle flights past 2010, and Ares I/Orion technical, schedule, and cost issues provide more than adequate justification.
FWIW…
Given that the Russians will completely control American access to space come 2011 and beyond, I think we do have a choice for Nasa when we elect the next president.
From Obama’s own mouth, we know Nasa’s manned space program is a low priority, so its likely to suffer much more than other federal programs as he hunts for revenue to meet the promises he’s made this year. Those promises for health care and social justice will add up to 100’s of billions in new spending. He’ll get that money from new taxes and reducing programs in DOD and other low priority programs. He’s on record saying as much.
Maybe some of you think McCain and Obama will deal with the gap the same way, but my reading of them is Obama will be a “true believer” in cutting Nasa’s funding whereas McCain might do it as a fiscal conservative, then again he might not. At bottom, I think it’s a certainty an Obama presidency will be dire for Nasa. With McCain it might be, it might not.
Here is one of Obama’s ideas from his website
“IX. A COMMITMENT TO FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
Barack Obama’s early education and K-12 plan package costs about $18 billion per year. He will maintain fiscal responsibility and prevent any increase in the deficit by offsetting cuts and revenue sources in other parts of the government. The early education plan will be paid for by delaying the NASA Constellation Program for five years, …..”
I can’t imagine a more hostile bureaucratic maneuver than to pit Nasa against kids. Nasa will lose everytime. This is a radical departure for the Feds as Nasa has never competed with education programs. In fact its shooting ourselves in the foot as Nasa is one of the real draws for science majors.
I believe Griffin has said before that delaying Constellation means the delaying the stick since the stick if for the moon, not for the ISS.
I stand on my statement, Obama is hostile to Nasa’s manned space program.
spectator: I agree that it is likely that an Obama presidency will be bad for NASA, though it’s worth noting that the good bets were that a George Bush presidency would not be a big supporter of NASA, as Mr. Bush showed no interest in spaceflight when he was governor of Texas. And, in fact, you could certainly make a case that Mr. Bush’s talk has been much louder than his budget. Be that as it may, I have had quite enough of Republicans in the White House, and, for reasons that have nothing to do with spaceflight, I will not be supporting Mr. McCain whatever he does or does not say about spaceflight. Space, while important, is not the only issue on which I base my vote, and, unpopular as this view appears to be here, I happen to think that public education is at least as important.
— Donald
And the Iraq commitment from McCain won’t also add up to billions (or even trillions) in spending?
I especially love the fact that Obama is a true believer, despite citing fiscal responsibility, whereas McCain will do it because he is a fiscal conservative.
And Constellation is hardly a huge success, so far.
“I can’t imagine a more hostile bureaucratic maneuver”
Were it to come to pass, it would not be a “bureaucratic maneuver”. Presidents (or Senators running for President) are not bureaucrats.
“than to pit Nasa against kids. Nasa will lose everytime. This is a radical departure for the Feds”
“Feds” in the bureaucracy don’t make such high level funding decisions.
“as Nasa has never competed with education programs.”
All discretionary programs compete against all other discretionary programs in the federal budget every year. This is nothing new. If Congress wants to allocate more funding to education, the allocation for that appropriations subcommittee is increased and the allocation for other subcommittees (like NASA’s) are reduced.
“In fact its shooting ourselves in the foot as Nasa is one of the real draws for science majors.”
Evidence?
Astronauts (and dinosaurs) may be a great draw in grade school, but that fascination fades in middle/junior high/high school. By college and graduate school, students are driven more by employment market factors like available scholarships, salary size, and job demand.
NASA spends some $200 million per year on its education programs. There’s no evidence I know of that these programs have resulted in a greater number or higher quality of students in space-related disciplines, especially compared to just spending the money directly on competitive scholarships or other monetary incentives.
“I believe Griffin has said before that delaying Constellation means the delaying the stick”
Not necessarily. Obama (and early Clinton) have proposed deferring the lunar elements of Constellation (Ares V/EDS/Altair) while maintaining or attempting to accelerate Ares I/Orion or other Shuttle replacement. It’s not a good plan because it incurs all the costs of Ares I/Orion while gaining none of the benefits of Ares V heavy lift, but it is a viable plan.
“since the stick if for the moon, not for the ISS.”
Assuming they can ever be made to work, Ares I will deliver Orion to the ISS first.
“I stand on my statement, Obama is hostile to Nasa’s manned space program.”
Your statement, not Obama’s.
FWIW…
anonymous.space: “NASA spends some $200 million per year on its education programs. There’s no evidence I know of that these programs have resulted in a greater number or higher quality of students in space-related disciplines, especially compared to just spending the money directly on competitive scholarships or other monetary incentives.”
It would be an interesting experiment to see what would happen if, say, half that amount were dedicated to space-related undergraduate and graduate scholarships and assistantships, for example in Astronomy, Aerospace Engineering, Space Law, Planetary Science, Earth sciences and engineering fields (like GIS) relying on space data, and so on.
Let’s see … ignoring overhead that would be 5,000 scholarships per year at $20,000 each – enough to be significant through an entire degree program. That would be a pretty significant help to the anticipated industry workforce problems, if many of those 5,000 per year wouldn’t have wound up in those majors anyway. The assistantships should result in some productive work, too.
It would also be fun to see perhaps 10% or so of the funds in the form of rewards for winning new space-related student contests similar to existing ones like TARC, CanSat, Lunar Ventures, etc.
In contrast to such an effort, I think Obama’s plan for the NASA funds involves Federal programs for early education, i.e. pre-kindergarten. It’s not exactly targeted to contribute to space issues.
Anonymous: Astronauts (and dinosaurs) may be a great draw in grade school, but that fascination fades in middle/junior high/high school. By college and graduate school, students are driven more by employment market factors like available scholarships, salary size, and job demand.
This may be true, but it is also one of the saddest things I have read for a long time. If it is true of all or most of our young adults, I truly believe that our nation has no real future. Dreamers, and people with motivations higher than money alone, are critical to achievement beyond survival, and maybe even that.
— Donald
“It would be an interesting experiment to see what would happen if, say, half that amount were dedicated to space-related undergraduate and graduate scholarships and assistantships”
It might be interesting, but it won’t happen. Much of that NASA money spent on “education” is actually earmarked money that is spent on projects that are wanted by specific congress members.
As a student of Aerospace and Mechanical engineering I can tell you that the ‘fascination’ doesn’t fade for everyone. I work with students across the country and I can tell you there are many students who are inspired by space. Many of them draw this inspiration from NewSpace or Apollo. Having a destination driven program will do wonders to get people of all ages interested in space again.
I don’t have numbers or evidence, but I can tell you that student space organizations across the country are growing, and growing quickly. Many of us, myself included, plan to develop and explore space with or without the government. That being said however, there is much that must be done by NASA before private companies can take over entirely.
And I like the idea of scholarships, but NASA already does that (again I don’t have specific numbers) but through the GSRP program as well as Space Grant Consortium in ever state there are scholarships and funding for space related studies (just to name a couple).
In my opinion a robust space program (as seen after Apollo) can do a lot more for education and inspiration than adding more standardized tests.
“Assuming they can ever be made to work”
Oh I imagine with enough billions of dollars NASA could even fly a brick. It isnt a question of if it will work, just a question how much and how long TO make it work.
I thought NASA has already dropped the ISS manned and cargo version of Orion from development? So unless they drop not only the “moon mars and beyond from the VSE, the stick AND this version of Orion I would think that long term, regardless of administration, the moon stays on the table?
“I thought NASA has already dropped the ISS manned and cargo version of Orion from development?”
No, only the cargo version. The first operational Orion builds are still required to deliver six astronauts to ISS.
If they ever get that far… FWIW…
“As a student of Aerospace and Mechanical engineering I can tell you that the ‘fascination’ doesn’t fade for everyone.”
No, it doesn’t fade for everyone. I wouldn’t be posting here if it did. But other interests, hormones, responsibilities, and monetary realities intrude and interest in space fades for most people (if it wasn’t fleeting in the first place).
“In my opinion a robust space program (as seen after Apollo)”
But was it the indirect inspiration that drew many tens of thousands of individuals to the field? Or the billions and billions of dollars flowing into the civil space program, not to mention the millions and millions of dollars in post-Sputnik sci/eng/math scholarships?
We have to be careful with our cause-and-effect.
FWIW…
I don’t have the statistics (though I’d like to see them) but the inspiration of people to work in the space field was likely the minority. I’ve been told by many engineers (now reaching retirement) that they started studying engineering and sciences because they wanted to work at NASA and go to the Moon. Most of them however didn’t make it to NASA but instead took their degrees and worked in other industries. Such a bi-product is likely the most valuable spin-off of Apollo.
We currently face an approaching shortage of engineers in this country, who knows if an ambitious space program will inspire students to study, but compared to amount our economy will lose if we cannot fill the positions of retiring engineers, i’d say its not so bad.
Worse case scenario we stick some guys on the Moon, spread the seed of humanity, and open up a vast supply of resources that can be put into space 22 times easier than similar resources on Earth. I’m pretty sure doing so won’t deter people from studying math, science, and engineering.
Meanwhile the Bear is going back to business as usual.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/08/AR2008050801308.html?referrer=digg WASHINGTON — The United States and Russia have expelled five diplomats and military attaches from each other’s countries in moves reminiscent of the tit-for-tat exchanges of the Cold War-era, U.S. officials said Thursday.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1738805,00.html
For the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union 18 years ago, Russia rolled out heavy armor and missiles on Red Square in Moscow and central avenues of major Russian cities from St. Petersburg to Vladivostok.
The procession of firepower was designed to show that Putin’s eight years as president has revived Russia’s mighty Armed Forces, and with it Russia’s national pride. “The victors gave us great reason to believe in our national strength, self-reliance and freedom,” new Russian President Dmitri Medvedev said in his V-Day address. His thinly veiled comparison of the Nazi aggression 63 years ago with NATO’s eastward expansion today echoed a favorite Kremlin propaganda theme for whipping up Russia’s resurgent nationalism.
More and more its looking like the Spaceflight Gap and our dependence on Soyuz will be a very bad idea politicaly. As is New Space’s partnership with Russia.
[…] Some Food For Thought – Space […]
Russia just inked a deal with the ESA for a new vehicle.
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/ap-080514-russa-europe-spaceship.html
ESA has plans to do their new transport spacecraft manned, so dependance on Russia will decrease.
About article that posted Vladislav, its related to interplanet space trips, so there is no need to worry about IIS.