Congress, NASA

Griffin skeptical about INKSNA waiver extension

NASA administrator Mike Griffin said Thursday that he has no confidence that Congress will pass an extension to the existing waiver in the Iran North Korea Syria Nonproliferation Act (INKSNA) that would allow NASA to continue to purchase ISS flight services after 2011. In interviews with CBS News and Florida Today, Griffin said that a lack of action by Congress to pass the extension, exacerbated by the Russian-Georgian conflict last month, made him doubtful the extension would be approved by the end of the year—which means, given the three-year lead time needed to build Soyuz vehicles, that there will be no US or other non-Russian crew on the station after the end of 2011.

Here’s an excerpt from the CBS interview (worth the read—lots of interesting stuff there beyond INKSNA) where he discusses what went wrong with the waiver extension:

Q: Was there progress on the waiver before the Russian action in Georgia? It’s not clear to me that you wouldn’t be telling me the same thing even if that hadn’t happened.

Griffin: Well, I might, but I think the probability changed, to be honest. I think because the administration had requested the exemption through State (Department) and because I had been articulating our case on the hill, I think I had most of our critical folks, you know, ready to hold their nose and support, if you will. Now, there still was some possibility it wasn’t going to happen but we were looking at different legislative vehicles for that and no one was really objecting, they were in fact helping us. So the climate did change with the invasion of Georgia and at this point, people who were already suspicious, like Sen. (Bill) Nelson, changed from being suspicious to being downright against. And I, in the larger perspective, I understand. I’m not being critical. I am trying to outline and elucidate that this is a consequence of a policy decision we made several years ago as a country that it was OK for us to depend upon the Russians for access to our space station. We made that decision. This is one of the consequences of it, the position we find ourselves in today.

Griffin also discusses the study he’s kicked off on options to extend the shuttle’s life beyond 2010, but admits that even that is not a complete solution to the problem of ISS access:

And all of these things ignore the fact that flying shuttle does not ameliorate in truth our dependence upon the Russians because we still need them for crew rescue. So if we continue to fly shuttle, either we’re flying without crew rescue capability, in other words putting crew on station and then leaving them there without a way to get home in an emergency, which we have never done, or our tenure on station is only during the two weeks you get when the shuttle visits a couple of times a year.

35 comments to Griffin skeptical about INKSNA waiver extension

  • Adrian

    has he kicked off a study on how a sudden tripling or quadrupling of COTS funding might affect our ability to access ISS orbit without the Russians?

    ill assume not unless otherwise informed. yet another example of an administrator from an administration seemingly obsessed with market solutions and privatization, yet completely unwilling to actually take a risk on those options when the need arises.

  • Spacer

    Musk is working as hard as possible on the Dragon, more money is unlikely to speed it up.

    Branson is only interested in sub-orbital tourism and is not interested in COTS for now

    Bigelow wants to sell a replacement space station, or new modules and is not interested is pursing COTS.

    Bezos is focused on sub-orbital tourism for now, not interested in COTS.

    And that about covers the New Space billionaires.

    So where would the money go? To more clones of RpK to waste?

    What we need is a crash cost plus program for Orion lite on EELV. It will provide both access to ISS and serve as a lifeboat. Combined wiht running out the ET spares out on the Shuttle at a reduced flight rate it eliminate the Gap, or at least greatly reduce the gap.

    .

  • Ross

    We are talking about what, $2bn or so which was going to be sent to Russia?

    NASA should offer this exact same amount of money for a COTS-D contract instead.

    This crazy-making situation *has* to be worth at least asking the companies for their proposals…

  • gm

    Ross said… “$2bn or so which was going to be sent to Russia”

    PLUS add $2-2.7 Bn per year to buy and launch two ATV or HTV for cargo

    $400-600M per year for Soyuz + $2-2.7 Bn per year for cargo = THE ANNUAL SHUTTLE BUDGET !!!

    then, retire the Shuttles gives NO MONEY SAVING to the NASA budget!

    so, WHY retire it?

  • Chance

    “so, WHY retire it?”

    Because it has a bad habit of blowing up or falling apart from time to time? (Yeah, yeah, I know all rockets do).

  • gm

    “blowing up or falling apart”
    .
    just look at the ALV X-1 failure… it uses the ATK technology… like the Ares-1 :)

  • anon

    ALV has nothing in common with Ares I. The ALV was not a solid motor failure. ATK is not doing the system integration for Ares I

  • anon

    “PLUS add $2-2.7 Bn per year to buy and launch two ATV or HTV for cargo”

    NASA doesn’t pay for ATV or HTV. That is ESA and JAXA responsibility

    “$400-600M per year for Soyuz + $2-2.7 Bn per year for cargo = THE ANNUAL SHUTTLE BUDGET !!!”

    US cargo is going to be taken care of by CRS which is less than 2 billion over 5 years

    Get you facts straight

  • gm

    “ALV has nothing in common with Ares I.”
    .
    that’s true, it’s only to say that EVERY rocket could be/become dangerous
    .
    however, I think that the Ares-1 isn’t dangerous, since, it (simply) can’t fly

  • gm

    “US cargo is going to be taken care of by CRS which is less than 2 billion over 5 years”.
    .
    the ATV and HTV are REAL vehicles and the interest of NASA to buy the HTV was reported on Press a few weeks ago, while your “CRS” is an unknow project we can’t evaluate without having info and data (the SP readers, like me, who don’t know the “CRS” still wait for a link from you T.J.) however, if NASA has its own “CRS” cargo, there are NO reasons to spend hundreds million$$$ for COTS

  • anon

    1. there was no NASA interest in buying the HTV. That was a false report

    2. CRS is not unknown project. Anyways, you don’t have the tools or knowledge to make an evaluation

    3. ISS COMMERCIAL RESUPPLY SERVICES
    http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/issresupply/

    http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/30/1176167.aspx

    4. COTS is not related to this. This is a separate contract

  • gm

    “you don’t have the tools or knowledge to make an evaluation”
    .
    “you” means me, or “you” referring to ALL spacepolitics readers?
    .
    they also have the “tools” to evaluate this mystery “CRS” project?
    .
    then, no “CRS” for them links T.J.? I feel some of them are curious to know it!
    .
    about the “Silver Dart”, I can only reply this :) :) :) :) :)

  • gm

    post edit: …they also haveN’T the..

  • Vladislaw

    “Bigelow wants to sell a replacement space station, or new modules and is not interested is pursing COTS.”

    Bigelow may not interested in pursuing cots ( Cots is a governent program for government projects) but he did offer his own 50 million dollar prize for transportation to BIGELOW stations not the ISS and also offered a 700 million dollar contract for transportation to BIGELOW stations with space x and has a MOU with Lock mart for transportation services. COTS is for transport of cargo to the ISS. Why would bigelow be interested in that anyway? COTS-D is the human cargo part and again a government program for government projects. Bigelow is working in the private sector FOR the private sector.

  • anon

    The CRS links are posted. Does it have to be spelled out for you?

    Commercial Resupply Services, i.e. CRS

    ISS COMMERCIAL RESUPPLY SERVICES
    http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/issresupply/

  • Spacer

    Vladislaw ,

    Bigelow may not interested in pursuing cots ( Cots is a governent program for government projects) but he did offer his own 50 million dollar prize for transportation to BIGELOW stations not the ISS and also offered a 700 million dollar contract for transportation to BIGELOW stations with space x and has a MOU with Lock mart for transportation services.

    $750 million is more then the $500 NASA is offering for COTS. And yet where are the takers? How many firms were actually able to use that offer to raise funding?

    If NASA wants access/lifeboat to ISS its just going to have to do it itself with an old fashion crash program based on the EELV. COTS-D is a good backup, but its only a backup until New Space demostrates its capable of deliverying it. And since Griffin’s failure with ESAS combined with Russia’s behavior has made this an “emergency” NASA really should do both.

  • joe

    Did the Russians actually express desire to mess up NASA’s ISS plans? They conducted an operation on their immediate border. Ok, whatever. Did the US invasion of Iraq (for example) half the world away cause similar space program twitching (as with the shuttle extension) and panic of non-US ISS partners? Whatever your opinion on the war is. It seems like a completely unrelated issue, except for some pre-election chest beating.

  • Adrian

    “Whatever your opinion on the war is. It seems like a completely unrelated issue, except for some pre-election chest beating.”

    it is an unrelated issue in an election season. unfortunately for us (& US), the Congress, including both parties, are completely ignorant of both geopolitics and space issues. to them right now Russia = bad; thus anything that at all resembles money going to Russia (whatever the reason) doesnt stand much of a chance.

  • red

    Spacer: “$750 million is more then the $500 NASA is offering for COTS. And yet where are the takers?”

    I actually haven’t been following this one, so I don’t know how it’s doing. However, I’ll note that the amount involves the following deal (excerpt from New Scientist):

    “The contract or purchase agreement would be worth $760 million in total for eight launches. To show that Bigelow Aerospace is serious, it will deposit $100 million in an escrow bank account up front if the plan goes forward.”

    So, a comparison with the COTS cargo effort would need to include whatever NASA would pay for a bunch of operational flights.

    “If NASA wants access/lifeboat to ISS its just going to have to do it itself with an old fashion crash program based on the EELV. COTS-D is a good backup, but its only a backup until New Space demostrates its capable of deliverying it.”

    I think a cost-plus EELV/Orion lite would be a lot better than ESAS, so don’t think I’m totally against that suggestion. However, I wouldn’t reject COTS-D so easily, either, or assume it needs to be a backup plan. After all, NASA hasn’t even tried it to see what proposals it would result in. NASA could send out both types of proposals and judge the results later.

    In your posts, you assume that the COTS-D winner(s) would be NewSpace. However, that isn’t necessarily the case. Orbital won one of the COTS cargo rounds. Several COTS cargo proposals included EELVs. Others included other existing mainstream hardware. Nothing would, or should, keep the major aerospace companies away from a COTS-D competition. If a NewSpace company won, you would have to conclude they won based on a superior combination of technical proposal and financial backing, which would address some of your NewSpace concerns right from the start. NASA may have taken a bit of a risk with RpK based on hopes for a big payoff with their vehicle, but NASA could certainly shift the emphasis of a COTS-D proposal competition on mission success rather than low cost operations.

    Similarly, if NASA feels that the big aerospace companies would be driven away by the COTS requirements to succeed before milestone payments, they could shift the COTS-D payments more towards earlier milestones. That would make the COTS-D effort more similar to a cost-plus contract. How far they want to go in this direction could simply be a tradeoff they need to make between making sure they only pay for successes and making sure they get the financially conservatives aerospace contractors in the game.

    COTS-D also has the advantage, as has been mentioned before, of “skin in the game” by the winners. This gives them a big incentive to succeed that is missing to some extent with cost-plus. The results for cost-plus in NASA human spaceflight, NASA rocket development, and on many other large government space programs (NASA, NOAA, DOD, Intelligence) haven’t been good in recent years. The skin in the game also, of course, results in more funding for the overall effort.

    You have to also consider the possibility that Bigelow will pitch in to a COTS-D effort that happens to solve his transportation needs, too. That investment and market could make the difference between success and failure, and it wouldn’t be available for a NASA-run cost-plus vehicle.

    Let’s do COTS-D, fund it well enough for a couple credible efforts, and compare it to a NASA EELV/Orion lite proposal – and fund the top winners from all of these.

  • Vladislaw

    Spacer:

    “Bigelow Aerospace announced a partnership with Lockheed Martin to explore the capability of launching passengers to Bigelow-built commercial space complexes on human-rated Atlas V rockets.

    According to George Sowers, Atlas Business Development and Advanced Programs Director, Lockheed Martin is working with Bigelow Aerospace “to evaluate the market of space tourism and research to determine if Atlas could be a part of this potential new market area.”

    A potential passenger capsule for Bigelow would likely be launched aboard the Atlas V 401 configuration. Demonstrating human-qualified system upgrades could be done by pre-testing those upgrades on commercial or government missions prior to flying the first passengers.

    “As a merchant supplier of launch services, Lockheed Martin is working with Bigelow to explore the feasibility of using the Atlas V system to launch passengers to a Bigelow-built space habitat,” said Julie Andrews, spokeswoman for Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company. “The feasibility study will address the technical aspects of human-qualifying the Atlas as well as business considerations,” she told SPACE.com.

    The two space companies have agreed to explore the technical requirements for launch services that haul commercial crew and cargo to expandable orbital space complexes.

    Also, Bigelow and Lockheed Martin are probing the production and supply of Atlas rockets, as well as delving into flight safety and performance of the booster. Potential business models and business plans are on the table too.

    Following this initial work, each company will assess the feasibility of going forward with a program to develop a human-qualified Atlas to match the expected demand. ”

    http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/061122_bigelow_sundancer.html

  • […] but I’m not sure we can pass it,” he told Florida Today. That role is different from what Griffin told CBS News a few days ago, when he said “people who were already suspicious, like Sen. (Bill) Nelson, changed from […]

  • gm

    about “CRS”… there are too much (space and non-space) acronyms around, so, do a web search using “CRS NASA” or “CRS SPACE” doesn’t give good results, while, using the “NASA Commercial Resupply Services”, many links to articles and blogs’ posts can be found, like these two from space.com and aviation week:
    http://www.space.com/spacenews/businessmonday_051107.html
    http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/progress041708.xml&headline=NASA%20Wants%20All-commercial%20ISS%20Resupply&channel=space
    more…

  • gm

    reading the articles, we can discover that “CRS” is NOT a true, real, working, flying (or flying SOON) cargo/crew VEHICLE, but (simply) a “plan”, an “intention”, what NASA calls a “solicitation” to small and big, old and new, COTS and non-COTS private aerospace companies, to claims that NASA wants to “buy” (or “HOPE” to buy, to be exact…) some “commercial” cargo and (maybe) crew services to ISS and offers a (planned) $500M budget (NOT $2Bn) but WITHOUT be sure these (COTS and CRS) companies will succeed, that’s why NASA doesn’t give any “exclusive” to the companies that joins the CRS agreement, and will continue to buy Soyuz, Progress, ATV and HTV services, until COTS and/or CRS will demostrate their ability to accomplish the same job
    the most interesting info (about the future NASA cargo needs) are in the aviation week article, where we can read that: “…NASA says it intends to purchase transportation to the ISS for at least 20 metric tons of cargo between 2010 and 2015, when NASA’s Orion crew exploration vehicle is scheduled to begin flying astronauts and cargo. Overall NASA expects to require delivery of 39.6 metric tons of pressurized cargo to the station during that same period, not counting bartered transportation services on Europe’s new Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) and Japan’s planned H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV). Another 8.3 metric tons of external “upmass” will be required during the same period…”
    well, if COTS and/or CRS won’t succeed (or, not “in time”) “20 metric tons of cargo between 2010 and 2015″ will need NASA to buy THREE cargo ATVs for a total cost around $4 billion!
    and, if COTS/CRS won’t succeed, not even after 2015 (or their “services” will be not so “cheap” and/or “reliable” as expected) NASA will need SIX further ATVs to carry 40 more mT of cargo to the ISS, until they will withdraw from ISS in 2020, that means EIGHT further billion$$$ of costs!!!
    just add TWO billion$ to buy the russian crew and cargo services between 2010 and 2015, plus the $500M for COTS and $500M for CRS, and the total costs grows to (at least) $15 billion (or, more likely, $20+ Bn adding further COTS funds, costs overrun, inflation, delays, etc.) between 2010 and 2020 with NO SAVING, ZERO, NADA, compared with the “high” Shuttle costs!!!
    keep two Shuttles in service for two launches per year should cost $2-2.5 Bn per year, then, with the expected/planned (COTS+Soyuz+CRS+ATV+Progress+HTV) $15 billion funds, NASA could “pay” 12-15 futher Shuttle flights in 5-8 years (2011 to 2015/2018) AFTER the (planned) Shuttle retirement in 2010, and EACH (further) Shuttle flight, will be able to carry up to TEN TIMES the cargo of a Progress (or three times the cargo of an ATV) AND up to SIX TIMES the US crew of a Soyuz (assuming NASA will buy just one seat for US astronauts at every Soyuz launch)

    then…

  • gm

    post edit: …up to EIGHT TIMES the US crew of a Soyuz… each Shuttle has EIGHT astronauts’ seats

  • gm

    despite I did not know (exactly) the amount of every Shuttle’s maintenance, assembly and servicing cost, I’m sure that, part of these costs are related to the manned-side of missions (life support resupply, vehicle reliability, astronauts’ training, experiments, missions’ tools, etc.) so, if the Shuttles will be modified to fly CREWLESS-only after 2010 (as first suggested three years ago in my article) the global costs of the Shuttle fleet could be lower than $2 Bn per year (maybe, less than $1.5Bn, if launched two-three times per year) then, keep them in service (but launched crewless) could help to SAVE giant amount of money (vs. the Progress/ATV/HTV costs) carry large amount of cargo (up to 70 mT per year!) to ISS (plus the cargo-return capability from ISS) and STILL use/take advantage of the Shuttle assembly ability (the ISS astronauts may use it after the Shuttle docking to ISS) filling (at least) the SIX+ years CARGO-to-ISS GAP (and part of the US independence for Space access between 2010 and 2016, or LATER, if the Ares/Orion duo will have further, possible, delays…) and, all that, WITHOUT risk the astronauts’ lives!!!

    last, don’t forget, that, still keep the cargo-only Shuttle fleet in service, means that you CAN (always) use it (also) for a few MANNED missions, if absolutely necessary!

  • gm

    Spacer said… “a crash cost plus program for Orion lite on EELV”

    the standard Orion already IS a “lite” capsule if used for ISS missions with 3 astronauts, 5 days life support and 2 mT of propellents… a global 7+ mT weigh saving that allows it to be launched with a man-rated Delta or Atlas Heavy… unfortunately, the Orion itself will be ready to fly unmanned (for tests) not earlier than 2013 (+ further delays)

  • anon

    gm,

    You are all wrong and clueless, again.
    1. CRS is a real program. and the budget is more than 1 billion and it does not do crew

    2.. NASA doesn’t buy Progress, ATV and HTV services.

    3.. COTS does not provide ISS cargo services, only CRS does. Also, no over runs if the cargo doesn’t get to the ISS, the contractor doesn’t get all his pay

    4. Here is where you are clueless. COTS does not get extra funding. . There is no such thing as an overrun. NASA supplies 500m and the rest is up to the contractor. Perio. COTS doesn’t go past 2010. It is only 3 demo flights for spacex and one fore OSC. There is no continuation after the demo.

    4. Unmanned shuttle is not feasible

    5. Shuttle has only 7 seats.

    6. There is no cargo to ISS gap, only crew to ISS

    Also you said it and it is only thing you have said that is true “I did not know”

  • gm

    don’t forget, that, extend the Shuttle operations, means also you’ll save 7000+ Shuttle-related jobs

  • gm

    1.. a “real” program has vehicle that fly

    2.. NASA will NEED Progress, ATV and HTV

    3.. cargo services is the MAIN goal of COTS (and will probably remain the ONLY for long time)

    4. it DO get extra funding to succeed… also, it’s a STUDY project, then, if it will succeed, each launch will be “sold” separately from R&D costs at a (now unknown) “price” per launch (that’s not a “cost overrun” but surely IS “a cost”)

    “There is no continuation after the demo.” … IF TRUE, it’s a WASTE of money!

    4. unmanned shuttle already is 90% close to real

    5. “…on two occasions, eight astronauts have flown (STS-61-A, STS-71). Eleven people could be accommodated in an emergency mission (see STS-3xx)…” (wikipedia Space Shuttle page)

    6. no cargo to ISS gap …thanks to Progress, ATV, HTV and COTS

  • anon

    gm,

    Just stop posting. You are wrong on all points.

    1. CRS is a real program, just the vehicles haven’t been selected.
    2. No, it won’t, CRS and shuttle will take care of the cargo
    3. Cargo was never the point of COTS: ”
    The C3PO created the COTS projects to help American industry develop privately operated space transportation systems” that is the objective of COTS per NASA website. CRS is cargo to ISS

    4. Wrong. Read something before posting.
    http://www.nasa.gov/offices/c3po/partners/space_act_agreements.html
    You will see that COTS funding is only 500 million and no more. RPK was dropped from COTS because they couldn’t get commercial funding. NASA wasn’t going to get them more funding. There is no continuation of COTS after the demo. Only to you it is a waste of money, because you can’t understand. NASA will buy cargo by the pound and not the launch. And the contract for buying cargo is CRS and not COTS

    4 wrong, unmanned shuttle is no where near real. The shuttle can’t have the capability for a reason cost, hence the term not feasible or not viable. It would cost billions to do the conversion.

    5. 61-A was before the Challenger mods and doesn’t count. STS-71 only landed that many. The shuttle can’t launch more than 7.

    6. Wrong, CRS is cargo for the gap

  • “CRS is a real program”… it’s so “real” that NASA and politics looks everywhere (Russia, ESA, Japan, Shuttle past 2010, COTS, etc.) for ISS cargo… however, if your company (LM?) is working on CRS, then… good luck to you!

    “Cargo was never the point of COTS”… “cargo” is all that it will do (if lucky)

    “You will see that COTS funding is only 500 million and no more”… I know that, but, if COTS will succeed, something REAL should be built from them

    “NASA will buy cargo by the pound and not the launch”… “pounds” or “launches” both have a “price” and it’s not cheap …no matter if you use an ATV or a “CRS” vehicle (that sound a very later project, if “the vehicles haven’t been selected” yet!) …never seen, so far, something carried to LEO at less than $10.000 per kg.

    “unmanned shuttle is no where near real”… from lift-off to LEO nearly everything is ALREADY automatic controlled by computers (TOO FAST operations to be accomplished by humans… the Shuttle isn’t a car!) while, about the LEO to Earth reentry, the Shuttle ALREADY has it’s “automatic return control cables” option aboard, and it doesn’t NOT cost “billions”… link to post

    “The shuttle can’t launch more than 7″… the Shuttles was early designed for a crew of up to TEN astronauts, no matter if it was really used for seven AND eight astronauts… however, “seven” US astronauts per Shuttle launch, always are/will be more than just ONE american astronauts per Soyuz launch… :)

    “CRS is cargo for the gap”… we all wait to see your loved “CRS” vehicles to fly… :)

  • me

    “You will see that COTS funding is only 500 million and no more”… I know that, but, if COTS will succeed, something REAL should be built from them”

    GM, are you that dense? The COTS vehicles can compete for the CRS contract. That is how it works.

    And as usually, you are wrong again. The shuttle was designed to land with 10 crew members, not launch 10.

    The shuttle can’t do orbital operations without the crew. That is where most of the mods are needed. It can’t open the payload bay doors, it can’t dock, it can’t deploy payloads.

  • […] – bookmarked by 1 members originally found by surfeando on 2008-12-08 Griffin skeptical about INKSNA waiver extension http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/09/04/griffin-skeptical-about-inksna-waiver-extension/ – […]

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>