Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) told Florida Today that he intends to make “a full, true-blue push” to get NASA’s INKSNA waiver extended in the Senate in the coming weeks. INKSNA is the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act, which includes a waiver allowing NASA to continue to purchase services from Russia through the end of 2011. NASA has warned, however, that the waiver needs to be extended this year or else NASA will no longer to be able to procure Soyuz spacecraft and, as a result, could be forced to abandon the station by 2011.
Getting that waiver extended has looked doubtful in recent weeks, in large part because of Russia’s invasion of Georgia last month. Nelson, who serves on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, said he would push a bill extending the waiver, S.3103, through the committee and on to the full Senate. There, he hopes to get the bill passed by unanimous consent, which would be a relatively speedy process (important since Congress plans to recess in a few weeks for the upcoming election) but one that could be derailed by any single senator. The legislation would still have to get through the House as well, although the article notes that the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA), also supports the waiver extension.
Meanwhile, the Orlando Sentinel reports on something that most people here already known: extending the life of the space shuttle is not a complete alternative to Soyuz for maintaining a US presence on the ISS. The article cites a “congressional briefing paper” NASA produced that “Continuing to fly the space shuttle past 2010 is not the answer to this situation.” While the shuttle can ferry crews to and from the station, it cannot remain their for extended periods as a lifeboat. The article adds that NASA administrator Mike Griffin “has personally visited senior members of Congress this week” trying to convince them to support the INKSNA waiver extension.
I’ve always read that the shuttle can’t be a lifeboat to the station. Can someone explain why not? Aren’t there any modifications or adjustments that can be made to accomplish this mission?
It can’t stay on orbit for more than a month or so without concerns that critical systems might be compromised. Trying to certify it to do so would take years of testing and experimentation. Also, given that we only have three orbiters left, leaving one up there takes it out of the processing flow, making turnaround more difficult.
As usual I’ll recommend that NASA’s main effort to solve this problem be a COTS-D commercial crew transportation incentive that is particularly well-funded – enough to interest all players and to fund several competitors. I’ll leave the balance of milestones vs. payouts as a variable to be determined as a tradeoff between risk to the overall program and risk of funding a competitor that doesn’t succeed.
The main alternatives being discussed: Shuttle extensions, Ares 1 schedule shrinkage, and Soyuz, all have huge policy and budget problems.
Another option, to cancel Ares and replace it with a cost-plus EELV/small Orion effort, might make sense if done in conjunction with a strong COTS-D effort. The prerequisite for such an effort to work would be a suitable job for the government vehicle to do other than ISS transportation so the commercial efforts will not be scared away. The government vehicle would be dedicated to that other job once a couple COTS-D efforts are working for the ISS.
Here’s another flame to add to the Soyuz option fire:
Russia, Venezuela: Russian Bombers in Washington’s Backyard
http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/russia_venezuela_russian_bombers_washingtons_backyard
Thank you Rand.
One thing I’ve been wondering about – lets assume that NASA funded 3 or so COTS-D proposals, and further guaranteed that it would get out of the owner/operator business of flying people and cargo to the station – we can’t be talking about that many actual flights, and if thats the case, what are the likely hood of most of the companies going belly-up?
If Venezuela is Washington’s backyard, then US military bases/sites in the Stans, Korea, Japa, Turkey, Iraq, Germany, Czech, Poland, etc. are on Russia’s front porch. More “OMG you can’t do that, only we can do that” faux outrage.
Ferris, there is already a demonstrated demand for orbital science that could benefit markedly from manned experiments. Bigelow already has a number of customers. And if Bigelow doesn’t pull through there may be other avenues for providing orbital facilities. I’ve also heard of a European inflatable habitat effort and there’s nothing saying someone can’t grab the ISS/Mir-style tin can model and improve upon that. They may be expensive, but Bigelow’s tentative customer list suggests there’s real ROI at a level necessary to support such projects above and beyond NASA.
The real potential lies in the customers that are looking at shaking out zero-G manufacturing technologies. I haven’t read into it enough to know what those projcest are or how real the possibilities are, but there are serious clients with serious money taking real looks at the possibilities.
Bigelow has a demonstrated success rate and continues to bask in the glory of two functional modules in orbit. And the next one, due in 2 1/2-3 years, will be man-rated and commercially available after they clear it.
Will the demand be enough to support three separate vehicles? It’s really hard to say at this point, but I think between NASA and private space there’s a good case for two.
Aremis
Orlando Sentinel has acquired a copy of NASA’s congressional talking points.
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/files/inksna_extension_paper.pdf
The Sentinel story is very interesting.
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/09/nasa-russia-ess.html
“Continuing to fly the space shuttle past 2010 is not the answer to this situation,†the paper says. “The Soyuz option is simply the only sure solution … or else the U.S. has no choice but to de-crew all U.S. astronauts (and de-facto the Canadian, European and Japanese astronauts) from the International Space Station in 2011.â€
and
“In interviews this week, members of the upcoming shuttle mission to service the Hubble Space telescope said it’s possible to fly a few more shuttle missions safely but not without slowing down development of the next space vehicle.
If America wants a new vehicle, said Commander Scott Altman, “you’re going to have to spend the money to make that happen, which I think is going to take you out of the shuttle business sooner, or else you just never get to the other side.”
All of this suggests that the rumors that Griffin was going to extend the Shuttle program are just that … rumors. These official NASA talking points totally undercut any argument for extending Shuttle (beyond another mission or two.)
FWIW,
– Al
Ferris: In addition to the possible items Aremis mentioned (Bigelow stations, or European ones, or ISS/MIR style station modules, zero-G manufacturing), consider these possibilities:
– ISS may not retire in 2016, especially if COTS-D is there
– maybe not all 3 competitors would make it
– maybe the competitor flights would be for 2 or 3 crew members, increasing the number of flights (compared to Shuttle)
– if it turns out to be productive, ISS traffic needs per year might increase (eg: for commercial use of the ISS)
– space tourism (to ISS, or just to space, etc)
– new commercial or government human spaceflight roles for COTS-D vehicles (Hubble-style satellite servicing, fuel depot servicing, etc)
typo: The thing with the Russian planes is that they’re strategic bombers:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-160
“Weapons are carried in two internal bays, each capable of holding 20,000 kg (44,400 lb) of free-fall weapons, or a rotary launcher for nuclear missiles.”
I’ll assume that the ones in Venezuela aren’t carrying nukes. Even if that’s the case, it’s a provocative move, and isn’t going to be seen in a good light in Congress when considering the Monroe Doctrine, or when considering purchase of Soyuz flights.
red and Aremis,
I know the good scenrio, I’ve written about it. But does Bigelow actually have full fledge contracts already?
In other words, what happens if we only get the current status quo?
[…] of Florida’s congressional delegation, Sen. Bill Nelson, vowed several days ago to make “a full, true-blue push” to get legislation extending NASA’s INSKNA waiver through…, another member has vowed to do everything in his power to stop it. In a statement released Friday, […]
red and Aremis,
I know the good scenrio, I’ve written about it. But does Bigelow actually have full fledge contracts already?
In other words, what happens if we only get the current status quo?
I wish I had a more solid lead, but I’ll concede that there aren’t any secure contracts, to my knowledge, for Bigelow. But there’s definitely interest in space tourism as evidenced by the waiting list for Space Adventures ISS flights. I think Bigelow is a more solid prospect than you suspect, though I can appreciate your suspicion. I’m often a bit pessimistic about it with how many times we’ve all be disappointed.
Aremis
typo: The thing with the Russian planes is that they’re strategic bombers:
Red, good thing the US doesn’t also deploy strategic and offensive weapons abroad.