Comments on: Planning for another INKSNA waiver http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/10/13/planning-for-another-inksna-waiver/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=planning-for-another-inksna-waiver Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway... Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:35:41 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.38 By: vulture4 http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/10/13/planning-for-another-inksna-waiver/#comment-355941 Sat, 15 Oct 2011 19:10:12 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=5070#comment-355941 The Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act of 2000 was intended to threaten Russia with cutting off sales to NASA. The theory was that Russia would be so worried about NASA being unable to support ISS that Russia would cut off trade with Iran to protect the sale of a few Soyuz seats. INKSNA is a stupid law, passed by a Republican congress and signed by Bill Clinton. It should be repealed.

]]> By: Robert G. Oler http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/10/13/planning-for-another-inksna-waiver/#comment-355935 Sat, 15 Oct 2011 16:00:51 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=5070#comment-355935 amightywind wrote @ October 13th, 2011 at 9:21 am

“Is it not obvious by now that Obama’s ‘reset’ with Russia is ineffective and that the threat of Russia is growing?”

in the goofy right wing world the “threats” are growing everywhere because that is all you people can deal with. dont be goofy, Russia is no more a threat to us then the Iraqs were pre 9/11. RGO

]]> By: Trent Waddington http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/10/13/planning-for-another-inksna-waiver/#comment-355884 Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:39:50 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=5070#comment-355884 all of a sudden I believe Armageddon is upon us… I actually agree with amightywind on something.

]]> By: Fred Willett http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/10/13/planning-for-another-inksna-waiver/#comment-355872 Fri, 14 Oct 2011 00:35:46 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=5070#comment-355872 Sorry to get dragged OT. The INKSNA waiver is just a necessary hurdle NASA needs to jump through because Congress passed a silly law tying the administrations hands. As if the current or past administrations couldn’t tell who their friends and enemies were.
It certainly doesn’t mean the end of the world is nigh or the current Pres is any better or worse than any other.
(Sorry AMW).

]]> By: Fred Willett http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/10/13/planning-for-another-inksna-waiver/#comment-355871 Fri, 14 Oct 2011 00:27:11 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=5070#comment-355871 It proves what those opposing HLVs have said all along. SLS is pure pork. If you really want to settle and explore the Moon and Mars then you can do it cheaper and quicker without HLV.
See
http://www.transterrestrial.com/papers/Bienhoff_AIAASpace2011.pdf
For a Lunar architecture with a biggest launch piece of just 12t
or
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Woodcock_9-14-11/
for a Mars architecture all on Delta IV Heavy and max of 40t chunks.
SLS just keeps us trapped in LEO for another 20 years.
Unless it gets cancelled, of course.

]]> By: Michael from Iowa http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/10/13/planning-for-another-inksna-waiver/#comment-355864 Thu, 13 Oct 2011 21:35:15 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=5070#comment-355864 Here’s hoping Vlad.

]]> By: Vladislaw http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/10/13/planning-for-another-inksna-waiver/#comment-355844 Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:13:28 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=5070#comment-355844 OT: Jeff can you cover this?

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1577

“Well, despite what NASA may or may not have been telling Rep. Rohrabacher about its internal evaluations regarding the merits of alternate architectures that did not use the SLS (and those that incorporated fuel depots), the agency had actually been rather busy studying those very topics.

And guess what: the conclusions that NASA arrived at during these studies are in direct contrast to what the agency had been telling Congress, the media, and anyone else who would listen.

This presentation “Propellant Depot Requirements Study – Status Report – HAT Technical Interchange Meeting – July 21, 2011″ is a distilled version of a study buried deep inside of NASA. The study compared and contrasted an SLS/SEP architecture with one based on propellant depots for human lunar and asteroid missions. Not only was the fuel depot mission architecture shown to be less expensive, fitting within expected budgets, it also gets humans beyond low Earth orbit a decade before the SLS architecture could.

Moreover, supposed constraints on the availability of commercial launch alternatives often mentioned by SLS proponents, was debunked. In addition, clear integration and performance advantages to the use of commercial launchers Vs SLS was repeatedly touted as being desirable: “breaking costs into smaller, less-monolithic amounts allows great flexibility in meeting smaller and changing budget profiles.” “

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2011/Depot.Study.pdf

I doubt it will matter now, but when SLS fails I am sure this will be the default position going forward.

]]> By: Dennis http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/10/13/planning-for-another-inksna-waiver/#comment-355835 Thu, 13 Oct 2011 13:34:24 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=5070#comment-355835 WOW, what a mess!

]]> By: amightywind http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/10/13/planning-for-another-inksna-waiver/#comment-355834 Thu, 13 Oct 2011 13:21:05 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=5070#comment-355834 Is it not obvious by now that Obama’s ‘reset’ with Russia is ineffective and that the threat of Russia is growing? The bad old days of the Soviet Union are back with a vengeance with President For Life Putin. Syria continues to butcher dissidents with Russian weapons while Russian diplomats run interference at the UN. There should be no more INKSNA waivers. The chances of one emerging from a GOP congress after 2012 are slim anyway.

]]>