Russia Demands that US Pay for Continued Launches

[zavvy]

<b>Russia Demands that US Pay for Continued Launches </b><br /><br /><i>Free ride is over, Russia tells nasa</i><br /><br />http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/space/2719658<br /><br /><br />NASA is prepared to work with its international space station partners to address a new demand from Russia that the United States pay for the continued launch of astronauts and supplies to the orbital outpost, a space agency spokesman said Wednesday.<br /><br />"That is an issue they can raise, and it will be worked through the partnership," said Glenn Mahone, NASA's public affairs chief.<br /><br />Russia's cash-strapped space agency issued the demand earlier Wednesday, telling the ITAR-Tass news agency that it expects to be compensated if the United States uses the Soyuz spacecraft to shuttle astronauts and supplies to the space station in 2005, The Associated Press reported.<br /><br />The U.S.-led 16-nation station partnership has relied solely on Russia for sending crews and supplies since the loss of the space shuttle Columbia in early 2003. NASA hopes to resume shuttle launchings to the station in March if it can complete safety enhancements.<br /><br />The complicated compensation issue is not new. At a meeting of top space station officials in Norway late last month, the partnership agreed to move ahead with the assembly of the orbital outpost until it could house as many as six astronauts. It meant that Russian spacecraft would double as lifeboats.<br /><br />However, in their joint statement, the partners said the financial details for obtaining future Soyuz spacecraft hadn't been worked out. Russia's obligation to furnish the Soyuz capsules at its own expense expires in October 2005.<br /><br />NASA can't buy Russian space hardware because of the Iran non-Proliferation Agreement of 2000, legislation intended to stop the spread of Russian nuclear technology to potential adversaries.<br /><br />U.S. eff

 

[zavvy]

What other countries are they currently servicing for free?<br /><br />I found this following statement from the article intriguing. Surely something can be done to change this?<br /><br /><i>"NASA can't buy Russian space hardware because of the Iran non-Proliferation Agreement of 2000"</i>

 

[zavvy]

<font color="yellow">O'Keefe said it was not necessary to do so. <br /></font><br /><br />Perhaps he feels it might be more cost effective for Nasa to just pay Russia for the launches..?

 

[najab]

><i>Members of Congress have offered to ammend the agreement however O'Keefe said it was not necessary to do so.</i><p>That doesn't quite match my recollection of the situation. As I remember it, the Iran Non-Proliferation Act has an escape clause which says that NASA can make a one-time payment to Russia if the safety of the ISS and/or crew is in peril. After the STS-107 accident, Congress asked if NASA was going to invoke the clause and O'Keefe more-or-less decided to keep that card in reserve since there was no imminent threat to the ISS.</p>

 

[sond]

I don't know the exact text of the Iran non profeliration act. But would it be possible for NASA to pay a subcontractor that pays the various companies who are concerned with launching the Soyuz and Progress vessels. <br /><br />For example Starsem, a French company who sells the Soyuz LV on the commercial market, could act as a middlemen in this deal.<br /><br />Would this be possible?<br /><br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">The US Congress must change the law.</font>/i><br /><br />Iran is now openly moving forward with its uranium enrichment efforts. I don't think the US Congress will have much of a stomach to relax rules designed to punish companies and countries that have helped or are helping Iran build its nuclear capability.<br /><br />I still think NASA will get around this by laundering money through ESA. Another possibility, I think shuttle_guy mentioned, is to give some American slots on ISS to Russia.</i>

 

[nacnud]

What would the Russians do with extra American slots on the ISS? As far as I understand it in order to produce Soyuz vehicles and launch them they are going to need cash rather than payment in kind.<br /><br />There could be various trades for time and/or space on the ISS between the various members but I still think that for the Russians to continue in the way they have and even increase launches to support a six man crew is going to need cash payments.<br /><br />I suppose we need an insider at the Russian space agency to find out... any volunteers?<br />

 

[crossovermaniac]

O'Keefe is being a fool. We need to go ahead pay them for the Soyuz.

 

[crossovermaniac]

<font color="yellow">We can see that you put a lot of thought into that statement. O'Keefe is not a fool, but he would have been if he had taken the one time payment. Short term solution to a long term problem. What happens if the shuttles never fly again? you think that one payment was going to be enough to cover ALL the costs?</font><br /><br />Go back and read where it said Congress offered to amend the bill to make an exception for NASA and O'Keefe turned it down. The one time payment would have made a good down payment to Russia while Congress passes the amendment allowing NASA to buy more Soyuz.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Russia deserves to be compensated, i agree there. However, getting paid cash shouldn't be how. I think the russian government would take the money and spend it elsewhere. Give it to them in the form of ISS spots, launches, or maintence hours.</font><br /><br />I doubt the Russians would try to pull a fast one like that. They need our money as badly as we need their launch vehicles. Cheating us would only ensure no more US funding of the station leaving them with nothing.