Russia-Georgia Conflict to Imperil NASA's access to LEO?

Carrickagh · Aug 13, 2008

link: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/orl-nasa1308aug13,0,7648120.storyfrom the Sentinel:Congress granted NASA a waiver of the nonproliferation ban in 2005, and the agency has since spent more than $700 million on Russian crew and cargo services. But the current contract expires in 2011, and the Russian company that makes the Soyuz says it needs payment now because it takes three years to build the ships. Without the U.S. payments, it is unclear whether other station partners such as Japan or the European Union would be able or willing to step up and pay for Russian Soyuz launch and lifeboat services.I am currently not a supporter of US-government sponsored manned spaceflight. But I wonder if this might not be one more call for  for the private sector to become a LEO-ferry provider?see also: http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080813/BUSINESS/808130317/1007   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

docm · Aug 13, 2008

"U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., acknowledged Tuesday that Russia’s five-day invasion of the Georgian province of South Ossetia makes it extremely unlikely that Congress will vote to exempt the Russian-built Soyuz capsule from a law that bans trade with nations that sell nuclear material to Iran. NASA had been counting on the waiver to enable it to continue carrying people and cargo to the space station after the space shuttle is retired in 2010. The Soyuz is NASA’s only proven alternative to get to the station."Starting to sound like NASA should impliment COTS-D.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

PistolPete · Aug 13, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., acknowledged Tuesday that Russia’s five-day invasion of the Georgian province of South Ossetia makes it extremely unlikely that Congress will vote to exempt the Russian-built Soyuz capsule from a law that bans trade with nations that sell nuclear material to Iran. NASA had been counting on the waiver to enable it to continue carrying people and cargo to the space station after the space shuttle is retired in 2010. The Soyuz is NASA’s only proven alternative to get to the station."Starting to sound like NASA should impliment COTS-D.  Posted by docm</DIV> I have a feeling that because of Putin's little tryst in Georgia, SpaceX and Orbital are going to see a lot more cash flowing their way. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai </div>

JonClarke · Aug 13, 2008

The US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq did not create a problem, so why should Russia's intervention on its own border?  It would be nuts to risk long term projects because of short term crises. Of course there may be no limit to the stupidity of US politicians and those who cheer them on.Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

centsworth_II · Aug 13, 2008

It's an election year.  Politicians are going to be much more sensitive to what "looks" good or bad to voters.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

johns805 · Aug 14, 2008

...and hopefully they won't spin out of control soon.   When the Congress gets back from their summer break, I think emergency funding and authority to extend shuttle flights as necessary ought to be a priority issue of national interest/security on the table.. Maybe the other ISS partners can kick in funds to help too. Private space industry has the hats but no cattle to step in with an all kinks removed flight proven alternative.  The issue is happening now and NASA still has the hardware to work with.   Things can quickly get worst, the question could be;  Is there enough time short term to save access to the ISS?.  JBK

trailrider · Aug 16, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...and hopefully they won't spin out of control soon.   When the Congress gets back from their summer break, I think emergency funding and authority to extend shuttle flights as necessary ought to be a priority issue of national interest/security on the table.. Maybe the other ISS partners can kick in funds to help too. Private space industry has the hats but no cattle to step in with an all kinks removed flight proven alternative.  The issue is happening now and NASA still has the hardware to work with.   Things can quickly get worst, the question could be;  Is there enough time short term to save access to the ISS?.  JBK    Posted by johns805</DIV>There's a BIGGER PROBLEM THAT REQUIRES ACTION RIGHT NOW!  NASA is set to start dismantling the ET tooling at Michoud, IN SEPTEMBER!  If it is decided that we need to extend the Shuttle, they could run out of External Tanks, AND NEED TO BUILD MORE!  If the Constellation boosters (Ares I & Ares V) prove to have too many problems, NASA might need to move to some alternative launch vehicle, regardless of what someone wants to call it, and utilize the 8.4m diameter tooling.  If the tooling is gone, there will be NO OPTIONS FOR U.S. ACCESS TO ISS!  Only the President can order NASA to NOT destroy the tooling!  I'd recommend contacting the White House and RESPECTFULLY requesting President Bush stop the destruction of the tooling!  This is NOT about partisan politics or who wins the next election.  If the tooling is gone, the next President, whoever it is won't have the options...  By the time Congress might act, it would be too late!

docm · Aug 16, 2008

NASA - ET production = they'd damned well better fund COTS-D and switch to Direct 2, especially given that the US-Russia relationship is sinking into abyss. As far as Ares I goes; the more Rube Goldberg systems they add to mitigate the T/O problem the more failure modes they add to the system.  Better to start over before it kills someone.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

radarredux · Aug 16, 2008

This is a problem on several layers at multiple time scales. Apparently getting the last waver for NASA to send hundreds of millions of dollars to Russia had strong resistance, and the relationship with Russia (even before Georgia) had been sliding. Now with Georgia, it is going to be really hard.But because of the approx. 3 year lead time to build a Soyuz, Russia needs to get an order in months in order for NASA to have one ready for them after 2011, and that means NASA needs to get permission from Congress right in the middle of an election process right after the Georgia situation.An alternative that Congress members seem to talk about is extending the Shuttle operations, but (1) that will further delay Orion because the freed up funding from the Shuttle program was going to fund Orion, and (2) suppliers for the Shuttle program are already starting to shutdown. If Congress needs to wait for the next President to make a decision as important as keeping the Shuttle program going after 2010, that might not happen until mid 2009 -- after many suppliers have shutdown their lines. So if they extend the Shuttle, when does Orion fly? 2018-2020? Does this mean the Shuttle will need to for 8-10 additional years?In short, right now, because of technical delays, budget shortfalls, and political tensions, NASA's manned space program post 2010-2011 looks like a mess.

radarredux · Aug 16, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have a feeling that because of Putin's little tryst in Georgia, SpaceX and Orbital are going to see a lot more cash flowing their way. Posted by PistolPete</DIV>I think 2 things need to happen. First, SpaceX needs to successfully orbit something. Second, I think a new President, Congress, and NASA Administrator will can the Ares I/V approach for the Ares IV approach and commit to retiring the Shuttle at the end of 2010.The latter might delay access to LEO via The Stick but put the larger Lunar program back on track. Without NASA building a competitor to the Falcon 9 (and proof that SpaceX can put stuff in orbit), I think SpaceX and additional investors will have the confidence to accelerate a manned LEO capability.

vulture4 · Aug 20, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There's a BIGGER PROBLEM THAT REQUIRES ACTION RIGHT NOW!  NASA is set to start dismantling the ET tooling at Michoud, IN SEPTEMBER!  If it is decided that we need to extend the Shuttle, they could run out of External Tanks, AND NEED TO BUILD MORE!  If the Constellation boosters (Ares I & Ares V) prove to have too many problems, NASA might need to move to some alternative launch vehicle, regardless of what someone wants to call it, and utilize the 8.4m diameter tooling.  If the tooling is gone, there will be NO OPTIONS FOR U.S. ACCESS TO ISS!  Only the President can order NASA to NOT destroy the tooling!  I'd recommend contacting the White House and RESPECTFULLY requesting President Bush stop the destruction of the tooling!  This is NOT about partisan politics or who wins the next election.  If the tooling is gone, the next President, whoever it is won't have the options...  By the time Congress might act, it would be too late! Posted by trailrider</DIV>I agree. Just a few years ago we were planning to ly the Shuttle for at least another 10 years, primarily to support research on the ISS. We had the technology demonstrator program to patiently work out technology for a new generation of reusable spacecraft. The OSP was a short-term backup for the Shuttle, just a small capsule to be launched on an EELV. There would have been no loss of thousands of jobs, and decades of experience. The Shuttle was actually working much better with the new tanks. Eventually we would go to the moon, but first we would make human spaceflight not just possible, but practical. Then, without any discussion, the administrator says "Drop everything. Let's go to the moon."  Because we have to doit without spending any more money, Shuttle and ISS are out the window.The taxpayers gave us $100 billion for trhe ISS and shuttle, and now we think they'll give us $100B+ more to go to the moon, just because we're bored with LEO. For how long? There isn't even  permanent lunar base in the current plan. How much will THAT cost per year? What get's me is that the justification seems to be "The spirit of exploration" or "human destiny". There's no indication of practical value, in research, technology, or economic productivity. If we can't find a productive way to use the ISS, then I suggest we think harder, because if we can't use the ISS productively, there is no way we will achieve anything productive on the moon.I think this is a serious error that we will regret in years to come.

MindLens · Aug 21, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There's a BIGGER PROBLEM THAT REQUIRES ACTION RIGHT NOW!  NASA is set to start dismantling the ET tooling at Michoud, IN SEPTEMBER!  If it is decided that we need to extend the Shuttle, they could run out of External Tanks, AND NEED TO BUILD MORE!  If the Constellation boosters (Ares I & Ares V) prove to have too many problems, NASA might need to move to some alternative launch vehicle, regardless of what someone wants to call it, and utilize the 8.4m diameter tooling.  If the tooling is gone, there will be NO OPTIONS FOR U.S. ACCESS TO ISS!  Only the President can order NASA to NOT destroy the tooling!  I'd recommend contacting the White House and RESPECTFULLY requesting President Bush stop the destruction of the tooling!  This is NOT about partisan politics or who wins the next election.  If the tooling is gone, the next President, whoever it is won't have the options...  By the time Congress might act, it would be too late! Posted by trailrider</DIV>If someone wants to author a petition I'll be glad to sign it and pass it along.  Individual pleas will probably get lost in the pile of virtural mail which reaches the White House on a daily basis.  What about NASA Administration?  Surely they recognize the need to retain Shuttle tooling in light of current geopolitical events? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

docm · Aug 21, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If someone wants to author a petition I'll be glad to sign it and pass it along.  Individual pleas will probably get lost in the pile of virtural mail which reaches the White House on a daily basis.  What about NASA Administration?  Surely they recognize the need to retain Shuttle tooling in light of current geopolitical events? Posted by MindLens</DIV> Apparently not because they're hell bent on destroying the shuttle hardware. Talk about burning the bridge while you're still on it.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

trailrider · Aug 21, 2008

Here is what I e-mailed (and FAXed to the White House).  I did sign it and have distributed it to various members of the Mars Society, at the recent convention.  I hesitate to post my own name on-line, though, of course I provided my name, address, phone number, etc. on the originals.I have had several thoughts on whether to send in a petition signed jointly or individually.  Sometimes a joint petition shows how much "clout" one may have because of national memberships (e.g., the National Rifle Association, AARP, National Association of Realtors, etc., etc.).  Sometimes, however, it is better to send individual information, especially with space-related things, so the staffers don't think we're a bunch of "space case" Star Wars fans.  I dunno...  I have discussed this with several prominent members of the Mars Society, including Bob Zubrin, but am not sure what they will do about it.  Whatever, we better do it QUICK!Here is the text of my message:  Feel free to use it, however, it might be best to paraphrase it... "Subject: Dismantling of Space Shuttle External Tank Tooling at MichoudThe PresidentThe WhitehouseDear Mr. President:NASA is reportedly intending to begin dismantling of the tooling used at Michoud to build the 8.4m diameter Space Shuttle External Tanks (ET), beginning next month, as well as commencing layoffs of ET personnel, probably the following month. The reason given is to prepare for building of tooling for the Ares V tankage for the Constellation Program.I believe this to be a grave mistake, which could be inimical to our national security, for the following reasons:1) The termination of the Shuttle Program not later than September 2010, will leave the United States totally dependent upon the Russian Soyuz launch systems for American access to the International Space Station (ISS) until the follow-on American systems become available, no earlier than 2014.  Should the international situation disrupt access to the Soyuz system, because of action by Russia, or possible refusal of Congress to fund purchase of the Russian launch services, we could be faced with no access to the ISS.  Should a decision be made by the next Administration to continue flying the Shuttle, we should not foreclose the capability to build more External Tanks.2) Current NASA planning for the Constellation Program (Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle/Ares I/Ares V) has numerous milestones which, for one reason or another, are subject to slippage that may be in excess of the recently announced delay until September 2014, rather than 2013.  This will, again, leave us with a major gap in our access to the ISS, subject to availability of other manned launch systems.The current status of both the Ares I and Ares V design, which was originally predicated on “maximum utilization of Shuttle technology and hardware,” is very much in flux, but is not, in my humble opinion, sufficiently mature to be certain of success.  It could turn out that some alternate heavy-lift vehicle might be required that could utilize hardware that could be readily built using the existing 8.4m diameter tooling at Michoud.  If that proves not to be the case, there would still be plenty of time to remove the existing tooling.  Once the existing tooling is removed and destroyed, that option is foreclosed.  We made this mistake with Saturn V tooling, and later with Titan 34D tooling (requiring building of new tooling for Titan IV).   We should not do the same with the ET tooling.I respectfully, but strongly urge that you order that this action to destroy the tooling at Michoud be stopped, and said tooling be maintained.  Should you need additional information, please let me know.Respectfully, (signed)"Ad Luna! Ad Ares! (Mars...not the rockets!) Ad Astra!

docm · Aug 21, 2008

Copied, paraphrased and changed where appropriate and sent.  I strongly suggest others do likewise. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MindLens · Aug 21, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Copied, paraphrased and changed where appropriate and sent.  I strongly suggest others do likewise. Posted by docm</DIV>Message sent to elected leaders and CNN Science and Technology. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

trailrider · Aug 22, 2008

Hmmm!  Khazakstan (sp?) and Uzbekistan have denied permission for the sun-synchronous launch azimuth of this rocket because of the impact points of the boosters.  But one wonders if there is another message being sent to Russia by its former "Soviet satellites" as a result of the Georgian situation?While I haven't looked at the normal Soyuz trajectories, and presume they are sufficiently different (58.5 deg. inclination) from this (~98 deg. or so) launch azimuth not to present the same overflight problems, one wonders what the impact would be on the ability of the Russians to reach the ISS in the future????Still another reason to stop destruction of the ET tooling...if we can!Ad Luna! Ad Ares! (Mars, not the boosters) Ad Astra!

trailrider · Aug 26, 2008

Sens. McCain, Hutchinson and Vitter have written the President asking that NASA take no action that would preclude EXTENSION OF THE SHUTTLE MISSIONS BEYOND 2010!  THERE IS HOPE!Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!

johns805 · Aug 30, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There's a BIGGER PROBLEM THAT REQUIRES ACTION RIGHT NOW!  NASA is set to start dismantling the ET tooling at Michoud, IN SEPTEMBER!  If it is decided that we need to extend the Shuttle, they could run out of External Tanks, AND NEED TO BUILD MORE!  If the Constellation boosters (Ares I & Ares V) prove to have too many problems, NASA might need to move to some alternative launch vehicle, regardless of what someone wants to call it, and utilize the 8.4m diameter tooling.  If the tooling is gone, there will be NO OPTIONS FOR U.S. ACCESS TO ISS!  Only the President can order NASA to NOT destroy the tooling!  I'd recommend contacting the White House and RESPECTFULLY requesting President Bush stop the destruction of the tooling!  This is NOT about partisan politics or who wins the next election.  If the tooling is gone, the next President, whoever it is won't have the options...  By the time Congress might act, it would be too late! Posted by trailrider</DIV> The latest news just breaking looks encouraging.  The Orlando Sentinel now reports that NASA is moving to consider shuttle flight extension because it is prudent in light of various events:   Here's the link:http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/08/exclusive-nasa.htmlAll are advised that public displays of finger crossing should continue to be expected... (LOL!) ~~~

frodo1008 · Aug 30, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The latest news just breaking looks encouraging.  The Orlando Sentinel now reports that NASA is moving to consider shuttle flight extension because it is prudent in light of various events:   Here's the link:http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/08/exclusive-nasa.htmlAll are advised that public displays of finger crossing should continue to be expected... (LOL!) ~~~     Posted by johns805</DIV>All that is needed is to fly the shuttle some 3 or 4 times per year between 2010 and 2015.  If congress is serious about not wanting to use Russian equipment to get our people and supplies to the ISS during this time, then I am certain they can find the additional funds to do this and even give NASA more funding for the Ares programs to accelerate going back to the moon.  If not, then they need to swallow the bullet and fund the Russians, regardless of our political relations with them.  As I don't have any wish to see the cold war brought back, then either method is fine with this particular taxpayer.  NASA's funding is far, far below what it was when we expected to go to the moon in the first place during the truly great era of human space exploration of the 1960's. To me at least it is incredibly short sighted and stupid for us to not even be able to fund NASA at the level of even 1% of the federal budget, when we could do so at an average of some 2% then!!

Carrickagh · Aug 30, 2008

The STS-Orion gap in access wasn't all that different from the 6 year gap between the last Apollo flight (ASTP July, 1975) and STS-1 (April, 1981). But we didn't have a space station at that time either.Of course, post-election, it could all change, depending on who gets elected. Also, the Russians won't suddenly become disinterested in making money on spaceflight, and Soyuz will still likely be available to the highest bidder.Keeping the Shuttle flying has more to do with national pride than a desire to maintain LEO access, IMO. But how much can you pare such a complex system down and still make it work? Perhaps, like Yeager said after Challenger, the STS should just be flown by all volunteer military crews. If this becomes just another un-funded mandate there could be another disaster. I would hate to see the program end that way.CK <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

trailrider · Aug 30, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The STS-Orion gap in access wasn't all that different from the 6 year gap between the last Apollo flight (ASTP July, 1975) and STS-1 (April, 1981). But we didn't have a space station at that time either.Of course, post-election, it could all change, depending on who gets elected. Also, the Russians won't suddenly become disinterested in making money on spaceflight, and Soyuz will still likely be available to the highest bidder.Keeping the Shuttle flying has more to do with national pride than a desire to maintain LEO access, IMO. But how much can you pare such a complex system down and still make it work? Perhaps, like Yeager said after Challenger, the STS should just be flown by all volunteer military crews. If this becomes just another un-funded mandate there could be another disaster. I would hate to see the program end that way.CK Posted by Carrickagh</DIV>You forget that Congress has to approve the waiver to continue buying Soyuz launch services from the Russians.  Sen. Bill Nelson has said getting that passed Congress is problematical.  NASA is now doing some "studies that aren't" about how to maintain U.S. access to the ISS until Orion/Ares I comes on line.  Orion PDR has just been slipped to Sept 2009 (about a year's slippage).  What we need to do is see if NASA begins tutoring its astronauts in Mandarin Chinese!  On top of that, the Hilton Las Vegas is dismantling the Star Trek attraction!  I think we are getting into a world of hurt, spacewise!Ad LEO! (if we can get there) Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!

johns805 · Sep 14, 2008

Hi:   I just sent my Senators letters opposing the NASA waiver extension and proposing more shuttle flights on a "need to go, assuring access to the space station" basis.   I did something. It's a lot better than idle whining...(LOL!)We shall see what happens!   Best Regards!  ~JBK

MeteorWayne · Sep 14, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hi:   I just sent my Senators letters opposing the NASA waiver extension and proposing more shuttle flights on a "need to go, assuring access to the space station" basis.   I did something. It's a lot better than idle whining...(LOL!)We shall see what happens!   Best Regards!  ~JBK  Posted by johns805</DIV> Please read Wayne Hale's blog post of August 28th here : http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/waynehalesblog <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

franontanaya · Sep 14, 2008

I think I may have a nice question about this topic.Currently the ISS is kept under a 425km orbit so Soyuz can reach it, though that increases the atmospheric drag.Once Orion is built and proofed, would NASA be able to say "We want to boost the ISS higher [with Jules Verne modules] in order to cut down maintenance costs"? Though the planned life for ISS was 15 years, it's designed for 30, and boosting it now could save a lot in the long run.It would be a weird situation if it was Russia who had to buy tickets for Orion seats to the ISS after 2015. Maybe Soyuz seats could be exchanged for Orion seats, so no cash had to be paid either way. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Russia-Georgia Conflict to Imperil NASA's access to LEO?

Carrickagh

Guest

docm

Guest

PistolPete

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

centsworth_II

Guest

johns805

Guest

trailrider

Guest

docm

Guest

radarredux

Guest

radarredux

Guest

vulture4

Guest

MindLens

Guest

docm

Guest

trailrider

Guest

docm

Guest

MindLens

Guest

trailrider

Guest

trailrider

Guest

johns805

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

Carrickagh

Guest

trailrider

Guest

johns805

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

franontanaya

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page