backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 23 comment(s) - last by maven81.. on Sep 30 at 10:55 AM
NASA will be able to head to space aboard Russian spacecraft

The United States House of Representatives officially extended a waiver that will allow NASA to purchase seats aboard Russian spacecraft marking a political issue that could have had a lasting impact on current U.S. space issues.  The measure passed 370 to 58.

The agreement will make it possible for NASA to retire its current generation space shuttle in 2010, while ensuring it will have a way to get astronauts and supplies to the International Space Station (ISS).  If the deal did not go through, NASA would not be able to spend tax dollars to reserve seats on the Russian Soyuz spacecraft, as the ISS nears completion and ready for full-time science experiments.

The extension will go into effect on January 1, 2012, and would be valid until July 1, 2016.  Assuming Orion is completed on time, the U.S. will have an uninterrupted presence aboard the ISS.

Specifically, the Iran, North Korea and Syria Nonproliferation Act, signed into law in 2000, made it illegal for the government to pay Russia for space-related deeds because of Russia's past sales of nuclear materials to Iran.  The waiver allows both sides to continue doing business, but only in specific circumstances approved by the U.S. government.

NASA and the Russian space agency currently have an agreement for space transport through 2011, but NASA wanted a new contract due to the extended gap before Orion is completed.

Due to international agreements, NASA is responsible for helping transport the European Space Agency (ESA), Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) and Canadian astronauts into space.

Possible political ramifications overly complicated the situation, as political tensions between the United States and Russia reached a new level after Russia sent troops into Georgia.  The situation remains volatile, but most Russian troops have withdrawn from Georgia, which helped convince the U.S. to resume negotiations.

"Unless we act immediately, the U.S. will abandon its role in supporting, and benefiting from, missions to this amazing facility," Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said in a letter to Democratic leaders.

The U.S. and Russia must now reach a financial agreement on how much it will cost to send per astronaut to the ISS.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Glad they solved it :)
By Clauzii on 9/27/2008 12:26:57 PM , Rating: 3
It is after all an International Space Station, and since the US has put money into that project too, it would be strange not to be able to use it.




RE: Glad they solved it :)
By jadeskye on 9/27/2008 1:22:07 PM , Rating: 2
call me pessamistic but i foresee a few political problems and god forbid something goes wrong upon launch (aka challenger, may they rest in peace) the international backlash could be huge.


RE: Glad they solved it :)
By jtesoro on 9/27/2008 1:25:33 PM , Rating: 4
While an agreement could be reached, it would be too easy for Russia to deny passage in the event of another political or military conflict. The US should be prepared for this kind of eventuality. After all, look at North Korea and how it uses on-again, off-again "agreements" to further it's own agenda.


RE: Glad they solved it :)
By foolsgambit11 on 9/27/2008 3:43:50 PM , Rating: 3
In the event of souring relations with Russia, the ISS will be the least of our worries. If astronauts are up there when relations go south, I'm sure Russia would bring them back down. Having a few years without astronauts up there is chump change in the larger scheme of things.

As to the poster who said that the political ramifications of an accident would be horrendous, I'm going to assume that launches will include both Russian and U.S. astronauts. In other words, nobody will believe any launch failure was on purpose.

The Russian safety record for space station travel has been pretty darn good for something like 3 decades. They don't use their space shuttle (even though they designed one - or stole the designs, whatever. I don't want to argue that point) Turns out the Space Shuttle program is expensive and unsafe, although it can carry more crew, and serves as a pretty good operational platform.


RE: Glad they solved it :)
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/27/2008 5:17:49 PM , Rating: 2
The space shuttle is still the only way to move the large pieces of the ISS into orbit. They are hoping to finish construction before the shuttle is retired because there is currently no other way to get the parts into orbit and assembled without it. Russia has a great platform for ferrying people and supplies, but not so good for heavy lifting. A new type of shuttle will eventually need to be designed and built if we plan to construct bases on the moon, or a shipyard in orbit.


RE: Glad they solved it :)
By JKflipflop98 on 9/27/2008 9:14:59 PM , Rating: 2
Orion can lift 250,000 pounds into orbit. I'd say that will get-r-done.


RE: Glad they solved it :)
By randomly on 9/27/2008 10:58:21 PM , Rating: 3
The Orion is the crew launch capsule for the Ares I. You are thinking of the Ares V heavy launch vehicle.

Both Ares I and Ares V are having significant design problems and shortfalls in lift capacity. Originally the designs were to use already designed shuttle technology such as the 4 segment shuttle Solid Rocket Booster and the Space Shuttle Main Engine to reduce developmental, production and deployment costs.

Almost nothing remains of legacy shuttle technology in the current designs. The engines have been changed to modified RS-68s, the SRB's have gone from 4 to 5 to 5.5 segments with fuel composition changes and core geometry changes and they are still struggling to meet the lift capacity goals.

The biggest problem with the Ares I is the thrust oscillation or resonate burn characteristics of the Solid rocket first stage. A 6.5G oscillation mode at 9 Hz, and another 4.5G oscilliation at 12 Hz are so severe that unmitigated they would kill the crew. The Shuttle is described as a rough ride, yet it's thrust oscillation is only around 0.1G. The upper limit for thrust oscillation that would still allow the crew to read displays and operate controls is about 0.25 G.

Both Ares I and Ares V are very much paper designs and currently can't lift anything. Schedules have been slipping constantly. That Ares I will even fly crew by 2016 is problematic. Ares V will not be ready till considerably after that.


RE: Glad they solved it :)
By Ringold on 9/28/2008 1:53:13 AM , Rating: 1
In other words, they need to throw all those designs in the trash, and adopt DIRECT.


RE: Glad they solved it :)
By foolsgambit11 on 9/28/2008 1:39:41 PM , Rating: 2
I 100% agree we need a platform like the shuttle in the future. I was just responding to the concerns another poster raised about political fall out from a disaster aboard a Russian space mission. A few years of delay, as far as heavy cargo goes, will be a waste of a good portion of the ISS's lifespan. But the ill-will a rushed, dangerous, or poorly designed replacement shuttle would result in would be a much bigger setback. So in the end, we should take our time getting it right - despite having to rely on the Russians in the meantime.


RE: Glad they solved it :)
By Janooo on 9/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: Glad they solved it :)
By maven81 on 9/30/2008 10:55:19 AM , Rating: 2
That's simply a misconception that keeps getting repeated. The Russians don't use Soyz for the heavy lifting, they use the Proton, which lifted parts of the international space station even heavier then the shuttle if I'm not mistaken.


RE: Glad they solved it :)
By ltcommanderdata on 9/27/2008 6:15:18 PM , Rating: 2
Is there really that much of a concern that Russia will try to hold the ISS hostage for political gain? If I'm not mistaken, American astronauts flying on Russia spaceships is a pretty routine occurrence. In fact, I thought Russian Soyuz spacecraft are actually the primary means of getting station crews to and from the ISS and the shuttle was mainly for construction and not as a taxi service. Russian Progress spacecraft also form the primary supply chain to the ISS, bringing supplies 3-4 times a year and boosting the ISS to a higher orbit. So really, this is business as usual rather than something game changing.

And in terms of crewing, I believe the usual pattern is 1 Russian commander and 2 US astronauts or 1 US commander and 2 Russian cosmonauts. And simply due to self-preservation, I would think that in the event of a political crisis, ISS crews would be more inclined to co-operate rather than lock themselves in opposite sides of the space station.


RE: Glad they solved it :)
By RamboZZo on 9/28/2008 8:54:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would think that in the event of a political crisis, ISS crews would be more inclined to co-operate rather than lock themselves in opposite sides of the space station.


Reminds me of the movie 2010 when the US crew needs to abandon the soviet ship and back to Discovery due to a crisis between the two countries. lol, that would be eerie if something like that where to happen on the ISS.


RE: Glad they solved it :)
By foolsgambit11 on 9/28/2008 9:44:21 PM , Rating: 3
Especially if it happened 2 years from now.

Duh duh dunnnn!!!!


RE: Glad they solved it :)
By theapparition on 9/29/2008 8:26:30 AM , Rating: 2
Ha.

But as much as a visionary as Arther C. Clark was, it is incredibly depressing to know that by 2010, we don't have commercial space travel, giant space stations, moon bases, and haven't sent two manned missions to Jupiter.


RE: Glad they solved it :)
By rtrski on 9/29/2008 9:30:14 AM , Rating: 2
There's no telling what the talking heads on the ground might do or order. I tend to agree with you that those IN orbit know they're mutually dependent and wouldn't barricade themselves from one another. I've far less faith that Putin (or for that matter whomever ends up being 44) would not use the ISS as a strategic 'asset' in negotiations. Heck, Putin tanked Mechel, a company in his own country, with a negative publicity campaign (regardless of the facts of price-fixing, off-market selling, or tax evasion, he definitely made them a personal target), and as a result has seen a huge outrush of foreign investment that's put his own banks in trouble. He doesn't strike me as the shy, retiring type who worries about unintended consequences overmuch.

On the bright side, SpaceX got their first test rocket to orbit on attempt #4, this weekend. Bit too soon to call them a viable alternative, but they are pursuing a COTS contract for ISS resupply, including working on a crewed module (Dragon). Quite surprised to not see any Dailytech article mention that yet.


So basicly
By SiliconAddict on 9/28/2008 2:58:45 AM , Rating: 2
Hey dudes. We're too cheap to have a program that can take us to the ISS. Can we bum a ride from you? Got it.




RE: So basicly
By Andy35W on 9/28/2008 12:31:14 PM , Rating: 2
The USA should put it out to tender and get the best deal.

They are doing OK at the moment the Chinese in space (a la spacewalk) and it looks like the USA will have less problems with China on international issues than Russia in the next few years.

Worth a thought anyway.

Regards

Andy


RE: So basicly
By jtesoro on 9/29/2008 1:51:07 AM , Rating: 1
Maybe the basic deal is something like this:

- 20c a pound

Cheap, but it's the extras that get you:

- non-living cargo surcharge: $200K per pound
- living cargo surcharge: $1 per pound
- if living cargo is expected to be taken back alive: $1 million per pound
- collision damage waiver: $500K (the US doesn't need this if they're paying by credit card)
- tax: +40% (astronauts will get free medical coverage but will have to wait 6 months to see the doctor)

and the kicker:
- by entering the spacecraft, astronauts implicitly agree to the EULA, which states that they will be bombarded with advertisements throughout the trip but won't get a price reduction because of it


The Russian Space agency's budget is a
By spagnitz on 9/28/2008 8:06:05 PM , Rating: 3
fraction of what NASA's budget is and yet these guys can take people to the ISS while we have to bum rides, ridiculous.




By mindless1 on 9/29/2008 5:06:19 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe ferrying people back and forth to the ISS has diminishing technological return and the space program is better served by putting the funds into other programs.

Eventually all the largest countries will have space travel capability if they want it. Which makes more sense, that they all have redundant capability or that each develops complimentary technology that serves different purposes?


It must go on..
By winterspan on 9/27/2008 7:47:00 PM , Rating: 2
In my opinion, activities and events that are of a humanitarian or altruistic nature, or those that are global in scope and intended to benefit the whole of humanity should not be constrained by political conflict.

Now obviously space exploration is a tricky subject because of its inherent connection and long history with advanced technology and military applications, but as long as the objectives remain peaceful and collaborative with an emphasis on furthering science, than I don't see why there should be a problem. Extra precautions should be taken to avoid situations where one party has too much control or leverage, and each country involved needs to be comfortable that all of its partners are going to act in the interest of the group. Assuming these topics can be addressed, I don't believe the delicate situation with Russia is a reason to halt progress on the space station.

For better or worse, I'm an optimist and I would like to believe that even nationalistic politicians can put aside their differences for greater causes. But of course, if Russia or any other country showed hostile behavior or ill intentions in what is supposed to be a "neutral" activity, then it should be stopped at once.




RE: It must go on..
By Josett on 9/28/2008 3:08:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
(...) But of course, if Russia or any other country showed hostile behavior or ill intentions in what is supposed to be a "neutral" activity, then it should be stopped at once.


To be utterly fair, that goes both ways. And, if the going gets tough, the more sensible decision would be to take all crews down to Earth. After all, even a highly trained human is but a human.


"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki