NASA now reliant on Russia.

[MKSheppard]

*plays Russian Anthem*

-----------

Moscow soon to be lone carrier of astronauts to the space station
By Marc Kaufman
The Washington Post

Tomorrow night, a European spacecraft is scheduled to blast off from French Guiana on its maiden voyage to the international space station, giving NASA and the world a new way to reach the orbiting laboratory.

For NASA, however, the launch of the Jules Verne Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) also highlights a stark reality: In 2 1/2 years, just as the station gets fully assembled, the United States will no longer have any spacecraft of its own capable of carrying astronauts and cargo to the station, in which roughly $100 billion is being invested. The three space shuttles will be retired by then, because of their high cost and questionable safety, and NASA will have nothing ready to replace them until 2015 at the earliest.

For five years or more, the United States will be dependent on the technology of others to reach the station, which American taxpayers largely paid for. To complicate things further, the only nation now capable of flying humans to the station is Russia, giving it a strong bargaining position to decide what it wants to charge for the flights at a time when U.S.-Russian relations are becoming increasingly testy.

In addition, some fear the price will be paid not only in billions of dollars but also in lost American prestige and lost leverage on the Russians when it comes to issues such as aiding Iran with its nuclear program.

'Serious threat to our national security'
NASA Administrator Michael Griffin calls the situation his "greatest regret and greatest concern." For most of the five-year gap, he said, "we will be largely dependent on the Russians, and that is terrible place for the United States to be. I'm worried, and many others are worried."

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), chairman of the subcommittee that oversees NASA, went further. "This is a very serious betrayal of American interests," he said. "This will be the first time since Sputnik when the United States will not have a significant space superiority. I remain dumbfounded that we've allowed this serious threat to our national security to develop."

The White House, Congress and the space community have known for years that the gap was looming, but there were always other priorities.

Those most involved with the issue say that its seriousness will become more glaring this summer, when negotiations with Russia begin and Congress is likely to debate whether to grant a waiver to the law that prohibits certain kinds of commerce with nations that support the Iranian or North Korean nuclear program.

Griffin has testified that while the waiver is essential, it is "unseemly, simply unseemly, for the United States -- the world's leading power and leading space power -- to be reduced to purchasing services like this. It affects, in my view, how we are seen in the world, and not for the better."

Private spacecraft?
NASA's budget calls for spending $2.6 billion for transportation to the space station between fiscal 2009 and 2013. As it stands now, much of that would go to the Russians.

With that prospect ahead, Griffin told Nelson's committee last week that he is working with the fledgling private rocket company SpaceX to speed its efforts to build a private spacecraft that can take over some of the work of ferrying astronauts into space. Both Nelson and Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) had recommended that NASA formally push ahead with that effort.

But SpaceX, while eager to do the work, has not successfully orbited even a cargo spacecraft, let alone one designed to the much higher standards needed for human flight. Nonetheless, SpaceX founder Elon Musk said in a telephone interview that his company might have a manned spacecraft capability by the end of 2011 if NASA exercises its option under a 2006 agreement to provide cargo service. With that go-ahead, SpaceX would put its manned rocket program into high gear, he said.


"Is there a risk that we won't succeed? Yes, there is," said Musk, co-founder of the PayPal online payment system. "But if the United States doesn't provide any competition to the Russians, then they have a monopoly on crew transport to the station and they can dictate their terms. Do taxpayers really want all that money to go to Russia, rather than to an American company with American workers?"

In his testimony, Griffin said he is inclined to exercise the human spaceflight option, but he also said he very much doubts that SpaceX will have a spacecraft ready for astronauts by 2012.

'Starved for funds'
The gap in American capability to reach the space station is the result of factors including the 2003 breakup of the space shuttle Columbia, the subsequent decision to retire the three remaining shuttles by September 2010 and the lack of additional funds to quickly build a replacement.

NASA has let contracts to design and test a new-generation rocket and crew capsule, but it has had to go slowly because of the high cost of operating the shuttles, which are the only spacecraft able to carry large components to the still-incomplete space station. Griffin has testified that the replacement spacecraft could be ready in 2013 rather than 2015 if the agency had an additional $2 billion, but the administration has not asked for the funding.

Last year, the White House opposed a bill passed by the Senate to give NASA an additional $1 billion to make up for some of the costs incurred after Columbia broke apart -- a step similar to one taken after the Challenger disaster in 1986.

"What we have here is an agency that has been given a lot to do but has been starved for funds," Nelson said. "I think the gap is largely due to the administration's refusal to give NASA the funds it needs. And now we'll be forced to give billions to the Russians because we didn't spend millions before. It's the worst of all worlds."

Griffin, a strong advocate for manned spaceflight and a loyal member of the administration, said that past Congresses and administrations let the manned space program atrophy and that it took President Bush's 2004 "vision" for human travel to the moon and Mars to rejuvenate the program.

Still, many see Bush as having limited interest in space. Not only have NASA budgets remained tight, but Bush never visited the Johnson Space Center in Houston during his six years as governor of Texas, and as president he visited once, for a memorial service for the lost Columbia astronauts.

EU may provide counterbalance
The European spacecraft scheduled for launch tomorrow night is the first of six cargo-carrying flights by Arianespace, a public-private company, in exchange for NASA ferrying a large European lab to the station on the shuttle. Chairman and chief executive Jean-Yves Le Gall said in an interview last week that the company would like to play a larger role in supplying the space station, but it is waiting for its first successful launch before pressing its case.

The European Union is scheduled to decide in November whether to enter the field of human spaceflight, potentially joining the club that so far includes only the United States, Russia and China.

Le Gall acknowledged that the ATV -- which is the size of a London double-decker bus -- is now more expensive to build and operate than its Russian competitors, but he said that may change if Russia becomes the sole carrier. Nonetheless, the Europeans face a number of obstacles in selling their space transport services to NASA, including buy-American provisions that favor homegrown companies such as SpaceX.

"We believe we can be an important part of the solution for the space station and counterbalance to the Russians, if we are given a chance," Le Gall said.

Despite the broad concern over NASA's future dependence on Russia, Griffin said the agency's experience with its most important space station partner has been good. The Russians helped astronauts stranded on the space station after the Columbia breakup, and they have continued to provide crew and cargo transport services -- currently as part of a $780 million, multiyear contract.

Griffin also said a new deal with the Russians has to be signed by early next year. The Russians, he said, need a three-year lead time to build a sufficient quantity of their expendable, but very dependable, Soyuz and Progress spacecraft.

© 2008 The Washington Post Company

------------------------------------------------------------------

and

Link

Brian Berger
Space News Staff Writer
SPACE.com
Thu Mar 6, 2:31 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- NASA is facing the prospect of having to explore deep space without the aid of the long-lasting nuclear batteries it has relied upon for decades to send spacecraft to destinations where sunlight is in short supply. ADVERTISEMENT



NASA Administrator Mike Griffin told a House Appropriations subcommittee March 5 that the U.S. inventory of plutonium-238 -- the radioactive material essential for building long-lasting batteries known to the experts as radioisotope power systems -- is running out quickly.

"Looking ahead, plutonium is in short supply," Griffin told lawmakers during the first of two days of hearings on the U.S. space agency's 2009 budget request.

Griffin was asked about the plutonium-238 situation by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). The Pasadena-area congressman's district is home to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory -- the NASA-funded facility building the space agency's next nuclear-powered spacecraft, the 2009 Mars Science Laboratory, or MSL.
"After MSL launches, we're pretty much out of plutonium," Griffin said.

The United States stopped producing plutonium-238 in 1988 and since then has relied upon a dwindling stockpile supplemented since 1992 by periodic purchases of the material from Russia.

NASA's Pluto-bound New Horizon spacecraft, for example, is powered by a radioisotope power system fueled by Russian plutonium, as will be the system that powers the Mars Science Laboratory.

Though Griffin did not mention it, the U.S. Department of Energy over the winter quietly shelved long-standing plans to resume domestic production of plutonium-238. In 2005, the Department of Energy (DOE) gave public notice of its intent to consolidate the nation's radioisotope power system activities at Idaho National Laboratory and start producing plutonium-238 there by 2011. Restarting production was projected at the time to cost $250 million.

Angela Hill, an Energy Department spokeswoman, told Space News in an e-mail that those plans are now on hold.

"DOE did not request funding in [fiscal year] 2009 for Pu-238 production, since NASA has been directed to fund any new production capabilities," Hill wrote. "Production may or may not resume based on NASA's decision. Based on current mission plans, DOE will only continue to provide new Radioisotope Power Systems until [fiscal year] 2015."

NASA's 2009 budget request includes no money for re-establishing the Department of Energy's long dormant plutonium-238 production capability.

Meanwhile, how much of the plutonium-238 the United States has at its disposal was not immediately clear. DOE reported in 2005 that its inventory stood at 39.5 kilograms, with U.S. national security customers and NASA expected to consume all but 6.5 kilograms by 2010. U.S. industry sources said they had been told that the United States has a total of just over 11 kilograms on order to meet NASA's projected demand through the middle of the next decade.

Hill said only that the United States has received an additional 5 kilograms of plutonium-238 from Russia since 2005 and has another 4.9 kilograms on order for delivery this year.

Alan Stern, NASA associate administrator for science, testifying before the House Appropriations commerce, justice, science subcommittee alongside Griffin, said he believed the United States had sufficient plutonium-238 on hand or on order to fuel next year's Mars Science Lab, an outer planets flagship mission targeted for 2017 and a Discovery-class mission slated to fly a couple years earlier to test a more efficient radioisotope power system NASA and the Energy Department have in development.

To help ensure there is enough plutonium-238 for those missions, NASA notified scientists in January that its next New Frontiers solicitation, due out in June, will seek only missions that do not require a nuclear power source.

Industry sources said that limitation will put scientists wishing to propose outer-planet destinations for the 2016 New Frontiers flight opportunity at a decided disadvantage.

Stern told lawmakers that NASA expects to get enough plutonium-238 to meet its highest priorities through the middle of the next decade.

"In the future, in some future year not too far from now, we will have used the last U.S. kilogram of plutonium-238, "Griffin said. "And if we want more plutonium-238 we will have to buy it from Russia."

Griffin, who has said many times that he finds it "unseemly" that the United States may have to depend entirely on Russia to access the space station between the space shuttle's retirement in 2010 and the introduction several years later of the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle or a commercial alternative, made clear he was no more pleased with the prospect of relying entirely on Russia for flying space missions requiring nuclear power sources.

"I think it's appalling," he said.

But even the Russian supply might not last for much longer.

When the hearing resumed March 6, Griffin told lawmakers Russia has advised the United States "that they are down to their last 10 kilograms of plutonium.""We are now foreseeing the end of that Russian line," he said.

Griffin also clarified that NASA has been assured of enough plutonium-238 to do MSL, a 2013 or 2014 Discovery-class mission and an outer planets flagship targeted for 2016 or 2017.

"When those missions are allocated, we have no more," he said.

Griffin said absent a national decision to restart production, NASA's planetary science program "would be severely hampered."

-----------

But rememeber, Barack Obama would halt all production of Fissile Material! No sir, Plutonium can't be used in anything other than evil nuclear arms!

[Shroom Man 777]

Wonderful. Russia offers the USA a lift and the USA goes on about "national security" and calling the Ruskies a "serious threat". Way to go, antagonize the biggest partner you got in the ISS.

[Patrick Degan]

"A Russian craft, flown by Russians, carrying along a few poor Americans who need our help. That also doesn't look bad on the front page of Pravda."

Looks like reality's jumped the gun on 2010 just a bit.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Bonus points to Russia for the sheer irony of the situation.

Any chance of this causing a renewed interest in any sort of space-race?

[Justforfun000]

As usual, America takes a situation that should be spun to show a shared partnership with Russia, demonstrating trust and solidarity between the two countries and instead suggests that they are a potential security risk. Brilliant! Who the fuck is dictating foreign policy anyway, Ann Coulter? [/i]

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Well, while NASA went round in circles for a number of years relying on the Space Shuttle, the Russians carried on developing the supporting logistics for their own space station MIR which unfortunately, shouldn't have crashed into the ocean.

Complacency sets in naturally when there's no sense of urgency. Of course, the article just reeks of nationalism, if you ask me. On the other hand, the Russian space program really needs money, if you ask me.

[Bounty]

Meanwhile, the ESA has set up a joint program with the Russians where they get to use a pad at Guiana Space Port in exchange for Soyuz rocket boosters, and is considering an updated ATV design that's compatible with Progress and Soyuz. But they'll regret working with those dastardly Russkies!

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Meanwhile, the ESA has set up a joint program with the Russians where they get to use a pad at Guiana Space Port in exchange for Soyuz rocket boosters, and is considering an updated ATV design that's compatible with Progress and Soyuz. But they'll regret working with those dastardly Russkies!

They are already crying foul for the 5% stake in EADS right now. I hear there's a bill that's trying to prohibit foreign ownership.

Some Cold War mindsets never change (or old Medieval ideas for that matter).

[His Divine Shadow]

This talk abotu russians and the ISS reminds me of this guy on SA who was really unhappy with russian involvement in the ISS. Interesting points brought up, such as it requires almost as much energy to launch something from the ISS into space as it does from the ground to the ISS?

[phongn]

This talk abotu russians and the ISS reminds me of this guy on SA who was [url=http://forums.somethingawful.co*/showthread.php?threadid=2767706]really unhappy with russian involvement in the ISS[/url]. Interesting points brought up, such as it requires almost as much energy to launch something from the ISS into space as it does from the ground to the ISS?

Well, it depends on what you mean "launch into space." The poster is being rather vague on details.

[K. A. Pital]

Wow, because Russia has a reliable vehicle instead of that Space Shuttle thing which lost a good part of the fleet due to ships blowing up with the entire crew, Russia is a security threat?

Way to go, US! The Soviet Russkies always have their dastardly plans in mind (nevermind that we sunk a huge station of ours, as a political decision, under the drunkard rule which was opposed by many notable cosmonauts and space specialists, and decided to cooperate on the ISS trainwreck..).

But you won't get a "thank you" for lifting up the main modules of that station and having an always-reliable Soyuz launch channel in case the Shuttle fails (as it did). No! You'll get "boo, scary Russia!" instead.

Just what the fuck is wrong with America. Even in such simple things it manages to sound as a spoiled brat.

[Patrick Degan]

Wow, because Russia has a reliable vehicle instead of that Space Shuttle thing which lost a good part of the fleet due to ships blowing up with the entire crew, Russia is a security threat?

Way to go, US! The Soviet Russkies always have their dastardly plans in mind (nevermind that we sunk a huge station of ours, as a political decision, under the drunkard rule which was opposed by many notable cosmonauts and space specialists, and decided to cooperate on the ISS trainwreck..).

But you won't get a "thank you" for lifting up the main modules of that station and having an always-reliable Soyuz launch channel in case the Shuttle fails (as it did). No! You'll get "boo, scary Russia!" instead.

Just what the fuck is wrong with America. Even in such simple things it manages to sound as a spoiled brat.

It is more the idea that America, for a period, will have no manned flight capability or Pu238 supply capability of its probes and satellites of its own which is being seen as detrimental to national security more than having to have astronauts hitch rides on a Soyuz (or a Shenzhou, if it came to it) or buying Pu238 from a foreign source. I'd wager that if the situation were reversed, the Russians would see things the same way, even if they wouldn't say it publicly.

[Vympel]

For some reason I don't see the Russians running out of Pu-238 for any significant period of time. The RORSATs must glow.

[K. A. Pital]

Ah... well, if you totally lose spacelift capabilities, that sucks. But why? I thought the problem is only manned spaceflight, but that's a detrimental issue to national security.

[Patrick Degan]

Ah... well, if you totally lose spacelift capabilities, that sucks. But why? I thought the problem is only manned spaceflight, but that's a detrimental issue to national security.

We will still have unmanned spacelift capability but no manned flight capability of our own.

As to why, the history of the white-elephant Space Shuttle along with Chimpus Caesar's complete neglect of the issue makes the answer to that question painfully clear.

[K. A. Pital]

But Bush has eyes on Moon and Mars! He won't let mundane space rocket operations stand in the way of reviving the space glory of America...

[PeZook]

But Bush has eyes on Moon and Mars! He won't let mundane space rocket operations stand in the way of reviving the space glory of America...

Actually, the Orion spacecraft in development by NASA is going to be an excellent ship for LEO operations, too. The US is going to get two new space boosters as well, so by the mid 2010s they will have a robust, domestic -made manned capability.

The problem lies, as usual, in money. NASA has to retire the STS early to free up funds, and naturally they will have to use Soyuz in the meantime. I just don't know why they are so allergic to just buying the goddamned Soyuz license like the Chinese have done. It's an excellent capsule, though it does lack the space-toilet planned for Orion

[Broomstick]

Well, while NASA went round in circles for a number of years relying on the Space Shuttle, the Russians carried on developing the supporting logistics for their own space station MIR which unfortunately, shouldn't have crashed into the ocean.

Disagree, MIR was done and past done. It had exceed it's designed life by two or three times. There was problem with mold growing in it. The safety was getting questionable even by Russian standards.

[K. A. Pital]

Disagree, MIR was done and past done.

Did the cosmonauts and Russian scientists voice support or disagreement with this decision? What are their opinions? I thought there were quite a few dissenting voices from Russia's space community, who are more knowledgeable than politicians are.

[Dartzap]

I'm sort of hoping the UK Gov will stop pissing about and take a proper interest in space and help the ESA. Our private sector already does quite a bit and the ESA is bloody run by a Brit as well, the only reason he left was because there was not enough cash being invested.

[Broomstick]

Disagree, MIR was done and past done.

Did the cosmonauts and Russian scientists voice support or disagreement with this decision? What are their opinions? I thought there were quite a few dissenting voices from Russia's space community, who are more knowledgeable than politicians are.

Well, from what I heard/read the sentiment was that if no one was willing to put the money into really renovating and fixing the thing then it was just going to circle the drain for a bit before something catastrophic would occur. If no one was going to really fix what needed fixing then it was time to bring it down before someone got killed.

Of course opinions, differed - certainly, among the US astronauts who spent time there the opinions ranged from "It's fantastic!" to "It's a deathtrap!" I expect the Russians would have been more optimistic as a matter of national pride, as well as being willing to accept a greater level of risk than NASA but there were some problems on that station that had to do with the fact it was being used much longer than originally intended.

With the US saying they were going to back a shiny new space toy that everyone could play on that might have tipped that balance. Or maybe not.

If we refused to fund our space program to even fucking maintain it, nevermind advancing it, it's our own damn fault. Maybe the rest of the world pulling ahead of us will cause people to wake up, kick the shit out of the DC beltway, and get the US's ass back in gear.

[Lord Poe]

Wow, because Russia has a reliable vehicle instead of that Space Shuttle thing which lost a good part of the fleet due to ships blowing up with the entire crew, Russia is a security threat?

Way to go, US! The Soviet Russkies always have their dastardly plans in mind (nevermind that we sunk a huge station of ours, as a political decision, under the drunkard rule which was opposed by many notable cosmonauts and space specialists, and decided to cooperate on the ISS trainwreck..).

But you won't get a "thank you" for lifting up the main modules of that station and having an always-reliable Soyuz launch channel in case the Shuttle fails (as it did). No! You'll get "boo, scary Russia!" instead.

Curb that smugness, kid. The space shuttle has had what, two disasters in nearly 30 years of operation? While Soyuz capsules are allegedly safe, they aren't reusable, and don't have a 10 year life expectancy. There's been two fatal accidents and one near fatal accident, that we know of, of course. Russia seems to have this habit of not reporting mishaps if they can avoid it.

[K. A. Pital]

The space shuttle has had what, two disasters in nearly 30 years of operation?

When your fleet of reusable ships is so small that 2 fatalities constitute a large percentage of said fleet, that's a serious problem. Even a greater one if those ships get grounded for several months due to threats which could be deadly. All I'm saying. The Soyuz aren't reusable.

But if any of the Soyuz fails or malfunctions, that doesn't ground the operations. The readiness time is important.

If a Shuttle gets some malfunctions or threats, like that thing with the surface-damaging coating breakoff, and the machine gets grounded for a long time, good luck trying to shoot your crew up.

It's not that I'm being smug, merely realistic - the Shuttle did fail, and since the fleet is so small, and reduced by the two catastrophes, grounding even one of those ships for a prolonged period means you have to rely on the Soyuz.

[Paolo]

I just don't know why they are so allergic to just buying the goddamned Soyuz license like the Chinese have done. It's an excellent capsule, though it does lack the space-toilet planned for Orion

The main reason is the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000, which targeted Russia's rocket industry. The extraordinary payments section was amended among other things in 2005 to permit NASA some degree of soliciting services and making purchases from Moscow.

[phongn]

Soyuz is also small and not as capable as Orion will be.