Iranian Nuke Crisis Creates Giant Headache for NASA
Almost six years ago, the nation embarked on a new space policy of retiring the Space Shuttle in 2010 (next year, after the International Space Station is complete) and replacing it with a new (and presumably safer) means of getting crew to and from orbit. This vehicle’s primary mission was to carry astronauts to the moon and beyond, but most people assumed that it would also be capable of replacing the Shuttle for that purpose. It wasn’t planned to be ready until 2014 and in the half decade since, the schedule has slipped years beyond that, while its budget has ballooned. So now the original “gap” during which the U.S. would be incapable of launching its own crews into orbit to change out astronauts at the space station has grown from three years to five or more.
What does this have to do with the Iranian nukes problem and the Russians?
It has always been assumed that “the gap” would be filled by Russian Soyuz flights, as it was during the previous “gap” created when the Shuttle was shut down for almost three years after the loss of Columbia. But there was always a bug in that ointment, called the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act (INKSNA). It is a U.S. law that prohibits purchases from countries that aid those countries for which it is named in their efforts to develop missiles and nuclear weapons. By the letter of the law, Russia has always been in violation of it, realistically, but it has always maintained sufficient plausible deniability to allow Congress to grant it waivers so that NASA could continue to get Russian support for ISS, which has been difficult to maintain without it, even with the Shuttle operating. Once the Shuttle retires, it will be almost unthinkable: Russia will have the only system capable of delivering humans to orbit.
This has been the only valid basis for the arguments like those made by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison this past summer (and earlier) that continuing Shuttle flights beyond the designated retirement date was an issue of “national security.” If the Russian perfidy implied by Netanyahu’s reported gift to Putin is true, this issue suddenly becomes more critical, because it will become much harder, perhaps impossible, even in an era of “reset” and “smart diplomacy,” for Congress to justify continued waivers of the INKSNA to purchase Soyuz flights. The nation will be faced with a stark set of choices:
- We can ignore the Russian behavior and continue to purchase from them regardless, signaling to them that we have no diplomatic leverage over them whatsoever and that they can continue to help Iran thwart the nonproliferation regime.
- We can abandon the ISS for U.S. purposes and leave it to the Europeans, Japanese, and Russians to maintain and man (and woman).
- We can continue to fly the Shuttle, at high cost, with only three vehicles left, despite the fact that it has already killed fourteen astronauts and most of the production for parts to do so has been shut down.
- We can accelerate NASA’s plans to develop its new system, despite all of the technical issues and tens of billions of dollars estimated to do so, while also ignoring the dictum that you can’t get a baby in a month with nine women.
- We can utilize existing or almost-existing systems to dramatically reduce the gap and time during which we are held hostage by the Russians.
The most appealing choice would seem to be the last. The Atlas and Delta launchers are proven and reliable. SpaceX has a new vehicle scheduled to be flown this year, and it has already developed a crew module which may be its first payload, which only needs the development of a launch escape system to use for crew transport to and from orbit. The latter developments have cost much less than a billion dollars, and there’s no reason that completing them would cost much more than that or take more than a year or three, given sufficient funding, which would be much less than the funding needed to finish NASA’s planned Constellation vehicles. The only problem with this solution is that using commercial providers won’t preserve the large numbers of expensive jobs that NASA has long relied on for congressional support.
Specifically, while Senator Shelby may think that NASA stands for the Northern Alabama Space Agency, he may not long be able to continue to hold the line against commercial competition with his state’s NASA center. It may be that, now that this has become a real national security issue with implications obviously far beyond space policy, the logjam between pork and progress that has long stood in the way of NASA support of the commercial space industry will finally have to break.
Retirement of the Shuttle fleet is a “paper” decision. It was brought about by NASA wanting to pry money out of Congress.
The best solution would be to defund NASA and create a new agency to do it’s job.
NASA picked the wrong pardner. Oh, wait, NASA didn’t pick the Soviet Union, State did. See what happens when you let politics rule science? Japan would have made a better pardner. It still would.
Ditch Russia, Put Honda in charge of building a Shuttle replacement and don’t look back.
That would be a temporary solution. A stop-gap measure until a boost to LEO system that doesn’t depend on a barely controlled explosion is developed.
No technology should be overlooked. Hybred systems offer hope. Mag lev/LASER boost/ Rocket assisted would work for light payloads, as would a rocket plane that loads most of it’s rocket fuel at about 60,000 feet. Eventually nano tech will reach the point where a space elevator is doable. And then there is Lin’s work. Pry that team away from the military and let them run free.
An unfortunate article.
First it starts with a basic premise that might or might not be accurate. Scientist of Russian citizenship are helping the Iranians develop a gadget.
OK that might or might not be accurate, but it does not imply that the Russian government is sponsoring those scientist, that they have not gone “rogue” and are doing it as private citizens…and that there is some linkage between the Russian government and the Iranian government.
OK but Whittington makes all those assumptions.
After that it is a series of “if and if and if and if and if” to reach a conclusion that we are going to have to now modify our deal with the Russians on ISS.
This is the kind of logic that got us into Iraq…ie “Saddam has WMD (stated as a fact) and if and if and if and if this or that happens, the next smoking gun could be a smoking mushroom”…sorry no reason to use that logic then, and certainly not now.
Why is the right wing of the GOP always trying to create enemies…?
Sorry Mark bad start and bad logic after that. As Captain Kirk would have said to Captain Tracey in “Omega Glory” ….. “there is no enemy”
Robert
OK I am sorry Rand Simberg wrote this. I mentioned Mark Whittington…sorry right wing extreme arguments all sound alike (and I have not yet had my morning cup of coffee)
I apologize to both Rand and Mark. However the comments hold accurate
Robert G. Oler
“Right wing extreme arguments”?
Still suffering from that bizarre “right wing” and Bush derangement syndrome, Robert?
Oler forgets that while Rand and I agree on some things, we do have somewhat differing political approaches. Oler also ignores the notion that even if the Russians were initially unaware of their scientists working on the Iranian nuclear program, they do have the ability to stop them, which may have been Netenyahu’s purpose for giving Putin the list. Finally, the logic of “Saddam didn’t have nukes, so the Iranians must not be trying to get them” somewhat escapes me.
Why is the right wing of the GOP always trying to create enemies…?
I should add that, despite Robert’s ongoing delusions, I am neither “right wing” (unless by that you mean a classical liberal) or “the GOP” (I’ve never been registered as a Republican, and rarely vote that way).
“I apologize to both Rand and Mark. However the comments hold accurate.”
Robert G. Oler
Actually, they don’t. Saddam DID have WMD. He moved them out of country in Feb. ’03
The evidence for that is strong enough to hold up in court.
There are witnesses that loaded the WMD on airplanes. There are the pilots that flew the airplanes, the truck drivers that took the WMD to the airport, there are Radar tapes of the airplanes flying to Syria.
I realize that to you none of this matters. EVERY Intelligence service in the world was wrong, the evidence is faked and Bush lied.
Get a grip man. President Bush is back home, doing yardwork and laughing at the Usurper, just like the rest of us.
BTW, in Putin’s Russia, there are no “rogue” elements, at least not for long. Remember, Russia doesn’t see Iran as a threat, but as a pardner. They are trying to work the ‘good cop, bad cop’ routine on Obama. Straight out of Chapter 4 in “How to deal with Chicago Gangsters”.
The Usurper was hoping that he could speak with Pootie and Imahdamnutjob and work out a deal. Thug to thug so to speak. Only he meet bigger thugs with more muscle and had to run for it.
John “birther” Samford:
“Actually, they don’t. Saddam DID have WMD. He moved them out of country in Feb. ‘03
The evidence for that is strong enough to hold up in court.”
that is an absurd statement…and the evidence is NOT strong enough to hold up in Court unless it is a court of right wing neocons.
By late 2002 the US had special operations forces on the ground in Iraq, we had essentially 24 hour predator coverage of Iraq, 24 hour radar surveliance (AWACS) of iraq…and worse we were already bombing Iraq on a very heavy schedule. (in addition we had JSTAR coverage ofaround the clock).
None of them showed the things you claim…and if they had we had airplanes and special ops forces ready to interdict to “get the evidence” that the neocons in the Bush administration needed.
The argument you make does not pass the “sanity” test. First we were bombing everything in sight well before March invasion…and we bombed none of those, Second it is inconceivable that the IDF would allow WMD into Syria, without engaging them.
The FBI has interviewed all the folks who claim that the WMD went to Syria, and none of them are credible. Do you really think that Dick Cheney who had Marines on the ground chasing every shadow looking for WMD would have let any chance to find any “go bye”.
All the evidence you mention is bogus (the radar tapes)…
Next you are going to tell me that the artillery canisters that we found with some minor bio and chem in them was the WMD.
“dangers gather near our shores, the next smoking gun could be in the form of a smoking mushroom”
Shrub in his Philly speech.
no intel group was claiming Saddam was about to attack us
get better facts or at least do better then Fox news babble
Robert G. Oler
Mark whittington wrote
“Oler forgets that while Rand and I agree on some things, we do have somewhat differing political approaches.”
Yeah but you both are still right wing extremist when it comes to foreign policy. An enemy a day keeps the doctor away.
” Oler also ignores the notion that even if the Russians were initially unaware of their scientists working on the Iranian nuclear program, they do have the ability to stop them,”
no more then the US has the ability to stop a citizen who is in a foreign country.
sorry Mark…but thanks for making it clear that either of you could have written this propaganda piece
Robert G. Oler
Rand…nice try. Just claiming someone has BDS wont delete 8 years of one self induced catastrophe after another. INcluding Iraq and Afland.
By ones works one is known.
There was no WMD
There were no dangers gathering near our shores.
There were no links between ATTA and Iraqi intel.
There was no nuclear program.
There was only fear in the minds of people who got sucker punched on 9/11 while they were on vacation.
LOL
Robert G. Oler
Just claiming someone has BDS wont delete 8 years of one self induced catastrophe after another.
I didn’t say it would. I was just pointing out that you have BDS, and it shows in everything you write on the Internet. It’s always “right wing” this, and “neocon” that, as though they’re hiding under your bed, and Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, no matter what the topic.
You’re obsessed and compulsive. You should get help.
“There was no WMD”
Wrong. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
“There were no dangers gathering near our shores.”
How quaint. How pre-Pearl Harbor. Someone wise said that, re WMDs, we cannot afford to delay until the threat is imminent.
“There was no nuclear program.”
Farmed out to Libya.
Another way of looking at Netanyahu’s note is that he was saying “When these Russians get their tuchises blown up, don’t cry to us and pretend they weren’t doing what we know them to be doing.”
Simberg:
Not to mention Oler’s use of the appellation “shrub.” That’s his show right there. Your analysis in #11 sounds about right.
Hmm, Marshall man-rating something that Marshall (and its associated contractor army of leeches) didn’t build. We may actually be approaching the key plot point in Heinlein’s “The Man Who Sold The Moon”.
The day NASA and, by extension, government is out of the manned spaceflight business is the day manned spaceflight transitions into the realm of affordability for non-gov’t capital sources.
We could abandon the big welfare bucket in the sky. Or, better yet, sell parts of it off to [China] to pay some debt down.
Let the insults begin.
here was no WMD
There were no dangers gathering near our shores.
There were no links between ATTA and Iraqi intel.
There was no nuclear program.
There was only fear in the minds of people who got sucker punched on 9/11 while they were on vacation.
There is a Santa
My unicorn will be here tomorrow or the day after, I just know it.
Mr. Simberg: There are other possible interpretations of Netanyahu’s delivery of names. Note that meeting one-to-one suggests that Netanyahu wants plausible deny-ability (“Oh no, not that list!”)
a.) It could be a warning of dire consequences to the people on the list.
b.) Many Soviet weapons scientists became unemployed a decade ago. Maybe they are doing some clandestine freelancing of which Putin would not approve.
I beleive Israel’s diplomat had a deeper message to convey: there’s now a deadman’s switch on a few nukes, to retaliate against those that enabled Iran, should Israel be destroyed by Iranian nukes.
Wrong. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. ..
but evidence of absence is evidence…and there was no WMD
Sorry. I know this has let down all the Fox News crowd, but Rand has a piece on his website about the hot fox babes…so enjoy that
Robert G. Oler
Rand…Iraq is symptomatic of the Shrub administration.
Exaggerate, misstate, then do incompetently. That was the entire 8 years (except for the 1/3 when he was on vacation).
I know bringing up the main example of incompetence is distressing to the right wing, of course there are so many more
Robert G. Oler
Iraq is symptomatic of the Shrub administration.
Neither of which has anything whatsoever to do with this article. And thus is evidence of your profound sickness, as others have noted. Again, get help.
…but it’s not hard to imagine that if he’s going to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, he would prefer to avoid the additional diplomatic complication of killing them in the process and thus wanted to give the Russian regime fair warning.
I think that giving the list to Russian is more along the line of: we know that you know what we know about the Russian scientists working for Iran. Don’t complain and pretend outraged later on.
Rand…I have already told you how the article is flawed…it is a assumption followed by if if and if then something bad happens
it is typical right wing stuff
Robert G. Oler
“Hmm, Marshall man-rating something that Marshall (and its associated contractor army of leeches) didn’t build. We may actually be approaching the key plot point in Heinlein’s “The Man Who Sold The Moon”.”
Hey, cut us a little slack. The talent to design and build a spacecraft and a man-rated launcher is all here. SPACEHAB came very close to having a go at it.
SpaceX and other companies have a sort of advantage in that they don’t have a major NASA installation in their back yard; therefore, they know what path they have to take. For us in Huntsville, it makes no sense politically or career-wise to cut and run on MSFC if, in the future, space exploration is going to continue to be government-run. (And obviously the current Administration hasn’t exactly been really big on privatizing; they have very much gone in the other direction.) If privatization is going to happen, fine; we want a piece of that action too and we’ll jump into the fray and compete. But guessing and then being wrong is a mistake no one here can afford to make. We just want someone to make a damn decision one way or the other.
Russian scientists in Iran are not private citizens as in the US and their purpose would not been allowed unless approved by the Kremlin. Any thinking as Oler speculates is totally naive.
Even if US private citizens were in an country installing weapons systems. It is with the full knowledge and approval of the US government or they would not have got the permits. If another country was thinking of hostilities it would be prudent to warn the US government to recall its citizens. The State Dept often warns US business men and families to leave a country when hostilities are expected.
Israel has no reason not to warn. They have trade relations with Russia that were harmed in the Georgian conflict. But they still have decent relations.
Israel would also have to tell the US, but may wait until it would be too late to prevent the US stopping an attack. Apparently Bush would not sign off on an attack in Iran, but they were told about the attack in Syria at the last minute.
The intelligence may be wrong that the Israelis warned Russia, but their have been warnings done before to allow non nationals to leave before possible hostilities. I believe the US was very clear on that before we invaded Iraq and many did listen.
The bit about NASA supporting the space station. There really is no rational to keep that up. That was feel good mission to give purpose to NASA and European Space and Russia. We could let the support totally devolve to the Russians and Europe. Just get our people off the station. We can support a few more shuttle flights.
The next space station should be for commercial purposes so its maintenance is supported with efficient and long sighted reasons. Unlike a government PR purpose such as the current station.
NASA mission long ago expired. It is basically a research agency now. Let commercial space have its chance.
There were no WMD’s. Tell me anudder joke while I watch Peter Rabbit hop down the bunny lane to meet Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, Santa Claus and Debbie (who’s had it “doing” Dallas, and wants to “do” more exotic things in life).
The Iraqis had WMD’s and moved them to Syria, and ultimately the Biq’á in Lebanon, where they remain today, guarded by Syrian soldiers – this gotten from the back-door operation of the Mossad, Debkafiles. And guess who they are aimed at?
Us in Israel!
I guess the problem with the article is that there is no clear connection with the scientists’ list submitted by Peepee Netanyahu to Putin, and NASA, unless one makes some stretched assumptions.
Bu on the other hand, Americans should have never forgotten that the Russians are ultimately their enemies, and that fact would one day bite them in the butt, as it is doing now.
I really would be nice to see an expanded space program, but it appears to me that the only folks with the money to do that today are the Chinese, and they will have money only as long as everyone (including them) do/does not dump the worthless dollar or its “treasury bills”.
It always comes down to who gets paid, folks. And when….