Space News
space history and artifacts articles

Messages
space history discussion forums

Sightings
worldwide astronaut appearances

Resources
selected space history documents

  collectSPACE: Messages
  Soviet - Russian Space
  US-Russian relations, Soyuz and Georgia War (Page 2)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   US-Russian relations, Soyuz and Georgia War
Lee Robert Brandon-Cremer
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 08-29-2008 05:55 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Lee Robert Brandon-Cremer   Click Here to Email Lee Robert Brandon-Cremer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by E2M Lem Man:
...have the US astronauts ever photographed anything at the request of any military branch of government?
I am sure my friend Joel Powell could best respond to this, but from my understanding there was a strong suspicion that Australian Astronaut Paul Scully-Power added to STS-41G as an Observer Oceanographer very late in crew training, may have been tasked by the US Navy to conduct visual and photographic observations. Certainly his backup Robert Stevenson was trained in such observations, as were many of the DOD Manned Spaceflight Engineers MSE candidates.

I think it goes without saying that many military shuttle flights from STS-4 thru the last flights my have had such instruction, possibly even at last minute requests due to situations on the ground.

I'm not an expert on the military shuttles, but I am sure ground based observations have played a large role in some shuttle missions.

Does anyone know more?

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 08-29-2008 08:35 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Lee Robert Brandon-Cremer:
I'm not an expert on the military shuttles, but I am sure ground based observations have played a large role in some shuttle missions.
Even if it did, that is not what is at issue with the Kononenko photographing South Ossetia. Had he been taking the photos while flying in a Soyuz separate from the ISS there would also be no issue.

The concern is that there is an agreement in place, which was signed by all the international partners -- Russia included -- that precludes the use of the ISS for anything but civil purposes.

"The Space Station together with its additions of evolutionary capability will remain a civil station, and its operation and utilization will be for peaceful purposes, in accordance with international law," reads Article 14 of the agreement.

Lee Robert Brandon-Cremer
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 08-30-2008 03:04 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Lee Robert Brandon-Cremer   Click Here to Email Lee Robert Brandon-Cremer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I was simply responding to the 'E2M Lem Man' question.

If he was asking it in regards to the ISS only, then you are correct, but it was my assumption, and only that, that he was asking about US Astronauts in general, over time.

I do understand the rules of conduct agreed by convention in regards to ISS partners and their use of the station under protocol.

Saying the agreement precludes such use is assuming that the American astronauts have never conducted such 'intelligence' from the station. I think both sides would have considered it, if not attempted it. After all its hard to say its a civilian station when most the people aboard have military affiliations.

The difference here is that the Russians admitted it to doing it.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 09-04-2008 04:32 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Spaceflight Now: Griffin not optimistic about new deal to buy Soyuz rides
Movement on a legislative exemption that would allow NASA to buy seats on Russian Soyuz spacecraft past 2011 is at a virtual standstill, NASA Administrator Mike Griffin says. Because of the three-year lead time needed to build Soyuz vehicles, contracts must be in place by early 2009 to avoid an interruption in NASA's presence on board the international space station. But in an interview with CBS News on Thursday, Griffin said he is not optimistic any such legislation will be approved in the wake of Russia's invasion of Georgia and that it's now likely the U.S. segment of the station will have to be unmanned for at least some portion of 2012.

Griffin said the problem is "very serious. We have been literally working this issue all year long. I need a contract vehicle in place by early '09 if we are to fly American and international partners on Soyuz in early '12."

cspg
Member

Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006

posted 09-04-2008 10:37 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for cspg   Click Here to Email cspg     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
So, on one hand there's a rush to complete the station by mid-2010 and on the other, that same station might be abandoned 18 months later...

Chris.

capoetc
Member

Posts: 2169
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005

posted 09-05-2008 08:39 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for capoetc   Click Here to Email capoetc     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by cspg:
So, on one hand there's a rush to complete the station by mid-2010 and on the other, that same station might be abandoned 18 months later...
And, you have a better option, including the funding for this better option?

------------------
John Capobianco
Camden DE

issman1
Member

Posts: 1042
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005

posted 09-05-2008 09:04 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for issman1     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Reading some of the hysterical Western media reporting, I wonder what is the purpose of human spaceflight in light of this situation? If it's purely about national prestige then all space programme's should be shutdown immediately. Whatever happened to the concept of "For all Mankind"!

LCDR Scott Schneeweis
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 09-05-2008 09:39 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for LCDR Scott Schneeweis   Click Here to Email LCDR Scott Schneeweis     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Space is a resource no different then other terrestrial based assets that individual countries may choose to exploit for their own betterment/national security interests. It would be great if that could be done in lock-step with the international community but it is not a mutually exclusive requirement.

issman1
Member

Posts: 1042
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005

posted 09-05-2008 10:05 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for issman1     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
How prosaic you make it sound, Scott. Hardly noble or romantic.

cspg
Member

Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006

posted 09-05-2008 10:17 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for cspg   Click Here to Email cspg     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by capoetc:
And, you have a better option, including the funding for this better option?
Nope. Just highlighting the shortcoming(s) of space policies.

Chris.

cspg
Member

Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006

posted 09-05-2008 10:19 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for cspg   Click Here to Email cspg     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
Whatever happened to the concept of "For all Mankind"!

There's no such thing as "For All Mankind", is there?

Chris.

E2M Lem Man
Member

Posts: 846
From: Los Angeles CA. USA
Registered: Jan 2005

posted 09-09-2008 12:43 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for E2M Lem Man   Click Here to Email E2M Lem Man     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Have you seen what Mike Griffin said in his latest email? He is agreeing with us in principle about keeping shuttle flying with as many as ten more missions.

But, is this his true feelings, or is he being politically correct? Has he always been a shuttle fan, of sorts? Can we still keep orbiters going for ten more missions?

What is next on the shuttle flying until Ares/Orion is ready?

J.M. Busby

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 09-09-2008 12:44 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by E2M Lem Man:
Have you seen what Mike Griffin said in his latest email?
Jim, please see the on-going discussion: NASA to assess flying shuttle to 2015

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 09-12-2008 12:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Without the Soyuz, NASA says in a congressional briefing paper obtained by the Orlando Sentinel, it will have to abandon the station when the current contract with Russia ends in October 2011 and cede control of the $100-billion facility to Moscow.

Text of the paper follows:

The Urgency Of NASA's Need For Legislation To Continue To Purchase Soyuz Crew Vehicles From Russia

NASA needs Congress to provide legislative extension allowing purchase of Russian Soyuz crew vehicles to support astronauts on the International Space Station by October 2008 or else NASA will have no choice but to de-crew all U.S. astronauts from the International Space Station in 2012.

  • Existing legislative authority allowing NASA to make payments to Russia for support of the International Space Station expires on December 31, 2011.
  • The Russian Federal Space Agency has communicated to NASA that a contract must be in place 36 months prior to launch, in order to begin procurement of long-lead items to produce the Soyuz vehicles for the U.S., which are in addition to their own spacecraft manufacturing needs.
  • Since Soyuz crew rotations for fall 2011 will return in spring 2012. NASA must have new legislative authority in place by fall of 2008, if we are to maintain a U.S. and international partner (Europe, Canada, and Japan) presence onboard the International Space Station after October 2011. The legislative authority would allow for contract payments to be made beyond 2012. NASA is not allowed to execute a contract without legislative authority to make payments.
NASA's Proposed Legislative Amendment:

"P.L. 106-178, 50 USC 1701 note is amended in subsection 7(1)(B) by striking 'January 1, 2012' and inserting in lieu thereof 'July 1, 2016'".

If Congress does not extend NASA's legislative exemption to allow the purchase of Russian Soyuz crew services, the result will be to damage the United States' collaboration with our international partners on the International Space Station, effectively ceding control of this $50 Billion investment (cost through 2010) to Russia.

  • Denying extension of this legislative authority only hurts the United States space program and our partnership with Canada, Europe, and Japan- not the Russians.
  • NASA fully recognizes that reliance on Russia for astronaut crew transportation and rescue for those onboard the International Space Station is a very serious shortfall in a critical U.S. capability.
  • The International Space Station is a collaboration that is working. Each partner has provided concrete contributions in the form of laboratories, equipment, robotic manipulator arms, cargo and crew transportation, etc.
  • While there is significant concern regarding U.S. reliance upon and relationship with Russia because of its incursion into Georgia, Russia has been a good and valuable partner on the International Space Station, especially in the aftermath of the Space Shuttle Columbia accident in February 2003, during which they provided services to continue U.S. operations onboard the Space Station.
Continuing to fly the Space Shuttle past 2010 is not the answer to this situation. Even if the Shuttle continued to fly beyond 2010 the U.S. would still be reliant on Soyuz until NASA's new Orion crew vehicle comes on-line.
  • Due to its design limitations, the Space Shuttle can visit the ISS for no more than about two weeks at a time, two to five times per year.
  • The Soyuz can both transport crew and serve as a rescue vehicle attached to the ISS for six-month increments. Under NASA's present operational safety rules, crew rescue capabilities for astronauts onboard the Space Station are a necessity. Today, only the Russian Soyuz provides this capability.
  • There is also the matter of risk. NASA's current best estimate of 1-in-80 for the loss-of-crew on a single Space Shuttle flight, with 10 additional flights (2 per year in 2011-2015) yields a 12 percent probability--or about 1 in 8--of losing another crew.
  • Continuing to fly the Shuttle past 2010 without Congressional authority to purchase Soyuz services would relegate the United States and our Canadian, European, and Japanese partners to brief visits to the Space Station, eliminate long-term utilization, would eliminate the need to purchase U.S. commercial resupply services, and exposes the Space Station to greater operational risks with only Russian cosmonauts onboard.
  • This bleak scenario only damages our relationship with our international partners, abrogating the United States long-standing, treaty-level commitments to provide crew transport and rescue for them, likely to result in an understandable reluctance by them to join us in future space missions.
NASA has looked at numerous options, including many creative concepts from industry before seeking this legislative amendment. Due to the short development time available, none of the options offers a viable replacement or alternative for the Russian Soyuz in the timeframe of concern. The Soyuz option is simply the only sure solution and, in any case, would be needed as a backup even if other options did mature. NASA needs this legislative amendment or else the U.S. has no choice but to de-crew all U.S. astronauts (and de-facto the Canadian, European and Japanese astronauts) from the International Space Station in 2011.

NASA needs this legislative extension by October 2008. The development and utilization of the International Space Station has been a cornerstone of U.S. space policy and international leadership since President Reagan first announced the program in 1984. We need the help of Congress to capitalize on our Nation's $50 billion investment in space leadership.

Lou Chinal
Member

Posts: 1306
From: Staten Island, NY
Registered: Jun 2007

posted 09-12-2008 05:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Lou Chinal   Click Here to Email Lou Chinal     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This maybe a crazy question, but I'll ask it anyway. Could the U.S. buy several Soyuz spacecraft from the Russians? Could we just contract out the launch opeartions? Have all three seats occupied by American astronauts? I know the answer is more political than technical. Technically is there any reason why it couldn't be done?

-Lou

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 09-12-2008 05:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Lou Chinal:
Could the U.S. buy several Soyuz spacecraft from the Russians?
NASA can buy Russian services through 2011, at which time the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act (INKSNA) expires. NASA is asking for that waiver to be extended through 2016.
quote:
Have all three seats occupied by American astronauts?
There are presently no American astronauts qualified to command a Soyuz.

E2M Lem Man
Member

Posts: 846
From: Los Angeles CA. USA
Registered: Jan 2005

posted 09-13-2008 12:31 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for E2M Lem Man   Click Here to Email E2M Lem Man     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
No, even if we had a couple Soyuz it would take time to identify a launch vehicle and man rate the Soyuz on it.

We need the shuttle, if we are to live up to our international agreements.

We need to get the congress to realize we have a problem and put the monies up front for continuing shuttle missions.

Manifests have been done for ten missions to 2015.

We need to fly them and maybe bring Hubble home to the Smithsonian.

J.M. Busby

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 09-13-2008 12:49 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I think we need to be careful not to lose sight of the fact that flying the shuttle beyond 2010 does not release the U.S. from the requirement for Soyuz spacecraft.

The shuttle cannot be used as a lifeboat. Without the Soyuz, U.S. crew members would be restricted to short-term ISS stays, which would undermine a great deal of the reason the outpost is important to U.S. research.

Congress needs to approve the INKSNA waiver. In my opinion, the shuttle extension is a secondary concern that can be debated after the waiver is in place.

music_space
Member

Posts: 1179
From: Canada
Registered: Jul 2001

posted 09-14-2008 04:07 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for music_space   Click Here to Email music_space     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
  • [...] only hurts the United States space program [...].
  • NASA fully recognizes [...] a very serious shortfall in a critical U.S. capability.
  • The International Space Station is a collaboration that is working. [...]
  • [...] Russia has been a good and valuable partner on the International Space Station, [...]
Plus, they're dirt cheap, aren't they?

Let's make that new deal with Roskosmos already!

------------------
François Guay
Collector of litterature, notebooks, equipment and memories!

E2M Lem Man
Member

Posts: 846
From: Los Angeles CA. USA
Registered: Jan 2005

posted 09-15-2008 12:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for E2M Lem Man   Click Here to Email E2M Lem Man     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Okay, the Soyuz is part of the original agreement and is the Russian contribution to ISS. So be it.

And we can use Orbiters to visit and continue our commitment to ISS.

The Russians said this about us in the Moscow News:

The United States, which has been skeptical about it, has suddenly developed an interest, especially in how its crews are to be taken to the station after its Space Shuttle program winds up in 2010. Unfortunately, the renewed American interest in the ISS is neither because of concern for the station's future, nor because of the coming anniversary. The cause was provided by the Caucasian crisis. And had it not happened, American participation in the program would have ended quietly, despite all assurances to the contrary.
Have we only just "taken an interest" or are we waiting for our ISS program to "die quietly"?

JM Busby

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 09-15-2008 01:50 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by E2M Lem Man:
Have we only just "taken an interest" or are we waiting for our ISS program to "die quietly"?
We had lost interest, but it wasn't for the reason(s) cited by the Russian columnist.

The Vision for Space Exploration, as proposed by the current administration, redirected U.S. involvement in the ISS after core completion, largely because the President was unwilling to call for the increased funding needed to maintain both the ISS and push forward towards a return to the Moon.

Interest in the ISS has increased as both presidential candidates have responded to the science community's desire for expanded use of the station, while the reality set in that the current administration's plan for deploying Constellation was underfunded and poorly planned.

The Georgian conflict certainly didn't help matters but was not the catalyst for the renewed interest in extending the U.S. presence on the ISS.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 09-30-2008 10:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The waiver to the Iran-North Korea-Syria Non-proliferation Act (INKSNA) to permit NASA to continue buying Russian Soyuz crew capsules and Progress cargo vehicles for the International Space Station through July 1, 2016 was signed into law today by the President.

The waiver was included within the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance and Continuing Appropriations Act for 2009 (H.R. 2638), which also funds NASA at its 2008 level of $17.3 billion through March 6, 2009.


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts

Copyright 2020 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a





advertisement