8 thoughts on “NASA And Iranian Nukes”

  1. There are some inaccuracies in this article.

    Under the act, it is illegal to purchase goods or services from the Russians as long as they continue to engage in such activities.

    No, it’s written quite a bit more narrowly than that. In particular, one must interpret Section 6 (which affects NASA) in the context of the definitions in Section 7 of the law.

    It’s not illegal, for example, for the DoD to purchase RD-180s on Atlas rockets for use in unmanned launches, even without a waiver, but it would be illegal for NASA to purchase the same engines for a launch to ISS (or a manned launch to anywhere), unless Congress grants a waiver. (That is admittedly counterintuitive – until one reads section 7(1)(B).)

    So how has NASA gotten around the law? First, by pretending that Russia isn’t in violation of it, as it has attempted to maintain plausible deniability for years on the issue.

    Flat-out wrong. NASA doesn’t “pretend” anything. They ask for Congress to pass explicit waivers, and Congress (so far) has complied. No one needs to “pretend” Russia is in compliance of anything. You recognize this yourself a couple of paragraphs down.

    We can ignore the Russian behavior and continue to buy rides from them to the space station regardless (the House bill calls for more than $900 million over the next three years)

    Why single out the House bill? The president’s proposal and the Senate bill also call for spending the exact same amount on Soyuz over the same period.

    There’s room for difference of opinion concerning other parts of the article, but the above are factual errors.

  2. But after all is said and done, we have 2 or 3 more shuttle flights, then a gap where human resupply to ISS is done by Russian Soyuz vehicles. That’s regardless of whether be build Ares or develop a commercial manned vehicle.

    I’ve been a contract flight controller (Shuttle, ISS and ISS Visiting Vehicles) for NASA for 25 years. And despite the fact that NASA’s budget for FY 2011 is bigger than the FY 2010 budget, I’m still getting laid off.

    Effectively, Obama has outsourced my job to Russia.

  3. Right hand, left hand – sleight of hand? Does either hand know what the other is up to? Plausible deniability my ass – the congressional shepherds know exactly what the implications of policy decisions are, they just hope no one else notices until it is two late.

    Perhaps it is time to ask who our elected representatives are actually working for.

  5. Rand, Rand, Rand. I’m sure it was just minor oversight on your part;

    But how about Option 5: The House Passes the Senate Bill as is. A Bill the President said he would sign.

    Strange that the most obvious path to a political compromise that has already formed between the Senate and President and that produces two independent paths to US based ISS support is somehow missing in our options list.

    Again I’m sure it was just a minor oversight on your part.

  6. Effectively, Obama has outsourced my job to Russia.

    George Bush made the decision to do that, six years ago, and exacerbated it when he hired Mike Griffin and then let him run roughshod over the VSE.

  7. But how about Option 5: The House Passes the Senate Bill as is. A Bill the President said he would sign.

    The House doesn’t seem to consider that an option, but it’s one means of achieving Option 4.

  8. Why single out the House bill? The president’s proposal and the Senate bill also call for spending the exact same amount on Soyuz over the same period.

    Because with the Senate bill, there’s at least a chance that we can end our dependence sooner, and perhaps not end up paying that amount.

Comments are closed.