U.S. Opposition to Iran’s Nuclear Proliferation May Impact NASA’s Space Station Participation

WASHINGTON _ The international space station, a $100 billion symbol of global cooperation, may become a casualty of U.S. opposition to Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

A little-known law intended to prevent the sale of nuclear technology to Iran would also bar NASA from buying Russian Soyuz spacecraft after 2011. With the space shuttle slated to retire in 2010 and its replacement not scheduled to fly before 2015, the agency would have no way to send astronauts to the space station.

Station supporters say that without a crew, the station could become little more than an expensive piece of state-of-the-art space junk.

At issue is legislation passed in 2000 called the Iran, North Korea and Syria Nonproliferation Act. It prohibits U.S. purchases of Russian space technology _ including Soyuz spacecraft _ as long as Russia is exporting nuclear or missile technology to Iran.

Congress granted NASA a waiver of the ban in 2005, and the agency has since spent more than $700 million on Russian spaceships to transport crew and cargo to the orbiting complex, now close to completion. Under the international agreements that created the station, NASA is responsible for providing crew and cargo transport and keeping extra craft on the station as lifeboats in case of an emergency.

But the current contract with Russia expires in 2011, and the Russian company that makes the Soyuz says it needs three years of lead time to ensure there is no interruption in manufacture and supply. Adding to the pressure is that the station crew is scheduled to double to six next year, increasing the need for Soyuz lifeboats.

“It takes 36 months to fulfill an order,” said Yevgeny Khorishko, the Russian embassy spokesman in Washington. “So if U.S. Congress does not grant a waiver by the end of September, it means your astronauts in 2012 will be preparing for their missions on the ground and will not be flying.”

NASA told Congress in April that passage of the waiver was urgent. “Prompt legislative action is needed,” wrote agency Administrator Mike Griffin.

Congress, however, appears less than willing to grant the waiver. Election-year politics and growing concerns about Iran mean that some members, especially those in tough races for re-election, are reluctant to risk being accused of being soft on Iran and Russia.

Iran has rejected U.S. and European demands that it shut down its nuclear enrichment efforts and open its nuclear program to international inspection. Russia has sold Iran a nuclear reactor _ to generate electricity, Iran says _ and is helping to construct it.

“The bottom line is that Congress is very wary of Russia,” said John Isaacs, executive director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, a Washington-based think tank. “It’s going to be difficult for any government agency to get an exemption.”

Week before last, a U.S. House committee included a provision for the NASA waiver in a bill that would allow U.S. companies to sell reactors and other nuclear material to Russia, with some restrictions.

But putting these issues together has made it harder for Congress to get the NASA exemption. The pro-Israel lobby is against nuclear trading with Russia, fearing it will strengthen Iran’s ability to produce missiles and nuclear warheads. NASA is caught in the middle.

The Senate has put off both issues to September as members decide how to untangle the two; Congress left for a five-week recess on Friday. In the meantime, U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., has pushed to make the issue a priority with congressional leaders. “If we don’t get it, we’ll end up with no access to space,” said Nelson spokesman Bryan Gulley.

Despite his support for the waiver, Nelson, like most members of Congress, does not like the fact that America is dependent on Russia for access to space, much less that NASA will be paying Russians to build ships while cutting shuttle workers’ jobs in the U.S.

Lynn Cline, NASA deputy associate administrator for space operations, said that Congress must act this year. If it waits until 2009, she said, NASA likely will be unable to access the station for months, or longer, after 2011.

Under NASA’s current contract, the agency will spend $719 million for cargo and crew services between 2009 and 2011. After 2012, as part of its agreement, the U.S. needs to pay for Soyuz capsules to act as lifeboats on the station year-round. Without these lifeboats, the station cannot support a crew.

To handle its cargo supply obligations, NASA hopes that either U.S. commercial companies or its non-Russian partners will be able to take cargo to the space station after 2010.

That prospect is uncertain at best. NASA has awarded contracts to two companies _ SpaceX and Orbital Sciences _ to build rockets to supply the station. But neither has launched a rocket yet.

The situation is worrying NASA’s international partners, especially in Europe and Japan. Though both have developed capsules that can take cargo to the station, each is years _ and billions of dollars _ away from building spacecraft that can transport humans.

In theory, they could come to an agreement to pay the Russians to take people and cargo to the station, but without U.S. support its’ not likely the station could continue.

“It’s deeply worrying,” said one Western diplomat whose country is a key station partner. “Without the Soyuz, we will be grounded. There is no plan B.”

__

(Mark K. Matthews reported from Washington, and Robert Block eported from Cape Canaveral, Fla.)

___

(c) 2008, The Orlando Sentinel (Fla.).

Visit the Sentinel on the World Wide Web at http://www.orlandosentinel.com/.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.