Nasa Back-Up Plan

[Deepwater6]

http://www.space.com/35748-nasa-contingency-plan-commercial-crew-delays.html

 

It seems a bit late in the game for NASA to start thinking about a back-up plan to commercial vehicle space transportation. Going over to the private sector was inevitable, but as relations between Russia and the US become ever more strained, I think NASA is starting to get concerned.

 

http://www.space.com/35758-outer-space-treaty-success-modern-assessment.html

 

With the current space treaty being basically un-enforceable and subjective, space may become a point of contention soon. If the current schedules hold, Many countries and private companies have plans to either launch to or set up shop in LEO by 2020.

 

A modern or "up to date" space treaty needs to be put in place soon. One that has consequences for not abiding by it, is well thought out, and can last through future technologic advances.

 

Other than no WMD's what else should it say?

[CraigD]

http://www.space.com/35748-nasa-contingency-plan-commercial-crew-delays.html

 

It seems a bit late in the game for NASA to start thinking about a back-up plan to commercial vehicle space transportation. Going over to the private sector was inevitable, but as relations between Russia and the US become ever more strained, I think NASA is starting to get concerned.

I don’t see the article describing a dire crisis in which no Soyuz spacecraft will be available to ferry people to and from the ISS, but a financial difficulty in from whom and for how much NASA will have to pay for them. NASA also has the option of just not having flights to the ISS for more than a year, as we now know people can live on the ISS for more than a year without too terrible consequences.

 

Personally, I think the SpaceX Dragon/Falcon 9 is ready for passengers now, and NASA is just showing an abundance – perhaps an over-abundance – of caution in its certification process. It’ll be decades before Dragon can approach with Soyuz’s record 126 safe missions since 1973 record – though we shouldn’t forget that Soyuz’s 1967 to 1971 safety record only 9 out of 11, with 4 Cosmonauts deaths. If, like Soyuz in the ‘60s, Dragon had carried people on every trip, it would now be 12 for 12 with 1 non-fatal abort, CRS-7, since it first flew in 2010 (though the Dragon on CRS-7 crashed in the ocean, had it been manned, it certainly would have been programmed to have a soft splashdown, which most likely would have been successful)

 

Barring an all-out catastrophe in US-Russian relations (in which case the world would have more imminent fears than having to leave the ISS unoccupied, the scariest, nuclear annihilation), I doubt Russia will be reluctant to stop selling the US or anyone Soyuz rides, as it’s a profitable business for them.

 

I’ve long wondered why Russia doesn’t demand more for Soyuz flights than it does, given that it’s been practically the only provider in the market for the past nearly 6 years. I also wonder why China hasn’t tried competing with Russia with its modernized, Soyuz-like Shenzhou, which has a perfect 11 for 11 record, 6 of them crewed, since it first flew in 1999.

 

http://www.space.com/35758-outer-space-treaty-success-modern-assessment.html

 

With the current space treaty being basically un-enforceable and subjective, space may become a point of contention soon. If the current schedules hold, Many countries and private companies have plans to either launch to or set up shop in LEO by 2020.

 

A modern or "up to date" space treaty needs to be put in place soon. One that has consequences for not abiding by it, is well thought out, and can last through future technologic advances.

 

Other than no WMD's what else should it say?

I think the current Space Treaty and its court interpretation of near-Earth space – basically, like the international parts of the oceans, anybody/thing can navigate there as long as it doesn’t endanger others – is fine for at least another decade or two. Though a company like Bigelow may succeed in that time in flying a space resort hotel or the like, such a place will be like a cruise ship in international waters, subject to the laws of the nation of its passengers/visitors, so no new law is needed.

 

I don’t think the Space Treaty should be changed in a way that would prevent private enterprises from mining space-stuff or colonizing Mars or space, but it does need to be expanded to address the legal status of people or private property in space or on moons or other planets. While I think it should continue to prohibit nations from laying claim to ET territory, I think it’s important that some nation or collection of nations have legal jurisdiction over the people who live or own property there. Where there are people, there should be civil society – there should never be a situation where any person, anywhere, has no assurance of basic human rights, such as the right to not be murdered, enslaved, or robbed.

 

Any new nation formed of people in space or on ET moons or planets must be forced by other nations to assure the basic human rights to its people.

 

This last obligation isn’t unique to the future of off-Earth civilization. The world’s people and governments need to do a better job of it here on Earth, in “failed states” like Somalia, Yemen, and Syria.