Columbia Disaster Leaves NASA at Cooperation Crossroads by Sanjay Talwani If there was anything positive about the Feb. 1 explosion of the space shuttle Columbia, it was the notion that the United States might now enter a new era of international cooperation for space research, particularly with the expansion and maintenance of the International Space Station (ISS). Russian Soyuz rockets will probably remain the vehicle of choice for the ISS in the near future, providing the stationís current residents with a way home. A Soyuz lifted off to the ISS just one day after the Columbia disaster. But the space business as a whole is facing tough times, reflecting the difficulties of the worldwide telecommunications slump, the oversupply in the satellite launch industry, increased insurance costs, and the fallout of a handful of rocket mishaps. And as the United States looks to the world to fulfill its needs, it is hampered by its own policies, namely the Iran Nonproliferation Act, which restricts most U.S. payments to the Russian spac e program as long as Russia continues its involvement with the Iranian nuclear program. Looking ahead, the United States is at work on a manned vehicle, the Orbital Space Plane (OSP, formerly called the Crew Transport Vehicle), but it is not expected to be flying until at least 2010, even with worldwide cooperation. ìI think we could help the U.S. to speed up the development of the Orbital Space Plane. Itís touchy technology, state of the art,î said Vincent Sabathier, science and technology attachÈ at the French Embassy in Washington. ìAnd we need to have a backup to the shuttle. But the U.S. right now has not been really clear about its willingness to open that to international cooperation.î The shuttle is an anomaly in the space world, with no real substitute. Since the Challenger disaster in 1986, the U.S. shuttle program has been devoted almost exclusively to noncommercial government and military projects on the grounds that human lives need not be risked for the deployment of commercial telecommunications satellites. ì[The Columbia disaster] really had no direct effect [on our business] because we have never competed for customers, and we donít carry people,î said Fran Slimmer, spokeswoman for International Launch Services, a joint venture of Lockheed Martin and Russiaís Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center, which holds a record of more than 800 successful launches of the American Atlas and Russian Proton units in the past 10 years. The shuttle and most rockets donít even go to the same place. Geosynchronous satellites (those orbiting at the same frequency as the earthís rotation and thus remaining in the same spot over the earth) orbit at an altitude of 22,300 miles. The space shuttle generally orbits at about 300 miles, so any satellites it deploys have to find their way to the right spot using their own engines. Commercial ventures have several options for launch. The Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, a massive complex that was the home of the Soviet Unionís historic space adventures, has been the starting point for more than 100 manned flights and continues to serve worldwide clients. The Russian Federation operates the site under a lease with Kazakhstan, which will run it until 2014, but Kazakhstan Embassy spokesman Roman Vassilenko said the governments are negotiating an extension for decades longer. Another space workhorse is the European Space Agencyís Ariane vehicle. Ariane 5 ran into trouble with its initial launch in 1996, but its next 14 missions were successful. However, in December, the latest version of the Ariane 5, with a payload of 10 tons (two five-ton satellites, or more than twice the capacity of the earlier version) exploded after lift-off from French Guyana. Such events are part of innovative space travel and speak to the Europeansí emphasis on unmanned vehicles. But between the mishaps, telecom woes, the shuttle disaster and the worldwide capital shortage, space watchers say the industry could see little innovation in the near future. ìAll the new services that everyone was dreaming about for space telecommunications are gone now,î said the French Embassyís Sabathier. ìThey will come back, but not in the short term.î Simon Clapham, a space insurance expert with Brit Insurance, an underwriter associated with Lloydís of London, said the shuttle disaster made its way into insurance calculations only in Byzantine ways: The shuttle program itself carries no insurance, and the shuttle blew up upon re-entry, whereas commercial insurers generally cover only launch and the first year of a satelliteís life. Space insurance is volatile and unpredictable, he said, but generally is a projectís third-largest expense (after the satellite itself and the launch costs), and can run from 15 percent to 30 percent of the cost of the mission. But fewer launchesóand that will be one effect of the Ariane failureómean higher premiums because the insurer is taking in less money relative to the price of a few large claims. Falling prices in the stock market, where many insurers keep enormous funds, make things even worse. ìThe space industry is having a very hard time,î said Clapham. ìThere are too many launch vehicle providers, so theyíre cutting each other up in their own market. The satellite manufacturers keep cutting each otherís throats to get the business, and thereís not very much business to go around.î U.S. companies, he said, face the extra hurdle of the Iran Nonproliferation Act and other restrictions. ìThe State Department is killing your satellite manufacturers,î Clapham said. ìThe Europeans are getting more orders than the Americans are.î The restrictions also inhibit cooperation, he said. ìIn the old days, youíd get different operators around the world sitting around a table, chatting about what little things are going wrong with their spacecraft and sharing thoughts, making improvementsóbecause two sets of eyes are better than oneóand in general, they were helping the manufacturer to improve the product,î Clapham said. ìIf theyíre stymieing the discussion because of regulatory issues, it will just slow down technology and improvement, and it just doesnít help the end consumer.î Russiaís difficult economic situation has left its space program scrambling for funds, notably in the example of the $20 million ride of ìspace touristî Dennis Tito, which earned the Russians worldwide ridicule. With the U.S. space shuttle program on hold and Russia lacking funds, an opportunity could arise for the one-time enemies to help with each otherís problemsóif the Russians accede to the American demand of abandoning its nuclear cooperation with Iran. ìIím hoping that we can work with the Russians to make it profitable for them to walk away from their involvement [with Iran] and perhaps give them a way of making more money dealing with us Ö or perhaps finding an alternative,î said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics and a longtime critic of technology transfers to unfriendly nations. ìMaybe they can build a nuclear power plant in Turkey or something.î Rohrabacher said he understands Russiaís need for economic growth and says that the shuttle situation provides an opportunity for the two nations to revisit the issue and find a common ground that has been elusive in the past. ìI donít believe that we have taken the steps necessary for the Russians to take us seriously in asking them to give up their contract with Iran. Unless we offer them an alternative, then weíre not serious,î Rohrabacher said. ìWe have got to offer them an alternative, and if they turn down the alternative, where they make just as much money, well, then we donít deal with them. But I think theyíd jump at the chance to do something for somebody else.î Rohrabacher vowed to call the White House and National Security Council to let them know of his wishes. ìI was advocating this policy before,î he said. ìNow itís important that this is being followed through on.î The Russian Embassy in Washington would not comment on the matter despite several requests. In the meantime, even the Europeans, who remain strong advocates of the unmanned model, say the shuttle programís rebirth in one form or another is vital to keeping humanityís exploration of space alive. ìClearly, there will need to be more money in the U.S. to solve the shuttle problem because it is a workhorse,î said Sabathier. ìWithout the shuttle, the space station is dead. And if the space station is dead, you can be sure human space flight is in bad shape.î Sanjay Talwani is a freelance writer in Arlington, Va.