In 2004, the Bush administration introduced its “vision for space exploration,” which includes retiring NASA’s existing shuttle fleet and introducing Constellation, a new launching program using an updated capsule and rocket system. However, the administration, not wanting to inflate NASA’s budget, decided that manned space missions would go on a five-year hiatus, and that American astronauts should instead fly on Russian spacecraft.

But the recent political tensions between the US and Russia have complicated this plan. Although NASA does not doubt Russia’s commitment to transporting US astronauts, the US’s commitment to manned spaceflight will be greatly tested if relations with Russia continue to deteriorate. Following Russia’s military action in Georgia, Congress was stalled the bill to approve NASA’s purchase of seats on Russian spacecraft beyond 2011. The approval for the purchase of seats through 2016 did ultimately pass, but the incident prompted NASA administrator Michael D. Griffin to speak out against the current policy, which he called "unseemly in the extreme":

In an e-mail message he sent to his top advisers in August, Dr. Griffin wrote that “events have unfolded in a way that makes it clear how unwise it was for the U.S. to adopt a policy of deliberate dependence on another power.”

Griffin further suggests that the gap poses an unnecessary risk to the US space program:

“In a rational world, we would have been allowed to pick a shuttle retirement date to be consistent with Ares/Orion availability,” Dr. Griffin wrote. Within the administration, he wrote, “retiring the shuttle is a jihad rather than an engineering and program management decision.”

Griffin fears the consequences of any delay in the Constellation program, which comes at a time when China’s space program is rapidly advancing. Even if the current plans go according to schedule, the US will not return to the moon until 2020. Proponents fear that by then, the US will already be behind the curve.

One Way Up: U.S. Space Plan Relies on Russia [NY Times]

Imagine riding in that sucker down to Earth at like a zillion miles per hour.

There's something so poignant about this rocket's blistered skin. It's like this machine loved its human companions so much that it came back down to Earth just for them, even though it died in the process.

Soyuz Reentry Pictures [via Dark Roasted Blend]

It might be an inferiority complex. Soyuz capsules aren't renewable, but the Russians have been running them reliably into orbit for over forty years. NASA's space shuttle program's been going since 1981 and has had two major disasters.

But as The Washington Post's Marc Kaufman points out, they may also be nervous about relying on a program that's looked a little shaky of late:

Two consecutive chaotic and dangerous landings by Soyuz space capsules, including one with an American astronaut aboard, have NASA and space experts concerned about the spacecraft's reliability in ferrying astronauts to and from the international space station.

The worries are compounded by the fact that starting in 2010, when the space shuttle fleet will be retired, the United States will be entirely dependent on Russia's Soyuz capsules and rockets for transporting all astronauts and most cargo to the station — until at least 2015.

There's discussion later on in the article of additional funding to get NASA's new Orion capsule up and running before 2015, and that's a good idea. Way better than complaining about the one program on Earth that's reliable enough to keep human spaceflight going while it's American counterpart takes half a decade off.

Source: The Washington Post

Images by AP/Dmitry Lovetsky

Columbus photo by AP Photo/EADS. Soyuz photo by STR/AFP/Getty Images.