WASHINGTON -- As NASA ponders its options in the days ahead for maintaining a human presence on the international space station in light of the grounding of the space shuttle fleet, discussions are certain to touch upon one obvious solution: Russia.

For the better part of three decades Russia used Soyuz rockets to launch crews and supplices first to the Salyut series of space stations, then to the much larger Mir space station. The Soyuz is still used to launch Soyuz capsules with three crew members to the ISS and also to launch Progress resupply spacecraft loaded with fuel, water, food and other supplies. A Progress, for example, was launched aboard a Soyuz rocket Feb. 2 for just such a mission.

The three-person Soyuz capsule is currently the only means of returning the space station’s crew to Earth absent shuttle flights. The Soyuz could also be used to send additional three-person replacement crews up to the space station in the months ahead.

But sending additional Soyuz to the station would require accelerating production. And accelerating production would cost money that the Russian government does not have.

The simple solution would be for NASA to help pay for the additional Soyuz. But U.S. law and the current political climate could make that harder than it would seem.

The Iran Non Proliferation Act of 1999 prohibits NASA from purchasing Russian space hardware until the U.S. President certifies to Congress that Russian aerospace organizations have not supplied missile-related technology to Iran within the past 12 months.

The law, however, does permit an exception to be made if buying goods
or services from Russia proves necessary to safeguard the health and well being of the crew and the station itself.

A U.S. aerospace policy analyst said NASA and the White House will have to consider in the days and weeks ahead whether the time has come to seek a waiver to the law or to ask Congress for some legislative relief.

But the analyst cautioned that the decision could be fraught with political implications for the White House.

After all, the analyst said, Iran was identified along with Iraq and North Korea by U.S. President George W. Bush in his State of the Union Address in 2001 as forming an “Axis of Evil” that threatens world peace. In that context, even the appearance of relaxing its posture toward Iran would be politically contentious to say the least. It remains to be see, the analyst said, whether the White House will continue to hold the Iran Non Proliferation Act as inviolate.

“That’s a political question and we just had a political impetus yesterday,” the policy analyst said. “Things can change.”