Growing Hints That Russia Might Sanction NASA?
Russian official on new US sanctions and NASA: “Nothing lasts forever”
“However, Russia’s chief space official, Dmitry Rogozin, warned Saturday that such a situation may not be tolerable forever. “They (the United States) have an interesting approach, they try not to harm areas in which they are interested,” he said in a television interview. “They say that ‘space is outside politics.’ We take the ‘space is outside politics’ slogan into account, but nothing lasts forever.”
Putin orders cut of 755 personnel at U.S. missions, Washington Post
“It is not yet clear how the State Department will reduce its staff in Russia. Some of the local staff were hired to help with a significant expansion of the U.S. embassy compound in Moscow. … The Library of Congress had two U.S. staff and two foreign staff, and NASA had eight U.S. staff and four foreign staff members.”
The Kremlin is done betting on Trump and planning how to strike back against U.S. sanctions, Washington Post
“Of course it’s very difficult for Russia to do anything to harm the U.S. interests unless Russia is ready to take steps which will harm ourselves,” said Fyodor Lukyanov, chairman of the Council for Foreign and Defense Policies, an influential group of Russian foreign policy experts. Hawks poring over the U.S. sanctions say Moscow needs to break the rules. “It says that by no means shall sanctions apply to NASA projects,” said Nikolay Platoshkin, a former Russian diplomat and professor at the Moscow University of the Humanities, referring to the bill passed by the Senate. “Here we go, a perfect tip, let them apply [to NASA], let American astronauts ride horses to the International Space Station.”
H.R.3364 – Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act
“SEC. 237. EXCEPTION RELATING TO ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION.
(a) In General.–This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not apply with respect to activities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
(b) Rule Of Construction.–Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act shall be construed to authorize the imposition of any sanction or other condition, limitation, restriction, or prohibition, that directly or indirectly impedes the supply by any entity of the Russian Federation of any product or service, or the procurement of such product or service by any contractor or subcontractor of the United States or any other entity, relating to or in connection with any space launch conducted for–
(1) the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; or
(2) any other non-Department of Defense customer.
SEC. 238. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this part or the amendments made by this part shall be construed–
(1) to supersede the limitations or exceptions on the use of rocket engines for national security purposes under section 1608 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291; 128 Stat. 3626; 10 U.S.C. 2271 note), as amended by section 1607 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92; 129 Stat. 1100) and section 1602 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328; 130 Stat. 2582); or
(2) to prohibit a contractor or subcontractor of the Department of Defense from acquiring components referred to in such section 1608.”
Keith’s note: H.R.3364 was passed by the House, then the Senate, and has now been sent to the President who has said that he will sign it into law. According to the bill NASA and space activities are specifically exempted from being part of any sanctions that the U.S. might impose upon Russia. Yet the people quoted by the Washington Post suggest that by saying that these things are exempt from our sanctions, we’re actually saying that these things are vital and that upsetting them would damage our interests. Russia is now talking about the actions that they will take in response to the impending implementation of this legislation. Has the United States given Russia a roadmap of things they can focus their responses at – even if it results in damage to Russia itself?
How long is the ISS going to be able to remain an orbital, Antarctic-like, politics-free zone? The longer it manages to remain apart from terrestrial turmoils, the more space exploration speaks to a way to transcend such things. But there has to be a breaking point sooner or later.
– How Long Will ISS Remain Isolated From Terrestrial Politics?, earlier post
– Will U.S. Sanctions On Russia Impact ISS Operations?, earlier post
– Cold War Echoes On Earth And In Space, earlier post
– Watching Turmoil On Earth From Serene Vantage of Space, earlier post
– Russia, earlier posts
OK so worst case scenario’s russia refuses to launch americans (or take them back down, or just pull out of iss entirely) what happens to the iss?
Does it just drop into the sea in a ball of flame? Do we give our funds to send up more Europeans, Canadians, and Japanese to make up for the lack of American presence and keep the station maintained until dragon and starliner flies? Fit a Dragon1 with a chair and a docking port to make a lifeboat and keep the crew we have up there as long as possible?(though I imagine the lead time on this solution makes it impractical) Do we let China in?(also long lead time)
ISS can exist without US astronauts untill 2019 commercial crew, Russia can launch European astronauts instead who would do the same what Amricans do, but that wouldn’t happen. Theoretically possible.
And NASA will exist without the ISS. Indeed, splashing it in the Pacific because of Russian politics would be just the motivational boast NASA would need to clear out the dead wood and get to Mars.
It’s extraordinary that Congress hasn’t thought far enough ahead to mandate such a measure many years ago, when the first major round of sanctions hit Russia. Likewise, funding the development of a new generation of large hydrocarbon-fuelled rocket engines. Likewise, to push NASA to fund commercial ISS alternatives, in case things become so toxic with Russia, the station must be shut down (how many times has Russia claimed it’s going to withdraw its modules to use as the core of its own station?)
Instead Congress strangled funding on Commercial Crew, and went all in for SLS instead of Obama’s tech-dev plan.
In a political emergency, the berthing port is fine. Use the robot-arm to handle the berthing, as with cargo-Dragon. That is normally frowned upon for crew because a) you can’t dock if the arm is down, potentially forcing the crew to re-enter without reaching ISS. And importantly b) you can’t leave if the arm is down, making a berthed capsule unsuitable as a “life-boat”. But if it this-or-nothing, then those risks might be acceptable.
Laughing at the screen when I read that!
The same could be said of infrastructure all across this great country, the repair of which would enable a huge economic boon just as the initial interstates did.
The Congress cannot govern. And the reason it cannot govern is because it insists on passing legislation without the opposition.
This is not complicated.
I think Russia was already aware of that strategy. They are good chess players and they may hint they may do it, but I doubt they will because of the long term harm it would cause.
I agree with John Thomas. This threat has been levied before and the Russians have never followed through. As time goes on the threat will lose more and more of its bite because of the arrival of commercial crew.
Then again now is the time to use it – we’re still a year or more away from sending up crew.
but with a recent crew launch we are at least 6 months from losing a crew unless russia outright sinks the whole ISS program.
In which case, Mr. Bresnik might beat Mr. Kelly’s record for the longest stay in orbit by an American. I believe he would hit 340 days on orbit on July 3, 2018.
they can’t just keep an astronaut on station after his ride leaves can they? one would think safety lifeboat rules would overrule national pride/spite
This is just getting too hypothetical. But the Russians would have a Soyuz available for their own kosmonauts, and I think their plans for crew rotation almost guarantee there would be a seat free. I think it would not letting an American astronaut use it, in the event of an emergency, would be a major treaty violation of one sort or another. The current situation isn’t even close to that level.
Rules or no rules, Dragon seats 8 people. 😉
Shame Dragon has no physical seats yet
Let’s remember Boeing has those seats from Soyuz, bought directly from RSC Energia. Those would do until Commercial Crew gets up and running. Russia knows those are the last bucks they will see from american astronauts in a long time, and they won’t throw them away just to be embarassed by this being no trouble at all for the US.
What makes you think that RSC Energia has to satisfy that agreement? Does the agreement say that those seats must be provided by any specific date? If the Russian Govt all of a sudden says Russian companies arent allowed to perform any work then that will overrule any such civilian “contract”. Not much different than if the US says US companies cant provide something to say North Korea. This isnt a western government – if Putin says “no” then the answer is no.
By “threat” are you speaking of sanctions in general, or a specific threat by the Russians against the ISS (which I missed apparently)?
I recall a whole series of threats regarding stopping the sale of Russian engines to the US a year or two ago. That’s what blew wind into the whole US built engine program.
I was referring to the previous Russian threats to stop sending US astronauts to the ISS. Recall the “trampoline” comment. (http://www.nbcnews.com/stor…
We should have been anticipating this since March 2014 when the Russians annexed Crimea. I think that it was a fantasy that somehow NASA-Russia cooperation would be unaffected by growing US-Russia tensions. At a certain point those tensions reach a level where they affect broader cooperation, including in Space. I think that certainly we should never have gotten into this situation of dependency on Russia, and now the US must take urgent steps to restore sovereign crewed space launch capability. Boost funding to commercial space transportation and accelerate timetables.
Dragon 1 has no Launch Escape System, no docking, and would struggle to support the breathers on the trip there and back fix these issues and you basically have dragon 2
If they cut the engine supplies, I think ULA said they have enough in stock. O-ATK could use the ATK RSRM 1 segment motor. The SLS launch pad they will use will not be ready for sometime. They cold stack at the Antares launch pad and make a rolling shelter like Space FL. A rail spur to a F-9 launch pad. Cheaper to just let Space-X bring all the supplies. Dragon -1 could be fitted with abort tower or rocket pack in the Trunk. Not enough time to do and test though before Dragon-2 is launched. Should have been done right after the first Dragon-1 launch. Russia said it would be a good idea to have back up.
First: thanks to Keith (again) for the drudgery of wading through congressional detritus.
Second: In answer to the question, I would remind everyone that Mr. Putin is a careful and calculating guy driven by neither emotional outburst nor short-term thinking. Putin doesn’t react. He acts, by and large, as a capable leader looking at the world as a chessboard. It would be a mistake to have something less than grudging admiration for this difficult opponent.
Third: How exactly does hobbling ISS move the ball – Russian ball – forward? Not much. ISS is so low on everyday radar that nobody would notice. I hope.
Fourth: these silly sanction games go back and forth. They are disruptive mostly to the lives of State Department employees (who it must be said are suffering enough under the current administration).
Fifth: Even so, the escalation of tensions with Russia is a very, very bad thing for the US and for the world. I worry that nobody at the helm has the necessary foresight to resolve these issues.
Well, unfortunately Russia still has Crimea. And they continue their shenanigans in eastern Ukraine. And I don’t know how they undo the work they did relating to our 2016 election.
So I think that “silly sanction games go back and forth” is a horrible way to put it. Russia’s actions caused sanctions. They need to do something positive to reverse them.
I do agree this is a bad thing. I wish we’d have a great relationship with them like with our allies. But they are really preventing that. It’s terrible.
I suspect Mr. Putin would agree with the sentiments expressed by De Gaulle (“France has no friends, only interests”) and Kissinger (“America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”) with “Russia” replacing France or America.
It’s worth referring to a recent WSJ editorial by H.R. McMasters et. al. which referred to the world stage as an arena in which nations, non-governmental actors, and companies compete for relative advantage.
The view of the Democrats and surely the Obama administration was something different, realizing as they do that the world is far from zero-sum. In other words, cooperation creates a rising tide, benefitting all of the boats. This is not to say that spirited competition is without personal benefit, nor is it to be discouraged, however, only that there is much to be gained by making the pizza bigger.
The distinction is far from trivial, guiding as it does policy on taxes, on income distribution, health care — and international cooperation in space policy.
I’d agree with that. However, at some point those discordant actions can on balance go against Russia’s interests. Putin has been judging the benefits to outweigh the drawbacks.
But there is also another question to consider. There may be something other than Russia’s interests at play in Putin’s actions (ok surely there is), and that wouldn’t exactly jive with the De Gaulle and Kissinger quotes. There are plenty of examples that can be found of what many would consider Russia’s government acting against the interests of its people. So, how much of this is Putin acting in what he believes are Russia’s interests, and how much is him acting for other interests?
Now that you mention it, any Russian action or sanctions aimed at ISS might backfire. It might not be noticed, as you suggest. But if it were, that could turn into a PR disaster for the Russians. Politicizing and damaging one of the few, positive, apolitical and cooperative aspects of US/Russian relations? I don’t think that’s the sort of image Mr. Putin wants to project.
An editorial piece this morning in the NYTimes characterizes the current situation as two giants shooting at each other with water pistols.
Is this a fair characterization? I sort of think so. Or hope.
– more like a peeing contest than water pistols , methinks …
We are witnessing the development of a perfect storm. Can’t wait to see how it all turns out. Thanks, NASA Watch for staying on top of your game. I believe what we expect to see happen is no where near going to be what actually turns out to be the case.
The US needed to discuss building replacements for the Russian core elements of ISS— Zarya and Zvezda — years ago. Before Crimea. Zarya is what keeps the ISS in orbit with its propulsion system and tanking. Zvezda was originally the core for Mir-2 , Russia’s own 2nd gen space station. It was built in the 1980’s.
Let the Russians go their own way.
As I understand it, while Russia built Zarya, is was the US that FUNDED the thing. Just curious: Had Russia ever paid us back — even if it’s just so they could claim it ‘s 100% Rússkiy property? We may have a weightless rotating bone to pick with them, if they even hint about floating off with something that we have some ownership of. (Unless, in the name of space diplomacy, we already said: “it’s all yours, Vlad”)
If the ISS is to operated under an agreement that all parties are contributing, it goes without saying that no single party has everything needed to operate the station. That’s why it’s called cooperation.
It would be very difficult, and require money they don’t have, for Russia to operate the Russian segment without any U.S., ESA, or JAXA help. But it is technically possible. Right now the U.S. cannot operate the US/ESA/JAXA segment without the Russians, because only Zvezda and Progress provide altitude reboost.
Which was exactly my point, no? Neither of us can/is willing to run ISS alone. This implies that without each other ISS falls out of the sky, which in many ways was the point of the whole exercise.
Having a coherent foreign policy has become impossible with so many cooks in the kitchen. Foreign policy was supposed to be handled b the executive branch for this reason. I have trouble spotting competence anywhere on this.
No not ready there is no way you’d get away with flying an astronaut on the equivalent to an eva suit strapped to a lawn chair. There are more sensible solutions to filling the potential 6-12 month gap if Russia refused to fly new astronauts
Why not? Our trampolines have worked pretty well for a few years now. Horses are a pretty solid upgrade on functionality.
After all that Russia’s government has been doing, I don’t see them digging themselves out of their self-dug hole with a threat to our access to ISS.
Digging out of the hole as you aptly described it would be simple: a phone call from Mr. Putin and it’s all over.
Well, that update (the link to the Washington Post article) has the first hint that this might actually impact ISS. It noted that “NASA had eight U.S. staff and four foreign staff members.” When I read that the US had to reduce staff by 755 people (down to 455, so down to 38% of the current level), I’d assumed that was Department of State diplomatic personnel. But I guess a NASA employee, with an office at the embassy and working on coordinating with Roscosmos would also count. Even if the Russians don’t do anything specifically aimed at ISS (I doubt they would), the US Department of State might decide the NASA people are less critical and include a disproportionate number in those being sent back home. I wonder what actually counts in that 755 person number? A diplomatic passport? A long-term posting?
Actually the assumption that the reduction is chiefly from diplomatic staff is not really the case; most of it will be Russians working for the embassy.
Yet again Mr. Putin chooses a course of action that harms the ‘little people’.
What this latest spin of the ISS carousel brings to the fore is the dire need for the US ( with or without help from ESA and JAXA et al) to develop a functional ” Space Tug” to replace the core FGB Zarya module of ISS, which has the crucial refillable reusable engine(s) to do station orbit boosts, among other functionalities. That is a capability we will need soon enough for LEO —-> Cis-Lunar missions.
NASA paid for Zarya to be built . It’s the second oldest component of ISS, the oldest being Russia’s Zvezda, which was built in the mid-80’s to be the core of Mir 2. With a functional higher thrust space tug of our own , ISS could remain operational wll past 2030, by which time it could be more commercial than an international research outpost. I see no valid reason to deorbit ISS before it’s time for purely political or financialr easons. Those scenarios have multiple outcomes and positive solutions not currently on the table.
Progress or other visiting vehicles as well as the SM provide ISS reboost. The FGB is not used for reboost anymore since the SM was added to the complex.
The bottom line is money… Putin’s kleptocracy runs on it .. so what will it cost .
We shouldn’t ignore the biggest sanction of all on Russia: the huge increases in US & Canadian oil and especially natural gas production, which has drastically lowered Russian oil revenues. Combined with the legislature sanctions it’s hitting them hard in the wallet, and now they’re beginning to lash out. Be wary of cornered bears.
By the way, Keith, your Russian is clearly better than what little Russian I remember from college. I had to look up the text in the graphic, “American entry is prohibited.”
Actually I suspect one of reason so little progress has been made in space is because it’s seen to be above politics. Just contrast the lack of the progress over the last 40 years since the Apollo-Soyuz hand shake moved it beyond politics to the progress that was made between Sputnik and Skylab when it was all about politics. So I see Space becoming part of politics again a good thing, and so should NASA.
This codependency was forged in the fires of a cold-war that nobody wants to repeat. We talk about this ongoing “hand-shake in space” as some day suffering from political disunion, but it is the degree of that disunion that is limited by our mutual self-interest in space. We should instead be worried about where relations can go once that link is severed.
I think that we as space advocates sometimes get an inflated view of our victimhood when we should accept the importance of space that we pontificate about. It is not the international politics that holds the space cooperation together, but more the other way around…and that is critical to continued life on Earth. Both nations still have the capacity to sterilize this planet.
A more sensible solution would be simply to live with the gap. Six months without a US astronaut on orbit is a PR embarrassment. But not a huge one. With the right spin, it could be turned into an embarrassment for Russia. It wouldn’t be hard to make them look petty and mean-spirited for taking political differences out on apolitical science.
That wouldn’t be great, but if the alternative is a very real risk of a fatal launch accident (e.g. because of rushing to get someone launched on a hastily thrown-together spacecraft), just living with the gap in occupancy would be the smart move.
Seriously, this isn’t space piracy, no matter how exciting than might sound in science fiction. Whitson and Yurchikhin are not going to be dueling with cutlasses, like Teach and Maynard off Ocracoke island.