Rogozin: Russia Is Not Interested In Working With NASA on Artemis (Or Maybe They Are)
“Starting the year 2021, the Russian program”: Dmitry Rogozin – about when and with whom we will fly to the moon, kp.ru (autotranlsated)
“For the United States this is now more of a political project. With the lunar project, we are witnessing the departure of our American partners from the principles of cooperation and mutual support that have developed with the ISS . They see their program not as international, but as similar to NATO. There is America, everyone else must help and pay. Honestly, we are not interested in participating in such a project. … With the United States, with all that happens in our relations in a global sense, space remains an important bridge of interaction. I maintain my friendships with my partners in the USA. And above all, with my counterpart Jim Brandenstein, who heads NASA . I hope that this cooperation will continue and be less affected by the bad political situation, which, unfortunately, comes from Washington today.”
NASA chief says Russia ties ‘solid’ as Moscow’s space chief rejects U.S.-led moon program, Reuters
“NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine said Tuesday he still expected support from Russia’s space corporation in its Artemis moon program despite Moscow’s space chief slamming the U.S.-led lunar effort. Bridenstine said in an interview with Reuters on Tuesday “the relationship between NASA and Roscosmos is solid” and emphasized that international partners will play a key role in NASA’s plan to land humans on the lunar surface by 2024 and construct a space station orbiting the moon. “I’ve got a good relationship with Dmitri Rogozin, so I’m hopeful that there are opportunities for us to continue to collaborate,” Bridenstine said, referring to the general director of Russia’s state space corporation Roscosmos. But Rogozin called the moon program in an interview with Komsomolskaya Pravda on Monday a “political project” and likened it to NATO, the Western military alliance Russia has long shunned.”
– Russia Says Nyet To Artemis Accords, earlier post
– Earlier posts about Rogozin
Given the Russia economy this is not unexpected.
In addition to Commercial Crew hitting them in the wallet.
Sour grapes all way down.
Especially since this time around their contributions would not be subsidized by the U.S. like they were for ISS.
They may be also hoping to peel off a few missions in cooperation with Europe and Japan – our allies may want to have a backup plan in case the US continues to be undependable.
The U.S. government has always been a bit bi-polar and nationalist about space, but U.S. government wishiwashiness is very close now to not mattering anymore.
Hopefully we will see commercial operations take over more and more, so the funding swings from the government will have less impact.
The real translation, we in Russia are broke and can’t do anything except get paid for flying a spacecraft we designed almost 70 years ago.
Soyuz has been updated many times. It’s a 70-year-old rocket in the same way that today’s Atlas is a 70-year-old rocket.
The only thing that the Atlas V shares with earlier versions is the name. The Atlas V was a total redesign. Soyuz Is so similar to the original that it still uses the same launch gantry from the 1950s and until recently had no ability to execute an inflight roll program. So they rotated the entire gantry preflight.
Is this about long term Lunar development, or the 2024 Lunar “return” ?
If the latter than maybe good news … would involving Russia help the project progress, or make for more interactions (meetings) and less progress ?
If the former then maybe bad news … as different nations start posturing.
Good. No working with them. Or most of all not China. Post-ISS International Space Cooperation must be exclusively with other liberal democracies. Earthbound geopolitics matters far more than a bunch of naive human family nonsense. The nature of human freedom is and long shall remain the most important issue in the world, with the US / EU on one side and China and Russia on the other. Our differences in that area are gargantuan and meaningful, and not petty squabbles. Especially if we actually start colonizing places one day, and setting up habitations and eventually governments, it will matter more and more.
Getting it right from the outset means aligning only with other liberal democracies while that approach fights and wins its ideological struggle over the authoritarian alternative approach pushed by Russia and China (in different forms). NASA must service that national agenda.
Right.
If that bridge really was all that important to Russia, then they’d do more to widen and strengthen it instead of jumping off of it.
Is this meant to be sarcastic?
Not at all. Because every time the notion of not working with Russia or *gasp* maintaining the entirely sensible ban on collaboration with China, we get a chorus of whines from some engaging in magical thinking that joint space exploration and sharing the benefits of it, will some how resolve or supercede Earthly geopolitical tensions, which in that calculation, somehow matter less.
Well it’s bull honkey. The Apollo-Soyuz test project happened at the nadir of American power during the Cold War, and in the years after it came the 1980s, which saw US-Soviet geopolitical rivalry hit its highest point in 20 years. And sure, we had has Shuttle-Mir in the 1990s and ISS construction in the 2000s, after the Soviet Empire broke up and Russia was at the Nadir of its power.
But since the Invasion of Georgia in 2008 (though Russian officials would likely cite the Color Revolutions), it’s been a whole new ballgame with Russia. It’s been nearly unrelenting antagonism on the part of Russia as they seek to rebuilt their geopolitical power, while the United States, ever the status quo power, has turned the other cheek so many times. Too many times, as that policy of trying to make Russia a partner again got us the 2016 Election hacks and more recently, Russians putting bounties on US troops.
More or less, Rogozin is basically correct in how the US should approach space-based affairs, which is “like NATO”. Because joint space efforts track record in mitigating earthbound geopolitical tensions is very poor, and there is no evidence a joint lunar or joint Mars effort with Russia or China would somehow be different. However joint US-European, US-Japanese, US-Canadian space based efforts have brought tangible bilateral and multilateral benefits and created ever more integrated space programs between legitimate partner countries, not competitor / adversary states. The ESA’s ATV being repurposed as the Orion Service Module is evidence of this.
That space is for the benefit of all, or that there is an intrinsic good in collaborating with Russia and China in the name of our common humanity is a bad idea that needs to go away. Especially with space becoming yet another warfighting domain here, as it already is in China and Russia, it is yet another extension of our grounded, earthly realities where liberal democracy is in fact, not unchallenged and supreme, and the authoritarian alternative of Russia/China is resurgent and very much on the initiative at the present. In many ways, it’s similar to the lofty principles of a truly open, global internet that connects everyone. That sounded great, until China and Russia used it as a vector to attack the Western world in rather severe and tangible ways, from stealing elections to stealing weapon designs to stealing IP. All of a sudden, walled gardens sound very good.
For the same principle, when we got to the Moon and Mars, we should go with our liberal democratic friends, or go alone, because if we go with Russia and China, who knows what they’ll pick up along the way, that in a decade or so hence, they’ll turn right back against us in order to advance their Earthbound geopolitical agenda. Where we have substantial national strategic advantages, and we very much do in Space, we should act in a way that defends, grows and exploits that advantage, not in a way that slowly undermines it by flattening the field.
In short, if the Russia wants to go to the Moon, let them build their own damn trampoline to get there. The US took Rogozin’s challenge on that accord to get to low Earth orbit after the invasion of Ukraine, and look at us now. One space vehicle flying (Dragon) that runs laps around anything else, and two more (Orion, Starliner) on the way. Meanwhile Russia launches the immortal Soyuz, the very definition of a one-trick.
Artemis is an expensive project, so it might not be a good investment for them.
It’s certainly true that limited funding, ruble loss through corruption, and loss of the income stream from providing seats to NASA, ESA, JAXA, and CSA astronauts all limit their options.
It’s equally true that Rogozin’s analysis is exactly correct. Artemis, and its use of the SLA, is pure politics and pork. They and we can do better. Rather than commit his limited resources to this ill-considered project, they are far better off waiting until January 2021 to discuss possibilities for cooperation then.
What possibilities? Artemis will be a scrapped most likely with the Moon skipped over again so NASA could focus on Climate Change and, someday, going to Mars.
We had a reasonable plan for going to the Moon (arriving in about 2028) before and we really have not realistically changed that – we just claim to have a 2024 goal today (with a 2028 program). With a slip or two the 2024 mission may land in 2026.
And NASA did not “focus on Climate Change” before and so they likely will not in the future.
You haven’t been following the push for “Green New Deal”. NASA will get drafted to have a key role in their response to reversing greenhouse gas emissions.
While Artemis is a pure political boondoggle, it has had the positive effect of getting people to talk seriously about human spaceflight beyond LEO for the first time in a long time. Once the political chest beating nonsense is behind us, there will be space in which to have serious discussions about how to move forward, expanding on the model of cooperation created by the ISS. It’s hugely important both for advancement in space, and for peace and cooperation back on Earth. I expect the next administration will appreciate that and work to incorporate broad international participation in moves into deep space.
Probably an ISS version of the Gateway to entrap human spaceflight at NASA for decades just like the ISS has done.
It feels like the time to worry about that is behind. NASA’s traditional contractors may want that outcome, but there’s enough support now at NASA for the commercial option (with the success of Dragon), and enough momentum from the commercial operators that lunar activity is just going to happen.
Perhaps he’s upset that the trampoline is working?
He’s smart enough not to bet his backside on the current US administration, especially since the authorities in his own country have arrested a journalist who has been working with Roscosmos and charged him with treason.
The journalist wasn’t arrested for anything he did at Roscosmos (at least as far as you can be sure of anything involving the Russian legal system.) Before joining Roscosmos, he was a reported for a journal with a defense industry focus, and he’s charged with something related to that job and espionage. Mr. Rogozin has his own problems (I could see him getting blamed for corruption within Roscosmos) but that’s not related to the case you mentioned.
He can say what he wants about Artemis, but LOP-G is a much larger project than just “Boots on the ground by 2024”. Any country marginally friendly with the U.S. and EU can probably arrange to build, launch, and dock a module to the LOP-G if they really wanted too, and that won’t happen until post-Trump whatever way Election 2020 goes. I really think that NASA wouldn’t say “no” if Russia wanted to do that and I refuse to believe that Russia can’t afford involvement at that level. The problem with Russia is that they want to be the big brother, so that the project depends on them and they can leverage politics with it. We don’t like doing that with them and don’t need to anymore. He’s a really funny guy over in Russia, but I don’t think Rogozin fully grasps just how annoying the sound of his voice really is over here.
So, while I agree with Rogozin about the politics of Artemis, it rings kind of hollow coming from the same mouth as the “trampoline” quip.
If he really thinks that Russia will fair better by doing some Interplanetary space technology business with China (basically the Ferengi of planet Earth), instead of the space-faring countries of the world that will participate in LOP-G and its commercial partners, then I say, “Have fun!”
Really ? the Chinese = Ferengi ??
Does that make the US = Cardassian ?
No, everyone knows that the Russians are the Cardassians.? We are Starfleet…
This is why (before the prequels and final 3) I used to joke that I preferred Star Wars to Star Trek because I didn’t like a world where the models of capitalism were Harry Mudd or a Ferengi… vs. (for example) a Mos Eisely barkeep.
Yes, Hollywood has always had an issue with showing Free Enterprise in a favorable view even though Free Enterprise was the financial engine that made Hollywood so successful compared to the state guided movie industries in Russia, China and pre-WW II Germany.
Russia doesn’t want to be the big brother. They just don’t want to be treated like the little brother. After decades/centuries of being a world power, they want to be treated with a bit of respect. American administrations seem to struggle to grasp that tiny little truth. Failure to grasp that is why Putin came to power in the first place and has consolidated his grip in recent years.
Well then they’re barking up the wrong tree with China.
I worked with the Soviets and then Russians on Mir, Shuttle/Mir, and ISS. We paid for lots of things for them, we flew their people, we treated them very very well. They just always wanted more, they didn’t consult us, they always wanted to be the senior partner instead of the partner.
We should work with them when it makes sense but we need to make the rules clear and not pay for them to participate.
I am sure that there is a reason why they don’t want to cooperate anymore. The story is quite similar to the one that already was there – cold war if I am not mistaken.