Comments on: Sorting out NASA’s ban on non-ISS activities with Russia

By: Jacob Smith

Jacob Smith — Thu, 10 Apr 2014 00:05:04 +0000

“My read on the Russians is theyâ€™d prefer not to further expand the international political repercussions of annexing Crimea, so they probably wonâ€™t drag Station into the brawl. But thatâ€™s outside my chief area of expertise, so YMMV.”

Probably so far as the ISS is concerned – yet I would imagine the Roscosmos relationship will certainly get a little rockier when it comes to procuring the RD-180 engines used on the Atlas V boosters.

Putin will not stop with Crimea – controlling Ukraine has been one of his primary purposes since ~2006. The Russians will surely go for a land grab in Eastern Ukraine for a “land line” to resupply Crimea.

By: James

James — Sat, 05 Apr 2014 13:21:43 +0000

I’d love to see Putin take some whacks at the ISS against the US. That will shake up the status quo @ NASA real fast.

By: Henry Vanderbilt

Henry Vanderbilt — Sat, 05 Apr 2014 12:39:57 +0000

It seems pretty clear to me from DalBello’s statement, “Agencies have been asked to look, on a case-by-case basis, at their interactions with Russia”, that this is a government-wide policy originating from the White House. Who else can instruct multiple Federal agencies this way? (Well, the Congress also could, by passing a law, but we probably would have heard about that.)

Given that the vast majority of NASA’s interactions with Russia have to do with Station, and the White House has already officially confirmed Station is exempt from this policy, there’s less here than meets the eye.

Unless, of course, the Russians decide to use Station cooperation as a means of political retaliation. Then things get interesting fast.

My read on the Russians is they’d prefer not to further expand the international political repercussions of annexing Crimea, so they probably won’t drag Station into the brawl. But that’s outside my chief area of expertise, so YMMV.

By: mike shupp

mike shupp — Sat, 05 Apr 2014 05:57:41 +0000

Just idle curiosity, of course, but what sort of direction would State Department deputy spokesperson Marie Harf be giving to NASA if she were in charge?

By: Vladislaw

Vladislaw — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 20:04:58 +0000

Plausable deniablity? If things iron out “well we don’t know where that came from it wasn’t official policy”

By: Hiram

Hiram — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 16:06:44 +0000

So, um, we still don’t know where the ban originated. Not from State. Not from OSTP. Not from NASA (though the White House deftly refers reporters to NASA for questions about it). Don’tcha love it when bold moves are made, but no one wants to admit to making them? That’s like flexing your biceps under a fur coat.

By: MrEarl

MrEarl — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 15:44:35 +0000

â€œRight now, Mr. Ostapenko is just as concerned as I am that the politicians donâ€™t take things and spin them out of control,â€ Bolden said.

That’s the key. Unfortunately, from past experience, I have very little expectation that Putin will act responsibly or that this administration is savvy enough to effectively counter the Russian president.