Congress, NASA

The substance, or lack thereof, of NASA’s ban on Russian cooperation

The news last week that NASA was cutting off cooperation with the Russian government—with the very large exception of International Space Station (ISS) operations—attracted a lot of attention in the space industry and the general public, which continues to the present. “NASA is cutting ties with Russia. But it’s not that simple,” reads the headline of a Washington Post article today. That headline is partially correct: it’s not that simple because NASA isn’t cutting ties with Russia. In fact, the ban on cooperation is now so riddled with holes that it actually bans very little.

In testimony before the House Appropriations Committee’s Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee on Tuesday, NASA administrator Charles Bolden said there were exemptions in addition to the one for ISS operations. “On a case-by-case basis, we get an activity exempted from any prohibition” through an interagency review process, he said. Exemptions at time of the hearing, he said, cover the COSPAR meeting in Moscow in August, a Russian instrument on the Mars Curiosity rover, and three different, unnamed activities for which exemptions had been requested.

At a meeting Wednesday afternoon of the NASA Advisory Council’s space committee, NASA officials said additional activities done in cooperation with the Russians had been exempted form the ban. Paul Hertz, director of NASA’s astrophysics division, said that a joint activity to make mirrors for the Spektr-RG (or Spectrum-X-Gamma) mission has been exempted. NASA associate administrator of science John Grunsfeld said that the only joint activity between NASA and the Russian government in science that had not been exempted was a joint science definition team for Russia’s Venera-D mission. “We’re still asking the question,” he said of efforts to get it exempted.

So what’s left? A NASA spokesperson told Space News that a few other activities were affected by the ban, including a meeting about a Siberian earth sciences project and testing of an aircraft model in a Russian wind tunnel.

That lack of substance to the policy didn’t stop one individual from criticizing in at a Senate hearing Wednesday. “I support well targeted sanctions on Russia that will have a direct impact on President Putin’s thinking,” said Susan Eisenhower, chairman emeritus of the Eisenhower Institute and granddaughter of President Dwight D. Eisenhower. However, she added, “I believe that rolling back space cooperation could be counterproductive and damaging to our national security and our long-term space agenda.”

Those reasons, she said, include the argument that national security is enhanced by cooperation, that the ban could backfire by alienating those in Russia who are friendly to the US while strengthening hardliners, and that the safety of human spaceflight depends on trust. “It is already easier to terminate space cooperation than it is to get it started again,” she said. “We will not be able to meet our long-term goals in space without it.”

35 comments to The substance, or lack thereof, of NASA’s ban on Russian cooperation

  • Jim Nobles

    I hope all this excitement encourages the aerospace engine boys to build an American replacement for the RD-180. I doubt that will happen though. They’ll probably try and save the money by attempting to wait this whole political circus out. They won’t spend a dime if they think they don’t really have too.

  • Robert G Oler

    “linkage” between some action by a country and a reaction by another country that 1) has absolutely no teeth to it and 2) is in a “low grade” level of the relationship is in a word “valuless”

    it didnt do much good for Carter to cancel the US appearance in the Olympics and it makes no sense here. what is needed is a frank appraisal of where we need to go and do to get an independent US space launch capability for crew. Thats not all that ahrd either but it does attack the cash cows of pork. So we are stuck

    RGO

  • Andrew Swallow

    The ban will make it harder to start new joint US-Russian projects.

    If a US made RD-180 is not available then ULA will have to manrate the Delta IV. Possibly by an unfunded Space Act Agreement under CCDev2 followed by test flights paid for by an extension to CCiCap. Financial authorisation by Congress can be in the FY2015 budget. The interstages for and software in the DreamChaser and CST-100 will also need modifying.

    • Bob

      “The ban will make it harder to start new joint US-Russian projects.”

      But there aren’t plans for any.

      “If a US made RD-180 is not available then ULA will have to manrate the Delta IV.”

      A U.S.-made RD-180 is five years off, if we started now. And we won’t, since despite the rumormongering, Russia isn’t going to stop RD-180 exports unless we get into a fighting war.

      “Possibly by an unfunded Space Act Agreement under CCDev2 followed by test flights paid for by an extension to CCiCap.”

      CCDev2 is over, and iCap will be by the end of the year.

      “Financial authorisation by Congress can be in the FY2015 budget.”

      Authorization of funding is useless, of course. _Appropriations_ are what matter, and if Congress really wants a domestic RD-180 capability, the USAF will be footing the bill.

      Your comment like so much word salad. They’re tough to… you know.

      • Andrew Swallow

        But there aren’t plans for any.

        There will be. So you comments counts as third rate troll.

        CCDev2 is over, and iCap will be by the end of the year.

        So ULA will probably have to revive them or (high) risk losing NASA as a customer due to breach of contract.

        An appropriation is an authorisation of funding.

        I will leave you to your work mates. If they are ULA they are likely to punish you and tell you to behave since their jobs are at stake. If they are ULA’s opponents they will commiserate with you on a failed act of sabotage.

    • E.P. Grondine

      So having lost 10 years due to the ATK/Griffin Ares 1 fiasco, we now find ourselves where we were in 2003: a manned capsule, a manned flyback, and 2 launchers “in development” on “on the drawing boards”, along with a shuttle derived heavy.

  • Hiram

    Marcia Smith has an excellent summary of the status here.

    http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa-russia-cooperation-what-you-need-to-know

    She has a nice explanation about how this all happened, and why NASA didn’t consider it very substantive.

  • amightywind

    The weak response will just encourage Putin to ‘protect’ more Russians in Eastern Ukraine, Transdniestria, and Estonia. Obama’s and Europe’s weakness are disgusting. It is like watching a slow motion train wreck. Our problems with Russia will only get worse. Is this really the space program you want?

    • I’m sure that abandoning (surrendering?) ISS, putting everything we have into Orion/SLS and establishing a Moon base at all costs, will solidly deter Russia or China from such expansionist actions down here, in the future…

      • amightywind

        It is one step among many possible. End space collaboration. Cut off student VISAs, and access to the western banking system. Seize assets. Reestablish European missile defense. Rearm NATO. Work with Japan to reclaim territories in the far east. Many steps could be taken for the transgressions of both countries. These are better alternatives to appeasement.

    • Andrew Swallow

      Do not be too surprised if the DoD asks for a big increase in its budget in the fall. They will be drawing up plans at the moment.

      • Neil Shipley

        I will be. All indications (my reading of the tea leaves) are that they’re being hit with budget reductions.

        • Andrew Swallow

          The was is over cut defence spending is the previous paradigm. The West is switching over to a new war/cold-war is starting, increase defence spending. The estimates should be ready by the start of the new financial year.

          • Hiram

            “The West is switching over to a new war/cold-war is starting, increase defence spending.”

            I too see absolutely no evidence for that switch. The Ukraine crisis is very new, and policy for what is really a very local crisis, involving territory that has strong links to the Russian people, is really just being considered. Escalation of Ukraine to a new Cold War would be policy insanity. Do you have any evidence for what you’re calling a “switch”? I guess one way to increase defense spending would be to pull funding from ISS and hand it to DoD. That’ll teach those Ruskies, eh?

            • Andrew Swallow

              I too see absolutely no evidence for that switch.

              That is far too strong. NASA has been told to restrict access to the Russians. It has been asked about speeding up development of Commercial Crew. The military newsgroups are discussing what strategy to adopt. Extra NATO aircraft have been sent to the Russian border.

              There is a 3-point turn in progress but it is taking more than 3 points.

              • Hiram

                “NASA has been told to restrict access to the Russians.”

                Yeah, except NASA largely didn’t. Sounds like the start of a Cold War, eh, when it’s hard to find what hasn’t been exempted from this directive?

                “It has been asked about speeding up development of Commercial Crew.”

                A long-term request which is a matter of national pride, and the dreaded “gap”. Old news. Congress still seems reluctant to do that speeding up.

                “The military newsgroups are discussing what strategy to adopt.”

                Oooh. The newsgroups are getting involved. Look out!

                “Extra NATO aircraft have been sent to the Russian border.”

                Like for Kosovo, Turkey, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, and Gibraltar. Don’t forget that the whole premise of NATO was to counter the onetime Soviet threat. So NATO is happy to see uber-Soviet threats wherever it can.

                Sorry, but your “evidence” is hardly compelling. International diplomacy is regularly challenged with tensions and muscle flexing. It’s a much bigger step to achieve cold war status.

              • Andrew Swallow

                If sarcasm is your only counter evidence I can ignore it.

                The tensions have not been running for a year yet. Cold Wars can last for decades.

              • Hiram

                “If sarcasm is your only counter evidence I can ignore it.”

                My only sarcasm was with regard to newsgroups. If that’s your best evidence, about newsgroups, I can ignore it.

                But I’m glad you’re now referring to these developments as “tensions”. That’s a lot different that a “new war/cold-war” starting which is how you referred to them earlier.

              • Andrew Swallow

                In 1936/7 was World War 2 was a tension in Britain and the USA.

  • vulture4

    Gentlemen, I suggest a more collegial tone. If we do not hang together, we will most assuredly hang seperately.

    The only sanctions which would actually affect Russian policy would be restrictions on gas and oil exports, which would require the cooperation of the EU and China. EU we might get. We would have a better chance with China if we built closer ties with them, as Ms. Obama was trying to do on her recent trip. But unlike Russia, there really are obstacles to NASA collaboration with China in every NASA solicitation, thanks to the bizarre monomania of Frank Wolf.

    • amightywind

      We would have a better chance with China if we built closer ties with them, as Ms. Obama was trying to do on her recent trip.

      Good heavens! We are 5.5 years into the Obama Administration. When will you give up on the charm offensive? Most nations, even our allies, hold our foreign policy in contempt. China already has access to our markets and universities. Do you want to give them Japanese and Philippine territory as well? I find your naiveté astounding in the face of a darkening world.

      • Gregori

        Most nations have always held US foreign policy in contempt. Mostly because they can’t do very much about it other than point and hand-wave about it to appease their electorates in fruitless UN votes on motions of little importance. The US can’t give China any Japanese and Philippine territory since it doesn’t own either of those countries. I find your cynicism horribly naive and out of touch with reality. To be honest Japan is not devastated collapsed society it was after 1945, it one of the richest countries in the world and its been getting a free ride from the US public paying for its defense. The threat of communism can’t be conjured up anymore as invading these regions. If anything the US should be demanding Japan and Europe foot the bill for their own defenses and risk their soldiers on since not being invaded something they’ve clearly a higher self-interest in than the USA. Mindless Jingoistic Belligerence is not a clever geopolitical strategy in the long run as its unsustainable and pissing off every country in the world just makes them want to form alliances against you out of annoyance and fright. Which is the exact opposite of good sensible real politik. Histories is littered with the graveyards of countries and empires that made it their mission in their short lives to royally piss of everyone around them.

        • The threat of communism can’t be conjured up anymore as invading these regions.

          I disagree. Today’s businesslike authoritarianism in China and Russia is the same expansionist threat as communism under a new guise. Japan is wisely in the process of remilitarising. One weakness Putin has is an enormous contested border. The US should remind him of this in the east while Putin plays games in the Ukraine.

          The US can’t give China any Japanese and Philippine territory since it doesn’t own either of those countries.

          Without US security guarantees, their borders wouldn’t exist.

      • Vladislaw

        Please provide a list of our allies that currently hold us in “contempt”

  • James

    Why is anyone surprised at the lack of substance to the ban on working with Russia, when there is an equal lacking void of substance with respect to the long term goals of NASA Human Space Flight.

    • Hiram

      “Why is anyone surprised at the lack of substance ..”

      The long term goal of human spaceflight has, for a long time, been aimed squarely at cultivation of the former Soviet empire as a colleague and, more to the point, not as an aerospace threat. If you look at it that way, the lack of substance in the ban is pretty obvious. A substantial ban would conflict with that goal. That goal is getting pretty thin, as our nation puts the Cold War behind us.

      Aside from job creation, and spraying dollars all over key congressional districts, let’s not subscribe to the common delusion that the fundamental goal of human space flight is “exploration” or “inspiration”. It could be, but it isn’t. Hasn’t been for a long time.

      Just look at what we’ve actually accomplished in the last forty years of human spaceflight. Our accomplishment in national partnership with former foes has been profound. To the extent that “exploration” is about going to new places, we haven’t done that. Also, let’s not fool ourselves. ISS/Shuttle astronauts are great, but they’re not really inspiring anyone.

      • James

        It goes without saying, that any long term BEO goal, which hasn’t been determined yet, for NASA HSF will necessarily require international cooperation. So, clearly, anyone who has $ and space assets is a candidate partner, including Russia. And despite foaming at the mouth Wolf, soon to retire, I wouldn’t count out China in any such endeavor either. Though I”m sure to be long dead before it comes to pass.

        Heck I bought a golf shirt made in Vietnam the other day.

        The present ISS Design, was picked specifically, and by a single vote in the House, to keep our Russian ‘friends’ close to our bosom, lest the go off half cocked post cold war and star a nuke war with bored Russian Engineers and Scientists.

        So how’ that work out? We still fear the Russian machine.

        Doesn’t take much, and certainly not a Rocket Scientist, to conclude we need Russia partnership for anything BEO. So I don’t give NASA any credit for any ‘strategic’ thinking about not alienating them.

  • Hiram

    “Doesn’t take much, and certainly not a Rocket Scientist, to conclude we need Russia partnership for anything BEO. So I don’t give NASA any credit for any ‘strategic’ thinking about not alienating them.”

    You’re right, it doesn’t take much to conclude that, but it’s evidently a lot more than the NSS had in their skulls when they told NASA to (except for ISS), alienate Russia. Of course, the NSS could care less about a BEO goal, though it is astonishing how many self-styled human space flight pundits make pronouncements about the importance of American domination of BEO. Gosh, you’d think the NSS would have had that all figured out.

    So I do give NASA credit for having the sense to tread lightly with the NSS directive. NASA grants exceptions to it left and right, and won’t even put out a press release on it. NASA doesn’t fear the Russian machine, and that’s how it should be. I don’t think anyone fears the Russian machine in the way we used to fear in it, partly thanks to the ISS cooperation. Find yourself diving under any desks lately, or digging shelters in your back yard?

    • James

      “So I do give NASA credit for having the sense to tread lightly with the NSS directive”

      Agreed.

      Regarding “Fear The Russian Machine”. Let me say it another way. A Goal of the original ISS partnership was to create a better relationship with Russia. To the extent that they were bankrupt after “Tear Down this Wall”, and needed our ‘partnership’ to help them muddle through their transformation away from communism (to what I’m not sure). I think the politico’s would have thought we’d have more ‘influence’ with our new partner, to guide them in the ‘ways of the west’ that we seem to actual now have. In this sense, I say ‘failure’ by the U.S.

      And yes, we aren’t ducking under our desks with head firmly planted between our legs fearing Russian nukes raining down on our parades….but

      …it also doesn’t look like we have much influence w Putin on Geo-political matters like we thought we would have.

      That is my real point here.

      In the end, this will all blow over, and we’ll get back to normal relations with the Russians, all across NASA – not just on ISS.

      • Hiram

        “…it also doesn’t look like we have much influence w Putin on Geo-political matters like we thought we would have.”

        Well, with regard to ISS partnership, all we succeeded in doing was distracting former Soviet aerospace workers. That was one small step towards a “better relationship with Russia”. But in the greater geopolitical context it really was a very small step. We knew that. We weren’t naive enough to think that it was going to create much influence. The Russian aerospace community has, as far as I can tell, no role in the Ukraine crisis.

        Small steps are important, however, in that to the extent the stairway is collapsing, having at least one solid step is of value.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>