Help Shape the Future of Space Exploration

Join The Planetary Society Now  arrow.png

Join our eNewsletter for updates & action alerts

    Please leave this field empty

Casey Profile Picture Thumbnail

No, Russia Did Not Just Kick the U.S. Out of the Space Station

A top Russian official announced several unexpected policy changes in a response to U.S. sanctions.

Posted by Casey Dreier

20-05-2014 18:43 CDT

Topics: Explaining Policy, Space Policy, human spaceflight, astronaut, International Space Station, Russian human spaceflight, rockets

Update 2014-05-21: Updated Rogozin's statements below with official english translation (replacing poor Google translation).

In a surprise series of statements last week, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin announced that Russia would stop shipments of rocket engines unless the U.S. could guarantee that they would not be used to launch military spacecraft. He also implied that the Russian space agency would not support the proposed extension of the International Space Station through 2024.

And oh man was this news seriously misreported.

"Russia is kicking NASA out of the International Space Station in 2020," hyperventilated "Russia Wants to Ban U.S. From the Space Station, But NASA Knows Nothing About It," according to Mashable. Even Stephen Colbert misreported the story (because he was quoting NBC Nightly News and Fox News).

Not everyone got it wrong (and, to generalize, it was mainly click-hungry news aggregators and TV news that blew it out of proportion). Pete Spotts at the Christian Science Monitor really provided excellent context for the story, as, of course, did Marcia Smith at Space Policy Online and Warren Ferster at SpaceNews.

There are two separate issues here, one relating to the engines and one relating to the space station. Let's start with the one that got most of the news this week.


The International Space Station (ISS) contains significant hardware contributions from Russia, the European Space Agency, and the Japanese Space Agency, among others. But Russia is the largest partner and its contributions are crucial to the basic functionality of the station, which include providing the primary means for station propulsion (it periodically needs to boost its orbit due to atmospheric drag).

The International Space Station (May 2010)


The International Space Station (May 2010)
The International Space Station photographed by a crew member on Space Shuttle Atlantis (STS-132) as the shuttle approached for docking on May 16, 2010.

Though the ISS has been continually inhabited since 2000, it was only fully completed in 2011. For years previous, NASA (and the U.S. Congress) had only committed to operating the space station through 2015. It wasn't until the 2010 NASA Authorization Act that NASA was directed to continue the ISS through 2020 (with a lot of support internally from NASA).

But it wasn't until January of this year that the White House proposed to extend ISS operations through 2024. To date, no other country has officially agreed to this extension, though it was widely believed that Roscosmos was supportive of it.

Obviously, that's no longer the case, at least from an official level. Here's the relevant quote from Rogozin's recent press conference (official translation):

As for the International Space Station (ISS), this is an extremely sensitive issue. We were somewhat surprised, if not amused, by the fact that the United States is prepared to reduce cooperation in every area with the Russian Federal Space Agency, except the ISS. Basically the US wants to keep those areas it’s interested in, but it’s ready to take its chances in other areas that are less interesting for them.

We also realise that the ISS is quite fragile, both literally and figuratively. This concerns manned space missions and the life of the astronauts, and we’ll therefore proceed extremely pragmatically and will not hamper the operation of the ISS in any way.

However, it should be kept in mind that, by creating problems for us, for the Russian industry developing launch vehicles that can fly Russian cosmonauts and US astronauts to the ISS ... It is absolutely obvious that this is some kind of logical inconsistency on the part of the United States. The US creates obstacles with regard to launch vehicles and evacuation systems. But at the same time, it believes that the ISS should not be tampered with. Our US colleagues have told us that they would like to extend the ISS' operation deadline until 2024. But the Russian Federal Space Agency and our colleagues, including the Academy of Sciences and the Russian Foundation for Advanced Research Projects are now ready to make some new long-term strategic proposals linked with the subsequent development of the Russian space programme after 2020. We plan to use the ISS exactly up to 2020.

Notice he did not say that they would "kick out" the U.S. or stop launching astronauts to the station anytime soon. It's not even clear what the exact consequences of withdrawal would be (could the U.S. take over control of the Russian segment?) As John Logsdon of GWU's Space Policy Institute noted, it's unlikely that the Russians could run their segment of the station without the U.S. hardware, either. There's a lot to figure out.

But there are no immediate threats to U.S. access to the space station. That bears repeating.

NASA issued a statement not long after Rogozin's remarks saying, basically, that they hadn't been notified of this in advance:

Space cooperation has been a hallmark of US-Russia relations, including during the height of the Cold War, and most notably, in the past 13 consecutive years of continuous human presence on board the International Space Station. Ongoing operations on the ISS continue on a normal basis with a planned return of crew tonight (at 9:58 p.m. EDT) and expected launch of a new crew in two weeks. We have not received any official notification from the Government of Russia on any changes in our space cooperation at this point.

I don't want to totally downplay these remarks—they are inflammatory and are certainly causing some major headaches within NASA. Congress is already requesting information on what NASA is doing to preserve ISS access. These statements should be taken seriously. But I do want to note that six years is a long time in politics, and a lot can and will change between now and 2020, including at least one Presidential administration.

Also worth mentioning is that NASA plans to have its Commercial Crew program launching astronauts to the ISS starting in 2017, a full three years before the potential Russian withdrawal. The Senate has yet to release its proposed NASA budget for 2015, and given these new statements, I predict that Commercial Crew will receive a healthy allocation, likely above the $785 million provided by the House in their draft budget.

Again, I need to emphasize: this has no immediate impact on ISS operations that we yet know of. Russia is still planning to launch U.S. astronauts to the space station and return them safely (and did, just a day after Rogozin's statement). Remember, Russia makes money launching U.S. astronauts right now—about  $71 million per seat. And like NASA, they have no other human spaceflight program. The space station is it, and unless they're willing to throw away that investment and that income, the space station will serve to temper actions despite the rhetoric.

The Other Problem: The Ban On RD-180s

Now the other policy decision announced by Rogozin stands to be more disruptive, though it also has no immediate impact. It's the ban on Russian-made RD-180 rocket engines for use in U.S. military launches.

Like most people, you are probably wondering why Russia is involved with U.S. military launches at all. Well, it's because of the Atlas-V rocket.

Atlas-V Overview
Atlas-V Overview


Russian-made RD-180s are used as the first stage engines in the otherwise U.S.-made Atlas-V, one of the two rockets used by the U.S. government to launch nearly every uncrewed spacecraft (the other rocket is the Delta IV).

The Atlas is made by a company called the United Launch Alliance (ULA), which is a joint venture between Lockheed-Martin and Boeing, and, at the moment, the sole provider of rockets for national security needs. The ULA also launches the majority of uncrewed NASA missions (resupplying the space station is a notable exception). The Atlas-Vs are very reliable but also very expensive. For example, NASA is paying about $160 million for an Atlas-V to launch its next mission to Mars, InSight, for which the spacecraft and two years of operations have a total budget of about $450 million.

Regardless, the Atlas uses the RD-180 and now Rogozin says that Russia will stop exporting them to the U.S. unless the ULA guarantees that they won't be used in national security launches. This is very unlikely. So what happens now?

Again, the immediate impact is mitigated because the ULA has 16 RD-180 engines already in the United States, and they claim that this gives them up to two years' worth of buffer for things to simmer down between the U.S. and Russia. As of this post, the ULA has not received any additional confirmation that this threat has come to pass (they have four engines currently on-order for delivery this year), though at this point I don't see how Russia could not follow through, at least for a while.

If Russia stops the shipments, the Delta IV can be used as an alternate rocket. This isn't ideal though, as the Delta IV is significantly more powerful than the Atlas-V, and significantly more expensive—around $350 million per launch. It's also not clear how quickly the ULA could ramp up production of this rocket, either.

It's also looking likely that the Department of Defense will begin to develop their own RD-180 replacement. But that will take at least a few years and cost on the order of $1 billion.

And then, for what I assume many of you are wondering, there's SpaceX and their Falcon 9 rocket. This whole issue falls between an pretty major power struggle for the future of the U.S. government launch market, with SpaceX trying to compete with ULA for national security launches. I'm not going to delve too much into this, save for the fact that there has been litigation by SpaceX against the Air Force, protests against big "block buy" contracts given to the ULA, and lots of accusations exchanged between both companies about risk and cost and value to the taxpayer.

SpaceX has been warning Congress about Atlas-V's Russian engine dependence for some time now, and this recent move by Rogozin pretty much plays directly into their narrative. The problem is that SpaceX is not yet certified by the Air Force to carry military payloads (they're working on it) and it's unclear if the Falcon 9 can launch NASA missions, like InSight, to Mars (which is a significantly different requirement than launching something into low-Earth orbit).

For the Society's interests, we're particularly worried about how this situation is going to impact the flights of two planetary exploration missions in 2016: OSIRIS-REx and InSight. Both missions are planned to launch on Atlas-Vs. My gut tells me that if it comes down to military necessity vs. Mars exploration, the military will get those Atlas-Vs over NASA.

Why This Is Happening

In a word: Crimea.

But in a lot more words: this is another step in an escalating series of reactive policy decisions between the U.S. and Russia caused by Russian interference in Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea.

In early April, the U.S. broke most ties between NASA and their counterparts in Roscosmos, though the International Space Station was specifically exempted in this directive. While this was widely (mis)reported as coming from NASA, this seems to have been an Administration-wide policy that applied to all federal agencies and their Russian counterparts.

The Obama Administration has also been levelling targeted sanctions against high-ranking individuals within the Kremlin, of which (surprise!) Dmitry Rogozin was one.

So this seems to be a retaliatory move in response to these and other sanctions. Note that so far this is mainly rhetoric. None of this is immediate. I hope that the inter-dependency between Russia and the U.S. on human spaceflight acts as a stopgap, or at least a road bump, to allow time for tensions to simmer down and for real progress to be made.

So don't start freaking out just yet. Should you be concerned? Yes. But a lot has yet to happen before we see real impacts from Rogozin's statements.

See other posts from May 2014


Or read more blog entries about: Explaining Policy, Space Policy, human spaceflight, astronaut, International Space Station, Russian human spaceflight, rockets


spacegizmo: 05/20/2014 07:10 CDT

"Congress is already requesting information on what NASA is doing to preserve ISS access." Shouldn't they know? They're the ones who refused to fund the Commercial Crew program fully since 2011. We could have an American made spacecraft flying our astronauts to ISS next year if not for Congress. It isn't that complicated. Space X has a proven spacecraft/launch vehicle, that have had more orbital flights than the shuttle did before its first manned mission. Its nearly ready to go, and would of been ready to go sooner if not for Congress.

Derek Sellers: 05/20/2014 08:32 CDT

I'm hopeful for continued cooperation as well, but at this point it looks like everyone is clamoring to reposition themselves in this new world dynamic we've found ourselves in. Roscosmos appears to have been conducting talks with China to romance them into a collaboration that doesn't involve a pesky political dance with the rest of us Western countries. Given that both China and Russia have firm aspirations for a lunar base, I wouldn't be surprised if this announcement Rogozin is talking about is one of collaboration with them on such a project. Charlie Bolden was also in Germany meeting with DLR folk today and chatting with Chancelor Merkel. A move that was likely already in the works, but has new meaning in the current political climate. If we were to lose Russia as a partner, I would hope NASA's relationship with private industry would help ease the situation. Perhaps Bigelow could contribute replacement modules for ISS, and Ad Astra already has completed a PDR on using their VASIMR engine to take over the role of station reboosts. And for the RD-180s, another monkey wrench that gets thrown into this situation is the fact that two of the three competitors for Commercial Crew are slated to use Atlas V as their launcher of choice, and it sounds like quite a bit of time and money would have to go into making Delta IV crew capable. Finally, the greater concern I have in this whole debacle is the status of ExoMars. Russia is providing science gear and launch/landing capabilities after NASA had to pull out in 2012. Could we pick up that role again in time to save the two craft?

reader: 05/20/2014 09:35 CDT

Why is everyone acting like Russian post-ISS have never been heard of before ? They have been talking about it for years - and the only question has always been "when". BBC atricle from 5 years ago ISS "extension" pas 2020 has not been officially negotiated and agreed upon - and hope is not a strategy

Clark Lindsey: 05/20/2014 11:38 CDT

" it's unclear if the Falcon 9 can launch NASA missions, like InSight, to Mars (which is a significantly different requirement than launching something into low-Earth orbit)." The SpaceX Falcon 9 has so far launched two large communications satellites into geosynchronous transfer orbits: SES-8 in Dec. 2013 and Thaicom-6 in Jan.2014. In fact, they were GTOs with extremely high apogees: 295 x 80,000 km and 295 x 90,000 km, resp. Doesn't necessarily mean the F9 has the performance required for Insight but it could certainly get a payload of some size to Mars.

Sean Lynch: 05/21/2014 05:45 CDT

While there may be no threat of losing access to the ISS prior to 2020, Rogozin seems adamant that Russia will pull out in 2020 as reported in The Moscow Times. 6 years may be a long time in US politics, it is very little time to develop a propulsion and control module for the USOS portion of the ISS should Russia take Zveda in 2020. We're talking a risk to a 50b investment that cannot be replaced. Without ISS beyond 2020 there is no need to invest 3.4 b in commercial crew programs for 4-6 flights to LEO over 2-3 years. According to Bolden without ISS to at least 2024, there is no need for SLS/Orion. There is a White House petition; Protect and Preserve Americas' Future in Space: And a topic discussing US ISS space policy here:

Supernaut: 05/21/2014 03:23 CDT

Casey - As usual, thanks for the clarifications, and the objective analyses. A very good article.

Messy: 05/21/2014 05:16 CDT

the US paid for most of the ISS. The main module was delayed for YEARS due to Russian corruption.

Mercy777: 05/23/2014 12:12 CDT

We should just give Russia the ISS after 2020 and give Bigelow and SpaceX the go ahead to build a shiny new space station using BA330 modules. Heck, one BA330 has %210 more habitable space than the entire ISS. NASA could lease most of the space as its anchor customer and the rest of the space can be leased to the other ISS partners like JAXA and UEA. Could you imagine what the cosmonauts in their tiny Soyuz spacecraft on their way to the ISS would be thinking as they passed by? We could always invite them over for a barbecue!

Leave a Comment:

You must be logged in to submit a comment. Log in now.
Facebook Twitter Email RSS AddThis

Blog Search

Planetary Defense

An asteroid or comet headed for Earth is the only large-scale natural disaster we can prevent. Working together to fund our Shoemaker NEO Grants for astronomers, we can help save the world.


Featured Images

Opportunity panorama at Rocheport
Ice Flows and Dunes in Mars' Northern Polar Region
The TRAPPIST-1 system: Where might liquid water exist?
The TRAPPIST-1 system
More Images

Featured Video

Intro Astronomy 2017. Class 5: Venus & Mars

Watch Now

Space in Images

Pretty pictures and
awe-inspiring science.

See More

Join The Planetary Society

Let’s explore the cosmos together!

Become a Member

Connect With Us

Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and more…
Continue the conversation with our online community!