rd_2014_05
TRANSCRIPT
7/21/2019 RD_2014_05
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rd201405 1/11
A p r o d u c t o f R u s s i a B e y o n d T h e H e a d l i n e s
NEW COLD WAR,
NEW SPACE RACE
As the relations between Russia
and the U.S. start to look more like
a new Cold War due to the situa-
tion in Ukraine, the potential for a
new space race between the two
countries is also becoming more
realistic.
After the Cold War ended, there
were great expectations that Mos-
cow and Washington would start
ambitious joint space exploration
projects while reinforcing each oth-
er’s scientific and technical poten-
Ekaterina
Zabrovskaya
Editor-in-Chief
EDITOR’S NOTE
A VA I L A B L E F O R S U B S C R I B E R S O N L Y
tial. Now, however, the future of joint
space exploration projects is in jeop-
ardy. Read this thought-provoking
Monthly memo to find out what the
key areas where the U.S. and Rus-
sia cooperate in space are as well
as which areas of space cooperation
may be strong enough to overcome
mistrust over Ukraine.
The author of this memo is Sergey
Oznobishchev of the Institute for
World Economy and International
Relations (IMEMO).
Also please do not hesitate to
email me directly at
with any questions or comments
regarding this RD Monthly.
R U S S I A D I R E C T M O N T H L Y M E M O | # 1 0 | M A Y 2 0 1 4
7/21/2019 RD_2014_05
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rd201405 2/11
2 WWW.RUSSIA-DIRECT.ORGRUSSIA DIRECT MONTHLY MEMO
SPACE RACE | #10 | MAY 2014
NEW COLD WAR,
NEW SPACE RACESergey Oznobishchev,
Head of the Division for Military-Political Studies, Center for International Security,
at the Institute for World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO).
Ever since the Cold War era, relations between Russia and the
United States in the space exploration sector have repeatedly
experienced ups and downs. Insurmountable differences
have kept the two sides from cooperating fully in the sector,
at times forcing them into a space race with both commercial
and military implications. With the current crisis in Ukraine,
which has led to economic sanctions with the ability to disrupt
Russian-U.S. cooperation in space, we are now seeing another
cyclical low in bilateral relations related to space exploration.
What follows is a review of seven key areas where the U.S. and
Russia cooperate in space; and an estimate of the costs (both
financial and logistical) involved in abandoning or postponing
current space exploration initiatives; and a brief summary of
which areas of space cooperation may be strong enough to
overcome mistrust over Ukraine. For now, the cornerstone of any
future cooperation will be the International Space Station. The
lesson is clear for both Russian and U.S. policymakers: Failure
to preserve and extend current areas of cooperation in space
exploration would have a significantly negative impact for both
sides. In a worst-case scenario, it could lead to a renewal of
the Cold War space race, filled with duplicative space projects
from both nations, all of which require enormous outlays that
could have been reduced through wider cooperation.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N A S A
7/21/2019 RD_2014_05
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rd201405 3/11
3 WWW.RUSSIA-DIRECT.ORGRUSSIA DIRECT MONTHLY MEMO
SPACE RACE | #10 | MAY 2014
OVERVIEW
It is already clear that one outcome of the crisis in
Ukraine, which has placed unprecedented strain on
Russian-U.S. relations, will be a noticeable reduction in
joint space programs involving the two countries. Giv-
en recent events, it’s important to assess the scale and
scope of achievements in space cooperation between
the U.S. and Russia and then to estimate the potential
economic loss that will befall both sides as a result ofpresent and future sanctions.
Just as in the past, it now appears that bold, break-
through space exploration proposals and plans will
again fall victim to geopolitical reality. Ever since the
Cold War, the ability to cooperate in space exploration
has experienced setbacks in the form of the periodic
cooling of relations, the legacy of Cold War views and
approaches spilling over into mutual distrust, and the
prevailing attitude that space technology should be
kept under wraps in the interests of national security.
There have been some notable exceptions, of course.
The need for Russian-U.S. cooperation in the space sec-
tor was felt even at the height of the Cold War. In 1975,
for example, Moscow and Washington joined forces in
the first docking of U.S. and Russian spacecraft. In the
wake of perestroika and the end of the Cold War in the
1990s, it seemed that the two countries, acting togeth-
er, were finally able to solve all geopolitical issues. In
space, it appeared, there would no longer be any limits
on innovative space exploration projects.
What many may not realize is that Russia and the U.S.
actively collaborate in a number of high-profile areas,
backed by a 1992 agreement on cooperation in space
exploration, which was extended until 2020. (And, at
times, this cooperation involves the collaboration with
Ukrainian public and private entities, as in the case of
Sea Launch Company.) The cooperation can provi-
sionally be divided into two major parts: participation
in joint scientific and technical projects in the field of
space exploration, including cooperation on the Inter-
national Space Station (ISS), and the mutual provision
of technical services in space activity (the launch ofspacecraft using Russian rockets, deliveries of Russian
liquid rocket propulsion systems for U.S. launch vehi-
cles, etc.).
THE ISS IS THE CENTERPIECE OF
RUSSIAN-U.S. COOPERATION IN SPACE
Cooperation on the ISS program goes back more than
20 years. In the context of Russian-U.S. interaction, the
idea of combining the two countries’ orbital stations
was born under the Mir-Shuttle program.
This program, developed by the Russian Federal
Space Agency (Roscosmos) and the U.S. National Aer-
onautics and Space Administration (NASA), assumed
a wide range of joint activities, including flights by
America’s reusable space shuttle to Russia’s Mir space
station and collaboration between Russian cosmonauts
and U.S. astronauts
1993 saw the conclusion of a more long-term multi-
lateral agreement on the construction and operation of
the ISS, signed by Russia, the U.S., the EU, Canada, and
Japan. The total cost of the ISS program was estimated
NASA
7/21/2019 RD_2014_05
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rd201405 4/11
4 WWW.RUSSIA-DIRECT.ORGRUSSIA DIRECT MONTHLY MEMO
SPACE RACE | #10 | MAY 2014
at around $100 billion, a fact that served as an impor-
tant motivation for broad international cooperation.
Simultaneously, the project was divided up among the
participants: For example, of the ten people on board
the station, Russia would have the right to have three.
At all stages of the evolution of the project, the U.S.
played the most active part. Moreover, technical con-trol of the ISS is performed in conditions of very close
cooperation between Moscow and Washington. This in-
cludes cooperation between the Mission Control Cent-
er in Korolev outside Moscow and the Johnson Space
Center in Houston.
Today, the ISS is a multi-purpose space research com-
plex, serviced by 15 countries. Of the 14 ISS modules,
exactly half are American, including the Destiny re-
search lab.
When the Space Shuttle program was terminated in
the summer of 2011, U.S. cargo and astronauts were
shipped to the ISS on board Russia’s Soyuz capsule,which also served as proof that cooperation could
bring tangible benefits.
An important incentive for creating projects such
as the ISS is the unique environment on board, which
affords opportunities for some truly innovative ex-
periments. Both the U.S. and Russia are carrying out a
broad program of research on board the ISS. Many of
the studies are a continuation of work conducted under
the joint Mir-Shuttle program.
At the beginning of April 2014, news broke of NASA’s
intention to wind up all contacts with Russia, save for
its work with Roscosmos on the ISS. At the same time,the U.S. plans to develop its own system for delivering
cargo and astronauts into space, so as to do without
Russia’s services from 2017 onwards. Such decision is
clearly the result of the sanctions announced by Wash-
ington in respect of the crisis in relations with Russia
and the worsening situation in and around Ukraine.
However, the U.S. has no intention of pulling out of
the ISS project, whose uniqueness and importance forthe country is obvious to all. Moreover, the ISS program
has such a strong international character that to extract
any component “on the fly” would be extremely diffi-
cult and counterproductive for all, jointly and severally.
6 OTHER WAYS THE U.S. AND RUSSIA
COOPERATE IN SPACE
The need for close international cooperation, including
joint scientific and technical projects on deep space
exploration, is objectively dictated by the prodigious
costs required to implement large-scale programsacross the board. Scientific cooperation between the
U.S. (NASA) and Russia (Roscosmos) is clearly not lim-
ited to the ISS. Here are six other ways that the U.S. and
Russia cooperate in space exploration.
#1: Russian instruments on U.S. spacecraft, rovers
and orbiters
U.S. spacecraft often have unique Russian-made instru-
ments on board. For instance, the Mars Odyssey con-
tains a Russian HEND (High-Energy Neutron Detector),
created by the Space Research Institute (SRI) of the
Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS).On board NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter,
Living and working on the International Space Station (ISS): 15 years later
Crews have eaten about
25,000 mealsbetween 2000 and 2013
7
Tons7 tons
A crew of three requires nearly
6 monthsSpacewalking astronauts have spent
more than 1,000 hoursworking outside the station since
first human presence on the ISS
More than 1,500scientific investigations performed
on the ISS
The ISS is larger than a
6-Bedroom houseThe ISS internal volume of a
Boeing 747
The ISS weighs almost a
million pounds(equivalent to more than 320 automobiles)
The first International Space Station component, the Russian Zarya module, was launched in November 1998. In the 15 years since,NASA and its global partners have built a world class orbiting laboratory, establishing a continuous human presence in space since2000 and paving the way for future exploration beyond.
of supplies
for about
The ISS length and width is about
football fieldthe size of an
Source: NASA
American
7/21/2019 RD_2014_05
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rd201405 5/11
5 WWW.RUSSIA-DIRECT.ORGRUSSIA DIRECT MONTHLY MEMO
SPACE RACE | #10 | MAY 2014
launched from Cape Canaveral in 2009, is a Russian
LEND (Lunar Exploration Neutron Detector), built by
the same institute.
In addition, aboard the U.S. Mars Curiosity Rover is a
DAN (Dynamic Albedo of Neutrons), once again built
by Russia’s SRI. This equipment has already delivered a
large amount of new data in the study of interplanetary
space.
#2: Joint exploration missions to Mars and Venus
Mention can be made of some other, more ambitious
attempts to cooperate. One of them is ExoMars — cur-rently a joint program between the European Space
Agency (ESA) and Roscosmos with the goal of explor-
ing Mars.
At one stage, the project also involved NASA, which
along with various technical solutions, was due to dis-
patch its Max-C mini-rover to the Red Planet. However,
the U.S. withdrew in 2001, and subsequent budgetary
difficulties completely excluded NASA from the project.
The Venera-D project originated from the desire to
repeat and multiply the successes of the Soviet Union’s
domestic programs in the 1970s to explore other plan-
ets. It was initially assumed that the project to explore
Venus, run by the SRI, together with a number of other
renowned Russian institutions and the support of the
Lavochkin Research and Production Association, would
be implemented over the next decade on the basis ofbroad international cooperation.
From a technical viewpoint, the very concept of
Venera-D (like America’s Magellan probe) symbolized
the continuity of technological ideas. From the out-
set, it was conceived that French partners would play
a significant part. NASA’s potential involvement also
cropped up periodically. In October 2009, the SRI held
a special international conference to bring on board re-
searchers from European countries and the U.S.
The media named the exact launch date of the craft
as December 6, 2016, and May 16, 2017, was slated as
the day when Venera-D would go into orbit around Ve-nus. However, the latest draft of the Solar System Ex-
ploration Program to 2025 prepared by the RAS, which
could become part of the Cosmonautics Development
Strategy, indicated that the launch of Venera-D could
take place no earlier than 2024 due to financial compli-
cations and the large amount of scientific and technical
work that remains to be done.
In connection with the statement by NASA on curtail-
ing cooperation with Russia, former SRI Director Roald
Sagdeev, a world-renowned scientist who is now a pro-
fessor at the University of Maryland, observed that such
a move would be a great loss for the scientific world.
#3: Launches of U.S. spacecraft and satellites using
Russian rockets
Since the first launch in 1996, launches of U.S. space-
craft using Russian carrier rockets have been a spec-
tacular example of mutually beneficial cooperation.
During this period, 86 U.S. civil and military probes
have been put into space. This collaboration takes
place within a direct Russia-U.S. format, together with
Ukraine and other countries.
Launches of U.S. spacecraft using Russian
carrier rockets have been a spectacular example
of mutually beneficial cooperation
Russian space exploration research program(2012-2025)
RESONANCE (4 satellites): Research (fromnear-Earth orbit) of the influence of the sun’s activityon Earth’s atmosphere and climate.
2014LUNA-RESOURCE : Exploratory research onthe surface of moon near its south pole.
INTERHELIOZOND: Research of internalheliosphere of the sun from short distances.
LUNA-GLOBE: Exploratory research on the surface ofthe moon near its north pole, orbital moon exploration.2015
EXOMARS (2016, 2018):Mars research in conjunction with European Space
Agency. The program includes several spacecraftmodules to be sent to Mars on two launches
including satellite and rover.
2016PHOBOS-GRUNT-2 (BOOMERANG):Phobos surface exploration, soil samplesdelivery to Earth.
2018 APOFIS:Specification of Apofis asteroid orbit
for the period from 2020 to 2036.
2020
LUNOKHOD-3 AND LUNOKHOD-4:Lunar substance samples collection with rovers.
MARS-GRUNT:Phobos surface exploration, soil
samples delivery to Earth.
LAPLACE: Exploration of one of Jupiter’s Galileanmoons in conjunction with European Space Agency.
MOON POLYGONE (2022+): Expansion of the polygonstation based on two rovers and landing station for afuture manned mission to the moon (after 2026).
2022
LUNA-GRUNT: Deliveryof lunar substancescollected by rovers toEarth.
VENERA-D:Orbital and exploratory
research of theatmosphere and surface
of Venus.
20242023
N A T A L I A MI K H A Y L E N K O
S O U R C E : R O S C O S M O S
7/21/2019 RD_2014_05
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rd201405 6/11
6 WWW.RUSSIA-DIRECT.ORGRUSSIA DIRECT MONTHLY MEMO
SPACE RACE | #10 | MAY 2014
poration, as well as the DirecTV-10 satellite, weighing a
record 5,893 kg.
November 2012 saw the launch of the U.S. satellite
EchoStar 16, manufactured by Space Systems/Loral,
which is intended to provide direct broadcasting ser-
vices across the U.S.
In October 2013, the U.S. commercial satellite Sirius-
FM6, owned by North American satellite operator Sirius
XM Radio, was put into orbit.
The sudden cessation of joint work due to the sanc-
tions will be a painful blow to Moscow, but will causeserious damage to the American side, too. The U.S. will
have to make a concerted effort if it is to optimally and
reliably deliver its own spacecraft into orbit at varying
altitudes.
#4: U.S. instruments for Russian satellites
As a result of the new sanctions, a similar situation aris-
es in another area of space cooperation: U.S. deliveries
of electronic components for Russian satellites.
A ban on the purchase of electronic components
was initially imposed in June 2013 in connection with
the scandal involving former NSA employee EdwardSnowden. However, Russia soon solved the problem
through purchases from other countries. Its backup
supplier is China, where the quality of electronic com-
ponents has increased significantly in recent years.
For the time being, the ban only affects the Russian
satellite Geo-IK-2, which was designated a military
instrument. However, that is a rather tentative defini-
tion, since it is designed for high-precision geodetic
measurements. Threats to ban deliveries of electronic
components for Russian GLONASS satellites have yet
to materialize.
It should be noted that at issue is a large-scale mar-
ket, worth at least $2 billion. Hence, the loss of such
market potential will hit both sides hard.
#5: Public-private collaboration featuring Russian
and U.S. partners
A new phenomenon in space exploration is the growing
area of public-private (or just private) business coop-
eration.
For example, new commercial payloads are now put
into space via Sea Launch, a non-governmental service
Pride of place among the Russian carrier rockets
used by the U.S. belongs to the Proton, with its unique
competitive advantages over other countries’ carriers
in terms of launch cost, payload size, cost of putting a
kilogram payload into orbit, and number of launches
per year.
In 1995, Russia’s Energia Rocket and Space Corpora-
tion and U.S. Lockheed Martin established a joint ven-
ture to market spacecraft launch services using the
Proton rocket. The company, International Launch Ser-
vices, is based in Reston, Virginia.
The Proton has featured prominently in the launch of
ISS modules. Since 1996, more than 55 U.S. craft have
been put into space. They include the Intelsat family
of communications satellites developed by Boeing Cor-
Russia’s backup supplier is China, where the
quality of electronic components has increased
significantly in recent years
Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission:This mission will investigate how the magnetic fields ofthe Sun and Earth connect and disconnect
2014
2015
New Horizons:Launched in 2006, a spacecraft is
traveling to Pluto to fly over the planetand its moons in July 2015
Juno: A spacecraft will go to Jupiter to study itsstructure and uncover its history
InSight: This discovery mission will place alander on Mars to look deep into the planet’sinterior2016
TESS:Using telescopes, TESS will search for transiting
exoplanets to identify terrestrial planets inhabitable zones of nearby stars
2017
Solar Probe Plus: This mission will explore what isarguably the last region of the solar system to bevisited by a spacecraft: the sun’s outer atmosphere
James Webb Telescope: The successor toHubble will find the first galaxies formed in theearly universe
OSIRIS-Rex: The spacecraft will approach a 1,500 foot primitiveasteroid named “1999 RQ36” and use a robotic arm to bringsamples to Earth in 2023
2018
Mars Rover:NASA’s next rover will look for signs of past life inMars and collect samples for possible return toEarth
2025
Manned Mission to an Asteroid:Using data from OSIRIS-Rex, NASA hopes toenable astronaut missions to an asteroid by 2025
NASA’s planned missions through 2030
2020
Manned Mission to Mars:Tens years after NASA lands its 2020 rover, the
agency hopes to send humans to Mars
2030 S O U R C E : N A S A
N A T A L I A MI K H A Y L E N K O
7/21/2019 RD_2014_05
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rd201405 7/11
7 WWW.RUSSIA-DIRECT.ORGRUSSIA DIRECT MONTHLY MEMO
SPACE RACE | #10 | MAY 2014
that uses marine platforms. The advantage of a “marine
cosmodrome” is that carrier rockets can be launched
from the equator, where the Earth’s rotational speed
can be utilized most effectively.
On the back of these launches, the international con-
sortium Sea Launch Company (SLC) was created in
1995. It included Boeing Commercial Space Company(a subsidiary of Boeing Aerospace Corporation), En-
ergia Corporation, Ukraine’s Yuzhnoe Design Bureau,
Yuzhmashzavod Production Association, as well as the
Norwegian shipbuilder Aker Solutions. The initial pro-
ject cost was estimated at $3.5 bi llion.
In 2010, due to commercial inefficiency, Boeing was
forced to cede the primary role to Energia Overseas
Limited (EOL), a subsidiary of Russia’s Energia Corpo-
ration, which acquired a 95 percent stake in the Sea
Launch consortium, while Boeing and Aker Solutions
received 3 percent and 2 percent stakes, respectively.
From 1999 to 2013, 31 successful launches were car-ried out by Sea Launch, 18 of them based around the
interests of the U.S.
The Zenit-3SL carrier rocket, developed by Yuzhnoe
Design Bureau and manufactured at the Yuzhmashza-
vod factory (located in Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine), was
used for the launches. Given the current political crisis
over Ukraine, the location and “national identity” of the
carrier rocket fired from Sea Launch is no longer clear
and has cast doubt over the project.
Moreover, the platform and command ship are per-
manently based at Long Beach, CA, and every launch
out to sea requires permission from the U.S. State De-partment. Refusal to authorize the company’s next
request could be another component of Washington’s
expanding sanctions.
Commercial ground launches are carried out by the
international company Kosmotras, founded in 1997 and
headquartered in Moscow with a branch in Kiev, and
with the broad involvement of Russian ministries and
organizations. The program, dubbed “Dnepr”, is de-
signed to launch spacecraft on the basis of dismantled
RS-20 (SS-18, Satan) intercontinental ballistic missiles.
The adapted missiles are being developed jointly by
Russian and Ukrainian enterprises in cooperation with
the Russian Ministry of Defense and the Russian and
Ukrainian space agencies.
Since the first launch in 1999, a further 19 have been
made with the RS-20, resulting in 89 satellites being
put into near-earth orbit. Space agencies and compa-
nies from many countries, including the U.S, order such
launch services. The launches take place at the Bai-
konur Cosmodrome and the strategic missile site near
the town of Yasny.
The project has already been hit by the impracticabil-
ity of Russian-Ukrainian cooperation in the current cir-
cumstances. Moreover, in case of sanctions spreading
to this area too, the withdrawal of the U.S., which has
the world’s highest demand for spacecraft launches,
will further complicate the situation for the project par-
ticipants, and for the U.S. itself, which will have to seek
alternatives.
#6: Russian engines powering U.S. rockets
For space launches, both civilian and military, the U.S.often turns to the Atlas-V. This rocket was used to put
the Advanced Extreme High Frequency (AEHF) com-
munications satellites into orbit for the U.S. Air Force.
The Boeing X-37 experimental orbital plane has been
launched three times by this rocket. However, not all
experts in Russian-U.S. relations are aware that the en-
gine for this rocket is the Russian-made RD-180.
The RD-180 project, developed by Energomash at
Khimki outside Moscow, was declared the winner of a
tender for the design and delivery of engines for the
first stage of the upgraded Atlas family of carriers back
in early 1996. According to experts, the choice was due
to the fact that Russian liquid rocket engines are still
far superior to U.S. developments and have a proven
track record.
Under an agreement signed that same year, Energo-
mash (through the joint venture RD-Amros) pledged to
deliver 50 RD-180 engines under a firm contract and
another 51 under an option agreement. More than 60
engines have already been delivered to the U.S. at a
price of $11-15 million apiece.
To date, 43 Atlas-V missile launches have taken place,
NASA
7/21/2019 RD_2014_05
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rd201405 8/11
8 WWW.RUSSIA-DIRECT.ORGRUSSIA DIRECT MONTHLY MEMO
SPACE RACE | #10 | MAY 2014
the most recent on January 24, 2014. In connection with
the launch of space systems that could potentially pose
a threat to Russia, Moscow is considering terminating
the delivery of RD-180 rockets to the Americans after
2015, although, under the existing agreement, Russia isobliged to supply RD-180 engines until 2018.
If the political situation deteriorates, the U.S. could
unilaterally attempt to break the agreement. It has
some reserves that could be used in the meantime, but
thereafter it will have to set up its own licensed produc-
tion (the U.S. has no replacement engine of its own for
the Atlas), which could take up to three years.
In addition, since the mid-1990s, NK-33 propulsion
systems built for the Soviet N-1 lunar rocket have been
supplied to the U.S. Under a contract with Aerojet
Rocketdyne, several dozen of these engines have been
delivered, where they are used in the Antares medium-class booster.
WHY COOPERATION IN SPACE
MATTERS NOW MORE THAN EVER
Analysis of the main areas of cooperation between
Russia and the U.S. reveals a clear division of la-
bor between the two countries that has taken shape
over more than two decades of joint space projects.
It stems from the historical development of the pro-
grams themselves and the conditions in which this
development took place. Across a range of areas, it
is simpler and more economical for one party to bor-
row the other’s technology or join an existing project,
rather than create or maintain its own (duplicate) line
of production.
For example, deep space exploration is increasingly
becoming the domain of U.S. programs, while Russia
and other countries find it much easier to partner with
these programs with their own objectives and equip-
ment. At the same time, the whole U.S. Atlas missile
system has relied entirely on the Russian RD-180 for
nearly 20 years, and Russia’s powerful Proton rocket is
an important component of U.S. satellite launches.
Meanwhile, the space station is such a costly projectin all aspects that the only way forward is cooperation
through a conglomerate of countries, in which the U.S.
and Russia act as the leading space powers. That is how
cooperation in this direction has been developing in re-
cent years.
Even a cursory glance at the present list of joint pro-
jects will suffice to understand a simple truth: the U.S.
and Russia have something to lose in the field of space
cooperation. In connection with the threat of wider
sanctions, both sides will have to think seriously about
“nationalizing” their space programs to shield them
from the other.
ECONOMIC SANCTIONS COULD LEAD
TO A NEW SPACE RACE
The final days of April 2014 saw the announcement of
another ban — on the supply to Russia of U.S. space-
craft and devices that use parts made in the U.S. This
decision will score a direct hit on a number of segments
of both the Russian and U.S. markets. Primarily, it will
affect International Launch Services and its cofound-
ers, Energia Corporation and Lockheed Martin. The an-
nual losses could run to a few hundred million dollars.Serious, and likely irreparable, damage will also be
done to the Sea Launch consortium. As for the ground-
launch project Kosmotras, it is already becoming highly
politicized due to the broken ties with Ukraine.
And it doesn’t stop there, since the scale of the sanc-
tions has yet to be fully delineated, and the direct loss-
es for both sides (to say nothing of the indirect ones)
cannot be properly estimated.
What is clear, though, is that there will be significant
bilateral damage in many areas. Time will be lost, and
Russia and the U.S. will face the absurdity in today’s
global economy of having to invest effort, money, and
other resources in duplicating each other’s achieve-
ments. Policymakers from both sides should take a step
back and understand how far-reaching sanctions could
reverberate for a long time in both the U.S. and Russia,
perhaps even laying the groundwork for a new space
race.
33
30
32
19
- Russian launches
Russia
U.S. 1 9 9 5
2 0 1 3
- Russian launches for U.S. space program
- U.S. launches
America’s growing role in the Russianspace program
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Russia
U.S.N A T A L I A MI K H A Y L E N K O
SOURCE: ROSCOSMOS / NASA
7/21/2019 RD_2014_05
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rd201405 9/11
9 WWW.RUSSIA-DIRECT.ORGRUSSIA DIRECT MONTHLY MEMO
SPACE RACE | #10 | MAY 2014
1. Philip Baker. The Story of Manned Space Stations. Chich-
ester: Praxis Publishers Ltd., 2007.
2. Matthew Brzezinski. Red Moon Rising: Sputnik and the
Hidden Rivalries that Ignited the Space Age. New York:
Times Books, 2007.
3. Deborah Cadbury. Space Race: The Epic Battle Between
America and the Soviet Union for Dominion of Space. New
York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2007.
4. Susan Eisenhower. Partners in Space (U.S.-Russian Co-
operation After the Cold War). Washingon, D.C.: The Eisen-
hower Institute, 2004.
5. Ben Evans. Partnership in Space: The Mid to Late Nine-
ties. New York: Springer Science and Business Media, 2014.
6. Von Hardesty and Gene Eisman (Forward by Sergei
Khrushchev). Epic Rivalry: The Inside Story of the Soviet
and American Space Race. Washington, D.C.: National Geo-
graphic, 2007.
7. Yuri Karash. Soviet/Russian-American Space Coopera-
tion. Washington, D.C.: The American University, 1997.
8. James Oberg. Star-Crossed Orbits. Inside the U.S.-Rus-sian Space Alliance. New York: McGrow Hill, 2001.
9. David Scott and Alexei Leonov (Forward by Neil Arm-
strong). Two Sides of the Moon: Our Story of the Cold War
Space. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2004.
10. Roald Sagdeev and Susan Eisenhower. United States-
Soviet Space Cooperation during the Cold War. Washing-
ton, D.C.: The Eisenhower Institute, 2008.
@NASAOfficial Twitter account of NASA.
@FederalspaceOfficial Roscosmos account tweeting about Russian space
flight, plus daily updates on Russian experiments on the ISS
and news about Soyuz and Progress ISS supply flights.
@ISS_ResearchOfficial NASA account tweeting about research experi-
ments on the ISS.
@SpaceXOfficial account for SpaceX (the first commercial ISS sup-
plier), which uses its Dragon capsules to enable material tobe sent back to Earth.
@ArianespaceOfficial account for Arianespace, a commercial company
that launches ESA ATV ISS supply ships from French Guiana.
@OrbitalSciencesOfficial account for Orbital Sciences Corporation, which be-
gan launching commercial supply flights to ISS in 2012 using
its Cygnus spacecraft.
@SPACEdotcomNews coverage and conversation about space science and
space exploration.
@AstroRobonautOfficial NASA account of the only permanent ISS crew
member, the robot astronaut.
@NASA_AstronautsOfficial Twitter account of NASA’s astronauts, with updates
on astronaut activities from NASA’s Johnson Space Center.
@TwisstSends you a tweet when the ISS will be visible at your geo-
graphic location on Earth.
RECOMMENDED BOOKS ON SPACE TOP 10 TWITTER ACCOUNTS FOR
#SPACE
7/21/2019 RD_2014_05
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rd201405 10/11
10 WWW.RUSSIA-DIRECT.ORGRUSSIA DIRECT MONTHLY MEMO
SPACE RACE | #10 | MAY 2014
Sergey Oznobishchev is the Head of the Division for Military-Political Studies, Cent-
er for International Security, at the Institute for World Economy and International
Relations (IMEMO).
Oznobishchev is an expert on international and national security and the reduction
and limitation of armaments. He is the author of more than 150 articles published
in both the Russian and English languages.
In 1973, he graduated from the Department of International Journalism at the
Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO-University). In 1976, he
graduated from the Institute of US and Canadian Studies (ISCRAN). He holds a
Ph.D. in History.
Currently, Oznobishchev is a professor at the Moscow State Institute of Interna-tional Relations, a member of the Expert Council of the International Affairs Com-
mittee of the Federation Council, a member of the Expert Council of the Collective
Security Treaty Organization, a member of the Council on Foreign and Defense
Policy, a member of the K.E. Tsiolkovsky Russian Academy of Cosmonautics, and
the Director of the Institute for Strategic Assessments.
SERGEY
OZNOBISHCHEV
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
7/21/2019 RD_2014_05
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rd201405 11/11
SPACE RACE | #10 | MAY 2014
QUARTERLY REPORTS (DIGITAL OR PRINT FORMATS)
Megatons to Megawatts Program
Sochi: Going For the Olympic Gold
Afghan Endgame: What Comes Next
Russian Soft Power 2.0
MONTHLY MEMOS
A Five-Step Program For Fixing the Ukraine Crisis
Eurasia: Russia’s Link to Europe and Asia
Education in Russia: Mapping the Future, Understanding
the Past
Russia-U.S. Relations: From Stasis to Progress?
The Arctic: A New Geopolitical Pivot?
Redrawing Eastern Europe
Central Asia as Geopolitical Pivot: Three Scenarios
For Integration
The Middle East. The New Great Game
From Cold War to Cyberwar?
E x p e r t i s e o n R u s s i a 2 4 / 7
F o r s u g g e s t i o n s o n f u t u r e t o p i c s p l e a s e w r i t e t o E d i t o r i n C h i e f e z a b r o v s k a y a @ r u s s i a d i r e c t o r g
GET ACCESS
TO ALLRUSSIA DIRECT
REPORTS WITH
ONE CLICK
DOWNLOAD TODAY RUSSIA-DIRECT.ORG/ARCHIVE
(FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME)