Russia's space station wake-up call

An impending shift in orbital priorities combined with geopolitical unrest should have European space strategists doubly alarmed

News this week that Russia will withdraw from the International Space Station in 2025 brings to mind a film from 1969. Marooned, starring Gregory Peck and Gene Hackman and released just a few months after Apollo 11, told the story of an Apollo-style mission gone wrong and the increasingly desperate attempts to recover a three-man crew stranded in orbit and running out of air. The film was timely and a great big-screen experience (winning an Oscar for best visual effects); clearly it made a lasting impression on me, being just old enough to remember the Moon landing.

But decades later what really stands out is the scene when the Soviets diverted a mission to intercept, close enough for a cosmonaut with the hatch open to wave desperately for the oxygen-starved Americans to come across to his tiny ship. Shocking at the time to our Cold War-addled minds, that scene previewed a radical concept – that co-operation in space could be ordinary. Indeed, the 1975 Apollo-Soyuz joint mission was radical, and I would like to believe that by proving such a beautiful thing to be possible, clear-thinking scientists and engineers in the USA and USSR helped the politicians avert Armageddon.

The ISS continued that momentum, and the great value of the station lies in the word “international”. Without the Russians it will not be the same; indeed, it may not continue much beyond their departure. The plan, apparently, is that the Russian modules will be handed over to the remaining partners: USA, Europe, Canada and Japan. But without Russia’s contribution, the cost - in money and kind – to Europe, Canada and Japan can only rise. Without Russia’s participation, the arguably most-valuable aspect of the ISS – its high-profile role as standard-bearer for a vision of peaceful global co-operation – is obviously finished.

Not hanging around (ESA/NASA)

In any case, the station is getting old. Originally intended for de-orbiting in 2018, the programme was extended to 2024 with scope to carry on pending agreement of the partners. ESA tells me that “such a decision may include a joint technical evaluation of its operational status. At the moment, ESA has not been informed by Roscosmos of any change to that agreement.”

Recent air leak dramas point to a difficult time ahead, but engineering life is only part of the ISS problem. The science done aboard has no doubt been significant, maybe even matching the value of foregone Earth-bound research whose budgets it consumes. The ISS has also taught us how to build, operate and maintain a complicated structure in space. But for all the cost, if we’re honest, the ISS has become part of the news wallpaper: fly up there, do a spacewalk or two to fix things, mess about with lab equipment and an exercise bike, make a video about how the toilets work. Thanks to the engineers, scientists, astronauts and good fortune, we have not seen Marooned 2: Space Station rescue.

So what next? The Russians talk about having their own station operating by 2030, and probably have the engineering ability to do it that fast. Political will and programme management skill is maybe less obvious, but they know they need to develop a new generation of space hardware if they want to stay in the game. Reliable and even loved, Soyuz is to spaceships as a VW Beetle is to cars while Crew Dragon is a...Tesla.

It's a cozy trip via Soyuz... (Roscosmos)

The USA has its sights set on the Moon. Donald Trump’s Artemis programme target for a 2024 landing has been at least unofficially abandoned, but “mid-decade” could happen. It’s hard to imagine Washington sustaining the political will to keep the ISS going when attention turns to Moon landings. The US may like the idea, for now, of operating the ISS until 2028 or so as a hedge against delays in the Moon programme. But realistic Moon expectations will surely wipe out what is left of American public (ie, voter) interest in the ISS.

...while Crew Dragon arrives in style (SpaceX)

WAKE-UP CALL

Which leaves Europe facing a moment of truth. European Space Agency director-general Joseph Aschbacher’s recent Agenda 2025 call for a European space summit on strategic goals, ambitions and means felt urgent enough last month. Now, in the wake of Russia’s ISS move, that urgency is squared. Ashbacher’s worries are real on two counts. One is a ramp-up of US Moon programme momentum. The other is a recent heating up of long-brewing geopolitical tension that the European Union will struggle to manage – except by promoting its own technological and strategic independence. The European Commission has made very clear its belief in such sovereignty, including in space; whether it can muster the requisite EU political unity and financial means remains to be seen.

With the Moon, European alarms should already have been jangling last week, when NASA announced its choice of SpaceX to supply a human landing system based on its currently in-testing Starship concept for a single-stage, reusable, heavy-lift vehicle. Details are sparse, but NASA says that Moon-bound astronauts will ride its Lockheed Martin-built Orion capsule, launched by the Space Launch System rocket (expected to make its maiden flight this year). Then, the crew will transfer to a Starship for descent to the Moon, eventual lift-off, and return home. Via Airbus, ESA supplies the service module for Orion – a deal that has secured places for ESA astronauts to visit the proposed Gateway lunar-orbiting station and, eventually, to go to the surface. ESA will also supply key components of Gateway.

Orion and Gateway: just an artist's impression? (Thales Alenia Space/Briot)

But what’s not obvious is why Space Launch System, Orion or Gateway have a role if Starship proves viable. The first Moon landing(s) were always intended to happen before the Gateway jumping-off point could be constructed. If Starship is successful in travelling to the Moon and home again, the need for the entire Gateway architecture must at least be questioned. In short, ESA and the European Union had better entertain the prospect of their role in Artemis being made redundant by a NASA-SpaceX collaboration.

Geopolitically, Russia planning its own space station is but one manifestation of a shifting balance of interests and withering of the US-led globalised world order that has prevailed for several decades. In space – indeed in many industrial and economic spheres – Russia and China are talking about the sort of alignment that turned Western strategists frantic in the 1950s. The threat of conflict is real, as tensions flare over Ukraine and Taiwan.

Between Ukraine and Moscow’s treatment of Russian dissident Alexei Navalny, continued European co-operations with Russia ranging from gas pipelines to space missions cannot be assumed. Likewise with China; the European Parliament may well vote down an agreed but not ratified (and in any case controversial) EU-China trade deal.

The world is swinging from global village back to blocks led by the US, Russia, China and Europe. Divisions will hopefully not be so hard as during the Cold War, but they are increasingly real. Europe will mostly align with the US, but not completely – and in any case, to survive and thrive it will be imperative to be both a strong partner and an independent operator. Either mode depends on building and maintaining sovereign control over the critical technologies of the age and the human narrative that underpins a strong society.

In the 21st Century, space meets both of those demands. Europe has the technological capability, the money and certainly the human capital to build a comprehensive space programme worthy of a superpower. The question is, does Europe have the political will to take on the challenge?

Deliver us, SpaceX (SpaceX)

***

Dan Thisdell adds: I write about European spaceflight: industry, politics, science and money. After a fruitful mid-career at Flight International, I am preparing to launch a newsletter for space industry investors: Geoconomy. Watch this space and contact me via LinkedIn - especially if your company should be profiled.