Abstract
As the Soviet Union awkwardly dismantled itself in the early 1990s, NASA policy makers labored to adjust their existing research and exploration initiatives to what was shaping up to be a new world. Having ostensibly won the Cold War, state officials now and again paused to consider the chances of a more enlightened coupling of capitalism and democracy. For some, waning tensions begged an unrestricted reassessment of government, cutting back on half a century’s build-up of armaments, infrastructure, and spending. Vice President Al Gore oversaw the streamlining of American bureaucracy before taking the reins of the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission (for economic and technical cooperation between the United States and Russia). For both former Cold War superpowers this cohort sought balanced budgets, smaller smarter government, and improved regulatory practices.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Spot was the French equivalent to (and commercial competition for) the US Landsat program. On the symposium, see John McLucas, “The Opportunity in Soviet Space: ‘Yes’ to Increased Cooperation Between the US and USSR,” Washington Technology, September 12, 1991, in appendix to “Washington News Initiative.”
Edward Crawley and Jim Rymarcsuk, “US-Soviet Cooperation in Space: Benefits, Obstacles, and Opportunities,” Space Policy (February 1992), 36.
J. Johnson-Freese, “Alice in Licenseland: US Satellite Export Controls Since 1990,” Space Policy 16 (2000), 197. Freese indicates that the act itself only dates to 1976.
James Asker and Breck Henderson, “Purchase of Russian Space Hardware Signals Shift in US Trade Policy,” Aviation Week and Space Technology (hereafter AWST) 136 (April 6, 1992), 25.
See chapter 2 for details. Assembled from information available in: Rodney Ballard and Karen Walker, “Flying US Science on the USSR Cosmos Biosatellites,” ASGSB Bulletin 6 (October 1992), 121–128;
Kenneth Souza, Guy Etheridge, and Paul Callahan, eds., Life into Space: Space Life Science Experiments Ames Research Center Kennedy Space Center 1991–1998 NASA/SP-2000–534, available at http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/2000NASSP.534S/0000002.000.html; http://lis.arc.nasa.gov/lis/Programs/Cosmos/overview/Cosmos_Biosat.html; and http://www.astronautix.com/details/cos21763.htm (accessed December 31, 2009).
One final set of examples regarding the esteem Americans held for Russian equipment include the series of equipment slated for use by the Department of Defense’s space program. Central to these were the $8 million Topaz nuclear reactor and four Hall thrusters priced at $300,000. Leonard David, “The Rush to Buy Russian,” Aerospace America (June 1992), 40.
Thor Hogan, Mars Wars: the Rise and Fall of the Space Exploration Initiative, NASA SP-2007–4410 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2007).
These figures were reported in a 2003 article, indicating that there were likely many more researchers employed in Soviet Russia at the time of initial space station deliberations. Andrew Lee, “Technology in Russia: Russian Evolution,” The Engineer (November 10, 2003), 7–20.
John Logsdon and James Millar, eds., “US-Russian Cooperation in Human Space Flight: Assessing the Impacts,” Space Policy Institute and Institute for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies, Elliott School of International Affairs The George Washington University, February 2001, available at www.gwu.edu/~spi/assets/docs/usrussia.pdf (accessed April 2, 2010).
Tom Cremins and Elizabeth Newton, “Changing Structure of the Soviet Space Programme,” Space Policy 7 (May 1991), 132.
Peter Mason, “Missile Factory Serves up New Fare—Buses: Soviet Arms Plant Now Hoping to Make Nice Things for Western Customers,” Washington Post, October 2, 1991, A26.
David Hamilton, “Piecemeal Rescue for Soviet Science,” Science, New Series 255 (March 27, 1992), 1632–1634.
Vincent Kiernan, “Mir Data to Assist in Designing Extended Orbit Spacecraft,” Space News, December 9, 1991, I5.
Kathy Sawyer, “US-Soviet Space Swap Revived as Summit Nears: Officials See Mutual Benefits for Exchanges of Crews to Operate Aboard Shuttle, Mir,” Washington Post, June 30, 1991, A9.
Information compiled from: Judy Rumerman, NASA Historical Data Book Volume VII: NASA Launch Systems, Space Transportation, Human Spaceflight, and Space Science 1989–1998 (Washington, DC: NASA History Division Office of External Relations, 2009), NASA SP-2009–4012.
In the 1990s programs such as the Mission to Planet Earth and its Small Explorer Program, hallmarks of NA SA administrator Daniel Goldin’s policy mantra of faster, better, cheaper carried atmospheric instruments into orbit a few small packages at a time (as opposed to original plans to send up larger earth-orbiting platforms). See Lisa Shaffer, “International Coordination in the Era of Faster, Better, Cheaper,” Space Policy 14 (1998), 89–94;
W. Jones and Nickolus Rasch, “NASA’s Small Explorer Program,” Acta Astronautica 22 (1990), 269–275, in addition to the scholarship of Henry Lambright.
Judy Rumerman, NASA Historical Data Book Volume VII: NASA Launch Systems, Space Transportation, Human Spaceflight, and Space Science 1989–1998 (Washington, DC: NASA History Division Office of External Relations, 2009), NASA SP-2009–4012, 294.
Matthew von Bencke, The Politics of Space: A History of US-Soviet/Russian Competition and Cooperation in Space (Westview Press: Boulder, CO, 1997), 188.
Joseph Anselmo, “Industry Impacts US Space Policy,” AWST 149, July 6, 1998, 34.
Roger E. Bilstein, The American Aerospace Industry: From Workshop to Global Enterprise (Prentice Hall: London, 1996).
Liudmila Bzhilianskaya, “Russian Launch Vehicles on the World Market: A Case Study of International Joint Ventures,” Space Policy 13 (November 1997), 325–326.
As John Logsdon put it, “Russia’s commercial partnerships with US aerospace companies play a pivotal role in complementing the ISS engagement. If the ISS project provides Russia an opportunity for highly visible international space cooperation and limited financial support, the real flow of hard currency comes from a variety of commercial contracts. They not only keep the space industry afloat but also help fulfill Russia’s ISS obligations.” John M. Logsdon and James Millar, “US-Russian Cooperation in Human Spaceflight: Assessing the Impacts,” Space Policy 17 (2001), 171–178.
David E. Hoffman, The Dead Hand (New York: Anchor Books, 2009), 403–404.
Sharon Squssoni and Marcia S. Smith, “CRS Report for Congress: The Iran Nonproliferation Act and the International Space Station: Issues and Options,” Order Code RS22072 Updated August 22, 2005.
Copyright information
© 2013 John Krige, Angelina Long Callahan, and Ashok Maharaj
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Krige, J., Callahan, A.L., Maharaj, A. (2013). Russian-American Cooperation in Space: Privatization, Remuneration, and Collective Security. In: NASA in the World. Palgrave Studies in the History of Science and Technology. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137340931_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137340931_8
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-34092-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-34093-1
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)