The Future of the International Space Station, a Partnership Without Russia

The International Space Station (“ISS”) has been an example of the benefits of international collaboration for over 20 years. (Warner, NASA). The ISS came to fruition in 1998 when Russia launched Zarya, the control module, into orbit. (Wild, NASA). Just two weeks later, Zarya was met by the United States space shuttle Endeavour and the crew connected the United States Unity node to Zarya. Id. The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”) recently stated that “[the] International Space Station is a beacon of peaceful international scientific collaboration. . . .” (Space Station, NASA). Many countries contribute to the ISS including the United States, Russia, Japan, Canada, and member States of the European Space Agency. (ISS IGA). These countries are all legally bound by the ISS Intergovernmental Agreement (“IGA”) which lays out basic rules surrounding the ISS. Id. 

This past year, discussions about the future of the ISS have increased due to the war in Ukraine and Russia’s recent announcement that they plan to withdraw from the ISS after 2024. (Whitman Cobb, Space.com). Russia’s announcement came less than one year after the Biden-Harris Administration declared a desire to continue ISS operations to 2030 in conjunction with other ISS partners. (Space Station, NASA). While some have questioned NASA’s decision to maintain collaboration with Russia on the ISS, NASA has not admonished their ISS partner. (Zsidisin, SpaceNews). In the months following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, NASA collaborated with the Russian government on taxi spacecraft to the ISS. Id. In announcing withdrawal from the ISS, Russia appeared to make the decision of whether to continue ISS collaboration for the United States. However, it is unclear whether this is a serious threat and IGA signatories seem unconcerned about the announcement. (Davenport, The Washington Post).  Even though the threat of Russian departure is a few years into the future, it begs the question, what impacts might departure have on the ISS and other signatories?

International Space Station, NASA

Russia is the primary partner to the United States on the ISS. Id. In fact, the IGA states that “[t]he United States and Russia. . . will produce elements which serve as the foundation for the international space station.” (Article 1, Section 2, ISS IGA). The fact that Russian Space Agency, Roscosmos, provides the propulsion for the ISS, propellant for thrusters, and is required to provide a permanent space capsule for escape illustrates the important role Russia plays within the ISS. (Warner, NASA; Podcast, The Conversation).   

Part of the problem with Russian withdrawal is that Russia maintains jurisdiction, ownership, and control of the elements they have contributed to the ISS under the IGA. (Whitman Cobb, Space.com). Article 5, Section 1 of the IGA states that “each Partner shall register as space objects the flight elements listed in the Annex which it provides” and Section 2 states that in accordance with the Outer Space Treaty and the Registration Convention, “each Partner shall retain jurisdiction and control over the elements it registers.” (ISS IGA). The IGA goes on to provide that partners through their “respective Cooperating Agencies. . . shall own the elements listed in the Annex that they respectively provide, except as otherwise provided for in this Agreement.” (Id. at Article 6, Section 1). The Annex states that Russia will provide infrastructure elements, research modules, and other flight elements. Id. The ownership of Russian elements can be transferred to other partners under the IGA, but it is unclear whether Russia would transfer these rights. (Id. at Article 6, Section 3; Whitman Cobb, Space.com). If Russia does not transfer ownership and control to the other IGA partners, Russia could require the modules be shut down completely which may make operations difficult due to the critical operational roles the Russian modules fulfill. Id. In addition to module ownership, module operation and management may become problematic if Russia withdraws. Under the IGA, each partner is responsible for “management of their own programs.” (Article 7, Section 3, ISS IGA). Additionally, each partner has “responsibilities in the operation of the elements they respectfully provide.” (Id. at Article 10). This means that Russia controls the operation and maintenance of each element they provide. (Podcast, The Conversation).

Not only does Russia own and control key pieces of the ISS, but they also contribute to funding of the ISS. (Article 15, ISS IGA). Per the IGA, each partner bears the costs to fulfill their individual responsibilities and equitably share systems operations costs. Id. If Russia were to withdraw from the ISS, the other partners would have to contribute increased funds to maintain and operate the ISS. In 2018, the NASA Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) estimated that since 1993, the United States has spent about $87 billion on the ISS. (OIG 2018). In 2021, the OIG also estimated that operations and maintenance costs from 2016-2020 were $1.1 billion per year and that systems maintenance and upgrade costs increased 35% to $169 million per year. (OIG 2021). It is difficult to find the total cost of the ISS to Russia, but it is estimated that while the United States contributes 70% of the cost, Russia only contributes 12%. (Sinelschikova, Russia Beyond). Although 12% does not seem like much, if Russia exits the ISS and transfers their contributing parts to the other partners, the United States will likely have to increase ISS spending. This will either place an extra burden on taxpayers or force NASA to divert funds from other programs. The ISS was slated for retirement in 2024 and has sustained damages over time, meaning the financial burden will increase for each partner regardless of Russian exit. (OIG 2021). The United States might deem additional costs worthy due to their ultimate goals of transitioning to commercial space operations with the help of ISS research. Id. However, in 2021, NASA requested $150 million to develop commercially owned space stations in low Earth orbit, but Congress only authorized $17 million for this purpose. Id.

It is easy to see why the United States is reluctant to lose Russia as an ISS partner due to legally binding agreements and cost. At this point, any concern for Russian withdrawal might be premature, because, as previously stated, Roscosmos indicated that withdrawal would not occur until after 2024. (Davenport, The Washington Post). Additionally, under the IGA Russia’s withdrawal would require giving one year’s advanced written notice to other partners. (Article 28, Section 1, ISS IGA). Russia has not formally given written notice that it will be withdrawing from the ISS, however providing formal notice is not a requirement yet if they do not intend to withdraw until 2024. Although an exit has not been made official, ISS partners could start planning for a future of the ISS that does not include Russia.