Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Halts Non-ISS Work With Russia Over Ukraine Crisis

Posted by Soulskill on from the can't-we-all-just-get-along dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The Verge reports on an internal memo from NASA indicating that they've suspended all contracts and activities with Russia that aren't involved with operating the International Space Station. Quoting: 'Given Russia's ongoing violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, until further notice, the U.S. Government has determined that all NASA contacts with Russian Government representatives are suspended, unless the activity has been specifically excepted. This suspension includes NASA travel to Russia and visits by Russian Government representatives to NASA facilities, bilateral meetings, email, and teleconferences or videoconferences. At the present time, only operational International Space Station activities have been excepted.' NASA Administrator Charles Bolden argued recently that our dependence on Russia for putting astronauts into space needs to end."

18 of 291 comments (clear)

  1. Politcs vs. Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's really too bad these have to get in the way.

    1. Re:Politcs vs. Science by sunderland56 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This. NASA is not a political body and should not act like one.

      If an anti-science President gets elected in 2016, will the world refuse to stop working with the USA? If they did, wouldn't we be upset?

      Russia didn't refuse to work with the USA when America invaded Iraq, did they?

    2. Re:Politcs vs. Science by cyn1c77 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This. NASA is not a political body and should not act like one.

      You're joking right?

      NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) is a government organization that has to appeal to the president and Congress every year for funding and scope. Their employees are considered federal employees on the GS (general schedule) pay scale. NASA has both "national" and "administration" in the title. It doesn't get any more political than that.

      How are they NOT a political body?

    3. Re:Politcs vs. Science by mar.kolya · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Iraq is it's own sovereign country, we didn't keep even a runway or military base there, but left when the elected government of the country told us to leave.

      This is very much a matter of opinion. US had left when people in Iraq had elected government US wanted. Does this make Iraq a sovereign country? I think not. Iraq is pretty much controlled by US. As well as all NATO countries, especially east European ones. BTW, did anybody invited US into Iraq? Afghanistan? Vietnam? So yeah, look at yourself first and mind your own business - and your business has nothing to do with east Europe. US has much more imperial ambitions than any other country.

    4. Re:Politcs vs. Science by Ravaldy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Is it really more objectionable?

      Maybe the news I'm seeing isn't accurate but it appears the majority of people currently "invaded" wants to join Russia. Hope is all those people want and joining a large world force/economy is something that can provide people with a better life. Especially considering that a large percentage of this population is of Russian background.

    5. Re:Politcs vs. Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      USA invaded Iraq and scared and killed thousands of people. Then it controlled its territory while people of Iraq went to polls to vote. The vote was considered democratic and the results were recognized.

      Russia invaded Crimea in a peaceful way and didn't kill anybody. Then it controlled its territory while people of Crimea went to polls to vote. Despite numerous international observers and absence of any concerns from them, US doesn't want to recognize this vote.

      Looks like hypocrisy and double-standards.

    6. Re:Politcs vs. Science by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Informative

      As for Crimea being "part of Russia for 200 years prior to 1964", I bet one could find numerous areas where the same would hold true, I'd rather not have everyone running around annexing land simply because they held it half a century ago.

      Lots of people disagree with you, including famous liberals like Sean Penn, who think the Falkland Islands should be returned to Argentina because they used to be part of Argentina until Britain took possession of them about 200 years ago.

    7. Re:Politcs vs. Science by mar.kolya · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well. I hardly can imagine free elections with a gun pointed to ones head (figuratively speaking). Not to mention that US propaganda machine was running at full steam there. There is no way those elections were not influenced by US. They very much were. So US got what US wanted (oil, I presume) and left, fair enough.

      Now in Ukraine: there was an elected government that was overthrown by armed riots. ELECTED president fled to Russia and asked Putin for protection - this is his official position. And US comes in and helps those armed rioters who stared whole thing on the first place. Notice: those rioters were not elected. They are just convenient for US to mess with Russia.

      Disclaimer: I'm Russian myself, although I currently live on North America.

      But in my view Russian actions in Crimea are no better or worse then US actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam or many other numerous places were US soldier had set his foot, many times uninvited. It's true that US didn't annex those territories - but that's just it didn't make much sense to officially annex them. Imagine 'state of Iraq' as a part of US - this just would not have worked. Mainly for cultural and language reasons. If people in Iraq spoke English Iraq would have been US state by now. And people in Crimea speak Russian and are actually ethnic Russians in their majority.

      Note: I do not say that Putin is good. My point is that Putin is no more evil than any US president. And that's just how world works - larger countries control smaller countries, in one way or another. And nobody is free.

      And all that hysteria how Putin is new Hitler is just good job in US propaganda. As well how 'Putin brings freedom to oppressed Crimeans' is a Russian propaganda.

    8. Re:Politcs vs. Science by igny · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Time and time again, the USA has taken territory it could have just kept for itself, but we insist on giving it back to the people we took it from.

      Well, it is obvious that you are wrong here. US could not have kept Iraq (as in "annexed" Iraq). It did not have to either considering that it usually installs puppet governments around the world. Even though it fails again and again, it is not for the lack of trying. This tactic would surely fail in Ukraine too.

      Russia, on the other hand, can and will keep Crimea.

      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
    9. Re:Politcs vs. Science by jafac · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think that Russia sure as hell DID care.

      Russia's ally, Syria, is currently in the midst of a civil war, partly due to the power-vacuum created when the US invaded Iraq. (Syrian salafists, who were previously a pain in the ass to Assad, but "kept down" - went into Iraq to fight the US. Those experienced veterans came back after the "awakening", and are now back in Syria, fighting to overthrow Assad. If Syria falls to jihadists/salafists, it is conceivable that access to the black sea is cut off.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    10. Re:Politcs vs. Science by Strange+Quark+Star · · Score: 4, Informative

      I was born in Simferopol and most of my relatives still live there. Here's a few things I can tell you almost first-hand.

      The vast majority of people there are ethnic Russians who don't even speak Ukrainian. Khrushchev's 1954 transfer of Crimea to Ukraine did not mean anything to them until the Soviet Union split up. Since then the Ukrainian government introduced Ukrainian as the official language of the autonomous republic of Crimea, forcing the Russians to learn Ukrainian for anything official. Then they made Ukrainian the mandatory first foreign language in schools and soon the first language spoken; teaching the children's native Russian as a foreign language once a week.

      Any foreign investments (like the EU's) went straight into the oligarchs' pockets, leaving health care, infrastructure, etc. in ruins. No running water after 10:00 PM, and even then it's just cold.
      Pensioners like my grandmother often continue to work well beyond retirement to supplement their income enough to get by. Most medical equipment in hospitals is still from the Soviet era; clinics are usually out of medical supplies, i.e. if you want treatment you are expected to bring your own antiseptics, bandages, etc. Paying doctors for better treatment is a given.

      Putin's invasion was ridiculous, no question. But honestly, that's exactly what many Crimeans were desperately hoping for for a long time. Say what you like about the Russian government, but it's way better than anything Ukraine's ever seen. Remember the fist fights in Kiev's Parliament? A regular show.

      Changes coming to Crimea:
      Return to the Russian school system in addition to local Ukrainian schools.
      25% increase in retirement pay every quarter until it reaches Russian standards (100% increase overall) in addition to widow's pension, which previously has just not been payed at all.
      Complete modernization of health infrastructure.
      Repair and restoration of public infrastructure and venues including parks and plazas (you should see the current state they're in).
      Exploitation of the abundant natural gas reservoirs off shore; there has just not been any funding previously. Crimea is expected to become self-sufficient and maybe even export natural gas at a profit.

      A major concern surrounding the annexation was Crimea's dependence on tourism as it's main source of income, as most tourists came from Ukraine. Now they simply halved the price of plane tickets from mainland Russia to Crimea to encourage Tourism.

      I don't know if the results of the referendum were falsified, it would not surprise me as it's always been the case with elections over there. But all Crimeans, not only ethnic Russians would greatly benefit from a change in government for the reasons mentioned above and they know it. My relatives told me about huge lines of people waiting at 9 AM, soaking in the rain to vote for joining Russia, including Tatars and Ukrainians. They also told me of the unprecedented joy and general happiness on the streets after the result was made public and even more so when Crimea finally rejoined Russia.

      I want to stress the fact that I am by no means a supporter of Russia, its government or Putin. I despise their corruption and violations of human rights. But what is happening in Crimea is very positive change for the people on that peninsula from what I can tell by reading the news and keeping in touch with my friends in relatives there that are directly impacted by the events.

      --
      There is no sig.
    11. Re:Politcs vs. Science by dryeo · · Score: 4, Informative

      How many Central American countries has America sent troops to? How many Central and South American countries has America used the CIA and such to interfere in their affairs including forcing regime change? Usually much more bloody then what Russia is currently doing in their sphere on influence.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    12. Re:Politcs vs. Science by stoploss · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Exactly. But I'm just some weirdo who believes in self-determination for people, and apparently this is an extremely unpopular mindset these days, at least in the US. Just look at what happens when anyone proposes secession. (And when I do it, I'm advocating the secession of the west coast tech states, so they can get away from the red states (and also the crappy northeast states like NY where the banksters are). But the liberals always get upset about this, because they think we need to forcibly keep all the states together no matter what, so they can bitch and whine when the voters in those states vote in ways they don't like. So I'm starting to come to the conclusion that many liberals (of the American variety) generally abhor self-determination and favor corruption of the government by the financial industry.)

      This is great to hear. I'm in a red state and my friends and I are sick of liberals forcing their policies on us. I'm even willing to let you think it is your states "getting away from" our states, if that matters to you (haha). Essentially, it has come to the point where both sides look at the other and shake their head because the culture is so foreign. I don't think a compromise culture is desirable for either side of the divide.

      Look at all the 5-4 split Supreme Court rulings. Do you admit, as I do, hoping the Supreme Court balance will swing in favor of the culture you support so that contentious aspects of your culture can be forced on the rest of the nation "for their own good"? For example, I am hoping for assertions of human rights such as the Constitutional individual right to keep and bear arms in areas where these rights have heretofore been unconstitutionally blocked. Regardless of which issues are key from each individual's perspective, the fact that we as a nation must routinely rely on the Supreme Court to mandate these policies is a sign of serious sociopolitical & cultural dysfunction.

      I really believe that secession/dissolution is tenable and wouldn't lead to collapse. Much has been said about the net flow of tax money from blue states to red states, but I believe what would actually happen is that blue state food prices would jump significantly to compensate for their now lowered wealth transfer tax burden. The Farm Bill food subsidies for the past 70+ years represent most of this tax wealth transfer to the red states and these laws have really screwed up the agricultural/food markets. The Farm Bills' subsidies have led to such abominations as HFCS and corn for ethanol. Who knows? Secession might even lead to innovations in our food supply if we start using the land to grow something other than corn that humans can't eat (literally, the preponderance of corn grown is for animal feed/industrial purposes and tastes like chalk).

      Back on topic: what could we call this movement? The Nonpartisan Coalition for Amicable Secession? Hm, that doesn't have a pithy acronym. I'm open to suggestions.

  2. Wait... by eternaldoctorwho · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't this the sort of thing that the ISS collaboration was supposed to prevent?

  3. Maybe you can hitchike to space, yankee by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Funny

    Gas, grass, or ass--no one rides Soyuz for free!

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  4. Tit-for-Tat by hubang · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Would have the Russians suspend all ISS related contracts.

    Good for the goose and all.

  5. Neocon arrogance is breathtaking. by Uberbah · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I mean, Fox-News-claiming-Bush-kept-us-safe-from-terrorist-attacks breathtaking. As in you cannot believe that someone just said something that brazen with a straight face.

    No, they didn't, but it was obvious to everybody and clear from history that the USA wasn't interested in annexing Iraq into US territory.

    Nah, they just forced Iraq to privatize it's oil industry and sell it off to for-profit foreign interests. Because America's record post WWII has been that of a rampaging imperialistic shitbag that has all the power of a British Empire without any of the responsibilities. Rather than setting up a colonial government, which might actually do shit like build roads and schools, you just overthrow dozens of governments, including democratically elected ones, to get those sufficiently subservient to your "national interests".

    So the comparison to what Russia has done with part of Ukraine is a false one.

    No shit. America got a million people killed in Iraq, created millions more refugees, and bombed the country into the stone age. Call us when Putin does the same or starts having 16 year old kids murdered on the other side of the planet from Moscow.

    They split up a sovereign country, then annexed parts of it after invading it.

    The hell they did. Any reason in particular you're ignoring the illegal, western-backed coup of Ukraine's democratically elected president less than 6 months before the next elections? Aside from all that, if Russia "invaded" Crimea by moving troops to a navel base covered under an existing treaty with Ukraine, than the United States has been busy invading western europe and Japan for over 60 years.

    It takes some serious neocon balls (with a hefty dose of willful dumfuckery) to treat the self-appointed junta in Ukraine as a legitimate organization, while flatly ignoring the fact that the people of Crimea just overwhelmingly voted to join Russia. This is invariably countered with some BS about how this vote was done "at the end of a gun barrel", ignoring the fact that the the first things the junta did after sizing power was to strip Crimea of it's autonomy and start oppressing minorities. And ignoring the fact that the United States has 900 military bases throughout the world and special forces operating in more than half the world's countries.

    Seems clear to me that Iraq remains it's own entity, despite the US winning decisive military actions in Iraq TWICE.

    You mean after the Wikileaks cables showed Bush giving free reign to death squads, after the U.S. built military bases and a fortress of an embassy, and made it clear that it would re-invade on a moments notice from military bases in surrounding countries in the event of 'instability'?

    Time and time again, the USA has taken territory it could have just kept for itself, but we insist on giving it back to puppet governments it set up after forcing the privatization of industries and infrastructure.

    FTFY. Compare how many governments Russia has overthrown since the fall of the Soviet Union, and get back to us. How many countries has Russia bombed or invaded. How many people Putin is keeping in gulags, and force feeding them (which is torture), after they've been cleared for release since 2007? Is Russia violating the sovereignty of nations thousands of miles away from it by bombing innocent people inside them with impunity?

    The United States lecturing modern Russia about imperialism is like Jack the Ripper lecturing Alec Baldwin on how to treat women.

    The response

  6. Re:"needs to end" by confused+one · · Score: 3, Informative

    I hope you're referring to Bush Jr. because he's the one who signed the order to kill and dismantle the Shuttle program. The current administration has failed by not producing a viable alternative and pushing the agenda forward. I personally think they're sitting on their hands, on purpose, waiting for commercial manned spaceflight to fill the role.