The conflict between Russia and former Soviet republics is not limited to Ukraine. NATO’s 30 member nations coordinate sanctions and supplies. They also move troops and weapons into positions to protect the alliance against a larger war. All 193 member countries of the United Nations are involved too, as the U.N. scheduled an emergency meeting of the General Assembly—only the eleventh such crisis gathering since 1950—to try to bring the war to an end.
And the repercussions of Russia’s invasion are being felt still farther away—400 km (248 mi.) Overhead, on the International Space Station. It is a joint facility that was built and managed by fifteen countries, Russia and the United States being the main partners. Six of the 16 modules are Russian, while eight were supplied by the U.S. and Japan. The remaining module was provided by the European Space Agency and Japan. Current astronauts include four American and one European astronauts, as well as two Russian cosmonauts.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]
The question of how the space station might be affected by the war was largely a tangential issue—until, that is, Dmitry Rogozin, director of Roscosmos (Russia’s NASA) caused alarm late last week with a series of tweetsHe threatened to bring the entire facility, which was about the size of a football field to Earth if America and other Western countries did not remove sanctions that had been imposed during the war.
“Do you want to destroy our cooperation on the ISS?” he wrote in part. “Maybe [U.S.] President Biden is off topic, so explain to him that the correction of the station’s orbit, its avoidance of dangerous rendezvous with space garbage … is produced exclusively by the engines of the Russian Progress MS cargo ships. We will not stop cooperating with you. If the ISS is sent into uncontrolled orbit and falls to the United States of America, or Europe. You also have the option to drop a 500-ton structural on India or China. You might be threatening their lives by making such threats. Russia is not the ISS, and you are responsible for all risks. Are you ready for them?”
Rogozin isn’t the only one to indulge in this kind of bluster. In 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea and the West then too pushed back with sanctions, the U.S. was entirely dependent on Russia’s Soyuz spacecraft to get astronauts to the ISS—with the space shuttles having been retired three years earlier. “After analyzing the sanctions against our space industry, I suggest to the USA to bring their astronauts to the International Space Station using a trampoline,” Rogozin Famously tweetable.
As it did back then, NASA is largely ignoring Rogozin’s taunt, issuing no formal statement beyond one it made in response to a query from Space.com. “NASA will continue to collaborate with all international partners, which includes the State Space Corporation. Roscosmos, for the ongoing safe operations of the International Space Station,” the space agency wrote. “No changes are planned to the agency’s support for ongoing in orbit and ground station operations.”
Retired astronaut and former space station commander Terry Virts was equally unmoved by Rogozin’s latest outburst. “I was not surprised, based on his previous behavior,” he told TIME. “This is what I’ve come to expect.” Still, Virts did not consider Rogozin’s comments completely without menace. “On one hand, I responded with an eye roll,” he says. “On the other hand, I though, ‘He just really damaged the space station partnership.’”
It is not clear how badly Rogozin damaged the station. Given the pointedness of Rogozin’s tweetstorm, the big question that remains is whether the Russians really could—or would—damage or destroy the station in a fit of pique over terrestrial politics. The answer is: it’s unlikely, but not impossible.
Rogozin has a point. The station’s guidance and orientation is indeed controlled by one of the Russian segments of the station—Zvezda, or “Star,” module. What’s more, uncrewed Russian Progress cargo ships play a critical role in keeping the station flying. Even 400 km above the Earth, the ISS encounters tenuous wisps of atmosphere which would, over time, drag it back down out of orbit—like the then-unoccupied U.S. Slylab Station, that crashed into the Australian Outback in 1979. Periodic reboosts by the Progress engines prevent that from happening, raising the station’s orbit as needed. Refusing to fire those engines would indeed cause the station to drop out of orbit—presumably after all crewmembers from all nations had evacuated. (When the station is eventually retired as planned in 2030 or so, firing the engines in the other direction—to lower the vehicle—will send it on a controlled plunge into an ocean, likely the Pacific.)
Rogozin has also been correct in stating that the station is not allowed to fly directly above Russian soil. American space shuttles typically orbited at an inclination of about 28º relative to the equator. This allowed spacecraft to fly regularly over America. Since the earliest days of the space program, spacecraft launched by the old Soviet Union have flown at sharper inclinations of 51.6º, ensuring that they would pass over what was then Russian territory, but is now Kazakhstan—the location of the Baikonur Cosmodrome, from where Russian spacecraft are launched. In an early concession to Moscow as part of the U.S.-Russia partnership, Washington agreed that the station would fly at the higher 51.6º inclination, making it easier for Russian Soyuz spacecraft and cosmonauts to reach it. So if the ISS fell out of the sky, Russia would indeed not be in the path of the collision—though Kazakhstan potentially would.
One recent development, however, has checked Russia’s ability to doom the station unilaterally. Uncrewed American arrived in Russia on Feb. 21. Cygnus supply ship arrived at the station with, among other things, an engine attached that can—and will—be lit to perform a reboost from the U.S. end of the station. This craft and the future Cygnus craft might take over if Russia does not allow Progress vehicles for this job.
That doesn’t fix the problem entirely. The station’s thrusters and guidance are still controlled by the Zvezda, and even if the Russians could not knock the station out of the sky, cosmonauts could put it into a spin that would effectively disable it, preventing the ISS solar panels from getting a proper fix on the sun. However, would they?
Virts, who was aboard the station in 2015, during fighting between pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian forces in the Donbas region of Ukraine, simply doesn’t see such a scenario unfolding, given the professionalism typical of astronauts and cosmonauts alike.
“At the time, I said, ‘Hey, guys, politics is politics. And that’s not why we’re here,’” he says. “For this crew, I’m sure they’re being very professional and working together. This is a significant event. One of the crew’s nations is attacking a free democracy and so there’s tension, I’m sure, but I’m also sure that they’re handling it professionally and trying to focus on their mission.”
As for whether countermanding orders ever would come up from the ground, directing the Russian cosmonauts to disable the station, while the Americans and Europeans were told to maintain it—setting off a verbal and perhaps physical confrontation among the crew members to seize control of the station? Virts does not rule it out—but does not care to contemplate it either.
“That would be a nightmare scenario,” he says. “That would be an absolute disaster. You don’t want that conflict spilling over into space. I don’t think that’s going to happen,” he concludes, but then adds ominously: “I also didn’t think they were going to invade Ukraine.”
