Space Policy Edition #15 – Congressman Rick Larsen, Could Russia Exit the ISS?

Episode Summary

Executive Summary: The episode centers on NASA’s FY2018 budget prospects, with Senate actions restoring Earth science and education while cutting planetary science relative to the House, but still leaving room for a Mars orbiter. The hosts also assess U.S.-Russia tensions over ISS cooperation and RD-180 engines, then shift to a wide-ranging interview with Rep. Rick Larsen about STEM investment, commercial space, regulation, and China cooperation.

Main Topics: Senate NASA budget and appropriations outlook: The Senate’s NASA budget proposal set NASA at $19.5B, rejected the White House’s Earth science and education cuts, but reduced planetary funding versus the House. The hosts emphasized that final outcomes depend on a broader, still-unresolved budget process and possible continuing resolutions. Mars orbiter and planetary science advocacy: Both chambers signaled support for a Mars orbiter to preserve Mars sample-return infrastructure as Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter ages. The Planetary Society’s advocacy was credited with helping shape strong House and Senate attention to Mars exploration. Russia, ISS, and space-policy leverage: The discussion examined whether sanctions and geopolitical tensions could weaken U.S.-Russia cooperation on the International Space Station. Jason Callahan argued the partnership was originally a national-security tool and now persists mainly because of ISS operations and commercial crew dependencies. Commercial space, FAA oversight, and Washington State’s space ecosystem: In the interview with Rep. Rick Larsen, the conversation covered the growth of commercial space in Washington State, FAA licensing and airspace management, and the need for congressional staff and expertise to keep up with rapid industry growth. STEM education and federal investment: Larsen argued that federal support for STEM is justified by long-term economic health and equal opportunity, while noting Congress cannot guarantee outcomes. He supported programs that expand access, teacher training, and pathways into technical jobs beyond four-year degrees. U.S.-China space cooperation and security limits: Larsen said NASA should be able to work with China in space where possible, especially for safety and common interfaces, but acknowledged national-security boundaries and China’s desire for an independent prestige-driven program.

Key Arguments: NASA’s budget should protect science, Earth observation, and education; the Senate’s rejection of cuts to Earth science and the Education Directorate was framed as a major win. Planetary science was cut in the Senate relative to the House, but the overall pattern suggests a bargaining position rather than an ideological attack; final funding often lands between House and Senate levels. A Mars orbiter is strategically necessary to sustain Mars exploration, communications, and sample-return ambitions as existing orbiters age. The U.S.-Russia ISS relationship was intentionally built to preserve post-Soviet aerospace capacity and reduce proliferation risk, but that decision created long-term dependency and bargaining complexity. Russia’s leverage over U.S. human spaceflight is limited and shrinking as commercial crew and domestic launch systems mature; RD-180 dependence is also expected to fade with Vulcan and alternative engines. STEM education should be supported by the federal government because states vary widely in resources and because the payoff is national long-term economic competitiveness, even if outcomes cannot be guaranteed. Commercial space is changing Congress’s view of space from a pure government program to an economic sector with jobs, infrastructure, and regulatory needs. NASA should seek cooperation with China where possible, but only within security constraints and practical limits driven by national pride and strategic rivalry.

Data Points: NASA Senate budget proposal: $19.5 billion - Senate FY2018 NASA appropriations level discussed on the show Change vs. 2017 NASA funding: about $200 million less - Senate NASA total compared with FY2017 Difference vs. House proposal: about $300 million less - Senate NASA total compared with House proposal President’s proposed planetary budget: $1.9 billion - FY2018 planetary science request mentioned in discussion House planetary budget proposal: $2.1 billion - House version of FY2018 NASA appropriations Senate planetary budget proposal: $1.63 billion - Senate version of FY2018 NASA appropriations Curiosity rover age: 5 years on Mars - Conversation about Curiosity’s fifth anniversary Voyager mission duration: 40 years - Conversation about Voyager’s upcoming 40th anniversary Curiosity operations cost: about $60 million per year - Approximate annual operations cost cited by Casey Dreyer Voyager operations cost: about $5–6 million per year - Approximate annual operations cost cited for Voyager NASA mission review cycle: every 3 years - Senior review process noted as changed from every two years Congressional staff cap: up to 18 full-time and 2 part-time staff - Rep. Larsen described staffing limits for members of Congress Washington State STEM jobs unfilled: 25,000 per year - Larsen cited annual unfilled STEM-related jobs in Washington state Federal education spending share: 90% state and local, 10% federal (approx.) - Larsen noted most education funding comes from states and localities ISS U.S. investment: $100 billion - Casey referenced cumulative U.S. investment in the station ISS Russian-human-spaceflight leverage window: through 2024 and possible extension to 2028 - Discussion of station partnership timelines and future decisions Commercial space regulatory threshold: above 500 feet - Larsen referenced FAA jurisdiction over launches through controlled airspace

Pivotal Quotes: "the White House proposal would erode ongoing science missions, jeopardize core operations, and eliminate the entire Education Directorate" — Richard Shelby: Quoted by the hosts as justification for the Senate’s NASA budget stance "nothing in this act or the amendments made by this act shall be construed to authorize the imposition of any sanction... that directly or indirectly impedes the supply... relating to... any space launch conducted for NASA" — U.S. Congress (H.R. 3364 exemption language): Matt Kaplan read the sanctions carve-out protecting NASA-related Russian aerospace cooperation "If you're in space, you ought to find ways to work with other countries that are in space. And where you can't, you shouldn't. And where you shouldn't, don't try. But where you can, you should try." — Rep. Rick Larsen: Larsen summarized his policy view on international cooperation in space

Implications: NASA’s core science and education programs appear protected in Congress, but planetary funding and final appropriations remain uncertain. U.S.-Russia and U.S.-China space relations will hinge on security, infrastructure, and domestic launch independence, while commercial space and STEM policy increasingly shape the future.