#10
Moscow Times
October 26, 2001
A Physicist With Stars in His Eyes
By Alexander Bratersky

During the Soviet era, Dr. Roald Sagdeyev made a brilliant career as a physicist. From 1961-70, he headed a laboratory at the Soviet Academy of Sciences' Institute of Nuclear Physics, then moved on to the Institute of High Temperature Physics. In 1973 Sagdeyev became director of the Institute of Space Research. In this role he led the 1975 Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, the first U.S.-Soviet joint space mission, and the international mission to study Halley's Comet in 1985-86.

During perestroika, Sagdeyev emerged as a liberal democrat in the Sakharov vein. He served as an advisor to Mikhail Gorbachev at three U.S.-Soviet summits, and was elected a people's deputy. In 1990, Sagdeyev emigrated to America, where he is now a professor of physics and director of the East-West Center for Space Science at the University of Maryland, College Park. Sagdeyev, 69, also serves as a senior associate at the Center for Political and Strategic Studies, founded by his wife, Susan Eisenhower, granddaughter of U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Sagdeyev recently spoke with The Moscow Times at his office at the University of Maryland.

Q: Do you agree with those who see Russia's decision to retire the Mir space station as symbolic of the country's declining power and prestige?

A: It would have been absurd to keep the station in orbit. Many people don't know, for instance, that the scientific equipment aboard the station was terribly outdated. Mir had become one big maintenance project. The decision to de-orbit Mir was the correct one. If some Russian provincial grannies think that this indicates that Russia has lost its superpower status, then someone has failed to explain the situation to them. I consider the real symbol of Russia's lost status to be the Kursk submarine tragedy.

Q: How do you evaluate Russian-American cooperation on the international space station? Is Russia viewed as an equal partner by the Americans?

A: The Americans never speak with one voice. If you talk to the engineers and astronauts at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, they acknowledge that Russia has made an enormous contribution to space exploration. But if you talk to the congressmen who approve funding for the international space station, you will hear a lot of criticism of Russia's role. This criticism is mostly political, because the decision to invite Russia to take part in the project was made by former President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore. Now some Republicans are trying to use this fact in staging a counterattack.

There are, however, some objective reasons for disgruntlement in Washington with Russia's participation in the space station project. Moscow agreed to work jointly on building the station, but there was a huge gap between the promises made by [former Prime Minister Viktor] Chernomyrdin in his agreement with Gore, and what Russia actually invested in construction. That generated a lot of negative feeling in the United States. I have explained to my American colleagues that Russia has no nefarious motives here. It's simply that Chernomyrdin never took the agreements on the space station as seriously as he did the contracts he signed as head of Gazprom. For him, the summits with Gore were more like social occasions, and he never really thought about the bill coming due.

Q: Are you a believer in space tourism?

A: I don't think we will be able to develop space tourism in any serious way. The Americans are right when they object that the small change collected from space tourists like Dennis Tito is a drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars already invested in the space station. The station will never pay for itself this way in the United States. In Russia, where the cost of building space vehicles is significantly lower, revenue from tourism might have more of an impact. But once the station is fully built, Russia could make much more efficient use of it for serious research -- on the condition, of course, that the Russian space program is ever funded adequately.

Q: Young Russians these days seem to have much less interest in space than their predecessors. Do you find this to be true among your American students as well?

A: For this generation of Americans, who grew up after the end of the Cold War, the conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union, or between capitalism and communism, no longer has any meaning. They do not perceive the threat of nuclear war. Americans have generally lost interest in manned space flight. They take for granted that advances in technology allow for the regular performance of miracles. For the average American it is hard to distinguish between television coverage of a NASA shuttle launch and Star Trek-type television series. And once people get used to seeing shuttle launches and space walks, their curiosity in space diminishes.

Q: Do you talk about Russia with your students?

A: Russia comes up infrequently in class discussions. A number of polls have shown that interest in Russia, before the Sept. 11 events, was minimal and shrinking. To me, it seems that in the 10 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Americans have tried to follow the news from Russia, but most of the news was about corruption, capital flight and poverty. In America, respect is based on a simple judgment: winner or loser. To put it simply, Russia is considered a loser. And that makes it less interesting.

Q: How do you assess the State Duma's recent vote to approve the importation and storage of nuclear waste from abroad?

A: I have thought a lot about this topic, taking into account such factors as the American practice of importing spent nuclear fuel. I think that the State Duma did the right thing. Russia always brought back the fuel from reactors that it built in other countries. America did the same. The logic of the Duma's initiative was to allow some of the countries that produce nuclear fuel to spare themselves the burden of recycling or storing the spent fuel by sending it to Russia. American support for this initiative is crucial, however, and to this point that support has been slow in coming.

Q: What is your stance on the 1973 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which the U.S. has made clear it plans to abandon?

A: On one hand, we need to understand the Americans' motivation. The current administration supports the development of a national anti-missile defense. For some in Washington, this has become an article of faith. For others it has been equated with the second amendment of the American Constitution, which ensures the right to keep and bear arms. These people are angered by Russian and Chinese opposition to what they perceive as their right to defend themselves.

As for the ABM Treaty itself, some provisions are outdated. The treaty was signed at the height of the stand-off between two superpowers. Today that situation has changed fundamentally; one superpower has ceased to exist. But this doesn't mean we should junk the treaty altogether. The extreme position taken by certain of President Bush's advisors is not productive. Perhaps they just want to scare Russia a little.

Q: It is said that a relationship between two strong personalities often results in conflict. How do you get on with your wife, Susan Eisenhower?

A: As a rule we have a very similar take on things, and we very rarely quarrel. There are, of course, issues that my wife understands better than I, and some that I have a better grasp of, such as Islam.

Q: Do you remember your first conversation with Ms. Eisenhower?

A: When we first met we had a long and quite serious conversation about the military-industrial complex, and how her grandfather [President Dwight D. Eisenhower] viewed it as a source of great danger. We then began to talk about the roots of the Cold War and found that we had much in common.

Q: Do you plan to return to Russia?

A: When Susan and I got married, we dreamed that we would have two homes, one in Russia and one in America. But reality intervened, and there was soon nothing for scientists to do in Russia anymore. When Russia achieves economic stability, and dedicates more time to science and culture, we will revert to our original plan.

BACK TO THE TOP    #177 CONTENTS