#xxi Beyond Citations | From ‘Freedom’ to ‘International’ Space Station
How did a Cold War artifact become a symbol of international cooperation?
Group Captain Shubhanshu Shukla has become the first Indian to travel to the International Space Station. He is only the second Indian to go to space, 41 years after Rakesh Sharma conducted experiments in the Soviet Salyut 7 orbital station. Launched into space on 25 June 2025, Shubhanshu and his fellow crew members reached the ISS on 26 June. They splashed down on earth on 15 July after nearly 20 days in space (and 18 days in ISS). The mission, Axiom-4, was a collaboration between Axiom Space (a private space company), NASA, ISRO, the European Space Agency and SpaceX. The crew conducted several experiments during their stay at the ISS, including some designed by the ISRO.
But the collaboration part was not specific to this mission. International collaboration defines the ISS itself. As the NASA’s description of the ISS notes:
An international partnership of space agencies provides and operates the elements of the ISS. The principals are the space agencies of the United States, Russia, Europe, Japan, and Canada. The ISS has been the most politically complex space exploration program ever undertaken.
But this was not always the case. Originally called the space station ‘Freedom’, the project was conceived by the US at the height of the Cold War and President Regan’s star wars. It was only in the 1990s that the project transformed into ‘International’ Space Station with participation of the post-Soviet Russia.
But how did this transformation happen? What role did materials and technology — beyond people — play in the success of the ISS?
Researchers from University College London’s Geography department unpack the ISS as a diplomatic assemblage in their following 2023 paper:
Stewart, W., & Dittmer, J. (2023). More-than-Human Space Diplomacy: Assembling Internationalism in Orbit. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 18(2-3), 219-252. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191x-bja10149 (open access)
Stewart and Dittmer at the very beginning question the idea of the space race that defines the Cold War. In their account, the reality was more nuanced with both collaboration and contestations between the US and the Soviets in the space domain. The launch of Sputnik in 1957 by the Soviets — which is generally regarded as the initiator of the space race — is presented as an outcome of the international collaboration during the International Geophysical Year (IGY) 1957-1958. Then why did Sputnik cause so much consternation in the US?
Eisenhower noted that the launch of Sputnik was a known and planned part of the IGY, but the capability to launch an object into orbit became equated to long-range Soviet missiles in the minds of politicians and the media.
Post-Sputnik space race did heat up but receded during the ‘détente of the 1960s and early 1970s, culminating in the 1975 Apollo–Soyuz Test Project.’ It was during this period that an androgynous docking mechanism (called APAS-75) was jointly developed by the US and Soviets. And why was androgynous design chosen? The reason had to do more with optics than with other technical aspects:
The design of the androgynous docking mechanism served two roles. Firstly, it allowed the two space programmes to dock otherwise incompatible systems. Secondly, it offered an alternative to the non-androgynous docking mechanisms that materialised the period of hierarchy and competition in outer space design. The Gemini–Agena docking of 1966 was of the probe-and-drogue variety, which was problematic because of how it coded the docking in ways that embedded (gendered) hierarchy. Although the use of ‘androgynous’ is meant to sidestep the hierarchy of discretely gendered language, it keeps visible the overtones of sex and gender in space infrastructure design.
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 led to another period of heightened hostilities between the two blocs. It was in this context that the then President Regan in 1984 asked NASA to develop a permanent space station in collaboration with allies. Christened ‘Freedom’ in 1988, the project continued to face obstacles including technological and cost-overruns throughout the 1980s and early 1990s. It was in 1993, early into the post-Cold War setup, that the US included Russia into the project. This led to the transformation of the project from Freedom to the International Space Station.
Bringing Russia in advanced the project via an injection of expertise, as well as the material absorption of Russia’s Mir 2 project into the assemblage — a key step in the actualisation of the ISS and in building trust between the two states.
Inclusion of Russia was actually in the US’ interest. Russian talent as well as the module intended for a future Russian space station was integrated into the ISS. As the authors remind us, the space station did not actually exist prior to the Russian involvement. Engagement of ‘Russian rocket engineers’ in the ISS project also helped the US keep them away from helping the latter’s adversaries.
What would the future of space diplomacy look like in the 2030s when the ISS is deorbited and there is no similar international platform to replace it? Let us know in comments section below.