Jump to content

Russia to end ISS participation in 2020, ban rocket engine export to US


Recommended Posts

Sometimes i wonder... Putin and his cohorts seem to be undergoing some kind of strange reversion process. Their rhetorics, childish mind games, blatant lies and threats - am i the only one having flashbacks to Khrushchow slamming his shoe into podium during UN meeting?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sometimes i wonder... Putin and his cohorts seem to be undergoing some kind of strange reversion process. Their rhetorics, childish mind games, blatant lies and threats - am i the only one having flashbacks to Khrushchow slamming his shoe into podium during UN meeting?

Some people suspect that Putin is going craaaazzy; others suspect that this Bond-villain behavior is authentic; others still suspect that internal pressures--especially economic ones because of Russia's sagging economy--are driving Putin to distract the masses with conquest. I just hope the spooks and diplomats take care of him before he gets a TV channel* and a Darwin Award.

-Duxwing

*The history channel has so much Hitler programming that I sometimes call it the Hitler Channel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
*The history channel has so much Hitler programming that I sometimes call it the Hitler Channel.

The History channel shows history stuff? When I stopped watching it all they had were fishing and trucking shows.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This post has strayed into politics once already and we removed some argumentative posts, so please avoid that aspect of the situation so that we don't have to close the thread altogether, okay guys?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why but this statement makes me think of all sorts of space race related things the U.S. and Russia could get into... If collaboration between the USA and Russia is being halted in 2020 announced by the Russians, that must mean they think it better for them to work separately (obvious thinking) and thus a new space race. Of sorts.

Unrelated to politics that statement is. - Yoda

Really though I'm just thinking into my own creative mind.

The History channel shows history stuff? When I stopped watching it all they had were fishing and trucking shows.

True.True.

Hopefully the EU is a player this time. :) Unlikely though. :/

Hmm...

Edited by Avera9eJoe
Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming SLS is ready to go in 2017 couldn't we send up a massive Skylab-style module to replace whatever functionality the Russians take with them in 2020?

The SLS needs a solid mission objective between the test flight and the planned asteroid missions. An ISS module followed by a 'Skylab 2' out at Earth-Moon L2 would be cool.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To launch in 2017, the design should have started years ago and construction should already be underway. All NASA funds are directed towards SLS and Orion at this point, so new ISS hardware is no go.

The separation of the OPSEK modules has been Russia's plan since 2009 when it was announced. The only unknown is the date, but it has been assumed that it would be at the end of life of the ISS.

Zarya would stay connected to the USOS. It is too tightly integrated with the rest of the ISS systems and it belongs to NASA, and additionally, it needs to stay attached because there is nowhere else for a deorbit Progress to dock.

Zvezda is planned to be part of OPSEK, but it's old and nearing the end of its shelf-life. As a service module, it's old and noisy with outdated computer and life support systems, so it doesn't have much use as the main core of a 3rd generation space station and would have to be complimented pretty soon.

Pirs, Poisk, and Rassvet are minor modules with no vital systems.

The most essential part of OPSEK is therefore Nauka, but its launch has be postponed (yet again) until 2017 now.

At any rate, disconnection of these modules can't happen overnight. It would require lots of EVA activity and load transfer planning, because there are quite a few power, fluid, and optical connections between the modules. This all requires very tight cooperation between the control centers, because you can't perform a Russian EVA while certain US experiments are underway or during manoeuvers and you can't disconnect systems on one side without reconfiguring other systems on the other side.

Actually disconnecting the ROS from the USOS would require much more cooperation between the two countries than a status quo.

Edited by Nibb31
Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'first step by NASA' was sanctions by the state department on Rogozin, which ended up effecting much of the space sector. Hardly NASA's fault you decided putting one guy in charge of multiple areas and letting him forge direct financial links with industry was a good idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Piwa,

Kryten,

please, refrain from delving into political details and petty bickering about who waved his d--k first.

Let's discuss is it possible and reasonable to save ISS (and how to do it) if Russia will really pull out in 2020, and will be OPSEK really built using ROS modules or not (if it will be built at all).

Edited by koshelenkovv
Link to post
Share on other sites
Piwa,

Kryten,

please, refrain from delving into political details and petty bickering about who waved his d--k first.

Let's discuss is it possible and reasonable to save ISS (and how to do it) if Russia will really pull out in 2020, and will be OPSEK really built using ROS modules or not (if it will be built at all).

Hard to discuss some of this without politics, but I think it'd be nice to save the non-Russian parts of the ISS that we can keep, and put them into a not-so-tilted orbit so it's a bit cheaper to get up there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Assuming SLS is ready to go in 2017 couldn't we send up a massive Skylab-style module to replace whatever functionality the Russians take with them in 2020?
To launch in 2017, the design should have started years ago and construction should already be underway. All NASA funds are directed towards SLS and Orion at this point, so new ISS hardware is no go.

Actually, such a thing was built in 1997 and is in storage:

"Due to Russian financial problems, Zvezda was launched with no backup and no insurance. Due to this risk, NASA had constructed an Interim Control Module in case it was delayed significantly or destroyed on launch."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interim_Control_Module

Actually disconnecting the ROS from the USOS would require much more cooperation between the two countries than a status quo.

That is very much true - but it's easy for people to overreact and flip out when they don't take the time to think about it. I've seen this topic discussed elsewhere and a lot of people just don't comprehend the facts. Simply put, this whole thing is an empty threat on Russia's part. They can't take their ball and go home, because no one is dependent upon them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe once these buffoons on both sides that are relics of wars past die off, we will be able to get something meaningful accomplished...

Many of them will have raised kids - know what I mean?

Pity we threw our educational system into the gutter and do other lovely things to drive the intelligence out of our country - and if the EU would have concentrated more on human rights and cooperation, less on stupid laws and pampering corporations, we might have led ESA to a point ... oh well ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, such a thing was built in 1997 and is in storage:

"Due to Russian financial problems, Zvezda was launched with no backup and no insurance. Due to this risk, NASA had constructed an Interim Control Module in case it was delayed significantly or destroyed on launch."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interim_Control_Module

Would it even be usable? It was designed to go up on a shuttle. Can it be adapted to a current launch vehicle?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is it again, this whole thread shows it, primates fighting for bananas. Everybody pretending to know everything but in reality nobody knows anything. This will be a long and stony road for mankind to conquer space if it's going to happen anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Many of them will have raised kids - know what I mean?

Pity we threw our educational system into the gutter and do other lovely things to drive the intelligence out of our country - and if the EU would have concentrated more on human rights and cooperation, less on stupid laws and pampering corporations, we might have led ESA to a point ... oh well ...

Try to keep politics out of this per rule 2.2b :)

My personal opinion is that Russia shouldn't do this. I'm not too knowing about politics, but I think it's considered kind of "douchy" (please excuse my rough wording) to just say that "Fine, if you do this, I'll jump off a project that is very rewarding to all of us!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to point out that USA launched 19 rockets in 2013, including 8 Atlas V, while Russia launched 35 rockets (including 3 from SeaLaunch and Kourou).

The US market is not that big for them, and they definitely don't depend on engine exports to USA, while USA depends on Russian engines for roughly half their launches.

And of course USA could design their own engines, but it takes time and money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's already been done. The Merlin engines for the Falcon rocket are completely American in manufacture. They're already in service, in case you hadn't noticed.

I think it's safe to say that by 2020, the United States won't depend on anyone else for rocket motors. It only took SpaceX four years from its founding to produce the first Merlin engine, and only six years to make the Merlin 1C engine. What do you think we can come up with in six more years of innovation?

Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you think we can come up with in six more years of innovation?

At least for the Merlin engine there is not much space left for improvement, as far as i know it is pretty close to what is doable for such an engine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love SpaceX, but the Falcon 9 is not comparable to the Atlas V, and the Falcon 9 heavy is still only a beautiful idea on paper.

Of course the USA can build rockets without Russians, but without Russian engines, they will have to either develop a clone (time+money) or drop the Atlas V for something else. Both options would be very expensive, and US rockets are already more expensive than Russian or even European equivalents. In the meantime, they would probably have to use European or Russian rockets, or use the more expensive delta IV. It won't cripple USA, but it will cost them money.

Of course, if SpaceX demonstrates they can reuse the Falcon 9 heavy ( a big if for now), the point will be moot, but it's going to take some time before they get there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Red Bear??? ahaha this nonsense, I have not heard ... The guy comes from the Cold War.

Well, yeah...it's funny. But given Russia's recent behaviour (or I suppose more accurately Putin's) in Ukraine...it's not that far off.

I'd say that if they want to go do their own thing, let them. I can't be the only one who's tired of all this crap.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...