Slashdot Mirror
Russia May Be Planning National Space Station To Replace ISS
An anonymous reader writes with news that Russia may be building its own space station to replace the ISS. Russia may be planning to build a new, independent national space station rather than prolong its participation in the $150 billion International Space Station (ISS) program beyond its current 2020 end date. The U.S. space agency NASA proposed last year to extend the life of the ISS — the largest international project ever undertaken by nations during peacetime — beyond its currently scheduled 2020 end date to at least 2024.
We'll build our own station... with blackjack and hookers!
In fact, forget the station.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Peace time! The countries have been involved in almost constant war the entire ISS programs existence.
I am totally pro-space, but I just do not understand the ISS. It is hugely expensive to keep and feed crews. And yet, the human habitation makes whole classes of experiments difficult or impossible, due to the atmosphere, the vibrations from movement, etc..
Where human presence could be useful: if we were actually building a space infrastructure. Capture some asteroids, use them for raw material, and build a base to use to get to the rest of the solar system. While lots of construction tasks can be automated, human intervention will occasionally be necessary. But we aren't doing that.
So, what exactly is the point of manned space stations? Is it really worth it? Or would the money, time and effort be better invested in some other types of space activity - automated experimental stations, or - let's dream - building a "real" base in space?
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Can't they plan something permanent, where you add and remove modules as needed ? Barely 2 decades of use for such an expensive project seems kind of a waste.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
Russia announced that they were planning to end their involvement with the ISS in 2009 or so. This is nothing new. They've been telegraphing their displeasure with the ISS program for half a decade or more, and their lack of willingness to continue with it past 2020. The portions they're sending up to the ISS will be detached and converted in to a separate space station shortly after 2020. This is not "news", this is "established fact". Maybe it's more noteworthy the second time that they publish this through official channels?
The ISS will be a 20 year old international experiment at that point, yes the US and Russian halves of the ISS share a common "atmosphere" but mechanically they're completely separate space stations capable of detaching at any time. Most of the Russian segment of the ISS is made from leftovers from their MIR 2 project. It's no surprise that they're wanting to separate from the ISS. Those space station modules have a finite lifespan and most of them will be nearing their operational limits around 2020, with a maximum lifespan of 2030. Either we replace them with new modules or deorbit the whole thing. Russia has decided to replace them with new modules and go their own separate way. They've been talking about this for a looong time. The ESA has been talking about teaming up with the Russians moving forward, rather than NASA on the next space station. China ended up building their own space station after being turned down by the Americans. We're not making a whole lot of friends in the aerospace field with the ISS these days. The New ISS may be everyone - (minus) America next time around, due to our overwhelming fear of sharing orbital technology with the Chinese (who aren't allowed inside NASA buildings, just ask any Chinese aerospace engineer).
moox. for a new generation.
What would happen if the Russians just decided to keep the International Space Station going unilaterally? Is there anything critical to the operation of the ISS that only the US can provide?
Or is the ISS getting so old - seals are starting to leak, parts are getting brittle with age and the harsh environment of space - that it's safer to ditch it than to continue to use it?
All in all, it seems like quite a waste to splash a hundred and fifty billion dollar microgravity research station, especially when they're planning on adding new modules to it next year, and in 2017.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Agreed, the real value in sticking people into a tin can in orbit is to study THEM, not the tin can. We need to understand the long term affects of low gravity, diet, mental health etc. etc. before we commit to sending them on one way missions to other planets. Lets face it, the first couple of missions to Mars are probably going to be one way. I for one would like to know how to mitigate 'space scurvy' before taking the plunge.
There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
Russia plans a lot of good things, but most of the things that it actually does are not so good or, even, are so not good.
We should build a moon base. It will be the first of its kind...Alpha. Something we should have completed 15 years ago, instead of wasting money on ISS.
If the Russians want to ditch their share of the Station, why not invite the Chinese to come and take over the Russian segment, hand them all the technology, give them manned spaceflight experience, and then build an ISS2, partnering with the Chinese. Putin+cronies will be cured of their delusions soon enough...
The future belongs to rising countries like China, not with decaying has-beens like Putin's Russia.
Two orbiting space stations might ignite some competition between the nations and hopefully further science for everyone. Or.....If the current cold war turns sour, we could see Jaws and James bond type characters duelling it out with frikin' lasers!
Everyone who doesn't have an armed space station, raise your hand.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
If they put their flag in space, doesn't that mean they own it?
-Styopa
Its components only have a limited operating time before they succumb to the hostile environment and become untrustworthy.
It is time to think seriously about a permanent human base on the Moon (not just an orbital station), with an eye put on Mars. So we go away from our scientific comfort zone.
Of course the first step would be a concept mission aimed to get knowledge and experience on exoplanetary construction with local materials, effects of cosmic radiations and low gravity on humans, efficient propulsion systems, recycling, water / oxygen extraction, etc. The objetive would be to create and maintain a small (set of tentative) shelter(s).
Instead of big space stations around Earth or the Moon, a constellation of small backup ships, full with fuel and supplies, could be orbiting (just in case they are needed quickly) around both our planet and satellite, and/or travelling periodically (vessels) between the lunar base and home.
Full time astronauts' presence on the Moon would not be required nor recommended, perhaps just enough to trigger or supervise automated processes and experiments, and to perform mainteinance tasks.
It would be a nonsense not trying the Moon first before a mission to Mars, mining asteroids, etc.
Those are my two quadrillion cents.
Russians are "planning" a lot of things. One of the features of mindset of Russian society is permanent talk about ever greater and more impressive projects. None of those normally come true, but they make Russian people feel as if they would be the Greatest Nation of All. So Russians spend their lives in illusionary dreamscape where unfounded paranoid sense of one's greatness and superiority co-exists with the feeblest and most pathetic of realities ever seen by Man which in fact they are living in.
A common trick of Russian propaganda is comparing Russian _planned_ endeavours with the _actual_ accomplishments of the others. While absolutely absurd as it is, the trick makes Russians feel good about themselves, as noted above. The obvious difference between plans and facts seems eluding majority of Russian population.
And yet, the human habitation makes whole classes of experiments difficult or impossible, due to the atmosphere, the vibrations from movement, etc..
The primary thing we are studying on the ISS is the occupants. All the other experiments are just added value.
Capture some asteroids, use them for raw material, and build a base to use to get to the rest of the solar system.
Oh is that all there is to it? We don't need to learn how to keep people alive and healthy in zero G first? What is your proposal for radiation protection outside of the Earth's magnetic field? How do you propose to manufacture useful products out of asteroids of unknown composition given that we lack even basic space worthy manufacturing technology? How do you plan to keep people's bones intact and prevent the other physical deterioration we so far haven't even been able to figure out in low earth orbit? How do you propose to feed people on this hypothetical base?
I'm not even getting into the economics of it. I think you are being rather glib with a very complicated and difficult engineering problem. Your goal is a great one but a goal without a plan is nothing more than a dream.
So, what exactly is the point of manned space stations? Is it really worth it? Or would the money, time and effort be better invested in some other types of space activity - automated experimental stations, or - let's dream - building a "real" base in space?
The point is to learn how to allow humans to not only survive but thrive in space. Whether it is worth it is something you will have to figure out for yourself but for my part the answer is yes. I think it is the greatest adventure we are currently engaged in and I think it expands human knowledge more than anything else we are doing. As for building a "real" station, you have to crawl before you can walk. We don't yet have the technology to build a station on the moon or any other planetary body. That is going to take a while and will cost a LOT more money than we are currently willing to spend.
I'm pretty sure that with $100 billion in funding here on Earth, we could achieve bigger medical breakthroughs, that are more relevant to general public health.
I'll concede the point once we stop spending trillions on bombing other people here on earth first.
NASA keeps looking for long duration spacecraft. They have a -dandy- one already in orbit.
What it needs is a large ion thruster module. The ISS would make a really great long duration space probe. We already know that people can live on it for months at a time, and it's got many of the instruments one would want to explore deeper space than LEO. Flying supplies off Earth would take a whole lot less energy than launching an entire space probe.
Plus, it can be done incrementally. Attach an ion engine, fly ISS up to geosynchronous orbit, then fly it back down.
Seems like a much better idea than "Hey, let's burn this up in the atmosphere and count on the Government(s) to buy us a new shiny one."
It was thinking like that that led us to the Superconducting Supercollider -- oh, wait, we don't have one of those. But CERN has LHC, and they have studiously repurposed and refurbished their old accelerators since 1959.
C'mon, NASA. Think outside the box. For once.
Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.
Lets face it, the first couple of missions to Mars are probably going to be one way. I for one would like to know how to mitigate 'space scurvy' before taking the plunge.
No trip to Mars is going to be one way. We could probably send a one way trip if we really wanted to, but we will never do it. We will want a good chance of success and by time we do go through the trouble of figuring out the issues like "space scurvy", long term deep space habitats, and making sure that the trip actually has a desired chance of success to justify even making a trip to Mars, the return trip will be trivial.
Let us separate exploration where it may be efficient to travel somewhere to collect data and colonization which may be efficient only when there are some resources to be collected. And please don't forget the possibility that Earth may become uninhabitable due to, for instance, efforts of Obama to keep Putin with A-bomb from selling oil for Yuans.
People could move between them in times of danger. Must develop a "standard docking port". Most of the world uses ISS ports. And likely the Chinese xeroxed when they stole the specs.
It will be more of a 'space kiosk' than 'space station.'
Because we Russians believe that "pacta sunt servanda" (Treaties should be fulfilled). And BTW you pay.
If the solar cells dont optimize the solar incidence angle, the power could be cut in third. Power is kind of tight on ISS now, In the mid-2000s a shuttle mission replaced a broken bearing wheel on half of the solar cells. It would be much slower to replace such now without the shuttle.
Really? The US is now a net producer of energy and our economy is the healthiest in the world by a large margin. What's the downside to the US to continue to punch Russia in the gut? We mainly import raw materials from Russia that we can gladly import elsewhere or get domestically.
Currently Soyuz is the only way to get to the ISS, but once SpaceX gets the DragonRider fully man rated, then we don't Russia for that either.
If I was Russia, I'd be looking at the current situation in a state of horror. The crashing price in oil, the Europeans quiet but steady reduction in their dependence on Russian gas. I think the next five years in Russia are going to be interesting (as in the Chinese proverb)
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
ISS was expensive to build because of all the BS associated with it. However, it is NOT expensive to run at this time.
.5B is for taking astronauts to the ISS, and .5B for cargo for them (which helps private space move along).
About the worst thing that you can really say about it, is that it is too low (done for Russias benefit), and that is is missing the most important scientific instrument, which is the large life centrifuge. That later COULD be built and added.
However, to disable it at this time, is about one of the stupidest things that I have heard. We are proofing life support systems; we are now in the process of testing Bigelow inflatables; We are also learning to do 3d manufacturing in space; we are growing plants to provide fresh food and O2.
All in all, killing the ISS before its time is foolish. Hell the price to keep it up there is CHEAP.
The agency's human spaceflight branch gets $7.88 billion. The money will help keep the space station running for another decade, continue to fund private cargo deliveries to the orbiting lab and support the development of private American crew-carrying spaceships, with certification of such "astronaut taxis" coming by 2017, officials said.
Roughly, 1/2 of NASA 2015 budget would to to human flight. Of that, about
By far and large, the majority of that 7.88 will be used on NASA helping private space gain human lift. And with 2 or more PRIVATE SPACE systems, we will NEVER lose that again.
Maybe it would be better this way. China's making a space station, there's the ISS, and Russia's planning OPSEK and maybe this other new space station... and a handful of corporations planning "space hotels" (okay, only the Bigelow Aerospace one seem realistic so far). I like the idea of international cooperation on the ISS, but on the other hand, I'm thinking maybe competition between different nations and corporations for space stations may spur more innovation in space travel technology and get more people and things up into space.
By 2020 It will be even older and certainly technically dated, it's main function will be to pump money to the same hands for a few more years. So let it die and start with something new.