Author Topic: Russia says it will pullout from ISS after 2024  (Read 129787 times)

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7073
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 1934
  • Likes Given: 1900
...
And the Service Module (Zvezda) is where the presumed leak is located? So how many wires would need to be manually cut to jettison Zvezda and everything aft of there from the US segment?

It just doesn't seem realistic to me that NASA could operate Zarya without Russian support and parts, even if they do own it. If they're going to let Russia walk away, they should ditch Zarya, too, and completely end the Russian dependency, IMO.

Currently Zarya is needed to desaturate the USOS gyroscopes (CMGs), right? And of course it can handle attitude control if the CMG system is unavailable. Is it needed for anything else?
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline daedalus1

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 927
  • uk
  • Liked: 474
  • Likes Given: 0
Only Progress can reboost and refuel the ISS. When Progress ceases to be available, or looks like being unavailable soon, that's the end of the ISS - it will have to be deorbited.

Wrong, see PPE

Didn't Cygnus do a reboost?

Offline strkiky

  • Member
  • Posts: 40
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 13

The final inclination selected for CSS prevents Russian involvement without taking prohibitive mass penalties.

Wait, really?

I'm a bit curious on this statement as well, could someone clarify this.
« Last Edit: 04/20/2021 07:12 am by strkiky »

Offline soyuzu

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 271
  • Liked: 403
  • Likes Given: 213
The final inclination selected for CSS prevents Russian involvement without taking prohibitive mass penalties.

Wait, really?

I'm a bit curious on this statement as well, could someone clarify this.

CSS uses a 42 deg inclination orbit, lower than the latitude of any Russian/Pre-USSR cosmodromes.

However CSS will have at least one back up for core module and lab each, so it is still possible to make some contribution in ROSS.
« Last Edit: 04/20/2021 07:15 am by soyuzu »

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2238
  • Likes Given: 3883
If Zvezda were withdrawn from the ISS; it would be unfortunate but not the end of the station if an enhanced Cygnus-based craft were docked there as a substitute. Somewhat like the Gateway PPE as others have pointed out. Ideally; the Cygnus would be refuelable but if not, then a series of these craft could be docked in position there, again and again until the ISS is finally ready for ditching in the South Pacific. The craft would likely be a 4-segment section design with an enhanced Service Module. Of course; Soyuz or Progress could not be docked at it's aft end but this would not be an operational show-stopper.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline strkiky

  • Member
  • Posts: 40
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 13

However CSS will have at least one back up for core module and lab each, so it is still possible to make some contribution in ROSS.

I'm a bit unfamiliar with this area, why does having a back up help for Roscosmos?
What does ROSS stand for?

Offline hektor

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2695
  • Liked: 1192
  • Likes Given: 54
Russian Orbital Service Station

Offline strkiky

  • Member
  • Posts: 40
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 13
CSS uses a 42 deg inclination orbit, lower than the latitude of any Russian/Pre-USSR cosmodromes.

Do we know the reason why they chose that inclination? Or what's the significance of it?
« Last Edit: 04/20/2021 07:43 am by strkiky »

Offline daedalus1

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 927
  • uk
  • Liked: 474
  • Likes Given: 0
CSS uses a 42 deg inclination orbit, lower than the latitude of any Russian/Pre-USSR cosmodromes.

Do we know the reason why they chose that inclination? Or what's the significance of it?

It's the same latitude as the launch site for manned launches. Same as 51.6 is for Soyuz launches, maximum mass to orbit.

Offline soyuzu

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 271
  • Liked: 403
  • Likes Given: 213

However CSS will have at least one back up for core module and lab each, so it is still possible to make some contribution in ROSS.

I'm a bit unfamiliar with this area, why does having a back up help for Roscosmos?
What does ROSS stand for?
You can launch it to polar orbit and dock with ROSS, just like some time before there was talks about a Sino-Italian cooperative segment on CSS.

Offline strkiky

  • Member
  • Posts: 40
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 13
So assuming Russia goes ahead with the pullout, what should US do:

1. Should US abandon ISS and bet everything on Axiom (or other commercial station provider)?

2. If US wants to save ISS after Russian pullout, how to do it (2024 version)?

Probably a version of 2. A mix of functional replacement from public and private sources.
Definitely have multiple providers for the private, otherwise a company will use this as an excuse to charge a lot.

Axiom seemed quite willingly to charge NASA 100 million for this service, so I don't believe having one provider for a commercial station would work well.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40601.msg2202979#msg2202979

Offline eeergo

Only Progress can reboost and refuel the ISS. When Progress ceases to be available, or looks like being unavailable soon, that's the end of the ISS - it will have to be deorbited.

Wrong, see PPE

But PPE is sized for a much different (smaller) mass, and electric thrusters in the LEO plasma are known to cause charging issues, right? Plus can PPE be refueled in its current design (I know its predecessor module designs were in some form or another, but not sure of the final design)? It would also be useless for quick attitude control / desaturation/ DAMs, wouldn't it?

Not to mention the degree of interconnectivity between Zvezda's C&C mainframes and the rest of the Station. Disconnection of Zarya from Zvezda would be totally impractical given its dependency on the latter, including for power - but having a look at the exterior of PMA-1 would show the degree of impracticality even there.

Anyway, this boutade is IMO extremely unlikely to reach fruition given Nauka is in final processing at Baikonur, about to be launched in less than 3 months, after its decade-long delays - and the hardware woulnd't be able to support another lengthy delay without scrapping, but is nevertheless a brand new, capable module in space (at 51.6 degrees). Even more unlikely considering the ambiguous messages conveyed in the press releases (interpreted by the news agencies, one of which has been told off by Rogozin recently for spreading "fake news" regarding Zvezda's leak), and the past multi-decade history of such bluffs. Surely there are big fish in Russia's top echelons wanting to ditch ISS (and its inspiring example of international collaboration, most of all) and build a new shiny nationalistic station, but I doubt they are strong enough to effect that, or have the ₽₽₽₽ to impose their vision.
-DaviD-

Offline DreamyPickle

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Home
  • Liked: 921
  • Likes Given: 205
The final inclination selected for CSS prevents Russian involvement without taking prohibitive mass penalties.

Wait, really?

I'm a bit curious on this statement as well, could someone clarify this.

CSS uses a 42 deg inclination orbit, lower than the latitude of any Russian/Pre-USSR cosmodromes.

Why is that prohibitive? 10-20 degree inclination changes happen all the time.

Offline soyuzu

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 271
  • Liked: 403
  • Likes Given: 213
The final inclination selected for CSS prevents Russian involvement without taking prohibitive mass penalties.

Wait, really?

I'm a bit curious on this statement as well, could someone clarify this.

CSS uses a 42 deg inclination orbit, lower than the latitude of any Russian/Pre-USSR cosmodromes.

Why is that prohibitive? 10-20 degree inclination changes happen all the time.
LEO has a much larger speed than apogee of GTO, which is proportional to the Delta-V for inclination changing. Also, the inclination change maneuver at GTO apogee doubles as   perigee raise maneuver.

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2797
  • Liked: 1062
  • Likes Given: 32
What ever happened to those interim US modules to provide propulsion for ISS? Wasn't at least one mostly built and still in storage? If they were serious about ejecting all russian components including Zarya as a clean break due to support issues, can't we bring that interim module out of mothballs and send it up on a F9H or something, or was being designed for shuttle haulage that much of a dealbreaker in converting for launch on F9H or similar, compared to altering a PPE clone?

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2238
  • Likes Given: 3883
Zarya is unlikely to go - it belongs to the U.S. and Russia is unlikely to buy it back.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline AS_501

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 575
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Liked: 412
  • Likes Given: 323
Not clear from the discussion if Russian segment is to be physically detached from the US segment.  If so, would this be done from the Russian interface to the PMA, or the US interface (Unity)?  What would be used to impart motion to the Russian segment to drift clear of the US segment? Probably a more complex operation than it seems since the ISS was not designed for such and event.
Boeing has been conducting studies on ISS life extension.  Won't matter if the Russian segment becomes dead weight well before then.  This could be messy.


Launches attended:  Apollo 11, ASTP (@KSC, not Baikonur!), STS-41G, STS-125, EFT-1, Starlink G4-24, Artemis 1
Notable Spacecraft Observed:  Echo 1, Skylab/S-II, Salyuts 6&7, Mir Core/Complete, HST, ISS Zarya/Present, Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis, Dragon Demo-2, Starlink G4-14 (8 hrs. post-launch), Tiangong

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8741
  • Liked: 4646
  • Likes Given: 768
Not clear from the discussion if Russian segment is to be physically detached from the US segment.  If so, would this be done from the Russian interface to the PMA, or the US interface (Unity)?  What would be used to impart motion to the Russian segment to drift clear of the US segment? Probably a more complex operation than it seems since the ISS was not designed for such and event.
Boeing has been conducting studies on ISS life extension.  Won't matter if the Russian segment becomes dead weight well before then.  This could be messy.



Only MLM-U, UM and anything docked to UM would be detached from RS if they decide to build the new station in the existing orbital plane. There is a list of reasons as to why undocking those modules to create a new station is not the preferred option at this time.
« Last Edit: 04/21/2021 02:02 am by russianhalo117 »

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9097
  • Likes Given: 885
Russia says to launch own space station in 2025

Quote
Russia's space agency said Tuesday it hoped to launch its own orbital station in 2025 as Moscow considers withdrawing from the International Space Station programme to go it alone.

Roscosmos chief Dmitry Rogozin said work had begun on the fist module of a new station, after officials warned that Russia was considering pulling out of the ISS, one of the few successful examples of cooperation with the West.


https://twitter.com/mattb0401/status/1384533094452109321

Quote
Still no official announcement of Russian withdrawal from ISS in 2025, but here’s the Roscosmos chief teasing construction of a module to be used as the core of a new Russian station in 2025. This module actually was commissioned for ISS in 2024.

Rogozin later explained that Russia isn’t talking about de-orbiting its ISS modules in 2025, but rather a gradual withdrawal from the project over time.

But still no official anything, even though all signs indicate Russia really is tapping out.

Maybe they’re saving the official announcement for Putin’s big speech tomorrow.

If I was the writer of this timeline thats how I’d do it.

Online Orbiter

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2994
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1548
  • Likes Given: 1383
Doesn't Russia threaten this like every year?
KSC Engineer, astronomer, rocket photographer.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1