Russian Orbital Station (ROS) Development

[JSz]

As far as I remember, the choice of a 51.6-degree orbit for the ISS was based on the assumption of cooperation with Russia, for which such an orbit was available for various reasons. For NASA, this was probably not the optimal choice.

For comparison: the Chinese orbital station (Tiangong) is in a 41.5-degree orbit.

From this, we can conclude that Russia and India are willing to cooperate with each other, but are not interested in manned cooperation with China in LEO. (Unlike with the Moon, where China and Russia have signed an agreement.)

For Russia, cooperation with China on human presence in LEO is certainly unacceptable for reasons of ambition: Russia would have to participate as a student. But with India, it is a different matter: here, Russia would definitely dominate, even if for some time ROS were only Nauka + Prichal.

[russianhalo117]

As far as I remember, the choice of a 51.6-degree orbit for the ISS was based on the assumption of cooperation with Russia, for which such an orbit was available for various reasons. For NASA, this was probably not the optimal choice.

For comparison: the Chinese orbital station (Tiangong) is in a 41.5-degree orbit.

From this, we can conclude that Russia and India are willing to cooperate with each other, but are not interested in manned cooperation with China in LEO. (Unlike with the Moon, where China and Russia have signed an agreement.)

For Russia, cooperation with China on human presence in LEO is certainly unacceptable for reasons of ambition: Russia would have to participate as a student. But with India, it is a different matter: here, Russia would definitely dominate, even if for some time ROS were only Nauka + Prichal.

All civilian Soviet stations were launched to various 51° inclinations because it covered the viewing area of Western nations. Mir-2 was to be the first to 64.4° to better utilize the land of the Russian Federation to avoid former soviet Republics. Almaz stations were also 51° inclinations except for the unmanned Almaz-T spacecraft Cosmos-1870 as 73º and Almaz-1 as 72.7º. The vast majority of the latter stations were 51.6° in the run-up to Mir and had nothing to do with the US.

[daedalus1]

As far as I remember, the choice of a 51.6-degree orbit for the ISS was based on the assumption of cooperation with Russia, for which such an orbit was available for various reasons. For NASA, this was probably not the optimal choice.

For comparison: the Chinese orbital station (Tiangong) is in a 41.5-degree orbit.

From this, we can conclude that Russia and India are willing to cooperate with each other, but are not interested in manned cooperation with China in LEO. (Unlike with the Moon, where China and Russia have signed an agreement.)

For Russia, cooperation with China on human presence in LEO is certainly unacceptable for reasons of ambition: Russia would have to participate as a student. But with India, it is a different matter: here, Russia would definitely dominate, even if for some time ROS were only Nauka + Prichal.

All civilian Soviet stations were launched to various 51° inclinations because it covered the viewing area of Western nations. Mir-2 was to be the first to 64.4° to better utilize the land of the Russian Federation to avoid former soviet Republics. Almaz stations were also 51° inclinations except for the unmanned Almaz-T spacecraft Cosmos-1870 as 73º and Almaz-1 as 72.7º. The vast majority of the latter stations were 51.6° in the run-up to Mir and had nothing to do with the US.

The US had to align with Russia using 51.6 for the ISS, because Soyuz couldn't carry three crew to any other inclination less than that.

[big_gazza]

Baikonour has a latitude of 45.6 degrees north, so Soyuz can certainly reach less inclined orbits than the 'traditional' 51.6 degrees (and would have an increased lift capability), but that would result in spacecraft barely flying over Russian territory (would only overfly the Caucausus region and Vladivostok).  The choice of 51.6 deg as used by DOS/Almaz and Mir was a compromise between lifting capacity and the extent of orbital coverage of the Soviet/Russian landmass.

ISS adopted 51.6 degrees for the same reason - if the Russians were going to be 'partners' then the stations flight path needed to be useful for them as well, and NASA would certainly also benefit from the increased coverage of the North American continent.  As a final point, Skylabs inclination was 50 degrees, for the same set of reasons.

Interestingly, the Vostochny Cosmodromes latitude is 51.8 degrees, so is ideal for Salyut/Skylab/Mir/ISS type orbits (but of course the Russians kept using Baikonour for manned launches as the cosmodrome has lots of land to facilitate emerg situations and aborts without the hassle of worrying about ditching in the sea).

[big_gazza]

For comparison: the Chinese orbital station (Tiangong) is in a 41.5-degree orbit.

From this, we can conclude that Russia and India are willing to cooperate with each other, but are not interested in manned cooperation with China in LEO. (Unlike with the Moon, where China and Russia have signed an agreement.)

For Russia, cooperation with China on human presence in LEO is certainly unacceptable for reasons of ambition: Russia would have to participate as a student.

I don't think this fully correct, given that the Chinese choice of 41.5 degrees for Tiangong was selected as it gave good coverage over the Chinese territory, with the exception of Northern limits of Manchuria.  They had been explicitly banned from getting involved in the ISS so 51.6 degrees was pointless from their point of view as it would have reduced station mass compared to a lower inclination (Wenchang launch center is 19 deg N). Additionally when the orbit was being selected the strategic partnership between these China & Russia was still in a very embryonic form so the geopolitical imperative was lacking at the time.

The biggest hurdle in Russian-Chinese co-operation in LEO is not inclination ( Baikonour is at 45.6 deg N) but is technological - their docking adapters are not compatible. Politically i think they would be happy to co-operate in LEO, and differing ambitions are not the issue.  China is busy doing their own thing and establishing their independent credentials as a major space faring power (firmly #2 but close behind the US), while its fair to say that the Russians are busy on their own set of... priorities...  concerning resource allocation and the focusing of political will on more... earthly matters  .  Any co-operation in the short-to-medium term will probably limited to Cosmonauts/Taikonauts hitching rides and visting as guests.  Watch this space however to see if they start to work on unified docking adapters as that will telegraph a deepening of co-operation.

Finally the idea that Russians would be 'students' is IMHO far from the mark. In the West, the scribbling class likes to deal with their unease over China-Russia partnership with talk about how Russia is the junior partner or is somehow a supplicant, going to the Chinese on their knees or with cap in hand with beggars bowl extended.  Their actual relationship shows no such dynamic, and though of course it is true that the Chinese economic productivity dwarfs that of Russia, the Chinese are acutely aware that Russians prioritise economic activity that supports heavy industry and hard power applications (they don't engage in shenanigans like systemic share buy-backs or derivatives trading...) and that they possess vast natural resources that China greatly desires. Geoeconomically the two strongly compliment each other, and with Russia at her back as a reliable partner China gains strategic defense in depth at her rear and is free to focus their efforts into projecting power against the threats from the sea.  As a consequence, any co-operation in space will likely be in the same vein.  Both wil retain their independent national capabilities and maintain freedoms of action within their own spheres, but will synchronise technologies and operations where mutually beneficial. Not a Teacher & student, but a coming together of peers. 

Well, FWIW that is my view... and its fair to say that I've been proven wrong before 

[daedalus1]

Ahh, yes I remember now. The Soviets didn't use the optimum 45° of Baikonur and chose 51.6° so as not to fly over China, and potentially have to abort there in an emergency.
So the US had to agree that for the orbit of the ISS.

[Nighthawk117]

This thread started back on 4/30/21.

ROS is now NOT the same concept as it was back then.

The new "ROS" is not comprised of new modules.

It only starts with Nauka and Prichal (modules launched in 2021) being undocked from ISS.

NEM can join it, but only if Roscosmos can afford to finish building it !!!

[russianhalo117]

As far as I remember, the choice of a 51.6-degree orbit for the ISS was based on the assumption of cooperation with Russia, for which such an orbit was available for various reasons. For NASA, this was probably not the optimal choice.

For comparison: the Chinese orbital station (Tiangong) is in a 41.5-degree orbit.

From this, we can conclude that Russia and India are willing to cooperate with each other, but are not interested in manned cooperation with China in LEO. (Unlike with the Moon, where China and Russia have signed an agreement.)

For Russia, cooperation with China on human presence in LEO is certainly unacceptable for reasons of ambition: Russia would have to participate as a student. But with India, it is a different matter: here, Russia would definitely dominate, even if for some time ROS were only Nauka + Prichal.

All civilian Soviet stations were launched to various 51° inclinations because it covered the viewing area of Western nations. Mir-2 was to be the first to 64.4° to better utilize the land of the Russian Federation to avoid former soviet Republics. Almaz stations were also 51° inclinations except for the unmanned Almaz-T spacecraft Cosmos-1870 as 73º and Almaz-1 as 72.7º. The vast majority of the latter stations were 51.6° in the run-up to Mir and had nothing to do with the US.

The US had to align with Russia using 51.6 for the ISS, because Soyuz couldn't carry three crew to any other inclination less than that.

Not true. Mir-2/initial ISS discussions were for 64.4° upto 75°. 51.6° came about over initial plans to transfer the NASA funded Piroda and Spektr modules and other equipment from Mir. These were cancelled when Spektr was struck by Progress M-34. Kvant-2, Kristall, Piroda and Spektr were originally ordered in the 1970s for the Almaz station project and later ordered to be reused to house military payloads on Mir. This fell through for the latter two and were repurposed for the joint US/Russian civil cooperative programme.

[russianhalo117]

As far as I remember, the choice of a 51.6-degree orbit for the ISS was based on the assumption of cooperation with Russia, for which such an orbit was available for various reasons. For NASA, this was probably not the optimal choice.

For comparison: the Chinese orbital station (Tiangong) is in a 41.5-degree orbit.

From this, we can conclude that Russia and India are willing to cooperate with each other, but are not interested in manned cooperation with China in LEO. (Unlike with the Moon, where China and Russia have signed an agreement.)

For Russia, cooperation with China on human presence in LEO is certainly unacceptable for reasons of ambition: Russia would have to participate as a student. But with India, it is a different matter: here, Russia would definitely dominate, even if for some time ROS were only Nauka + Prichal.

All civilian Soviet stations were launched to various 51° inclinations because it covered the viewing area of Western nations. Mir-2 was to be the first to 64.4° to better utilize the land of the Russian Federation to avoid former soviet Republics. Almaz stations were also 51° inclinations except for the unmanned Almaz-T spacecraft Cosmos-1870 as 73º and Almaz-1 as 72.7º. The vast majority of the latter stations were 51.6° in the run-up to Mir and had nothing to do with the US.

The US had to align with Russia using 51.6 for the ISS, because Soyuz couldn't carry three crew to any other inclination less than that.

Not true. Mir-2/initial ISS discussions were for 64.4° upto 75°. 51.6° came about over initial plans to transfer the NASA funded Piroda and Spektr modules and other equipment from Mir. These were cancelled when Spektr was struck by Progress M-34. Kvant-2, Kristall, Piroda and Spektr were originally ordered in the 1970s for the Almaz station project and later ordered to be reused to house military payloads on Mir. This fell through for the latter two and were repurposed for the joint US/Russian civil cooperative programme. Soyuz-U2 was intended to launch crews to the higher inclination. TKS was planned to service Mir-2/ISS in place of Progress on a twice yearly basis. This was replaced by Progress and ATV.

[daedalus1]

As far as I remember, the choice of a 51.6-degree orbit for the ISS was based on the assumption of cooperation with Russia, for which such an orbit was available for various reasons. For NASA, this was probably not the optimal choice.

For comparison: the Chinese orbital station (Tiangong) is in a 41.5-degree orbit.

From this, we can conclude that Russia and India are willing to cooperate with each other, but are not interested in manned cooperation with China in LEO. (Unlike with the Moon, where China and Russia have signed an agreement.)

For Russia, cooperation with China on human presence in LEO is certainly unacceptable for reasons of ambition: Russia would have to participate as a student. But with India, it is a different matter: here, Russia would definitely dominate, even if for some time ROS were only Nauka + Prichal.

All civilian Soviet stations were launched to various 51° inclinations because it covered the viewing area of Western nations. Mir-2 was to be the first to 64.4° to better utilize the land of the Russian Federation to avoid former soviet Republics. Almaz stations were also 51° inclinations except for the unmanned Almaz-T spacecraft Cosmos-1870 as 73º and Almaz-1 as 72.7º. The vast majority of the latter stations were 51.6° in the run-up to Mir and had nothing to do with the US.

The US had to align with Russia using 51.6 for the ISS, because Soyuz couldn't carry three crew to any other inclination less than that.

Not true. Mir-2/initial ISS discussions were for 64.4° upto 75°. 51.6° came about over initial plans to transfer the NASA funded Piroda and Spektr modules and other equipment from Mir. These were cancelled when Spektr was struck by Progress M-34. Kvant-2, Kristall, Piroda and Spektr were originally ordered in the 1970s for the Almaz station project and later ordered to be reused to house military payloads on Mir. This fell through for the latter two and were repurposed for the joint US/Russian civil cooperative programme.
Soyuz-U2 was intended to launch crews to the higher inclination. TKS was planned to service Mir-2/ISS in place of Progress on a twice yearly basis. This was replaced by Progress and ATV.

It is true, I did say LESS than 51.6°. That is difficult for fuel use. More than 51.6 is not so problematic. So for maximum payload and no abort to China, 51.6° is the compromise.

[russianhalo117]

As far as I remember, the choice of a 51.6-degree orbit for the ISS was based on the assumption of cooperation with Russia, for which such an orbit was available for various reasons. For NASA, this was probably not the optimal choice.

For comparison: the Chinese orbital station (Tiangong) is in a 41.5-degree orbit.

From this, we can conclude that Russia and India are willing to cooperate with each other, but are not interested in manned cooperation with China in LEO. (Unlike with the Moon, where China and Russia have signed an agreement.)

For Russia, cooperation with China on human presence in LEO is certainly unacceptable for reasons of ambition: Russia would have to participate as a student. But with India, it is a different matter: here, Russia would definitely dominate, even if for some time ROS were only Nauka + Prichal.

All civilian Soviet stations were launched to various 51° inclinations because it covered the viewing area of Western nations. Mir-2 was to be the first to 64.4° to better utilize the land of the Russian Federation to avoid former soviet Republics. Almaz stations were also 51° inclinations except for the unmanned Almaz-T spacecraft Cosmos-1870 as 73º and Almaz-1 as 72.7º. The vast majority of the latter stations were 51.6° in the run-up to Mir and had nothing to do with the US.

The US had to align with Russia using 51.6 for the ISS, because Soyuz couldn't carry three crew to any other inclination less than that.

Not true. Mir-2/initial ISS discussions were for 64.4° upto 75°. 51.6° came about over initial plans to transfer the NASA funded Piroda and Spektr modules and other equipment from Mir. These were cancelled when Spektr was struck by Progress M-34. Kvant-2, Kristall, Piroda and Spektr were originally ordered in the 1970s for the Almaz station project and later ordered to be reused to house military payloads on Mir. This fell through for the latter two and were repurposed for the joint US/Russian civil cooperative programme.
Soyuz-U2 was intended to launch crews to the higher inclination. TKS was planned to service Mir-2/ISS in place of Progress on a twice yearly basis. This was replaced by Progress and ATV.

It is true, I did say LESS than 51.6°. That is difficult for fuel use. More than 51.6 is not so problematic. So for maximum payload and no abort to China, 51.6° is the compromise.

The US originally proposed 50° to 51.8° because 50° was used by Skylab (28° was originally planned for Skylab A and B but was changed to 50° to allow proposed international cooperation which was cancelledby STS programme delays and its Soviet equivalent. Mir cooperstion became the replacement programme.) and ASTP used ~51.8° (part of misdion was reported to be 51.7676°).

[jarmumd]

The biggest hurdle in Russian-Chinese co-operation in LEO is not inclination ( Baikonour is at 45.6 deg N) but is technological - their docking adapters are not compatible.

I didn't know that.  I assumed they were compatible.  Can you say what isn't compatible?  Umbilicals? Guide pins?

[russianhalo117]

The biggest hurdle in Russian-Chinese co-operation in LEO is not inclination ( Baikonour is at 45.6 deg N) but is technological - their docking adapters are not compatible.

I didn't know that.  I assumed they were compatible.  Can you say what isn't compatible?  Umbilicals? Guide pins?

Everything. Only Prichal and Nauka are fully convertible to support the Russian version of IDSS known as APAS-18 (APAS 2018) by RKK Energiya. The large diameter legacy docking ports can support the passive side of the APAS-89 standard with conversion kits. The only one flown was on Zarya Forward for use with the active APAS-95 side of PMA-1. The USOS PMA's lack the commodity transfer system peripheral ring interface ports as well as those for the propellant transfer system peripheral ring interface ports.

These are the different Soviet/Russian docking systems:
https://russianspaceweb.com/docking.html

SSPA-GM


This docking system, which represents a hybrid between a passive cone and the APAS mechanism, could be adapted in flight to receive active Soyuz and Progress ships with drogue-and-cone ports, as well as heavy modules with APAS ports. Known as SSPA-GM, it was designed for the MLM module of the International Space Station. When receiving Soyuz vehicles, it would open a passage with a diameter of 800 millimeters; however, after its in-flight transformation to host future modules, it would form a tunnel with a diameter of 1,200 millimeters.

PTK-ROS and Soyuz-ROS are currently planned to use the new generation ASA SSVP docking system instead of APAS-18 due to the lack of international VV's. PTK-NP and its various flavours can fly either ASA SSVP (1100mm internal tunnel diameter) or APAS-18 (860mm internal tunnel diameter) due to a common capsule interface ring.

[big_gazza]

This thread started back on 4/30/21.

ROS is now NOT the same concept as it was back then.

The new "ROS" is not comprised of new modules.

It only starts with Nauka and Prichal (modules launched in 2021) being undocked from ISS.

NEM can join it, but only if Roscosmos can afford to finish building it !!!

Sorry, but that is simply not correct.  The actual station config has not been announced, but AFAIK the plan is to replace the Prichal node with an updated module UUM delivered by a modified progress-M, to which the NEM will dock.   The UUM will support updated docking interfaces, possibly the new ASA SSVP? When ISS is deorbited the Nauka/UUM/NEM will be detached to form the ROS. I don't have source for this, just repeating what I've read on Russian language forums, but it makes sense and seems totally realistic.

I presume that the airlock module will remain connected throughout and that its presence will not impose any significant COG shift that cannot be compensated for by the NEM engines?

BTW money is not an issue where political will exists.  Roskosmos will get funds, but only as much as is needed, and only when it is needed to meet the schedule. Thats just how the Russians roll.

[russianhalo117]

This thread started back on 4/30/21.

ROS is now NOT the same concept as it was back then.

The new "ROS" is not comprised of new modules.

It only starts with Nauka and Prichal (modules launched in 2021) being undocked from ISS.

NEM can join it, but only if Roscosmos can afford to finish building it !!!

Sorry, but that is simply untrue.  The actual station config has not been announced, but AFAIK the plan is to replace the Prichal node with an updated module UUM delivered by a modified progress-M, to which the NEM will dock.   The UUM will support updated docking interfaces, possibly the new ASA SSVP? When ISS is deorbited the Nauka/UUM/NEM will be detached to form the ROS. I don't have source for this, just repeating what I've read on Russian language forums, but it makes sense and seems totally realistic.

I presume that the airlock module will remain connected throughout and that its presence will not impose any significant COG shift that cannot be compensated for by the NEM engines?

BTW money is not an issue where political will exists.  Roskosmos will get funds, but only as much as is needed, and only when it is needed to meet the schedule. Thats just how the Russians roll.

UM already has ASP and ASA (Nadir: SSA-G (ASP-G/ASP-K), Zenith: SSA-GT (ASA-G/ASP-K) and Peripheral/Radial: SSA-GB (ASP-GB)).

[Nighthawk117]

ROS can never exist in its original form.

There is no DOS-9.  It doesn't exist.

This new version of ROS, as spelled out by KP and AZ, involves the

undocking of Nauka and Prichal some time in the future.

And yes, NEM can be added to it....As long as their is enough money to finish building it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salyut 1 (Russian: Салют-1, lit. 'Salute 1'), also known as DOS-1 (Durable Orbital Station 1), was the world's first space station. It was launched into low Earth orbit by the Soviet Union on April 19, 1971. The Salyut program subsequently achieved five more successful launches of seven additional stations. The program's final module, Zvezda (DOS-8), became the core of the Russian Orbital Segment of the International Space Station and remains in orbit today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salyut_programme#Salyut_1_(DOS-1)

[Starship_SpaceX]

As far as I remember, the choice of a 51.6-degree orbit for the ISS was based on the assumption of cooperation with Russia, for which such an orbit was available for various reasons. For NASA, this was probably not the optimal choice.

For comparison: the Chinese orbital station (Tiangong) is in a 41.5-degree orbit.

From this, we can conclude that Russia and India are willing to cooperate with each other, but are not interested in manned cooperation with China in LEO. (Unlike with the Moon, where China and Russia have signed an agreement.)

For Russia, cooperation with China on human presence in LEO is certainly unacceptable for reasons of ambition: Russia would have to participate as a student. But with India, it is a different matter: here, Russia would definitely dominate, even if for some time ROS were only Nauka + Prichal.

Currently, Sino-Russian cooperation in the aerospace field is not deep. China pursues complete independence in the aerospace sector, and related cooperative projects are basically entirely led by China. This ensures that even if cooperation is suspended, the project can still proceed normally. However, it also means that the participation of the cooperating parties is very low. This type of cooperation is more like a nepotism, which is very different from the cooperation between the US and Russia on the International Space Station. Furthermore, China's development in the aerospace field is currently rapid and balanced, with significant achievements in various sub-sectors. Relatively speaking, it lacks any shortcomings that need to be filled through international cooperation. This also leads to China's low willingness to establish deep cooperation in the aerospace field. On the other hand, China is unlikely to cooperate by providing funds to Russia to purchase certain items, meaning that Russia is unlikely to gain much practical benefit from cooperation with China. In contrast, India is willing to provide funds to Russia to purchase some engines and related technologies.

[B. Hendrickx]

https://tass.ru/ekonomika/26097747
https://tass.ru/kosmos/26097763

Russia's first deputy prime minister Denis Manturov has said that the first three ROS modules (NEM, Universal Node Module, Airlock Module) will be launched from Baikonur rather than Vostochny. NEM is not really a big surprise because a Proton-M rocket has already been manufactured for it (and Proton-M can, of course, fly only from Baikonur). The Universal Node Module and the Airlock Module (originally planned to be launched together on a single Angara-A5M from Vostochnyy) will fly separately on Soyuz-2.1b rockets. Soyuz-ROS crews will also be launched from Baikonur.

However, Vostochny will still play a role in ROS, according to Manturov. It will serve as the launch site for both Progress-ROS cargo ships and next-generation Oryol vehicles (which he doesn't mention by name and simply calls "piloted transport ships"). Later big add-on modules will also fly from Vostochny using the Angara-A5M.

Although Manturov stressed that ROS' inclination change will not have an impact on plans for ROS-related infrastructure at Vostochny, there is clearly no sense of urgency to start using the cosmodrome for ROS. I understand the plan is to initially fly Progress to ROS from Baikonur before the switch to Vostochny is made.

[JSz]

According to my understanding of these articles, the remaining large modules apart from NEM will be launched by Angara-A5M, and only the remaining ‘small’ modules by Soyuz 2-1b.

However, the article does not mention the use of the current ISS modules: Nauka and Prichal. This is surprising, because I do not think that the two new modules mentioned by the deputy prime minister could be built within a reasonable time frame.

One of these statements suggests that the station will continue to be serviced by Soyuz and Progress spacecraft, but with the letters "-ROS" added at the end. So why is the Eagle spacecraft being built?

The information noise in the Russian space programme (and beyond) continues...

[russianhalo117]

According to my understanding of these articles, the remaining large modules apart from NEM will be launched by Angara-A5M, and only the remaining ‘small’ modules by Soyuz 2-1b.

However, the article does not mention the use of the current ISS modules: Nauka and Prichal. This is surprising, because I do not think that the two new modules mentioned by the deputy prime minister could be built within a reasonable time frame.

One of these statements suggests that the station will continue to be serviced by Soyuz and Progress spacecraft, but with the letters "-ROS" added at the end. So why is the Eagle spacecraft being built?

The information noise in the Russian space programme (and beyond) continues...

Depends who's being interviewed. The easiest way to put it is there are an equal number of Proton-M and Angara-A5M reserved. Eagle is delayed by geopolitcal sanctions and internal Russian underfunding, knowledge retention and many other issues. Soyuz and Progress and existing legacy launchers are easy to utilise because they already exist and all one has to do is periodically update them to combat technological and parts obsolescence.. ROS is subject to international sanctions unless it launches to ISS first which is not subject to sanctions except dual purpose hardware requiring a waiver.