Few days ago I read this -

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/04/tech ... index.html

While it's not given, what happens if indeed Russians pull out of ISS. Would ISS have an early EOL (Enf of Life) or would NASA try to prop up money from here and there to keep it running ?

In case ISS is termed EOL then what would Americans have in its place ???

The Chinese are in the process of building their own space station which eventually would hold 12 people and probably be a bit more spacious than ISS

https://phys.org/news/2022-05-china-spa ... -crew.html

NASA has contingency plans for ISS if the Russians decide to pull out. Their participation is not essential, but they have reasons of their own to participate. They have said they will participate in the US commercial crew program for cosmonaut transport.

NASA's plan is to commercialize the space station business, as they have with other programs. NASA's mandate is exploration. They've established how to build and operate a space station. So they will keep ISS going until there are commercial alternatives. Several are on the drawing board right now.

If the Russians leave ISS, they have no ability of their own to build a station. So their alternative would be to join with the Chinese. That's a possibility but they'd be starting over and would be lesser partners than they are now.

NASA has set the gold standard for involving other nations and providing them access to space. They continue to do that with the Artemis Accords. So not really concerned about Russian or Chinese decisions.

I’ve asked this before but how hard would it be to integrate the Starliner on an F9, if Blue Origin continues to just deliver vapor-ware engines?

Two most critical functions, that are needed from RusOS of the ISS, AFAIR, are handled by VV (visiting vehicles) engines, and Zvezda engines, are orbit reboost, and periodic desaturation of gyroscopes on USOS.
Refueling of Zvezda can be performed only by russian VV's, since ATV has been retired.

Soyuz capsules are lifeboats, not only crew rotation vehicles. Whether that has been successfully replicated by Crew Dragon, and whether the Boeing Starliner and Orion can do it -- don't remember.

Phosphorus wrote:

Two most critical functions, that are needed from RusOS of the ISS, AFAIR, are handled by VV (visiting vehicles) engines, and Zvezda engines, are orbit reboost, and periodic desaturation of gyroscopes on USOS.
Refueling of Zvezda can be performed only by russian VV's, since ATV has been retired.

Soyuz capsules are lifeboats, not only crew rotation vehicles. Whether that has been successfully replicated by Crew Dragon, and whether the Boeing Starliner and Orion can do it -- don't remember.

Commercial crew vehicles can serve as lifeboats, the issue is that there are only 6 altogether (4 Dragon and 2 Starliner), and they have limited docking life. So if NASA wanted to completely replace the Soyuz function, they might contract for more capsules and to have one always docked (can carry 7 in maximum configuration).

Cygnus has already boosted the station, Dragon can but takes longer with larger percentage of onboard fuel used, same for Starliner. So there are workarounds, but I suspect NASA would prefer Russia to stay involved.

All manned capsules have always been qualified lifeboats. Dragon is limited to 4 and Starliner to 5. NASA made SpaceX remove the row of three seats because they didn't like the angles.
The passengers ride the same type of capsule both ways because the spacesuits are only designed for one. Why NASA didn't require SpaceX and Boeing to use the same suit support setup is a mystery.

Nomadd wrote:

All manned capsules have always been qualified lifeboats. Dragon is limited to 4 and Starliner to 5. NASA made SpaceX remove the row of three seats because they didn't like the angles.
The passengers ride the same type of capsule both ways because the spacesuits are only designed for one. Why NASA didn't require SpaceX and Boeing to use the same suit support setup is a mystery.

Almost as big a mystery as not investing in new spacesuits for the past 20 years.

Avatar2go wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

Two most critical functions, that are needed from RusOS of the ISS, AFAIR, are handled by VV (visiting vehicles) engines, and Zvezda engines, are orbit reboost, and periodic desaturation of gyroscopes on USOS.
Refueling of Zvezda can be performed only by russian VV's, since ATV has been retired.

Soyuz capsules are lifeboats, not only crew rotation vehicles. Whether that has been successfully replicated by Crew Dragon, and whether the Boeing Starliner and Orion can do it -- don't remember.

Commercial crew vehicles can serve as lifeboats, the issue is that there are only 6 altogether (4 Dragon and 2 Starliner), and they have limited docking life. So if NASA wanted to completely replace the Soyuz function, they might contract for more capsules and to have one always docked (can carry 7 in maximum configuration).

Cygnus has already boosted the station, Dragon can but takes longer with larger percentage of onboard fuel used, same for Starliner. So there are workarounds, but I suspect NASA would prefer Russia to stay involved.

Limited docking life is the rub. Soyuz is rated for half a year, and was seen pushing it a few times.
That's a capability sorely missed from new vehicles.

Phosphorus wrote:

Limited docking life is the rub. Soyuz is rated for half a year, and was seen pushing it a few times.
That's a capability sorely missed from new vehicles.

What are you talking about? Manned Dragon and Starliner are both rated for 7 months.

Nomadd wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

Limited docking life is the rub. Soyuz is rated for half a year, and was seen pushing it a few times.
That's a capability sorely missed from new vehicles.

What are you talking about? Manned Dragon and Starliner are both rated for 7 months.

Seriously? I must have slept through that class
Thanks for updating, that makes sense.

Phosphorus wrote:

Nomadd wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

Limited docking life is the rub. Soyuz is rated for half a year, and was seen pushing it a few times.
That's a capability sorely missed from new vehicles.

What are you talking about? Manned Dragon and Starliner are both rated for 7 months.

Seriously? I must have slept through that class
Thanks for updating, that makes sense.

They have to be. The crew goes home after six months or so in the same capsule they went up in.

Phosphorus wrote:

Nomadd wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

Limited docking life is the rub. Soyuz is rated for half a year, and was seen pushing it a few times.
That's a capability sorely missed from new vehicles.

What are you talking about? Manned Dragon and Starliner are both rated for 7 months.

Seriously? I must have slept through that class
Thanks for updating, that makes sense.

List of Crew flights, though the presence of a Cosmonaut on an upcoming one must be questionable right now;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Dr ... of_flights

Nomadd wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

Limited docking life is the rub. Soyuz is rated for half a year, and was seen pushing it a few times.
That's a capability sorely missed from new vehicles.

What are you talking about? Manned Dragon and Starliner are both rated for 7 months.

Just curious - what's the limiting factor? Rubber seals get wonky or on-board power cells get drained after 7 months?

889091 wrote:

Nomadd wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

Limited docking life is the rub. Soyuz is rated for half a year, and was seen pushing it a few times.
That's a capability sorely missed from new vehicles.

What are you talking about? Manned Dragon and Starliner are both rated for 7 months.

Just curious - what's the limiting factor? Rubber seals get wonky or on-board power cells get drained after 7 months?

Both capsules are designed to NASA specs, which called for 7 months residence time, with 6 months being the normal NASA max. They likely have some margin built-in, and could be designed for longer if needed. Solar cells, seals, and consumables would all factor into the life, along with many other considerations. There's probably not just one overriding factor.

889091 wrote:

Nomadd wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

Limited docking life is the rub. Soyuz is rated for half a year, and was seen pushing it a few times.
That's a capability sorely missed from new vehicles.

What are you talking about? Manned Dragon and Starliner are both rated for 7 months.

Just curious - what's the limiting factor? Rubber seals get wonky or on-board power cells get drained after 7 months?

Solar arrays not being qualified on the first manned Dragon was a big one. Being able to examine the first capsule when they get it back is a big part of qualifying for longer periods.

GDB wrote:

Nomadd wrote:

All manned capsules have always been qualified lifeboats. Dragon is limited to 4 and Starliner to 5. NASA made SpaceX remove the row of three seats because they didn't like the angles.
The passengers ride the same type of capsule both ways because the spacesuits are only designed for one. Why NASA didn't require SpaceX and Boeing to use the same suit support setup is a mystery.

Almost as big a mystery as not investing in new spacesuits for the past 20 years.

...or that the two Apollo spacecraft originally had incompatible air scrubbers

SEAorPWM wrote:

Nomadd wrote:

Why NASA didn't require SpaceX and Boeing to use the same suit support setup is a mystery.

...or that the two Apollo spacecraft originally had incompatible air scrubbers

Standardization and optimization are oftentimes mortal enemies.

Also one goal of Commercial Crew was that the capsules would be leased commercially by the vendors, which we already see happening for Crew Dragon. So the intent was to provide as wide a design latitude as possible, recognizing that ISS was the flagship mission, but hoping to stimulate the commercial market for broader use.

texl1649 wrote:

I’ve asked this before but how hard would it be to integrate the Starliner on an F9, if Blue Origin continues to just deliver vapor-ware engines?

It can (and will) be done if somebody provides the necessary truckload of money. But: Is it worth the effort? What do we gain from the Starliner on F9?

The Crew Dragon can transport oversized cargo in its hollow trunk, while the Starliner trunk contains important systems.

I would rather bet on the Starliner program being stopped, instead of being adapted for the F9.

flyingturtle wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

I’ve asked this before but how hard would it be to integrate the Starliner on an F9, if Blue Origin continues to just deliver vapor-ware engines?

It can (and will) be done if somebody provides the necessary truckload of money. But: Is it worth the effort? What do we gain from the Starliner on F9?

The Crew Dragon can transport oversized cargo in its hollow trunk, while the Starliner trunk contains important systems.

I would rather bet on the Starliner program being stopped, instead of being adapted for the F9.

Actually Starliner is built to be launcher-agnostic, it can fly on F9 just as easily as Atlas or Vulcan. Whereas Crew Dragon is vertically integrated and can only fly on F9.

That said, it's unlikely there would be a need for either to fly on the other's launcher, unless there is a grounding issue.

In terms of cargo capacity, they are roughly similar, although the Crew Dragon trunk provides unpressurized volume that Starliner does not have. For pressurized volume & cargo, Starliner has slightly greater capacity.

Avatar2go wrote:

Actually Starliner is built to be launcher-agnostic, it can fly on F9 just as easily as Atlas or Vulcan. Whereas Crew Dragon is vertically integrated and can only fly on F9.

That said, it's unlikely there would be a need for either to fly on the other's launcher, unless there is a grounding issue.
In terms of cargo capacity, they are roughly similar, although the Crew Dragon trunk provides unpressurized volume that Starliner does not have. For pressurized volume & cargo, Starliner has slightly greater capacity.

Crew Dragon is not vertically integrated. SpaceX doesn't have that capability yet.

Nomadd wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

Actually Starliner is built to be launcher-agnostic, it can fly on F9 just as easily as Atlas or Vulcan. Whereas Crew Dragon is vertically integrated and can only fly on F9.

That said, it's unlikely there would be a need for either to fly on the other's launcher, unless there is a grounding issue.
In terms of cargo capacity, they are roughly similar, although the Crew Dragon trunk provides unpressurized volume that Starliner does not have. For pressurized volume & cargo, Starliner has slightly greater capacity.

Crew Dragon is not vertically integrated. SpaceX doesn't have that capability yet.

He probably meant that everything is built in-house. Crew Dragon doesn't have to take into account anything that is specific to Atlas, Centaur or later, Vulcan.

flyingturtle wrote:

Nomadd wrote:

Crew Dragon is not vertically integrated. SpaceX doesn't have that capability yet.

He probably meant that everything is built in-house. Crew Dragon doesn't have to take into account anything that is specific to Atlas, Centaur or later, Vulcan.

Yes, sorry, forgot that vertical integration has a dual meaning in this context. I meant that SpaceX is a sole supplier of its launcher.

Russia says it will quit the International Space Station after 2024

(CNN)Russia says it is planning to pull out of the International Space Station and end its decades-long partnership with NASA at the orbiting outpost, according to the newly appointed head of Russia's space agency.

Roscosmos chief Yury Borisov told Russian President Vladimir Putin that "the decision to leave this station after 2024 has been made."

"You know that we are working within the framework of international cooperation at the International Space Station. Undoubtedly, we will fulfil all our obligations to our partners, but the decision to leave the station after 2024 has been made," Borisov told Putin in the Kremlin-issued readout.

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/26/world/ru ... index.html

Hard to say what this ultimately means. Roscosmos has frequently pushed public propaganda while privately cooperating with NASA. The target audience is Russian citizenry, who are none the wiser. They believe that ISS is only sustained by Russian support, and that Russia is helping out the hapless international community despite their bad behavior.

BEG2IAH wrote:

Russia says it will quit the International Space Station after 2024

(CNN)Russia says it is planning to pull out of the International Space Station and end its decades-long partnership with NASA at the orbiting outpost, according to the newly appointed head of Russia's space agency.

Roscosmos chief Yury Borisov told Russian President Vladimir Putin that "the decision to leave this station after 2024 has been made."

"You know that we are working within the framework of international cooperation at the International Space Station. Undoubtedly, we will fulfil all our obligations to our partners, but the decision to leave the station after 2024 has been made," Borisov told Putin in the Kremlin-issued readout.

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/26/world/ru ... index.html

If you read the after 2024 literally, this could be anytime after 1/1/2024, very very vague! They could continue for the next 2 years and still validate his statement lol
They just signed on to send Cosmonauts via Dragon, and agreed to send soyuz for the foreseeable future. I suspect this is to placate daddy Putin... Besides they have zero funds to launch a new space station, Putins war is draining their economy.

Agree with both. I wonder how much money they will have to sustain any space ops due to the war and sanctions.

nycbjr wrote:

BEG2IAH wrote:

Russia says it will quit the International Space Station after 2024

(CNN)Russia says it is planning to pull out of the International Space Station and end its decades-long partnership with NASA at the orbiting outpost, according to the newly appointed head of Russia's space agency.

Roscosmos chief Yury Borisov told Russian President Vladimir Putin that "the decision to leave this station after 2024 has been made."

"You know that we are working within the framework of international cooperation at the International Space Station. Undoubtedly, we will fulfil all our obligations to our partners, but the decision to leave the station after 2024 has been made," Borisov told Putin in the Kremlin-issued readout.

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/26/world/ru ... index.html

If you read the after 2024 literally, this could be anytime after 1/1/2024, very very vague! They could continue for the next 2 years and still validate his statement lol
They just signed on to send Cosmonauts via Dragon, and agreed to send soyuz for the foreseeable future. I suspect this is to placate daddy Putin... Besides they have zero funds to launch a new space station, Putins war is draining their economy.

Every report I have seen says 'by the end of 2024', which could mean Jan of that year but that's not the implication is it?

Roscosmos officials have told NASA they don't intend to pull out of the ISS until they have an alternative space station in orbit, which they anticipate in 2028.

That fits the overall pattern of the Russian rhetoric and propaganda being intended for their domestic audience, while their true actions continue to support participation with ISS. Given likely delays in the Russian space station, it's probable that Russian will participate until the end of the ISS program in 2030.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 022-07-27/

How will the ISS be made to come back? Will it be separated and guided down in parts or sections or will the entire station be steered to reenter? How will the practical deorbiting work? What will be the biggest parts that likely make it through reentry? Anything dangerous, nuclear batteries maybe?

Noshow wrote:

How will the ISS be made to come back? Will it be separated and guided down in parts or sections or will the entire station be steered to reenter? How will the practical deorbiting work? What will be the biggest parts that likely make it through reentry? Anything dangerous, nuclear batteries maybe?

Scott Manley to the rescue, who probably answers all of your questions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5lidnLtO7c

Thank you my friend. I am not a space person.

Noshow wrote:

Thank you my friend. I am not a space person.

You're welcome!

AFAIK, there are no hazardous goods aboard the ISS, like nuclear batteries or hydrazine. There's just the very, very small risk that the more massive parts (like docking modules) could fall on somebody's head.

Roscosmos has clarified its position on ISS. Said that it is concerned about cascading failures in the Russian modules after 2024. That all science objectives have been met. That it will adhere to the obligations it has to ISS, and that it should remain apolitical, but that the expense of maintaining it is very large, and would be better spent on a new station.

https://mobile.twitter.com/joroulette/s ... 8643865602

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa ... n-launch-1

Friends...

Anna Kikina has her own Barbie doll too