And Today's Russia Leaving ISS Date Is …
Russia to NASA: Sticking with space station until at least 2028, Reuters
“Russian space officials told their U.S. counterparts that Moscow expects to remain on the International Space Station at least until their own outpost in orbit is built in 2028, NASA’s space operations chief told Reuters. The assurance on Tuesday from Russia came after the newly appointed head of its space agency, Roscosmos, surprised NASA earlier in the day by announcing that Moscow intended to end more than two decades of partnership on the space station “after 2024.”
Russia says it’s leaving the International Space Station again. This time might be different., Grid News
“The long isolation of ISS from geopolitics looks like it is regretfully coming to an end,” said NASA Watch Editor Keith Cowing. Russia’s war on Ukraine, and NASA no longer needing Russian rockets to send astronauts into orbit, has changed a long-running, uneasy, partnership in space, making it look less and less tenable. “The real question is, what are the Russians going to leave behind if they just walk away from the station?” Cowing added.”
A Russian ISS exit could give NASA a hangover–then leave cosmonauts grounded, Fast Company
“You were getting this robustness, and everybody learned that there was another way of doing things,” says Keith Cowing, editor of the NASA Watch news site and a former NASA manager who worked on station components in the early 1990s. But Russia’s role in this cooperation has receded lately. SpaceX’s Crew Dragon means NASA no longer needs Russia for astronaut transportation. In June, NASA raised the station’s orbit using the U.S.-built Cygnus cargo spacecraft, a critical function that had been performed solely by the Russian section before.”
süpürge luuta
I am thinking Russia can do two things. One, stay with ISS or two, leave ISS. Right now it seems like they are doing neither. Kind of like back in the 1960s they can either join the race to the moon or not. But they did neither.
Which isn’t necessarily a contradiction. Not that statements from Russian officials are consistent, but…
One statement said they will not extend their formal commitment to support ISS beyond the current one’s expiration date in 2024. The other says they will continue to support ISS until their new space station is in orbit in 2028. That could mean they will support ISS from 2024 to 2028 without making a formal commitment to doing so (i.e. signing a inter-agency Memorandum of Understanding,)
That still leaves NASA in limbo, since they have to plan for Russian support ending after some uncertain date after 2024. I don’t really think Russia will have their space station up in 2028. Honestly, I don’t really think they’ll every have a new space station in orbit. At least not within decades. So NASA is still facing a end of Russian support at some unknown date after 2024.
I think it is unlikely that Russia will ever build a station by itself ever again.
The Russians could build a new station. If there is reset of the Russian political structure. Which might happen sometime in the future.
Russia generally, and Roskosmos specifically has no cash.
They’re a flaky partner. And fascist as well.
Considering that Fascism started as a rejection of Communism’s failed economic theory while retaining the social theory and rhetoric, that’s a remarkably accurate statement.
I am very curious about how Northrup-Grumman is going to manage the Antares-Cygnuss ISS program now, given they depend on Russia RD180 engines AND a first stage booster manufactured in Ukraine. NG has all the engines they are ever going to get, but only two booster bodies on hand to attach them to. If using Cygnus is the less than optimal / only alternative for boosting the ISS orbit , what are the scenarios beginning about a year from now ?
Were it me, one path would see the building of a space cargo tug vehicle based on the SpaceX Dragon XL lunar gateway hardware concept . That could work as well for an ISS service vehicle to replace the Russian Progress mules. Just a thought
Certainly priority should be given to US reboost capability. I have little faith in Boeing, although that is a possibility. I have much more faith in Dreamchaser, but worry about Bezos being responsible for the delivery vehicle. I hope they are exploring SpaceX as an alternative. Sierra Space did say the Dreamchaser could be adopted to another launcher, but it would take at least three months. Accelerating Starship or Axiom are other options.
Dream Chaser is designed to fly on the ULA Vulcan launch vehicle, which Mr. Bezos isn’t responsible for. His company is, however, responsible for Vulcan’s engines under a contract from ULA. And Blue Origin is very late delivering those engines.
It’s going to be very ironic if Cygnus and Dream Chaser wind up flying on Ariane 6 before they fly on Vulcan.
Correction, it is the RD-181 engine with the single exhaust nozzle on the Antares. There is only 2 sets of 2 on hand.
It is simpler if Northrop Grumman just launch the Cygnus on the Falcon 9.
There is a high probability that the Dragon XL will only be seen in rendered images. Why developed another boutique spacecraft that might get a production run of less than half dozen. When there is the Starship that can be modified into a relatively cheap cis-lunar logistics vehicle.