Russia Is Making Noises About Leaving ISS – Again
Russia may abandon International Space Station to join forces with China, Pravda
“The Russian segment of the International Space Station may separate from the station. Russia’s Federal Space Agency Roscosmos is also currently looking into the need for the presence of people in orbit. Do people still have to live on board the ISS or is it possible to entrust space exploration to robots? These issues were put on the agenda of the meeting of the Military Industrial Commission for the development of Roscosmos until 2030.”
Russia open to extending international space station partnership: agency chief, Reuters
“Moscow has an alternative if relations with the United States sour. Russia last year unveiled a plan to detach some of its modules and use them to create a new, independent outpost in orbit. “We adjusted and made some minor changes in our programs … but it doesn’t mean that we don’t want to continue our cooperation,” Komarov said. “We just want to be on the safe side and make sure we can continue our research.” The United States is dependent on Russia’s propellant module to keep the station in orbit.”
Yeah okay… Hey Elon, Bezos, and Bigelow we have some contracts for you to sign.
Better a Space Act Agreement than a contract, if we have learned anything from Commercial Crew. This is a fairly simple problem with dozens of possible solutions. The company providing the propulsion module should have the freedom to make rapid decisions and reach a test flight status quickly. NASA should then have the opporunity to accept or reject the design, but not manage it in detail either technicall or financially. To do so would, historically, slow development and increase cost. We need to start moving the existing ISS incrimentally toward a commercial model.
And if such an event were to happen, it is a sad thing that NASA has no plan to deal with or prepare its own propulsion system to operate the ISS.
So apply the simple solution. Buy the Russians out. They always need money for their space program, so make them an offer for their part of the ISS.
We did “buy” the FGB but the Russians still operate it and do things that they don’t bother to tell us about. Such as disable all fire alarms.
That and spare parts might be an issue.
Heck the US already owns the first Russian module which was launched, the FGB also known as Zarya. Not that the Russians actually ever gave the US the ability to command and control the thing.
A very naive statement. It is NOT so simple and probably extremely expensive since their system is completely different and we dont have the ground infrastructure, manufacturing ability (replacement parts, etc.) or knowledge of their systems enough to just take over. We also do not have a spacecraft that is capable of carrying and transferring fuel to the Russian Segment – the main part of the whole separation problem.
Typical, looking for engineering fixes, when management ones will work. I know its more fun to design new hardware, but is it really worth it on an soon to be antique space station?
First, if we buy it, we could also arrange for them to supply the parts needed. We should have a track record on what would be needed based on the last twenty years. That type of agree is pretty standard in the aerospace world.
Second, we could also pay them to continue to operate it, or to train NASA personnel to operate it.
Third, we were paying for Progress vehicles in the past, we could do a similar contract for transferring fuel to the Russian segment. Basically it would be part of the agreement for them to supply a specific number of Progress for a specific number of years as part of the buyout.
Let’s be honest, the Russians really don’t want to take their segment and leave, they couldn’t afford it. So it would make sense for them to work out an business deal to keep it attached. Given how expensive it is for NASA to do anything that will probably a far less expensive option. But since that won’t create work for NASA I could see why you would oppose it.
But the key is they have modules attached to the ISS we need. They need money which we have. Those are the basic elements needed for a deal.
Except all the geopolitical, political and ego related problems (Crimea/Ukraine, sanctions, military discontent/competition, Trump-gate, election-gate, espionage, and on and on), all act to decrease cooperation and easy transitions. Money will not solve all of these.
Funny how the Clinton Administration didn’t care about the politics when it brought Russia into the ISS. But then that was when the Democrats were friends with the Russians 🙂
But if no deal is made their are only two alternatives. The first is burning tens of billions at NASA building modules to extend the ISS a few years more. Unlikely in this Administration.
The second is just dumping the mess in the Pacific. The most likely option and the one I prefer the latter as the ISS really was mostly a make work project to justify the Space Shuttle.
But if you are one of those that want to keep the great commune in the sky, then a deal with Russia is really your only viable option.
The political reason for bringing Russia into the ISS was 100% different than what exists today. The dissolving of the Soviet Union brought unique situations that were addressed. Don’t critique actions unless you know the history.
Sounds like you are the one that needs to read up on the history and geopolitics of the ISS.
The political reasons in 1993 are the same as today. First, it was to provide money to keep the Russian space program from folding so engineers don’t leave and help rogue nations develop ICBMs. Second, the symbolism of the world’s two Cold War superpowers cooperating in space.
The latter reason is all the more important given the efforts of the last Administration to meddle in Russian elections.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011…
In 1993, the economic situation in Russia was significantly worse than it is today. The risk of aerospace engineers taking a job in North Korea was more significant.
I do remember one event, actually just before the Soviet Union came unglued, when the flight control for a launch went on strike. It was a commercial launch of a European company’s spacecraft and one of the first to be televised live in Europe. During a planned hold in the countdown, they stood up, faced the camera and held up signs saying things like, “Cosmic work for comic wages.”
Yes, it is different in that aspect 🙂 Now they would be given an unpaid vacation to beautiful Siberia for that gesture.
But now, just as then, Russia is unable to afford space, so IF NASA wants to keep the Russians as rivals in space, and keep the ISS orbiting, they will need to pay for it.
Times are different. In today’s Russia, the economy may be in bad shape, but inflation is well under 20% and the large majority of aerospace professionals have gotten a paycheck in the last three months. There were times in the 1990s that wasn’t true.
Yes, but will those checks continue to come in the future? You are looking to the past and claiming its not that bad now. I am looking to the future and where trends are going for Russia space. The Russian economy is still sliding downhill.
http://www.tradingeconomics…
And the Russian space program is sliding with it. Hence the Russians looking to abandon the ISS.
https://arstechnica.com/sci…
Some numbers instead of just opinions…
“The Russian space budget for the period of 2016 through 2025 will be cut from about $29 billion to about $20 billion. By way of comparison, NASA will enjoy a $19.3 billion budget in fiscal year 2016 alone.”
and
“Adding to the Russian program’s problems will be the loss, beginning as early as 2018, of about $500 million annually from NASA’s purchase of Soyuz seats for transportation to the space station.”
If you want the Russians to stay you need to keep the money flowing to Russia for its participation. Its that simple.
If they leave you need to spend a lot more money on replacement systems, or just drop it into the Pacific. Those are your three options.
And for a final thought – what will be the impact on the Russian space program if the lose their ISS link? They probably won’t have enough to operate it. If not, will Russian even retain a HSF program? Other then perhaps symbolic Soyuz mission every year or so?
Finding a way to give Russia about $500 million or so a year is the cheapest, simplest, and lest disruptive to the ISS, Russia and NASA. If you don’t want the security of a wet lease or “purchase”, then call it a donation. But a long term lease will reduce the uncertainty while other options will continue to go from one Russian leaving crisis to another.
In the 1990’s the Clinton Administration, for reasons of foreign policy, decided to join the American and Russian HSF programs. Its not going to be that easy now to disentangle the two.
No, I am saying that the political decisions of the 1990s were based on the economic conditions in Russia during the 1990s. Those conditions were vastly worse than the current conditions. Therefore, the basis for those sorts of political decisions is also vastly different.
At best, the current issue is not a totally disfunctional Russian economy, but a concern that the current Russian economy may go from recession to disfunction in the future. That is the difference between dealing with current conditions and dealing with predicted future conditions. That’s a big difference.
So you are saying let’s let it all fall apart first before doing something. Maybe we will be lucky and it won’t get as bad 🙂
By contrast I am proposing taking a rational precaution to protect the ISS from any future Russian economic issues.
BTW that is what good strategic management is about, anticipating problems and taking modest steps to avoid. NASA’s biggest problem is not funding or politics, but waiting until a crisis appears before reacting. Columbia and Challenger are classic examples, ignoring problems until they were forced to find a solution. That is what you are basically advocating.
Both SpaceX and Blue Origin use strategic management, the key advantage they have over NASA.
“So you are saying let’s let it all fall apart first before doing something”
Reminds me of the attitude among many towards health care. I suppose that once again we will see a degree of plasticity in the so-called ‘principles’ that so many values-voters love to parade.
Your observation about reacting is spot-on, though I wonder how NASA can possibly react when the attitude from the WH towards Russia is either variable or unknown. Indeed foreign policy at the highest levels is, at best, inconsistent in the way that past statements might predict future action.
You are really hung up on the election aren’t you? I truly feel sorry for you, but its over and it’s time to move on. And before you make the standard Democrat come back, No, I did not vote for Donald Trump.
But President Trump is a deal maker. Have you read his book? If NASA presents him with the prospect of a deal tat will stabilize the future of the ISS he will likely listen. But NASA needs to make the effort.
I’ve yet to see a deal, but I’m patient.
I have yet to see NASA make the effort.
Instead you have Rogue NASA acting like a headless chicken since his election screaming about down sizing and massive layoffs, when none appear to be in sight for NASA as for other agencies.
Pre Putin?
There were a couple of years overlap between Clinton and Putin, but Putin’s policies and approach to government were not too clear during those years.
But Putin did follow the normal cycle of Russian history. The empire declines under poor leadership, loses control of the Baltic States and surrounding nations, a new strong leader emerges and gathers those nations under its control again to act as buffers against European invasions. It was foolish to assume this pattern would somehow magically change with the fall of the Soviet Union.
If you will remember, it was Clinton who negotiated an end to the North Korean nuclear program, with inspectors onsite 24/7 to make sure. More subtly, Clinton put NK in a position where it would have no choice but to accept increasing interactions with the West, undermining its authoritarian rule. Bush II came to power, didn’t understand either subtlety or nuclear weapons, and cancelled the agreement. Bush got to express his manliness, NK go to go back to making nuclear weapons. Are we better off?
And this has what to do with the ISS?
The strategy we will take depends on whether we have leaders who are insightful or impulsive.
Yes, chaining America’s HSF to LEO and the failing Russian program was very insightful 🙂
Imagine what could have been done with those 40-50 Space Shuttle missions, and $100 billion dollars if they weren’t spent on the ISS. The foreign affairs space strategy of Clinton’s Administration set HSF behind by a generation.
FYI one of many HSF opportunities missed because of ISS.
http://www.nss.org/settleme…
And here we are discussing options for keep the ISS in orbit after Russia, its space program saved by ISS, simply walks away from it.
Unfair at worst and silly at best. Let’s play the “imagine” game: how many schools in rural Middle East could be built with those Tomahawks? What good will could be purchased with the $80 million or so? That’s what I would call forward thinking.
And the reasons for Mr. Clinton’s moves towards Russia after the breakup are well known and universally applauded, cited by many as a true unseen victory that kept much knowledge and materiel properly bottled.
Or better yet, imagine how many schools could be built with the $3 billion spent on the ISS each year if you wish to follow that path 🙂
Yes, it is really great that neither North Korea and Iran have ballistic missiles thanks to President Clinton’s great strategy (ROFL).
http://www.iranwatch.org/li…
Statement by John A. Lauder, Director of the DCI Nonproliferation Center, Before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, October 5, 2000
“In this context, cooperation between Tehran and Russian aerospace entities has been a matter of proliferation concern since the mid-1990s. Iran is acquiring Russian technology which could significantly accelerate the pace of its ballistic missile development program.
Assistance by Russian entities has helped Iran save years in its development of the Shahab-3, which was flight-tested in 1998 and twice again this year.
Russian assistance also is playing a crucial role in Iran’s ability to develop more sophisticated and longer-range missiles.
Russian entities have helped the Iranian missile effort in areas such as training, testing, and components. These entities vary in size and cover a wide range of specialties. The scope of assistance is illustrated by the variety of organizations that have been subjects of US trade restrictions.”
Not really fair to criticize Clinton on this, is it? I mean in the sense that things are so damn fluid and unpredictable. And of course none of us has the full picture.
At best, though, one could say perhaps that Clinton’s “plan” delayed the inevitable. A paltry victory at best for sure.
On the schools-building: stay with me on this. I just have a sense that governmental policy can be driven bottom up. So imagine, if you will (leaving aside a myriad of practical problems, not the least of which is security): what if the US were known for her largesse?
Jump ahead 20 years after this policy has built schools and roads all over the world, built with no expectation of anything whatsoever other than to meet a local need. Costs would be minuscule compared, as proper, to the cost of Tomahawks.
Imagine that world 20 years from now when we’ve invested maybe $20B in those projects, projects where $50,000 has a lot of impact. A very small sum.
Some would be skimmed and stolen. Even so, people would have roads, water, schools, and better farms. And Uncle Sam did it because we have put our money where it matters.
The benefit would be incredibly out of proportion to the cost. And yes there would be a lot of resistance both internally and in country. And it would be, at least initially, messy as hell while procedures were defined and put into place.
But such a program, a sort of Peace Corps on steroids, would pay benefits in 2050 or 2080.
It’s maybe a left-wing wet dream. But it’s a very practical thing, too.
But weren’t you just praising him on it? Also noted that the help started only a year or two after the ISS agreement, not much of a delay…
Largesse? So a trillion in foreign aid over the years isn’t enough? Not to mention a couple of trillion in loans it never pushes emerging nations on. And this doesn’t count the foreign aid from private sources. Nor the U.S. protecting weak nations from their stronger neighbors. Indeed America has probably given more foreign aid than any nation in the history of the world…
http://www.encyclopedia.com…
“The United States government first recognized the usefulness of foreign aid as a tool of diplomacy in World War II. Such a program, policymakers believed, would fulfill three goals: it would furnish humanitarian assistance to needy peoples, it would promote liberal capitalist models of development in other countries, and it would enhance national security. The U.S. commitment to foreign aid since has amounted to well over $1 trillion in current dollars—not counting hundreds of billions more donated through the International
Monetary Fund, World Bank, and other multilateral agencies.”
In terms of current giving in the Middle East and Africa.
https://www.usaid.gov/where…
and for Syria…
https://www.usaid.gov/syria
I’ve wondered about that myself. How much would it cost in comparison to ISS to put up a fully robotic laboratory that could do experiments carried up in modules transferred into them in bundled launches? It obviously would be no good for human microgravity and space health research, but for everything else?
It doesn’t seem infeasible, except that non-human ISS research is pretty low impact stuff that doesn’t justify the costs.
SpaceX proposed DragonLab a decade ago, but sidetracked it with its focus on COTS/CCP. Maybe with ISS out of the way they will reboot it.
I might crudely estimate that an average crew-supported experiment can be upgraded to full auto and launched unmanned for perhaps $5M for a microsat or an accommodation on a larger satellite. If a crewmember costs $100M to launch and maintain on the ISS (roughly current figure) and we can complete 10 additional experiments per crewmember, then doing it on the ISS costs more. If we can reduce the total cost of putting a crewman on the ISS to $50M we might break even. If we can reduce the total cost to $25M then the human-supported solution is the most efficient. If we can “turn the corner” on human launch costs the ISS can become sustainable and the payload market will expand.
Where’s the bulk of the cost coming from to have someone on the ISS? Is it mostly the launch? A bit of everything?
Programs add overhead for ground ops and logistics but they don’t really vary much with crew size. I think the bulk of the marginal cost in adding crew to the ISS is in the launch seats for crew rotation.
This is probably driven by lack of money. Russia is in budget trouble due to lower oil prices.
Well, there were plans to have a US propulsion module. Maybe we could modify a Japanese H-2 to fill that roll. If the Russians left at 2024, then if started soon, the US could build one. That being said, I think we would just scrap the station (as is the plan now I believe) and move on to a Lunar station/outpost that removes Russia from any critical path hardware–if they were even invited to come along.
I’d prefer a US solution. I would think a Cygnus that has extra propulsion tanks in place of its pressurized section would work just fine.
Alternatively, I wonder if a Cygnus (minus its pressurized section) could deliver an Orion Service Module to ISS.
The Orion SM is essentially a modified and gutted ATV. An ATV could have been used to reboost ISS, but we stopped building them since we needed Service Modules for Orion. The US is juggling balls because we are ourselves too expensive to build what we need-funny Orion’s costs did not come down even when we went from LM building complete Orions to only building Orion CMs
True. But I’d think a Cygnus spacecraft bus would be cheaper to build and fly than the capsule portion of Orion. That’s why I suggested it to deliver an Orion Service Module to ISS, not a full Orion capsule.
No, the ATV program was stopped by ESA. That left them with a “debt” to the ISS program. They were to pay it off by building one or two SMs for Orion.
As to costs, the SM the ESA is providing doesn’t include the avionics in the SM. The life support equipment in the SM. Some of the power system equipment in the SM. It adds cost by additional interface requirements and the continued late delivery of documents from ESA.
None of them are designed to handle ISS roll control needs efficiently, and none of them can be refueled.
Yes, details. 🙂
Seriously though, I was suggesting these as starting points that appear to be “most of the way there”. I would think the roll control efficiency issue could be addressed by something like adding additional thrusters on deployable booms. As for refueling, ATV could refuel the Russian Service Module. So it’s possible that ESA would know how to modify the Orion Service Module to allow it to be refueled, but the devil is in the details…
The Shuttle used to boost the ISS despite being extremely off-axis. I think with a Space Act Agreement SpaceX and Blue could quickly come up with alternative solutions, possibly involving two or more small hypergol propulsion modules that could be attached to the truss and an electric thruster to utilize excess power when available. The path to a cost effective solution probably does not lie through a traditional NASA contract.
That said it’s possible Russia is just fishing for a revenue stream to replace the anticipated loss of crew exchanges. This might be a good time for China to play the China card.
If Russia “plays the China card” – abandons the ISS despite being in the critical path just to spite America – China would take note.
Even if they allow Russian participation in their own space station, they would never allow Russia in the critical path for it. Russia could never pretend to be an equal partner. Which would hurt Russia’s ego more than staying with ISS.
Russia appears to be planning to participate in both ISS and the Chinese program, which would mean they need some income from their participation in ISS to replace what they get from ferrying crew. Maybe that’s why they are fishing fo money to keep maintaining the propulsion module. Maybe they will restart the tourist service.
I agree China will control the elements of their station that they consider critical. But I think they will make an effort to make the Russians (and the Germans) feel they are full partners, since building such ties is part of their geopolitical objective. China itself will play the China card.
Chris writes, “Hey Elon, Bezos, and Bigelow we have some contracts for you to sign.”
These guys have the money to run Russian portion themselves and probably can raise more. It would be an interesting government and industry partnership but will private industry be willing to come up with their share? Will it make business sense? Or will that money from industry simply come from a government contract?
I wonder what if Russia was never brought on board (I think space station would have never happened), how would US/Russia relations evolved especially considering Kosovo in late 1990s. Or even nowadays with apparent business relationships between key people in both Trump and Putin cabinets.
If Russia does bail from ISS, will this cause impetus for US to abandon it? There were plans to do so in 2005 but not because ongoing agreements with other countries. With no ISS will it cause more drive to venture out beyond LEO? Do another “scuttle the fleet” tactic like done with Shuttle?
I recall these joint space initiatives with Russia were heralded at the time as peace initiatives. The problem now is that both the U.S. and Russia have grown tired of having to put up with each other for the sake of space.
I guess partners in a potato sack race really do need to be actual friends…at least eventually.
Well, the Russians could pull out at any time-this year, 2017. No need to wait until 2024. Of course in another shortsighted move, ISS program management turned off work on the NRL propulsion module before it was complete, so the US has no backup capability for propulsion, just as until Dragon and Starliner start flying, there is no backup to Soyuz. Maybe we could leave the current crew on-board for 3 or 4 years in a simulation of a Mars mission?
Could a Cygnus act as a propulsion module?
NO
Adios.
The Russians clearly see the writing on the wall. There is no doubt they are talking about actions that are in their best interests which is not what cooperation is all about. What about the “for better or worse, in sickness and in health” clause in the agreement?
Among the underlying issues driving Mr. Putin’s foreign policy is the desire to position Russia much like the USSR once was – in the sense of being ‘equal’ to the US. Hard to see how leaving ISS is consistent.
In any event, and taking the [very] long term view, space cooperation will both move humanity further in a shorter period of time and move disparate nation-states to some sort of middle and cooperative ground.
He’s living in the past if that is the case. Its all about a nation’s domestic economy and there is no path to that level of prominence without it. If prominence is what he wants then economic growth is where he should focus and there is a coming space tech boom centered on US/ESA. Better for them to try and hold on rather than jump off and try to go it alone.
That’s the quandary here, isn’t it? Russia- a well-managed Russia- could be and should be the equal to the US or Europe in every single regard. It is a country rich in resources both of the ground and intellectual.
Like Nigeria and other smaller spots in Africa, though, it is ruled by kleptocracy that isn’t much different from the Czars except in at least one key respect- there’s no landed aristocracy to check the King. I suppose that in some respects the kleptocrats fill the role.
My understanding is that landed aristocracy had remarkably little influence over most of the Czars, and many of the problems of subsaharan Africa can be attributed to colonialism (or catastrophically botched transitions to independence.) I just don’t understand why Russia politics and economics are so, well, Russian.
Yes, when Europe craved up African they paid little attention to geographic features and none to historic cultural boundaries. Then they generally failed to provide any local rule when they were colonies, except for the British Colonies, but it was also limited there.
Now add in that the African economies are also commodity export based, as is the Russia economy, and the nations tended the socialist route so common in Europe and it is easy to explain their problems, including the rise of “kleptocracy” that always seem to be part of socialists economic systems in emerging nations.
As a side note, it appears the socialist system in Venezuela is currently collapsing if the level of street demonstrations are any indication of the Venezuelan citizens being fed up with their country going from one of the richest in South America to one of the poorest with mass starvation. Recently the government forced bakers to make bread at “gun point” by threatening jail for those who didn’t do so. Yes, the glories of socialism 🙂
In the other hand, they might be in the same boat as NASA in that they can’t fly Soyuz and Progress while developing the new stuff that they’ll need to stay in the game four or five years down the road.
“…they might be in the same boat as NASA in that they can’t fly Soyuz and Progress…”
That might be entertaining. It isn’t quite what you meant, but if Soyuz and Progress were unavailable (perhaps due to continued reliability and quality control issues), then the Russians would be in the same boat as NASA. They’d have to pay a private company for supply and crew transport services.
I’m sure SpaceX would be willing to do that for a reasonable price. Of course, I’d also expect a surcharge for a preferred place on the launch manifest. (SpaceX has bumped commercial satellite launches to avoid delaying a flight to ISS. I wonder what they’d charge to give someone else that sort of preference.)
Yes, and…
U.S. based companies might not be able to do business with them if they end up on a “friendship timeout” with the U.S. State department. 😉
That’s an interesting point. If Russian actually needed a SpaceX Dragon flight, would that violate any like government sanctions? No export of technology would be involved; Russian hardware would be imported into the US. No payments would be made to anyone in Russia; they would be paying someone in the US. Do government sanctions usually preclude a one-way street, with no goods or funds going out to the sanctioned party?
That would be entirely dependent on the mood of the U.S.government when permission is requested.
Don’t let the hatch hit you in the arse on the way out Ivan
We could have avoided this by inviting China to join the ISS program years ago. China has a clear geopolitical goal in human spaceflight, and it isn’t to race us to the Moon. Their goal is to build international relationships, just as ours was originally with the ISS.
China does not participate in international trade and tech sharing agreements. This legal business of the stolen tech that NASA is involved with wouldn’t happen if China were in that mix, because no one has any legal recourse against someone who makes no promises to be held to.
The massive expansion of US industries in China would be impossible without adequate protection for intellectual property. Moreover the ISS has no classified data and no significant proprietary data. If China were part of ISS we would never have been put in the position of paying a Russian monopoly so much for transport of crew to the ISS.
What you say is true of the research but perhaps not of ways and means.
This is a legitimate consideration but TMK most of the technology used in the ISS has been in service for many years, is well described in the literature, and is not widely applicable to profitable industrial settings.
On the other hand, TMK we have never had a computer on the ISS as powerful as a contemporary cell phone. When both Apple _and_ Samsung decide to have their state of the art cell phones manufactured by Foxconn in China there is obviously transfer of proprietary information, but Apple and Samsung are not concerned because it is far more profitable for Foxconn to maintain its business relationships than to try to reverse engineer its customers’ products.
I think we could get by with our them with a little “Musk” ingenuity. Have a Dragon 2 converted to a propulsion module by eliminating all ecls and filling capsule volume with prop tank. Launch and dock to forward pma2 port for temp control. throw away Zarya, move pma1 to tranquility end cam port and then move tranquility to unity aft cbm port. Launch third docking adapter for pma1. Then launch another Dragon2 prop module to dock to pma1. This could even be a Dragon 2 prop + module where the trunk is extended and has additional prop tank plus docking adapter an refueling port. The super dracos are throttle-able and should be capable of providing propulsion and attitude control.
I thought the plan was to abandon the whole thing in 2024 and crash it into the sea
On another site, I just read a story about how Russia is open to extending the life of ISS past 2024. That is *literally* the polar opposite of leaving ISS.
Can anyone ever figure out what Russia’s plans really are?
I saw that too. This might be a case of different officials spouting off on their own reflecting disagreements within.
Why has NASA not begun developing it’s own replacement for the the ancient Russian FGB propulsion module , at least on paper ? We’ll never miss Zarya/ Zvezda and all that goes with it, but no propulsion module is a show stopper. I am gabberflasted that we have no Plan B .
What are the basic requirements ? Is it time for a solar-electric ion thruster truss that could be an anchor for a future outpost as well , or find it’s way to cis-lunar space ?
Who within NASA would be responsible for developing such a plan B? Work on different system is typically defined by requirements, handed over to someone, and then everyone else assume that someone will deliver according to the requirements. Project management asking someone else to provide a plan B is rare and I’ve only heard of it _after_ there was clear evidence of a problem with plan A.