Russia Announces Plans to Build New Space Station with NASA

originally posted by: AgentSmith

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: lostbook

So I guess that means no WW3 and all the US/Russian proxy wars are going to die down and go away? Or are the corporations and bankers going to keep the "ruse" going so they can fund the new space station on the backs of present and upcoming wars? Strange announcement at a strange time considering the state of world affairs...

Cheers - Dave

The hysterical crap in the media which is either invented by or exaggerated by them most of the time bears little resemblance to reality in my experience. There are joint ESA/Roscosmos ventures going ahead as planned as well.

I was being a little sarcastic LOL and I guess my point is that it should be comical as to how the media will spin this considering all the proxy wars and rumours of wars. The ups and downs to these stories are worse than toilet seats in $50 whore houses, but then, I suppose that's who the media emulates.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Strange announcement at a strange time considering the state of world affairs...

Well Russia does have it's place in space history, and with that they are proud of their space program but with the sanctions over Ukraine hitting them hard they understand the way to keep that pride is to work with others.

Now if they weren't having tough times because of sanctions they would have built their own.

motherboard.vice.com...

That is what I would expect, that they would build their own, so I agree with you there. The odd part is obviously Russia knows that the US is behind the Ukraine proxy war and the US is trying to get the Ukraine onside with NATO and the EU. At the same time the US is bullying Russia with sanctions and damaging Russia's economy. So, it would seem obvious that Russia is getting in bed with the enemy in this little venture. As Variable said however, maybe it's aliens, I have to LOL that ;-)

Cheers - Dave

we need a permanent moon base

a reply to: Variable

I agree, too bad we were told to stay the hell off the Moon...

Personally I wonder if the Bigelow Aerospace inflatable space habitats (BEAM) will play some role in all this. If they work as advertised then a lot of the limitations mentioned above will be null and void.
Bigelow Aerospace

Bigelow Expandable Activity Module[edit]
The Bigelow Expandable Activity Module is a space station module under development as of March 2011 by Bigelow Aerospace, being purchased by NASA for flight to space and attachment to the International Space Station in 2015.[7]
Bigelow Commercial Space Station[edit]
The Bigelow Next-Generation Commercial Space Station, composed of two types of expandable space habitat modules, was announced in mid-2010.[8] The initial build-out of the station is expected in 2014/2015, and will consist of two Sundancer modules and one BA-330 module.[9] Bigelow has publicly shown space station design configurations with up to nine BA-300 modules containing 100,000 cu ft (2,800 m3) of habitable space[10] The BA-330 is in final design with construction getting underway in 2011. Bigelow began to publicly refer to the initial configuration—two Sundancer modules and one BA-330 module—as "Space Complex Alpha" in October 2010.[11]
Bigelow announced in 2010 that it has agreements with six sovereign states to utilize on-orbit facilities of the commercial space station: United Kingdom, Netherlands, Australia, Singapore, Japan and Sweden.[10]

link

a reply to: greencmp

We ought to build another, larger version of the ISS...then another and another and then another...then quadruple that number and double the amount again.

These can then string from LEO to just shy of the moon...a daisy chain of stations, connected by elevator will make repeated trips to the moon to build and establish a permanent Human settlement there, much easier and cheaper and also have the advantage of being able to transport greater quantities of supplies essential for a large scale Lunar base of operations.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

the United States' Delta IV Heavy is best for the job. The Space Shuttle had a higher capacity to LEO than the Russian Proton-M, but the shuttle has been retired.

Right, currently we are dependent on the Russians to get people and supplies there. So no matter how heavy of a lifter we have, it isn't lifting anything.

From the OP's article,

Komarov made the announcement flanked by NASA administrator Charles Bolden at Russia's Baikonur launchpad in Kazakhstan.

So Charlie Bolden was standing right there and didn't make a statement?

Are the USA and RUSSIA in secret talks to determine the future of manned space exploration?

I find it suspicious that the Russians have never announced a manned, circumlunar orbital mission... here they are talking about another space station (parked in Low Earth Orbit) which will undoubtedly cost half a trillion dollars.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

the United States' Delta IV Heavy is best for the job. The Space Shuttle had a higher capacity to LEO than the Russian Proton-M, but the shuttle has been retired.

Right, currently we are dependent on the Russians to get people and supplies there. So no matter how heavy of a lifter we have, it isn't lifting anything.

The Delta IV Heavy lift rocket (and other U.S.-made rockets) launch a lot of things into space, just not any people to the ISS. The Delta IV Heavy is currently the vehicle of choice for lifting the larger items into space, usually into high orbits (reconaissance and weather satellites) or sometimes beyond Earth orbit. For example, it will be used to launch NASA's Solar Probe Plus to the outer corona of the Sun.

However, what I was talking more about the heavy lifts required to build a large space station if the Russians wanted to build their own.

Sure -- Right now, only the Russians can get people to LEO in their Soyuz capsule attached to the Soyuz-FG launch vehicle. The U.S, will have humans-to-LEO capability in about three years with the Dragon Crew Capsule/Falcon Lift vehicle (about 4 years for the Orion Capsule atop an Ares 1 lift vehicle. or even atop a Falcon). But, yeah...right now the only way to get a person to the space station is via the Russians.

But getting people into LEO is relatively easy. Well, what I mean is that is requires a relatively light lift vehicle. To build a space station will require heavy lifting. The Russian's Proton-M can lift some of the relatively heavy pieces, but to lift some of the heavier pieces (such as some of the heavier modules of the ISS) would require a larger lift vehicle that what the Russians currently have -- a vehicle like the United States' Delta IV Heavy.

But even the Delta IV heavy will soon be phased out (by 2019 or so) after the Falcon 9 Heavy comes online in 2017. The Falcon 9 heavy will have a huge payload to LEO capacity of about 53,000 kg (117,000 lb)and a payload to GTO of 21,200 kg (46,700 lb).

The U.S. is planning its SLS launch vehicle family, with massive payload-to-LEO capacities of 70,000 to 130,000 kg (150,000 to 290,000 lb), but their plans for the SLS is not just for LEO lifts. The long tern plans are for larger space exploration vehicles, such a a manned trip to an asteroid, or to launch large pieces of a Mars Manned vehicle (to be assembled in orbit, prior to going to Mars).

hopefully the put it in an actually useful orbit/place... like in a lagrange point or something beyond low-earth orbit...

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

i doubt it means government cooperation. probably agreed to it out of national security. neither russia or the usa can let the other build up a solo run space station at the risk weapons are installed.

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

i doubt it means government cooperation. probably agreed to it out of national security. neither russia or the usa can let the other build up a solo run space station at the risk weapons are installed.

Sort of agreed, good point. However, with the hunter/killer satellite technology, the old 80s/90s SDI tech nobody talks about and the ability to upper-atmosphere a platform with a 3 to 10 megawatt ring laser, the US could knock down almost anything. I imagine Russia has a lot of the same tech. So co-operation would be, I think, for other reasons. I think war is a smokescreen, a red herring of sorts. Look over there while we do this stuff you won't notice over here. I could be wrong, but something doesn't make sense.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: NonsensicalUserName
hopefully the put it in an actually useful orbit/place... like in a lagrange point or something beyond low-earth orbit...

That all depends on what the primary goal is of the space station.

The primary goals/aims of the ISS was (1) to teach us how to build and maintain large structures in-situ in space, and (2) learn how the human body can live in space for extended periods. Both of those are important for the next major step in human space exploration. The construction techniques and human habitation/survival techniques learned on the ISS can be applied to in-situ construction and maintenance of a Manned Mars Vehicle, and keeping that Mars crew alive.

The most useful place to be in order to achieve those aims would be LEO, because it's much easier to get people back and forth from LEO. If they would have built this laboratory for living in space further out, then they would have needed to spend more resources getting people, hardware, and supplies to it, which would have taken resources away from the primary mission of learning how to live in space.

The last time we were on the Moon is 1972. There have been a couple space stations now. Yet they STILL want to build another space station instead of building on the moon.

I'm starting to get the feeling they don't want to visit the moon for some reason. I wonder what's going on they don't want to tell me about.

a reply to: Aliensun

Reagan was going to knock them down then build them back up ,at least THAT was his plan.
BUSH wanted to KEEP the money and keep Russia poor.
A HUGE mistake in my book.
Better an ALLY than an ADVERSARY, we had concluded the cold war and WE did rebuild in Germany ...JUST so greedy and stupid.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: greencmp

We ought to build another, larger version of the ISS...then another and another and then another...then quadruple that number and double the amount again.

These can then string from LEO to just shy of the moon...a daisy chain of stations, connected by elevator will make repeated trips to the moon to build and establish a permanent Human settlement there, much easier and cheaper and also have the advantage of being able to transport greater quantities of supplies essential for a large scale Lunar base of operations.

That is an interesting method which could work but, I don't think it is terribly practical.

Buzz Aldrin was describing a permanent Earth-Mars transport that never lands anywhere but would simply ferry modules. We could probably do something like that for the Earth-Moon system.

Whatever solution will allow us to cut the cost of bringing materials to orbit (space elevator, pulsed laser ablation platforms, etc.) will expedite the process and, once we have a foothold on the moon, the solar system is our oyster so to speak.

I believe we need to have private space exploration in order to mature past our currently stunted state sponsored space programs. They can and will continue to exist but, they are not how humanity will become spaceworthy.

If they aren't building a geostationary platform for a cable elevator then I don't see why another LEO station is needed. How many High School student projects need to be done in space?

a reply to: noeltrotsky

Clearly, you hate children.

a reply to: crazyewok

erm no mate,
the limits are set by MASS/GRAVITY

the big phallic rockets we use nowadays
are not potent enough

Before they go building a new space station I would like to know what the heck they are doing on the old station. They have been up there 24/7/365 for years and I haven`t heard anything about exactly what they doing up there.
I haven`t heard about any earth shattering discoveries or experiments that they have done, so what are they doing and have they actually learned anything from being up there?

as i see it the primary issue is political and budgetary.

for another space station to make sense it needs to introduce new functions and capabilities such as serving as a ship construction yard, a port, a supply depot, a high powered deep space communication relay, billeting for non station personnel such as deep space crews, or a cutting edge space observatory.

LEO is a limiting factor; but it avoids the van allen radiation belt and allows somewhat less expensive access from below. If the space station was at higher altitude it would require better radiation shielding and better impact shielding which are heavy and require better lifting capability and more station keeping fuel and stronger thrusters or reaction wheels.

since we do not appear ready for complete in space manufacturing cycles required for truly epic space stations; the best we can hope for is a station constructed primarily out of cylindrical segments of 5 (or may be 7) meter diameter or less with a more robust truss system such that:

exterior structures such as hangar enclosures can be framed in and assembled by the crew. Additionally; hoppers for bulk manufacturing material for printing or extruding large scale parts for ships, other station or moon and mars bases should be attached. also a the rails and cradles for a big old articulated "print head" or heads. might as well give the station something of real importance to accomplish.

One primary mission of this station should be developing and testing large scale in space manufacturing and serving as a home port for vessels involved in mining, refining, transporting storing and using raw material acquired in space. thus it could serve future space development in a big way. It can even build it's own eventual replacement once it gets the above sorted out.