5 ms·

This comment hits differently after the Ukraine invasion. I hadn't thought about the sheer level of diplomatic nightmare that has been avoided because Russia c

This comment hits differently after the Ukraine invasion. I hadn't thought about the sheer level of diplomatic nightmare that has been avoided because Russia can't use cutting off access to the ISS as a bargaining chip.

dotnet00 3y ago
They still can use cutting off the ISS as a bargaining chip since half the station is Russian and handles orbit raising. They actually did do that a lot early into the war, until Rogozin was replaced as head of Roscosmos by someone who took a slightly less bombastic approach of saying that Russia would quit the ISS once they have a successor station up later this decade. What gets in the way is that the US has several replacement space station programs in the works while Russia knows very well that they almost definitely can't get a comparable replacement station up with how hollowed out their industry is. Plus, since the start of the war, NASA has been investigating options for taking over the tasks the Russian side of the station handles with the various supply vehicles just in case.
- dylan604 3y ago
  Isn't it the Russian modules that keep leaking atmosphere? Maybe its time to jettison them? I honestly have no idea what the Russian modules are or what purposes are are served by them. However, that does bring to mind something I never thought about. There is talk of privatizing ISS since NASA doesn't want to continue funding it. How do you privatize something made by multiple nations? Or is that precisely why the privatization isn't taken seriously?
  - kolinko 3y ago
    One of the purposes of ISS, and other space programs (Apollo-Soyuz for example) was showcasing how nations can work together, and bringing hope for peace during the cold war. May sound naive, but that's the reason why nobody should be jettisoned off the space station - even if there are embargoes on the ground.
    - dylan604 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - oefrha 3y ago
        “I’m just trolling.” Don’t do that here.
        dylan604 3y ago
        It's a silly comment leading into a more serious question. Everyone focuses on the least important part of the comment, and then feels self righteous
      - dcow 3y ago
        The edit window is still open.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      > but that's the reason why nobody should be jettisoned off the space station The PRC is banned from the ISS, due to NASA being legally forbidden from dealing with them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Amendment#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Amendment#History
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - dotnet00 3y ago
    There have been some incidents with Russian modules and spacecraft over the years demonstrating the gradual decline in their capability, but so far it hasn't been determined to br worth the effort of figuring out if the sides can even be disconnected anymore. The talk about private space stations isn't really about privatizing the existing ISS. There are private trips to there every once in a while (required to be led by any former astronaut at the ISS though). Besides that maybe you're thinking of Axiom's space station, which is intended to have modules docking to the American side of the station and gradually building off of it until their modules can handle being independent, at which point the ISS modules would be disconnected and deorbited, leaving their private space station on its own.
- adolph 3y ago
  > half the station is Russian and habdles orbit raising The orbit raising has been performed by the Progress resupply vehicles from Russia and Shuttle and other vehicles from the US. As of 2018 the Cygnus resupply vehicle from the US was capable of performing the orbit raising mission. While the Cygnus was still docked at the space station's Unity module on Tuesday (July 10), the spacecraft fired its main engine for 50 seconds as part of a test to determine whether the cargo ship can be used to raise the space station's orbit, Frank DeMauro, Vice President of Advanced Programs at NGIS, told Space.com. About the size of a short bus, the Cygnus may look puny compared to the ISS, which is as big as a football field. But its powerful Delta-V engine provided enough thrust to raise the space station by about 282 feet (86 meters). "The burn went extremely well," DeMauro said. "The spacecraft behaved exactly as we expected." https://www.space.com/41172-cygnus-leaves-space-station-orbital-boost.html https://www.space.com/41172-cygnus-leaves-space-station-orbi...
- SEJeff 3y ago
  IIRC, NASA and SpaceX are working on a study to see if Dragon can do station keeping for this exact reason. NASA is doing a great job hedging their bets in a very tricky political climate.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  NASA replacement stations are totally underfunded by congress, non are close. Don't expect a solution from that anyime soon.
  - resolutebat 3y ago
    If Starship delivers even half of what they're promising, we'll have a bunch of commercial space stations up even without NASA support. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_space_stations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_space_stati...
    - panick21_ 3y ago
      Building a commercial station isn't very easy. And if you are not investing a a couple billion your not even in the game. Non of those companies will invest billions on their own. All of those companies investment is predicated on NASA support. Do you really believe Northrop Grumman will invest billions of its own money? The Startups are to small an inexperienced. And Bezos has already said they will not do this unless they get NASA investment. To just link to a bunch 'commercial' stations is missing the point. These concept exists because NASA has announced they will fund multiple 'commercial' station. But unfortunately Congress has not given NASA the budget for these.
    - rtkwe 3y ago
      There's quite a gulf between what's promised and what's been tested. Despite the backfilling about just a test and total success there's were a LOT of big failures in that first launch test.
    - wongarsu 3y ago
      But what's the market for those, without NASA funding? Maybe one Salyut-sized station for "space tourism" (that is to say, 1-3 day stays for like 3 people at a time), and maybe one similarly sized station for space manufacturing (which is currently just optical fiber) and commercial 0g experiments. You could dock both together to share some systems. But what's the market demand for anything beyond those two stations, never mind any station comparable to the ISS?
- vGPU 3y ago
  >can’t get a replacement station Ok, let’s break this down from the start. Russia has launched 10 space stations. The ISS was built using modules that were built for the Mir-2 station. The ISS was built on top of Russian modules. Meanwhile, NASA wasn’t even able to fly their own astronauts to the ISS for a decade until Musk stepped in. Russia has also demonstrated that they continue to have this capability as they added the first expansion to the ISS in over two decades recently. I would hazard a guess that Russia’s capability in this area is much more… capable than the US at this time. They are also far more likely to be able to come to a collaboration agreement with china than the US is at this time. They also helped india kickstart their space program recently. In conclusion: Russia bad? Maybe. But they weren’t stupid enough to outsource their manufacturing and allow the loss of institutional knowledge that the US has.
  - dotnet00 3y ago
    Russia added a module that had been sitting around for 13 years and was only finally launched because warranties on some parts would've begun expiring. Then the first thing that module did was flip the station. While yes, they have a history of doing better than the US on space stations, the point is that their space industry is a shadow of what it used to be. This can be seen from how many next generation rockets, rocket engines and crewed vehicles they've announced over the years which have never really ended up amounting to much. For instance, the timeline on Orel makes Orion seem like a speedy development. Finally, while the US did make that mistake at first, they've very obviously more than recovered that knowledge considering how many different engines, launch vehicles, spacecraft etc are in actual (as in having working hardware to show and not just mockups and promises) development by several different American companies. Plus, much of the former Soviet space program can be attributed just as much to Ukraine, where a lot of the R&D happened ;)
    - vGPU 3y ago
      Indeed. Though Rogozin was a net benefit to Roscosmos over the past decade, as can be seen by their current launch record, with 100 successful launches in a row over the past few years. However, he is definitely not a Musk type visionary. From what I know of him, he's a "fixer", that was sent in to clean up the ridiculous amounts of waste and corruption in the system. Under Borisov's management there are rumors that they are building a new satellite factory that should be starting production soon. And realistically, let's not forget that the US has always significantly lagged Russia in this field. If it wasn't for Operation Paperclip they would not have been competitive at all. >Ukraine Let's be honest here: Ukraine has existed as a state for less than 40 years in it's entire history. The geographic location of current Ukraine has nothing to do with the accomplishments of the former USSR. This is evidenced by the complete and utter lack of any accomplishment in the field by Ukraine after the collapse of the USSR. Side note: Gotta love this tweet threatening Musk for praising the Russian space program: https://twitter.com/KristiTalmadge/status/1103751764409495556?s=20 https://twitter.com/KristiTalmadge/status/110375176440949555...
inglor_cz 3y ago
One of the effects of the invasion was that the Antares rocket stopped being viable. Antares used a pair of Russian RD-181 engines. The first stage was built in Ukraine (Dnipro). This sort of cooperation is basically dead.
- shellfishgene 3y ago
  I've been wondering, with the rocket science knowledge the Ukraine has, are they not capable of designing and building mid-rage missiles for their military, or is that just a much longer process?
  - gpm 3y ago
    They have been doing this https://www.eurasiantimes.com/denied-atacms-ukraine-says-it-is-developing-its-1000/ https://www.eurasiantimes.com/denied-atacms-ukraine-says-it-... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/09/its-simple-and-cheap-the-volunteers-making-ukraine-trembita-bomb https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/09/its-simple-and... Surface to air: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/07/24/the-ukrainians-have-their-own-surface-to-air-missile-system-what-they-dont-have-is-factories-to-make-them/?sh=175d21243a92 https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/07/24/the-ukraini...
  - inglor_cz 3y ago
    The Hrim-2 missile (hrim/hrom/grom is Slavic for thunder) may be precisely that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrim-2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrim-2
  - urinotherapist 3y ago
    Ukrainian missile "Neptune" hit Russian "Moscow" flagship, so they are capable, but drones are much much cheaper. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Moskva https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Moskva
Veedrac 3y ago
I still can't get over this quote from the congressional hearing with Michael Gass, then-CEO of ULA, > Some of the most unique missions clearly don't need multiple capabilities in this country, and if we talk about fair and level competition, is it two companies, is it three companies, is it four companies? When does it stop, and how do you limit other companies from wanting to participate, and taking a niche of the of the product? This was the same hearing in which Gass gave a last ditch defense of Russian engines, and fought Musk in favor of cost-plus and ULA's ~$800m/y subsidy for existing. Even the people that follow newspace probably normally don't realize just how rotten through the industry and its governance had become.

dotnet00 3y ago

They still can use cutting off the ISS as a bargaining chip since half the station is Russian and handles orbit raising. They actually did do that a lot early into the war, until Rogozin was replaced as head of Roscosmos by someone who took a slightly less bombastic approach of saying that Russia would quit the ISS once they have a successor station up later this decade. What gets in the way is that the US has several replacement space station programs in the works while Russia knows very well that they almost definitely can't get a comparable replacement station up with how hollowed out their industry is. Plus, since the start of the war, NASA has been investigating options for taking over the tasks the Russian side of the station handles with the various supply vehicles just in case.

dylan604 3y ago
Isn't it the Russian modules that keep leaking atmosphere? Maybe its time to jettison them? I honestly have no idea what the Russian modules are or what purposes are are served by them. However, that does bring to mind something I never thought about. There is talk of privatizing ISS since NASA doesn't want to continue funding it. How do you privatize something made by multiple nations? Or is that precisely why the privatization isn't taken seriously?
- kolinko 3y ago
  One of the purposes of ISS, and other space programs (Apollo-Soyuz for example) was showcasing how nations can work together, and bringing hope for peace during the cold war. May sound naive, but that's the reason why nobody should be jettisoned off the space station - even if there are embargoes on the ground.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - oefrha 3y ago
      “I’m just trolling.” Don’t do that here.
      - dylan604 3y ago
        It's a silly comment leading into a more serious question. Everyone focuses on the least important part of the comment, and then feels self righteous
    - dcow 3y ago
      The edit window is still open.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    > but that's the reason why nobody should be jettisoned off the space station The PRC is banned from the ISS, due to NASA being legally forbidden from dealing with them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Amendment#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Amendment#History
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dotnet00 3y ago
  There have been some incidents with Russian modules and spacecraft over the years demonstrating the gradual decline in their capability, but so far it hasn't been determined to br worth the effort of figuring out if the sides can even be disconnected anymore. The talk about private space stations isn't really about privatizing the existing ISS. There are private trips to there every once in a while (required to be led by any former astronaut at the ISS though). Besides that maybe you're thinking of Axiom's space station, which is intended to have modules docking to the American side of the station and gradually building off of it until their modules can handle being independent, at which point the ISS modules would be disconnected and deorbited, leaving their private space station on its own.
adolph 3y ago
> half the station is Russian and habdles orbit raising The orbit raising has been performed by the Progress resupply vehicles from Russia and Shuttle and other vehicles from the US. As of 2018 the Cygnus resupply vehicle from the US was capable of performing the orbit raising mission. While the Cygnus was still docked at the space station's Unity module on Tuesday (July 10), the spacecraft fired its main engine for 50 seconds as part of a test to determine whether the cargo ship can be used to raise the space station's orbit, Frank DeMauro, Vice President of Advanced Programs at NGIS, told Space.com. About the size of a short bus, the Cygnus may look puny compared to the ISS, which is as big as a football field. But its powerful Delta-V engine provided enough thrust to raise the space station by about 282 feet (86 meters). "The burn went extremely well," DeMauro said. "The spacecraft behaved exactly as we expected." https://www.space.com/41172-cygnus-leaves-space-station-orbital-boost.html https://www.space.com/41172-cygnus-leaves-space-station-orbi...
SEJeff 3y ago
IIRC, NASA and SpaceX are working on a study to see if Dragon can do station keeping for this exact reason. NASA is doing a great job hedging their bets in a very tricky political climate.
panick21_ 3y ago
NASA replacement stations are totally underfunded by congress, non are close. Don't expect a solution from that anyime soon.
- resolutebat 3y ago
  If Starship delivers even half of what they're promising, we'll have a bunch of commercial space stations up even without NASA support. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_space_stations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_space_stati...
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    Building a commercial station isn't very easy. And if you are not investing a a couple billion your not even in the game. Non of those companies will invest billions on their own. All of those companies investment is predicated on NASA support. Do you really believe Northrop Grumman will invest billions of its own money? The Startups are to small an inexperienced. And Bezos has already said they will not do this unless they get NASA investment. To just link to a bunch 'commercial' stations is missing the point. These concept exists because NASA has announced they will fund multiple 'commercial' station. But unfortunately Congress has not given NASA the budget for these.
  - rtkwe 3y ago
    There's quite a gulf between what's promised and what's been tested. Despite the backfilling about just a test and total success there's were a LOT of big failures in that first launch test.
  - wongarsu 3y ago
    But what's the market for those, without NASA funding? Maybe one Salyut-sized station for "space tourism" (that is to say, 1-3 day stays for like 3 people at a time), and maybe one similarly sized station for space manufacturing (which is currently just optical fiber) and commercial 0g experiments. You could dock both together to share some systems. But what's the market demand for anything beyond those two stations, never mind any station comparable to the ISS?
vGPU 3y ago
>can’t get a replacement station Ok, let’s break this down from the start. Russia has launched 10 space stations. The ISS was built using modules that were built for the Mir-2 station. The ISS was built on top of Russian modules. Meanwhile, NASA wasn’t even able to fly their own astronauts to the ISS for a decade until Musk stepped in. Russia has also demonstrated that they continue to have this capability as they added the first expansion to the ISS in over two decades recently. I would hazard a guess that Russia’s capability in this area is much more… capable than the US at this time. They are also far more likely to be able to come to a collaboration agreement with china than the US is at this time. They also helped india kickstart their space program recently. In conclusion: Russia bad? Maybe. But they weren’t stupid enough to outsource their manufacturing and allow the loss of institutional knowledge that the US has.
- dotnet00 3y ago
  Russia added a module that had been sitting around for 13 years and was only finally launched because warranties on some parts would've begun expiring. Then the first thing that module did was flip the station. While yes, they have a history of doing better than the US on space stations, the point is that their space industry is a shadow of what it used to be. This can be seen from how many next generation rockets, rocket engines and crewed vehicles they've announced over the years which have never really ended up amounting to much. For instance, the timeline on Orel makes Orion seem like a speedy development. Finally, while the US did make that mistake at first, they've very obviously more than recovered that knowledge considering how many different engines, launch vehicles, spacecraft etc are in actual (as in having working hardware to show and not just mockups and promises) development by several different American companies. Plus, much of the former Soviet space program can be attributed just as much to Ukraine, where a lot of the R&D happened ;)
  - vGPU 3y ago
    Indeed. Though Rogozin was a net benefit to Roscosmos over the past decade, as can be seen by their current launch record, with 100 successful launches in a row over the past few years. However, he is definitely not a Musk type visionary. From what I know of him, he's a "fixer", that was sent in to clean up the ridiculous amounts of waste and corruption in the system. Under Borisov's management there are rumors that they are building a new satellite factory that should be starting production soon. And realistically, let's not forget that the US has always significantly lagged Russia in this field. If it wasn't for Operation Paperclip they would not have been competitive at all. >Ukraine Let's be honest here: Ukraine has existed as a state for less than 40 years in it's entire history. The geographic location of current Ukraine has nothing to do with the accomplishments of the former USSR. This is evidenced by the complete and utter lack of any accomplishment in the field by Ukraine after the collapse of the USSR. Side note: Gotta love this tweet threatening Musk for praising the Russian space program: https://twitter.com/KristiTalmadge/status/1103751764409495556?s=20 https://twitter.com/KristiTalmadge/status/110375176440949555...

inglor_cz 3y ago

One of the effects of the invasion was that the Antares rocket stopped being viable. Antares used a pair of Russian RD-181 engines. The first stage was built in Ukraine (Dnipro). This sort of cooperation is basically dead.

shellfishgene 3y ago
I've been wondering, with the rocket science knowledge the Ukraine has, are they not capable of designing and building mid-rage missiles for their military, or is that just a much longer process?
- gpm 3y ago
  They have been doing this https://www.eurasiantimes.com/denied-atacms-ukraine-says-it-is-developing-its-1000/ https://www.eurasiantimes.com/denied-atacms-ukraine-says-it-... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/09/its-simple-and-cheap-the-volunteers-making-ukraine-trembita-bomb https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/09/its-simple-and... Surface to air: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/07/24/the-ukrainians-have-their-own-surface-to-air-missile-system-what-they-dont-have-is-factories-to-make-them/?sh=175d21243a92 https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/07/24/the-ukraini...
- inglor_cz 3y ago
  The Hrim-2 missile (hrim/hrom/grom is Slavic for thunder) may be precisely that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrim-2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrim-2
- urinotherapist 3y ago
  Ukrainian missile "Neptune" hit Russian "Moscow" flagship, so they are capable, but drones are much much cheaper. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Moskva https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Moskva

Veedrac 3y ago

I still can't get over this quote from the congressional hearing with Michael Gass, then-CEO of ULA, > Some of the most unique missions clearly don't need multiple capabilities in this country, and if we talk about fair and level competition, is it two companies, is it three companies, is it four companies? When does it stop, and how do you limit other companies from wanting to participate, and taking a niche of the of the product? This was the same hearing in which Gass gave a last ditch defense of Russian engines, and fought Musk in favor of cost-plus and ULA's ~$800m/y subsidy for existing. Even the people that follow newspace probably normally don't realize just how rotten through the industry and its governance had become.