Taken from the Probert Ambassador thread:
http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/showflat....e=0&fpart=6
What's going to happen following ISS completion and shuttle retirement in 2010 is exclusive manned launches by Soyuz until the Orion CEV is ready in 2014; the station commitment ends in 2015-6, and if they extend it beyond that time then it'll be a combination of Soyuz and Orion vehicles for crew return, though it'll likely be mostly Soyuz since Orion is SUPPOSED to be tasked primarily for moon missions.
And there currently is NO plan for another crew return vehicle; as described above, they will be using existing or confirmed designs from now until the station is done.
The picture you posted earlier shows a VERY outdated view of what ISS will look like in 2010... Among things, the Russian Solar Power Platform (the spider-like solar array on top of the station) is gone; the replacement Pirs docking module is gone, and they'll continue using the existing one instead of jettisoning it; the Russian research modules have been cut from four to one, and THAT one isn't likely to happen either. A new combo storage/science module is replacing most of what was cancelled, cannibalized out of the backup Zarya module.
I've found the thread I referred to earlier, which discusses exactly that (among people, actual rocket scientists post there, and they're WAY smarter than you or I). According to them, the international side would never be able to survive without the propulsion and support of the Russian part of the station; the Russian side COULD theorhetically survive, but it wouldn't be able to do much useful science without the International side's power and lab facilities.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=2881&posts=133&start=1
The only way BOTH would survive would be with the addition of numerous add-ons to at least the international side, not the least of which would have to be propulsion and cargo facilities. Getting into that though means money, and money means politics, and politics means it ain't gonna happen.
Personally, I'm hoping they'll extend the committment to 2020 then build a smaller, more efficient laboratory station to support microgravity science and commercial production, in concert with a commercial and government-funded outpost on the moon.
Mark
http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/showflat....e=0&fpart=6
If there's a plan, it's not part of the current design for the station. There's no real NEED to maneuver with thrusters on a low-earth-orbit space station. Main propulsion and station reboost is accomplished via the station's main thrusters on the Zvezda module, plus whatever spacecraft happen to be docked at the time (Soyuz, Progress, space shuttle, and starting next year Jules Verne). Attitude control is accomplished via the station gyroscopes.
That was shelved ages ago and will never see daylight. The current plan is to use twin Soyuz launches to maintain a return capacity of six, allowing them to keep six people on the station once the life support systems are beefed up with the systems on Node 2 and 3 (right now, they can keep about a dozen people on ISS for relatively short periods of time). The Russians want to have their own lifting body evolution of Soyuz, called Klipper, but that's not likely to happen either.
What's going to happen following ISS completion and shuttle retirement in 2010 is exclusive manned launches by Soyuz until the Orion CEV is ready in 2014; the station commitment ends in 2015-6, and if they extend it beyond that time then it'll be a combination of Soyuz and Orion vehicles for crew return, though it'll likely be mostly Soyuz since Orion is SUPPOSED to be tasked primarily for moon missions.
Well, it WORKS.
And there currently is NO plan for another crew return vehicle; as described above, they will be using existing or confirmed designs from now until the station is done.Yes and no. The Russians have had tons of trouble finding funding to fulfill their signed committments to ISS, which has resulted in numerous cutbacks and cancelled modules. The Zvezda module in fact was so far behind that the States was building a propulsion module out of an old satellite that would keep everything else aloft for a while in case the Russians couldn't afford it.
The picture you posted earlier shows a VERY outdated view of what ISS will look like in 2010... Among things, the Russian Solar Power Platform (the spider-like solar array on top of the station) is gone; the replacement Pirs docking module is gone, and they'll continue using the existing one instead of jettisoning it; the Russian research modules have been cut from four to one, and THAT one isn't likely to happen either. A new combo storage/science module is replacing most of what was cancelled, cannibalized out of the backup Zarya module.
That'd be Node 3, which will be attached to the existing Node 1. In addition to life support for the international side of the station, it's got all sorts of nifty crew habitation goodies and (finally) an actual toilet.
That was cancelled years ago, and no replacement is in sight. Node 2 (which is going up in October) will have three sleeping berths, which will bring the total to six (right now, two of the crew sleep in Zvezda, and the third in a berth in Destiny). The cupola will be delivered with Node 3 in 2010. However, they won't be able to bring the crew to the planned number of six people until the life support systems are upgraded.
The centrifuge module was cancelled a couple years back, and I believe the half-finished shell has been turned into a test article. The "logistics module" is just where the MPLMs are docked when they're brought up by the shuttle; they aren't meant to be permanent modules for the station and can't be left in orbit for long periods anyway. That lower port will be occupied at least once also by an automated Japanese cargo ship, too.
I've found the thread I referred to earlier, which discusses exactly that (among people, actual rocket scientists post there, and they're WAY smarter than you or I). According to them, the international side would never be able to survive without the propulsion and support of the Russian part of the station; the Russian side COULD theorhetically survive, but it wouldn't be able to do much useful science without the International side's power and lab facilities.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=2881&posts=133&start=1
The only way BOTH would survive would be with the addition of numerous add-ons to at least the international side, not the least of which would have to be propulsion and cargo facilities. Getting into that though means money, and money means politics, and politics means it ain't gonna happen.
Personally, I'm hoping they'll extend the committment to 2020 then build a smaller, more efficient laboratory station to support microgravity science and commercial production, in concert with a commercial and government-funded outpost on the moon.
Mark
