the future of russia`s manned space programme

Transcription

Space
Chronicle: JBIS, Vol. 63, Suppl. 1, pp.??-??, 2010
Bart Hendrickx
THE FUTURE OF RUSSIA’S MANNED SPACE PROGRAMME
BART HENDRICKX
Minervastraat 39, 2640 Mortsel, Belgium.
This paper looks at plans to expand the Russian segment of the International Space Station with new modules and
replace the venerable Soyuz and Progress spacecraft with a new transportation system. It will also discuss
preliminary plans to orbit a new Russian space station and send cosmonauts to the Moon and Mars.
Keywords: Russia, manned space programme, ISS, Russian segment, Soyuz, Progress, PPTS, Rus-M, OPSEK
1.
Introduction
Russia’s manned spaceflight plans for the immediate
future continue to be linked to the International Space
Station (ISS). After years of delays, the station’s Russian
segment is expected to be expanded with several new
modules in the next few years. Not only should these
modules increase the scientific potential of the segment,
they may eventually form the core of a new Russian
space station that in turn could serve as a stepping-stone
for piloted missions to the Moon and Mars. Also on the
drawing boards is a new generation of transport ships
that can perform a wide variety of tasks in Earth orbit and
beyond, but will also require the construction of a new
cosmodrome and launch vehicle to make it into orbit. It
remains to be seen if the Russian government will be
able to provide the budgets needed to turn these ambitious goals into reality in the foreseeable future.
2.
Expanding the ISS Russian segment
2.1
Changing Configurations
•
Over the years there have been a multitude of plans to
expand the Russian segment with new elements, but none
of these materialized, mainly due to financial problems [1].
The Federal Space Programme for 2006-2015 (further referred to as FSP 2006-2015), officially approved by the
Russian government on 22 October 2005, called for the
expansion of the Russian segment with the following elements (Russian acronyms given between brackets):
•
Multipurpose Laboratory Module (MLM) in 2007: FGBbased vehicle docked to the Zarya nadir port.
•
Science Power Module (NEM) in 2009: pressurized
module and truss with solar panels mounted on the
Zvezda zenith (upward facing) docking port.
•
Research Module (IM) in 2011: FGB-based vehicle
docked to the Zvezda nadir port. Prior to its launch,
Pirs would be relocated to a lateral docking port on
the NEM pressurized module using the European
Robotic Arm. In that position it could no longer receive
transport ships.
•
Small Research Module 1 (MIM-1) in 2012: docked to
the IM multiple docking adapter.
•
Small Research Module (MIM-2) in 2013: docked to
the IM multiple docking adapter.
Until late 2009, the Russian segment of the International
Space Station consisted of three elements:
•
•
the Zarya “functional cargo block” (launched
November 1998), the first element of ISS. Built by
Russia (Khrunichev Centre), it was financed by NASA
and is referred to as “a US element technically
integrated into the Russian segment” in the
intergovernmental agreement governing the ISS
programme. Operationally, it is generally regarded
an element of the Russian segment because it is
controlled from the Russian Mission Control Centre.
It is mainly used as a cargo and fuel storage depot.
the Zvezda “service module” (launched July 2000).
The main living quarters of the station.
An abridged version of this paper was presented at the British
Interplanetary Society’s "International Space" Forum on 6th
June 2009.
2
the Pirs “docking compartment” (launched September
2001): this is docked to the Zvezda nadir (downward
facing) docking port and serves a dual role: it has an
aft docking port to receive Soyuz and Progress
spacecraft and also acts as an airlock for spacewalks
using the Russian Orlan spacesuits.
This configuration was approved during a meeting of
space agency heads at the Kennedy Space Centre in March
2006, although it did not provide the four docking ports
required for the expansion of the station’s resident crew
from three to six in 2009. Therefore, in the second half of
2005 RKK Energiya, the country’s leading designer and
manufacturer of manned spacecraft, had already begun
The Future of Russia's Manned Space Programme
looking at a different configuration, possibly also with a view
to operating part of the Russian segment as an independent
Russian space station in case NASA decided to withdraw
from the ISS project in 2015 (see section 5.2). The big
Research Module was scrapped and its place on the Zvezda
nadir port was now occupied by MLM. A new Node Module
(UM) with six docking ports would be attached to MLM’s aft
port to house the two Small Research Modules as well as
the NEM, which was now split in two sections and relocated
from the Zvezda zenith port. Before the arrival of MLM, Pirs
would be moved to the Zvezda zenith port, where it would
continue to receive transport vehicles. This configuration
was approved by the Russian Federal Space Agency (further referred to as “Roskosmos”) in November 2006 and
presented to space agency heads in Paris in January 2007
[2].
Subsequently, due to delays in the launch of MLM, the
Small Research Modules MIM-1 and MIM-2 were given
new locations and redesigned for missions largely unrelated to scientific research, although for some reason
their original names were retained and MIM-2 was rescheduled to go up before MIM-1.
MIM-2 was finally launched in November 2009 and,
barring any unforeseen glitches, MIM-1 will follow suit in
May 2010. Launch dates have also been set for further
elements, but the status of these is far less clear. An
overview will be given here of the new elements of the
Russian segment [3].
2.2
Mini Research Module 2
(MRM-2/Russian acronym: MIM-2)
(“Poisk”)
MIM-2 was placed into orbit on 10 November 2009 by a
Soyuz-FG launch vehicle (mission 5R in the station assembly sequence) and docked with the Zvezda zenith
port two days later. Built by RKK Energiya, this is essentially a carbon copy of Pirs, acting both as a docking
compartment for Soyuz and Progress vehicles as well as
an airlock for Russian EVAs. It was towed to the station
with a Progress M service module, which was detached
from the vehicle after undocking, freeing an aft docking
port for Soyuz and Progress vehicles.
Several weeks before launch MIM-2 was officially
named Poisk, one possible translation of which is “Quest”,
the same name given to the station’s American airlock. It
has the industry designator 240GK N°2L (Pirs being
240GK N°1L). The combination of MIM-2 and the Progress
service module was called Progress M-MIM2 (industry
designator 11F615A55.40 N°302). The service module
was the same type as that of a standard Progress M and
did not have the modifications incorporated into the latest
generation of Progress cargo ships (see section 3.4).
A second Russian airlock/docking compartment (originally known as SO-2) was already included in the ISS
manifests drawn up in the 1990s to eventually replace Pirs
(SO-1), but was eliminated in 2001 when it turned out that
Pirs could remain part of the Russian segment by moving it
to another position. Theoretically, even now Pirs could have
been relocated to the Zvezda zenith port prior to the arrival
of MLM and continue to serve its current role, but the
repeated launch delays of MLM necessitated the launch of a
new docking compartment. The idea to launch it was first
proposed by RKK Energiya in the summer of 2007 and
approved by Roskosmos on 9 November 2007.
Firstly, without the new docking module, the Russian
segment would have only three docking ports for transport ships (Zvezda aft, Pirs aft, Zarya nadir), while four
are preferred for a resident crew of six. Two Soyuz vehicles need to be permanently attached to the station as
lifeboats to evacuate all crew members in case of an
emergency and a third Soyuz will occasionally be docked
during crew handover operations, although in most cases
one crew will leave shortly before a fresh one arrives.
Moreover, at least one port is needed for receiving
Progress cargo ships (preferably Pirs aft or Zvezda aft)
and the Zvezda aft docking port will occasionally be
occupied for several weeks or months on end by European ATV cargo vehicles.
In principle, the Russian segment has had four available docking ports since the launch of Zvezda in 2000
(Zvezda aft, nadir, zenith and Zarya nadir), but the Zvezda
nadir and zenith ports are “hybrid” ports (Russian acronym SSVP-M or G8000) that are incompatible with the
Soyuz and Progress SSVP (G4000) docking systems.
Like SSVP ports, SSVP-M ports have a standard probe or
drogue docking mechanism in the centre, but unlike SSVP
they have the periphery of the androgynous peripheral
docking system (APAS). The stronger SSVP-M ports were
needed on Zvezda nadir and zenith because these were
originally intended to be the major locations for the expansion of the Russian segment and therefore needed a
higher load-bearing capacity than standard SSVP ports.
Outfitting Soyuz vehicles with the heavier SSVP-M ports
is not an option because that would reduce the crew from
three to two. The result is that docking compartments or
other modules are needed as an interface between the
Zvezda nadir/zenith ports and Soyuz/Progress.
MLM was supposed to open up a fourth Soyuz/Progress
docking berth at the Zvezda nadir location, but as the
module ran into repeated launch delays, there was a real
chance that the Russian segment would be left with only
three docking ports by the time the station’s crew was
expanded in 2009. Therefore, the new docking module
was needed to provide a fourth docking port as long as
MLM remained stuck on the ground.
3
Bart Hendrickx
Secondly, when docked to Zvezda nadir, MLM will use
its engines for roll control of the station, a task currently
performed by Progress ships docked to Pirs. As long as
MLM is not launched, Pirs needs to stay docked to Zvezda
nadir to maintain that capability. Therefore, a new compartment was needed on the opposite port for Soyuz
vehicles, freeing up Pirs for Progress dockings. An additional factor in the decision to launch a new docking
compartment may have been that the Russians elected
to have a fresh airlock/docking compartment in place
because Pirs was originally certified for a mission lasting
just five years.
Pirs will remain docked to the Zvezda nadir port until
at least late 2011 or early 2012, when it will be detached
from the station and de-orbited with the help of a visiting
Progress ship, opening up the vacated Zvezda port for
MLM. This means the Russians will have two airlock
modules available for at least two years. Until the arrival
of MLM, Poisk will only receive Soyuz vehicles, meaning
that most if not all of the spacewalks during that time will
probably continue to be staged from Pirs. The reason for
this is that if an EVA is performed from an airlock module
that has a Soyuz attached to it, the depressurized airlock
blocks the emergency escape route to Soyuz for the third
crew member. Although that crew member can sit out the
EVA inside the Soyuz descent module (as Greg Chamitoff
had to do during EVAs from Pirs by his Russian colleagues in July 2008), that is a highly uncomfortable
situation that station controllers rather avoid.
Poisk proper weighed about 3600 kg at launch, including 754 kg of consumables and equipment for the station.
Like Pirs, it consists of three elements: the forward part of
a Soyuz/Progress orbital module with an SSVP-M probe
docking mechanism, a central spherical section with two
1000 mm diameter EVA hatches on either side and a
small aft cylindrical section with an SSVP drogue port
(Fig. 1). The latter two sections are derived from a docking module originally developed for the Soviet Union’s
Buran shuttle to enable it to dock with the Mir-2 space
station. Pirs has two “Strela” (“Arrow”) booms on its exterior surface to facilitate access by cosmonauts to various
elements of the Russian segment. One of these was
launched inside Pirs, the other delivered by the Space
Shuttle. One of these booms will be transferred to Poisk
once Pirs is ready to be discarded. Even though MIM-2 is
primarily supposed to receive Soyuz vehicles, it does
have internal propellant lines that allow docked Progress
ships to refuel Zarya and Zvezda.
Poisk will offer some limited room for conducting scientific experiments. A total of ten different scientific experiments in four research fields are expected to be
conducted on the module between 2010 and 2014. Some
scientific experiments currently performed aboard Zvezda
4
Fig. 1 The MIM-2 module.
(source: Roskosmos)
and Pirs may also be transferred to Poisk. Windows with
a diameter of 228 mm in both hatches will be used for
visual observations of the Earth. There are also five
locations on the exterior for mounting scientific payloads.
One of these (located on the same spot where Pirs has
its second “Strela” boom) will be able to carry three
payloads. Poisk can also be used as a sleeping quarters
for a third Russian crew member.
MIM-2’s berthing place, the Zvezda zenith port, had
never been used before and therefore several spacewalks were necessary to prepare it for receiving the
compartment. On 15 July 2008 Sergei Volkov and Oleg
Kononenko (Expedition 17) installed a docking target on
Zvezda’s transfer compartment and inspected connections for antennas of the Kurs rendezvous system. Those
antennas were eventually mounted by Gennadiy Padalka
and Michael Barratt (Expedition 20) during an EVA on 5
June 2009. Five days later the two men performed an
“intravehicular activity” inside the Zvezda transfer compartment to remove the hatch cover from the Zvezda
zenith port and replace it with a drogue docking mechanism. The newly installed Kurs antennas were successfully tested in a rendezvous test with the Progress M-02M
cargo ship. This Progress had undocked from ISS on 30
June 2009 after fulfilling its primary mission and then
made a second rendezvous with the ISS on 12 July,
approaching the Zvezda zenith port to a distance of 1012 m before backing out.
Poisk arrived at the Baikonur cosmodrome on 11 September 2009 and underwent final launch preparations in
the former Buran assembly building in Area 254. After
arriving at ISS on 12 November, it became the first new
element to be attached to the Russian segment in eight
years (Fig. 2). The service module was detached from the
vehicle on 8 December and de-orbited later the same
day. On 14 January 2010 cosmonauts Oleg Kotov and
Maksim Surayev conducted a final spacewalk to outfit
Poisk for receiving Soyuz and Progress ships. Among
other things, they deployed antennas and a docking target, mounted two handrails, plugged the new module’s
Kurs antennas into the Kurs docking system circuitry and
installed multi-layer insulation blankets. Finally, on 21
January 2010 Poisk’s aft docking port was used for the
first time when Surayev and Expedition 22 commander
Jeffrey Williams flew their Soyuz TMA-16 spacecraft from
the Zvezda aft port to the new module. Like Pirs, Poisk
has a five-year warranty, but will probably remain attached to the station much longer than that [4].
2.3
Mini Research Module 1
(MRM-1/Russian acronym MIM-1)
(“Rassvet”)
At the time of writing, MIM-1 is set for launch on 14 May
2010 on the STS-132 mission of Space Shuttle Atlantis
(ULF-4 in the station assembly sequence) and will be
attached to the Zarya nadir port. This module will deliver
cargo both internally and externally and will subsequently
be used for storage. It also has an aft docking port for
Soyuz and Progress vehicles. It is also designated the
Docking Cargo Module (DCM, Russian acronym SGM)
and its industry designator is 521GK. It will be officially
named Rassvet (“Dawn”).
The module may have been conceived in early 2006,
well before the new docking compartment, which ultimately ended up preceding it in the assembly schedule
(explaining the seemingly illogical numbering sequence
for the MIM modules). Originally, its prime purpose was to
maintain Soyuz/Progress docking capability on the Zarya
nadir port after the arrival of the US Node-3 module. At
the time, Node-3 was supposed to be docked to the
neighbouring nadir port of the Node-1/Unity module and
would hamper dockings of Soyuz and Progress vehicles
to the FGB nadir port. Attaching a module as an extension to the Zarya nadir port before the Node-3 launch in
2009 would solve that problem.
The Zarya nadir port was scheduled to receive MLM,
but its launch date threatened to slip past that of Node-3.
Therefore, MLM was reoriented for docking to the Zvezda
nadir port (after the cancellation of the big FGB-based
Research Module) and a new module was conceived that
could be readied for launch earlier. This could be achieved
by using an already existing hull originally built in 19981999 as a dynamic test model for the pressurized section
of the Science Power Module. A static test model of that
section built at the same time could be adapted for both
static and dynamic tests of the new module. Also, by
flying the new module on the Space Shuttle, its launch
date would no longer depend on that of Node-3. The
station’s robot arm could transfer the new module to
Zarya irrespective of whether Node-3 had arrived or not.
Negotiations on manifesting MIM-1 on the Shuttle probably began in 2006, but an official deal was not announced by NASA until 9 April 2007. It was said that
MLM-1 would fly on the Shuttle as part of a $719 million
contract between NASA and the Russian Federal Space
Fig. 2 Progress M-MIM-2 docked to the Zvezda zenith port.
(source: NASA)
5
Bart Hendrickx
Agency for crew and cargo services through 2011. MIM-1
will carry 1.4 tons of NASA cargo to the space station.
Mounted externally will be 1.72 tons of Russian hardware
that will eventually be transferred to MLM. NASA was
obligated to deliver the Russian hardware to the station
under a 2006 addendum to the ISS Balance of Contributions Agreement between NASA and Roskosmos. By
mounting the outfitting hardware for MLM on the new
module, NASA eliminated the need to fly a dedicated
cargo carrier and some ballast on a Shuttle flight.
MIM-1 is a cylindrical module with docking ports on
either side, one a standard SSVP probe (for attachment
to Zarya) and the other a standard SSVP drogue (for
receiving transport ships). Attached to the outside will be
several elements that will eventually be transferred to
MLM: a small airlock (900 kg), a radiator panel (570 kg), a
back-up elbow joint for the European Robotic Arm (150
kg) and a portable work platform with attachment points
for the ERA (100 kg) (Fig. 3).
The module will be installed in the aft section of the
Shuttle’s cargo bay. The front section will be occupied
by an unrelated Integrated Cargo Carrier. After the
Shuttle docks with Node-2/Harmony, the module will
be transferred to Zarya using both the Shuttle and ISS
robot manipulator arms. Ironically, the original purpose
for building MIM-1 is no longer valid, because Node-3
(now dubbed Tranquility) is no longer scheduled to
dock with the nadir port, but with another port on Unity.
However, NASA now intends to leave one of the Italianbuilt Multipurpose Logistics Modules permanently attached to the station as a storage depot for spare parts
and the most likely docking port for this module will be
the Unity nadir port.
Following the unloading of the internally installed US
cargo, MIM-1 can be used for stowage. With Zarya stuffed
full, stowage is becoming a problem on the Russian
segment and therefore MIM-1 will be a welcome addition,
although only 5.5 m³ of its 18 m³ pressurized volume is
said to be reserved for delivery and storage of cargo.
Cluttering was such a big problem on Mir that the Russians included a so-called Docking and Stowage Module
in the original plans for the ISS Russian segment, but it
was scrapped in 2000. MIM-1 will now fulfil very much the
same role.
The flight model of MIM-1 was delivered to the Kennedy
Space Centre by an Antonov-124 “Ruslan” transport aircraft on 17 December 2009. The module is undergoing
final launch processing at the payload processing facility
of Spacehab, located adjacent to the south entrance of
the Kennedy Space Centre. Spacehab’s own modules
are not manifested for flight on any of the remaining
Space Shuttle missions (Fig. 4).
6
Fig. 3 The MIM-1 module.
(source: NASA)
Fig. 4 MIM-1 at RKK Energiya prior to its shipment to the
US.
(source: RKK Energiya)
2.4
Multipurpose Laboratory Module (MLM)
MLM is currently set for launch in 2012 with a Proton-M
rocket (mission 3R in the station assembly sequence)
and scheduled to dock with Zvezda’s nadir port. MLM will
house facilities for scientific experiments and additional
life support systems for the six-man permanent crew.
Unconfirmed reports say it will be officially called
Perspektiva (“Perspective”, “Prospect”).
MLM uses the hull of FGB-2, originally built by the
Khrunichev Centre in the late 1990s as a back-up for
Zarya (Fig. 5). Ever since the successful launch of
Zarya, the Russians have floated a multitude of ideas
to turn the vehicle into a new element of the Russian
segment. The MLM plan originated in 2003 and the
new module was officially included as a part of the
Russian segment by a Federal Space Agency decision
on 16 February 2004. This was followed by another
agency decision on 20 July 2004 that set a timeline for
MLM development [5].
MLM consists of an aft conical section and a long
cylindrical section together known as the Instrument and
Cargo Compartment (PGO) and a spherical Pressurized
Adapter (GA) (Fig. 6). The overall habitable volume is
71 m³ (64 m³ for the PGO and 7 m³ for the GA). Up to 8 m³
Fig. 5 FGB-2 at the Khrunichev Centre.
(source: Khrunichev)
Fig. 6 The MLM module.
of that is reserved to store cargo and the same amount of
volume is envisaged for carrying out scientific experiments.
In June 2005 the then director of the Khrunichev Centre
Aleksandr Medvedev admitted that FGB-2 had been
mothballed after the successful launch of Zarya and that
no significant work on it had been done ever since because of budgetary issues. Vehicle readiness had been
given at various times as 60, 70 and 75 %, but this was
not an indicator of actual progress in building the vehicle,
but merely reflected how much work remained to be done
on it as the plans for its actual use changed. It wasn’t until
the Russian manned spaceflight budget got an extra
boost that same month, that work on the FGB-2 was
resumed [6]. On 3 November 2006 RKK Energiya and the
Federal Space Agency signed a contract which stipulated
that RKK Energiya would be the prime contractor, with
Khrunichev and several other companies acting as subcontractors [7].
MLM will have three docking ports: a “hybrid” SSVP-M
probe on the aft conical section to link up with the Zvezda
nadir port, a standard SSVP drogue on the GA to receive
transport ships and also a lateral port on the GA to attach
a small airlock through which experiments can be exposed to the vacuum of space. A pair of solar panels
extend from the PGO, providing much needed energy for
the on-board scientific experiments. The module will have
three types of thrusters: the Correction and Approach
Engines (DKS), the Approach and Stabilization Engines
(DPS) and the Precision Stabilization Engines (DTS).
After having been used for orientation and orbit corrections during autonomous flight, some of these engines
will be used for roll control of the ISS once MLM is
docked. The engines will draw their propellant from eight
tanks mounted on the outer hull of MLM. Propellant delivered by Progress vehicles can be routed to Zarya and
Zvezda via MLM. On board MLM wil be a European-built
DMS-R computer, similar to the one used on Zvezda.
Attached to the outer surface of MLM will be the longdelayed European Robotic Arm (ERA), built by Dutch
Space (formerly Fokker Space), a subsidiary of EADS.
Originally, the ERA was planned to be launched on the
Shuttle together with the now cancelled Science Power
Module, but in August 2004 the Federal Space Agency
decided to launch it together with MLM instead and a
contract on modifying the ERA was signed with Dutch
Space on 27 October 2005. The ERA will be deployed
after arrival of MLM at the ISS and be able to “walk” over
the Russian segment with the help of special fixture
points that provide both electrical and mechanical interfaces. There will also be room on MLM’s hull to install a
Shuttle-derived cargo platform carrying scientific instruments as well as ERA grapple fixtures and other equipment. Also mounted on the outside will be so-called
Universal Work Platforms to which cosmonauts can anchor themselves during spacewalks.
(source: NASA)
According to plans announced in 2006, more than 60
Russian experiments will be devised for MLM [8]. Some
of the science facilities on board MLM will be offered to
customers on a commercial basis. In order to make MLM
more attractive as a science platform to foreign customers, efforts have been made to install standard interfaces
for scientific experiments and switch from analogue to
digital technology to the maximum extent possible. In
early 2007 the then president of RKK Energiya Nikolai
Sevastyanov expressed the hope that this would allow
the investment into MLM to be returned in 10 years [9]. At
the same time, it should not be forgotten that MLM is not
a dedicated science module (like the now cancelled Research Module) and is unlikely to offer the same potential
for scientific experiments as the Destiny, Columbus and
Kibo modules.
In an unusually candid interview with the Russian
space magazine Novosti kosmonavtiki in late 2006, RKK
Energiya cosmonaut Pavel Vinogradov noted delays in
the preparation of scientific experiments for the Russian
segment and questioned the value of ISS science in
general:
“Why do we need to increase the size of the crew?
What will they be doing? [At a recent meeting of the
7
Bart Hendrickx
Council of Chief Designers] [RKK Energiya president
Nikolai] Sevastyanov and [flight director Vladimir]
Solovyov showed only two slides related to
experiments. This is exactly what we should be …
preparing for [as we expand the crew to six in] 2009,
to keep the crew occupied with scientific experiments
and not just have them service an ageing and
excessively big station. We are now flying with zero
efficiency. We’re carrying out 30-year old experiments.
Even if they are very important, do they move us
forward? I have no idea. The results disappear into all
kinds of PhDs. The Americans are doing experiments
that we did back in the Salyut and Mir days. Why?
Can’t they find the results [in Russia]? Or don’t they
want to? This is unbelievable. I always thought we
have to fly in the interests of science, to produce
results needed by many people, and all we’re doing is
keeping the station in working order. 62 % of our time
goes to servicing on-board systems, 15 % to personal
needs and only 23 % to science … One would think
that if the crew size is increased those percentages
would change in favour of science, but no! The [long]
lists of experiments that should be queuing up to be
carried out on board are not there, nor will they be in
2009, because money has to be invested in them
already now and this is not happening. And so the sixman crew will be wasting its time....”[10].
Realizing this problem, Russia’s leading civilian space
R&D institute TsNIIMash, which coordinates Russian scientific research on ISS, recently called on Russia’s scientific
community to devise additional Russian experiments for
ISS [11]. Russia has also signed an agreement with ESA,
allowing it to stage Russian or joint Russian-European experiments on the European Columbus module [12].
2.5
Node Module (NM, Russian acronym UM)
UM is currently set for launch in 2013 with a Soyuz rocket
and scheduled to dock with the MLM nadir port. Intended
to further expand the docking capabilities of the Russian
segment, it looks almost identical to the ball-shaped
docking adapter of the Mir core module, having two axial
and four lateral docking ports. Like Pirs and Poisk, it will
be delivered to the station by a Progress service module,
which will be de-orbited after docking with ISS. The entire
vehicle will be known as Progress M-UM (serial N°303).
The UM first appeared in Russia’s ISS plans in 2006. The
front axial port will dock with the MLM nadir port and the
aft axial port will receive transport ships. Two of the lateral
ports will be used to dock the Science Power Modules
and the two others have no particular vehicles assigned
to them yet. If necessary, the UM will probably also be
able to serve as an EVA airlock, just like Mir’s docking
adapter.
2.6
Science Power Modules 1 and 2
(SPM-1/2, Russian acronym NEM-1/2)
NEM-1 and NEM-2 are currently set for launch in 2014
8
and 2015 with Proton-M rockets and scheduled to dock
with the UM node. They will sport a total of eight solar
panels that will make the Russian segment self-sufficient
in terms of power supply.
For power supply the Russian segment now largely
relies on the huge US solar arrays on the station truss.
The only Russian solar panels currently being used
are the two extending from the Zvezda Service Module. The two solar panels of Zarya were retracted in
September 2007 to make room for the deployment of
radiator panels on the US truss and there are no plans
to redeploy them. The two solar panels of MLM will add
additional power, but not enough to supply the entire
Russian segment.
The NEM modules have evolved from what was originally known as the Science Power Platform (SPP, Russian acronym NEP), which was supposed to be deployed
on the zenith port of Zvezda. It would have consisted of a
pressurized section containing support equipment, a truss
structure and eight solar panels. Original plans also called
for mounting thruster packages on NEP as well as the
European Robotic Arm. The idea was to gradually assemble NEP, with the individual elements being launched
by Zenit rockets. When the Zenit was dropped from the
station assembly schedule in 1996, NEP was remanifested
on the Space Shuttle. In 2001 NEP was simplified and
now comprised only a truss and four solar panels, without
the pressurized section. However, in 2003 the Russians
returned to a design that looked very much like the
original one, again including a pressurized module, which
might explain the name change from NEP to NEM (“platform” to “module”).
In 2005 the newly appointed NASA Administrator Mike
Griffin decided to significantly cut back the amount of
remaining Space Shuttle missions. Among the missions
scrapped were the two scheduled to carry elements of
NEM. Following several months of negotiations, it was
decided at a meeting of space agency chiefs in March
2006 that NASA would compensate for the elimination of
those flights by supplying US power to the Russian segment from 2007 to 2015 [13].
At this stage it seemed NEM might not have to be built
at all, but eventually it was maintained in Russia’s station
plans to ensure independence from US power supply
after the March 2006 agreement expires in 2015. By mid2006 NEM had been relocated to the UM node and
redesigned to consist of two individually launched modules, each comprising a pressurized section with four
solar arrays and a single radiator panel to dissipate heat
[14]. The total mass of both elements is 20 tons, necessitating launch by the Proton-M rocket. With the transfer
from Shuttle to Proton, the NEM modules will require
some type of propulsion system to reach ISS, but no
details of this have been announced so far. Most likely,
this will be a Progress type service module. The pressurized sections will have an internal volume of 100 m³,
12 m³ of which is said to be “habitable volume”. In the old
plans they were supposed to house gyroscopes, power
supply and thermal control systems.
The latest indications are that Roskosmos is once
again seriously considering to abandon NEM. In its
NASA budget request for FY 2011, released on 1 February 2010, the White House made it clear that it plans
to continue funding the US segment of the station after
2015 and the station partners were expected to make a
formal decision on extending the station’s lifetime to
2020 in March 2010. Shortly after the White House
budget announcement, Aleksei Krasnov, the head of
Roskosmos’ Manned Spaceflight Directorate, said Russia will not build the NEM modules if NASA is willing to
supply energy to the Russian segment after 2015 for
“reasonable prices” [15]. If the NEM modules are
scrapped, the UM Node Module may become redundant as well, with Soyuz and Progress ships docking
directly to the MLM nadir port.
Assuming NEM is not cancelled and the final module
is added as planned in 2015, this will mark the end of ISS
assembly, seventeen years after it began with the launch
of Zarya in November 1998 (Fig. 7 & 8) (Table 1). Zarya
was originally certified for a 15-year mission, meaning
that its warranty theoretically expires in 2013. However,
in late 2008 Khrunichev officials said that work to extend
the module’s lifetime was being conducted in various
stages under a contract with Boeing and expressed optimism that it can be safely operated until 2020 [16]. Aleksei
Krasnov has said the module’s lifetime may even be
extended to 2028 [17].
Fig. 7 Final configuration of the ISS Russian segment.
(source: Roskosmos)
Fig. 8 Scale model of the ISS Russian segment following
completion in 2015. ATV vehicle docked to Zvezda aft port.
(source: Bert Vis)
2.7
Free-flyers
The Russians also intend to launch free-flying spacecraft
that will orbit in the vicinity of the ISS and periodically
dock with it. The rationale behind this is that many experi-
TABLE 1: New Modules for the ISS Russian Segment in 2009-2015.
Module
Launch date +
Launch vehicle
Docking port
Module
Mass (kg)
Cargo
Mass (kg)
Maximum
diameter (m)
Length
(m)
MIM-2
(Poisk)
10.11.2009
Soyuz
Zvezda zenith
3600
754
2.5
4.0
12.5
14.05.2010
Space Shuttle
Zarya nadir
7900
3200
2.4
6.55
18
MLM
2012
Proton
Zvezda nadir
20700
n/a
4.1
13.2
70
UM
2013
Soyuz
MLM nadir
4000
n/a
n/a
n/a
14
NEM-1
2014
Proton
UM lateral port
20000
2500
4.1
25.3
100
(12)*
NEM-2
2015
Proton
UM lateral port
20000
2500
4.1
25.3
(12)*
100
MIM-1
(Rassvet)
Internal
volume (m3)
*habitable volume
9
Bart Hendrickx
ments are much easier to perform on a free-flying platform than on a multimodular space station. This is especially the case for sensitive materials processing experiments, which require a vibration-free environment, and
astronomical observations, which demand accurate pointing of telescopes. The idea is that such spacecraft regularly dock with the station for maintenance, upgrading
and both loading and unloading of experiments. Plans for
such free-flyers have been around for a long time. For
instance, back in the 1970s the Soviet Union had plans
for a giant N-1 launched space station called MKBS
which would have been joined by several such co-orbiting free-flyers. An outgrowth of these was the Progressbased Gamma astrophysics satellite, launched in July
1990.
Free-flyers put forward for ISS in the 1990s were
MAKOS-T and AKA-T, both for materials processing experiments, and SLK for submillimetre astronomy, but none
of these ever appear to have received government funding [18]. All that changed with the inclusion of a free-flyer
project called OKA-T in the FSP 2006-2015. A tender for
the development of the vehicle was won on 20 February
2006 by the Central Specialized Design Bureau (TsSKBProgress) in Samara, which develops Soyuz rockets,
reconnaissance satellites and the recoverable Bion and
Foton satellites.
According to the requirements laid out by the Federal
Space Agency in 2005, two OKA-T vehicles were to be
launched in 2012 and 2015. The vehicle would weigh
about 7.8 tons and be launched by a Soyuz-2 rocket. It
will consist of a service module (containing among other
things manoeuvring engines, solar panels and a radiator
panel) and a pressurized compartment and carry a
Progress M type docking system, allowing it to dock with
the ISS about every three-four months during a mission
lasting five years.
Extending from the spacecraft will be a small boom
with a 3 m diameter shield that creates a near-perfect
vacuum in its wake. The purpose of this is to employ a
technique called molecular beam epitaxy to produce ultrathin layers of semi-conductor materials for the microelectronics industry. Similar experiments were planned
for RKK Energiya’s AKA-T and they are also reminiscent
of those performed with the US Wake Shield Facility, a
free-flyer flown on three Space Shuttle missions between
1994 and 1996. Samples for these experiments are to be
deployed on the outside via a small airlock.
Other objectives are to produce small parties of
cartilaginous structures to be used in medicine, mercurycadmium-telluride monocrystals for use in new-generation sensor equipment and to receive biologically active
substances and other medicines with better characteris10
tics than those obtained on Earth. There will also be
experiments to study phase transitions (mainly crystallization in melts and solutions) and heat and mass transfer
in fluids [19].
Funding of the OKA-T vehicles began in 2006. RKK
Energiya is a subcontractor in the project and it would
seem that early on there was some disagreement with
TsSKB-Progress on the actual division of labour. Apparently, the original idea was that the pressurized compartment would be derived from the return capsule of TsSKB’s
Foton satellites (essentially modified Vostok re-entry capsules) and that the service module would be that of RKK
Energiya’s Parom space tug [20]. A recently released
drawing shows a 18 m³ cylindrical payload module with
the boom and shield attached to it. The docking port is in
the aft section of the service module, meaning the crew
will have to move through some kind of tunnel in the
service module to reach the payload module (Fig. 9) [21].
Speaking at an aerospace congress in August 2009,
Roskosmos deputy head Vitaliy Davydov said that the
first OKA-T will not be ready for launch in 2012 due to the
global financial crisis and that the project’s fate will depend on funding in 2010-2011 [22]. The latest launch
date mentioned is 2015 [23]. If the project survives,
Roskosmos is apparently hoping to fly OKA-T vehicles
even in the post-ISS era in conjunction with a new Russian space station [24].
Another spacecraft for microgravity experiments approved under the FSP 2006-2015 was Vozvrat-MKA, which
can stay in orbit for about a year before returning experiment results back to Earth in a capsule. It can perform
experiments in microgravity conditions that are even better than those experienced by OKA-T (10-7 g versus
10-6 g). Although some reports suggested these satellites would also periodically dock with ISS, recent information indicates they will fly in orbits different from that of
the station [25].
2.8
Communications
In the absence of a Russian geostationary data relay
satellite, communications between the Russian segment
and the Mission Control Centre in Korolyov take place
either when ISS is in direct line of sight of Russian ground
stations or via America’s Tracking Data and Relay Satellites (TDRS). Direct line-of-sight communications with
Mission Control are limited to about 2.5 hours per day.
Speaking at a conference on manned spaceflight in Star
City in November 2007, cosmonaut Pavel Vinogradov
referred to the Russian ISS communications systems as
dating back to “the Stone Age” [26]. Every year the Russians pay NASA $10 million for the use of TDRS channels
[27].
Fig. 9 The OKA-T free-flyer.
The last Russian Luch data relay satellite, which supported the Mir space station, broke down in 1998. Although another one was built, the Federal Space Agency
could not afford to buy the Proton rocket needed to
launch it, as a result of which the satellite ended up in a
museum in St. Petersburg.
The FSP 2006-2015 called for the development of two
modernized data relay satellites called Luch-5A and Luch5B (also known as the Multifunctional Space Relay System or MKSR). These are currently being built by Information Satellite Systems/Reshetnyov Company (the
former NPO PM) in Krasnoyarsk using the Express-1000
platform, with at least part of the communications payload delivered by Thales Alenia Space and the Japanese
NEC Corporation. Originally, the satellites were supposed
to fly as individual payloads on Soyuz-Fregat boosters,
but now they will be orbited together with other communications satellites on the Proton-M rocket. Luch-5A is
currently set for launch together with the Amos-5 satellite
for Israel (also using the Express-1000 bus) in early 2011
and Luch-5B will follow with an as of yet unidentified
companion satellite in 2012. The satellites will be stationed at 16°W (over the Atlantic) and 95°E (over the
Indian Ocean). In 2008 it was decided that an even more
capable satellite dubbed Luch-4 (using the Express-2000
platform) will be launched by Proton in December 2013
and stationed at 167°E (over the Pacific), among other
things to relay telemetry from rockets launched from the
new Vostochnyy cosmodrome in the Far East of Russia.
Together the three Luch satellites will be able to cover
virtually the entire orbit of the ISS, ending Russia’s dependence on the TDRS network and saving Roskosmos
a considerable amount of money [28].
3.
Soyuz and Progress
3.1
Cargo Delivery and Return
The venerable Soyuz and Progress vehicles continue to
(source: Samara Space Centre)
play their vital role of sending crews and cargo to ISS.
When the Shuttle retires in 2010, that role will gain even
more importance. Alternative ways of delivering cargo
are now becoming available (Europe’s ATV and Japan’s
HTV), but these vehicles will fly only occasionally, requiring a continuing string of Progress launches every year.
In fact, the number of Progress launches is expected to
almost double in the next years. For instance, six Progress
missions are currently scheduled for 2010 and seven for
2011. Two American private companies are developing
cargo vehicles under the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) and Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contracts with NASA, but both Space-X’s
Dragon and Orbital Sciences’ Cygnus are not only new
spacecraft, but also need to be launched by new rockets
(Falcon-9 and Taurus-2 respectively) and it remains to be
seen if these companies can deliver on their promises.
Once these spacecraft are operational, NASA will no
longer procure Russian cargo delivery services. However, according to Roskosmos chief Anatoliy Perminov
several Russian companies have still offered to fly NASA
cargo on a commercial basis, including NPO
Mashinostroyeniya (the former Chelomei design bureau),
presumably using some version of the TKS spacecraft it
developed back in the 1970s. Perminov stressed that the
companies would have to build the cargo vehicles without government financing. He said that RKK Energiya is
not among the contenders because the high launch rate
of Soyuz and Progress vehicles is already pushing the
company’s production capabilities to the limit [29]. Aside
from delivering Russian cargo, Progress will continue to
be used for station refuelling and reboost operations, two
tasks that only it and ATV can handle.
One of the biggest problems when the Shuttle retires
will be the ability to return results of scientific experiments
back to Earth, exactly at a time when the station’s crew
has been expanded to six to maximize the science output. After the Shuttle is grounded, the only way of bring11
Bart Hendrickx
ing cargo and materials back to Earth will be in the Soyuz
descent capsule, which can return only about 50 kg with
a crew of three. Space-X’s Dragon will be capable of
returning about 3 tons and ESA has long-term plans for a
cargo return version of the ATV but these vehicles have
no concrete launch dates and have yet to demonstrate
their reliability.
This is why the Russians have been thinking about
unmanned versions of Soyuz that could deliver and return much more cargo than their piloted counterparts.
Plans for a cargo version of Soyuz were first presented
as early as 1993, with the down capacity given as 10001500 kg [30]. A similar vehicle was most recently mentioned in June 2008 by an RKK Energiya official, who
said it could fly as early as 2010. The ship would have a
launch mass of 7,440 kg, deliver up to 1,520 kg of cargo
to the station (compared to 170 kg for a three-man Soyuz)
and up to 500 kg back to Earth. Like the manned version,
it could stay docked to the station for about 180 days, but
would be able to fly solo for 30 days rather than 5 days
[31]. It is not clear though how seriously such vehicles
are being considered. None have so far appeared in the
ISS flight manifest and there are no signs that any are
being manufactured.
3.2
Crew Transport
Whereas there are alternatives to Progress for sending
up cargo, there are no back-up options for crew transport. After the Shuttle’s retirement, Soyuz will become the
only vehicle capable of sending crews to and back from
ISS until a replacement for the Space Shuttle is fielded
(Fig. 10). This leaves NASA with no choice but to rely fully
on Russia to send its astronauts to the station in the next
five years or so and foot the associated bills. A combination of factors in the past decade has led to this almost
humiliating situation.
Original station plans called for ISS to be operated by
three-man crews during the assembly phase and to host
a permanent crew of up to seven once assembly was
complete. From then on, Russia had the right to have
three representatives on the station, while the remaining
four-man “Western” crew would consist of a mix of American, European, Japanese and Canadian astronauts.
Soyuz was to provide rescue capability for all three crew
members (irrespective of nationality) during the assembly phase and then for the three Russian crew members
during the operational phase. America’s Crew Rescue
Vehicle (CRV) would need to be available after completion of assembly to evacuate the four “Western” crew
members.
These plans fell through in 2001 when budget realities
forced NASA to suspend work on the CRV, necessitating
12
Fig. 10 Soyuz TMA vehicle docked to Zarya.
(source: NASA)
the agency to consider the possibility of purchasing seats
on Soyuz spacecraft. The situation got even more complicated after the 2003 Columbia accident and President
Bush’s resulting 2004 decision to terminate Space Shuttle operations in 2010 and introduce a Crew Exploration
Vehicle (Orion) no earlier than 2014. This meant that not
only would NASA have no independent crew rescue capability for at least another decade, but that between
2010 and 2014 it would not even have any means of
delivering crew members to the station and routinely
returning them to Earth.
Under a bilateral station agreement signed between
the US and Russia in 1996, Russia was obliged to provide eleven Soyuz rescue vehicles during the assembly
phase, with a new ship going up approximately every six
months. This obligation was to expire in early 2006,
making a deal on the Soyuz issue urgent. At a meeting of
the Multilateral Control Board in Toronto in June 2004 the
partners reached preliminary agreement on expanding
the crew to six around 2009, with Russia receiving financial compensation for providing Soyuz rides to US astronauts.
A major stumbling block for a Soyuz deal was the Iran
Nonproliferation Act (INA), enacted by Congress in 2000
to help stop Russian arms and missile transfers to Iran.
Point 6 of the Act banned payments to Russia in connection with ISS unless the President determined that Russia was taking steps to prevent such proliferation. That
hurdle was finally eliminated in late 2005, when Congress passed a waiver to the INA that allowed NASA to
buy access to ISS from Russian territory until 1 January
2012. This resulted in the signing of an initial $43.8
million contract between NASA and Roskosmos in December 2005 that covered the return to Earth of Expedition 12 commander Bill McArthur in April 2006 and the
launch and landing of Expedition 13 crew member Jeff
Williams that same year. In October 2006 the two agen-
cies signed a $160 million contract covering among other
things the launch and landing of US crew members on
Expeditions 14, 16 and 18 on three Soyuz vehicles in
2006-2008. In April 2007 the deal was extended to mid2011 as part of a $719 million contract that also included
the launch of US cargo on the MIM-1 module.
Since Soyuz spacecraft take about two years to build,
a second exemption to the INA ban was required by the
beginning of 2009 in order to ensure flights of US astronauts on Soyuz vehicles after 2011. Prospects for that
exemption looked very dim after the Russian incursion
into Georgia in August 2008, but on 30 September 2008
President Bush unexpectedly signed an extension of the
waiver until 1 January 2016. This paved the way for
NASA and Roskosmos to sign two more contract extensions in December 2008 and May 2009 (worth $141
million and $306 million respectively) covering the launch
and landing of US astronauts on Soyuz vehicles between
the autumn of 2011 and spring of 2013. Before the latest
contract modification, Aleksei Krasnov, the head of
Roskosmos’ Manned Spaceflight Directorate, said the
agency was now charging NASA $51 million per Soyuz
spacecraft passenger, more than double the $21.8 million it had asked earlier.
More of these contracts are expected to be signed in
the coming years to bridge the long gap to whatever will
follow in the footsteps of the Space Shuttle. With the
station’s crew now expanded to six, Russia has doubled
its annual Soyuz launch rate from two to four and this
pace will continue for at least several years until a Shuttle
replacement becomes available.
Now that all Soyuz seats are booked for station resident crews until at least 2015, Russia will no longer be
able to offer rides on those vehicles to so-called
“spaceflight participants”, more popularly known as “space
tourists”. The last such tourist, Cirque du Soleil founder
and CEO Guy Laliberté, flew on Soyuz TMA-16 in September 2009. Two months later the Space Shuttle was
used for the last time to return a station resident crew
member back to Earth, so that the burden of transporting
station crew members now falls entirely on Russia’s shoulders.
At a news conference in December 2007, Federal
Space Agency chief Anatoliy Perminov confirmed that
tourist rides after 2009 were unlikely, adding that even
then the commercial demand for such seats had already
exceeded Russia’s capacity to satisfy it. However, just
four months later Perminov’s deputy Vitaliy Davydov said
that if wealthy Russians or foreigners had an overwhelming wish to fly into space, they could buy Soyuz spacecraft to fly to the station, at least if such missions did not
interfere with the mainstream ISS programme. He also
pointed out that governments wishing to send a representative into space could buy a seat on such additional
Soyuz spacecraft.
On 11 June 2008 Space Adventures, the company that
arranges the tourist flights, announced that it had reached
all the necessary agreements with Roskosmos for a dedicated Soyuz tourist mission to ISS in the second half of
2011. Under those agreements, the company would order a Soyuz vehicle especially adapted to provide more
comfortable living conditions for the crew, which would
consist of a Russian professional cosmonaut and two
tourists. Space Adventures Vice President Sergei
Kostenko claimed in October 2009 that one of the tourists
would have to undergo 1.5 years of training to perform
the functions of flight engineer, but Roskosmos’ Aleksei
Krasnov later said that enabling a private Soyuz flight
would take four or five years because the commander’s
training regime has to be altered and the vehicle’s operations have to change. This would mean the first such
flight should not be expected until 2014-2015 at the
earliest [32].
As of yet there are no indications that anyone has
signed up for such a mission, which could be significantly
more expensive than past tourist flights, even when the
cost is shared between two tourists. Whereas earlier
tourists paid only for training and the mission, anyone
wishing to fly a dedicated tourist flight would also have to
pay for the spacecraft and, presumably, the rocket that
places it into orbit. One factor that could cut the costs is
that at a production rate of four per year (rather than two
in the past), an additional Soyuz is much cheaper in both
relative and absolute terms – as in any per-unit cost as
production rates ramp up [33].
At any rate, Roskosmos has said that RKK Energiya
should have the capability to produce a fifth Soyuz if
requested. The agency is even weighing the option of
adding a fifth Soyuz to the regular ISS manifest, which
would make it possible to increase the resident crew from
six to seven and would open up new opportunities for
spaceflight participants. However, that would happen no
earlier than 2013 [34]. India has expressed the wish to
buy a Soyuz spacecraft to fly a one-week solo mission
with a Russian commander and two Indian cosmonauts.
This would give India much-needed experience as it
prepares to launch its own manned spacecraft in 2016.
Roskosmos says that if India commits to the Soyuz mission in early 2010, it could be flown in 2013. The Indians
would also have to pay for the expenses related to training and flying the Russian commander [35].
3.3
New Launch Pad for ISS Missions
The increased Soyuz/Progress launch rate not only taxes
13
Bart Hendrickx
the production capabilities of RKK Energiya, but also
places a heavier burden on the launch facilities at the
Baikonur cosmodrome. Until recently, all Soyuz and
Progress missions to ISS were launched from launch pad
nr. 5 (the “Gagarin launch complex”) in the central part of
the cosmodrome (Area 1). There is another Soyuz pad in
the eastern part of the cosmodrome (pad nr. 6 in Area
31), which was occasionally used for man-related
launches in the Salyut and Mir days, but since 1993 has
only supported launches of Soyuz rockets unrelated to
the manned programme (in recent years with the Fregat
upper stage). However, modifications have now been
made to the pad so that it can handle both manned and
cargo missions to ISS. The modifications, most of which
were made in 2007 and early 2008, included modernization of rocket fuelling systems, installation of a payload
thermal control system, a clean room, communication
lines and improvements in the launch bunker. The first
ISS-related mission to go up from pad nr. 6 was Progress
M-66 in February 2009 (Fig. 11) [36].
The primary change is the replacement of the obsolete analogue Argon-16 computer in the service module
with a new digital computer, which is why the updated
versions of Soyuz and Progress are often called “digital
ships”. Developed by the NII Argon research institute in
1968-1974, Argon-16 was first flown in August 1974 on
Kosmos-670, the first in the series of vehicles that later
became known as Soyuz T. It later also flew on Soyuz
TM, Soyuz TMA, Progress M, Progress M1 and also on
Salyut, Almaz and the Mir space station. The software for
Argon-16 was slightly improved over the years, with the
last software upgrade allowing Soyuz TMA and Progress
M to lower their docking speed to 0.15-0.20 m/s.
The new computer, called TsVM-101 (TsVM standing
for “Central Computing Machine”), was developed by NII
Submikron in the town of Zelenograd. Apart from its
better performance and new software, it is also ten times
lighter than Argon-16 and much smaller (370x236x143
mm) (Fig. 12) (for a comparison see Table 2).
Fig. 12 Argon-16 and TsVM-101 computers compared.
(source: Novosti kosmonavtiki)
Fig. 11 Progress M-66 launch from pad nr. 6.
TABLE 2: Comparison of Argon-16 and TsVM-101 Computers.
Parameters
3.4
Soyuz and Progress Upgrades
With no end to Soyuz and Progress missions immediately in sight, efforts continue to modernize both vehicles.
The last major Soyuz upgrade was Soyuz TMA, introduced in 2002, which among other things features modifications enabling it to carry larger astronauts. Progress
M, the second-generation Progress vehicle, has been
flying since 1989, and Progress M1, a variant with eight
rather than four propellant tanks in the mid-compartment,
flew a total of 11 missions to Mir and ISS between 2000
and 2004.
Now RKK Energiya has made more modifications to
the vehicles which are currently being tested on Progress
before being introduced on Soyuz. Actually, the company
had much more ambitious plans for Soyuz and Progress
upgrades in the 1990s (notably Soyuz TMM and Progress
MM), but due to budget constraints it wasn’t until after
2000 that work on just some of the planned upgrades got
underway [37].
14
Argon-16
TsVM-101
Speed (operations per second)
200
6 million
Random-access memory (RAM)
2 KB
2 MB
Read-only memory (ROM)
64 KB
2 MB
Mass (kg)
70
8.3
Power consumption (W)
280
46
50,000
35,000
Lifetime (hrs)
Like Argon-16, TsVM-101 is situated in the service
module, which on Soyuz is jettisoned after the de-orbit
burn. Therefore, Soyuz needs another computer (KS020M) in the descent module to control re-entry and
landing. Initially, Soyuz will continue to fly with two computers, TsVM-101 in the service module and KS-020M in
the descent module. However, at a later stage TsVM-101
will be moved to the descent module, allowing it to control
the entire flight from liftoff to touchdown. At that point KS020M will no longer be needed and TsVM-101 can also
be re-used on later missions. Another improvement spe-
cific to Soyuz will be the introduction of a new “Neptun”
display panel in the descent module.
Other changes are the replacement of an analogue
telemetry system with a lighter digital telemetry system
(MBITS), the installation of a five-axis accelerometer
(BIPS-M) instead of a single-axis accelerometer and improvements to the system that displays information on
the TV images that are sent from an outboard camera to
both ISS and Mission Control during final approach and
docking. Overall, the new systems result in a 75 kg mass
reduction and reduces the number of avionics modules
by fifteen.
The first two modified Progress vehicles were launched
in November 2008 and May 2009 and labelled Progress
M-01M and Progress M-02M (industry designator
11F615A60, serial numbers 401 and 402). The first vehicle experienced problems during the final approach to
the station, forcing station commander Yuriy Lonchakov
to take over manual control with the TORU remote-control system, but the problem was unrelated to the new
computer. The second mission went smoothly. The new
series definitively took over from Progress M after the
launch of Progress M-67 in July 2009.
The Progress M1 vehicle with the additional propellant
tanks in the refuelling section will also fly with the improved
computer and telemetry systems. It is expected to fly only
once a year to provide extra station reboost capability during
the upcoming period of intense solar activity, when the
upper layers of the atmosphere expand and cause the
station to decay faster than usual. The first launch (Progress
M1-01M, industry designator 11F615A70, serial number
501) is tentatively targeted for August 2011.
The launch of the first modified Soyuz (Soyuz TMA01M, industry designator 11F732A47, serial number 701)
has been repeatedly delayed and is now set for September 2010. Veteran RKK Energiya cosmonaut Aleksandr
Kaleri has been training for several years to command
the first vehicle in the series. The “old” Soyuz TMA vehicle will be gradually phased out, with the last one
(TMA-22) expected to fly in September 2011 [38].
As things stand now, Soyuz will continue to fly for at least
another decade until a new-generation vehicle enters service. Therefore, budgets permitting, more improvements are
likely to be made over the next years. In 2006 RKK Energiya
announced plans for a thorough Soyuz modernization effort
that would essentially leave only the basic configuration of
the spacecraft unchanged and would allow it to fly both in
Earth orbit and to the Moon. Among the changes proposed
for the Earth-orbital version were a new Russian-built Kurs
rendezvous system (replacing the current one manufactured in Ukraine) and a capability to stay docked to a space
station for a full year rather than just six months. The idea
was also that Soyuz would serve as a test bed for several
new systems to be flown on the follow-on Kliper spacecraft,
which is why it was provisionally called Soyuz-K [39]. However, both the lunar Soyuz and Kliper have now been abandoned and it remains to be seen which of the planned
upgrades will be incorporated into Soyuz in the next decade.
Not only Soyuz and Progress, but also the rockets that
carry them into orbit have been improved over the past
few years under a programme known as “Rus”, which is
also geared to unmanned programmes. This effort, conducted by Soyuz rocket builder TsSKB-Progress in
Samara, saw three stages, each of which added a major
new design feature:
•
Soyuz-FG: improved fuel injectors in the core stage
and strap-on booster engines (“FG” is the Russian
acronym for “fuel injector”). First launch in May 2001
(Progress M1-6).
•
Soyuz-2-1a: new digital flight control and telemetry
systems. First launch in November 2004 (suborbital
test flight). This is also the version that will fly from
Kourou in French Guyana, although that has some
additional modifications specifically related to the new
launch site and is called Soyuz-ST.
•
Soyuz-2-1b: new third stage engine (RD-0124). First
launch in December 2006 (COROT).
Soyuz-FG was designed specifically to launch Soyuz
TMA and was first man-rated in three Progress launches
before launching its first manned mission (Soyuz TMA-1)
in October 2002. It has also been used for unmanned
launches with the Fregat upper stage. The Progress cargo
ships have since reverted back to the older Soyuz-U
model, but in 2008 Ravil Akhmetov, the general director
of TsSKB-Progress, confirmed that they will switch to
Soyuz-2-1a, man-rating that booster for Soyuz. Akhmetov
also said that Progress will eventually fly on Soyuz-2-1b,
but did not indicate whether Soyuz will make that switch
as well [40]. That certainly was not the original intention
when the Rus programme was conceived in the 1990s,
because even the much improved Soyuz model then
under consideration (Soyuz TMM) would not have been
heavy enough to require a rocket more powerful than
Soyuz-FG. According to data released at the time, Soyuz2-1b could orbit Progress vehicles weighing up to 8,350
kg (compared to 7,150 kg for Soyuz-U and 7,420 kg for
Soyuz-FG) [41].
4.
A New Russian Space
Transportation System
4.1
The First Tender
For several years now, Russia has been actively working on
vehicles that will eventually replace Soyuz and Progress.
15
Bart Hendrickx
Formal government approval for the development of a new,
re-usable manned space transportation system came in
October 2005, when it was officially included in the FSP
2006-2015. Requirements were for the spacecraft to be at
least 80% re-usable and fly at least 20 missions, carry up to
six people and have a cargo capacity of 500 kg up and
down. The maiden flight was slated for 2013. On 23 November 2005 a closed tender was started to pick a builder for the
new transportation system. Participants were RKK Energiya
with Kliper, the Khrunichev Centre with a large capsule-type
vehicle derived from its TKS spacecraft and NPO Molniya
with a modernized version of its air-launched MAKS
spaceplane. RKK Energiya had begun working on Kliper
using its own funds in 2000 and had first publicly announced
plans for the vehicle in February 2004. The design gradually
evolved over the following months, with the company studying both winged and lifting body versions of the return
module. Boosters considered were much improved versions of the Soyuz rocket (Onega and Soyuz-2-3) and Zenit
[42].
The requirements stipulated in the FSP were so obviously tailored to Kliper that many wondered if the tender was
no more than a formality, but that turned out not to be the
case. In early February 2006 Roskosmos said that the
tender would have to be extended to allow the three companies to refine their proposals. Then, totally unexpectedly,
during a press conference at the Farnborough Air Show on
18 July 2006, Roskosmos chief Anatoliy Perminov announced the tender had been cancelled because none of
the submitted proposals fully met the agency’s requirements: Khrunichev and Energiya were proposing either
totally new or significantly modified existing boosters that
would not be ready in the required timeframe, NPO Molniya’s
project incorporated a major non-Russian element (the
Ukrainian Antonov-225 Mriya carrier aircraft) and the research and development stage for all three projects would
exceed the budget limits set by the FSP.
4.2
ACTS: A Joint Russian-European Vehicle
However, the main reason cited by Perminov for the
cancellation of the tender was that the European Space
Agency’s ruling council had agreed in June 2006 to embark on a two-year project with Russia to explore an
Advanced Crew Transportation System (ACTS, Russian
acronym: PPTS) for missions to ISS and the Moon. ESA
had been exploring possible co-operation with Russia on
Kliper since 2004 after having received clear signs that
NASA was not going to invite it to participate in the Crew
Exploration Vehicle. A proposal for a two-year, €51 million
study on the feasibility of participating in Kliper was presented to the ESA minister meeting in December 2005,
but turned down, although the ministers did direct the
agency to further investigate the matter and re-evaluate
the idea at the next regular ESA Council meeting in June.
16
Meanwhile, by early May RKK Energiya had put forward an updated architecture in which a heavily modified
Soyuz would serve as an intermediate step towards the
development of Kliper and be adapted for both Earthorbital and lunar missions (the earlier mentioned SoyuzK). This new plan apparently inspired Roskosmos and
ESA negotiators to concentrate for the time being on a
capsule-type vehicle, which would be better suited for reentries from lunar distances than the winged Kliper. In
late June 2006 the ESA Council agreed to invest some
€15 million in the 2-year effort with Russia to establish a
preliminary design for the vehicle and sort out who does
what [43]. At the Farnborough press conference, Perminov
confirmed that Roskosmos was now setting its sights on
that initial step and that a decision on Kliper would have
to be made at a later stage.
For the next year or so several designs are said to
have been evaluated which retained the basic threemodule configuration of Soyuz, but where ESA would
build one or two of the modules. Among the options
considered were an orbital module based on Columbus
technology and a service module derived from that of the
ATV cargo vehicle. ESA had made it clear from the beginning that it fully intended to be in “the critical path” of
ACTS development rather than being relegated to a secondary role. Launches would be possible from both
Baikonur and the Soyuz pad at Kourou using either the
Soyuz-2 or Soyuz-2-3 launch vehicles. Multiple-launch
schemes were planned for lunar missions [44].
It would appear that new agreements on the joint
vehicle were reached during a meeting between
Roskosmos and ESA chiefs Anatoliy Perminov and JeanJacques Dordain on 21 August 2007 during the MAKS
2007 aerospace show near Moscow. In a press conference after the meeting Perminov said the two agencies
had reached agreement on building a space transportation system for flights not only to Earth orbit but also to
the Moon and Mars and that Russian and European
space industry officials would begin hammering out the
details the following month [45].
Perminov shed more light on the new plans ten days
later when he announced a new architecture for Russia’s
space programme that envisaged manned missions to the
Moon and Mars by 2025 and 2035 respectively, much sooner
than projected earlier (see section 5.1.). One of the first
steps on the road to these goals would be the development
by 2015 of the new transportation system, which he now
revealed would be launched with a new rocket and from a
new launch pad to be built either at Baikonur in Kazakhstan
or a site on Russian territory [46]. Less than a month later,
he made clear the vehicle would fly from a new cosmodrome
to be constructed on one of six sites being evaluated in the
Far East of Russia [47].
The final decision on the new launch site, which should
make Russia less dependent on Baikonur in Kazakhstan,
came in an edict signed by President Vladimir Putin on 6
November 2007. Called Vostochnyy (“Eastern”), it will be
built on the same location as the Svobodnyy cosmodrome,
which was used for only five space launches between
1997 and 2006 and was officially closed down by a
presidential edict in February 2007. Actually, Svobodnyy
was a former ICBM base run by the military, which could
only handle launches of converted ICBMs, only one of
which (Start) actually flew from the base. Although it had
little infrastructure in place to support the missions that
are supposed to fly from the new cosmodrome, it still
offered more advantages than any of the other sites
considered.
The switch to a new rocket and cosmodrome forced
the Russian-European teams to re-evaluate their earlier
ideas. In September 2007 a Joint System Engineering
Team (JSET) comprising specialists of RKK Energiya
and the European space industry was established to
study several possible configurations. First of all, the
team agreed on the requirements that the vehicle would
have to meet:
•
use of a re-usable descent module with a lifetime of
at least 15 years
•
mission duration: at least 200 days docked to a space
station, at least 15 days for solo missions in Earth
orbit and lunar missions
•
crew size: maximum of six for flights to a space
station, up to four for flights to the Moon
•
cargo: up to 500 kg with a six-man crew
•
landing accuracy on Russian territory: up to 15 km
•
g-forces: no more than 4 g during nominal launch, no
more than 3 g during nominal re-entry
•
use of ecologically clean propellants in the engine
section
These requirements (apart from the lunar goal) pretty
well matched those originally announced for Kliper in
2005, automatically ruling out a vehicle retaining the
dimensions of Soyuz. The JSET studied at least five
basically different configurations for the re-entry vehicle
(also given here is the total vehicle mass for ISS missions):
•
three types of conical re-entry capsules (12.1 – 13.5
tons, 10.8-12.1 tons, 15.8 tons)
•
an enlarged Soyuz descent capsule (11.1 tons)
•
a biconical descent capsule (12.5 – 14.1 tons)
•
a winged Kliper-type return vehicle with a horizontal
runway landing (14.6 tons)
•
a lifting body Kliper-type return vehicle with a vertical
parachute landing (14.2 -15.9 tons) [48]
The reconsideration of Kliper was at least partly re-
lated to the location of the new cosmodrome (necessitating launches over the Pacific Ocean) and a decision to
abandon the traditional landing zones in the vast steppes
of Kazakhstan in favour of a limited amount of small
landing areas on Russian territory. In various emergency
scenarios, a winged or lifting-body design would give the
vehicle enough longitudinal and cross-range capability to
safely reach those zones instead of having to ditch it in
the ocean. On the other hand, wings are essentially dead
weight for most of the mission and pose serious thermal
protection problems during high-speed re-entries from
the Moon.
In an attempt to solve that dilemma, RKK Energiya
looked at a crossing between the winged and lifting body
Kliper-type vehicles (sometimes called “the transformer”),
which would initially re-enter as a lifting body and then
unfold its wings at an altitude of 27 km before performing
a standard runway landing. If the wing deployment failed,
the ship could still land on parachutes as a back-up
option (Fig. 13). It is not known if this configuration was
also reviewed by the JSET, but in December 2007 and
April 2008 RKK Energiya president Vitaliy Lopota presented it along with a conically shaped capsule as the
two favoured by his company. While both designs had
been optimized as much as possible for missions in and
beyond Earth orbit, Lopota underlined that the Klipertype vehicle was better suited for Earth-orbital missions
and the capsule-type vehicle for lunar and deep space
missions. “There is no absolutely universal vehicle. Either we fly in [Earth orbit], or we fly to other planets – the
Moon, Mars and further. Both variants have the right to
exist. If there is enough money, we must build two types
of ships, one for flights to orbit, the other for flights to the
planets”. However, with even the ISS Russian segment
underfunded, Lopota was realistic enough to add that this
was not an option and that one of the two had to be
picked [49].
While RKK Energiya may have had its own agenda,
by the spring of 2008 Roskosmos and ESA had already
made up their minds following a presentation by the
JSET that summed up the advantages and drawbacks of
the various designs. In a letter dated 15 April 2008 the
agencies informed their industry partners that they had
selected a vehicle with a conical return capsule, arguing
that this was the best compromise in terms of cost,
development time and compatibility of mission goals. The
spacecraft would consist of an Apollo-type re-entry capsule with a diameter of 4.4 m and a service module. In
order to achieve the required landing accuracy, the vehicle would not come down on parachutes, but activate a
series of solid-fuel engines during the final part of reentry to slow itself down sufficiently to land on a set of
landing legs (Fig. 14). Total mass would be about 12 tons.
For missions to lunar orbit the return capsule would re17
Bart Hendrickx
Fig. 13 RKK Energiya slide showing several descent module
configurations studied by the company in 2008 (from left to
right: enlarged Soyuz, lifting body Kliper, winged Kliper,
hybrid Kliper (“transformer”), Apollo-type).
quire only some modifications (including improved communications and navigation systems and a beefed-up
heat shield), while the service module would almost double in mass. Total mass would be about 16.5 tons. The
lunar vehicle would be launched together with a rocket
stage needed to propel it to the Moon and insert it into
lunar orbit. In case of a landing mission, it would dock in
lunar orbit with a separately launched unmanned lunar
lander.
As for the division of labour, Roskosmos agreed that it
would develop a new launch vehicle with a payload capacity of 18-20 tons to place the spacecraft into orbit from
Vostochnyy. Russia would also build the return capsule,
while ESA would take responsibility for the service module, possibly using systems used on the ATV cargo ship.
Roskosmos would also be in charge of integrating the
vehicle, meaning that it bore overall responsibility for
vehicle development and essentially took on the role of a
prime contractor. A first unmanned test launch was projected for 2015, followed by the first piloted mission in
2018 [50].
The choice of the conical capsule was made public by
Roskosmos on 14 May 2008. Earlier that month
Roskosmos and ESA officials had met to discuss the
further course of events and agreed to finish all paperwork by October 2008 to allow a final decision to be made
at a meeting of ministers of ESA member states in The
Hague in late November 2008. However, several weeks
before the meeting, there were signs of breaches in the
partnership. Speaking to reporters at the Baikonur
cosmodrome in mid-October, Anatoliy Perminov said that
the prospects of European co-operation “had recently
become unclear” and that if the ESA minister meeting
decided not to participate, Russia would build the vehicle
on its own [51]. More or less as expected, the European
ministers did not approve a joint Russian-European vehicle, preferring instead to allocate €20.9 million to a cargo
return version of the ATV, €6 million to “study further
18
Fig. 14 RKK Energiya slide showing capsule-type ACTS and
soft-landing engine ignition sequence.
scenarios” and just €4.9 million to studies of a European
Crew Space Transportation System (CSTS) with the possible use of Russian technology.
Talking about the decision in late January 2009,
Aleksei Krasnov, the head of Roskosmos’ Manned
Spaceflight Directorate, said that by September 2008 it
had already become clear that the two sides were
going separate ways [52]. At a news conference in
March 2009 ESA Director General Jean-Jacques
Dordain attributed the decision to “differences between
the ESA member states” and disagreements between
ESA and Roskosmos over the missions that would be
flown by the vehicle. He also said Russia’s goals in
human spaceflight were more ambitious than ESA’s
and that ESA did not want to slow down Russia in this
field. However, neither side excluded co-operation on
manned projects in the future [53].
4.3
New Tender Announced
On 29 January 2009 Aleksei Krasnov announced that the
Federal Space Agency would organize a new tender later
in the year for the development of a manned transportation system. On 6 March it became known that the tender
had been opened on 27 February and that proposals
would be accepted until 30 March. The only participants
were RKK Energiya and the Khrunichev Centre, although
Krasnov had not excluded the possibility that NPO Molniya
would also take part.
The complete tender announcement eventually became available on the Internet [54]. The objective was to
develop a so-called “draft plan” (preliminary design) for
“an advanced piloted transportation system (Russian acronym PPTS) of a new generation for transportation to
and technical servicing of orbital piloted stations, advanced piloted space complexes and other objects of the
Earth-orbital constellation”. The acronym PPTS refers
not specifically to the manned spacecraft, but also to the
launch vehicle and the related ground infrastructure. The
vehicle itself is provisionally called PTK NP (New-Generation Piloted Transport Ship).
The winner of the tender was allowed to spend a
maximum of 800 million rubles (about $25 million or
€17.8 million according to current exchange rates) to
finish the preliminary design by June 2010. This compared favourably to the 50 million rubles set aside for
this stage of development in the first tender in 2005.
No timelines were set in the tender announcement for
the further development and test flights of the
system.
The PTK NP is supposed to become a versatile vehicle that can be adapted for a wide array of missions in
Earth orbit and to the Moon. What is called the “basic
version” will be used for space station missions, but the
vehicle will also have to be adapted for:
•
unmanned cargo missions to space stations
•
tourist missions
•
missions in Earth orbit for
• “experiments and research with special
equipment”
•
servicing low-orbiting satellites, platforms and
autonomous modules
•
de-orbiting defunct satellites and large pieces of
space debris
•
testing technology for quick-response remote
sensing and warning of large-scale natural and
technical disasters
•
•
accomplishing combined civilian/military as well
as military applications tasks (the first time Russian
manned spacecraft will – at least officially - be
used for military purposes since the Almaz space
stations in the 1970s. One can speculate that this
particular application of the vehicle was a source
of contention between Roskosmos and ESA during
the ACTV negotiations)
missions in lunar orbit and to a lunar orbital station
Various important parameters mentioned in the tender
announcement are summarized in Table 3.
Among the requirements mentioned in the tender announcement were:
•
the ship should have two equivalent pilot consoles
but must have the capability of being flown by a
single pilot (a requirement that may be related to
tourist missions: the fewer pilots, the more tourists
the vehicle can carry)
•
the landing accuracy after a nominal re-entry should
be “no worse than 10 km” in order to ensure a landing
on Russian territory
•
the engines used during the atmospheric portion of
the flight should use ecologically clean propellants
•
the spacecraft is launched by a booster capable of
placing at least 20 tons into a 200 km orbit with an
inclination of 51.8°
•
if the return capsule is made re-usable, it should be
capable of flying up to 10 missions over a 15-year
timespan (note that partial re-usability had been an
absolute requirement in the first tender and the
Russian-European studies)
•
preparations for launch after delivery to the
cosmodrome should last no more than 30 days
Significant attention was also paid in the tender
announcement to crew comfort and safety. The vehicle
should be capable of landing safely on unprepared
surfaces or on the water in case of a launch abort or an
emergency return to Earth, giving rescue crews enough
time to reach the crew. If a critical system fails, a backup system should allow the flight programme to be
TABLE 3: Roskosmos Requirements for the New-Generation Piloted Spacecraft.
Mission
Crew size
(maximum)
Cargo up/down
(minimum)
Mission duration
(minimum)
Orbital
inclination
Orbital
altitude
Space station missions
6
500 kg/500 kg
5 days (solo)
1 year (docked)
51.6°(ISS)
51.8°(OPS)(1)
200-500 km
Other Earth orbit missions
4
n/a
30 days
n/a
n/a
Lunar orbit missions
4
100 kg/100 kg
14 days (solo)
200 days (docked)(2)
-
-
Unmanned cargo missions
-
2000 kg/500 kg
5 days (solo)
n/a
n/a
(1) OPS = “orbital piloted station”. The tender announcement also calls for “working out the possibility of flying the basic
version of the ship to conduct specific tasks in an orbit with an inclination of 73.2°”. (2) docked to a space station in lunar
orbit.
19
Bart Hendrickx
finished as planned, and if the back-up system fails as
well, the crew should still be able to survive. The gforces for the crew should not exceed the following
values:
•
during a nominal launch: 4 g
•
during a nominal re-entry: 3 g
•
during a re-entry with use of maximum cross-range
capability: 5 g
•
during ejection from the booster in a launch abort: 7 g
•
during descent back to Earth in a launch abort: 12 g
Fig. 15 Manned vehicle proposed by the Khrunichev Centre.
(source: Khrunichev/Novosti kosmonavtiki)
Although not mentioned specifically in the tender announcement, the spacecraft will be launched by a new
rocket from the Vostochnyy cosmodrome, as had already
been decided for the Russian-European vehicle in 2008.
ing cabins) and cargo storage room. It allows the vehicle
to carry an additional 2,460 kg of dry cargo besides the
500 kg in the VA.
4.4
The Khrunichev Proposal
Referred to in documentation as PTK (“Piloted Transport
Ship”), the Khrunichev vehicle draws heavily on the design of the TKS vehicles (“Transport Supply Ships”) originally designed back in the 1960s by the Chelomei design
bureau and its Branch Nr. 1 to carry crews and cargo to
the bureau’s military Almaz space stations. Ultimately,
four of the vehicles were launched, one on a solo mission
in 1977 and three to the civilian Salyut-6 and Salyut-7
space stations between 1981 and 1985. Branch Nr. 1 was
transferred to the rival NPO Energiya as the Salyut Design Bureau in 1981, then became independent in 1988
and finally merged with the Khrunichev factory in 1993 to
form the Khrunichev Centre.
Like TKS, the PTK is a 20-ton spacecraft consisting of
a conical re-entry capsule (“Return Apparatus” or VA) and
an additional cylindrical pressurized section (“Supplementary Orbital Module” or DOM) with a docking port. In
between the two main modules is a small intermediate
section with two pressure-fed orbital manoeuvring engines (the same as those used on Zvezda), attitude
control engines and eight high-pressure propellant tanks
containing nitrogen tetroxide and UDMH. The engines
can also be used for station reboost operations. Mounted
on the outside of DOM are two solar panels, a radiator to
dissipate heat, more attitude control engines and rendezvous antennas (Fig. 15).
The crew transfers from the VA to the DOM via a hatch
in the re-entry capsule’s heat shield (another design
feature inherited from the TKS). The 4.1 m diameter VA
houses the crew during launch, docking and landing and
has a parachute container in its nose section. It would be
re-usable, like the return capsules of the TKS vehicles.
The DOM (diameter: 2.9 m, length: 3.5 m) adds 30 m³ of
pressurized volume to the vehicle, offering additional
living space (including a toilet, eating facilities and sleep20
However, the main reason for adding the DOM is to
limit the diameter of the VA to 4.1 m, which is the maximum diameter that can be transported by rail (Vostochnyy
is located right next to the Transsiberian railway, which
will be the main route for delivering spacecraft and rockets to the cosmodrome). Without the DOM, the VA’s
diameter would have to be increased to 4.5 or 4.8 m in
order to maintain the 3 m³ of living space allotted to each
individual crew member. In the versions for solo missions
in Earth orbit, the volume of the DOM is decreased and
the docking port replaced by a small airlock.
The lunar version, called LPTK (Lunar Piloted Transport Ship), also weighs 20 tons. It has a slightly modified
VA and a shorter DOM with almost the same diameter as
the VA (3.6 m). Requiring more propulsion capacity and
propellant, the main manoeuvring engine and its lowpressure tanks are now situated in a section attached to
the aft part of the DOM. The engine would be fed by
turbopumps and burn nitrogen tetroxide/UDMH or less
toxic propellants, one option being liquid oxygen and
liquid hydrogen. Six high-pressure tanks for the attitude
control engines remain on the intermediate section between the VA and DOM. With the main engine now in the
aft section, the docking port is relocated to the upper part
of the DOM.
In Khrunichev’s lunar mission scenario, the manned
LPTK would go up first on a “medium-lift launch vehicle
with higher payload capacity” to be followed by a rocket
stage put into orbit by a heavy-lift launch vehicle. After
docking in Earth orbit, the rocket stage would propel the
combination to the Moon and place it into lunar orbit
before being discarded. Subsequently, the LPTK would
perform a solo mission in lunar orbit or dock with a lunar
lander or lunar space station launched earlier [55].
4.5
The RKK Energiya Proposal
The RKK Energiya vehicle has the same basic configura-
tion of the joint European-Russian ACTS put forward in
2008. It is made up of just two sections, a conical descent
module (VA) and an engine compartment (DO) (Fig. 16).
The VA itself consists of two sections, a command module (KO) and aggregate compartment (AO) (Fig. 17). The
command module, equipped with a docking port, houses
among other things crew seats (two rows of three seats
for six-man crews), two pilot consoles, cargo containers,
a toilet and a section to don and doff spacesuits. Total
volume is 29 m³, with a total of 1.8 m³ for each crew
member. The maximum diameter of the VA is 4.4 m
(raising the question whether it can be transported by
rail). On the outside, the VA is covered with heat-resistant
tiles, similar to the ones used on the Space Shuttle and
Buran. The VA uses new materials (carbon-fibre reinforced plastics and more durable aluminium alloys) that
make it 20 to 30 % lighter and contribute to its re-usability. The idea is to fly the descent module up to 10 times.
The AO carries thrusters for attitude control during reentry plus associated tanks. As prescribed by Roskosmos,
the thrusters burn ecologically clean propellants, namely
gaseous oxygen and ethyl alcohol. The AO also has 12
solid-fuel engines that need to be activated at an altitude
of just 1 km to slow the vehicle down sufficiently to land
on a set of landing legs, which are deployed after the AO
is ejected. This approach marks a radical departure from
the traditional parachute systems used on Vostok,
Voskhod and Soyuz over the past fifty years or so, although a similar system (using 24 liquid-fuel engines)
was proposed for a Zenit-launched manned spacecraft
called Zarya (14F70) put forward by NPO Energiya in the
late 1980s.
The change to a soft-landing engine system was dictated by the need to achieve the required landing accuracy of about 10 km, which in turn is related to the fact
that the Russians want to switch the landing zones from
Kazakhstan to Russia. More particularly, they want to
land the descent capsule in an area close to Vostochnyy,
so that it can easily be transported back to the launch site
and refurbished for new missions. The region near
Vostochnyy offers much less margin for landing errors
than the vast, uninhabited steppes of Kazakhstan [56].
Vitaliy Lopota has admitted that the cosmonauts are
skeptical of the soft-landing engine system, but added
that this is “a purely psychological thing” and that the new
system has been proven by studies to be even slightly
more reliable than parachute landings [57]. Apart from
the higher landing accuracy, the new system makes the
descent module less prone to landing damage, which is
important to ensure its re-usability. Moreover, similar softlanding systems may also be used in the future to land
vehicles on the Moon and Mars. The descent capsule is
also equipped with “controllable aerodynamic panels”
Fig. 16 Scale model of RKK Energiya vehicle at the MAKS2009 aerospace show.
(source: Bert Vis)
Fig. 17 Cut-away diagrams of ACTV descent module,
believed to differ little from that of RKK Energiya’s PTK NP.
(source: Novosti kosmonavtiki)
that make it more manoeuvrable during re-entry and
further increase landing accuracy.
The cylindrical DO is attached to the VA via a small
conical adapter. Mounted on the outside are two rotatable
solar panels with four sections each (total surface 22 m²),
radiator panels and attitude control thrusters with a thrust
of 25 kg each. Inside are lithium-ion storage batteries,
propellant tanks and eight engines with a thrust of 60 kg
each.
21
Bart Hendrickx
Other novelties on the vehicle include a new guidance, navigation and control system using gyroscopes,
optical sensors and GLONASS receivers (the GLONASS
satellites are the Russian equivalents of the US Navstar/
GPS satellites), updated computer systems and communications equipment allowing the vehicle to stay in contact with Mission Control almost continuously using
geostationary data relay satellites.
TABLE 4: Mass Breakdown for Russian-European ACTS Versions.
Missions to ISS
Lunar missions
Return module
7270 kg
8600 kg
Service module
4230 kg
7800 kg*
Payload
500 kg
100 kg
12000 kg
16500 kg
Total
The lunar version of the ship is equipped with improved communications and navigation systems and a
beefed-up heat shield, while the service module is much
heavier, carrying in addition to the attitude control thrusters a main engine with a thrust of 2 tons, needed for
trans-Earth injection. Preference was given to nitrogen
tetroxide/UDMH, because non-toxic propellants would
double the vehicle’s total mass. The lunar vehicle would
be launched together with a rocket stage needed to
propel it to the Moon and insert it into lunar orbit (and this,
obviously, would require a booster heavier than the one
used for Earth-orbit missions). In case of a landing mission, it would dock in lunar orbit with a separately launched
unmanned lunar lander. In order to reduce g-forces for
the crew, the ship would perform a double-skip re-entry in
the Earth’s atmosphere, as was done during some of the
unmanned L-1/Zond missions in the late 1960s. RKK
Energiya has even drawn up plans for a version of the
vehicle that would be part of a manned Mars complex,
delivering the crew to the assembled complex in Earth
orbit and bringing them back to Earth at the end of the
mission. Such a vehicle would have to be modified to stay
operational for about two years.
A mass breakdown for the space station and lunar
versions of the ship is given in Table 4. Actually, these are
the figures given for the Russian-European ACTS in 2008,
but they are believed to differ little from those for the PTK
NP. It should be noted that the mass given here does not
include the mass of the payload shroud (500 kg), the
emergency escape tower (4130 kg) and the adapter connecting it to the vehicle (250 kg). Therefore, the total liftoff
mass for the space station version would be 16880 kg
[58].
4.6
Choosing a Winner
Clearly, both proposals had their drawbacks and advantages. The Khrunichev vehicle with its additional orbital
module was much roomier, offering more comfort to the
crew (certainly a bonus for tourist flights and long-duration missions in Earth orbit or to the Moon) and allowing it
to carry almost six times the requested amount of cargo.
The additional module plus the airlock in the solo version
also made it better suited for research and satellite servicing missions. It is not known how RKK Energiya adapted
its design for such missions, but if it maintained the basic
22
*With engines burning UDMH/nitrogen tetroxide
VA/DO configuration, then the whole return capsule would
probably have to be depressurized to make EVAs possible. Having said that, neither vehicle appears terribly well
suited for satellite servicing, a task that is easier accomplished with Space Shuttle type vehicles than traditional
“capsules”. Moreover, the payload capacity of the rocket
and the range safety restrictions imposed by the location
of the launch site severely limit the attainable orbital
inclinations and altitudes, thus restricting the number of
satellites that can be serviced. It is also not quite clear
how the Russians intend to use either spacecraft to deorbit defunct satellites and space debris, which would
involve attaching some type of propulsion unit to these
objects.
While the Khrunichev vehicle was bigger and roomier,
it was also much heavier and more complex than its
Energiya competitor. The 20-ton mass given for the vehicle is understood to be the mass in Earth orbit, minus that
of the launch escape system and shroud, making one
wonder if it did not stretch the capacity of the launch
vehicle. Relying on parachutes for landing, the ship probably also had a lower landing accuracy than Energiya’s.
Whatever the pros and cons of the two designs, on 6
April 2009 Roskosmos announced that the tender had
been won by RKK Energiya, a decision which did not
really come as a surprise to observers. In fact, both
Perminov and Krasnov had earlier indicated that Energiya
would get the contract [59]. All the members of the commission that reviewed the proposals had unanimously
voted for the Energiya vehicle. One can only speculate
what factors turned the decision in favour of Energiya,
but the company’s 50-year experience in building and
flying piloted spaceships must undoubtedly have played
a vital role. In a statement following the decision,
Roskosmos did advise Energiya to involve Khrunichev in
the project as a subcontractor, a recommendation welcomed by Vitaliy Lopota, who also did not exclude the
participation of other Russian companies [60]. Krasnov
had earlier said that even European companies might be
invited to take part in the PPTS effort to some level [61].
Lopota has said that a preliminary working name for
the vehicle is “Rus” (a Russian word for medieval Russia), but that this may change [62]. “Rus” is also the name
of a programme to upgrade the Soyuz rockets and
“Rus-M” is a development programme for the new booster
that is scheduled to launch the PTK NP into orbit.
After RKK Energiya finishes its preliminary design
in June 2010, it will be reviewed by a Roskosmos
commission, which will then decide if it needs further
changes or if it can serve as the basis for the construction of a prototype vehicle. Blueprints for construction
of the vehicle are expected to be ready by the end of
2011 and testing of individual components should be
completed by mid-2013. The first unmanned test launch
is tentatively scheduled for 2015, with the first manned
flight slated for 2018. Meanwhile, the unmanned cargo
version is expected to make its debut in 2016-2017
[63].
In April 2008 Anatoliy Perminov said manned flights
from Baikonur were expected to end in 2020, meaning
that Roskosmos was looking at a two-year transition
period from Soyuz to the new vehicle [64]. However, a
chart shown during a recent RKK Energiya presentation
would indicate that Soyuz will be retired as early as the
end of 2017. The same chart shows Progress vehicles
flying until the end of 2015, with a “re-usable cargo
system” entering service in early 2015. This looks identical to the Parom (“Ferry”) space tug unveiled by Energiya
in 2004, which most observers thought had been abandoned along with Kliper. The 12.5 ton Parom would be
launched for a mission lasting up to 15 years, regularly
picking up individually launched cargo containers and
then towing them to ISS, which would obviate the need to
outfit the containers with expensive and heavy propulsion
systems. At the end of the mission, Parom would return
the container to a lower orbit, release it (for natural decay) and await the launch of the next one. The containers
could also carry propellant to refuel Parom itself. They
were to be launched by Soyuz and Proton rockets and
carry between 4 and 13 tons of cargo to the station.
Parom could also be used to transport large unpressurized
platforms carrying solar panels, modules or elements of
future interplanetary ships. Apparently, RKK Energiya’s
idea now is to operate the tug/container system alongside the PPTS cargo vehicles, which are better suited to
handle smaller payloads (up to 2 tons) and unlike the
containers can also return cargo back to Earth [65].
4.7
The Launch Vehicle
The development of a new medium-lift launch vehicle for
the Soyuz successor was included in the FSP 2006-2015
under the programme name “Rus-M” (“Rus” being the
general name for the unrelated Soyuz-2 development
programme). Rus-M was initially aimed at building a rocket
with an 11-ton capacity to low Earth orbit (LEO) in 20072010 and one with a 15-ton LEO capacity (and 3.4
geostationary capacity) in 2010-2015. Although Rus-M
was not specifically tied to the manned programme, the
payload capability pretty well matched the mass of Kliper,
then under development at RKK Energiya. It is not clear if
a tender was immediately announced for the new rocket.
TsSKB-Progress in Samara is known to have worked on
Kliper launch vehicles called Soyuz-2-3 and Soyuz-3 with
NK-33 engines inherited from the N-1 project.
On 16 October 2007 Anatoliy Perminov revealed that
Roskosmos would “soon” announce a tender for the development of a new rocket to launch the Soyuz successor
[66]. In the end, that announcement did not come until
February 2009, with participants required to submit their
proposals between 14 February and 16 March. The companies vying for the contract were the Khrunichev Centre
and a team consisting of TsSKB-Progress, RKK Energiya
and KB Makeyev in Miass, a company which has specialized over the years in building sea-launched ballistic
missiles.
The complete tender announcement was placed online
for anyone to see [67]. It called for working out a draft
plan in 2009-2010 for what was officially termed “a newgeneration medium-class space launch complex with increased payload capacity”. A total of 375 million rubles
($11.7 million) would be allocated for that timeframe, 175
million in 2009 and 200 million in 2010. The programme
name “Rus-M”’ was retained, but the rocket was now
required to orbit heavier payloads and fly from the
Vostochnyy cosmodrome (even though Vostochnyy is
nowhere specifically mentioned in the tender announcement). The official “customers” for the new rocket are
Roskosmos and the Ministry of Defence.
The main requirements for the rocket will be summarized here:
Missions:
The rocket is supposed to fulfil missions in the interests
of:
1) government agencies, initially piloted missions to Earth
orbit and at a later stage piloted deep space missions
2) international co-operation
3) commercial customers
The payloads mentioned in the announcement are:
•
new-generation piloted and cargo transport ships
•
space station modules
•
platforms in low Earth orbit
•
automatic vehicles in orbits with various altitudes and
inclinations, including geostationary transfer orbits
and geostationary orbits
•
interplanetary space probes
23
Bart Hendrickx
Payload capacity
•
to a low, circular orbit (200 km, 51.7°): at least 20
tons
•
to geostationary transfer orbits: up to 7.0 tons (if the
satellite’s own propulsion capacity adds a velocity
change of 1500 m/s)
•
to geostationary orbit: up to 4.0 tons
The rocket must be capable of placing objects into parking
orbits with the following inclinations: 51.7°, 63°, 72°, 83°,
98° (Fig. 18).
Fig. 18 Launch azimuths from Vostochnyy cosmodrome.
(source: TsSKB-Progress)
Design specifications
•
the rocket must consist of two stages and use tandem
staging
•
the first stage must consist of a cluster of modules
equipped with RD-180 engines (LOX/kerosene).
•
the second stage must consist of a single module
with RD-0146 engines (LOX/LH2). After launch it
must be de-orbited safely in order to prevent
accumulation of space debris
•
alternative versions must be studied in the draft plan,
including a “monoblock” design with RD-0163 engines
(a tripropellant engine burning LOX/kerosene/LH2)
and hydrogen engines
•
if required, upper stages can be added to the rocket
•
the possibility must be studied of using the first stage
as the basis for a heavy-lift launch vehicle with a LEO
capacity of at least 50 tons and a super heavy-lift
launch vehicle with a LEO capacity of more than 100
tons
if a single engine fails on the first or second stage,
the rocket must be able to continue its flight and
either put the spacecraft into a low contingency orbit
(from which it can de-orbit during the first revolution)
or fly a “gently sloping trajectory” that limits the gforces for the crew to 12 g and allows the return
capsule to come down in a prescribed landing zone.
Assembly and launch facilities
•
cosmodrome facilities must be able to support an
average launch rate of 15 to 20 launches per year (10
launches in the early stages) and offer the possibility
of preparing several launch vehicles simultaneously
•
the launch complex must consist of two pads with a
common control centre and common storage facilities
for propellant and compressed gases
•
in keeping with Russian tradition, the rocket will be
rolled out horizontally and then erected on the launch
pad
•
the assembly building must require only minimal
modifications for preparing a launch vehicle with a
payload capacity of 50 tons
•
the possibility must be considered of building a
“universal test stand and launch pad” to test-fire the
rocket’s engines (a similar facility, capable of
supporting both test firings and launches, was built at
Baikonur for the Energiya rocket in the 1980s)
The specifications given in the tender announcement
were remarkably detailed and left little leeway for design
variations. They were clearly tailored to proposals made
earlier by TsSKB, Energiya and Makeyev. In 1993-1994
Energiya and Makeyev had jointly proposed a version of
the Angara rocket with a first stage virtually identical to
that described in the tender announcement, featuring
three first-stage modules with RD-180 engines [68]. The
Angara competition was eventually won by the Khrunichev
Centre in 1994, but Energiya continued to pursue its
alternative Angara design for at least several more years
[69]. In 2008 TsSKB had presented a family of boosters
for launches from Vostochnyy with payload capacities
ranging from 3 tons to 120 tons. At least one of the
proposed boosters (Rus-M S, with an 8-ton payload capacity) had a second stage with four RD-0164 engines
[70]. The design formulated in the tender announcement
seems to be a crossing between the first stage of
Energiya’s old Angara version and the second stage of
TsSKB’s Rus-M S.
•
the rocket must be equipped with emergency escape
systems for the crew
With the winner clearly decided even before the competition began, the tender was probably only held because it was required under government rules. It came as
no surprise at all when the TsSKB/Energiya/Makeyev
team was declared the winner of the competition by
Roskosmos on 19 March 2009, a decision not made
public until the following month. The contract between
Roskosmos and the team was signed on 10 April.
•
if a first-stage engine fails during liftoff, the rocket
must be able to safely clear the tower
As prescribed, the booster sports three first-stage mod-
Since the rocket needs to be man-rated, special attention
was given to safety features:
24
•
ules with a total of six LOX/kerosene RD-180 engines
(two in each module) and a second stage powered by
four LOX/liquid hydrogen RD-0146 engines. The RD-180
(sea-level thrust 390 tons, specific impulse 311 s), developed by NPO Energomash in Khimki near Moscow, is a
two-chamber version of the four-chamber RD-170 and
RD-171, the first-stage engines of the Energiya and Zenit
rockets respectively. It has not yet been used on a Russian rocket, but has been flying on the first stage of
America’s Atlas-5 rockets since 2002 (Fig. 19). The RD0146 (vacuum thrust 10 tons, specific impulse 463 s),
built by KBKhA (Chemical Automatics Design Bureau) in
Voronezh, is the first Russian expander-cycle engine, a
type of engine that eliminates the need for gas generators. It can be restarted up to five times and is therefore
also ideally suited for translunar injection and lunar orbit
insertion burns. The engine has been under development
since 1997 for upper stages of the Proton and Angara
rockets and by 2009 had undergone some 30 full-scale
test firings (Fig. 20) [71].
Fig. 20 The RD-0146 engine. (source: KBKhA)
Fig. 19 The RD-180 engine.
(source: Lockheed Martin)
A scale model of the rocket was on display at the
MAKS aerospace show near Moscow in August 2009
(Fig. 21). According to data released during the show, the
rocket will have a payload capacity of 23.8 tons to a
200 km, 51.7° inclination orbit, well above the 20-ton
minimum capacity demanded by Roskosmos. It will be
61.1 m high and have a maximum base diameter of
11.6 m. TsSKB-Progress will be responsible for secondstage development and construction and overall vehicle
integration, KB Makeyev will design and build the first
stage and Energiya will be in charge of systems required
Fig. 21 Rus-M model at MAKS-2009.
(source: Bert Vis)
25
Bart Hendrickx
to man-rate the rocket. The team expects to submit the
preliminary design for approval in August 2010. The first
launch, presumably with an unmanned test version of the
PTK NP vehicle, is set for 2015.
No details have emerged so far on the proposal that
Khrunichev submitted to the tender commission, but given
the strictly determined specifications, it cannot have radically differed from that of the TsSKB-led team. As an
alternative, Khrunichev presumably put forward one of
the boosters in its Angara family, although none of those
meets the specifications laid out by Roskosmos. All the
Angara rockets use RD-191 rather than RD-180 engines
in the first stage. Angara-5 has a payload capacity of 25.8
tons, but is a three-stage rocket (not a two-stage rocket
as demanded by Roskomos). Angara-5P, a version specifically intended for manned missions, is a two-stage
rocket, but it uses parallel rather than tandem staging
and in 2008 its payload capacity was lowered from 20
tons to 14.5-18 tons, which is below the 20-ton requirement for the new rocket. However, it is possible that the
Angara-5 design was modified to better satisfy the needs
of Roskosmos.
Angara was primarily developed for military and commercial missions from the Plesetsk cosmodrome and one
existing pad at Baikonur is likely to be modified for Angara5 commercial missions under a joint Russian-Kazakh
venture called Baiterek (“Poplar”). Clearly, Roskosmos
did not want to put all its eggs in one basket by flying
Angara rockets from Vostochnyy as well and decided
even before the tender that the contract would be awarded
to a different team. However, at the 2009 Paris Air Show
Khrunichev officials said that they planned to resubmit
their proposals for the PPTS launch vehicle before the
end of the year, arguing that a man-rated Angara would
be cheaper than the newly approved rocket.
Rus-M has the flexibility needed to build heavier versions of the rocket. For instance, a version with five firststage modules could give it the 50-ton LEO capacity
mentioned in the tender announcement. It could remain
compatible with the same launch pad by using a special
platform acting as an interface between the launch table
and the rocket. A booster of this class would be needed to
fly PPTS missions to the Moon [72].
5.
Beyond ISS
5.1
Conflicting Concepts
In recent years Russian officials have made no secret of
the fact that they intend to assemble a new all-Russian
space station after ISS is abandoned. As early as April
2001, shortly after the de-orbiting of Mir, Russian space
agency chief Yuriy Koptev did not rule out the possibility
26
that Russia would create a new space station in the postISS era, saying it would be much smaller than ISS and
weigh about 500 tons once it was fully assembled. The
station would orbit in a higher inclination than the Salyuts,
Mir and ISS to improve remote sensing coverage of
Russian territory and would also periodically orbit the
Earth unmanned to make it possible to conduct sensitive
microgravity experiments [73].
Similar plans were announced by Koptev’s successor
Anatoliy Perminov at the Congress of the International
Astronautical Federation in Vancouver in October 2004.
Perminov emphasized its use to prepare for future piloted
flights to the Moon and Mars. He noted that Russia was
hoping to include in its Federal Space Programme for
2006-2015 “a periodically visited orbital base platform
combining the advantages of a piloted complex and an
automatic spacecraft”, adding that “such a platform will
make it possible to continue and expand the scientific
and applications research now being conducted aboard
ISS. It is primarily intended to test elements of future
interplanetary complexes and a new generation of transportation and technical systems” [74]. More information
was revealed a month later in a presentation by Nikolai
Anfimov, the head of TsNIIMash (Central Scientific Research Institute of Machine Building), Russia’s leading
civilian spaceflight research and development institute,
which is sometimes called the think tank of the Russian
Space Agency. Anfimov emphasized the station’s role as
a remote sensing platform, referring to it as “a
multifunctional high-latitude space station” that would be
placed into an orbit with a relatively high inclination to
increase remote sensing coverage of Russia. Other tasks
for the station that he mentioned were “basic and applied
research (materials production, biotechnology, medicine
and biology, geophysics and astrophysics, demonstration of space technologies) and support of future human
missions” [75].
Meanwhile, RKK Energiya, the country’s leading builder
of manned space hardware, had more lofty goals than
Roskosmos. By February 2006 RKK Energiya, headed at
the time by Nikolai Sevastyanov (Fig. 22), had worked out a
manned spaceflight architecture for 2006-2030 which did
not include any plans for a Russian space station to follow in
the footsteps of ISS. Instead, the plan called for operating
ISS as long as possible, employing Energiya’s Kliper vehicles and Parom space tugs as the Russian transportation
systems. Meanwhile, manned lunar missions would begin
as early as 2011-2012 using existing hardware (the Soyuz
and Proton rockets, Fregat and Blok-DM upper stages and
modernized Soyuz spacecraft). Rather than develop new,
big rockets, Russia would have to rely on its extensive
docking experience to fly these missions with multiple-launch
schemes: a dual launch profile for a lunar fly-around mission in 2011-2012, a quadruple launch scheme for a mis-
Fig. 22 Nikolay Sevastyanov. (source: Vadim Lukashevich)
sion in lunar orbit in 2013 and no fewer than seven launches
for both an unmanned lunar landing dress rehearsal mission in 2014 and a manned landing expedition in 2014.
Between 2015 and 2020 RKK Energiya hoped to create a
re-usable Earth-Moon-Earth transportation system that would
include among other things Kliper-based vehicles and a
lunar orbital station. Establishment of a lunar base would
begin after 2020, with one of the key goals being to mine
helium-3 for use in future nuclear fusion reactors. Preparations for manned Mars missions would begin after 2025
[76].
There was little indication in RKK Energiya’s plans
who would foot the bill for simultaneously operating the
ISS Russian segment and starting a manned lunar programme. Not surprisingly, Russian space agency officials, more concerned with budget realities, stuck to their
more conservative plans. Speaking at an international
space congress in Moscow in August 2006, Roskosmos
deputy chief Vitaliy Davydov said that as ISS operations
ended in 2016-2025, it was planned to launch a Russian
national multipurpose space station into a 70° inclination
orbit, allowing cosmonauts to observe virtually all of Russian territory. The station would also be used to produce
unique materials and medicines and test technologies for
expeditions to the Moon and Mars. Preparations for piloted flights to the Moon and Mars would not start until
after 2025-2030, although Davydov stressed that a careful evaluation would have to be made of the need for such
missions and that if the go-ahead were given, they would
involve international co-operation [77].
When asked about the wisdom of putting a space
station into a high-inclination orbit, RKK Energiya’s Nikolai
Sevastyanov was quite categoric. In one interview he
stated: “Why do we need a high-latitude station? To
observe the complete territory of Russia? Why? Observing the Earth must be done with cheaper automatic satellites. Piloted cosmonautics has other goals. And to accomplish these goals an orbit with an inclination of 51.6°
is less expensive and more effective than an orbit with a
high inclination” [78].
Statements such as these were indicative of growing
rifts between RKK Energiya and Roskosmos, exacerbated by the agency’s July 2006 decision not to approve
the Kliper vehicle. Late in 2006 RKK Energiya cosmonaut
Pavel Vinogradov criticized Roskosmos’ conservative approach in an interview for the authoritative Russian space
magazine Novosti kosmonavtiki: “It is simply a disgrace
that there is not a single person in the Directorate of
Manned Spaceflight [of the Russian Space Agency] who
really understands what’s going on in space. In the analogous NASA directorate out of the eight positions the six
most important ones are held by former astronauts. There
is not even a single cosmonaut in Roskosmos whatsoever. I think we’re facing a collapse, the more so because
half a year ago Roskosmos’ relations with [RKK] Energiya
took a turn for the worse. [RKK Energiya head] N.N.
Sevastyanov, who was initially supported by A.N.
Perminov, began ... generating uncomfortable ideas, disturbing the peace at Roskosmos...” [79].
The simmering conflict came to a head on 17 January
2007, when Roskosmos issued a highly unusual public
statement titled “Bouts of lunacy”, openly reprimanding
Sevastyanov for portraying his concept of lunar exploration as an officially approved government programme.
The statement said that Roskosmos was working on a
new architecture for the Russian space programme, but
that no decisions had yet been made on manned lunar or
interplanetary missions. However, the recommendations
of RKK Energiya would be taken into account once a new
lunar programme was formulated [80].
Probably not coincidentally, the ambitious Sevastyanov
was sacked in June 2007 and replaced in August 2007 by
Vitaliy Lopota (Fig. 23) [81]. On 31 August 2007 Perminov
announced that Roskosmos had worked out a concept
for Russian space operations until 2040. Clearly, the
earlier recommendations of RKK Energiya were largely
ignored, although manned lunar missions were now significantly moved forward, possibly in response to criticism expressed by the Russian government earlier that
year on the “lack of ambition” displayed by the space
agency [82]. On the manned side, the programme consisted of three stages:
Stage 1 (until 2015): Russia finishes the construction
of its ISS segment
Stage 2 (2016-2025): ISS operations continue until
2020, after which Russia creates “a new-generation
high-latitude piloted space platform”.
Stage 3 (2026-2040): the platform is used “to solve
tasks to ensure flights to the Moon and Mars”. Before
2040 it is planned to build a piloted station in lunar
orbit, a lunar landing complex and a manned lunar
base. The first manned lunar landing could come as
early as 2025, followed by the construction of the
lunar base in 2027-2032. A manned flight to Mars can
27
Bart Hendrickx
strongly advocated by his predecessor, would not only be
a very difficult and costly undertaking, but a waste of
time, since controlled nuclear fusion would be “a task for
the 22nd and 23rd centuries” [85].
Fig. 23 Vitaliy Lopota.
(source: NASA)
be performed after 2035 [83]. Later Perminov
acknowledged that while Russia has tentative plans
for manned mission to Mars, a Mars expedition should
be international given the substantial technical and
financial resources that would be needed [84].
Even after the departure of Sevastyanov, RKK Energiya
continued to pursue its own goals. In 2008 the company
presented yet another strategy for Russia’s human space
programme which again significantly differed from that of
Roskosmos. Although the new space station advertised
by Roskosmos was included in the plan, the Moon now
took a backseat to Mars. After the completion of the ISS
Russian segment in 2015, the programme would see two
main stages:
2016-2025: continued use of ISS, introduction of the
PPTS, creation of an infrastructure for interplanetary
expeditions, assembly of space complexes in Earth
orbit.
2026-2040: use of the space infrastructure,
interplanetary expeditions, creation of an asteroid
defence system.
Objectives for a new Russian space station, apart
from ensuring Russia’s permanent human presence in
Earth orbit, would be “to test, assemble and service
spacecraft, including lunar and Martian ships”, to create
new materials and drugs with unique properties and also
“to solve tasks in the interests of national security”.
In a radical departure from Sevastyanov’s vision, Vitaliy
Lopota openly questioned the need for an immediate
return to the Moon. In his view, extracting helium-3 from
the lunar regolith and transporting it to Earth, one goal
28
Given the difficulties and risks involved in landing on
other celestial bodies, the first manned expeditions to
Mars should not descend to the surface, but study the
planet from orbit, while robots continue to explore the
surface. Such missions could easily be simulated during
long-term expeditions in Earth orbit, with no need to go to
the Moon first. The first manned missions to Mars could
take place by 2025 and would be followed by the simultaneous establishment of bases on Mars and the Moon
between 2026 and 2040. Those bases would not only be
used for scientific research and exploitation of in-situ
resources, but also to establish asteroid defence systems [86]. Lopota has described America’s decision to
focus on the Moon first as “a waste of time”, arguing that
it is easier to adapt technologies developed for a Mars
mission for lunar exploration than the other way around
[87].
The most recent presentation of RKK Energiya’s architecture shows flights of hardware for the Martian programme getting underway in 2021. Manned rovers would
start roaming the Martian surface in 2027 to improve
cosmonauts’ mobility, with the establishment of a Martian
base beginning in 2035. A space station in Mars orbit
would follow in 2038. The first manned lunar missions
would not start until 2030 and should result in the immediate establishment of a lunar base. A lunar orbital outpost would be launched no earlier than 2040 (Fig. 24)
[88].
During the MAKS 2009 aerospace show in August
2009, reports suggested that RKK Energiya had received
support for its strategy from Roskosmos. Several days
after the show, Roskosmos deputy head Vitaliy Davydov
declared that a final decision on lunar and Martian goals
will be made in a new Federal Space Programme currently being drawn up for the period 2012-2020 [89]. The
latest indications are that Roskosmos' timelines for piloted missions beyond Earth orbit remain less ambitious
than those of RKK Energiya.
Meanwhile, Russia is also beginning to develop the
technologies needed to make human exploration of the
Solar System more realistic. On 29 December 2009 President Medvedev’s cabinet allocated 500 million rubles
($16.7 million) in 2010 to start research on a megawatt
nuclear electric propulsion system, in which nuclear thermal energy is changed into electrical energy that is used
to power a series of electric engines. A total of 430 million
rubles will be given to the Rosatom state nuclear corporation and the rest to Roskosmos. Anatoliy Perminov has
Fig. 24 RKK Energiya chart showing future evolution of
Russia’s human space programme: ISS (2010-2020), OPSEK
(2020-2040), Mars (2022-2040), Moon (2030-2040).
Fig. 25 A nuclear-powered “Universal Space Platform”. 1.
Nuclear reactor 2. Electric rocket engines 3. Truss 4. Service
module 5. Communications antennas.
said that the nine-year development programme would
require 17 billion rubles (over $580 million) of government funding and an extra 3 billion rubles in private
investment. It will be a joint undertaking by RKK Energiya
and the Keldysh Research Centre. The aim is to complete the preliminary design in 2012 and to start launching spacecraft with such a propulsion system before the
end of the decade. These would all use a common “Universal Space Platform” consisting of long truss-like structure with the nuclear reactor on one end and the electric
engines on the other (Fig. 25). Among the spacecraft
planned to use such propulsion systems are interorbital
space tugs, communications platforms, radar Earth observation platforms, vehicles to remove defunct satellites
from the geostationary belt, deep space probes, lunar
space tugs and piloted Mars ships. A piloted Mars complex would require a 24 megawatt system [90].
objective for the station, possibly for the very same reason earlier given by Nikolai Sevastyanov. The shift from
51.6° to 51.8° is dictated by range safety restrictions for
launches from Vostochnyy [91]. The plan is that not only
the Soyuz successor, but also the various elements of
the outpost will be placed into orbit from the new
cosmodrome. Nikolai Panichkin, the deputy director of
TsNIIMash, declared at the 2009 Paris Air Show that the
station’s elements will be launched by the new generation of rockets currently being developed for launch from
Vostochnyy [92].
5.2
The Next Goal: OPSEK
All indications are now that the next step in the Russian
human space programme will be the creation of a new
Russian space station, which has regularly been referred
to as the Orbital Piloted Assembly and Experimental
Complex (Russian acronym OPSEK). OPSEK also has
strong backing from TsNIIMash, which may have conceived the station in the first place.
The goals for the station remain the same as those
outlined earlier, although one objective that has been
conspicuously absent in recent statements is remote
sensing of the Earth. Apparently, the idea to place the
station into a high-inclination orbit has been abandoned.
This can be deduced from the fact that in its technical
requirements for the Soyuz successor, the Russian Space
Agency stipulated that it will fly to ISS in its 51.6° inclination orbit and to “an orbital piloted station in a 51.8° orbit”,
which can only be Russia’s ISS successor. This may
mean that remote sensing is no longer considered a key
A key goal for OPSEK will be to test the technology
required for future human missions to the Moon and Mars
and, possibly, to increase the duration of manned space
missions in preparation for future flights to the Red Planet.
The longest mission to date remains the 14-month flight
of cosmonaut Valeriy Polyakov aboard the Mir space
station in 1994-1995, but no attempts have been made
since to break that record, nor are any currently planned
for ISS. Russian officials have also indicated that OPSEK
will not just be a test bed for future human deep space
missions, but will also serve as the actual assembly site
for Moon and Mars ships.
Another role for OPSEK will be that of an orbiting
garage for spacecraft, which was also one of the original
objectives for Space Station Freedom and a Russian
equivalent called the Orbital Assembly and Operations
Centre (OSETs), one of the early versions of the Mir-2
space station. Gennadiy Raikunov, the new head of
TsNIIMash, said in a recent interview that future satellites
will have to be built with standard components that can
easily be changed out in space. Since it is not costeffective to regularly launch spare parts, OPSEK will
have to act as a storage depot for spare parts. Space tugs
would then have to be deployed from OPSEK to reach
the wide array of altitudes and inclinations used by those
satellites [93].
29
Bart Hendrickx
Both RKK Energiya and Roskosmos officials have
recently confirmed that OPSEK construction may begin
using existing elements of the ISS Russian segment,
certainly if ISS operations will not be extended beyond
2015 [94]. There is good reason to believe that the
reconfiguration of the Russian segment in 2006 was at
least partially motivated by the possibility that the US
would withdraw from ISS in 2015 or even earlier. A highlevel source at RKK Energiya was quoted as saying at
the time that Russia was “preparing for this turn of events
just to be on the safe side” [95]. All this is reminiscent of
the transition from Mir to ISS operations in the mid1990s, when Russia proposed to use Mir as the starting
point for ISS assembly and/or transfer the newest Mir
modules (Spektr and Priroda) to ISS.
Of course, the exact scenario will depend on when ISS
is eventually de-orbited and in what shape the individual
elements are by the time a decision needs to be made. If
a decision is made to re-use elements of the Russian
segment, the most likely scenario is that the MLM module, the UM node and the NEM-1 and 2 power modules
will be undocked from Zvezda. Back in 2006 Nikolai
Sevastyanov said MLM was being designed with the
capability of taking over the functions of Zvezda if that
eventually turned out to be necessary [96]. Although he
was apparently talking about the possibility of this happening during the lifetime of ISS itself, this also implies
MLM could become the core of a new space station. The
addition to the Russian segment of the UM node, which
has more docking ports than are currently planned to be
needed, is the clearest indication that detaching part of
the Russian segment to form the basis of the new orbiting
outpost is viewed as a serious option. One factor to be
taken into account is that moving those elements from a
51.6° to the 51.8° orbit of OPSEK will require planechanging manoeuvres, but this is a task that could be
achieved with the help of one or two Progress vehicles
acting as tugs.
If the life of ISS is extended until at least 2020, which
now looks almost certain, the Russians may eventually
elect not to recycle elements of the Russian segment and
begin the assembly of OPSEK from scratch. There is now
a real chance that NEM-1 and 2 (as well as the UM Node
Module) will not be launched to ISS if the US is willing to
continue providing power to the Russian segment on
agreeable terms. In that case, the two power modules
would probably be built specifically for OPSEK and be
launched once ISS is abandoned.
In any scenario, the central component of OPSEK will
become a 40-ton Universal Base Module (UBM), currently projected for launch in 2020. It will act as the
central living quarters of the station and serve as a prototype for a piloted Mars ship and a manned lunar orbital
30
station. NEM-1 and NEM-2 are supposed to be replaced
by heavier 40-ton energy modules by the end of the
2020s. Preliminary plans call for OPSEK to remain operational until 2040. (Fig. 26) [97].
Fig. 26 Drawing of OPSEK shown at MAKS-2009, clearly
showing two NEM modules.
(source: Bert Vis)
The European Space Agency has displayed interest in
taking part in OPSEK. In a March 2009 meeting attended
among others by ESA Director General Jean-Jacques
Dordain, ESA and Roskosmos discussed a space infrastructure that could support a capability for missions
beyond low-Earth orbit [98]. In June 2009 Simonetta Di
Pippo, ESA director of human space flight, said that she
shared the Russian vision of the future space station as a
platform for deep space missions. “I have continuous
consultations with officials in Russia. We meet every
month, month and a half, and now we are going to [jointly]
study how to proceed beyond 2025 and we have a common idea that we would like to preserve presence in the
lower orbit. We are studying different scenarios, whether
we need permanent presence or, maybe, a human-tended
capability, and we can end up with a totally different
solution in the end, but I don’t believe we can [abandon
missions in] Earth orbit. [99]”.
Again, no final commitments are likely to be made
until Roskosmos draws up the new Federal Space Programme until 2020. Aleksei Krasnov did make clear in
January 2009 that the space agency was working hard to
ensure that the plans get adequate financial and legislative support from the government [100]. Appearing before
space agency heads at ESA headquarters in Paris on 17
June 2009, Anatoliy Perminov once again underlined that
Russia intends to begin assembly of OPSEK by the time
ISS nears the end of its lifetime [101].
6.
Concluding Remarks
Whether all these plans can be realized will, of course,
depend on funding and political will. Even the announced
2015 deadline for finishing the ISS Russian segment may
be overly optimistic. It is not clear what progress is being
made on turning FGB-2 into the Multipurpose Laboratory
Module and the construction of the remaining elements
(UM, NEM-1 and NEM-2) has probably not even begun,
although they may eventually not be needed. All indications are that the ISS Russian segment continues to face
dire financial straits. In August 2009 RKK Energiya president Vitaliy Lopota said that overall the Russian segment
had been underfunded by 30 to 40 percent [102]. Putting
things in perspective, Lopota claimed in June 2008 that
over the past decade Russia had spent barely $2 billion
dollars on the Russian segment, compared to about $100
billion invested in the station by NASA [103]. Even though
Roskosmos’ budget has been on the increase for several
years, the effects of the global economic crisis were
already being felt when planned budget increases for
2010 and 2011 were put on hold in April 2009 [104].
The timelines given for the development of the country’s new transportation system must be treated with
even more skepticism, the more so because the task at
hand is Herculean by any standard. Not only does Russia
have to develop a new spacecraft, the ability to launch it
also hinges on the availability of a cosmodrome and a
launch vehicle that have to be built virtually from scratch
in just six to seven years. By comparison, NASA, with a
budget dwarfing that of Roskosmos, found it impossible
to build only a new spacecraft and rocket in less than a
decade. Even as work on the preliminary design of the
Soyuz successor is just getting underway, Vitaliy Lopota
has already indicated that the work requires three times
more money than the company has received from
Roskosmos [105]. With a real chance that Vostochnyy
and the new rocket will not be available as advertised in
2015, the Russians are already looking at back-up options for launching the new spacecraft in case that does
more or less stay on schedule. Lopota recently disclosed
that the new vehicle may first fly from Baikonur, without
indicating which launch vehicle it would use [106]. The
only existing launch vehicle capable of launching the
spacecraft would be Zenit, which has one launch pad at
Baikonur.
Whenever it is ready to fly, the new vehicle will not only
service space stations and be adapted for lunar flights, but
will also fly solo missions in Earth orbit for scientific, military
and commercial purposes and perform practical tasks such
as satellite servicing and de-orbiting of space debris.
As for the post-ISS era, Roskosmos and RKK Energiya
now seem to have reached consensus on the need to
assemble a new Russian space station, which is likely to
be included in the next Federal Space Programme. Depending on when exactly ISS operations are terminated,
construction of the station may begin using existing elements of the ISS Russian segment. This station may
eventually become the assembly site for piloted spacecraft destined for Mars and the Moon, but Russia has
made it clear that it will not be able to afford such mis-
sions on its own, a clear invitation to foreign partners to
co-operate in human exploration beyond Earth orbit.
Ever since the start of the Constellation programme in
2004, NASA leaned toward accomplishing its space exploration objectives all by itself, essentially turning its
back on a decade of international co-operation on ISS.
However, budget realities have forced the agency to reassess its stance. In August 2009 the Human Space
Flight Plans Committee (better known as the Augustine
Committee) presented President Barack Obama with several possible options for the future of America’s manned
space programme. The Committee underlined that NASA’s
plans for human exploration beyond low Earth orbit were
not viable with the currently projected budgets. It recommended NASA to continue ISS operations beyond 2015,
cautioning that not to do so would “significantly impair
U.S. ability to develop and lead future international
spaceflight partnerships.” Even more significantly, one of
the committee’s key findings was that “the U.S. can lead
a bold new international effort in the human exploration of
space” and that “if international partners are actively
engaged, including on the ‘critical path’ to success, there
could be substantial benefits to foreign relations, and
more resources overall could become available.” This
was the first clear sign in many years that America was
about to reverse its policy of excluding other countries
from a key role in its human space exploration efforts.
When it unveiled its NASA budget proposal for FY
2011 on 1 February 2010, the Obama Administration
called for sweeping changes to America’s space programme. Under the new policy, which draws heavily on
the recommendations of the Augustine Committee but
still faces Congressional scrutiny, NASA would cancel
the Constellation programme, extend its involvement in
ISS to 2020 and outsource the development of a Shuttle
replacement to the private industry. Rather than focus on
a specific goal beyond low Earth orbit in the foreseeable
future, NASA would first develop key new technologies
needed to make human space exploration more realistic
and affordable. Over the next five years, some $7.8 billion will be earmarked for new technology development,
including autonomous rendezvous, orbital fuel transfer
systems and closed-loop life support systems. Another
$3.1 billion will support development of new propulsion
technologies needed by future heavy-lift rockets and another $3 billion will be spent on a new series of robotic
missions to the Moon and beyond to test systems needed
for eventual manned flights.
No timetables were established for human flights beyond low Earth orbit, but in a statement outlining the new
policy, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden made no secret of the fact that such missions will require international co-operation:
31
Bart Hendrickx
“Imagine trips to Mars that take weeks instead of
nearly a year, people fanning out across the inner
solar system, exploring the Moon, asteroids and Mars
nearly simultaneously in a steady stream of ‘firsts’
and imagine all of this being done collaboratively with
nations around the world. That is what the President’s
plan for NASA will enable, once we develop the new
capabilities to make it a reality.”
opment to lay foundations for such flights. In particular,
he singled out ground-based experiments like the simulated 500-day Mars mission ("Mars-500") slated to begin
at the Institute of Medical and Biological Problems later in
2010 as well as the development of a nuclear-powered
propulsion system, which he stressed could be built jointly
with the US [108].
In a reaction to the announcement, Anatoliy Perminov
made it clear that Roskosmos’ plans will not be affected
by the cancellation of Constellation, stressing that Russia
has no plans to develop “lunar settlements” in the near
future. Actually, the new White House space policy has
much in common with that of Roskosmos. As Perminov
noted: “Some of Barack Obama’s decisions are completely in line with our vision, oriented toward the development of a technological base for the sector and we
expect that our co-operation with the US will continue in
many areas” [107] .
In short, after having followed diverging paths for
several years, it now looks like NASA and Roskosmos
are set to continue their partnership to eventually
achieve the goal of sending people to the Moon and
Mars. However, both agencies seem to be shying away
from meeting that objectiveanytime in the near future,
electing to focus on technology development first before allowing space travellers to once again venture
beyond Earth orbit.
Acknowledgments
Several days later Perminov said Roskosmos is not
planning piloteed Mars missions "in the foreseeable future" and will first place emphasis on research and devel-
The author would like to thank Vadim Lukashevich and
Bert Vis for providing some of the pictures published in
the article.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
32
For a detailed look at the origins and evolution of the
Russian segment, see: B. Hendrickx, “From Mir-2 to the
ISS Russian Segment”, in The International Space Station:
From Imagination to Reality, ed. R. Hall, British
Interplanetary Society, London, pp.3-44, 2002; and B.
Hendrickx, “The ISS Russian Segment: Recent
Developments and Future Prospects”, in The International
Space Station: From Imagination to Reality (Volume 2), ed.
R. Hall, British Interplanetary Society, London, pp.3-26,
2005.
S. Shamsutdinov, “RKK Energiya’s concept for the
development of Russian manned spaceflight” (in Russian),
Novosti kosmonavtiki, pp.10-11, July 2006; K. Lantratov,
“Russia prepares to create its own orbital station”, Russia
and CIS Observer, Nr. 4 (15), November 2006. Online at
http://www.ato.ru/rus/cis/archive/15-2006/sp_bus/sp_bus1/
?sess_=hke44rg9pdjn6i7b6eo5kgmg86. (Date Accessed 1
September 2009); A. Krasilnikov, “Poisk for the Russian
segment” (in Russian), Novosti kosmonavtiki, pp.3-4,
January 2010.
Largely based on: S. Shamsutdinov, “The programme of
the development of the ISS Russian segment” (in Russian),
Novosti kosmonavtiki, pp.28-29, July 2008.
A. Krasilnikov, op. cit., pp.3-8.
MLM page on the Khrunichev website at http://
www.khrunichev.ru/main.php?id=55. (Date Accessed 1
February 2010)
Yu. Zhuravin, “The Khrunichev Centre has been given
money for MLM” (in Russian), Novosti kosmonavtiki, pp.2526, August 2005.
Yu. Zhuravin, “News on the Russian modules” (in Russian),
Novosti kosmonavtiki, p.27, January 2007.
A. Seryogin, N. Semyonov, “Fifth International Aerospace
Congress” (in Russian), Novosti kosmonavtiki, p.70, October
2006.
I. Marinin, “Nikolai Sevastyanov: ‘We are turning the ideas
of Korolyov into reality’” (in Russian), Novosti kosmonavtiki,
pp.5-6, January 2007.
10. I. Marinin interview with P. Vinogradov, Novosti kosmonavtiki,
p.35, January 2007.
11. TsNIIMash director Gennadiy Raikunov as quoted by
Interfax-AVN, 23 December 2009.
12. Aleksei Krasnov as quoted by ITAR-TASS, 1 February
2010.
13. S. Shamsutdinov, “Meeting of the heads of the space
agencies” (in Russian), Novosti kosmonavtiki, p.22, May
2006.
14. Yu. Zhuravin, “News on the Russian modules”, op. cit.
15. Krasnov as quoted by ITAR-TASS, 1 February 2010.
16. S. Shayevich, “Ten years in orbit” (in Russian), article on
the Khrunichev website at http://www.khrunichev.ru/
main.php?id=3&nid=872. (Date Accessed 1 February 2010)
17. Krasnov as quoted by ITAR-TASS, 1 February 2010.
18. For more details on these free-flyer proposals, see: B.
Hendrickx, “From Mir-2 to the ISS Russian Segment”, op.
cit. The Submillimetron telescope that was supposed to fly
on SLK is now planned to be launched on an identically
named satellite.
19. Yu. Zhuravin, “Small laboratories for ISS” (in Russian),
Novosti kosmonavtiki, p.26, January 2007. The Roskosmos
OKA-T requirements and “call for proposals” are online at
h t t p : / / w w w. r o s c o s m o s . r u / G o s O r d e r s L i s t . a s p ?NORDER=100. (Date Accessed 1 September 2009)
20. I. Marinin, “Nikolai Sevastyanov...”’, op. cit., p.6.
21. Samara Space Centre brochure distributed at the MAKS
2009 aerospace show.
22. Interfax-AVN report, 25 August 2009.
23. N. Yachmennikova, “People From Planet ISS (in Russian)
(interview with Perminov), Rossiyskaya Gazeta, 29
September 2009, online at http://www.rg.ru/2009/09/29/
perminov.html. (Date Accessed 1 February 2010)
24. N. Bryukhanov, “Russian human transportation system now
and in the future”, paper presented at the 26th International
Symposium on Space Technology and Science in
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
Hamamatsu, Japan, June 2008; presentation by V. Lopota
at the 34th Academic Korolyov Readings in Moscow, 26
January 2010.
ITAR-TASS report, 27 August 2009. According to
Roskosmos deputy head Vitaly Davydov a tender to develop
the satellites will be held “no earlier than 2011” and the first
one is not expected to fly before 2015.
I. Marinin, “Piloted flights into space. 7th International
Conference at TsPK” (in Russian), Novosti kosmonavtiki,
p.60, January 2008.
Yu. Zhuravin, “The ISS needs two Russian Luch satellites”
(in Russian), Novosti kosmonavtiki, p.35, July 2005.
S. Roskin, “A new generation of relay satellites” (in Russian),
Informatsionnye sputnikovye sistemy, pp.8-11, July 2009.
Online at http://www.npopm.ru/images/File/magazin/2009/
m7-screen.pdf. (Date Accessed 1 February 2010)
Perminov speaking to reporters on 16 September 2009.
V. Minenko, “Recoverable Capsules and Transport/
Research Space Vehicles”, paper presented at a Mir
symposium at the Dulles Hyatt Hotel in Washington on 2728 July 1993 and published in “Mir-1 Space Station: A
Technical Overview”, NPO Energia LTD, Alexandria, 1994.
N. Bryukhanov, op. cit.
S. Kostenko as quoted by RIA Novosti, 2 October 2010; R.
Coppinger, “Roscosmos says no private Soyuz flight till
2014”, Flight International, 20 October 2009, online at
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/10/20/333604/
roscosmos-says-no-private-soyuz-flight-till-2014.html. (Date
Accessed 1 February 2010)
ITAR-TASS report, 12 April 2008; J. Oberg, “End of ride for
Soyuz ‘tourists’?”, Spaceflight, 50, pp.254-256, 2008; P.
Sharov, “The first private mission to ISS will take place in
2011” (in Russian), Novosti kosmonavtiki, pp.30-31, August
2008.
A. Krasnov as quoted by RIA Novosti, 29 May 2009.
Roskosmos deputy chief V. Davydov as quoted by InterfaxAVN, 11 January 2010.
A. Krasilnikov, “Progress M-66: launch from Area 31” (in
Russian), Novosti kosmonavtiki, p.6, April 2009. The last
Soyuz and Progress launches from pad nr. 6 were Soyuz T12 in July 1984 and Progress M-15 in October 1992.
For more details on the originally planned upgrades, see:
B. Hendrickx, “From Mir-2 to the ISS Russian Segment”,
op. cit.
Information on Soyuz and Progress upgrades compiled
from: S. Shamsutdinov, “Modernization of the Soyuz TMA
and Progress M/M1 ships” (in Russian), Novosti
kosmonavtiki, p.8, July 2007; Y. Beketova, “Replenishment
of the fleet” (in Russian), Rossiyskiy kosmos, pp.24-27,
January 2009; “Soyuz TMA and Progress M-01M with
modified control system”, technical article published on the
online forum of Novosti kosmonavtiki magazine on 13
October 2008; Ye. Mikrin, “Evolution of Russian Soyuz
piloted transport ships: experience with operations, planned
modernization” (in Russian), paper presented at the 33th
Academic Readings on Cosmonautics in Moscow on 28
January 2009, abstracts online at http://www.ihst.ru/~akm/
17t33. (Date Accessed 1 September 2009)
S. Shamsutdinov, “RKK Energiya’s…”, op. cit., p. 9 ; N.
Sevastyanov interview with RIA Novosti at the 2006
Farnborough International Airshow, 21 July 2006 ; N.
Sevastyanov quoted by Interfax, 21 June 2007.
Interview with Ravil Akhmetov by the RIA Samara news
agency, August 2008, online at http://www.federalspace.ru/
Docs/2008/SMI_54.pdf. (Date Accessed 1 February 2010)
Yu. Semyonov (ed.), Raketno-kosmicheskaya korporatsiya
Energiya imeni S.P. Korolyova : na rubezhe dvukh vekov
(1996-2001), RKK Energiya, Moscow, pp.640-644, 2001.
For more information on the origins and evolution of Kliper,
see: B. Hendrickx, “The ISS Russian Segment : Recent
Developments and Future Prospects”, op. cit., pp.17-24; B.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
Hendrickx, “In the footsteps of Soyuz : Russia’s Kliper
spacecraft”, in Space Exploration 2007, ed. B. Harvey,
Praxis Publishing, Chichester, pp.153-161, 2007.
A. Rayl, “Europe and Russia join forces to study ACTS”,
article published on the website of the Planetary Society on
28 June 2006 at http://www.planetary.org/news/2006/
0628_Europe_and_Russia_Join_Forces_to_Study.html.
(Date Accessed 1 February 2010)
I. Afanasyev, “What does Europe want?” (in Russian),
Novosti kosmonavtiki, pp.8-9, September 2007.
Perminov as quoted by Interfax, 21 August 2007.
S. Shamsutdinov, “Russia will be on the Moon in 2025!” (in
Russian), Novosti kosmonavtiki, p.29, October 2007.
Perminov as quoted by RIA-Novosti, 21 September 2007.
S. Svetlov, “What will the cosmonauts fly?” (in Russian),
Novosti kosmonavtiki, pp.8-12, September 2008.
ITAR-TASS report, 20 December 2007; V. Mikhailov,
“Energiya has returned to Kliper” (in Russian), Nezavisimaya
gazeta, 23 April 2008, online at http://www.ng.ru/style/200804-23/24_cliper.html. (Date Accessed 1 February 2010)
S. Svetlov, op. cit.
Interfax-AVN report, 13 October 2008.
RIA Novosti report, 30 January 2009.
PRIME-TASS report, 18 March 2009.
See: doc.gostorgi.ru/7/2009-02-26/289544/6.doc. (Date
Accessed 1 September 2009)
I. Afanasyev, “Successor of TKS” (in Russian), Novosti
kosmonavtiki, pp.8-9, June 2009. It should also be noted
that a US private company called Excalibur Almaz Limited
is hoping to use TKS return capsules as part of a new
spacecraft with which it intends to send paying passengers
(both tourists and researchers) into orbit. The company
hopes to fly its first mission in 2013.
Landing zones for unmanned spacecraft were switched
from Kazakhstan to Russia by a government decree issued
on 29 July 1995. This reduced the number of landing zones
to just four with a diameter of 38 km. Soyuz spacecraft,
however, have continued to land in Kazakhstan and it looks
like they will continue to do so until the programme is
terminated around 2020.
V. Mikhailov, op.cit.; I. Afanasyev, “Short-term prospects
for piloted cosmonautics” (in Russian), Novosti
kosmonavtiki, pp.24-25, January 2009.
This section largely based on: S. Svetlov, op. cit. This
article actually described the Russian-European ACTS
vehicle. After RKK Energiya was announced as the winner
of the tender, the company said it would not reveal much
about the spacecraft until after the approval of the
preliminary design in 2010. However, a model of the vehicle
was on display at the MAKS-2009 aerospace show near
Moscow in August 2009 and both Vitaliy Lopota and his
deputy Nikolai Bryukhanov have since provided more details
about the spacecraft, confirming that it is virtually identical
to the ACTS. See: “Vitaliy Lopota: ‘We are concentrating
on the future” (in Russian), Aviapanorama, pp.1-4, March
2009; Lopota speaking at MAKS 2009 and quoted by
Interfax-AVN, 18 August 2009; N. Bryukhanov, “Replacing
Soyuz, which has done an excellent job” (in Russian),
Inzhenernaya Gazeta Industriya, August 2009.
Perminov as quoted by Interfax-AVN, 13 October 2008;
Krasnov as quoted by RIA Novosti, 30 January 2009.
I. Panin, “Rus will become the new Russian spaceship” (in
Russian), report on Infox.ru, 8 April 2009.
ITAR-TASS report, 19 March 2009.
I. Panin, op. cit. An earlier tradition was to (retrospectively)
name rockets after one of their payloads (e.g. Vostok,
Soyuz, Molniya, Proton). This time it is just the other way
around.
RIA-Novosti report, 14 April 2009.
Interfax report, 11 April 2008.
V. Lopota presentation at the 34th Academic Korolyov
33
Bart Hendrickx
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
34
readings in Moscow, 26 January 2010; N. Sevastyanov,
“RKK Energiya’s…”, op. cit., pp.8-9.
I. Afanasyev, “Competition for the best carrier for the new
ship” (in Russian), Novosti kosmonavtiki, p.53, December
2007.
http://www.gostorgi.ru/tender/7-278495.html. (Date
Energiya imeni S.P. Korolyova 1946-1996, RKK Energiya,
Moscow, pp.491-493, 1996.
Energiya imeni S.P. Korolyova 1996-2001, op. cit., pp.703721.
The rocket family was presented by TsSKB-Progress general
director A. Kirilin at the international conference “Space for
humanity”, held in Korolyov near Moscow on 21-23 May
2008. See: I. Afanasyev and D. Vorontsov, “Future Russian
and Ukrainian launch vehicles”, Novosti kosmonavtiki,
pp.60-61, August 2008.
For more details on the history and design of the RD-0146,
see: Anatoliy Zak’s website at http://www.russianspaceweb.com/rd0146.html. (Date Accessed 1
February 2010); I. Afanasyev, “A new Russian hydrogen
engine and its foreign companions” (in Russian), Novosti
kosmonavtiki, pp.46-47, May 2009.
This section largely based on: I. Afanasyev, “The tender for
the new rocket has taken place” (in Russian), Novosti
kosmonavtiki, pp.44-45, May 2009; Anatoliy Zak’s website
at http://www.russianspaceweb.com/ppts_lv.html. (Date
“The Future of Russia’s Manned Space Program”, article
published on Spacedaily.com, 8 April 2001.
“Russia’s Plans for Piloted Space Exploration” (in Russian),
address by A. Perminov to the 55th IAF Congress in
Vancouver, Canada on 4 October 2004. Online at the
Federal Space Agency’s website at http://
www.federalspace.ru/perminov_vancuver_brifing.asp. (Date
Accessed 1 September 2009); V. Mokhov, “The 55th
International Space Congress” (in Russian), Novosti
Kosmonavtiki, p.65, December 2004.
N.A. Anfimov “Human Spaceflight Objectives, Strategy and
Planning in Russia”, paper presented at the “NASA
International Workshop on Creating New and Sustainable
Space Exploration” in Washington DC on 17 November
2004. PowerPoint presentation available on-line at http://
www. a i a a . o r g / c o n t e n t . c f m ? pa g e i d = 2 3 0 & l u m e etingid=1223&viewcon=other302&id=302. (Date Accessed
1 February 2010)
S. Shamsutdinov, “RKK Energiya’s concept for the
development of Russian manned spaceflight”, op. cit.
The full text of Davydov’s presentation at the 5th
International Aerospace Congress in Moscow was published
in: S. Shamsutdinov, “Status and Prospects of Russia’s
space activities” (in Russian), Novosti kosmonavtiki, pp.5253, October 2006.
I. Marinin, “Nikolai Sevastyanov…”, op. cit., p.6.
I. Marinin interview with P. Vinogradov, Novosti kosmonavtiki,
p.35, January 2007.
Roskosmos statement, published on the agency’s website
on 17 January 2007.
Before his assignment to the post, Lopota was the head of
TsNII RTK, an organization based in St. Petersburg that is
responsible among other things for developing the “Kaktus”
gamma-ray altimeters for the Soyuz soft-landing engines
and which also built a remote manipulator arm for the
Buran space shuttle.
I. Afanasyev, “About the future of Vostochnyy and Baikonur”
(in Russian), Novosti kosmonavtiki, p.38, September 2008.
S. Shamsutdinov, “Russia will be on the Moon in 2025!”,
op. cit.
84. “Life after 2015 for Space Station”, Spaceflight, 50, p.49,
2008.
85. N. Yachmennikova, “Space as a reality” (in Russian)
(interview with Lopota), Rossiyskaya gazeta, 5 February
2008, online at http://www.rg.ru/2008/02/05/lopota.html.
(Date Accessed 1 February 2010)
86. The new RKK Energiya vision was presented during at
least three conferences in 2008: “Space for humanity”,
Korolyov, 21-23 May 2008 ; “26th International Symposium
on Space Technology and Science”, Hamamatsu (Japan),
1-8 June 2008; “Keldysh Centre: yesterday, today,
tomorrow”, Moscow, 30 October 2008. A summary of
Lopota’s presentation at the last conference can be found
in: I. Afanasyev, “Short-term prospects for piloted
cosmonautics”, op. cit..
87. Lopota speaking at a conference in the Moscow Aviation
Institute on 28 October 2009, as quoted by Interfax-AVN.
88. V. Lopota presentation at the 34th Academic Korolyov
Readings in Moscow, 26 January 2010.
89. ITAR-TASS report, 28 August 2009.
90. I. Afanasyev, “Roskosmos proposes a megawatt nuclear
engine” (in Russian), Novosti kosmonavtiki, p.40, December
2009; several press reports in December 2009/January
2010; V. Lopota presentation at the 34th Academic Korolyov
Readings in Moscow, 26 January 2010.
91. Note that in the tender announcement for the new rocket
the inclination is given as 51.7°.
92. Nikolai Panichkin as quoted by Interfax-AVN, 22 June 2009.
93. “Gennadiy Raikunov: one of our tasks is to create a national
orbital station” (in Russian), Novosti kosmonavtiki, p.39,
August 2009.
94. “Vitaliy Lopota: ‘We are concentrating on the future”, op.
cit.; V. Davydov as quoted by ITAR-TASS, 28 August 2009.
95. K. Lantratov, op. cit.
96. I. Marinin, “Nikolai Sevastyanov...”, op. cit., p. 6.
97. A. Zak, “A concept of the Russian successor to the ISS”,
online at http://www.russianspaceweb.com/opsek.html.
(Date Accessed 1 February 2010); V. Lopota, “We are
concentrating on the future”, op. cit.; V. Lopota presentation
at the 34th Academic Korolyov Readings in Moscow, 26
January 2010.
98. R. Coppinger, “2025 LEO shipyard is new ESA, Roscosmos
goal”, Flight International, 20 May 2009, online at http://
www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/05/20/326773/2025-leoshipyard-is-new- esa-roscosmos- goal.html. (Date Accessed
1 February 2010)
99. A. Zak, op. cit.
100. “Russia Space Agency plans to build own orbital station”,
article published on the Spacedaily.com website, 30 January
2009.
101. The full text of Perminov’s address is on the Roskosmos
website at http://www.federalspace.ru/NewsDoSele.asp?NEWSID=6521. (Date Accessed 1 September
2009)
102. ITAR-TASS report, 19 August 2009.
103. V. Lopota, “Horizons of manned spaceflight” (in Russian),
published on the Roskosmos website at http://
www.roscosmos.ru/NewsDoSele.asp?NEWSID=3500.
(Date Accessed 1 September 2009)
104. P. Polyarnyy, “Budget 2009: first losses” (in Russian),
Novosti kosmonavtiki, p.46, June 2009.
105. Lopota as quoted by Interfax-AVN, 18 August 2009.
106. Lopota speaking at the 34th Korolyov readings in Moscow
on 26 January 2010.
107. Roskosmos press announcement, 3 February 2010.
108. Perminov speaking on the "Golos Rossii" radio station, 10
February 2010.

the future of russia`s manned space programme

Transcription

Similar documents

Privyet !

Tatyana Tolstaya - Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures

two russian girls - The Transcontinental

VISITORS DAY N.O.R.S. LOL DOGS

Top ten Russian designs, according to Lapo Elkann

Russian Children`s Book Festival comes to England 3–10 March

pdf - Pallett Valo

8 artie goes to russia

TV Airtime RTVI

Russian Rhaspsody Daylily