The US is trying to bend Russia under itself in a grand project

The new Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway orbital station is the only real alternative to the ISS. And although the program is at an early stage of development, the United States and Russia have already managed to quarrel "in half."

A future without a station

Now the International Space Station can be considered the main pride of earthlings. An amazing example of engineering genius and no less amazing coordinated work of the most different countries of the world. Here are represented and Russia, and the USA, and Japan, and Germany. And many other states. At the same time, the ISS is the most critical space project in history. The reason is simple: it is also the most expensive. Experts estimate that program participants spent over $ 100 billion on the station. This is despite the fact that the lion's share of the experiments carried out there could be carried out under specially simulated conditions on Earth.

One way or another, the United States intends to abandon the station in the mid-2020s. In any case, at the state level. Recently, the new director of NASA James Brydenstein hinted at some "interested private traders." But, frankly, it is hard to believe that private companies rush to the ISS with difficulty. They simply have nothing to do there. Some projects are possible, but it is still expensive, long and technically difficult.

Under these conditions, Russia is considering a “national orbital station” created on the basis of future ISS modules. The same block “Science”, which they wanted to put into orbit back in 2007, was never launched (and it is not known whether they will ever be launched).

In general, the situation is extremely clear. Russia, Europe and the United States run the risk of losing their orbital station. China, meanwhile, is full of strength and determination to build its first multimodular orbital station - a kind of analogue of the Soviet "World".

Moon: Part Two

The alignment of forces in which the Chinese will have a station, but the United States does not, is clearly not happy with the Americans. And then Donald Trump signed the “Directive No. 2017” in December 1, which implies the return of the United States to the moon. It sounds beautiful at first glance, but de facto it means that the American leadership has abandoned Martian ambitions.

But for the Americans, the cards came together in a different vein. And the proposal to build a new station in the orbit of the moon came in handy. First, the new NASA program was called Deep Space Gateway, and then renamed the less “romantic” Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway or LOP-G. In short, it will be a greatly reduced analogue of the ISS, on which four people can work during the expedition for up to 90 days. Presumably there will be four modules: electric, residential, supply module and airlock. Against the backdrop of the huge ISS, it’s not a lot, frankly speaking. But then it’s not near us, but near the moon. At the same time close and far.

The main question: why is such a station needed at all? As the first name (Deep Space Gateway) implies, the station is a “gate to deep space." In simple terms, they want to use it not only to return US astronauts to the moon, but also for flights to Mars. And maybe even further. Looking at the uncertainties of NASA in terms of its strategy, it is hard to believe in “long journeys”. But this is not about that.

Conflict of interest

The ISS began to build when relations between the USA and the Russian Federation were, on the whole, normal, although without any particular sympathy for each other. In this sense, the new station was not immediately lucky, because now experts are seriously discussing a new Cold War and an increasing arms race.

Nevertheless, in 2017, Russia and the United States agreed to create a near-moon station, or rather, they signed a declaration of intent. The program was scheduled to start active in 2019: it is impossible to state other specific dates with confidence at the moment. By the way, then there was information about the possible creation by Russia of a gateway module and a number of other blocks. By the way, a promising superheavy booster rocket, which Russia periodically dreams of, would come in handy. Heavy modules just do not "bring" to the moon.

It would seem that here it is - the key to success. Russia station could give a new meaning to the existence of its rocket and space industry. Well, the United States participation of the Russian Federation would save a little money. Meanwhile, contradictions surfaced at an early stage and resulted in a series of unpleasant statements. In April this year, it became known that the United States and its allies are demanding that Russia build a lock - the most “Russian" module - according to American technical standards. Recall that the ISS applies both Russian and Western standards. For example, the chemical components on which the thermoregulation systems of the stations are based are different - water and ammonia in the American segment, triol and isooctane - in Russia.

It must be assumed that Russia was fully confident that even now it would be allowed to play in its own way. A source, meanwhile, said that the American initiative affects all power supply systems and thermal management of the module, life support systems inside it, as well as interfaces.

We are still being kept in the project, but with great pleasure we would have got rid

- said the source of RIA News.

A statement by US experts de facto means that the Russian space industry will have to switch to Western standards. Do not leave in the country two different approaches in design for many years? This is not logical and not economical. At the same time, for the Roskosmos, which is experiencing problems, the transition to American rules looks too harsh and clearly does not benefit. The transition to new standards will not solve the problems with the quality of production and the general organization of labor. But it may well create new problems.

If we now agree with the United States and make a module for American standards, then we will have little chance to justify and continue to use Russian standards if the degree of Russia's participation in international moon projects increases. Therefore, in my opinion, it’s more correct to do everything right away through the compatibility interfaces of various devices so as not to overhaul the production that has been worked out for years

- Corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Cosmonautics, Andrei Ionin, believes.

Around the same time, the Americans made another important statement. According to them, the Russians can (read, “must”) use the American spacesuits instead of the domestic “Orlan”. By the way, it was the latter in Russia that they wanted to see as a prototype of the future product.

We are talking about the fact that spacewalks from the Russian gateway are proposed to be carried out in American spacesuits

- told RIA Novosti a source in the space industry.

Western partners explained the proposal by the fact that in Russia lunar spacesuits are not being created now, and keeping two different sets in a small station is irrational. It is worth adding that when using US spacesuits, systems for providing EVA should also be made for American equipment. So the question is serious and complex and you just can't let it go on the brakes.

Needless to say, shortly after the statements by the United States, harsh statements from representatives of Russia followed.

I think that it is they (Americans. - Approx. Ed.) Should strive to go into space in our spacesuits

- said the senator, the first member of the Federation Council of the Russian Federation from the legislative branch of the Republic of Crimea Sergey Tsekov.

To believe in the latter, of course, is difficult. The likelihood that the Americans will choose some not yet existing Russian spacesuit is negligible. Trump in general is very fond of demonstratively defending national interests and this case will not be an exception. The leading role of the Americans in the development of the station is also quite obvious. And the United States will dictate the rules.

What future can the program expect in general? If there are no alternatives (and they are not yet expected), the station can begin to function as early as the 2020s. But with or without Russia is another question. And it lies not so much in the technological as in political the plane. In the end, after a couple of years, the United States is likely to be able to completely abandon the Russian engines and Soyuz spacecraft. So Roscosmos will have to wedge itself into the new NASA program if it wants cooperation. Even if not equal.
  • Photos used:
We are open to cooperation with authors in the news and analytical departments. A prerequisite is the ability to quickly analyze the text and check the facts, to write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. We offer flexible working hours and regular payments. Please send your responses with examples of work to [email protected]
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. vikganz Offline vikganz
    vikganz (Vik Ganz) 15 June 2018 08: 56
    And you, as in the development of weapons, act. Ten times cheaper, but many times better.
    What does Russia lack? Is there a part of the ISS? Here it is and develop and upgrade.
    1. Anatoly R Offline Anatoly R
      Anatoly R (Anatoly) 18 June 2018 00: 36
      And plus also Chinese. And then what amers do? Kubrick is now gone, and without it, space flights are problematic.
  2. Pishenkov Offline Pishenkov
    Pishenkov (Alexey) 15 June 2018 09: 44
    ... why such cooperation at all? It will give us what, the development of American technologies in our country, which they then, if anything, "turn off"? Like banking payment systems, which were also introduced - cooperation was needed ... Can you imagine that the USSR, together with Hitler's Germany, created a new military aircraft around the end of 1940-beginning of 1941? And under the German production standard? Stupid? Stupid! Why is it not stupid to have some kind of cooperation on the most important strategic program for the development and defense of the country with the most bitter and today practically the only real enemy? It is high time for them to stop selling our engines, otherwise we will get sanctions and go ... but, and we give them rocket engines, what is this? Will Roscosmos go bankrupt without it? Are the factories going to stop? And what kind of state-owned company and the defense industry are that keep on the orders of the enemies? Is the USA dependent on our engines and is it profitable for us? - nonsense and rotten wiring! Not dependent, it's just cheaper and more profitable for them now, so they buy! And if now you had to spend money and time on your own, you would be more accommodating in other matters! Everyone is complaining, they sold and plundered the defense industry in the 90s ... Super, and now everything that is still left and works, thank God, will be transferred to US standards and put them completely dependent on them ... Great thoughts! In the USSR, it would probably be classified as treason, and those who propose such initiatives would go under the watchful eye. And rightly so ...
  3. Bulanov Offline Bulanov
    Bulanov (Vladimir) 15 June 2018 10: 48
    This story is like with railway standards. In some countries already - in others more widely. Where they started, they continue. If the United States does not want to cooperate with Russia, then Russia needs to develop cooperation with China. And run your inhabited station by the moon. The whole point here is that with the development of robotics, from the orbit of the moon it is easier to control robotic mechanisms than from Earth! An operator sits at a lunar station and controls, for example, an excavator to build the zero cycle of a new lunar base, or to extract minerals! This is the beginning of a new era in the development of space, and whoever is the first here will be richer and more powerful!
  4. ustal51 Offline ustal51
    ustal51 (Alexander) 15 June 2018 10: 52
    Do not wedge anywhere, but strive to have your own. In a pinch, paired with China, not the United States, which is our long-standing enemy ...
  5. gorenina91 Offline gorenina91
    gorenina91 (Irina) 17 June 2018 08: 14
    -Cooperation with China in this area is much worse and worse for Russia .. than with the USA ...
    -And, if the Chinese have a station .., then, naturally, ours (as always) to begin with so "hurry up" to do good for the Chinese ... -and all this will go to China for nothing ... all space discoveries and secrets that were overcome by the gigantic almost half a century of economic efforts and expenditures of Soviet and Russian science and economy ... -And all this will go to China ZADARMA ... -He will swallow it all (as always) and ... and even won't say thank you ...
    -And cooperation with the United States ... -is also fraught with "consequences" for Russia ... -But there is already "communication experience" and there is no such "servility" as with China, when Russian state "top-secret secrets" are revealed (as always. ..- as "my brothers") ...
    1. Vlad Petrov Offline Vlad Petrov
      Vlad Petrov (Vladimir) 17 June 2018 16: 36
      Deep space can be mastered only by the entire world community, one country cannot do it. A statement without a moot point, right? Collaboration in space with the US empire, with its arrogant ambitions, is detrimental. The entire world history of US relations with any state proves this. In order for humanity to master space, voluntary cooperation and a standard for the main blocks of a space station should probably be achieved, based on the achievement of a separate country in a separate space module. So it’s more efficient and more economical and dictates are excluded here.
      1. Anatoly R Offline Anatoly R
        Anatoly R (Anatoly) 18 June 2018 00: 41
        Americans can do what they can in space if they revive Stanley Kubrick.
  6. Victor March 47 Offline Victor March 47
    Victor March 47 (Victor March 47) 21 June 2018 11: 26
    You need to make your own station. To be a poor relative and wait for handouts and permissions for Russia is humiliating. Let it be a modest structure but ample for moon expeditions. We need to position our observation post near the moon and not miss out on the aggressive aspirations of our friends, exploring the Earth’s satellite.
  7. AICO Offline AICO
    AICO (Vyacheslav) 18 July 2018 12: 08
    Quote: ustal51
    Do not wedge anywhere, but strive to have your own. In a pinch, paired with China, not the United States, which is our long-standing enemy ...

    China is also so-so - a footcloth, it’s not considered a white throw !!!