The United States intends to prevent the construction of the ROSS orbital station


At the end of 2021, it became known about Washington's desire to extend the life of the International Space Station until 2030. Taking into account the fact that the United States is the largest sponsor of this project, the further future of the orbital depended on their position. But why should the Americans, who are actively promoting their own lunar orbital station, support the ISS, and how can this affect the prospects of our ROSS?


The foggy future of the ISS


The project involves 14 countries, this is perhaps the most significant and visible symbol of effective international cooperation. The problem lies in the aging of the station, the first segment of which was put into orbit back in 1998. Previously, the deadline for the life of the ISS was set to 2024. It is estimated that from 2025 the increase in the number of malfunctions at the station will become an avalanche, and the cost of repairs and subsequent maintenance will increase significantly. The possibility of extending the resource until 2028 was discussed, which was questionable due to the obvious unwillingness of the United States to shell out an alliance to implement its own American-centric project to build a circumlunar visited orbital station and the subsequent development of an earth satellite.

And on December 31, 2021, the White House made an unexpected gift to the entire world community by agreeing to extend the life of the ISS until 2030 with the following wording:

The International Space Station is a beacon of peaceful international scientific cooperation and has brought tremendous scientific, educational and technological achievements for the benefit of humanity. The continued involvement of the United States on the ISS will promote innovation and competitiveness, and advance the research and technology needed to send the first woman and first person of color to the Moon under NASA's Artemis program and pave the way for sending the first humans to Mars.

One can only rejoice for the first "colored person" and an emancipated American woman on the moon. But perhaps it's not just about protecting their rights?

"Fort"-ROSS


Note that last year the Kremlin made a fundamental decision to withdraw from the ISS project and create a Russian orbital service station (ROSS). The decision is very important, since its implementation should return our country's own "gateway to space." What should she be?

From the technical side, the project looks quite rational, since it will use the modules that were previously supposed to be used when expanding the national segment in the ISS. These are the Scientific and Energy Module (NEM), the Universal Node Module (Prichal), the Base Module, as well as the Gateway and Transformable Modules. In the minimum configuration, there will be 5 of them, perhaps the number will grow to 7. The Russian service station will be visited, the cosmonauts will be there as needed. For this reason, the ROSS will be automated as much as possible; in the absence of the crew, the life support systems will be turned off, which will reduce the cost of its maintenance and service.

All this sounds very reasonable. However, a number of interesting points raise legitimate questions.

At first, if you look at the comments, then the vast majority of Russians are perplexed why do we need our own orbital station at all? On the ISS, Europeans and Americans at least conducted serious scientific research in the field of astrophysics and microgravity, high-tech materials and biological preparations, and studied the possibility of long-term space flights. Will Russian science pull all this on its own orbital station? Not known.

Secondly, the orbit on which the ROSS should be located is interesting. It will be located at an altitude of 300 to 350 kilometers, and its inclination to the equator will be 97° (for comparison, the ISS and Mir have about 52°). This will allow you to simultaneously survey the entire territory of Russia, but at the same time create a bunch of problems. In the subpolar regions, the level of radiation is much higher, which determines the status of the orbital station as being visited in order to avoid causing harm to astronauts by staying on it for a long time. At the same time, due to such an orbit, a decent part of the payload of launch vehicles launched from Baikonur or Vostochny will be lost.

Weird. Unclear. So many difficulties and limitations in order to be able to continuously control the entire territory of Russia and the Arctic, without obvious scientific benefit?

Perhaps the correct answer lies in the area of ​​dual-use ROSS, which can be used not only for scientific but also for military purposes. There is nothing surprising in this, since space is again actively militarized. So, in 2019, in the hands of journalists of the publication RT I got documentation for a tender announced by the Pentagon:

The US Department of Defense is looking for projects for an autonomous orbital station. The project must support space assembly, microgravity experiments, logistics and storage, manufacturing, training, evaluation testing, payload deployment, and other functions. Projects must be launched into low Earth orbit within 24 months of contract award and have guidance, navigation and control systems for long-term autonomous operation.

Domestic military experts then diverged in their assessments of the project. Some suggested that with the help of the station the group of Boeing X-37 spaceplanes would be controlled. Others did not rule out that the autonomous orbital station could be used by the Americans to deploy strike weapons or elements of a missile defense system.

Returning to ROSS, it can be assumed that, if necessary, a promising Russian station hanging over the Arctic, through which the shortest distances pass for launching intercontinental ballistic missiles, can also be used as a space element of a missile defense system for reconnaissance, missile launch warning, control and target designation. Perhaps to deploy promising anti-missile laser systems and even for strike weapons, if all international agreements on their limitation are finally trampled on by Washington.

Now back to where we started. The Americans extended a hand of friendship to us in space, offering to extend the operation of the ISS until 2030. Probably, they expect friendly responses from us, such as a decision to use ready-made modules not to create ROSS, but to complete the construction of the International Station, which was planned earlier? To then flood it in the Pacific Ocean? Why not a "cunning plan"?

This is a joke, of course. Is it possible to expect such deceit from the United States and such stupidity from our government officials?
50 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Mikhail L. Offline Mikhail L.
    Mikhail L. 28 January 2022 11: 39
    +1
    "It's a joke, of course"—?

    In every joke there is a share of a joke, the rest is true

    (S. Freud)
  2. rotkiv04 Offline rotkiv04
    rotkiv04 (Victor) 28 January 2022 11: 56
    +4
    It has long been necessary to start not from friendly relations with anyone, but from our own interests, since it was decided to create our own station, then there is a need for this, so we should go this way. And in the end, there is always a revolver in the hand of Anglo-Saxon friendship, and a kind word, of course
  3. Sega19 Offline Sega19
    Sega19 (Sergei) 28 January 2022 12: 12
    +5
    Then how to understand "friendly" proposals, in the light of the ban on visas by our cosmonaut for training on the modules of the American station, why do we need this ISS (which is now) if we are there, like servants for the owners? I am constantly amazed by our officials who say we don’t need this, we need to save money, and every time there is less and less money in the country, there are more and more billionaires, isn’t it time to introduce a policy of national pride, and not the golden calf?
  4. better to make a joint station with tea houses
    1. EMMM Offline EMMM
      EMMM 1 February 2022 01: 25
      0
      That's not worth it
  5. sH, arK Offline sH, arK
    sH, arK 28 January 2022 13: 01
    0
    As it is not too clear, the explanation of the inclination of the orbit. The military part is definitely very doubtful. These are our missiles flying through the North Pole - ballistic, of course (well, they promise to make Sarmat an exception). And the Americans, having the lion's share on SLBMs, will obviously not let Tridents through the pole. And to use the station as a military base with an orbit of 350 km, where the SM-3 will definitely get it, not to mention the GBI - what's the point? And for military purposes, it is clearly more interesting to observe a potential enemy, and not your own territory, but for civilian purposes - on the contrary! In general, the space deployment of warheads is an interesting thing, and, above all, reasonable even with an actually very high probability of starting a war. True, how to bring them out of orbit if the war does not start?!
    1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 28 January 2022 13: 24
      0
      And for military purposes, it is clearly more interesting to observe a potential enemy, and not your own territory, but for civilian purposes - on the contrary!

      And our territory is under surveillance, and the entire Arctic. What else she will be able to see is not written in open sources, but she certainly captures the territory of the United States.
      Otherwise, there is simply no special meaning in this (IMHO).

      And to use the station as a military base with an orbit of 350 km, where the SM-3 will definitely get it, not to mention the GBI - what's the point?

      In the event of a real war, all satellites, stations, etc. infrastructure will be disposable...
      1. Half a hundred second (Half a half second) 28 January 2022 14: 15
        -1
        Quote: Marzhetsky
        In the event of a real war, all satellites, stations, etc. infrastructure will be disposable

        Missiles are not enough for this. Moreover, not only satellites will become targets. There are always enough goals, opportunities and means of destruction are in short supply
      2. Half a hundred second (Half a half second) 28 January 2022 14: 35
        -1
        Quote: Marzhetsky
        And our territory is under surveillance, and the entire Arctic. What else she will be able to see is not written in open sources, but she certainly captures the territory of the United States.
        Otherwise, there is simply no special meaning in this (IMHO).

        That's it, that the sense is not looked through yet.
        Making a "visited" station is extremely unprofitable. If the astronauts were already at the station, they should work their time to the maximum. Delivering supplies for half a year to a year of work is cheaper than raising and lowering people into orbit for the sake of a month of work. It is also very strange to keep the station in orbit, maintain its orbit, life support systems and so on, when it is uninhabited. At least somehow this is justified if it has a crew that is intensively and continuously engaged in some useful, scientific work.
        The orbit is extremely strange. Why observe the territory of the country from the station? Satellites must do this. In addition, the delivery of cargo to this orbit will be more expensive.

        In general, pulling the station alone is very expensive. We need cooperation, albeit with the same Indians. But they will not be interested in staring at Russia.

        We need to start with why we need this station, its goals and objectives. From this, dance further - orbit, dimensions, equipment, etc.
      3. sH, arK Offline sH, arK
        sH, arK 28 January 2022 20: 21
        0
        Yes and no. Of course, we will reduce all KN-11,12 to hell right away;) But communication satellites, geostationary - this is no longer so simple! You can get them, but this is a full-fledged launch of a rocket of at least 200 tons. And there are more than a dozen satellites! Commercial ones will immediately go under the control of the military. The question is quite difficult! And there are also small, cheap, short (relatively) lifespans of low-orbiting ones - you generally torment them to kill - a satellite is cheaper than an interceptor by 2 orders of magnitude!
    2. EMMM Offline EMMM
      EMMM 1 February 2022 01: 38
      0
      If you want to attack someone, you will keep an eye on the area where you wish to strike.
      If you are interested in your own safety, you will control your territory.
      And don't worry about the GBI, it will be destroyed before the 30th second after launch
  6. Bulanov Offline Bulanov
    Bulanov (Vladimir) 28 January 2022 13: 28
    0
    The Americans extended a hand of friendship to us in space, offering to extend the operation of the ISS until 2030.

    And they banned the Russian cosmonaut from training on the American segment of the station, after which he cannot fly to the ISS. Good friendship!
    1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 28 January 2022 13: 35
      -1
      It was ironic if you didn't get it smile
  7. Pandiurin Offline Pandiurin
    Pandiurin (Pandiurin) 28 January 2022 14: 33
    +1
    Quote: sH, arK
    As it is not too clear, the explanation of the inclination of the orbit. The military part is definitely very doubtful ..

    It will fly over different parts of the earth on each turn. Those. if the trajectory is plotted on a map, then a wide belt of the earth will be shaded with a "sinusoid" in both the southern and northern hemispheres, excluding the regions of the south and north poles.

    Theoretically, if there will be very powerful optics, almost an analogue of the open sky, one could get excellent pictures. For this alone, a dozen such specialized satellites could be launched, "to monitor bird migration and the impact of carbon monoxide emissions." And it would not be worth starting the station's orbit into the northern lights for this.
  8. Pandiurin Offline Pandiurin
    Pandiurin (Pandiurin) 28 January 2022 14: 40
    0
    it can be assumed that, if necessary, a promising Russian station, hanging over the arctic...

    It cannot "hang" over the Arctic, the orbit swings like a pendulum, as much as it flies over the Arctic, the same number will fly over the Antarctic.
  9. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 28 January 2022 14: 50
    0
    Quote: Half a century and a half
    The orbit is extremely strange. Why observe the territory of the country from the station? Satellites must do this. In addition, the delivery of cargo to this orbit will be more expensive.

    In general, pulling the station alone is very expensive. We need cooperation, albeit with the same Indians. But they will not be interested in staring at Russia.

    We need to start with why we need this station, its goals and objectives. From this, dance further - orbit, dimensions, equipment, etc.

    Yes, very strange. To the best of my understanding, I tried to imagine why it was so unusual.
    The opinion of the military is interesting. Someone could calculate what else will be visible from ROSS?
    1. 123 Offline 123
      123 (123) 28 January 2022 15: 24
      +1
      Someone could calculate what else will be visible from ROSS?

      Everything has been calculated.

      The orbit will allow you to see the Arctic every hour and a half, and any point on the planet once every two days

  10. 123 Offline 123
    123 (123) 28 January 2022 15: 09
    0
    Weird. Unclear. So many difficulties and limitations in order to be able to continuously control the entire territory of Russia and the Arctic, without obvious scientific benefit?

    There is nothing strange in this. The station is needed to monitor its own territory, including the Northern Sea Route. Launching it into a "more comfortable" orbit far from Russia is like looking for a lost wallet under a streetlight, not because you lost it there, but because it is lighter and more convenient to search there. Is the "non-obvious scientific benefit" because you can't see it?
    1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 28 January 2022 15: 26
      -1
      There is nothing strange in this. The station is needed to monitor its own territory, including the Northern Sea Route. Launching it into a "more comfortable" orbit far from Russia is like looking for a lost wallet under a streetlight, not because you lost it there, but because it is lighter and more convenient to search there. Is the "non-obvious scientific benefit" because you can't see it?

      I do not see. For me, the satellite (and) will be cheaper in order to fence an entire orbital station for this. hi
      A simple way to go is not our option? Do you need to directly launch a station of 5-7 modules into orbit and maintain it in order to simply monitor YOUR territory and YOUR Northern Sea Route? This is very strange for me.
      1. 123 Offline 123
        123 (123) 28 January 2022 15: 30
        +1
        I do not see. For me, the satellite (and) will be cheaper in order to fence an entire orbital station for this.

        At the station, equipment can be installed on dozens of satellites and work with it, regularly maintain, change, upgrade. After all, they are not just admiring the views from the porthole. If you think like you, then it's time to drown the ISS and there is nothing to do there.
        1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
          Marzhecki (Sergei) 28 January 2022 15: 32
          -1
          If you think like you, then it's time to drown the ISS and there is nothing to do there.

          How exactly do I argue? Scientific research was carried out on the ISS, and by the way, it will soon be flooded.

          At the station, equipment can be installed on dozens of satellites and work with it, regularly maintain, change, upgrade. After all, they are not just admiring the views from the porthole.

          Can. Only a dozen satellites would still cost less than a national orbital station.
          I'm not against ROSS, but for, it just seems to me that she has a slightly different purpose than stated.
          1. 123 Offline 123
            123 (123) 28 January 2022 16: 09
            +1
            How exactly do I argue? Scientific research was carried out on the ISS, and by the way, it will soon be flooded.

            You argue like this.

            On the ISS, Europeans and Americans at least conducted serious scientific research in the field of astrophysics and microgravity, high-tech materials and biological preparations, and studied the possibility of long-term space flights. Will Russian science pull all this on its own orbital station? Not known.

            Firstly, not only Europeans and Americans were engaged in science there, Russian cosmonauts did something, and the absence of the Science module did not contribute to fruitful activity.
            Why Russian science should pull "all this" is not clear. They had their own programs, why Russia should do the same is not clear. If you are talking about the amount of work, then expecting that Russia should carry out no less than all of them put together is probably not correct.

            Can. Only a dozen satellites would still cost less than a national orbital station.

            Probably cheaper, but the possibilities are different. For sure, the stations at the North Pole and Antarctica are more expensive than launching some kind of probes there, but they also have different capabilities.

            I'm not against ROSS, but for, it just seems to me that she has a slightly different purpose than stated.

            And what is your intended purpose?
            1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
              Marzhecki (Sergei) 28 January 2022 16: 19
              -1
              And what is your intended purpose?

              Review your own video from Roskosmos. As far as I remember, this is observation of the Northern Sea Route every 1,5 hours. Cool for the whole station, IMHO.
              1. 123 Offline 123
                123 (123) 28 January 2022 16: 58
                0
                Review your own video from Roskosmos. As far as I remember, this is observation of the Northern Sea Route every 1,5 hours. Cool for the whole station, IMHO.

                Reviewed yes Which is what I recommend to you.
                You heard what you wanted to hear and ignored what did not coincide with your point of view.
                The basic module is scientific and energy, at the second stage, production and target modules, as well as a spacecraft maintenance platform. Outer space monitoring equipment located on the side facing away from the Earth.
                Do the names mean anything to you? Do you think this is to monitor the Northern Sea Route?
      2. Half a hundred second (Half a half second) 28 January 2022 19: 48
        -1
        Quote: Marzhetsky
        For me, the satellite (and) will be cheaper

        especially since there are and will be satellites. Russia this year plans (if nothing has changed) to send a pair of Obzor-R, Meteor-M and Kondor-FKA satellites to monitor the Northern Sea Route. Also in orbit for this purpose are satellites of the Arktika-M series.

        1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
          Marzhecki (Sergei) 28 January 2022 20: 09
          -1
          So I say that there is some intrigue.
    2. Half a hundred second (Half a half second) 28 January 2022 19: 43
      -1
      Quote: 123
      Launching it into a "more comfortable" orbit far from Russia is like looking for a lost wallet under a street lamp

      What determined the orbits of the stations of the Salyut and Mir series? Their orbital inclination was 51,6°
      1. 123 Offline 123
        123 (123) 28 January 2022 21: 31
        +2
        What determined the orbits of the stations of the Salyut and Mir series? Their orbital inclination was 51,6°

        Clearly assigned tasks. The ISS has an orbital inclination of 52°. Both of them have their pros and cons.

        In the project of the future Russian orbital station, the expected orbital inclination will be 97 degrees. According to domestic experts, such a decision has both positive and negative consequences. While in this orbit, the cosmonauts will be able to fully see the territory of Russia and the polar regions during daylight hours every day. And in the event of an accident with a rocket that delivers people to the station, the crew will have much more chances to survive, since they will fall on land, and not into the ocean. The negative factors include a decrease in the mass of the payload that the same rocket can put into orbit. In addition, for about a third of the trajectory, the orbit will be outside the radiation fields of the Earth, which theoretically increases the radiation dose that astronauts will receive.

        https://iz.ru/1172156/olga-kolentcova/povysili-gradus-s-novoi-orbitalnoi-stantcii-kosmonavty-uvidiat-vsiu-rossiiu
        1. Half a hundred second (Half a half second) 28 January 2022 21: 44
          -1
          Quote: 123
          The ISS, by the way, has an orbital inclination of 52 °

          The ISS has the same inclination as the Soviet "Salyuts" and "Mir" - 51,64 °

          Quote: 123
          Clearly assigned tasks.

          This is a very simple answer. Like "Because it's necessary." And still? What tasks require flying almost over the poles?
          For example: the Soviet combat stations of the Almaz program had an inclination: the Salyut-5 station had an orbit inclination of the same 51,6 °, but Cosmos-1870 had already 72 degrees. He was a deep intelligence apparatus and was supposed to look after the territory of the United States, Canada (there is their NORAD) and the Arctic. The Arktika-M constellation of satellites currently in operation and being expanded for monitoring the Arctic and the Northern Sea Route has a smaller orbital inclination of 63 degrees. And that's enough.
          1. 123 Offline 123
            123 (123) 29 January 2022 05: 53
            +2
            The ISS has the same inclination as the Soviet "Salyuts" and "Mir" - 51,64 °

            51,64° - 51,6° - 52°... does it make sense to fight for accuracy? If the eye hurts, consider that rounded yes

            This is a very simple answer. Like "Because it's necessary."

            When launching the station, the creators set certain goals and measured them against the possibilities. We can only guess about many of them. Speaking of opportunities, I mean, for example, protection from radiation. It still cannot be provided, so the new station will be visited, that is, a short stay. Previously, probably, the tasks were different, they studied the effect on the human body of a long stay in orbit, probably the level of automation was not the same. In general, the presence of a person was implied constant. In general, the choice of an orbit is a compromise between Wishlist and capabilities, plus cost optimization. Staying a man in orbit is not cheap. In general, you can talk about this topic for a long time, but in my opinion the question rather meant the following - "Mir" and "Salyut" supposedly flew in the same orbit, people knew what they were doing. Where are you going with your innovations? Well, probably further traditional, something about ignoramuses and lack of education laughing

            And still? What tasks require flying almost over the poles?

            It's probably worth seeing what opportunities the new orbit gives. The station is rather "sharpened" to work on its own territory, but at the same time allows you to regularly inspect the entire planet. The tasks can be very diverse, including, for sure, the military and they won’t tell us about all of them.

            This is expressed in the fact that at an angle of inclination of the station of 51 degrees, the cosmonauts see a selected part of the Earth, for example, the territory of Russia, for one month mostly in the shade, and the second - in the light.
            Moreover, as the expert explained, in such an orbit, cosmonauts see only 15-20% of the territory of Russia. If the tilt angle is 97 degrees, then the plane of the station's orbit will change position simultaneously with the Sun, at the same speed. In other words, by choosing the right position of the plane relative to the Sun, you can “stop time”. The station will fly over the selected area of ​​the Earth always at the same time. And the territory of Russia will be visible on almost 90% of all turns, while on the ISS it is only 55%.
            Earth remote sensing satellites have a similar inclination (97–99 degrees, depending on orbit altitude) to monitor areas of interest.
            1. Half a hundred second (Half a half second) 29 January 2022 10: 05
              -1
              Quote: 123
              and the question, in my opinion, rather meant the following - "Mir" and "Salyut" supposedly flew in the same orbit, people knew what they were doing. Where are you going with your innovations? Well, probably further traditional, something about ignoramuses and lack of education

              And if you do not build speculation, but ask the interlocutor what his questions imply? This is more correct, more polite, and most importantly - you will get the exact answer, and not your assumptions. Do not find how many pluses?

              You correctly say:

              Quote: 123
              Launching the station, the creators set certain goals

              It is precisely with this purpose that the goals are not entirely clear. There is an attempt to figure out why this is so, and not otherwise, and not what you thought (such as groaning, etc.)
              Why am I interested in you? It's just that you have already begun to explain, with skill, clearly defending the position. Surely there would be an answer to this question?

              Quote: 123
              Speaking of opportunities, I mean, for example, protection from radiation. It still cannot be provided, so the new station will be visited, that is, a short stay.

              The thing is, it depends on the orbit. For example, on the one that flies the ISS, a person can stay for a long time, but on a steep, polar one (close to 90) - no. Because with such an orbit, the station will be exposed to the most intense action of radiation - the protective abilities of the Earth's magnetic field at the poles drop to almost zero. Therefore, a more gentle orbit does not prevent a person from staying at the station for a long time.

              Quote: 123
              plus cost optimization. Staying a man in orbit is not cheap.

              but cheaper (let's say, the efficiency / cost ratio is higher) than driving a deserted station. A simple example: which flight will be profitable and which one will be unprofitable - when your passenger liner is completely full, or when it is empty? I think the answer is obvious. In both cases, you are forced to fly and burn fuel, pay salaries to the crew, etc., but in one case, all this is more than offset by the proceeds from the tickets sold, in the second - only losses, since you are just carrying air.
              Same with the station. It needs to be maintained in working order, to maintain (albeit in the wrong composition) the atmosphere, the temperature - the microclimate, in general, i.e. There are costs for it, but there are no astronauts, they do not carry out their work there. Then why roll heated air in space?

              Now let's try to reason. The height of the flight of a manned station is not particularly necessary to choose. Low (300-350) - the influence of the Earth will affect and more often an orbit correction will be required. High (above 500) - strong radiation. That's why they fly in the range of 350-450. Previously, while the Amers had Shuttles, they flew low, because their shuttles could not climb above 350. Now the ISS goes higher, because Soyuz and Progress fly there mostly. But not over 450.
              Those. flight altitude does not depend on the wishes of engineers.

              Now with orbit. Here the choice is wide, and depends entirely on the wishes of the operator. It is beneficial for us that the rotation of the Earth helps at the start - this way we will spend less fuel and take more cargo. Therefore, the inclination of the orbit, as close as possible to the latitude of the location of the cosmodrome, is the most beneficial. That's why Salutes. and "Mir" went to 51 (corrected a little to the north, so that the detachable parts of the missiles would not fall on Mongolia and China). And the ISS is therefore in this orbit, although it would be more profitable for amers to have 28 degrees, they have a cosmodrome to the south. But, since the ISS was built mainly with Russian help, that's why they adopted a more profitable orbit for us (and the station as a whole).
              Now about reconnaissance satellites. Well, I didn’t write about Cosmos for nothing. His orbit was tilted to 72, with the expectation that it would move to the polar regions when the ball passed "from our side."

              At what latitude is the Northern Sea Route located? You can see it on the map. An inclination from 65 to 75 makes it wonderful to view it all, and in much larger "pieces" than with a steeper orbit. Do you understand what the orbit of a station, a satellite is, if it is laid out on a map of the Earth?

              Orbits with an inclination close to 90 are called polar. There she is:



              They have a lot of cons, but there is one indisputable plus - only such an orbit passes over all latitudes of the Earth, i.e. allows you to view (albeit not very often) the entire territory of our ball. But the notorious Northern Sea Route, such an orbit will allow you to watch, albeit often (with a period of revolution), but in very small pieces.
              We have already talked about a low orbit - with it, the station slows down on the uppermost layers of our planet and slows down, you have to correct the orbit more often. But - the lower, the better you can see, agree? For ROSS, the orbit height is declared to be less than for the ISS - by almost 100 km. Those. 300-350 km.

              Actually, these are the thoughts. The most obvious conclusion, in my opinion, is that the station will have an emphasis on a military, intelligence orientation. I cannot logically explain anything else that is not the most profitable orbit for the orbital station. Moreover, "own territory" has nothing to do with it - all of Russia would be perfectly visible from an orbit with a lower inclination (and it is most profitable to do this from satellites in general), but dangling across the poles, the station will see everyone
              1. 123 Offline 123
                123 (123) 29 January 2022 11: 02
                +2
                And if you do not build speculation, but ask the interlocutor what his questions imply? This is more correct, more polite, and most importantly - you will get the exact answer, and not your assumptions. Do not find how many pluses?

                I have tried over and over again. Groundhog Day. It all comes down to lack of education and mediocrity yes

                The thing is, it depends on the orbit. For example, on the one that flies the ISS, a person can stay for a long time, but on a steep, polar one (close to 90) - no. Because with such an orbit, the station will be exposed to the most intense action of radiation - the protective abilities of the Earth's magnetic field at the poles drop to almost zero. Therefore, a more gentle orbit does not prevent a person from staying at the station for a long time.

                Quite right. Therefore, the station will be visited. The stay of a person on it will be shorter. It seems that the permanent stay of astronauts is not a priority, records for the duration of stay are not interesting, they will rather arrive for work, excrement, repairs, maintenance of equipment, satellites, and so on.

                but cheaper (let's say, the efficiency / cost ratio is higher) than driving a deserted station. A simple example: which flight will be profitable and which one will be unprofitable - when your passenger liner is completely full, or when it is empty? I think the answer is obvious. In both cases, you are forced to fly and burn fuel, pay salaries to the crew, etc., but in one case, all this is more than offset by the proceeds from the tickets sold, in the second - only losses, since you are just carrying air.
                Same with the station. It needs to be maintained in working order, to maintain (albeit in the wrong composition) the atmosphere, the temperature - the microclimate, in general, i.e. There are costs for it, but there are no astronauts, they do not carry out their work there. Then why roll heated air in space?

                Not convinced No. Automation, the presence of a person on a permanent basis is not necessary. On the ISS, too, the crew was often smaller. A man in space needs food, water, and so on, all this must be brought there and this is not cheap. The less they are there, the less they spend. As for the heated air, it never occurs to anyone to put a person in each server room because it is warm there. In addition, there is supposed to be 1 module (scientific and energy), most of the equipment will be placed on the outer skin.

                By the height of the orbit, to be honest, I didn’t understand the idea request

                But, since the ISS was built mainly with Russian help, that's why they adopted a more profitable orbit for us (and the station as a whole).

                The ISS was mainly built with US money, and it is not at all typical for partners to be guided in such a situation by the benefits of partners. The ISS does not fly over the territory of Russia, what is the benefit for us is not clear request


                https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/Tools/orbitTutorial.htm

                Now about reconnaissance satellites. Well, I didn’t write about Cosmos for nothing. His orbit was tilted to 72, with the expectation that it would move to the polar regions when the ball passed "from our side."
                At what latitude is the Northern Sea Route located? You can see it on the map. An inclination from 65 to 75 makes it wonderful to view it all, and in much larger "pieces" than with a steeper orbit. Do you understand what the orbit of a station, a satellite is, if it is laid out on a map of the Earth?

                Am I against it? The station is launched so that it would often be over the northern territory.



                Actually, these are the thoughts. The most obvious conclusion, in my opinion, is that the station will have an emphasis on a military, intelligence orientation. I cannot logically explain anything else that is not the most profitable orbit for the orbital station. Moreover, "own territory" has nothing to do with it - all of Russia would be perfectly visible from an orbit with a lower inclination (and it is most profitable to do this from satellites in general), but dangling across the poles, the station will see everyone

                The military component will undoubtedly be present and there is no doubt that it is always a priority. However, this in no way cancels the "civilian sector" and commercial use hi
                1. Half a hundred second (Half a half second) 29 January 2022 12: 37
                  -1
                  Quote: 123
                  The stay of a person on it will be shorter. It seems that the permanent stay of astronauts is not a priority, records for the duration of stay are not interesting, they will rather fly in for work, excrement, repairs, maintenance of equipment

                  Quote: 123
                  Automation, the presence of a person on a permanent basis is not necessary. On the ISS, too, the crew was often smaller. A man in space needs food, water, and so on, all this must be brought there and this is not cheap. The less they are there, the less they spend.

                  It all depends on the purpose of the station. If the station is research, then a person should work on it to the maximum. It's like having a laboratory, maintaining it, paying the bills (rent, electricity, heating, etc.), but using it only occasionally. Profitable? No, it's not economical at all.
                  Well, or take the example of an empty apartment. You have to pay for it, you need to do repairs, etc. etc., but you don't use it. What is the benefit for the landlord? There are costs, but no benefits.
                  The station is the same house. Or a lab. Is the analogy clear this time?

                  The station crew, located there, is able to carry out minor repairs, and for this purpose it is not necessary to drive ships from the Earth for each sneeze. This is another plus of a permanent residence of a person. Experiments in space are not two weeks or a month, there are those that last for years - by limiting expeditions in time, you thereby greatly narrow the range of scientific problems to be solved. Not to mention the fact that increased radiation does not contribute to this. Therefore, if the station is a research one, then it will give maximum efficiency only with the constant presence of personnel, with ongoing work - i.e. maximum use for its intended purpose. There is an efficiency/cost criterion in this.
                  And if the station is not research, but has some other purpose, then the stay of a person is not necessary.
                  It all depends on the main station assignment.

                  Quote: 123
                  The ISS was mainly built with US money

                  but was served mainly by launches from Russian territory. It is for this reason - and for no other reason - that it has the same orbit as the Soviet stations. It is more profitable to fly to such a one from the Russian cosmodrome.

                  Quote: 123
                  By the height of the orbit, to be honest, I didn’t understand the idea

                  Everything is simple here. Fly low - the influence of the Earth's atmosphere is stronger, the station slows down, loses speed and altitude - which means that you need to correct its orbit more often. This is additional fuel, which, again, can only be transported from Earth by trucks (which simultaneously carry provisions and everything the astronauts need). With a lower orbit, optical (and not only - radar too) reconnaissance means give greater resolution - which means that the picture will turn out clearer and more detailed. But it is also impossible to fly high yet - radiation is quite strong above 500 km. Therefore, they try to fly higher (saving fuel reserves), but where else can the protection of the station and the Earth's field help - the ISS now goes about 420 km.
                  But sometimes it is necessary that the device always hangs over one exact Earth - and it is thrown to the geostationary station. But living organisms will not last long there, because there are only satellites.

                  Quote: 123
                  The station is launched so that it would often be over the northern territory.

                  it will be there no more often than with any other orbit that captures those areas of the Earth (for example, 65-70 degrees). Only with a polar orbit, the station will "draw" almost vertical segments through the territory, and with an orbit with a lower inclination - more gentle ones. Well this is from the school course - which is longer, the leg or the hypotenuse? In which case the satellite will capture a larger area?

                  Anyway, here are some thoughts.
                  1. 123 Offline 123
                    123 (123) 29 January 2022 16: 58
                    +2
                    but was served mainly by launches from Russian territory. It is for this reason - and for no other reason - that it has the same orbit as the Soviet stations. It is more profitable to fly to such a one from the Russian cosmodrome.

                    There were no flights to the Skylab station from Russian cosmodromes, the orbital inclination angle was 50°. There are some doubts about "mostly" flights, about 150 flights by Russia, 80 by the USA and a dozen launches by Europeans with the Japanese.

                    it will be there no more often than with any other orbit that captures those areas of the Earth (for example, 65-70 degrees). Only with a polar orbit, the station will "draw" almost vertical segments through the territory, and with an orbit with a lower inclination - more gentle ones. Well this is from the school course - which is longer, the leg or the hypotenuse? In which case the satellite will capture a larger area?

                    They say in this orbit every hour and a half over the Arctic will fly. Why do you need exactly 65-70 degrees?
                    1. Half a hundred second (Half a half second) 29 January 2022 17: 36
                      -4
                      Quote: 123
                      They say in this orbit every hour and a half over the Arctic will fly

                      The ISS carried out 250 launches, of which the lion's share was from Russian territory. When the location of the future ISS station was discussed, it was decided to accept the Russian orbital parameters. You can see for yourself that they coincide with the parameters of the Salyut and Mir orbits

                      Quote: 123
                      Why do you need exactly 65-70 degrees?

                      the Arctic regions of Russia and the Northern Sea Route will be optimally covered. Are they going to watch?
                      1. 123 Offline 123
                        123 (123) 29 January 2022 18: 37
                        +2
                        The ISS carried out 250 launches, of which the lion's share was from Russian territory.

                        The "lion's share" is about 150 launches of 250, the Americans have about 2 times less, about 80, plus Europe and Japan about 15. This is primarily due to the fact that after the accidents and decommissioning of the Shuttle, the Americans had nothing for many years fly into orbit, used Russian ships. It is unlikely that this was planned even before the launch of the ISS.

                        When the location of the future ISS station was discussed, it was decided to accept the Russian orbital parameters. You can see for yourself that they coincide with the parameters of the Salyut and Mir orbits

                        Where can I get acquainted with the decision and the data that it was taken based on the considerations you specified? As for the coincidence of the orbits, it does not sound convincing, with Skylab it did not differ much.

                        the Arctic regions of Russia and the Northern Sea Route will be optimally covered. Are they going to watch?

                        Nobody claims that only they are going to observe and the observation of the Northern Sea Route is the main task.
                      2. Half a hundred second (Half a half second) 29 January 2022 18: 58
                        -4
                        Quote: 123
                        Europe and Japan around 15

                        they weren't asked at all.

                        Quote: 123
                        It is unlikely that this was planned even before the launch of the ISS.

                        the orbit of the future ISS was assumed before its creation, of course. American 28 degrees give little coverage,


                        48 or 65 did not begin to be invented, because there are Russian 51, which are convenient for us. Why make it inconvenient for everyone?
                        Where to find out? Read the history of the creation of the ISS (when it was still the Alpha project), and also use common sense.

                        Quote: 123
                        No one claims that only they are going to observe and the observation of the Northern Sea Route is the main task

                        Yes? In the comments above, the Arctic and the Northern Sea Route go almost a word later. Well, it seemed to me that he had become quite old, his eyesight had deteriorated, his eyes could not see.
                        hi
                      3. 123 Offline 123
                        123 (123) 29 January 2022 19: 59
                        +1
                        the orbit of the future ISS was assumed before its creation, of course. American 28 degrees give a small coverage, 48 or 65 did not begin to invent, because there are Russian 51, which are convenient for us. Why make it inconvenient for everyone?

                        Skylab had 50, which is not much different from the Russian 51 and didn't seem to find it uncomfortable. In general, I doubt that the Americans adjusted to Russian interests. It's not in their nature. hi
                      4. Half a hundred second (Half a half second) 29 January 2022 20: 10
                        -4
                        I wrote:

                        Quote: Half a century and a half
                        Why make it inconvenient for everyone?

                        Quote: 123
                        I doubt that the Americans adjusted to Russian interests

                        this is their interest too. Russia also carried American cargo and American astronauts. If you haven't forgotten.
                      5. 123 Offline 123
                        123 (123) 29 January 2022 20: 37
                        +2
                        this is their interest too. Russia also carried American cargo and American astronauts. If you haven't forgotten.

                        Of course I didn't forget. The orbit was planned long before the Americans had nothing to fly on. In my opinion, Americans adjusting to Russian economic interests in the project, most of which they pay for, is fantastic. It's very unlike them. hi
                      6. Half a hundred second (Half a half second) 29 January 2022 20: 56
                        -4
                        Americans are pragmatists. If the most beneficial orbit for them turns out to be not very beneficial for the station, then why accept an orbit that would be disadvantageous to everyone? The Soviet orbit was acceptable, why not use it? Moreover, the station is joint Is it really so difficult that it does not fit in the head?
                        If it is not convenient for you, but it is convenient for your partner, then why make it so that it is uncomfortable for both? You seemed to be positioning yourself as a smart person, nodding at others - they say, unworthy of me, and here you are demonstrating, so to speak, not the most brilliant thoughts.

                        In addition, the first modules of the ISS were launched from Baikonur, if you looked at the chronology of launches to the station, you could not fail to notice this (the launch of the Zarya functional cargo unit (1st module of the ISS) - from Baikonur, the launch of the service module Zvezda "(3rd module of the ISS) - also, delivery of the docking compartment CO1 "Pirs" to the ISS - again Baikonur, etc.).

                        That's it, there's really nothing more to discuss hi
  • Joker62 Offline Joker62
    Joker62 (Ivan) 28 January 2022 15: 18
    +4
    We need to stop being space plumbers and mattress drivers ... Let them invent their own, or best of all, rent from Elon Max ...
    And we will go our own way. It doesn't matter how long it takes, but the main thing is your own and your own.
  • aries2200 Offline aries2200
    aries2200 (aries) 28 January 2022 23: 58
    +1
    believe amers - do not respect yourself ..... RUSSIAN STATION TO BE !!!
  • shinobi Offline shinobi
    shinobi (Yuri) 29 January 2022 02: 30
    +1
    The station will be military, this is already clear. After the flooding of the MIR, the military constantly complained about the lack of their own station for their research, bypassing the eyes of the Americans. The need is ripe, and for a long time.
  • Bogateev Vladimir (Warm Tumbler) 29 January 2022 05: 31
    -1
    Cooperation with the US in space research???
    Why is there such an interest in dealing with a crumbling country that has been teetering on the verge of default for more than a year???
  • Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 29 January 2022 07: 58
    -1
    Quote: Half a century and a half
    This is a very simple answer. Like "Because it's necessary." And still? What tasks require flying almost over the poles?
    For example: the Soviet combat stations of the Almaz program had an inclination: the Salyut-5 station had an orbit inclination of the same 51,6 °, but Cosmos-1870 had already 72 degrees. He was a deep intelligence apparatus and was supposed to look after the territory of the United States, Canada (there is their NORAD) and the Arctic. The Arktika-M constellation of satellites currently in operation and being expanded for monitoring the Arctic and the Northern Sea Route has a smaller orbital inclination of 63 degrees. And that's enough.

    Exactly bully
  • DVF Offline DVF
    DVF (Denis) 29 January 2022 08: 06
    0
    Recently, the Americans asked Russia to develop a plan to flood the ISS.
  • Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 29 January 2022 10: 29
    -3
    It looks like a game of 2 offended toddlers with a trampoline
    I will go out - then I will go out - but then I will not go out - I myself am like that
  • ua0bgc Offline ua0bgc
    ua0bgc (Paul) 29 January 2022 14: 43
    0
    let's help the US disappear from the face of the earth!!!
  • lelik613 Offline lelik613
    lelik613 (Sergei) 30 January 2022 08: 55
    0
    What we were given was exhaustively described by Radoslav Sikorsky. Should we take a step forward?