Roscosmos vision of the ISS Program after 2005 and beyond

News From Moscow – European Space Agency
Permanent Mission In the Russian Federation, Special Issue № 6, May 6, 2005

“No plans to provide resources without compensation,” says Alexei Krasnov

Executive summary:

Considering the intention of the US colleagues to decommission the Space Shuttle roughly as of 2010 (the key word is “roughly”), the ISS program is going to face a substantial deficit of uploading and more importantly, of downloading assets.
Roscosmos will have to schedule a purely Russian program for the year 2006. Roscosmos is prepared however to consider the requests that are already coming from the US counterparts.
Crew time distribution needs to be agreed as Roscosmos feel the distribution should change starting from 2006. The US are planning large-scale assembly and maintenance activities for that period, and Russia would not like to find itself in a situation when it have to spend all usable time on partner activities while sparing no time at all to itself.
By today Russia and US have not reached any formal agreement binding Russia to deliver US main crew members on the Soyuz spacecraft.

Alexei Krasnov: “No plans to provide resources without compensation”

Three months after the heads of national space agencies involved in the project met to discuss the International Space Station and the partners reviewed their plans for post-2005 activities on the International Space Station, Mr. Alexei Krasnov, Roscosmos Chief of Manned Programs Department since September 2004 (see NFM 15/2004), outlines his vision of the negotiation process and describe the disagreements with US that exist today.

Q: According to earlier reports there were plans to hold talks with NASA on how ISS should be operated after 2005. The talks were allegedly to take place right on the eve of the meeting of the heads of the national partner agencies involved in the ISS project. Were there any agreements with NASA during the talks?

A: The talks were never held. What we had was a series of discussions attended by all the partners to update the scope of requirements for the ISS program. That was actually a meeting of the work team assessing ISS critical resource limitations, such as cargo up- and downloading capabilities or crew time to be spared on station assembling and maintenance and the research program. In our discussions we relied on today’s status of the ISS with a permanent crew of two to be enhanced to three astronauts after the Space Shuttle is back and on the future plan of making it as many as six crew members in 2009. That was the scope of our discussions.

We stated expressly the following: considering the intention of the US colleagues to decommission the Space Shuttle roughly as of 2010 (the key word is “roughly”), the ISS program is going to face a substantial deficit of uploading and more importantly, of downloading assets, for as long as the Space Shuttle offers unique opportunities in downloading major quantities of cargos. We are experiencing crew time deficit now as we need to assemble and maintain the station and above all to conduct science research. Crew enhancement to three astronauts is unlikely to resolve the issue cardinally. Bringing the crew to as many as six astronauts is vital. Yet, this requires extra delivery and support assets.

The ISS program and the configuration plan (both were drawn and approved by the heads of the partner space agencies) feature a crew of six starting from 2009. Meanwhile, neither we in Russia, nor our partners are able to understand how exactly we are going to have a crew of six, at the expense of what, to be more precise. Does that mean the US is going to acquire extra assets from us or are the Americans going to create their own assets, which they are considering now? So far, we have not got any jointly formulated response to those questions essential for the program, which is understandable for as long as our US counterparts experience a situation of full uncertainty. For instance, they would want to launch the Space Shuttle in May and they are doing their best to implement the intention, something that we fully support just because having the Space Shuttle at hand is vital. The sooner it launches the better for the ISS. In the meantime, there are certain psychological restrictions as NASA would prefer more than infrequently to be twice shy once bitten by the disaster even despite all the improvements that followed the accident.

Q: As you said previously, all of Russia’s obligations to the USA, except for the rescue vehicle, are to expire by December 31, 2005. Could you say the principles of US-Russia cooperation in the ISS program for 2006 have been agreed? If no, when do you think any such agreement could be reached?

A: This has not been agreed so far and it creates serious problems for the program. What we proceed from now is that we have to schedule a purely Russian program for the year 2006. The program relies on those own tasks and concerns that induced us years back to join the ISS program. Roscosmos is prepared however to consider the requests that are already coming from the US counterparts. In addition we are watching with a lot of attention the political developments in the USA as regards the known restrictions imposed on acquisition of certain services and hardware for the ISS from Russia. Really, I am not in a position to forecast how fast those developments are going to be.

Q: You said before Russia cannot endlessly give resources to partners on uncompensated basis, didn’t you?

A: We are not going to provide those resources free of charge, no.

Q: What do you rely on at Roscosmos in planning 2006 activities on board the ISS?

A: We rely on that Russian crew members will go to the station by the Soyuz spacecraft. We are planning operations on the Russian segment. In fact, we rely on the nominal schedule that implies the Space Shuttle missions according to what NASA plans. There is no other planning as far as the ISS program is concerned. It is our assumption the colleagues will use the Space Shuttle to bring their crew member to the ISS. Naturally, we expect to perform ISS maintenance operations on a joint basis. Incidentally, crew time distribution needs to be agreed as we feel the distribution should change starting from 2006. Our colleagues are planning large-scale assembly and maintenance activities for that period, and we would not like to find ourselves in a situation when we have to spend all usable time on partner activities while sparing no time at all to ourselves.

Q: Do you mean the main crew rotation on ISS will be supported by the Soyuz spacecraft in 2005? Could you explain why Russia’s spacecraft will be used for rotation purposes even after the Space Shuttle missions are resumed? Will that practice continue into 2006 as well?

A: We have no specific agreement on the issue so far. Our US counterparts have defined their interest, which is to send one US astronaut on each Soyuz, and undertook to include one Russian main crewmember for the ISS into their Space Shuttle crews. That approach is likely to add flexibility to the crew rotation process. However, it adds some problems, as well. For instance, while it is known for sure how the Soyuz spacecraft are going to fly in the nearest future in terms of schedule, there is hardly anyone to know how the Space Shuttle is going to fly, which makes building any plans rather difficult. By today we have not reached any formal agreement binding us to deliver US main crew members on the Soyuz spacecraft. Though, let me stress this: we told our colleagues more than infrequently last year and the year before that the situation is going be more complicated as the expiration time of current agreements gets closer. We feel good about the agreement reached for 2005, which gives us additional time to comprehend the procedure for 2006 and beyond. Yet we are optimistic about the prospects and we believe relevant solutions will be found after all just because there is mutual interest. We build our relations within the ISS project on the basis or partnership in the first place and we try to be attentive and sensitive to any requests, whether from NASA or any other partner. That is a principle of our involvement in the program. As soon as we realize an agreement is about to be reached, even without final confirmation, that is, as soon as we are given some promise at competent level of authority that the issues are going to be resolved, we will be able to take a step forward and demonstrate flexibility in decision-taking. What we would not want at all is to create a deadlock, something that would not serve the interests of any partner.

Q: Do you mean that making now a purely national schedule for 2006 does not exclude possible introduction of US astronauts into Russia’s crews, provided NASA agrees to relevant compensation?

A: Yes, I do, and we are reviewing that opportunity already – in real time, I must say, as we have desperately little time to take the decisions and assign crews for 2006. We expect some clarification of the position from our US counterparts. They are to formulate their interest and we expect them to formally define their promises as regards resolution of the bottlenecks that prevent more specific agreements.

Q: What are the essential conditions to be met to enhance the ISS crew to as many as six astronauts? Could you outline the approach of Russia, the United States and the other partners to that issue?

A: The plan that the heads of partner space agencies approved in January says going over to a crew of six is to happen in 2009, and we had to agree to that. On the one hand, this would mean enhancement of the overall integrated crew, but on the other hand this depends on how the US counterparts are going to fulfil their obligations and how soon certain US systems and/or modules are going to be orbited. What I mean is Node 3 that carries elements of both the life support system and certain other systems of the US Segment essential if the crew is to be enhanced.

Q: Do you have any information as to what options the US partners are reviewing for the rotation of their astronauts – members of the enhanced crews – after Space Shuttle missions discontinue? What emergency abort assets do they intend to use?

A: We have agreed that after the Space Shuttle is back and the two initial missions in May and July are implemented we will have a mid-year meeting to review possible scenarios of the situation and define what we need to do together to avoid finding ourselves in extreme difficulty by 2010. Certainly, according to the intergovernmental accord each nation is entitled to take decisions based on its own priorities or on the intents of its own government. The example was given by the United States in January 2004 as the US president voiced new initiatives and marked the milestones for 2010 when the Space Shuttle is to be decommissioned. Let me note this: so far, NASA has not specified even the overall numbers of Space Shuttle missions to be flown prior to decommissioning. There is talk about at least 28 missions. However, a failure to implement all of those missions for whatever reason does not mean operation of the Space Shuttle is to be terminated automatically in 2010. Our US counterparts have claimed more than once at the highest level that they intend to meet all of their obligations in respect of all partners. That is what we reckon very much on.

What replaces the Space Shuttle is a big question. We expect to know that from our US colleagues in mid-2005. As far as I know, NASA is reviewing several options, including use of commercial launchers. Though in our view it is rather exotic within a period as short as that to develop a commercial launcher properly certified to support manned missions. Nevertheless, NASA plans to issue a request for proposal for the industry by the middle of the year. Regardless of its outcome, the approach in which private capital is to be involved in manned cosmonautics known to rely traditionally on state budget allocations is rather interesting. What we can say for sure is that after the Space Shuttle program is discontinued a recovery system will have to be developed. Any restrictions on the recovery are certain to affect the scientific program.

Q: What are the conditions to be met by Russia to have its cargos orbited by Space Shuttle missions 9A.1 and 9A.2? I mean the Science and Power Platform, the solar batteries, etc.?

A: Applicable agreements have been in place since the time of signing the baseline documents. Based on those instruments we are to deliver the rescue function till April 2006 along with the habitation and several other functions. The US delivered certain services to us as well. What I mean is: a balance of contributions and services in respect of the ISS program was formulated, including delivery of our modules and equipment by two Space Shuttle missions (a single Space Shuttle was merely unable to accommodate all the cargos). While initially only one mission was earmarked, we were able eventually to reach agreement with the Americans to distribute the cargos between two missions: on 9A.1 a considerable share of the cargo is to be assigned to the module itself, while 9A.2 is to deliver additionally the solar batteries. Incidentally, that is the pattern that the European partners have agreed for the Columbus module.

Q: When should we expect signing the agreement on the long-term mission of a European astronaut on ISS? Are there any specific dates? What spacecraft is going to be used to deliver the European astronaut to the ISS and return him back to Earth?

A: There is a principle agreement between Roscosmos, NASA and ESA concerning Thomas Reiter’s long-term mission: he is to go in the middle of the year by the second Space Shuttle and to return by a Space Shuttle, as well. Though we have not signed relevant documents so far Editor’s note: the Agreement between ESA and Roscosmos was signed in the end of April – see NFM 8/2005, the mission preparation activities are progressing at full speed. Quite naturally, the mission of the European astronaut, as well as the ISS crew enhancement from two to three crewmembers, depends on Space Shuttle resumption. Should the Space Shuttle fail to fly, we will have to limit the crew by two and the mission dates for the European astronauts will have to be shifted for a later period.

Q: ESA has shifted the launch dates for ATV to 2006. Does that mean Thomas Reiter will not see Jules Vernes when it comes to the ISS?

A: Yes, indeed, ATV has been postponed till 2006, which is no problem at all and we had reviewed the option with our European colleagues. Now they have confirmed the date shifting. It is not an easy thing to tie up the mission of an astronaut to the mission of a pioneer spacecraft. Launching a pioneer vehicle is always a complicated task. Once it goes according to the revised plan, Mr. Reiter will not meet Jules Vernes on ISS. Meanwhile, should any delays in the Space Shuttle mission occur, he may see it [Editor’s note: The new launch window for Shuttle Return to Flight recently announced by NASA is now July 13 to 31].

Q: What is the currently scheduled launching date for ATV?

A: ESA is planning to complete ATV engineering in the 1st quarter of 2006. We have not coordinated any specific launching dates yet. From the program point of view, we are going to take applicable launching decision within the shortest possible time and we will have to find a launch window with due regard for both the ATV’s ballistics and the schedules of the other missions to the ISS. (From Novosti Kosmonavtiki, #4/2005)

Linked from RuSpace news