[amsat-bb] Information.

[John Hackett]

Hello Dave,
               Certainly, just follow the additional information from the main 
page of ...

<http://www.russianspaceweb.com/index.html>

Have a good day.

73 John    <la2qaa at amsat.org>
............................................................................................

> From: n4csitwo at bellsouth.net
> To: la2qaa at amsat.org
> Subject: Re: [amsat-bb]  An alternative ... or ... competition !!!.
> Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 16:07:08 -0400
> 
> Hi John,
>     This is very interesting. Do you know the official news source of this 
> information? I would like to read more about it.
> 
> Dave, AA4KN
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "John Hackett" <archie.hackett at hotmail.com>
> To: <eu-amsat at yahoogroups.com>
> Cc: <allan_gm1sxx at hotmail.com>; <amsat-bb at amsat.org>
> Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 6:46 AM
> Subject: [amsat-bb] An alternative ... or ... competition !!!.
> 
> 
> 
> Ladies and Gentlemen,
>                                For those that don't know it, The chief of 
> RosKosmos, the Russian Space Agency *confirmed* last week the Russian 
> intention to pull the plug on the ISS in the 2015 - 2020 timeframe and to 
> construct another dedicated Russian
> space station.
> 
> According to Anatoly Zak RosKosmos informed NASA of these plans 14 days ago.
> 
> The new Russian station is *NOT* intended to be a laboratory like the ISS 
> but
> more of an in-orbit contruction platform for future Mars-like and outer 
> space
> missions.
> 
> The station will comprise a maintainable 'ball' section with several docking 
> ports
> with attachable modules.
> 
> I propose that amateur radio satellite operators get together and form a 
> group to suggest/try to influence/impliment an ARISS type of project for 
> this space station.
> 
> A Strela type frame could be attached to the underside of the 'ball' and 
> since the station is planned for a Molinya type orbit the coverage would be 
> suitable for DX.
> 
> The planned orbit would put the station predominently over Russia - as 
> opposed to the current ISS equatorial orbit.
> 
> Personally, I would suggest an RS-10/11 RS-12/13 clone with a ROBOT ...
> (read: propagation tester) - as these satellites were without the shadow of 
> a
> doubt the best for recruiting newcomers.
> 
> It would, in my opinion, be a viable concept and an alternative to some of 
> the
> latest 'ideas' of a transponder on the moon ... which wouldn't 'catch' many
> potential newcomers but would (*IN MY OPINION*) only serve a few dedicated 
> 'experts' ... leading to the demise of amateur satellite communications in 
> general.
> 
> Comments, monies and praise to LA2QAA.
> 
> Criticisms, horsewhipping and flaming to GM1SXX.
> 
> 73 John.   <la2qaa at amsat.org>
> 
> Interested parties may read the following ...
> 
> 
> ................................................................................................................
> The OPSEK project
> 
>       By
> 2008, the Russian successor to the International Space Station, ISS,
> was identified as Orbitalniy Pilotiruemyi Eksperimentalniy Kompleks,
> OPSEK, or Orbital Manned Assembly and Experiment Complex in English.*
> Unlike previous designs of Mir, Mir-2 and the ISS,
> the heart of the station would be a four-ton ball-shaped node module.
> Equipped with six docking ports, this relatively small and simple
> element would be the only permanent element of the station. All other
> modules would come and go as their lifespan and mission requires.
> 
>       The initial architecture of the OPSEK complex could be built out of 
> modules originally planned for the Russian segment
> of the ISS. The exact scenario of the OPSEK assembly would depend on
> the end of the ISS and the readiness of the latest Russian modules.
> According to a 2008 scenario, the MLM multipurpose module, the node module 
> and a pair of NEM power platforms could be first launched to the ISS in 
> 2011, 2013 and 2014-2015,
> respectively. With the deorbiting of the ISS looming around 2020, these
> modules could separate from the old outpost to form the core of the new
> Russian station. Another, more controversial scenario considered the
> separation of the practically entire Russian segment, including the MIM-2 
> docking compartment and the Zvezda service module,
> prior to the ISS deorbiting. In this case, the 20-year-old service
> module would temporarily take a responsibility for the flight control
> of the OPSEK, until its replacement with a 40-ton versatile core
> module, UMB, launched by a next-generation rocket from yet-to-be built 
> launch site in Vostochny during 2020s.
> 
>       The
> separation of the Russian segment from the ISS would leave the rest of
> the outpost without effective orbital maneuvering capabilities, leaving
> the European ATV spacecraft
> as a likely candidate to perform the tasks of attitude control and
> deorbiting. To achieve this the ATV would have to be modified to enable
> its docking with the US segment of the ISS.
> 
>       Depending
> on the operational orbit selected for the OPSEK, it might be necessary
> to change the orbital inclination of the modules departing the ISS and
> forming the new station. The lowest inclination accessible from
> Vostochny is 51.7 degrees, while the ISS is orbiting the Earth with the
> inclination 51.6 degrees toward the Equator. It is estimated that one
> or two Progress cargo ships would be necessary to push the modules from one 
> inclination to another.
> 
>       From
> official statements during 2008 and 2009, it is clear that the one of
> the chief objectives of the OPSEK complex would be the support for
> expedition to Mars. All major elements of the Martian expeditionary
> complex, such as main habitation module, Mars lander and
> nuclear-powered space tug would dock to the station before its
> departure from the low-Earth orbit toward Mars. The Martian expedition
> would at the OPSEK as well.
> 
>       The station would also play a similar role in lunar exploration. 
> Reusable space tugs could link OPSEK with the Lunar Orbital Station, LOS, in 
> orbit around the Moon, thus creating a transport chain for a permanent lunar 
> base. Such tasks  as servicing of modular satellites by orbital tugs based 
> at the OPSEK complex were also cited.
> 
>       In
> broader terms, TsNIIMash research institute, a chief strategist of the
> Russian space agency, formulated the OPSEK concept as a foundation of
> the nation's space strategy. By 2009, the new station was seen as a
> cornerstone of a new space exploration plan, which extended four
> decades into the 21st century. An ambitious program apparently included
> manned missions to the Moon, Mars and beyond. (344)
> 
>       Cooperation with Europe and the US
> 
>       In
> 2008, Russian plans for maintaining presence in the low-Earth orbit in
> general and the creation of a successor to the ISS in particular had
> been met enthusiastically in Europe. As ESA had little hope to match
> the US effort to return to the Moon at the beginning of the 21st century,
> preserving a destination in the low-Earth orbit seemed critical for the
> political support of the manned space flight on the continent.
> 
>       In
> June 2009, Simonetta Di Pippo, ESA director of human space flight told
> the editor of RussianSpaceWeb.com 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 start jointly, the study how to proceed beyond 2025, Di
> Pippo said, ..."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 leave Earth orbit."
> 
>       Di Pippo also said that although  current NASA plans for return to the 
> Moon
> reserved no essential role for the station, it could change in the
> future. "Even on the NASA side, they have too many different
> developments (associated with the Earth orbit), including commercial
> involvement, which they can not immediately give up," Di Pippo said.
> 
>       By the end of 2010,
> all partners in the ISS project were expecting to agree on the
> extension of the ISS lifespan from 2015 to 2020 or even 2025. Once end
> of life for the ISS was decided an active planning for post-ISS manned
> space flight could begin in Russia, Europe and possibly the US.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb 
>