33

A new story came out today about Russia potentially preventing the US from using the ISS. One of the claims made was: "The Russian segment [of ISS] can exist independently from the American one. The U.S. one cannot."

Leaving aside all the political considerations of whether any of this is a good idea, is this claim true? Can the US side not survive on it's own? Why was such a design made so that it couldn't survive but the Russian side could?

TildalWave
  • 75,950
  • 13
  • 274
  • 455
James Kingsbery
  • 473
  • 4
  • 7

3 Answers3

33

What is being referred to here is the fact that the guidance, navigation, control, and propulsion capabilities of the ISS are entirely contained in the Russian Zvezda module.

ISS Diagram

Image Credit: ESA

NASA does have a module on the ground that is capable of replacing the Zvezda module temporarily for three years called the Interim Control Module, but the US currently has no way of delivering this to orbit.

Interim Control Module

We have designs for a long term module to replace Zvezda, but the design was never approved and is now outdated and would need to be revised.

Zvezda was originally designed to be part of a successor to the Russian Mir space station, but was gifted to the International Space Station as part of a good faith effort between Russia and the US.

This is why there is a strong reliance on Zvezda today. The US had plans to backup the Zvezda module, but they were not needed at the time, since Zvezda was successful.

As far as the political situation is concerned, if the Russian government really did break faith with the US in this way, it might be enough impetus to reignite the space race. With the proper budget (which a reignited space race might provide), the US has ample capability to strike out on its own. There would be political ramifications from this, obviously, and at this time we cannot know how the US, Russia, and the world would be affected by a new space race. It could be good or bad, and likely a mix of both. It may cause an acceleration of technological development, but it could also have nasty side effects.

For more information:

Someone
  • 405
  • 3
  • 8
called2voyage
  • 23,710
  • 10
  • 97
  • 147
  • 2
    A side note: Russia may currently be weaker than the US alone, but its relations with China are fairly strong (see Wikipedia) and Russia and China in concert might prove to be a formidable competitor in a reignited space race, were one to occur. – called2voyage May 13 '14 at 21:18
  • 12
    It might also be worthwhile to note, in case the OP and others are unaware, that even if the US part of the ISS could survive on its own, we currently have no way of ferrying people to and from the ISS without Russian spacecraft. – called2voyage May 13 '14 at 21:22
  • Give SpaceX a year or two... http://www.wunderground.com/news/spacex-sending-humans-to-space-20130110 – PearsonArtPhoto May 14 '14 at 01:29
  • The Russian module was planned to become the core module of MIR-2. That's why it is designed to work independently. However, without the solar array and communication systems of the other ISS modules, it would just be the first basic building block of a proper space station. – LocalFluff May 14 '14 at 05:26
  • @PearsonArtPhoto "With the proper budget ... the US has ample capability to strike out on its own." – called2voyage May 14 '14 at 11:39
  • 1
    It is also worthwhile to note that the US segment is what provides the capability for round-the-clock communications via the TDRSS network. Russian assets currently only support communications when ISS is within line-of-sight to Russian ground stations, which happens approximately two hours per day. Furthermore, until Russia launches the SPM, it is dependent on the US operating segment to supply a substantial amount of electrical power. – Tristan May 14 '14 at 16:21
  • SpaceX could put people in orbit in 60 days, if the testing were accelerated on DragonRider. – aramis May 14 '14 at 17:00
  • @called2voyage, yes I was aware, but that's a good point too. From a US-centric perspective, it seems really bad if when Dragon (or whatever we use as the replacement) is ready to go to ISS in 2017 or so, it will have no space station that would welcome it docking. – James Kingsbery May 14 '14 at 17:01
  • @aramis Putting people in orbit is one thing. Keeping them alive is another. Docking with station is a third issue. One thing to keep in mind is that the docking system that is planned for all these commercial vehicles to use hasn't been installed on station yet. – Tristan May 14 '14 at 17:34
  • @Tristan Dragon docks to Harmony. ( http://www.space.com/20043-dragon-capsule-space-station-docking.html ) Dragon is air-tight and thermally controlled already. Dragonrider is, essentially, Dragon with seats and an oxygen supply, and uses the same hatch configuration. No new adapter needed. Plus, in a pinch, EVA PLSS packs and demountable couches could serve to put up a "Not Abandoned Yet" crew. – aramis May 15 '14 at 06:20
  • @aramis Correction: Dragon berths to Node 2. Berthing is a non-starter for crew for many reasons, most notably the inability to perform an emergency separation. Dragon has also not demonstrated a launch abort capability (they're working on it), which brings us back to the shuttle-era problem of ascent failures not being survivable. – Tristan May 15 '14 at 15:53
  • @Tristan Doing something and doing something to NASA paranoid-delusions-of-safety are different things. And the photo in the article I linked to labels Dragon docked to Harmony. Which, if Node 2 is the norm, means that there are places for 2 different Dragons to simultaneously dock. DragonRider's abort capability is not essential to putting men into orbit nor onto the station. It's nice, but if it comes down to losing the US portion of the station or launching without proven abort, I suspect it will be "launch now". – aramis May 15 '14 at 16:30
  • @aramis It seems you don't understand the difference between docking and berthing. Dragon is berthed at the Node 2 Nadir CBM. The only viable docking port on the US segment right now is the PMA attached to Node 2 Forward. Call it paranoid if you want, but NASA calls the shots. They will not allow a crewed launch to the ISS that does not include launch abort capability and docking (not berthing) capability. The problem is, the docking port up there is APAS, and all the commercial crew organizations are designing for NDS. The NDS adapter (IDA) hasn't flown. – Tristan May 15 '14 at 17:18
  • @JamesKingsbery Currently Russia is saying that they won't extend beyond 2020, but I suppose worsening US-Russia relations could accelerate that timetable. – called2voyage May 19 '14 at 21:56
  • I never heard from the Russian side, that they would want to leave the ISS project. While there are regularly news that the USA wants to deorbit the ISS. – peterh May 27 '18 at 13:29
  • @peterh This was a few years ago, see the article in the OP. There was never any doubt that there was a limited life to the ISS. Each nation has a different opinion of what to do after the fact. https://space.stackexchange.com/q/8514/58 – called2voyage May 27 '18 at 14:59
  • @called2voyage If the Falcons will be able to launch supply and crew shift to the ISS cheaper than the Soyuz, I see no reason, why the ISS couldn't exist indefinitely. But somehow I have the impression that the ISS will be deorbited even if it will so happen. If I would be Putin, I would allow the U.S. part to go, and then I would cooperate with the Chinese... if anything wonderful exist in the current Humanity, it is that we have permanent human presence in the Space. If anything wonderful exist in the U.S. then it is that they are its flagship country. And now this all goes away :-( – peterh May 27 '18 at 15:13
  • 3
    The SpaceX orientated comments here made me smile, 6 years on... – Moo Mar 29 '20 at 05:48
  • 8 years on, escalating tensions with Russian due to the invasion of Ukraine have resulted in a NASA statement that there are no change of plans for the US/EU crew due to return on a Soyuz —Dragon CRS-24 returned in Jan and CRS-25 launches in May. The ICM according to comments in https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/22446/iss-interim-control-module-specifications may weigh about a metric ton, which is as much as a Tesla Roaster, and now that the Falcon Heavy has found it's feet would mean the US could launch it if I am not mistaken. However, the ISS is to be decommissioned in 2030... – Matteo Ferla Feb 24 '22 at 19:45
  • I wonder whether it would be possible to use a european tug module as a temporary fix? – AnarchoEngineer Jul 02 '23 at 21:36
8

Others have already answered the first part of the question ("is it true?"). I would like to address the second part ("Why was such a design made?").

The ISS was launched in parts over the course of several years. That means it was necessary to first launch those modules which were vital to the survival of the station and then launch any of the more science-oriented modules.

The first module was the Functional Cargo Block module, which provided electrical power, propulsion and guidance. This module made sure that the station itself could maintain its orbit (at that point it was still autonomous). The second (major) module was the service module which provided life support and made the station habitable for a crew.

The project planners handed the responsibility for these modules to Russia who named them Zarya and Zvezda. At that time Russia had the most experience with building and maintaining a habitable space station due to the Mir project. That meant the responsibility for the two most survival-critical modules was well-placed in their hands.

After these modules were in orbit, adding other modules providing the same functionality would have been redundant and a waste of the already tight budget of the project.

Philipp
  • 9,326
  • 3
  • 33
  • 56
  • Thanks, that sheds some light on it. I'd imagine there's some value in having redundant systems anyway, in case of a problem in the original. Could you clarify: were the Russian systems designed so that even a back-up module was unnecessary? – James Kingsbery May 14 '14 at 16:55
4

It depends. The US side technically owns (as in paid for) the Zarya FGB tug which is critical to the station.

The Zvezda service module is a major module as well.

The Russian plan is basically to take the next two modules they are launching, (one day, maybe, in the future, someday) to form the base of a new station. The MLM and UM. The question becomes, will they take Zvezda with them or not. There are alternate plans for that both ways.

You can see more about these modules in the answer to the question I asked about Will the ISS need more docking ports.

If they leave Zvezda, then the station reboost facility is still there, you just need to get fuel to it. Which normally Progress does, but ATV can do it as well.

Alas, the ATV gets its Kurs docking computer from Russia aftermarket.

Depending on how badly Russia wants to piss off the US and vica versa will determine the outcome.

geoffc
  • 79,523
  • 12
  • 227
  • 419