Russia had previously threatened to leave the ISS by 2024:
Russia had previously threatened to leave the ISS by 2024, but is now the last of NASA's partners to agree to stay aboard the station for a few more years.
Russia has agreed to keep its cosmonauts on board the International Space Station (ISS) until 2028 despite earlier threats to withdraw from the orbiting lab.
NASA announced that its Russian counterpart "has confirmed it will support continued station operations through 2028," the space agency wrote in a blog post on Thursday. Russia was the last to sign on to extended operations on the ISS, with Japan, Canada, and the participating countries of the European Space Agency (ESA) having already agreed to support space station operations until 2030, when the ISS is due to retire.
In light of geopolitical tensions between Russia and its Western counterparts, Russia had previously threatened to pull out of the ISS in a series of vague statements. The Russian space agency then downplayed its threats, stating that it was planning on leaving the ISS after 2024.
"We will fulfill all our obligations to our partners, but the decision to leave this station after 2024 has been made." Yury Borisov, the head of Russia's space agency Roscosmos, told Russian President Vladimir Putin during a meeting in July 2022. "I think that by this time we will begin to assemble the Russian orbital station." At that time, it still wasn't clear whether that meant Russia was planning on staying beyond 2024, or if that was the hard cutoff.
Russia is planning on building its own space station in low Earth orbit. The Russian Orbital Space Station, nicknamed 'ROSS,' would launch in two phases. The first phase, which Russia hopes to launch in 2025, would include four modules, while the second phase would add two more modules and a service platform.
NASA and Roscosmos have had a longstanding partnership aboard the ISS for more than two decades. There has been at least one NASA astronaut and one Roscosmos cosmonaut on board the space station at all times since the ISS launched in 1998.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Sunday April 30, @01:59PM (15 children)
Modern space exploration is done by surrendering national space agency competences to psychopatic and lunatic billionaires. The way Russia is doing their new orbital space station is so 20th century...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by khallow on Sunday April 30, @02:26PM (6 children)
You say that like it's a bad thing.
My take is a bit different. These space agencies surrendered their competences long ago. And Musk, the psychopathic lunatic you're thinking of runs a business that's more competent than any space agency. Maybe it's time to think about why that's happening.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Sunday April 30, @02:51PM (4 children)
I included Bezos and Branson in the list - with Bezos being the strongest on psychopathy and Musk winning on lunacy. Although the psychopathic trait is strong in all billionaires, successful politicians and other "leaders" - kind of by definition.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 30, @04:30PM (3 children)
In other words, it's a leadership trait conflated poorly with a mental illness.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30, @07:38PM (1 child)
No, psychopathy is not a leadership trait. It is a genuine disorder for which there is not a known treatment. It is also well-established that there are a disproportionate amount of psychopaths in leadership positions.
I have noticed that you also exhibit elements of psychopathy. In particular, you seem to have great difficulty showing genuine concern for others. When people discuss the concerns of laborers and say that they should be treated better, your response is, "you don't deserve it. [soylentnews.org]" Your inability to show genuine concern for others is what strongly suggests that you are a psychopath.
Just because psychopaths are disproportionately represented in leadership positions doesn't make psychopathy a leadership trait.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 01, @12:41AM
I didn't say it was a leadership trait.
Key word "showing". How do you show genuine concern through a keyboard? It's harder than it looks. I find a lot of these problems are simply people assuming the worst while ignoring the limits of the medium in which they communicate.
I disagree. This wasn't a situation where genuine concern existed or should have existed. It was a selfish whine fest. Keep in mind the original premise of that post: journalists fishing for eyeballs with dramatic hype about people "quiet quitting" - basically a forever thing (with good and bad parts) that they gussied up as new via fresh buzzwords. And that was somehow supposed to be a rationalization for why employees deserved a bunch of money that Home Depot had paid to shareholders via stock buybacks - there was no "concern of laborers". The original story that had led to this thread didn't even bother to consider a split of the money, it was: [soylentnews.org]
Here's my take on that. That's just a proposal for theft. Just like psychopathy is not a leadership trait, gullibility is not showing genuine concern. I was just protesting a naked display of envy and greed not someone caring for laborers.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday April 30, @10:15PM
No, it's a trait that typically either gets you up to the top through dirty tricks or sends you to prison where nobody cares what your name is.
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 01, @12:01AM
How about he focuses on a different set of competencies? I mean, it would have been inconceivable for any government space agency to launch rocket after rocket, knowing that a number of them would explode, and/or go off course, and/or fail in some spectacular way. Only the military gets away with "Boys, lets go blow some shit up today, and maybe we'll learn something!"
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by takyon on Sunday April 30, @02:55PM (6 children)
Russia Says Hole in International Space Station Was Drilled [smithsonianmag.com]
Russia Could Take Legal Action Against NASA Astronaut Accused of Drilling Hole in Spacecraft [newsweek.com]
Russia says leak on Soyuz spacecraft caused by 0.8-millimetre hole [reuters.com]
Russia delays launch of rescue spacecraft after second coolant leak issue [cnn.com]
I'll take the psychopathic billionaires over the alcoholic Russians.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Sunday April 30, @03:25PM (5 children)
The billionaires are building their space fortune on the groundwork paid for by public money. Just like the internet billionaires built their fortune on the proto-internet built by taxpayer's money.
The billionaires may be good at developing whatever public work was there before they came, but don't count of them to start anything truly novel. Billionaire-funded space exploration (or rather, space exploitation) would never have happened without slow paper-pushing NASA employees and alcoholic Russians.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 30, @04:33PM (4 children)
Truly novel like what? We need to understand here that the standards are really, really low. Nobody has come up with anything truly novel in decades. It's more "We're about to lose our Mars rover. Let's send in a bigger one."
(Score: 2) by MIRV888 on Sunday April 30, @08:56PM (1 child)
Baby steps. Big leaps forward are few and far between. We've learned a lot more than might be apparent at a glance. For instance, rocket motors are considerably more reliable. We have learned all kinds of ways they can f*ck up and explode.
Also, Alien was a great movie. The Company was my favorite character.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 01, @12:51AM
As I noted in my reply to Mr. AC, this is those really, really low expectations in action. Baby steps didn't take NASA anywhere for half a century. Baby steps for SpaceX completed changed space access for everyone at an order of magnitude lower cost than anything NASA can do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30, @09:41PM (1 child)
You do realize that even something like the Apollo Program consisted of a lot of small steps forward, right? Apollo 1 was a complete failure that killed three astronauts in a fire. Apollo 4, 5, and 6 were tests of the equipment like the Saturn V launch vehicle and were unmanned because of the Apollo 1 fire. Apollo 8 actually orbited the moon, but it didn't land. By your logic, Apollo 11 wasn't especially novel because they were only small increments, and the subsequent Apollo missions weren't novel at all. However, that's how science usually works, building on prior knowledge and work instead of being completely unique and different. We might well have made more progress on larger objectives like a lunar base or manned missions to Mars if it was more of a national priority.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 01, @12:48AM
My take is that is genuinely novel because it changes everything done in space. Suddenly you can put an order of magnitude more payload into orbit for less than the old payload would have cost in the year 2000.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday May 01, @02:45AM
Have you seen Putin?
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by pe1rxq on Sunday April 30, @03:22PM
The chances of ROSS launching in 2025 are about as big as them winning 'not a war'.