NASA plans to extend its agreement with Roscosmos on joint flights to the ISS.

NASA wants to extend its agreement with Roscosmos on mutual flights to the ISS for another year or year and a half. This was announced by ISS Program Manager Dana Weigel at a meeting with journalists dedicated to the Crew-13 mission.

Weigel explained that NASA typically negotiates crew compositions for periods of one to one and a half years, and joint flights with the Russian side for this period have already been worked out in detail.

She clarified that the United States does not intend to sign long-term agreements until the ISS's decommissioning in 2030. However, negotiations are currently underway to extend the current agreement.

Roscosmos and NASA signed an agreement on mutual flights back in July 2022. Russian cosmonauts fly on American Crew Dragons, and American cosmonauts fly on our Soyuz spacecraft. This was done to ensure both sides always have a presence on the ISS, in case a launch is disrupted or delayed.

In early 2025, the parties extended this agreement through 2026 and updated the crew rosters. For example, Russian cosmonaut Sergei Teteryatnikov was selected for the Crew-13 mission. Its launch is scheduled no earlier than mid-September.

Roscosmos CEO Dmitry Bakanov has already announced that he and NASA have agreed to keep the ISS open until at least 2030. On July 23 in Manila, Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio noted that engineers and astronauts from Russia and the US have resumed direct interaction.

So, despite all the political differences between Russia and the United States, space remains one of the few areas where dialogue is still ongoing.

Comments

[SergeySmirnov3663]

That's right, the Americans are giving the Khokhloreikh intelligence information, including from the ISS, and we are providing them with all the conditions for this.
Mutually beneficial!!!

[Infinity]

We can't handle the ISS alone; we don't have our own station (ROS) yet, and they're currently planning to build that one based on the Russian segment and then undock it. And not a single ROS module has been launched yet. Considering how often we're prone to delaying deadlines, the ISS needs to be maintained for as long as possible.
If we quit immediately, there would be no point in manned spaceflight until the launch of the ROS. Because we need to fly somewhere, the Soyuz spacecraft are small and have limited endurance, and the Orel spacecraft isn't ready yet, and it's unclear when it will be. This would mean leaving numerous organizations and specialists without work, and halting numerous experiments.

[Smoked]

Ros is currently planned as a temporary habitable satellite, as it will fly in a "spy orbit" with zones of extremely high radiation dangerous to living beings but not dangerous to technology, making it easier to use.
And there's no point explaining anything to the commentators, especially the patriots. Either their code is different, or their brains are different.

[Infinity]

The ROS orbit has already been changed from a polar orbit to an ISS orbit with an inclination of 51,6°. And it's not about radiation; last year, Bion-M No. 2 flew in a polar orbit for a month with mice (including those from a special, radiation-vulnerable line) for precisely this purpose, and no particularly dangerous radiation was detected. This was despite high solar activity and powerful flares, although there were no solar-proton storms. Oleg Igorevich Orlov, director of the Institute of Biomedical Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences, who organized the biological experiments on Bion-M No. 2, explained this in great detail. Externally, it was 2-3 times higher, but under the hull:

"0.3 milligray per day. If we multiply that by 30 days, we get 9 milligray. This is the same amount as cosmonauts aboard the ISS receive per month," Orlov said.

Before this, there was a private manned flight of Fram2 on a Crew Dragon in polar orbit, but it lasted only 5 days.
When the orbit was being moved, there was also talk of increased radiation. But the real reason, I believe, is different: there's no ground infrastructure for manned launches into polar orbit or for supporting the ROS. And all that would take billions and years to build. If we're talking about the ISS orbit, everything is already ready on Earth. The only problem is, there's little point in building infrastructure for manned launches at Vostochny now; Baikonur is a better fit. At least for now.
And observations are indeed better carried out by satellites.

[Intelligence]

Quote: Infinity

If we're talking about the ISS orbit, everything is already ready on Earth. The only problem is, there's little point in building infrastructure for manned launches at Vostochny now; Baikonur is a better fit. At least for now.

You are absolutely right. I must add - unfortunately.
Unfortunately, Baikonur is currently the only viable launch site for the PTK to the ROS, should the station ever appear in the sky. For a variety of reasons.
1. The Soyuz-2.1a + Soyuz MS combination is reliable, has been mastered in production, and has a huge payload potential.
2. There's no point in talking about the A5P today, as even the basic version of the A5 hasn't yet completed flight testing. But even if it does, its launches won't be counted in the manned version's flight test statistics. The A5P is a fundamentally different rocket. It has different vibration load requirements, a different sensing system, and a different automation logic. Therefore, the test counter for the manned version will restart from zero. A strict rule applies to manned launches: before landing people, the rocket must be fully tested. specific modification must complete at least 3-5 completely successful launches in a row (including testing of the normal and emergency operation of the SAS). Given the current pace of Angara production and launches (at best 1-2 times a year, and usually less frequently), it will take 5-7 years to accumulate these statistics.
3. As for the Orel NP PTK, things are complicated. They've finally stopped showing plastic mockups, but it's still a long way from being finished.
4. Plus, things aren't so simple with the second phase at Vostochny. There are certainly some encouraging reports, but there's usually a huge gap between those reports and concrete details.
In general, we can only talk seriously about Vostochny starting somewhere around 2035.
So, for now, it's Baikonur. But basic safety must be kept in mind. Dependent on a single site for the entire manned program is a huge risk. One serious accident or force majeure at Baikonur, and the country loses access to space for months or years. Plus, there's the purely political risk. Kazakhstan isn't Russia.

[Disant]

Smoked (Denis)
Ros is currently planned as a temporary habitable spacecraft, as it will fly in a "spy orbit" with zones of extremely high radiation.

The latest statements have again cancelled this orbit.

[Intelligence]

Quote: Infinity

If we quit right away, there won't be any point in manned spaceflight until the ROS launches. Because we need to fly somewhere, the Soyuz spacecraft are small and have low endurance, and the Orel spacecraft isn't ready yet, and it's unclear when it will be.

After the ISS, not only will there be no point, but there will be no piloting at all.
But let's say. Let's say everything went perfectly, they attached two new modules to Nauka, then detached the entire structure and set it free to float.
But for some reason, the media stubbornly keeps silent about the question: where will the spacecraft launch to this very ROS? And which ones? Soyuz from the territory alien states? Or Orel from the East with a whole bunch of problems security astronauts in case of an emergency?

[Disant]

with a whole bunch of problems regarding the safety of astronauts

What's wrong with you again? What have you done wrong?

[Intelligence]

Quote: Disant

What's wrong with you again? What have you done wrong?

And I see everything is like this with you? I wonder where it is - with you?
In Russia, it's enough to look at the PTK launch route from Vostochny, the areas where the stages fell, and the latitude of the Russian Far East – 51,6°. While the situation regarding Yakutia is more or less clear (though still problematic), the Sea of ​​Okhotsk and the Pacific Ocean raise questions.
Yes, the A5P is equipped with a floating platform in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, 1360 km from the cosmodrome, to ensure emergency crew rescue. But there's only one. An accident could happen anywhere.
The number of Russian search and rescue vessels is extremely limited, and they cannot be on duty along the entire route at the same time.
The arrival time of rescuers can take several hours or more, which is critical for the crew's survival in cold water.
For your information: when launching from Baikonur, the route goes over land, and helicopters reach the landing site in 30-40 minutes.

[Disant]

And the number of Russian search and rescue vessels is extremely limited

So what's the problem with increasing their numbers? The first launches won't be until 29-30. All the country's shipyards are currently full of ships under construction—they know how to build them, and how to buy them, too. Plus, there are naval bases there.
You're making this problem out of nothing.

When launched from Baikonur... helicopters reach the landing site in 30-40 minutes

Well, these same helicopters will no longer be on duty at the Baikonur launch site. They will be moved to the new cosmodrome's launch site.

[Intelligence]

Are you familiar with this route? At least in general terms? Do you know where it will be? How far from the shore?
Mi-8 and Ka-32 helicopters operate perfectly over land because of the infrastructure, predictable weather, and the ability to make emergency landings. The Sea of ​​Okhotsk and the Pacific Ocean, 1000+ kilometers offshore, are open waters with storms, fog, and subzero temperatures.
The operational range of a search helicopter with equipment and rescuers in such conditions is strictly limited. It simply has nowhere to land or refuel in the middle of the ocean. Without a floating base (that very vessel), a helicopter over the open sea is useless and becomes a target for rescue. "Transferring" them there is physically impossible.
Are the shipyards overcrowded? I wonder what they're doing? Is it the construction of specialized search-and-rescue ships (SRS) for cosmonauts? Is it the construction of highly sophisticated ships equipped with pressure chambers, deep-sea equipment, dynamic positioning systems, and capable of operating in storms? Or is it the Navy's orders (frigates, corvettes, submarines) and nuclear icebreakers—the state's top priorities?
But how can we keep such a fleet of SSS on 24/7 alert for the sake of one or two launches per year? No ministry will allocate a budget for this, because it's economically absurd, a financial black hole.
As for buying... It won't work with Norway, for example, due to sanctions. What about China? Does it even have such a rare, expensive product (which still needs to be adapted to our conditions) available for sale? You might want to check.
Replacing complex engineering and economic realities with simple slogans like "let's just build it" and "let's just move it" isn't an option. Especially when you're personally responsible for something—with your position, your epaulettes, your head.
We don't live in a fairy tale. Here, "at the pike's command, at my own will" won't work.

[Disant]

By building highly complex ships equipped with pressure chambers, deep-sea equipment, dynamic positioning systems, and capable of operating in storms?

pressure chambers We make a lot of them. The Navy even installs them on the Grachonka. It's modular equipment.
about positioning - They lassoed the capsule with a high-speed boat and pulled it toward them/the rescue vessel with a rope. This is the most rational solution. Are there any ships in the world that can accurately position themselves in storm conditions? I think only oil platforms, which don't care where the waves are coming from.
storm is excluded from launch windowsDo the Americans also launch crews in storms? Of course not—they "position" themselves in calm weather, both during launches and during recovery, even emergency ones. We also install bow thrusters on our ships. For example, relatively inexpensive old or new sea minesweepers. They can be commissioned from scratch in a year and a half.

Construction of the most complex ships

building standard naval ships. Just like an experienced salesperson, you often use a lot of adjectives that enhance or highlight the product.

[Disant]

The arrival time of rescuers can take several hours or more, which is critical for the crew's survival in cold water.

Do they need to urgently exit the ship's capsule?

[Intelligence]

Quote: Disant

Do they need to urgently exit the ship's capsule?

They cannot "emergency exit" on their own (this is prohibited by regulations due to the risk of injury and hypothermia upon contact with water), so they must be urgently retrieved by rescuers. This is why the presence of rescue vessels on standby directly at the crash site is essential. an essential condition for admission to a manned launch.
The SA is not a thermos or a submarine. It's designed to withstand the colossal heat of atmospheric reentry for 10-15 minutes, not for prolonged immersion in icy water. What if rescuers are late?
1. Water conducts heat away from the human body approximately 25 times faster than air. Even with emergency heating pads, the thermal insulation of the capsule is not designed to withstand hours of immersion in water at temperatures close to 0°C. The capsule will quickly turn into a refrigerator.
2. During rough seas, saltwater will inevitably begin to seep in. This will short-circuit onboard electronics, disrupt communication systems, and create an icy, wet environment inside the cramped cabin.
3. The life support system has a limited resource. Batteries, chemical oxygen sources, and water reserves in the spacecraft are designed for emergency operation for a limited time (usually up to 24–48 hours under normal land landing conditions). Under conditions of hypothermia, stress, and possible water ingress, these resources degrade or are depleted many times faster.
4. After a ballistic reentry (which is inevitable in an emergency), cosmonauts experience severe G-forces. They may suffer hidden compression injuries to the spine. The shaking of the capsule on ocean waves in icy water, in cramped conditions, and in a heavy spacesuit greatly increases the risk of pain shock.
5. Finally, can I remind you of the dramatic story of Soyuz-23? On October 16, 1976, the Soyuz-23 spacecraft made an emergency landing at night on the frozen Lake Tengiz in the steppe, with temperatures reaching -20°C and strong winds. The capsule broke through the ice and began to sink. The crew (Lazarev and Makarov) miraculously survived only thanks to the heroism of the divers, who, in the icy water and complete darkness, manually pulled the heavy capsule out and opened the hatches. The cosmonauts were on the verge of frostbite and death. And that was it. fresh a lake, not a raging salty sea.
Yes, the Orel was significantly modified to withstand the possibility of an emergency landing in the Pacific Ocean. It was given positive buoyancy, and its communications equipment was redesigned.
But I recommend reading the interview with the spacecraft's Chief Designer. Igor Khamits stated that the crew will be able to safely remain inside the reentry vehicle for up to 48 hours (two days) after an emergency splashdown. The air supply, power supply, and communications equipment are designed for this length of time. Sounds normal? Yes.
But there is one interesting nuance.
In the same interview, Hamitz admitted that at that time, the search and rescue system for such a scenario was still being developed. That is, the ship was designed with the ability to land on water, but at the same time, organize a maritime search and rescue force capable of quickly reaching the landing point in the Pacific OceanIn other words, emergency splashdown is a designed operational mode for Orel. However, its practical effectiveness depends not only on the ship itself, but also on readiness of the maritime search and rescue infrastructure to quickly locate and evacuate the crew.
That's what I'm trying to get across.

[Disant]

After ballistic descent (Unavoidable in an emergency), cosmonauts experience severe G-forces. They may suffer hidden compression injuries to the spine. The shaking of the capsule on ocean waves, in icy water, in cramped conditions, and in a heavy spacesuit greatly increases the risk of pain shock.

As far as I understand, a ballistic descent, as applied to the Soyuz, can occur at altitudes between the release of the payload fairing and the release of the second stage. The release of the second stage occurs at a range of 500 km, at an altitude of 150 km. This will happen before Khabarovsk. There's no sign of oceans or seas here. I think the same thing will happen with the eagle.

[Intelligence]

Do you even understand what you're talking about? What does the Union have to do with this? Orel can only work in conjunction with A5P.
Now I recommend you take another look at the A5P exit route from Vostochny. If you have any trouble, so be it, I'll do it for you to close the topic.
1. First stage operation (0-90 sec). Range: ~300–400 km. Geography: Amur Oblast, southern Yakutia (land). First stage impact area: ground. Risk to the crew: minimal; SAS diverts the launch vehicle to land.
2. Second stage burn (90 sec - ~8 min). Range: 400 km to 2500–3000 km. Altitude: 70 km to orbital altitudes of 200–400 km. Geography: The path is northeast, over the Sea of ​​Okhotsk and the Pacific Ocean. Second stage impact area: Sea of ​​Okhotsk / Pacific Ocean. Risk to the crew: criticalIf a failure occurs at this point, the SAS ejects the capsule, which makes a ballistic descent into the water.
3. Orel's separation from the second stage (~8 minutes). This occurs over the Pacific Ocean or the Sea of ​​Okhotsk. Orel enters a reference orbit. Then, either normal operation or an emergency descent.
To reach the first cosmic velocity (7,9 km/s) from a latitude of 51,8° to an orbit at 51,6°, the rocket must fly northeast, and this trajectory physically cannot be over land alone. The risk of splashdown remains. Any failure during the second stage's burn (over the sea/ocean) would mean an emergency separation of the Orel and a splashdown in icy water. The problem of rescue infrastructure remains. Russia does not have a fleet of specialized rescue vessels capable of maintaining watch along the entire ocean route.
The figures given are, of course, calculated and theoretical, since at 70 years of age I may not live to see a real flight of the A5P with telemetry data.

[Disant]

Do you even understand what you're writing about? What does this have to do with anything? unionOryol can only work in conjunction with A5P

of course.
I was only talking about the ships and the comparison of the proposed a5p cyclogram.

3. Orel's separation from the second stage (~8 minutes). This occurs over the Pacific Ocean or the Sea of ​​Okhotsk. Orel enters the reference orbit.

On a regular A5 hangar, the second stage fell off after 5 minutes and 25 seconds. The altitude was 140 km/h, the speed was 12000 km/h. On a Soyuz rocket, the altitude was 150 km, the speed was 14000 km, and the range from the cosmodrome was 500 km.
You probably wanted to write about the third one.

[Intelligence]

quote=Disant]You probably wanted to write about the third one[/quote]
Yes, of course.

[Intelligence]

Quote: Disant

You probably wanted to write about the third one.

Yes, of course.

[Disant]

In other words, emergency splashdown is a designed operational mode for Orel. However, its practical effectiveness depends not only on the ship itself, but also on the readiness of the maritime search and rescue infrastructure quickly locate and evacuate the crew.
That's what I'm trying to get across.

We've already discussed this. You're talking about the present, but the launches will be in the future. And there are no obstacles to building rescue infrastructure.
money - maybe yes - it will be more expensive - there will be more emergency funds

[Intelligence]

Quote: Disant

There are no obstacles to building rescue infrastructure.

?
Why do you think so?
Are you aware there's a war going on? Where's all the money going? What's the budget situation?
Are you aware that even the previous Communist Party was mercilessly emasculated several times by sequestration? Back when there was no war?
Take a look at the current Russian Federation State Program "Space Activities in Russia" (through 2030). Just be careful. I assure you, you'll find plenty to laugh about.

[SergeySmirnov3663]

You'd think our feud started yesterday and we suddenly found out that the Americans are not our friends.
The problems started before 14, and we still kiss their asses.
It is possible to move into a partnership with China.
And not to bow before someone who will ALWAYS be our enemy.

[Starover_Z]

So, despite all the political differences between Russia and the United States, space remains one of the few areas where dialogue is still ongoing.

Is it really true that after all these years of flights, the Americans haven’t documented all of our space technologies and developments?

[solovjoff]

Isn't it time to stop this disgrace and waste of knowledge and developments?!

[Hole puncher]

Quote: solovjoff

Isn't it time to stop this disgrace and waste of knowledge and developments?!

It is possible only by sacrificing manned spaceflight.

[solovjoff]

It’s very interesting, how is our manned space exploration vitally tied to the USA?

[APASUS]

Help the US more, and they will be even better at targeting us with missiles and drones.

[isv000]

Maybe it's time to build our own station? Not the 753-meter-long Lakhta-2, but modules? Or is that something else entirely?!

[Paragraph]

As usual, it will come back to bite us.

[gsev]

With this elegant move, the US is attempting to slow down the development of a Russian analogue of Starlink. It makes sense for Russia to end its cooperation with the US in space to force the US to focus on preserving the viability of the ISS instead of launching reconnaissance satellites against Russia and Iran.