Roskosmos chief Anatoly Perminov said at the International Space Congress in Vancouver that according to Russia's federal space program for 2009-2018, Russia is going to develop a new orbital basic platform available for cosmonauts.
The Roskosmos chief said the new orbital platform "is particularly meant for development and tests of perspective interplanetary complexes and for testing the complex of new generation transport and hardware systems." The Roskosmos release reports that the complex will include a reusable system for orbiting freight and new braking mechanisms for freight delivery to the Earth and to planets.
+ Read Article (Pravda)
Posted by jburk at October 14, 2026 11:54 AM | TrackBack
"Anatoly Perminov believes that assembly and launching of a manned complex to Moon and Mars must be done on the orbit. This in its turn requires creation of an assembly platform..."
On orbit assembly of Moon bound and especially Mars bound manned expeditions would be needed if a heavy launch vehicle is not available, that I would agree with.
But the idea that an assembly platform is required for such on orbit assembly is in my mind out of date thinking. An orbiting “shipyard” is not needed to assemble a large spacecraft intended for a manned voyage to Mars. Ways of assembling this sort of complex on orbit without a shipyard have been demonstrated by several Mars voyage proposals put forth by various space advocacy groups. MIR was assembled on orbit without a shipyard, as ISS is being assembled without a shipyard.
Whatever this platforms use is, I don’t see it being advantageous for the stated purpose. It would seem to absorb funds that could otherwise be used developing the aforementioned Moon and Mars ships.
What are the Russians up to?
I disagree with Dogsbd over the usefullness of a manned orbital platform for orbital assembly of interplanetary missions. A manned platform provides more flexibility for manned, RPV or oversight of automated orbital assembly than running operations from the ground. Using a HLV type booster to loft a few modules for automated orbital assembly may be the simplest way for mounting the first manned Mars mission, but what about the least expensive way? Or missions other than a Mars landing? I'm afraid over-reliance on an expendable HLV would lead into an Apollo style mission design dead end.
I can only see one possible advantage this new Russian "manned complex" for interplanetary mission support would have over the ISS. The ISS orbital inclination is inferior for mounting interplanetary missions, so perhaps the Russians anticipate placing this new complex into a lower orbital inclination by launching it from the European Space Agency spaceport in South America.
But aside from the technical reasons for the Russian proposal, I think the key Russian motivation is international financial support. Simply said, the Russians want to lead interplanetary manned space exploration and can't afford it, so they want America to pay for it. Just like the Russians couldn't afford to keep the Soviet MIR station supported, so America conveniently paid for the ISS, which for all practical purposes is really just a Russian MIR II. In fact the leftover MIR II module is the core of the ISS.
Posted by: Brad Tyler at October 16, 2026 03:10 PM“I disagree with Dogsbd over the usefullness of a manned orbital platform for orbital assembly of interplanetary missions.”
Well I also disagree with the notion that a manned orbital platform would be useless, but I didn’t (or didn’t intend to) say it would be useless ;-)
My contention is that it would not offer enough usefulness to be cost effective. I agree that such a platform would be useful in such construction, but I don’t belief the degree of usefulness it affords justifies it’s cost. As for having a manned presence on the scene for certain assembly processes, this is possible without a manned orbital platform. For example: early in the assembly process of a manned vehicle intended for Mars voyage an “assembly crew” could board the vehicle/complex to aid in its assembly. They could conduct “spacewalks”, operate remote manipulator arms onsite etc. just as the crew of an manned orbital platform would do, but without the added cost of a separately maintained platform. It’s simply a matter of planning ahead for such a construction strategy.
As for an HLV, I believe that they could serve a purpose and could be cost effective if the HLV itself is based on an existing medium lift vehicle rather than a totally new design needing separate manufacturing facilities etc. But the above assembly strategy as I’ve described is not dependant on an HLV, it could be used for assembly of “modules” lofted by MLV as well.
“But aside from the technical reasons for the Russian proposal, I think the key Russian motivation is international financial support. Simply said, the Russians want to lead interplanetary manned space exploration and can't afford it, so they want America to pay for it. Just like the Russians couldn't afford to keep the Soviet MIR station supported, so America conveniently paid for the ISS, which for all practical purposes is really just a Russian MIR II. In fact the leftover MIR II module is the core of the ISS.”
On this we are in total agreement!