Pok-Kai NASA need to Loong-Pang Russian Soyuz back to Earth, via Kazakhstan

[csjcsjcsj]

NASA's Pok-Kai budget have no more return vehicle from space after their Space Shuttles service lifespan expired.

Russia wanted to split with NASA and divide the Russian ISS space station aparts from NASA's portions and abandon NASA, and each have separated space programs. Russians now want to work with Chinese in their newer space programs, because Chinese have budgets and strengths. NASA panic because the American portion of ISS fully depending on Russian portions to supply rocket fuels, that NASA portion of space capsules already RAN OUT OF PROPELLANT FUEL, that means, it can not stay in orbit by it's own nor control it's own speed nor positions, and currently NASA portion cling on Russian portions like PARASITE! Putin does not want NASA parasite!


http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/space-station-crew-back-o/2564962.html


Space station crew back on Earth after record US spaceflight
NASA astronaut Scott Kelly and Russian cosmonaut Mikhail Kornienko returned to Earth on Wednesday after nearly a year on the International Space Station, the longest U.S. space mission on record, intended to pave the way for human travel to Mars.

Posted 02 Mar 2016 12:56 Updated 02 Mar 2016 14:10

PHOTOS

A Soyuz capsule carrying International Space Station (ISS) crew members U.S. astronaut Scott Kelly, Russian cosmonauts Sergei Volkov and Mikhail Korniyenko descends beneath a parachute near the town of Dzhezkazgan (Zhezkazgan), Kazakhstan, March 2, 2016. REUTERS/Kirill Kudryavtsev/Pool
U.S. astronaut Scott Kelly (R) and Russian cosmonauts Sergei Volkov (C) and Mikhail Korniyenko, surrounded by ground personnel, rest shortly after landing near the town of Dzhezkazgan (Zhezkazgan), Kazakhstan, March 2, 2016. REUTERS/Kirill Kudryavtsev/Pool TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY
Ground personnel help U.S. astronaut Scott Kelly to get out of a Soyuz capsule shortly after landing near the town of Dzhezkazgan (Zhezkazgan), Kazakhstan, March 2, 2016. REUTERS/Kirill Kudryavtsev/Pool
Russian cosmonaut Mikhail Korniyenko speaks shortly after landing near the town of Dzhezkazgan (Zhezkazgan), Kazakhstan, March 2, 2016. REUTERS/Kirill Kudryavtsev/Pool
A Soyuz capsule carrying International Space Station (ISS) crew members U.S. astronaut Scott Kelly, Russian cosmonauts Sergei Volkov and Mikhail Korniyenko descends beneath a parachute near the town of Dzhezkazgan (Zhezkazgan), Kazakhstan, March 2, 2016. REUTERS/Kirill Kudryavtsev/Pool
Ground personnel carry Russian cosmonaut Mikhail Korniyenko shortly after landing near the town of Dzhezkazgan (Zhezkazgan), Kazakhstan, March 2, 2016. REUTERS/Kirill Kudryavtsev/Pool

prev
next

Thumbnail
Enlarge
Caption

Email More

A A

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla./ALMATY: NASA astronaut Scott Kelly and Russian cosmonaut Mikhail Kornienko returned to Earth on Wednesday after nearly a year on the International Space Station, the longest U.S. space mission on record, intended to pave the way for human travel to Mars.

A Soyuz capsule carrying Kelly, Kornienko and Sergey Volkov, another Russian cosmonaut, made a parachute landing on the steppe near the Kazakh city of Zhezkazgan at 10:26 a.m. (0426 GMT), about 3-1/2 hours after departing the station.

Kelly and Kornienko have been aboard the space station for 340 days, about twice as long as previous crews. Their flight sets a record for the space station and for the longest U.S. space mission.

Volkov, who has been in space for 5-1/2 months, was the first to emerge from the capsule, to be greeted by his father Alexander Volkov, also a cosmonaut.

Kelly, extracted next, waved his hand energetically and smiled before beginning a satellite telephone conversation.

In their nearly year-long stay in space, Kelly, 52, and Kornienko, 55, have been the subjects of dozens of medical experiments and science studies trying to learn more about how the human body adjusts to weightlessness and the high-radiation environment of space.

The research aims to help the U.S. space agency and its partners develop plans for eventual human missions to Mars that will last at least two years.

Kelly and his identical twin brother Mark, a former NASA astronaut, are also participating in genetic studies, the first to assess if genetic changes occur during long spaceflights.

Kelly’s 340-day mission eclipses the previous U.S. record-long spaceflight of 215 days, set by former astronaut Michael Lopez-Alegria aboard the space station in 2007.

The world’s longest missions were carried out by four Soviet-era cosmonauts aboard the now-defunct Mir space station, including a flight from January 1994 to March 1995, spanning nearly 438 days by record holder Valeri Polyakov, a physician.

The International Space Station, a joint project of the United States, Russia, Europe, Japan and Canada, followed Mir and has been permanently staffed by rotating crews since 2000.

About the size of a five-bedroom house, the US$100-billion station flies about 250 miles (400 km) above Earth.

(Reporting by Irene Klotz and Olzhas Auyezov; Editing by Grant McCool and Clarence Fernandez)

- Reuters

 

[csjcsjcsj]

http://space.stackexchange.com/ques...iss-to-russian-and-nasa-side-than-pure-logica


Is there any other reason to split ISS to Russian and NASA side than pure logical?
up vote
9
down vote
favorite


While browsing this site, I saw several references to "Russian side of ISS" and several questions arised in my head. The root question is:

Is there any other reason to split ISS to Russian and NASA side than pure logical?

Examples. In normal mission day on ISS (standard procedures, no emergency):

Can astronaut freely move wherever they want on ISS? (In their free time)
Do Russian astronaut sleep in Russiann side, while NASA/ESA ones sleep in their side?
Is "sleepover" allowed? (Russian astronaut sleeping in NASA side. Zero-G pillow fight involved)
Are there separate Russian/NASA missions or is there only one "common" mission ivolving astronauts from all nationalities?

Edit: By pure logical, I mean, that I am assuming answer: "Russian side of ISS is called Russian simply because Russians did put it up there"
iss
shareimprove this question

edited Mar 29 '15 at 7:35
EchoLogic
3,3361345

asked Mar 27 '15 at 7:12
Pavel Janicek
634412



youtube.com/watch?v=UyFYgeE32f0 – Deer Hunter Mar 27 '15 at 9:00


Free time? What is free time?? Please also see youtube.com/watch?v=doN4t5NKW-k – Deer Hunter Mar 27 '15 at 9:03


@DeerHunter : I am convinced that astronauts are given some free time just for relax – Pavel Janicek Mar 27 '15 at 9:07


was joking. Yes they do have some free time. Spend much of it in the Cupola. – Deer Hunter Mar 27 '15 at 9:08


BTW, thanks for the videos. At least one of my silly questions is answered. Passport are not necessary to enter Russian side – Pavel Janicek Mar 27 '15 at 10:07
show 1 more comment
2 Answers
active
oldest
votes
up vote
7
down vote
accepted


In order:

Astronauts and cosmonauts can and do move freely between the two segments. It's one crew and one station; it's not a Russian station docked to a US station.
Crew can sleep in each others' segments. There are two crew quarters on the Russian segment and four on the US segment, and typically three Russian cosmonauts aboard, so there's normally at least one Russian cosmonaut sleeping in USOS. US astronauts used to sleep in Zvezda routinely back when there was a crew of 3 and only the two quarters in Zvezda, but now I think Zvezda is mostly Roscosmos (since the non-Russians can all use Harmony).
As mentioned, crew can have quarters in each others' segments. I'm not sure what you mean by "sleepovers;" you won't see crew sharing quarters (they're a) not big and b) the only private area on the whole station), but crew could sleep anywhere on the station if needed (you just need a bag to keep yourself from drifting off). However, I don't imagine this is horribly common to do for fun, because you're already living with crewmates -- a sleepover doesn't really add much to that.
While there are Russian missions, US missions, ESA missions, etc. (each partner can run its own scientific missions), the crew also does a number of joint experiments. If Roscosmos or NASA is running an experiment, it'll likely be their own crew doing it; joint experiments are done jointly. Station maintenance seems to be a joint activity.

The Russian segment and USOS differ in a few ways. For one, there are engineering differences between the two; there are compatibility circuits installed. They generally have different docking/berthing connectors. They have different spacesuits. Different modules are controlled by different agencies. Most of the Russian orbital segment belongs to Roscosmos (Zarya is NASA-owned). So there are differences between the two; it's a useful distinction to make for some purposes. But it's still fundamentally one station.
shareimprove this answer

 

[csjcsjcsj]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/spa...russia-refuses-to-fly-us-astronauts-16555991/

What Happens If Russia Refuses to Fly U.S. Astronauts?
Russian Soyuz flights are NASA's only way to get astronauts to and from the International Space Station. What happens if they cut us off?
Most Popular
By Michael Belfiore
Mar 3, 2014

Kirill Kudryavtsev/AFP/Getty Images

With tensions escalating between Russia and Ukraine, the pressure is on President Obama to do more than issue stern warnings to the Russian government. Economic sanctions are one possible action, but one that could put the squeeze not only on Russia but also the U.S. manned space program.

Since the space shuttle retired in 2011, NASA has had no native human spaceflight capability. With no other options, NASA has relied on the Russian Federal Space Agency and its Soyuz rockets and spacecraft to get astronauts to and from the International Space Station, at a cost of tens of millions of dollars per seat. Any strong move by the U.S. in response to the Crimean crisis could spell the end of Americans flying on Russian spaceships, at least until tensions ease. NASA and its commercial partners have some projects in the works that can fill the gap, should Russia refuse to fly our astronauts. But these are at least two to three years from operational status. Depending on how the Russian-Ukraine crisis develops, those could be two to three years with no Americans in space.

At the moment, most of NASA's human spaceflight resources are focused on the government-owned Space Launch System, or SLS. This was conceived as a deep-space rocket and spacecraft designed to send humans beyond low Earth orbit for the first time since the last astronauts left the moon in 1972. Although not specifically intended to send crews and supplies to the International Space Station, it could do so if necessary.

Unfortunately, SLS, which is consuming about $3 billion of NASA's annual budget, won't be ready to fly crew until 2021. And after that, it will be able to fly missions only once every four years under the current development schedule. So the multiple flights per year needed to maintain the International Space Station won't happen with SLS unless things change.

NASA's commercial crew program is a more promising alternative for flying Americans into space in American-built spacecraft. So far, NASA has split about $1.4 billion between a number of private companies trying to develop new manned spaceships (not counting the money spent on the cargo program that was the crew program's precursor). The companies receiving money under a program called Commercial Crew Integrated Capability, or CCiCap, are SpaceX, Boeing, and Sierra Nevada Corporation.

SpaceX is the leader of the pack, having already sent cargo to the ISS. SpaceX engineers designed the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon space capsule with crew in mind from the beginning, and the company is now working with NASA to add crew accommodations and escape rockets to the Dragon. Boeing is at work on a crew capsule called the CST-100, while Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser is the most shuttle-like of the commercial vehicles in development—its lifting body shape makes it steerable as a glider when returning to Earth. The current schedule has NASA choosing one or two of these companies this summer to complete a working crew-carrying spacecraft by 2017.

The big question is: Could NASA accelerate this schedule if it had to? We asked Jeff Foust, an analyst with the Futron Corporation and a long-time observer of the commercial spaceflight industry. "I don't think you would be able accelerate it that much," he says, "maybe 2016, maybe 2015. That's getting into the timeframe when the companies are anticipating their initial test flights... So if things got shut off now, there would still be an extended period of time when you wouldn't be able to do flights to the ISS."

Henry Hertzfeld, Professor of Space Policy and International Affairs at the George Washington University Space Policy Institute, expressed optimism that the situation won't come to that. "On the positive side," he says, "the ISS is an international partnership of 14 nations that includes Russia. Between that agreement and other space agreements that stress cooperation and peaceful uses of space, we and Russia may put a higher priority on that arrangement and access for all astronauts may be spared any direct impact from the political problems. I'm not making predictions, but at least we can hope that will happen."

 

[csjcsjcsj]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_International_Space_Station

Politics of the International Space Station
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Primary contributing nations
Formerly contracted nations
Allocation of US Orbital Segment hardware usage between contributors

Politics of the International Space Station begins with the 1972 milestone in co-operation between the United States and the Soviet Union in space, the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. This cooperative venture resulted in the July 1975 docking of Soyuz 19 with an Apollo spacecraft. From 1978 to 1987, the USSR's Interkosmos programme included allied Warsaw Pact countries, and countries which were not Soviet allies, such as India, Syria and France, in manned and unmanned missions to Space stations Salyut 6 and 7. In 1986 the USSR extended this co-operation to a dozen countries in the Mir programme. From 1994 to 1998, NASA Space Shuttles and crew visited MIR in the Shuttle–Mir Programme. In 1998 the ISS programme began.[citation needed]

In March 2012, a meeting in Quebec City between the leaders of the Canadian Space Agency and those from Japan, Russia, the United States and involved European nations resulted in a renewed pledge to maintain the International Space Station until at least 2020. NASA reports to be still committed to the principles of the mission but also to use the station in new ways, which were not elaborated. CSA President Steve MacLean stated his belief that the station's Canadarm will continue to function properly until 2028, alluding to Canada's likely extension of its involvement beyond 2020.[1]

Ownership of modules, station usage by participant nations, and responsibilities for station resupply are established by the Space Station Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). This international treaty was signed on 28 January 1998 by the United States of America, Russia, Japan, Canada and eleven member states of the European Space Agency (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom).[2][3] With the exception of the United Kingdom, all of the signatories went on to contribute to the Space Station project. A second layer of agreements was then achieved, called Memoranda of Understanding (MOU), between NASA and ESA, CSA, RKA and JAXA. These agreements are then further split, such as for the contractual obligations between nations, and trading of partners' rights and obligations.[3] Use of the Russian Orbital Segment is also negotiated at this level.[4]
Dated January 29, 1998

In addition to these main intergovernmental agreements, Brazil originally joined the programme as a bilateral partner of the United States by a contract with NASA to supply hardware.[5] In return, NASA would provide Brazil with access to its ISS facilities on-orbit, as well as a flight opportunity for one Brazilian astronaut during the course of the ISS programme. However, due to cost issues, the subcontractor Embraer was unable to provide the promised ExPrESS pallet, and Brazil left the programme in 2007.[6] Italy has a similar contract with NASA to provide comparable services, although Italy also takes part in the programme directly via its membership in ESA.[7] Expanding the partnership would require unanimous agreement of the existing partners. Chinese participation has been prevented by unilateral US opposition.[8][9] The heads of both the South Korean and Indian space agency ISRO announced at the first plenary session of the 2009 International Astronautical Congress that their nations wished to join the ISS programme, with talks due to begin in 2010. The heads of agency also expressed support for extending ISS lifetime.[10] European countries not part of the programme will be allowed access to the station in a three-year trial period, ESA officials say.[11]

The Russian part of the station is operated and controlled by the Russian Federation's space agency and provides Russia with the right to nearly one-half of the crew time for the ISS. The allocation of remaining crew time (three to four crew members of the total permanent crew of six) and hardware within the other sections of the station is as follows: Columbus: 51% for the ESA, 46.7% for NASA, and 2.3% for CSA.[3] Kibō: 51% for the JAXA, 46.7% for NASA, and 2.3% for CSA.[12] Destiny: 97.7% for NASA and 2.3% for CSA.[13] Crew time, electrical power and rights to purchase supporting services (such as data upload and download and communications) are divided 76.6% for NASA, 12.8% for JAXA, 8.3% for ESA, and 2.3% for CSA.[3][12][13][14][15]
China
Further information: Chinese exclusion policy of NASA

China is not an ISS partner, and no Chinese nationals have been aboard. China has its own contemporary manned space programme, Project 921, and has carried out co-operation and exchanges with countries such as Russia and Germany in manned and unmanned space projects.[16][17] China launched its first experimental space station,[18] Tiangong 1, in September 2011,[19] and has officially initiated the permanently manned Chinese space station project.[20]

In 2007, Chinese vice-minister of science and technology Li Xueyong said that China would like to participate in the ISS.[21] In 2010, ESA Director-General Jean-Jacques Dordain stated his agency was ready to propose to the other 4 partners that China be invited to join the partnership, but that this needs to be a collective decision by all the current partners.[22] While ESA is open to China's inclusion, the US is against it. US concerns over the transfer of technology that could be used for military purposes echo similar concerns over Russia's participation prior to its membership.[23] Concerns over Russian involvement were overcome and NASA became solely dependent upon Russian crew capsules when its shuttles were grounded after the Columbia accident in 2003,[24] and again after its retirement in 2011.[25][26] The Chinese government has voiced a belief that international exchanges and co-operation in the field of aerospace engineering should be intensified on the basis of mutual benefit, peaceful use and common development.[16] China's manned Shenzhou spacecraft use an APAS docking system, developed after a 1994–1995 deal for the transfer of Russian Soyuz spacecraft technology. Included in the agreement was training, provision of Soyuz capsules, life support systems, docking systems, and space suits. American observers comment that Shenzhou spacecraft could dock at the ISS if it became politically feasible, whilst Chinese engineers say work would still be required on the rendezvous system. Shenzhou 7 passed within about 50 kilometres of the ISS.[17][27][28]

American co-operation with China in space is limited, though efforts have been made by both sides to improve relations,[29] but in 2011 new American legislation further strengthened legal barriers to co-operation, preventing NASA co-operation with China or Chinese owned companies, even the expenditure of funds used to host Chinese visitors at NASA facilities, unless specifically authorised by new laws,[30] at the same time China, Europe and Russia have a co-operative relationship in several space exploration projects.[31] Between 2007 and 2011, the space agencies of Europe, Russia and China carried out the ground-based preparations in the Mars500 project, which complement the ISS-based preparations for a manned mission to Mars.[32]

 

[csjcsjcsj]

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...rom-visiting-the-iss-due-to-ukraine-sanctions


Russia will ban the US from visiting the ISS, due to Ukraine sanctions

By Sebastian Anthony on May 14, 2014 at 8:40 am
Comment

The International Space Station
Share This article

Welcome to Cold War 2, folks. Following increased diplomatic tensions over Russia’s annexation of the Ukraine’s Crimea, Russia is threatening to ban the US from using the International Space Station. Furthermore, and perhaps more significantly in the short term, Russia will ban the US from buying the Russian RD-180 rocket engines that are currently used by the ULA’s Atlas V launcher to put the US military’s satellites into space. These sanctions, issued by Russia’s deputy prime minister Dmitry Rogozin, come in response to the US’s own sanctions that restrict exports to Russia. If you thought that the International Space Station — the most significant testimony of US-Russia cooperation following the Cold War — would be exempt from this geopolitical tit-for-tat, you were sadly mistaken.

Russia’s threats are perfectly timed. Since the Space Shuttle was retired in 2011, the only way that astronauts and cosmonauts can travel to and from the ISS is via the Russian Soyuz spacecraft. Just this morning, the three crew members of ISS Expedition 39 returned to Earth via a Soyuz capsule after spending 188 days in space. A couple of weeks ago, following the US first sanctioned Russia over the Crimea crisis, Rogozin said that “I suggest the US delivers its astronauts to the ISS with a trampoline.” At the time we thought it was just a joke — but now, Rogozin says that Moscow will reject America’s request to access the ISS after 2020, and will ban the US from using the Russian rocket engines that currently lift the Atlas V launch system into space. Russia will also shut down the 11 GPS ground stations within its borders, but this is more likely a direct response to the US not allowing Russia to build GLONASS ground stations within its borders.
ISS module configuration

ISS module configuration. The Russian portion is in the top left (aft), while the US section is in the bottom right (forward).

It isn’t entirely clear how Russia will prevent the US from accessing the ISS after 2020. It can stop carrying US astronauts in its Soyuz spacecraft, that’s for sure. But by 2020, it’s highly likely that the US will have an alternative method of reaching the ISS, via SpaceX’s manned Dragon craft. NASA’s Orion (kind of the Space Shuttle replacement) probably won’t be ready for manned flight until at least 2021. It might be that Rogozin isn’t even referring to the transport of US astronauts aboard Soyuz, though. “The Russian segment can exist independently from the American one. The US one cannot,” Rogozin said yesterday. Sadly he didn’t expand any further, but I believe he’s referring to the fact that the ISS is made up of many different modules — and without the Russian module Zvezda, which provides a number of critical systems, the US portion of the ISS would be dead weight. Russia might choose to disconnect its portion of the ISS, preventing the US from using its half. Dastardly.
The Atlas V launch vehicle uses two Russian RD-180 rocket engines

The Atlas V launch vehicle uses two Russian RD-180 rocket engines

Whether Russia will actually follow through with these sanctions it’s hard to say. The Russian space agency, Roscosmos, currently makes a lot of money selling RD-180 ($10 million) and Soyuz seats ($60 million each!) to the US. Meanwhile, US Congress is talking about developing its own first-stage engine for the Atlas V, and SpaceX’s Elon Musk wants to swoop in and grab the entire market with its cheap Falcon 9 launch system. Russia probably thinks that these sanctions would put the hurt on the US’s space interests, but in reality it is incredibly stupid (or brave) to challenge our fair nation’s ego. The Soviet Union and the US were much more evenly matched during the first Cold War — today, there is a huge technological disparity in favor of the Americans.
The launch of CRS-1, SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket carrying Dragon spacecraft

SpaceX stands to gain a lot of business if Russia follows through with its sanctions on US space travel

If Russia moves ahead with these sanctions, the best-case scenario is that it screws itself out of hundreds of millions of dollars. Worst-case, the US could be lured into starting a whole new space race, to achieve independence from Russia’s rocket engines and spacecraft, and to prove to the pinkos that there’s only one goddamn superpower on the planet that can bully other nations and get away with it. Don’t get me wrong: Cold War 2 would be awful for the world, but it would instantly and utterly solve NASA’s funding issues.

 

[csjcsjcsj]

ISS propulsion module belongs to Putin, not Obama!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISS_Propulsion_Module

ISS Propulsion Module
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
This article needs additional citations for verification. (January 2012)
This article is outdated. (January 2015)
ISS Propulsion Module (NASA)

The ISS Propulsion module was proposed as a backup to functions performed by the Zvezda Service Module and Progress spacecraft. Critical ISS functionality such as guidance, navigation, control and propulsion are provided only by Russian (Zvezda and Progress) and the European (ATV).[1] A Propulsion Module would have been needed for ISS altitude maintenance and reboost, debris avoidance maneuvers, attitude control and propellant supply in the event the Zvezda Service Module was not available (launch failure, etc.) to the International Space Station. If the Zvezda had not been available, the Interim Control Module would have been used at first. It only had a lifetime of three years; then the Propulsion Module would have been necessary.

The ISS requires an average 7,000 kg of propellant each year for altitude maintenance, debris avoidance and attitude control. Based on current usage, it will need 105,000 kg through 2014. A Propulsion Module would have provided reserve propellant for one year of ISS orbit life in case of supply interruption. A Propulsion Module would have been attached to the Unity node of the ISS.

Multiple supply vehicles are required to satisfy the ISS's 7,000 kg annual average propellant need. The current plan for six Progress M1 spacecraft per year meets that need.

The Propulsion Module would hold 9808 kg fuel. Progress M holds 1100 kg; Progress M1 holds 1950 kg. ESA ATV holds 4,000 kg. The cancelled U.S. Interim Control Module holds 5000 kg of fuel. A Shuttle Orbiter ISS generic reboost had 232 kg of fuel available. An Orbiter Max reboost mission had 1626 kg of reboost fuel available. Zarya FGB [Russian: ФГБ - Функциональный Грузовой Блок, English: Functional (or Operational) Cargo Block (or Module)] holds 5,500 kg and the Zvezda Service module holds 860 kg, however, it is generally preferred to keep the main thrusters on Zarya and Zvezda in reserve, as they have finite lifespans.

The Propulsion Module, besides being part of the backup plan for if the Service Module was not available, was intended to be an American-owned propulsion system for the station and planned as a late addition. However, the original design was over budget and late. An alternative design, the "Node X" design, which was built around an improperly fabricated hull intended for Node 2 or 3, was then proposed and tentatively included in the plan, designed with two detachable fuel modules that could be carried up and down in a Shuttle cargo bay for replacement to avoid the problems of transferring propellant between tanks in space. It has subsequently been deleted from the plans, instead requiring the station to rely on the ATV and Progress spacecraft for reboost. Furthermore, in the wake of the Shuttle's retirement, further redesign of the Propulsion Module would have been necessary.
See also