"Herb Schaltegger" wrote in
message .com...
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 14:50:51 -0500, John Doe wrote
(in article ):

(Snipped more and more handwaving)

I've identified the issues. Neither you nor ESA (for that matter)
cannot simply toss around some terminology and in effect ignore the
interface issues. SHOW ME the physical interface specs for Ariane V
and STS and SHOW ME the standard vibrational, acoustic and thermal
loads for Ariane V within your hypothetical 15' diameter payload shroud
and truss (necessary to support Columbus and every other ISS segment).
It's not what matters on top of the booster, it's what matters at the
interfaces. You speak of "worse" environments - it's not about
"better" or "worse" it's about "different." For example, lower
amplitude vibrations (e.g., "better") may in fact be "worse" because
they cause a resonance in the structure of the module or the endcones,
standoffs, racks, hardware within the racks, or whatever. Until a
design for your hypothetical STS replacement structure is complete,
this is all (repeat after me) HANDWAVING.

Of course, you do have to take all the issues you present into account.
However, it's entirely possible that after analyzing the problem that you
may find that the changes to the Columbus structure could be minimal to
allow launch on top of Ariane. But you would still have to re-run all of
your structural/dynamic analyses with the new restraints and loadings on the
structure. Even if zero changes were necessary, which even I doubt, the
cost of certifying the structure is o.k. to launch on Ariane would still be
somewhat time consuming and costly (a $million here, a $million there...).

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.