(Josh Gigantino) wrote in
om:

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
(Josh Gigantino) wrote in
om:

Obviously any new
Russian modules will go up on Proton, but I am assuming that would
not be feasible for Shuttle-manifested launches due to politics.

It's not just politics (although with the Iran Nonproliferation Act,
politics is indeed major). Proton can put around 19.5 tons into ISS
orbit, but the heaviest ISS modules (P3/P4, S3/S4, S6, and Kibo) are
in the 17 ton range. Even the smallest upper stage the Russians have
(the Progress M-CO1 used with Pirs, basically a Soyuz/Progress
service module) would be too heavy, and it may not even have enough
control authority - you'd want something like a FGB tug (used with
Kvant) instead.

Could an FGB dock with an appropriately modified module and manuever
it to ISS? I'm thinking of the Enterprise/Mir2 baseblock sitting in
storage.

Modifications would be required. FGB has but one active Kurs system (on the
"aft" end); the systems on the forward end are all passive. RCS
modifications would likely be required as well, since the main braking
engines are canted toward the aft end.

This would get around Iran Non-Prof (launch ISS modules from
Cape on Delta, FGB frm Baikonur) and could add even more capacity to
the station.

It would only get around the INPA if no payment from NASA to Russia was
involved. That includes through third-parties, IIRC. So it would have to be
a barter agreement, no cash involved. An example of this is how NASA is
keeping Soyuz flights going to ISS during the shuttle standdown: barter
deal with ESA on ISS utilization, in return for which ESA buys up all the
available "third seats" on Soyuz flights.

I've been studying Russian hardware some lately, and have reached a
stumbling block. I think it is a terminology issue. In Dragonfly,
Burroughs refers to several Mir modules as being "FGBs", here you have
refered to the Kvant as being delivered by FGB tug. Was this another
baseblock (w/ node, living quarters, etc) that was then destroyed, or
a stripped-down version? Does "FGB" refer to a hull design/lineage or
is it a capability (ie, station keeping, OMS, etc)?

It's a hull design/lineage, visually distinguished by four thermal
radiators arranged around a central cylinder, with a conical active docking
adapter at the aft end. The forward end is mission-specific. FGB modules
have no living quarters; life-support capability is provided by the base
module.

Examples of FGB-type modules:include TKS ferries, Salyut add-ons (Kosmos
1267, 1443, and 1686), Polyus propulsion module, Mir add-ons (Kvant, Kvant-
2, Kristall, Spektr, Priroda), and of course the ISS FGB. Of these, Kvant
is unique because the FGB propulsion system did not remain attached to Mir
after Kvant docked; it undocked and was deorbited later.

What
would be required to launch them on EELVs? Is there a third stage
that could deliver and dock the modules, or co-orbit for docking by
the SSRMS? Could the European ATV be used for this purpose?

Not without extensive modifications, to either the ATV or the
modules, I'm afraid. ATV can be thought of as having
rendezvous/docking hardware on the forward end and propulsion
hardware at the aft. If the forward end docks to the ISS module,
which end docks with ISS?
snip
Japan's HTV might be easier to modify for this purpose,

I would guess that a ATV-module would need to be snagged by the
station arm, the ATV would then disengage, and the arm would dock the
module. Sort of a combination of the two, an AHTV - it'd be even more
useful if it was refuelable.

That's really an HTV, then - ATV is simply not designed to do that. The
stationkeeping requirements for HTV grapple by the SSRMS are far more
exacting than the ATV docking requirements, plus the ATV docking aids are
oriented in the wrong direction.

Finally, *any* solution is going to involve quite a few mods to the
modules themselves. They are designed for the shuttle's 3 g launch
environment, and are designed to absorb launch loads through the
longeron trunnion pins rather than the base, as all ELVs require.
They are designed to take advantage of the thermal environment of the
payload bay during transit to ISS, and most require at least
"keep-alive" power to be provided by the orbiter. So even if you use
an OMV-like vehicle stationed at ISS, the modules would require these
services to be supplied by the ELV in some way prior to the OMV
picking them up. Any modifications to the modules themselves would
likely be expensive, since for the most part they are already built
and being integrated for launch at the SSPF in Florida.

Keep alive and vibration would seem to be the hardest problems. My
idea for launching on an ELV would be to have a minimal third stage
attached to the module - it would have a frame stretching up the
length of the module, replicating the connections of the Shuttle bay.
The stage could provide power, etc, and orientation while the module
awaits a tug of some sort. The downside is an unmanned orbital
rendevous, unless the tug is an FGB w/ cosmonauts aboard - but that is
almost starting a new station. 8)

From all the stumbling blocks, it sounds simpler to either wait for
return to flight, or for a Shuttle to fly robotically.

Robotic shuttle flights are not going to happen in the near term. Think 4-5
years before the first demonstration flights, at a minimum. The US simply
does not have automated rendezvous/docking capability, and retrofitting
this capability onto the existing shuttle will be neither quick nor cheap.

I'm wondering what are the issues involved, because Shuttle RTF
keeps slipping and in the recent hearings know one mentioned any
other ways of achieving station complete.

On the surface, RTF appears to have slipped a lot. But all the "RTF"
dates NASA published prior to the current one (12 Sept 2004) were
internal planning dates only, and *none* of them were based on what
it would actually take to meet the CAIB requirements. So they weren't
really realistic to begin with. That's not to say that further
slippage won't occur - it almost certainly will.

I've come of the opinion that Shuttle should only fly again with
minimal crew, preferably unmanned.

You're probably going to be disappointed, I'm afraid: ISS assembly flights
are *very* manpower-intensive and will generally carry as many crewmembers
as vehicle performance will allow. The first return-to-flight mission, STS-
114, just had three new crewmembers assigned to it to replace the ISS crew
rotation that was previously scheduled.

Is "station complete" still a realistic
goal?

That depends on how you define "station complete". :-)

LOL. I've been laughing about that since you posted it!

It's funny but there's a serious point behind it: Space Station Freedom/ISS
has gone through multiple redesigns, and each redesign represents the
administration/Congress "moving the goalposts" on what "station complete"
really means. Right now, there is no "station complete", just the
following three milestones:

"US Core Complete" = current ISS config + replacement CMG (LF-1), P3/P4
(12A), P5 (12A.1), S3/S4 (13A), S5 (13A.1), S6 (15A), Node 2 (10A)

"International Core Complete" = US core complete + Columbus (1E), Kibo
(1J/A, 1J, 2J/A), SPDM (UF-4), SPP/MTsM (9A.1), CAM (UF-7), Cupola (14A)

"Assembly Complete" = international core complete + Node 3 (20A), Hab (16A,
17A, 19A), CRV (18A), UDM (3R), Research Modules (8R, 10R)

"Assembly Complete" is pretty much a fantasy right now; there's no funding
for the Hab, though Node 3 has been added back to the manifest, and OSP is
replacing CRV. And the Russian modules (UDM, Research Modules) are
vaporware. But I think "US Core Complete" will definitely happen, and other
than the SPP/MTsM, there are no showstoppers for "International Core
Complete".

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.