View Single Post
  #10  
Old November 26th 03, 11:54 PM
Josh Gigantino
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ISS Modules without Shuttle?

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

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


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.


below, you mention mission-specific forward sections on the FGBs. I
know there have been aquistion problems w/ Kurs system, but would it
be difficult for Energia to add the Kurs system to the node-end of an
FGB?

snip

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.



OK, the radiators+central core, adapter on stern is what I normally
think of as an FGB, as well. would it be reasonable to think of the
FGB as the propulsion/electronics that baseblock and other craft are
built on? On the graphics linked below, would the "fgb" portion be
just the rear 1/5th of the baseblock? (the unpressurized section in
mircut.jpg)

Here's Mark Wade's diagrams:
http://astronautix.com/graphics/m/mircut.jpg
http://astronautix.com/graphics/m/mirbig.gif

Would it be reasonable to think of Mir's "baseblock" as made of an
"FGB" and "base module"? Again, i think it's just a terminology thing
for me.

For Kvant, did the propulsion system fit around the smaller-diameter
cylinder on the rear, the Soyuz port? Did the prop module slide off
the module, like a donut? Was this the kind of hardware that Energia
could build commercially?

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.


interesting. Does the arm move so slowly that it needs a totally
stationary target?

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.


Got it. Do you think that automated Shuttle flights will happen?

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.


I know I'll be dissappointed. NASA just manifested a full 7 astronaut
crew for STS-114. I hope they wrap up the use of Shuttles quickly.
Would it make sense to rush the launch of the remaining modules? Once
Shuttle RTF happens, 6-8 flights/yr, dedicated to assembly, flying the
modules up one after another, even if they just sit docked while
waiting for spacewalk outfitting, etc. Ignoring INPA, maybe speed up
Soyuz production enough to support 4-5 astronauts, expand life support
w/ the launch of Node 3 (the pseudo-Hab that has been discussed).

"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".


It would be good to see the station get some kind of Complete,
especially if the station eventually can hold 6+ astronauts. From what
I understand, the only possible new Russian module that could find
it's way to ISS would be the commercial Enterprise unit.

thanks for all the help,
Josh