MSNBC (JimO) on value of 'big door' on ISS

Brian was ahead of me on this -- I have been vigorously
introduced to the CBM mechanism on Japan's HTV by
some of its potential users -- article needs an update....

Jim Oberg wrote:
such as solar panels, air locks and oxygen generators. It's called the
"hatch," and it just doesn't get any respect - despite the fact that its
4-foot-plus width gives the international space station capabilities that
are unprecedented in 30 years of orbital operations, going back to NASA's
Skylab and Russia's earliest outposts.

That hatch (CBM) is about to get very useless when the shuttle is
retired and the whole concept of MPLM becomes moot, unless the Japanese
actually develop and produce their HTV.

NASA should start its planning for the day when MPLM transfers are no
longer possible and plan all hardware to fit through the smaller soyuz
(or PMA) hatches.

John Doe wrote in :

Jim Oberg wrote:
such as solar panels, air locks and oxygen generators. It's called
the "hatch," and it just doesn't get any respect - despite the fact
that its 4-foot-plus width gives the international space station
capabilities that are unprecedented in 30 years of orbital
operations, going back to NASA's Skylab and Russia's earliest
outposts.

That hatch (CBM) is about to get very useless when the shuttle is
retired and the whole concept of MPLM becomes moot, unless the
Japanese actually develop and produce their HTV.

HTV isn't the only alternative. Out of the six finalists for NASA's
Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program, four have
released at least some details on how their spacecraft will attach to ISS -
and all four (Rocketplane Kistler K-1, SpaceX Dragon, Spacehab Apex, and
t/Space CxV) have chosen the CBM.

NASA should start its planning for the day when MPLM transfers are no
longer possible and plan all hardware to fit through the smaller soyuz
(or PMA) hatches.

Or they should simply follow through with the COTS program until at least
one of the contestants actually produces a working vehicle.


--
JRF

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

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
HTV isn't the only alternative. Out of the six finalists for NASA's
Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program, four have
released at least some details on how their spacecraft will attach to ISS -
and all four (Rocketplane Kistler K-1, SpaceX Dragon, Spacehab Apex, and
t/Space CxV) have chosen the CBM.

OK, that looks great. But In reality, since we're not even sure that CEV
will ever get off the ground, why would anyone bet their life on those
neat little ideas floating around ?

And when could such neat little ideas materialise ? Any chance they
would be in production and fully operational by the time the shuttle is
retired ?

If not, then there will be a long period during which NASA and partners
will not be able to launch any object that cannot fit through russian hatches.


Are there any chances of HTV flying by 2010 ?


The CBM seems to be one of the most uncelebrated success stories of the
ISS. So much so that when the politicians killed the shuttle, they
didn't realise what else they were killing (the whole concept of MPLM).

John Doe wrote in :

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
HTV isn't the only alternative. Out of the six finalists for NASA's
Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program, four have
released at least some details on how their spacecraft will attach to
ISS - and all four (Rocketplane Kistler K-1, SpaceX Dragon, Spacehab
Apex, and t/Space CxV) have chosen the CBM.

OK, that looks great. But In reality, since we're not even sure that
CEV will ever get off the ground, why would anyone bet their life on
those neat little ideas floating around ?

Who's betting their life? Not me. Certainly not NASA.

And when could such neat little ideas materialise ? Any chance they
would be in production and fully operational by the time the shuttle
is retired ?

I don't know what the chances are. Neither do you. I do know the chances
are zero if the COTS program is not funded, and greater than zero if it is.

If not, then there will be a long period during which NASA and
partners will not be able to launch any object that cannot fit through
russian hatches.

Duh!

Are there any chances of HTV flying by 2010 ?

It depends on whether JAXA gets serious about developing the H-IIB. The H-
IIA lacks the performance to carry an HTV to orbit.


--
JRF

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

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 22:43:30 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

Are there any chances of HTV flying by 2010 ?

It depends on whether JAXA gets serious about developing the H-IIB. The H-
IIA lacks the performance to carry an HTV to orbit.

Weren't there stories a while ago about LockMart or Boeing
license-building (or joint building) HTV as part of the COTS proposal?

Brian

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 22:01:46 -0400, John Doe wrote:

HTV isn't the only alternative. Out of the six finalists for NASA's
Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program, four have
released at least some details on how their spacecraft will attach to ISS -
and all four (Rocketplane Kistler K-1, SpaceX Dragon, Spacehab Apex, and
t/Space CxV) have chosen the CBM.

OK, that looks great. But In reality, since we're not even sure that CEV
will ever get off the ground, why would anyone bet their life on those
neat little ideas floating around ?

Because if nothing else, the Russians will still happily carry our
astronauts up to ISS for a nominal fee. Of course, if CEV is cancelled
and Shuttle retires, you can be your bottom dollar that fee will rise
substantially...

And when could such neat little ideas materialise ? Any chance they
would be in production and fully operational by the time the shuttle is
retired ?

If SpaceX gets the Falcon 1 flying in the next year or so and can move
on to Falcon 9, they'd have a sporting chance.

Are there any chances of HTV flying by 2010 ?

Maybe if launched on an Atlas 5 or Delta IV.

Brian

In article , John Doe wrote:
...all four (Rocketplane Kistler K-1, SpaceX Dragon, Spacehab Apex, and
t/Space CxV) have chosen the CBM.

OK, that looks great. But In reality, since we're not even sure that CEV
will ever get off the ground, why would anyone bet their life on those
neat little ideas floating around ?

Why would you bet your life on a commercial airliner? Surely you want one
built by the government... assuming it ever got off the ground. :-)

The problems with CEV have everything to do with who's doing it, and not
much with the basic concept. The fact that the K-1 et al are *not* being
done by the government is their biggest advantage.

And when could such neat little ideas materialise ? Any chance they
would be in production and fully operational by the time the shuttle is
retired ?

Several of them think they could do just that, if adequately and promptly
funded. There's no particular reason why it should take most of a decade
to build a modernized Gemini. Gemini took four years from first sketches
to manned flights, including at least a year lost to some then-immature
technologies (notably the fuel cells) and sheer bad luck (sustained bad
weather at the Cape badly delayed the second unmanned test).

Are there any chances of HTV flying by 2010 ?

I think HTV is unlikely to be flying by then. The problem is not HTV
itself, but the requirement for an enlarged H-II to launch it. That's
going to take major new launcher-development funding, which I would say is
just not in the cards for JAXA right now.

Mind you, that doesn't mean that the work done on the HTV will be lost.
Kistler's COTS proposal uses several of the major HTV subsystems.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

(Henry Spencer) wrote:

In article , John Doe wrote:

And when could such neat little ideas materialise ? Any chance they
would be in production and fully operational by the time the shuttle is
retired ?

Several of them think they could do just that, if adequately and promptly
funded.

That's a common line in any business. Whether it accurately reflects
reality is a matter open to question.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 04:20:26 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
wrote:

In article , John Doe wrote:

OK, that looks great. But In reality, since we're not even sure that CEV
will ever get off the ground, why would anyone bet their life on those
neat little ideas floating around ?

Why would you bet your life on a commercial airliner? Surely you want one
built by the government... assuming it ever got off the ground. :-)

Like an Airbus? The Langley Aerodrome isn't the only example of
government aircraft. Nor is the R-101, even if it's a more classic
example.

Mary "It's not all like North America"
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it.
or