|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
A pair of anniversaries
Today, 25Jan2004, marks the 20th anniversary of President Reagan's State of
the Union speech that got the ball rolling on the permanent space station: "Tonight, I am directing NASA to develop a permanently manned space station and to do it within a decade. A space station will permit quantum leaps in our research in science, communications and in metals and life-saving medicines which can be manufactured only in space. We want our friends to help us meet these challenges and share in their benefits. NASA will invite other countries to participate so we can strengthen peace, build prosperity and expand freedom for all who share our goals." NASA's initial idea was an "8 and 8" plan, 8 years to construct the station (completion date sometime in 1992) and development cost of $8B ($FY83, about $13B in todays bucks). Needless to say, this plan has been junked for some time now. We presently have a half-built ISS with an indefinite completion date, a two-person crew instead of 6 or 7, and development cost over $30B and counting. And in February this year we celebrate the 30th anniversary of the completion of the Skylab program. On 8Feb1974 the third Skylab crew returned to Earth after 84 days in orbit marking the end of that effort. The nine Skylab astronauts spent 171 days in space and while aboard Skylab had logged over 3200 manhours of scientific research on solar astronomy, Earth resources, medical tests, engineering experiments, comet observations (Comet Kohoutek) and miscellaneous research such as student experiments. Skylab grew out of the Apollo Applications Program (AAP) initiated by George Mueller, NASA's manned spaceflight administrator, in August 1965. (One of my first jobs as a fledgling engineer at McDonnell Aircraft Corp. was working on AAP.) For the next three years the focus was on von Braun's "wet workshop" concept, an S-IVB stage launched with tanks filled with propellant as part of a Saturn IB stack. In late 1968 it became clear that two or three Apollo moon landings would be cancelled and that several Saturn V vehicles would become available. Mueller redirected AAP into a "dry workshop" design launched on the Saturn V. On 20July 1969, during the Apollo 11 mission, NASA officially announced that the dry workshop concept would be built and in February 1970 the program was named "Skylab". Skylab was launched on 14May1973, less that 4 years after the program was officially started. President Reagan's space station plan was not so fortunate. The program actually started in May 1982 with the formation of John Hodge's "Space Station Task Force". Hodge's group spent about 18 months sorting through the various space station options The initial configuration developed by the Hodge Group in April 1983 was a modest space station in a 28.5-degree orbit carrying a crew of five to eight astronauts with 50-60 kW of electric power. The station would include two laboratory modules each with volume of 2,100 cubic feet, a satellite servicing capability, and the capability to accommodate several attached payloads. The space station would be augmented by two free-flying platforms, one in a low-inclination orbit for astrophysics research, and one in a high-inclination orbit for earth resources programs. Development would start in FY 1987 and initial occupancy of the space station would occur in FY 1991. The expected cost for development and initial operational capability was $7.5-9B ($FY83, $12-14B in todays bucks). NASA Administrator Jim Beggs decided that $8B ($FY83) would be the number used in presentations to Congress. After Reagan's go-ahead, NASA found that it needed as much support as possible from all potential space station users in order to get Congress on board. This led to a noticeable "Christmas Tree Effect" which caused the size of the station to steadily increase. During the Reagan years the space station program lurched through several major redesigns (Power Tower, Dual Keel, Modified Dual Keel) ending up in June1988 in the Space Station Freedom (SSF) configuration (28 degree inclination, 490 foot-long truss including solar panels, 3-4 pressurized modules each 14 ft dia x 44 ft long, 75 kW electric power initially). The price tag on SSF development was an estimated $20-25B. Although he started the program, Reagan did not fight very hard for the necessary budget to keep the program on the initial 8-year development schedule. During FY85-89 NASA required about $9B current dollars) to stay on schedule, but the actual Reagan request was $3.7B (current dollars). So when the G.H.W. Bush administration came to town in Jan 1989, NASA's space station program was seriously underfunded and had experienced nearly 100% growth in development cost since its inception. During the Elder Bush years (Jan 89-Jan93), the space station story is largely about NASA's effort to cut the SSF development cost. NASA established new guidelines for SSF on 2 November 1990: a) no more than four shuttle flights per year for SSF assembly b) use a phased "buy it by the yard" approach for SSF construction c) no more than $2.6B ($FY91, $3.3B current bucks) per year for SSF d) initial crew reduced to four astronauts instead of eight e) life sciences and material sciences have highest priorities on SSF f) first SSF assembly flight in March 1995 g) no free-flying platforms h) no use of expendable heavy lift launch vehicles (HLLVs) for SSF assembly i) no target date for completion of SSF assembly (SSF would be evolutionary) In March 1991 NASA embarked on a 90-day SSF redesign effort demanded by Congress. The truss length was reduced to 350 feet, inital electric power was reduced to 30kW, length of the pressurized modules was reduced from 44 to 27 feet. Initial occupancy slipped to late 1996. The SSF effort dragged on during 1991 until Feb 1992 when VP Dan Quayle fired NASA Administrator Dick Truly, who was replaced in April by Dan Goldin. The new Administrator spent the rest of 1992 defending the SSF in Congress while his Red Team/Blue Team evaluators tried to figure out how to fix the ailing space station program that was now entering its 9th year without a pound of payload lifted off the launch pad so far. 1993 was the watershed year for the space station. By November 1993 the Clinton Administration had completely changed the program. SSF was junked and the new "International Space Station Alpha (ISSA)" would be built around a pair of Russian modules, the FGB and the Service Module (which was built to be the core module of the Mir-2 station). NASA hyped this revision maintaining that the Russian contribution would save 2 years and $2B in the development process. This turned out to be wishful thinking. The U.S. and Russia were now partners in the space station and, to help the Russians pay for their contribution, NASA began to fly astronauts to the Mir station for extended periods of time. So after nearly 10 years of stumbling from one design to another, NASA had finally established a "point design" for its permanent space station and got on with the business of constructing flight hardware. During the next 5 years NASA's main problems were keeping development costs under control (not too successfully) and prodding and threatening the Russian Space Agency to provide the necessary budgets to keep the Service Module development on schedule. The first ISS module, the FGB, was launched in November 1998, followed by the first U.S. module in December. Since the inception of the program, it had taken NASA nearly 15 years to get the first component of its permanent space station into orbit. Another 19 months would pass until the most critical part of the ISS, namely the Service Module, was launched in July 2000. On 31 October 2000 the first ISS crew, ISS Expedition 1, was launched from the Baikonur facility on a Soyuz ELV in a Soyuz spacecraft, nearly 17 years after the start of the program. For the next 2 years, NASA kept more or less on schedule as a steady string of shuttle launches supported ISS construction. Then on 1Feb2003 Columbia was lost on a non-ISS science mission and ISS construction was halted. A two-person caretaker crew is aboard ISS now keeping the station alive while NASA works out the shuttle problems. It's anyone's guess when the shuttle will return to flight (probably no sooner than Jan 2005). The ISS final configuration and completion date are also indeterminate at this time. NASA has continually hyped the ISS as a "world-class scientific laboratory", but the pace and progress of this work has been very slow. Prior to the Columbia disaster, the 3-person ISS crew was logging about 20 manhours per week of scientific work, with about 8 manhours devoted to U.S. experiments. At this rate it will take over 7 years for the ISS crew to log as many scientific manhours on U.S. experiments as the nine Skylab astronauts managed 30 years ago. Last week President Bush the Younger announced his ambitious return to the Moon/let's go to Mars initiative, which generated the expected split between supporters and detractors (about 50/50). However, one thing is clear. The history of the ISS program during the past 20 years does not give a warm and cozy feeling that the present NASA would be able to take on the management responsibilities of such a Moon/Mars program and stay on schedule and keep within budget. For more info on this interesting history, see chapters 46-52 of my recent book (2002) on U.S. manned spaceflight in the 20th century. Later Ray Schmitt |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
A pair of anniversaries
Today, 25Jan2004, marks the 20th anniversary of President Reagan's State of the Union speech that got the ball rolling on the permanent space station: Great recap! ISS should be used as a model for how NOT to do whatever comes next! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
A pair of anniversaries
rschmitt23 wrote:
time now. We presently have a half-built ISS with an indefinite completion date, a two-person crew instead of 6 or 7, and development cost over $30B and counting. Well, the ISS's crew size is 3 from the ISS systems point of view. It is down to 2 only for resupply logistics. Also, aren't all modules except the hab/node3 complete and ready for launch by now ? If not, which modules aren't yet ready ? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
A pair of anniversaries
Yes, most of the ISS modules have already been fabricated and remain in
storage at KSC or elsewhere awaiting launch in the indefinite future. I suppose I should have said "half-assembled" in order to be more precise. Later Ray Schmitt "John Doe" wrote in message ... rschmitt23 wrote: time now. We presently have a half-built ISS with an indefinite completion date, a two-person crew instead of 6 or 7, and development cost over $30B and counting. Well, the ISS's crew size is 3 from the ISS systems point of view. It is down to 2 only for resupply logistics. Also, aren't all modules except the hab/node3 complete and ready for launch by now ? If not, which modules aren't yet ready ? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Selected SRB Pc (MSFC) from Lift-Off [51-L] | John Maxson | Space Shuttle | 70 | October 8th 03 07:50 PM |
Review of the 'Unmatched Pair' Intro (51-L) | John Maxson | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 29th 03 06:36 PM |
Booster Crossing | Chuck Stewart | Space Shuttle | 124 | September 15th 03 12:43 AM |
Sad turn | Charleston | Space Shuttle | 93 | August 12th 03 02:31 AM |