What does "finish the space station" mean?

Jim Kingdon wrote:
Meaning that space station modules are loaded when the orbiter is
horizontal (before it is stacked with the tank and solids in the
VAB)?

Nop. Modules are loaded at the pad when the shuttle is vertical. That is what
the rotating service structure is for. and consider that the shuttle gives at
least 3g of acceleration, so everything inside a module needs to be stowed
tightly whether the shuttle is horizontal, vertical, on top of below. And
because the shuttle needs to be able to land in case of an abort (either back
at pad or across the atlantic), the modules need to also be able to land horizontally.

I have not see a "long answer".


Short answer NASA wants the shuttle to continue, because of jobs.

long answer if all the shuttles were destroyed by a teerrorist attacking the
VAB some other way would be found to get the modules up/

(Hallerb) writes:
I have not see a "long answer".

Short answer NASA wants the shuttle to continue, because of jobs.

Actually, it's the best vehicle for finishing ISS construction because
all of the modules left to go up on the shuttle were specifically
designed to go up on the shuttle.

long answer if all the shuttles were destroyed by a teerrorist
attacking the VAB some other way would be found to get the modules
up

Silly "chicken little" scenario. However, if the shuttle's were
grounded permanently, it should be possible (and Jim said) to get
them to ISS, but it would cost quite a bit of time, re-planning, and
money to do so. I'd bet that this would quickly lead to a "redesign"
of the "ISS Assembly Complete" configuration that involved simplifying
what was sent up to ISS on expendables in order to reduce cost and to
"finish" the station sooner.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

it should be possible (and Jim said) to get
them to ISS, but it would cost quite a bit of time, re-planning, and
money to do so. I'd bet that this would quickly lead to a "redesign"
of the "ISS Assembly Complete" configuration that involved simplifying
what was sent up to ISS on expendables in order to reduce cost and to
"finish" the station sooner.

Jeff
--

I think that if the shuttles were permanetely grounded it would likely save
money. basck out the cost of shuttkle operations and that leaves tons of money
for redesign and launching on expendables

(Hallerb) writes:
it should be possible (and Jim said) to get
them to ISS, but it would cost quite a bit of time, re-planning, and
money to do so. I'd bet that this would quickly lead to a "redesign"
of the "ISS Assembly Complete" configuration that involved simplifying
what was sent up to ISS on expendables in order to reduce cost and to
"finish" the station sooner.

I think that if the shuttles were permanetely grounded it would likely save
money. basck out the cost of shuttkle operations and that leaves tons of money
for redesign and launching on expendables

You're underestimating the time and expense needed for such drastic
modifications. NASA is currently having problems just returning the
shuttle to flight. Things like the relatively simple RMS extension
are running behind schedule. It's starting to look like the "return
to flight" will happen more than two years after the Columbia
disaster.

Take a look back at the beginning of the ISS program and the disaster
that NASA made of the US propulsion module/Interm Control Module
programs. In the end, the US seems to have abandoned all hope of
producing such a module themselves. Instead, we've locked ourselves
into a dependency on Russia for attitude control of ISS. The US
attitude control system's CMG's can't desaturate themselves, and they
can't provide any reboost or translational capability (to avoid
orbiting debris in an emergency).

If NASA had this much of a problem with a propulsion module for ISS,
how easy is it going to be for them to duplicate this work, and more,
to produce a "space tug" for delivering modules to ISS? This "space
tug" might even need its own RMS for deliveries that were counting on
the shuttle arm being available.

Like I said, it could likely be done, but not without a great deal of
time and money.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

jeff findley writes:
Take a look back at the beginning of the ISS program and the disaster
that NASA made of the US propulsion module/Interm Control Module
programs. In the end, the US seems to have abandoned all hope of
producing such a module themselves. Instead, we've locked ourselves
into a dependency on Russia for attitude control of ISS. The US
attitude control system's CMG's can't desaturate themselves, and they
can't provide any reboost or translational capability (to avoid
orbiting debris in an emergency).

Google finds lots of things, like this:

http://www.space.com/news/spacestati...ug_000708.html
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=2074
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=5351

These articles paint a bleak picture of these programs.

The current assembly sequence doesn't list anything about propulsion
(because the US won't have any):
http://www.spaceflight.nasa.gov/shut...ure/index.html

Here's a page with cancelled ISS components:

http://www.geocities.com/i_s_s_alpha...nc.htm#shuttle

Here's their short list of cancelled components:

Propulsion Module
Interim Control Module
Docking and Stowage Module
Docking Compartment-2
Crew Return Vehicle
Orbital Space Plane
2nd Generation Reusable Launch Vehicle
Assured Access to Space Station

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

Here's their short list of cancelled components:

Propulsion Module
Interim Control Module
Docking and Stowage Module
Docking Compartment-2
Crew Return Vehicle
Orbital Space Plane
2nd Generation Reusable Launch Vehicle
Assured Access to Space Station

Jeff

We might be better of if ISS itself was on that list

(Hallerb) writes:

We might be better of if ISS itself was on that list

Ultimately, that's how we're going to go back to the moon and on to
Mars. Kill ISS and shuttle and start moving towards a new goal.
LEO's been done to death and both ISS and shuttle are hopelessly stuck
there.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

"Jim Kingdon" wrote in message
news
How many of those birds were loaded vertically at the pad, and thus
were never intended (except in an abort) to be in the horizontal
position? Such birds would not have the trunnion pins etc, and thus
the 'adapter' would be vastly simpler.

Meaning that space station modules are loaded when the orbiter is
horizontal (before it is stacked with the tank and solids in the
VAB)?

I'm not sure, but keep in mind a number of items were loaded into the
shuttle while in the vertical position, hence the rotating service
structure.



Or are the space station modules designed to be returned via shuttle
at end of life and/or for repair?

Or....?

As for the Shuttle-Titan switch in the 90's, I actually don't know
the details. But I'm pretty sure I saw in Av Week a mention of the
adapter as one of the drivers for the high cost of the Titans.