ISS Modules without Shuttle?

(Josh Gigantino) wrote in
om:

"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?

Not difficult in a technical sense, but since the original context was FGB-
2 (the pressure hull for which has already been built), it won't
necessarily be cheap, either, and the Russians won't be keen to pay for it.

And note that this only covers Kurs, *not* the RCS modifications that would
likely be required. *That* also won't be cheap.

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?

In a very loose sense, perhaps. The design heritage between FGB/Almaz and
the "base block" vehicles diverged long ago. Since you're familiar with
Mark Wade's site, look under "Almaz", "Almaz OPS" and "Salyut 1" for more
of the story.

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

No. In fact, that's the one portion of the station that's unique to
Energia, with no Chelomei design heritage. Salyuts 1 and 4 used a Soyuz-
derived propulsion module, while Salyuts 6-7, Mir, and the ISS service
module used the propulsion system you see in those diagrams.

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?

No, it attached to the aft end like this:

http://astronautix.com/graphics/k/kvantbig.gif

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?

Not totally stationary, but its capture envelope is tighter than that of
the docking mechanism used by ATV.

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?

Possibly, but not until after ISS assembly is essentially complete (i.e
once the shuttle is down to just ISS servicing - definitely not before
2008). That is, unless certain politicians have their way. They probably
won't - they're under the delusion that automated shuttle flights for ISS
assembly could be as little as 2 years away, and could be done with no NASA
budget increases. They need to lose those delusions first.

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.

No. Read section 6.2 of the CAIB report. It makes clear that schedule
pressure was a contributing factor in the Columbia accident. If the US
government is smart, they will not push NASA for a shuttle flight rate 5-6
flights/year after RTF. 8 flights per year would be absolutely insane with
only 3 orbiters, one of which will be down for OMM most of the time.

--
JRF

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