What does "finish the space station" mean?

"Richard Schumacher" wrote in message
...


Brian Thorn wrote:

Bush's goal is clearly to meet the minimum committment to the ISS
partners at
minimum cost and then get out of the ISS business.

And that's bad, why exactly? We've spent 15 years listening to critics
decry Freedom/ISS for being nearly useless and a waste of money. Now
that the US government has finally woken up to that fact, the critics
are whining that the US is going no farther than meeting its minimum
obligations to ISS?

There is no one set of critics. There are multiple sets of critics. ISS
is a waste of
money, yet we must spend some more so as not to terminally **** off the
partners.

Someone asked, a while back, just how many flights would be required to
complete the ISS to the level that satisfies NASA's commitments. I believe
it is about 25 to complete the construction? Or would more flights be
required to support the station after completion? What exactly are NASA's
contractual obligations?
As we as re seeing, no shuttle means supporting with the Soyuz (Progress
vessels and the manned version) and that means next to no research with the
2 man skeleton crew. Why bother! What the hell do NASA's international
partners ESA, Canada, and Japan get out of the ISS with this scenario. Why
would they even consider allowing the ISS construction to proceed given
NASA's comments about future ISS support?

Steve

Why
would they even consider allowing the ISS construction to proceed given
NASA's comments about future ISS support?

Steve

I think everyone has so much invested no one wants to pull the plug. all
parties involved might be relieved if a non fatal disaster takes out ISS

With no ISS no need for the shuttle either. all funds freed up could go to a
new manned launcher and a new vision for nasa.

the present one is a failure thats just tossingh good money after bad

"Stephen Bolton" wrote:

"Richard Schumacher" wrote in message
...


Brian Thorn wrote:

Bush's goal is clearly to meet the minimum committment to the ISS
partners at
minimum cost and then get out of the ISS business.

[snip]

Someone asked, a while back, just how many flights would be required to
complete the ISS to the level that satisfies NASA's commitments. I believe
it is about 25 to complete the construction? Or would more flights be
required to support the station after completion?

The current "direction" (assumption?) is 30 Shuttle flights - logistics,
assembly, etc. That would bring up the major identified components.

That would NOT provide for the ability to resupply larger, critical components.
When big things break (like solar panels)...

What exactly are NASA's
contractual obligations?

Those are subject to redefinition. At one time, NASA "agreed" to provide
a Hab and a crew return vehicle - but unilaterally backed out of it. The
agreement was with the Russian side. Does that cancel out their late delivery
of the Service Module? Possible non-delivery of FGB2?

As we as re seeing, no shuttle means supporting with the Soyuz (Progress
vessels and the manned version) and that means next to no research with
the
2 man skeleton crew.

And possibly the (unflown) ATV and HTV.

Why bother! What the hell do NASA's international
partners ESA, Canada, and Japan get out of the ISS with this scenario. Why
would they even consider allowing the ISS construction to proceed given
NASA's comments about future ISS support?

Let's say that the US side decided to hand over the ISS to an international
(ESA, Russia, Japan) consortium as of 2010 or 2012. What if this was decided
in 2008. What if the consortium wanted to change the final configuration.
Would we then adjust our flights - to give them the Station that they want?
Or continue building the 2004-planned configuration because it was what we
wanted "originally"? Would we incur risk to give them the Station that they
wanted?

The whole idea of completing a Station and then backing out of direction
of it brings up some knotty questions.


Charles
http://www.academ.com/info/macintosh/
All Statements Are Personal Opinion Only

Charles Phillips wrote:
Those are subject to redefinition. At one time, NASA "agreed" to provide
a Hab and a crew return vehicle - but unilaterally backed out of it. The
agreement was with the Russian side. Does that cancel out their late delivery
of the Service Module? Possible non-delivery of FGB2?

Did the USA actually back out of the HAB ? Or did it just delay delivery ? As
far as late delivery of Zvezda, I don't think that the USA is in any position
to complain since its own modules would have been late had Zvezda been
launched on time.

I think that the USA fears were not so much about the delay, but the
uncertaintly that they could alcually deliver (financial problems etc).


And it is fair to assume that any space vehicle/module will experience delays
if it is the first of a kind. One assumes that the first MPLM had glitches,
but the 2 subsequent ones would not have been built without much of a delay.
If the USA were to build a second Destiny module, it would probably be able to
deliver on budget and on schedule because they'd have a very good idea of what
is involved.

Why bother! What the hell do NASA's international
partners ESA, Canada, and Japan get out of the ISS with this scenario.

If shuttle were permanently grounded, or if NASA refuses to perform the crew
exchanges on Shuttle, you should expect a renegotiation of the agreements on
who gets to send crewmembers up on the station. Without the Shuttle, the US
still makes a sizeable contribution (telecom, electrical power, lots of
storage space, and for now, some attitude control with CMGs.)

But if europe/canada/japan were to pitch in and buy an extra progress to bring
crew size back to 3, you can bet that they would only be on american on the station.

And if the Shuttle were really grounded, it would be interesting to see
whether ESA or Russia decides to launch the remaining modules with Ariane or
Proton, both or which will have "space tug" capabilities to get near the
station (hopefully near enough to be grappled by arm - or perhaps the crew
could install a passive Kurs antenna on the US side to allow such modules to
get near enough).


Would we then adjust our flights - to give them the Station that they want?
Or continue building the 2004-planned configuration because it was what we
wanted "originally"? Would we incur risk to give them the Station that they
wanted?

Except for node3/hab, the modules are essentially ready. So changing config
would be silly. There is a bunch of tin cans waiting to be launched. The only
real question is whether they could be adapted for an Ariane or Proton launch
with an ATV or Progress tug module.

(And by that time, perhps the japanese HTV might be ready)

The whole idea of completing a Station and then backing out of direction
of it brings up some knotty questions.

I think nobody should take a president's speech during an election year very
seriously, especially when the house of cards if crumbling. Once the shuttle
launches again, and NASA shows pictures of new modules and the huge solar
arays being deployed, once people start to see a really big dot moving in the
sky, they may start to be more impressed.

Right now, they've only built the foundations so that station isn't so
impressive. Once they start deploying the solar arrays, and add node2 and
columbus it will start to be far more impressive.

Also, look at the success of the IMAX Space Station 3d movie. I think this
shows some support for the space station. And the stories of cost overruns
will fade since most of the modules have been build already and only await launch.

And if the Shuttle were really grounded, it would be interesting to see
whether ESA or Russia decides to launch the remaining modules with Ariane or
Proton, both or which will have "space tug" capabilities to get near the
station (hopefully near enough t

So the shuttles can be replaced using existing launch hardware plus a space tug
for constrruction?

(Hallerb) writes:

And if the Shuttle were really grounded, it would be interesting to see
whether ESA or Russia decides to launch the remaining modules with Ariane or
Proton, both or which will have "space tug" capabilities to get near the
station (hopefully near enough t

So the shuttles can be replaced using existing launch hardware plus a space tug
for constrruction?

This has been discussed many times before. The short answer is no.
The long answer is on Google.

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

jeff findley wrote:
So the shuttles can be replaced using existing launch hardware plus a space tug
for constrruction?

This has been discussed many times before. The short answer is no.
The long answer is on Google.

I have not see a "long answer".

Do any of the remaining modules weigh more than what Ariane or Proton can
launch ?

Can either Ariane or Proton be adapted to carry a cylinder of the diameter or
the node/columbus/kibo ?

Do either Ariane or Proton generate G-forces that are well above those of
Shuttle ?


Everyone knows that the remaining modules were designed to be launched by
Shuttle and thus are fitted with cargo bay attachement mechanisms. But that
doesn't prevent ESA or Energia from building a structure that mimics the
shuttle cargo bay to hold the module in the rocket. (or retrofitting the
modules to be compatible with Ariane or Proton's existing cargo attachement systems).

Sicne this is a "sci" newsgroup, one should be able to discuss the technical
aspects without deciding whether such a luanch would be politically acceptable
or not.

Do any of the remaining modules weigh more than what Ariane or Proton can
launch ?

Hard to know, since it depends on the mass of the hypothetical tug.
The mass could probably work out, although it might involve adding
launches if modules need to be stripped down and outfitted later.
Such outfitting would be simplest with a cargo module which can dock
to CBM, although the HTV is the only such being planned.

Can either Ariane or Proton be adapted to carry a cylinder of the
diameter or the node/columbus/kibo ?

Could be tight, although it may fit. According to
http://www.esa.int/export/esaHS/ESAFQL0VMOC_iss_0.html , Node 3 has a
diameter of 4480 mm (with a slightly larger "maximum envelope") and a
length of 6706 mm. The interior diameter of an Ariane 5 Long Fairing
is 4570 mm and the length is 10350 mm (source: Isakowitz 3rd edition).
Proton's diameter seems to be more like 4100 mm.

Anything "could be adapted" given enough money and testing and such,
but for the sake of this exercise I'm assuming that you are building a
new tug, but not making any significant changes to the launcher
or fairing itself.

Do either Ariane or Proton generate G-forces that are well above those of
Shuttle ?

Ariane 5 has a maximum axial load of 4.25 g (compared with 3.2 g for
shuttle). There are other numbers like lateral load, vibration and
acoustic, so that it isn't possible to reduce this to a single number
(although glancing through Isakowitz doesn't seem to show huge
differences between shuttle and Ariane 5 on many of the numbers).

There's also thermal, attach points, and other issues. Also whether
the shuttle arm is assumed in any of the installation steps in a way
that the station arm can't help. Given sufficient money and time one
could probably make these things work, but it is much more easy to see
using these launchers for newly designed modules rather than the ones
designed to launch on shuttle.

But that doesn't prevent ESA or Energia from building a structure that
mimics the shuttle cargo bay to hold the module in the rocket.

Post-Challenger a number of satellites which had been designed for
shuttle were moved to Titan. I believe they had such an adapter. So
at least in that case it was possible (although it wasn't cheap or
easy).

Jim Kingdon wrote:

But that doesn't prevent ESA or Energia from building a structure that
mimics the shuttle cargo bay to hold the module in the rocket.

Post-Challenger a number of satellites which had been designed for
shuttle were moved to Titan. I believe they had such an adapter. So
at least in that case it was possible (although it wasn't cheap or
easy).

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.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

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)?

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.