TKS-like spacecraft

Henry Spencer has several times in this forum suggested that a TKS-like
spacecraft is an option for a nation/agency requiring a flexible
general-purpose piloted space vehicle. Regarding this, he noted that an
Apollo CM, appropriately modified, could have functioned like the Soviet's
Merkur/VA Reentry Module, and a new module could have provided the TKS
module's functions of pressurized space, docking adapter, service and
propulsion. In the modern era, one can speculate about the usefulness of
various real hardware, as well as imaginary systems, in such a spacecraft
concept. Regardless of the actual launch vehicles available (or not) to loft
such payloads, I've been intrigued by the subject and have some questions
based on it that folks around here might be interested in sharing
speculations about:

NASA's "mir heritage" document treats the TKS as two vehicles, mated at the
aft ends, which implies one must develop two spacecraft and we all know
that's extremely expensive. Can any existing systems be adapted for less
than the cost of producing a new vehicle? Is a totally new pair of vehicles
necessary?

Regardless of the nation/agency leading the effort, would there be any
compelling value in using the ESA's ATV as a starting point for the TKS
module of such a spacecraft? In this case, I suppose that the designers
would be precluded from providing a rear-mounted docking port, as featured
on the Russian TKS. It would seem that a command module with a heat shield
hatch and appropriate adapter systems might be attached to the ATV's docking
tunnel (sans the current docking hardware), with a docking system on its
apex, much like Soyuz or Apollo.

Is the Japanese cargo module a useful starting point for a TKS module?

How about the modules used in the ISS? I'm under the impression that ISS
incorporates habitable modules of at least two different basic designs, one
Russian, the other American (and a third, Japanese, module not yet flown).
Is there such a thing as a "generic" ISS module (or tooling for same) that
designers could potentially adapt to serve as the TKS module under
discussion? IIRC Mir was largely composed of modules "descended" from the
earlier TKS designs, so the basic idea is not original or untried.

If the Apollo CM was, in principle, a candidate for a VA-like role, how
about the CEV? Could it not be given a heat-shield hatch and be deprived of
the proposed apex docking adapter in lieu of a rear docking adapter on a
TKS-like module (of whatever provenance)?

Would there be any value in a TKS module that flies semi-autonomously after
the CM departs, such that it is either available for future manning, or used
for a time prior to disposal, as the Shenzou orbital modules apparently are?
IIRC, the original TKS was intended to connect to a space station, leaving
the main module in place after the VA returned to Earth.

Would such a vehicle be too massive too lift beyond LEO by any existing or
likely booster/upper stage combination?

Mr Jim

In article RebDf.81493$4l5.51499@dukeread05,
Mr Jim wrote:
Regardless of the nation/agency leading the effort, would there be any
compelling value in using the ESA's ATV as a starting point for the TKS
module of such a spacecraft?

It's an interesting thought, although as you note, its design would seem
to be incompatible with a rear docking port, which reduces its value.

Is the Japanese cargo module a useful starting point for a TKS module?

Um, there is no Japanese cargo module, that I recall. Are you thinking of
the Italian cargo modules? They unfortunately aren't much more than
pressurized shells with cargo stowage inside; I don't believe they have
much in the way of useful subsystems.

How about the modules used in the ISS? I'm under the impression that ISS
incorporates habitable modules of at least two different basic designs, one
Russian, the other American (and a third, Japanese, module not yet flown).

Actually it's more like five. For one thing, you forgot the European lab
module, which is a descendant of the Spacelab module the shuttle used to
carry. For another, the Russian modules come in at least two flavors:
Zarya, the first station module to be launched, was yet another TKS
derivative, while Zvezda, the station's service module, is based on the
Mir core module.

Is there such a thing as a "generic" ISS module (or tooling for same) that
designers could potentially adapt to serve as the TKS module under
discussion?

Any of the major modules is *potentially* suitable for such use, as far as
I know, but I suspect none is ideal. A TKS-style cargo module needs
propulsion, and possibly some other things, outside the pressure hull as
well as cargo and activity space inside.

If the Apollo CM was, in principle, a candidate for a VA-like role, how
about the CEV? Could it not be given a heat-shield hatch and be deprived of
the proposed apex docking adapter in lieu of a rear docking adapter on a
TKS-like module (of whatever provenance)?

Certainly possible, given that it's nothing much more than lines on paper
at the moment. Actually, having docking assemblies on both ends would
make it considerably more flexible.

Would there be any value in a TKS module that flies semi-autonomously after
the CM departs, such that it is either available for future manning, or used
for a time prior to disposal, as the Shenzou orbital modules apparently are?

It probably isn't of great value when you've already got a space station.

Would such a vehicle be too massive too lift beyond LEO by any existing or
likely booster/upper stage combination?

To go beyond LEO, you definitely need either serious orbital assembly or a
distinctly large launcher. Remember that Proton, which is one of the
largest of today's launchers, could just send a severely stripped-down
Soyuz around the Moon -- that's what the Zonds were. This would
definitely be a rather bigger spacecraft, so you'd have to build a rather
larger launcher, or assemble the departure stage in orbit, or both.

There is a serious proposal to use a Proton to launch a fully fueled
Breeze-M stage plus a small habitation module, dock a modified Soyuz with
that, and use the Breeze-M to send the whole thing around the Moon. (The
hab module carries the extra supplies for the trip, and some supplementary
facilities including a bit more living space.) For a bigger spacecraft or
a more ambitious mission, you need either a heavy launcher or multiple
flights to put the hardware together.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 12:35:54 -0600, Henry Spencer wrote
(in article ):

Is the Japanese cargo module a useful starting point for a TKS module?

Um, there is no Japanese cargo module, that I recall.

HTV?

--
Herb

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
~ RAH

Henry Spencer ) writes:

[....]

To go beyond LEO, you definitely need either serious orbital assembly or a
distinctly large launcher. Remember that Proton, which is one of the
largest of today's launchers, could just send a severely stripped-down
Soyuz around the Moon -- that's what the Zonds were. This would
definitely be a rather bigger spacecraft, so you'd have to build a rather
larger launcher, or assemble the departure stage in orbit, or both.

There is a serious proposal to use a Proton to launch a fully fueled
Breeze-M stage plus a small habitation module, dock a modified Soyuz with
that, and use the Breeze-M to send the whole thing around the Moon. (The
hab module carries the extra supplies for the trip, and some supplementary
facilities including a bit more living space.)

Would such a combination spacecraft be able to enter and leave Lunar
Orbit, or would it merely be a Zond class once around the back and then
home flight ? Would the Soyuz be a full one, that is, with it's orbital
mudule ?

For a bigger spacecraft or
a more ambitious mission, you need either a heavy launcher or multiple
flights to put the hardware together.

Saturn V or EOR. :-)

Andre

In article ,
Andre Lieven wrote:
There is a serious proposal to use a Proton to launch a fully fueled
Breeze-M stage plus a small habitation module, dock a modified Soyuz with
that, and use the Breeze-M to send the whole thing around the Moon. (The
hab module carries the extra supplies for the trip, and some supplementary
facilities including a bit more living space.)

Would such a combination spacecraft be able to enter and leave Lunar
Orbit, or would it merely be a Zond class once around the back and then
home flight ?

It's strictly a Zond-style free-return flyby. Getting into, and then out
of, lunar orbit is substantially more costly in fuel; that goes beyond
what you can do with existing hardware and a single docking.

Would the Soyuz be a full one, that is, with it's orbital mudule ?

Yes, that's a full Soyuz on this one. The one significant modification
needed is the heavier Zond heatshield.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

In message
(Henry Spencer) wrote:

In article RebDf.81493$4l5.51499@dukeread05,
Mr Jim wrote:

How about the modules used in the ISS? I'm under the impression that ISS
incorporates habitable modules of at least two different basic designs, one
Russian, the other American (and a third, Japanese, module not yet flown).

Actually it's more like five. For one thing, you forgot the European lab
module, which is a descendant of the Spacelab module the shuttle used to
carry.

Is there such a thing as a "generic" ISS module (or tooling for same) that
designers could potentially adapt to serve as the TKS module under
discussion?

Any of the major modules is *potentially* suitable for such use, as far as
I know, but I suspect none is ideal.

All the Alenia built modules come off a sort of production line. There's
effectively five components, plain cylinder section, cylinder section
with 4 CBMs, blank endcap, endcap with CBM and endcap with Russian
dcoking system. Mix and match gets you a node, a lab, an MPLM or the
cargo section of an ATV. For a TKS module you'd probably either need yet
another endcap, or you may be able to adapt the CBM or Russian
varieties.

There used to be an article on Alenias web site detailing the components
and how each module was put together but it had moved or gone last time
I looked for it. They've got a long history of being interested in
standardised space stations with papers published in JBIS over the
years. No great surprise when they jumped in to start building things.

Anthony

In article ,
Herb Schaltegger wrote:
Is the Japanese cargo module a useful starting point for a TKS module?
Um, there is no Japanese cargo module, that I recall.

HTV?

Hmm, I'd completely forgotten about HTV. It certainly doesn't exist at
the moment, and given JAXA's financial woes, I think HTV's future is
uncertain at best. Note that it requires an H-IIB launcher, substantially
upgraded from the already-troubled H-IIA.

As for it as a starting point... Hard to tell, insufficient data. At
first glance it looks like pretty much an ATV clone, so the answer's
probably the same as for ATV: possible but not ideal, since it's not set
up to accommodate an aft docking port.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

"Anthony Frost" wrote in message
...
In message
(Henry Spencer) wrote:

In article RebDf.81493$4l5.51499@dukeread05,
Mr Jim wrote:

Any of the major modules is *potentially* suitable for such use, as far
as
I know, but I suspect none is ideal.

All the Alenia built modules come off a sort of production line. There's
effectively five components, plain cylinder section, cylinder section
with 4 CBMs, blank endcap, endcap with CBM and endcap with Russian
dcoking system. Mix and match gets you a node, a lab, an MPLM or the
cargo section of an ATV. For a TKS module you'd probably either need yet
another endcap, or you may be able to adapt the CBM or Russian
varieties.

There used to be an article on Alenias web site detailing the components
and how each module was put together but it had moved or gone last time
I looked for it. They've got a long history of being interested in
standardised space stations with papers published in JBIS over the
years. No great surprise when they jumped in to start building things.

Anthony


Thanks for the input, folks. I did not know about some of the things you've
discussed. Was just looking at the Parom information on Russianspaceweb, and
that seems like a very flexible design. It's a miniature TKS. It's pressure
vessel can't be much larger than an ASTP docking module's. Will it require a
larger radius fairing than a Progress?

Jim

Henry Spencer wrote:
In article ,
Herb Schaltegger wrote:
Is the Japanese cargo module a useful starting point for a TKS module?
Um, there is no Japanese cargo module, that I recall.

HTV?

Hmm, I'd completely forgotten about HTV. It certainly doesn't exist at
the moment, and given JAXA's financial woes, I think HTV's future is
uncertain at best. Note that it requires an H-IIB launcher, substantially
upgraded from the already-troubled H-IIA.


They are bending metal for it, so it's hardly vaporware.

An interesting option for ISS COTS would be buying or bartering HTVs
and launching them on a US launcher. Atlas and Delta come in versions
with more than enough payload. This thought has evidently occured to
more than one entity, judging by NASA's published answers to COTS
questions. And Mitsubishi has put itself on the list of potential
vendors.

From the US point of view, HTV has a number of advantages over ATV.
It's designed to visit the US side and to carry both pressurized and
unpressurized cargo. And the French have been more obnoxious to US
politicians than the Japanese lately.

Also, the ATV is more optimized for carrying reboost propellant in
adddition to dry cargo. If the CEV gets built as planned, that's going
to be something of a drug on the market, as the tanks sized for lunar
return can carry a lot of propellant. I predict an HTV or HTV
derivitive on a US launcher will be a strong COTS contender.

Another interesting option would be an Orbital Express derived tug.
Then you don't need to throw away the expensive tug components each
trip, and the cargo module only needs power and stabilization.

Will McLean

In article .com,
Will wrote:
Hmm, I'd completely forgotten about HTV. It certainly doesn't exist at
the moment, and given JAXA's financial woes, I think HTV's future is
uncertain at best. Note that it requires an H-IIB launcher...

They are bending metal for it, so it's hardly vaporware.

Bending metal unfortunately doesn't preclude it being fairly vaporous. :-)
They've bent a lot of metal for the Lunar-A multi-penetrator probe, which
was originally supposed to launch in 1996, and it's still on the ground
with its status listed -- last I saw -- as "under review".

An interesting option for ISS COTS would be buying or bartering HTVs
and launching them on a US launcher.

If memory serves, COTS funding has the usual 51%-US-content constraint.
The US historically has been hostile to attempts to apply a "Made in US,
really, trust us" sticker to foreign-made space/rocket hardware in an
attempt to sell it (or services using it) to the government.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |