A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

ISS Modules without Shuttle?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 20th 03, 05:21 AM
Josh Gigantino
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ISS Modules without Shuttle?

What would be necessary to launch the remaining ISS modules - Node 2,
Centrifuge, Kibo, Columbus - without the Shuttle? Obviously any new
Russian modules will go up on Proton, but I am assuming that would not
be feasible for Shuttle-manifested launches due to politics. What
would be required to launch them on EELVs? Is there a third stage that
could deliver and dock the modules, or co-orbit for docking by the
SSRMS? Could the European ATV be used for this purpose?

I'm wondering what are the issues involved, because Shuttle RTF keeps
slipping and in the recent hearings know one mentioned any other ways
of achieving station complete. Is "station complete" still a realistic
goal?

thanks,
J05H
  #2  
Old November 20th 03, 07:05 AM
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ISS Modules without Shuttle?

(Josh Gigantino) wrote in
om:

What would be necessary to launch the remaining ISS modules - Node 2,
Centrifuge, Kibo, Columbus - without the Shuttle?


As you state below, there are basically two approaches: an ELV upper stage
with autonomous rendezvous and either capture or docking capability (as the
Russians did with Kvant on Mir, and Pirs on ISS), or a maneuvering vehicle
stationed at ISS which would retrieve the modules (as was planned for OMV
with SSF).

Obviously any new
Russian modules will go up on Proton, but I am assuming that would not
be feasible for Shuttle-manifested launches due to politics.


It's not just politics (although with the Iran Nonproliferation Act,
politics is indeed major). Proton can put around 19.5 tons into ISS orbit,
but the heaviest ISS modules (P3/P4, S3/S4, S6, and Kibo) are in the 17 ton
range. Even the smallest upper stage the Russians have (the Progress M-CO1
used with Pirs, basically a Soyuz/Progress service module) would be too
heavy, and it may not even have enough control authority - you'd want
something like a FGB tug (used with Kvant) instead.

What
would be required to launch them on EELVs? Is there a third stage that
could deliver and dock the modules, or co-orbit for docking by the
SSRMS? Could the European ATV be used for this purpose?


Not without extensive modifications, to either the ATV or the modules, I'm
afraid. ATV can be thought of as having rendezvous/docking hardware on the
forward end and propulsion hardware at the aft. If the forward end docks
to the ISS module, which end docks with ISS?

Japan's HTV might be easier to modify for this purpose, but it would still
require a lot of mods. HTV has no docking capability, so that would have to
be added in order for it to capture an ISS module. Once at ISS, HTV can be
captured by the SSRMS, so that's not a problem in the same way it would be
for ATV.

Finally, *any* solution is going to involve quite a few mods to the modules
themselves. They are designed for the shuttle's 3 g launch environment, and
are designed to absorb launch loads through the longeron trunnion pins
rather than the base, as all ELVs require. They are designed to take
advantage of the thermal environment of the payload bay during transit to
ISS, and most require at least "keep-alive" power to be provided by the
orbiter. So even if you use an OMV-like vehicle stationed at ISS, the
modules would require these services to be supplied by the ELV in some way
prior to the OMV picking them up. Any modifications to the modules
themselves would likely be expensive, since for the most part they are
already built and being integrated for launch at the SSPF in Florida.

I'm wondering what are the issues involved, because Shuttle RTF keeps
slipping and in the recent hearings know one mentioned any other ways
of achieving station complete.


On the surface, RTF appears to have slipped a lot. But all the "RTF" dates
NASA published prior to the current one (12 Sept 2004) were internal
planning dates only, and *none* of them were based on what it would
actually take to meet the CAIB requirements. So they weren't really
realistic to begin with. That's not to say that further slippage won't
occur - it almost certainly will.

Is "station complete" still a realistic
goal?


That depends on how you define "station complete". :-)

--
JRF

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




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 April 2nd 04 12:01 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 February 2nd 04 04:33 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Manifest Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 October 6th 03 02:59 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 September 12th 03 01:37 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Manifest Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 September 12th 03 01:37 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.