|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
80's style Stations Modules...
With all the excitement experienced during the past few days with the
attachment of the Columbus module to the ISS, I was reminded of the types of Space Station modules proposed back in the 1980's.... These tended to have a longer design, filling up the entire payload bay of the Shuttle. Does anyone know why these longer modules were rejected in favor of the shorter ones now used on the ISS? The older designs certainly had much more room. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
80's style Stations Modules...
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 09:39:48 -0600, in a place far, far away, "Joseph
S. Powell, III" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: With all the excitement experienced during the past few days with the attachment of the Columbus module to the ISS, I was reminded of the types of Space Station modules proposed back in the 1980's.... These tended to have a longer design, filling up the entire payload bay of the Shuttle. Does anyone know why these longer modules were rejected in favor of the shorter ones now used on the ISS? The older designs certainly had much more room. Probably at least partly because longer ones would have been too heavy for the Shuttle to get to the high-inclination ISS orbit. In the eighties, the station was planned to be put at 28 degrees. But that's just a guess. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
80's style Stations Modules...
On Feb 16, 10:50 am, (Rand Simberg)
wrote: On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 09:39:48 -0600, in a place far, far away, "Joseph S. Powell, III" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: With all the excitement experienced during the past few days with the attachment of the Columbus module to the ISS, I was reminded of the types of Space Station modules proposed back in the 1980's.... These tended to have a longer design, filling up the entire payload bay of the Shuttle. Does anyone know why these longer modules were rejected in favor of the shorter ones now used on the ISS? The older designs certainly had much more room. Probably at least partly because longer ones would have been too heavy for the Shuttle to get to the high-inclination ISS orbit. In the eighties, the station was planned to be put at 28 degrees. But that's just a guess. Rand is right. Also $ was factor |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
80's style Stations Modules...
On Feb 16, 11:36�am, wrote:
On Feb 16, 10:50 am, (Rand Simberg) wrote: On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 09:39:48 -0600, in a place far, far away, "Joseph S. Powell, III" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: With all the excitement experienced during the past few days with the attachment of the Columbus module to the ISS, I was reminded of the types of Space Station modules proposed back in the 1980's.... These tended to have a longer design, filling up the entire payload bay of the Shuttle. Does anyone know why these longer modules were rejected in favor of the shorter ones now used on the ISS? The older designs certainly had much more room. Probably at least partly because longer ones would have been too heavy for the Shuttle to get to the high-inclination ISS orbit. �In the eighties, the station was planned to be put at 28 degrees. �But that's just a guess. Rand is right. � Also $ was factor- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - just imagine if the saturn family of launcers hadnt been abandoned. hook a few skylabs together, big roomy and cheaper because everything wouldnt of been minituarized for in orbit installation........ the shuttle was a great idea poorly executed and remainded way too long |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
80's style Stations Modules...
On Feb 16, 11:56 am, bob haller safety advocate
wrote: wouldnt of been minituarized for in orbit installation........ That wasn't done. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
80's style Stations Modules...
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 09:39:48 -0600, "Joseph S. Powell, III"
wrote: With all the excitement experienced during the past few days with the attachment of the Columbus module to the ISS, I was reminded of the types of Space Station modules proposed back in the 1980's.... These tended to have a longer design, filling up the entire payload bay of the Shuttle. Does anyone know why these longer modules were rejected in favor of the shorter ones now used on the ISS? The Kibo Lab is the same dimensions it has always been planned to be. The U.S. modules shrank in a cost-cutting move during one of the redesigns in the early 1990s (this happened before the Russians came aboard and the inclination changed, so it wasn't because of that.) Columbus uses the MPLM spaceframe, probably as another cost-saving move. The MPLM was sized that way to leave room in the payload bay for non-pressurized cargo, if necessary. Brian |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
80's style Stations Modules...
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
80's style Stations Modules...
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
80's style Stations Modules...
Brian Thorn wrote:
$ was *the* factor. Once you have the CBM, end cones and general frame tooling, does it really cost that much more to add a metre or two to the length of a module ? You'll still have the same amount of testing to do, same electronics and subsystems. Is that where most of the costs are ? Or is the cost purely a matter of the number of shuttle launches required to assemble the station ? The lighter the modules, the more you could launch at a time and the fewer flights you'd need ? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Telesadists in the 80's and today | gb6726 | Astronomy Misc | 3 | June 20th 07 05:45 AM |
One-man Explorer Modules | K. M. Kirby | Space Shuttle | 11 | February 22nd 07 12:43 PM |
How many more modules are to be added to ISS? | bob haller | Space Station | 13 | August 16th 04 04:48 AM |
mid 80's White Custom built C8 | francis_marion | Amateur Astronomy | 12 | May 26th 04 03:57 AM |
ISS Modules without Shuttle? | Josh Gigantino | Policy | 10 | November 27th 03 05:30 AM |