MSNBC (JimO) on value of 'big door' on ISS

On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 06:10:29 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In article , John Doe wrote:
That hatch (CBM) is about to get very useless when the shuttle is
retired and the whole concept of MPLM becomes moot, unless the Japanese
actually develop and produce their HTV.

Or unless either the CEV or one of the COTS commercial vehicles berths to
a CBM instead of docking. Which several of the COTS designs do; I'm not
sure about the Continued Employment Vehicle. (For a while it was going to
use a new lightweight docking interface, if I recall correctly, but that
has since been canceled.)

They're still trading LIDS and APAS, and dual capability.

Brian Thorn wrote:


CxV...

"http://www.transformspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=projects.view&workid=CCD3097A-96B6-175C-97F15F270F2B83AA"

Note the square CBM hatch in the illustration.



What exactly are those two spacecraft in the background supposed to be?
They look like vastly scaled-up Atlas ICBM warheads with hatches on the
back.

Pat

thanks -- i'm getting some good feedback off-line too,
all helpful if (when) it becomes a book chapter!!

Brian was ahead of me on this -- I have been vigorously
introduced to the CBM mechanism on Japan's HTV by
some of its potential users -- article needs an update....

On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 06:10:29 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
wrote:


Or unless either the CEV or one of the COTS commercial vehicles berths to
a CBM instead of docking. Which several of the COTS designs do; I'm not
sure about the Continued Employment Vehicle. (For a while it was going to
use a new lightweight docking interface, if I recall correctly, but that
has since been canceled.)

Isn't the lightweight docking system planned for the "Block II' (or
whatever the lunar version is called) to save weight? Block I is
supposed to be as much off-the-shelf as NASA can get, to reduce
development time and cost.

That's what the shuttle *should* have done,
instead of using the CBM interface only for the separate MPLMs.

Why? There doesn't seem to be much room in the Shuttle's crew cabin
for Station racks, which means they'd still have to use the MPLMs to
haul them back and forth. In that case, why bother with the expense of
a new Shuttle airlock, new shuttle docking tunnels, etc., when you can
just berth the MPLM and move cargo directly? The only thing Shuttle
docking at a CBM would help would be with the Spacehab used as a cargo
hauler (i.e., STS-116) but that's always been secondary to MPLM
anyway.

Brian

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 06:58:44 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:

"http://www.transformspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=projects.view&workid=CCD3097A-96B6-175C-97F15F270F2B83AA"

What exactly are those two spacecraft in the background supposed to be?
They look like vastly scaled-up Atlas ICBM warheads with hatches on the
back.

I think those are the cargo version. Crew version is the one with the
solar panels.

Brian

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
HTV isn't the only alternative. Out of the six finalists for NASA's
Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program, four have
released at least some details on how their spacecraft will attach to ISS -
and all four (Rocketplane Kistler K-1, SpaceX Dragon, Spacehab Apex, and
t/Space CxV) have chosen the CBM.

OK, that looks great. But In reality, since we're not even sure that CEV
will ever get off the ground, why would anyone bet their life on those
neat little ideas floating around ?

And when could such neat little ideas materialise ? Any chance they
would be in production and fully operational by the time the shuttle is
retired ?

If not, then there will be a long period during which NASA and partners
will not be able to launch any object that cannot fit through russian hatches.


Are there any chances of HTV flying by 2010 ?


The CBM seems to be one of the most uncelebrated success stories of the
ISS. So much so that when the politicians killed the shuttle, they
didn't realise what else they were killing (the whole concept of MPLM).

John Doe wrote in :

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
HTV isn't the only alternative. Out of the six finalists for NASA's
Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program, four have
released at least some details on how their spacecraft will attach to
ISS - and all four (Rocketplane Kistler K-1, SpaceX Dragon, Spacehab
Apex, and t/Space CxV) have chosen the CBM.

OK, that looks great. But In reality, since we're not even sure that
CEV will ever get off the ground, why would anyone bet their life on
those neat little ideas floating around ?

Who's betting their life? Not me. Certainly not NASA.

And when could such neat little ideas materialise ? Any chance they
would be in production and fully operational by the time the shuttle
is retired ?

I don't know what the chances are. Neither do you. I do know the chances
are zero if the COTS program is not funded, and greater than zero if it is.

If not, then there will be a long period during which NASA and
partners will not be able to launch any object that cannot fit through
russian hatches.

Duh!

Are there any chances of HTV flying by 2010 ?

It depends on whether JAXA gets serious about developing the H-IIB. The H-
IIA lacks the performance to carry an HTV to orbit.


--
JRF

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

In article , John Doe wrote:
...all four (Rocketplane Kistler K-1, SpaceX Dragon, Spacehab Apex, and
t/Space CxV) have chosen the CBM.

OK, that looks great. But In reality, since we're not even sure that CEV
will ever get off the ground, why would anyone bet their life on those
neat little ideas floating around ?

Why would you bet your life on a commercial airliner? Surely you want one
built by the government... assuming it ever got off the ground. :-)

The problems with CEV have everything to do with who's doing it, and not
much with the basic concept. The fact that the K-1 et al are *not* being
done by the government is their biggest advantage.

And when could such neat little ideas materialise ? Any chance they
would be in production and fully operational by the time the shuttle is
retired ?

Several of them think they could do just that, if adequately and promptly
funded. There's no particular reason why it should take most of a decade
to build a modernized Gemini. Gemini took four years from first sketches
to manned flights, including at least a year lost to some then-immature
technologies (notably the fuel cells) and sheer bad luck (sustained bad
weather at the Cape badly delayed the second unmanned test).

Are there any chances of HTV flying by 2010 ?

I think HTV is unlikely to be flying by then. The problem is not HTV
itself, but the requirement for an enlarged H-II to launch it. That's
going to take major new launcher-development funding, which I would say is
just not in the cards for JAXA right now.

Mind you, that doesn't mean that the work done on the HTV will be lost.
Kistler's COTS proposal uses several of the major HTV subsystems.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 22:43:30 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

Are there any chances of HTV flying by 2010 ?

It depends on whether JAXA gets serious about developing the H-IIB. The H-
IIA lacks the performance to carry an HTV to orbit.

Weren't there stories a while ago about LockMart or Boeing
license-building (or joint building) HTV as part of the COTS proposal?

Brian