A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

80's style Stations Modules...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 16th 08, 04:39 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Joseph S. Powell, III
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 83
Default 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  
Old February 16th 08, 04:50 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default 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  
Old February 16th 08, 05:36 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 587
Default 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  
Old February 16th 08, 05:56 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
bob haller safety advocate
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 615
Default 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  
Old February 16th 08, 06:19 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 587
Default 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  
Old February 16th 08, 06:32 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Brian Thorn[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,266
Default 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
  #8  
Old February 16th 08, 06:47 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,089
Default 80's style Stations Modules...

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


Actually, you're both wrong. The modules were shortened as part of
the infamous "Fred" redesign of Space Station Freedom in 1991, two years
before the Russians were brought into the project and the station's
planned orbit moved from 28.8 to 51.6 degrees.

Astronautix is normally suspect as a source, but their Fred article was
guest-written by Marcus Lindroos and is fairly well researched:

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/spanfred.htm

"The length of the crew modules was reduced to 8.2 meters to reduce the
weight while allowing them to be tested, integrated and outfitted on the
ground rather than in space."
  #9  
Old February 16th 08, 07:13 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Mike Ross[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default 80's style Stations Modules...

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

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


Actually, you're both wrong. The modules were shortened as part of
the infamous "Fred" redesign of Space Station Freedom in 1991, two years
before the Russians were brought into the project and the station's
planned orbit moved from 28.8 to 51.6 degrees.

Astronautix is normally suspect as a source, but their Fred article was
guest-written by Marcus Lindroos and is fairly well researched:

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/spanfred.htm

"The length of the crew modules was reduced to 8.2 meters to reduce the
weight while allowing them to be tested, integrated and outfitted on the
ground rather than in space."



I would have thought it was also driven by the need to keep the Orbiter CG
towards the back of the bay. A big module would need a lot of rear ballast
to make the orbiter flyable in an RTLS abort, no?

Mike Ross

  #10  
Old February 16th 08, 07:17 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
John Doe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default 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

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
80's style Stations Modules... Joseph S. Powell, III Space Shuttle 28 February 21st 08 03:12 PM
Telesadists in the 80's and today gb6726 Astronomy Misc 3 June 20th 07 05:45 AM
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 06:30 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:05 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.