|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
80's style Stations Modules...
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 11:47:40 -0600, in a place far, far away, "Jorge
R. Frank" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: 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." Well, as I said, just a guess. I didn't follow the program that closely. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
80's style Stations Modules...
On Feb 16, 10:56*am, bob haller safety advocate
wrote: the shuttle was a great idea poorly executed and remainded way too long When should it have been permanently grounded, in your opinion? Right after it's "execution" by Reagan/Bush/Graham (Challenger destroyed; shuttle grounded nearly three years; endless Thiokol pork barrel in Utah)? Right after its "execution" by GWB/Cheney/O'Keefe (Columbia destroyed; shuttle grounded; endless Lockheed pork barrel in Louisiana)? Maybe you think it should have been grounded before it flew, say in the Carter administration? JTM |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
80's style Stations Modules...
On Feb 16, 1:17 pm, John Doe wrote:
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 ? 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 ? Outfitting, meaning racks. The electronics and subsystems are in racks, not the module shell. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
80's style Stations Modules...
On Feb 16, 12:32 pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
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 The first "M" in MPLM used to be for Mini. It was another cost saving measure. The original PLM were bigger |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
80's style Stations Modules...
On Feb 16, 2:05 pm, "
wrote: On Feb 16, 10:56 am, bob haller safety advocate Look, they even flock together |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
80's style Stations Modules...
On Feb 16, 2:05�pm, "
wrote: On Feb 16, 10:56�am, bob haller safety advocate wrote: the shuttle was a great idea poorly executed and remainded way too long When should it have been permanently grounded, in your opinion? Right after it's "execution" by Reagan/Bush/Graham (Challenger destroyed; shuttle grounded nearly three years; endless Thiokol pork barrel in Utah)? Right after its "execution" by GWB/Cheney/O'Keefe (Columbia destroyed; shuttle grounded; endless Lockheed pork barrel in Louisiana)? Maybe you think it should have been grounded before it flew, say in the Carter administration? JTM should of haver been certified for manned flight without launch boost escape..... and remained in service way too long, should of been been replaced after challenger....... iss SHOULDNT HAVE been designed to use it |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
80's style Stations Modules...
On Feb 16, 7:06 pm, bob haller safety advocate
wrote: On Feb 16, 2:05�pm, " wrote: On Feb 16, 10:56�am, bob haller safety advocate wrote: the shuttle was a great idea poorly executed and remainded way too long When should it have been permanently grounded, in your opinion? Right after it's "execution" by Reagan/Bush/Graham (Challenger destroyed; shuttle grounded nearly three years; endless Thiokol pork barrel in Utah)? Right after its "execution" by GWB/Cheney/O'Keefe (Columbia destroyed; shuttle grounded; endless Lockheed pork barrel in Louisiana)? Maybe you think it should have been grounded before it flew, say in the Carter administration? JTM should of haver been certified for manned flight without launch boost escape..... and remained in service way too long, should of been been replaced after challenger....... iss SHOULDNT HAVE been designed to use it Wrong. The ISS wouldn't exist without the shuttle. ISS existed to give the shuttle something to do |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
80's style Stations Modules...
On Feb 16, 6:06*pm, bob haller safety advocate
wrote: should of haver been certified for manned flight without launch boost escape..... Did STS-1 through STS-4 fly without an ejection system? and remained in service way too long, should of been been replaced after challenger....... And if Challenger had not ended in disaster? JTM |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
80's style Stations Modules...
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |