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.

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.

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

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

On Feb 16, 11:56 am, bob haller safety advocate
wrote:

wouldnt of been minituarized for in orbit installation........

That wasn't done.

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

On Feb 16, 2:05 pm, "
wrote:
On Feb 16, 10:56 am, bob haller safety advocate


Look, they even flock together

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

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 08:36:32 -0800 (PST), wrote:


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

No. The Lab and Hab shrank long before the Alpha-with-Russia days. And
Kibo is the same size as ever, so it obviously isn't too heavy for
51.6 deg.

$ was *the* factor.

Brian

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 ?