Griffin: ISS program overhaul is coming

[wvbraun]

Link<br /><br /><i>"Over the course of this summer we will be refining the plan by which we are going to complete the development of the space station," he said, adding that he hoped the plan would be finished by October.<br /><br />[...]<br /><br />Griffin said it would be impossible for the three craft to carry out all 28 remaining missions needed to complete the ISS by the time they are withdrawn from service in 2010.<br /><br />"That is not a plan that we can execute, and so we need a better plan," Griffin said.<br /><br />"We have best-case, worst-case and average-case flight rates with the shuttle. I should say we should easily be able to do more than 15 but we know that it is beyond reason to expect to be able to do 28 shuttle flights by 2010," Griffin said.<br /><br />[...]<br /><br />Griffin said: "It is our intention to launch the Columbus (science) module and all the international partner modules. We have obligations to the space station partnership and we take that seriously."<br /><br />Asked as to what the revised launch and construction programme would look like, he said, "We are looking at other possibilities, other launch vehicles, delays, various possibilities."</i>

 

[radarredux]

I am surprised this posting has not received more attention. It seems to have a little of everything: the number of shuttle flights (potentially cut back by almost half), ISS configuration and schedule (completion delayed until after shuttle is retired), the use of a new HLV.

 

[elguapoguano]

This is true, Columbia was considered too heavy to lift most of the ISS hardware, and it didn't have the docking system in place. However, I thought that Columbia had been altered slighty, adding the docking port (for needed missions). If I remember correctly, Columbia flew with a MPLM to ISS in the not too distant past, at least partly because of the other orbiter being in the major modification period. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"...how did NASA figure that they could finish the ISS significantly prior to 2010 anyway?"</font><br /><br />Well the 2010 number didn't really come from NASA determining when the ISS would/could be finished -- it was Bush saying when the shuttle would be retired. It's certainly possible that he asked NASA before setting that date when they thought the ISS would be completed. If so -- I suspect they made an off-the-cuff answer. This would fit in with the reports about NASA decisions being made without actually spending time on timewasting 'research'.

 

[najab]

><i>If I remember correctly, Columbia flew with a MPLM to ISS in the not too distant past, at least partly because of the other orbiter being in the major modification period.</i><p>Your recollection is faulty, in this case. Columbia never flew to ISS. However, you are correct that they made the necessary alterations to her payload bay to accomodate the installation of the external airlock and she was scheduled to go to Station on STS-118.</p>

 

[najab]

*Psst* We've gotta stop doing that...people are starting to look at us strangely. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"...people are starting to look at us strangely."</font><br /><br />Too late.

 

[radarredux]

OK, here is my question (SG are you still on?): Griffin says, "<i>we know that it is beyond reason to expect to be able to do 28 shuttle flights by 2010</i>". Why is this the case?<br /><br />I used to think 28 flights from 2006-2010 (5 years) was very unlikely, until I ran the numbers myself. Post-Challenger the shuttles were regularly flying 30+ missions during 5-year windows.<br /><br />So why cannot NASA fly a similar number in the post-Columbia era?

 

[j05h]

Any opinions on a one-off Shuttle-C to deliver Kibo and Columbus? Here's the plan: strip an Orbiter down to engines, RCS, cargo bay (extended) and flight/middeck. No wings, TPS, etc. Flies w/ 7 crew, brings as much to ISS as possible in modules, supplies, etc. Should be able to deliver the two modules and some extra supplies, 80 or 85 tons total in one shot. Crew spends 1-6 months assembling new systems, ditches Shuttle-C in ocean and takes Soyuz/Shenzhou/CXV back down. Requires coordination between partners and thinking outside the box. Free labor from JSC/KSC/MSFC for Shuttle-C mods.<br /><br />Any thoughts? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"If we take Griffin's lowball of 15 flights..."</font><br /><br />Actually -- he said they should easily be able to do more than fifteen flights. Ergo 16 is the absolute minimum. Considering he indicated that was 'easy' then it would imply several more beyond that to be possible. Figure twenty flights as a reasonable low-end figure. He said twenty-eight is impossible, so figure twenty-five as an upper-end. So we have a figure somewhere between 20 and 25 flights -- a reasonable guess would be the end figure at 21-23.<br /><br />I suspect it still adds up to hardware left on the ground, though...

 

[henryhallam]

<font color="yellow"><br />Any opinions on a one-off Shuttle-C to deliver Kibo and Columbus? Here's the plan: strip an Orbiter down to engines, RCS, cargo bay (extended) and flight/middeck. No wings, TPS, etc. Flies w/ 7 crew, brings as much to ISS as possible in modules, supplies, etc. Should be able to deliver the two modules and some extra supplies, 80 or 85 tons total in one shot. Crew spends 1-6 months assembling new systems, ditches Shuttle-C in ocean and takes Soyuz/Shenzhou/CXV back down. Requires coordination between partners and thinking outside the box. Free labor from JSC/KSC/MSFC for Shuttle-C mods.<br /></font><br /><br />Not really very likely IMO - the crew have no abort option during launch and rendezvous, and if this is effectively a brand new vehicle you don't want to send crew up with no abort option! I think the Shuttle C is generally supposed to be unmanned.<br />Labour and development costs of Shuttle C are certainly not free! I would expect them to be more than the incremental cost of two STS flights although I'm not certain about this. But devolping Shuttle C will also take time, probably at least 4 years.<br />ISS is in a fairly high inclination orbit and I think a first-generation Shuttle C would have difficulty getting 80-85 metric tonnes up there, 65-70 is more realistic and even that is with no crew.<br /><br />Use of a Shuttle C to bring up some parts of the ISS is certainly feasible but there is an important complication in that the modules are designed to be launched by Shuttle and therefore have fittings for the Orbiter cargo bay. Granted, a Shuttle-C would probably be more amenable to launching ISS modules than a Delta or Atlas would be, but the modules would still have to be checked out for the different vibration amplitudes and stresses etc = /> more cost.<br /><br />My gut feeling is that most of the remaining modules will be launched by the current STS, perhaps with some logistics flights taken over by EELV or ATV.

 

[nacnud]

Ok seeing as speculation is ripe this is one option that I'd like to float, please sink it if it’s too daft. <br /><br />The major components of the ISS ie the habitable module, solar truss etc have to go on to the shuttle. That is the vehicle that they have been designed for and it would be a false economy to try and send them up on another vehicle. However a lot of the insides of the modules, the International Standard Payload Racks are delivered later on shuttle flights. Might an alternative method of delivering these be found?<br /><br />Here is the wild idea.<br /><br />How about using t/space’s CXV to deliver them?<br /><br />No wait it might not be that stupid, honest! The CXV appears to have enough room inside it for 2 crew and 1 ISPR, thus negating the need for development of a remote or autonomous docking capability. It also appears to be equipped with a docking system that is the same as the Common Berthing Mechanism which is the only docking system large enough to accommodate ISPRs. Being a way of getting to, and <b>back</b> from space it could also be capable of retrieving ISPR from the ISS and delivering them to Earth, a capability and would otherwise be lost with the retirement of the shuttle. Optimistically a shuttle flight cost around $500M and with a MPLM can deliver 16 ISPR to the ISS, that’s about $30M per ISPR. A CXV launch is projected at $20M per flight, a $10M saving per ISPR. It could also allow the ISS much more regular flights and shorter crew tours of duty.<br /><br />So does this idea have merit?<br />

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"How about using t/space’s CXV to deliver them? "</font><br /><br />If we were to go down this path, I'd expect that a cargo-adpatation of the CEV would be more likely and better suited.<br /><br />- It's likely going to use the APAS-89. I may well be wrong -- but I thought this also was large enough for the ISPRs.<br />- One assumes that NASA will (finally) use autonomous docking with the CEV, which means the craft could be stripped of crew couches/provisions, etc. and sent up unmanned.<br />- It <b>should</b> have a considerably larger payload capacity than the CXV when sent unmanned.<br />- These cargo flights to the ISS would be an excellent early test of the system.

 

[nacnud]

Nope APAS is too small for ISPRs, you need CBMs.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"...too small for ISPRs..."</font><br /><br />What that screams to me is that whoever designed ISPRs is the type of person to build a boat in their basement.

 

[nacnud]

yeah, it's a good modular idea but it does assume the shuttle or something as big.