Operation: Reasonable Closure

[j05h]

I'm going to start this quick, i'd like only solution-oriented postings. No trolling, no flaming (self included) and the questions are thus: <br /><br />What Station hardware is completed and still on the ground? Columbus, Kibo, Cupola. What else?<br /><br />What routes besides Shuttle can get these components to ISS? What is available now, what needs development? <br /><br /><br />Columbus mass:10 300 kg, Launch mass 12 800 kg (2500 kg payload) - Can it be emptied of non-essential racks, then have them installed on-orbit? Kibo is heavier at 15.9 tonnes, which launchers could theoretically handle them? Proton comes to mind (with small FGB like old Kvant2?), DeltaIV, Atlas or ArianeV? DeltaIV can do 24 tons to LEO, for example. For Kibo, that is nearly ten tons of "extra mass" to figure out how to accomodate the payload and get it tugged to ISS. <br /><br />I propose that if Parom is developed, it's first payload should be the Cupola.<br /><br />solutions?<br /><br />josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[j05h]

Trusses look around 12 tons, solar arrays 15.9. These are both well within Delta IV-H limits. Node 2 is between 14 and 15 tons. <br /><br />I haven't seen any guesses on Parom's capabilities WRT deltaV and development schedule. Could it potentially handle a "dumb" launch of station components from the US? Would the modules need more prior control than a 3rd/4th stage?<br /><br />There has got to be a cheaper way of reaching Core Complete (or reasonable subset) without spending another $25+Billion on Shuttle. The sooner STS ops are closed down, the sooner there is budget for delivery of ISS modules via other methods, and the sooner there is money for Station science, VSE hardware and more probes. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[ehs40]

isnt the reason we havent done this already because putting the station componets on the station requiers the extra people and manuerability that only the shuttle can bring up? also are the componets oddly shapped and can only be launched in the shuttle?

 

[holmec]

>There are many many problems in launching theISS components on EELVs<<br /><br />So your saying it could be done but its costly in both time and money. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

What about the European module and the Japanese module, are they up there? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[steve82]

"I often wonder how far the Brazilians got on the External Pallet Adapter "<br /><br />ExPress is back in play. They are looking to manifest everything but the kitchen sink as far as spare ORUs are concerned and park as many of them up on the ISS until needed before the STS winds down.

 

[j05h]

>This would require addational modifications..... The list of roadblocks go on and on. It would not be cheap to change to EELVs and it would take longer that 4 or 5 years.<br /><br />Are you saying it would cost less to keep Shuttle going than to re-outfit the modules for EELV? Seriously, $30-odd Billion is a lot of money for modifying payload shrouds. What about putting the experiement and ECLSS racks into new ATV/HTV-derived modules? Not ideal, for sure, but perhaps vastly less expensive. <br /><br />We need to think outside the box, because the status quo is clearly not working.<br /><br />Josh<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[wdobner]

If I follow Shuttle_Guy's posting it sounds like if you put the stuff up on an EELV it may break enroute from acoustic or G loading which must somehow differ from the Shuttle. It'd be a bummer if you put all that stuff on a Delta IVH and put it into orbit only to find that the launcher broke it because you didn't bother testing to see that the payload was compatible with the launcher.

 

[CalliArcale]

You are correct. It goes way beyond modifying payload shrouds (which itself isn't really trivial either). The biggest risk from committing to Delta IV Heavy (from a program management perspective) would probably be the risk that once it's too late to go back to Shuttle, the recertification work to verify the payloads for Delta comes back and says "no go". At that point you'd be left with useless payloads, because they'd have to be reengineered to go on Delta, and that's likely to be too expensive.<br /><br />It may seem trivial to slap payloads in different vehicles, but it's not at all. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Seriously, $30-odd Billion is a lot of money for modifying payload shrouds. </font>/i><br /><br />You would also need to develop appropriate tugs, arms, etc. for assembly. I sometimes wonder if it would be easier to build ISS-2, designed from the beginning with the HLV, than to complete the current ISS. Maybe they could even cannibalize existing systems.<br /><br />On a more serious note, simply shutting down STS early is not a economic, legal, or political option at this point. NASA could not make such a decision -- it would need to be made in Congress and the White House.</i>

 

[viper101]

Sometimes I wonder if STS is going to continue to be a problem simply because people are just plain scared sh*tless to fly it anymore. So many delays, concerns, launch holds - every minor defect will cause weeks and months of study. It really is a mess. <br /><br />Remember before 02/01/03 when NASA had planned to fly the shuttle until 2020-ish?

 

[j05h]

I'm all for a second station at a better inclination. Would the Partners accept a Node2-Kibo-Columbus station at 28.5 degrees? <br /><br />I agree that STS probably couldn't be shut down, even by Congress. There is to much pressure to keep it going. <br /><br />Still, I stand by my point - it shouldn't cost $30B to get the modules into orbit, by any method. I wasn't advocating Delta IV H specifically, it's easier than writing all the possibilities each time. I don't care if it's Ariane, Delta, Atlas or Proton, as long as it doesn't break the bank. <br /><br />On acoustic loads and other issues - again, those should be resolvable with that much cash. <br /><br />One option for the current ISS could be a new set of Alianspace modules (like Columbus and MPLM) that fly up on EELV/Proton and are docked via Parom. The European and Japanese ISPR racks are flown and installed in the new module onorbit. This requires: rendezvous/docking capability, a new module that is big and has CBMs instead of APAS. It seems doable. <br /><br />I'm sick of the delays, get on with it. This station was supposed to be finished years ago. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[digitalman2]

Personally, I believe they will be able to safely return to flight. <br /><br />I would rather see the ISS finished according to the current plan. The political and international backlash that might occur from abandoning it would be a bad thing. I expect that some combination of commercial services will result in access to ISS through the investments to be made in the latest incentive NASA had recently announced. ISS would be a better destination for some time since it will take a significant amount of time for any lunar base to be constructed (more than 10 years from now), and I would rather gamble that during that time frame some commercial interest can be fostered through readily available access to ISS. <br /><br />It seems to me if NASA is going to be able to progress outward in exploration (with a relatively unchanging budget) then it will be necessary to hand-off continued research and activities in previously explored territories.<br /><br />ISS is a good starting point.

 

[gofer]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>...I sometimes wonder if it would be easier to build ISS-2, designed from the beginning with the HLV, than to complete the current ISS. Maybe they could even cannibalize existing systems....<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I'd put it more strongly -- it is the only sensible option if the station is not complete prior to 2010, as the life-support core (Zvezda, FGB, Zarya, Unity, Destiny, ) will have been already over 11 years old by that time and these things do not get better with age... (in fact they have limited lifetime 'warranties') It could limp along past their prime like the Mir, of course, but... whatever for? Each year not completing the station is a year minus in actually 'utilizing' the station.

 

[dobbins]

"You would also need to develop appropriate tugs, arms, etc. for assembly. I sometimes wonder if it would be easier to build ISS-2, designed from the beginning with the HLV, than to complete the current ISS. Maybe they could even cannibalize existing systems."<br /><br />It would be better NOT to build another international boondoggle Tinkertoy station. If we are going to have a Saturn class HLV then it would be best to have a series of Skylab type stations that go up complete on one launch, or at most two large modules on a pair of launches. Each one can designed for a specific objection such as a Life Sciences Station, an Earth Sciences Station, and a Logistics Station to support deep space operations. Each one could be in the orbit best suited for it's mission. We could launch one with a 15 year lifetime every three years and not have the problem of everything reaching the end of it's useful life all at the same time. If the Russians want one, then they can build it and hire us to launch it into a high inclination orbit that is convenient to them. If the ESA wants one they can build it and pay us to launch it in a low inclination orbit that is easier for them to reach with the Ariane.<br /><br />

 

[gofer]

Well, that sounds even more sensible than the ISS-2. The reasonable closure for the ISS-1 though may very well be the Pacific Ocean <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" />

 

[rubicondsrv]

"The ISS can burn up in the atmosphere as far as I am concerned. "<br /><br />So you are proposing that we dump an working station that is already in orbit just because you don't like the name? <br /><br />That is a very foolish thing to do. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gofer]

I don't know folks... my heart goes to the ISS, but I just came across this: http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/12/mike_griffins_p.html#more It looks like NASA is just now scrambling to come up with some reasons for the ISS some 30bil dollars and 7 years past the construction. And all in all just to placate some Congresspeople and the partners... so that they don't get too pissed off. Or maybe I read it wrong... still this "let's think hard and come up with some reasons for the ISS" at this date is a bit strange...