What would it take to refit Columbus+Kibo for Ariane5/Proton

[themanwithoutapast]

I am aware that the ISS assembly sequence requires 4 ISS Truss segments to be launched BEFORE the actual launch of Node2, Columbus and Kibo.<br /><br />But just theoretically, although it has been put forward so many times that the above mentioned ISS modules can only be launched by the Shuttle, I just do not see a compelling reason for this. <br /><br />If we look at the Columbus module for instance, its mass when empty is 11 metric tons (and it is planned to have 9 tons additional equipment on board when launched). Its largest diameter is 4.4m. Now, to be clear, although it was built to be launched with the Space Shuttle, it is still in size and shape "just another ISS module" not different than Zarya or Zvezda that were both launched by a Proton. Thus equipped with a thruster for maneuvering and docking to the ISS, I am curious what the real obstacle for it being launched by an Ariane 5 or a Proton are. Am I missing something here?<br /><br />So if for some reason STS missions are reduced, how could it be practically done to launch Columbus, Kibo and beforehand Node2 (as well as maybe the Truss modules) by other launchcrafts (Ariane, Proton, Atlas)? And if possible to do part of the ISS assembly this way, could it not be that it would even be cheaper to finish up the ISS this way, rather than by Shuttle flights?<br /><br />

 

[themanwithoutapast]

"Zarya or Zvezda are not the same diameter as the Columbus or node ect. their diameter is smaller. However the biggest difference is that they are designed to be launched by a Proton booster while the US ISS modules are designed for the launch environment of the Shuttle. That is why the US modules and the ESA/Japan modules would have to be modified and recertified for the new launch environment. They would also have to have a upper stage to supply power, attitude control and propulsion to get to the ISS. "<br /><br />As far as I know the diameter for Zarya is 4.1m and for Zvezda it si 4.15m, while for Kibo and Columbus it is 4.4m and for Node2 it is 4.2m. 4.4m should not be a problem for either Ariane5 or Proton, as far as I know (maybe I am wrong but isn't 5.4m the maximus diameter for an Ariane 5 payload?).<br /><br />With regard to the need of an upper stage for maneuvering, power supply etc., yes certainly that is certainly required, however it worked for Zarya and Zvezda and I highly doubt that adding such an upper stage + an Ariane5 or Proton launch surpasses the cost of a Shuttle launch.<br /><br />The real question is, as far as I see it, how to "recertify" the moduls to a "new launch environment", that is firstly to figure out what this actually means and secondly if there are any obstacles in doing so that would skyrocket costs (or make using an alternative launch vehicle impossible).

 

[themanwithoutapast]

Mhmmm, I just found out that the max. diameter for a Proton launch is 4.15m, so to use a Proton would be rather difficult...<br /><br />Still an Ariane 5 with 5.4m max diameter or an Atals V or Delta 4 (max 5m) can be used as far as I see it.

 

[themanwithoutapast]

"The upper stage does not exist. Development of such is very expensive"<br /><br />How did Zvedza (launched by a Proton) then dock with Zarya (launched 1998) in 2000?

 

[themanwithoutapast]

"The modules had the attitude control, propulsion, navigation and power supply (solar wings) built into the modules."<br /><br />Ok, makes sense now. Thus the real question is whether it would be possible to somehow build an add-on thruster stage for Kibo, Columbus and Node2.<br /><br />However, although theoretical, I guess it should be possible to build such an add-on thruster that does not add too much weight to the modules (so to exceed the alternative launcher's payload). Still, although development costs of new space equipment are always high, in this case we are not talking about an extremely sophisticated device using any new unavailable hardware, for instance parts of the propulsion system of the ATV could be used.<br /><br />With regard to acustic, vibrations and G exposure, while certification certainly needs to be done, at least if it would turn out that NASA decides to not launch Columbus, Kibo and Node2 (we will see about that), I guess the risk of a different launch environment would not matter as alternatively these moduls would just be cancelled (and by the way is the launch environment for an Ariane5 launch that much more extreme than for the Shuttle - that is with regard to vibrations, Gs?).

 

[avmich]

Around May 2003 Energia and Khrunichev jointly proposed a cargo spacecraft, capable of carrying these modules to the ISS.<br /><br />There are technical questions about how it is going to be done; there are also technical means, which will need to be developed. The starting price for Proton is about 10% of STS launch, but the cost of the whole endeavour can't be calculated directly - STS carries also people which can do some work on ISS, Proton will have to have a special control and propulsion module, which will guide the cargo to the ISS, and that has to be developed etc. The main problem is that Energia and Khrunichev have to paid for this, and nobody's going to do that now.

 

[mikejz]

Personally, I am in favor of two possible solutions towards removing payloads for STS and towards other launchers<br /><br />1) Double-up: Launch the the module into the vicinity of the ISS, have the shuttle grapple the module and deliver both the separately launched module and it's own payload to the ISS.<br /><br />2) STS-Payload emulator: basically what it sounds like to be launched on a Delta-IV Heavy. Probably a 2-3 Billion to develop, but IMHO might have been a better solution as opposed to Return-to-flight.

 

[krrr]

The Ariane 5 ES with its restartable upper stage should be able to bring the modules into the immediate vicinity of the ISS. The 3-stage Proton has no real maneuvering capability, but maybe the 4-stage version (with a partially fueled Breeze-M) could be used. (A 5-meter fairing for the Proton could be built if there is demand.)<br /><br />For the final approach to the station, perhaps a Progress could be used as a tug. This would require a suitable docking interface on the modules.

 

[bwhite]

I seem to recall looking at the Boeing Delta IVH specs in early spring 2004 and surprise, surprise, one variant was configured with a payload shroud having interior space with exactly the same shape and volume as the orbiter payload bay. Hmmm. . .<br /><br />= = =<br /><br />Building a disposable shuttle C using the same molds as used for orbiter (just no tiles, wings, life support etc . . .) without life support or tiles mass capacity goes way up and the shuttle C payload bay could give you a close match with the orbiter payload bay. <br /><br />As I recall, it looked like the Shuttle C could carrry three ISS payloads by mass; two by volume. <br /><br />Place shuttle C on orbit, send up an orbiter to rendezvous and then install three payloads (2 on C + 1 on orbiter) plus cram extra water, laptop computers, batteries and clean uniforms inside those modules since shuttle C can carry two by volume but three by mass. <br /><br />6 orbiter flights plus 6 shuttle C flights = 18 ISS payloads.

 

[subzero788]

nice idea, only problem is that the shuttle C doesn't exist and developing one would be very expensive and take much more time and effort than simply launching these ISS components on the space shuttle.

 

[mattblack]

I've also been wondering if in regards to changing the launch vehicles, if there are center-of-gravity and payload attachment-point spacing issues, not to mention the different g-loads and vibration between the Shuttle and expendables? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[najab]

Yes, yes, yes and yes.

 

[mattblack]

If the Shuttle system were prematurely retired and there was a desire to preserve all the multi-billion dollar investments in the ISS hardware:<br /><br />I keep imagining that if the CEV and CLV were available, you could launch the fully-outfitted modules on a cargo CLV, Atlas or Delta IV and attach a basic Control Movement Gyro package to the modules, just to keep them stable for a few days or weeks. Then, launch a crewed CEV to dock with the cargo module and 'Tug' it to the ISS, where the stations' own RMS could take it from the CEV and berth them.<br /><br />I know it's going to be a few years before CEV becomes available, but it would take that long to modify the modules for the new launch regime anyway. Still, launch on an SRB-based CLV would be more similar to the Shuttle than any other expendable launch vehicles' environment. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[henryhallam]

Does the CLV have the capacity to lift the heavier space station modules? Anyway if the G-load, vibration and attach point issues can be resolved then this might be a workable plan. You could launch several modules and then put up a single CEV to tug them each into grapple range of the ISS, one after another (with a full service module the CEV should have enough dV to do this, even when tugging heavy modules around)

 

[gunsandrockets]

"You could launch several modules and then put up a single CEV to tug them each into grapple range of the ISS, one after another..."<br /><br />And then there's the Russian 'Parom' space tug which might be pressed into service. <br /><br />http://www.russianspaceweb.com/parom.html

 

[themanwithoutapast]

I guess all speculation about using yet to be developed CEV or CLV hardware is a little bid far from reality at least with regard to those ISS modules that do already exist and are awaiting liftoff, that is Columbus, Node 2 and Kibo - I highly doubt that ESA or JAXA will just sit quietly when the launch date is pushed from 2007/08 to 2012+ solely to use an American launch craft (that needs to be developed and proof reliability first), they rather will think of alternatives themselves (One has to see the political ramifications, that those 3 elements are not US build, but Columbus and Node 2 are ESA elements and Kibo is JAXA's contribution.)<br /><br />From a practical standpoint, I think the most realistic alternative involves the question whether it is possible to "upgrade" those modules with ATV's thrusters, attitude control and guidance systems and launch them by an Ariane 5 ATV (in this case after a 2007 launch of ATV Jules Verne there even will be reliable data and experience for launching a 20ton spacecraft to ISS and docking it there)? ESA's website speaks of 4 x 490 N thrusters as main propulsion system (which is not necessary for docking, but for lifting the Station to a higher orbit) and 28 x 220 N thrusters as attitude control system. <br /><br />Thus the question posed is whether the ATV's attitude control and guidance systems can be installed in Columbus, Node 2 or Kibo and whether this will put total mass of those modules over 20.7 metric tons (which is ATV's launch mass on the Ariane 5 ATV). All questions about recertification regarding G-loads, vibrations, center of gravity etc. should not be that a big obstacle when comparisons are made to the ATV - adaptions should thus from my point of view not take years as some have suggested, but rather solely months.<br /><br />With regard to using a Progress or Soyuz as a "space tug" after the modules are brought into ISS vicinity, this sounds interesting, however highly risky: as the modules are designed right

 

[bwhite]

<i>nice idea, only problem is that the shuttle C doesn't exist and developing one would be very expensive and take much more time and effort than simply launching these ISS components on the space shuttle. </i><br /><br />9 shuttle C plus 9 orbiter missions = 27 ISS payload missions. If shuttle C could be staged off one pad and orbiter off the other, and 3 joint missions run per year (C + orbiter) then 27 ISS payload deliveries could be accomplished in three years.<br /><br />Now, lets load a mental image of those infamous sand table budget charts . . .<br /><br />The extra cost to design and deploy shuttle C is traded against standing down the orbiter several years early. Also, shuttle C becomes a test bed for the disposable simpliifed SSME to be used on the SDHLV.<br /><br />Finally, a stable of SDV would be useful<br /><br />Stick for light medium light<br />Shuttle C for medium heavy lift <br />In line SDHLV for heavy lift<br /> <br />= = =<br /><br />Trade 27 orbiter launches for 18 launches (9 C and 9 orbiters). Saving 9 launches would save a fair chunk of money that could be used to design / deploy shuttle C especially since we need disposable SSMEs for SDHLV anyway.

 

[themanwithoutapast]

I meant the Multipurpose Laboratory Module with MPLM (maybe I should have abbreviated it MLM to avoid confusion), not the Multipurpose Logistics Module.

 

[dobbins]

"9 shuttle C plus 9 orbiter missions = 27 ISS payload missions."<br /><br />No it just equals 9 ISS payload missions because there is no such thing as a Shuttle C.<br /><br />By the time you develop the thing the Shuttle will have already flown all 18 ISS assembly missions on the manifest. You can't simply snap your fingers and make a Shuttle C appear out of thin air.<br /><br />

 

[bwhite]

Had we started work on shuttle C in January 2004, we'd be close to having one, today.<br /><br />18 ISS payloads? I thought the number was higher than that.<br /><br />

 

[dobbins]

Yeah, and we would be stuck with another side mount launcher in 3 or 4 years from now when the thing was finished.<br /><br />

 

[themanwithoutapast]

"18 ISS payloads? I thought the number was higher than that. "<br /><br />See http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/shuttle/manifest.txt for an unofficial launch schedule. Actually strictly speaking of these 18 flights, not all are assembly flights in the sense that they will provide new ISS-parts, some (as for instance STS-121) are providing supplies only.

 

[mattblack]

True! That's where part of my idea came from. But some guys missed the part of my post where I said adding a CMG (gyro) package to each module to keep it attitude stable, while it waited for the 'tug' (CEV, Soyuz, Progress, Federation Runabout) to take it further.<br /><br />If the Delta IV Heavy, Atlas V (3-core?), or Ariane V had a new payload carrier/fairing combo that emulated the Shuttle payload bay, then fully (or nearly) outfitted modules could possibly be launched.<br /><br />How long would it take to develop this Shuttle-less infrastructure? 2009-2011? Would it be worth it, technically? Probably. Would it be worth it fiscally and timeframe wise? Hard to say: There'd be instant differences of opinion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[themanwithoutapast]

"A modified Soyuz/Progress type config was used to rendezvous and install the PIRS module to ISS. "<br /><br />It is certainly correct that a modified Progress was used to "carry" PIRS to the ISS, however to be clear there were not 2 separate launches of 1. PIRS and then 2. a Progress that docked with PIRS and lifted it to the ISS like a space tug. Rather PIRS itself was just a modified 4ton Progress craft launched by a Soyuz rocket and then docked to the ISS like an ordinary Progress.<br /><br />@mattblack<br />I find the idea of using a Progress or even a manned Soyuz as a space tug very, very interesting myself, the real question is whether this is possible to do as it has not been done before + whether the propulsion system, attitude control system and docking system of Progress are able to carry 20ton space modules from 200km orbits to the 400km ISS orbit (+other inclination), as Progress normally solely uses its propulsion system to do this for its own mass (6.8tons).<br /><br />Still I think the whole idea of launching ISS modules and other ISS parts with alternative launch crafts and not by the Shuttle makes a lot of sense, in the end I would say (as I said before), it could even be cheaper + it requires the development of equipment that can be used for future expansion of the ISS or replacement of non-Russian ISS parts.

 

[john_316]

Hmmmmmm........<br /><br /><br />I think I made a post simular to this a few months back but that got me thinking again.....<br /><br />The post I made referred to the MPLM and what will become of them when the shuttle retired and the possible use of the Delta 4HLV. And the recertification process was brought up.<br /><br />How much time would that take to recert a module?<br /><br />I understand we could possibly use a Centaur Upper Stage, Inertial Upperstage or an Advanced Upperstage?<br /><br />However that involves my thinking to hurt my head....<br /><br />Can we deliver a Module (ie Kibo, Columbus, etc) or the MPLM with the SRB+Centaur or what have you configuration as I imagine the SRB configuration wont be too far away from the STS criteria for launch.<br /><br />Or is this just speculation?<br /><br />I think the modules should launched on Delta 4HLV with a upperstage to ISS or possibly a SRB configuration that doesnt seem to too far away from practicality.<br /><br />Any Input???<br />