Ichabod

GCNRevenger · 2005-10-27 21:14:36

Using the big HLLV is possible, but it would be a better idea to just build a tug and strap it to the back of the payload cradle. Forget Shuttle, it will cost more then the tug is worth to keep one orbiter and the capability to fly it, plus the launch pad may be modified (and no longer Shuttle-compatible). A "marathon" Shuttle mission would also require the full seven crew probobly, at least five, which won't fit in a single Soyuz if the worst were to happen.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-28 08:43:34

Sounds like a short needs list to complete ISS without a shuttle use but how much would the cradle cost per module still to be delivered to the station? Can any of the mockup design work on the shuttle -c compartment by utilized to lower cost of developement?
The tug I would be basically the last mile avionics and enough fuel to get the modules safely to the station. Could the ESA ATV stage be adapted or is its cargo carrying capacity way to low?

GCNRevenger · 2005-10-28 14:47:57

Let me put it this way... it can't possibly be any worse then holding Shuttle in reserve for five years or so that it takes to build the big HLLV minimum.

I don't think that Shuttle-C work would be very useful, the dynamics of Shuttle-C are so much different then the big SDV that you might as well start over.

The tug has to be smart enough to safely come to an essentially zero-relative stop with the ISS within a very particular radius where the robot arm can reach and at a particular attitude so it can capture without being physically docked to the station. A tall order.

I have concerns however...

-The mass of multiple payloads plus the tug/cradle may exceed robot arm capacity
-The robot arm itself on ISS may not be able to reach where the componet is supposed to go
-The ISS itself will be too old by the time the HLLV and tug are ready to bother finishing the station in the first place

In light of the latter three, my position remains, that if we have to finish ISS then Shuttle is probobly the best option.

Martian Republic · 2005-10-28 15:35:41

OK, then we are going to assume that we are going to send up 19 or more shuttle flight and we will probably spend 30 billion dollars doing it. How about it we re-negotiate this ISS space station by agreeing to send up one Bigelow habitat and Ion drive engine to push the ISS up in it orbit occasionally. Figure on using two or three heavy buster in crash development mode to finish our commitment and move on down the road a bit. This should give us a better ISS space station when we finish and finish our part of this deal all at the same time. Or it might be cheaper to just buy off those part that we still need to send up into space too. Or some combination of those two things.

This might not be doable either, but it a thought.

Larry,

Commodore · 2005-10-28 15:52:05

I was under the impression that many peices required the specific skills of the shuttle arm. The truss and solar panels come to mind. Some of the other peices (ESAs Columbia, Japans Science Module) could be docked directly via a tug. Others could be launched via cargo module and put together via ISS arm and space walk.

It is important to note however that no individual component is bigger than the Shuttles lifting power, so the stick (though Griffen says he'd rather not go that route), or even a Delta 4 heavy could in theory lift many of the peices. But each would require its own tug. It would seem to me that developing a single large tug who's cargo bay is closely based on the Shuttle bay launched via the Heavy SDV and put together with the help of the shuttle would be the most direct approach.

The agency is already pondering retiring one or more shuttles to save money between now and final retirement. Keeping one shuttle operational in storage for a few years and sending the others to museums is sure to save plenty of money. Enough to field the HLLV? Who knows.

Also, could more regular Soyuz or progress flights enable the ISS crew to to be upped to 3? An extra man up there, who was trained in advance for the gauntlet of ISS construction tasks could allow Soyuz contingencies in the event of a Shuttle heat shield failure

RobertDyck · 2005-10-28 16:08:13

Hmm. ATV as a tug. I said you have several options to complete ISS:
• Delta-IV Heavy to lift a single Shuttle payload into LEO, then a reusable on-orbit tug stationed at ISS would rendezvous and pilot it in for docking. The problems are refuelling the tug, and how do you stabilize the cargo while the tug attaches?
• HLLV of some sort to lift 5 Shuttle payloads at a time. Again an on-orbit tug would rendezvous and guide it in. An in-line launcher has the same problems as Delta-IV Heavy, but Shuttle-C could use RCS thrusters in the engine pod to stabilize for docking.
• HLLV to lift 5 Shuttle payloads, but use Shuttle orbiter to guide in for docking. The orbiter could carry another payload in its cargo bay for a total of 6 loads in a single mission. This scenario is best accomplished by Endeavour since it has the longest on-orbit endurance with the Extended Duration Orbiter Palette.

Instead of Delta-IV Heavy you could use Atlas V Heavy, but it would take 30 months to develop from order to launch. Atlas V 551 uses solid rockets and a single CCB, close to Shuttle cargo capacity but not quite.

For a tug you could use a Progress service module with docking port and rendezvous radar but no cargo or fuel modules. That could carry a module as heavy as a single Shuttle payload but buying something Russian gets politics involved. You could do the same thing with ATV and it is a bit bigger, but hasn't flown yet and you still have the refuelling issue.

GCNRevenger has repeatedly claimed you need some sort of thruster on the payload as launched instead of an on-orbit tug. That solves the refuelling issue but developing such a thruster package is expensive. The idea of using ATV got me thinking. What if you used Shuttle-C with RCS thrusters in the engine pod, and ATV with it's last-mile guidance and docking systems on the nose. Use just the ATV service module, no cargo module, and replace the solar panels with batteries. Solar panels weigh less if the vehicle has to operate for a week or more and maintain a controlled environment in the cargo module, but a controlled launch should rendezvous with the station quickly and the batteries only have to power electronics. Make the Shuttle-C engine pod recoverable (otherwise it defeats the point of side-launch) but the ATV service module expendable. Could the ATV in the payload nose be interlinked with RCS in the engine pod for coordinated flight? Sounds like a non-trivial computer software project, something that could easily take a year plus contract bidding time. Plus the ATV service module docking system takes some cargo mass. The ATV spacecraft dry mass is 5320 kg, not including cargo carrier, and consumables plus air in the cargo module mass 2613 kg. I don't know how much of that is air or stuff for cargo, and I don't know how much weight you save by replacing solar panels with batteries. As a pessimistic estimate take the whole thing: 7933 kg. My estimate is Shuttle-C could lift 77.12 tonnes to 364.6 km orbit (today's altitude) so that would leave 69.187 tonnes for cargo. Shuttle carries 16.050 tonnes so that's 4.3 Shuttle loads. Not as convenient as a larger vehicle, but that's assuming Shuttle-C with the current ET and 3 SSMEs.

I'm sure someone will argue for an in-line HLLV with ATV service module at each end of the payload. That could work too, and larger launch vehicle could lift more cargo, but the second expendable ATV and throwing away launch vehicle main engines make it more expensive. Again, I argue side-mount makes more sense for orbital assembly, in-line makes sense for direct launch. However, side-mount only makes sense if the engine pod is recoverable. Side-mount may be slightly lower performance, but the price per pound to orbit is what matters, not performance. The key thing for side-mount is to make the engine pod recoverable; side-mount with expendable engines would be the worst of both worlds.

RobertDyck · 2005-10-28 17:36:13

Better alternative yet: launch on a Russian Energia with Proton module for rendezvous and docking.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-28 20:45:38

Would it even be possible to use the Buran's Energia HLLV or is the infrastructure to gone to utilize?
It might even be possible to use the Enterprise for a final launch to stay in orbit since it does not have a heat shield. Retro fitting it for use as an orbital platform for extended stay sort of makes sense.

RobertDyck · 2005-10-28 23:29:09

Would it even be possible to use the Buran's Energia HLLV or is the infrastructure to gone to utilize?
It might even be possible to use the Enterprise for a final launch to stay in orbit since it does not have a heat shield. Retro fitting it for use as an orbital platform for extended stay sort of makes sense.

I guess you didn't read my posts to "One man one way suicide mission..." page 3. The result is an estimate of $148.25 million to restore infrastructure and $160.8 million per launch including the EUS Energia Upper Stage. The EUS is a 5.7 metre diameter stage with a single RD-0120 engine that's side-mounted instead of the Buran orbiter. Payload goes on top of the EUS. Since costs are estimates you can round that off to $150 million to restore infrastructure and $160 million per launch.

Progress cost $2.65 million to manufacture in year 2000 including the cargo and fuel modules. But that's Russia's cost, they might want a profit. Even if they charge $25 million for a Progress tug that would bring the total for the first launch to $150M + $160M + $25M = $335 million. Energia alone (without EUS) lifted 88 tonnes to 200km orbit when it launched Polyus, but left circularization to the satellite. NASA's table lists Energia with EUS lifting 88 tonnes to LEO @ 51.6° inclination including circularization but not specifying exact altitude. The Pirs docking and airlock module was delivered by a Progress-M service module, let's use that. The Progress-M service module with fuel and solar panels mass 2.950 tonnes, so that doesn't take too much cargo mass. As a round number let's say 5 Shuttle cargo loads.

Ps. Launch space shuttle Enterprise? Let's not go there.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-11 10:17:16

Once the INA amendment is signed into law, NASA will be able to pay Russia’s Federal Space Agency for Soyuz launches to transport ISS crews and have the capsule continue to act as an emergency vehicle.

NASA is also expected to have to pay Russia for future resupply flights as uncertainty over the number of Space Shuttle flights remaining means the US agency’s responsibilities for ISS logistics are also in doubt.

The INA act has been modified so that Nasa can use the soyuz as a means to transport US astronauts has all but gone though. To ensure that the US has representation on board the station for the forseeable future. NASA is planning to order two Soyuz manned spacecraft and two Progress cargo ships from the Russian Federal Space Agency on a commercial basis for missions to the International Space Station.

But there are some down sides to this INA based on where we are and where Nasa wants to be. Granted both actions are needed while shuttle does not fly but long after it is retired we will still need both capabilities until the CEV and CLV are ready for flight and that is a long ways off about 2012.

As it stands NASA is soliciting proposals for demonstrator flights of cargo from private industry. The agency plans on one or more of these flights with either an external unpressurised or internal pressurised cargo delivery method. Thus culminating in a rendezvous and docking with the ISS and either disposal or reentry and recovery of such vehicles is optional.

Nasa plans on a final solicitation in early December, with a responses due by late January as to a possible agreement and scheduled to be signed in May next year for such ISS resupply cargo capability.

Sure signing of the INA does allow for the use of a Progress for cargo but is the money coming from the Solicitation of cargo capabilites mentioned of course those in the Alternate X grouping will cry foul if this is the case. Most likely Kilster and Space-x but the way I see it if Boeing and Lockheed had wanted to it could have done this already.

PurduesUSAFguy · 2005-11-16 00:15:26

Is there any politically expedient way that we can just get the elephant of the ISS off our collective backs?

noosfractal · 2005-11-16 01:47:43

Is there any politically expedient way that we can just get the elephant of the ISS off our collective backs?

Cut its budget until something breaks then say that it is too expensive to repair.
_

Austin Stanley · 2005-11-16 02:32:54

Maybe we could get some terrorists to blow it up. As a bonus we could use this as an excuses to inavde Iran/Syria/Korea or whoever else is next on the adminsitrations hit list.

TheMadCap · 2005-11-18 18:15:20

I would think that they would have to keep a minimum of two of the remaining shuttles operational, if they are going to use them, in case of a Columbia-like accident and a rescue mission must be scrambled...

SpaceNut · 2006-02-01 09:40:38

It has been a while since the news with regards to Nasa purchasing a couple of soyuz to fairy crew to the ISS. But after seeing this NASA JSC Solicitation: Outdoor Leadership and Teambuilding Expedition Training and knowing that Nasa's plans to do a land landing how does one get the expertise to have all hands ready when needed.
I sort of wonder now if Nasa could land there purchases ships here in the US or are they precluded to only the landing location in the Soviet union?

SpaceNut · 2007-02-24 21:43:12

Wow!!! Architect of ITAR Update Expresses Regret

U.S. regulations restricting the export of U.S. satellites and components now says the rules need a thorough overhaul because they are damaging U.S. industry with no corresponding benefit to U.S. national security. The people who updated the International Traffic in Arms (ITAR) regulatory regime never imagined that the new rules would be applied the way they are.

There are also other laws that are just as damaging to the Altern-x groups as well...

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-02-28 09:25:26

http://www.space.com/news/050921_senate_soyuz.html
*We went from the glorious Saturn V to THIS?
We've been reduced to buying other nations' ships??
"And I shall write 'Ichabod' above the temple doorway, for the glory has departed." -- Some Old Testament prophet, paraphrased. (Yeah, even if I am an agnostic; it's a suitable quote for how I'm feeling)
Search isn't yielding this up as previously posted...sorry if a repeat (not intentional).
--Cindy

Why would someone write 'Ichabod' above the temple doorway? I keep on thinking about the Legend of Sleepy Hollow by Washington Irving.

Palomar · 2007-02-28 17:31:37

http://www.space.com/news/050921_senate_soyuz.html
We went from the glorious Saturn V to THIS?
We've been reduced to buying other nations' ships??
"And I shall write 'Ichabod' above the temple doorway, for the glory has departed." -- Some Old Testament prophet, paraphrased. (Yeah, even if I am an agnostic; it's a suitable quote for how I'm feeling)
Search isn't yielding this up as previously posted...sorry if a repeat (not intentional).
--Cindy
Why would someone write 'Ichabod' above the temple doorway? I keep on thinking about the Legend of Sleepy Hollow by Washington Irving.

Beats me.

Ichabod! I say it again! All over the current stupid go-nowhere "manned" space program. Ichabod!

There. I'll bet the NASA bigshots are shaking in their boots now. :twisted:

Suck it up, NASA!

SpaceNut · 2007-02-28 18:13:51

Task Force Urges ITAR Exemptions for NASA

last year to examine threats to the safety of the international space station
has urged the U.S. State Department to immediately exempt some NASA contractors from International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) restrictions that are making it more difficult to get ready for the upcoming first flight of the Europe’s Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV).
The task force warns that if NASA contractors are not free to interact directly with their European and Russian colleagues, space station safety could suffer.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-10-27 21:14:36

Re: Ichabod

#27 2005-10-28 08:43:34

Re: Ichabod

#28 2005-10-28 14:47:57

Re: Ichabod

#29 2005-10-28 15:35:41

Re: Ichabod

#30 2005-10-28 15:52:05

Re: Ichabod

#31 2005-10-28 16:08:13

Re: Ichabod

#32 2005-10-28 17:36:13

Re: Ichabod

#33 2005-10-28 20:45:38

Re: Ichabod

#34 2005-10-28 23:29:09

Re: Ichabod

#35 2005-11-11 10:17:16

Re: Ichabod

#36 2005-11-16 00:15:26

Re: Ichabod

#37 2005-11-16 01:47:43

Re: Ichabod

#38 2005-11-16 02:32:54

Re: Ichabod

#39 2005-11-18 18:15:20

Re: Ichabod

#40 2006-02-01 09:40:38

Re: Ichabod

#41 2007-02-24 21:43:12

Re: Ichabod

#42 2007-02-28 09:25:26

Re: Ichabod

#43 2007-02-28 17:31:37

Re: Ichabod

#44 2007-02-28 18:13:51

Re: Ichabod

Board footer