cneth - 21/2/2008 8:35 AMHow are you getting the SSRMS onboard and how do you do these 'grapples' before it shows up?
Jim - 21/2/2008 9:18 AMOf course, if there was no shuttle, the “ISS” design would have been completely different and optimized around the spacecraft and launch vehicles that would be used.
Lee Jay - 21/2/2008 10:58 AMQuoteJim - 21/2/2008 9:18 AMOf course, if there was no shuttle, the “ISS” design would have been completely different and optimized around the spacecraft and launch vehicles that would be used.I think this is the crucial point. If we had Saturn V, Ares V, or J-232 (or another 100T-class launcher), the fundamental design of ISS would have been entirely different.
Oberon_Command - 21/2/2008 11:37 AMQuotecneth - 21/2/2008 8:35 AMHow are you getting the SSRMS onboard and how do you do these 'grapples' before it shows up?What about mounting an RMS on the CTV, assuming you can find space to put it there?
cneth - 21/2/2008 11:35 AMHow are you getting the SSRMS onboard and how do you do these 'grapples' before it shows up?
Jim - 21/2/2008 1:57 PMthat is one of the points. The crew vehicles don't need arms. The same goes for Constellation. The shuttle paradigm is not applicable. Stations/orbital bases need arms, not crew transport vehicles.
Lee Jay - 21/2/2008 11:58 AMIs the point of the discussion what would we have done if Columbia or another similar event had been the end of the STS program and most of the modules had already been built?
Jim - 21/2/2008 2:07 PMThis is to show that a shuttle or orbiter is not needed to build stations. It is to show that an RMS, airlock, large crew and payload bay (shuttle paradigm) were not required now and are not required in the future.
vt_hokie - 21/2/2008 2:06 PMQuoteJim - 21/2/2008 1:57 PMthat is one of the points. The crew vehicles don't need arms. The same goes for Constellation. The shuttle paradigm is not applicable. Stations/orbital bases need arms, not crew transport vehicles.How would you replace the MPLM functionality?
ckiki lwai - 21/2/2008 2:37 PMHow would they have repaired the tear in one of the solar arrays on the P6 without the Shuttle's OBSS?I remember there wasn't an easy way to do that.
Jim - 21/2/2008 12:07 PMQuoteLee Jay - 21/2/2008 11:58 AMIs the point of the discussion what would we have done if Columbia or another similar event had been the end of the STS program and most of the modules had already been built?This is to show that a shuttle or orbiter is not needed to build stations. It is to show that an RMS, airlock, large crew and payload bay (shuttle paradigm) were not required now and are not required in the future.
with the CEV, people are whing that it isn't as "functional" as the orbiter and keep wanting to stick an arm and airlock on it. They are not needed.
Herb Schaltegger - 21/2/2008 9:06 AMFor that matter, if we had kept it as "Space Station Freedom" in a more KSC-friendly orbital inclination and funded ASRM to completion, things would be drastically different as well. C'est la vie.
nacnud - 21/2/2008 9:01 PMHow about putting rails for the SSRMS cart out past the SARJ.