Author Topic: How the ISS could have been built without the shuttle.  (Read 59452 times)

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: How the ISS could have been built without the shuttle.
« Reply #80 on: 06/18/2009 05:25 pm »
One huge problem the Saturn line had was the fact it consisted of two vehicles with only the S-IVB as a common part.
Though they considered dropping the IB and replacing everything with Saturn V derivatives and making the first stage partly reusable.
The Saturn V-B could have made a good intern crew launch vehicle using one of the lifting body designs for a crew vehicle until a TSTO RLV was ready.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V-B
An alternative lower cost crew vehicle would have been big Gemini which is remarkably similar to the soviet TKS/VA spacecraft.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bigemini.htm
It might have been a harder sell as it's less gee wizz then a space plane crew vehicle.
The same S-ID from the V-B plus a cost reduced S-IVB or even SASSTO upper stage also could be used for station construction.
The SASSTO is interesting in that it might be able act as a tug or at least provide attitude control until the tug gets the payload.

The Russian modules on ISS seem to be very cramped compared to the US side possibly due to lost volume for attitude control hardware and fuel tanks.
Though even a Saturn INT-20 would have fairing volume to spare so it may not be too bad an issue to have a full RCS on the modules.

« Last Edit: 06/18/2009 05:47 pm by Patchouli »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: How the ISS could have been built without the shuttle.
« Reply #81 on: 12/21/2010 07:41 pm »
Bump for related conversation
« Last Edit: 12/21/2010 07:41 pm by Jim »

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: How the ISS could have been built without the shuttle.
« Reply #82 on: 12/21/2010 09:54 pm »
<p>And "failure of the shuttle paradigm" should always be qualified in two ways:</p><p> 1) It "failed" <strong>as a version 1.0. </strong>No other complex transportation technology has ever come close to an operational/economic sweet spot in its first and only iteration. That we blame the shuttle for failing to do so says more about hyper-inflated expectations than it does about either the paradigm or the specific design.</p>

But Shuttle designers knew that too, right?

Quote
<p>2) It "failed" <strong>at the painfully low flight rates</strong> that were inevitable without sustained Apollo-or-higher budgets.

Was this a secret to NASA that Apollo-level budgets aren't to be expected anytime soon?

Quote
<p>From where I sit, the only paradigm that demonstrably "failed" was that of "Here's a technology path that's inherently incremental, slow and very very expensive. We'll attempt it in one big jump, fast, and on the cheap. Then we'll spend 37 years second-guessing the design as if that were the heart of the problem."

That's why we should not do such huge jumps in R&D. One mistake, and we find forty years of HSF nearly wasted.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: How the ISS could have been built without the shuttle.
« Reply #83 on: 12/22/2010 07:01 am »
Two quotes from Blackstar (from older threads) that make a lot of sense

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16304.msg382821#msg382821

Quote
The program was initiated after NASA showed some briefing slides to Reagan that depicted a late Salyut station (I think it was Salyut 7).  Those briefing slides are publicly available, but I'm not sure if they're online.  I think they were reprinted in one of the Exploring the Unknown books.

Anyway, we're venturing far afield here, but to answer your question, I don't think the issue was size.  Reagan did not say "build a space station that is larger than the Russian one."  He simply agreed to a space station because the Soviets already had one.  So simply having a US-led space station that allowed for both permanent presence and the participation of Western allies would have satisfied that basic requirement.  That could have been done with a few modules and an expandable capability.

Unfortunately, the ball quickly got rolling and what NASA started to design was bigger than Mir, bigger than Skylab, included many modules, many launches, a lot of power, etc.  Now they justified this in part because they said that they needed to do X-science missions and that required a sizeable volume with very low gravity.  But they did that in a pretty sloppy and half-hearted way, and once they started building the ISS hardware (and _building_ stuff is what NASA engineers really wanted to do), then they started to blow the budget, and they started to axe the science.  Was science really a justification, or just an excuse?

(SNIP)

So what could they have done differently?  Start with something small, Salyut-sized, that could have been launched in a single shuttle mission.  Keep the science goals modest (primarily longer-duration human spaceflight, not materials science).  Get it up there and say "We now have a space station."  After that, expand it gradually, add a European module, a Japanese module, etc.  Then, if necessary, throw it all away and develop a bigger one.   Had they followed this approach, they could have had a space station by the original timeline (1990) and gotten several years of operation out of it.  By that time cooperation with the Russians would have become possible.

They took a different path and, well, here we are.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13040.msg337555#msg337555

Quote
Longer duration Spacelab experiments.  After all, you could do Spacelab experiments in, er, Spacelab.  So if you could extend the flight duration a bit, you could get a month or two of experiments in Spacelab equivalent racks.  That should have been easily accomplished with a couple of shuttle launches placing two modules in orbit.

I've long thought that this was what the US should have done.  We should have taken the Russian approach of launching a core module and then adding to it as resources became available.

But you have to understand how NASA works and that starts with understanding that human spaceflight is essentially an engineering exercise.  The engineers want to build something big and ambitious and challenging, because that's fun.  They care little about what it will actually do, as long as that justifies building it in the first place.

So they establish a set of assumptions that are also big and ambitious.  In the case of the space station, they decided that it would have a significant micro-g area, and it would also mount both Earth-viewing and astronomy sensors.  And it could also have a construction/support role.  All of this cried out for a very large station, and that's how Space Station Freedom was conceived.

But what then happened was that the engineering costs kept overrunning, and when that happened, they threw off the easiest things to discard, which were the things that were supposed to be added late in construction, i.e. all the science stuff that established the initial justification for the station (there's a pretty long list).  That way, over a long period of time, what we ended up with was an engineering project, where all the time and effort is expended building and maintaining the station, and not actually _doing_ anything on it.  After ten years of construction, the astronauts are able to perform three hours of experiments per _week_ on the ISS.

If the U.S. had instead taken the Soviet Salyut/Mir approach, they could have been conducting initial science experiments from the start and adding to that as the station grew.  Yeah, you can argue that the science would not have been terribly ambitious, but 70% (or even 40%) of something is better than 100% of nothing.

(Alt-history is just speculation, but its fun at times).
I'm writting an alternative history (Voyage style) where the shuttle is canned by Nixon OMB late 1971 and get replaced by Big Gemini with the main effort shifting back to a space station.
This space station is very much a "Mir on steroids" launched by a handful of Saturn IB circa 1980.
The Agena ends up playing a very important role in this history, it becomes NASA own FGB.
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: How the ISS could have been built without the shuttle.
« Reply #84 on: 12/22/2010 08:51 am »
Why is everyone so enamored with Big Gemini?  Any plausible alternative history should use Apollo hardware.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: How the ISS could have been built without the shuttle.
« Reply #85 on: 12/22/2010 11:16 am »
Why is everyone so enamored with Big Gemini?  Any plausible alternative history should use Apollo hardware.

Apollo required the Saturn which no longer existed.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Celebrimbor

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 414
  • Bystander
  • Brinsworth Space Centre, UK
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: How the ISS could have been built without the shuttle.
« Reply #86 on: 12/22/2010 12:48 pm »
Suppose we are convinced that ISS (or an ISS-capable station) could have been built (cheaper) sans Shuttle - what are the lessons?

Perhaps:
a) No need to launch crew and cargo together
b) No need to invest in an all-consuming, monolithic launcher

Are these fair conclusions to draw from this exercise? To what extent have NASA learned these lessons?

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: How the ISS could have been built without the shuttle.
« Reply #87 on: 12/22/2010 04:20 pm »
...quotes from Blackstar (from older threads) that make a lot of sense
...
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13040.msg337555#msg337555

Quote
...
I've long thought that this was what the US should have done.  We should have taken the Russian approach of launching a core module and then adding to it as resources became available.

But you have to understand how NASA works and that starts with understanding that human spaceflight is essentially an engineering exercise.  The engineers want to build something big and ambitious and challenging, because that's fun.  They care little about what it will actually do, as long as that justifies building it in the first place.

So they establish a set of assumptions that are also big and ambitious. ...

But what then happened was that the engineering costs kept overrunning, and when that happened, they threw off the easiest things to discard, which were the things that were supposed to be added late in construction, i.e. all the science stuff that established the initial justification for the station (there's a pretty long list).  That way, over a long period of time, what we ended up with was an engineering project, where all the time and effort is expended building and maintaining the station, and not actually _doing_ anything on it.  After ten years of construction, the astronauts are able to perform three hours of experiments per _week_ on the ISS.
...
...
Wow... A lot of truth in those statements from Blackstar.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1954
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: How the ISS could have been built without the shuttle.
« Reply #88 on: 12/22/2010 04:45 pm »
Why is everyone so enamored with Big Gemini?  Any plausible alternative history should use Apollo hardware.

Jim, I don't get the complaint. Googling around, it appears that Big Gemini was designed to use several launch vehicles including the Saturn 1 series (1B, 1C) and be compatible with Apollo missions. What makes it not Apollo hardware?
Karl Hallowell

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: How the ISS could have been built without the shuttle.
« Reply #89 on: 12/22/2010 06:31 pm »
Why Big Gemini over Apollo ?
From the documents of the era - late 1971 reports from Nixon PSAC and OMB - its really looks as if the fallback option if no shuttle is Big Gemini before Apollo.
The distinction between Apollo and Big Gemini is subtile.
Apollo is the minimum option that preserves manned spaceflight, period.
Big Gemini is more than that. It is the least expensive space station logistic vehicle.
Big Gemini is superficially similar to a shuttle, in the sense that it features
a) a 6-9 men cockpit that land on a runway
b) a large cargo section (although not reusable, unlike the shuttle)

In some way Big Gemini was included in the vast arrays of shuttle options - shuttle in the broad sense of the word, read, manned space station logistic vehicle. Apollo was not.
It is not an insult to Apollo to say that it was build with lunar missions in mind, not Earth orbit space station crew and ferry vehicle.

In depends what program for NASA if no shuttle. The high-end might have been Big Gemini to a new space station; the low-end, Apollo to nowhere, kind of AAP 28 or 45 days Earth survey missions.

From The space shuttle decision, chapter 4

Quote
The options would bear comparison with those favored by Paine; but whereas Paine started with the current budget and hoped to go upward, the BoB staff started at the FY 1970 level and considered the consequences of tilting sharply downward.

(snip)

Two other options, at $2.5 billion, also permitted flight of Skylab with its three visits, along with the six Apollos [NOTE - the six lunar landings]. There could even be a space station in 1980, with Titan III-Gemini for logistics. However, there would be no space shuttle.

Of course we know from 30 years of shuttle experience that mixing crew and cargo is just silly. So Big Gemini was certainly not an ideal vehicle either !
« Last Edit: 12/22/2010 06:43 pm by Archibald »
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: How the ISS could have been built without the shuttle.
« Reply #90 on: 12/22/2010 07:36 pm »
manned space station logistic vehicle. Apollo was not.


There were Apollo options for this too

Offline markododa

  • Member
  • Posts: 52
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 111
Re: How the ISS could have been built without the shuttle.
« Reply #91 on: 12/23/2010 06:19 am »
What about the modules, would they be like the current NASA ISS modules brought by an expendable tug to ISS?, would the module + tug fit in an Atlas or Delta ?. also without the shuttle the modules would be different since the current modules are spacelab heritage. Another thing is the truss, seems to me like its really inefficient, since there is no shuttle the truss would be more like a line of couple of unpressurized service modules with smaller booms (like that on Mir) holding the panels.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: How the ISS could have been built without the shuttle.
« Reply #92 on: 12/23/2010 12:39 pm »
1.  What about the modules, would they be like the current NASA ISS modules brought by an expendable tug to ISS?, would the module + tug fit in an Atlas or Delta ?.

2.  also without the shuttle the modules would be different since the current modules are spacelab heritage.

3.  Another thing is the truss, seems to me like its really inefficient, since there is no shuttle the truss would be more like a line of couple of unpressurized service modules with smaller booms (like that on Mir) holding the panels.

The exercise was to show that the shuttle is not needed for construction of a space station. Yes, without the shuttle, the design would be different. 

1.  Yes, that was the point of the exercise and yes

2.  no, they aren't Spacelab heritage.  they are new design.

3.  How is it inefficient?  There many more systems in the truss other than solar arrays.
« Last Edit: 12/23/2010 12:40 pm by Jim »

Offline markododa

  • Member
  • Posts: 52
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 111
Re: How the ISS could have been built without the shuttle.
« Reply #93 on: 12/23/2010 02:42 pm »
1.  What about the modules, would they be like the current NASA ISS modules brought by an expendable tug to ISS?, would the module + tug fit in an Atlas or Delta ?.

2.  also without the shuttle the modules would be different since the current modules are spacelab heritage.

3.  Another thing is the truss, seems to me like its really inefficient, since there is no shuttle the truss would be more like a line of couple of unpressurized service modules with smaller booms (like that on Mir) holding the panels.

The exercise was to show that the shuttle is not needed for construction of a space station. Yes, without the shuttle, the design would be different. 

1.  Yes, that was the point of the exercise and yes

2.  no, they aren't Spacelab heritage.  they are new design.

3.  How is it inefficient?  There many more systems in the truss other than solar arrays.

How are the trusses berthed ?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: How the ISS could have been built without the shuttle.
« Reply #94 on: 12/23/2010 02:49 pm »

How are the trusses berthed ?

To what ?

Offline markododa

  • Member
  • Posts: 52
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 111
Re: How the ISS could have been built without the shuttle.
« Reply #95 on: 12/23/2010 03:24 pm »

How are the trusses berthed ?

To what ?

to each other and to the rest of the station.

And without the shuttle, would there be need for workpods (robotic on manned) or just a couple of arms or a arm mounted on a rail would work too?.
Also cargo upmass could be served by an expendable cargo ship the size of a module & downmass with a cargo capsule, more like big apollo than big gemini.

Online mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: How the ISS could have been built without the shuttle.
« Reply #96 on: 01/10/2012 09:54 pm »
5.   Service Module with ARAD or OMV – could be derived from #2  but smaller.  It provides attitude control, power and some propulsion to a launch package.   Just what is needed to bring a launch package from insertion orbit to the ISS

What does ARAD stand for? Autonomous rendez-vous and docking?
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: How the ISS could have been built without the shuttle.
« Reply #97 on: 04/07/2021 12:26 pm »
Bump

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: How the ISS could have been built without the shuttle.
« Reply #98 on: 04/07/2021 03:03 pm »
And here's another thing ISS not only could have been built without but in fact was built without: heavy lift.  That's despite the fact that it has a mass of about 400 tonnes.
« Last Edit: 04/07/2021 03:07 pm by Proponent »

Offline Hog

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2846
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 1700
  • Likes Given: 6866
Re: How the ISS could have been built without the shuttle.
« Reply #99 on: 04/07/2021 09:00 pm »
And here's another thing ISS not only could have been built without but in fact was built without: heavy lift.  That's despite the fact that it has a mass of about 400 tonnes.
Individual ISS segments certainly weren't in the heavy-lift category, but STS payload maximums were certainly in said category.
Paul

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0