Author Topic: ICM - (International Space Station) Interim Control Module (Read 23748 times)

copernicus · « **on:** 09/06/2007 11:02 pm »

Does anyone in the NSF community know what has become of the Interim Control Module, the ICM? I believe that it was meant to control the attitude of the infant ISS in case the Russian
Service Module was further delayed.
As I recall, it's construction was almost complete when it was mothballed and put into storage.
Recently, I believe that some of the propelaant tanks were to be [scavenged] from the ICM to be used to help construct the LRO, the Lunar Recon Orbiter.

Phil Horzempa

Jim · « **Reply #1 on:** 09/06/2007 11:29 pm »

It is at NRL

Ronsmytheiii · « **Reply #2 on:** 09/17/2007 03:18 pm »

from the ultimate authority, wikipedia:

Quote

ICM is currently in a caretaker status at NRL's Payload Processing Facility in Washington, D.C., and is being preserved in readiness in case it is needed for future ISS missions. NRL is studying alternative mission options for ICM.

In particular, SpaceX is studying the launch of the ICM on a Falcon 9 as a potential solution for the ISS in the post Shuttle era.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interim_Control_Module

The only solution I could see for the ICM post shuttle is to deorbit the station in a controlled manner

PS I was being sarcastic about the ultimate authority, just so no one takes that seriously.

Danderman · « **Reply #3 on:** 05/01/2008 02:14 pm »

This is the thread for posts about this almost forgotten system. In particular, posts about what happened to it, and are there any remaining potential uses for it are welcome.

Rusty_Barton · « **Reply #4 on:** 05/01/2008 02:28 pm »

According to a Naval Research Laboratory publication (the first link listed below):

"ICM is currently in storage at NRL's Payload Processing Facility in Washington, D.C. The vehicle is capable of launch on either the Space Shuttle or an expendable booster of the EELV class."

There is no date on the publication, so I don't know how current that statement is.

Here are some links to info about the ICM:

Interim Control Module (ICM) - PDF
http://www.nrl.navy.mil/techtransfer/exhibits/pdfs/Info%20Sheet%20pdfs/Space%20Info%20Sheets/ICM.pdf
http://code8200.nrl.navy.mil/icm.html

Interim Control Module (ICM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interim_Control_Module

Two U.S. Space Tugs Form Backbone of NASA Backup Plan for International Space Station and Zvezda Module
http://www.space.com/news/spacestation/zvezda_tug_000708.html

SEI Interim Control Module (ICM)
http://www.silvereng.com/programs/icm.htm

NRL Revamping Control Module for NASA Space Station
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/news/1997/7-97r.htm

RANGER SB-WASS Navy Program
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/sbwass_n.htm

Effects of Solar Array Shadowing on the Power Capability of the Interim Control Module
http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/1999/TM-1999-209378.pdf

Rocket Rancher · « **Reply #5 on:** 05/01/2008 02:33 pm »

I was at NRL 3 years ago and I saw it then.

They are a very talent bunch there. It's a shame NASA doesn't take more advantage of it.

Jim · « **Reply #6 on:** 05/01/2008 02:44 pm »

http://www.nrl.navy.mil/pao/pressRelease.php?Y=1997&R=7-97r

Jim · « **Reply #7 on:** 05/01/2008 02:47 pm »

Quote

Rocket Rancher - 1/5/2008 10:33 AM

I was at NRL 3 years ago and I saw it then.

They are a very talent bunch there. It's a shame NASA doesn't take more advantage of it.

They are another gov't agency and their charter doesn't include supporting NASA. The ICM was a one off exception.

NASA has brought APL into the fold but there is only so much money to go around.

Blackstar · « **Reply #8 on:** 05/01/2008 02:49 pm »

Quote

Rusty_Barton - 1/5/2008 9:28 AM
RANGER SB-WASS Navy Program
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/sbwass_n.htm

This stuff is very misleading. John Pike had a tendency to jump to conclusions and fill in missing data with things that he simply made up, and this was one of them. "SB-WASS" was the acronym for "Space Based Wide Area Surveillance System." That was an Air Force proposal for a big radar system. Pike became convinced that a Navy ocean surveillance system was the same thing as SB-WASS.

The ICM was developed for the Navy system and was not part of the SB-WASS proposal.

Also, I suspect that the term "RANGER" was from a list of signals intelligence projects. These things always begin with the letter "R" and they are apparently the unclassified name that refers to the classified product. So it's not a satellite name.

Jim · « **Reply #9 on:** 05/01/2008 02:59 pm »

How about including the US propulsion module.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISS_Propulsion_Module

Did I just post a link to wikipedia?

and Node X

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=245
http://www.space.com/news/spacestation/propulsion_module_000921.html

Blackstar · « **Reply #10 on:** 05/01/2008 03:16 pm »

Quote

Jim - 1/5/2008 9:59 AM
and Node X

Node X was apparently adapted from the control stage for classified US reconsats. So both the ICM and Node X had spooky origins.

Rusty_Barton · « **Reply #11 on:** 05/01/2008 03:37 pm »

Quote

Blackstar - 1/5/2008 7:49 AM

Quote
Rusty_Barton - 1/5/2008 9:28 AM
RANGER SB-WASS Navy Program
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/sbwass_n.htm

This stuff is very misleading. John Pike had a tendency to jump to conclusions and fill in missing data with things that he simply made up, and this was one of them.

So it's just more of Pike's pique.

Jim · « **Reply #12 on:** 05/01/2008 03:55 pm »

Quote

Blackstar - 1/5/2008 11:16 AM

Quote
Jim - 1/5/2008 9:59 AM
and Node X

Node X was apparently adapted from the control stage for classified US reconsats. So both the ICM and Node X had spooky origins.

Same as Freedom's Bus-1

bobthemonkey · « **Reply #13 on:** 05/01/2008 04:04 pm »

If my history is correct, the Node STA destined for Node X was originally going to be Node 2, but there were structual irregularites.

Blackstar · « **Reply #14 on:** 05/01/2008 05:02 pm »

Quote

Rusty_Barton - 1/5/2008 10:37 AM
So it's just more of Pike's pique.

Heh, heh...

But... no.

Blackstar · « **Reply #15 on:** 05/01/2008 05:02 pm »

Quote

Jim - 1/5/2008 10:55 AM

Quote
Blackstar - 1/5/2008 11:16 AM
Node X was apparently adapted from the control stage for classified US reconsats. So both the ICM and Node X had spooky origins.

Same as Freedom's Bus-1

Ah, that's what I was thinking of--Bus-1. I'll have to go back and look again. I might be wrong about Node X having spooky origins...

Danderman · « **Reply #16 on:** 05/01/2008 08:15 pm »

Quote

Blackstar - 1/5/2008 8:16 AM
Quote
Jim - 1/5/2008 9:59 AM and Node X
Node X was apparently adapted from the control stage for classified US reconsats. So both the ICM and Node X had spooky origins.

Node X is/was the original backup for the Unity Node. The hardware you are discussing is/was a never built propulsion/power bus that was considered for ISS, but never built as such.

bobthemonkey · « **Reply #17 on:** 05/01/2008 09:14 pm »

Blackstar, as I understand it, you are correct. Node X was the STA with a simplified Bus-1 hung off the port and starboard sides.

robertross · « **Reply #18 on:** 02/13/2010 06:10 pm »

Resurecting this old thread...

Some of the links no longer work, but I was wondering what (if) NODE X could do to replace Zvezda in case of a failure?

If such a module were funded, could it serve to save some of the modules currently on orbit should there be a major failure?

Jorge · « **Reply #19 on:** 02/13/2010 06:33 pm »

Quote from: robertross on 02/13/2010 06:10 pm

Resurecting this old thread...

Some of the links no longer work, but I was wondering what (if) NODE X could do to replace Zvezda in case of a failure?

Only propulsion. Not life support, unless you built new life support equipment and installed it in Node X's racks. Note that Node X, since it was originally the Node 1 STA, only has four rack positions. I don't think that's enough to replace everything Zvezda provides.