-
ICM - (International Space Station) Interim Control Module
by
copernicus
on 06 Sep, 2007 23:02
-
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
-
#1
by
Jim
on 06 Sep, 2007 23:29
-
It is at NRL
-
#2
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 17 Sep, 2007 15:18
-
from the ultimate authority, wikipedia:
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_ModuleThe 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.
-
#3
by
Danderman
on 01 May, 2008 14:14
-
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.
-
#4
by
Rusty_Barton
on 01 May, 2008 14:28
-
-
#5
by
Rocket Rancher
on 01 May, 2008 14:33
-
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.
-
#6
by
Jim
on 01 May, 2008 14:44
-
-
#7
by
Jim
on 01 May, 2008 14:47
-
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.
-
#8
by
Blackstar
on 01 May, 2008 14:49
-
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.
-
#9
by
Jim
on 01 May, 2008 14:59
-
-
#10
by
Blackstar
on 01 May, 2008 15:16
-
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.
-
#11
by
Rusty_Barton
on 01 May, 2008 15:37
-
Blackstar - 1/5/2008 7:49 AM
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.
-
#12
by
Jim
on 01 May, 2008 15:55
-
Blackstar - 1/5/2008 11:16 AM
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
-
#13
by
bobthemonkey
on 01 May, 2008 16:04
-
If my history is correct, the Node STA destined for Node X was originally going to be Node 2, but there were structual irregularites.
-
#14
by
Blackstar
on 01 May, 2008 17:02
-
Rusty_Barton - 1/5/2008 10:37 AM
So it's just more of Pike's pique.
Heh, heh...
But... no.
-
#15
by
Blackstar
on 01 May, 2008 17:02
-
Jim - 1/5/2008 10:55 AM
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...
-
#16
by
Danderman
on 01 May, 2008 20:15
-
Blackstar - 1/5/2008 8:16 AM 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.
-
#17
by
bobthemonkey
on 01 May, 2008 21:14
-
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.
-
#18
by
robertross
on 13 Feb, 2010 18:10
-
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?
-
#19
by
Jorge
on 13 Feb, 2010 18:33
-
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.