The start of Freedom's on FY 1982, but then there's the actual work every year that has to be funded, and that's where most of those increases are going: Freedom work, Multibody work, LC-39 mods. The budget increases year-to-year are mostly being swallowed by ramp ups in bending metal for Multibody and Freedom, in addition to planetary science. Though that's the NASA budget, the DoD space budget (where SDI and DARPA funding would hang out) is a bit of a different story, but there SDI is the dominant factor. Looking into RLVs under that budget might happen, it's just not likely to be a full-scale 20-ton payload RLV, more like DC-X or X-20--a demo program.
But I thought the STS Maximum Payload was between 24,000 and 29,850 Kg - depending on what point in time it was. The variations being a result of different Shuttles, and design changes as time went on - a major drop in payload post-1986 IOTL, thanks to major safety modifications.
On a more positive note, this is the 801st response to this thread! So congrats on that E! Now, onwards to 1,000!
On a more positive note, this is the 801st response to this thread! So congrats on that E! Now, onwards to 1,000!
What is this responding to? The original nominal payload was supposed to be ~30 tons, iirc, but i dont know they ever got that high. Iirc, max payload dropped all the way to 20 tons, although that was, i think, to the high and inclined iss orbit.But I thought the STS Maximum Payload was between 24,000 and 29,850 Kg - depending on what point in time it was. The variations being a result of different Shuttles, and design changes as time went on - a major drop in payload post-1986 IOTL, thanks to major safety modifications.
On a more positive note, this is the 801st response to this thread! So congrats on that E! Now, onwards to 1,000!
It's in response to my offhand comments about Shuttle being a "20-ton class" LV. I should explain that's a mental category I have in my head, which includes Shuttle, Ariane, Proton, and Delta IVH (not to mention F9 v1.1 if they were to substitute in a hydrolox upper stage)--so maybe it'd be better to call it a ~22-24 ton class, but the 20 sticks in my mind. I think we've talked about this before?
Also on the "I mispoke" front, that'd be that Freedom will be approved in 1982 for the FY 1983 budget.
oh the Shuttle was design for 29 ton max, but it's the maximum payload the shuttle had launch were ~20 tons like Galileo on IUS,
mostly it was around 12 tons of Payload in the cargobay...
Part II: Post 7: Space Station Starlab evolves into Freedom
Hello, everyone! Sorry for the delay, today was another rather busy day for me. However, I hope that today will be worth it--we're focusing on Freedom some more this week, with a little extra on top. There's a whole raft of pictures to follow, so stay tuned in.
Eyes Turned Skyward, Part II: Post #7
As the turn-of-the-decade post-Spacelab “Starlab” station definition studies transformed into the fully-authorized (and presidentially-renamed) Space Station Freedom, work moved from defining the role, scope, and basic design of the station to the design and construction of the actual hardware of the station. Thus, the messy business of contracting entered the situation, both in the United States and in the international horse trading that was the carefully-constructed barter that characterized international collaboration efforts between NASA and its counterparts in other nations. Within NASA, it seemed only natural that Marshall Spaceflight Center, with their experience in managing both Skylab and Spacelab, would take the lead in the program management at NASA. Once that belief became reality, it was also unsurprising that McDonnell-Douglas was quickly selected as the lead American contractor. Despite some not-entirely-unfounded allegations of contract irregularities, the simple fact was that Marshall trusted McDonnell and felt that their established working relationship from Skylab and Spacelab would be critical to meeting the Presidential directives to expedite Freedom development as much as practical within the budget levels set. However, while McDonnell staked out its claim on the core module of Freedom, the complex nature of the station meant that the job was too large for them to handle entirely on their own.
The American portion of the station would consist of six segments, breaking down into two pressurized modules, plus the components of the station’s large truss. The largest of these pressurized modules was the Habitation and Service Module (HSM), which would constitute the main core of the station. The HSM would be a 6.6m diameter module, which like the OWS modules of Skylab and Spacelab would be derived from Saturn upper-stage tankage. However, unlike the Skylab and Spacelab OWS which had been built as tankage and then converted, the Freedom HSM would be a purpose-built structure merely making use of tank toolings for the main barrel and domes. The purpose of the HSM was to be the hub of the station’s systems. It would house the stations’ main computers, attitude control thrusters and gyroscopes, life support systems and tankage, and the station’s main airlock. An axial CADS port at each end would provide for connections of other modules and vehicles. The exterior of the module would play host to the solar arrays and radiators that would supply “keep-alive” power for basic operations until the truss segments could be launched, and the forward end of the module would consist of a 3 meter diameter pressurized tunnel below the adaptor for the station’s truss. In addition to all of these systems, the module would also provide the main habitat segment of the station, providing a wardroom/galley and crew quarters for the station’s 10-person crew. With all this, it was no surprise that the HSM was to be the largest and most massive of the station’s modules, stretching the Saturn H03 to its limit. To avoid the risk of damage to the critical “keep-alive” solar arrays and radiators, not to mention the main truss attachment block, the entire module was to fly encapsulated within a large “widebody” 10 meter payload fairing.
The other American pressurized module would be the US lab module, a comparatively simple 5 meter-diameter 18.5 ton module. It would be provided with one axial CADS port, and was intended to be launched on a Saturn M02 with an AARDV bus being used as a tug to maneuver the lab to dock to the station. The 5 meter diameter was selected based on volume utilization studies that suggested that the new modular racks would result in more usable experiment volume in a module configured as a longer, smaller diameter tube with a single corridor (“Buck Rogers” or “aircraft”-style) previously used in the European Research Module than a shorter 6m-diameter module of equivalent mass using the stacked levels (“Heinlein” or “skyscraper” style) used in the Skylab and Spacelab OWS, as well as slated for use in the Freedom HSM. The lab module hull’s construction would be subcontracted to Rockwell, since they were building their own 5 meter tooling for other purposes, though the final fit-out and integration would remain the responsibility of McDonnell.
The final American component of the station would be the station’s solar array wings and radiators, housed on the station’s truss. The truss was designed to be flown in four parts--each side of the truss would consist of an inboard segment with radiators and solar arrays plus an additional supplementary outboard segment mounting additional solar arrays. The inboard segments (P1/S1) would be the longest single component of Space Station Freedom, at 27 meters long. The first section, taking up 17 meters of the overall span, would feature large radiators as well as mounting positions for exposed experiments. Next, a rotating joint would connect the radiator portion of the inboard truss to the section containing the first solar wing. Each wing segment would be 10 m long, and feature four “panes,” two on each side of the truss. Each pane would rotate on its attachment to the truss about the long axis, giving the station two-axis pointing to optimize solar power throughout a variety of orbital conditions. With a total length of 27 meters, the inboard truss segments would define the length of the widebody fairings for Saturn Multibody, just as the HSM had defined the diameter. The outboard section, massing 18.5 tons and carried to station by an AARDV tug launched on Saturn M02, would be similar to the inboard section’s solar wing segment, carrying another 4 panes, for a total of 16 on-station. With a length of 34 m and a width of 4.3 meters per pane, the total generating area of the station would be over 2300 square meters, generating over 300 kW of electricity. However, while this was perceived as sufficient for the station’s medium-term needs, long-term planning called for potential expansion of the station, and perhaps for the testing of other solar power generation systems such as solar thermal systems. In order to enable such future extension, the outboard truss segments were designed with an additional attachment points on their ends so that at some point in the future they could be used to attach additional segments if and when funding became available. As demand on McDonnell’s facilities and personnel would be very high given the scope of Space Station Freedom, McDonnell made the decision to subcontract the design of the solar alpha rotary joints and the 16 solar panes to Lockheed, while retaining work on the radiators and general truss design in-house.
In addition to the modules of the station itself, there were to be some attendant modifications to the American fleet of support craft. The venerable Apollo was first, with modifications being planned on the Block III+ Mission Module forward port to allow it to mount a CADS port instead of the old probe-and-drogue, though the probe-and-drogue would be retained for the connection between the Apollo capsule and the Mission Module as changing the forward end of the Apollo capsule to be of sufficient diameter to mount the new systems would be a significant technical investment. The AARDV bus (also the Apollo and Aardvark service module) was also to receive a refresh, with slightly increased maximum propellant capabilities and increased thruster control authority to allow it to steer the larger modules of the station, mainly the nearly 70-ton inboard truss segments. Some minor radar and computer system refreshes were also included as part of updating the spacecraft’s control routines, some of which were also to be included in the Aardvark and Apollo SM versions of the bus. However, Aardvark was to receive the largest updates--the new Aardvark would be a different craft in all but name. While it would still be an automated logistics craft using the same common AARDV bus as a service module, it would now feature a 5 meter diameter pressurized section instead of the older 4 meter version, intended to allow a slightly increased volume in a shorter overall length. This was necessary, given the largest change in the Aardvark Block II: a new 3 meter-long unpressurized payload bay inserted between the service module and the pressurized section. This bay was intended to allow easy launch of replacement components or experiments to the exposed facilities of the various laboratories of the station, as well as the disposal of obsolete exterior equipment. In the operations of Spacelab, inability to transport large exposed payloads had placed major restrictions on station science operations and ongoing upkeep and maintenance, and had been identified as a major deficiency of the original early-70s Aardvark design. While the most major modifications would have to wait until the new station launched, some of the computer modifications were intended to be incorporated into ongoing flights to Spacelab and planning was were developed to fly a probe-and-drogue version of the new Aardvark to Spacelab prior to the launch of the new station.
Of course, the American components wouldn’t be the only parts of the station. Indeed, the maze of the international barter agreements made the domestic American contracting seem almost transparent. For instance, by the time international partnership agreements were being hammered out in 1983, the Japanese space agency NASDA had been working with NASA for almost two years to negotiate a flight of a full Japanese laboratory to the station. According to the final agreement reached, the Japanese would be provided launch services for their lab as well as a crew slot on station (one crew slot amounts to a seat on every other rotation flight) to make us of it. In exchange, NASDA would provide a module for the station according to American needs, essentially trading the R&D costs on the module for the launch cost of its lab. The agreed-upon module was a large-diameter centrifuge laboratory. Such a centrifuge had been part of American station planning for years, having long been seen as critical to a better understanding of human and animal physiology and an enabler of long-term space flight, but had never come to fruition, always cut as “nice to have, but too expensive.” Through this trade, this capability could be developed for a minimal cost to the United States. Both the Centrifuge Gravity Lab and the Japanese laboratory module were planned to share the same 6 meter diameter, 4.8 meter long pressurized hull. With the volume allowed by the Saturn Multibody MO2’s launch capacity and the restrictions placed by the centrifuge module’s need, NASDA had decided this was the best balance of achieving a large diameter (enabling a larger centrifuge) while retaining a length suitable to actually working in the resulting modules. While the 6 meter diameter would slightly inconvenience operations, the shorter length would have a few major benefits. First, retention of the same hull design for the two modules would minimize the necessary Japanese investment in their portion of the station. Second, although the Japanese plans included an extensive exposed module, for vacuum experiments, the limited length of standard Saturn fairings meant that this would be difficult to fit on a standard 5 meter module.Thus, minimizing the length of the pressurized section helped pack the lab better into the fairings available and allowed more room for experiments the Japanese were interested in running--including some whose launch would only be possible thanks to the unpressurized cargo section of the Aardvark Block II, and which would thus break new ground in space research. In order to facilitate work on the large exposed pallet, the Japanese lab would feature a small airlock for experiments, as well as several viewports overlooking the “porch,” and a robot manipulator arm. The CGL would feature a single main piece of equipment: the main 5.5-meter-diameter rotor against the far end cone, which would allow room for multiple life-science packages to be onboard at once, either at the same or different gravity levels. The remainder of the module would be support equipment, such as systems to filter and feed water to animal experiments on the rotor, experiment supply stowage, and the shock absorbers and vibration dampers required to prevent any vibration caused by imbalances in the rotor from transmitting through the inter-module connections and disturbing microgravity experiments in other modules.
Like the Japanese, the Europeans had also been negotiating for an increased role in Freedom relative to their participation in Spacelab. In the nearly six years since the agreements for their participation in Spacelab were signed, ESA felt that their situation has changed significantly, and the lab they intend to build and the launch barter agreement reached reflected this. While the new lab would share the same 5 meter diameter Thales-built module hull, the new module was planned to have several advantages over the old Spacelab ERM. First, it would be slightly larger, allowing more experiments to be carried out at once. Second, due to the design of Freedom, it would not need to feature a docking port at both ends, with the free end of the module thus capped with a small exposed facility. Third, the American design already had a separate lab module, meaning that there would hopefully be fewer issues with overflow of American projects into the European module--something which had been forced on the ERM due to the inability to transfer some large experiments launched with ERM into the Spacelab OWS, either due to port diameter restrictions or space limitations in the LOX tank “lab annex” from the additional sleep stations used to bring the station to 5 crew. In exchange for the launch of the ERM, Europe agreed to finance the construction of the two node modules required to attach the various component modules together into a unified station and support various logistics spacecraft. Each node would have have two axial and four radial CADS ports, and connect to two subsidiary modules, leaving four open ports for logistics and crew rotation vehicles. While some questions were raised as the to the fairness of the deal (after all, the Japanese were only expected to build one module in exchange for their lab launch, while ESA was being expected to provide two), in fact it was a rather good deal. The identical nature of the nodes, their similarity in turn to the lab itself, and the relative simplicity of the design compared to the complexities of the centrifuge rotor, vibration damper, and experiment life support meant that ESA would end up spending less on the design and construction of their entire trio of modules than the Japanese would on just the research and design of the CGL alone. The degree of trust shown by NASA that the ESA could deliver such critical station components on time and on budget marked a significant advancement over the Seat Wars of just a few years previously, showing how far the American-European relationship had come, at least in spaceflight.
However, while the situation had improved, the attitudes on both sides of the Atlantic that lead to the Seat Wars were still not completely resolved, nor was a larger lab all that ESA wanted on the new station. The Europeans also wanted to renew their established one-seat-per-rotation deal with NASA, for two crew slots on Freedom at all times. While many in NASA had no significant issue with the deal (it was, after all, in some ways a a maintenance of the status quo in practice since Block III+ was introduced three years before and which was already to persist until the retirement of Spacelab), there was a faction that demanded additional contributions from ESA if if Europe would now expect NASA to launch and support two astronauts on orbit instead of just one--perhaps including assistance with the logistics load. Other groups of engineers and policy planners in Europe saw this as a perfect opportunity to push the European spacecraft and launch vehicle evolution programs that had been in planning since Europa 3 was approved. After all, the situation demonstrated clearly why it was critical that the Europeans have their own manned launch capability, but also provided a stepping stone to doing so--they could incrementally reach the capability by first developing a cargo craft to fulfill the American’s demands, while designing for future conversion into a crew vehicle.
The result was the European Minotaur program, a multi-role spacecraft designed to assist in meeting Freedom’s logistic needs, but with an eye to rapid conversion to manned flight in the future. For this reason, a simple cylindrical pressure hull like that of the American Aardvark was rejected. However, budget restrictions and schedule pressures eliminated consideration of more complex spaceplane or lifting body designs, despite some interest in “leapfrogging” the world (and especially NASA). The result was a fairly conventional vehicle design--a truncated conical capsule with a 20 degree sidewall angle, sloping to a 2-meter-diameter docking face with a single CADS port. The 4-meter diameter of the Aurore upper stage was used as a base diameter, which would offer a total pressurized volume of 16 cubic meters--almost double the volume of Apollo. Much like Apollo, the capsule would be supported by a service module, which would house power systems, maneuvering propellant, and thrusters. However, unlike the American Apollo, Minotaur ‘s designers planned to use solar arrays as opposed to batteries (like the Block III) or fuel cells (as on Block I and II Apollo) for power. Along with some structural design improvements, the end result was that Minotaur would mass 25% less for its size than even the latest Apollos. The resulting mass of 14,700 kg (including 3,500 kg of cargo), would allow the vehicle to fit on the planned Europa 42u launch vehicle. The selection of the 42u as the targeted launch vehicle was very deliberate, since it mandated the development of sufficient infrastructure for the entire Europa 4 family, while it also left open the potential of launching manned versions of Minotaur on the 44u, which could launch a similar sized vehicle plus a launch abort system. As with many ESA projects, the allocation of contracts for Minotaur was heavily idiosyncratic, reflecting the breakdown of funding for the agency, as well as national priorities for development. The capsule would be primarily designed and integrated in France, reflecting their status as primary partner, tied with the UK for funding, though some systems-level components will be produced in other ESA member nations. Similarly, the capsule’s service module would be produced in Germany, supposedly to take advantage of their experience building the hypergolic Astris stage for Europa. The reality had more to do with German politicians making noise that despite their funding level (tied with Italy for third at ~15%) they had so far not seen as much funding come back in the form of hardware contracts as France, Britain, or indeed Italy--whose Thales corporation benefitted from module development contracts for the ERM and looked set to gain even more from Freedom’s new European lab and nodes. Once completed, the Minotaur service module and pressurized module would be shipped to Korou for integration with each other and their Europa 42u launch vehicle. After missions to Spacelab, the capsules would be recovered in Australia and potentially sent back to France for refurbishment and reuse.
However, more than just the major space nations ended up involved in SSF. Canada had been seeing an increasing role in spaceflight, beginning from its participation in the Canadian-built, NASA-launched Alouette 1 and the ISIS series of ionospheric research satellites. Indeed, the first geosynchronous communications satellite (Anik A-1, launched in 1972) was a Canadian-led project. This close working relationship made Canada a natural for one of the Spaceflight Participation Program flights to Spacelab, and it also came into play in the contracting for Freedom. Equipping the station with robotic manipulators was a critical part of enabling the use of the various external pallets included in the design, and Canada was selected to provide this critical element. The system would be designed and built by the Canadian engineering firm MacDonald, Dettwiler, and Associates (MDA) of British Columbia and would consist of several components: two arms, a number of grapple fixtures, transport systems to allow the arms to move about on the outside of the station, and finally the Cupola, a combined robotics operation and Earth observation center. The cupola was not originally part of the Canadian robotics package; rather, the idea had been developed at NASA, with the original intent of including it in McDonnell’s prime contractor package. However, as the more critical modules of the station were traded and subcontracted to manage workloads, the Cupola slipped from one package to another--first to several different American contractors in series (at one point it was being studied simultaneously--and independently--by McDonnell and Lockheed), then the possibility of including it as part of the dealing for Europe or Japan was considered. However, the situation was roughly the same in both cases: the Cupola would be a relatively small module--too small to be a ripe prize for any of the contractors or major international partners, while its relatively non-critical status rendered it a low priority and continually put it at risk of budget cuts or outright cancellation. Finally, in 1984, NASA offered it to Canada, justifying it as being a critical link in the use of the station’s robotics, but more a result of increasing desperation to see work on the module begun in earnest. Canada seized the opportunity, taking the chance to extract a relatively good deal--three flights to the station during the first five years after the station achieved initial operational capacity (IOC, which was projected to be in 1989) with potential renewal after the specified period. While the inclusion in the robotics package technically made MDA the prime contractor on the cupola, they had limited experience in the pressure hull or systems design required for the module, since their experience lay more in the robotics system design that won them the robotics package in the first place. Thus, responsibility for the Cupola largely fell on the subcontractor MDA selected, deHavilland Canada. The robotics package would be spread out over several launches--the first arm would launch with the HSM, the second arm with Node 1, and the Cupola would launch with Node 2, then be transferred to the nadir (earth-facing) port of Node 1.
Altogether, in1984 work related to Freedom was underway on four continents, with module design and hardware construction proceeding roughly according to schedule. The projected launch of the first element of Freedom is intended to be the HSM, in 1987, with further launches following during 1988 and 1989 to allow the station to achieve initial operating capacity in 1989--although final completion was foreseen to potentially take until as late as 1990. At over 1300 cubic meters, Freedom was to be more than double the size of Spacelab, and the large truss and external facilities would result in a mass of nearly 350 tons. American engineers and their international partners were confident in their response to the challenge posed by the Soviet Salyut 7 and the Russian’s announce future plans for even larger stations.
Eyes Turned Skyward, Part II: Post #7
As the turn-of-the-decade post-Spacelab “Starlab” station definition studies transformed into the fully-authorized (and presidentially-renamed) Space Station Freedom, work moved from defining the role, scope, and basic design of the station to the design and construction of the actual hardware of the station. Thus, the messy business of contracting entered the situation, both in the United States and in the international horse trading that was the carefully-constructed barter that characterized international collaboration efforts between NASA and its counterparts in other nations. Within NASA, it seemed only natural that Marshall Spaceflight Center, with their experience in managing both Skylab and Spacelab, would take the lead in the program management at NASA. Once that belief became reality, it was also unsurprising that McDonnell-Douglas was quickly selected as the lead American contractor. Despite some not-entirely-unfounded allegations of contract irregularities, the simple fact was that Marshall trusted McDonnell and felt that their established working relationship from Skylab and Spacelab would be critical to meeting the Presidential directives to expedite Freedom development as much as practical within the budget levels set. However, while McDonnell staked out its claim on the core module of Freedom, the complex nature of the station meant that the job was too large for them to handle entirely on their own.
The American portion of the station would consist of six segments, breaking down into two pressurized modules, plus the components of the station’s large truss. The largest of these pressurized modules was the Habitation and Service Module (HSM), which would constitute the main core of the station. The HSM would be a 6.6m diameter module, which like the OWS modules of Skylab and Spacelab would be derived from Saturn upper-stage tankage. However, unlike the Skylab and Spacelab OWS which had been built as tankage and then converted, the Freedom HSM would be a purpose-built structure merely making use of tank toolings for the main barrel and domes. The purpose of the HSM was to be the hub of the station’s systems. It would house the stations’ main computers, attitude control thrusters and gyroscopes, life support systems and tankage, and the station’s main airlock. An axial CADS port at each end would provide for connections of other modules and vehicles. The exterior of the module would play host to the solar arrays and radiators that would supply “keep-alive” power for basic operations until the truss segments could be launched, and the forward end of the module would consist of a 3 meter diameter pressurized tunnel below the adaptor for the station’s truss. In addition to all of these systems, the module would also provide the main habitat segment of the station, providing a wardroom/galley and crew quarters for the station’s 10-person crew. With all this, it was no surprise that the HSM was to be the largest and most massive of the station’s modules, stretching the Saturn H03 to its limit. To avoid the risk of damage to the critical “keep-alive” solar arrays and radiators, not to mention the main truss attachment block, the entire module was to fly encapsulated within a large “widebody” 10 meter payload fairing.
The other American pressurized module would be the US lab module, a comparatively simple 5 meter-diameter 18.5 ton module. It would be provided with one axial CADS port, and was intended to be launched on a Saturn M02 with an AARDV bus being used as a tug to maneuver the lab to dock to the station. The 5 meter diameter was selected based on volume utilization studies that suggested that the new modular racks would result in more usable experiment volume in a module configured as a longer, smaller diameter tube with a single corridor (“Buck Rogers” or “aircraft”-style) previously used in the European Research Module than a shorter 6m-diameter module of equivalent mass using the stacked levels (“Heinlein” or “skyscraper” style) used in the Skylab and Spacelab OWS, as well as slated for use in the Freedom HSM. The lab module hull’s construction would be subcontracted to Rockwell, since they were building their own 5 meter tooling for other purposes, though the final fit-out and integration would remain the responsibility of McDonnell.
The final American component of the station would be the station’s solar array wings and radiators, housed on the station’s truss. The truss was designed to be flown in four parts--each side of the truss would consist of an inboard segment with radiators and solar arrays plus an additional supplementary outboard segment mounting additional solar arrays. The inboard segments (P1/S1) would be the longest single component of Space Station Freedom, at 27 meters long. The first section, taking up 17 meters of the overall span, would feature large radiators as well as mounting positions for exposed experiments. Next, a rotating joint would connect the radiator portion of the inboard truss to the section containing the first solar wing. Each wing segment would be 10 m long, and feature four “panes,” two on each side of the truss. Each pane would rotate on its attachment to the truss about the long axis, giving the station two-axis pointing to optimize solar power throughout a variety of orbital conditions. With a total length of 27 meters, the inboard truss segments would define the length of the widebody fairings for Saturn Multibody, just as the HSM had defined the diameter. The outboard section, massing 18.5 tons and carried to station by an AARDV tug launched on Saturn M02, would be similar to the inboard section’s solar wing segment, carrying another 4 panes, for a total of 16 on-station. With a length of 34 m and a width of 4.3 meters per pane, the total generating area of the station would be over 2300 square meters, generating over 300 kW of electricity. However, while this was perceived as sufficient for the station’s medium-term needs, long-term planning called for potential expansion of the station, and perhaps for the testing of other solar power generation systems such as solar thermal systems. In order to enable such future extension, the outboard truss segments were designed with an additional attachment points on their ends so that at some point in the future they could be used to attach additional segments if and when funding became available. As demand on McDonnell’s facilities and personnel would be very high given the scope of Space Station Freedom, McDonnell made the decision to subcontract the design of the solar alpha rotary joints and the 16 solar panes to Lockheed, while retaining work on the radiators and general truss design in-house.
In addition to the modules of the station itself, there were to be some attendant modifications to the American fleet of support craft. The venerable Apollo was first, with modifications being planned on the Block III+ Mission Module forward port to allow it to mount a CADS port instead of the old probe-and-drogue, though the probe-and-drogue would be retained for the connection between the Apollo capsule and the Mission Module as changing the forward end of the Apollo capsule to be of sufficient diameter to mount the new systems would be a significant technical investment. The AARDV bus (also the Apollo and Aardvark service module) was also to receive a refresh, with slightly increased maximum propellant capabilities and increased thruster control authority to allow it to steer the larger modules of the station, mainly the nearly 70-ton inboard truss segments. Some minor radar and computer system refreshes were also included as part of updating the spacecraft’s control routines, some of which were also to be included in the Aardvark and Apollo SM versions of the bus. However, Aardvark was to receive the largest updates--the new Aardvark would be a different craft in all but name. While it would still be an automated logistics craft using the same common AARDV bus as a service module, it would now feature a 5 meter diameter pressurized section instead of the older 4 meter version, intended to allow a slightly increased volume in a shorter overall length. This was necessary, given the largest change in the Aardvark Block II: a new 3 meter-long unpressurized payload bay inserted between the service module and the pressurized section. This bay was intended to allow easy launch of replacement components or experiments to the exposed facilities of the various laboratories of the station, as well as the disposal of obsolete exterior equipment. In the operations of Spacelab, inability to transport large exposed payloads had placed major restrictions on station science operations and ongoing upkeep and maintenance, and had been identified as a major deficiency of the original early-70s Aardvark design. While the most major modifications would have to wait until the new station launched, some of the computer modifications were intended to be incorporated into ongoing flights to Spacelab and planning was were developed to fly a probe-and-drogue version of the new Aardvark to Spacelab prior to the launch of the new station.
Of course, the American components wouldn’t be the only parts of the station. Indeed, the maze of the international barter agreements made the domestic American contracting seem almost transparent. For instance, by the time international partnership agreements were being hammered out in 1983, the Japanese space agency NASDA had been working with NASA for almost two years to negotiate a flight of a full Japanese laboratory to the station. According to the final agreement reached, the Japanese would be provided launch services for their lab as well as a crew slot on station (one crew slot amounts to a seat on every other rotation flight) to make us of it. In exchange, NASDA would provide a module for the station according to American needs, essentially trading the R&D costs on the module for the launch cost of its lab. The agreed-upon module was a large-diameter centrifuge laboratory. Such a centrifuge had been part of American station planning for years, having long been seen as critical to a better understanding of human and animal physiology and an enabler of long-term space flight, but had never come to fruition, always cut as “nice to have, but too expensive.” Through this trade, this capability could be developed for a minimal cost to the United States. Both the Centrifuge Gravity Lab and the Japanese laboratory module were planned to share the same 6 meter diameter, 4.8 meter long pressurized hull. With the volume allowed by the Saturn Multibody MO2’s launch capacity and the restrictions placed by the centrifuge module’s need, NASDA had decided this was the best balance of achieving a large diameter (enabling a larger centrifuge) while retaining a length suitable to actually working in the resulting modules. While the 6 meter diameter would slightly inconvenience operations, the shorter length would have a few major benefits. First, retention of the same hull design for the two modules would minimize the necessary Japanese investment in their portion of the station. Second, although the Japanese plans included an extensive exposed module, for vacuum experiments, the limited length of standard Saturn fairings meant that this would be difficult to fit on a standard 5 meter module.Thus, minimizing the length of the pressurized section helped pack the lab better into the fairings available and allowed more room for experiments the Japanese were interested in running--including some whose launch would only be possible thanks to the unpressurized cargo section of the Aardvark Block II, and which would thus break new ground in space research. In order to facilitate work on the large exposed pallet, the Japanese lab would feature a small airlock for experiments, as well as several viewports overlooking the “porch,” and a robot manipulator arm. The CGL would feature a single main piece of equipment: the main 5.5-meter-diameter rotor against the far end cone, which would allow room for multiple life-science packages to be onboard at once, either at the same or different gravity levels. The remainder of the module would be support equipment, such as systems to filter and feed water to animal experiments on the rotor, experiment supply stowage, and the shock absorbers and vibration dampers required to prevent any vibration caused by imbalances in the rotor from transmitting through the inter-module connections and disturbing microgravity experiments in other modules.
Like the Japanese, the Europeans had also been negotiating for an increased role in Freedom relative to their participation in Spacelab. In the nearly six years since the agreements for their participation in Spacelab were signed, ESA felt that their situation has changed significantly, and the lab they intend to build and the launch barter agreement reached reflected this. While the new lab would share the same 5 meter diameter Thales-built module hull, the new module was planned to have several advantages over the old Spacelab ERM. First, it would be slightly larger, allowing more experiments to be carried out at once. Second, due to the design of Freedom, it would not need to feature a docking port at both ends, with the free end of the module thus capped with a small exposed facility. Third, the American design already had a separate lab module, meaning that there would hopefully be fewer issues with overflow of American projects into the European module--something which had been forced on the ERM due to the inability to transfer some large experiments launched with ERM into the Spacelab OWS, either due to port diameter restrictions or space limitations in the LOX tank “lab annex” from the additional sleep stations used to bring the station to 5 crew. In exchange for the launch of the ERM, Europe agreed to finance the construction of the two node modules required to attach the various component modules together into a unified station and support various logistics spacecraft. Each node would have have two axial and four radial CADS ports, and connect to two subsidiary modules, leaving four open ports for logistics and crew rotation vehicles. While some questions were raised as the to the fairness of the deal (after all, the Japanese were only expected to build one module in exchange for their lab launch, while ESA was being expected to provide two), in fact it was a rather good deal. The identical nature of the nodes, their similarity in turn to the lab itself, and the relative simplicity of the design compared to the complexities of the centrifuge rotor, vibration damper, and experiment life support meant that ESA would end up spending less on the design and construction of their entire trio of modules than the Japanese would on just the research and design of the CGL alone. The degree of trust shown by NASA that the ESA could deliver such critical station components on time and on budget marked a significant advancement over the Seat Wars of just a few years previously, showing how far the American-European relationship had come, at least in spaceflight.
However, while the situation had improved, the attitudes on both sides of the Atlantic that lead to the Seat Wars were still not completely resolved, nor was a larger lab all that ESA wanted on the new station. The Europeans also wanted to renew their established one-seat-per-rotation deal with NASA, for two crew slots on Freedom at all times. While many in NASA had no significant issue with the deal (it was, after all, in some ways a a maintenance of the status quo in practice since Block III+ was introduced three years before and which was already to persist until the retirement of Spacelab), there was a faction that demanded additional contributions from ESA if if Europe would now expect NASA to launch and support two astronauts on orbit instead of just one--perhaps including assistance with the logistics load. Other groups of engineers and policy planners in Europe saw this as a perfect opportunity to push the European spacecraft and launch vehicle evolution programs that had been in planning since Europa 3 was approved. After all, the situation demonstrated clearly why it was critical that the Europeans have their own manned launch capability, but also provided a stepping stone to doing so--they could incrementally reach the capability by first developing a cargo craft to fulfill the American’s demands, while designing for future conversion into a crew vehicle.
The result was the European Minotaur program, a multi-role spacecraft designed to assist in meeting Freedom’s logistic needs, but with an eye to rapid conversion to manned flight in the future. For this reason, a simple cylindrical pressure hull like that of the American Aardvark was rejected. However, budget restrictions and schedule pressures eliminated consideration of more complex spaceplane or lifting body designs, despite some interest in “leapfrogging” the world (and especially NASA). The result was a fairly conventional vehicle design--a truncated conical capsule with a 20 degree sidewall angle, sloping to a 2-meter-diameter docking face with a single CADS port. The 4-meter diameter of the Aurore upper stage was used as a base diameter, which would offer a total pressurized volume of 16 cubic meters--almost double the volume of Apollo. Much like Apollo, the capsule would be supported by a service module, which would house power systems, maneuvering propellant, and thrusters. However, unlike the American Apollo, Minotaur ‘s designers planned to use solar arrays as opposed to batteries (like the Block III) or fuel cells (as on Block I and II Apollo) for power. Along with some structural design improvements, the end result was that Minotaur would mass 25% less for its size than even the latest Apollos. The resulting mass of 14,700 kg (including 3,500 kg of cargo), would allow the vehicle to fit on the planned Europa 42u launch vehicle. The selection of the 42u as the targeted launch vehicle was very deliberate, since it mandated the development of sufficient infrastructure for the entire Europa 4 family, while it also left open the potential of launching manned versions of Minotaur on the 44u, which could launch a similar sized vehicle plus a launch abort system. As with many ESA projects, the allocation of contracts for Minotaur was heavily idiosyncratic, reflecting the breakdown of funding for the agency, as well as national priorities for development. The capsule would be primarily designed and integrated in France, reflecting their status as primary partner, tied with the UK for funding, though some systems-level components will be produced in other ESA member nations. Similarly, the capsule’s service module would be produced in Germany, supposedly to take advantage of their experience building the hypergolic Astris stage for Europa. The reality had more to do with German politicians making noise that despite their funding level (tied with Italy for third at ~15%) they had so far not seen as much funding come back in the form of hardware contracts as France, Britain, or indeed Italy--whose Thales corporation benefitted from module development contracts for the ERM and looked set to gain even more from Freedom’s new European lab and nodes. Once completed, the Minotaur service module and pressurized module would be shipped to Korou for integration with each other and their Europa 42u launch vehicle. After missions to Spacelab, the capsules would be recovered in Australia and potentially sent back to France for refurbishment and reuse.
However, more than just the major space nations ended up involved in SSF. Canada had been seeing an increasing role in spaceflight, beginning from its participation in the Canadian-built, NASA-launched Alouette 1 and the ISIS series of ionospheric research satellites. Indeed, the first geosynchronous communications satellite (Anik A-1, launched in 1972) was a Canadian-led project. This close working relationship made Canada a natural for one of the Spaceflight Participation Program flights to Spacelab, and it also came into play in the contracting for Freedom. Equipping the station with robotic manipulators was a critical part of enabling the use of the various external pallets included in the design, and Canada was selected to provide this critical element. The system would be designed and built by the Canadian engineering firm MacDonald, Dettwiler, and Associates (MDA) of British Columbia and would consist of several components: two arms, a number of grapple fixtures, transport systems to allow the arms to move about on the outside of the station, and finally the Cupola, a combined robotics operation and Earth observation center. The cupola was not originally part of the Canadian robotics package; rather, the idea had been developed at NASA, with the original intent of including it in McDonnell’s prime contractor package. However, as the more critical modules of the station were traded and subcontracted to manage workloads, the Cupola slipped from one package to another--first to several different American contractors in series (at one point it was being studied simultaneously--and independently--by McDonnell and Lockheed), then the possibility of including it as part of the dealing for Europe or Japan was considered. However, the situation was roughly the same in both cases: the Cupola would be a relatively small module--too small to be a ripe prize for any of the contractors or major international partners, while its relatively non-critical status rendered it a low priority and continually put it at risk of budget cuts or outright cancellation. Finally, in 1984, NASA offered it to Canada, justifying it as being a critical link in the use of the station’s robotics, but more a result of increasing desperation to see work on the module begun in earnest. Canada seized the opportunity, taking the chance to extract a relatively good deal--three flights to the station during the first five years after the station achieved initial operational capacity (IOC, which was projected to be in 1989) with potential renewal after the specified period. While the inclusion in the robotics package technically made MDA the prime contractor on the cupola, they had limited experience in the pressure hull or systems design required for the module, since their experience lay more in the robotics system design that won them the robotics package in the first place. Thus, responsibility for the Cupola largely fell on the subcontractor MDA selected, deHavilland Canada. The robotics package would be spread out over several launches--the first arm would launch with the HSM, the second arm with Node 1, and the Cupola would launch with Node 2, then be transferred to the nadir (earth-facing) port of Node 1.
Altogether, in1984 work related to Freedom was underway on four continents, with module design and hardware construction proceeding roughly according to schedule. The projected launch of the first element of Freedom is intended to be the HSM, in 1987, with further launches following during 1988 and 1989 to allow the station to achieve initial operating capacity in 1989--although final completion was foreseen to potentially take until as late as 1990. At over 1300 cubic meters, Freedom was to be more than double the size of Spacelab, and the large truss and external facilities would result in a mass of nearly 350 tons. American engineers and their international partners were confident in their response to the challenge posed by the Soviet Salyut 7 and the Russian’s announce future plans for even larger stations.
Last edited:
Okay, so here's some of the promised pretty pictures, as links because they're somewhat large. First off, a couple overall views of Freedom's final configuration, one from the front, and one from the rear. This image shows the Freedom HSM in free-flight, with its "keep-alive" panels deployed, and this is a rough cutaway of how the volume is divided within the HSM. As for the remaining modules, this image shows a breakdown of what each is and responsibility for its construction.
As far as the service craft fleet, here's the various vehicles, and a rough layout of the available docking ports can be seen here. Note that not all five ports shown occupied would actually be in-use at once, but this gives a rough idea of what a maximum case might look like--2 crew Apollos, 2 Aardvarks, and one Minotaur.
As far as the service craft fleet, here's the various vehicles, and a rough layout of the available docking ports can be seen here. Note that not all five ports shown occupied would actually be in-use at once, but this gives a rough idea of what a maximum case might look like--2 crew Apollos, 2 Aardvarks, and one Minotaur.
Space Station Freedom is ISS on STEROIDS
on Minotaur program: Yes i happy for it get a chance in this TL
what it about it's Platform SOLARIS ?
on Minotaur program: Yes i happy for it get a chance in this TL
what it about it's Platform SOLARIS ?
Yay! Pretty Pictures!
And I think Reagan just scored one Hell of a propaganda coup here! With the new Freedom Space Station, come 1984, he can point to it and say that the US works with its many international partners for the Good of Mankind. More to the point, with the Station design already finalised, and - possibly - Walter Mondale as Democrat Challenger in 1984. Reagan is in with a very real chance of scoring a 50-State Kerb-Stomp win! IOTL, he missed the 50th state by only a very narrow margin.
For my 'like point', ESA. It appears that they have opted for something superficially similar to OTL, in that they're going for an unmanned resupply vessel, that they can quickly convert to a manned spacecraft when the desire arises. Certainly makes sense from a strategic point of view. While the intentionally selected mass allows for a fair range of capability from it. More to the point, no money spent on Hermes = at least some funding freed up - even if they never realise it.
And Canada getting the Cupola contract, maybe it is a desperation tactic, but who cares? Having a spot where you can just sit back - as best you can in a microgravity environment - and enjoy the view is something the crew will certainly be thankful for.
Now from the pictures, it appears to be a scaled-up version of the last Freedom design you had - back when the Titan V was the LV of choice - although there do appear to be a few differences in the design. Mainly in Truss location and where certain Labs are located. Justifiable since Saturn H03 would have the capability to send a Skylab sized module up in one go. The key advantage being it can be dedicated to just being a Service/Habitation Module, since the other pieces are going to be where the science work exists.
All in all. This is some seriously good work here! It really makes you realise how screwed over we got IOTL - where $8bn was blown on Freedom without a single piece of hardware ever being built!
And I think Reagan just scored one Hell of a propaganda coup here! With the new Freedom Space Station, come 1984, he can point to it and say that the US works with its many international partners for the Good of Mankind. More to the point, with the Station design already finalised, and - possibly - Walter Mondale as Democrat Challenger in 1984. Reagan is in with a very real chance of scoring a 50-State Kerb-Stomp win! IOTL, he missed the 50th state by only a very narrow margin.
For my 'like point', ESA. It appears that they have opted for something superficially similar to OTL, in that they're going for an unmanned resupply vessel, that they can quickly convert to a manned spacecraft when the desire arises. Certainly makes sense from a strategic point of view. While the intentionally selected mass allows for a fair range of capability from it. More to the point, no money spent on Hermes = at least some funding freed up - even if they never realise it.
And Canada getting the Cupola contract, maybe it is a desperation tactic, but who cares? Having a spot where you can just sit back - as best you can in a microgravity environment - and enjoy the view is something the crew will certainly be thankful for.
Now from the pictures, it appears to be a scaled-up version of the last Freedom design you had - back when the Titan V was the LV of choice - although there do appear to be a few differences in the design. Mainly in Truss location and where certain Labs are located. Justifiable since Saturn H03 would have the capability to send a Skylab sized module up in one go. The key advantage being it can be dedicated to just being a Service/Habitation Module, since the other pieces are going to be where the science work exists.
All in all. This is some seriously good work here! It really makes you realise how screwed over we got IOTL - where $8bn was blown on Freedom without a single piece of hardware ever being built!
Last edited:
I'm thinking you may be confusing Europa 4/Minotaur from this TL with Argo/Solaris, the manned ESA crew vehicle and multicore rocket from Bahamut's TL. There's nothing by the name of Solaris in Eyes to this point.
Do I deliver, or do I deliver?Yay! Pretty Pictures!
Some interesting speculation, which will be sort of addressed by next week's interlude post, brought to us by the Master of Culture himself, Brainbin of That Wacky Redhead. A small detail: there is no 1986 Presidential election, Reagan will be seeking re-election in 1984.
They definitely would consider a space plane alternatives to fulfill the same contracted role, but ultimately the schedule pressures and the funding cramp of developing Europa 4 a bit ahead of schedule shuts down anything like Hermes from getting a foot in the door. In Minotaur, the manned space parts of ESA have basically managed to "b'r rabbit" their way into getting independent crew launch capability started--"Oh no, Mr. NASA, don't make me have to go tell the funding committee that we absolutely have to develope a capsule of our own! Oh well, if you're going to make us, I guess we have to."
Indeed. It's a win-win: NASA gets the Cupola built by someone who won't get busy with "more important" things, and Canada gets a few more slots on the station than it would have otherwise. And that, in turn, is OOC a bit of a favor to another member here who shall go nameless.
That variant split the habitat functions between a separate 40-ton SM and a 40-ton lab, and the truss was really wonky (along with a few other elements) so everything could fit into the roughly 7.5m-diameter fairings that could have fit on Titan V's 5m core. Here, the hab and service functions are all in the HSM, and the lab is it's own separate (though smaller) module.
Well, there was a fair bit of preliminary work that had to be done before Freedom could get moving--its just here they've been studying a lot of that stuff since Spacelab work started, and much of the more detailed stuff has by 1982 been studied under Starlab for anywhere from 2 to 4 years. Without that, Freedom OTL needed to do a lot of prep before real work could begin--and it started in 1984 OTL, here it's beginning in '82, so there's another 2 years head start onto the existing 2-4.All in all. This is some seriously good work here! It really makes you realise how screwed over we got IOTL - where $8bn was blown on Freedom without a single piece of hardware ever being built!
Do I deliver, or do I deliver?
Ummm......the former.
Fixed. But the overall points remain. 'Must...wait...seven...days...'
They definitely would consider a space plane alternatives to fulfill the same contracted role, but ultimately the schedule pressures and the funding cramp of developing Europa 4 a bit ahead of schedule shuts down anything like Hermes from getting a foot in the door. In Minotaur, the manned space parts of ESA have basically managed to "b'r rabbit" their way into getting independent crew launch capability started--"Oh no, Mr. NASA, don't make me have to go tell the funding committee that we absolutely have to develope a capsule of our own! Oh well, if you're going to make us, I guess we have to."
Now why does this remind me of a certain ATV I've heard about in the news?
Thereby showing the merits of already having a Space Station programme when you're going for a really, big one! The extra funding, is, of course, helpful.
Hello e of pi,
This is some of your best work yet.
Is there any thought at this point of using Freedom as a LEO infrastructure base, i.e., for space tugs, fuel depot, satellite repair, basing for trips to lunar space/Lagrange points?
Doesn't seem to be in what you've given, but I am wondering if NASA is keeping that capability in mind as something to add on later, as it was originally considering in OTL in the 80's.
This is some of your best work yet.
Is there any thought at this point of using Freedom as a LEO infrastructure base, i.e., for space tugs, fuel depot, satellite repair, basing for trips to lunar space/Lagrange points?
Doesn't seem to be in what you've given, but I am wondering if NASA is keeping that capability in mind as something to add on later, as it was originally considering in OTL in the 80's.
All in all. This is some seriously good work here! It really makes you realise how screwed over we got IOTL - where $8bn was blown on Freedom without a single piece of hardware ever being built!
Well, here NASA has several years of intensive space station experience and planning already done - and resources that would otherwise have been dumped into building and operating an unwieldy Space Plane To Nowhere.
Here, we get ISS almost two decades early, and without all the unsightly compromises needed to assure Russian participation...
I can answer this one!
No, not really. NASA is certainly aware of the possibilities of low orbit infrastructure, but without Shuttle there's no real incentive for developing it (launch costs aren't low enough, or rather expected to be low enough, and in any case they don't have a program that would use it). This is another reason why Freedom ITTL is going more smoothly than IOTL, a large portion of the design space that they explored OTL is simply not considered viable ITTL.
i don't mean Argo/Solaris from Bahamut's TL
i mean otl SOLARS a free fly multi functional modular Space platform.
Minotaur had to services on SOLARIS replace experiment and modules
there were option to Manned SOLARIS/Minotaur with Spaclab module (the one in the Shuttle)
in the end Minotaur drop in favor of HERMES and SOLARIS evolved into Man-Tended Free Flyer
Bahamut-255 said:
unlike NASA, ESA is a multinational organization. It's Members has different Ideas about how or what ESA should do.
means only a majority vote starts a project.
to make things more complicated in this TL, Great Britain is a major player in ESA !
i thing that the "Seat Wars" started in ESA with question who fly First ?
were France, Great Britain and West Germany struggle to put there Astronaut on Spacelab 5 flight.
in the end the Netherlands win with out a fight...
If it's, as you say, an OTL proposal from the 80s, then it's likely well butterflied by now. ESA might be looking at future independent stations, manned or man-tended, but budget is a restricting factor, and things are going pretty well with Spacelab and now Freedom. If a roughly similar proposal did come up ITTL, it suffered a roughly similar fate--swamped and cancelled among planning for Freedom participation. Call Minotaur's name convergent evolution--if I'd been aware it was an actual OTL project I might not have used it.
Call it a bit of a compromise among the big three--France, the UK, and Germany. Plus, come on? "Wubbo"? With this mustache:
That is the mustache Europe's astronauts deserve, a mustache I don't know that any other nation could top at the time--a truly unique European capability that deserved the honor of first ESA mustache in space....okay, yeah. I should probably head to sleep. Anyway, Germany gets second with Ulf Merbold, and French and British astronauts follow shortly, since beginning with Spacelab 9 in 1980, there's one ESA astronaut per rotation, instead of one-every-other rotation--they'll actually need to recruit more astronauts, their initial class will all have flown or be in training for flight slots by the end of 1980.
And they are much appreciated!
Hmm, NASA, the President, and the international partners are all willing to commit to the biggest Multibody option to launch the core, initial piece of Freedom, without which none of the rest can work, at a time when even the M02 has not been launched nor yet a single prototype even been built for ground static testing?
Certainly that was the Apollo moon program precedent--"we need a Saturn V, therefore we'll plan on the assumption the big rocket will be ready before the end of the decade..." and then went on to adopt all-up testing to save steps and time.
But that was under the gun of a Presidentially imposed deadline, one Kennedy imposed with a nervous eye toward the apparent pace of Soviet progress and therefore adhered to out of more than respect for the fallen leader--there was of course the matter of sunk costs, but the Soviets remained enough of an apparent rival that anyone suggesting perhaps NASA should play it a little cooler and could afford to wait until hardware was at hand before committing to an actual mission would have been dismissed--the rhetoric would probably have been long on honor and committment, but the more pragmatic subtexts would be there, as would the suspicion that if NASA did not keep up the pace Congress might pull the plug completely.
Here--I guess it might be a mix of things. Part of it is Vulkan panic, part might be a very great confidence that what Boeing draws on paper is sure to fly flawlessly when fleshed out.
I'm sure that the funding must include a few test flights, first of M02, then of solid-boosted versions, finally an all-up H03.
Except--well, while test flights of M02 might double as AARDVARK delivery flights that just happen to carry a bit more cargo than ever before, and the solid-boosted Mx2 then -3 might either send an even bigger 'vark to Spacelab, or possibly launch a really big spaceprobe, when it comes to the H, there will be straight test flights I trust, but every one of them will seem like quite a waste. The only cargo I can envision for the H03, assuming there are no gung-ho plans on the table yet for grandiose manned ventures beyond LEO, would be launching Freedom's core.
So maybe I have it backwards, and since the mission of H03 is to launch the core module, it's part for the course for the launch rocket to be used after a cursory series of tests.
And of course while this might be the only mission ballyhooed for the heavy lifter and the only one consistent with NASA's publicized plans, perhaps I'm overlooking what they might be planning in a certain five-sided funny house.
Just curious here, how much mass penalty does the fairing represent?
For that matter, while you do tell us that HSM masses pretty much the full LEO capability of H03, I have to go look that up
--------
Wow, 70 tonnes! I guess there's capacity for a big fairing after all.
So--would manned versions of the basic craft still be considered a subtype of "Minotaur," or would that evolution merit a whole new name?
"Theseus" comes to mind, perhaps "Ariadne," though she comes to a sad end.
"Minos," on the other hand, is sort of on the name side as the monster (well, not really, in the myth the Minotaur is an embarrassment to King Minos, but from Theseus's point of view they were all obstacles to be overcome) while the affinity of names gives homage to their relationship and, since the half-animal monster is actually named after the man, so Minotaur is Minos's animal/robot servant
May the new Minotaur be more useful and less costly than the original!
What, every single time? Why?
It's not like the Service Module or solar panels are coming down in the capsule and being reused.
I can see that Minotaur is an opportunity for ESA to test out a human-ratable reentry TPS system. But what is the reasoning behind requiring every Minotaur launch to burden itself with this?
Is Minotaur intended to fill the niche of returns of samples and the like to Earth for study?
Even so, I'd think early on Minotaur would split into two designs--one with a TPS for reentry for sample returns (and by the way, quietly, as a way of refining the eventual "Minos" or whatever you prefer to call it--and one without, just your basic one-way space bus, to launch the maximum cargo.
If it's, as you say, an OTL proposal from the 80s, then it's likely well butterflied by now. ESA might be looking at future independent stations, manned or man-tended, but budget is a restricting factor, and things are going pretty well with Spacelab and now Freedom. If a roughly similar proposal did come up ITTL, it suffered a roughly similar fate--swamped and cancelled among planning for Freedom participation. Call Minotaur's name convergent evolution--if I'd been aware it was an actual OTL project I might not have used it.
Call it a bit of a compromise among the big three--France, the UK, and Germany. Plus, come on? "Wubbo"? With this mustache:
That is the mustache Europe's astronauts deserve, a mustache I don't know that any other nation could top at the time--a truly unique European capability that deserved the honor of first ESA mustache in space....okay, yeah. I should probably head to sleep. Anyway, Germany gets second with Ulf Merbold, and French and British astronauts follow shortly, since beginning with Spacelab 9 in 1980, there's one ESA astronaut per rotation, instead of one-every-other rotation--they'll actually need to recruit more astronauts, their initial class will all have flown or be in training for flight slots by the end of 1980.
he he, mustache in space...rules!
here my proposal for first group of ESA Astronauts
Group one:
Wubbo Ockels, Netherlands, civilan Physicist.
Ulf Merbold, ,West Germany, civilan Physicist.
Stephen Baxter, Great Britain, civilian engineer, member of British Interplanetary Society
Jean-Loup Chrètien, France, military Pilot.
Chrètien fit here well, because as Pilot he could fly a CSM, see the Seat Wars here on EtS part I post 17
and there is Interkosmos program were Soviet fly guest astronauts to Salut stations
like the east german Sigmund Jähn in 1978 and in OTL Jean-Loup Chrètien in 1982
will ESA participation to Interkosmos or decline the offer, not to anger Ronald Reagan ?