Thanks! I was actually completely unaware that you'd picked Argo for something in your own TL. That's going to be interesting, seeing what you selected the name for.
ESA ATL Plausibility Checks and Development
- Thread starter Bahamut-255
- Start date
Thanks! I was actually completely unaware that you'd picked Argo for something in your own TL. That's going to be interesting, seeing what you selected the name for.
I'd like to remind everyone, while Argo was on my list of options I submitted lo, these many many weeks ago, the name I settled on and fell in love with was Argosy.
Which is apparently up for grabs. I just thought it was especially appropriate as the name of a workhorse European lifter system, especially if the European entity includes Britain. It would be a little odd as an American name; the word in that exact form anyway and possibly any form is an English one, though it is based on a mangled pronunciation, so says Wikipedia, of Ragusa, so it has that pan-European vibe to it.
And then I actually thought it was premature; the name should wait until ESA had true transport capability to orbit, at an affordable price.
But now I wonder--Will the current Argo family eventually be followed by an Argo-B series?
And then later--
Argo-C?
(Only works in English though!)
Which is apparently up for grabs. I just thought it was especially appropriate as the name of a workhorse European lifter system, especially if the European entity includes Britain. It would be a little odd as an American name; the word in that exact form anyway and possibly any form is an English one, though it is based on a mangled pronunciation, so says Wikipedia, of Ragusa, so it has that pan-European vibe to it.
And then I actually thought it was premature; the name should wait until ESA had true transport capability to orbit, at an affordable price.
But now I wonder--Will the current Argo family eventually be followed by an Argo-B series?
And then later--
Argo-C?
(Only works in English though!
)Just a question, but why not dock it to the forward (or, I suppose, aft) port of the station like ISS? It gets the tail way the heck out of the way without requiring a separate docking module.
....Your station is going to be a little over 3000 cubic meters. That's roughly 3x ISS. Each of your habs alone exceeds Skylab's volume by 25% (and is about 2.5 times the volume of Mir). This is really a station that needs a crew more in the area of 15-20 than 8-12, and I don't think you'll be able to get funding for all of it. I think you'd be better off for plausibility's sake roughly halving the number of labs, and condensing the habs down to the one module. Trust me, you'll still have large amounts of space left over for a galley, excercise equipment, and other crew amenities, and even half those labs is 50% more than ISS. Or, if you must build this monster, up the crew to at least 18, with six or seven in each of your house-sized habs.
I'd actually considered shifting the Shuttle docking port to the foward docking port on the Node. I just forgot to mention it.
Only 3,000m3? My 4-bedroom house is a lot bigger than that.
But cutting the labs in half and trimming to just one hab means another major redesign is needed. In this case, you have three SM-SDLV Modules running in-line. Service Module at the rear. Hab at the front - where the Shuttle Docking Port is located. and the middle module being a combination of Hab and Lab. Between these three main modules, there are a ring of 4 docking ports, so 8 docking ports between the three modules. The 4 on either side - starboard and port - carry the 4 Lab Modules. The forward Nadir Port I'm reserving for a Cupola - though that could be moved to the main Hab Module. While both Zenith, the rear Nadir, and Aft Docking Ports are used for Solaris/Soyuz/ATV/Progress. That should allow for enough seats for evacuation even without a Shuttle docked. The Centre Hab/Lab Module would also have one or two Zenith or Nadir Ports to mount CG Labs and be the place where the Main Truss is mounted.
One other note is that since it's a much smaller structure, the need to brace it is drastically reduced, and correctly design docking setups for the modules themselves may suffice - while External Experiment Pallets can be mounted in a particular way for some added insurance in this regard.
Now I make that 3-4 SM-SDLV launches, depending on if they need another one to get all the Truss Structure, Solar Panels, and Radiators up - though carrying them in the first three launches is an obvious plus. Then 5 Argo-H launches for the 4 Labs, Cupola and CGL.
8-9 Launches for this station vs 80+ for OTL ISS. Something tells me it's gonna be an easier sell for some people.
Not having seen your house I can't say for sure, but I doubt it. According to this site, the average American house in 2009 was 2700 ft^2. With 10 ft ceilings, that's 27,000 ft^3, which is 764 cubic meters. If your house is indeed a lot bigger than 3,000 cubic meters, it's at least four times the average house size. Personally, my house has 5 (somewhat cozy) bedrooms plus a walk-in closet on the master larger than my bedroom, and it's only 2342 ft^2.
All sounds a lot better, with an exception: I'd mount the truss to the SM, because if you design it right the truss (or at least 2/3 of it, the radiators and first sets of arrays) can be launched folded in the same fairing as the SM. Thus, the station is power positive from the first launch, and can be ready for full-time manned ops as soon as the second SDHLV launches the hab/lab. My main worry is possible interference between the truss location and some of the docking ports--easily solved by moving your four-port rings from 1) between the SM and the hab/lab and 2) between the hab/lab and the dedicated hab) to 1) between the hab/lab and the dedicated lab and 2) the forward end of the dedicated hab.
Well I intend for the Truss to be fitted as close to the Centre Of Mass as is practically possible, which means keeping it in the Hab/Lab Module, having split it between the SM and Hab/Lab Launch. While this does mean giving the Service Module and Hab/Lab Module their own set of Solar Panels, they can be moved onto the Truss once it's assembled - with considerably greater ease than OTL ISS Truss.
Moving the Four-Port Ring to the forward end of the Hab Module will cause it to interfere with the Shuttle Docking Port, so it's a No-Go. Although setting up a 3-5 Port Ring at the aft of the Service Module would recitify the worst of the issues raised, in exchange for creating a few new ones - mainly where to re-site some of the thrusters it'll need for station-keeping purposes.
I believe zero G means people get a lot more use out of a given amount of volume. Too small is still claustrophobic, but just a bit more than too small is merely cozy instead of confining, because people can shift around in an extra dimension.
Is that false?
Space Station - Final Design - Part 1
I think with everything worked out. A final design for the Space Station can go ahead now. The Service Module is set to the rear of the station, featuring three docking ports at the rear, with a ring of five at the front. immediatly forward of it is the Hab/Lab Combo Module, providing initial living quarters for a skeleton crew and some lab space to allow it to enter service quickly. This is also the mounting point for the Truss that holds the main Solar Panels and Radiators. At its front is another ring of five docking ports. At the front is the main Hab Module, which at it's front, carries the Shuttle Docking Port. This will take the total crew size to it's maximum of eight - although it can function properly with a crew of six. These three modules are 5m in diameter and 20-28m in length. With all the available spare payload taken up by the Truss, Solar Panels and Radiators, especially in the first two launches. These three modules are launched by one SM-SDLV each.
Between the Hab and Hab/Lab Modules, and the Hab/Lab and Service Modules, on the starboard and port docking ports, are four Lab Modules. 4.4m diameter and 16m length. This makes them small enough to be launched on an Argo-H individually. I'm looking at at least one from ESA - Columbus - and one from JAXA - Kibo. For the other two, perhaps one NASA and one Russian. One other note is the use of external experiment mounts, set by the four smaller lab modules, fitted to both the labs and the larger modules - either launched with the Labs or all in one seperate launch. On the Hab/Lab Module, there is another nadir docking port, mounted in it's centre. This is where the Centrifugal Gravity Lab (CGL) is mounted.
I'm also considering the addition of a cupola, to be mounted on the forward nadir docking port - just behind the Hab Module - where the crew and relax and watch the Earth go by when not on duty. That would leave three Zenith Docking Ports, Two Nadir Docking Ports and one Forward Shuttle Docking Port. So even without STS, you'd still have enough - three - Solaris/Soyuz Spacecraft for all the crew, and three ATV/Progress resupply craft. Easily enough 'lifeboat' capacity for the maximum crew at all times.
With Russian Involvment - not essential, though still desirable ITTL - you'd need an orbit of 51.6 degrees inclination and an altitude they can reach. Say, OTL ISS, unless they can be 'convinced' to augment certain capabilities of their own Manned and Unmanned Spacecraft.
And as for timetable. A 1994-1997 date for the first Module Launch. With 2-3 years to construct it. With 12-15 years for operational lifetime.
Plausible?
EDIT: And if someone could make a visual design of this station as it stands now, that would be very much appreciated.
I think with everything worked out. A final design for the Space Station can go ahead now. The Service Module is set to the rear of the station, featuring three docking ports at the rear, with a ring of five at the front. immediatly forward of it is the Hab/Lab Combo Module, providing initial living quarters for a skeleton crew and some lab space to allow it to enter service quickly. This is also the mounting point for the Truss that holds the main Solar Panels and Radiators. At its front is another ring of five docking ports. At the front is the main Hab Module, which at it's front, carries the Shuttle Docking Port. This will take the total crew size to it's maximum of eight - although it can function properly with a crew of six. These three modules are 5m in diameter and 20-28m in length. With all the available spare payload taken up by the Truss, Solar Panels and Radiators, especially in the first two launches. These three modules are launched by one SM-SDLV each.
Between the Hab and Hab/Lab Modules, and the Hab/Lab and Service Modules, on the starboard and port docking ports, are four Lab Modules. 4.4m diameter and 16m length. This makes them small enough to be launched on an Argo-H individually. I'm looking at at least one from ESA - Columbus - and one from JAXA - Kibo. For the other two, perhaps one NASA and one Russian. One other note is the use of external experiment mounts, set by the four smaller lab modules, fitted to both the labs and the larger modules - either launched with the Labs or all in one seperate launch. On the Hab/Lab Module, there is another nadir docking port, mounted in it's centre. This is where the Centrifugal Gravity Lab (CGL) is mounted.
I'm also considering the addition of a cupola, to be mounted on the forward nadir docking port - just behind the Hab Module - where the crew and relax and watch the Earth go by when not on duty. That would leave three Zenith Docking Ports, Two Nadir Docking Ports and one Forward Shuttle Docking Port. So even without STS, you'd still have enough - three - Solaris/Soyuz Spacecraft for all the crew, and three ATV/Progress resupply craft. Easily enough 'lifeboat' capacity for the maximum crew at all times.
With Russian Involvment - not essential, though still desirable ITTL - you'd need an orbit of 51.6 degrees inclination and an altitude they can reach. Say, OTL ISS, unless they can be 'convinced' to augment certain capabilities of their own Manned and Unmanned Spacecraft.
And as for timetable. A 1994-1997 date for the first Module Launch. With 2-3 years to construct it. With 12-15 years for operational lifetime.
Plausible?
EDIT: And if someone could make a visual design of this station as it stands now, that would be very much appreciated.
Last edited:
So to recap: ESA LVs, both Europa and Argo. ESA Manned Spacecraft, Solaris, with an ATV derivative. Space Station for the 1990s - which is what George H W Bush had called for in 1989, but never really got. And STS in service and a SM-SDLV - which would likely be referred to as Shuttle-C.
This leaves - at the very least - three major points to be covered. Russian Space Programme, Chinese Space Programme, and Unmanned Space Exploration.
For Russia, there are some issues. Since the Soviet Economy was collapsing from the latter half of the 1980s, it will likely collapse ITTL as per OTL. IOTL, the Russian Space Programme was severely cash-strapped, and dependant on US investment to keep going at all throughout the 1990s. Furthermore, ITTL, there will be a growing ESA that can operate on notable footing with NASA, leaving less incentive to call in the Russians, making the situation potentially a lot worse for them. That. Is going to be a major issue that must be resolved - and require a lot of 'make-work-juice' in the process.
My initial option sees Russia being able to convince at least a few former Soviet Blocks to pool their resources together in order to stay in the game. If they can snag Ukraine, Energia-M could well see some life.
For China, having three serious players could compell them to step up their own programme a notch or two, though the potential for more accidents could well happen as a result.
As for the unmanned side of things. Perhaps another one or two Outer Planet Missions by 2010. Some more to the Moon, Venus and Mars. Proper exploration of the Asteroid Belt is a distinct possibility - Ceres may receive a thorough looking at.
And, of course, Hubble will be happening as per OTL.
All of which will be worked out in the coming posts.
This leaves - at the very least - three major points to be covered. Russian Space Programme, Chinese Space Programme, and Unmanned Space Exploration.
For Russia, there are some issues. Since the Soviet Economy was collapsing from the latter half of the 1980s, it will likely collapse ITTL as per OTL. IOTL, the Russian Space Programme was severely cash-strapped, and dependant on US investment to keep going at all throughout the 1990s. Furthermore, ITTL, there will be a growing ESA that can operate on notable footing with NASA, leaving less incentive to call in the Russians, making the situation potentially a lot worse for them. That. Is going to be a major issue that must be resolved - and require a lot of 'make-work-juice' in the process.
My initial option sees Russia being able to convince at least a few former Soviet Blocks to pool their resources together in order to stay in the game. If they can snag Ukraine, Energia-M could well see some life.
For China, having three serious players could compell them to step up their own programme a notch or two, though the potential for more accidents could well happen as a result.
As for the unmanned side of things. Perhaps another one or two Outer Planet Missions by 2010. Some more to the Moon, Venus and Mars. Proper exploration of the Asteroid Belt is a distinct possibility - Ceres may receive a thorough looking at.
And, of course, Hubble will be happening as per OTL.
All of which will be worked out in the coming posts.
Unmanned Payloads
With manned payloads and the Space Station pretty much sorted now, it time to move onto the other main article. The Unmanned Payloads.
While clearly not as sexy or as exciting as the manned apsect of Space Exploration, this is an extremely important part which simply can't be neglected.
This will comprise of two key elements. Orbital satellites and deep space/planetary research probes.
For orbital satellites, this will comprise mainly of commercial satellites whose market should really pick up earlier than OTL - where it only really took off in the 1990s when the Ariane LVs had firmly established themselves IIRC - as well as scientific satellites for various government and scientific bodies. I'm also looking into the Galileo Satellite Navigation System, but given what else ESA is doing ITTL, even with 45% of NASA funding levels, it may take just as long to see it entering service as it is here IMHO.
Deep Space/Planetary Probes for ESA would mainly be the inner planets and the Asteroid Belt with Solar Panel Tech - SEP systems should see good use here - since Pu238 isn't easy to come by. For the Outer Planets, that's almost certainly going to be a NASA dominated arena. Although the ESA/NASA Cassini/Huygens Mission to Saturn is still very much on the cards.
Then there's something I truly want to happen ITTL. The Mars Sample Return Mission. Basically the sending of a probe to the Martian Surface where samples are identified and collected for return to Earth to be subjected to a battery of tests. While I would like to see In-Situ Propellant Production, the Argo-HU would have the TMI capability to do the whole mission utilising a Brute-Force approach. Perhaps an ISPP demonstrater could be tested first on simulated conditions on Earth and sent to Mars at the right time, in tandem with Brute-Force, though I leave that part open for discussion.
Anybody got anything to add? Comments?
With manned payloads and the Space Station pretty much sorted now, it time to move onto the other main article. The Unmanned Payloads.
While clearly not as sexy or as exciting as the manned apsect of Space Exploration, this is an extremely important part which simply can't be neglected.
This will comprise of two key elements. Orbital satellites and deep space/planetary research probes.
For orbital satellites, this will comprise mainly of commercial satellites whose market should really pick up earlier than OTL - where it only really took off in the 1990s when the Ariane LVs had firmly established themselves IIRC - as well as scientific satellites for various government and scientific bodies. I'm also looking into the Galileo Satellite Navigation System, but given what else ESA is doing ITTL, even with 45% of NASA funding levels, it may take just as long to see it entering service as it is here IMHO.
Deep Space/Planetary Probes for ESA would mainly be the inner planets and the Asteroid Belt with Solar Panel Tech - SEP systems should see good use here - since Pu238 isn't easy to come by. For the Outer Planets, that's almost certainly going to be a NASA dominated arena. Although the ESA/NASA Cassini/Huygens Mission to Saturn is still very much on the cards.
Then there's something I truly want to happen ITTL. The Mars Sample Return Mission. Basically the sending of a probe to the Martian Surface where samples are identified and collected for return to Earth to be subjected to a battery of tests. While I would like to see In-Situ Propellant Production, the Argo-HU would have the TMI capability to do the whole mission utilising a Brute-Force approach. Perhaps an ISPP demonstrater could be tested first on simulated conditions on Earth and sent to Mars at the right time, in tandem with Brute-Force, though I leave that part open for discussion.
Anybody got anything to add? Comments?
If I can get any good ones. I can't really make 'em.
describe them a bit more an i will se if i have any.
also try google.
You should find the descriptions I have in earlier posts. But there's a lot of conceptual designs here.
Mars Sample Return Mission
Often considered the Holy Grail of Robotic Space Exploration, in no small part due to the expected high scientific return on the investment. An unmanned mission to Mars where samples are identified, collected and returned is seen as the closest you can get to actually sending a crew to Mars. Generally looking like this:
It's purpose would be to return samples of Martian Regolith and possibly deeper drill samples to Earth for extensive study.
OTL, the constraining factors have been money, political will and a suitable launch vehicle. The third one has had some major issues, since OTL, only the Titan IV and UR-500 had the TMI capability to conduct a Brute-Force Mars Sample Return Mission during the 1990s and early 2000s, and while the Titan IV was sometimes more expensive than STS - depending on which source you use - to date, ALL Soviet/Russian missions to Mars have ended in failure.
But ITTL, there exists the Argo-HU, SM-SDLV (Shuttle-C), and UR-500 for certain with possibly another US EELV design and maybe another from Russia. So between three and five different LVs for the job.
For money, with higher ESA funding ITTL, there may be some clamour for extra NASA funding compared to OTL as so to appear to be very much the front runners - no way Congress would ever allow NASA to look like 2nd place in the 1990s, both OTL and TTL.
And that would leave political will. Far and away the most critical sticking point. How to convince the politicians - who control the money strings - to fund such a mission. That, is going to be the hard one.
As for timing. Early-mid 2000s seems about reasonable. Late 2000s appears quite doable.
Often considered the Holy Grail of Robotic Space Exploration, in no small part due to the expected high scientific return on the investment. An unmanned mission to Mars where samples are identified, collected and returned is seen as the closest you can get to actually sending a crew to Mars. Generally looking like this:
It's purpose would be to return samples of Martian Regolith and possibly deeper drill samples to Earth for extensive study.
OTL, the constraining factors have been money, political will and a suitable launch vehicle. The third one has had some major issues, since OTL, only the Titan IV and UR-500 had the TMI capability to conduct a Brute-Force Mars Sample Return Mission during the 1990s and early 2000s, and while the Titan IV was sometimes more expensive than STS - depending on which source you use - to date, ALL Soviet/Russian missions to Mars have ended in failure.
But ITTL, there exists the Argo-HU, SM-SDLV (Shuttle-C), and UR-500 for certain with possibly another US EELV design and maybe another from Russia. So between three and five different LVs for the job.
For money, with higher ESA funding ITTL, there may be some clamour for extra NASA funding compared to OTL as so to appear to be very much the front runners - no way Congress would ever allow NASA to look like 2nd place in the 1990s, both OTL and TTL.
And that would leave political will. Far and away the most critical sticking point. How to convince the politicians - who control the money strings - to fund such a mission. That, is going to be the hard one.
As for timing. Early-mid 2000s seems about reasonable. Late 2000s appears quite doable.
Thanks for the pics Wingman. But the Shuttle-C design has already been shown in page 5. Still very nice though. I may be able to use them later on, when the TL proper is worked on.
that was a OTL concept known as Shuttle Z. with the large cargo pod.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuttlez.htm
length of shuttle-z cargo pod, vares for concept to concept.