Space Station a Step Into the Future

8/8/2019 Space Station a Step Into the Future

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/space-station-a-step-into-the-future 1/10

(NASA-PA8-5 10/1?-87)

INTO THE FUTURE (NASA) 9 p CSCL 228

’ SPACE STATION: A STEP N8!

Unc

H1/18 028





Space StationA Step IntoThe Future

bYAndrew J. Stofan

The Space Station is an essential element of NASA’s on-going program to recover from the loss of the Challengerand to regain for the United States its position of leadershipin space. Such leadership was won through imagination,daring and hard work. It will take substantial quantities of allthree for our country to again lead the way in the explorationand utilization of the space frontier.

Our first priority at NASA is and must be the safe return ofthe Space Shuttle to flight operations. To this end we are mak-ing significant progress. Our efforts are aimed not only to a

successful flight in 1988, but also to a Shuttle program thatsupports a substantial number of flights in the years ahead.Concurrently, v e are reconfiguring our space science andapplications program, mindful of the central position this pro-gram holds in the country’s overall space activities. We aredefining NASA requirements for expendable launch vehicles,giving shape and specificity to the mixed fleet we will have inthe future. To establish a strong technical foundation for thefuture, we will be initiating a Civil Space Technology Initiativeto be implemented n cooperation with industry and acade-mia. We have made substantial modifications o the NASAorganizational structure o assure a stronger centralizedmanagement. And we have underway a strategic planningprocess that will help us understand the future and betterdefine NASA‘s goals and missions.

The Space Station is important because t is about the

future. The Station will become operational n the mid-1990’sand will function as a research laboratory for some 20 to 30years, well into the 21st century. What we are doing now, byundertaking he development of a permanently mannedSpace Station, is preparing for the future. We are building acomplex spacecraft in which men and women- iving andworking in Earth orbit -will conduct scientific and techno-logical research. The Station will be the centerpiece of ourfuture activities in space. It will not be the only thing we are

doing, but it will be a critical element of our civil spaceprogram.The frontiers of space’eventually will beckon us again to

leave the confines of Earth and explore once more the lunarsurface or land upon Mars, the planet that most closely re-sembles our own. When this will occur is uncertain. That itwill occur is not at issue, for the intangible imperative of hu-man exploration will not, in the long run, be denied. It ap-pears likely that man will journey back to the Moon or to

Mars within the next forty years. Much technology develop-

ment needs to occur before such an expedition could bemounted. Much research needs to be conducted about thebiological effects of long duration space flight. A Space Station is the only place where such activity can be accomplised. The Space Station thus will be a laboratory for preparatory work essential to any future manned space explorationAnd it will serve, when the mission begins, as a point of de-parture for this lengthy, bold yet hazardous ourney. TheSpace Station is thus an enabling capability for the future.

The Space Station Program itself has made substantial

progress. The President’s directive to NASA to develop,within a decade, a permanently manned Space Station wasmade over three years ago. Since that directive, an enor-mous amount of work has taken place, at NASA, in industryand overseas. Let me note briefly here some of the majorefforts we’ve undertaken. Taken together, they give me con-fidence that we are indeed on the right track.

We have completed with industry an extensive, 21-monthdefinition and preliminary design study. This “Phase B ”analysis was supplemented by a critical evaluation of theSpace Station’s configuration conducted by a special NASAtask force. We have conducted a special review of the SpacStation Program with the White House and have agreed upon a phased approach to Station development. A RevisedBaseline configuration has been established and the comptition for Space Stationhardware development has been in-

itiated. NASA is currently reviewing industry’s Phase C/Dproposals and hopes to have contracts negotiated ate in1987 or early 1988.

We have completed a 3-year effort in technology development and are now defining a transition program for futuretechnical advances. A special effort has been made to betteunderstand he potential of the Space Station for utilizingautomation and robotics (A&R), and a Flight Telerobotic Sevicer has been identified as the centerpiece of our efforts in

this area. Extensive analysis of user requirements has beenmade and is continuing. These requirements are influencinSpace Station design. A major effort to understand opera-tional considerations also has been made and a special

continued on page

Andrew J. Stofan is th e NASA Associate Administrator for Space Station.



To balance the need to reduce federal spending whileestablishing a permanently manned Space Station in themid-l990’s, NASA and the Administration have adopted aphased approach to Station development. This approachprovides an initial capability at reduced costs, to be followedby an enhanced Space Station capability in the future. NASA

has evaluated hardware proposals rom industry that reflectthis phased approach. Contractor selection can be antici-pated shortly.

The phased approach utilizes a design derived from thebaseline configuration developed by NASA and industry dur-ing the Phase B studies, and confirmed by NASA’s CriticalEvaluation Task Force. Termed “Revised Baseline Configura-tion,” and shown in Figure 1, this design features a 110-meter-long horizontal boom to which are attached in the middlefour pressurized modules.At each end are located our photo-voltaic arrays generating a total of 75 kw of power. Two at-tachment points or external payloads are provided along

2

this boom. The four pressurized modules include alaboratory and habitation module to be provided by theUnited States. The European Space Agency (ESA) andJapan each will be providing an additional laboratory,assuming current negotiations with them are successful. Ealso will be providing a ManTended Free Flyer, a pressuriz

module capable of operations both attached to and separafrom the Space Station core. Canada is expected o providthe first incrementof a Mobile Servicing System.

The Revised Baseline Configuration ncludes a logisticsmodule and the necessary logistics system. It also includeFlight Telerobotic Service (FE).The centerpiece of theSpace Station program’s response to a congressional mandate to enhance the technologies of automation and robotics, the FTS will be used in the assembly and maintenancethe Station. The Goddard Space Flight Center is responsibfor its development.

Integralto the Space Station concept are free-flying, un-



gure 1

,. I

% . .ORIGINAL PAGE -.+ * <\.a;,,

COLOR PHOTOGRAPH

Figure 2

manned platforms. These provide a different set of capabili-ties from those of the manned base. Two such platforms,both to be flown in polar orbit, are included in the RevisedBaseline Configuration. They will be developed by the UnitedStates and the European Space Agency.

The Revised Baseline Configuration achieves two funda-mental goals established by NASA in response to PresidentReagan’s Space Station directive. The configuration realizesa permanently manned presence n space. And it providesdiverse and useful capabilities or those who wish to workin space.

In addition, the Revised Baseline Configuration providesfor meaningful international participation. Moreover, powerlevels will be substantial, 75 kw, and the Station will be de-signed to accommodate more power and the additionalmodules that inevitably will be desired in the future.

Illustrated in Figure 2 isa configuration with enhancedcapabilities. It builds on the horizontal boom and module

pattern of the revised baseline. This configuration wouldfeature dual keels, two vertical spines 105meters ong joinedby upper and lower booms. The structure carrying the mod-ules would become a transverse boom of a basically rec-tangular structure. The two new booms, 45 meters in length,would provide extensive accommodations or attached pay-loads, and would offer a wide field of view. Power would beincreased significantly, with the addition of a 50 kw solardynamic power system. Satellite servicing capabilities wouldbe provided, in large part by the addition of a US. suppliedservicing bay. This enhanced configuration might well includan unmanned, free-flying platform that would co-orbit withthe Space Station manned base. I



ations Task Force has reported to me the findings andlusions of its six month review.

In addition, we have restructured the program’s organiza-established a Technical and Management Information

(TMIS) to achieve timely and effective program con-to assist us

n management and integration activities.We have analyzed the capability for man-tended Space

capabilities and have incorporated such a potential innce. We have establishedprivate sector participation in Space Station

realize via the Space Station increased commercial activi-in space. We have reviewed extensively transportation re-

Station and are presently examining whatpendable Launch Vehicles might have in supplemen-

g the Space Shuttle in Space Station operations. We havethe related subjects of Station safety and crew res-look forward to the results of a Phase B study to be

nducted on crew emergency return systems. We haveeted extensive discussions with Canada, the European

gency and Japan on their participation in the Pro-ncluding one set of agreements on international co-

tion for Space Station definition and, currently, negotia-with our partners on cooperation during development

d operations. We have conducted a recent and thoroughf Space Station costs.

A particularly special effort has been made to solicit andto the advice of those outside NASA whose experience

d expertise will benefit the Space Station Program. Severalforts should be mentioned here: the first is the Task

Scientific Uses of the Space Station whose working to assure that the Space Station will be a produc-

tool of scientific research. The second was the Nationalrch Council’s ad hoc Committee on Space Station

Technology Development whose 1985

report helped to shape technical aspects of the Program.A third effort is expected to be completed this month. TheNational Research Council has examined the program andendorsed the Space Station configuration, commenting ontransportation, cost and management issues. The Adminis-tration will utilize the Committee’s analysis in formulatingNASA’s FY 1989 budget request to Congress.

and, in my view, well conceived. NASA has made the SpaceStation program a major, priority project. All the field centershave participated, and indevising the program we have tapped the rich experience and extraordinary talents of peoplein both NASA and industry.

Let me review a few of the Space Station policies that havshaped the program. These policies have guided our overaactivities and have given direction to our technical analysis:

The Space Station is first and foremost a research labora-tory. We are building an orbiting laboratory- or the con-duct of science, the development of technologies and thestimulation of commercial space enterprises. The Stationwill support both laboratory sciences and observationalsciences. Its architecture incorporates both a mannedbase and free-flying, unmanned platforms. Men and wo-men representing those who will use the Space Station foresearch have been participating in the design of the facilty and must continue to do so.

The Space Station is a permanent facility, to be in opera-tion 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. No longer will wesimply visit space. We will be there, living and working inspace, all the time. This makes the Space Station differentfrom what we have done in the past. The potential is enormous, for humans are the most sophisticated of all ma-chines. By being in orbit for months instead of days, Spac

Station crews will be able to take full advantage of humancreativity, dexterity and perception. And with a significantamount of unmanned, automated systems, the Space Sta-tion will optimize the role of its crew. Thus, it will capitalizeon the proven capabilities in space of both man andmachine.The Space Station is a civil endeavor. President Reaganapproved the program on the basis of its civil scientific andcommercial potential. NASA, the nation’s civil space agency, has both the mandate and responsibility to develop ouNation’s permanently manned Space Station. Clearly, the

The result of all this activity is a program that is well define

‘T,*:a,:





Station will be a national asset, but there must be no doubtthat it will be used for peaceful purposes consistent withour commitment to the peaceful uses of outer space. It

may be that in the future the Department of Defense willutilize Space Station capabilities. Their use, like all uses,would be for peaceful purposes.The Space Station will have significant international partici-pation. In directing NASA to develop the Space Station,President Reagan invited friends and allies of the UnitedStates to join the endeavor. Canada, Europe and Japanresponded and much work already has been done co-operatively. At present, we are negotiating formal agree-ments for cooperation during Space Station hardwaredevelopment and operations. I am optimistic about theiroutcome. NASA expects to continue the US. tradition ofconducting cooperative space endeavors with other coun-tries. In addition to obvious foreign policy benefits, interna-tional participation n the Space Station Program means amore capable Space Station.The Station must be designed to evolve in time to a more

capable vstem. The Space Station will be in orbit some 20to 30 years. New requirements will arise during that time.

Courtesy 01 Boerng Aerospace Comp

New technologies will emerge. The Station must be able accommodate hem. The configuration we have deviseddesigned to support such growth. Provision for future in-creases in power for additional pressurized modules andfor more attachment points to support external payloadsare built into the configuration. It is essential that they areWe cannot be certain of the exact direction or pace SpacStation evolution will take, but we can be sure it wjll OCCUI.

President Reagan s committed to the development of apermanently manned Space Station. Congress has beensupportive, in both providing funds and appropriate guid-ance. NASA is dedicated to building a Station that, in servinscience, technology and commerce, assures for the UnitedStates a future in space that is as exciting and rewarding asour past. In cooperation with our partners in industry andabroad, we intend to develop a Space Station that is intellectually productive, technically demanding and genuinelyusef uI

This article, in edited form, app eare d in the Septemb es 1987 ssue of

Aerospace America an d is printed here w ith the kind permission of

the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics



COLOR PHOTOGRAPH

The Space Station ProgramA Brief Look BackBy Terence 7:Finn

In January 1984, during the State of the Union address,the President of the United States directed NASA to developa Space Station. Mr. Reagan said the Station was to be per-manently manned, and be developed within a decade. Acivil endeavor, devoted to peaceful purposes, the Space Sta-

tion was to stimulate new technologies, enhance Science andapplications, and help realize he commercial potential of space.To be operating well into the 21st century, the Space Stationwas- nd is- nvisioned to be the flagship of future NASAprograms, assuring for the United States preeminence n theutilization and exploration of space

The contemporary Space Station Program traces its begin-ning to the statement by James M. Beggs that the Stationwas the agency’s next major goal following the early successof the Space Shuttle. Beggs spoke in July 1981 at Senateconfirmation hearings to be the NASA Administrator. In Mayof 1982, he established a Space Station Task Force. The TaskForce, under the leadership of John D. Hodge, spent the

next two years defining preliminary requirements or a per-manently manned Space Station and developing a concep-tual architecture o accommodate hese requirements. U.S.industry participated extensively in these two activities viaTask Force sponsored PhaseA studies. Concurrently, theNASA Space Station Technology Steering Committee estab-lished a major agency effort in technology assessment anddevelopment.

From the beginning, NASA Space Station Program plan-ning has focused on accommodating users. The Station is,afterall, a research and development laboratory hat mustenable a variety of disciplines to utilize its unique capabilities.User requirements must be identified, validated and thentranslated to generic system capabilities, within the obviousrestraints of technology, budgets and schedule Starting n1983, NASA conducted a number of Space Station userworkshops. International user workshops have also beenheld, the first being in Copenhagen in May 1985. Outsidecounsel was sought and utilized with the establishment nApril 1984 of a Task Force on the Scientific Utilization of theSpace Station (TFSUSS). The National Academy of Science’sSpace Science Board and Space Applications Board con-tributed advice as well. Within NASA the user focus was

reenforced hrough the establishment of user oriented divisions within the Office of Space Station and of a Space Station Program Chief Scientist. In addition to developing re-quirements, the user community reviewed Request for Proposals, critiqued configuration analyses, participated inChange Boards and generally participated at all levels inSpace Station Program planning.

Systems definition and preliminary design for the SpaceStation began formally in April 1985 with industry perform

extensive 21 month Phase B analyses. Structured around“work packages” and involving key aerospace companiesthese studies developed the technical understanding of thStation systems and elements. The products generated bythis effort included: a baseline configuration; a functional dsign; and a plan to proceed into development. Validated bCritical Evaluation Task Force (CETF) review of Space Statdesign in the fall of 1986, the NASA - ndustry Station anasis was further reviewed early in 1987 by the AdministrationThis led to the adoption of the phased approach to SpaceStation development and to the Revised Baseline Configution. Thesearethesubjectof thecurrent National Research Cocil review. They also form the basis of the Phase C/D detai

design and hardware development proposals received froindustry this July and now under evaluation by NASA.

Both systems definition and user requirements have beeaffected by a key parameter of Space Station Program planing: the necessity of providing or Station evolution. As apermanent facility, the Station will evolve in time as new requirements and technologies emerge. Space Station evolution was a concern of the Space Station Task Force and thcurrent design philosophy, in both industry and NASA, retathis focus. Space Station evolution workshops were held inSeptember 1985 and August 1986. Additional workshops expected to be held in the future.As expected, the Space Station configuration has evolve

in the past five years. Station architecture has remained remarkably constant, but “the design” has changed as tech



nderstanding matured. In 1983, the Space Stationask Force and its Concept Development Group produced a

r” configuration. This served as the starting point for“power tower,” the reference configuration utilized in

. This in turnwas modified n the summer of 1985 byl keel configuration and adopted formally by NASA at

Systems Requirements Review in the spring of 1986. Thiswas reviewed extensively by the Critical Evalua-

n Task Force and altered slightly. This year, the CETF con-was changed to a simpler Revised Baseline Con-

tion with a potential Enhanced Configuration hat is

In directing NASA to develop a permanently mannedon, President Reagan invited friends and allies of

United States to join the endeavor. Informal discussionsotential partners had begun as early as 1982 as NASA

ments and architecture, as partf the definition effort necessary or a Presidential decision.

1984, the Space Station Program was discussed byf the nations attending the London Economic

C., in 1984 at which preliminary guidelines for international

peration were presented by NASA and discussed with of-

Agreements to set the framework for cooperation in thetion phase were signed in the spring of 1985 with

Japan and Canada. These Phase B agreementsed for parallel preliminary design and detailed defini-

tudies and established a process to identify elementsinitial Space Station which could be developed by the

ed on the process established by these agree-

ments and preliminary results of the detinition studies, pro-gram level agreements were reached in 1986 with all threepartners. These agreements dentified hardware elements fothe Space Station which each partner would carry into de-velopment, subject to further formal agreements beinreached covering detailed design and development.

Negotiations are presently underway to establish the for-mal basis for Space Station cooperation with Europe,Canada and Japan during the development and operationsphases. Such internationalcooperation would result in amore capable Space Station. It also would continue the tradtion in the U.S. of having mutually beneficial cooperative ac-tivities in space

ning has been both extensive and supportive In addition toproviding the funds requested by NASA for the Space Sta-tion, Congress- oth House and Senate- as providedguidance and direction. The Senate has directed that NASAutilize the Space Station Program to enhance the technolo-gies of automation and robotics. The House has directedthat a man-tended concept be incorporated n the agency’splanning. Both of these have been done. Congressional in-

terest in Space Station operations and in Station scienceplanning is also high. Since 1984, Congress has requiredNASA to submit a number of Space Station reports. Amongthose sent to Congress are a Management Plan and Pro-curement Strategy in December 1984; a report on Opera-tional Cost Parameters in December 1985; a report on aManTended Approach in May 1986; and a report on Imple-menting Selected Design Parameters in April 1987.

Space Station Program planning has been a wide rangingand thorough enterprise. Since the President’s directive in1984, substantial progress has been made in a host of areasuser requirements, technology development, systems de-

sign, management analyses, international planning. To besure, the program has not always had smooth sailing. But theyears of preliminary analysis have been well spent. The tech-nical understanding of the Space Station is substantial, andNASA- ate in 1987- ppears ready to begin detaileddesign and development.

Congressional involvement in Space Station Program plan

Documents

Space Station a Step Into the Future