Conference 7.286::space

    What do you want to know?
    
    I'm out of touch with the current state of play on this program, but
    when it started, I worked for Marconi Space Systems in Portsmouth,
    England. We were involved in studies of the communications systems for
    the whole Columbus effort, including the unmanned orbital platforms and
    the manned module (and an orbital maneouvering vehicle, which I believe
    was later canned).
    
    I was involved in looking at link budgets for the various links between
    the unmanned platforms and various other elements (ground, Shuttle,
    manned Space Station, OMV, and TDRSS). Quite a different type of work
    to what I did before and have done since - I am basically a software
    engineer/programmer/whatever-is-the-current-name-for-that-profession,
    but I have an MSc in Experimental Space Physics, which is how I came to
    work for that company in the first place.
    
    The unmanned platforms became a single polar-orbiting platform, and
    British Aerospace were involved closely with that. (They were the prime
    contractor for it at one time, but I can't remember if it, too, got
    canned. I know at one point they were considering developing it
    regardless of whether ESA were going to fund it, because of its
    potential as the basis of a whole family of spacecraft.)
    
    Just after my involvement in the project stopped, I heard that the
    whole Columbus program was under review. It seemed that NASA wanted it
    both ways - ESA to develop the hardware, and then effectively donate it
    permanently to NASA, as happened with the Shuttle Spacelab module. ESA
    wanted to make the Columbus module capable of independent free flight,
    as well as able to be attached as part of the US Space Station, but
    NASA's attitude was that it should either be attached or else not part
    of the Space Station program. There was also a problem with the use of
    the Space Station. The US was planning to allow it to have military
    functions, but ESA's charter does not allow it to take part in such
    space programs.
    
    I don't know much after that, as my involvement ceased, and things
    seemed to go quiet on the subject at Marconi (I assume another company
    won subsequent work on the comms systems).
    
    I hope the above is of interest, if not exactly what you wanted to
    know. If you want a source of published information about Columbus, I
    would suggest Spaceflight, which is published by the British
    Interplanetary Society. That used to have plenty of interesting
    information about such things.
    
    
    Dave Hazel

  So was Columbus a program to develop an unmanned orbital platforms and
a manned module or was it the name of the module itself?

  In general terms, how was the Columbus maned module different from
any Freedom Space station component?

  Is the Hermes space shuttle part of the Columbus program or is it a
separate project that is coordinated with the Columbus program?

  George

    Re. .2:
    
>   So was Columbus a program to develop an unmanned orbital platforms and
> a manned module or was it the name of the module itself?
    
    I always understood it to be the name of both the programme and the
    manned module. At least, I have heard both referred to as "Columbus".
    
>   In general terms, how was the Columbus maned module different from
> any Freedom Space station component?
    
    I believe it was planned to be capable of independent flight, and
    therefore to have its own power supplies (ie. solar panels), life
    support systems, data management facilities, etc. It was to be capable
    of interfacing with the Freedom's systems while docked, however, and
    therefore able to completely integrate with it. I don't know what this
    would mean for its solar panels and comms antennas, though. I guess
    they would have been designed to be folded and stowed.
    
>   Is the Hermes space shuttle part of the Columbus program or is it a
> separate project that is coordinated with the Columbus program?
    
    The Hermes project is effectively a French venture which ESA has been
    (or had been at one point) persuaded to adopt as part of the Columbus
    programme. The argument which was put forward for abandonning
    development of a separate orbital maneouvreing vehicle was that Hermes
    could provide some of the functions of this vehicle, and that it was
    therefore preferable to develop the European shuttle, rather than the
    OMV.
    
    After this had been decided, I heard from people who were involved with
    the Hermes effort that it had some major problems, mainly to do with
    its payload capacity.
    
    Hermes is designed to be launched atop an Ariane 5 launcher. Firstly,
    this means that Ariane 5 needs to be developed. Secondly, it means it
    has to be man-rated, which, judging by Ariane's current record would be
    no mean feat (I don't know about you, but I wouldn't sit on top of the
    thing). Thirdly, the (projected) launch capacity of the Ariane 5 is
    just sufficient to lift the Hermes shuttle with no payload (that is,
    the Hermes shuttle as it was specified back in about 1986). So,
    all-in-all, Hermes was just an expensive venture to get a Frenchman
    into space on a French launcher (a sort of hi-tech 2CV).
    
    I don't know what the current status of Hermes is - whether it has been
    dropped completely, is being redesigned, under development, or what.
    
    
    Dave Hazel

    Hello Dave,

    First a parenthesis, since I found that your last comments could be a 
    bit offending for some people (maybe you forgot the ;-)    

>    all-in-all, Hermes was just an expensive venture to get a Frenchman
>    into space on a French launcher (a sort of hi-tech 2CV).

    Let me remind you that E in ESA stands for European and that even
    if the french are the main driving force behind it, then so be it
    if it is the only way to make decisions and go ahead with a consistent
    and realistic european space program. I know that UK decided not to 
    participate in Columbus and Hermes, but this is not a reason to be so 
    critic. (BTW I'm not french).


    Now, lets go back to some technical discussions:
       
>    Hermes is designed to be launched atop an Ariane 5 launcher. Firstly,
>    this means that Ariane 5 needs to be developed. Secondly, it means it
>    has to be man-rated, which, judging by Ariane's current record would be
>    no mean feat (I don't know about you, but I wouldn't sit on top of the
>    thing). Thirdly, the (projected) launch capacity of the Ariane 5 is
>    just sufficient to lift the Hermes shuttle with no payload (that is,
>    the Hermes shuttle as it was specified back in about 1986). So,
    
    Ariane 5 should lift off in 3-4 years, which means the development is
    almost finished. As you say Ariane 4 was not man-rated, therefore you
    cannot compare its actual success rate with the future Ariane 5, and
    the experience gained will apply to Ariane 5.

    Personally, I wouldn't mind to sit on top of Ariane 5, because 
    on a technical point of view it is certainly a safest place than 
    where the NASA shuttle is placed, just on the belly of the main tank
    with all this LH2.
    In case of failure or explosion, I think (I am not sure about that
    but I'll check at home tonight) there is a possibility that Hermes fires 
    its rockets to move it far away from the launcher.
    After that, the cosmonauts can use the ejections seats. It is interesting
    to note that the ejection seats technology was bought from the Russian 
    that developped it for their Buran and it's one of the first time they 
    sold something that was considered military technology. The seats are 
    usable at very high and low altitude.

    Ok, I agree that the above measures do not guarantee a safe and smooth 
    flight but at least they increase your chances to come back alive.

    The Ariane 5 concept is also very good because the same launcher is used
    to send unmanned satellites, it just depends what you put on top. 
    This means big bucks economy (one launcher manufactured on high volume)
    and highest reliability (since using always the same hardware).

    About lifting capacity, your data (1986) are a bit old and they have
    probably been changed. Compared to the NASA shuttle, Hermes is very small
    but Ariane 5 will be able to lift Hermes with several cosmonauts and a
    payload. 

>    I don't know what the current status of Hermes is - whether it has been
>    dropped completely, is being redesigned, under development, or what.
    
    Hermes is currently under development. The project manager is
    Aerospatiale with the partners Dassault,MBB,Fokker,Selenia,...
    The shape of Hermes is finalized and heavy study is put into 
    aerodynamics (re-entry), thermal protection, etc...

    I'll dig my documentation at home to see if I can give some more data
    (Columbus,Ariane,Hermes first flight, payload, dimensions, etc).
     
    Gian-Luigi  

    Hi,

    My name is Caspar Jagerman, Co-operative Engineering Centre in Eindhoven,
    the Netherlands. At the moment I'm doing some investigative work at
    ESA/ESTEC on how to support payloads for Columbus with the help of
    multimedia tools. Part of the job is an investigation of the information
    needs in the ground organisation about payloads. I have some additional 
    information to your questions.

    Re. .2 and .3:
    
>   So was Columbus a program to develop an unmanned orbital platforms and
> a manned module or was it the name of the module itself?

    Columbus is a project that consists of three elements, the Columbus
    attached Laboratory (This is the manned module), the Columbus free flying
    laboratory (a unmanned laboratory, used for remote controlled payloads),
    and the polar platform. The attached laboratory, previously called Attached 
    Pressurized Module, or APM, will be permanently attached to the 
    space-station. The free flyer has it's own solar panels and navigational 
    equipment, and is capable of doing remote controlled operations. Now and 
    then, it will be visited by astronauts to extract products, exchange 
    payloads and have some maintainance done. The polar platform is a kind of a 
    pilot project for the rest of he Columbus program. It is completely 
    unmanned, rotating between the north and south poles, and meant to gain
    more knowledge about our environment, not for doing any payload processing. 

>   In general terms, how was the Columbus manned module different from
> any Freedom Space station component?

    The Columbus attached laboratory has no power resources of it's own,
    and is meant as a permanent element of the space station. 

>   Is the Hermes space shuttle part of the Columbus program or is it a
> separate project that is coordinated with the Columbus program?

    Hermes is no part of the Columbus program, though it is an essential part
    of the space triplet of the ESA: Ariane 5, Hermes and Columbus. The
    Columbus free flying laboratory is designed to be serviced by Hermes, and
    therefore it will be developed in the same pace as the Columbus
    project. As far as I know, it's development has not, and will not be
    stopped, for the moment. 


Caspar Jagerman  					CECEHC::JAGERMAN_C

Here are some data I found on a french magazine (1988). Sorry if the
translation is sometimes incorrect....

Ariane 5 first test flight planned for 1995 and Hermes first orbital
flight 1997.

Ariane 5 will be able to put Hermes on a low orbit (400 to 800 Km) where
it could move by its own means and join a space station Freedom
or the Columbus MTFF (man tended free flyer). 
Hermes can carry two pilots plus 4 passengers and 3 metric tons of
payload (low orbit). The payload bay size is 35 cubic meters (diameter 3 m).
Its main purpose is to visit the space station and Columbus and carry
passengers. Heavy loads will be put into orbit by Ariane alone.

                         NASA shuttle      Hermes

 weight (metric tons)    90 - 100          13 (empty)  up to
					   21 (13 + ~3 paylod + ~4 ergols)
 length (meters)         37		   15 
 wing span (meters)      24                10 

Ariane 5 is composed two stages (when used with Hermes), 
1) a single cryogenic HM60 using 120 tons of liquid H and O and two 
solid rocket boosters (solid propergol ?) weighting 170 tons and 
producing each 450 tons of thrust at sea level. 
These two boosters work for 120 sec. while the HM60 works for 500 sec. 
its thrust in empty space reaching 102 tons. 
2) a second stage to finalise the orbit.

Height of Ariane 5 + Hermes = 43 meters.

Gian-Luigi 

    copied without permision from
    Aviation Week and Space Technology
    February 25, 1991
    
    Tight Budgets Force ESA to Reconsider
    Scope, Schedule for Manned Programs
    
    Bonn
    
    Funding constraints have opened a debate about the time, cost and
    technical proposals of the European Space Agency's manned space
    program. Stretchouts of the Hermes spaceplane and Columbus space
    station program are under consideration in ESA working groups.
    
    	A formal resolution is not expected untilan ESA ministerial meeting
    now anticipated for October, when a decision on Phase 2 production
    contracts is to be made.
    
        Germany, ESA;s second biggest manufacturing partner, is leading the
    effort to reduce the 13 member space agency's annual manned space
    flight costs by stretch-outs and program redefinitions, even if total
    program costs rise as a result. Germany is under financial pressure
    because of the high social and economic cost of reunification, which
    has in turn, renewed political questions of the value of Europe's
    manned space program. Sensitivity to environmental issues has prompted
    more emphasis on unmanned Earth observation and remote sensing space
    programs.
    
        France, ESA's leading aerospace partner, is most in favor of
    holding to the current schedule evan at higher annual costs, according
    to European officials. Italy, which also is facing financial
    restraints, is said to be in between the German and French
    positions.costs and scheduling concerns for both Hermes and Colombus
    were first voiced by German officials at a ministerial meeting three
    years ago, when they sought a 15%-20% reduction in 1990s spending on
    Europe's $15-billion manned space program.
    
        The germans pressed the issue again last fall in a frank speech by
    Wolfgang Wild, director general of the German space agenacy DARA,
    before the International Astonautical Federation (AW&ST Oct 15, 1990,
    p.27)
    
    MINISTERS MEETING DELAYED
    Following a recent closed-door meeting in Italy, ESA program managers
    are now considering a package of strechouts and rescoping for Hermaes
    and Columbus, and reevaluation of the technical capabilities of the
    Ariane 5 booster used to launch them. The working groups
    recommendations, to be firmed up in meetings this spring, would be
    presented for final action in the fall to a full ESA ministerial
    meeting.
    
        The meeting was originally expected this spring but has been
    delayed because of the new call for cost-cutting measures.
    
        Proposals include:
    o Delaying the first flight of Hermes, now set for 1998, by two to
    three years.
    
    o Dropping plans to make Columbus free-flying laboratroy serviceable by
    the U.S. space station. Rather, it would be reachable only by Hermes,
    which also is to be dockable with the U.S. station.
    
    o Delaying first flight of the free flier, now set for 1999, until
    after the turn of the century and concentrating on the pressurized
    laboratory that will attach to the U.S. station.
    
    o Reevaluation of the Ariane 5, now scheduled for lauch in 1995,
    because of concern that there are insufficient margins in its
    aerodynamic stress parameters to safely launch the 48,400-lb Hermes.
    
        Germany's Messerschmitt-Boelkow-Blohm, prime contractor on the
    Columbus program, is redefining it to incorporate both a schedule
    stretchout and cost reduction of 20%. An MBB official said that costs
    of both the Columbus pressurized module and the man-tended free flier
    are to be reduced.
    
        The third Columbus structure, a polar orbiter, has become an Earth
    observation platform.
    
    	European officials report that their program studies have been
    complicated by uncertainty in the U.S. program, which was undergoing
    extensive redesign.

Hi folks,

what has been mentioned in .5 is correct. This is the architectural concept.

What has been mentioned in .7 is correct as well. At the moment, the ESA
is stretching the HERMES and the COLUMBUS program to reduce cost per year.

Current plan is : HERMES first flight: 2005
                  MTFF   launch      : 2005
                  APM    launch      : 1998

Overall budget  : $4B
est. DP-budget  : $600 million

Prime contractor is MBB/ERNO, Bremen (Germany). The consortium consists of
about 100 companies (ALENIA -Italy, MATRA - France, BAe - UK, BTM - Belgium,
CRI - Denmark, Dornier - Germany,...)

DIGITAL is bidding to be selected as the HW platform and to become responsible
for all the DP acitvities in COLUMBUS (installation, maintenenance, hot line,..)

Competitiors are SUN and HP. (COLUMBUS is UNIX !)

DIGITAL has in place a program manager (Ralf Grashofer, @HBO) and a program
consultant (Rolf-Dieter Naske, @HBO).

/Rolf-Dieter Naske.

Article: 3745
From: [email protected] (Reuters)
Newsgroups: clari.tw.space,clari.world.europe.western
Subject: European manned space effort gets go-ahead
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 5:40:22 PST
 
	 PARIS, Feb 16 (Reuter) - Europe's long-delayed efforts to
have its own manned space programmes have received a definitive
go-ahead, the governing council of the 13-nation European Space Agency
said on Wednesday. 

	 A statement from the Paris-based agency said representatives
of member states decided on Tuesday to approve a $227 million Manned
Space Transportation Programme and build a $299 million Columbus
module to form part of the U.S. Freedom space station. 

	 ``These decisions give us for the next two years the means to
lay the foundations of the European space programmes of the year
2000,'' ESA director-general Jean-Marie Luton, a Frenchman, was quoted
as saying after an ESA Council meeting. 

	 ``While taking due account of economic realities and
political developments in Europe and the world, they mark ESA's
commitment to vigorous and coherent pursuit of its ambitions both with
regard to o environment, science and its applications and
telecommunications, and in the area of launch systems and manned
spaceflight,'' Luton said. 

	 ESA said the programme will include a crew transporation
vehicle (CTV) to be launched by a European Ariane rocket. The CTV,
crewed by four people, is a capsule-like device which will service
future space stations. 

	 The Columbus programme is for a module that will form part of
the Freedom Space station being prepared by the U.S. space agency NASA. 

	 ESA said the decision to go through with its programmes
confirmed Europe's resolve to participate with all other partners,
specifically the United States, Russia, Japan and Canada, in
developing an international space station. 

	 The ESA decisions were, however, a far cry from the far more
ambitious Hermes manned space shuttle programme which Europe had hoped
to build itself and which was scuttled last year because of lack of funds. 

	 In Bonn, Germany's Research and Technology Minister Paul
Krueger welcomed the agreement, saying it would secure Europe's role
in global space cooperation. 

	 Krueger said close cooperation particularly between France
and Germany, the biggest contributors to ESA, had helped put Europe's
space efforts on a realistic footing. 

	 France, Germany and several smaller members are wrestling
with budget deficits at home and are unwilling or unable to increase
spending on ambitious long-term space projects. 

	 Jan-Baldem Mennicken, chief of Germany's space agency DARA,
told a Bonn news conference the European Currency Unit would be made
the currency for ESA operations in 1997 and a ministerial conference
next year would decide on possible compensation to countries that
might suffer financially from the switch. 

	 Mennicken unveiled Germany's 1994 space programme, which at
1.6 billion marks ($940 million) is 200 million marks ($117 million)
lower than last year. Because of the cuts, projected programmes are
being stretched out over a longer period. 

	 The budget includes one billion marks ($579 million) for ESA
while the rest is earmarked for national research and space efforts,
including international programmes for earth observation and a
20-nation project to send a satellite to the planet Mars from the
Russian Baikonur space centre in October. 

Article: 3746
From: [email protected] (Reuters)
Newsgroups: clari.tw.space,clari.world.europe.western
Subject: European Manned Space Effort gets go-Ahead
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 6:00:06 PST
 
	 PARIS (Reuter) - Europe's long-delayed efforts to have its
own manned space programs have received a definitive go-ahead, the
governing council of the 13-nation European Space Agency said Wednesday. 

	 A statement from the Paris-based agency said member states
decided Tuesday to approve a $227 million Manned Space Transportation
Program and build a $299 million Columbus module to form part of the
U.S. Freedom space station. 

	 ESA said the program will include a crew transporation
vehicle to be launched by a European Ariane rocket. The CTV, crewed by
four people, is a capsule-like device which will service future space
stations. 

	 The Columbus program is for a module that will form part of
the Freedom space station being prepared by the U.S. space agency NASA. 

	 ESA said the decision to go through with its programs
confirmed Europe's resolve to participate with all other partners,
specifically the United States, Russia, Japan and Canada, in
developing an international space station. 

	 The ESA decisions were, however, a far cry from the far more
ambitious Hermes manned space shuttle program which Europe had hoped to 
build itself and which was scuttled last year because of lack of funds.