IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Galileo IUS ignition
nprev
post Apr 9 2007, 05:17 PM
Post #16


Senior Member
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 7143
Joined: 8-December 05
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 602



Wow. I and certainly others are edified & grateful; thanks very much, Jim & BP! smile.gif The IUS has a much more varied history than I'd originally realized.


--------------------
A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jim from NSF.com
post Apr 9 2007, 05:32 PM
Post #17


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 321
Joined: 6-April 06
From: Cape Canaveral
Member No.: 734



Forgot to add that DSCS-III flew on Shuttle with two spacecraft on an IUS. After Challenger, it was determined that it would be cheaper to launch the complete constellation of 10 satellites on an uprated Atlas Centaur (the yet to be designed Atlas IIA) with an yet to be designed apogee propulsion system (IABS). A person proposed this through the USAF Suggestion program. The suggestion was declined and then the gov't figured out eventually that is was a good idea and implemented it. The original suggester "protested" the response he got and was awarded 25K (the max amount).

There were backup plans to launch Galileo and Ulysses on T-IV IUS, in case the shuttle was delayed longer
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nprev
post Apr 9 2007, 05:43 PM
Post #18


Senior Member
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 7143
Joined: 8-December 05
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 602



Now that's a fascinating tidbit, Jim...thanks yet again! smile.gif I made a couple of $s off of that suggestion program myself back in the day for airplane stuff, but nowhere near the max...good for him or her!


--------------------
A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
edstrick
post Apr 10 2007, 06:29 AM
Post #19


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1869
Joined: 20-February 05
Member No.: 174



The IUS was originally named the "Interim Upper Stage", when it was concieved as a short-on-budget stopgap that would be replaced by a combination of a true inter-orbit Space Tug ... planned as part of the Space Transportation *SYSTEM*.

When it became clear that "Interim" would last to the decay of the last proton in the universe, it was rather quietly renamed the "Inertial Upper Stage", meaning that it had 3 Axis inertial attitude control instead of spin stabilization, unlike most or all other solid fueled upper states.

This bogaceously expensive solid upper stage, with the miserable specific impulse of all solid propellant upper stages, cost as much or more than an equivalent performance Centaur upper stage, particularly when amortized over the enormous development cost of the stage.

In the end, it's only good feature was that as a solid fueled stage, it added minimal extra risk to Shuttle cargo missions that needed a big upper stage to deploy payloads to higher orbit.... an ability that was abandoned as fast as reasonably possible after Challenger.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dvandorn
post Apr 10 2007, 03:36 PM
Post #20


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3254
Joined: 9-February 04
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Member No.: 15



When you consider that one of the next few flights of the Shuttle after Challenger was scheduled to be the launch of Galileo on a Centaur loaded into the Shuttle's cargo bay, it may not be completely correct that "interim" was a misnomer. There were plans, as of early 1986, to use the Centaur / Shuttle combination for a variety of large payloads, including planetary probes.

Of course, if you talk with Shuttle experts and afficionados, you'll hear the opinion that while Challenger was a tragedy, maybe it was a good thing in one way -- that the systems in place to fly an LO2-LH2 Centaur stage inside the cargo bay were so dangerous that we would have lost an orbiter trying to fly in that configuration. (Just the systems designed to allow fueling of and boil-off from the Centaur stage, IIRC, required major Shuttle safety waivers to be allowed to even be considered for a flight configuration.)

But it's good to remember that while the full "space tug" system was never going to be developed, there were plans to go beyond the PAM / IUS set of capabilities. And, therefore, "interim" wasn't necessarily going to be a completely dead concept. (Up until Challenger, of course, after which even the PAM / IUS configurations were considered too risky and phased out.)

-the other Doug


--------------------
“The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right.” -Mark Twain
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Analyst_*
post Apr 10 2007, 05:48 PM
Post #21





Guests






I wonder if Jim has been the "original suggestor". smile.gif

Analyst
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jim from NSF.com
post Apr 10 2007, 08:21 PM
Post #22


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 321
Joined: 6-April 06
From: Cape Canaveral
Member No.: 734



QUOTE (Analyst @ Apr 10 2007, 01:48 PM) *
I wonder if Jim has been the "original suggestor". smile.gif

Analyst



Nope, I was an evaluator, but only on the shuttle parts of the suggestion
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jim from NSF.com
post Apr 10 2007, 08:24 PM
Post #23


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 321
Joined: 6-April 06
From: Cape Canaveral
Member No.: 734



QUOTE (dvandorn @ Apr 10 2007, 11:36 AM) *
When you consider that one of the next few flights of the Shuttle after Challenger was scheduled to be the launch of Galileo on a Centaur loaded into the Shuttle's cargo bay, it may not be completely correct that "interim" was a misnomer. There were plans, as of early 1986, to use the Centaur / Shuttle combination for a variety of large payloads, including planetary probes.


Those plans were as earlier than 1983.

Just IUS and Centaur flew on T-IV, the IUS would have still flown for many more years. Some programs would not have migrated to Centaur
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jim from NSF.com
post Apr 10 2007, 08:26 PM
Post #24


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 321
Joined: 6-April 06
From: Cape Canaveral
Member No.: 734



QUOTE (dvandorn @ Apr 10 2007, 11:36 AM) *
But it's good to remember that while the full "space tug" system was never going to be developed, there were plans to go beyond the PAM / IUS set of capabilities. And, therefore, "interim" wasn't necessarily going to be a completely dead concept. (Up until Challenger, of course, after which even the PAM / IUS configurations were considered too risky and phased out.)


The PAM/IUS was used for Ulysses
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BPCooper
post Apr 10 2007, 11:45 PM
Post #25


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 183
Joined: 22-October 05
From: Daytona Beach / Cape Canaveral, FL
Member No.: 534



QUOTE (Jim from NSF.com @ Apr 10 2007, 04:26 PM) *
The PAM/IUS was used for Ulysses


And Magellan.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jim from NSF.com
post Apr 11 2007, 01:05 PM
Post #26


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 321
Joined: 6-April 06
From: Cape Canaveral
Member No.: 734



There was a smal difference, it was "bare" Star-48 motor, which means it didn't have any of the PAM systems, and it was part of the Magellan spacecraft vs the IUS.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mchan
post Apr 21 2007, 07:43 AM
Post #27


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 593
Joined: 26-August 05
Member No.: 476



There were also the 3-stage IUS configuration that were proposed for the split up Galileo orbiter and probe in 1984 after the 1982 launch opportunity with a 2-stage IUS was lost. IIRC, the 1984 proposal would have involved two shuttles launching within a week or two of each other, one with the orbiter, the other with the probe. Would have been an expensive set of launches.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 27th November 2014 - 09:29 AM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and copyright.

OPINIONS AND MODERATION
Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators.
SUPPORT THE FORUM
Unmannedspaceflight.com is a project of the Planetary Society and is funded by donations from visitors and members. Help keep this forum up and running by contributing here.