Space Station Freedom

Last updated
Freedom
Space Station Freedom design 1991.jpg
Artist's rendition by Tom Buzbee of the proposed Space Station Freedom design as of early 1991. An annotated version of this image is also available.
Station statistics
Crew4
Mission statusProject converted into International Space Station
Pressurized volume 878 m3 (31,000 cu ft)
Periapsis altitude 400 km (250 mi)
Apoapsis altitude 400 km (250 mi)
Orbital inclination 28.5 deg

Space Station Freedom was a NASA-led multi-national project proposed in the 1980s to construct a permanently crewed space station in low Earth orbit. Despite initial approval by President Ronald Reagan and a public announcement in the 1984 State of the Union Address, the ambitious project faced significant budget cuts and delays. Ultimately, a scaled-down version of Freedom evolved into the US Orbital Segment (USOS) of the International Space Station (ISS).

Contents

By the time the project was canceled, NASA had already invested approximately $11 billion into Space Station Freedom, however some of that work would benefit the ISS. As originally envisioned, the station would have been collaborative project involving four participating space agencies: NASA (United States), NASDA (Japan), ESA (Europe), and CSA (Canada). Those same partners would go on to build the USOS, but the ISS program also included Roscosmos of Russia who contributed their significant experience building and operating space stations during Mir and the Salyut program to construct the Russian Orbital Segment.

Original proposal

As the Apollo program began to wind down in the late 1960s, there were numerous proposals for what should follow it. Of the many proposals, large and small, three major themes emerged. Foremost among them was a crewed mission to Mars, using systems not unlike the ones used for Apollo. A permanent space station was also a major goal, both to help construct the large spacecraft needed for a Mars mission as well as to learn about long-term operations in space. Finally, a space logistics vehicle was intended to cheaply launch crews and cargo to that station.

In the early 1970s, Spiro Agnew took these general plans to President Nixon, who was battling with a major federal budget deficit. When he presented the three concepts, Nixon told him to select one. After much debate, NASA selected the space logistics vehicle, which by this time was already known as the Space Shuttle. They argued that the Shuttle would so lower costs of launching cargo that it would make the construction of the station less expensive.

From this point forward these plans were never seriously changed, in spite of dramatic changes to the funding environment and the complete redesign of the Shuttle concept. In the early 1980s, with the Space Shuttle completed, NASA proposed the creation of a large, permanently crewed space station, which then-NASA Administrator James M. Beggs called "the next logical step" in space. In some ways it was meant to be the U.S. answer to the Soviet Mir .

NASA plans called for the station, which was later dubbed Space Station Freedom, to function as an orbiting repair shop for satellites, an assembly point for spacecraft, an observation post for astronomers, a microgravity laboratory for scientists, and a microgravity factory for companies.

Reagan announced plans to build Space Station Freedom in 1984, stating: "We can follow our dreams to distant stars, living and working in space for peaceful economic and scientific gain."

Design iterations

Following the presidential announcement, NASA began a set of studies to determine the potential uses for the space station, both in research and in industry, in the U.S. or overseas. This led to the creation of a database of thousands of possible missions and payloads; studies were also carried out with a view to supporting potential planetary missions, as well as those in low Earth orbit.

Several Space Shuttle missions in the 1980s and early 1990s included spacewalks to demonstrate and test space station construction techniques. After the establishment of the initial baseline design, the project evolved extensively, growing in scope and cost.

"Power Tower" (1984)

"Power Tower" space station concept (1984) Power Tower Space Station Concept.jpg
"Power Tower" space station concept (1984)

In April 1984, the newly established Space Station Program Office at Johnson Space Center produced a first reference configuration; this design would serve as a baseline for further planning. The chosen design was the "Power Tower", a long central keel with most mass located at either end. This arrangement would provide enough gravity gradient stability to keep the station aligned with the keel pointed towards the Earth, reducing the need for thruster firings. Most designs featured a cluster of modules at the lower end and a set of articulated solar arrays at the upper end. It also contained a servicing bay. In April 1985, the program selected a set of contractors to carry out definition studies and preliminary design; various trade-offs were made in this process, balancing higher development costs against reduced long-term operating costs.

Revised Baseline Configuration (1987)

Revised Baseline Configuration (1987) Space station freedom (1).jpg
Revised Baseline Configuration (1987)

At the same time, late 1986, NASA carried out a study into new configuration options to reduce development costs; options studied ranged from the use of a Skylab-type station to a phased development of the Dual-Keel configuration. This approach involved splitting assembly into two phases; Phase 1 would provide the central modules, and the transverse boom, but with no keels. The solar arrays would be augmented to ensure 75 kW of power would be provided, and the polar platform and servicing facility were again deferred. The study concluded that the project was viable, reducing development costs while minimizing negative impacts, and it was designated the Revised Baseline Configuration. This would have a development cost of US$15.3 billion (in FY1989 dollars) and FEL in the first quarter of 1994. This replanning was endorsed by the National Research Council in September 1987, which also recommended that the long-term national goals should be studied before committing to any particular Phase 2 design.

During 1986 and 1987, various other studies were carried out on the future of the U.S. space program; the results of these often impacted the Space Station, and their recommendations were folded into the revised baseline as necessary. One of the results of these was to baseline the Station program as requiring five shuttle flights a year for operations and logistics, rotating four crew at a time with the aim of extending individual stay times to 180 days.

Freedom (1988) to Alpha (1993)

1991 artist's conception of the completed Space Station Freedom in orbit. Artist's Conception of Space Station Freedom - GPN-2003-00092.jpg
1991 artist's conception of the completed Space Station Freedom in orbit.

NASA signed final ten-year contracts for developing the Space Station in September 1988, and the project was finally moving into the hardware fabrication phase. The station was designed with a thirty year life in mind. [1]

The Space Station Freedom design was slightly modified in late 1989 after the program's Fiscal 1990 budget again was reduced — from $2.05 billion to $1.75 billion — when the design was found to be 23% overweight and over budget, too complicated to assemble, and providing little power for its users. The 1990 Space Exploration Initiative called for the construction of the Space Station Freedom. Congress consequently demanded yet another redesign in October 1990, and requested further cost reductions after the fiscal 1991 budget was cut from $2.5 billion to $1.9 billion. NASA unveiled its new space station design in March 1991.

Repeated budget cuts had forced a postponement of the first launch by a year, to March 1995. The station would be permanently crewed from June 1997 onwards, and completed in February 1998.

In 1993, after more calls for the station to be redesigned again to reduce costs and include more international involvement, [2] the option that became known as Space Station 'Alpha' was chosen (from three competing concepts), [3] [4] using 75 percent of the hardware designs originally intended for the Freedom program. [5] Cost escalation of the project and financial difficulties in Russia led to a briefing between NASA and NPO Energia on Mir-2 that same year, resulting in an option known briefly as the Russian Alpha (RAlpha). [6]

1990 artist's concept for HL-20 with Space Station Freedom EL-1996-00177.jpeg
1990 artist's concept for HL-20 with Space Station Freedom

In late 1993, Freedom, Mir-2, and the European and Japanese modules were incorporated into a single International Space Station Alpha (ISSA), with Alpha dropped from the name internally by early 1995. [7] In July 1995, the International Space Station Authorization Act of 1995 House report to U.S.Congress was released and the names Freedom, Alpha, and ISSA were no more. [8] By this time, the hardware meant for Space Station Freedom, then Alpha, that had already been designed and built or was in development, around 10 percent, became part of the ISS.

Station program placed on hold

Underestimates by NASA of the station program's cost and unwillingness by the U.S. Congress to appropriate funding for the space station resulted in delays of Freedom's design and construction; it was regularly redesigned and re-scoped. Between 1984 and 1993 it went through seven major re-designs, losing capacity and capabilities each time. Rather than being completed in a decade, as Reagan had predicted, Freedom was never built, and no Shuttle launches were made as part of the program.

By 1993, Freedom was politically unviable; the administration had changed, and Congress was tiring of paying yet more money into the station program. In addition, there were open questions over the need for the station. Redesigns had cut most of the science capacity by this point, and the Space Race had ended in 1975 with the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. NASA presented several options to President Clinton, but even the most limited of these was still seen as too expensive. In June 1993, an amendment to remove space station funding from NASA's appropriations bill failed by one vote in the House of Representatives. [9] That October, a meeting between NASA and the Russian Space Agency agreed to the merger of the projects into what would become the International Space Station. The merger of the project faced opposition by representatives such as Tim Roemer who feared Russia would break the Missile Technology Control Regime agreement and felt the program was far too costly. [10] Proposed bills did not pass Congress.

Conversion to the International Space Station

International Space Station in May 2011 STS-134 International Space Station after undocking.jpg
International Space Station in May 2011

In 1993, the Clinton administration announced the transformation of Space Station Freedom into the International Space Station (ISS). NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin supervised the addition of Russia to the project. To accommodate reduced budgets, the station design was scaled back from 508 to 353 square feet (47 to 33 m2), the crew capacity of the NASA-provided part was reduced from 7 to 3 (while the complete station was initially crewed by 6 it eventually increased to 7 [11] ), and the station's functions were reduced. [12] Its first component was launched into orbit in 1998, [13] with the first long-term residents arriving in November 2000. [14]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International Space Station</span> Inhabited space station in low Earth orbit (1998–present)

The International Space Station (ISS) is a large space station that was assembled and is maintained in low Earth orbit by a collaboration of five space agencies and their contractors: NASA, Roscosmos (Russia), ESA (Europe), JAXA (Japan), and CSA (Canada). The ISS is the largest space station ever built. Its primary purpose is to perform microgravity and space environment experiments.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Space Shuttle</span> Partially reusable launch system and space plane

The Space Shuttle is a retired, partially reusable low Earth orbital spacecraft system operated from 1981 to 2011 by the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) as part of the Space Shuttle program. Its official program name was Space Transportation System (STS), taken from the 1969 plan led by U.S. Vice President Spiro Agnew for a system of reusable spacecraft where it was the only item funded for development.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Space Shuttle program</span> 1972–2011 United States human spaceflight program

The Space Shuttle program was the fourth human spaceflight program carried out by the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which accomplished routine transportation for Earth-to-orbit crew and cargo from 1981 to 2011. Its official program name was Space Transportation System (STS), taken from a 1969 plan for a system of reusable spacecraft where it was the only item funded for development, as a proposed nuclear shuttle in the plan was cancelled in 1972. It flew 135 missions and carried 355 astronauts from 16 countries, many on multiple trips.

<i>Mir</i> Soviet/Russian space station (1986–2001)

Mir was a space station operated in low Earth orbit from 1986 to 2001, first by the Soviet Union and later by the Russian Federation. Mir was the first modular space station and was assembled in orbit from 1986 to 1996. It had a greater mass than any previous spacecraft. At the time it was the largest artificial satellite in orbit, succeeded by the International Space Station (ISS) after Mir's orbit decayed. The station served as a microgravity research laboratory in which crews conducted experiments in biology, human biology, physics, astronomy, meteorology, and spacecraft systems with a goal of developing technologies required for permanent occupation of space.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Automated Transfer Vehicle</span> Uncrewed cargo spacecraft developed by the European Space Agency

The Automated Transfer Vehicle, originally Ariane Transfer Vehicle or ATV, was an expendable cargo spacecraft developed by the European Space Agency (ESA), used for space cargo transport in 2008–2015. The ATV design was launched to orbit five times, exclusively by the Ariane 5 heavy-lift launch vehicle. It effectively was a larger European counterpart to the Russian Progress cargo spacecraft for carrying upmass to a single destination—the International Space Station (ISS)—but with three times the capacity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hermes (spacecraft)</span> French crewed spaceplane concept (1975–1992)

Hermes was a proposed spaceplane designed by the French Centre National d'Études Spatiales (CNES) in 1975, and later by the European Space Agency (ESA). It was superficially similar to the American Boeing X-20 Dyna-Soar and the larger Space Shuttle.

Shuttle–<i>Mir</i> program 1993–1998 collaborative Russia–US space program

The Shuttle–Mir program was a collaborative space program between Russia and the United States that involved American Space Shuttles visiting the Russian space station Mir, Russian cosmonauts flying on the Shuttle, and an American astronaut flying aboard a Soyuz spacecraft to allow American astronauts to engage in long-duration expeditions aboard Mir.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Exploration Systems Architecture Study</span> NASA study

The Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) is the official title of a large-scale, system level study released by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in November 2005 of his goal of returning astronauts to the Moon and eventually Mars—known as the Vision for Space Exploration. The Constellation Program was cancelled in 2010 by the Obama Administration and replaced with the Space Launch System, later renamed as the Artemis Program in 2017 under the Trump Administration.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Space Shuttle design process</span> Development program of the NASA Space Shuttle

Before the Apollo 11 Moon landing in 1969, NASA began studies of Space Shuttle designs as early as October 1968. The early studies were denoted "Phase A", and in June 1970, "Phase B", which were more detailed and specific. The primary intended use of the Phase A Space Shuttle was supporting the future space station, ferrying a minimum crew of four and about 20,000 pounds (9,100 kg) of cargo, and being able to be rapidly turned around for future flights, with larger payloads like space station modules being lifted by the Saturn V.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Crew Return Vehicle</span> Proposed dedicated lifeboat or escape module for the International Space Station

The Crew Return Vehicle (CRV), sometimes referred to as the Assured Crew Return Vehicle (ACRV), was a proposed dedicated lifeboat or escape module for the International Space Station (ISS). A number of different vehicles and designs were considered over two decades – with several flying as developmental test prototypes – but none became operational. Since the arrival of the first permanent crew to the ISS in 2000, the emergency return capability has been fulfilled by Soyuz spacecraft and, more recently, SpaceX's Crew Dragon – each rotated every 6 months.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pressurized Mating Adapter</span> Spacecraft docking adapter

A Pressurized Mating Adapter (PMA) is a component used on the International Space Station (ISS) to convert the Common Berthing Mechanism (CBM) interface used to connect ISS modules to an APAS-95 spacecraft docking port. Three PMAs are attached to the US Orbital Segment of ISS. PMA-1 and PMA-2 were launched along with the Unity module in 1998 aboard STS-88; PMA-3 was launched in 2000 aboard STS-92. PMA-1 permanently connects the Unity and Zarya modules. International Docking Adapters were permanently installed on PMA-2 and PMA-3 in 2017 to convert them from the APAS-95 standard to the newer International Docking System Standard (IDSS).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Assembly of the International Space Station</span> Process of assembling the International Space Station

The process of assembling the International Space Station (ISS) has been under way since the 1990s. Zarya, the first ISS module, was launched by a Proton rocket on 20 November 1998. The STS-88 Space Shuttle mission followed two weeks after Zarya was launched, bringing Unity, the first of three node modules, and connecting it to Zarya. This bare 2-module core of the ISS remained uncrewed for the next one and a half years, until in July 2000 the Russian module Zvezda was launched by a Proton rocket, allowing a maximum crew of three astronauts or cosmonauts to be on the ISS permanently.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">NASA</span> American space and aeronautics agency

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is an independent agency of the U.S. federal government responsible for the civil space program, aeronautics research, and space research. Established in 1958, it succeeded the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) to give the U.S. space development effort a distinct civilian orientation, emphasizing peaceful applications in space science. It has since led most of America's space exploration programs, including Project Mercury, Project Gemini, the 1968–1972 Apollo Moon landing missions, the Skylab space station, and the Space Shuttle. Currently, NASA supports the International Space Station (ISS) along with the Commercial Crew Program, and oversees the development of the Orion spacecraft and the Space Launch System for the lunar Artemis program.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">North American DC-3</span> NASA Space Shuttle design candidate

The DC-3 was one of several early design proposals for the NASA Space Shuttle designed by Maxime Faget at the Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC) in Houston. It was nominally developed by North American Aviation (NAA), although it was a purely NASA-internal design. Unlike the design that eventually emerged, the DC-3 was a fully reusable launch vehicle two-stage-to-orbit spaceplane design with a small payload capacity of about 12,000 lb (5,400 kg) and limited maneuverability. Its inherent strengths were good low-speed handling during landing, and a low-risk development that was relatively immune to changes in weight and balance.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International Space Station programme</span> Ongoing space research program

The International Space Station programme is tied together by a complex set of legal, political and financial agreements between the fifteen nations involved in the project, governing ownership of the various components, rights to crewing and utilisation, and responsibilities for crew rotation and resupply of the International Space Station. It was conceived in September 1993 by the United States and Russia after 1980s plans for separate American (Freedom) and Soviet (Mir-2) space stations failed due to budgetary reasons. These agreements tie together the five space agencies and their respective International Space Station programmes and govern how they interact with each other on a daily basis to maintain station operations, from traffic control of spacecraft to and from the station, to utilisation of space and crew time. In March 2010, the International Space Station Program Managers from each of the five partner agencies were presented with Aviation Week's Laureate Award in the Space category, and the ISS programme was awarded the 2009 Collier Trophy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Space Shuttle retirement</span> End of NASA Space Shuttle program in 2011

The retirement of NASA's Space Shuttle fleet took place from March to July 2011. Discovery was the first of the three active Space Shuttles to be retired, completing its final mission on March 9, 2011; Endeavour did so on June 1. The final shuttle mission was completed with the landing of Atlantis on July 21, 2011, closing the 30-year Space Shuttle program.

<i>Columbus</i> Man-Tended Free Flyer Defunct crewed space station program

The Columbus Man-Tended Free Flyer (MTFF) was a European Space Agency (ESA) program to develop a space station that could be used for a variety of microgravity experiments while serving ESA's needs for an autonomous crewed space platform. It consisted of a Columbus module docked to a service module containing solar power collectors, communications and other services. The program ran from 1986 to 1991, was expected to cost $3.56 billion including launch and utilization, and was cancelled while still in the planning stage. Aspects of the program were later realised in the Columbus science laboratory attached to the International Space Station (ISS).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European contribution to the International Space Station</span> Overview of the contribution to the International Space Station from Europe

The European contribution to the International Space Station comes from 10 members of the European Space Agency (ESA) and amounts to an 8% share in the programme. It consists of a number of modules in the US Orbital Segment, ATV supply ships, launchers, software and €8 billion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Origins of the International Space Station</span>

Origins of the International Space Station covers the origins of ISS. The International Space Station programme represents a combination of three national space station projects: the Russian/Soviet Mir-2, NASA's Space Station Freedom including the Japanese Kibō laboratory, and the European Columbus space stations. Canadian robotics supplement these projects.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">HL-42 (spacecraft)</span> Proposed spacecraft

The HL-42 was a proposed scaled-up version of the HL-20 re-usable crewed spaceplane design, which had been developed from 1983 to 1991 at NASA's Langley Research Center but never flown. Like the HL-20, the HL-42 would have been launched into low Earth orbit mounted on top of a two-stage expendable rocket. At the end of the mission, it would have re-entered and glided to a runway landing.

References

  1. ↑ United States. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (1990). "Agent Independent Task Planning". NASA Conference Publication. Scientific and Technical Information Office, National Aeronautics and Space Administration. p. 1. LCCN   sn79002911.
  2. ↑ "fate of space station is in doubt as all options exceed cost goals". The New York Times. 8 June 1993.
  3. ↑ "ISS". Encyclopedia Astronautica. 1997. Archived from the original on 12 July 2016.
  4. ↑ "Station Redesign Team to Submit Final Report". Office of Public Affairs, NASA. 4 June 1993.
  5. ↑ "A History of U.S. Space Stations" (PDF). NASA Facts. June 1997.
  6. ↑ "U.S. Proposes Space Merger with Russia". The Washington Post. 5 November 1993.
  7. ↑ "NASA program review of the International Space Station program". H.Rept.104-210. 16 February 1995.
  8. ↑ "International Space Station Authorization Act of 1995" (PDF). 104th Congress Report. 28 July 1995.
  9. ↑ H.R. 2200 (103rd): National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995
  10. ↑ Cancel the Space Station. 139 Cong Rec E 3117
  11. ↑ Hoversten, Paul (1 May 2011). "Assembly (Nearly) Complete". Air & Space Magazine. Retrieved 8 May 2011. In fact, we're designed on the U.S. side to take four crew. The ISS design is actually for seven. We operate with six because first, we can get all our work done with six, and second, we don't have a vehicle that allows us to fly a seventh crew member. Our requirement for the new vehicles being designed is for four seats. So I don't expect us to go down in crew size. I would expect us to increase it.
  12. ↑ GAO (June 1994). "Space Station: Impact of the Expanded Russian Role on Funding and Research" (PDF). GAO. Retrieved 3 November 2006.
  13. ↑ NASA (18 February 2010). "On-Orbit Elements" (PDF). NASA. Archived from the original (PDF) on 29 October 2009. Retrieved 19 June 2010.
  14. ↑ "First crew starts living and working on the International Space Station". European Space Agency. 31 October 2000.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.