fut/spasta (STS platform)_v_c_o_TPMBK (ca. 1982-83, General Dynamics photo no. CVJ 830646 and/or CVJ 820796-1)
“SPACE STATION CONCEPTS as envisioned by General Dynamics. The company’s Convair Division in San Diego, California, has completed studies for NASA to define the mission requirements for a permanent, manned, low Earth-orbit Space Station. Convair has also examined Space Station development missions for servicing space-based transfer vehicles for NASA.”
Boy, does that ever ignore what this is or what's going on here.
The space-based transfer vehicles referenced are Orbital Transfer Vehicles (OTV).
Modules “H-1” & “H-2” are of course Habitat Modules, “LM-1” is the Logistics Module and “SL-2” is a Spacelab module. Maybe “SL-1” is the one within the payload bay?
A possible variant of this configuration, accompanied by the following text:
“This General Dynamics/Convair space station concept was intended as a “spacedock” for assembling and servicing large spacecraft in low Earth orbit.”, is at:
www.pmview.com/spaceodysseytwo/station/sld018.htm
Specifically:
sites.google.com/site/spaceodysseytwo/station/ssf84_c.jpg
Both above credit: PMView Pro website
The same image is also within the following enlightening document:
General Dynamics/Convair Division’s “A STUDY OF SPACE STATION NEEDS, ATTRIBUTES & ARCHITECTURAL OPTIONS: final briefing”, NASA-CR-173997, N84-34459, dated 5 April 1983.
Additional pertinent extracts from it:
“Having concluded the initial phase of this Space Station mission requirements study, it seems appropriate to look ahead to the next phase of activities. Some of the major conclusions of our study are reiterated…but as a particular point we would like to focus on one potential approach which could lead to an early, affordable, effective way to start the Space Station program. It is recognized that the approach discussed…which utilizes a “STS platform” is one of many potential schemes which could be developed for this purpose. In this regard, we at General Dynamics have also investigated several schemes, and consider that the approach defined herein warrants further study.
As a first step towards development of the “STS platform” concept, the wings, tail, crew compartment, and the TPS are removed from the Orbiter. The cargo bay is stretched by approximately 30 feet, and a forward control module is added.
A forward fairing for a solar power array, and a wraparound heat exchanger are added to the external tank. Access provisions to the hydrogen tank are added.
The solid rocket boosters remain essentially unchanged from their present configuration.
The above items comprise the basic elements of the “STS platform”.
The STS platform is launched, unmanned, with nearly normal staging of STS elements. During ascent, the fairings that cover the solar power array are jettisoned. The STS platform is finally positioned in its desired orbit. [See my accompanying posting.]
Once on orbit, the cargo bay doors are opened automatically and the platform command module is rotated 90 from its stowed position in the cargo bay to its operating position. With the command module in this position, an Orbiter cargo bay equivalent length remains available for accommodating spacecraft, etc., delivered by the Shuttle.
The external tank remains attached to the platform for later use since it potentially can serve many useful functions as a part of the station. [See my accompanying posting.]
The crew can be installed on the first Orbiter flight to the STS platform. The flight could carry one or two modules, such as habitability module and a logistics module. They would be coupled to ports that exist on the command module. With the crew aboard, we have a permanent Space Station capability achieved in two flights, with an immediate capacity to perform many tasks.
The presence of a cargo bay as part of an early Space Station provides for an easy transition from Orbiter-based activities to Station-based, and may provide the opportunity to conduct important technology development missions with a major shift in approach from Orbiter-based experiments to space-based.
As an example, technology development related to space-based OTV operations from the Station can be carried out with a minimum of change. Since the same relative arrangement is preserved between the Orbiter and the Station in this concept, we have the basis for early experimentation in servicing and perhaps even in carrying out OTV flights from the Space Station.
In this concept, we move progressively from technology development to full operational capability…The original STS platform remains the backbone of the Space Station, nothing becomes obsolete. The cargo bay, for example, having been used initially for technology development missions, is now diverted to other purposes, such as a base for teleoperators.
In summary, we at General Dynamics recognize our mutual need to find the right way to start the Space Station program. We suggest that early and serious consideration be given to the STS platform approach. Finding ways to reduce the cost of achieving a Space Station is the key to success. We see within the STS the technology resource and physical means that can make the initial Space Station possible.”
At:
ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19840026388/downloads/1984002...
See also:
www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/boldly-going-a-his...
Credit: "alternate history" website
Yet again, as if ALL of the above wasn’t enough – which it should be – it’s by Roy Gjertson!
WHO knew?
Did YOU?
I did NOT.
And…last, but not least:
e05.code.blog/2025/04/09/nasa-cr-173345/
Credit: Garrett O’Donoghue/Station E05 blog
fut/spasta (STS platform)_v_c_o_TPMBK (ca. 1982-83, General Dynamics photo no. CVJ 830646 and/or CVJ 820796-1)
“SPACE STATION CONCEPTS as envisioned by General Dynamics. The company’s Convair Division in San Diego, California, has completed studies for NASA to define the mission requirements for a permanent, manned, low Earth-orbit Space Station. Convair has also examined Space Station development missions for servicing space-based transfer vehicles for NASA.”
Boy, does that ever ignore what this is or what's going on here.
The space-based transfer vehicles referenced are Orbital Transfer Vehicles (OTV).
Modules “H-1” & “H-2” are of course Habitat Modules, “LM-1” is the Logistics Module and “SL-2” is a Spacelab module. Maybe “SL-1” is the one within the payload bay?
A possible variant of this configuration, accompanied by the following text:
“This General Dynamics/Convair space station concept was intended as a “spacedock” for assembling and servicing large spacecraft in low Earth orbit.”, is at:
www.pmview.com/spaceodysseytwo/station/sld018.htm
Specifically:
sites.google.com/site/spaceodysseytwo/station/ssf84_c.jpg
Both above credit: PMView Pro website
The same image is also within the following enlightening document:
General Dynamics/Convair Division’s “A STUDY OF SPACE STATION NEEDS, ATTRIBUTES & ARCHITECTURAL OPTIONS: final briefing”, NASA-CR-173997, N84-34459, dated 5 April 1983.
Additional pertinent extracts from it:
“Having concluded the initial phase of this Space Station mission requirements study, it seems appropriate to look ahead to the next phase of activities. Some of the major conclusions of our study are reiterated…but as a particular point we would like to focus on one potential approach which could lead to an early, affordable, effective way to start the Space Station program. It is recognized that the approach discussed…which utilizes a “STS platform” is one of many potential schemes which could be developed for this purpose. In this regard, we at General Dynamics have also investigated several schemes, and consider that the approach defined herein warrants further study.
As a first step towards development of the “STS platform” concept, the wings, tail, crew compartment, and the TPS are removed from the Orbiter. The cargo bay is stretched by approximately 30 feet, and a forward control module is added.
A forward fairing for a solar power array, and a wraparound heat exchanger are added to the external tank. Access provisions to the hydrogen tank are added.
The solid rocket boosters remain essentially unchanged from their present configuration.
The above items comprise the basic elements of the “STS platform”.
The STS platform is launched, unmanned, with nearly normal staging of STS elements. During ascent, the fairings that cover the solar power array are jettisoned. The STS platform is finally positioned in its desired orbit. [See my accompanying posting.]
Once on orbit, the cargo bay doors are opened automatically and the platform command module is rotated 90 from its stowed position in the cargo bay to its operating position. With the command module in this position, an Orbiter cargo bay equivalent length remains available for accommodating spacecraft, etc., delivered by the Shuttle.
The external tank remains attached to the platform for later use since it potentially can serve many useful functions as a part of the station. [See my accompanying posting.]
The crew can be installed on the first Orbiter flight to the STS platform. The flight could carry one or two modules, such as habitability module and a logistics module. They would be coupled to ports that exist on the command module. With the crew aboard, we have a permanent Space Station capability achieved in two flights, with an immediate capacity to perform many tasks.
The presence of a cargo bay as part of an early Space Station provides for an easy transition from Orbiter-based activities to Station-based, and may provide the opportunity to conduct important technology development missions with a major shift in approach from Orbiter-based experiments to space-based.
As an example, technology development related to space-based OTV operations from the Station can be carried out with a minimum of change. Since the same relative arrangement is preserved between the Orbiter and the Station in this concept, we have the basis for early experimentation in servicing and perhaps even in carrying out OTV flights from the Space Station.
In this concept, we move progressively from technology development to full operational capability…The original STS platform remains the backbone of the Space Station, nothing becomes obsolete. The cargo bay, for example, having been used initially for technology development missions, is now diverted to other purposes, such as a base for teleoperators.
In summary, we at General Dynamics recognize our mutual need to find the right way to start the Space Station program. We suggest that early and serious consideration be given to the STS platform approach. Finding ways to reduce the cost of achieving a Space Station is the key to success. We see within the STS the technology resource and physical means that can make the initial Space Station possible.”
At:
ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19840026388/downloads/1984002...
See also:
www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/boldly-going-a-his...
Credit: "alternate history" website
Yet again, as if ALL of the above wasn’t enough – which it should be – it’s by Roy Gjertson!
WHO knew?
Did YOU?
I did NOT.
And…last, but not least:
e05.code.blog/2025/04/09/nasa-cr-173345/
Credit: Garrett O’Donoghue/Station E05 blog