If they needed to bring racks back - then it would be in the COTS requirements. The COTS requirement talks about Mid-deck locker equivs. Again - I'm left wondering why you would want to bring back a full rack...however....
....the requirement IS there for return of pressurised cargo capacity - and whilst details on the SpaceX design are a little vague they do show images that use the CBM as does theKistler design ( so big enough to push a full rack through ) with 900kg downhill capacity and mentions the use of racks within the module. A COTS contender with it's brain in gear would configure their pressurised modules such that it could take perhaps one or two racks - or insert into that rack space structures to take MLE's.
If Kistler get something working - the capacity to return racks will exist - ditto with SpaceX.
http://www.kistleraerospace.com/k1missions/cargomodule/cargomodule.html
What capacity uphill and downhill do you believe is lacking in the next 10 years - and what purpose would that capacity be used for - because at the moment, I'm not sure what you're going on about. Are you saying STS should continue to fly beyond 2010?
Doug
Space/Science » in reply to re: the downhill leg of the journey
re: the downhill leg of the journey
The whole thread (37 posts)
- Once the STS system is cancelled, how will large segments be transported to ISS?
- Hopefully all the heavy lift for ISS will be done first.
- re: There will always be heavy equipment to return to Earth so that doesn't work. (n/t)
- Why? I don't buy the assumption.
- I didn't say it was great.
- Do it the MIR / Skylab way
- re: I also didn't say you did. The real problem is the downhill leg of the journey. Non of the solutions right now take that in to consideration. (n/t)
- Not at the rate they're going
- re: There will always be heavy equipment to return to Earth so that doesn't work. (n/t)
- Hopefully all the heavy lift for ISS will be done first.