The laboratory is a cylindrical module designed to fit in the cargo bay of the Space Shuttle, very similar in shape to the Multi-Purpose Logistics Module. Once launched with Flight 1E, it will subsequently be attached at the Node 2's starboard side, with the cyclinder pointing outwards. The hatch is located in the port cone, most on-board computers in the starboard cone. The module contains 10 International Standard Payload Racks (ISPRs). 4 racks are located on the forward side, 4 on the aft side, 2 are in overhead locations. 3 deck racks are filled with life support and cooling systems, the remaining deck rack and 2 overhead racks are storage racks. Additional 4 Payloads can be attached as external payloads outside the port cone.
The following ISPRs payloads will be initially installed inside Columbus:
ESA's Board of Directors approved the Columbus program in 1985. From then on, numerous proposals were made. Initially it was to be Europe's own space station, serviced by the Hermes (shuttle). One variant would have included a free-flying unmanned experimentation platform, an Attached Pressurized Module (APM), and a communication satellite providing a link between both and to the ground.
It was eventually decided to make Columbus part of the greater International Space Station. After several budget cuts, all that remained was the APM, renamed to Columbus Orbital Facility.
External links
http://www.esa.int/export/esaHS/ESAFRG0VMOC_iss_0.html - provides more technical specifications
http://www.esa.int/export/esaHS/ESAAYI0VMOC_iss_0.html - ESA article
The Columbus flight structure, the micro-meteorite protection system, the active and passive thermal control, the environmental control, the harness and all the related ground support equipment, were built by Alenia Spazio in Turin, Italy.
However, NASA is now studying scenarios where Columbus (as well as the Japanese laboratory module) is removed from the Shuttle manifest and transferred to the future heavy lift launch vehicle derived from the Shuttle.
The final schedule was much longer than originally planned due to development problems (several caused by the complex responsibility splitting between the Co-prime and the Overall prime contractor) and design changes introduced by ESA but being affordable due to the Shuttle problems delaying the APM launch for several years.
Feeds |
Contact