 Columbus MTFF station concept | |
| Station statistics | |
|---|---|
| Crew | 3 (visiting fromHermes) |
| Mission status | Cancelled |
| Mass | 17,600 kg (38,800 lb) |
| Length | 11.5 m (38 ft) |
| Diameter | 4.4 m (14 ft) |
| References:[1] | |
TheColumbus Man-Tended Free Flyer (MTFF) was aEuropean Space Agency (ESA) program to develop aspace 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,[1] and was cancelled while still in the planning stage. Aspects of the program were later realised in theColumbus science laboratory attached to theInternational Space Station (ISS).
ESA's Board of Directors approved the Columbus program in 1985. Like theMulti-Purpose Logistics Modules (MPLMs) and theAutomated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) resupply craft, Columbus traces its origins to Europe'sSpacelab.[2] The Columbus program was intended to supplementNASA'sSpace Station Freedom.
Initially the Columbus program included three flight configurations:
The entire Columbus package (MTFF, APM, PPF) was expected to cost $3.56 billion including launch and utilization. The estimated costs of the MTFF alone were $160–180 million in 1986.[1] The MTFF element would be serviced by theHermes spaceplane launched atop theAriane 5, flying periodically to the station for maintenance and reconfiguration. NASA approved the MTFF although it would require additional communications, docking facilities, data processing and other Station resources. Hermes would dock with the human-tended free-flyer to retrieve microgravity experiments.[1]
Since the initial plans, numerous studies and proposals were made. For development cost saving and optimization of spares provisioning during the operational phase commonality was foreseen between the flight configurations and to the space station (e.g. same computers used for all three elements, video and comms units identical to station equipment). When the complete phase C/D proposal (fixed price) was delivered end 1989 by the prime contractorMBB-ERNO it turned out that the costs were much higher than expected by ESA. The Columbus budget was trimmed slightly by canceling the smaller $145-million Eureca B platform. Hermes and Columbus would receive final approval in 1991. By this time, the cost ofGerman unification had forced Germany to demand a 15-20% reduction in ESA 1990-2000 spending and it was becoming increasingly clear either the German-led MTFF, Italian-led APM or French-led Hermes projects would have to be cancelled.[1] After several budget cuts, theCNES-led Hermes program was cancelled[when?] and the polar platform was contracted separately with commonality to the French satelliteHelios 2.[citation needed]
All that remained in the Columbus program was the APM, which was first renamed to "Columbus Orbital Facility" and later to just "Columbus". It was eventually redesigned to fit with the International Space Station (ISS).
When only the APM was left in ESA's Columbus program, there were not enough tasks for the two main contributors Germany and Italy represented byMBB-ERNO andAlenia respectively. As compromise thePre Integrated Columbus APM (PICA) principle was invented meaning a split systems engineering responsibility where Alenia as a co-prime is responsible for the overall Columbus configuration, the mechanical and thermal/life support systems, HFE and harness design/manufacturing whereasEADS Astrium Space Transportation is responsible for the overall Columbus design and all Avionics systems including electrical harness design and software.
ESA'sColumbus module on the International Space Station (ISS) was based on the APM. It was launched aboardSpace ShuttleAtlantis on February 7, 2008 on flightSTS-122.
| General |   .jpg)    _Alexander_Gerst.jpg) .jpg) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Facilities | |||||||||
| Earth-based activities | |||||||||
| Companies | |||||||||
| Crewed spacecraft |
| ||||||||
| Space stations |
| ||||||||
| Cargo spacecraft |
| ||||||||
| Missions |
| ||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Future missions initalics | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Current |  | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Past |
| ||||||||
| Canceled |
| ||||||||
| In development |
| ||||||||
| Proposed | |||||||||
| Concepts | |||||||||
| Related |
| ||||||||
Notes: † Never inhabited due to launch or on-orbit failure, ‡ Part of theAlmaz military program, ° Never inhabited, lacks docking mechanism. | |||||||||
