Author Topic: Does Node 3 attach to the nadir or to the port side of Unity?  (Read 34109 times)

Offline nisse

  • Member
  • Posts: 62
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 4
Does Node 3 attach to the nadir or to the port side of Unity?

Nasa has two images of the location but they differ. Which is the correct one?
Image of Port location:
http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/name_ISS/index.html
Image of Nadir location:
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/160551main_jsc2006e43516_high.jpg

Any idea if there was a change and if so, why?

Offline bobthemonkey

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1056
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 26
The Port CBM is now the final location for Node 3.

IIRC the change was due to a number of factors, in cluding ensuring clearence on Zarya nadir to ensure it is available for use, as well as reducing the MMOD risk.

Offline MikeMi.

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 601
  • Gd, Poland
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
And the final location of Cupola is the Port CBM of Node 3 (Tranquality) with the viev squarely on Kibo, yes?

Offline glanmor05

  • BWFC Fan
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
  • It's not all tea and medals!
  • Blackpool, England
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 0
PMA3 is soon to be re-located from Unity Nadir to Unity Port (according to the ISS schedule of events thread), so is there to be another swap before Node 3 flies?
"Through struggles, to the stars."

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
PMA3 is soon to be re-located from Unity Nadir to Unity Port (according to the ISS schedule of events thread), so is there to be another swap before Node 3 flies?

Yes.
JRF

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
And the final location of Cupola is the Port CBM of Node 3 (Tranquality) with the viev squarely on Kibo, yes?

No, nadir. As shown in the second image in the original post in the thread.
« Last Edit: 04/15/2009 10:15 pm by Jorge »
JRF

Offline glanmor05

  • BWFC Fan
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
  • It's not all tea and medals!
  • Blackpool, England
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 0
PMA3 is soon to be re-located from Unity Nadir to Unity Port (according to the ISS schedule of events thread), so is there to be another swap before Node 3 flies?

Yes.

So let me get this straight.  PMA 3 will be re-located early July to the Port CBM of Unity, not be used (according to ISS Scedule of Events thread), then be re-re-located back to Nadir before the middle of December when Node 3 will be attached to the Port CBM?

That sounds like nonsense to me.
"Through struggles, to the stars."

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
PMA3 is soon to be re-located from Unity Nadir to Unity Port (according to the ISS schedule of events thread), so is there to be another swap before Node 3 flies?

Yes.

So let me get this straight.  PMA 3 will be re-located early July to the Port CBM of Unity, not be used (according to ISS Scedule of Events thread), then be re-re-located back to Nadir before the middle of December when Node 3 will be attached to the Port CBM?

That sounds like nonsense to me.

Sounds to me like they need to do some CBM reconfiguration.

Don't be so quick to judge.
JRF

Offline glanmor05

  • BWFC Fan
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
  • It's not all tea and medals!
  • Blackpool, England
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 0
On the other thread it quotes the Expedition 19/20 Press Kit:

"Early July - Relocation of PMA-3 from Unity nadir to Unity port to prepare for the arrival of the Node 3/Cupola in 2010" ???

I suppose my question is, any chance picture 1 is correct (again), especially given the lack of any real reason for the PMA3 ballet otherwise?
« Last Edit: 04/15/2009 10:59 pm by glanmor05 »
"Through struggles, to the stars."

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
  • Liked: 981
  • Likes Given: 347
Perhaps the arms can't reach to install tranquillity straight to the port CBM and it needs to be temporarily moved to nadir first.

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
PMA3 is soon to be re-located from Unity Nadir to Unity Port (according to the ISS schedule of events thread), so is there to be another swap before Node 3 flies?

Yes.

So let me get this straight.  PMA 3 will be re-located early July to the Port CBM of Unity, not be used (according to ISS Scedule of Events thread), then be re-re-located back to Nadir before the middle of December when Node 3 will be attached to the Port CBM?

That sounds like nonsense to me.

Yes it would if you would make a quick snap judgement without checking for data or reading the other threads on this topic.

The Node 3 was originall scheduled for the nadir.  Node 1 was plumbed for that position.  Node 1 now has to be replumbed with all the power, data, air flow etc to go to the port.  To do that we need a pressurized module on the other side of the bulkhead to do the work.  PMA3 will be relocated to provide that volume.  This way, on 20A Node 3 When done, it will then be relocated back to the nadir.  Do we have your approval now?

Offline cd-slam

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
  • Singapore
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 315
The Node 3 was originall scheduled for the nadir.  Node 1 was plumbed for that position.  Node 1 now has to be replumbed with all the power, data, air flow etc to go to the port.  To do that we need a pressurized module on the other side of the bulkhead to do the work.  PMA3 will be relocated to provide that volume. When done, it will then be relocated back to the nadir.
Thanks erioladastra for the explanation. Finally all becomes clear! :O)

Offline glanmor05

  • BWFC Fan
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
  • It's not all tea and medals!
  • Blackpool, England
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 0
PMA3 is soon to be re-located from Unity Nadir to Unity Port (according to the ISS schedule of events thread), so is there to be another swap before Node 3 flies?

Yes.

So let me get this straight.  PMA 3 will be re-located early July to the Port CBM of Unity, not be used (according to ISS Scedule of Events thread), then be re-re-located back to Nadir before the middle of December when Node 3 will be attached to the Port CBM?

That sounds like nonsense to me.

Yes it would if you would make a quick snap judgement without checking for data or reading the other threads on this topic.

The Node 3 was originall scheduled for the nadir.  Node 1 was plumbed for that position.  Node 1 now has to be replumbed with all the power, data, air flow etc to go to the port.  To do that we need a pressurized module on the other side of the bulkhead to do the work.  PMA3 will be relocated to provide that volume.  This way, on 20A Node 3 When done, it will then be relocated back to the nadir.  Do we have your approval now?

That all makes sense.  Always had my approval, just didn't understand (which in itself isn't unusual).  Always best to ask?

Not sure that that full an explanation has been provided on any other (L1) thread (I can't find it).  Sorry if my bad choice of words caused offense.


"Through struggles, to the stars."

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4046
  • Likes Given: 2089
That all makes sense.  Always had my approval, just didn't understand (which in itself isn't unusual).  Always best to ask?
Sure, but just ask.  Calling it nonsense isn't asking.

Offline nisse

  • Member
  • Posts: 62
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 4
Why is the change not reflected in the images online?

Offline glanmor05

  • BWFC Fan
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
  • It's not all tea and medals!
  • Blackpool, England
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 0
That all makes sense.  Always had my approval, just didn't understand (which in itself isn't unusual).  Always best to ask?
Sure, but just ask.  Calling it nonsense isn't asking.


OK my bad.

I just meant that it (the plan) made no sense (not the answer provided).  As it turns out, that's because a vital piece of information was missing. 

Now provided by erioladastra, thanks. 
"Through struggles, to the stars."

Offline PaulyFirmbiz

  • Member
  • Posts: 44
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Why is the change not reflected in the images online?

As per the Russians and European websites and now even Nasa, most of the updated computer models images of Alpha all have node 3 (tranquility) latched onto Port side CBM.. i am in no way a professional in the space field (as much as i would love to be) but i always thought node 3 looked much better on the nadar cbm then Port.. i understand the margins with the russian segments going but but if there was ever to be additions to the station via the cbms the only feasable place would be unity nadar or even harmony nadar.. i remember reading on this site about the brits possible adding the HEM modules to tranquility port and starboard CBMS but i guess that was just like everything else in the space world... ALL TALK NO ACTION..

it really is a shame that they will have all those open slots and nothing to add to them..

Offline nisse

  • Member
  • Posts: 62
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 4
And the final location of Cupola is the Port CBM of Node 3 (Tranquality) with the viev squarely on Kibo, yes?

I thought the purpose of Cupola was to have a view of the station while controlling the Canadarm2?

Why is Cupola not on the V-bar CBM of Node3 in order to have the same orientation it would have had if Node3 was in the Nadir CBM of Unity?

Or has the prime objective of Cupola been changed from Canadarm2 control to earth observation? Or have I gotten it all wrong?
« Last Edit: 04/17/2009 06:49 am by nisse »

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Canadarm2 works just fine without Cupola since 2001. You would see Kibo, Kibo logistics, the Lab port side and S0 from Node 3 forward. Not a nice view.

Analyst

Offline hanschristian

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 136
  • Pinoy Space geek
  • Imus, Cavite, Philippines
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
and placing Cupola on Node 3 nadir makes perfect sense for observation, since it will allow a full 360 degree view of the entire Earth below...
The Sky is NOT the Limit...

Offline Sesquipedalian

  • Whee!
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 729
  • Liked: 302
  • Likes Given: 987
From what I understand, the only reason Node 3 is going on the port side is because otherwise it would get in the way of the installation of the Russian MLM.  Is this correct?  If so, why isn't the MLM being installed first?

Even if Node 3 has to be installed first, for whatever reason, can't they temporarily mount it on the port side until the MLM arrives, and then move it?  They did that with Node 2 due to the need to juggle it and PMA-2.
« Last Edit: 04/17/2009 09:40 pm by Sesquipedalian »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
1.  If so, why isn't the MLM being installed first?

2.  Even if Node 3 has to be installed first, for whatever reason, can't they temporarily mount it on the port side until the MLM arrives, and then move it?  They did that with Node 2 due to the need to juggle it and PMA-2.

1. Not ready for months

2.  Not the same thing.  It would not be usable while "temporarily" mounted for months

Offline Sesquipedalian

  • Whee!
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 729
  • Liked: 302
  • Likes Given: 987
What if Node 3 was "permanently" mounted to nadir, and then the day before MLM arrived, they moved it to port, and then once MLM docked, they moved it back to nadir?
« Last Edit: 04/17/2009 10:07 pm by Sesquipedalian »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
There are other issues and Jorge or Eric will provide them

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Boils down to "moving Node 3 temporarily would be a lot more trouble than it's worth."
JRF

Offline MikeMi.

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 601
  • Gd, Poland
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Boils down to "moving Node 3 temporarily would be a lot more trouble than it's worth."

Yes, it seems really not worth of moving this module (to nadir location).
Is there also reason to keep Node-3 attached to port CBM of Unity in order to avoid some MMOD risk (I bet that somwhere I heard it earlier).

With Cupola in nadir CBM we have also most clear viev for incomin HTV or Dragon/Cygnus in future. Am I thinking correctly?

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Boils down to "moving Node 3 temporarily would be a lot more trouble than it's worth."

Yes, it seems really not worth of moving this module (to nadir location).
Is there also reason to keep Node-3 attached to port CBM of Unity in order to avoid some MMOD risk (I bet that somwhere I heard it earlier).

I don't know. It might be; the node would be partially shadowed by Kibo and the truss with ISS flying in the TEA attitude.

Quote
With Cupola in nadir CBM we have also most clear viev for incomin HTV or Dragon/Cygnus in future. Am I thinking correctly?

That is correct. A view out the Cupola is not a requirement for free-flyer track and capture (IIRC the first HTV berthing will occur prior to the arrival of the Cupola), but it is a large advantage and since track-and-capture is going to become a fairly frequent thing, it makes sense to do so for the long term.
JRF

Offline MikeMi.

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 601
  • Gd, Poland
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Thanks for answers Jorge  :)

I don't know. It might be; the node would be partially shadowed by Kibo and the truss with ISS flying in the TEA attitude.

Hmm by the way, cause normally Kibo and Columbus are showin direction of moving, do these modules have sth like improved MMOD shields?

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Boils down to "moving Node 3 temporarily would be a lot more trouble than it's worth."

Yes, it seems really not worth of moving this module (to nadir location).
Is there also reason to keep Node-3 attached to port CBM of Unity in order to avoid some MMOD risk (I bet that somwhere I heard it earlier).
 

No,in fact the MMOD on the forward facing side of Node 3 had to be modified for its new location.

Offline blueguitarbob

  • Member
  • Posts: 52
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 2
Why is the change not reflected in the images online?
As per the Russians and European websites and now even Nasa, most of the updated computer models images of Alpha all have node 3 (tranquility) latched onto Port side CBM..


If there are any Wikipedia editors monitoring, the exploded diagram at the ISS wiki page could use updating as to Node 3 and Cupola location:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ISS_configuration_2009-03_en.svg


Offline ShuttleDiscovery

  • NASA's first teenage astronaut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2125
  • UK
    • Shuttle Discovery's Space Page
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Why is the change not reflected in the images online?
As per the Russians and European websites and now even Nasa, most of the updated computer models images of Alpha all have node 3 (tranquility) latched onto Port side CBM..


If there are any Wikipedia editors monitoring, the exploded diagram at the ISS wiki page could use updating as to Node 3 and Cupola location:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ISS_configuration_2009-03_en.svg



It already has been. If you look the line from Node 3 goes round to the port side of Node 1.

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 1275
If there are any Wikipedia editors monitoring, the exploded diagram at the ISS wiki page could use updating as to Node 3 and Cupola location:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ISS_configuration_2009-03_en.svg


It already has been. If you look the line from Node 3 goes round to the port side of Node 1.

Still easy to miss. I guess the graphics designer wanted all the modules close together.
It would 'collide' with the SPDM close to the port side. I guess whoever created it didn't want anything shown further away.

Offline Colds7ream

  • Tomorrow's Flight Surgeon
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 185
  • Scientia Dabit Alas
  • RAF Akrotiri, Cyprus
    • SalopianJames - en Wikipedia
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Well, I'm not exactly an expert at SVG, and when I updated the diagram to reflect the change, it seemed easiest to make the change that way than rearrange everything at that end of the diagram. :-)

Offline phxcmd

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Ok, probably a stupid question from a noob so please be forgiving ;D:
Knowing full well its too late to make changes, was it ever considered putting Node 3 in the forward CBM of Node 2?
(ie: temporarily putting PMA 2 on the zenith side of Node 2 for shuttle dock, then putting Node 3 in its place.  Putting PMA 2 on the forward side of Node 3 but keeping the Cupola on the Nadir CBM for observation)

My guess is that it would be hard to relocate PMA 2 with the station's arm.  But I honestly don't know.  So I'm asking?

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8839
  • Lower 48
  • Liked: 60430
  • Likes Given: 1305
 Actually, it's not too late. Now that they've decided to leave one of the logistics modules permanently attached, the Node 3 location might go back to Node 1 nadir again. Much discussed on another thread.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16882.135
« Last Edit: 08/14/2009 08:06 pm by Nomadd »
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Ok, probably a stupid question from a noob so please be forgiving ;D:
Knowing full well its too late to make changes, was it ever considered putting Node 3 in the forward CBM of Node 2?

No.

Quote
(ie: temporarily putting PMA 2 on the zenith side of Node 2 for shuttle dock, then putting Node 3 in its place.  Putting PMA 2 on the forward side of Node 3 but keeping the Cupola on the Nadir CBM for observation)

My guess is that it would be hard to relocate PMA 2 with the station's arm.  But I honestly don't know.  So I'm asking?

If they had even considered the idea, they would not have done it the way you describe. It would have been more like 120, where the orbiter docked to PMA-2 on the Lab as normal, Node 2 was berthed in a temporary location, then after shuttle undocking PMA-2 berthed to Node 2 and the Node 2/PMA-2 combination reberthed to the Lab.
JRF

Offline Chandonn

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1240
  • "Pudding!!! UNLIMITED Rice Pudding!!!"
  • Lexington, Ky
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 17
Actually, it's not too late. Now that they've decided to leave one of the logistics modules permanently attached, the Node 3 location might go back to Node 2 nadir again. Much discussed on another thread.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16882.135

You mean Node 1 nadir.  Node 2 nadir is for MPLM/HLV/Dragon berthings.
If I understand it right, there is simply not enough "plumbing" for Node 3 to be at the front of Node 2, and Node 1 nadir or port are therefore prefferable.  The Node 3 nadir location will cause some clearance issues at least until the Russian Mini-research Module is berthed at Zarya nadir.

Offline fotoguzzi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 335
  • Phobos first!
  • PDX, Oregon, USA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
USA Today has a nice flashimation on ISS.  New to me.  Perhaps it has been around a while:

http://i.usatoday.net/tech/graphics/iss_timeline/flash.htm
My other rocket is a DIRECT Project 2

Offline phxcmd

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I could see plumbing being an issue.  Thanks for the info.

Offline axmor61

  • Member
  • Posts: 41
  • Port Saint Lucie, Fl
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 8
Does anybody know if the Node 3 Umbilical tray in the S0 truss, originally designed for Unity's nadir port location, will be useful now that the Node 3 configuration has been changed to the port side?

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4046
  • Likes Given: 2089
USA Today has a nice flashimation on ISS.  New to me.  Perhaps it has been around a while:

http://i.usatoday.net/tech/graphics/iss_timeline/flash.htm
A little while:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17070.0

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8839
  • Lower 48
  • Liked: 60430
  • Likes Given: 1305
Actually, it's not too late. Now that they've decided to leave one of the logistics modules permanently attached, the Node 3 location might go back to Node 2 nadir again. Much discussed on another thread.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16882.135

You mean Node 1 nadir.  Node 2 nadir is for MPLM/HLV/Dragon berthings.
If I understand it right, there is simply not enough "plumbing" for Node 3 to be at the front of Node 2, and Node 1 nadir or port are therefore prefferable.  The Node 3 nadir location will cause some clearance issues at least until the Russian Mini-research Module is berthed at Zarya nadir.

 I can design radars. I just can't count to three.
 I think NASA would have preferred to switch the MRM to an earlier flight to settle the clearance issues, but they don't want to bet the farm on it being ready when it's suppose to be.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Even with MRM-1 located at FGB Nadir, if Node 3 were later moved to Node 1 Nadir, there would subsequently be a very tight fit for Soyuz or Progress to dock with MRM-1, and in the event of an automatic abort, Soyuz or Progress might impinge on Node 3. I am using "impinge" in the sense of "smash into and put a hole in".

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Does anybody know if the Node 3 Umbilical tray in the S0 truss, originally designed for Unity's nadir port location, will be useful now that the Node 3 configuration has been changed to the port side?

Same cable connections whether on Node 1 port or nadir - just different routing.

Offline anik

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7776
  • Liked: 955
  • Likes Given: 368
Even with MRM-1 located at FGB Nadir, if Node 3 were later moved to Node 1 Nadir, there would subsequently be a very tight fit for Soyuz or Progress to dock with MRM-1, and in the event of an automatic abort, Soyuz or Progress might impinge on Node 3

Nadir port on MRM-1 will be used for Soyuz spacecrafts only.

Offline Space Pete

(Note: Sorry if I am posting this in the wrong place ;))

My thought is: Would it not be possible to move Node 3 to either the nadir or zenith port of Node 2?

If Node 3 was moved to the nadir of Node 2, it would have to be done using the SSRMS after the Shuttle had retired (to avoid clearance issues with payload removal from Shuttle’s payload bay). And, of course, some extra plumbing & electrical work would be needed.


If Node 3 were berthed to the nadir of Node 2, it would still be possible to berth the HTV to the nadir-facing port (which would really be the forward port) of Node 3, because Node 3's forward port is an ACBM, and the HTV has a PCBM.

(I think) Node 3 will have a PDGF, so the SSRMS could be operated from Node 3, which would provide the proper reach to grapple the HTV.

Cupola could then go on the forward facing port of Node 3, which would provide awesome views of Earth, and better views for HTV berthing.

Or, PMA-2 could be re-located to the nadir-facing port (again, which would really be the forward port) of Node 3, as it will no longer be needed for the Shuttle, and then Cupola could go on the forward port of Node 2. HTV + 2x MPLM's (PLM's) could then be berthed to the forward, aft, port, or starboard facing ports of Node 3 (which are all ACBM's).


The same would also be possible if Node 3 were berthed to the zenith port of Node 2.


It seems to me like a bit of a waste to berth Node 3 to Node 1 port, when most of Node 3’s available CBM's would be obstructed by other modules. To me at least, it seems that Node 3’s potential could be maximised by berthing it to either the nadir or zenith of Node 2.
« Last Edit: 08/16/2009 01:10 am by Space Pete »
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
  • Liked: 981
  • Likes Given: 347
I don't think the plumbing for the ECLSS etc in node 3 can be arranged for it to be anywhere other than node 1 port or nadir.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Offline Space Pete

I don't think the plumbing for the ECLSS etc in node 3 can be arranged for it to be anywhere other than node 1 port or nadir.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I think all plumbing has to come from the S0 Truss.

But surely, extra-long cables could be manufactured, that could reach to Node 2??
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 1275
I don't think the plumbing for the ECLSS etc in node 3 can be arranged for it to be anywhere other than node 1 port or nadir.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I think all plumbing has to come from the S0 Truss.

But surely, extra-long cables could be manufactured, that could reach to Node 2??

No, he's talking about internal plumbing and electrical available within the CBM vestibule - water (coolant), heater/keep-alive power, sensors, network, etc.

Offline Space Pete

I don't think the plumbing for the ECLSS etc in node 3 can be arranged for it to be anywhere other than node 1 port or nadir.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I think all plumbing has to come from the S0 Truss.

But surely, extra-long cables could be manufactured, that could reach to Node 2??

No, he's talking about internal plumbing and electrical available within the CBM vestibule - water (coolant), heater/keep-alive power, sensors, network, etc.


Aah, I see.

Would there be no way to re-route those connections through the stand-offs* in Destiny & Harmony?

*
« Last Edit: 08/16/2009 01:38 am by Space Pete »
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428

Would there be no way to re-route those connections through the stand-offs* in Destiny & Harmony?


No, the issue is getting the resources into the module.  The stand-offs just get the resources into the racks

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0

Would there be no way to re-route those connections through the stand-offs* in Destiny & Harmony?


No, the issue is getting the resources into the module.  The stand-offs just get the resources into the racks

In theory you could do it.  As it is we are rerouting the plumbing from Node 1 nadir to Node 1 port.  However, going through Node 2 which is very dense with equipment (less so in Node 1) would be extremely hard work. 

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1