I have Autodesk Inventor at work. I can't make any promises, but I'll see if I can import the eDrawing file and convert it into something useable. My manager has KeyCreator, which has more options...it might work for him if mine doesn't...Don't ask why we have 2 different software packages
A couple of days ago I watched Sandy Magnus working in one of the new crew quarters. Since the mic-cable wasn't long enough she had to partly communicate with MCC by hand signals through the video link.I was just wondering if there ever have been plans to use some sort of wireless headsets on the station. Not for "normal operations" of course, but for those (rare?) situations where they have either no mic around or need it very frequently.I totally understand that adding any new radio device to the station environment requires careful evaluation, so it won't be done without having a reasonable benefit.
The shuttle even had a wireless system. It ended up being a pain, with battery charging, and interference. Also always wearing it was a pain.That was years ago, maybe a WIFI or Bluetooth system could work
Not sure if this belongs in here or the shuttle Q&A, however I will post here. In the August 1999 version of Popular Science (yes, a little old!) There was talk of a proposed double docking module to be built by Spacehab so that Columbia could service the Station, and that it would not use an ODS. Anyone any more information about this proposed module?
Quote from: Ronsmytheiii on 12/23/2008 02:21 pmNot sure if this belongs in here or the shuttle Q&A, however I will post here. In the August 1999 version of Popular Science (yes, a little old!) There was talk of a proposed double docking module to be built by Spacehab so that Columbia could service the Station, and that it would not use an ODS. Anyone any more information about this proposed module?It would have had an APAS in the roof of the aft module. What else would you like to know?
Quote from: Ronsmytheiii on 12/23/2008 02:21 pmNot sure if this belongs in here or the shuttle Q&A, however I will post here. In the August 1999 version of Popular Science (yes, a little old!) There was talk of a proposed double docking module to be built by Spacehab so that Columbia could service the Station, and that it would not use an ODS. Anyone any more information about this proposed module?I saw some of the propaganda for this proposal - the core rationale for the APAS equipped Double Docking Module was to allow the Shuttle to be docked with ISS with the docking adapter in the centerline; this would presumably make attitude control by Shuttle much more efficient. Also, Shuttle would not have to carry ODS, which would increase performance.
Sorry if this is explained elsewhere, just give me a link if it is.I keep hearing that the station crew is going to be enlarged this year. Since the Soyuz can only hold three crew, what is the plan for lifeboats? Will there be two Soyuz?
Quote from: DJ Barney on 12/10/2008 03:58 pmI've reached an impasse with this model. I am unable to properly update it because I do not have a copy of Solidworks to import / export the eDrawing.I have Autodesk Inventor at work. I can't make any promises, but I'll see if I can import the eDrawing file and convert it into something useable. My manager has KeyCreator, which has more options...it might work for him if mine doesn't...Don't ask why we have 2 different software packages
I've reached an impasse with this model. I am unable to properly update it because I do not have a copy of Solidworks to import / export the eDrawing.
I was watching Mission to MIR (amazing on Blu-Ray BTW) and John Blaha mentioned that going from one module to an other took some getting used to because of the change in orientation (i.e. which way was considered "up") from module to module. On ISS, all the modules are oriented the same way. Was this by accident or design?
Quote from: NavySpaceFan on 01/16/2009 11:29 pmI was watching Mission to MIR (amazing on Blu-Ray BTW) and John Blaha mentioned that going from one module to an other took some getting used to because of the change in orientation (i.e. which way was considered "up") from module to module. On ISS, all the modules are oriented the same way. Was this by accident or design?By design. Only Node 3 will be in a different plane
By design. Only Node 3 will be in a different plane
Quote from: Jim on 01/16/2009 11:34 pmBy design. Only Node 3 will be in a different planeIsn't it going on port unity, how is this a different plane or was the internal up and down 'reference points' set before the move?