-
There are 2 excellent Shuttle Q&A threads in the general discussion forum. I've really enjoyed both even if I've not posted. On the ISS forum however the questions are rather diversified over several threads which makes searching difficult and as a result sometimes causes doubling up of questions. I thought it would be a good idea to start a general ISS Q&A thread to serve as a knowledge centre for all readers and posters that have questions about the ISS. (There is an ISS assembly questions thread, but I was thinking more of a general questions thread.)
I'll start of with a few questions of my own:
1. Laundry. You hear a lot about the 'common tasks' that are a little different in space. Examples are food, hygiene, etc. However I have never heard how/if astronauts wash their clothing on the ISS. On the other hand, you do hear a lot about 'new sets of clothes' being brought up and dirty clothes being brought down. Is there no washing machine on the ISS? If not, is it too difficult/expensive to design one?
2. Oxygen generation. I know that the STS-121 mission brought up a new oxygen generator to the ISS that, when working together with the russian Elektron oxygen generator, will provide oxygen capacity for roughly 4 persons. Is this generator already tested/turned on? If not, how to provide oxygen currently for 3 persons? (Elektron provides oxygen for 2) And, when will it be turned on?
3. PVR's. I've never quite understood how these work, can anyone give a brief explanation?
That should be enough for a kick off. :)
Moderators, if this is considered a bad idea or if you don't like it for any other reason, feel free to modify/delete it. ;)
Regards,
Spiff
-
No washing machine. If you consider, it's pretty obvious - it's much cheaper to lift clean clothes to orbit than the much larger mass of water needed for washing those clothes (and thus wasted). Also, how would you dry them?
-
Not sure what you mean, exactly, about how the PVR's work, apart from being solar cell arrays.
-
MKremer - 16/9/2006 10:51 AM
Not sure what you mean, exactly, about how the PVR's work, apart from being solar cell arrays.
I'm not sure either, but he could be referring to the Photo Voltaic Radiators on each of the truss segments.
(Common point of confusion: those radiators don't literally cool the solar arrays... there are no coolant lines running through them. The radiators are there to cool all the batteries and electronics stuffed inside the truss segment.)
--
JRF
-
OK, yeah, that makes some sense. Some folks do wonder why spacecraft (or the ISS) would need radiators.
After all, they're in space where it's usually cold, right? ;) ;)
Electronics, especially power conversion and distribution modules, aren't 100% efficient - meaning a percentage of the input power gets converted to heat. Just like your average PC needs its own heat sink, electronics in space need their own heat sinks and a way to radiate that heat into space.
Since there's no air to distribute the heat into (and you don't want it done into the crew modules) you need a way to take the heat from the electronics and transfer it to a large enough space radiator for efficient heat dissipation.
Power converter and distribution electronics generate a lot of heat (lots of power, combined with less than 100% conversion efficiency). Liquid cooling works best in those cases, and running that heated fluid through large radiators exposed to space converts the heat in the fluid to infrared radiant energy, which in turn cools the fluid.
The same thing is done with Shuttle orbiters and their payload bay door radiators. The difference is the ISS uses long panel arrays, instead.
-
what do astronaust wear in space during their stays at the station and how long is a set of clothes considered to be good for before it is taken back to earth and before astronauts launch do they get to pick what clothes will be launched up to them later in their mission or do they just have to live with what they get?
-
IIRC, much of the clothing is aready sized and fit for them some months before their flights. A few items are returned (probably the most expensive to make), but I gather a lot of clothing is dumped into a disposal bag for Progress or a future MPLM for disposal.
I don't know what would sort of time or wear period would be considered for classification as 'dirty', but I'd guess that clothing worn during exercise periods would be discarded much more quickly than others (or more specialized clothing, like mission jumpsuits or fluid-control pants).
-
Jorge, MKremer,
yea, I mean the radiators, not the solar arrays themselves. And, I gathered more or less that that's how they're supposed to work, but, I don't quite see how that could work during orbital day when the sun is shining rather brightly on those same radiators. Are they only turned on during night? Also, how can you radiate heat into the vacuum of space?
IOW, I kinda get it, but not completely. :)
Oh yea, and about the washing machine. That kinda makes sense, but still, I guess there could also be developed a system that could filter the water and use it again. And a dryer could also be developed I suppose....
Then again, probably it's not that obvious, or they would have done so long ago...
-
Spiff - 16/9/2006 4:22 PM
yea, I mean the radiators, not the solar arrays themselves. And, I gathered more or less that that's how they're supposed to work, but, I don't quite see how that could work during orbital day when the sun is shining rather brightly on those same radiators. Are they only turned on during night? Also, how can you radiate heat into the vacuum of space?
.
They face away and on edge to the sun.
Basic physics. Heat transfer is but 3 methods. conductive, convective and radiant. Radiant needs no medium to work. Just a temp difference
-
MKremer - 17/9/2006 12:32 AM
No washing machine. If you consider, it's pretty obvious - it's much cheaper to lift clean clothes to orbit than the much larger mass of water needed for washing those clothes (and thus wasted). Also, how would you dry them?
You can do laundry up there, after a fashion: Ken Bowersox demonstrated in one of the Expedition 6 videos (last one at bottom of page) how to wash favorite items of clothing: the clothes are first put into a plastic bag, into which is squirted water and soap. After several minutes of squeezing and prodding, the clothes are taken out and rinsed with more water in a separate bag. Russian wet/dry towels are used to squeeze as much water out as possible, then the clothes are secured behind bungee cords in Zarya to dry, which they do after around three hours. All evaporated water is reclaimed by the SRV-K2M condensate water processor that separates it into gas and liquid, then purifies and recycles the evaporate as potable water.
-
Spiff - 17/9/2006 12:07 AM
2. Oxygen generation. I know that the STS-121 mission brought up a new oxygen generator to the ISS that, when working together with the russian Elektron oxygen generator, will provide oxygen capacity for roughly 4 persons. Is this generator already tested/turned on? If not, how to provide oxygen currently for 3 persons? (Elektron provides oxygen for 2) And, when will it be turned on?
The U.S.-made Oxygen Generation System was brought up on STS-121 in July 2006 (the NASA article somewhat pointedly remarks that the OGS “promises to provide the International Space Station crew with more breathable air – in a more reliable way.”). It will not be up and running until 2007. It is manufactured by Hamilton Sundstrand. James Oberg has an article on the Elektron Device; see also "Oxygen problems plague Space Station".
-
Thanks for answers again everyone.
Jim, I'll google that for more info. Thanks
Suzy, thanks also, nice links. Any reason why it won't be turned on until 2007?
-
Spiff - 17/9/2006 8:56 PM
Thanks for answers again everyone.
Jim, I'll google that for more info. Thanks
Suzy, thanks also, nice links. Any reason why it won't be turned on until 2007?
I think the reason is it needs to undergo some tests in orbit (note: document isn't online anymore):
Feb 1, 10:09 PM
Generator to fly sooner
NASA wants backup oxygen maker on station before crew expansion
BY CHRIS KRIDLER
FLORIDA TODAY
NASA has moved up the launch of a new oxygen generator, which will fly to the International Space Station as soon as 2007.
It not only will provide a backup for the frequently troubled Russian oxygen generator, the Elektron, but it will support expansion of the station crew, officials said.
"Having another system up there helps build redundancy into the system and helps make the station more robust," said Dave Parker, manager for the project at Hamilton Sundstrand.
The company is developing the generator and plans to deliver it to NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center next month, so it can be integrated with its power supply.
Kennedy Space Center should get the generator by the end of the year, said Marshall's Bob Bagdigian, manager for the Regenerative Environmental Control Life Support System.
It's scheduled to fly in a cargo module about May 2007, he said, depending on how the schedule unfolds when the shuttles start flying this May.
It will be installed in the station's U.S. laboratory. Previously, it was to be housed in the yet-to-fly European-built Node 3.
If there were an earlier opportunity to fly the new oxygen generator, "the program would like to take advantage of that," Bagdigian said. It could be a backup for the Elektron sooner, and an earlier delivery would allow testing of its systems before the crew is expanded beyond two or three people.
"We'd like to get to orbit as soon as we can and do some checkout on it and make sure everything's in order before the program has to depend on it," he said.
The Elektron and the new system convert water into oxygen and hydrogen through electrolysis. An electrolyte is needed to complete the electrical circuit that makes the process work. The bubble-prone Russian system uses a liquid electrolyte, but the new U.S. system uses a solid one, Bagdigian said.
"You don't have to worry about the electrolyte leaking," he said.
"We've been building this basic technology in a lot of different forms for different customers over the years," including Navy submarines, Hamilton Sundstrand's Parker said. The difference is that the space hardware must be small and light and use as little power as possible.
The company, which produces a lot of space and spacesuit hardware, is working closely with NASA to make sure the generator is safe, Parker said.
"It has to be handled very, very carefully," he said.
"We're looking forward to delivering it," Bagdigian said. "We think it will be a useful addition to the program and one that will give them a lot more on-orbit capability and flexibility."
Contact Kridler at 242-3633 or [email protected]
Hardware facts
What: Oxygen Generation Assembly
Supplier: Hamilton Sundstrand, working with NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center
Purpose: Produces oxygen for International Space Station
Delivery to Kennedy Space Center: End of 2005
Expected launch on shuttle: Spring 2007
Station berth: U.S. Destiny lab (formerly slated for European Node 3)
-
I have this question:
Do you remember that broken CMG (CMG-1) which was replaced during STS-114 last year and returned back?
Any information on what was found after opening it, reason for failure, etc?
-
I'm hoping the new oxygen generator will work well. Don't get me wrong, I think the Elektron is a magnificent machine despite it's temper. But it will be good to have two systems in order to provide redundancy.
Additional question. From Suzy's link: The decomposition of 1 kg (2.2 lbs) of water yields 25 L (0.88 ft3) of oxygen per hour at a pressure of 760 mmHg, which is enough to support one crew member for one day.
That would mean that if you run the system 24 hours per day you could theoretically provide oxygen for 24 people. Right? So why have I seen it listed so far as supporting a maximum of 2 persons? Limited water supply?
The OGS provides approx. 6 kg of oxygen per day normally. (Six crewmembers) Is this at 24 hour/day operation? Or does it run only a few hours per day (as elektron seems to do.)
-
Another question:
How do the different docking mechanisms (APAS, CBM, Russian (don't know the name of the russian system) ) compare in terms of inner diameter? IOW, what is the maximum payload diameter that can be taken up by soyuz/progress/ATV (Russian docking) MPLM/HTV (CBM) and Shuttle (APAS)?
-
It is elsewhere on another thread but APAS and Progress are around 33-36". CBM is XX
-
Jim - 21/9/2006 6:15 AM
It is elsewhere on another thread but APAS and Progress are around 33-36". CBM is XX
CBM hatch is 54", or about 1370 mm, square.
APAS and the standard probe & drogue hatch used on Soyuz and Progress are 800 mm, or about 31.5".
The hybrid probe & drogue hatch (of which Zvezda zenith is the only open port) is 1100 mm, or about 43.3".
--
JRF
-
I know there is a difference between an APAS and Progress
-
Any info on the LIDS?
-
same as APAS. It will use the same tunnel on the CEV. APAS will be used for ISS and LIDS for LSAM
-
Jorge - 21/9/2006 7:07 PM
The hybrid probe & drogue hatch (of which Zvezda zenith is the only open port) is 1100 mm, or about 43.3".
--
JRF
I didn't know this existed.
In which way is it 'hybrid?' is it meant for new kinds of russian vehicles/modules? Or something else?
-
Spiff - 26/9/2006 3:41 PM
Jorge - 21/9/2006 7:07 PM
The hybrid probe & drogue hatch (of which Zvezda zenith is the only open port) is 1100 mm, or about 43.3".
--
JRF
I didn't know this existed.
In which way is it 'hybrid?' is it meant for new kinds of russian vehicles/modules? Or something else?
It's a hybrid between the standard probe & drogue and APAS. The standard probe & drogue is intended for docking small spacecraft like Soyuz/Progress while APAS has a wider structural ring with higher stiffness for docking hundred-ton vehicles together like Buran/Mir. The hybrid interface uses the APAS structural ring but with a probe & drogue capture mechanism.
--
JRF
-
Can it only be used with a probe & drogue? Or also with an active APAS on the other side?
After all APAS implies that it's Androgynous, and that 1 active side can dock with a passive side.
-
Spiff - 26/9/2006 3:57 PM
Can it only be used with a probe & drogue? Or also with an active APAS on the other side?
After all APAS implies that it's Androgynous, and that 1 active side can dock with a passive side.
The Hybrid probe can only be used with a Hybrid drogue, but the mechanism can be swapped in-space with a passive APAS to accommodate an active APAS. That was the plan for docking the Interim Control Module to the FGB, had that become necessary.
--
JRF
-
What are the computer systems like on the ISS? I always see those laptops in the videos. What are the specs on those? Are these used to actually control the ISS systems or just used for experiments and email and stuff?
Also, is it true that computers in space are usually a couple years behind because they need to be hardened and tested with radiation to make sure they'll be ok?
-
The laptops are the crew interface. At assembly complete, there will be 44 Multiplexers/Demultiplexers(MDMs) that run all the ISS systems.
-
The laptops are IBM thinkpads http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/space/space_thinkpad.html
That article as a bit old, most (if not all) the 760XD have been replaced with A31p
This page describes the modifications to the older models http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=213
-
The Thinkpad/laptop decisions for the major computing capabilities for the ISS have done remarkably well. (ok, once the hard drive situation was taken care of :) )
Unless you want to spend big, BIG, dollars for 99.99% rad-hard computing capabilities, you just have to live with random downtimes due to bit-flips, reboots, and resets. Fortunately, the ISS data processing hardware/software folks took all that into consideration and have done a tremendous job planning and keeping everything up and running, even through random, individual faults/failures.
-
The laptops are only for crew interface. The MDM's are the real controllers
-
Any specs on the MDM's
-
Any specs on the MDM's
-
Any specs on the MDM's
-
darn - triple post - sorry
-
Thanks for the responses.
I'm a little confused though, isn't an MDM just a device for encoding/decoding communications signals? Does this mean that all critical systems are actually just controlled from the ground and commands are sent up?
-
It depends on how you define the MDM. On the ISS, they are computers.
-
nethegauner - 11/10/2006 1:59 AM
I have a feeling, STS-119 will be dropped from the manifest for good with S6 remaining on the ground. Of course, I do not have an insider's knowledge -- it's just a gut feeling.
I've taken the liberty of quoting the above speculations from a current L2 thread - after all, they're just speculations, not privileged information.
Anyway, this begs the question of how much power margin the finished station will actually have.
Would there actually be enough power to operate the entire station, including all the international modules, even without the S6 arrays?
Or if problems arose during the P6 retraction or relocation leaving P6 inoperable for some reason?
-
A shuttle not launched is a billion dollars saved.
However if there's a failure in one of the other solar arrays - an MMOD hit for instance - you would be happy with a pair of extra wings.
-
dutch courage - 11/10/2006 11:02 AM
A shuttle not launched is a billion dollars saved.
Only at the end of the program, if it helps you retire the fleet earlier and eliminate the overhead costs of the program.
Mid-program, a shuttle not launched simply puts a three-month hole in the manifest. The program would still burn through a billion dollars every three months anyway, just as it did during the post-accident grounding period.
--
JRF
-
Does anybody know what tasks will be preformed during the november 22/23 EVA by Tyurin and Lopez-Alegria?
-
dutch courage - 14/10/2006 2:56 PM
Does anybody know what tasks will be preformed during the november 22/23 EVA by Tyurin and Lopez-Alegria?
From ISS Expedition 14 Press Kit:
Russian EVA-17
1. Golf project: Tyurin will conduct a Russian commercial activity for a Canadian golf equipment manufacturer, hitting a golf ball from a “tee” mounted outside the Pirs airlock
2. Install Vsplesk on the large diameter part of the Zvezda Service Module (SM). VSPLESK is a science experiment in earthquake forecasting, observing the Earth both before and after an event
3. Install BTN-Neutron on the small diameter part of Zvezda. BTN-Neutron is a science experiment to develop a
model of the radiation background of the ISS space environment during different flight conditions
4. Changeout experiment CKK #5 with CKK #9 on the Zvezda large diameter aft end. CKKs are detachable
cassette-containers that measure the level and composition of contamination, and monitor the change in operating characteristics for samples of materials from the outside surfaces of the ISS Russian segment. The CKK is a two-flap structure, and consists of a casing and spool holders with samples. Samples of materials for the outside surfaces of the ISS Russian segment modules are exposed within the cassettes
5. Install bracket on Zvezda aft end and relocate WAL antenna #2 to it. The WAL #2 is a low gain antenna used for
space-to-space communication with the European Automated Transfer Vehicle
6. Inspect mechanisms on the Strela-2 crane system. During Russian EVA 16, the EVA crew reported that the stopper arms designed to prevent the Strela translation ring from coming off the end of the Strela boom were not fully deployed
Also see http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=61&start=259 (about "Vsplesk") and http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=61&start=211
-
Thanks for your elaborate answer, anik :)
-
FYI that's available at http://www.shuttlepresskit.com
-
Now that Elektron is offline again they are using some of the oxygen 'candles' again on ISS.
1. How do these work?
2. How many do they have and how much oxygen does 1 provide?
-
lithium perchlorate. I believe one supplies 3 mandays of O2
-
I made a question some time ago related to that broken CMG (CMG-1) which was replaced during STS-114 last year and returned back for analysis/refurbishment, but got no answer.
Now that the CMGs are on the news again I think it's time to ask for a second time if there are any info/results on the analysis of that CMG, which kind of damage was found inside, failure reasons, etc?
-
tesheiner - 16/10/2006 5:01 PM
Now that the CMGs are on the news again I think it's time to ask for a second time if there are any info/results on the analysis of that CMG, which kind of damage was found inside, failure reasons, etc?
During today's ISS Mission Coverage Kyle Herring said the ground controlers had been testing with the current failed CMG. Spinning it up to 500 rpm and testing for vibrations and deceleration times. A vibrating bearing cover is presumed to be the culprit.
-
Spiff - 15/10/2006 9:47 PM
Now that Elektron is offline again they are using some of the oxygen 'candles' again on ISS.
1. How do these work?
2. How many do they have and how much oxygen does 1 provide?
From the "ISS Russian Segment Life Support System (Star City, 1997)" guide (linked diagrams are stored on my Photobucket site):
The TGK (Fig. A-4) consists of a replaceable cartridge with an igniter, a striker mechanism, a filter, a dust collection filter, and a fan that are located inside one case. The TGK is designed for the thermal decomposition of an oxygen compound packaged in a cylindrical cartridge. When oxygen exits the generator, it is cooled by airflow. The oxygen generator is activated by the crew if ppO2 drops to 160 mmHg and per ground instructions. The TGK is activated by rotating the driving handle (knob) until a specific “click” sound is heard. This sound indicates that the pin has struck the ignition device and the chemical reaction has begun.
One cartridge yields 600 L (21.2 ft³) of oxygen. The contents of the cartridge take 5-20 minutes to decompose at a reaction temperature of 450-500°C (842-932°F). Temperature of the outer surface of the TGK may reach 50°C (122°F). If the fan is running, it takes approximately 3 hours for the cartridge to cool down.
The cartridge is replaced in the following way:
- the fan is stopped;
- the latch is opened;
- the clamping handle is turned 180°;
- the crossbar is unlatched;
- the cartridge is pulled out of the TGK.
The cartridge replacement takes approximately 2 minutes.
A cloth dust collector is placed over the fan intake. The collector is changed when full. The TGK fan is turned on by means of toggle switches TGK-1, TGK-2 on the systems power supply panel (PPS-23) (Fig. A-5, B-2).
TGK = Tverdotoplivnyi Generator Kisloroda, the system for oxygen generation using solid state fuel (I don't know how many are on board, sorry :(
-
It was mentioned recently that the old mechanical ignition system is being replaced with an electric ignition system.
see http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=22269
Last I heard they are using oxygen from Quest, having used up all the oxygen candles that were near their expiration date.
-
dutch courage - 16/10/2006 8:16 PM
tesheiner - 16/10/2006 5:01 PM
Now that the CMGs are on the news again I think it's time to ask for a second time if there are any info/results on the analysis of that CMG, which kind of damage was found inside, failure reasons, etc?
During today's ISS Mission Coverage Kyle Herring said the ground controlers had been testing with the current failed CMG. Spinning it up to 500 rpm and testing for vibrations and deceleration times. A vibrating bearing cover is presumed to be the culprit.
Thanks for the info about the current failed CMG.
But I'm still looking for data on the failed CMG which was replaced last year. ;)
-
Hey thanks everyone again for explanations and pictures!
Interesting is that Jim talks about Lithiumperchlorate (LiClO4) and hop's article about Potassiumperchlorate (KClO4.) Not that it matters much, the reaction is almost the same.
;)
-
tesheiner - 17/10/2006 5:11 AM
dutch courage - 16/10/2006 8:16 PM
tesheiner - 16/10/2006 5:01 PM
Now that the CMGs are on the news again I think it's time to ask for a second time if there are any info/results on the analysis of that CMG, which kind of damage was found inside, failure reasons, etc?
During today's ISS Mission Coverage Kyle Herring said the ground controlers had been testing with the current failed CMG. Spinning it up to 500 rpm and testing for vibrations and deceleration times. A vibrating bearing cover is presumed to be the culprit.
Thanks for the info about the current failed CMG.
But I'm still looking for data on the failed CMG which was replaced last year. ;)
Don't remember where I read it, but I read it was being refurbished to have as a spare.
-
Yep.
This last report about the currently falied CMG also includes a note talking about refurbishment of the old CMG-1, but no details wrt its condition right after returning it back from the station.
-
Why will Roskosmos increase the production of Progress ships after 2009 when ATV and HTV will be flying. Now for a crew of three the Russians launch four Progress ships per year. The Progress transports 1 700 kg of cargo. 4 x 1 700 = 6 800 kg. That's for three crew members. ATV alone delievers 7 500 kg and HTV 7 900 kg. So one ATV and one HTV launches per year should be enough to support a six member crew. And still the Russians plan to increase Progress production instead of decreasing it. What's wrong with my calculations?
A second question: 4 x Souyz per year for supporting six crew member rotation. This means that no space tourists and no short duration (8-10 days) cosmonauts will fly after 2009. Is that going to happen?
-
It is not just crew support. The Progress and ATV provide fuel and attitude control. Larger mass and drag profile of the ISS means more fuel is required. With the addition of the Columbus and KIBO, there will be more experiments to fly to the ISS.
-
Spirit - 19/10/2006 9:24 AM
Why will Roskosmos increase the production of Progress ships after 2009 when ATV and HTV will be flying. Now for a crew of three the Russians launch four Progress ships per year. The Progress transports 1 700 kg of cargo. 4 x 1 700 = 6 800 kg. That's for three crew members. ATV alone delievers 7 500 kg and HTV 7 900 kg. So one ATV and one HTV launches per year should be enough to support a six member crew. And still the Russians plan to increase Progress production instead of decreasing it. What's wrong with my calculations?
A second question: 4 x Souyz per year for supporting six crew member rotation. This means that no space tourists and no short duration (8-10 days) cosmonauts will fly after 2009. Is that going to happen?
It is not uncommon for Russian plans to have large numbers of Soyuzes and Progresses flying in the "out" years. However, the real plans are decided upon about 18 months before launch of any particular article.
As for the 4 Soyuzes a year, there would be double the number of flight opportunities for space tourists if that came to pass.
-
I don't understand that. There will be 4 Souyzes. The first two will transport x3 astrounats that are members of a 6 moth expedition. Then the second two will transport the 6 crew members of the next expedition 6 moths later. So where are the tourists?
-
Spirit - 19/10/2006 3:36 PM
I don't understand that. There will be 4 Souyzes. The first two will transport x3 astrounats that are members of a 6 moth expedition. Then the second two will transport the 6 crew members of the next expedition 6 moths later. So where are the tourists?
Same place they are now, in the third seat of the Soyuz, at least until September 2010. Currently ISS has a crew of three, with one rotating on shuttle and the other two rotating on Soyuz. That opens up the third seat on Soyuz for a tourist. The same scheme can continue when the crew goes to six, with four on Soyuz and two on shuttle, leaving two seats open for tourists. After the shuttle fleet is retired, all six will rotate on Soyuz and there will be no tourists seats until either COTS or Orion becomes available, or Russia ramps up Soyuz production further to add dedicated tourist flights.
--
JRF
-
Jorge - 19/10/2006 9:39 PM
After the shuttle fleet is retired, all six will rotate on Soyuz and there will be no tourists seats until either COTS or Orion becomes available, or Russia ramps up Soyuz production further to add dedicated tourist flights.
Since they're going to have to double the flight rate just for ISS staffing, is it realistic from an operational perspective that there would be additional flights just for tourists?
Dan
-
Spirit - 19/10/2006 9:24 AM
...
So one ATV and one HTV launches per year should be enough to support a six member crew.
...
I think it's not only the amount that's important but also the frequency (relating to the cost of a launch as well). Or at least an ability to deliver small amount of crucial supplies on shorter notice. Fresh fruit, parcels from family, drinking water, tool replacements, spare parts to repair broken machinery, perishables, etc... (some of these may not sound important, but they do help folks up there endure half a year stretch in space) A super large delivery capability is certainly desirable for some things, but frequent (well, relatively, once in 3 months at least) small and (relatively) inexpensive deliveries will still be needed. With a larger crew the frequency also increases in importance as a parameter.
-
dbhyslop - 20/10/2006 3:48 AM
Jorge - 19/10/2006 9:39 PM
After the shuttle fleet is retired, all six will rotate on Soyuz and there will be no tourists seats until either COTS or Orion becomes available, or Russia ramps up Soyuz production further to add dedicated tourist flights.
Since they're going to have to double the flight rate just for ISS staffing, is it realistic from an operational perspective that there would be additional flights just for tourists?
An extra seat would be available if the four persons ACTS would be developed befor the Shuttle retirement. Although I don't see this happening before 2014.
-
ACTS?
-
advanced crew transportation system - RSA/ESA joint venture to develop a new vehicle. Its in a bit of a political quagmire at the moment. If I wasa betting man then Id say if anything comes from it, its going to be a Guyana launched soyuz with some technology from ATV and maybe the zond heatshield. But thats a guess, and proably too optimistic.
-
Jorge - 19/10/2006 9:39 PM
Spirit - 19/10/2006 3:36 PM
I don't understand that. There will be 4 Souyzes. The first two will transport x3 astrounats that are members of a 6 moth expedition. Then the second two will transport the 6 crew members of the next expedition 6 moths later. So where are the tourists?
Same place they are now, in the third seat of the Soyuz, at least until September 2010. Currently ISS has a crew of three, with one rotating on shuttle and the other two rotating on Soyuz. That opens up the third seat on Soyuz for a tourist. The same scheme can continue when the crew goes to six, with four on Soyuz and two on shuttle, leaving two seats open for tourists. After the shuttle fleet is retired, all six will rotate on Soyuz and there will be no tourists seats until either COTS or Orion becomes available, or Russia ramps up Soyuz production further to add dedicated tourist flights.
--
JRF
There seems to be another way to go that people are often forgetting about. As someone else has mentioned on another thread, the next generation of Soyuz (starting 2008) will be certified to stay on orbit for 1 year. That means you could just leave the flight rate at 2 Soyuz per year and increase the crew rotation periods from 6 months to 12 months.
That said, Soyuz flight rates of 4 per year are not a condition for a permanent crew of 6. The real bottleneck are Progress flights which will have to be increased from currently 4 a year to at least 6 a year.
-
That said, Soyuz flight rates of 4 per year are not a condition for a permanent crew of 6. The real bottleneck are Progress flights which will have to be increased from currently 4 a year to at least 6 a year.
I believe the real plan is to continue the 4 Progress per year, and have ESA pay its common ops costs via cargo transport on ATV, and for JAXA to do the same with HTV. That is how they get to a 6 person crew; excepting that its TBD how 4 Soyuz a year get paid for.
-
If ATV is successful, it's probably worth at least a couple of Progress vehicles per year (supplies/gasses/thrust), so I can't see a need for extra Progress flights for a 6-person crew, in that case.
Also, don't forget JAXA's supply vehicle is within that period (assuming it finishes development and flies within the current projected schedule).
-
Danderman - 21/10/2006 3:22 AM
I believe the real plan is to continue the 4 Progress per year, and have ESA pay its common ops costs via cargo transport on ATV, and for JAXA to do the same with HTV. That is how they get to a 6 person crew; excepting that its TBD how 4 Soyuz a year get paid for.
With the high oil and natural gas prices Russia is making a lot of money. Ofcourse how the money is divided is always a hot issue.
-
I watched the latest ISS assembly video on www.nasa.gov and I saw several elements that are not included in the latest ISS Configuration model. Which are the components in red on this screen shot and what are their functions?
-
Pre positioned spare ORU's, which might be carried on 3 of the last 4 flights
-
So the ORUs will contain CMGs, pumps and other stuff of that sort?
-
Who docks and undocks the Progress ships - the ISS crew or the ground control?
-
automatic afaik. Manual back up by Tyurin if things go wrong.
-
Spiff - 23/10/2006 1:37 PM
automatic afaik. Manual back up by Tyurin if things go wrong.
Indeed, the ground has no capability for real-time remote control. AFAIK undockings are normally pre-programmed from the ground. Of course, the crew still has to button up the hatches etc. beforehand.
-
AFAIK undockings?
-
(As Far As I Know)
-
With the new truss segment, are there new cameras available that are farther from the center of the station than the previous cameras? I was wondering why the views of the latest Progress docking could not image the approaching vehicle (on the -V bar).
-
Danderman - 26/10/2006 5:50 PM
With the new truss segment, are there new cameras available that are farther from the center of the station than the previous cameras? I was wondering why the views of the latest Progress docking could not image the approaching vehicle (on the -V bar).
The best view would be from the aft Zvezda (SM) windows. Thomas Reiter made some photo's of the approaching Progress out of the Zvezda windows.
The external TV camera's can't be placed further out or else they would be (in future anyway) rotating all the time. ;)
-
I am still trying to find a photo of that aft window!
-
Danderman - 27/10/2006 6:31 PM
I am still trying to find a photo of that aft window!
After some searching I found a Zvezda details page with near the bottom a number of detailed drawings of Zvezda.
In the 'Forward view' you can see Window 26 which faces aft.
Go to: http://www.suzymchale.com/mks/sm.html
-
Yep, there it is, thanks.
-
Yesterday I was watching the National Geographic documentary 'Inside: space launch' which showed the training and spaceflight of Greg Olson. Returning with expedition 11 Sergei Krikalev and John Philips there was air leaking from the docking port. In 1971 three cosmonauts died when air leaked from their Soyuz.
I haven't heard anything on this during/after Expedition 11 neither from NASA nor from the media.
From MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9888881/ Dangling strap to blame for scary space leak?
-
dutch courage - 29/10/2006 4:47 AM
I haven't heard anything on this during/after Expedition 11 neither from NASA nor from the media.
The problems were mentioned, although as usual for the Russian side, the details didn't come out until after the landing.
-
dutch courage - 29/10/2006 9:47 PM Yesterday I was watching the National Geographic documentary 'Inside: space launch' which showed the training and spaceflight of Greg Olson. Returning with expedition 11 Sergei Krikalev and John Philips there was air leaking from the docking port. In 1971 three cosmonauts died when air leaked from their Soyuz.
I haven't heard anything on this during/after Expedition 11 neither from NASA nor from the media.
From the ISS-11 Post-Increment Evaluation Report PDF document mentioned in this post:
The separation command initiation and physical separation were approximately 4 minutes later than originally planned due to discussions on the Descent Module pressure integrity. It was noted by Sergei Krikalev and the Russian Mission Control that the pressure in the Habitation Module) was holding steady; however the pressure in the Descent Module was slowly decreasing. Subsequent evaluation determined that the pressure decrease was primarily driven by the crew’s consumption of the Descent Module Oxygen (O2) and the removal of CO2 by the Soyuz CO2 scrubber system. Prior to this, two other small issues were found and resolved. The first issue occurred during the leak check between the Habitation Module and the Descent Module. Sergei Krikalev noted an audible leak during the leak check and isolated it to the pressure equalization valve between the modules. After cycling the equalization valve the leak was eliminated and the leak check was successfully completed. The second issue occurred during the pressure leak check of the crews SOKOL suits. It was noted that there was no oxygen flow to the suits. The crew re-initialized the leak check, cycled the Soyuz O2 valve and successful O2 flow was initiated with the suit. The de-orbit burn was nominally performed with a delta velocity of 115.2 meters per second.
-
Thanks Suzy. Nice site you have by the way with all kinds of Russian spacenews.
What's your special interest in Russian spaceflight?
-
Thanks :) Don't know, I just like it, and the way they do things (except for dumb advertising stunts).
-
I was watching the animation of the mating of P5 to P4 and I saw that the station arm was almost fully stretched. I'm wondering if the arm can reach the end of P5 to mate P6?
-
Don't forget that CanadaArm2 can 'inchworm' it's way across the ISS to special attachment points so that it can be in the best place for any work it needs to do.
-
The arm will be based off the Mobile Servicer which can translate down the track to a parking spot close enough for the mate.
-
The JAXA KIBO module is being moved. Any reason?
-
Check this out: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/15A_Install.html
-
In a recent NASAcast Mike Leinbach said that Discovery launched P3/4 because it was too heavy for Atlantis and that Atlantis is heavier than Discovery. But Atlantis is launching S3/4! Does this mean that P3/4 is heavier than S3/4?
-
Spirit - 2/12/2006 4:23 PM
In a recent NASAcast Mike Leinbach said that Discovery launched P3/4 because it was too heavy for Atlantis and that Atlantis is heavier than Discovery. But Atlantis is launching S3/4! Does this mean that P3/4 is heavier than S3/4?
Other way around -- Atlantis launched P3/P4 on ISS-12A (STS-115, as shown) and is also scheduled to launch S3/S4 on ISS-13A (STS-117). From what I understand, the weight difference is only a few hundred pounds, but those two launches have narrow performance margins. In that situation, a couple hundred pounds becomes more significant.
-
Based on the recent performance by the Expedition 14 Astronaut Happy Birthday band there is obviously an electronic keyboard and an acoustic guitar on board.
Does someone have a list of other musical instruments currently on board and their status (permanent or personal).
I've got to believe a harmonica has come and gone at some time.
So who is our ISS Musical history buff?
-
The P6 truss as currently mounted to the Z1 truss has three radiators sticking out of it. However when finally attached to the P5 truss it only seems to have one radiator. What happens to the other two? Will they be attached to the either of the three panel radiators inboard of the solar arrays?
-
nacnud - 11/12/2006 9:00 PM
The P6 truss as currently mounted to the Z1 truss has three radiators sticking out of it. However when finally attached to the P5 truss it only seems to have one radiator. What happens to the other two? Will they be attached to the either of the three panel radiators inboard of the solar arrays?
Nope, they are different types of radiators. The three panel radiators inboard (P1/S1) are the External Active Thermal Control System (EATCS) while the additional radiators on P6 are Early EATCS (EEATCS). The EEATCS radiators are actually Photo Voltaic Radiators (PVRs) taken from the S4 and S6 truss segments. They are smaller than the EATCS radiators and are not interchangeable. The center EATCS radiators on each have been deployed, and the other two are still retracted and will be deployed later (this can't be done until after the FGB solar arrays are retracted, since they stick out far enough to interfere with TRRJ rotation).
The PVR on the forward side of P6 is the permanent one; the starboard and aft PVRs are EEATCS. Originally, the plan was to launch the S3/S4 and S6 truss segments without PVRs and relocate the P6 EEATCS radiators to them via EVA. That plan has changed for STS-117. The flight was oversubscribed on EVA hours and as a get-well NASA decided to launch S3/S4 with its own PVR. As far as I know, NASA still plans to launch S6 without a PVR on STS-119 and relocate an EEATCS radiator to it. The EEATCS radiator that would have gone to S4 will simply be retracted and remain on P6.
--
JRF
-
From my understanding, it was originally planned to transfer the extra two radiators to S4 and S6. However, it was later decided to fly S4 and S6 with radiators attached. I believe they will be stored on P6 as on-orbit spares.
-
This question goes back aways, but why is the PMA from Unity to the FGB angled? Why not just have all the modules, i.e. Destiny, Unity, Zarya and Zvesda in line with each other instead of the US and Russian segments slightly offset from each other?
-
Another question, probably easy to answer, but i'm curious. I know for the last few shuttle missions to the ISS, whenever an EVA was planned, the astronauts had to 'camp out' in the Quest airlock overnight before the EVA. So, I'm guessing that this means that they have to eat/go to the bathroom etc. while in the airlock, prior to EVA. Are there specific facilities in the airlock for this, or do they just use the EVA suit equipment? Thanks in advance.
Matt
-
Squid.erau - 14/12/2006 6:48 PM
Another question, probably easy to answer, but i'm curious. I know for the last few shuttle missions to the ISS, whenever an EVA was planned, the astronauts had to 'camp out' in the Quest airlock overnight before the EVA. So, I'm guessing that this means that they have to eat/go to the bathroom etc. while in the airlock, prior to EVA. Are there specific facilities in the airlock for this, or do they just use the EVA suit equipment? Thanks in advance.
After the EVA crew wake up they will put on masks and breath pure oxigen.
They will than go back into the station and do their business.
-
jarthur - 14/12/2006 12:09 PM
This question goes back aways, but why is the PMA from Unity to the FGB angled? Why not just have all the modules, i.e. Destiny, Unity, Zarya and Zvesda in line with each other instead of the US and Russian segments slightly offset from each other?
Because it uses the same PMA design as PMA1 & 2 which the shuttle docks to.
-
Because it uses the same PMA design as PMA1 & 2 which the shuttle docks to.
Was that purely a budget decision?
-
Probably... It accomplishes the same goal and an interconnect is needed anyway, so why not simply build a third PMA instead of designing a new one? It doesn't really affect station attitude and the complex is balanced properly along the main axis anyway. I guess it really just keeps someone from throwing a baseball straight down the entire length of the station. :)
Mark
-
jarthur - 14/12/2006 2:42 PM
Because it uses the same PMA design as PMA1 & 2 which the shuttle docks to.
Was that purely a budget decision?
Not budget, but common sense. Why use another design, when you have one that works? Especially for just looks.
PMA are made to go from APAS to CBM's. The Node has CBM's and the shuttle and FGB have APAS
-
Question regarding the people manning the consoles (esp. ADCO and PHALCON) at the ISS FCR:
is there a list of who they are?
Frankly, i don't think that they get all the credit they deserve, with the media (and the JSC website) mostly focusing on the astronauts but not the controllers.
-
It's the same old story as Hollywood, where the glamourous people high up get the credit (i.e. the actors / astronauts, and the director / NASA Administrator). Everyone else below them do extremely important jobs critical to the overall success of the mission, but they're barely mentioned in the press.
Mark
-
Thank you for the answer Dutch Courage :)
-
Squid.erau - 14/12/2006 9:48 AM Another question, probably easy to answer, but i'm curious. I know for the last few shuttle missions to the ISS, whenever an EVA was planned, the astronauts had to 'camp out' in the Quest airlock overnight before the EVA. So, I'm guessing that this means that they have to eat/go to the bathroom etc. while in the airlock, prior to EVA. Are there specific facilities in the airlock for this, or do they just use the EVA suit equipment? Thanks in advance. Matt
Unfortunately the airlock doesn't have any facilities. While the hatch is closed they just have to "hold it" but they are asleep most of thetime anyhow. There are extra MAGs (astronaut diapers) on board so that is an option but they would never tell us if they did. Of course they can take some food in the airlock if they have the munchies for the campout period. In the morning they open up the hatch for a hygeine break to get breakfast, brush teeth, use the facilities. During that time they have to wear a mask that has a pure O2 supply. And yes, brushing your teeth with a mask on can be a little tricky.
-
Couple of questions When are the FGB arrays scheduled to be retracted?
Also, as I understand it, while the shuttle has about 90% KU-band coverage per orbit, ISS has about 50% due to structural blocking. WHen the port P6 array finally retracts, will KU-band coverage increase?
-
Chandonn - 15/12/2006 10:23 PM
Couple of questions When are the FGB arrays scheduled to be retracted?
Until/unless the Russian 'power tower' is launched and docked all the Russian portion arrays will be needed.
Also, as I understand it, while the shuttle has about 90% KU-band coverage per orbit, ISS has about 50% due to structural blocking. WHen the port P6 array finally retracts, will KU-band coverage increase?
I don't think that 90% figure includes ISS docking - ISS has as much or more KU availability than a docked orbiter because of antenna 'blocking'.
-
MKremer - 15/12/2006 11:25 PM
Chandonn - 15/12/2006 10:23 PM
Couple of questions When are the FGB arrays scheduled to be retracted?
Until/unless the Russian 'power tower' is launched and docked all the Russian portion arrays will be needed.
The Russian power tower (Science Power Platform) is no longer part of the ISS Assembly Sequence. This occurred when the total number of post-Columbia shuttle flights was reduced from 28 to 20. The US has agreed to transfer power to the Russian segment to compensate. Therefore the SPP is no longer a constraint to FGB solar array retraction.
The FGB solar arrays must be retracted prior to deploying the inboard and outboard EATCS radiators on the S1 and P1 trusses. Currently, FGB solar array retraction is scheduled for the 13A stage just prior to STS-118. The S1 EATCS radiators will be deployed during STS-120, while the P1 radiators will have to wait until the 10A stage after Node 2 is relocated to its permanent location on Destiny.
--
JRF
-
Jorge - 16/12/2006 9:30 AM
Currently, FGB solar array retraction is scheduled for the 13A stage just prior to STS-118
Jorge, is it fresh information?...
According to NASA Increment Definition and Requirements Document for ISS Increment 15 (SSP 54015, September 2006, see on pages 29 [in table] and 67 [item 7]) (http://images.spaceref.com/news/2006/SSP54015.pdf), this operation is planned during 13A.1 stage (i.e between STS-118 and STS-120)...
According to page 71 [item C] and my information, the contingency spacewalk from Pirs airlock for manual retraction of Zarya module's solar arrays (if they are not retracted automatically) is scheduled in August 2007...
-
anik - 16/12/2006 1:26 AM
Jorge - 16/12/2006 9:30 AM
Currently, FGB solar array retraction is scheduled for the 13A stage just prior to STS-118
Jorge, is it fresh information?...
According to NASA Increment Definition and Requirements Document for ISS Increment 15 (SSP 54015, September 2006, see on pages 29 [in table] and 67 [item 7]) (http://images.spaceref.com/news/2006/SSP54015.pdf), this operation is planned during 13A.1 stage (i.e between STS-118 and STS-120)...
I thought it was fresh, but not as fresh as yours. My source was the ISS Assembly and Mass Properties Databook, Rev W, July 2006. Thanks for the update!
--
JRF
-
MKremer - 16/12/2006 12:25 AM
Chandonn - 15/12/2006 10:23 PM
Couple of questions When are the FGB arrays scheduled to be retracted?
Until/unless the Russian 'power tower' is launched and docked all the Russian portion arrays will be needed.
Also, as I understand it, while the shuttle has about 90% KU-band coverage per orbit, ISS has about 50% due to structural blocking. WHen the port P6 array finally retracts, will KU-band coverage increase?
I don't think that 90% figure includes ISS docking - ISS has as much or more KU availability than a docked orbiter because of antenna 'blocking'.
He was referring to the P6 truss and array blocking the ISS KU.
-
Question about the P6 solar array retraction and Soyuz dockings.
Why is it a problem to dock to FGB Nadir with the P6 partially extended? It's been fully extended for years with soyuses/progresses docking there a lot of times.
-
Spiff - 17/12/2006 8:48 AM
Question about the P6 solar array retraction and Soyuz dockings.
Why is it a problem to dock to FGB Nadir with the P6 partially extended? It's been fully extended for years with soyuses/progresses docking there a lot of times.
I believe during one of the recent briefings it was noted that the blankets on a fully extended wing are under tension, which makes the structure more rigid.
-
Ah ok. Thanks Philip
-
Have the CETA carts been used at all? ( or are they just there for weight lifting)
-
The CETA carts have been used a few times now. I even remember Mike LA using them during his 11A assembly mission and commenting on how smooth they were. The EVA guys have indicated that they are an invaluable tool but just a little inconvenient during this initial assembly phase because if you kept one on each side you couldn't get the Mobile Servicer + Robotic arm out far enough to attach the outer trusses. It is a combination of where the CETA cart stops are and where the bases for the MSS are
-
Mark Nguyen - 14/12/2006 12:56 PM
so why not simply build a third PMA instead of designing a new one? It doesn't really affect station attitude and the complex is balanced properly along the main axis anyway.
Mark
So I guess this makes me wonder why have it angles in the first place? My initial thought would be that they want to provide extra clearances by moving the station further away from the crew cabin, but picture show it does just the opposite. Perhaps they wanted to open up more space above the payload bay to help get station components out of the bay?
-
It's built that way for shuttle clearance, as I recall. They have to have certain bits of equipment in the PMA to function properly, so the PMA can't be a simple tube. However, it can be angled off-axis for connection to the shuttle adapter, but it has to clear the shuttle's upper flight deck in order to do so. You should be able to find pics of the shuttle docked at ISS from the side that demonstrates this.
Mark
-
When Node 2 goes up, PMA 2 is re-located onto it, ao with all the other hardware now up there can the Orbiter still dock to PMA1 on Unity?
-
I think it has to be able to as a contingency
-
gordo - 26/12/2006 6:51 PM
When Node 2 goes up, PMA 2 is re-located onto it, ao with all the other hardware now up there can the Orbiter still dock to PMA1 on Unity?
PMA-1 connects Unity to Zarya. The shuttle cannot dock there. PMA-3 is currently attached to the Port side CBM of Unity (to free up the Nadir CBM for MPLM's to dock, as they have to outfit the lab early on -- but that's about to change).
Before STS-120 is launched next summer, PMA-3 will be relocated to the Nadir CBM on Unity, freeing up the Port side CBM. When the shuttle arrives with Node-2 it will be temporarily dicked to the Port side CBM (for issues related to the SSRMS's reach with a shuttle docked). After the shuttle leaves, PMA-2 will be disconnected from the Forward end of Destiny, then docked to the end of Node-2. Then The station crew wil move Node-2 to the forward end of Destiny. When the shuttle returns for STS-122 (and the Columbus lab) it will dock to PMA-2 at the forward end of Node-2 and Destiny.
It's kind of a spacewalk ballet as these modules are rotated in and out between shuttle flights.
Hope that helps! I asked the same questions myself a while back!
Chris
[edited for typos and brevity]
-
I have a question about the expansion of ISS crew from 3 to 6 in late '08?
With the habitation module down and out, and with the recent reshuffle of the assembly sequence, has this agreed-upon "bump" in permanent crew without the habitation module been adquately explained recently? Now, I understand the STS-128 flight of Endeavour will take up to the station "three-person crew facilities," which includes a "kitchen" and new treadmill. What exactly does this mean? Will this boost in crew quarters be incorporated permanently inside be the "Donatello" MPLM, which, I believe, is the only one of the three Italian modules that can carry powered cargo. Will Donatello be left behind on the station when the shuttle debarks from the station? Or, like the science racks installed into Destiny, will these be crew quarter racks moved into slots on Destiny, or either Node 2 or Node 3?
Or perhaps I'm jumping the gun and no determination has yet been made on how exactly this will be done. If so, I apologize.
Thanks in advance for any information. It's appreciated.
-
MPLM can not be left in orbit. However, there is Node 3
-
Anyone know when the U.S. oxygen generator will come online i think it was delivered on the sts-121 mission and is supposed to come on early in 2007 but anyone a more specific time?
-
Donatello will never fly.
-
hornet - 31/12/2006 4:17 AM
Anyone know when the U.S. oxygen generator will come online i think it was delivered on the sts-121 mission and is supposed to come on early in 2007 but anyone a more specific time?
After the CCS R6 software load is uplinked to the station.
--
JRF
-
hektor - 31/12/2006 5:53 AM
Donatello will never fly.
Why's that?
-
TJL - 1/1/2007 10:30 PM
hektor - 31/12/2006 5:53 AM
Donatello will never fly.
Why's that?
It has be "mothballed" along with XXXXX (need to look this up) since there are only 3 MPLM flights left
-
Donatello will never fly because there are only (P) missions of MPLM in the manifest - no (A) mission.
Its CBM could be cannibalized and used for a future LIDS adapter on the ISS.
-
hektor - 2/1/2007 1:32 AM
Donatello will never fly because there are only (P) missions of MPLM in the manifest - no (A) mission.
Its CBM could be cannibalized and used for a future LIDS adapter on the ISS.
What is the difference between a (P) or (A) mission?
-
Active and passive
-
Jim - 2/1/2007 6:43 AM
Active and passive
Thanks. But another question, what does active and passive mean for a MPLM?
-
Active could support powered payloads
-
Jim - 2/1/2007 8:17 AM
Active could support powered payloads
Thanks again.
-
According to the launch manifest, the three sleeping cabins will be sent up by the shuttle roughly a year before Node 3 is due to be linked to the station. Will these "cabins" temporarily be housed inside either Node 2 or even the Destiny lab? Eventually, the way I have it, the station's six permanent sleeping cabins are as follows: Three (eventually) inside Node 3, 1 currently inside the Destiny lab, and the 2 permanent cabins inside Zvezda.
-
i think another permanent cabin is meant to be in the MLM, which is due for launch in 2009 if memory serves
-
Interesting, this is the first I've heard about this. So, there will be three cabins on the "Russian" side, and three on the "U.S./Europe/Japan" side?
-
if i remember correctly yes. The info probably came from a post by anik on here.
-
dose anyone know when the next parts of the iss will be at the cape, exp. node 3, JEM-PM, JEM-EF, ect
-
They all are except Node 3
-
I am still interested in the launch sequence of the MPLMs models, for the last three flights.
-
when did they come in last i knew was that they were in jap.
-
norm103 - 4/1/2007 1:15 PM
when did they come in last i knew was that they were in jap.
Been here for years
-
Kibo Japanese Experiment Module - Pressurized Module (JEM-PM)
Kibo Japanese Experiment Module - Exposed Facility (JEM EF)
Kibo Japanese Experiment Logistics Module - Exposed Section (ELM-ES)
Kibo Japanese Experiment Logistics Module - Pressurized Section (ELM-PS)
Japanese Remote Manipulator System (JEM RMS)
These are the five components from Japan. I have only seen photos from the JEM-PM at KSC. Why are no photos of the arrival of the other parts in the media library?
-
Rapoc - 4/1/2007 3:25 PM
Kibo Japanese Experiment Module - Pressurized Module (JEM-PM)
Kibo Japanese Experiment Module - Exposed Facility (JEM EF)
Kibo Japanese Experiment Logistics Module - Exposed Section (ELM-ES)
Kibo Japanese Experiment Logistics Module - Pressurized Section (ELM-PS)
Japanese Remote Manipulator System (JEM RMS)
These are the five components from Japan. I have only seen photos from the JEM-PM at KSC. Why are no photos of the arrival of the other parts in the media library?
The PM is the center piece and gets the attention. The others are only "support" components and PAO didn't think it is worth photograhing the arrivals
-
Another ISS computer question: what is the operating system used on the personal laptops - Windows 98 or XP?
-
Suzy - 4/1/2007 6:03 PM
Another ISS computer question: what is the operating system used on the personal laptops - Windows 98 or XP?
The old (IBM ThinkPad 760XD) laptops ran Windows 98. The new (IBM A31p) laptops run Windows 2000.
--
JRF
-
I wonder how soon they'll be switching to Linux?
(don't see how any of the existing equipment can handle Vista, and Win2000 is close to EOL status for MS support/upgrades)
-
MKremer - 4/1/2007 9:36 PM
I wonder how soon they'll be switching to Linux?
(don't see how any of the existing equipment can handle Vista, and Win2000 is close to EOL status for MS support/upgrades)
They can buy a couple of years by upgrading to XP. Granted, that's not NASA's usual modus operandi; they usually skip every other Windows release on the laptops.
Vista will probably run on an A31p (NASA's are 1.8 GHz P4) with all the bells and whistles turned off, and if it won't, it will probably still be cheaper for NASA to replace all the laptops than to port and re-certify their custom applications under Linux. Even the COTS applications will be problematic; NASA makes extensive use of VB macros in MS Office docs that probably won't port well to OpenOffice.
Granted, NASA is making use of Linux in many other areas (such as MCC and in the training simulators), but as a Unix replacement, not a Windows replacement.
--
JRF
-
...Another laptop question: at one time there were some Wiener Power laptops in the Russian segment (mentioned in this old document). Are these still in use, or were they replaced with ThinkPads?
-
What are the current plans for SpaceDRUMS and Vulcan research facilites on the space station? Have they been cancelled in the wake of Columbia disaster? They would pave they way for manufacturing in space.
-
Gerald Andrew Richli - 10/1/2007 7:41 AM
What are the current plans for SpaceDRUMS and Vulcan research facilites on the space station? Have they been cancelled in the wake of Columbia disaster? They would pave they way for manufacturing in space.
They have been many experiments/facilities that will or have flown and have this goal. These two aren't any different. They still have to prove themselves
-
This has been asked before but I can't seem to find it. So excuse me for asking again.
Why do the Soyuz craft always dock at Zvezda aft and are then subsequently moved to Zarya nadir? It is usually done in advance of a Progress docking at Zvezda, but why not dock the Progress at Zarya?
Thanks in advance!
Spiff
-
Spiff - 12/1/2007 6:17 PM
Why do the Soyuz craft always dock at Zvezda aft and are then subsequently moved to Zarya nadir? It is usually done in advance of a Progress docking at Zvezda, but why not dock the Progress at Zarya?
The using of Progress engines for raising ISS orbit is more profitable, when the cargo ship is docked to the aft end port of Zvezda module, not to the port of Pirs module or to the nadir port of Zarya module...
-
Ok thanks Anik I understand that. :) Follow up question.
Can Progress craft move to another port once they've docked? For example. The Progress that was launched this morning will dock at Pirs. Can it move to Zvezda for better orbit raising performance?
Or will it pump it's propellant to ISS for reboost using Zvezda engines?
-
Spiff - 18/1/2007 12:24 PM
Can Progress craft move to another port once they've docked? For example. The Progress that was launched this morning will dock at Pirs. Can it move to Zvezda for better orbit raising performance?
Progresses can do such relocations, because they have enough fuel for that after docking... There were many cases of relocations of Progresses (however with undocking and docking from/to the same port) in the past...
But there is no necessity in such relocations in the near future... Progress M-58 engines will perform raisings of ISS orbit till April 8... Zvezda engines will be used for that from May 4 till August 11... If there will be necessity to make orbit's raisings between April 9 and May 3, Progress M-59 engines can be used for that then...
Spiff - 18/1/2007 12:24 PM
Or will it pump it's propellant to ISS for reboost using Zvezda engines?
All Progresses are pumping part of their fuel to Zarya or Zvezda tanks...
-
Jim - 4/1/2007 9:51 PM
Rapoc - 4/1/2007 3:25 PM
Kibo Japanese Experiment Module - Pressurized Module (JEM-PM)
Kibo Japanese Experiment Module - Exposed Facility (JEM EF)
Kibo Japanese Experiment Logistics Module - Exposed Section (ELM-ES)
Kibo Japanese Experiment Logistics Module - Pressurized Section (ELM-PS)
Japanese Remote Manipulator System (JEM RMS)
These are the five components from Japan. I have only seen photos from the JEM-PM at KSC. Why are no photos of the arrival of the other parts in the media library?
The PM is the center piece and gets the attention. The others are only "support" components and PAO didn't think it is worth photograhing the arrivals
JEM-PS delivery scheduled for March 2007, launch on STS-123
JEM-PM on site in SSPF (delivered in April 2003), launch on STS-124
JEM-RMS scheduled for delivery in January 2007, launch with JEM-PM on STS 124
JEM-EF and ELM-ES delivery scheduled for April 2008, launch on STS-127
Here are the dates I have found.
-
Here is the JEM-RMS
-
With the launch of Columbus occurring later this year, or early next year, I have started wondering about its capabilities and have found conflicting info on the web. How many research racks does it carry? I have found both 10 and 8 plus 3 avionics racks and 3 storage racks. Either way, the numbers I have found will not lead to a symmetric module, so what is the extra space being used for?
-
Columbus has 16 rack positions, 4 on each side. It will launch with 3 system racks, and 5 other racks (science and stowage).
-
Suzy - 8/1/2007 1:33 AM
...Another laptop question: at one time there were some Wiener Power laptops in the Russian segment (mentioned in this old document). Are these still in use, or were they replaced with ThinkPads?
They are being replaced by the A31p. A bunch of them went up on a Progress in December. I don't know if they've transitioned to using them yet. Even after that, there will be one Wiener Power laptop used as a server for some time.
--
JRF
-
Does anyone know when, after the proposed 2010 completion of the station, full time scientific research will begin? How many scientists will be allowed research time? Will NASA's astronaut program expand much because of this?
Also, has there been any speculation as to the future of biological research aboard the ISS?
-
Voyager1 - 14/2/2007 1:17 PM
1. Does anyone know when, after the proposed 2010 completion of the station, full time scientific research will begin?
2. How many scientists will be allowed research time?
3. Will NASA's astronaut program expand much because of this?
4. Also, has there been any speculation as to the future of biological research aboard the ISS?
1. There is research on the ISS now. There really won't be "full time" research since some of the astronauts time is involved in maintance, etc. "Full time" research with respect to ISS and 2010 means that it will no longer be under construction and can be fully manned and the emphasis will be on research.
2. If you mean how many on aboard? It doesn't work that way. scientists build experiments that get flown to the ISS. Astronaut tend to the experiments. A few of the astronauts may be researchers, but most of them are career astronauts
3. There are too many as it is
4. It is ongoing and will continue
-
I have a question regarding the flight duration of current and future shuttle delivered Flight Engineers aboard the ISS.
Sunita Williams is scheduled to spend over 200 days in space on her current flight.
Clayton Anderson is scheduled to spend approximately 90 days.
Dan Tani...approx. 90 days.
Leo Eyharts...approx. 60 days.
Garrett Reisman...approx. 200 days.
Sandy Magnus...approx. 90 days.
My question is, (with the exception of Anderson) why would "rookie" astronauts get longer flights than the veterans?
-
Destiny "Laboratory" Module is more than a Laboratory module. The functions of Destiny module is Research equipment, lab space, power distribution, enviroment control, Life Support, attitude control, robotics workstations. It is a multipurpose module. It could be renamed the Destiny Command Module for the ISS. What say ya?:)
-
Gerald Andrew Richli - 17/2/2007 8:52 AM
Destiny "Laboratory" Module is more than a Laboratory module. The functions of Destiny module is Research equipment, lab space, power distribution, enviroment control, Life Support, attitude control, robotics workstations. It is a multipurpose module. It could be renamed the Destiny Command Module for the ISS. What say ya?:)
"Power distribution, enviroment control, Life Support, attitude control, robotics workstations" most of these will be moved into Nodes 2&3
-
Jim - 17/2/2007 3:26 PM
Gerald Andrew Richli - 17/2/2007 8:52 AM
Destiny "Laboratory" Module is more than a Laboratory module. The functions of Destiny module is Research equipment, lab space, power distribution, enviroment control, Life Support, attitude control, robotics workstations. It is a multipurpose module. It could be renamed the Destiny Command Module for the ISS. What say ya?:)
"Power distribution, enviroment control, Life Support, attitude control, robotics workstations" most of these will be moved into Nodes 2&3
I have read on several sites that since the cancellation of the Habitation module, node 3 will house those things, which makes sense as the stuff from destiny is being moved into there. But will any sleeping stations be put in that module? And if not, where will a crew of six sleep?
Thanks :)
-
Crew will be expanded to 6 before Node 3 is launched. Node 3 requires favorable political climate to be launched. Let's hope the budget is not cut. 2 will sleep in Zvesda, 2 in Node 2 and perhaps 2 will sleep in Multipurpose Laboratory Module. Galley Rack will be in Node 2. I believe that Russian Multipurpose Laboratory Module is Required for a creww of 6. S6 Truss with solar arrays is also required for a crew of 6 since SSP is cancelled.
-
When will Window Observation Research Facility (WORF) be delivered to Destiny Module?
-
It was delivered with it installed. http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/worf/
-
Now that I'm at the end of the thread I still have a question given recent events. Why is it necessary to move the current Soyuz from Zarya’s nadir to Zvezda’s aft so the incoming Soyuz can dock? It seems that it would be easier and safer to only have one docking maneuver rather than having one undocking and two docking maneuvers. It seems a bit redundant to me.
-
The storage position of the Soyuz is Zarya’s nadir. Either way, Zvezda’s aft has to be open for Progress dockings, so there still would be a movement of a Soyuz. The "old" goes to the aft since it will be returning to earth soon after the "new" soyuz arrives
-
parham55 - 2/4/2007 8:10 PM
Why is it necessary to move the current Soyuz from Zarya’s nadir to Zvezda’s aft so the incoming Soyuz can dock? It seems that it would be easier and safer to only have one docking maneuver rather than having one undocking and two docking maneuvers. It seems a bit redundant to me
At first, there was such variant: Soyuz TMA-10 will dock to Zvezda's aft, then (after Soyuz TMA-9 landing) Soyuz TMA-10 will relocate to Zarya's nadir, then Progress M-60 will dock to Zvezda's aft...
But after postponing of STS-117 flight, Expedition 14 crew has gotten much free time... Therefore Russian and U.S. specialists have decided to perform another variant: Soyuz TMA-9 will relocate to Zvezda's aft, then Soyuz TMA-10 will dock to Zarya's nadir, then (after Soyuz TMA-9 landing) Progress M-60 will dock to Zvezda's aft...
-
Jim and Anik, thank you both. I can't believe I forgot about Progress.
-
Ben - 23/2/2007 5:54 PM
It was delivered with it installed. http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/worf/
I believe this is not correct. Destiny was delivered with the window itself (of course), but WORF is a special rack to mount cameras etc. behind this window. I am sure it has not been launched yet and is delayed or even canceled.
Analyst
-
Analyst - 2/4/2007 3:36 PM
Ben - 23/2/2007 5:54 PM
It was delivered with it installed. http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/worf/
I believe this is not correct. Destiny was delivered with the window itself (of course), but WORF is a special rack to mount cameras etc. behind this window. I am sure it has not been launched yet and is delayed or even canceled.
Analyst
Yeah, for whatever reason, WORF isn't there yet. Anyone can easily confirm that by viewing daily ISS video feeds from Destiny via NASA-TV.
-
According to http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/168741main_AIAA_2007_ISSProgress.pdf 2008, but this would mean flying in one of the partner modules or Node 2. The next MPLM flight is set for ULF 2 in 09.
-
MKremer - 2/4/2007 5:57 PM
Analyst - 2/4/2007 3:36 PM
Ben - 23/2/2007 5:54 PM
It was delivered with it installed. http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/worf/
I believe this is not correct. Destiny was delivered with the window itself (of course), but WORF is a special rack to mount cameras etc. behind this window. I am sure it has not been launched yet and is delayed or even canceled.
Analyst
Yeah, for whatever reason, WORF isn't there yet. Anyone can easily confirm that by viewing daily ISS video feeds from Destiny via NASA-TV.
WORF is not there, yet. Currently planned for Flight 17A, but possibly ULF2 if some of the ECLSS racks get behind in schedule. There are a couple of payloads planned to utilize WORF once it gets there. WORF was originally scheduled and loaded on ULF1 but was re-prioritized after Columbia.
-
since return to flight they get the crew of 3 up to the iss 2 ways
2 up/down soyuz
1 up/down shuttle
When The Iss Crew is expanded to 6 soon what will they do?
3 up/down soyuz
3 up/down shuttle
Or another way
How Come They do not do teams of 3 anymore?
-
Seems to me going from 3 to 6 as a "permanent" crew size is either very heavily depending on Soyuz, or successful and operational manned COTS-type (ie: private industry contracted) missions, for successful crew transfer.
Not to mention it will also require/depend on at least 2 Soyuz craft continuously docked for emergency evacuation lifeboats even well before the Shuttle program is done for.
-
MKremer - 28/5/2007 7:44 PM Seems to me going from 3 to 6 as a "permanent" crew size is either very heavily depending on Soyuz, or successful and operational manned COTS-type (ie: private industry contracted) missions, for successful crew transfer. Not to mention it will also require/depend on at least 2 Soyuz craft continuously docked for emergency evacuation lifeboats even well before the Shuttle program is done for.
Ergo, NASA is paying for construction of 3 extra Soyuzes for 2009-11.
-
Endeavour118 - 28/5/2007 9:15 PM
How Come They do not do teams of 3 anymore?
The Russians like it because they can sell the third seat to tourists.
The US likes it because they can rotate the third crewmember more often.
-
Will the Japanese resupply craft be able to return to Earth? I haven't been able to find the answer myself and i think it will be no but i could be wrong. Thanks in advance
-
hornet - 11/6/2007 5:34 AM
Will the Japanese resupply craft be able to return to Earth? I haven't been able to find the answer myself and i think it will be no but i could be wrong. Thanks in advance
It has no reentry vehicle
-
does anyone know where I ccan find a comlete layout of all cameras stationed on the ISS. Im sure there's something in L2-- maybe somebody can link me...?
-
Ankle-bone12 - 12/6/2007 12:46 AM
does anyone know where I ccan find a comlete layout of all cameras stationed on the ISS. Im sure there's something in L2-- maybe somebody can link me...?
External? I believe there's one on Destiny (forward, zenith), 4 on the truss (2 nadir and zenith ends of P1/S1), and the SSRMS cameras.
-
Ankle-bone12 - 12/6/2007 6:46 AM
does anyone know where I ccan find a comlete layout of all cameras stationed on the ISS. Im sure there's something in L2-- maybe somebody can link me...?
On the inside, I think there are two cameras each in Destiny and Unity, one at each end avove the hatch entrance... :)
-
Are there any updates on the status of the Russian computers?
-
I'm seraching for information regarding the possible studies about the use of RTG's on the ISS. Can anyone point me on the right direction?
-
Ok, so the ISS is moving at 17,500mph right? I was wondering this today, if they are moving that fast, then how if you're in space do you know you're stopped? How do you really know how fast you're traveling if there's nothing to gauge it by? And how do we know the ISS isn't really just stationary and that the earth is really just moving underneath it, making it seem like it's moving at 17,500mph? Is the ISS on a continual path dodging other objects up there? Just had to ask this...
-
read up on orbital mechanics
-
Jim's right, if you want to really understand how this works, you should read some book about orbital physics. Even wikipedia would do for starters. However, I'll try to explain in a few words the basic idea behind what you ask.
You've actually deduced by yourself the relativity principle, which states that if you're moving at a constant velocity, it's impossible for you to know (and for anyone else moving at CONSTANT velocity with respect to you) if you're the one moving or your reference is the one moving. Or a combination of both, of course. In fact, it's irrelevant who's moving, what matters is the relative velocity between you and your reference. That implies there isn't a real "reference" to compare your velocity with, it's only a matter of convinience.
A satellite, however, is somewhat different. It's not moving at constant velocity (the value of the velocity is constant, but its direction is not) and, as you'll realize if you digg deeper into this, there are forces that act upon it. The same happens with Earth revolving around the sun, or, in general, any ordinary circular movement. Draw in your head the Station's velocity as an arrow, pointing in the direction it's moving. If you look from far away, you'll realize this arrow is always changing direction, trying to point towards Earth: it's trying to fall. That's why it's commonly said astronauts around Earth are not beyond gravity's reach, but only falling. But, as Earth is round, it goes so quick it always falls beyond its 'rim', thus circling it forever. Try imagining a cannon: you can fire balls from it, and they'll fall to the ground, but if you manage to fire them with enough velocity, the curve of the Earth will make them fall ever farther, until they start circling it.
So, here the Earth attracts the ISS, making it 'fall' (exerting a force) We conclude it's moving around us because of this force. As I've said, only if something's moving without any force acting upon it, is when you can't know if it's you moving or that something.
As for the question about the continuous path, dodging objects... well, there ARE many pieces of orbital debris, but not so many threaten the ISS so as to dogde them. Every now and then it must slightly change its orbit to avoid collisions, but nothing like every day! Space is immense, and even LEO is quite roomy :)
Hope to have clarified things a bit. But I strongly suggest you to look for more detailed information, you've already hinted a good lot all by yourself!
-
"Are there any updates on the status of the Russian computers"
No change. The secondary power supply over voltage/current circuit has been bypassed. 4 lanes are up (2 each type) and 1 lane is cold. Cause not yet identified. Likely will be like this until the new computers, retrofitted with new power supply filters are launched on 26P on July 22.
-
Will the station be permanently "flying" with the Russian segment going nose first, or will it be turned back around with the US segment going nose first? I know it was turned around recently using the CMG's in a test of non propulsion menuvuering.
-
US lab/PMA 2 flight front (what we call XVV - +X in the velocity vector) is the norm.
-
brahmanknight - 20/6/2007 7:48 PM
Will the station be permanently "flying" with the Russian segment going nose first, or will it be turned back around with the US segment going nose first? I know it was turned around recently using the CMG's in a test of non propulsion menuvuering.
It is already turned back around with the US segment going nose first.
-
Is there a baseline yet for how the crewmembers for 6 person ISS will be yet? You now have a commander, a flight engineer, and science officer. Will the others just be SO's? And what are the flight engineer's duties? The other two positions are self explanitory.
-
On the subject of cmg's, what is their current status? I am probably way behind, but last I remember cmg-3 was down and perhaps there was one other flaky one?
-
Is there a list somewhere of when the Beta Angle Cutouts occur? Are they regularly occuring events and easy to predict?
-
Trekkie07 - 30/6/2007 1:44 AM
Is there a list somewhere of when the Beta Angle Cutouts occur?
Not sure where else, but they are in documents in L2 on this site.
-
"On the subject of cmg's, what is their current status? I am probably way behind, but last I remember cmg-3 was down and perhaps there was one other flaky one?"
CMG-3 will be replaced on 13A.1. The other are fine though some showing the same sort of behavior.
-
There's some movement in the SSPF. They are about to move Columbus, any idea why?
NOPE, it didn't go anywhere... :bleh:
-
This is from a NASA Request for Information to contractors vying to provide crew quarters, galley, waste management and other facilities/equipment for the expansion to a six-person crew on ISS. From 2003:
Part A: ISS Astronaut Crew Habitability Equipment
Introduction In order for the crew of the ISS to increase from a size of 3 crew members to a size of 4 - 7 crew members, additional crew habitability equipment (CHE) is required onboard the ISS. CHE includes: Crew Quarters, Crew Galley, Wardroom Table, Waste and Hygiene Compartment, and Waste Collection System.
These items are briefly described below. All items will have operating lifetimes of 15 years. It is expected that all items will fit within and utilize an International Standard Payload Rack (ISPR) location. The ISPR locations to be used may be located either in Node 3 or in the US Laboratory Destiny. (Information about the dimensions and characteristics of an ISPR location is contained in Part D.) The equipment will allow for periodic inspections, preventative or corrective maintenance, restoration to original performance, and replacement of components. All items will be transported to the ISS using the Space Shuttle and must withstand the launch environments.
So it looks like Node 3 and Destiny will be used. The full document is available here:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10387
Hope that helps.
:bleh:
-
When are they going to flip the station around for the EAS disposal?
-
GMT 22:00 on July 22 is the maneuver to -XVV. The flip back is late Monday night, about 11 hours after the jettison.
-
First the formalities: Long time lurker, first time poster.
Now for the meat: The upcoming EVA will include cleaning of the docking port on Unity, how will this be achieved? Surely it won't be a simple case of a spray with some compressed air, as the first thought would be down here. Will it be wiped clean? Or another method more suited to a spacewalker?
-
Just wiped and inspecting
-
I wish they would use a camara to document the "flip." Just for us orbital mechanic geeks.
-
brahmanknight - 21/7/2007 2:34 PM
I wish they would use a camara to document the "flip."
You can get something of that flavor watching downlink in the post orbiter docking and pre orbiter undocking periods given the maneuver they do to go from the normal station attitude to the docked attitude and back.
-
brahmanknight - 21/7/2007 1:34 PM
I wish they would use a camara to document the "flip." Just for us orbital mechanic geeks.
Might be interesting, but whether using the CMGs or Progress thrusters it would take too long from start to finish (15-30 minutes or longer) to warrant some type of constant video recording. Most ISS maneuvers happen in pretty 'slow motion' and don't lend themselves to realtime video monitoring.
You have to remember that 99% of the on-orbit video is to support the folks onboard ISS, not just to downlink "cool images" for the rest of us here on Earth.
-
I understand that. Like I wrote, "I wish."
-
"Just wiped and inspecting"
Fyodor Yurchikin will use a scraper tool used for TPS repair. it will be like cleaning snow off a car if you live in teh north. If that doesn't work, tape will be used.
-
"Might be interesting, but whether using the CMGs or Progress thrusters it would take too long from start to finish (15-30 minutes or longer) to warrant some type of constant video recording. Most ISS maneuvers happen in pretty 'slow motion' and don't lend themselves to realtime video monitoring. "
It will be done on Thursters. The cameras will be on and you might see something. But keep in mind this is not Star Trek where there is always that mysterious camera that is far off and can provide some outside view - the cameras here are attached to the ISS. :)
-
just a thought, has there been sattelite (or UFO) sightings from the ISS?
-
I am scratching my head trying to figure out why the ISS inclination is 51.6 deg since Baikonur's latitude is 45.6 deg . Why the extra 6 degrees?
-
GncDude - 23/7/2007 3:34 AM
I am scratching my head trying to figure out why the ISS inclination is 51.6 deg since Baikonur's latitude is 45.6 deg . Why the extra 6 degrees?
To avoid dumping spent stages into Chinese territory. It would be like NASA dumping the spent SRBs onto Cuba.
-
LOL. I like your comparison. Thanks.
-
Great link on ISS attitudes
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/flash/iss_attitude.html
-
C5C6 - 22/7/2007 9:06 AM
just a thought, has there been sattelite (or UFO) sightings from the ISS?
No.
-
Jim - 28/7/2007 5:50 PM
Great link on ISS attitudes
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/flash/iss_attitude.html
Thanks Jim. Found that really helpful as I didn't have a clue what the Solar beta Angle was all about! ;)
-
What OS does the Russian Segment computers run?
-
When did NASA decide to rotate expeditions in the manner they are doing currently....with an ex 15a crew for one part and an ex 15b crew for another part? Was this the plan all along, or a post-Columbia thing?
-
brahmanknight - 29/7/2007 12:00 PM
When did NASA decide to rotate expeditions in the manner they are doing currently....with an ex 15a crew for one part and an ex 15b crew for another part? Was this the plan all along, or a post-Columbia thing?
Post-Columbia.
Pre-Columbia, the plan (as followed on STS-102, 105, 108, 111, and 113) was to rotate all three crewmembers at once on the shuttle. Short-duration "taxi crews" rotated out the Soyuz every six months, but did not remain on station. Sometimes the third seat on these taxi crews was sold to tourists.
After the accident there was some sentiment to moving the entire ISS crew to Soyuz but the Russians wanted to continue selling the third seat. So now we have two rotating on Soyuz and one on the shuttle. Since it is impossible to keep the two schedules lined up, that means the ISS crewmember rotating on shuttle overlaps two main expeditions.
This has had some drawbacks and some advantages. The shuttle crewmember doesn't get to train as much with his/her crewmates, but on the other hand, moving two of the ISS crew off shuttle has allowed the shuttle crew to be filled out with specialists trained on the complex assembly tasks, so it's not such a big deal that the third crewmember doesn't train much with the other two. It has also made crew handovers much more effective. Before, all three crewmembers handed over at once and you had to cram all the handover tasks into a week. Now, there are crewmembers that overlap expeditions and are familiar with the station, so it's not so time-critical to hand over every detail during that one week.
-
Jorge - 29/7/2007 12:31 PM
brahmanknight - 29/7/2007 12:00 PM
When did NASA decide to rotate expeditions in the manner they are doing currently....with an ex 15a crew for one part and an ex 15b crew for another part? Was this the plan all along, or a post-Columbia thing?
Post-Columbia.
I should add that, though this change coincided with return-to-flight after Columbia, the accident was not the direct cause.
The Intergovernmental Agreements on ISS required Russia to provide the first eleven Soyuz spacecraft as the ISS crew return vehicle. The eleven craft ran out in 2005, by which point (the assumption at the time was) the US X-38 CRV would be ready.
After the accident, Russia reminded NASA that the agreement was due to expire and that NASA would have to pay for any Soyuz use after 2005. This was a bid to get Congress to amend the Iran Nonproliferation Act, which forbade the US government from making payments to Russia related to ISS. The bid was successful; Congress caved and amended the act, allowing NASA to buy Soyuz flights through the end of 2011.
But these hardball tactics by the Russians also spurred NASA to end the practice of free shuttle rides for Russian cosmonauts. Since the Russians would not pay, that forced their crew rotations to Soyuz. Nikolai Budarin, on STS-113 in 2002, will in all likelihood have been the last Russian ever to launch on a shuttle.
-
"The shuttle crewmember doesn't get to train as much with his/her crewmates, but on the other hand, moving two of the ISS crew off shuttle has allowed the shuttle crew to be filled out with specialists trained on the complex assembly tasks, so it's not such a big deal that the third crewmember doesn't train much with the other two. It has also made crew handovers much more effective. Before, all three crewmembers handed over at once and you had to cram all the handover tasks into a week. Now, there are crewmembers that overlap expeditions and are familiar with the station, so it's not so time-critical to hand over every detail during that one week."
Far more disadvantages. It makes training and planning for the crew extremely difficult. As shuttles move around (with and without an expeidtion person) we have to replan a lot. The crew now get a lot more training much of it obsolete by the time they fly. It would be one thing if so many other issues weren't tied to specific dates that can't change. And as for handover, it works well in the case of Reiter to Williams with L-A on board, but doesn't fit for all crews just as when Clay took over. So I would not say that is a big savings.
-
In a number of ISS On-Orbit Status Reports over the years there has been mention of various noise abatement measures being taken on the ISS such as replacing fans and installing dampeners. I remember reading that early on the crew had to wear ear plugs which interfered with them hearing the caution and warning alarms.
Does anyone know how much progress has been made in this area?
-
"Does anyone know how much progress has been made in this area?"
Still on going. Sounds baffles still being added to equipment in the RS. Some in the FGB in the near future as closeout panels are added. Still very noisy up there.
-
how will parts like the CMG be replaced after the retirement of the orbiter?
-
Assuming there's more failures than on-orbit spares, COTS or HTV.
-
their hatches are large enough for things like CMG?
-
External (non-pressurized) cargo area on the resupply vehicle. Also some talk of redesigning for smaller (but more) CMG modules to attach to the same fittings.
-
Andy_Small - 13/8/2007 4:31 PM
their hatches are large enough for things like CMG?
They can be carried externally
-
awesome. Thanks guys!
-
Just want to clarify a few things about CETA carts in my mind.
They are hand propelled, and use the same rails as the MBS, so must be moved to allow the MBS to access the end worksites as it cannot travel 'over' them?
I've seen a few references to them being moved on EVA's but little mention of operational use. What are they actually used for, and can't the same tasks be performed by SSRMS, or simply by the EVA'ers without the carts.
I guess I'm missing something here, such as moving ORU's without grapple fixtures, but would like confirmation, as there seems to be very little information in the public domain.
-
bobthemonkey - 16/8/2007 4:55 PM Just want to clarify a few things about CETA carts in my mind. They are hand propelled, and use the same rails as the MBS, so must be moved to allow the MBS to access the end worksites as it cannot travel 'over' them? I've seen a few references to them being moved on EVA's but little mention of operational use. What are they actually used for, and can't the same tasks be performed by SSRMS, or simply by the EVA'ers without the carts. I guess I'm missing something here, such as moving ORU's without grapple fixtures, but would like confirmation, as there seems to be very little information in the public domain.
I saw a spacewalk where the EVAers used the CETA carts, I think it was in 116 (although I'm not really sure) These carts are used when the spacewalkers have to transport some extra equipment that cannot be attached to their suits, and at the same time the SSRMS isn't available or is not practical for holding one spacewalker on a foot restraint.
Maybe someone with more access to ISS hardware info can expand this, or correct something...
-
I think I remember Mike Lopez Alegria and Suni Williams using the CETA carts on one of their ISS spacewalks.
-
Thanks. It seemed at least that most of the CETA operations were moving it out of the way, rather than using it in an operational sense.
-
Why do transfer operations seem to take so much time and so many people?
-
Lee Jay - 16/8/2007 3:58 PM
Why do transfer operations seem to take so much time and so many people?
because all the payload entering the ISS has to be catalogued as to WHAT is going WHERE in their inventory system. Can't just have a bunch of STUFF thrown in there willy-nilly
Conversely items going into shuttle for return is catalogued as well as probably weight distributed so you don't have an imbalance to one side of the orbitor.
There may be other reasons but that is my nickels worth.
-
Here's an out of the blue question, but I was trying to get it straight in my mind about the current research capabilities on ISS.
So, of the 24 rack locations in the Destiny lab, I believe there are 22 actual racks in place, 1 zero g storage racks, and the window which will eventually hold worf. Is this correct?
-
I believe so, but some of those are avionics, rather than research.
-
jarthur - 16/8/2007 4:13 PM
Here's an out of the blue question, but I was trying to get it straight in my mind about the current research capabilities on ISS.
So, of the 24 rack locations in the Destiny lab, I believe there are 22 actual racks in place, 1 zero g storage racks, and the window which will eventually hold worf. Is this correct?
there is less. there is map on L2
-
Jim - 16/8/2007 3:02 PM
there is less. there is map on L2
Oh L2. If I wasn't concerned about loosing absolutely all productivity, I would be all over it. I guess my question boils down to: is there still one zero g storage rack in Destiny?
-
I will look tomorrow
-
-
Nevermind, I think this image answers my question. There is a zero g stowage rack in the lab105 location. Thanks though!
-
there is more than one
-
Jim - 16/8/2007 5:36 PM
there is more than one
Thanks?
-
I was wrong, there is only one now.
-
What do they use to "shower" on the station? Because I know they can't just turn the water on just like we do here.
-
wet towels. There was a study looking at a more conventional shower for the Hab, but that was some time ago and didn't get very far as far as I am aware.
There was a shower on Mir (Kvant 2) but It took a lot of work to set up and clean down, and in the end I believe that it was used as a storage area.
-
How long until the wireless system for the truss is operational?
-
Which shuttle flight holds the record for longest period docked to ISS?
Thank you.
-
Currently we will step up to it in late September at the earliest.
-
OK, here's mine.
Is there a public resource showing all the elements of the ISS, so it's easy to find out what every part does and how it's involved in the operating of the station ?
A related issue. Is there a public, up to date, model of the ISS somewhere, in, say, DXF or some shareable format ? I know about the NASA VRML model, but its difficult to import VRML97 ... I want to make a model of the ISS with hi res photo's mapped onto sheets that will show clearly the details and where they are.
DJ Barney
-
DJ Barney - 24/8/2007 11:15 PM
I want to make a model of the ISS
DJ Barney
Look here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1806&posts=444&highlight=model&highlightmode=1
http://www.marscenter.it/eng/veicol.asp?pa=6055
-
Thanks Bruce. That looks like the business :cool:
DJ Barney
-
What is the purpose of the white circles on the outside structures of ISS?
-
Andy_Small - 26/8/2007 9:44 PM
What is the purpose of the white circles on the outside structures of ISS?
Those are targets for the Space Vision System (SVS), a sensor developed by Canada to aid RMS/SSRMS berthing for cases where the arm operator has no direct view.
-
Jorge - 26/8/2007 10:06 PM
Andy_Small - 26/8/2007 9:44 PM
What is the purpose of the white circles on the outside structures of ISS?
Those are targets for the Space Vision System (SVS), a sensor developed by Canada to aid RMS/SSRMS berthing for cases where the arm operator has no direct view.
So are the active or passive sensors?
I was thinking they were the grapple fixtures for the RMS and SSRRMS but I guess those are more complicated than just a small circle
-
Passive - the program compares the dot positions from several different camera views to use in calculating the correct positioning and alignment of modules to help with CBM docking and some truss units' assembly.
-
Hello Bruce !
Great links about the modelling, especially the gold Shuttle / carrier that belongs to one of the editors here :cool:
There is no information there that I can find about digital models though.
There was a virtual walk through (should that be float through?) of the ISS produced in about 2001, but it is now somewhat outdated and not importable into other packages.
NASA do have an entire page devoted to a VRML model of the station, but again I cannot find anything that imports it ( VRML97 / VRML 2.0 ).
There's the same problem with these CAD models , amazing as they are.
AGI (the people that supply NASA's realtime simulation software, that you see running alongside launches) also have models, but again, I can't view them with their free viewer, and the software that I think I need to load the model is only available to contracters. Even if I can get that software, again, I don't think I can extract the model for other packages.
I want to build a public page that will show a digital model along with hi res photos alongside the model (ie actually IN the running model world) to make understanding where the astronauts are working as clear as possible. I find it difficult to believe that there is not a model out there somewhere that is in DXF, 3DS or some other importable format.
DJ Barney
-
DJ Barney,
I'm the guy that made the models at:
http://www.geocities.com/i_s_s_alpha/iss_alpha.htm
I am interested in what you are proposing. Let me know what you need and maybe I can help you out.
atmahan
[email protected]
-
Can somebody post details about the docking mechanisims used on the ISS?
-
tnphysics - 3/9/2007 6:24 PM
Can somebody post details about the docking mechanisims used on the ISS?
http://www.google.com
-
tnphysics - 3/9/2007 7:24 PM
Can somebody post details about the docking mechanisims used on the ISS?
US On-orbit Segment (USOS):
APAS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgynous_Peripheral_Attach_System
CBM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Berthing_Mechanism
Russian Segment (RS):
Probe & Drogue/Hybrid/APAS: http://suzymchale.com/kosmonavtka/issdock.html
There is also data in the International Space Station Familiarization Guide:
http://snebulos.mit.edu/projects/reference/International-Space-Station/FAM-C-22109RA.pdf
-
I've got 3 questions:
1) I wonder will ISS have any influence in preparations to lunar flights? I mean will ISS serve as "bus-stop" to the Moon.
2) How long will ISS serve in Earth's orbit? till 2015? 2020 ?
3) Will Orion spacecrafts dock to ISS via CBM or PMA ?
Thx for reply.
-
3) Will Orion spacecrafts dock to ISS via CBM or PMA ?
Orion will dock to PMA.
-
1. not currently
2 current until 2016
3 APAS on the PMA's using a LIDS adapter
-
The ISS is and will be electrolyzing water to provide Oxygen for the crew. The hydrogen also generated will be dumped overboard. If this H2 were put through a cold-gas thruster directed to provide positive delta V for the station, could any significant amount of reboost propellant be saved over the long term?
-
Lee Jay - 14/9/2007 6:25 PM
The ISS is and will be electrolyzing water to provide Oxygen for the crew. The hydrogen also generated will be dumped overboard. If this H2 were put through a cold-gas thruster directed to provide positive delta V for the station, could any significant amount of reboost propellant be saved over the long term?
I attempted some very rough back-of-the-envelope calculations and came up with around 200kg/year with the 6-person crew. It's entirely possible that I didn't do this correctly so I certainly would still like an answer from someone better equipped than me to answer this question.
-
Is there a reason why the next few Shuttle delivered ISS crew members time aboard the station are so limited?
-
I think it has to do with assured US delivery by a US spaceship.
-
What is the current plan of allocation of crew places for 2009 and 2010 on the ISS? Especially I would be interested if there already are negotiations for the 12 Soyuz seats available in 2010?
-
"Is there a reason why the next few Shuttle delivered ISS crew members time aboard the station are so limited?"
The crews train for specific missions and stages. When shuttle flights move around so do they. For example, Clay Anderson (Exp 15 up there now) was to be much shorter until they moved his flight up (but that was because there were concerns Suni Williams stage would be too long). Other people like Tani trained for Node 2. Leo Eyharts is training for the 1E stage. Then you add in "requirements" like you must have a European for the COlumbus stage, a Japanese for that stage... it chops it up quite a bit.
-
Probably an odd question, but part of my Architectural design for this semester currently involves rotating elements based on the ISS solar arrays. Here we go...
The SARJ assemblies allow the arrays to rotate 360 degrees in the YZ plane with relation to the station's normal direction of travel. I know they can also rotate in the XZ plane. Can they rotate 360 degrees in the XZ plane as well?
-
Space.com article:
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/ap-071016-china-iss.html
China still wants to be part of the ISS I guess. Politically I think it is a huge long shot that China will be invited to the ISS as a partner. Technically speaking though what obstacles would prevent just a "visit" by a Shenzou spacecraft to the ISS? I know that it is similar to the Russian Soyuz, but wasn't sure if one could dock as the way the spacecraft is currently configured.
-
Nathan, AFAIK, yes, the beta (XY ) joints can rotate 360 degrees. The P6 truss, had to use the Betas to rotate since they didn't have a SARJ at the time and they were on a different rotation plane at the time.
-
texas_space - 17/10/2007 8:38 AM
Space.com article:
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/ap-071016-china-iss.html
China still wants to be part of the ISS I guess. Politically I think it is a huge long shot that China will be invited to the ISS as a partner. Technically speaking though what obstacles would prevent just a "visit" by a Shenzou spacecraft to the ISS? I know that it is similar to the Russian Soyuz, but wasn't sure if one could dock as the way the spacecraft is currently configured.
China purchased APAS docking mechanisms from Russia. This would allow them to dock to either of the PMAs on the US segment. They didn't mount them on previous Shenzhou spacecraft.
The biggest obstacle is that the Chinese have zero experience in rendezvous and docking, and are extremely secretive about Shenzhou. That is not the way to convince NASA they can approach and dock safely. NASA has considerable insight into ATV and HTV, for example - NASA engineers have been working with ESA and JAXA for over a decade on them. NASA and Russia "grandfathered" each other on ISS since each recognized (back in the mid-90's) that the other had over three decades of rendezvous/docking experience.
So which route will China choose? Will they let NASA engineers crawl up their butts with proctoscopes for a decade to gain the insight necessary to convince themselves that Shenzhou is safe? Or will they let China gain three decades of rendezvous/docking experience on their own before inviting them into ISS?
-
What if the russians simply say, "sure come on up and dock on our side of the station?" - probably not a lot NASA could do to stop it. Similar to the first Space Tourist - Tito - years ago that Nasa was dead set against but couldn't stop.
-
But you can't use APAS on the Russian side. They use the older Russian equiment with the probe docking approach.
-
stockman - 17/10/2007 9:50 AM
What if the russians simply say, "sure come on up and dock on our side of the station?" - probably not a lot NASA could do to stop it. Similar to the first Space Tourist - Tito - years ago that Nasa was dead set against but couldn't stop.
The ISS international partners would sure have something to say about that, too.
There just won't be room. The Partners won't agree to use a Chinese craft for evacuation, so there will still have to be 2 Soyuz on station. ATVs will dominate the aft end of Zvezda docking use, and there will still likely be more Progress flights as well.
Russia never started their docking module addition before they cancelled it, so there's no chance something like that could make it there before the 2015 deadline.
-
On Soyouz TMA-11, Malentchenko is the commander (Kommandir), Whitson is the flight engineer (Bort injenier), but which role Anderson is playing ?
Thanks!
-
Nicolas PILLET - 20/10/2007 2:31 PM
On Soyouz TMA-11, Malentchenko is the commander (Kommandir), Whitson is the flight engineer (Bort injenier), but which role Anderson is playing ?
He is flight engineer-2...
-
But in order to have the status of "flight engineer n°2", it is necessary to pass a kind of diploma at TsPK. Do you mean that all the international astronauts arriving with the shuttle have to pass this complicated exam ?
-
Nicolas PILLET - 20/10/2007 2:58 PM
Do you mean that all the international astronauts arriving with the shuttle have to pass this complicated exam ?
All foreign astronauts, included in ISS Expedition crews, are training in GCTC as flight engineers (FE-1 or FE-2) of Soyuz spacecrafts...
-
Is there any news of whether the Russian equivalent of the EMU SAFER - the USK for the Orlan spacesuit - will ever be launched to the ISS?
-
Suzy - 22/10/2007 8:10 AM
Is there any news of whether the Russian equivalent of the EMU SAFER - the USK for the Orlan spacesuit - will ever be launched to the ISS?
USK was designed and made by NPP Zvezda enterprise at request of NASA, therefore it will be delivered on ISS in any case...
Two USK flight units has already produced and tested... They are possibly ready for launch now...
They can be installed onto Orlan-M and Orlan-MK spacesuits... But I was told that the main task for us now is delivery of the first two new Orlan-MK spacesuits on Progress M-64 (May 2008) and Progress M-66 (September 2008)... Two USK units will arrive to ISS only after that... Probably in 2009...
-
Any info on differences between Orlan-M and Orlan MK?
-
Why is the japanese Experiment Logistics Module launched before the main Kibo lab module. This way the ELM needs to be docked on a interim position on Node-2 and then needs to be relocated, when Kibo has arrived. I am sure, there is a reason for it.
-
The logistics module carries all the racks that will outfit Kibo when it gets to the station. Since the lab is so large and heavy, it will be launched as empty as possible.
-
brahmanknight - 24/10/2007 3:01 PM
The logistics module carries all the racks that will outfit Kibo when it gets to the station. Since the lab is so large and heavy, it will be launched as empty as possible.
But why has the Logistics module to be there before Kibo?
-
catfry - 24/10/2007 1:16 AM
Any info on differences between Orlan-M and Orlan MK?
The answer is here (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=61&start=214)...
-
Skyrocket - 24/10/2007 2:11 PM
brahmanknight - 24/10/2007 3:01 PM
The logistics module carries all the racks that will outfit Kibo when it gets to the station. Since the lab is so large and heavy, it will be launched as empty as possible.
But why has the Logistics module to be there before Kibo?
Well maybe certain other parts of STS-123 need to be done to allow STS-124 to go smoothly, maybe spacewalks?
-
anik - 24/10/2007 4:07 PM
catfry - 24/10/2007 1:16 AM
Any info on differences between Orlan-M and Orlan MK?
The answer is here (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=61&start=214)...
An Orlan-MK was exhibited at MAKS-2005. Here are my pictures of the event :
http://membres.lycos.fr/maks2005/maks/008.html
-
Thank you anik. The lcd screen does not appear to be visible on the pictures.
-
I have a question that probably has been answered, but I didn't find anything via this forum's search function. I did search back through 2 years of this Q+A thread before posting ...
A couple years ago I found this nice NASA flash app that explained the various ISS attitudes:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/flash/iss_attitude.html
For example, it explains XVV and beta angle. However, the explanations it provides are for the station BEFORE it got the final solar wings deployed. Now that it has both P and S wings are deployed in their final positions, I believe that the attitude modes should have now changed.
Has anyone seen a good writeup of the new attitudes?
-
It's now always LVLH (or the XVV) attitude. The only alteration is when an orbiter is docked, in which case it 'swaps ends' so the Russian segment is in front (which helps protect the orbiter from MMOD hits while docked).
-
About the current issue with the SARJ: Can a SARJ be replaced on-orbit? If not, could it be possible to implement a system that would enable its EVA R&R? Something like this: bring up a solidifier bar with shuttle, bolt the ends of the truss segments around the SARJs to it so that the structure is rigid, and then R&R the SARJ?
-
Were the ISS structures assembled on the ground to confirm the interfaces?
--- CHAS
-
Not all of them, that would have required the ISS to be completely assembled first...
-
HIPAR - 28/10/2007 5:39 PM
Were the ISS structures assembled on the ground to confirm the interfaces?
--- CHAS
Some were connected in what was called MEIT
-
I just wanted to repost here a Q&A from the STS-120 FD11 thread
edimus - 2/11/2007 9:28 AM
Joffan - 2/11/2007 11:19 AM
I know Dextre is on its way upstairs in early 2008 but the boom seems like a useful piece of kit to have around on the space station too. Does anyone know of a plan to leave one up there post-Shuttle? Preferably one adapted to be used by the SSRMS as it is by the SRMS?
The current plan is to stow one on STS-123 on the S1 Truss. Two support struts were installed on STS-118 on the S1 zenith trunion pins to hold it. Their is a plan in work to provide power to it while it is stowed. The sensors would still only be compatible with the SRMS and the SSRMS would still only grapple it from the middle.
Thanks edimus.
-
With the coming EVA to repair the torn solar array, there's significant discussion about the electrical hazard posed by the array to an EV astronaut. This was also mentioned in the past in the context of trying to get the P6 arrays pulled in.
My question is this. Most of the questions are assuming the hazard is in the electrical power generation of the PV arrays. But this voltage is quite low, and not generally available at close locations on the array. I thought the real hazard was instead electrostatic because the arrays are very large and surrounded in a very non-conductive material (Kapton/Polyimide) which can lead its surface to store substantial electric charge. What is the real source of the electrical hazard to the EV astronauts?
-
guys, what about still stowed radiators on P1 truss segment? When will be deployed as "brothers" located on S1...
-
station55 - 5/11/2007 6:14 AM
guys, what about still stowed radiators on P1 truss segment? When will be deployed as "brothers" located on S1...
Chandonn made a good observation in the FD14 thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=10615&start=61#M208505
-
Brought up in the Discovery FD14 thread, but the the thermal cover put up in the Destiny outgoing hatch before hatch closure...Is this a normal proceedure or just for the Harmony relocation?
-
ApolloLee - 5/11/2007 12:07 PM
Brought up in the Discovery FD14 thread, but the the thermal cover put up in the Destiny outgoing hatch before hatch closure...Is this a normal proceedure or just for the Harmony relocation?
I believe this is strictly in preparation for PMA relocate and then subsequent Harmony/PMA locate back to front of Lab... Normally the hatch is left open I believe.
-
stockman - 5/11/2007 11:10 AM
ApolloLee - 5/11/2007 12:07 PM
Brought up in the Discovery FD14 thread, but the the thermal cover put up in the Destiny outgoing hatch before hatch closure...Is this a normal proceedure or just for the Harmony relocation?
I believe this is strictly in preparation for PMA relocate and then subsequent Harmony/PMA locate back to front of Lab... Normally the hatch is left open I believe.
The lab hatch is usually left open, but the PMA hatch is closed (to depressurize and power down the main heaters). They have been using the lab/PMA vestibule for additional storage space up till now (between shuttle missions).
-
Looking at the STS-122 documents I do not see any EVA activity connecting Columbus to the electric power, cooling or avionics systems of the ISS. How is Columbus connected to those systems?
-
dsmillman - 8/11/2007 4:04 PM
Looking at the STS-122 documents I do not see any EVA activity connecting Columbus to the electric power, cooling or avionics systems of the ISS. How is Columbus connected to those systems?
Within the vestibules. Same with Kibo, IIRC.
-
They might be internal from Node 2.
Beat me to it. I checked the IDRD and it shows only vestibule work and no EVA's
-
Did the solar array deployed on STS-41D Discovery on its maiden flight, have the same dimensions as the ones on ISS?
Thanks.
-
TJL - 10/11/2007 9:56 AM
Did the solar array deployed on STS-41D Discovery on its maiden flight, have the same dimensions as the ones on ISS?
Thanks.
No, it was smaller
-
DELETED due to double entry.
-
Concerning the recent PMA-2 redeployment, I believe that the passive CBM on the end of the PMA (APAS is on the other end) does not have a hatch. I gathered this from the note that the PMA was depressurized during the SSRMS maneuver and also because there doesn't seem to be room inside the PMA for a hatch to be stowed.
So, hatch or no hatch?
-
Only one hatch on PMA, the one on the APAS
-
Danderman - 11/11/2007 3:14 PM
Concerning the recent PMA-2 redeployment, I believe that the passive CBM on the end of the PMA (APAS is on the other end) does not have a hatch. I gathered this from the note that the PMA was depressurized during the SSRMS maneuver and also because there doesn't seem to be room inside the PMA for a hatch to be stowed.
So, hatch or no hatch?
There are probably pictures of the other two PMAs during ground processing which you can also search for on the KSC Media Gallery (http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/), but here's a couple of pictures of PMA-3 from focusing a search on 'PMA' and the STS number for ISS-3A.
-
I've been trying to find out at what angle the STBD SARJ is parked. Anybody know? Also, is the PORT SARJ and all of the various BGAs now actively tracking?
Thanks,
Dave
-
David413 - 12/11/2007 12:13 PM
I've been trying to find out at what angle the STBD SARJ is parked. Anybody know? Also, is the PORT SARJ and all of the various BGAs now actively tracking?
Thanks,
Dave
I believe I have read that it's parked at 135° rotation. And yes, the port SAWs are in AUTOTRACK following the successful repair of the P6 4B SAW. That was the only constraint for port SARJ rotation.
-
Do you have a source for the 135 degrees? I'd like to see it for myself, and additionally, the Port side is in autotrack but what about the starboard BGAs?
-
Where can I get a detailed description of the external payloads for the Columbus module?
-
brahmanknight - 14/11/2007 2:22 AM
Where can I get a detailed description of the external payloads for the Columbus module?
http://www.esa.int/esaHS/ESAFRG0VMOC_iss_0.html
Hopefully more details will be released once the mission is ongoing and Columbus and its payloads are installed.
-
David413 - 12/11/2007 6:41 AM
Do you have a source for the 135 degrees? I'd like to see it for myself, and additionally, the Port side is in autotrack but what about the starboard BGAs?
Starboard BGAs are working and tracking fine. They just aren't ready to move the SARJ anymore until they absolutely need to (moving to a different fixed angle as compromise between changing beta angle power production vs. array protection for vehicle docking/undocking thruster firings).
-
MKremer - 14/11/2007 2:50 AM
David413 - 12/11/2007 6:41 AM
Do you have a source for the 135 degrees? I'd like to see it for myself, and additionally, the Port side is in autotrack but what about the starboard BGAs?
Starboard BGAs are working and tracking fine. They just aren't ready to move the SARJ anymore until they absolutely need to (moving to a different fixed angle as compromise between changing beta angle power production vs. array protection for vehicle docking/undocking thruster firings).
Thanks! Is the 135 degrees previously mentioned accurate? Or, do they occasionally still move the stbd SARJ?
-
brahmanknight - 14/11/2007 9:22 AM
Where can I get a detailed description of the external payloads for the Columbus module?
Eutef
http://www.spaceflight.esa.int/users/downloads/factsheets/fs030_10_eutef.pdf
Solar:
http://www.spaceflight.esa.int/users/downloads/factsheets/fs021_10_solar.pdf
Aces:
http://www.spaceflight.esa.int/users/downloads/factsheets/fs031_10_aces.pdf
-
How come some say the ISS is being built by 16 nations and some say 15 and leave out the UK?
Even on the ship's log it dosen't have my flag... :frown:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-14/hires/iss014e19526.jpg
-
Look on top of the American flag.
EDIT :: Oh... the logbook itself. Sorry... I was just looking at the space over the hatch.
-
I did some searching around but couldn't come up with anything.
I've wondered why the APAS hatch on the PMA is offset from the centerline of the passive CBM port on the other end? Why is the PMA not a more symmetrical cone-shape? Perhaps to allow the APAS hatch to stow flat against the wall?
-
David413 - 14/11/2007 7:34 AM
MKremer - 14/11/2007 2:50 AM
David413 - 12/11/2007 6:41 AM
Do you have a source for the 135 degrees? I'd like to see it for myself, and additionally, the Port side is in autotrack but what about the starboard BGAs?
Starboard BGAs are working and tracking fine. They just aren't ready to move the SARJ anymore until they absolutely need to (moving to a different fixed angle as compromise between changing beta angle power production vs. array protection for vehicle docking/undocking thruster firings).
Thanks! Is the 135 degrees previously mentioned accurate? Or, do they occasionally still move the stbd SARJ?
The starboard SARJ is currently at a directed position of 44 degrees.
-
DMeader - 14/11/2007 12:34 PM
I did some searching around but couldn't come up with anything.
I've wondered why the APAS hatch on the PMA is offset from the centerline of the passive CBM port on the other end? Why is the PMA not a more symmetrical cone-shape? Perhaps to allow the APAS hatch to stow flat against the wall?
It puts the node farther forward to improve clearances for pulling modules out of the payload bay with the RMS.
-
jmjawors - 14/11/2007 6:18 PM
Look on top of the American flag.
EDIT :: Oh... the logbook itself. Sorry... I was just looking at the space over the hatch.
That's what I mean. Some things have the UK on and other things don't... :o
-
Jorge - 14/11/2007 12:45 PM
The starboard SARJ is currently at a directed position of 44 degrees.
Thanks!
-
What is a "ROBO?"
-
Danderman - 16/11/2007 7:05 AM
What is a "ROBO?"
ROBO = Short for ROBOtics. The ISS FCR console name for the officer in charge of the robotics system on ISS.
-
Jorge - 14/11/2007 6:46 PM
It puts the node farther forward to improve clearances for pulling modules out of the payload bay with the RMS.
As this image shows:
-
I'll change things up a bit by asking a question about Columbus. Why does it only have spots for 10 racks? Based on symmetry my initial guess would be that it would have a multiple of 4, so 12 or 16 racks. What is the other space being used for?
-
Why did they bring back the SASA on STS-120 instead of jettisoning it? Are they planning to repair and return to station?
-
jarthur - 16/11/2007 6:57 PM
I'll change things up a bit by asking a question about Columbus. Why does it only have spots for 10 racks? Based on symmetry my initial guess would be that it would have a multiple of 4, so 12 or 16 racks. What is the other space being used for?
Four racks down the left and right walls, two on the roof. Potentially it can hold more but stowage will probably take up the remaining spaces. :)
-
jarthur - 16/11/2007 7:57 PM
I'll change things up a bit by asking a question about Columbus. Why does it only have spots for 10 racks? Based on symmetry my initial guess would be that it would have a multiple of 4, so 12 or 16 racks. What is the other space being used for?
Columbus has spots for 16 racks. 10 is wrong. It is launched with 10 racks (3 system, 4 science, 3 stowage).
j2_ - 16/11/2007 9:11 PM
Why did they bring back the SASA on STS-120 instead of jettisoning it? Are they planning to repair and return to station?
Yes.
Analyst
-
ShuttleDiscovery - 16/11/2007 9:35 PM
jarthur - 16/11/2007 6:57 PM
I'll change things up a bit by asking a question about Columbus. Why does it only have spots for 10 racks? Based on symmetry my initial guess would be that it would have a multiple of 4, so 12 or 16 racks. What is the other space being used for?
Four racks down the left and right walls, two on the roof. Potentially it can hold more but stowage will probably take up the remaining spaces. :)
Are you sure? Not every rack position that looks not empty in a picture is actually holding a rack.
Analyst
-
In Destiny aren't the plain white ones on the floor stowage? I assumed this wold be the case with all the other spcaes in Columbus..
-
ShuttleDiscovery - 16/11/2007 9:42 PM
In Destiny aren't the plain white ones on the floor stowage? I assumed this wold be the case with all the other spcaes in Columbus..
No. I don't have the rack topology here right now. But I am pretty sure Destiny has only one stowage (ZSR) rack right now. The floor has system and science racks, like the other 3 walls (except for the one ZSR).
Analyst
-
OK, my bad. So what are the other spaces in Columbus actually being used for?
-
ShuttleDiscovery - 16/11/2007 5:04 PM
OK, my bad. So what are the other spaces in Columbus actually being used for?
According to the 11/15 briefing, ESA has 50% of rack space for their use, NASA has the rest. The empty rack space will be used for much needed storage until the racks are used for experiments.
Jeff
-
Analyst - 16/11/2007 9:36 PM
jarthur - 16/11/2007 7:57 PM
I'll change things up a bit by asking a question about Columbus. Why does it only have spots for 10 racks? Based on symmetry my initial guess would be that it would have a multiple of 4, so 12 or 16 racks. What is the other space being used for?
Columbus has spots for 16 racks. 10 is wrong. It is launched with 10 racks (3 system, 4 science, 3 stowage).
j2_ - 16/11/2007 9:11 PM
Why did they bring back the SASA on STS-120 instead of jettisoning it? Are they planning to repair and return to station?
Yes.
Analyst
Edited for the rack numbers. Thanks Ronald.
-
-
"Why did they bring back the SASA on STS-120 instead of jettisoning it? Are they planning to repair and return to station?"
Upgrades.
-
What is under cover 7 on the SARJ?
-
Avron - 18/11/2007 9:48 AM
What is under cover 7 on the SARJ?
Hello.. wow a question, with no answer in more than 12 ( edit-ok - also cannot do basic math) hours.. whats wrong.. is it too tough for the NSF team..???
( dont' see a tread to cover the SARJ and its difficulties - may warrant one - ed's?)
Ok.. to give some prospective, the third EVA on 112 may have some task to remove the cover on number 7 to looks and see what could be the problem ( cover 12- If I recall was removed last time)..
What we do know thus far is the metal shavings are from the race .. no mention of the DLA or trundle bearings.. so how come we only see shavings of race material ??
What is so hard that it could scrape the race but not leave behind any material .. maybe its not scraped.. maybe its a failure of the hardening process on the race when subjected to the space env.. could it be that the race is flaking off - space corrosion?
need some inputs please - cover 7 of the SARJ contains, a race ring and what??
-
Remember for those of us in North America (i.e. NASA people) it's a Sunday.
-
Avron - 18/11/2007 4:34 PM
Avron - 18/11/2007 9:48 AM
What is under cover 7 on the SARJ?
Hello.. wow a question, with no answer in more than 12 ( edit-ok - also cannot do basic math) hours.. whats wrong.. is it too tough for the NSF team..???
What an outrage... you should ask Chris for a refund, ASAP.
-
Jorge - 18/11/2007 9:32 PM
Avron - 18/11/2007 4:34 PM
Avron - 18/11/2007 9:48 AM
What is under cover 7 on the SARJ?
Hello.. wow a question, with no answer in more than 12 ( edit-ok - also cannot do basic math) hours.. whats wrong.. is it too tough for the NSF team..???
What an outrage... you should ask Chris for a refund, ASAP.
You have to be joking...
-
rdale - 18/11/2007 8:56 PM
Remember for those of us in North America (i.e. NASA people) it's a Sunday.
Rob the first part was tongue-in-cheek.. I fully understand that its Sunday.. and maybe is not a good day for bad humor on my behalf..
But any answers to the question would be most welcome...
-
Avron - 18/11/2007 10:42 PM
Jorge - 18/11/2007 9:32 PM
Avron - 18/11/2007 4:34 PM
Avron - 18/11/2007 9:48 AM
What is under cover 7 on the SARJ?
Hello.. wow a question, with no answer in more than 12 ( edit-ok - also cannot do basic math) hours.. whats wrong.. is it too tough for the NSF team..???
What an outrage... you should ask Chris for a refund, ASAP.
You have to be joking...
I was equally tongue-in-cheek as you.
-
Avron - 18/11/2007 10:34 PM
need some inputs please - cover 7 of the SARJ contains, a race ring and what??
Here's a diagram of the SARJ from one of the STS-120 mission status briefings:
There doesn't seem to be anything exciting under cover 7. The things marked C are covers, LL launch locks, TBA trundle bearing assemblies, DLA drive lock assemblies.
Mark
-
Looking for any updates coming out of EA and/or Boeing on the starboard SARJ engineering analysis - anyone know anything?
-
Engineering analysis? Are you talking about the analysis of the material collected by Dan Tani?
-
The materials analysis indicated that the filings were from the race ring. NASA (with Boeing's support, and presumably with the SARJ vendor's support (Lockheed Martin)) is conducting a FMEA using updated operations history/data, original design, and as-built close-out data. There was a great deal of effort and attention given to the SARJs back in 1999/2000/2001; lots of folks were worried about them then. I was asking if there are any updates about that analysis effort.
-
Only update I know of is that it's from the race ring, as you already know. Beyond that I'm clueless! :bleh:
My impression, though, is that there is not much more that can be done on the ground. More eyes need to be placed on the SARJ itself on orbit, so ISS is desperately trying to get that work done as soon as possible. Potentially during STS-122.
-
I was wondering how many of the non-essential ISS internal systems are powered off during crew sleep. For example, do they turn off the lights or display monitors? Or does the crew simply wear sleep masks to block out the light?
Thanks for the great forum.
-
"I was wondering how many of the non-essential ISS internal systems are powered off during crew sleep. For example, do they turn off the lights or display monitors? Or does the crew simply wear sleep masks to block out the light? "
Very few. Lights are turned off of course because it is hard to sleep otherwise. Laptops that are not being used have their screens shut down since we have had a problem with the screens burning out. Otherwise it is just screen savers. Other than that I can't really think of any lights (except a scattering of status LEDs which you can't really turn off).
-
erioladastra - 20/11/2007 6:22 PM
"I was wondering how many of the non-essential ISS internal systems are powered off during crew sleep. For example, do they turn off the lights or display monitors? Or does the crew simply wear sleep masks to block out the light? "
Very few. Lights are turned off of course because it is hard to sleep otherwise. Laptops that are not being used have their screens shut down since we have had a problem with the screens burning out. Otherwise it is just screen savers. Other than that I can't really think of any lights (except a scattering of status LEDs which you can't really turn off).
Is there something about the station's environment that is particularly hard on the fluorescent bulbs in the LCD backlights, or were they simply burning out due to normal wear and tear?
Thanks for the info.
-
"Is there something about the station's environment that is particularly hard on the fluorescent bulbs in the LCD backlights, or were they simply burning out due to normal wear and tear? "
Um, lets just say there has been quality control issues with the manufacturer.
-
From EVA 12 --- enlarge... looks pitted to me
-
What kind of lighting technology do the CETA lights use?
Some sort of HID? Is it something exotic, or fairly mundane?
How do they dissipate heat into space?
-
Avron - 24/11/2007 11:31 AM
From EVA 12 --- enlarge... looks pitted to me
Agree. More heavily pitted on outboard aspect of race. Be interesting to see if this is consistent over the entire circumference.
I suspect that type of damage is caused by a rotating element such as a damaged bearing. The surface does not appear to be scored in linear fashion as if something were dragging on the race.
I can't find much on-line on these assemblies. The trundle bearing assemblies (TBA's) have a failsafe in that the journal bearing starts to rotate in the event the primary bearing seizes. Such seizure triggers a microswitch to signal a problem. I do not believe this type of event has been recorded. I do not know if an out-of-round bearing would cause any intermittent activation of the microswitch.
At this point I anticipate two stages of repair:
1) Initial replacement of the damaged TBA, DLA, or removal of interfering debris. Then the race and ferrous dust will be cleaned up with some kind of magnetic "sponge." Managers will live with the pitted race for awhile, provided the SARJ can again rotate freely.
2) Ultimately the SARJ will have to be rebuilt with a new race. I believe the TBA's and DLA's can be reconfigured to transfer the 1000 lb. load to a backup race on the existing ring.
I think the next step will be video of the joint in motion.
Interesting problem.
-
Have any of the hi res digital photos of the SARJ been published yet? Presumably they were downlinked immediately after the EVA? Would be great to see what it really looks like.
-
ctrlz - 26/11/2007 10:35 AM
2) Ultimately the SARJ will have to be rebuilt with a new race. I believe the TBA's and DLA's can be reconfigured to transfer the 1000 lb. load to a backup race on the existing ring.
I think the next step will be video of the joint in motion.
Interesting problem.
The SARJ has two sets of races in it - the inner race and outer race. If you transfer to use of the back-up, why would you have to replace anything? You just don't want to switch to the back-up if there is a still a defect there which would cause you to destroy that one as well.
The matter of how you propose to replace it a different question entirely.
-
Mike_1179 - 26/11/2007 1:49 PM
The SARJ has two sets of races in it - the inner race and outer race. If you transfer to use of the back-up, why would you have to replace anything? You just don't want to switch to the back-up if there is a still a defect there which would cause you to destroy that one as well.
The matter of how you propose to replace it is a different question entirely.
If I understand what I have read correctly, each ring has a primary race and a backup. The DLA's and TBA's need to be reconfigured to transfer the load to the backup race. This is a manual task which would require several EVA's. The advantage is that the ring itself can stay in place.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/space/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385&plckPostId=Blog%3a04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385Post%3a88908263-7189-4446-bd20-334dc5f9dbdb&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
The source of the defect would have to be determined first in any repair scenario. Cargo has already been reconfigured for the Dec 6 STS mission allowing for transport of replacement TBA's in anticipation of future repairs.
I think chances are good that one of the TBA's is bad or misaligned, since these are the assemblies which roll along the race. But I admit I'm doing a lot of guessing based on very limited information.
Page 33 of the STS-115 Press Kit has some explanation of SARJ operation:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/350093/NASA-154433main-sts115-press-kit2
Some STS-120 briefing photos offer clear pictures of these assemblies:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/sts120/news/msb_sts120_fd07.html
-
No, they would install all new TBAs and DLAs if the backup ring is used. It would be rather dumb to attempt to re-use already contaminated bearing and drive lock/motor assemblies.
-
"The SARJ has two sets of races in it - the inner race and outer race. If you transfer to use of the back-up, why would you have to replace anything? You just don't want to switch to the back-up if there is a still a defect there which would cause you to destroy that one as well. "
It requires a hardware swap of the trundle bearing assemblies. However, this is not a desired option - the iner race ring is NOT fully redudant. If the hardware was configured the software is not in place not would you be able to lock the arrays due to lack of redudant hardware.
-
So judging from what has been seen so far, we have a gearbox contaminated with metal particles. To save wasted effort with bearing repairs that may not succeed long term due to the possibility of contamination after the mechanism has been "cleaned", a total SARJ replacement must be a real possibility now. Perhaps the old SARJ can be brought down and rebuilt as a spare?
-
I doubt that an all-up replacement exists, and building a new one would involve years of lead time. By the time it was finished there would be no way to get it there.
-
*gulp*
This could be fairly serious, then.
The pitting by the way looks neither "linear", i.e., caused by scratches from a dragging obstruction, nor does it seem to display a periodically repeating pattern as might be expected from a deformed bearing.
It looks like... corrosion! Now I know there is very little oxygen floating around in low earth orbit to cause rust. But could the SARJ have brought its own oxygen up from the ground if the surface of the race was insufficiently ... what's the word ... annealed?
Not being a metallurgist or even an engineer, it's probably a silly question to ask...
-
In the EVA picture it seems like only the outboard race ring has pitting. Hard to imagine plain oxidation corrosion since the inner ring seems fine.
Could it be galvanic corrosion, since the ring and the bearings and the DLA gears are different metals? On the other hand, it is clear that the pitting has resulted in shavings as though the race ring has been cut into, not simply dissolved or altered.
-
mwfair - 27/11/2007 11:05 AM
Could it be galvanic corrosion, since the ring and the bearings and the DLA gears are different metals?
That would require some sort of electrolyte, would it not? A lot of the equipment I deal with at work has aluminum and stainless-steel hardware in contact. It is only if it is exposed to wet (in my case salty winter-time highway contamination) conditions that I get the whitish corrosion on the aluminum where the two metals meet. If things stay dry, then no problems.
-
A reboost question in honor of today's scheduled ISS reboost:
Does the thrust impart a meaningful amount of gravity to the crew? That is, can they "feel" the effect of the thrust, or is it so small as to be imperceptible?
-
Bret - 28/11/2007 3:45 PM A reboost question in honor of today's scheduled ISS reboost: Does the thrust impart a meaningful amount of gravity to the crew? That is, can they "feel" the effect of the thrust, or is it so small as to be imperceptible?
Yes, I've seen videos of astronauts letting go of things in the middle of the station and you can see them accelerating towards the rear (they are in www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org, but I don't quite remember where, sorry... I think one of them actually have the 'reboost' word in its title) Sometimes, the 'things' accelerating were the astros themselves :) Also, in Peggy's or Suni's personal logs in NASA's site, I remember reading something about this.
-
There is a video of Suni Williams during a reboost where she releases her feet (after throwing popcorn balls) and she flies in to the aft wall of the SM. I think it was shown during a press conference during increment 15.
-
Bret - 28/11/2007 10:45 AM
A reboost question in honor of today's scheduled ISS reboost:
Reboost was canceled about a week ago.
-
rdale - 28/11/2007 11:25 PM
Bret - 28/11/2007 10:45 AM
A reboost question in honor of today's scheduled ISS reboost:
Reboost was canceled about a week ago.
... which many of us just found out about today.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=61&mid=217674#M217674
-
Chandonn - 29/11/2007 12:41 AM
rdale - 28/11/2007 11:25 PM
Reboost was canceled about a week ago.
... which many of us just found out about today.
Actually anik posted it last week -- the rest of NASA apparently wasn't aware :>
anik - 25/11/2007 5:37 AM
This maneuver will not be performed due to cancelling of NASA request...
-
Is it possible to unconnect a module that is now on orbit, such as Quest? Purely hypothetical.
-
brahmanknight - 5/12/2007 4:30 PM
Is it possible to unconnect a module that is now on orbit, such as Quest? Purely hypothetical.
They moved Harmony form Unity to Destiny.
;)
I suppose it would take a few spacewalks to disconnect and relocate things such as ESP2 if you were to move Quest, but I would've thought it is possible...
-
brahmanknight - 5/12/2007 10:30 AM
Is it possible to unconnect a module that is now on orbit, such as Quest? Purely hypothetical.
Sure, just like they did the last few weeks with the PMA and Harmony rearrangements (or the MPLM docking/undockings). The CBM docking connections don't have to be 'permanent'.
-
MKremer - 5/12/2007 4:48 PM
brahmanknight - 5/12/2007 10:30 AM
Is it possible to unconnect a module that is now on orbit, such as Quest? Purely hypothetical.
Sure, just like they did the last few weeks with the PMA and Harmony rearrangements (or the MPLM docking/undockings). The CBM docking connections don't have to be 'permanent'.
I think it would be a lot more stressful to move a Russian module! ;)
-
brahmanknight - 5/12/2007 11:30 AM
Is it possible to unconnect a module that is now on orbit, such as Quest? Purely hypothetical.
Node 1 can't be disconnected from the FGB, just as the LAB can't be disconnected from Node 1 without shutting down the ISS. USOS can't survive without the RS
-
I was reading the "Russian segment" thread where they were talking about separating the ISS which reminded me that the Russians wanted to reuse one of their modules of Mir on the ISS (which NASA refused).
So question 1: how did they wanted to do that (or could have done that)?
question 2: could they do that with the MLM module, so they can reuse it for their next space station?
and a question about the Columbus module
question 3: why is it so small in comparison to the other science modules? Budget restricitions? More compact?
It's just strange that the Japanese module is so much bigger.
-
ckiki lwai - 5/12/2007 3:35 PM
I was reading the "Russian segment" thread where they were talking about separating the ISS which reminded me that the Russians wanted to reuse one of their modules of Mir on the ISS (which NASA refused).
So question 1: how did they wanted to do that (or could have done that)?
Most likely, by launching Zarya into Mir's orbit plane and docking Zarya to the forward port of Mir, which at that time was typically used by Soyuz. Mir would have substituted for Zvezda. The Zarya aft docking port would have needed to be modified from hybrid probe & drogue (used on the Zvezda forward port) to standard probe & drogue (used on the Mir forward port).
question 2: could they do that with the MLM module, so they can reuse it for their next space station?
It depends on how the MLM is built. If it is small enough, it could be undocked with a Progress docked to it and the Progress could serve as a tug to take it to the new station. Of course, the Russians have not funded a new station. And if the MLM is based on the FGB hull, it will be too large.
and a question about the Columbus module
question 3: why is it so small in comparison to the other science modules? Budget restricitions?
Yes. Columbus is based on the MPLM design. The commonality reduced costs.
-
Do the astronauts and cosmonauts choose where they sleep (Zvezda or Destiny)?
Because during Expedition 15 Williams and Clay both used the Destiny compartment, so I assumed that it was the FE2s that used it, and the two that come up on the Soyuz use Zvezda. However, Tani uses a Zvezda one and Peggy in the lab....
Just wondered why they change around, because in that scenario Peggy and (Clay or Dan) must have swapped. :o
-
ShuttleDiscovery - 12/12/2007 1:20 PM
Do the astronauts and cosmonauts choose where they sleep (Zvezda or Destiny)?
Because during Expedition 15 Williams and Clay both used the Destiny compartment, so I assumed that it was the FE2s that used it, and the two that come up on the Soyuz use Zvezda. However, Tani uses a Zvezda one and Peggy in the lab....
Just wondered why they change around, because in that scenario Peggy and (Clay or Dan) must have swapped. :o
Female crewmembers seem to prefer the Destiny bunk; the distance from Zvezda provides a bit more privacy.
-
"Do the astronauts and cosmonauts choose where they sleep (Zvezda or Destiny)?
Because during Expedition 15 Williams and Clay both used the Destiny compartment, so I assumed that it was the FE2s that used it, and the two that come up on the Soyuz use Zvezda. However, Tani uses a Zvezda one and Peggy in the lab.... "
They decide among themselves. Tani uses the airlock (when not in use).
-
Jorge - 12/12/2007 10:24 PM
ShuttleDiscovery - 12/12/2007 1:20 PM
Do the astronauts and cosmonauts choose where they sleep (Zvezda or Destiny)?
Because during Expedition 15 Williams and Clay both used the Destiny compartment, so I assumed that it was the FE2s that used it, and the two that come up on the Soyuz use Zvezda. However, Tani uses a Zvezda one and Peggy in the lab....
Just wondered why they change around, because in that scenario Peggy and (Clay or Dan) must have swapped. :o
Female crewmembers seem to prefer the Destiny bunk; the distance from Zvezda provides a bit more privacy.
That would make sense, thanks!
-
Actually, all the US folks prefer the TESS in the lab module. Generally as soon as the new person arrives the old resident moves out right away.
-
Tani's recent video tour shows him sleeping in the Zvevda.
-
j2_ - 14/12/2007 1:56 AM
Tani's recent video tour shows him sleeping in the Zvevda.
Yeah I saw that - he has M&Ms to snack on if he's hungry!
-
So after the delivery of the Kibo logisitcs module, can the remaining launch schdule be moved around if we can't find an immediate cause for the SARJ problems?
-
brahmanknight - 19/12/2007 7:54 AM
So after the delivery of the Kibo logisitcs module, can the remaining launch schdule be moved around if we can't find an immediate cause for the SARJ problems?
To what end? If you're thinking to be able to take up a replacement SARJ, I doubt very much that one exists or could be built before the Shuttle stops flying.
-
No. I was thinking that the Kibo lab will use to much energy considering the limitations of the power generating systems right now. I was wondering if anything else could be bumped up. It probably can't, but I'm just wondering.
-
Yes, some flights could be bumped up potentially but I think it would have to kill the HST flight. That is already mucking up the ISS assembly missions. The bigger issue is that a significant (not sure how much) amount of the Japanese mission has to be done before April 1 or they are in serious danger of canceling the program.
-
Any reason why the launch of S6 wasn't scheduled prior to both the European and Japanese modules?
-
TJL - 22/12/2007 1:14 PM
Any reason why the launch of S6 wasn't scheduled prior to both the European and Japanese modules?
It was. Surely it hasn't escaped your notice that "119" comes before "122", "123", and "124"?
The Europeans and Japanese requested that the launch of their modules be accelerated, and NASA accommodated that by deferring S6.
-
erioladastra - 22/12/2007 11:22 AM
The bigger issue is that a significant (not sure how much) amount of the Japanese mission has to be done before April 1 or they are in serious danger of canceling the program.
So if STS-123 (Kibo logistics module) doesn't go up before 4/1/08, the Japanese would actually cancel their part of ISS, with completed modules staying on the ground? Would that also take away future HTV support missions? That would really change the ISS program.
-
Bubbinski - 23/12/2007 7:06 AM
erioladastra - 22/12/2007 11:22 AM
The bigger issue is that a significant (not sure how much) amount of the Japanese mission has to be done before April 1 or they are in serious danger of canceling the program.
So if STS-123 (Kibo logistics module) doesn't go up before 4/1/08, the Japanese would actually cancel their part of ISS, with completed modules staying on the ground? Would that also take away future HTV support missions? That would really change the ISS program.
Says who?
Analyst
-
I understand the Japanese working year (- don't know the correct term) starts on the 1 April, but this is ridiculous. They have completed modules on the ground waiting to be launched. This is an excellent oppurtunity for Japan in terms of progressing with human spaceflight, I can't think of any reasons they wpould give this up if it can't be launched by april after working this hard on the Kibo program. Where did you hear this from!? :o
-
With STS-122 being delayed from December to (possibly) January, does anyone know if the following flights (123 and 124) will still carry ISS crew replacements?
If so, it seems like very brief ISS increments for Eyharts and/or Reisman.
-
I know, a shame really for Eyharts seeing as he is ESA and probably won't fly again afterwards.
I doubt they'd cahnge the crews around this time like with STS-117/STS-118 because all of the flights (120-128) have or are going to rotate an ISS crew member.
We were lucky with the STS-117/118 scenario becuase 117 was originally not planned to rotate, so by adding Anderson to that flight had no impact on future schedules as he was still able to land on STS-120. If Eyharts was to stay until STS-124, then everyone else would be pushed back one flight which isn't fair on those other astronauts (Reisman, Chamitoff, Magnus, Wakata, Kopra, Stott) who are also scheduled to launch to ISS over the next year and a half.
-
ShuttleDiscovery - 24/12/2007 8:33 AM
I know, a shame really for Eyharts seeing as he is ESA and probably won't fly again afterwards.
I doubt they'd cahnge the crews around this time like with STS-117/STS-118 because all of the flights (120-128) have or are going to rotate an ISS crew member.
We were lucky with the STS-117/118 scenario becuase 117 was originally not planned to rotate, so by adding Anderson to that flight had no impact on future schedules as he was still able to land on STS-120. If Eyharts was to stay until STS-124, then everyone else would be pushed back one flight which isn't fair on those other astronauts (Reisman, Chamitoff, Magnus, Wakata, Kopra, Stott) who are also scheduled to launch to ISS over the next year and a half.
I don't think it's so much about being 'fair' than flying the increments they've been training to support. So whether an astronaut gets 30 days or 90 days doesn't much matter - the next astronaut has trained for the next stage.
-
TJL - 24/12/2007 6:03 PM
With STS-122 being delayed from December to (possibly) January, does anyone know if the following flights (123 and 124) will still carry ISS crew replacements?
Nothing has changed for now... But you should understand Eyharts can not stay till STS-124... NASA will not allow it... Expedition 17 should consist of two Russians and one American, therefore Eyharts should land on STS-123 or on Soyuz TMA-11 if STS-123 launch will be after Soyuz TMA-12 launch...
-
I forgot about that, so that's another reason why they wouldn't change it... :)
-
"Says who? "
The Japanese DIAT and the head of JAXA. Perhaps it is bluffing or posturing but Griffin is treating it very seriously.
-
erioladastra - 24/12/2007 5:27 PM
"Says who? "
The Japanese DIAT and the head of JAXA. Perhaps it is bluffing or posturing but Griffin is treating it very seriously.
The Japanese DIAT - do you mean the Diet, the Japanese legislature? Or is it another organization in the Japanese government?
-
hi, i want to ask, how many propellatn is in the fuell tank on ISS? how many is in Zvezda and in Zarya? how big are these tanks in these modules? and how many fuell is spent on increase of orbit and on desatiration off gyros? thanks so much
-
marcellino4 - 30/12/2007 4:00 PM
how big are these tanks in these modules?
Zarya module has 16 tanks (8 for fuel, 8 for oxidizer), which can contain up to 6100 kilograms of propellant in total...
Zvezda module has 4 tanks (2 for fuel, 2 for oxidizer), which can contain up to 860 kilograms of propellant in total...
Note: "Propellant" thread is moved into "General ISS Q&A" thread
-
marcellino4 - 30/12/2007 7:00 AM
hi, i want to ask, how many propellatn is in the fuell tank on ISS? how many is in Zvezda and in Zarya? how big are these tanks in these modules? and how many fuell is spent on increase of orbit and on desatiration off gyros? thanks so much
Current prop quantities as of 2007/365/01:25:08 GMT (in kg) are:
Zarya fuel 1867.3 ox 3365.0 total 5232.3
Zvezda fuel 297.0 ox 572.0 total 869.0
Total fuel 2164.3 ox 3937.0 total 6101.3
Almost all prop from the Zarya/Zvezda tanks is used for CMG desat and attitude maneuvers. Reboost is generally performed by Progress using the Progress tanks. It is possible to perform a reboost with Progress while feeding prop from Zvezda but I understand this is rare due to the desire to use Zvezda prop as efficiently as possible. Zvezda prop is used whenever the Zvezda reboost engines are tested but this is also rare.
-
"The Japanese DIAT - do you mean the Diet, the Japanese legislature? Or is it another organization in the Japanese government?"
I knew that didn't look right but thought DIET might be more wrong - thanks and sorry. Yes, the DIET.
-
In the "LIVE: Expedition 16" thread, I see that...
"...crew members pressurized and entered Pressurized Mating Adapter 3 (PMA-3) so they could remove a spare Bearing Motor Roll Ring Module, also known as a "broom".
It never occurred to me that the PMA would be used for stowage, especially as an unpressurized volume attached to the station. Not wanting to contaminate the Expedition 16 thread, some questions do come to mind...
-PMA-3 was used during STS-97 and STS-98. Was the PMA launched with the "broom" stowed there, or was it stowed there later?
-Is the normal status of a PMA without a module/spacecraft docked to the APAS side unpressurized, with the CBM-side hatch closed?
-Realizing that space is at a premium and any un-used corner is fair game, what other unlikely nooks and crannies are used for stowage? For instance, is PMA-2 used for stowage when it is not in use during docked operations?
-
DMeader - 3/1/2008 9:22 AM
1. PMA-3 was used during STS-97 and STS-98. Was the PMA launched with the "broom" stowed there, or was it stowed there later?
2. Is the normal status of a PMA without a module/spacecraft docked to the APAS side unpressurized, with the CBM-side hatch closed?
3. Realizing that space is at a premium and any un-used corner is fair game, what other unlikely nooks and crannies are used for stowage? For instance, is PMA-2 used for stowage when it is not in use during docked operations?
1. The BMRRM was not launched on the PMA
2. There are only two PMA's that don't have spacecraft attached to them. It looks like it is 50/50 wrt pressurization
3. yes, the PMA-2 is used. So is PMA-1. Most of its volume is not needed for a passage way. The FGB is nothing but storage. The hatch on the zenith CBM that the Z-1 truss is attached will never be opened so the volume in front of it is used for storage.
-
"-PMA-3 was used during STS-97 and STS-98. Was the PMA launched with the "broom" stowed there, or was it stowed there later?
-Is the normal status of a PMA without a module/spacecraft docked to the APAS side unpressurized, with the CBM-side hatch closed?
-Realizing that space is at a premium and any un-used corner is fair game, what other unlikely nooks and crannies are used for stowage? For instance, is PMA-2 used for stowage when it is not in use during docked operations?"
AS noted already, the BMRRM was not launched in the PMA but moved there later along with a lot of other storage. During Exp 14 the crew went and took everything out but the huge BMRRM. It has been kept at vacuum. PMA2 is pressurized before a docking. There is nothing stowed in there.
Yes, every nook and cranny is filled and you would be amazed at where you can stick stuff. We couldn't find a pump module - about the size of a 2 drawer filing cabinet - since it was so well tucked. Z1 dome is also full of stuff. With Node 2 we are a little better now. Node 1 is pretty packed - there is a mass of water bags, called the 'cement pond' blocking the hatch to PMA3 which had to be moved to access it.
-
Wait....Z1 dome? There is crew access INSIDE of Z1? What is inside? I need photos, guys.
-
brahmanknight - 4/1/2008 9:12 AM
Wait....Z1 dome? There is crew access INSIDE of Z1? What is inside? I need photos, guys.
Not inside the Z1 truss. That CBM never gets opened. It is the volume I had described
-
Can someone explain to me why shuttle launches to ISS advance by 25 minutes every day?
I would understand if they advanced by 4 minutes (24 hours divided by 365.25 days) ....
Does the ISS orbit precess around the earth more than once a year?
I didn't take the orbital dynamics course in college so bear with me :) It was either that or hypersonics and I chose hypersonics ...
-
ChrisC - 4/1/2008 3:18 PM
Can someone explain to me why shuttle launches to ISS advance by 25 minutes every day?
I would understand if they advanced by 4 minutes (24 hours divided by 365.25 days) ....
Does the ISS orbit precess around the earth more than once a year?
Yes. The gravitational attraction of Earth's equatorial bulge causes ISS' orbit to regress westward at about five degrees per day. Since the Earth rotates roughly a degree every four minutes, that accounts for the other 20 minutes of launch window shift.
-
Jim - 4/1/2008 6:24 AM brahmanknight - 4/1/2008 9:12 AM Wait....Z1 dome? There is crew access INSIDE of Z1? What is inside? I need photos, guys.
Not inside the Z1 truss. That CBM never gets opened. It is the volume I had described
I believe this volume is called a "vestibule".
-
Jorge - 4/1/2008 4:26 PM
The gravitational attraction of Earth's equatorial bulge causes ISS' orbit to regress westward at about five degrees per day.
Aha. Thanks!
Doing some math on Bill Harwood's most recent table of launch windows, it seems that it advances by about 24 minutes a day, but it actually does so in two different modes. On half the days, it advances by 22m31s, and on the other half (alternating) it advances by 25m43. That averages to 24m07s, so "24 minutes" is good enough for long-term planning purposes, but why does the number change back and forth on alternating days?
I suspect it has something to do with an alternating number of actual passes over the equatorial bulge ...
-
Jim - 4/1/2008 2:24 PM
brahmanknight - 4/1/2008 9:12 AM
Wait....Z1 dome? There is crew access INSIDE of Z1? What is inside? I need photos, guys.
Not inside the Z1 truss. That CBM never gets opened. It is the volume I had described
Oh, I thought it was something like this:
-
ChrisC - 5/1/2008 3:15 PM
Jorge - 4/1/2008 4:26 PM
The gravitational attraction of Earth's equatorial bulge causes ISS' orbit to regress westward at about five degrees per day.
Aha. Thanks!
Doing some math on Bill Harwood's most recent table of launch windows, it seems that it advances by about 24 minutes a day, but it actually does so in two different modes. On half the days, it advances by 22m31s, and on the other half (alternating) it advances by 25m43. That averages to 24m07s, so "24 minutes" is good enough for long-term planning purposes, but why does the number change back and forth on alternating days?
I suspect it has something to do with an alternating number of actual passes over the equatorial bulge ...
This is going to take a while to explain. I think I've answered this once before but can't find the post right now, so here goes.
It's due to difference in phase angle (the angle between the station and the orbiter, projected into the station's orbit plane, measured from the center of the Earth). Since the interval between launch opportunities is not an exact multiple of the ISS orbital period, ISS is not in the same location within its orbit when the orbit plane coincides with KSC, so the phase angle is different each day. After launch, the orbiter completes the rendezvous by inserting into a lower orbit and using the shorter orbital period to catch up to the station, driving the phase angle to zero. The larger the difference in altitude between the orbits, the larger the difference in period and therefore the higher the catch-up rate (phasing rate).
Since the planned time of rendezvous is nearly constant (docking is always planned for Flight Day 3), the phase angle determines the altitude strategy for the orbiter's rendezvous. If the phase angle is small, the orbiter doesn't have a lot of catching up to do, so it inserts into an orbit that is nearly the same altitude as ISS and catches up slowly. If the phase angle is large, the orbiter stays in a lower orbit longer, so it can catch up more quickly.
The gravitational attraction of the Earth's equatorial bulge acts on both the station and the orbiter during the rendezvous. But this effect is a function of altitude (the lower the altitude, the closer the spacecraft is to the bulge, and therefore the greater the attraction, and the greater the westward shift in the orbit). This effect must be accounted for in the launch targeting, otherwise the orbiter will wind up out-of-plane from the station by the time of the planned rendezvous. So the launch is actually targeted not for the station's orbital plane, but for a "phantom plane" that will regress into the station's plane by the time of the rendezvous. For a large phase angle case, the phantom plane will regress faster than for a small phase angle due to the lower altitude. That will result in a slightly different launch time for each case.
The reason the shift in launch times appears to alternate on a two-day cycle is that the orbital altitude of ISS puts the interval between launch opportunities very close to being a multiple of half the orbital period. This is called a two-day phase-repeating orbit. Every other day, the phase angle is small and on the alternate days, the phase angle is larger (about 180 degrees greater).
-
Danderman - 4/1/2008 7:35 PM
Jim - 4/1/2008 6:24 AM brahmanknight - 4/1/2008 9:12 AM Wait....Z1 dome? There is crew access INSIDE of Z1? What is inside? I need photos, guys.
Not inside the Z1 truss. That CBM never gets opened. It is the volume I had described
I believe this volume is called a "vestibule".
Vesitbule is the space between two CBM hatches
-
"I believe this volume is called a "vestibule"."
No, we officially call this the Z1 dome. Not truly dome shaped but it is a smallar compartment between the hatch and the Z1. Not very big but we have it crammed pretty type with stuff we don't need to access often. I would hazard a guess of about 50ish cubic feet.
-
erioladastra - 6/1/2008 5:28 AM
"I believe this volume is called a "vestibule"."
No, we officially call this the Z1 dome. Not truly dome shaped but it is a smallar compartment between the hatch and the Z1. Not very big but we have it crammed pretty type with stuff we don't need to access often. I would hazard a guess of about 50ish cubic feet.
But Jim says the CBM hatch never gets opened. I'm confused! :o
-
Oh wait I found pictures of the Z1 dome!
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/118032main_hassman_iss_briefing4_med.jpg
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/118030main_hassman_iss_briefing3_med.jpg
-
ShuttleDiscovery - 6/1/2008 6:17 AM
erioladastra - 6/1/2008 5:28 AM
"I believe this volume is called a "vestibule"."
No, we officially call this the Z1 dome. Not truly dome shaped but it is a smallar compartment between the hatch and the Z1. Not very big but we have it crammed pretty type with stuff we don't need to access often. I would hazard a guess of about 50ish cubic feet.
But Jim says the CBM hatch never gets opened. I'm confused! :o
I stand corrected.
-
Jorge - 5/1/2008 5:33 PM
The reason the shift in launch times appears to alternate on a two-day cycle is that the orbital altitude of ISS puts the interval between launch opportunities very close to being a multiple of half the orbital period. This is called a two-day phase-repeating orbit. Every other day, the phase angle is small and on the alternate days, the phase angle is larger (about 180 degrees greater).
Thank you Jorge for the fabulous answer! Very linear and easy to follow.
One followup question that should be easy ... which of the two day-to-day offsets puts the shuttle into the small-phase situation? Is the 22m31s offset followed by a low phase-angle launch, or is the 25m43 followed by a low phase-angle launch?
If it's a low phase-angle launch, then that should mean that I'll stand a better chance of seeing the shuttle "chasing" ISS in the evening sky. It's already close and is approaching slowly, and so on both evenings prior to docking I should get a chance. With high phase-angle launches, it's far away (180 degrees!) and approaching fast, so really only the last evening prior to docking is my opportunity to see it.
-
ShuttleDiscovery - 6/1/2008 6:19 AM
Oh wait I found pictures of the Z1 dome!
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/118030main_hassman_iss_briefing3_med.jpg
Is that a Makita cordless drill I see off to the right in this photo? :)
Thanks to all who provided all these good replies and information.
Wondering a bit more about the Z1 dome. Was this space just a happy accident that someone discovered or was it intended as a little bit more stowage? Seems like seals and environmental conditioning would have been taken into account for stowage use, but not necessarily if that CBM was only intended to physically mate Z1. Is the surface I see behind the crewman in the first image the undersurface of Z1, or was the CBM blanked off since access to Z1 was not required?
-
The CBM is the 8 "fingers" in the corners of the hatch open. The white cloth is the covering the dome
-
ChrisC - 7/1/2008 8:57 AM
Jorge - 5/1/2008 5:33 PM
The reason the shift in launch times appears to alternate on a two-day cycle is that the orbital altitude of ISS puts the interval between launch opportunities very close to being a multiple of half the orbital period. This is called a two-day phase-repeating orbit. Every other day, the phase angle is small and on the alternate days, the phase angle is larger (about 180 degrees greater).
Thank you Jorge for the fabulous answer! Very linear and easy to follow.
One followup question that should be easy ... which of the two day-to-day offsets puts the shuttle into the small-phase situation? Is the 22m31s offset followed by a low phase-angle launch, or is the 25m43 followed by a low phase-angle launch?
Ahhh, I'll need to think out loud for that one. The phantom plane will regress westward faster for the large phase angle case, so it will start out further to the east, so it will be later than average while the small phase angle case will be earlier. So the launch window will shift less earlier for the large phase angle case.
If it's a low phase-angle launch, then that should mean that I'll stand a better chance of seeing the shuttle "chasing" ISS in the evening sky. It's already close and is approaching slowly, and so on both evenings prior to docking I should get a chance. With high phase-angle launches, it's far away (180 degrees!) and approaching fast, so really only the last evening prior to docking is my opportunity to see it.
What I'm calling a small phase angle just means it's less than 180, so you may not see the two vehicles together even then.
-
I´ve now learned that Italy will get extra time on the ISS.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/01/10/220678/esa-pushes-for-more-astronaut-time-on-space-station.html
-
"I´ve now learned that Italy will get extra time on the ISS."
Unless you are referring to something not in the article...this is a push, not a final agreement.
-
Space.com has a story about someone in the UK wanting to develop two hab modules to be berthed to Node3, to be launched via a Soyuz booster no earlier than 2011. Does this plan actually have any traction or is it just some wishful thinking?
-
DMeader - 16/1/2008 2:01 PM
Space.com has a story about someone in the UK wanting to develop two hab modules to be berthed to Node3, to be launched via a Soyuz booster no earlier than 2011. Does this plan actually have any traction or is it just some wishful thinking?
Read this thread, it has more info:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=11351&posts=52&start=1
-
Thanks..... as luck would have it one of the threads I'd never ventured into before...
-
Will Orion use the SSPT while docked to ISS? Will there really be a need for it?
-
Andy_Small - 21/1/2008 9:36 PM
Will Orion use the SSPT while docked to ISS? Will there really be a need for it?
One of the "S" is shuttle in SSPT. Orion has solar panels and not fuel cells
-
I got a question about ISS commentary on NASA TV. It seemed like when Exp 1 was on station. The commentary lasted two hours instead of the one hour we get now and then somewhere they downgraded to one hour. Why did they go from two hours to one hour commentary? I really like watching the commentary hour
-
Most likely PAO determined the live daily coverage wasn't that popular, plus budget crunch reductions would have helped decide to reduce it to only one hour Mon-Fri. (It's also probably why their 24/7 live audio feed was terminated several years ago -- see the separate audio feed thread that's in this section)
-
I just noticed the following in the ISS Schedule thread:
February 15 (TBD) - ISS orbit's raising by Atlantis's engines
How can they use a Shuttle's engines to raise the orbit of the ISS?
I thought that the thrust would have to be along the velocity vector, but the shuttle
is docked with the OMS pointing in the nadir direction.
-
litton4 - 2/2/2008 10:26 AM
I just noticed the following in the ISS Schedule thread:
February 15 (TBD) - ISS orbit's raising by Atlantis's engines
How can they use a Shuttle's engines to raise the orbit of the ISS?
I thought that the thrust would have to be along the velocity vector, but the shuttle
is docked with the OMS pointing in the nadir direction.
They use RCS thrusters
Also, the OMS would have too much thrust
Shuttle does this almost every mission
-
"February 15 (TBD) - ISS orbit's raising by Atlantis's engines "
And it is not a given - it will only be done if the prop is available (and will be discussed during the misison on whether we extend, do a fly around etc). We will see when we get there. Likely though.
-
Jim - 2/2/2008 3:47 PM
They use RCS thrusters
Also, the OMS would have too much thrust
Shuttle does this almost every mission
Ok, I didn't think the RCS would have enough thrust to perform this efficiently.
How much thrust can the RCS deliver? (I know there are at least 2 different type of thruster,
small 'verniers' and larger ones, in addition to the OMS engines)
Also, a side question - is there any video released from the recent reboost?
It would be quite cool to see internal video from the relatively uncluttered Harmony module.
-
erioladastra - 2/2/2008 8:28 PM
"February 15 (TBD) - ISS orbit's raising by Atlantis's engines "
And it is not a given - it will only be done if the prop is available (and will be discussed during the misison on whether we extend, do a fly around etc). We will see when we get there. Likely though.
Ok, what drives the decision, assuming that propellant is available?
Is it just a case of "Well, we've lifted it up there, we might as well use it" in order to save Progress/Zveza resources?
I assume that there is something more to it, though!
The schedule of reboosts seems quite arbitrary. with them frequently being moved/cancelled.
I can understand them being changed to match changing flight schedules (for rendevous optimising etc), but there seem to be more changes than this would require.
-
litton4 - 2/2/2008 3:10 PM
Jim - 2/2/2008 3:47 PM
They use RCS thrusters
Also, the OMS would have too much thrust
Shuttle does this almost every mission
Ok, I didn't think the RCS would have enough thrust to perform this efficiently.
It is not efficient, but efficiency is not the point. The point is that if a shuttle has spare propellant, it is better to use that propellant to perform the reboost, inefficient though it may be, rather than pay the Russians for another Progress.
Low thrust isn't the reason shuttle reboosts are inefficient. The primary RCS thrusters actually have more thrust than the Progress main engine, and the vernier RCS thrusters are comparable to the Progress RCS thrusters. Shuttle reboosts are inefficient due to the large moment offsets between the RCS thrusters and the shuttle/ISS stack c.g., which results in some propellant being wasted on attitude control, to keep the stack pointed the right way during the reboost.
How much thrust can the RCS deliver? (I know there are at least 2 different type of thruster, small 'verniers' and larger ones, in addition to the OMS engines)
24 lbf for verniers, 870 lbf for primaries. (Compare to 13.3 kgf and 300 kgf for the Progress RCS and main engine, respectively.)
-
litton4 - 2/2/2008 4:23 PM
1. Ok, what drives the decision, assuming that propellant is available?
2. Is it just a case of "Well, we've lifted it up there, we might as well use it" in order to save Progress/Zveza resources?
3. I assume that there is something more to it, though!
The schedule of reboosts seems quite arbitrary. with them frequently being moved/cancelled.
I can understand them being changed to match changing flight schedules (for rendevous optimising etc), but there seem to be more changes than this would require.
1. the shuttle has to be there for a shuttle reboost.
It is always planned when the shuttle is there
2. that is it
3. other reboosts are scheduled around other activities and events
4. no, that is it. Also, there are collision burns too
-
Jorge - 2/2/2008 4:32 PM
24 lbf for verniers, 870 lbf for primaries. (Compare to 13.3 kgf and 300 kgf for the Progress RCS and main engine, respectively.)
Will they use the primaries or the verniers? How long would the burns be for each?
-
Is there are reason why there was no crew rotation on sts 114?
-
brahmanknight - 3/2/2008 8:04 PM
Is there are reason why there was no crew rotation on sts 114?
Not enough logistics capability in the post-disaster time period to support a three-person crew without the shuttle flying for so long.
-
Hi,
How will it work with a 6 person crew? - will they have 2x Soyuz up there all the time, with crew exchanges in 2 parts - 3 leave, then 3 more come, then the other 3 leave and another 3 come?
Thanks
Ian
-
Hi,
Now that Columbus is attached, I was thinking of the control centre in Germany they were on about..... how does that communicate with Columbus - do they relay through NASA?
Do NASA have a separate data/telemetry/control channel which is separate to the other voice/video stuff or does it all just go across the same s-band/Ku?
Will the Columbus control centre in Germany be able to talk direct to ISS/the lab? - if so, will that be over Space-To-Ground 1/2 as normal (presumably relayed by nasa) or will they have a separate link?
Thanks
Ian
-
During today's PAO event some of the crew were spinning a large brass gauge around. When asked, they said it's used to measure the pressure in the airlock during prebreathe. I assume there are more modern (and probably rather smaller!) gauges fixed in Quest, and that this is an item used as much for entertainment as for utility. Can anyone point me to some information about it? Riley1066 suggests it's a Russian gauge.
thanks
Mike
-
ichilton - 12/2/2008 3:31 AM
Hi,
1. Now that Columbus is attached, I was thinking of the control centre in Germany they were on about..... how does that communicate with Columbus - do they relay through NASA?
2. Do NASA have a separate data/telemetry/control channel which is separate to the other voice/video stuff or does it all just go across the same s-band/Ku?
3. Will the Columbus control centre in Germany be able to talk direct to ISS/the lab? - if so, will that be over Space-To-Ground 1/2 as normal (presumably relayed by nasa) or will they have a separate link?
Thanks
Ian
1. yes
2. same s-band/Ku band
3. it will be linked through the NASA system
Once Kibo is up and running, there will be a separate high data rate available through it via artemis and DTS.
this is all in the Columbus Handbook on L2
-
Is is correct that between Destiny and Harmony, Columbus and Harmony, and Unity and Quest, and Unity and Destiny, there is protective covering?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/get-attachment.asp?action=view&attachmentid=40721
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-16/lores/iss016e021042.jpg
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-15/lores/iss015e15670.jpg
-
Yes
-
ichilton - 12/2/2008 2:28 AM
Hi,
How will it work with a 6 person crew? - will they have 2x Soyuz up there all the time, with crew exchanges in 2 parts - 3 leave, then 3 more come, then the other 3 leave and another 3 come?
Yes.
-
Jorge - 12/2/2008 6:18 PM
ichilton - 12/2/2008 2:28 AM
Hi,
How will it work with a 6 person crew? - will they have 2x Soyuz up there all the time, with crew exchanges in 2 parts - 3 leave, then 3 more come, then the other 3 leave and another 3 come?
Well, Expedition 19 is a bit more confusing, but this might help show how it is going to work with the last shuttle crew rotation...
http://www.spacefacts.de/schedule/e_iss.htm
-
ShuttleDiscovery - 12/2/2008 9:27 PM
Well, Expedition 19 is a bit more confusing, but this might help show how it is going to work with the last shuttle crew rotation...
http://www.spacefacts.de/schedule/e_iss.htm
Alas, this website has outdated information... According to recent NASA press release (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/feb/HQ_08052_Crew_Announcements.html), Thirsk will return on STS-129, not on Soyuz TMA-14... And it means there will be changes in Soyuz TMA-16 crew...
-
Does anyone have a link to Columbus' current topology (I don't have access to L2 for productivity reasons :) )? I found a really old one via a google search but it also listed the CAM so I am not sure how out of date it is.
Thanks!
-
anik - 12/2/2008 8:18 PM
ShuttleDiscovery - 12/2/2008 9:27 PM
Well, Expedition 19 is a bit more confusing, but this might help show how it is going to work with the last shuttle crew rotation...
http://www.spacefacts.de/schedule/e_iss.htm
Alas, this website has outdated information... According to recent NASA press release (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/feb/HQ_08052_Crew_Announcements.html), Thirsk will return on STS-129, not on Soyuz TMA-14... And it means there will be changes in Soyuz TMA-16 crew...
So it does, thanks anik! :o
-
How many spacesuits do they have permanantly on the ISS (US and Russian) and how many SAFER systems?
Thanks
-
Jim (or anyone) on todays live thread (day 7) you said:
Riley1066 - 13/2/2008 10:02 AM
Interesting that neither Harmony or Columbus (nor Kibo) seem to require those Space Vision System Dots that cover the station from Destiny to Zarya.
because it didn't work
Can you please explain the rational behind the dots and why they did not work? TIA
OK, this was later answered in the live thread, via a link to a wiki. I still would not be opposed to anything that you would care to add.
-
ShuttleDiscovery - 13/2/2008 6:35 PM
How many spacesuits do they have permanantly on the ISS (US and Russian) and how many SAFER systems?
Currently:
Three EMU spacesuits (#3006, #3008, #3018) plus spare HUT (hard upper torso)
Three Orlan-M spacesuits (#25, #26, #27)
Three SAFERs
-
Thanks anik. Speaking of US spacesuits, could someone post a list of all the active US space suits? :)
-
ShuttleDiscovery - 13/2/2008 8:17 PM
Speaking of US spacesuits, could someone post a list of all the active US space suits?
EMUs: 3003 (Earth), 3004 (Earth), 3005 (Earth), 3006 (ISS), 3008 (ISS), 3009 (Earth), 3010 (Earth), 3011 (Earth), 3013 (Earth), 3015 (STS-122), 3017 (STS-122), 3018 (ISS)
-
anik - 13/2/2008 5:26 PM
ShuttleDiscovery - 13/2/2008 8:17 PM
Speaking of US spacesuits, could someone post a list of all the active US space suits?
EMUs: 3003 (Earth), 3004 (Earth), 3005 (Earth), 3006 (ISS), 3008 (ISS), 3009 (Earth), 3010 (Earth), 3011 (Earth), 3013 (Earth), 3015 (STS-122), 3017 (STS-122), 3018 (ISS)
Thank you!
I didn't realise there are only 12! - I assumed there were more but I suppose they don't need any more as only a maximum of around 5 are in space at any one time... :)
-
mikes - 12/2/2008 10:47 AM
During today's PAO event some of the crew were spinning a large brass gauge around. When asked, they said it's used to measure the pressure in the airlock during prebreathe. I assume there are more modern (and probably rather smaller!) gauges fixed in Quest, and that this is an item used as much for entertainment as for utility. Can anyone point me to some information about it? Riley1066 suggests it's a Russian gauge.
thanks
Mike
Having worked the ISS ECLSS console until about 2 1/2 years ago, I can tell you exactly what that gauge is. It's a piece of Russian equipment - a manometer. And yes, they use it in the airlock to monitor pressure changes during the EVA prebreathe, depress, and repress timeline.
Of course there are sensors in the airlock that report the pressure. Those sensors report the pressure to the crew displays and to the ground. But, a suited crewmember can't operate the crew computer due to the gloved hand. Nor is the computer certified for vacuum. Additionally, there is so much going on during the EVA timeframe, that the crew computer is more of a nuisance. It's just in the way.
Also, there is little that can go wrong with this thing. It does not need power and won't suffer any data drop-outs, etc.
So, they use this gauge as their primary total pressure indicator. There is another hand-held O2 sensor they use during the prebreathe timeframe. It's a battery operated device called the CSA-CP. It, along with ground monitored O2 readings from the MCA, is how they monitor their O2 saturation levels.
-
With something of the mass of the SAWs, how does the turning of the SARJs keep from spinning the rest of the station with it? Shouldn't it be similar to having a tail rotor on a helicoptor to to keep the airframe from yawing? Is that the function of the CMGs to keep the station from pitching?
-
brahmanknight - 13/2/2008 2:55 PM
Is that the function of the CMGs to keep the station from pitching?
Yes
-
"Also, there is little that can go wrong with this thing. It does not need power and won't suffer any data drop-outs, etc. "
Yet I have seen at least 2 fail on orbit.
Of course, the CSA-CPs also wear out.
-
Why are the PMA's such a dark colour when the rest of the station is silver and white? I would expect something so dark to absorb a lot of heat.
-
erioladastra - 13/2/2008 2:49 PM
"Also, there is little that can go wrong with this thing. It does not need power and won't suffer any data drop-outs, etc. "
Yet I have seen at least 2 fail on orbit.
Of course, the CSA-CPs also wear out.
Which is why I didn't say, they never fail.
Though I would say that they never fail during an EVA timeline. They check them out first. Ensuring that this mechanical device works beforehand means that sensor failures, power outages, data hits, (remote as they are) are more likely.
The CSA-CP is a joke of a device. There are better sensors available commercialy for less. The CSA-CPs they had when I was there would only read accurately at 14.7. So, as the pressure changed, you had to apply a factor to the reading.
-
jarthur - 12/2/2008 9:22 PM
Does anyone have a link to Columbus' current topology?
I would be interested in it too. For launch and after reconfig.
Analyst
-
Analyst - 14/2/2008 5:02 AM
jarthur - 12/2/2008 9:22 PM
Does anyone have a link to Columbus' current topology?
I would be interested in it too. For launch and after reconfig.
Analyst
L2
-
Are there 7 rack spaces along the walls in Destiny (not actual science racks, but spaces)?
In Kibo is it the same but with the added airlock area?
-
ShuttleDiscovery - 14/2/2008 8:54 PM
Are there 7 rack spaces along the walls in Destiny (not actual science racks, but spaces)?
In Kibo is it the same but with the added airlock area?
6, not 7. For a total of 23, because Destiny has the window and Kibo the zenith CBM.
Analyst
-
Jim - 14/2/2008 4:53 AM
Analyst - 14/2/2008 5:02 AM
jarthur - 12/2/2008 9:22 PM
Does anyone have a link to Columbus' current topology?
I would be interested in it too. For launch and after reconfig.
Analyst
L2
Ah, the ever helpful Jim. Thank buddy.
Analyst, here is what I have been able to piece together from public sources. Anyone feel free to chime in if I have made a mistake. I am pretty confident about the location of the ESA racks. I think there should be 1 more ZSR launched, but and not sure where and have put a ZSR operationally on O2 through the process of elimination. The US rack locations are taken from an awfully old source and should be taken with caution. Especially since 1 of the racks has yet to launch (is it still planned to launch?)
Location Launch Operational
O1 FSL FSL
O2 Biolab ZSR
O3 EPM ZSR
O4 EDR ZSR
A1 Empty EXP #3
A2 ZSR Biolab
A3 Empty EPM
A4 Empty HRF #2
D1 Systems Systems
D2 Systems Systems
D3 Systems Systems
D4 ETC ETC
F1 Empty EDR
F2 Empty MSG
F3 ZSR MAR-ES
F4 Empty HRF #1
Also, Analyst, do you know if the WORF is still planned for the Window you were talking about in Destiny?
edit: sorry about the columns not lining up, they did when I typed it but not once I posted it :(
-
"The CSA-CP is a joke of a device. There are better sensors available commercialy for less. The CSA-CPs they had when I was there would only read accurately at 14.7. So, as the pressure changed, you had to apply a factor to the reading."
We now have special CSA-O2s for EVA use.
-
jarthur - 14/2/2008 2:57 PM
Jim - 14/2/2008 4:53 AM
Analyst - 14/2/2008 5:02 AM
jarthur - 12/2/2008 9:22 PM
Does anyone have a link to Columbus' current topology?
I would be interested in it too. For launch and after reconfig.
Analyst
L2
Ah, the ever helpful Jim. Thank buddy.
He means L2 for the "STS-122: Columbus Module Bible (175mb - 8700 Pages)". There's no short answer to your question as I think we're talking over a 100 pages at least on your question, if it's what I think it was :o :laugh:
-
Jason Davies - 14/2/2008 9:19 PM
jarthur - 14/2/2008 2:57 PM
Jim - 14/2/2008 4:53 AM
Analyst - 14/2/2008 5:02 AM
jarthur - 12/2/2008 9:22 PM
Does anyone have a link to Columbus' current topology?
I would be interested in it too. For launch and after reconfig.
Analyst
L2
Ah, the ever helpful Jim. Thank buddy.
He means L2 for the "STS-122: Columbus Module Bible (175mb - 8700 Pages)". There's no short answer to your question as I think we're talking over a 100 pages at least on your question, if it's what I think it was :o :laugh:
Sure there is, it could be summarized quite compactly like I attempted to in my post that you quoted but wasn't certain if I was completely right or not. My response to his answer was based on the fact that I explicitly stated I did not have L2 access in my original post.
-
Jason Davies - 15/2/2008 5:19 AM
jarthur - 14/2/2008 2:57 PM
Jim - 14/2/2008 4:53 AM
Analyst - 14/2/2008 5:02 AM
jarthur - 12/2/2008 9:22 PM
Does anyone have a link to Columbus' current topology?
I would be interested in it too. For launch and after reconfig.
Analyst
L2
Ah, the ever helpful Jim. Thank buddy.
He means L2 for the "STS-122: Columbus Module Bible (175mb - 8700 Pages)". There's no short answer to your question as I think we're talking over a 100 pages at least on your question, if it's what I think it was :o :laugh:
I have scanned (not read :) ) the "Columbus Bible", but I am pretty sure the actual rack topology (Which rack is where at which time.) is not discussed, only the general topology (How many rack positions, numbering of these etc.). If am am wrong, please point me to the relevant pages of this pdf. Thanks.
Analyst
-
Clay-Anderson-jettisoned ISS ammonia tank has obviously just re-entered.
http://www.reentrynews.com/1998067az.html
-
jarthur - 14/2/2008 9:57 PM
Also, Analyst, do you know if the WORF is still planned for the Window you were talking about in Destiny?
This (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070031903_2007030977.pdf) document from 2007 indicates flight 19A (STS-130, last MPLM flight). But I wouldn't be surprised if US science on ISS gets cut back even more.
Analyst
-
jarthur - 14/2/2008 11:45 PM
Jason Davies - 14/2/2008 9:19 PM
jarthur - 14/2/2008 2:57 PM
Jim - 14/2/2008 4:53 AM
Analyst - 14/2/2008 5:02 AM
jarthur - 12/2/2008 9:22 PM
Does anyone have a link to Columbus' current topology?
I would be interested in it too. For launch and after reconfig.
Analyst
L2
Ah, the ever helpful Jim. Thank buddy.
He means L2 for the "STS-122: Columbus Module Bible (175mb - 8700 Pages)". There's no short answer to your question as I think we're talking over a 100 pages at least on your question, if it's what I think it was :o :laugh:
Sure there is, it could be summarized quite compactly like I attempted to in my post that you quoted but wasn't certain if I was completely right or not. My response to his answer was based on the fact that I explicitly stated I did not have L2 access in my original post.
No, there is a topology for all the modules on L2
-
Jim - 15/2/2008 1:30 PM
No, there is a topology for all the modules on L2
Yes,
- but it is dated,
- only shows the then planned end result (including Node3)
- and not the launch and intermediate configurations.
Analyst
-
I'm happy to screenshot anything of use out of L2 on the question noted on the previous page, if anyone has a pointer.
The Columbus bible is huge, so I'd need someone to PM me some page numbers. Also assuming we're talking about the image in the ""International Space Station - Six Crew Strategic Planning Document - FINAL" ?
-
Se Elmeri - 15/2/2008 1:16 PM
Clay-Anderson-jettisoned ISS ammonia tank has obviously just re-entered.
http://www.reentrynews.com/1998067az.html
It was not EAS... 1998-067AZ/31927 is VSSA FSE + EFRAM... EAS is 1998-067BA/31928...
-
Chris Bergin - 15/2/2008 2:34 PM
The Columbus bible is huge, so I'd need someone to PM me some page numbers. Also assuming we're talking about the image in the ""International Space Station - Six Crew Strategic Planning Document - FINAL" ?
Correct, this is the document giving the final planned rack topology; but with all the limitations I noted in my last post. I have not found something like this - and I don't mean "looking" like this but having the same kind of information - in the "Columbus Bible" for Columbus, let alone the other modules.
The ISS Increment Defintion documents are good sources too for this stuff, but they are also dated and don't include late changes etc. Forget the STS press kits.
The question is: Which rack is at which position at a given time (launch, after activation etc.)?
Analyst
-
anik - 15/2/2008 3:51 PM
Se Elmeri - 15/2/2008 1:16 PM
Clay-Anderson-jettisoned ISS ammonia tank has obviously just re-entered.
http://www.reentrynews.com/1998067az.html
It was not EAS... 1998-067AZ/31927 is VSSA FSE + EFRAM... EAS is 1998-067BA/31928...
All right... it was maybe that video stanchion assembly, then...
-
Analyst - 15/2/2008 3:52 AM
jarthur - 14/2/2008 9:57 PM
Also, Analyst, do you know if the WORF is still planned for the Window you were talking about in Destiny?
This (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070031903_2007030977.pdf) document from 2007 indicates flight 19A (STS-130, last MPLM flight). But I wouldn't be surprised if US science on ISS gets cut back even more.
Analyst
Thanks for the info! I would be disappointed to see a further cut in ISS science, but perhaps not surprised. It would be a shame to see good science that is ready to go not find a place in space, especially the AMS which looks doomed.
-
jarthur - 14/2/2008 9:57 PM
Location Launch Operational
O1 FSL FSL
O2 Biolab ZSR
O3 EPM ZSR
O4 EDR ZSR
A1 Empty EXP #3
A2 ZSR Biolab
A3 Empty EPM
A4 Empty HRF #2
D1 Systems Systems
D2 Systems Systems
D3 Systems Systems
D4 ETC ETC
F1 Empty EDR
F2 Empty MSG
F3 ZSR MAR-ES
F4 Empty HRF #1
What is your source for the ZSR positions (launch and operational)? I am sure the European rack positions are correct, including systems.
Analyst
-
I'm a bit puzzled and annoyed that we just had a 36 minute reboost burn, most of it with perfect ku coverage, and the NASA TV production covers exactly 0 seconds of it and instead spends 10 of those minutes showing immobile solar panels.
Is there a technical reasons why they don't want cameras on the shuttle during this burn, or is this an example of very very bad tv production skills? NASA tends to be pretty good at covering the important stuff so I like to believe there's a technical constraint here, but having a hard time imagining why.
Second question.. Reboost burns are basically earth tangent, building velocity, are they not? While this definitely boosts altitude (which is the point in this case), doesn't it also make the orbit elliptical? Is a corresponding burn at T+90 minutes performed to circularize it, and if not, why is that not required?
Third... How is it that this burn apparently causes no acceleration what so ever from the crews' point of view? Simply because the acceleration is microscopic? One would like to believe it's pretty impossible to make any kind of burn at all without it being noticeable at all on the inside of the vehicle.
-
janmb - 16/2/2008 8:15 AM
I'm a bit puzzled and annoyed that we just had a 36 minute reboost burn, most of it with perfect ku coverage, and the NASA TV production covers exactly 0 seconds of it and instead spends 10 of those minutes showing immobile solar panels.
Is there a technical reasons why they don't want cameras on the shuttle during this burn, or is this an example of very very bad tv production skills? NASA tends to be pretty good at covering the important stuff so I like to believe there's a technical constraint here, but having a hard time imagining why.
Second question.. Reboost burns are basically earth tangent, building velocity, are they not? While this definitely boosts altitude (which is the point in this case), doesn't it also make the orbit elliptical? Is a corresponding burn at T+90 minutes performed to circularize it, and if not, why is that not required?
Third... How is it that this burn apparently causes no acceleration what so ever from the crews' point of view? Simply because the acceleration is microscopic? One would like to believe it's pretty impossible to make any kind of burn at all without it being noticeable at all on the inside of the vehicle.
They are watching the solar arrays during the burn to watch them react to the acceleration
It will be elliptical and there will be another burn in the future (days, weeks) that will make it more circular. 37 minutes is all the excess propellant the shuttle has. A slightly elliptical orbit is not an issue
Yes, the acceleration is low
(FYI, there is an ISS Q&A thread)
-
Thanks Jim
And also for the pointer to the ISS Q&A thread - still getting used to the rather extensive structure of this forum so pardon if a post ends up in a non-optimal location now and then ;)
-
I thought I read in a recent forum that they didn't use the shutle to boost the ISS. I guess who posted that was wrong. Another question is was this a scheduled reboost?
-
Lawntonlookirs - 16/2/2008 6:34 PM
Another question is was this a scheduled reboost?
Yes, it was...
-
Lawntonlookirs - 16/2/2008 10:34 AM
I thought I read in a recent forum that they didn't use the shutle to boost the ISS.
Stay with NSF in the future - much more accurate info...
-
Lawntonlookirs - 15/2/2008 8:34 PM
I thought I read in a recent forum that they didn't use the shutle to boost the ISS. I guess who posted that was wrong. Another question is was this a scheduled reboost?
Yes they were wrong, and yes it was scheduled.
I do think progress reboosts as well as zarya (or zwezda, always get the two mixed up) are a lot more common tho, been a long while since I can remember seeing any shuttle reboost before today
-
I think I heard the shuttle CapCom give a 2002 date, which would correspond to STS-113 (that mission did three):
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/spacenews/reports/sts-113/sts-113-17.html
Also note the difference in altitude then (approx. 247 miles / 397 km) vs. now (approx. 212 miles / 342 km).
-
I must admit I'm having a slightly hard time seeing how boosting the velocity (and implicit the altitude) improves anything in terms of docking opportunities tbh, but it clearly is the main reason they did this reboost. In general, I thought a low altitude would be favorable for virtually all docked operations, but that's clearly not the case.
Is this boiling down to a simple matter of orbital timing? Since the angular velocity clearly is reduced when increasing the orbital altitude, the time slots obviously change in accordance, but how does that really affect FD3 docking opportunities vs. FD4?
-
i have a few things that i would like an answer to, so here they are:
1) what is the date that the ISS will be deorbited
2)once NASA pulls out of the ISS, would private comanies pay to own it? (im pretty sure they did that with Mir, but lack of funding caused it to be scrapped)
3) would another orbital oupost be build again or will everything be made just for moon/mars/solar exploration, IMO i would love to see an ISS2 that would be bigger and more powerful, and maybe act as a mid point from earth to the moon and beyond
4) wikipedia states that Orion crews will return to the ISS after they have been to the moon etc, is that true?
5) is there a link that i can get that gives me measurements of all station parts so i could attempt to build a scale model?
cheers in advance
-
quickshot89 - 17/2/2008 11:41 AM
i have a few things that i would like an answer to, so here they are:
1) what is the date that the ISS will be deorbited
2)once NASA pulls out of the ISS, would private comanies pay to own it? (im pretty sure they did that with Mir, but lack of funding caused it to be scrapped)
3) would another orbital oupost be build again or will everything be made just for moon/mars/solar exploration, IMO i would love to see an ISS2 that would be bigger and more powerful, and maybe act as a mid point from earth to the moon and beyond
4) wikipedia states that Orion crews will return to the ISS after they have been to the moon etc, is that true?
5) is there a link that i can get that gives me measurements of all station parts so i could attempt to build a scale model?
cheers in advance
1. Not known at this time
2. not really possible, too ingrained in NASA
3. Too far in the future. No plans
4. Nope. Prime example why not to use wikipedia for space info
-
s once NASA switches all attention to the moon the ISS will be neglected
its a shame that so much money has been put into it and they cant be bothered to let it stay up there, upgrades would be possible, (new micro shielding blankets etc) i mean, hubble is getting upgrades to make it last, why not do the same with the ISS, really bit waste of time if they dont make it last 20+ years
how long was Mir up there for? and the russians did that on low budget
-
janmb - 17/2/2008 10:30 AM
I must admit I'm having a slightly hard time seeing how boosting the velocity (and implicit the altitude) improves anything in terms of docking opportunities tbh, but it clearly is the main reason they did this reboost. In general, I thought a low altitude would be favorable for virtually all docked operations, but that's clearly not the case.
Is this boiling down to a simple matter of orbital timing? Since the angular velocity clearly is reduced when increasing the orbital altitude, the time slots obviously change in accordance, but how does that really affect FD3 docking opportunities vs. FD4?
Not a matter of time so much as phase. The phase angle is the angle between the orbiter and the station, measured at the center of the Earth. The objective of rendezvous is to drive the phase angle to zero by launching into a lower orbit with a shorter period and catching up to the station from behind. This is called "phasing".
Phasing rate is roughly proportional to the difference in altitude between the orbiter and station. Since the orbiter's minimum altitude is fixed, the maximum phasing rate is limited by the altitude of the station. At higher station altitudes faster phasing is possible because the difference in orbital periods is greater.
The standard shuttle docking time is during flight day 3, but at the current low altitude of the station, this is not always possible. On some days the phase angle is too large for the shuttle to catch up by FD3, so a FD4 rendezvous would be necessary. Right now the station is close to a two-day phase repeating orbit, meaning that the phase angle at launch time alternates between a short phase angle on one day and a long phase angle (~180 degrees greater) on the alternating days. By performing a reboost to slightly increase the altitude (and orbital period) of the station, the long phasing cases can be adjusted to bring them into the FD3 phasing limit.
-
quickshot89 - 17/2/2008 5:49 PM
how long was Mir up there for? and the russians did that on low budget
15 years: Feb. 1986 to March 2001. Zarya and Unity+PMA 1 and 2 is approaching 10 years old this year(Zarya in November and Unity+the two PMAs in December).
So by 2015, those components is going to be older that some of the components of Mir. Zvezda is celebrating it's 15th anniversary in July 2015.
15th anniversary for some of the various components:
Zarya: Nov. 2014
Unity: Dec. 2014
PMA-1: Dec. 2014
PMA-2: Dec. 2014
Zvezda: Jul. 2015
Destiny: Feb. 2016
-
quickshot89 - 17/2/2008 10:41 AM
i have a few things that i would like an answer to, so here they are:
5) is there a link that i can get that gives me measurements of all station parts so i could attempt to build a scale model?
cheers in advance
Might be cheaper to just buy one...
http://www.thespacestore.com/spstmo.html
-
now wheres the fun in buyng it
-
I have been challenged by a friend of mine that works at ISS MOCR to come up with some "real" questions about the ISS.
Anyone have some "real" questions about the ISS I can send her way??
Todd
-
When I saw the pictures of the ISS during the flyaround of STS-122 I noticed that the starboard solar arrays were moved. (compared to this picture where the solar arrays face the Earth)
I thought they didn't want to rotate the starboard SARJ anymore.
Is the position of the solar arrays that more important than further damaging an irreplaceable SARJ?
-
ckiki lwai - 19/2/2008 3:18 AM
I thought they didn't want to rotate the starboard SARJ anymore.
Is the position of the solar arrays that more important than further damaging an irreplaceable SARJ?
They don't want the starboard SARJ in auto-track and are also minimizing any manual positioning.
But don't forget that approaching and departing vehicles tend to use thrusters that produce plumes that could hit the arrays, and those arrays can only take so much force. I believe this is one of the reasons why the orbiter flyaround distance was increased to 600 feet and more beginning with ISS-12A.
-
SpaceAdmin - 13/2/2008 6:53 PM
Having worked the ISS ECLSS console until about 2 1/2 years ago, I can tell you exactly what that gauge is. It's a piece of Russian equipment - a manometer. And yes, they use it in the airlock to monitor pressure changes during the EVA prebreathe, depress, and repress timeline.
Thanks SpaceAdmin! I think this is the device referred to in various places as "MB" which is presumably a transcription of the cyrillic which transliterates into latin script as "MV" standing for the Russian for "vacuum manometer". There's a brief description at
http://suzymchale.com/kosmonavtka/issrslss.html
The vacuum manometer is a mechanical aneroid instrument which measures total pressure in the habitable compartments. It is a portable unit with two dials with measurement ranges 0-460 mmHg and 470-960 mmHg. It has a range indicator to ensure a proper reading, and a mirror scale to ensure an accurate reading. Instrument error is ± 2 mmHg.
Is this the one, or something different? I don't suppose you have easy access to a document that says who makes it or even a part number? I'm feeling geeky enough to write to them to ask for some details.
-
In the STS-122 thread, there was a mention of the oxygen transfer from Atlantis to ISS. Why,
I wonder, would there be a need to transfer oxygen to ISS when it has a functioning OGS that
can produce enough oxygen to support even the largest of crews?
So, a few questions here:
1) Is the OGS running?
2) What is its duty cycle?
3) How much oxygen is it currently producing?
4) How much can it produce in its current location?
5) Is it ultimately going to be relocated?
6) If it's up and running, why is oxygen transferred from the Shuttle to ISS?
7) What issues are there with regards to running OGS at a higher rate?
-
This is high-pressure oxygen for the EVA tanks... OGS is low pressure so can't fill those.
-
dsobin - 19/2/2008 12:00 PM
In the STS-122 thread, there was a mention of the oxygen transfer from Atlantis to ISS. Why,
I wonder, would there be a need to transfer oxygen to ISS when it has a functioning OGS that
can produce enough oxygen to support even the largest of crews?
Standard conservation measures. I believe they also used the orbiter ECLSS to repressurize the station atmosphere because it's easier to replenish the consummables on shuttle orbiters than on the station.
Both the Elektron and the OGS use water and that has to be resupplied. If the orbiter can reduce the load on the station's oxygen generation systems, that conserves the station water supply. (While that supply is also being augmented from the orbiter fuel cells.)
-
rdale - 19/2/2008 10:59 AM
This is high-pressure oxygen for the EVA tanks... OGS is low pressure so can't fill those.
Isn't the orbiter cryo low-pressure too? They have a "pump" (compressor) that has to run for many hours to pump O2 into those high-pressure tanks.
-
OGS output is not stored.
-
Todd - thanks to your friend for asking. Here are the things I'm curious about:
1. As we make major strides in the ISS construction, at this junction what percentage of the 3-person's crew is devoted to maintenance, new construction, and science? When it becomes a 6-person station, does it automatically follow that all three new crewmembers will be devoted to science?
2. Where are the results of the science experiments being published? I would love to seen a report (or book)...written for lay people...on the discoveries already made on the ISS.
3. We understand that except for moving things around, all other types of work in a weighless environment are more difficult. Are there any cute little inventions or techniques that have evolved to cope with that problem. For example, are "toe-holds" or straps being added at key locations to help the crew stabilize themselves. Another example was watching Cmdr Whitson and other crew members wrap their legs around the astronauts they were helping get suited up...to get stability while putting on their helmets.
4. Has ISS crew training become more "general" with emphasis on certain basic skills as the ISS continues to become more complex; i.e. - emphasis on basic computer training, space-walk training, operations training...while expecting the astronauts to learn specific tasks as problems are encountered in space. How has the training evolved over time?
5.. How worried are the insiders about the SARJ problem?
6. Sounds silly, but I really don't know: where do the astronauts go to sleep? Do they have any nooks and crannies that are their own yet? As the sleep periods followed faithfully or do they...like many of us...take cat-naps during the day to sustain them?
7. Have there been any improvements in the food?
8. Is the idea of an inflatable habitat to provide the astronauts more private space gone forever or it anyone keeping the concept alive.
9. How the issue of noise levels been mitigated over the years or is it still a problem?
Thanks, again, Todd.
Ed
-
edfishel - 19/2/2008 11:00 AM
2. Where are the results of the science experiments being published? I would love to seen a report (or book)...written for lay people...on the discoveries already made on the ISS.
Ed, check this link for a complete list. It looks like about 700 individual experiments...all conducted so far without Columbus (or Kibo) and on a 2-3 man crew, with occasional short term supplement from the shuttles.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/science/experiments/Expedition.html
8. Is the idea of an inflatable habitat to provide the astronauts more private space gone forever or it anyone keeping the concept alive.
It seems to have been abandoned. To the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been active work on it (aside from Bigelow's) in years. However, there's a proposal in the UK to build a pair of small "Habitat Extension Modules" of a more conventional construction that would give each crewmember a small private "room," plus a communal area. If they go forward with it, they would probably be launched by Russia in 2011.
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/080116-tw-british-iss.html
-
"Isn't the orbiter cryo low-pressure too? They have a "pump" (compressor) that has to run for many hours to pump O2 into those high-pressure tanks."
Correct - but there is no fitting/plumbing to go from OGS to the O2 tanks, plus it spits it out so low leves vice what the pump pulls it would burn out. To answer the other questions, OGS is not running because there is not enough excess water to support it. We are trying to get it running as much as possible to shake it down so that when we get to 6 people and water reclamation (e.g., urine) it can run all the time.
-
1. No but the ratio should be approximately that.
3. Yes, we are putting toe holds in Columbus for example.
4. Trying to get there. With 6 people we are moving to more of an operator/user type category but some of this is still be hammered out. It is still too much training.
5. Very.
6. In the RS two people sleep in the Kayuta sleep stations and in the US we have the TESS - all are phone booth sized sleeping nooks.
10. Still very high on the RS (US is fine). We just installed sound baffles in the FGB and that is helping. But it is probably about as good as it is going to get.
-
Thank you!
Ed
-
How come there is no internet on the Space Station, and are there any plans to create an ISS internet connection in the future? :o
-
ShuttleDiscovery - 24/2/2008 6:35 AM
How come there is no internet on the Space Station, and are there any plans to create an ISS internet connection in the future? :o
They have the ability but it is not continuous due to TDRS coverage constraints, I believe.
-
Jim - 24/2/2008 2:55 PM ShuttleDiscovery - 24/2/2008 6:35 AM How come there is no internet on the Space Station, and are there any plans to create an ISS internet connection in the future? :o
They have the ability but it is not continuous due to TDRS coverage constraints, I believe.
I have a question relating to this that has puzzled me for a long time. Most of the basic (audio, video, data...) capabilities for both the Shuttle and the ISS go through TDRSS and there are frequent losses of signal because of lack of coverage (or sometimes data allocation?)
So, my question is... if the only limitation is the number of satellites, couldn't they just launch 2 or 3 more TDRSs and have global coverage, with no LOS? I know it would mean $$ but I think the benefits would far outweight the cons, missions could be far more efficient if they had continuous video, audio and data, and internet capabilities would also greatly optimize how the work is carried out in ISS. I think there's a TDRS launch scheduled for this year, so it's not like the system is going to be replaced or handed over to other satellites. So, is this a purely economic problem? Or are there plans to expand the network?
-
eeergo - 24/2/2008 9:10 AM
1. So, my question is... if the only limitation is the number of satellites, couldn't they just launch 2 or 3 more TDRSs and have global coverage, with no LOS?
2. I know it would mean $$ but I think the benefits would far outweight the cons, missions could be far more efficient if they had continuous video, audio and data, and internet capabilities would also greatly optimize how the work is carried out in ISS.
3. I think there's a TDRS launch scheduled for this year, so it's not like the system is going to be replaced or handed over to other satellites.
4.So, is this a purely economic problem? Or are there plans to expand the network?
1. Number of satellites is not the "issue" It is number of ground sites. TDRSS has only one main ground site (the Guam site for ZOE doesn't supply complete support) White Sands. So all satellites have to be in view of it, which limits the on orbit locations. The ISS structure blocks the view of the antenna of these onorbit locations. That and the ZOE are the reason for the outages
2. There isn't really any benefit. video, audio and data is not required or that important. The ground doesn't need 100% video coverage. Only a few of us, space nerds.
3. no launch for a few years
4. Not a problem
Also TDRSS supports more than shuttle and ISS.
-
Jim - 24/2/2008 5:01 PM eeergo - 24/2/2008 9:10 AM 1. So, my question is... if the only limitation is the number of satellites, couldn't they just launch 2 or 3 more TDRSs and have global coverage, with no LOS? 2. I know it would mean $$ but I think the benefits would far outweight the cons, missions could be far more efficient if they had continuous video, audio and data, and internet capabilities would also greatly optimize how the work is carried out in ISS. 3. I think there's a TDRS launch scheduled for this year, so it's not like the system is going to be replaced or handed over to other satellites. 4.So, is this a purely economic problem? Or are there plans to expand the network?
1. Number of satellites is not the "issue" It is number of ground sites. TDRSS has only one main ground site (the Guam site for ZOE doesn't supply complete support) White Sands. So all satellites have to be in view of it, which limits the on orbit locations. The ISS structure blocks the view of the antenna of these onorbit locations. That and the ZOE are the reason for the outages 2. There isn't really any benefit. video, audio and data is not required or that important. The ground doesn't need 100% video coverage. Only a few of us, space nerds. 3. no launch for a few years 4. Not a problem Also TDRSS supports more than shuttle and ISS.
1- Thanks, I understand the issue now. Is ZOE there because of the lack of ground stations? Then the optimal solution to this could pass by placing another GS (maybe in Australia? maybe in cooperation with allies à-la-DSN? probably too expensive now, not just a pair of satellites to launch...) That would mean ZOE would disappear and structural interference wouldn't be a problem, right? I'm of course assuming there was a reason for spending the money.
2- I, however, don't see the possible benefits so inconsequential (from my humble perspective, that is) There are some obvious adavantages that are non-trivial, and would be important for future projects in LEO. Internet access would mean they wouldn't have to worry about allocating time for IMS dowloading to the three main ground stations, as the first example that came to my mind. Science capabilities would also be boosted, and that could mean less had to be spent to achieve the same results (no need for waiting for the crew to download results, make them do little adjustments that could be done remotely but aren't right now just because of the lack of coverage, or plainly making a experiment last much longer and fail repeatedly (I'm thinking about SPHERES) just because of the blackouts) While watching Shuttle missions, they are always joggling around with the coverage to get documents up and down. Imagine they could access the database the engineers are working with on the ground, and use it with planning, troubleshooting, organizing... And of course we would have video :) Which also would save money, when the EVAers are outside and they have to wait long minutes doing nothing waiting for HelmetCam video to stream. I'm sure every EVA minute costs a lot.
3- I double-checked this and, indeed, the next launch is in 2012, I thought it was nearer.
And also as you say, TDRSS supports other customers (which ones, out of curiosity?) who probably would like to have less LOS.
Thanks for expanding my knowledge here, Jim, greatly appreciated!
-
eeergo - 24/2/2008 12:12 PM
1- Thanks, I understand the issue now. Is ZOE there because of the lack of ground stations? Then the optimal solution to this could pass by placing another GS (maybe in Australia? maybe in cooperation with allies à-la-DSN? probably too expensive now, not just a pair of satellites to launch...) That would mean ZOE would disappear and structural interference wouldn't be a problem, right? I'm of course assuming there was a reason for spending the money.
2- I, however, don't see the possible benefits so inconsequential (from my humble perspective, that is) There are some obvious advantages that are non-trivial, and would be important for future projects in LEO. Internet access would mean they wouldn't have to worry about allocating time for IMS dowloading to the three main ground stations, as the first example that came to my mind. Science capabilities would also be boosted, and that could mean less had to be spent to achieve the same results (no need for waiting for the crew to download results, make them do little adjustments that could be done remotely but aren't right now just because of the lack of coverage, or plainly making a experiment last much longer and fail repeatedly (I'm thinking about SPHERES) just because of the blackouts) While watching Shuttle missions, they are always joggling around with the coverage to get documents up and down. Imagine they could access the database the engineers are working with on the ground, and use it with planning, troubleshooting, organizing... And of course we would have video :) Which also would save money, when the EVAers are outside and they have to wait long minutes doing nothing waiting for HelmetCam video to stream. I'm sure every EVA minute costs a lot.
3- I double-checked this and, indeed, the next launch is in 2012, I thought it was nearer.
And also as you say, TDRSS supports other customers (which ones, out of curiosity?) who probably would like to have less LOS.
Thanks for expanding my knowledge here, Jim, greatly appreciated!
1. The Guam station is there for the ZOE but it has limited capability
2. Other than IMS, there is no real issue. The only real "issue" is Ku-band data. S-band is not as constrained. KU is for high data volumes like video bit other data can be recorded onboard and then played back later. Commanding is not really limited as much either. EVA's can occur without helmetcam, like they did before
3 Users
http://msp.gsfc.nasa.gov/tdrss/oview.html
-
Thanks for the reply Jim!
-
"They have the ability but it is not continuous due to TDRS coverage constraints, I believe."
Not really - we uplink web pages and they can use an IP phone when there is Ku, but they cannot surf in any means of the definition, even when there is Ku.
-
"There isn't really any benefit. video, audio and data is not required or that important. The ground doesn't need 100% video coverage. Only a few of us, space nerds."
Actually, video can be extremely useful at times like EVAs and hence why we try to maximize ir when we have access.
-
"Internet access would mean they wouldn't have to worry about allocating time for IMS dowloading to the three main ground stations, as the first example that came to my mind. Science capabilities would also be boosted, and that could mean less had to be spent to achieve the same results (no need for waiting for the crew to download results, make them do little adjustments that could be done remotely but aren't right now just because of the lack of coverage, or plainly making a experiment last much longer and fail repeatedly (I'm thinking about SPHERES) just because of the blackouts) While watching Shuttle missions, they are always joggling around with the coverage to get documents up and down. "
Allocating time to things like mail and IMS is more to have the crew out of the application at those times. However, even with direct link since there is so much work on the ground to interface with different country systems, applications etc that it really wouldn't buy you anything. Science data is not affects - as noted already, much is recorded and downlinked when we have Ku. SPHEREs does not require video, it relies on crew and telemetry so no impact there.
-
How do the MBS and the CETA carts translate past each other. Aren't they located on the same rails?
-
I read though this whole thread, and didn't see this discussed, so, here goes...
Does anyone know what the budget consequences are of operating the ISS after it's "design life" of 2016? Is NASA planning on splashing it to free up money spent maintaining it for use for the return to the moon program? Or is it the agency planning on continuing to operate it, or handing it over to it's partners in the project... or... ?
It seems strange that they would design Orion to dock at the space station if they were planning on splashing it one year ofter Orion is supposed to be operational.... hmmmm....
Enquiring minds want to know...
Thanks!
Mark
-
If the CETA carts are in the way, the SSRMS with an astronaut on the end of it, is used to pick up the CETA cart and move it to the opposite side of the rails to clear the path. This is a picture from STS 116.
-
nedry - 12/3/2008 2:03 PM
1.Does anyone know what the budget consequences are of operating the ISS after it's "design life" of 2016?
2. Is NASA planning on splashing it to free up money spent maintaining it for use for the return to the moon program?
3. Or is it the agency planning on continuing to operate it, or handing it over to it's partners in the project... or... ?
Mark
1. no, not access yet
2. yes, that is one thought
3. US/NASA has to be involve with ISS as long as it is flying. No US, no ISS
-
When I was watching a video of the launch from a camera along the bay, it showed the flare burning off the acess H2. About three minutes after lift off the size of the flare burn got much larger. It appears as if at launch, or shortly after they purge the hydrogen lines and burn the acess off. Any more detail on how the flare works and what actually it is connected to?
-
Lawntonlookirs - 13/3/2008 8:21 AM
When I was watching a video of the launch from a camera along the bay, it showed the flare burning off the acess H2. About three minutes after lift off the size of the flare burn got much larger. It appears as if at launch, or shortly after they purge the hydrogen lines and burn the acess off. Any more detail on how the flare works and what actually it is connected to?
The flare has a LNG burner in it to keep it continuously lit. It is connected to the ET vent line. The fill and drain line is connected to it to allow purging of the line after launc
-
Jim - 13/3/2008 8:30 AM
Lawntonlookirs - 13/3/2008 8:21 AM
When I was watching a video of the launch from a camera along the bay, it showed the flare burning off the acess H2. About three minutes after lift off the size of the flare burn got much larger. It appears as if at launch, or shortly after they purge the hydrogen lines and burn the acess off. Any more detail on how the flare works and what actually it is connected to?
The flare has a LNG burner in it to keep it continuously lit. It is connected to the ET vent line. The fill and drain line is connected to it to allow purging of the line after launc
Thanks Jim
Richard
-
Can the Cupola be moved around after it is attached to the Node 3? Can it be moved from the V + CBM to the V - CBM?
-
brahmanknight - 13/3/2008 6:19 PM
Can the Cupola be moved around after it is attached to the Node 3? Can it be moved from the V + CBM to the V - CBM?
It can be moved
-
The ISS six crew strategic planning document on L2 gives kg per crewmember per day figures. (page 34 and 35 of the PDF). There are also figures for logistics and maintenance payloads - obviously that will be different for a lunar outpost, but they'll still need to allow some quantity for that.
-
nedry - 12/3/2008 2:03 PM
I read though this whole thread, and didn't see this discussed, so, here goes...
Does anyone know what the budget consequences are of operating the ISS after it's "design life" of 2016? Is NASA planning on splashing it to free up money spent maintaining it for use for the return to the moon program? Or is it the agency planning on continuing to operate it, or handing it over to it's partners in the project... or... ?
It seems strange that they would design Orion to dock at the space station if they were planning on splashing it one year ofter Orion is supposed to be operational.... hmmmm....
Enquiring minds want to know...
Thanks!
Mark
The following is from a thread elsewhere on ISS after 2016....you might want to check that thread to see the context for the following exchange:
"Continuing an ISS-related discussion from another thread:
"Clongton: My understanding, and correct me if I am wrong, is that Station has a potential useful life out to 2020, but the Constellation program has all of the US ISS budget switching to the lunar effort beginning with FY2017. Without shifting all the US ISS budget to Constellation beginning 2017, the 2020 date for the lunar landing cannot happen. At the beginning of 2017, ALL US manned effort will be directed to Constellation and the lunar goal. That, for all intents and purposes, takes the US out of the ISS business at the end of FY2016. The international partners are welcomed to keep the ISS running beyond 2016, if they can. Normal supply chain will be Progress and ATV, flown on foreign launchers. The US will no longer be involved in logistical support of any kind once Core Complete is established. This is the budget outlines I have seen from multiple sources.
"The IMS shows only 1, possibly 2 Orion flights to ISS, and they are both shakedown flights for Orion, not ISS support flights, although IF the 1st flight goes ok AND there is time (still 2016), Orion-2 might do a crew rotation. But that's the end of US involvement with ISS.
"And I agree this is getting off topic. There is a thread under General Discussion titled “ISS After 2016”. I suggest we continue this discussion over there. Here’s the link:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=4011
"References to Constellation's "budget" in 2016 or even ISS, or even NASA are mystical numbers. NASA is funded on an annual basis, and the determination of the amount starts with the President's annual budget request, sent to the Congress in February of each year. Included in that request is what is called a "run-out" for a five-year period, which reflects the Administration's estimate of what IT WILL REQUEST in each of those succeeding five years, and is generally at a very low level of detail; limited mainly to primary appropriations accounts and some sub-accounts. Those are not and should not be considered to be "budgets." Even the Administration does not recognize them as such, and often requests numbers in those subsequent years that are different, as things change, events transpire, and priorities are adjusted along the way. The point is, I am aware of no document that could be called a "Constellation Budget" that even shows any projections beyond 2012, which is as far as the five-year "run-out" projections go which are included in the FY 2008 Budget request. If you have such a document, I'd love to see it. But given the annual appropriations process, there's no way such a document, even if it exists, could be considered a viable "projection," let alone a "budget."
You are also assuming a "zero-sum" situation, in which NASA's total budget amount is fixed in stone, and thus "new work" such as Constellation can ONLY proceed by stopping the expenditures on "old work" and using those erstwhile funds to do the "new work." That is a budgetary fiction that the present Office of Management and Budget would like you to believe--and too many, frankly, accept it as "gospel." But it just isn't true. Please re-read the quote from Bill Gerstenmeier at the ISS National Laboratory briefing....I'll repeat it here for those who didn't see it on the other thread:
"QUESTIONER: Hi. I just wanted to ask about the life span of the Space Station. I know the report talked about life beyond 2016, but how much beyond 2016 do you all envision the Space Station to be operating?
Then also, to some people, this might be seen as a way to justify the Space Station's existence beyond once you reach the point that, "Okay. We just wanted to see if we could build it. Now that we have built it, what are we going to do with it?" If you could just address that criticism.
MR. GERSTENMAIER: Okay. I think that the first piece is that, technically, the Space Station could fly until probably 2020, 2022. We have added some instrumentation in some of our truss pieces out there to actually determine how long the technical life would be.
Again, I would think what probably drives the life is not necessarily the technical life, but how much the Space Station is utilized and how commercial transportation comes online, how accessible it is, et cetera.
So I think what really drives the practical life of the Space Station is how useful it is and does it fit a niche.
What we are trying to do with this report is we put a framework out that opens up utilization to Space Station to a larger group than just NASA, and that is our advantages. We are not trying to show justification or show reason for Station. We are saying this is available, and we are going to see what interest is available out there in the government and in the commercial sector and see if it warrants continued use of Space Station beyond a certain date."
He didn't say anything about a 2016 cutoff date being certain. from the standpoint of budget or otherwise. What he said was, if I'm reading correctly, that we'd base a decision in around 2014 on whether and for how long to extend the ISS utilization BEYOND 2016 (up to, potentially, at least around 2020-2022, which is the currently-assumed "technical" on-orbit lifespan of its physical components, according to Mr. Gerstenmaier's statement). That decision in 2014 will be largely based on what the demonstrated capacity, capabilities, interest and commitment for utilization, and abilities to sustain and support it will have been in the preceding four years, from 2010 (when it's finally built) and 2014.
I don't know how much clearer it can be that the future of the ISS is still an open question, and is not directly tied to Constellation or any other program (though will, of course, be materially impacted by the ability--or lack of ability--to equip, sustain, maintain and operate it with on-board crew and ground support.)
-----
Edited by 51D Mascot 26/11/2007 12:28 PM
-
The Wikipedia article* about Kibo says that "it is the largest planned module for the ISS". A quick check of the numbers says that Zarya and Zvezda are both larger, in mass and length. What could they be referring to? Obviously if it's wrong it's wrong, but I'm wondering if there's some stat in which Kibo IS the biggest module.
* spare me the "Wikipedia sucks" slagging, I know, I know
-
It is the largest planned module of the US side of the station.
-
Would this be possible? After watching EVA1 the other day, and how they first did some JLP prep before moving to work on DEXTRE, i was thinking could it be possible for 3 astronauts to perform an EVA to lighten the workload (especially this mission with 5 EVA's in total). This way 2 could say work on DEXTRE while the other works on JLP.
Is it for safety reasons, or lack of space on the shuttle for an extra EMU that they dont go with 3 astronauts for an EVA
-
The program has done 3-astronaut EVA's before, but the only one I can think of was STS-49 (Intelsat rescue) - I was on the edge of my seat watching CNN and C-Span live coverage of that one.
There's not a lot of space in the Quest airlock - they may be able to pull off a 3-person EVA but I don't know. There's more that could go wrong, probably more coordination needed.
-
I was thinking about the same thing the other day while I was watching the coverage. Although, I think it would it possible, I don't think that there is enough room in the airlock on the station to hold three astronauts forthe campout, and etc... I haven't read any technical specs lately but I think the quest airlock was only spec'd out for a max of two astronauts. Now with Dextre on board, that will essentially function as a third astronaut...for all intensive purposes.
-
There isn't an SCU for a 3rd EVA member. STS-49 was a once and only once in blue moon event. The airlock is sized for 2. They could do a russian EVA using Orlan suits from Pier
-
Bubbinski - 15/3/2008 1:59 PM
The program has done 3-astronaut EVA's before, but the only one I can think of was STS-49 (Intelsat rescue) - I was on the edge of my seat watching CNN and C-Span live coverage of that one.
There's not a lot of space in the Quest airlock - they may be able to pull off a 3-person EVA but I don't know. There's more that could go wrong, probably more coordination needed.
The Quest airlock is the same size as the shuttle airlock, so if it worked for STS-49 it should work at ISS. Operationally, NASA wouldn't do it unless the situation absolutely requires it. People forget just how much of a Hail Mary that STS-49 EVA-3 really was.
-
I recently learned about SpaceX's development of their Dragon spacecraft for crew/cargo. I'm curious why NASA is funding this since it has Soyuz and, eventually, Orion. And for cargo they have Progress, ATV and HTV.
note: This is my first post... I only read up on the Shuttle/ISS around shuttle missions... I'm a former Rockwell Int'l employee... worked in Downey in Flight Simulation Lab.
-bruceh
-
bruha - 15/3/2008 5:24 PM
I recently learned about SpaceX's development of their Dragon spacecraft for crew/cargo. I'm curious why NASA is funding this since it has Soyuz and, eventually, Orion. And for cargo they have Progress, ATV and HTV.
note: This is my first post... I only read up on the Shuttle/ISS around shuttle missions... I'm a former Rockwell Int'l employee... worked in Downey in Flight Simulation Lab.
-bruceh
NASA doesn't have Soyuz, that is russian. Progress, ATV and HTV are for Russian, ESA and Japan's logistics obligations and not the US's. NASA wants a US solution
-
ChrisC - 15/3/2008 12:21 AM
The Wikipedia article about Kibo says that "it is the largest planned module for the ISS". A quick check of the numbers says that Zarya and Zvezda are both larger, in mass and length. What could they be referring to? Obviously if it's wrong it's wrong, but I'm wondering if there's some stat in which Kibo IS the biggest module.
brahmanknight - 15/3/2008 2:25 PM
It is the largest planned module of the US side of the station.
Really? That's it? Seems pretty lame on the part of whoever first claimed that Kibo was the largest.
(goes off to correct the Wikipedia article)
-
ChrisC - 15/3/2008 11:06 PM
ChrisC - 15/3/2008 12:21 AM
The Wikipedia article about Kibo says that "it is the largest planned module for the ISS". A quick check of the numbers says that Zarya and Zvezda are both larger, in mass and length. What could they be referring to? Obviously if it's wrong it's wrong, but I'm wondering if there's some stat in which Kibo IS the biggest module.
brahmanknight - 15/3/2008 2:25 PM
It is the largest planned module of the US side of the station.
Really? That's it? Seems pretty lame on the part of whoever first claimed that Kibo was the largest.
(goes off to correct the Wikipedia article)
did anyone look at volume? FGB has little
-
Jim - 15/3/2008 3:05 PM
bruha - 15/3/2008 5:24 PM
I recently learned about SpaceX's development of their Dragon spacecraft for crew/cargo. I'm curious why NASA is funding this since it has Soyuz and, eventually, Orion. And for cargo they have Progress, ATV and HTV.
note: This is my first post... I only read up on the Shuttle/ISS around shuttle missions... I'm a former Rockwell Int'l employee... worked in Downey in Flight Simulation Lab.
-bruceh
NASA doesn't have Soyuz, that is russian. Progress, ATV and HTV are for Russian, ESA and Japan's logistics obligations and not the US's. NASA wants a US solution
But isn't Orion a US solution?
-bruceh
-
not for the near term and not for logistics. The unmanned cargo version was cancelled
-
Jim - 16/3/2008 9:28 AM
not for the near term and not for logistics. The unmanned cargo version was cancelled
So is the plan for Orion to go to the ISS a contingency plan (e.g. COTS doesn't work out)?
Thanks for the replies...
-bruceh
-
bruha - 16/3/2008 1:17 PM
Jim - 16/3/2008 9:28 AM
not for the near term and not for logistics. The unmanned cargo version was cancelled
So is the plan for Orion to go to the ISS a contingency plan (e.g. COTS doesn't work out)?
Thanks for the replies...
-bruceh
No, it is still the primary vehicle to ISS for US Crew
-
Just curious: the U.S. solar arrays are black in color; the Russian panels are blue (example photo ) - what material is used to make each?
-
Suzy - 19/3/2008 3:15 AM
Just curious: the U.S. solar arrays are black in color; the Russian panels are blue (example photo ) - what material is used to make each?
Are you sure that the blue is not just the reflection of the light off the solar array. I think they are all a gold to orange color. :o
-
The gold/orange colour is the blanket supporting the US cells, the Russian cells have a ridid supporting structure. The photovoltaic cells them selves are dark in colour As far as I can find out all cells are made from either silicon or some recent cells are made of gallium arsenide. The colour difference could be due to that or different coatings etc.
-
How do long duration astronauts on the ISS vote? Absentee ballots?
-
hyper_snyper - 22/3/2008 3:09 PM
How do long duration astronauts on the ISS vote? Absentee ballots?
Yes.
-
When there are 2 Russians onboard station, it seems they don't do much on the US side ( going from the viewing of the one hour broadcast on the weekdays ). Is that accurate?
-
Does anyone know of a resource that explains the CMG system in detail? Or if anyone would take the time to do so it would be great.
I'm generally seeking info on how the four CMGs are mounted, their orientation, and HOW they are used for attitude control...
Are they mounted fixed in relation to the station or are they manipulated by servos? Is the attitude control achieved by spinning up/down the rpm or is the rpm entirely fixed and attitude control acheived by having servos attempt to rotate the gyro (which it will obviously resist)?
Any comments welcome, but a complete technical overview on this would be preferable
-
janmb - 25/3/2008 1:47 PM
Does anyone know of a resource that explains the CMG system in detail? Or if anyone would take the time to do so it would be great.
I'm generally seeking info on how the four CMGs are mounted, their orientation, and HOW they are used for attitude control...
Are they mounted fixed in relation to the station or are they manipulated by servos? Is the attitude control achieved by spinning up/down the rpm or is the rpm entirely fixed and attitude control acheived by having servos attempt to rotate the gyro (which it will obviously resist)?
I am not an expert on the system but I can answer this: it is the latter (constant RPM, variable spin axis), and in fact that is the defining characteristic of a control moment gyro. The opposite (variable RPM, fixed spin axis) is called a momentum wheel, not a CMG.
-
Motion Control Subsystem
The motion control subsystem (MCS) hardware launched as part of the Z1 element includes the CMGs and the CMG assemblies. This hardware will not be activated until Mission 5A, when the GN&C MDM will be activated with the U.S. Lab.
The CMG assembly consists of four CMGs and a micrometeorite/orbital debris shield. The four CMGs, which will control the attitude of the ISS, have a spherical momentum storage capability of 14,000 ft-lb/sec, the scalar sum of the individual CMG wheel moments. The momentum stored in the CMG system at any given time equals the vector sum of the individual CMG momentum vectors.
To maintain the ISS in the desired attitude, the CMG system must cancel, or absorb, the momentum generated by the disturbance torques acting on the station. If the average disturbance torque is nonzero, the resulting CMG output torque is also nonzero, and momentum builds up in the CMG system. When the CMG system saturates, it is unable to generate the torque required to cancel the disturbance torque, which results in the loss of attitude control.
The CMG system saturates when momentum vectors have become parallel and only momentum vectors change. When this happens, control torques perpendicular to this parallel line are possible, and controllability about the parallel line is lost.
Russian segment thrusters are used to desaturate the CMGs.
An ISS CMG consists of a large flat wheel that rotates at a constant speed (6,600 rpm) and develops an angular momentum of 3,500 ft-lb/sec about its spin axis. This rotating wheel is mounted in a two-degree-of-freedom gimbal system that can point the spin axis (momentum vector) of the wheel in any direction.
At least two CMGs are needed to provide attitude control. The CMG generates an output reaction torque that is applied to the ISS by inertially changing the direction of its wheel momentum. The CMG's output torque has two components, one proportional to the rate of change of the CMG gimbals and a second proportional to the inertial body rate of the ISS as sensed at the CMG base. Because the momentum along the direction of the spin axis is fixed, the output torque is constrained to lie in the plane of the wheel. That is why one CMG cannot provide the three-axis torque needed to control the attitude of the ISS.
Each CMG has a thermostatically controlled survival heater to keep it within thermal limits before the CMGs are activated on Mission 5A. The heaters are rated at 120 watts and have an operating temperature range of -42 to -35°F.
-
Thanks for those great answers.
Couple more follow-ups that I didn't quite manage to filter out of that description tho:
Are the four gyros mounted as a single package, all of the sharing the same rotation axis,
or
are they mounted as a single package with differing rotation axis,
or
are they mounted separately, each axis being individually adjustable?
Another small issue I'm trying to work my mind around here... The stabilizing part of this gyro package is not hard to grasp at all - that part is pretty straight forward for any gyro. What I do have some issues understanding tho, is how you achieve the torque to actually rotate the station... Trying to adjust the gyros' rotational axis obviously creates a torque and I guess that's all there is to it really, but the issue that keeps bothering me a bit is that since all of this needs to happen so very very slowly, you also tend to lose a lot of the retention offered by the gyros.
No idea if the question is even understandable here, but in short, what I am asking is this:
How much a gyro resists having its rotational axis shifted is very much a factor of how fast you try to shift it. And since the system on the station obviously has to work very slowly indeed, the resistance offered by those gyros, even despite the massive momentum they have stored, ought to be fairly low, so how do they manage to sufficiently resist changes to their rotational axis'?
Any diagrams/pictures/schematics would be highly welcome too :)
-
mounted separately, each axis being individually adjustable?
-
Thanks again Jim.
So in short, the gyros let the station do attitude control by staying in place, spinning at a constant rate, which electrical servos (I presume) try to change the rotational axis' of said gyros - which they will resist and thus create a torque on the station instead.
But, again, why is not the slow rates of rotation a problem here? Unless my basic physics are entirely screwed up here, how much a gyro resists having its axis change is very much a factor of how fast that axis is being attempted changed. The servos driving the gimbals containing the gyros necessarily have to work very very slowly on the station, which lead to the question on how you get sufficient resistance from the gyros at all...
-
I don't think rate of change in the axis affects anything expect the torque applied to the station. The higher the torque, the shorter the time it has to be applied, so that balances out. Just keep the conceptualization at conservation of momentum. It doesn't matter how fast you change the momentum, the total change is the same.
-
iamlucky13 - 27/3/2008 7:04 PM
I don't think rate of change in the axis affects anything expect the torque applied to the station. The higher the torque, the shorter the time it has to be applied, so that balances out. Just keep the conceptualization at conservation of momentum. It doesn't matter how fast you change the momentum, the total change is the same.
You sure about that? Forget the station for a moment and consider the basic physics of a gyro... Unless I'm getting older than I was hoping, I'm pretty sure the total work needed to rotate a gyro's axis say... 90 degrees... is not constant, but a factor of the time spent doing it.
The first glance, logical way to assume how this works is to think the work needed is the integral below the torque/time graph, thus work being constant. I do belive that is not the case tho.
Anyways a moot point really, since I strongly doubt they use any kind of continous applied force during attitude corrections, but rather a short time burst with a corresponding, opposite burst to stop it - much like you would if using thrusters too.
-
A completely different question I can't seem to find answered anywhere....
WHY are high beta angles a constaint for docked shuttle missions? Termal issues?
-
The gyros can provide continuous torque to the station, and in fact when they get to their maximum torque and can apply no more, thrusters fire to "desaturate" the gyros. Remember, each gyro wheel masses only a few hundredths of a percent of the station mass. There are net torques on the station from a variety of sources.
High beta angles mean insufficient cooling for the docked, combined vehicle. So, yes, thermal issues.
-
What ever happened to recycling waste water on the station? Will that happen when the full life support systems for 6 people come uphill?
-
Lee Jay - 28/3/2008 2:48 AM
The gyros can provide continuous torque to the station, and in fact when they get to their maximum torque and can apply no more, thrusters fire to "desaturate" the gyros. Remember, each gyro wheel masses only a few hundredths of a percent of the station mass. There are net torques on the station from a variety of sources.
High beta angles mean insufficient cooling for the docked, combined vehicle. So, yes, thermal issues.
Thanks :)
And I assume the reason this is only a problem for docked operation is because you don't have the freedom of individual attitudes on each vehicle? I also assume this is mainly a constraint introduced by the shuttle, since the station has rotating radiators...?
-
brahmanknight - 28/3/2008 11:22 AM
What ever happened to recycling waste water on the station?
What about it? As far as I know, they have been recycling water on the station all along and still are.
-
janmb - 28/3/2008 1:07 PM
brahmanknight - 28/3/2008 11:22 AM
What ever happened to recycling waste water on the station?
What about it? As far as I know, they have been recycling water on the station all along and still are.
Condensate is currently collected and used in the oxygen generator. Urine is simply disposed of in progress (IIRC, recycling urine was demonstrated on Mir). While the shuttle is operating, there is a lot of water available from the fuel cells.
-
janmb - 28/3/2008 5:32 AM
Lee Jay - 28/3/2008 2:48 AM
The gyros can provide continuous torque to the station, and in fact when they get to their maximum torque and can apply no more, thrusters fire to "desaturate" the gyros. Remember, each gyro wheel masses only a few hundredths of a percent of the station mass. There are net torques on the station from a variety of sources.
High beta angles mean insufficient cooling for the docked, combined vehicle. So, yes, thermal issues.
Thanks :)
And I assume the reason this is only a problem for docked operation is because you don't have the freedom of individual attitudes on each vehicle?
Correct.
I also assume this is mainly a constraint introduced by the shuttle, since the station has rotating radiators...?
No, it's combined constraints. You have station solar power constraints, station thermal constraints, and shuttle thermal constraints. When the beta angle is greater than 65 degrees, you can't find a docked attitude that is certified to satisfy all three at once. Simple as that.
-
Why is the audio quality on astronaut voice transmissions so poor? I mean, we have GEO satellites bouncing conversations across the globe all the time--millions of them--why is the astronaut audio quality (bounced off a dedicated GEOsat: TDRSS) so poor? It sounds just as bad during an astronaut press conference as it did when Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon.
-
hop - 28/3/2008 8:42 PM
janmb - 28/3/2008 1:07 PM
brahmanknight - 28/3/2008 11:22 AM
What ever happened to recycling waste water on the station?
What about it? As far as I know, they have been recycling water on the station all along and still are.
Condensate is currently collected and used in the oxygen generator. Urine is simply disposed of in progress (IIRC, recycling urine was demonstrated on Mir). While the shuttle is operating, there is a lot of water available from the fuel cells.
Full water processing capability on the US segment, including taking urine and making potable water is going to fly on the ULF-2 mission. ULF-2 is going to prepare the ISS for 6-crew operations the following year.
-
The recent joint problems with the ISS solar arrays got me thinking again of what they would do should the arrays fail to provide sufficient power (lack of orientation, power spike, physical damage etc.)
I know the ISS has batteries on board, but what about a RTG (radioisotope thermoelectric generator)? Just for backup. You could easily send up a 1kW RTG with a 20 year lifespan just for emergencies.
Also, does anyone know the total potential watts of all the arrays currently up there?
Edit: OK, according to http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/intspacestation_worldbook.html the ISS will eventually have 100 kW of power. But that doesn't tell me the current capacity, or what baseline capacity is needed for life support (ie. would 1kW keep the astronauts alive?)
-
1 kW is not anywhere near the minimum power requirement for ISS. Maybe you get down to about 4-6 kW if you turned off every single light in ISS, all experiments, ECLSS(even there you would have to go to bare minimum, like just fans and CO2 scrubbers) for all but Destiny and Zvezda and every but a few of the vital MDMs.
-
Isn't the *average* power available right now something on the order of 20kW?
-
Takalok - 2/4/2008 1:23 PM
I know the ISS has batteries on board, but what about a RTG (radioisotope thermoelectric generator)? Just for backup. You could easily send up a 1kW RTG with a 20 year lifespan just for emergencies.
Not easily. For one, we don't have enough Pu 238 to build enough RTGs to provide the amount of power required for ISS survival. Other fuels can be used, but they are less efficient, and in the US would require significant development. See here for a recent article about the supply problems http://www.space.com/news/080306-nasa-plutonium-shortage-fin.html
The cost of building, certifying and launching RTGs would cover a lot of additional solar power.
Having RTGs on ISS would significantly complicate end-of-mission as well.
-
janmb - 27/3/2008 6:17 PM
iamlucky13 - 27/3/2008 7:04 PM
I don't think rate of change in the axis affects anything expect the torque applied to the station. The higher the torque, the shorter the time it has to be applied, so that balances out. Just keep the conceptualization at conservation of momentum. It doesn't matter how fast you change the momentum, the total change is the same.
You sure about that? Forget the station for a moment and consider the basic physics of a gyro... Unless I'm getting older than I was hoping, I'm pretty sure the total work needed to rotate a gyro's axis say... 90 degrees... is not constant, but a factor of the time spent doing it.
The first glance, logical way to assume how this works is to think the work needed is the integral below the torque/time graph, thus work being constant. I do belive that is not the case tho.
Anyways a moot point really, since I strongly doubt they use any kind of continous applied force during attitude corrections, but rather a short time burst with a corresponding, opposite burst to stop it - much like you would if using thrusters too.
Well now you're making me doubt myself, but I'm almost positive the work is constant. I admit precession and working polar coordinates always made my head spin a little bit in dynamics class, so if anyone can either confirm or deny this principle, that would be great.
-
Why was the ISS designed for 14.7 psi? Certainly they could have reduced structural weight a worthwhile amount by reducing the pressure.
Humans live and work with minimal loss of performance in lower pressures (for example, 12 psi in Denver, 10-11 psi on airliners), and that's without an adjusted oxygen ratio. Of course, I understand fire risk is a major consideration, but combustibility is dependent both on vapor pressure (absolute amount of oxygen available per volume) and ratio (other gasses steal heat from the combustion).
I would have expected a reduced total pressure of perhaps 10 psi with an O2 vapor pressure only slightly reduced relative to sea level, or about 30% O2 and 70% N2 so that the fire hazard is unchanged. Pressure on the station skin would then be 33% lower, not to mention the 33% reduction in free air mass.
In contrast, Apollo ran 5.3 psi cabin pressure with an essentially sea-level O2 vapor pressure of about 3 psi (60% O2, 40% N2).
-
I was wondering the same, and wondering it along with the camp-out protocol (i.e., not needing to do it).
-
iamlucky13 - 4/4/2008 3:05 PM
Why was the ISS designed for 14.7 psi? Certainly they could have reduced structural weight a worthwhile amount by reducing the pressure.
Humans live and work with minimal loss of performance in lower pressures (for example, 12 psi in Denver, 10-11 psi on airliners), and that's without an adjusted oxygen ratio. Of course, I understand fire risk is a major consideration, but combustibility is dependent both on vapor pressure (absolute amount of oxygen available per volume) and ratio (other gasses steal heat from the combustion).
I would have expected a reduced total pressure of perhaps 10 psi with an O2 vapor pressure only slightly reduced relative to sea level, or about 30% O2 and 70% N2 so that the fire hazard is unchanged. Pressure on the station skin would then be 33% lower, not to mention the 33% reduction in free air mass.
In contrast, Apollo ran 5.3 psi cabin pressure with an essentially sea-level O2 vapor pressure of about 3 psi (60% O2, 40% N2).
Russian systems are setup for 14.7 and always have. They would need re engineering. Zarya and Zsveda were basically off the shelf items
-
Jim - 4/4/2008 3:21 PM
iamlucky13 - 4/4/2008 3:05 PM
Why was the ISS designed for 14.7 psi? Certainly they could have reduced structural weight a worthwhile amount by reducing the pressure.
Humans live and work with minimal loss of performance in lower pressures (for example, 12 psi in Denver, 10-11 psi on airliners), and that's without an adjusted oxygen ratio. Of course, I understand fire risk is a major consideration, but combustibility is dependent both on vapor pressure (absolute amount of oxygen available per volume) and ratio (other gasses steal heat from the combustion).
I would have expected a reduced total pressure of perhaps 10 psi with an O2 vapor pressure only slightly reduced relative to sea level, or about 30% O2 and 70% N2 so that the fire hazard is unchanged. Pressure on the station skin would then be 33% lower, not to mention the 33% reduction in free air mass.
In contrast, Apollo ran 5.3 psi cabin pressure with an essentially sea-level O2 vapor pressure of about 3 psi (60% O2, 40% N2).
Russian systems are setup for 14.7 and always have. They would need re engineering. Zarya and Zsveda were basically off the shelf items
Some of the US Systems are, also. If the pressure gets below 13.9, some systems have to be turned off (including some required Medical equipment).
-
Jim - 4/4/2008 1:21 PM
Russian systems are setup for 14.7 and always have. They would need re engineering. Zarya and Zsveda were basically off the shelf items
I see, although now that just leaves me wondering why the Russians went with 14.7.
-
iamlucky13 - 4/4/2008 5:30 PM
Jim - 4/4/2008 1:21 PM
Russian systems are setup for 14.7 and always have. They would need re engineering. Zarya and Zsveda were basically off the shelf items
I see, although now that just leaves me wondering why the Russians went with 14.7.
Their electronics are only qualified for 14.7. even on unmanned vehicles, the electronics are in pressurized (hermetic) compartments
-
Jim - 5/4/2008 6:33 AM
iamlucky13 - 4/4/2008 5:30 PM
Jim - 4/4/2008 1:21 PM
Russian systems are setup for 14.7 and always have. They would need re engineering. Zarya and Zsveda were basically off the shelf items
I see, although now that just leaves me wondering why the Russians went with 14.7.
Their electronics are only qualified for 14.7. even on unmanned vehicles, the electronics are in pressurized (hermetic) compartments
Strange. Most electronics on Earth are qualified for 0 to 2000 meters, or 0 to 10,000 feet.
-
Likely air cooling issues
-
hmh33 - 6/4/2008 7:55 PM
Likely air cooling issues
Right - same reason for Earth-bound electronics.
-
I have a general question as to how much joint training do the ISS expedition’s crew has with the crew of the orbiter prior to a specific mission. Do they spend a lot of time going over the procedures and training together, or do they train separately? With the ISS crew dealing with all of the activities (shuttle, progress, ATV and etc) it must be hard to remember everything.
Edit:
I think I found something in L2 on the FRR for STS 118 tha will answer my question.
-
Lawntonlookirs - 7/4/2008 9:43 AM
I have a general question as to how much joint training do the ISS expedition’s crew has with the crew of the orbiter prior to a specific mission. Do they spend a lot of time going over the procedures and training together, or do they train separately? With the ISS crew dealing with all of the activities (shuttle, progress, ATV and etc) it must be hard to remember everything.
Very little. It's hard to sync their schedules. The shuttle crew gets a few joint classes with the ISS crew in some areas. In others, like rendezvous, they just get a one-hour tagup together. Once the expedition crew has launched, the shuttle crew periodically participates with the ISS crew in the planning conferences.
-
Thanks Jorge. That is what I was thinking because they have a lot of time constraints in the training process.
-
With the thoughts of the recent landing of the Soyuz and expedition 16, and the previous landing of Soyuz 1, 10 that went ballistic. Which type of landing would the people on board the capsule rather encounter?
I can remember when the first man in space projects were started the astronauts, who were, if I recall, all test pilots, weren’t at all happy with being placed inside a capsule in which they had little if any control of when returning to earth. That was one of the big advantages of the Shuttle.
Why don’t they use a module that is similar in shape to the shuttle that is placed in LEO. It wouldn’t have to be as large as the shuttle or capable of caring large loads into orbit. When they want to return to earth, they connect to it, de-orbit and land. Once the lander has landed and checked out, it could be sent back up for its next mission.
-
Lawntonlookirs - 20/4/2008 7:47 AM
Why don’t they use a module that is similar in shape to the shuttle that is placed in LEO.
Wings and wheels weigh a great deal more than parachutes.
-
Thanks for the comments. I still think a winged landing would be better.
-
Lawntonlookirs - 20/4/2008 4:26 PM
Thanks for the comments. I still think a winged landing would be better.
Better in what ways?
-
Gary - 20/4/2008 9:15 AM
Imagine piloting a vehicle after 6 months weightless. I suspect it's a near impossible task.
The Soyuz commander and flight engineer still have to "fly" the vehicle, in the sense that they have to do the right thing in real time, and if they don't the results could be fatal. In terms of staying conscious and keeping your wits about you in the process, the Soyuz is a much harsher ride. This is especially true in a ballistic descent where they can hit up to 10G instead of the expected 4 (which should answer Lawntonlookirs question about which is preferred.)
The whole winged vs. capsule thing is a bit OT for an ISS Q&A thread. It's a horse that's been well flogged elsewhere.
-
Am I correct in thinking there are a specific set of requirements (maximum time to hatch, close, undock etc) for crewed vehicles on the ISS in the case of emergency.
Would any vehicle using a CBM, as opposed to APAS or P&D be able to meet these requirements. I'm thinking specifically in terms of undock times due to the need to use (SS)RMS to unberth the vehicle, unlike the other systems that use springs as I understand it.
-
There is and it is mentioned in another thread
-
After shuttle retirement, could ISS orbit altitude be increased? What would the maximum obit height that the ISS could safely operate at be?
-
grakenverb - 26/4/2008 9:39 AM
After shuttle retirement, could ISS orbit altitude be increased? What would the maximum obit height that the ISS could safely operate at be?
It is the Soyuz that limits the altitude of the ISS and not the shuttle
-
Jim - 26/4/2008 6:00 PM
It is the Soyuz that limits the altitude of the ISS and not the shuttle
No, ISS altitude is now limited by shuttles, because they carry very heavy payloads. After retirement of shuttles ISS altitude will be increased up to 400 kilometres and will be really limited by Soyuz.
-
anik - 26/4/2008 11:43 PM
Jim - 26/4/2008 6:00 PM
It is the Soyuz that limits the altitude of the ISS and not the shuttle
No, ISS altitude is now limited by shuttles, because they carry very heavy payloads. After retirement of shuttles ISS altitude will be increased up to 400 kilometres and will be really limited by Soyuz.
My oh my, it seems that I have finally witnessed someone who has corrected Jim. That is a first in my experience! Of course, I have to admit I have been corrected multiple times and Jim has posted .... once or twice .... more than I have. ;)
Thanks to both Anik and Jim for all they add to these forums.
-
During Soyuz relocation the station is put in unmanned configuration, hatches are closed. What hatches? Is it only in russian segment? Are there any hatches that cannot easily be closed on station due to permanent cables, ducts etc.?
-
catfry - 28/4/2008 1:57 AM
During Soyuz relocation the station is put in unmanned configuration, hatches are closed. What hatches? Is it only in russian segment? Are there any hatches that cannot easily be closed on station due to permanent cables, ducts etc.?
All hatches are closed across the station. This is because you're protecting for a station emergency while the crew is undocked or the unlikely event that they cannot dock again. The vehicle can isolate the ventilation and shut down systems, but it cannot close its own hatches.
There are hatches in the Russian segment that do have ducting across them, but anything that goes through a hatch must be able to be disconnected and freed from the hatch rapidly. In the case of ducting, it is designed to be disconnected. If cables are through the hatch, a cable cutter must be nearby. On the US segment, ducting does not go through the hatch, so US hatches can be closed in ~30 seconds.
-
I've been wondering about the ducting on the US side, is there separate valves in the ducting in case the hatch needs to be closed? How does it work?
-
Thank you, I had read about the need for the crew to learn where wire cutters where during training for emergencies, and guessed it was for permanent cables over ducts that needed to be closed. I guess it only is a matter of how fast you need to close it wether you use a wire cutter.
-
nacnud - 28/4/2008 8:15 PM
I've been wondering about the ducting on the US side, is there separate valves in the ducting in case the hatch needs to be closed? How does it work?
There are valves on each side of the hatch that isolate the vestibule. The ducting goes through the vestibule in a closeout area that is accessed by the crew when installing a new module or troubleshooting issues in the vestibule. The ducting is seperate from the hatch, so there is no need to remove ducting, like needs to be done on the RS side.
These valves are automatically controlled, with a manual override. In an emergency, commands are automatically sent to close the valves and the crew is trained to check that the valves are closed before closing the hatch, because if you close the hatch with the valves open, it doesn't do much good.
-
How does one go about finding info here (pictures and documents) on the ISS arm? I've searched under Canadarm2, SSRMS, MBS, MSS...nothing. I already have L2 Robo documents. Any help or links (aside from CSA/MDA, I know those) would be helpful. Thanks.
-
robertross - 4/5/2008 9:50 AM
How does one go about finding info here (pictures and documents) on the ISS arm? I've searched under Canadarm2, SSRMS, MBS, MSS...nothing. I already have L2 Robo documents. Any help or links (aside from CSA/MDA, I know those) would be helpful. Thanks.
Seen as you're on L2, you could use the L2 Shopping List and one of the guys will see what additional can be uploaded.
-
Thanks Longhorn. I was going to, but thought it inappropriate to jump the gun in case I simply wasn't looking in the right spot. I figured I'd start here first. I'll give it a couple days, I'm in no hurry (found my happy place). :)
-
While reading the article about the Freon leak (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5423) I saw a reference to the Elektron. It reminded me that it's quite a long time without news about this troublesome device.
When was the last time Elektron was R&R?
Is it working fine since then or perhaps its maintenance doesn't deserve a line in the ISS Status Reports?
-
I have a question about the NTA trade out.
We have already replaced 1 and will do another on the next flight. The question is why?
The NTA is used to pressurize the ammonia.
So how can you run out of nitrogen and not ammonia?
Also, weren't all the components pre-charged so it would not take a lot of ammonia out of the tank?
This change out seems planned and not due to a leak, so I am confused as to where the nitrogen went.
Can any one clear this up for me?
Steve
-
After reading this http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5425 I find myself asking the question about when the ISS goes to six crew. Will there be two Soyuz craft docked to the ISS when that happens, and two will always have to be fully trained in Soyuz commanding?
-
SRBseparama - 17/5/2008 11:13 PM
After reading this http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5425 I find myself asking the question about when the ISS goes to six crew. Will there be two Soyuz craft docked to the ISS when that happens, and two will always have to be fully trained in Soyuz commanding?
Yes.
-
I noticed, during his May 7 video diary, Garrett Reisman mentioning that there are only two windows in the US segment, one in Node 2, and the large, optically-correct one in the lab. Then he mentioned that the astronauts and cosmonauts were not allowed to use the lab window. (One presumes by "use" he means open the protective cover.)
Question: Are they *never* allowed to open the cover on the lab window, and if not, why not?
Thanks!
-
It is a very high quality optical window so we take pains to protect it from debris or gasses. We allow them limited use but right now with SPDM parked in front, there is the concern for off gassing so it is essentially not allowed right now.
(Two last messages are moved from "ISS Windows" thread - anik)
-
anyone know the level of spares stock of TBAs, can they replace them all, or will some need to be brought home for overhaul before they swap to the other race ring
-
At 4.4 meters diameter, I was wondering why Kibo was considered
too large for the OBSS boom to be fitted when there's adequate
clearance for the RMS on the opposite side of the bay. Assuming it was
a *weight* issue??
Image: both modules compared in orbit :)
-
Take a look at the Kibo PDGF in the RH picture - with that in place there's no room for the launch/landing position of the OBSS with the doors closed.
One had to go for the mission - either the PDGF or the OBSS.
Over several years of study, including building a "mini-boom" option (and all the reports/documents for every option are buried here in the main forum and L2 somewhere), the cost/benefit/EVA workload figures worked out best for storing the OBSS and keeping the PDGF attached to the Kibo module.
-
Hi,
NASA TV the term "KU (coverage/window)" is used a lot of times:
Could someone please tell me what this exactly means? I think that it hasnt to do with audio broadcasting because it can be heard all the time (when ISS is circling the earth).
So does KU has to do with the ability of TV-coverage from ISS (TDRS?)...?
Thanks very much! :)
Kind regards
Susan
-
it's a frequency range (from 12 to 18 GHz) just like FM is from 88MHz to 108Mhz
[edit] The bandwidth available does allow TV transmission and other hight data rate signals[/edit]
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_band (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_band) for all the details
HTH
-
KU is the name of the radio frequence used by the Tracking and Data Relay Satellites for high speed communitcations to and from the ISS and Shuttle.
I found this image showing where the TDRS are located.
-
Thanks for your explanation:
But does that mean that TV coverage from ISS isnt possible all the time? I thought that nowadays the whole world is covered with TDRS SATs...Isnt that correct...?
-
Not sure... but NASA isn't the only user the Pentagon also uses the Sats. Also there are sometimes physical obstructions between the tranciever on the ISS and the sat, ie trusses etc.
-
From what I understand the ISS attitude sometimes prevent the communication between the orbiting complex and the satellites...
I'll appreciate if someone can give me more explanation on the subject...
-
This is all covered in the shutte AND the ISS Q&A threads
-
What is the alloy used in the construction of the main ISS laboratory modules? I remember reading somewhere that Boeing had to switch to a copper-based alloy because of 'quality of weld' issues, but I can't seem to find the specifics on the alloy used.
-
Was it pressurized before it was attached to ISS?
How would they equalize the pressure before hatch opening?
Along the same lines, will logistics module be de-pressurized/re-pressurized when it's moved to Kibo?
-
The modules all are pressurized and retain their gases during movement.
-
Is there a list of all of the PDGFs on the ISS?
-
Why did the racks have to be relocated from the JLM to the main lab, before the JLM itself was moved to the permanent location?
-
In this image of the 3 June 2008 EVA, one of the "petals" on the Harmony module is open, but the other three are still closed. Does anyone know why? Were they doing some work on the port or something?
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-124/html/iss017e008746.html
-
It appears that they are covering the empty rack spaces in Kibo with a fabric cover of some sort. It certainly does make the module look smaller! Is this for visual purposes, ventilation or so they don't get stuck floating in the middle?
Thanks.
-
Why did the racks have to be relocated from the JLM to the main lab, before the JLM itself was moved to the permanent location?
Easier to maneuver the SSRMS with a lower load.
-
It appears that they are covering the empty rack spaces in Kibo with a fabric cover of some sort. It certainly does make the module look smaller! Is this for visual purposes, ventilation or so they don't get stuck floating in the middle?
Thanks.
My guess would be to protect the rack connectors from damage/contamination. If memory serves there are covers in Destiny as well as Columbus. With STS-126 more racks should be brought up.
-
Why did the racks have to be relocated from the JLM to the main lab, before the JLM itself was moved to the permanent location?
Easier to maneuver the SSRMS with a lower load.
Weight doesn't seems to be the issue here, the SSRMS is able to move the JEM...
Some (most?) of the critical racks were launched inside JLM to reduce the JEM's weight.
If memory serves me well, there was a rack required to activate a power channel (B?) and the robotic console needed for today's activity (STS-124 FD8) inside the logistic's module... Also if there is a problem with the logistic's module heaters, the equipment will be protected from condensation (IIRC, PAO mentioned condensation as a reason to not open it now).
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong...
-
In this image of the 3 June 2008 EVA, one of the "petals" on the Harmony module is open, but the other three are still closed. Does anyone know why? Were they doing some work on the port or something?
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-124/html/iss017e008746.html (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-124/html/iss017e008746.html)
It had to do with EVA 1's tasks: they were inspecting the CBM to verify it's ready for Donatello in STS-126, and I suspect they're still checking the lost bolt from 120 isn't lurking in some corner waiting to jam the mechanism. Perhaps that petal was the only one they hadn't properly looked under, or still held some suspicions.
-
In this image of the 3 June 2008 EVA, one of the "petals" on the Harmony module is open, but the other three are still closed. Does anyone know why? Were they doing some work on the port or something?
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-124/html/iss017e008746.html (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-124/html/iss017e008746.html)
It had to do with EVA 1's tasks: they were inspecting the CBM to verify it's ready for Donatello in STS-126, and I suspect they're still checking the lost bolt from 120 isn't lurking in some corner waiting to jam the mechanism. Perhaps that petal was the only one they hadn't properly looked under, or still held some suspicions.
Thanks.
-
Why did the racks have to be relocated from the JLM to the main lab, before the JLM itself was moved to the permanent location?
Easier to maneuver the SSRMS with a lower load.
Weight doesn't seems to be the issue here, the SSRMS is able to move the JEM...
Of course. I never said it was an "issue". But with the JLM they had a *choice*. They could either offload the racks first, then relocate, or relocate then offload. Given the choice, they offloaded first.
-
In this image of the 3 June 2008 EVA, one of the "petals" on the Harmony module is open, but the other three are still closed. Does anyone know why? Were they doing some work on the port or something?
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-124/html/iss017e008746.html (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-124/html/iss017e008746.html)
It had to do with EVA 1's tasks: they were inspecting the CBM to verify it's ready for Donatello in STS-126, and I suspect they're still checking the lost bolt from 120 isn't lurking in some corner waiting to jam the mechanism. Perhaps that petal was the only one they hadn't properly looked under, or still held some suspicions.
It is not Donatello for STS-126, it is Leonardo. Donatello is going up on STS-128.
-
I was wondering about the power grid on the ISS and whether or not the solar panels on the Soyuz/Progress spacecrafts contribute power to it. Do their solar panels provide power to the ISS grid or do they just provide power for themselves?
Btw, this website has some of the most brilliant people on it!
-
I was wondering about the power grid on the ISS and whether or not the solar panels on the Soyuz/Progress spacecrafts contribute power to it. Do their solar panels provide power to the ISS grid or do they just provide power for themselves?
Btw, this website has some of the most brilliant people on it!
Just for the Soyuz I believe
-
Are the Kibo windows the largest horizontally pointing windows on ISS?
EDIT: Prior to Cupola I mean.
-
Of course. I never said it was an "issue". But with the JLM they had a *choice*. They could either offload the racks first, then relocate, or relocate then offload. Given the choice, they offloaded first.
I just wondered why maneuver them out of the JLM, through Harmony and into Kibo as opposed to waiting and moving them straight out of the JLM into Kibo.
-
Easier to maneuver the SSRMS with a lower load.
Weight doesn't seems to be the issue here, the SSRMS is able to move the JEM...
Of course. I never said it was an "issue". But with the JLM they had a *choice*. They could either offload the racks first, then relocate, or relocate then offload. Given the choice, they offloaded first.
Oops... I should have given more weight to the rest of my reply, dropped that SSRMS part completely and stressed the fact that "critical" racks were inside the JLM.
I just wondered why maneuver them out of the JLM, through Harmony and into Kibo as opposed to waiting and moving them straight out of the JLM into Kibo.
From what I understand, the JLM "must" have been unloaded in order to activate the main Kibo laboratory and proceed with today's activities, at least it's the impression I got. I'm sure they needed the robotic console to unlatch the Japanese RMS before tomorrow's EVA (STS-124 FD9) and remove the last launch cover on one of Kibo's window.
Now that JLM is offloaded and Kibo is activated, it has become a low priority item.
In the Mission Status Briefing yesterday, Annette Hasbrook, ISS Flight Director reacting on a question on why to wait 'till Monday before opening JLM, said: "[...] based on the priority of tasks there's no driving need to go back in there, we tried to pull everything out of it, that we thought we would need, and so, it's not a high priority to get it done prior to the EVA. But it's good to open it up because the baseline configuration for on-orbit operation is to leave that hatch open, so we do want have it open [...] it gonna be a great storage place for the crew in the short term until people think up some other ideas how to use it [...]".
I'm a bit puzzled by that... If it's now a low priority item, why do they want to move it while the shuttle is docked? Crew training?
Again sorry if I haven't made my previous reply clearer. I hope I'm not too pretentious or overconfident for a newbie ;)
-
I think I have the answer. The JLM couldn't be activiated nor entered if first attached to the JEM because the racks necessary to provide services to the JLM were inside the JLM.
-
I was wondering about the power grid on the ISS and whether or not the solar panels on the Soyuz/Progress spacecrafts contribute power to it. Do their solar panels provide power to the ISS grid or do they just provide power for themselves?
AFAIK, neither Soyuz nor Progress has the capability at this time to provide power to ISS. However, both may receive power from ISS.
-
As fun as it is to see, doesn't Karen's long hair floating around pose a bit of a hazard, in terms of whatever hairs might get loose? As in, an inhalation hazard for the crew, getting into equipment, etc.
-
As fun as it is to see, doesn't Karen's long hair floating around pose a bit of a hazard, in terms of whatever hairs might get loose? As in, an inhalation hazard for the crew, getting into equipment, etc.
Good question as I was thinking of that also. Especially with the HVAC system they have and the filters that would catch the hair.
-
As fun as it is to see, doesn't Karen's long hair floating around pose a bit of a hazard, in terms of whatever hairs might get loose? As in, an inhalation hazard for the crew, getting into equipment, etc.
Long hair or short, Humans shed hair (and skin) like crazy. The systems need to be able to handle that.
I was wondering why she doesn't braid it, but they I realized that might make it into a whip, which might be even more hazardous to the rest of the crew.
-
Looking for more info on the transfer of consumables to the ISS from the orbiter. Mostly, how is the O2 transfered that is used for the EMUs. I imagine it being pumped from the orbiter to the ISS through some mechanism in the ODS/PMA. Any pictures of this system available? Also, how/where is the power transfer connection made? What does it look like? Thanks!
-
What is used for laptop computer mounting on ISS? Something commercially-available or designed and built for the specific application?
-
What is used for laptop computer mounting on ISS? Something commercially-available or designed and built for the specific application?
Bogen arms
-
Looking for more info on the transfer of consumables to the ISS from the orbiter. Mostly, how is the O2 transfered that is used for the EMUs. I imagine it being pumped from the orbiter to the ISS through some mechanism in the ODS/PMA. Any pictures of this system available? Also, how/where is the power transfer connection made? What does it look like? Thanks!
The power connections are on the ODS/PMA
-
Where can we find the images taken on the recent fly around?
-
here: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/index.html
on the left you can select a flightday of STS-124, choose flightday 12.
But they aren't uploaded yet, we have to wait.
-
Several have been uploaded now.
IMO s124e009990.jpg is the winner, but of course everybody has the right to their own opinion. :)
-
Question:
From may 2009 there will always be at least 2 soyuzes (<- spelling?) docked to the ISS. This currently leaves only 1 dockingport for ATV/Progress. Or, at times of crew rotations, even 0 dockingports. What is the plan to manage this logistically?
-
Question:
From may 2009 there will always be at least 2 soyuzes (<- spelling?) docked to the ISS. This currently leaves only 1 dockingport for ATV/Progress. Or, at times of crew rotations, even 0 dockingports. What is the plan to manage this logistically?
Pirs ( Zvesda nadir ) will be moved to Zvesda zenith ( currently not used ). Zvesda nadir will receive the Docking Cargo Module on one of the Contingency Logistics Flights of the STS. That leaves 4 ports to be used, two for logistics.
-
True, but that is not planned until 2010, which leaves 2009 with only 3 dockingports. Also, officially the contingency flights (and therefore the DCM) are not manifested.
-
DCM flight is not contingency (it's STS-131), it's a regular flight. Both CLFs are carrying Express pallets with spares (132 and 133)
-
From may 2009 there will always be at least 2 soyuzes (<- spelling?) docked to the ISS. This currently leaves only 1 dockingport for ATV/Progress. Or, at times of crew rotations, even 0 dockingports. What is the plan to manage this logistically?
The Russian segment (RS) will have three docking ports (Zarya nadir, Pirs, Zvezda aft) for Soyuz/Progress till August 2009. In August 2009 MRM-2 will be launched and docked to the zenith port of Zvezda module. So RS will have four docking ports (Zarya nadir, Pirs, Zvezda aft, MRM-2). In March 2010 MRM-1 will be launched (STS-132) and docked to the nadir port of Zarya module. So RS will have four docking ports (MRM-1, Pirs, Zvezda aft, MRM-2). In 2011 Pirs will be undocked and deorbited, MLM will be launched and docked to the nadir port of Zvezda module. So RS will have four docking ports (MRM-1, MLM, Zvezda aft, MRM-2).
Rotations of Expedition crews after May 2009 can be performed in two ways: the first (direct) - an arrival of new Soyuz, then a departing of old Soyuz; the second (indirect) - a departing of old Soyuz, then an arrival of new Soyuz.
-
Erm... getting a bit confused here. Sorry. Let me see if I can get the timeline straight. Below I'm trying to combine the information from eeergo and anik.
May 2009 is Soyuz TMA-15 which will increase ISS crew to 6. (3 dockingports)
August 2009 is MRM-2 for 1 additional dockingport (6 crew, 4 dockingports) How is MRM-2 launched?
Q1 2010 is STS-131 with DCM. I'm confused is this something else then MRM? Where is it attached? Does it have a dockingport? (6 crew, 4? dockingports)
Q1 2010 is STS-132 (CLF1) with MRM-1 (6 crew, 4? dockingports)
2011 MLM launches on Proton and Pirs is deorbited. (6 crew, 4 dockingports)
I think I'm confused somewhat in the names of DCM, MRM-1, MRM-2. But I don't quite see how. ;)
Of course indirect crew rotations make it a bit easier. I hadn't thought of that.
-
I should have noted that the DCM is now the MRM 1 ( Mini Research Module 1 ). It has a docking port on both ends.
-
Ah that explains. :) Thanks!
-
How is MRM-2 launched?
I think MRM-2 is a twin of Pirs, and it will be launched as Pirs was: with a modified Progress, via Soyuz.
-
Garrett Reisman mentioned in his video diary from a few weeks ago that there is only warm and hot water available to the astronauts. Why? Is the water used at all to cool electronics? I thought all of the coolant loops used ammonia, but obviously if I knew for sure I wouldn't be asking here. ;) Thanks.
-
How is MRM-2 launched?
I think MRM-2 is a twin of Pirs, and it will be launched as Pirs was: with a modified Progress, via Soyuz.
A more pertinent question is how MRM-2 will be docked to ISS.
-
Pirs ( Zvesda nadir ) will be moved to Zvesda zenith ( currently not used ). Zvesda nadir will receive the Docking Cargo Module on one of the Contingency Logistics Flights of the STS.
Well, I am not sure if moving Pirs is still on the table, and DCM will not go to Zvesda nadir, that's for sure.
-
DCM no longer exists - it is now MRM-1.
MRM2 will by launched on Soyuz, and dock on Zvezda zenith.
MRM1 will then be launched to Zarya Nadir by STS 1??
Pirs will be undocked from Zvezda nadir by Progress and deorbited.
FGB-2(not current designation) will be laucnhed by Proton to Zvezda Nadir.
-
How is MRM-2 launched?
I think MRM-2 is a twin of Pirs, and it will be launched as Pirs was: with a modified Progress, via Soyuz.
A more pertinent question is how MRM-2 will be docked to ISS.
I wasn't paying much attention to the ISS program back when Pirs was launched and added to the Station, but I recall seeing a modified Progress without what would be in a Soyuz the Orbital Module, replaced by an enlarged one, which was Pirs. I'm under the impression it has an androgynous docking system like all RS docking interfaces except PMA1-Zarya. So, being MRM-2 more or less a renewed Pirs, I would expect it to follow the same docking approach.
-
Possibly redundant link, but some ground processing shots of Pirs/DC1:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=3263
-
I wasn't paying much attention to the ISS program back when Pirs was launched and added to the Station, but I recall seeing a modified Progress without what would be in a Soyuz the Orbital Module, replaced by an enlarged one, which was Pirs.
Not just the orbital module; Pirs replaced what would have been the descent module as well.
I'm under the impression it has an androgynous docking system like all RS docking interfaces except PMA1-Zarya.
Reversed. PMA-1/Zarya is the only androgynous interface; all other RS docking interfaces are probe and drogue.
-
all other RS docking interfaces are probe and drogue.
Yeah, that's what I meant, thanks for the correction :)
-
So, being MRM-2 more or less a renewed Pirs, I would expect it to follow the same docking approach.
Not possible. Pirs was docked to Service Module nadir, which had Kurs antennas at the time. Service Module zenith has no Kurs. Also, big difference between +R and -R dockings.
-
I saw a commercial in the last couple days for some product or company, that showed what looked like a complete ISS with three strobe lights.
Are there actually any strobes on the ISS? I would assume no, as I've never seen them on any live feeds, so I was curious. If there are strobes up there, could we see them from down here with say a pair of binocs?
Thanks
-
Not possible. Pirs was docked to Service Module nadir, which had Kurs antennas at the time. Service Module zenith has no Kurs
All Kurs target and antennas, required for the supporting of MRM-2 docking to the zenith port of Zvezda module, will be installed onto the transfer compartment (PkhO) in future Russian spacewalks.
-
Do Russian spacewalks still cease during the "night" passes? Or have they refined that procedure.
-
DCM flight is not contingency (it's STS-131), it's a regular flight. Both CLFs are carrying Express pallets with spares (132 and 133)
Not true, MRM-1 is manifested on flight STS-132, which is still listed as a contingency flight.The ELCs are manifested on flights STS-129 and STS-133. However US Congress had already passed a bill authorizing the two CLF flights, plus possibly an additional flight STS-134 for AMS.
In any case the launch of MRM-1 is covered under NASA agreement with Russia, in the event the CLF flights were cancelled it would have to be transferred to a non-CLF flight.
-
Anyone have any info on my question about the strobes?
-
Anyone have any info on my question about the strobes?
No strobes whatsoever. It's plain wrong.
-
Will the two strela be transferred from PIRS to MRM-2? Will Russian EVA's go out of MRM-2 or will they finally finish off Quest? In the meeting today, Mike Sufferdini indicated that Node three will only temporarily be attached to the port side of Unity until the MRM-1 is brought up indicating that once up the node would be moved to the nadir side, is this true or is it the final position?
-
Will Russian EVA's go out of MRM-2 or will they finally finish off Quest?
MRM-2 is replacement of Pirs for the performing of Russian spacewalks.
-
MRM-2 is replacement of Pirs for the performing of Russian spacewalks.
Hi Anik, as per your earlier post in ISS Russian Segment thread, MRM-2 was to be used as a cabin for the 3rd member of Russian ISS crew. Is there enough space for both the crew cabin and the airlock?
Further in that post, the MLM module was to have a separate airlock, this is also shown on RKA model for Russian segment attached. As MLM will be available after Pirs is undocked, it seems redundant to have an airlock also on MRM-2. Or has the airlock on MLM been cancelled?
-
as per your earlier post in ISS Russian Segment thread, MRM-2 was to be used as a cabin for the 3rd member of Russian ISS crew. Is there enough space for both the crew cabin and the airlock?
There will not be separate cabin for crewmember in MRM-2. Simply all volume of this module will be used as the cabin for crewmember, or as the airlock, or as the place for the performing of experiments.
the MLM module was to have a separate airlock, this is also shown on RKA model for Russian segment attached. As MLM will be available after Pirs is undocked, it seems redundant to have an airlock also on MRM-2. Or has the airlock on MLM been cancelled?
The airlock for MLM will be delivered with MRM-1 in STS-132. But this airlock is for scientific equipment, not for spacewalkers.
-
MRM-2 was to be used as a cabin for the 3rd member of Russian ISS crew.
The extra cabin is to be in the MLM
-
Hi Anik, as per your earlier post in ISS Russian Segment thread, MRM-2 was to be used as a cabin for the 3rd member of Russian ISS crew. Is there enough space for both the crew cabin and the airlock?
Think of MRM-2 as Pirs-2, ie an exact replacement. Just as crew does not sleep in Pirs today, they probably won't sleep in Pirs-2.
-
as per your earlier post in ISS Russian Segment thread, MRM-2 was to be used as a cabin for the 3rd member of Russian ISS crew. Is there enough space for both the crew cabin and the airlock?
There will not be separate cabin for crewmember in MRM-2. Simply all volume of this module will be used as the cabin for crewmember, or as the airlock, or as the place for the performing of experiments.
the MLM module was to have a separate airlock, this is also shown on RKA model for Russian segment attached. As MLM will be available after Pirs is undocked, it seems redundant to have an airlock also on MRM-2. Or has the airlock on MLM been cancelled?
The airlock for MLM will be delivered with MRM-1 in STS-132. But this airlock is for scientific equipment, not for spacewalkers.
Aahh, bolshoe spasibo, thanks for all this information. That clears up a lot of my confusion regarding the Russian segment.
-
Think of MRM-2 as Pirs-2.
Certainly is easier to say. I believe we will be getting more PAO-friendly names for these modules MRM-1, MRM-2, MLM closer to the launch date, just as we already have FGB = Zarya, SM = Zvezda, DC1 = Pirs.
-
once the station is complete, and if a MPLM is left on the station, how many berthing ports are left on the US side of the station?
and which ports would COTS ships dock to?
-
once the station is complete, and if a MPLM is left on the station, how many berthing ports are left on the US side of the station?
Assuming the MPLM will be berthed to Node 2 Zenith...
Node 3 Port,
Node 3 Starboard,
Node 3 Aft (Unusable, blocked by MRM-1),
Node 1 Port,
Node 2 Nadir (Used periodically by HTV)
So 3 usable, 5 total.
and which ports would COTS ships dock to?
PMA-2
-
and which ports would COTS ships dock to?
PMA-2
Dragon uses a CBM, I've seen animations for nadir and zenith Harmony, but I see no reason why other ports could not be used.
-
Assuming the MPLM will be berthed to Node 2 Zenith...
Do you have a source for this? (Or COTS using PMA-2 for that matter.)
FYI, Node 1 port is where Node 3 is going:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12262.msg255310#msg255310
-
The Unity port CBM is only temporary for Node 3, until the MRM-1 is placed at Zarya nadir. Then Node 3 can be moved to the Unity nadir CBM.
At least that is what I think is happening....
-
and which ports would COTS ships dock to?
PMA-2
both COTS vehicles and HTV use CBM's. As for CSR, it is TBD until the contractors are announced, but more than likely it will be CBM's
-
The Unity port CBM is only temporary for Node 3, until the MRM-1 is placed at Zarya nadir. Then Node 3 can be moved to the Unity nadir CBM.
At least that is what I think is happening....
That WAS the plan, up until about March this year. Then as per info from erioladastra (I think, my apology if wrong), the plan was changed to move the Node 3 permanently to the Node 1 port CBM and leave the PMA-3 on the Node 1 nadir CBM where it is now. See attached blow-up.
I tend to agree with previous post, the location of PMA-3 on Node 1 nadir berth looks virtually inaccessible for shuttle or Orion with MRM-1 on one side and HTV-1/MPLM on the other. Perhaps there will be a change in configuration closer to the Orion launch date.
-
So where might AMS be mounted if that element gets to station?
-
Same place as the ELC2/3 but on the port side.
I believe
-
Same place as the ELC2/3 but on the port side.
I believe
It would have been on S3 Zenith side according to this:
http://ams-02project.jsc.nasa.gov/Documents/SDP/Section%205-4.pdf
-
Same place as the ELC2/3 but on the port side.
I believe
It would have been on S3 Zenith side according to this:
http://ams-02project.jsc.nasa.gov/Documents/SDP/Section%205-4.pdf
So the ISS has moved past AMS and plans to put ELC 4 in its place
-
The Unity port CBM is only temporary for Node 3, until the MRM-1 is placed at Zarya nadir. Then Node 3 can be moved to the Unity nadir CBM.
That WAS the plan, up until about March this year. Then as per info from erioladastra (I think, my apology if wrong), the plan was changed to move the Node 3 permanently to the Node 1 port CBM and leave the PMA-3 on the Node 1 nadir CBM where it is now. See attached blow-up.
It seems like that position (berthed to Node 1 port CBM) puts Node 3 really close to P1's HRS Radiator?
-
So the ISS has moved past AMS and plans to put ELC 4 in its place
There are 6 places on S3 and P3 together, enough for 5 ELCs AND AMS.
It seems like that position (berthed to Node 1 port CBM) puts Node 3 really close to P1's HRS Radiator?
There is enough spacing: The radiator axis is above the Node 3 plane. Has been discussed before.
Analyst
-
There are 6 places on S3 and P3 together, enough for 5 ELCs AND AMS.
Looks like ESP-3 would have to be relocated to accommodate that, since it's taking up one of the places on the port side already. But then both AMS and ELC-5 are on the bubble, so to speak.
-
Correct, I forgot ESP-3. Btw., why does the number of mounting ports differ between P3 and S3?
Analyst
-
It seems like that position (berthed to Node 1 port CBM) puts Node 3 really close to P1's HRS Radiator?
There is enough spacing: The radiator axis is above the Node 3 plane. Has been discussed before.
Analyst
But what has NOT been discussed AFAIK, is why Node 3 should be permanently located on Port berth of Node 1 when it could have been relocated to Nadir berth of Node 1 after the arrival of MRM-1.
Then the PMA-3 berth could have been placed on Node 3 nadir and presented a much easier target for a future Orion mission.
Perhaps there is another reason that I am not aware of.
-
Only reason I have seen officially: This configuration puts all US-side modules (exept Kibo logistics) into one plane, e.g. the "floor" is always in the same plane. Node-3 is not "out of plane".
Others from me: Saves relocating PMA-3 to Node-3 and then relocating Node-3 together with PMA-3. And it gives a good view of the US AND Russian side from the Cupola. The new position behind Kibo may also be better from a MOD point of view, but this is probably not a main factor.
Orion is many, many years in the future. It can use PMA-2. Besides, Node-3/PMA-3 could be relocated then, if needed (which I doubt). Or put PMA-3 at Node-2 nadir. Whatever, this "problem" won't be one before 2016+.
Analyst
-
Only reason I have seen officially: This configuration puts all US-side modules (exept Kibo logistics) into one plane, e.g. the "floor" is always in the same plane. Node-3 is not "out of plane".
Others from me: Saves relocating PMA-3 to Node-3 and then relocating Node-3 together with PMA-3. And it gives a good view of the US AND Russian side from the Cupola. The new position behind Kibo may also be better from a MOD point of view, but this is probably not a main factor.
Orion is many, many years in the future. It can use PMA-2. Besides, Node-3/PMA-3 could be relocated then, if needed (which I doubt). Or put PMA-3 at Node-2 nadir. Whatever, this "problem" won't be one before 2016+.
Analyst
Thanks Analyst, I had not seen this reason (single plane of modules) given in an official sense before. I guess it makes sense for that reason.
-
Is there any SSRMS work planned with the SSRMS based on the (soon to be installed) FGB-PDGF (which itself will be relocated from P6)? MRM-1 installation at Zarya nadir?
Analyst
-
Analyst, I believe the PDGF installation has now been cancelled/postponed. Reason being it was needed for the Pirs/DC1 relocation which is now no longer happening.
-
Thanks. I was thinking something along this, because MRM-1 to Zarya nadir can most likely be done from the LAB PDGF. And STS-126 (which was planned to do the PDGF relocation from P6) is quite full now (EVA wise) with SARJ work.
Analyst
-
Analyst, I believe the PDGF installation has now been cancelled/postponed. Reason being it was needed for the Pirs/DC1 relocation which is now no longer happening.
However, MRM-1 will be located at FGB Nadir, which may require that the ISS RMS be stationed nearby, for the transfer from the Shuttle payload bay.
-
Analyst, I believe the PDGF installation has now been cancelled/postponed. Reason being it was needed for the Pirs/DC1 relocation which is now no longer happening.
However, MRM-1 will be located at FGB Nadir, which may require that the ISS RMS be stationed nearby, for the transfer from the Shuttle payload bay.
As Analyst said, the lab PDGF should be sufficient.
-
What is a SORR? (seen in today's ISS status report):
"08/25/08 -- Progress M-64/29 SORR (Stage Operations Readiness Review) @ NASA/JSC"
And why is it needed for the Progress undocking (happening on the Sept 1st)?
-
once it is not needed, how will pirs be separated from station? I am sure that a large module will not simply be thrown off. My best guess is a progress docking to it, and then bothe the module and progress would be separated.
-
What is a SORR? (seen in today's ISS status report):
"08/25/08 -- Progress M-64/29 SORR (Stage Operations Readiness Review) @ NASA/JSC"
And why is it needed for the Progress undocking (happening on the Sept 1st)?
SORR (Stage Operations Readiness Review)
A gate before a change in the station's configuration/stage
-
SORR (Stage Operations Readiness Review)
A gate before a change in the station's configuration/stage
A "gate" like in an opportunity for many departments to meet and sum up the state of the play before a big change? I'm not familiar with the term... :-\ And what would that change be, MRM-2 perhaps?
-
with orion using LIDS, will PMA 2 and 3 be replaced? or will a new PMA be brought to the station via COTS?
-
once it is not needed, how will pirs be separated from station? I am sure that a large module will not simply be thrown off. My best guess is a progress docking to it, and then bothe the module and progress would be separated.
Yes, that's the plan from what I've heard so far.
-
SORR (Stage Operations Readiness Review)
A gate before a change in the station's configuration/stage
A "gate" like in an opportunity for many departments to meet and sum up the state of the play before a big change? I'm not familiar with the term... :-\ And what would that change be, MRM-1 perhaps?
Most reviews are seen as gates whether they are for design or readiness. The next step can't be taken until the review is satisfactory.
WRT review, I would say Progress undocking is the change/event.
-
with orion using LIDS, will PMA 2 and 3 be replaced? or will a new PMA be brought to the station via COTS?
Neither. The current plan is for the first two Orion flights to carry an APAS to LIDS adapter (ATLAS) that would attach permanently to the PMAs and allow subsequent Orions to dock using just the LIDS.
-
Thanks for the fast answers.
-
is it possible for two shuttles to dock to the ISS, one at each spare PMA?
-
no room or clearance
-
Would it be possible for a Shenzhou crew to use the ISS as a safe haven for example if Shenzhou 7 couldn't reenter could they reach the ISS and transfer to it by spacesuit or even with their sokol suits if nothing else were available. if the Orbits are incompatible would it be possible if China launched Shenzhou in a compatible Orbit?
And is it possible to more from one sapcecr4aft to another in a Sokol type suit dumping the first spacecraft. I know the suit would probably blow up so much that moving would be really hard, but I guess it would survive 50 second trip through vacuum, or wouldn't it?
EDIT: All of this under the presumption that it's an unplanned last way out type of situation where political boundaries or normal safety procedures don't apply
-
Would it be possible for a Shenzhou crew to use the ISS as a safe haven for example if Shenzhou 7 couldn't reenter could they reach the ISS and transfer to it by spacesuit or even with their sokol suits if nothing else were available. if the Orbits are incompatible would it be possible if China launched Shenzhou in a compatible Orbit?
And is it possible to more from one sapcecr4aft to another in a Sokol type suit dumping the first spacecraft. I know the suit would probably blow up so much that moving would be really hard, but I guess it would survive 50 second trip through vacuum, or wouldn't it?
EDIT: All of this under the presumption that it's an unplanned last way out type of situation where political boundaries or normal safety procedures don't apply
To get to ISS you have to plan to go there, if anything goes wrong on Shenzhou & they are SOL.
-
Doesn't this depend solely on the delta-v available and the inclination used?
If I were the Chinese planners and the rocket ahd the capacity I'd send my Shenzhou craft on an Orbit in reach of the ISS. If I remember correctly there was a case where a Soyuz brought a Crew from Salyut 5 to Salyut 6 and back again I guess their orbit was different but not too different.
I'd choose an Orbit similiar to the pakring Orbit used by the ATV while it waited for the Shuttle mission to be completed.
However, my question is more centered about the second pahse of such a scenario, provided the delta-v to reach the ISS to within 5 meteres with manual control.
Could a Shenzhou be grabbed by the robot arm and could the Taikonauts leave it in their Sokol suits (as far as I know those should protect from vacuum though they are not real space suits)
and would it be possible to survive a trip to the airlock and into the station with this bare minimum of equipment maybe even without additional oxigen simply closing the Sokol suit air tight.
Another scenario thinkable for Shenzhou 7 would be to let the rescue Shuttle get the Chinese craft, this would probably pose huge political boundaries and leave the shuttle mission without backup, on the other hand it would probably be a huge plus for PR.
-
1. Could a Shenzhou be grabbed by the robot arm and
2. could the Taikonauts leave it in their Sokol suits (as far as I know those should protect from vacuum though they are not real space suits)
and would it be possible to survive a trip to the airlock and into the station with this bare minimum of equipment maybe even without additional oxigen simply closing the Sokol suit air tight.
Not viable
The Chinese haven't done rendezvous yet.
Shenzhou doesn't have a grabble fixture. The ISS team hasn't done the integration at this time to even allow the Shenzhou near the ISS
2. Doubtful
The shuttle can't rescue it, no grabble
-
So even if a Shuttle could reach the Shenzhou or the Shenzhou could reach the ISS to within 5 meteres they would probably be left to die? To me that sounds doubtful in most cases where things go so much out of control security advisories might be ignored, I mean it's even better trying to free fly from a free flying Shenzhou to ISS than giving up, isn't it?
Another question would be whether NASA could stand the public when there is a manned NASA Spacecraft in reach of another one stranded on Orbit and technically a fueled Space Shuttle on the pad is in reach of any possible Shenzhou Orbit.
About the Chinese not having done rendezvous, if I remember correctly the Soviets did a manual docking with a Salyut that was out of control and even without electricity so a Space Shuttle should be more then capable of maneuvering to a passive Shenzhou to within a few meters without too much risk, then the Chinese astronauts could try to free drift slowly away from their spacecraft in their space suits and the Space Shuttle could literally catch them with the cargo bay. I know that's a McGyver style maneuver, but catching a passive free drifting human body with the cargo bay shouldn't be more dangerous for the Shuttle crew then a free drifting sattelite with much greater value. And let's not forget the thing NASA needs most these days are heroes so even if the Chinese wouldn't survive it, it's the only way for NASA to get out of the situation anything else than idiots.
Such a scenario is quite thinkable just imagine a complete loss of thrusters on Shenzhou 7. A scenario where the ISS as a safe haven is the last resort is much less likely but still imaginable. I don't think sticking strictly to safety protocols would be understood by the public.
One possibility I can imagine here is evacuating the ISS with a Soyuz before letting the Chinese try their luck.
EDIT: As for the lack of a grappel fixture technically Shenzhou has handle bars and thus it could be grabbed by an EVAing astronaut I'm pretty sure our Russian friends would be brave enough to try grabing a Shenzhou by hand suspended from ISS by Strela.
-
1. So even if a Shuttle could reach the Shenzhou or the Shenzhou could reach the ISS to within 5 meteres they would probably be left to die? To me that sounds doubtful in most cases where things go so much out of control security advisories might be ignored,
2. I mean it's even better trying to free fly from a free flying Shenzhou to ISS than giving up, isn't it?
3. Another question would be whether NASA could stand the public when there is a manned NASA Spacecraft in reach of another one stranded on Orbit and technically a fueled Space Shuttle on the pad is in reach of any possible Shenzhou Orbit.
1. The issue is even getting close to the ISS. If is can't get to the ISS, it can deorbit
2. Getting to the ISS would be the problem. Better to work the problem with the spacecraft and try landing with it
3. The shuttle is not a quick response vehicle. It couldn't mount a Shenzhou rescue quick enough. Also the shuttle on orbit wouldn't be close enough
Also who says the Chinese is going to ask for help
There are so many ifs and unknowns that this is highly probable
-
And let's not forget the thing NASA needs most these days are heroes so even if the Chinese wouldn't survive it, it's the only way for NASA to get out of the situation anything else than idiots.
These are your assumptions and you're way oversimplifying everything. NASA would not be blamed in a situation where they have not been asked for assistance or consulted minimally, if at all.
-
And let's not forget the thing NASA needs most these days are heroes so even if the Chinese wouldn't survive it, it's the only way for NASA to get out of the situation anything else than idiots.
NASA doesn't need this
-
Sokol doesn't have an self contained oxygen supply. It can't go EVA. So all your scenarios are not plausible
-
Not if the Chinese don't ask for help, if they do it depends. I don't know the exact timeline for Shenzhou 7 but as far as I know during the mission there is Atlantis on the pad ready to go for a quick response mission in case of a problem with the upcoming Hubble mission. I don't know the details and of cause this is nothing more than a thought experiment but I'd guess that a Shuttle ready for a rescue mission could reach any Shenzhou Orbit within 48 hours which might be within the oxygen margin of a Shenzhou mission.
The fact I'm doing this though experiement is not only because of the upcoming missions but because of the fact, that with more and more Nations doing manned spaceflight and after the cold war it's highly likely that some spacecraft will be in need for help from a foreign spacecraft sometime in the next 50 years.
-
EDIT: As for the lack of a grappel fixture technically Shenzhou has handle bars and thus it could be grabbed by an EVAing astronaut I'm pretty sure our Russian friends would be brave enough to try grabing a Shenzhou by hand suspended from ISS by Strela.
That is ludicrous. Anyways, the Shenzhou couldn't get near the Strela
"I'm pretty sure" is not sufficient justification
-
there is Atlantis on the pad ready to go for a quick response mission in case of a problem with the upcoming Hubble mission. I
Because it is a planned rescue
-
Jim I know that Sokol doesn't have it's own oxygen supply, that's why I am specifically asking about Sokol and not real EVA suits. Specifically i was thinking in terms of using Sokol like the Rescue ball (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/reseball.htm), the oxygen from the Astronaut's lungs and from within the suit should keep the Astronaut alive for about 7 minutes though he might become unconsciousness. That's really not much but better then the minute you get from going without any suit and enough to be worth a try when stranded in LEO.
What I'm asking for are the real specific technical no go details that make such a thing IMPOSSIBLE and nothing less. What I mean is that even it's not probable or not planned or even completly stupid if the risk for the crew trying to rescue the other one is less then extreme and the probability for the rescued crew to surive is more than zero, then WHY not. From my point of view losing 6 people when trying to rescue 3 after having had a chance of 10% of all of them surviving and a chance of 70% of the 3 people from the rescue crew surviving is much better than leaving the 3 people stranded in Orbit with the PR disaster that follows.
You know this policy is called leaving no one behind and it's common practice in politics. Just think about hostages it's not uncommon to lose both policemen and hostages and still doing nothing is considered the worst possible approach.
-
Not if the Chinese don't ask for help, if they do it depends.
Seriously doubt the Chinese want any help, but if they did ask for help, they would need to stand down their launch preparations and be prepared to go through a multi-lateral process to come up with viable rescue, which would take years.
-
Jim I know that Sokol doesn't have it's own oxygen supply, that's why I am specifically asking about Sokol and not real EVA suits. the oxygen from the Astronaut's lungs and from within the suit should keep the Astronaut alive for about 7 minutes though he might become unconsciousness. .
Rescue ball had an O2 supply
Not viable. Can't do anything in less than a 1/2 hour. Have to depressurized the cabin, have to repressurized airlock, have to open hatches, have to shut airlock hatch, etc. How is the Sokol sealed?
-
the PR disaster that follows.
Is only the Chinese. NASA has nothing to do with this
-
You know this policy is called leaving no one behind and it's common practice in politics.
Not applicable to spaceflight
-
What I'm asking for are the real specific technical no go details that make such a thing IMPOSSIBLE and nothing less.
Even with a Soyuz, there isn't anything that could be done. The Soyuz is on its own.
If there is a problem before ISS rendezvous, it deorbits. If happens after ISS separation, it deorbits
-
Not viable. Can't do anything in less than a 1/2 hour. Have to depressurized the cabin, have to repressurized airlock, have to open hatches, have to shut airlock hatch, etc. How is the Sokol sealed?
That's what I wanted to hear, hard details, thank you Jim.
While depressurizing the Shenzhou should be no problem as the Sokol suit is designed to keep the Astronaut alive in a depressurized cabin for hours at a time the repressurisation phase would likely be too long. I'm not sure however how long someone can survive an in a Sokol suit that is filled with pure oxygen (as it is when used pressurized). Sealing it should probably be possible I'm pretty sure there is some way to seal the umbilical that is normaly connected to the spacecraft as there is a pressure regulation valve on the Sokol it should be possible to completly close that. At least it seems logical that there is such a mechanism for example to leave a cabin filled with smoke after landing without letting smoke into the suit.
-
Whats the rescue plan for a Soyuz that loses maneuverability after ISS seperation with an American on board?
-
Whats the rescue plan for a Soyuz that loses maneuverability after ISS seperation with an American on board?
I doubt there is a plan. The shuttle can't be launched in time and the ISS can't do anything. The plan would be to work the problem on the Soyuz
-
Can't the ISS be maneuvered with the Russian segement throusters and/or ATV and/or docked Soyuz? What would be the delta-v available?
-
What I'm asking for are the real specific technical no go details that make such a thing IMPOSSIBLE and nothing less.
Wow. Why didn't you just open with that?
-
Can't the ISS be maneuvered with the Russian segement throusters and/or ATV and/or docked Soyuz? What would be the delta-v available?
no, that is for attitude control and orbit raising. Rendezvous maneuvering is completely different
that is the reason for the SAFER units on the EVA'ers. It
-
Whats the rescue plan for a Soyuz that loses maneuverability after ISS seperation with an American on board?
A Soyuz that "loses maneuverability" would have significant problems, as there is all sorts of redundancy in the Soyuz maneuver system. It would be hard to answer this question unless the actual situation here were described better. Is this a scenario where the Soyuz instrument module has exploded, and only the descent module is somehow unharmed?
-
I've seen it said that PMA-1 is "deactivated". What was done to deactivate it? Is it reversable?
Also, since PMA-1 was attached to Node 1 at launch, does the CBM that PMA-1 is attached to "work", or is it not a fully operable version?
Just my curiosity.
(Great site BTW, well done to Chris and the team).
-
I've seen it said that PMA-1 is "deactivated". What was done to deactivate it? Is it reversable?
Also, since PMA-1 was attached to Node 1 at launch, does the CBM that PMA-1 is attached to "work", or is it not a fully operable version?
The power and data lines to the ASAP on PMA-1 have been removed, hence deactivated. There is no need for it since the Node 1 and FGB connection is "permanent"
No need for the CBM to work too
-
Astronauts that have walked on the moon report that when they repressurized the LM, lunar dust gave off a odor somewhat like burned gunpowder. Have near earth spacewalkers reported any odors from near earth space? Ozone, electrical discharge odors, etc?
-
Astronauts that have walked on the moon report that when they repressurized the LM, lunar dust gave off a odor somewhat like burned gunpowder. Have near earth spacewalkers reported any odors from near earth space? Ozone, electrical discharge odors, etc?
Yes, they notice a short term smell
-
From the ISS status report of 13th august, dealing with the ATV reboost :
The reboost consumed 325.4 kg of propellant for the maneuver and 195 kg of propellant for attitude control.
I didn't know that so much propellant was used for attitude control !! Is it normal ?
-
Astronauts that have walked on the moon report that when they repressurized the LM, lunar dust gave off a odor somewhat like burned gunpowder. Have near earth spacewalkers reported any odors from near earth space? Ozone, electrical discharge odors, etc?
Yes, they notice a short term smell
I wish I could remember the link, but Mr. Chamitoff said it smells sorta metallic, but different.
-
Ansari and Simonyi talk about a certain "cookie-like" smell inside the station. But most astronauts present during EVA post-ops describe a metallic-like odour (like brahmanknight says) that is speculated might come from ionized metal coming off the structure because of radiation or atomic oxygen plasma. However, on the reports I read they don't appear to know for sure. They call it "the smell of space" :)
-
Expedition 18 launches in 3 days. Anyone know when the Expedition 18 Press Kit
is going to be made public on the internet so we can all read it?
Also does NASA do any kind of reports before hand such as a Flight Readiness
Reports and studies to confirm that the crew is ready for flight, as they do the shuttle?
If so where and how can we obtain these reports?
-
Press kits will come out when they come out. Asking here doesn't make it come out quicker, just like all the other times you asked about press kits
-
Thanks But that does not answer my question. With all the members here ,some
who belong to NASA and also our Russian members I thought maybe someone on the inside track could give me an answer. Also is there any Flight Readiness Reports on each ISS Expedition? If so ,how do we get these? Another thing is there Russian Press Kits,such as on each Progress Flights? I know there was on Progress M-50/15P. What about any others? If so, how do we get these? Maybe some of our Russian freinds can shed some useful information on this.
-
Russians don't do press kits on progress flights. Neither does NASA.
Flight Readiness reviews for Soyuz flights would be in Russian.
-
Does anyone else have any usefull information on my questions? How about someone else weighting in on how we can get inside NASA or Russian information on the ISS Flight crews missions or Progress flights?? Thanks
-
Does anyone else have any usefull information on my questions? How about someone else weighting in on how we can get inside NASA or Russian information on the ISS Flight crews missions or Progress flights?? Thanks
There isn't any and if there was it would be on L2 since it would be "inside" information
-
How long does it take for iss to repeat a pass over any one location or point above the earth.
-
Depends on the location. Takes about 90 minutes to orbit.
-
In general though (for a location at a latitude smaller than the ISS's inclination), the ISS will fly nearly overhead twice during a 24 hour period. If you assume that the inertial orientation of the ISS orbit doesn't change much over the course of a day, then as the world turns underneath the ISS, a location on the Earth will pass directly under the ISS orbit twice per revolution. That does NOT mean that the ISS will be at that point of its orbit exactly twice per day, but if we ball park it, then it will pass nearly over the same place twice per day.
I know I'm going to get objections to this, but I'm trying to give a general answer. If we were to ask how often does it fly over EXACTLY the same point, then I suppose the answer is technically never!
-
Thanks, that is the exact answer i was hoping to hear. have a great day.
("ISS" thread is moved into "General ISS Q&A thread" thread - anik)
-
I know its launch is still over one year away, but does anyone know if NASA plans to name Node-3 themselves or open the naming processing up to school children again as they did with Node-2?
-
I know its launch is still over one year away, but does anyone know if NASA plans to name Node-3 themselves or open the naming processing up to school children again as they did with Node-2?
Most likely there will be a contest.
-
Before Columbia, 3 member Expedition crews were rotated by Shuttle while Soyuz were replaced by "taxi" flights. how were 6-crew expeditions expected to rotate? Would it have been multiple shuttle flights, or would half of the crew come up on shuttle and the other on Soyuz?
-
Before Columbia, 3 member Expedition crews were rotated by Shuttle while Soyuz were replaced by "taxi" flights. how were 6-crew expeditions expected to rotate? Would it have been multiple shuttle flights, or would half of the crew come up on shuttle and the other on Soyuz?
I don't know for sure, but this is an educated guess. With 6 crew, you always need 2 Soyuz on board for rescue possibility. Since this was so long ago in Station program years, the Crew Rescue Vehicle could have been still considered, which may have allowed fewer Soyuz, but it's not likely, since every spacecraft has a limit to how long they can stay certified in orbit, including the Soyuz (leading to a 6-month expedition).
-
How do they clean the air on the ISS? When someone goes the bathroom, that bad air has to go somewhere, right?
-
How do they clean the air on the ISS? When someone goes the bathroom, that bad air has to go somewhere, right?
Depends on the contaminant. Dust and large particles are sucked up in HEPA filters at the inlets to the many fans that circulate the air. There are two Trace Contaminant Removal systems that remove trace gasses that are produced by people and the equipment. There are also charcoal filters that clean the atmosphere.
-
With the new Regen-ECLSS components (Water Processor Assembly (WPA) & Urine Processor Assembly (UPA) specifically) being flown on STS-126, how does it handle the possible pharmaceuticals & human hormone content in the reclaimed water?
This is becoming a major problem here on Earth for processed water from a sewage treatment facility going back into the loop. This is because they are only now able to detect the presence of the extremely minute quantities in question. Of course the scientists aren't 100% sure about the safe levels people can tolerate. I wonder if this might become a factor in the long-term as to what medications the astronauts might be allowed to take prior- and on-orbit.
-
With the new Regen-ECLSS components (Water Processor Assembly (WPA) & Urine Processor Assembly (UPA) specifically) being flown on STS-126, how does it handle the possible pharmaceuticals & human hormone content in the reclaimed water?
I don't know if this helps clarify or just adds more confusion, but near the end of 126 crew news conference, Don Petit gave a reasonably clear description of the processes used by the WPA & UPA.
Specifically it is a distillation process, which I believe they can control by temperature/pressure to only/mostly recover just H2O. He said that it also uses a carbon filter and some additional absorption beds to clean out any remaining "backwash", then it gets tested for organics. If the quality test fails, the process is repeated. Additionally for water to be consumed via the galley water, it adds some salts and minerals to make the water more palatable for human taste (& biology).
You may wish to listen to his answer for yourself, rather than depending on my memory. Link for recording of STS-126 Crew News Conference is
http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4408
-
My own interest/questions are about ISS ground operations at MCC-H (and no, I'm not on L2):
I understand each flight director has his/her own flight control team (each called a "flight") that basically staffs a single MCC-H shift, either
- Orbit 1 (on a 'normal' day: from just prior to crew wake to lunch time),
- Orbit 2 (crew afternoon & early evening)
- Planning/Orbit 3 (crew pre-sleep and most of sleep)
Per PAO descriptions, I believe each shift is 9 hours long (8 + an hour handover with prior orbit).
It seems that each Expedition has specific flights assigned. Plus it appears that during (and maybe just prior to) joint operations with a visiting shuttle mission, that there are separate mission specific flight directors & teams that staff MCC during these times. Per Bill Hardwood's pages there are at least 4 ISS flight control teams assigned for ULF2: 3 Orbits and a "Team 4" (on-call, if needed).
Questions:
0. Is the above description accurate?
1. How many flights are in the normal rotation? (normally for other 24x7x365 operations I know of, I could assume an answer of at least 5, but more likely 6) But maybe there's a "team 4" also during stage ops...
2. What is the "normal" duty cycle for each active flight? For example: for 6 teams, each flight works their assigned orbit for 9 hours for 3 day in row, then 3 days off duty, and repeat...
3. Are flight teams disbanded at the end of an expedition and new teams reformed by each flight director when assigned to a new mission? Or is there some continuity (e.g. alternating expeditions)?
4. How many people are normally assigned to each flight? And of these, how many are actual flight controllers (sit on console)?
5. Are all positions in MCC-H staffed for all orbits? For example, it would seem to me that Robo, Visiting Spacecraft officer, flight surgeon, EVA, etc would only be needed during specific time periods, rather than always.
Thanks in advance indulging my curiosity!
-
My own interest/questions are about ISS ground operations at MCC-H (and no, I'm not on L2):
I understand each flight director has his/her own flight control team (each called a "flight") that basically staffs a single MCC-H shift, either
- Orbit 1 (on a 'normal' day: from just prior to crew wake to lunch time),
- Orbit 2 (crew afternoon & early evening)
- Planning/Orbit 3 (crew pre-sleep and most of sleep)
Per PAO descriptions, I believe each shift is 9 hours long (8 + an hour handover with prior orbit).
It seems that each Expedition has specific flights assigned. Plus it appears that during (and maybe just prior to) joint operations with a visiting shuttle mission, that there are separate mission specific flight directors & teams that staff MCC during these times. Per Bill Hardwood's pages there are at least 4 ISS flight control teams assigned for ULF2: 3 Orbits and a "Team 4" (on-call, if needed).
Questions:
0. Is the above description accurate?
1. How many flights are in the normal rotation? (normally for other 24x7x365 operations I know of, I could assume an answer of at least 5, but more likely 6) But maybe there's a "team 4" also during stage ops...
2. What is the "normal" duty cycle for each active flight? For example: for 6 teams, each flight works their assigned orbit for 9 hours for 3 day in row, then 3 days off duty, and repeat...
3. Are flight teams disbanded at the end of an expedition and new teams reformed by each flight director when assigned to a new mission? Or is there some continuity (e.g. alternating expeditions)?
4. How many people are normally assigned to each flight? And of these, how many are actual flight controllers (sit on console)?
5. Are all positions in MCC-H staffed for all orbits? For example, it would seem to me that Robo, Visiting Spacecraft officer, flight surgeon, EVA, etc would only be needed during specific time periods, rather than always.
Thanks in advance indulging my curiosity!
Mostly accurate. Here is the scoop:
- The shifts are nominally 9 hours as you state. MCC-H does 13 hours shifts on the weekends - not all the control centers do that however.
- Yes, Orbit 1 starts at 0600 GMT. This is more to align with Moscow's time (originally, the crew day was supposed to start at regular hours Houston time, but Moscow refused).
- Typically, people work 7 Orbit 1 or orbit 2s in a row, or 5 orbit 3s.
- On weekends when there is just orbit 1 & 2, the share the planning.
- During an increment there is no assigned flight directors for console in the sense they take turns just working whatever shifts are needed.
- There is a lead flight director for an increment who oversees all the operations on a day to day basis. Typically 12-16 hour days. The lead coordinates all the long term and big issues for the on console folks to work in real-time.
- Each discipline also has a lead for an increment. The increment leads usualy don't sit console much but do the hard leg work in all the planning and prep. Generally, the increment team doesn't work on console or sim together as a team.
- For special events like an EVA or a Soyuz docking leads will be assigned and will work all aspects of that - planning, training, prep and execution.
- For a shuttle mission, there is a lead flight director and 2 others for ISS and ditto for shuttle. Generally the leads work the Orbit 1 or orbit 2 shift but it depends on the activities. And here the Orbits are driven by shuttle time and are generally shifted from the incrment Orbits. So each flight director gets a team and they will do all the training together as a team and execute as a team (e.g., the "white" team).
- After a mission, increment or event, the teams disband and get shuffled to be reassigned for the next task in the queue.
- Team 4s are assigned just during shuttle missions.
- There are about a dozen or so flight directors cycling through but when assigned a mission or increment they tend not work console.
- Some consoles - ADCO, PHJALCON, THOR, ODIN, CATO, and ECLSS are always staffed, though there are GEMINIs that combine (i.e., TITAN = CATO+ODIN+ADCO, ATLAS = ECLSS+PHALCON+THOR) on weekends and slower shifts. Others have reduced hours, or as you noted only support specific tasks.
- So to answer you question how many assigned to a flight - well for ISS you have all the console positions(~18), plus their support teams (i.e., back rooms that can be 1-5 people), times 3 shifts. Of course there is then the shuttle teams and the Boeing engineering support. Then team 4 which is aproximately every console position (some will have backups, some not).
I think that answers all the questions.
-
I think that answers all the questions.
Very much appreciated!
Thanks,
Jack
-
With the new Regen-ECLSS components (Water Processor Assembly (WPA) & Urine Processor Assembly (UPA) specifically) being flown on STS-126, how does it handle the possible pharmaceuticals & human hormone content in the reclaimed water?
I don't know if this helps clarify or just adds more confusion, but near the end of 126 crew news conference, Don Petit gave a reasonably clear description of the processes used by the WPA & UPA.
Specifically it is a distillation process, which I believe they can control by temperature/pressure to only/mostly recover just H2O. He said that it also uses a carbon filter and some additional absorption beds to clean out any remaining "backwash", then it gets tested for organics. If the quality test fails, the process is repeated. Additionally for water to be consumed via the galley water, it adds some salts and minerals to make the water more palatable for human taste (& biology).
You may wish to listen to his answer for yourself, rather than depending on my memory. Link for recording of STS-126 Crew News Conference is
http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4408
Many thanks, Jack!
Distillation might be the way around this concern I had. Everything else that is downstream in the process probably won't cut it, imo.
-
Is there a link to documentation that shows the current location of the installed racks and the final configuration? I am searching the site, but so far no luck.
Thanks in advance,
Roger
-
In this article:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2008/11/sts-126-eva-1-major-effort-repair-sarj/
it says that:
"This mission also includes the transfer, installation, and activation of several systems to support six person crew, such as ... a food refrigerator..."
But that refrigerator is elsewhere described as a "lab refrigerator". Is the ISS really getting a food refrigerator?
-
I understand that most glove damage in EVA happen during moving around? Is that true? If so, why astronauts don`t use some overall gloves, chain-mail maybe?
-
Is there a link to documentation that shows the current location of the installed racks and the final configuration? I am searching the site, but so far no luck.
Thanks in advance,
Roger
L2
-
In this article:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2008/11/sts-126-eva-1-major-effort-repair-sarj/
it says that:
"This mission also includes the transfer, installation, and activation of several systems to support six person crew, such as ... a food refrigerator..."
But that refrigerator is elsewhere described as a "lab refrigerator". Is the ISS really getting a food refrigerator?
It is a refrigerator designed for ISS lab use being used as a food refrigerator
-
Is there a link to documentation that shows the current location of the installed racks and the final configuration? I am searching the site, but so far no luck.
Thanks in advance,
Roger
L2
Thanks Jim, I will check there.
-
Does anyone know when and who is going to install the sixth sleeping quarters on the ISS.
There are two sleeping spaces in Zvezda.
There is one Temporary Sleep Station (TeSS) in Destiny.
There are now two sleep stations in Harmony.
For a six person crew there will need to be one more sleep station. I saw somewhere that Japan is going to install a sleep station in the Kibo module but have not been able to confirm this. Does anyone have any more info about sleep quarters for the sixth ISS astronaut? Will sleeping quarters be moved to Node3 when that arrives?
-
Does anyone know when and who is going to install the sixth sleeping quarters on the ISS.
There are two sleeping spaces in Zvezda.
There is one Temporary Sleep Station (TeSS) in Destiny.
There are now two sleep stations in Harmony.
For a six person crew there will need to be one more sleep station. I saw somewhere that Japan is going to install a sleep station in the Kibo module but have not been able to confirm this. Does anyone have any more info about sleep quarters for the sixth ISS astronaut? Will sleeping quarters be moved to Node3 when that arrives?
This was answered in the ISS Q&A thread
-
In this article:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2008/11/sts-126-eva-1-major-effort-repair-sarj/ (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2008/11/sts-126-eva-1-major-effort-repair-sarj/)
it says that:
"This mission also includes the transfer, installation, and activation of several systems to support six person crew, such as ... a food refrigerator..."
But that refrigerator is elsewhere described as a "lab refrigerator". Is the ISS really getting a food refrigerator?
It is a refrigerator designed for ISS lab use being used as a food refrigerator
They're carrying two refrigerators: GLACIER, for scientific purposes, is going to be installed in MELFI. Apart from that, MERLIN (once intended as a scientific freezer, as Jim says) is the one now intended for food&drink cooling.
-
I understand that most glove damage in EVA happen during moving around? Is that true? If so, why astronauts don`t use some overall gloves, chain-mail maybe?
WEll they do. First, it was not clear what was causing the problem. And it doesn't look to be external but part of the design combined with external. Secondly, the gloves are already very hard to move and tire the hands. Putting more on make it harder and actually more dangerous (you don't want them to get so tired they let go while translating). So when the problem first arose, they used some over gloves but the crew hated them. Since they have added turtle skin to the worst areas and that si what we are using now.
-
Hi
I've searched for "knocking noise" "banging sound" without a relevant result
When I watch NASA TV for the EVAs, the audio between the astronauts and controllers carries a background banging noise, like someone banging a barrel??
Very odd... ???
-
Hi
I've searched for "knocking noise" "banging sound" without a relevant result
When I watch NASA TV for the EVAs, the audio between the astronauts and controllers carries a background banging noise, like someone banging a barrel??
Very odd... ???
You sure it wasn't their mics coming on when they breathe?? The mics are voice activated, and if they breathe hard enough it activates transmission.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=related&v=rqjubO_KSMU
Found this clip from a previous mission which has the percussive knocking on the audio at 0.27 0.28 then at 0.50 0.51
/ 2.48 2.51-2-52 and at several other points throughout the clip
???
-
Though it rarely occurs, I often wondered which flight patch an ISS crew member wears on their suit when they perform an EVA with the docked shuttle crew?
As an example, Clay Anderson, member of ISS 15 (and STS 117) took part in an EVA with the STS 118 crew. I can't seem to locate any photos that could answer this question.
Thank you.
-
Shuttle and American spacewalks have SAFER as a backup if an astronaut's tether comes loose, but as I understand it there is no similar jetpack used on the Russian-side EVAs. Is there any emergency procedure if an astronaut in an Orlan suit loses his/her tether and drifts away? Would an attempt be made to use Soyuz to rendezvous? (Assuming there is no orbiter available)
-
Shuttle and American spacewalks have SAFER as a backup if an astronaut's tether comes loose, but as I understand it there is no similar jetpack used on the Russian-side EVAs. Is there any emergency procedure if an astronaut in an Orlan suit loses his/her tether and drifts away?
I've wondered about that too, thanks for asking. I'm sure someone with the answer will chime in.
A speculative thought: Being that the "stranded" EVA person is in their own independant orbit, could the ISS conceivably alter it's orbit such that there would be a rendezvous with the stranded astronaut? Seems possible in theory at least. Also seems like it would take ultra-precise targeting to prevent the astronaut from running into an undesirable location, like a solar array.
-
Shuttle and American spacewalks have SAFER as a backup if an astronaut's tether comes loose, but as I understand it there is no similar jetpack used on the Russian-side EVAs
Many years ago NPP Zvezda enterprise has manufactured three USK jetpacks (http://suzymchale.com/kosmonavtka/usk.html) (analogue of SAFER) for using on Orlan-M/MK spacesuits. But later it was decided not to send them on ISS for now. So, during Russian spacewalks each cosmonaut continues to use two tether.
-
Shuttle and American spacewalks have SAFER as a backup if an astronaut's tether comes loose, but as I understand it there is no similar jetpack used on the Russian-side EVAs. Is there any emergency procedure if an astronaut in an Orlan suit loses his/her tether and drifts away?
I've wondered about that too, thanks for asking. I'm sure someone with the answer will chime in.
A speculative thought: Being that the "stranded" EVA person is in their own independant orbit, could the ISS conceivably alter it's orbit such that there would be a rendezvous with the stranded astronaut? Seems possible in theory at least. Also seems like it would take ultra-precise targeting to prevent the astronaut from running into an undesirable location, like a solar array.
ISS can only translate in one direction (+X) and so any rendezvous maneuver would require rotating the whole station to point the +X axis in the required direction for the delta-V.
ISS is extremely massive so any rendezvous maneuver requires a very long burn arc.
In short, it is impractical.
-
Hi
I read in one of the STS-126 live threads that once operational, the WRS will actually produce more potable water than the *noughts will consume with the excess being used as a raw material for the new OGA.
Is this correct?
Based on 3 inhabitants of the ISS, by how much does the WRS reduce the need for potable water to transferred from the ground?
Assuming the OGA will do some form of electrolysis, what will the hydrogen be used for?
Thanks in advance
Mark
-
Hi
I read in one of the STS-126 live threads that once operational, the WRS will actually produce more potable water than the *noughts will consume with the excess being used as a raw material for the new OGA.
Is this correct?
Based on 3 inhabitants of the ISS, by how much does the WRS reduce the need for potable water to transferred from the ground?
Assuming the OGA will do some form of electrolysis, what will the hydrogen be used for?
Thanks in advance
Mark
This is what NASA says about the WRS in the STS-126 presskit:
"The WRS is designed to recycle crew member urine and wastewater for reuse as clean water.
Each crew member uses about 3.5 liters (0.9 gallons) of water a day. Enough for 2 liters (0.52 gallons) a day is provided by deliveries from Russian Progress resupply vehicles, ESA’s Jules Verne Automatic Transfer Vehicle and the space shuttles. The remaining 1.5 liters (0.4 gallons) is recovered condensate from the Russian water processor. The two cargo vehicles carry water to the station in onboard supply tanks. The shuttle delivers water produced as a byproduct of the fuel cells that generate its electricity.
The WRS will reduce the amount of water that needs to be delivered to the station for each crew member by 1.3 liters (0.34 gallons) a day, or about 65 percent. Over the course of a year, it will reduce water deliveries to the station for a six‐person crew by 2,850 liters (743 gallons)."
And on the oxygen generator:
"The heart of the Oxygen Generation Assembly is the cell stack, which electrolyzes, or breaks apart, water provided by the WRS, yielding oxygen and hydrogen as byproducts. The oxygen is delivered to the cabin atmosphere,and the hydrogen is vented overboard."
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/287211main_sts126_press_kit2.pdf
-
Assuming the OGA will do some form of electrolysis, what will the hydrogen be used for?
Thanks in advance
Mark
IIRC (real experts correct me please), the hydrogen is dumped overboard. Can't easily store it, since it's produced as a gas at low pressure, and large quantities would probably increase risk of LOM/LOC. Too bad, as saving H for propellant use could reduce the future costs of leaving LEO (not that ISS's orbit is very efficient for that).
-
The only use I could think of for the hydrogen is as propellant would be in the VASIMR that trying to find it's way up there.
-
So is the starboard SARJ in autotrack mode, or is it back to the old style "move only when needed" until a later date?
-
So is the starboard SARJ in autotrack mode, or is it back to the old style "move only when needed" until a later date?
Just answered by Holly during FD13 press conference: not in autotrack, pending further engineering analysis (several weeks/months testing to come).
-
Hi,regards ISS mission control.Do the teams generally do the same
shift times.If not it must effect their own body clocks/family life.I assume they all live "locally"
-
Hi,regards ISS mission control.Do the teams generally do the same
shift times.If not it must effect their own body clocks/family life.I assume they all live "locally"
Flight Controllers generally work the same shift for a week at a time. It depends on the group, but I know in my group, you can expect to be on-console about one week/month. Depending on certifications, several of the flight control disciplines can be combined for weekend/night shifts into one of two GEMINI positions to take some of the load off the individual groups. With the changing station, though, it is becoming very difficult for some of the positions to be combined into a GEMINI (too much work load), so those console positions are being manned for 3 shifts a day (2 per weekend).
As far as how it affects your body, Flight Controllers have learned what it takes them individually to shift to night/early/late, so it generally isn't a problem, once you get shifted. It is tough having a social life if you're sleeping most of the day and working at night, but you work around it, and you accept it as part of the job.
-
The only use I could think of for the hydrogen is as propellant would be in the VASIMR that trying to find it's way up there.
One potential use for the Hydrogen is to be merged with CO2 to produce Methane and Water. The Methane would be dumped overboard and the Water would be sent to the Water Processing Assembly. There is a piece of hardware that is slated to fly in 2010, but not sure if it will make it up there or not. That would close the Life Support System loop as much as is planned for ISS.
-
The only use I could think of for the hydrogen is as propellant would be in the VASIMR that trying to find it's way up there.
One potential use for the Hydrogen is to be merged with CO2 to produce Methane and Water. The Methane would be dumped overboard and the Water would be sent to the Water Processing Assembly.
Wow... so the Hydrogen could be used to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere AND produce more water. How would you merge Hydrogen and CO2? My first thought was by burning the Hydrogen in a CO2 atmosphere... Can you tell I was always better at physics that chemistry?!
How about for use in a fuel cell similar to those on board the orbiter? I'm guessing that there's a FC maintenance issue along with the inherent risk of storing hydrogen stated earlier.
Thanks for your replies so far.
Mark
-
its called the sabatier where it takes CO2, H2 and alot of energy and it creates H2O and CH4, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_process
this should be used for mars IMO
-
Cool... thanks for the link. Interesting stuff
-
Why do we still have a ZOE during shuttle missions these days? Can't a TDRS see an anetnna on the ISS/Shuttle complex and then relay transmission to one of the TDRS satellites than can see White Sands?
-
Many reasons including orientation of station / resources available / etc. Search here (especially the shuttle Q&A thread) for the longer answer.
-
I searched "zone of exclusion" and got only 1 page of hits. Maybe I'm not searching right.
I would think that station attitude/antenna blockage would have something to do with it. But that there is a portion of the earth with no coverage, with all the TDRS satellites and spares in orbit, that's what I'm trying to figure out.
-
I searched "zone of exclusion" and got only 1 page of hits. Maybe I'm not searching right.
I would think that station attitude/antenna blockage would have something to do with it. But that there is a portion of the earth with no coverage, with all the TDRS satellites and spares in orbit, that's what I'm trying to figure out.
NASA only schedules TDRS Z during critical phases of flight, so there is a ZOE during noncritical phases.
-
Thanks for the replies. I ordered "READ YOU LOUD AND CLEAR!", The Story of NASA's Spaceflight Tracking and Data Network. I'm curious about how all this works.
-
Searching "ZOE" came up with this one - http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=3247.0
and a section in the ISS Q&A too for you.
-
Hello :D,
I have been posting images from an X3D model (made by Bob Hundley for Celestia) and a Solidworks export made by David Velasquez. I have permission from both of them, although I have lost contact with David Velasquez (where are you ???).
I am posting them to inform and educate. It's not always easy to see what is happening !
So is the latest edit of this model correct compared to the current ISS config ? The Truss segments are not as accurate as they could be, but I'm working on importing the correct truss segments from the X3D model.
Executable standalone viewer (http://djbarney.silentflame.com/storage/ISS_Current_Config.exe).
eDrawing (http://djbarney.silentflame.com/storage/ISS_Current_Config.easm) (needs viewer (http://www.solidworks.com/sw/support/eDrawings/e2_register.htm)).
The model can also be viewed with a browser plugin (http://djbarney.silentflame.com/storage/ISS_Current_Config.html).
-
No, starboard side of the truss currently only has one set of solar wings. Pirs is in the wrong place, should be Zvezda Nadir. Also the strella cranes are not currently deployed, still it is nice to see the model has them :)
Better that most models you seen in the media :D
I just looked at the complete model and Node 3 seems to be in the wrong place, it will end up on node 1 port.
Hope that helps!
-
It does ;D !
When you say the stella cranes are not deployed do you mean that they are folded up ? If so I will leave them as they are on the model unless I can work out how to fold up the arms using the eDrawings viewer (may be possible).
I'll examine your other suggestions and adjust the model accordingly.
-
Surprised no one has mentioned the big one - There is no shuttle docked!
Kidding, of course ;) I see this was made before Endeavour departed this morning. Excellent model, mate! Good to see someone undertake something like this.
-
It does ;D !
When you say the stella cranes are not deployed do you mean that they are folded up ? If so I will leave them as they are on the model unless I can work out how to fold up the arms using the eDrawings viewer (may be possible).
The strella booms telescope. You can see them in their stowed configuration in these pictures
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-124/html/s124e010045.html
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-15/html/iss015e19036.html
You can see one extended here
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-17/html/iss017e011097.html
and just FWIW, flyaround images from the shuttle missions should give you an excellent "ground truth" of the current configuration ;)
-
Thanks.
I just uploaded some ani gifs I made of the flyaround that I will be examining.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Sts-126-fd15-flyaround_part1.gif
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Sts-126-fd15-flyaround_part2.gif
I am going to make a higher quality APNG animation from my NASA TV frames. I can't find any higher quality sources for the images. I expected NASA or another agency to publish high definition images of the fly around.
-
I can't find any higher quality sources for the images. I expected NASA or another agency to publish high definition images of the fly around.
They will be here on flight day 15 when they get put up.
http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/
-
Ah, thanks. I thought I was being a little impatient ::)
Here's the APNG animation ...
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Sts-126-fd15-flyaround.png
-
Surprised no one has mentioned the big one - There is no shuttle docked!
Kidding, of course ;) I see this was made before Endeavour departed this morning. Excellent model, mate! Good to see someone undertake something like this.
Yes, made before undock. Just to be clear the model was not actually made by me (see first post) but thanks for the encouragement !
I'm in the process of modifying it and adding things. Looks like I'm going to have to model the Pirs module myself as I can only move elements in eDrawer and not rotate them as I will need to do to put it nadir.
EDIT: I modelled the Pirs module successfully, but then found that eDrawing cannot import as I thought. So my first attachment shows what should now be the current config apart from Pirs and Progress being upside down (limitation of eDrawing).
However no problem, NASA have just published a hi-res model of the ISS (29th October 2008) (http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/3d_resources/assets/iss-hi-res.html).
I have included a render of the Quest airlock as the second attachment. As you can see it's the full deal and the entire final config is included ! Now I just have to attach all the parts and set up as the current config.
Thankyou NASA ! :o ;D
-
At what date is construction of the ISS going to be completed? How long will it be used after that?
-
Assembly complete is scheduled for 2010... It will be used for at least 5 years afterwards.
-
At what date is construction of the ISS going to be completed? How long will it be used after that?
as per the manifest by nasa the US complete is the last shuttle flight in 2010 slated to fly in the summer,
as far as the russians go they have a few more proton flights with labs and docking units.
station will fly through 2015 but you will defintly see an extension through 2020 possibly 2025
i hope to see station flying that long.. it would be a real shame after all the heartache and trials and tribulations to see this thing deorbit anytime before 2025.. remember some of those parts including the first 3 modules have been up there 10 and almost 10 yearrs alredy.. most of these modules are garunteed 10 years shelve life but im sure all agencys involved have added redundency in there systems to outlast the warrenty many many years. just look at MIR and hubble..
im no rocket scientist or even a smart guy for that matter.. im just a 26 year old kid with a passion for manned space flght.. i model these awsome machines and i for one hope that the station flys a nice long life and brings on a new age of lunar and maybe even martian exploration for humans..
Paul Frabizzio
-
why are the lower solar panels at a slightly different angle to the upper panels? Wouldn't this lower the amount of sunlight they collect by a little bit?
-
why are the lower solar panels at a slightly different angle to the upper panels? Wouldn't this lower the amount of sunlight they collect by a little bit?
Notice that the solar panel is dark and the radiator is sunlit. This is not an operational orientation. It may have been transitioning or parked during rendezvous or maintenance.
-
why are the lower solar panels at a slightly different angle to the upper panels? Wouldn't this lower the amount of sunlight they collect by a little bit?
Notice that the solar panel is dark and the radiator is sunlit. This is not an operational orientation. It may have been transitioning or parked during rendezvous or maintenance.
as far as i can remember the portside (working) arrays have always been angled like that too...and even when the P6 was the only array on the station...
perhaps it's a way of deliberately limiting how much power the array generates? if there's a surplus of power being generated? hmm.
-
perhaps it's a way of deliberately limiting how much power the array generates? if there's a surplus of power being generated? hmm.
The Sequential Shunt Unit handles limiting the total power generated.
EDIT: Power limitation is achieved by "shunting" individual strings. (Shorting them back to themselves). Each SAW is composed of 82 "strings", with 41 in each blanket.
-
why are the lower solar panels at a slightly different angle to the upper panels? Wouldn't this lower the amount of sunlight they collect by a little bit?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=3207.msg202801#msg202801
-
why are the lower solar panels at a slightly different angle to the upper panels? Wouldn't this lower the amount of sunlight they collect by a little bit?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=3207.msg202801#msg202801
wow, this space stuff is complicated. :o
thanks for the explanation!
-
However no problem, NASA have just published a hi-res model of the ISS (29th October 2008) (http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/3d_resources/assets/iss-hi-res.html).
That is an outdated model, Node 3 is in the wrong position and there still is a Research module rather than the MRM-1
-
Just a quick question, folks - is there any particular place where all the ISS's vital statistics are kept (fully up-to-date)? Specifically, I'm looking for:
Mass
Length (from Zvezda to PMA-2)
Width (along truss)
Height
Living volume
Perigee
Apogee
Thanks in advance! :)
-
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/index.html
-
Uh, thanks for an interesting link, but no page within that site lists any overall dimensions, so it isn't really very helpful...
-
best i can find, i think...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station
-
Funnily enough, its that I'm trying to update! :D
-
Colds7ream...
from here
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/main/index.html
click the "interactive Space Station reference guide"
which should go here
http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/ISSRG/
choose [How it works] choose [ scale] icon
-
Thanking you! :)
-
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.
So I have started working with the hi-res (http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/3d_resources/assets/iss-hi-res.html) nasa model. It just needs the Destiny model from my VRML/X3D ISS.
That is an outdated model, Node 3 is in the wrong position and there still is a Research module rather than the MRM-1
Hello and thanks.
According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iss#Pressurised_modules) and NASA (http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/166624main_iss_config_012007.jpg) node 3 is yet to be launched. Did you mean another node ?
What do you mean by "Research module" ?
-
This seems as good a place as any to post this vague question ...
I heard a week ago somewhere, possibly here, about a book that was published about NASA telemetry system, likely including the TDRS satellites. Does anyone know what that book is? As I recall, it was more about earth orbit comms, not deep space comms as provided by DSN, but I certainly could be wrong.
-
Indeed, Node3 hasn't been launched, I don't see Node3 on the ISS model several posts up either.
Correct me if I am wrong, but was the External Stowage Platform that used to be attached to the port side of the truss relocated to the centre of the truss? Perhaps attached to the device that can translate down the length of the truss which the robotic arm attaches to? (I don't know its name? :( )
-
Now the full res images of the fly around (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-126/flightday15/ndxpage1.html) have been published this task has suddenly become a lot easier .. and accurate.
-
Indeed, Node3 hasn't been launched, I don't see Node3 on the ISS model several posts up either.
Correct me if I am wrong, but was the External Stowage Platform that used to be attached to the port side of the truss relocated to the centre of the truss? Perhaps attached to the device that can translate down the length of the truss which the robotic arm attaches to? (I don't know its name? :( )
From Dec 3rd's Status Report (posted by anik here http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13186.msg340983#msg340983):
""ESP-3 Relocation Lookahead: Return of the External Stowage Platform 3 from its current (temporary) location on the MBS (Mobile Base System) to the zenith side of the P3 truss with the SSRMS (Space Station Remote Manipulator System) is planned for 12/5 (Friday)"
The 'device that translates along the truss' is the MBS, and the ESP was attached to the Payload and Orbital-Replacement-Unit Accommodation (POA) ;)
-
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 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 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 :(
That would be helpful :) . I think I have everything apart from the US Destiny Science module which is in the eDrawing file. I could take it from the VRML/X3D model I have but that is far from accurate. The eDrawing is based on the ISS engineering drawings published by NASA (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/multimedia/scalemodel/index.html).
-
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.
-
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
-
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
Well, wearing it all the time really sounds uncomfortable. I was rather thinking of an option for those tasks where it might be helpful. But I admit that sophisticated solutions are not always the best choice.
But interesting to learn that it had been used in the past.
I would like to use the opportunity to thank you so much for all the background information you are providing here, Jim. It's a pleasure to read through the Q&A threads. Thanks!
Eric
-
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.
No plans. With reliability concerns (e.g., being able to assuredly pass alarms), it has some problems. Plus there is a real problem getting anything wireless for the RS (the Russians don't like it - plus most signals don't do well on their side). But there are some decent wireless systems and we are working to improve the system. So maybe one day.
-
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?
-
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?
It would have had an APAS in the roof of the aft module.
What else would you like to know?
-
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?
It would have had an APAS in the roof of the aft module.
What else would you like to know?
Hmm, well let me tell you first what the general idea of what I think the module would have been, and feel free to correct me. I beleive it would have been a version of or the modified double module seen on STS-107. There would have been a hatch near the front section with an extendable APAS ring. The internal airlock remains and would connect to the Spacehab at the rear of the shuttle by an extended version of the Spacelab tunnel.
Would the Spacehab itself have sat near the rear bulkhead of the payload bay or about midway in the bay?
How wold the shift of docking position affected the shuttle/station complex (clearances, preventing the torque as seen on STS-126,)
Also was the shuttle system so taxed that NASA was looking to this to solve a supply problem (ie spending much more for a unique asset instead of launching Columbia with a lighter MPLM) or was this simply an unsolicited proposal from SpaceHab?
Thanks Jim, this has been kind of bugging me for 9 years.
-
unsolicited proposal from SpaceHab
APAS in aft module
the module would be in the same position as 107
The STS/ISS integration for this module never got far enough to look at torques and clearances
-
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?
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.
-
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?
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.
It did have some serious disadvantages, though.
It could not be co-manifested with an assembly flight. The DDM was mounted aft in the payload bay, so nothing could fit behind it, and the tunnel would prevent anything from fitting in front of it.
It could not replace any of the MPLM flights since ISS racks could not fit through the APAS hatch.
It could not even replace the existing Spacehab flights on the ISS manifest. It could not have been made ready in time to replace the 2A.x logistics flights, and it could not have been flown on 12A.1 or 13A.1 due to being co-manifested with the P5 and S5 truss segments.
It did not buy back all the performance cost of the ODS since it still needed an airlock in the tunnel to protect for shuttle-based contingency EVAs (most of the mass of the ODS is the integral airlock).
It would have improved docking performance by minimizing torques on the mechanism, but the current Post-Contact Thrusting scheme already minimizes that fairly well, and even in the cases where it doesn't (such as 126), it is more of an annoyance than a threat to either safety or mission success.
So in the end, it's really hard for me to see what the target market was for the DDM, especially after the loss of Columbia.
-
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?
-
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?
Yes.
-
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?
Read anik's excellent Schedule of ISS events thread which includes the Soyuz docking & undocking events. There will be two Soyuz docked to the station whenever 6 crew are on board.
-
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 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 :(
No joy on this DJ Barney. The only Solidworks import options I have are prt, sldprt, asm, sldasm.
-
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?
-
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?
By design. Only Node 3 will be in a different plane
-
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?
By design. Only Node 3 will be in a different plane
Thanks Jim! Sounds like this was one of the lessons learned from the Shuttle-MIR program.
-
By design. Only Node 3 will be in a different plane
Isn'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?
-
By design. Only Node 3 will be in a different plane
Isn'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?
It was going to be on Nadir, but now it is being moved to Port. Interestingly enough, it will need to be clocked 180 degrees in order to line up the ventilation system and also get the lights facing "up", like the other modules. Makes for some interesting systems integration ;-)
-
By design. Only Node 3 will be in a different plane
JEM ELM is also "out of plane" since it is berthed on the JEM zenith. But I gather it is used more for storage, rather than "living or work space."
-
JEM ELM is also "out of plane" since it is berthed on the JEM zenith. But I gather it is used more for storage, rather than "living or work space."
Also the MPLMs as seen on the last mission. It was quite disorienting having a camera looking 'down' into it and seeing an astronaut working 'upright' by the racks.
-
By design. Only Node 3 will be in a different plane
Isn'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?
It was going to be on Nadir, but now it is being moved to Port. Interestingly enough, it will need to be clocked 180 degrees in order to line up the ventilation system and also get the lights facing "up", like the other modules. Makes for some interesting systems integration ;-)
It is only be rotated 90deg. Also, the ventilation ahd to be redone anyway (as did all the other connections) from NADIR to PORT so a clocking of 90 degrees was not significant.
-
The great Reinassance artists were four: Michellangelo, Donatello, Raffaelo and Leonardo (also the Ninja turtles, but we'll ignore this fact ;) ). As the MPLMs names are dedicated to three of them, what happened with Michellangelo?
Is it any training model, a spare, is Columbus considered the 'transformed Michellangelo', was it cancelled...?
-
The great Reinassance artists were four: Michellangelo, Donatello, Raffaelo and Leonardo (also the Ninja turtles, but we'll ignore this fact ;) ). As the MPLMs names are dedicated to three of them, what happened with Michellangelo?
Is it any training model, a spare, is Columbus considered the 'transformed Michellangelo', was it cancelled...?
Well from Jorge awhile ago:
And of course, Michelangelo on STS-122... but don't dare use that name in front of the ESA folks; they're a bit touchy about it... :)
-
I had some intuition :D thanks!
Quite strange ESA left that glaring loose end when they don't want to consider Columbus a "techy MPLM", though.
-
If a module in the ISS has a hull breach, and the crew can find the leak, do they have anything to seal the hole with (on the inside)? (Aside from chewing gum :D )
-
KERMit, but it worked on the outside; I have no idea if it ever flew but was used as a basis for some of the post STS-107 On orbit repair options.
-
If a module in the ISS has a hull breach, and the crew can find the leak, do they have anything to seal the hole with (on the inside)? (Aside from chewing gum :D )
Yes. They have an ultrasonic leak detection kit. And then they have a couple things to seal with but mainly a puddy like substance.
-
What is unique about ESP-3 compared to the ELC's? To me all the ESP seems to be is a smaller ELC that was made by SpaceHab. would it be plausible/desirable to switch ESP-3 for the fifth ELC?
I am probably missing something here, however I think an ELC is alot more capable than ESP-3.
-
The ESP s are all based on SpaceHab's ICC. ESP 2 and 3 are based on the full ICC and ESP 1 is based on the ICC-Lite. They had to be modified to attach to the station rather than stay in the shuttle.
The ELC s were formerly called ExPRESS Pallets and were intended from the beginning for external station attachment.
-
So does that mean Items designed for the ICC/ESP cannot fit on an ELC?
-
The ESP s are all based on SpaceHab's ICC. ESP 2 and 3 are based on the full ICC and ESP 1 is based on the ICC-Lite. They had to be modified to attach to the station rather than stay in the shuttle.
It is Astrium's ICC. Spacehab is no longer associated with them
-
I've been following the ISS On-Orbit status reports over the past month and a half, and the exercise reports specifically over the past two weeks and I've noticed something.
The US crew (Mike and Sandy) seem to be the only ones who use the ARED and the Russian crew (Yury) seems to be the only one who uses the VELO bike.
Is this specifically a US/Russian separation thing, a crew preference thing, or have the crew simply not been scheduled for those devices while I've been paying attention?
If it's a US/Russian thing, will this change at all after 6 person crew?
-
I've been following the ISS On-Orbit status reports over the past month and a half, and the exercise reports specifically over the past two weeks and I've noticed something.
The US crew (Mike and Sandy) seem to be the only ones who use the ARED and the Russian crew (Yury) seems to be the only one who uses the VELO bike.
Is this specifically a US/Russian separation thing, a crew preference thing, or have the crew simply not been scheduled for those devices while I've been paying attention?
If it's a US/Russian thing, will this change at all after 6 person crew?
Russians can use it if they want or their protocol has it in it. The Russians are not as big on resistive exercise. But just like Peggy wouldn't use the treadmill there are preferences.
-
So does that mean Items designed for the ICC/ESP cannot fit on an ELC?
No. They are compatible. They use common attach fittings for most ORUs.
Analyst
-
Discovery will deliver the Mini-Research Module 1 to the Russian segment. As I understand, it will use the hybrid docking system of the Soyuz/Progress vein and will be lifted out of the shuttle bay and installed on Zarya by the SSRMS. However, doesn't the docking system require a large momentum to engage ala APAS?
-
Discovery will deliver the Mini-Research Module 1 to the Russian segment. As I understand, it will use the hybrid docking system of the Soyuz/Progress vein and will be lifted out of the shuttle bay and installed on Zarya by the SSRMS. However, doesn't the docking system require a large momentum to engage ala APAS?
We had some talk about that in the Soviet/Russian Q&A thread... to quote what The-Hammer said:
All of the Mir modules except the Base Block, Kvant-1, and the Docking Module were based on the TKS-FGB. They had their own permanent engines which they used to actuate the docking mechanism when they relocated.
Pirs/MRM1/MRM2 are completely different. Pirs used a Progress service/propulsion module which was jettisoned a couple of days after docking. MRM2 is quite similar to Pirs and will also use a Progress service module.
When the Pirs relocation was still planned they were going to leave a Progress docked to Pirs and use the Progress's engines to actuate the docking mechanism.
As for MRM1... it's based on the pressurized section of the now-canceled Science Power Platform. IANAE, but it's possible that it will have its own thrusters, purely to actuate the docking mechanism.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=5966.msg361121#msg361121
-
I am currently reading two books on Soyuz and the Salyut/Mir programs, and something does not make sense to me. All of the dockings described there between Soyuz as well as the TKS-based Mir addon modules refer to retracting the docking probe to achieve hard dock. No mention is made in the books of the engines being needed. is this incorrect?
-
I am currently reading two books on Soyuz and the Salyut/Mir programs, and something does not make sense to me. All of the dockings described there between Soyuz as well as the TKS-based Mir addon modules refer to retracting the docking probe to achieve hard dock. No mention is made in the books of the engines being needed. is this incorrect?
Except for Kvant-1 and the docking module, Mir Modules had their own engines to approach and dock to the station (Kvant-1 had a tug ala Progress)
-
I am currently reading two books on Soyuz and the Salyut/Mir programs, and something does not make sense to me. All of the dockings described there between Soyuz as well as the TKS-based Mir addon modules refer to retracting the docking probe to achieve hard dock. No mention is made in the books of the engines being needed. is this incorrect?
Except for Kvant-1 and the docking module, Mir Modules had their own engines to approach and dock to the station (Kvant-1 had a tug ala Progress)
I'm aware of that, but that is not my question.
I know the addon modules were based on the TKS resupply module that Chelomei designed for use with his Almaz military space station. As such they had their own engine systems, and had the conventional Soyuz probe-and-drogue docking system. What I am trying to determine is whether or not those engines were required for hard docking. Based on everything that I have read, they were not. After soft dock with the Konus drogue on the Mir baseblock, hard dock was achieved by retracting the docking probe, not by firing the engines. Also, after the difficulty with hard dock when Kvant was installed on the Mir baseblock, the spacewalking cosmonauts removed the errant trashbag that was fouling the port, and then the probe was commanded to retract for hard dock. No mention in that situation is made of an engine firing.
The docking port on the Kristall module was of the APAS type as was the port on the docking module. As such, it did require impulse from the client spacecraft for hard dock. If this is all wrong, please correct me with references, but this is how I understand it to work.
-
I am currently reading two books on Soyuz and the Salyut/Mir programs, and something does not make sense to me. All of the dockings described there between Soyuz as well as the TKS-based Mir addon modules refer to retracting the docking probe to achieve hard dock. No mention is made in the books of the engines being needed. is this incorrect?
Except for Kvant-1 and the docking module, Mir Modules had their own engines to approach and dock to the station (Kvant-1 had a tug ala Progress)
I'm aware of that, but that is not my question.
I know the addon modules were based on the TKS resupply module that Chelomei designed for use with his Almaz military space station. As such they had their own engine systems, and had the conventional Soyuz probe-and-drogue docking system. What I am trying to determine is whether or not those engines were required for hard docking. Based on everything that I have read, they were not. After soft dock with the Konus drogue on the Mir baseblock, hard dock was achieved by retracting the docking probe, not by firing the engines. Also, after the difficulty with hard dock when Kvant was installed on the Mir baseblock, the spacewalking cosmonauts removed the errant trashbag that was fouling the port, and then the probe was commanded to retract for hard dock. No mention in that situation is made of an engine firing.
The docking port on the Kristall module was of the APAS type as was the port on the docking module. As such, it did require impulse from the client spacecraft for hard dock. If this is all wrong, please correct me with references, but this is how I understand it to work.
Other way around, impulse is needed for soft docking, hard dock is established by pulling in hooks
-
We seem to be talking at cross purposes so I'll let it go. I know the active spacecraft has to fly up to the target with its own engines. By citing other examples I was trying to diplomatically correct...
...However, doesn't the docking system require a large momentum to engage ala APAS?
....which I do not think is correct. "The hybrid docking system of the Soyuz/Progress vein" does not require what is described as "a large momentum".
-
Question regarding the S6 truss:
Will this truss have the Visual Target dots as the P6 truss?
Alfonso
www.axmpaperspacescalemodels.com
-
Question regarding the Node 3 module:
Now that the Node 3 final location has changed from the nadir to the port side of Unity, how will the Node 3 Umbilical tray be placed for this new configuration?
-
Question regarding the S6 truss:
Will this truss have the Visual Target dots as the P6 truss?
No, according to photos of both trusses made before their installation in payload canister.
-
Concerning the hard dock/hybrid/probe and cone impulse vs hooks question, everyone should remember that MRM-1 will be mated to FGB Nadir via the ISS RMS, not using a propulsion system. Therefore, after soft dock, there will be no engine firings, the hard dock will be accomplished using the docking hooks. MRM-1 will use a probe and cone docking system. The best way to describe this attachment method is "berthing" as opposed to "docking".
Also, MLM will have a radial docking port, again probe and cone, to which something may be berthed using some sort of arm, maybe the ERA.
Concerning hybrid vs probe and cone, in this particular aspect, I believe the capabilities are similar to interface using what is effectively berthing vs docking.
-
I am currently reading two books on Soyuz and the Salyut/Mir programs, and something does not make sense to me. All of the dockings described there between Soyuz as well as the TKS-based Mir addon modules refer to retracting the docking probe to achieve hard dock. No mention is made in the books of the engines being needed. is this incorrect?
This brings up an interesting point: since the Mir node was on the end of the station, if a TKS module attaching to a node radial port via the Lyappa arm had fired its engine, the impulse would not travel anywhere near the station c/g, so the engine firing, instead of accomplishing a hard dock, should have simply imparted a spin to the station.
-
Discovery will deliver the Mini-Research Module 1 to the Russian segment. As I understand, it will use the hybrid docking system of the Soyuz/Progress vein and will be lifted out of the shuttle bay and installed on Zarya by the SSRMS. However, doesn't the docking system require a large momentum to engage ala APAS?
MRM-1 will use probe and cone, not hybrid.
-
Question regarding the Node 3 module:
Now that the Node 3 final location has changed from the nadir to the port side of Unity, how will the Node 3 Umbilical tray be placed for this new configuration?
When did this happen? Somehow I missed that! So, is this representation no longer correct? (Most recent assembly manifest graphic I could find - scroll down to the bottom)
http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts117/fdf/manifest.html
I take it Node 3 will be directly across from the Quest airlock now.
-
On another thread it was stated that the ISS would be lost if unmanned for a longer period of time without proper preparations, so I wonder, what exactly could happen to it that can be prevented by preparation but not by ground commandment?
-
On another thread it was stated that the ISS would be lost if unmanned for a longer period of time without proper preparations, so I wonder, what exactly could happen to it that can be prevented by preparation but not by ground commandment?
A lot of things but if I recall I think a failure in the internal cooling system would be the most critical failure where a crew would be needed to respond quickly or you lose everything. For the USOS, we jumper the cooling system in a way that we have two seperate loops so one failure can't do that - but it takes a while for the crew to do that and it couldn't be done last week. The next would probably be a loss of attitude control where we lose comm and again would need the crew to respond quickly.
-
Question regarding the Node 3 module:
Now that the Node 3 final location has changed from the nadir to the port side of Unity, how will the Node 3 Umbilical tray be placed for this new configuration?
When did this happen? Somehow I missed that! So, is this representation no longer correct? (Most recent assembly manifest graphic I could find - scroll down to the bottom)
http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts117/fdf/manifest.html
I take it Node 3 will be directly across from the Quest airlock now.
Actually Node 3 attachment was changed some time ago from nadir to port side, and reported on another thread. But just recently this appeared on Anik's schedule of ISS events:
end of June (TBD) - PMA-3 relocation from nadir to left port of Unity module with SSRMS help
So not sure if this indicates a change in plans or if the PMA-3 will be relocated back again before Node 3 arrives.
-
Question regarding the Node 3 module:
Now that the Node 3 final location has changed from the nadir to the port side of Unity, how will the Node 3 Umbilical tray be placed for this new configuration?
When did this happen? Somehow I missed that! So, is this representation no longer correct? (Most recent assembly manifest graphic I could find - scroll down to the bottom)
http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts117/fdf/manifest.html
I take it Node 3 will be directly across from the Quest airlock now.
Actually Node 3 attachment was changed some time ago from nadir to port side, and reported on another thread. But just recently this appeared on Anik's schedule of ISS events:
end of June (TBD) - PMA-3 relocation from nadir to left port of Unity module with SSRMS help
So not sure if this indicates a change in plans or if the PMA-3 will be relocated back again before Node 3 arrives.
The latter.
-
I have the question regarding to the yestarday reorientation of the ISS from +XVV to -XVV. Was it made by usin of CMG (Control Moment Gyroscope)? Or by thrusters (Progress, RCS of shuttle)?
I think that first option is correct. Never heard any word about this manevour and how it is done..
Thanks for answer!
-
I have the question regarding to the yestarday reorientation of the ISS from +XVV to -XVV. Was it made by usin of CMG (Control Moment Gyroscope)? Or by thrusters (Progress, RCS of shuttle)?
I think that first option is correct. Never heard any word about this manevour and how it is done..
Thanks for answer!
The orbiter takes over station maneuvering after docking - getting the station under control from free drift and into the new orientation after docking would overtax the CMGs and use up too much Russian segment propellants.
-
Thanks Kremer.. now I understand it very well and people from my astro/astronautic forum in Pl also ;)
Have the next one :
SSRMS moving away for mobile base relocation
Why it had to move to starboard side, I mean it wouldnt be easier to grapple S6 from stb side and then move with it to Workstation-1? I guess that for mobile transporter S6 would be to heavy, thats the reason of making this handoff movements (SSRMS-SRMS-SSRMS)?
-
With the current installation of S-6 ongoing, I have a query:
Why is the central truss piece known as 'S-0' (Starboard-0)? Surely its central position atop Destiny makes it neither port or starboard?
-
Can someone please describe the way the mast/mast motor deploy the arrays? I can't visualize the way the folded mast is pushed out and made ridged. What's going on inside that canister? Thanks
-
Can someone please describe the way the mast/mast motor deploy the arrays? I can't visualize the way the folded mast is pushed out and made ridged. What's going on inside that canister? Thanks
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=6062.0
-
Thanks, Jim. You seem to know exactly what to search for or you have the whole site mapped in your head.
-
Why did the "target dots" turn out not to be usable for SSRMS navigation? This probably was a significant lesson learned, as it'd have been a good thing for Canadarm2 to be able to confirm its position autonomously, rather than depending on crewmembers with video monitors as a backup to the joint sensors. :( This would only have applied to relocation tasks with ample clearances; one could imagine the arm making a series of inchworm moves without human involvement, once you can trust the control systems.
By the way, is any (non-L2) speeded-up video available of the SSRMS relocating as an inchworm? I would've expected NASA to assemble a series of such moves, for the visual interest.
In reading the interesting 62pp of this thread, I found mention of the target dots' purpose, as well as their not being provided on recent modules because they didn't work as planned -- but nothing as to why they failed.
NSF is the best! Thanks.
-
Why did the "target dots" turn out not to be usable for SSRMS navigation? This probably was a significant lesson learned, as it'd have been a good thing for Canadarm2 to be able to confirm its position autonomously, rather than depending on crewmembers with video monitors as a backup to the joint sensors. :( This would only have applied to relocation tasks with ample clearances; one could imagine the arm making a series of inchworm moves without human involvement, once you can trust the control systems.
By the way, is any (non-L2) speeded-up video available of the SSRMS relocating as an inchworm? I would've expected NASA to assemble a series of such moves, for the visual interest.
In reading the interesting 62pp of this thread, I found mention of the target dots' purpose, as well as their not being provided on recent modules because they didn't work as planned -- but nothing as to why they failed.
NSF is the best! Thanks.
Inadequate contrast using real-world cameras in real-world lighting conditions displayed on real-world monitors.
Worked great in the ivory tower, though.
-
In reading the interesting 62pp of this thread, I found mention of the target dots' purpose, as well as their not being provided on recent modules because they didn't work as planned -- but nothing as to why they failed.
NSF is the best! Thanks.
Remembering the several times the space vision system was used in early station assembly and MPLM supply missions, they kept running into problems because it couldn't recognize all the targets consistently enough to depend on it to reliably and accurately position or move anything with confidence.
It ended up that Mark I eyeballs were much more reliable, versatile and accurate, which is what is used today with the help of alignment guides, targets, and multiple views.
-
That makes sense; a fixed-sized dot on a white background isn't very distinctive once you add noise and fuzziness. They should've put a distinctive pattern around the periphery of the white circle, so it would stand out under even adverse conditions. You could even encode a unique dot-id for increased navigation confidence.
Next station...
-
That makes sense; a fixed-sized dot on a white background isn't very distinctive once you add noise and fuzziness. They should've put a distinctive pattern around the periphery of the white circle, so it would stand out under even adverse conditions.
Don't think that would help enough. The dots weren't visible at all in conditions of deep shadow. Sun reflection off shiny nearby surfaces could also cause the camera to "bloom" and white out, and sometimes the iris would close down and make the whole scene dark. The existing CCTV system simply doesn't have the dynamic range needed to handle all these conditions. The real fix is to replace the CCTV system, not the targets.
-
good morning,
I have a simple question re ISS size.
For the technolgy we have now is there a maximum size it can be build
& stay in orbit.
Reason for my question. Why we do not use each supply ship that is sent as an extra section, so it gets bigger & bigger,
I would guess, that the larger the size, the great effect on the pull of gravity to earth,
could this be overcome, by changing orbit a few miles.
Seems such waist when equipment is just sent to burn up in re-entry,
maybe sent it to the moon ?? specific location ?
have so many questions, hoping to find all the answers here in this forum.
thanks
"a new visiter to site"
-
1. Why we do not use each supply ship that is sent as an extra section, so it gets bigger & bigger,
2. I would guess, that the larger the size, the great effect on the pull of gravity to earth,could this be overcome, by changing orbit a few miles.
1. No $$$$
2. Size* or weight has no effect on the orbit of the ISS. Once an object is in orbit, it will stay in the same orbit
* other posters don't muck up the discussion with drag
-
1. Why we do not use each supply ship that is sent as an extra section, so it gets bigger & bigger,
2. I would guess, that the larger the size, the great effect on the pull of gravity to earth,could this be overcome, by changing orbit a few miles.
1. No $$$$
2. Size* or weight has no effect on the orbit of the ISS. Once an object is in orbit, it will stay in the same orbit
* other posters don't muck up the discussion with drag
Sorry, couldn't resist. Aside from drag created by more modules, aren't there other reasons to limit mass?
+ As mass increases, the amount of reboost you can do per unit of available thrust decreases, meaning it gets harder and harder to keep the station at the correct orbit.
+ Similarly, as you increase mass, it gets harder and harder for CMGs and thrusters to change attitude, at some point making the existing systems ineffective.
+ Each module would need some amount of power, cooling, and ventilation to keep it conditioned for habitation, which at some point takes away from power needed to to meaningful work, and ultimately exceeds the capabilities of the station power systems.
+ The mass would soon exceed the ratings of the trusses, which requires further design and buildout to support the adding of more junk modules.
+ Modules need regular cleaning and maintenance so they don't end up with big blobs of water and crap floating around in them. At some size, this becomes more than the crew can handle and still do meaningful work.
+ Modules need to be monitored for leaks, fire, etc. There isn't provisions to do this with the existing systems.
I'm sure there are many other reasons that I'm missing.
-
+ As mass increases, the amount of reboost you can do per unit of available thrust decreases, meaning it gets harder and harder to keep the station at the correct orbit.
;) reboost is required because drag
-
During last week's post launch news conference, there was some Q+A about expedition handover, overlap, crew changeout, etc. One of the guys (Gerst or Suffredini) was talking about "direct handover" vs "indirect handover". I didn't quite follow what he was talking about. I think it was in the context of making sure that the expedition crews had a full 7-10 days of overlap in order to do a good transition, without the distraction of also having a shuttle mission docked, but I didn't fully understand the jargon. Can someone explain?
-
During last week's post launch news conference, there was some Q+A about expedition handover, overlap, crew changeout, etc. One of the guys (Gerst or Suffredini) was talking about "direct handover" vs "indirect handover". I didn't quite follow what he was talking about. I think it was in the context of making sure that the expedition crews had a full 7-10 days of overlap in order to do a good transition, without the distraction of also having a shuttle mission docked, but I didn't fully understand the jargon. Can someone explain?
erioladastra is probably the one to answer this, but my understanding is that direct handover means the new Soyuz docks before the old one leaves, allowing the new crewmembers to take the handover directly from the departing crewmembers, while indirect handover means the old Soyuz leaves first, so the handover is performed by the three "holdover" crewmembers. (Obviously only applies with a 6-person crew; an indirect handover with a 3-person crew leaves ISS temporarily uninhabited.)
The reason why this might be necessary is shortage of Soyuz/Progress/ATV docking ports. There are currently only three, and a direct handover will require all three (two for the old Soyuzes and one for the new one). That means that the Soyuz rotation schedule will be tightly coupled with the Progress/ATV schedule. Indirect handover frees up a port so that the Progress/ATV schedule can be kept independent (to some extent) from the Soyuz schedule.
-
Ah, yes, that makes sense. With 3-person crew, I knew they wouldn't have 2 depart and leave just the 1 person as the "holdover" crewmember until the next 2 showed up (or leave it unmanned). I didn't think of 6-person crew.
It's going to be pretty tight for those 5 years ...
-
During last week's post launch news conference, there was some Q+A about expedition handover, overlap, crew changeout, etc. One of the guys (Gerst or Suffredini) was talking about "direct handover" vs "indirect handover". I didn't quite follow what he was talking about. I think it was in the context of making sure that the expedition crews had a full 7-10 days of overlap in order to do a good transition, without the distraction of also having a shuttle mission docked, but I didn't fully understand the jargon. Can someone explain?
erioladastra is probably the one to answer this, but my understanding is that direct handover means the new Soyuz docks before the old one leaves, allowing the new crewmembers to take the handover directly from the departing crewmembers, while indirect handover means the old Soyuz leaves first, so the handover is performed by the three "holdover" crewmembers. (Obviously only applies with a 6-person crew; an indirect handover with a 3-person crew leaves ISS temporarily uninhabited.)
The reason why this might be necessary is shortage of Soyuz/Progress/ATV docking ports. There are currently only three, and a direct handover will require all three (two for the old Soyuzes and one for the new one). That means that the Soyuz rotation schedule will be tightly coupled with the Progress/ATV schedule. Indirect handover frees up a port so that the Progress/ATV schedule can be kept independent (to some extent) from the Soyuz schedule.
While that is true that is not usually what we mean by direct or indirect (but I guess some might use those terms). Normally it means this: Direct we schedule N hours of timne for the crew to go over a handover book or specific topic (e.g., emergency response). Indirect is where we do handover by showing - for example robotics where the new person gets to feel the thing while the old person is there to guide and show features.
-
Is Brazil still contributing to the ISS program with an ELC? If so, which of them is it? If not, what happened to the project and who's making up for the change?
-
GSFC is in charge of the ELC's
-
question on CETA move:
Doesn't CETA have (unpowered) Grapple fixture attached?
Why use astronaut as end-effector?
-
question on CETA move:
Doesn't CETA have (unpowered) Grapple fixture attached?
Why use astronaut as end-effector?
No, it would be in the way
-
Isnt ESP-3 berthed to a UCCAS or a PAS? If so, when was the first deployed (UCCAS or PAS)?
-
ESP-3 is berthed to the P3 Zenith UCCAS which was deployed February 08, 2007 during Expedition 14 EVA 4. ESP-3 was berthed August 17, 2007 during STS-118.
-
what is the white circle with black center? i've seen quite a few of these along the truss on both sides. thanks.
-
what is the white circle with black center?
One of targets of Space Vision System.
-
I have a question about the orbital mechanics of the ISS. I understand that the ISS orbital plane "precesses" around the Earth by about 5 degrees per day, which results in the shuttle launch windows advancing by about 20 minutes per day. This is due to the non-spherical shape of the Earth, per an answer to an earlier question (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=4392.msg228972#msg228972) I posted.
Does this then mean that ISS overflight viewing conditions (i.e. lighting) should recur periodically? That is, since it advances 5 degrees / 20 minute per day, then it should take about 72 days to come full circle (ha!) and repeat the pattern.
I ask because I'm sometime disappointed with the evening overflight viewing opportunities. Right now in the U.S., ISS evening overflights are barely making it over the horizon before they blink out into shadow. But in Europe you've got fantastic viewing. If the 72-day cycle idea holds, then I just have to wait a few weeks and it'll probably be completely different timing. In two months it'll be like this again. Right?
Which leads to a related question. Is there any seasonal pattern to viewability? Is it generally better in the fall for the northern hemisphere, just to make an example?
-
Why we do not use each supply ship that is sent as an extra section, so it gets bigger & bigger
Other reasons: these ships would occupy docking and berthing ports. They don't each have two ports so they could not be daisy-chained.
Also, these ships are designed with less MMOD shielding, so they are statistically not allowed to stay attached longer than that designed-to period.
-
Got a question I moved from the SpaceX Dragon thread to here:
Were the CBM on the ISS nodes designed for a specific number of total Berth/Unbearth actions ? IE is there a upper limit on their total uses ? (Waranty number)
Just asking as it's my understanding that Dragon, and Cygnus will be using the CBM's to deliver cargo (20 times in total ?).
Thanks a bunch!
Duane
-
Got a question I moved from the SpaceX Dragon thread to here:
Were the CBM on the ISS nodes designed for a specific number of total Berth/Unbearth actions ? IE is there a upper limit on their total uses ? (Waranty number)
Just asking as it's my understanding that Dragon, and Cygnus will be using the CBM's to deliver cargo (20 times in total ?).
Thanks a bunch!
Duane
The only mechanical parts are the latches and bolting mechanisms on the active (station) CBMs, and I haven't read anything that specified anything about design life issues.
The only limited life issues would be for exposed seal material, but the seals are installed on the docking craft's CBM (the passive side), and would normally be inspected and replaced if necessary before reuse.
-
Just a pointer to an unanswered question (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=4392.msg382115#msg382115) about ISS orbital mechanics and viewing that I posted above a couple days ago ...
-
I have a question about the orbital mechanics of the ISS. I understand that the ISS orbital plane "precesses" around the Earth by about 5 degrees per day, which results in the shuttle launch windows advancing by about 20 minutes per day. This is due to the non-spherical shape of the Earth, per an answer to an earlier question (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=4392.msg228972#msg228972) I posted.
Don't forget (per the earlier question) that you also get an additional 4 minutes per day due to the Earth's motion around the Sun. So the average launch window advance is about 24 minutes per day.
Does this then mean that ISS overflight viewing conditions (i.e. lighting) should recur periodically? That is, since it advances 5 degrees / 20 minute per day, then it should take about 72 days to come full circle (ha!) and repeat the pattern.
Closer to 60 days due to the additional effect mentioned above, but yes.
Which leads to a related question. Is there any seasonal pattern to viewability? Is it generally better in the fall for the northern hemisphere, just to make an example?
No. The launch window advance is mainly a function of ISS altitude, not season. There is nothing keeping it "in sync" with the seasons.
-
Are estimates of the ISS mass required for reboosts. If yes, how do they keep track with all the coming and going?
-
Are estimates of the ISS mass required for reboosts. If yes, how do they keep track with all the coming and going?
They keep very strict accounting of every kg of mass that arrives or leaves the station. (One reason they're so picky with transfer item details on every Shuttle mission.)
-
What happens if a major module fails suddenly? Let's say, due to an undetected structure weakness, Node 1 suddenly ruptures (I'm imagining something too big to patch, though not so big the station breaks up).
-
Abandon ship.
-
Abandon ship.
OK for Node1&2 and the Lab but if it is Colombus or Kibo, can't they just close the hatch if the leak isn't immediately life threatening?
-
Abandon ship.
How do you abandon ship if you can't pass through Node 1?
-
Abandon ship.
How do you abandon ship if you can't pass through Node 1?
Are all the places a Soyuz can dock on the Russian segment?
-
Abandon ship.
How do you abandon ship if you can't pass through Node 1?
I would think the answer would be obvious.If there is no USOS CRV (Orion, Dragon), then the crew on the USOS side cannot escape.
-
Abandon ship.
How do you abandon ship if you can't pass through Node 1?
Are all the places a Soyuz can dock on the Russian segment?
Yes.
-
Abandon ship.
How do you abandon ship if you can't pass through Node 1?
First response is to close hatches and move closer to the Soyuz. If it is something like Columbus, JEM, or airlock we would seal it off and be done with it. If node 1, we would still have time to escape (by definition, if it too rapid of a depress we wouldn't be be talking further on this thread), seal it off. Depending on which hatches were closed in the USOS you might be able to fix it down the road with an interna EVA. You coul stay for a while on the RS but long term you would have to abandon ship.
-
During last week's post launch news conference, there was some Q+A about expedition handover, overlap, crew changeout, etc. One of the guys (Gerst or Suffredini) was talking about "direct handover" vs "indirect handover". I didn't quite follow what he was talking about. I think it was in the context of making sure that the expedition crews had a full 7-10 days of overlap in order to do a good transition, without the distraction of also having a shuttle mission docked, but I didn't fully understand the jargon. Can someone explain?
erioladastra is probably the one to answer this, but my understanding is that direct handover means the new Soyuz docks before the old one leaves, allowing the new crewmembers to take the handover directly from the departing crewmembers, while indirect handover means the old Soyuz leaves first, so the handover is performed by the three "holdover" crewmembers. (Obviously only applies with a 6-person crew; an indirect handover with a 3-person crew leaves ISS temporarily uninhabited.)
The reason why this might be necessary is shortage of Soyuz/Progress/ATV docking ports. There are currently only three, and a direct handover will require all three (two for the old Soyuzes and one for the new one). That means that the Soyuz rotation schedule will be tightly coupled with the Progress/ATV schedule. Indirect handover frees up a port so that the Progress/ATV schedule can be kept independent (to some extent) from the Soyuz schedule.
While that is true that is not usually what we mean by direct or indirect (but I guess some might use those terms). Normally it means this: Direct we schedule N hours of timne for the crew to go over a handover book or specific topic (e.g., emergency response). Indirect is where we do handover by showing - for example robotics where the new person gets to feel the thing while the old person is there to guide and show features.
Ok, I have to correct myself. Turns out in 6-crew land, indirect does mean what is above my post. Sorry for the error.
-
Apologies if this has been asked before, but I'm confused as to the difference between an ISS Expedition and an ISS Increment. Would anyone be able to explain what it is, please?
-
ISS Expedition is "mission" designation for a specific crew
Increment is a planning phase that may cover multiple expeditions, shuttle and Soyuz launches. It some times brackets large configuration changes to the ISS
Mods move this to ISS Q&A
-
Comparing the baselines for upcoming flights, I don't understand the plan for the SGANTs. STS-127 is bringing up a spare SGANT (stored on ESP-3). STS-132 is bringing up another SGANT, SGANT boom and has an EVA task for installing both on Z1. Is the STS-132 objective to replace the current SGANT on Z1 or install a second SGANT while leaving the current one untouched? If replacing the current one, I didn't see a uninstall task anywhere - is that a stage EVA objective? If installing a second SGANT, does this alleviate the no-KU periods caused by structural blockage? If installing a second SGANT, will both be managed concurrently or will one be a hot backup?
-
Do the exteriors of the ISS windows ever get cleaned? Some of the photos taken through them look a bit spotted (like this one (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-19/lores/iss018e043607.jpg)).
-
Do the exteriors of the ISS windows ever get cleaned? Some of the photos taken through them look a bit spotted (like this one (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-19/lores/iss018e043607.jpg)).
The problem is, what would you clean them with (that would be usable outside in the space environment), and can it be guaranteed that the result would be more transparent than just leaving a couple of small spots alone?
(ever clean spots or dust off your glasses or sunglasses and find you'd made things worse because you've now smeared a thin oily film over the surface and bright areas in your vision now have a faint halo effect?)
There's also the possibility that the 'spots' are the result of microscopic MMOD impacts. In that case, attempting any kind of cleaning will do no good (and could probably make things worse).
-
Comparing the baselines for upcoming flights, I don't understand the plan for the SGANTs. STS-127 is bringing up a spare SGANT (stored on ESP-3). STS-132 is bringing up another SGANT, SGANT boom and has an EVA task for installing both on Z1. Is the STS-132 objective to replace the current SGANT on Z1 or install a second SGANT while leaving the current one untouched? If replacing the current one, I didn't see a uninstall task anywhere - is that a stage EVA objective? If installing a second SGANT, does this alleviate the no-KU periods caused by structural blockage? If installing a second SGANT, will both be managed concurrently or will one be a hot backup?
The first spare could really be just a spare ORU. Those dishes with the horns, along with their electronics/positioning mount, are pretty large. (They've occasionally had them out for testing in the SSPF over the last several years.)
It's very likely that they're too large to be transported by anything other than in the orbiter cargo bay, in which case it's best to get the spare up and stored on orbit while the Shuttles are still flying.
-
Why don't they measure the weight of ISS by means of F=ma if the force applied by reboost thrusters is known and you measurecd the acceleration then it would be no problem to deduce the mass of the station. So why calculate the mass for every kg brought to the US when measuring would be so easy...
-
Why don't they measure the weight of ISS by means of F=ma if the force applied by reboost thrusters is known and you measurecd the acceleration then it would be no problem to deduce the mass of the station. So why calculate the mass for every kg brought to the US when measuring would be so easy...
Its because as well as the total mass they also need to know how that mass is distributed for calculating center of mass, and the forces (torques) acting on various sections/joints of the station during maneuvers.
Mass is tracked to the nearest 1/10 of a lb (currently 685930.9 lb) which is better than one part per million - the accuracy with which the force of the thrusters is known will be orders of magnitude less than this.
EDIT: A good example of what happens when you get mass distribution calculations wrong: during EVA 2 of the recent STS-119/15A mission the ISS lost attitude control because the Control Moment Gyroscopes (CMGs) were programmed with the wrong parameters. These were based on the Mobile Transporter (MT) being at worksite 4, when in fact it was actually at worksite 1.
All was well though, because the orbiter took over station control and maintained correct attitude.
-
They will install a second SGANT including boom on Z1, STS-127 brings up a spare ORU SGANT without boom.
Analyst
-
Thanks Analyst. Any insight on the operational implications of having 2 SGANTs on Z1?
Also, are there other components of ISS that will be "doubled up" over the remaining flights?
-
Do the CMGs rely only on the mass estimates or do the have some kind of control feedback loop with accelorameters? i had thought that a lot of the the attitude control and other parts of spacecraft conrtol could be done with feedback loops and acceleration meassurement, maybe meassuring on different parts of the spacecraft.
If it is based on calculation rather then direct measurement, does this practice have it's roots in the age of the technology involved which for the most part was established many years before small accurate acceleration sensors became available?
Does the Soyuz also base it's thruster firings on caclulation rathern than on sensor measurements?
-
Do the CMGs rely only on the mass estimates or do the have some kind of control feedback loop with accelorameters? i had thought that a lot of the the attitude control and other parts of spacecraft conrtol could be done with feedback loops and acceleration meassurement, maybe meassuring on different parts of the spacecraft.
If it is based on calculation rather then direct measurement, does this practice have it's roots in the age of the technology involved which for the most part was established many years before small accurate acceleration sensors became available?
The mass has to be known for the gain settings (even with accels). This is customary for most feedback systems
-
I've a kind of silly question I've been thinking about for years.
Can a human propel himself backwards by blowing as strong as he can when in zero-g? i mean he definitely can to some extent otherwise F=ma wouldn't be true, but is it enough so that one feels it?
-
I've a kind of silly question I've been thinking about for years.
Can a human propel himself backwards by blowing as strong as he can when in zero-g? i mean he definitely can to some extent otherwise F=ma wouldn't be true, but is it enough so that one feels it?
The person has to breath in as well as breathing out.
Heads can be turned to point (nearly) the opposite direction.
-
He might do better with burritos and a Zippo.
-
Yeah but breathing in is much slower and therefor it should be possible to propel onself when blowing very strongly, however I'm unsure how great the effect would be.
I doubt burritos would work better though, even if it were pure methane the flame wouldn't speed up the molecules in one particular direction therefor you won't get very far with that, appart from doing that in a space station is neither nice nor acceptable from a safety point of view, while blowing is probably safe.
-
Can a human propel himself backwards by blowing as strong as he can when in zero-g? i mean he definitely can to some extent otherwise F=ma wouldn't be true, but is it enough so that one feels it?
Density of air at sea level is roughly 1.2 kg/m^3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_density) = 0.0012 g/cc
Amount of air a typical adult male can exhale in one breath ~4.6l (http://) = 4600cc => 5.52g
Not sure what velocity you can exhale at, but lets say 10 m/s as a WAG*.
Assuming a 70kg (with a lung full of air) astronaut...
Plugging in dV = 10 * ln (70000/69994.48) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_equation)**
= ~ 0.00079 m/s
Assuming I haven't messed something up, this is not going to get you anywhere in a hurry.
* this feels optimistic, but a sneeze may be better (http://mlevit.wordpress.com/2007/07/16/random-fact-2-speed-we-sneeze-at/).
** OK, with a mass ratio like this you don't really need the rocket equation, but this is spaceflight gosh darnit ;)
-
I doubt burritos would work better though, even if it were pure methane the flame wouldn't speed up the molecules in one particular direction
No problem. You just need a properly designed nozzle. And Russians are way to tough to complain about the fragrance. You might need to disable the fire suppression for a second though.
And if you don't think you could get a respectable ISP from burritos, you haven't tried Jumburrito in Midland, Texas.
-
Sorry to break into the "fun with methane" discussion ;), but I was wondering can individual modules be remotely depressurized? For example, if there is a hull breach in Destiny, can Unity be depressurized in order to ingress Destiny and make repairs?
-
Sorry to break into the "fun with methane" discussion ;), but I was wondering can individual modules be remotely depressurized? For example, if there is a hull breach in Destiny, can Unity be depressurized in order to ingress Destiny and make repairs?
The only module with that capability always activated is the US Lab. Columbus and JPM contain that capability that would require some software configuration and the US Airlock would require crew action to reconfigure. Node 1, Node 2 and the Russian Segment do not have the automated capability to do so. There's always ways you could do this manually, but that's complex and not very attractive from the consummables standpoint.
-
Sorry to break into the "fun with methane" discussion ;), but I was wondering can individual modules be remotely depressurized? For example, if there is a hull breach in Destiny, can Unity be depressurized in order to ingress Destiny and make repairs?
The only module with that capability always activated is the US Lab. Columbus and JPM contain that capability that would require some software configuration and the US Airlock would require crew action to reconfigure. Node 1, Node 2 and the Russian Segment do not have the automated capability to do so. There's always ways you could do this manually, but that's complex and not very attractive from the consummables standpoint.
Great response, thanks!!!!
-
From http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12063.75
UPA Failure: On Thursday (4/23) evening, the Urine Processing Assembly experienced a check valve fault for each of four consecutive runs, which appears to be a re-occurrence of the sticky check valve issues previously seen on the UPA. It had been determined before that the check valve is not required and will be removed. Since the UPA had lost the capability to process urine and the WSTA (Wastewater Storage Tank Assembly was 70% full, the crew has been directed to use the SM ASU toilet facility through this weekend. Specialists will convene to determine a forward plan which includes using the WHC (Waste & Hygiene Compartment) in manual mode, and developing IFM (In-Flight Maintenance) procedures to remove the valve.
<snip>
It is my understanding that these units need to be fully operational before the ISS is go for a six man crew. Does anyone know what the go/no go cutoff date is?
Perhaps better asked here than in the Expedition 19 thread.
-
Sorry to break into the "fun with methane" discussion ;), but I was wondering can individual modules be remotely depressurized? For example, if there is a hull breach in Destiny, can Unity be depressurized in order to ingress Destiny and make repairs?
The only module with that capability always activated is the US Lab. Columbus and JPM contain that capability that would require some software configuration and the US Airlock would require crew action to reconfigure. Node 1, Node 2 and the Russian Segment do not have the automated capability to do so. There's always ways you could do this manually, but that's complex and not very attractive from the consummables standpoint.
To be clear, for Columbus and JEM, the software config is commandable from the ground so it does have the capability.
-
During a interview with Sandra Magnus she mentioned that as part of the shift to six person crew the communication ability will be upgraded from two channels to four. when is this and are there any available details about this? Any necessary hardware upgrades either on ground or orbit? Any reason this hadn't been done before?
-
During a interview with Sandra Magnus she mentioned that as part of the shift to six person crew the communication ability will be upgraded from two channels to four. when is this and are there any available details about this? Any necessary hardware upgrades either on ground or orbit? Any reason this hadn't been done before?
STS-132 is currently manifested to bring up the new dish and support (see the previous page starting with #965).
There's still not a lot of details about the dual Ku channels - whether they will have the capability to immediately utilize the signals and bandwidth, or whether it's dependent on the new upgraded TDRS replacements in several years.
-
I have a question about the temp move of PMA-3...
Why couldn't they just relocate it back up to the Z1 CMB and leave it there for possible future needs?
I realize it's passive, but recall there was a PMA stored there for a period of time previously.
Is there some other problem with thermal controls or other long-term survival conditions at that location? Or is it more a matter that EVAs would be required for installation/removal?
-
I'd like to know whether Progress launches from Korou are planned and how much this would increase the upmass.
-
I have a question about the temp move of PMA-3...
Why couldn't they just relocate it back up to the Z1 CMB and leave it there for possible future needs?
The Z1 MBM is permanently blocked by the S0 truss.
-
I'd like to know whether Progress launches from Korou are planned and how much this would increase the upmass.
Nothing official. Upmass capability wouldn't necessarily increase very much because Progress would be volumetrically restricted. Depends on the payload manifest.
-
I'd like to know whether Progress launches from Korou are planned and how much this would increase the upmass.
Given the inclination of ISS, I'd expect a serious negative impact on the Progress' capacity. Orbital plane changes expend a lot of fuel.
-
I'd like to know whether Progress launches from Korou are planned and how much this would increase the upmass.
Given the inclination of ISS, I'd expect a serious negative impact on the Progress' capacity. Orbital plane changes expend a lot of fuel.
No need for a plane change, just choose the azimuth to launch directly into the ISS plane, as ATV does.
-
I'd like to know whether Progress launches from Korou are planned and how much this would increase the upmass.
Given the inclination of ISS, I'd expect a serious negative impact on the Progress' capacity. Orbital plane changes expend a lot of fuel.
No need for a plane change, just choose the azimuth to launch directly into the ISS plane, as ATV does.
I was talking relatively here, the inclination (guess I should've used that term) isn't beneficial. The question remains, would you gain any capacity relative to Baykonur? The real benefit at Kourou is for (near-)equatorial launches, not for an orbit like ISS has.
-
Any orbit other than polar or retrograde benefits from an equatorial launch, the question is how much. Obviously the closer to 0 degrees inclination the better.
I don't know how to calculate the benefit.
-
Kinda rough, but I'm getting a benefit from equatorial launches as long as the orbit is less than around 82 degrees, compared to launch from Baykonur.
-
Any orbit other than polar or retrograde benefits from an equatorial launch, the question is how much. Obviously the closer to 0 degrees inclination the better.
I don't know how to calculate the benefit.
The effect is a wash if you assume spherical earth in the computations. The equatorial bulge provides a slight benefit.
-
Any orbit other than polar or retrograde benefits from an equatorial launch, the question is how much. Obviously the closer to 0 degrees inclination the better.
I don't know how to calculate the benefit.
The effect is a wash if you assume spherical earth in the computations. The equatorial bulge provides a slight benefit.
This is extremely rounded (and I may be goofy besides), but my understanding is the benefit from launching due east at a given lattitude comes from the eastward rotational velocity of the ground at that lattitude. So if the ground is moving eastwards at the equator at 1000mph (it's actually a little more than that) and at the poles at 0mph, then you can calculate the eastward velocity for a given lattitude by calculating the circumferance of the earth at that lattitude and multiplying by the ration of that diameter vs. the equatorial diameter against the equatorial velocity. So I measured on a Robinson projection with a tape measure and came up with 0.9x ratio at 45deg. So if you moved Kourou from Guiana to Bangor, ME, you wouldn't lose much.
(Robinson projections are the ones with correct lattitude distances, and look like wide, flat ovals in consequence.)
-
Any orbit other than polar or retrograde benefits from an equatorial launch, the question is how much. Obviously the closer to 0 degrees inclination the better.
I don't know how to calculate the benefit.
The effect is a wash if you assume spherical earth in the computations. The equatorial bulge provides a slight benefit.
This is extremely rounded (and I may be goofy besides), but my understanding is the benefit from launching due east at a given lattitude comes from the eastward rotational velocity of the ground at that lattitude. So if the ground is moving eastwards at the equator at 1000mph (it's actually a little more than that) and at the poles at 0mph, then you can calculate the eastward velocity for a given lattitude by calculating the circumferance of the earth at that lattitude and multiplying by the ration of that diameter vs. the equatorial diameter against the equatorial velocity. So I measured on a Robinson projection with a tape measure and came up with 0.9x ratio at 45deg. So if you moved Kourou from Guiana to Bangor, ME, you wouldn't lose much.
(Robinson projections are the ones with correct lattitude distances, and look like wide, flat ovals in consequence.)
For a spherical earth the effects cancel entirely. Might be easier just to show my work.
First cut: assume spherical earth, radius r and angular velocity omega.
So the easterly speed at any latitude (lat) on the earth's surface due to earth rotation is:
ve = r*omega*cos(lat)
The relationship between latitude, launch azimuth (az), and orbital inclination (i) is:
cos(i) = cos(lat)*sin(az)
But the only component of the earth's rotation that helps during launch is the component along the launch azimuth:
vl = ve*sin(az)
so after a little algebra, we get:
vl = r*omega*cos(i)
Amazing, the effects of launch site latitude and launch azimuth cancel out, and the "earth assist" simplifies to a pure function of inclination.
Accounting for the equatorial bulge, r gets a little bigger toward the equator, which increases the rotational velocity a bit (about 0.3%).
Edit: fixed last reference to omega.
-
Can someone tell me how much worse the radiation environment for a HST's orbit is when compared to the one of ISS?
If one could reboost a space station at very little cost (for example using a VASIMIR engine or M-E thrusters (if they are actually possible)) would it be feasable to have it at an altitude of >500 km? It has been mentioned that a Soyuz can only go as high as 450 km, is this only because of too little fuel and could therefor be overcome by upgrades? And is PPTS planned to be capable of reaching higher?
-
One Soyuz or Progress is docked to the ISS, do they rely on station power or their own solar panels?
-
Is there a stated reason as to why the ground controllers will be "driving" CanadaArm2 during the PMA-3 relocation from Destiny nadir to Destiny port? I naively figure with 6 crew members onboard that they could accomplish this.
-
Why are Node 2 and Node 3 the same size, but Node 1 is smaller?
I know the short answer is that they were built by different contractors, but I was wondering more about the historical reasons. Seems to me that it would be a nice place to put extra racks, if nothing else. And you would have the advantage of all three nodes using the same design.
-
Why are Node 2 and Node 3 the same size, but Node 1 is smaller?
You're asking it backward. Node 2 and 3 were originally to be the same size as Node 1, then 2 and 3 were expanded.
I know the short answer is that they were built by different contractors, but I was wondering more about the historical reasons. Seems to me that it would be a nice place to put extra racks, if nothing else.
Correct, and that is why 2 and 3 were expanded. The decision was made after Node 1 was already under construction.
-
Not sure if it really goes here as it doesn't constitute a question but...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8064060.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8064060.stm)
-
Not really a Q or A - plus it already has a dedicated thread on the news side ;)
-
Sorry, like i said i wasn't sure if it belonged here. I did check the news section first to see if there was already a thread.
Edit:I hadn't noticed there was an ISS section on the forum - sorry
-
Life_Support_32 or others;
Can you expound on why this request was make by ISS?
"Discussed late breaking ISS (International Space Station) request to provide iodinated water on STS-127 and other flights.”
from Chris' recent article http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/05/atlantis-heading-to-california-fleet-status-update/
Thanks
-
Zvezda was launched on July 12, 2000. It docked with Zarya on July 26, 2000.
Why did it take so long for it to catch up to the station? I don't recall that much of a gap between launch and docking before.
-
Does the ISS have one same side of it always facing earth (like the moon) or is it's rotation is independent of it's translation around the earth (like HST) ?
Congrats to the new expedition, finally 6 people in space. With sts-127 there will be a lot of people up there!
Bronder
-
Does the ISS have one same side of it always facing earth (like the moon) or is it's rotation is independent of it's translation around the earth (like HST) ?
Its attitude is mantained thanks to gyroscopes, and its "bottom side" -the nadir section, with Pirs, PMA-3...- usually points toward Earth, during the entire orbit. I suppose HST is left to orbit with the same orientation so that it can keep its watch on a certain area of the sky during a prolongued period.
However, ISS can -an does- change its attitude from time to time, especially during Shuttle missions (nadir is still facing Earth, but aft becomes forward and viceversa) At times, it also goes in free-drift, but only during relatively brief periods.
If I'm not mistaken, ISS doesn't use gravity gradient attitude stabilization, am I right?
-
snip
If I'm not mistaken, ISS doesn't use gravity gradient attitude stabilization, am I right?
I don't think so. Gravity gradient requires the long section to be oriented up and down relative to the Earth.
Danny Deger
-
snip
If I'm not mistaken, ISS doesn't use gravity gradient attitude stabilization, am I right?
I don't think so. Gravity gradient requires the long section to be oriented up and down relative to the Earth.
Danny Deger
Correct. ISS flies Torque Equilibrium Attitude. This is not a gg-stable attitude, but an attitude that *balances* gg and aero torques (and aero torques are significant for a vehicle the size of ISS).
-
Does the ISS have one same side of it always facing earth (like the moon) or is it's rotation is independent of it's translation around the earth (like HST) ?
Its attitude is mantained thanks to gyroscopes, and its "bottom side" -the nadir section, with Pirs, PMA-3...- usually points toward Earth, during the entire orbit. I suppose HST is left to orbit with the same orientation so that it can keep its watch on a certain area of the sky during a prolongued period.
I thought gyroscopes and thrusters were used to maintain the most efficient attitude for power generation from the solar arrays.
Why do they want one side to usually face towards Earth? Radio communications? There must be a good reason to spend all that effort witht the gyroscopes and the thrusters to desaturize them just to keep it's "bottom" facing earth most of the time.
If it's due to comms, then I guess it's cheaper or simpler to keep attitude than to use more antennas spread around the station.
-
Does the ISS have one same side of it always facing earth (like the moon) or is it's rotation is independent of it's translation around the earth (like HST) ?
Its attitude is mantained thanks to gyroscopes, and its "bottom side" -the nadir section, with Pirs, PMA-3...- usually points toward Earth, during the entire orbit. I suppose HST is left to orbit with the same orientation so that it can keep its watch on a certain area of the sky during a prolongued period.
I thought gyroscopes and thrusters were used to maintain the most efficient attitude for power generation from the solar arrays.
Incorrect. The solar arrays are on two-axis gimbals (alpha and beta); they are capable of tracking the sun efficiently regardless of the station's attitude.
Why do they want one side to usually face towards Earth? Radio communications? There must be a good reason to spend all that effort witht the gyroscopes and the thrusters to desaturize them just to keep it's "bottom" facing earth most of the time.
TEA attitudes are defined Earth-relative, so it requires *less* effort, not *more* effort, to maintain an Earth-relative attitude with the gyros than an inertial attitude.
The particular TEA attitude commonly flown by the station (+XVV) was chosen because it maintains more of the ISS pressurized volume within the microgravity "sweet spot" than other attitudes. The thermal design of the US segment was optimized for this attitude.
-
If the station were allowed to go into free drift (all attitude control discontinued) for an extended period of time, would it naturally fall into any particular orientation, or just tumble?
-
One Soyuz or Progress is docked to the ISS, do they rely on station power or their own solar panels?
Once docked they use ISS power.
-
During ISS construction there were multiple CETA cart transfers from the port side to starboard of the MT and vice versa, each taking several EVA hours. With the MT able to reach the most outboard worksites (WS1 and WS8) with one CETA cart at port and one at starboard, why were these swaps done? The clearance was there from the beginning, wasn't it?
Analyst
-
If something were to go wrong with Quest during a US EVA, could the astronauts ingress Pirs or a Soyuz?
-
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-104/lores/jsc2001e19791.jpg (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-104/lores/jsc2001e19791.jpg)
If the problem is with the crew lock (small diameter section), they can depress the equipment lock (large diameter section) and complete ingress there.
The equipment lock is fully equipped to handle EVAs. It has all the same umbilical hookups as the crew lock and the equipment can handle repeated depress/repress cycles.
If there is a orbiter docked, they can ingress through the orbiter airlock, though that takes more work. The shuttle crew will have to return to the shuttle, close hatches between orbiter/ISS, leak checks, depress shuttle lock, ingress, repress shuttle lock, re-open hatches.
I think Pirs also has some ability to support contingency ingress by US EMUs but I don't know the degree of that ability.
-
During ISS construction there were multiple CETA cart transfers from the port side to starboard of the MT and vice versa, each taking several EVA hours. With the MT able to reach the most outboard worksites (WS1 and WS8) with one CETA cart at port and one at starboard, why were these swaps done? The clearance was there from the beginning, wasn't it?
Analyst
Not with the MT extended CETA connectors, IIRC. One of the reasons they swapped it out (on the one side) for a shorter connector.
It's still sort of confusing, IMO, why they didn't just have CETA cart mounts on either S1 or a couple of the other truss segments. It's not like they're so important they have to be there for every mission. (It's a fact that there's a huge amount more EVA time spent swapping carts back and forth than actually using them for anything important.)
They could have saved a lot of EVA time if the carts were mounted out of the way to begin with, and only moved to the track temporarily if they were needed during assembly and maintenance EVAs.
-
some JEM questions!!
why does the JEM-EF has two grapple fixtures?? isn't enough with only one??
are the EF payloads designed to be transfered through the JEM-PS airlock??
the HTV will deliver EF payloads is that correct??
is there a special reason the three EF payloads flying in STS-127 are flying in the JEM-ELM and not in a future HTV mission??
-
why does the JEM-EF has two grapple fixtures?? isn't enough with only one??
Nope. The JEF will be unberthed from the payload bay by the SSRMS (on Node 2) and handed off to the SRMS. The SSRMS will rebase to the MT, then the SRMS will hand the JEF back to the SSRMS. The SSRMS will then berth the the JEF on the JPM.
Since the grapple fixtures are both on the zenith side of the JEF, and the Node 2 and Destiny PDGFs are both on the nadir side, the SSRMS cannot move the JEF directly from the payload bay to the JPM.
are the EF payloads designed to be transfered through the JEM-PS airlock??
That one I don't know.
the HTV will deliver EF payloads is that correct??
Correct.
is there a special reason the three EF payloads flying in STS-127 are flying in the JEM-ELM and not in a future HTV mission??
The simplest answer is simply that NASA has agreed to launch them on the shuttle.
More specifically, and IANAE, my understanding is that one of the JLE payloads (the ICS-EF) needs to be on-orbit before the HTV can be berthed. I believe it handles communication between the ISS and the HTV.
Since it is necessary to launch one payload and its carrier (JLE) and absent any severe upmass restrictions, there was little sense in leaving the other two spots on the JLE vacant.
-
are the EF payloads designed to be transfered through the JEM-PS airlock??
No.
EF ORUs and JEM Small Fine Arm are compatible design with JEM-PM airlock.
is there a special reason the three EF payloads flying in STS-127 are flying in the JEM-ELM and not in a future HTV mission??
The simplest answer is simply that NASA has agreed to launch them on the shuttle.
More specifically, and IANAE, my understanding is that one of the JLE payloads (the ICS-EF) needs to be on-orbit before the HTV can be berthed. I believe it handles communication between the ISS and the HTV.
The simplest answer is correct.
ICS-EF is not used HTV operations, directly.
HTV Proximity ops. will use another communication link (Proximity Communication System: PROX). It's already installed JPM.
-
Is there any plan in place to put a human through a simulated mission to Mars and measure post landing performance?
Danny Deger
-
I don't think you can. You can simulate the outbound trip, but Mars is 0.38g so how do you simulate that on Earth? The only way I could imaging is a variation of the bed rest studies for the surface duration, or do the outbound leg on the ISS, 190 days on earth (0.38 of the predicted 500 sol mars surface stay) and the return leg on the ISS.
-
Vomit comets. I don't know if the Centrifuge Accommodation Module was designed to spin at less than 1g, but it was canceled any way.
Edit due to bob's below: I had it in my head, but didn't say that it would have to be small animals or microbes in a Mars-g CAM.
-
The CAM rotor (the actual centrifuge) only ever held the Life Sciences Box. The bulk of the module was a static storage volume.
-
The water supply in the Russian segment uses silver ions to purify it. Is this the same as colloidal silver, overuse of which can turn a person's skin blue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argyria)? (I read about that condition recently, so I'm just curious!)
-
I don't think you can. You can simulate the outbound trip, but Mars is 0.38g so how do you simulate that on Earth?
Hmmm....
Being that Helium pocesses "lifting power" when contained, I wonder if it could be made practical to contain enough Helium to remove 62% of a person's weight.
According to http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99471.htm you need about 163 grams of helium to lift 1 kg of mass. Other sources show about 440L (at 20C) to lift 1 lb.
For a 200lb human, we'd need to remove 124lbs... Works out to 54,560L of helium. Yikes. That's almost 55 m^3. Add even more to remove the weight of the containing device itself.
Any practicality at all???
Kelly
-
But thats not the same,with it walking and jumping might feel quite like on mars ,at least unless your balloon is small enough or your not jumping high enough to make it act like a drag chute (which is quite problematic in itself). A team at the local university build a ballon with such properties for a festifal a few years back and they could jump from the top of a high building without any problem due to drag.
The other thing is that a balloon doesn't remove gravity from your organs and thats what we really care about/ We don't care so much about walking in 0.38g but we care about what your blodd circulation and your organs feel aboiut 0.38g
Building such a balloon is no problem but its nowhere near simulation low g
-
A while ago there was talk of building new mini CMGs to replace the current units. Three minis would replace each full size unit, and would be small enough to be launched as pressurised cargo (PMA/Quest AL hatch limits).
Has this progressed any further.
-
The other thing is that a balloon doesn't remove gravity from your organs and thats what we really care about/ We don't care so much about walking in 0.38g but we care about what your blodd circulation and your organs feel aboiut 0.38g
Ah-ha... I had not considered that aspect, which is clearly very important.
cheers!
-
A while ago there was talk of building new mini CMGs to replace the current units. Three minis would replace each full size unit, and would be small enough to be launched as pressurised cargo (PMA/Quest AL hatch limits).
Has this progressed any further.
No.
-
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-104/lores/jsc2001e19791.jpg (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-104/lores/jsc2001e19791.jpg)
If the problem is with the crew lock (small diameter section), they can depress the equipment lock (large diameter section) and complete ingress there.
The equipment lock is fully equipped to handle EVAs. It has all the same umbilical hookups as the crew lock and the equipment can handle repeated depress/repress cycles.
If there is a orbiter docked, they can ingress through the orbiter airlock, though that takes more work. The shuttle crew will have to return to the shuttle, close hatches between orbiter/ISS, leak checks, depress shuttle lock, ingress, repress shuttle lock, re-open hatches.
I think Pirs also has some ability to support contingency ingress by US EMUs but I don't know the degree of that ability.
There would be no radio or cooling ingressing via Pirs I believe.
-
A while ago there was talk of building new mini CMGs to replace the current units. Three minis would replace each full size unit, and would be small enough to be launched as pressurised cargo (PMA/Quest AL hatch limits).
Has this progressed any further.
No.
Out of interest, how far along the path did it get; was it just an idea someone flaoted that got relayed to a journalist (Coppinger, I think) or did some in depth engineering find it unworkable?
-
should we expect brighter ISS sights from earth as the beta angle rises??? I'm looking forward for the brightest-ever (-3.4) pass I've ever seen!!
-
Does the ISS use the RMS Situational Awareness Display (RSAD), tested during STS-85, to maneuver loads out of direct view of the SSRMS operator, or is it another system? If it is diferent, was it derived from RSAD?
-
Does the ISS use the RMS Situational Awareness Display (RSAD), tested during STS-85, to maneuver loads out of direct view of the SSRMS operator, or is it another system? If it is diferent, was it derived from RSAD?
ISS uses DOUG (Dynamic Onboard Ubiquitous Graphics) rather than RSAD. I think some of the information displayed on RSAD is already available on the ISS robotics workstation anyway.
-
Does the ISS use the RMS Situational Awareness Display (RSAD), tested during STS-85, to maneuver loads out of direct view of the SSRMS operator, or is it another system? If it is diferent, was it derived from RSAD?
ISS uses DOUG (Dynamic Onboard Ubiquitous Graphics) rather than RSAD. I think some of the information displayed on RSAD is already available on the ISS robotics workstation anyway.
Okay, so I guess my next question would be is DOUG derived from RSAD, or was it developed independently?
-
Does the ISS use the RMS Situational Awareness Display (RSAD), tested during STS-85, to maneuver loads out of direct view of the SSRMS operator, or is it another system? If it is diferent, was it derived from RSAD?
ISS uses DOUG (Dynamic Onboard Ubiquitous Graphics) rather than RSAD. I think some of the information displayed on RSAD is already available on the ISS robotics workstation anyway.
Okay, so I guess my next question would be is DOUG derived from RSAD, or was it developed independently?
Independently. DOUG can also be used with the shuttle RMS.
-
Has there ever been mention of a Expedition crew member to two staying on ISS for a year?
-
Please allow me to re-phrase my previous question. Are both ACVS and RSAD still in use, and if so, in what capacity? If not, what replaced them? And was ACVS used during missions 2A-6A as planned?
ETA: Same questions re: OSVS (Orbiter Space Vision System)
-
Hello,
For my website, I try to explain what is happening with the P6's batteries.
I have found an interesting paper here :
gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/TM-2004-213218.pdf
In this paper, they mention batteries 2B1, 2B2, 2B3, 4B1, 4B2 and 4B3.
But during STS-119 EVA2, they spoke about batteries 2B1-1, 2B1-2, 2B2-1 and 2B2-2.
So, my questions are :
-what is the actual configuration of the batteries ?
-why do they need change ? I suppose that is because they are the oldest of the station...
-what did they do durong STS-119 EVA2 ? I don't understand the usefulness of beaking torque of the bolts and retorquing them after...
Thank you very much for help !
-
Hey there! Did a search on this but didn't find anything on the forums.
Anyways, I was watching NASA TV today and saw the tour of the pressurized section. There was some talk of the Fire Ports.
I am curious as to the operation of these fire ports. What do they do, how are they activated and so on. Thanks!
-
Hey there! Did a search on this but didn't find anything on the forums.
Anyways, I was watching NASA TV today and saw the tour of the pressurized section. There was some talk of the Fire Ports.
I am curious as to the operation of these fire ports. What do they do, how are they activated and so on. Thanks!
They are just holes in panel in which to place the nozzle of a fire extinguisher.
-
Please allow me to re-phrase my previous question. Are both ACVS and RSAD still in use, and if so, in what capacity? If not, what replaced them? And was ACVS used during missions 2A-6A as planned?
ETA: Same questions re: OSVS (Orbiter Space Vision System)
I'm not familiar with ACVS (robotics is not my specialty). RSAD is still in use for shuttle robotics (SRMS). OSVS is no longer in use, and OSVS visual targets were never placed on the newer modules like Node 2, Columbus, and Kibo.
-
Hey there! Did a search on this but didn't find anything on the forums.
Anyways, I was watching NASA TV today and saw the tour of the pressurized section. There was some talk of the Fire Ports.
I am curious as to the operation of these fire ports. What do they do, how are they activated and so on. Thanks!
They are just holes in panel in which to place the nozzle of a fire extinguisher.
How do you mean? Is this for the purpose of suppressing a fire behind the bulkhead or equipment?
Is there an automated fire suppression system on ISS?
-
1. Is this for the purpose of suppressing a fire behind the bulkhead or equipment?
2. Is there an automated fire suppression system on ISS?
1. Yes
2. The fire extinguishers are portable/handheld
-
Has there ever been mention of a Expedition crew member to two staying on ISS for a year?
I'm not entirely sure if this is what you are asking, but ISTR the Russians proposed year long stays in 2004 http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14059
-
Has there ever been mention of a Expedition crew member to two staying on ISS for a year?
I'm not entirely sure if this is what you are asking, but ISTR the Russians proposed year long stays in 2004 http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14059
That's exactly what I was looking for.
Going by what was said in that blurb, maybe we will see in happen sometime in the next 5 years.
-
Any plan yet to increase the crew size to 7 once a 4-crew Orion is operational and servicing the ISS?
-
what is the actual configuration of the batteries?
P6 truss has twelve batteries. Six of them (2B1A, 2B1B, 2B2A, 2B2B, 2B3A, 2B3B) are used for storage of power from solar array 2B, another six (4B1A, 4B1B, 4B2A, 4B2B, 4B3A, 4B3B) - from 4B.
why do they need change?
Batteries have a design life of 6.5 years, so six batteries of 2B channel will be replaced during STS-127 and six batteries of 4B channel - during STS-132.
what did they do during STS-119 EVA2?
They have broken torque and re-torqued H1 and H2 bolts of each of six batteries of 2B channel. It would be very bad if STS-127 crew could not do it, so STS-119 crew has checked torque of bolts beforehand. There is confidence now in successful loosening of bolts during STS-127 mission.
-
Thank you VERY MUCH anik for these clear and accurate informations !
You're a living Wikipedia !
-
Please allow me to re-phrase my previous question. Are both ACVS and RSAD still in use, and if so, in what capacity? If not, what replaced them? And was ACVS used during missions 2A-6A as planned?
ETA: Same questions re: OSVS (Orbiter Space Vision System)
I'm not familiar with ACVS (robotics is not my specialty). RSAD is still in use for shuttle robotics (SRMS). OSVS is no longer in use, and OSVS visual targets were never placed on the newer modules like Node 2, Columbus, and Kibo.
Thanks Jorge!!!!
-
should we expect brighter ISS sights from earth as the beta angle rises??? I'm looking forward for the brightest-ever (-3.4) pass I've ever seen!!
-
Hi-
Apparently the ISS now has a wifi system onboard, having been added with the Japanese research module with the Joint Station LAN now is avaliable via a series of Netgear access points.
Does anyone have any idea where I could find info as to whether the network is encrypted or not and what the SSID of it might be? This might sound crazy to some, but I'm interested in experimenting with trying to see if I could pick up the signal on the ground. I have a very large high gain dish with an S-band feedhorn and appropriate low noise preamp for wifi use. There are a number of documented instances of wifi connections over hundreds of kilometers using large high gain antennas.
Let me just add: I have no intention whatsoever of in any way accessing the network in an unauthorized manner. If the signal could just be detected that would be great. If it could actually get a solid network connection that would be amazing. But I'm not going to try to mooch any internet access off of the ISS.
-
Apparently the ISS now has a wifi system onboard, having been added with the Japanese research module with the Joint Station LAN now is avaliable via a series of Netgear access points.
Keep in mind:
1) The ISS pressure vessels are aluminum, and most of it is covered with an additional metallic layers. This is a very effective wifi shield.
2) Although the minimum distance of an overhead pass is relatively is close to the very longest wifi distance records (which use high gain antennas and max power at both ends), it will spend very little time at that distance. You'd need very precise tracking to keep it in view of your antenna for more than a fraction of a second.
3) Direct overhead passes will be rare.
If you just want to pick up a signal from ISS, get into ham radio.
-
Keep in mind:
1) The ISS pressure vessels are aluminum, and most of it is covered with an additional metallic layers. This is a very effective wifi shield.
2) Although the minimum distance of an overhead pass is relatively is close to the very longest wifi distance records (which use high gain antennas and max power at both ends), it will spend very little time at that distance. You'd need very precise tracking to keep it in view of your antenna for more than a fraction of a second.
3) Direct overhead passes will be rare.
I know all of this. I'm not expecting a direct overhead pass but there will be several near overhead passes in the next couple of weeks and if it does not work on the near passes, I can drive to where I will get a direct overhead pass.
I know the structure is mostly aluminum. That does not help things, but I'm still willing to give it a shot. Yes, I know I need precise tracking.
I also know there is going to be a lot of difficulty.
I have a very large dish that was previously used for industrial C-band satellite usage. I'm not sure what the S-band gain on it would be, but it's definitely quite a lot. I also have a smaller dish which I can disassemble to transport in my car.
Also, low noise amplifiers, LMR-400 microwave coax and everything. I'm not just hooking this up to a computer, I have a microwave spectrum analyzer as well and I have the proper mount for the antenna.
If you just want to pick up a signal from ISS, get into ham radio.
Been there - done that. KB1IPD.
I'm interested in giving this a shot and I honestly don't know if it will work or not. I think there's a pretty good chance I'll get nothing whatsoever.
If you think this is all folly and don't want to offer any info then fine. However, I'd still like to give this a shot. If anyone could just give me the info I requested then I'd really appreciate it. It would make it all a lot easier.
-
Hi-
Apparently the ISS now has a wifi system onboard, having been added with the Japanese research module with the Joint Station LAN now is avaliable via a series of Netgear access points.
Does anyone have any idea where I could find info as to whether the network is encrypted or not and what the SSID of it might be?
First, the WiFi LAn was not brought up with the JEM - it predates that.
Second, the information is secured for very obvious reasons.
-
There are no "wi-fi connections over hundreds of kilometers". Although you could pick up the signal over a million kilometers with good enough antennas, wi-fi has a basic limitation of about 29 miles because the protocol can't handle the propogation delay after that. Any connection would have to be a different protocol.
And getting any signal at that distance would require high gain antennas on both ends since background noise would probably be higher than the signal you're looking for at that distance.
If you were terrestrial even a non amplified 40mw 2.4ghz signal would be fairly easy to pick up at 100 miles with a pair of 40db antennas if you had a good line of site. When one end is nothing but leakage through a metal shell and is moving about 14,000 mph, not too likely.
-
Does anyone know if everybody onboard needs to be able to speak Russian? I have noticed during the press confereces that the russians onboard speak very little english so how do they communicate with the rest of the crew?
-
There are no "wi-fi connections over hundreds of kilometers". Although you could pick up the signal over a million kilometers with good enough antennas, wi-fi has a basic limitation of about 29 miles because the protocol can't handle the propogation delay after that.
A two-way connection is not possible over that distance without some minor protocol hacking, but you can still read the network ID and detect network broadcasts. There have been connections using 2.4 or 5.8 wifi by using some workarounds like piggybacking other protocols onto unaddressed signals, which can require firmware modification. Anyway, I don't anticipate a 2-way connection would be possible.
And getting any signal at that distance would require high gain antennas on both ends since background noise would probably be higher than the signal you're looking for at that distance.
If you were terrestrial even a non amplified 40mw 2.4ghz signal would be fairly easy to pick up at 100 miles with a pair of 40db antennas if you had a good line of site. When one end is nothing but leakage through a metal shell and is moving about 14,000 mph, not too likely.
I didn't say success was guaranteed. If nobody did anything that seemed like it might be unlikely nothing would ever progress. I'm using an extremely large antenna system that is going to eventually be used for EME. The feed does not connect to a simple wifi adapter, it's connected to a low noise amplifier that splits it off to a spectrum analyzer and a passive sniffer along with a standard low-noise wifi adapter.
-
Does anyone know if everybody onboard needs to be able to speak Russian? I have noticed during the press confereces that the russians onboard speak very little english so how do they communicate with the rest of the crew?
Most speak Russian and English. All NASA astronauts do spend some time in Star City, Russia (just outside Moscow). Some even speak French, German, Japanese and some other languages. The Russians don't need to speak much English, and the English astronauts don't need to speak much Russian, so they all speak very limited in other languages. As for what they speak on the station to each other, I guess its up to each crew individually to figure out.
-
Feels weird to call it an International space station when the austronaus/cosmonauts don't need to be able to speak the same language. Is it not better to have a general language onboard?
-
Can an ISPR fit through the LIDS? (Let's assume that the LIDS is fastened directly to a CBM, not the APAS.)
-
Can an ISPR fit through the LIDS?
No.
-
Feels weird to call it an International space station when the austronaus/cosmonauts don't need to be able to speak the same language. Is it not better to have a general language onboard?
Well English is the official language by agreement. All the partners abide by that except the Russians who decided it was too expensive to train their flight controllers (as a result NASA spends $$$ to translate everything, printed and oral discussions). All the USOS personnel (sorry, I hate that term but that is the official name for all of ISS not Russian) learn and use English. Even the Japanese flight controllers even though they use Japanese in their control center. The USOS astronauts all know English well (and frequently many other languages) and Russian pretty well to get by. The Russians genereally know some English. They all need to know enough Russian/English to be able to respond in emergencies. It is not ideal but the reality of the situation.
-
I have a very large dish that was previously used for industrial C-band satellite usage. I'm not sure what the S-band gain on it would be, but it's definitely quite a lot. I also have a smaller dish which I can disassemble to transport in my car.
Can you move the dish fast enough and accurately enough to track the spacecraft? Based on my own C-band experience I'd say that doing so with the big dish would be difficult, without creating quite a sophisticated (read, expensive) mount and drive system. Wouldn't be too bad with a smaller, say 3-foot dish, but that would have noplace near the gain you'd need.
I tinkered with some weather-satellite stuff (HRPT) back in the day, loop yagis and whatnot, and that was sporty enough with a (relatively) strong signal that was basically aimed right at me.
-
I think the language situation in geneal is solved by time.
For most of Europe English education is standard practice and the Internet greatly helps with that. I'd say anyone getting a a science or engineering degree will be fluent in English in the future.
My mother tongue is German but I think my English would be good enough for all the communication needed to work with someone from an English speaking country without too much of a hazzle.
Would be interesting to know how good Russian speaking students are now concerning knowledge of the English language.
-
I think the language situation in geneal is solved by time.
For most of Europe English education is standard practice and the Internet greatly helps with that. I'd say anyone getting a a science or engineering degree will be fluent in English in the future.
My mother tongue is German but I think my English would be good enough for all the communication needed to work with someone from an English speaking country without too much of a hazzle.
Would be interesting to know how good Russian speaking students are now concerning knowledge of the English language.
I was in Russia (Moscow) a few months ago and you were lucky if you found somebody that could speak english, even among young people. But it's strange that russian cosmonauts don't need to be able to speak more english.
-
Why is node 3 being put on the left side port of unity
instead of the downside port?
-
Why is node 3 being put on the left side port of unity
instead of the downside port?
The search function works very well
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16683.msg391572#msg391572
-
(I have made a search but I haven't find the answer)
Prior to the Soyuz TMA-15 launch I was wondering what would happen if one Soyuz wasn't able to dock (as it happened years ago to the Soviets with Soyuz-3, Soyuz-15 or Soyuz-25) with the ISS, due to a human/non-human factor.
Let's go...
TMA-15 can't dock, and the crew perform a safe return. PAdalka-Barrat-Wakata stay as Expedition 19.
What NASA and their partners would do?
1.- Rename Expedition 19 as Expedition 20 with only three members.
2.- Launch as soon as possible Romanenko-De Winne-Thirsk in the first available Soyuz (or their backups, in case of cosmonauts fault) to start Expedition 20 and the six men ocuppation.
3.- Wait and launch Soyuz TMA-16 with Surayev-Williams-(Professional Astronaut) as soon as possible, and start the six men ocuppation.
4.- Launch the Soyuz crew (as they did prior the loss of Columbia) in the first available shuttle.
5.- .....
Would they always do the same?
Thanks
-
I searched but didn't find the answer to this question:
Why can't the Russians push back the Soyuz launch day-for-day until the Shuttle launches?
-
Is there not 1 of the 13 astronauts or cosmonauts that will be manning the controls of the most complex machine ever built by mankind during the sleep period?!?
-
Is there not 1 of the 13 astronauts or cosmonauts that will be manning the controls of the most complex machine ever built by mankind during the sleep period?!?
No, there are no "controls" to man. Most is automated, there are alarms for problems and Houston is also watching.
-
Is there not 1 of the 13 astronauts or cosmonauts that will be manning the controls of the most complex machine ever built by mankind during the sleep period?!?
No, there are no "controls" to man. Most is automated, there are alarms for problems and Houston is also watching.
Still....
There is enough of a crew that some watch rotation should be established. Reaction times for emergencies would certainly be shortened. The duty officer could also continue with some light duties and not unduly burden the crew work schedule.
Upon further reflection ISS is really just a ship and would best be operated using tried naval procedures.
-
Is there not 1 of the 13 astronauts or cosmonauts that will be manning the controls of the most complex machine ever built by mankind during the sleep period?!?
No, there are no "controls" to man. Most is automated, there are alarms for problems and Houston is also watching.
Still....
There is enough of a crew that some watch rotation should be established. Reaction times for emergencies would certainly be shortened. The duty officer could also continue with some light duties and not unduly burden the crew work schedule.
Upon further reflection ISS is really just a ship and would best be operated using tried naval procedures.
As a retired US Navy officer, I agree to a point. But with the degree of automation, and the fact they have folks on the ground watching 24/7, a watch rotation on board ISS really is not necessary.
-
Upon further reflection ISS is really just a ship and would best be operated using tried naval procedures.
Spaceflight has its own tried-and-true procedures. Spacecraft have been flown this way for decades.
-
There is enough of a crew that some watch rotation should be established. Reaction times for emergencies would certainly be shortened. The duty officer could also continue with some light duties and not unduly burden the crew work schedule.
Upon further reflection ISS is really just a ship and would best be operated using tried naval procedures.
Still what?
Why do it if is totally unnecessary? Union rules?
Is a ISS watch officer required just like a fireman on a diesel locomotive?
A. It is a facility and not a ship
b. There is no need for 24 hour watch and disturb the sleep of the astronauts.
c. There is no need to shorten reaction times, the crews over the years, shuttle, Mir and ISS have reacted in time
d, The watch officer would have little to do and be a waste of limited resource, crew time.
e. Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, shuttle and ISS have demonstrated no need for an archaic institution
-
There is enough of a crew that some watch rotation should be established. Reaction times for emergencies would certainly be shortened. The duty officer could also continue with some light duties and not unduly burden the crew work schedule.
Upon further reflection ISS is really just a ship and would best be operated using tried naval procedures.
Still what?
Why do it if is totally unnecessary? Union rules?
Is a ISS watch officer required just like a fireman on a diesel locomotive?
A. It is a facility and not a ship
b. There is no need for 24 hour watch and disturb the sleep of the astronauts.
c. There is no need to shorten reaction times, the crews over the years, shuttle, Mir and ISS have reacted in time
d, The watch officer would have little to do and be a waste of limited resource, crew time.
e. Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, shuttle and ISS have demonstrated no need for an archaic institution
All good arguments for not having a duty rotation and you may have a point about ISS being a facility rather than a ship. However, one of the main purposes of this facility is to prepare us for the long duration flight to mars and that my friend will be a sailing voyage.
-
But you still can't compare a ship sailing here on earth with a spacecraft. The differences both in vessel and enviroment is endless. And like several of the people before has pointed out the ISS and Shuttle for that matter isen't unwatched at night, tons of people on the ground monitor the systems and can do alot of changes from there if it should be nessesary.
-
[musing about the 'future'] Even if the ISS is a precursor to a Mars Transfer vehicle there'd still be constant telemetry monitoring/command upload by Earth ground stations (via DSN or some other communication system perhaps?) on the MTV. And automation of whatever can be automated. Just like they do on robotic probes. They'd be woken up when hands-on is needed. It's a many months long boring-to-tears trip! Actually it might be wise to have most of them sleep most of the time.
[joke] Unless someone invents all knowing and wise HAL super computer AI, but we know how that would end ;) -- see Space Odyssey 2001, and even there they were running it against the Earth HAL to verify, and bugging the 2 awake astronauts with radio links.
And months into the transfer to Mars orbit insertion, a true emergency would not give them a chance for survival other than pressing on, perhaps.
-
But you still can't compare a ship sailing here on earth with a spacecraft. The differences both in vessel and enviroment is endless. And like several of the people before has pointed out the ISS and Shuttle for that matter isen't unwatched at night, tons of people on the ground monitor the systems and can do alot of changes from there if it should be nessesary.
I am not comparing the spacecraft to the sailing ship but I am convinced that naval procedures ensure crew readiness, effectiveness and moral on a confined and long voyage.
-
Even if the ISS is a precursor to a Mars Transfer vehicle there'd still be constant telemetry monitoring/command upload by Earth ground stations (via DSN or some other communication system perhaps?) on the MTV.
Light time would make this rather different from the ISS situation. OTOH, previous space stations were frequently out of com for significant parts of their orbits. Compared to the total crewed life of Mir, a Mars flight is pretty short, yet they did OK without a watch.
I am not comparing the spacecraft to the sailing ship but I am convinced that naval procedures ensure crew readiness, effectiveness and moral on a confined and long voyage.
A watch should be maintained only if doing so significantly reduces the risk of mission failure. Appeal to the traditions of a different profession is not convincing.
My gut feeling is that whether they are awake or asleep, they will be depending on automated systems to alert them to most failures. Given realistic crew sizes, there's simply too much for them to monitor, even if you did have someone watching it all the time.
-
I am not comparing the spacecraft to the sailing ship but I am convinced that naval procedures ensure crew readiness, effectiveness and moral on a confined and long voyage.
Performing watches reduces moral.
Readiness for what? They aren't going into battle
Effectiveness? It would reduce it since some of the crew isn't going to work together
So where is your data? The ISS proves otherwise
-
Has a spacewalking astronaut used a CETA cart yet?
I know they have repositioned them, but can't remember using them for their intended purpose.
-
Does anyone here know the approximate number of laptops currently in use on the ISS.
Thanks.
(I did search the forums, but did not find this info)
-
I have also a question concerning the CETA :
Before STS-119, both CETA were on port side of the MT. They relocated CETA2 on the starboard side, in order to allow the MT to reach the extremity of P6 during STS-127.
But why didn't they relocate CETA1 too ? In my mind, CETA1 will interfere with the translation to the P6 extremity just as CETA2 would have done...
-
I belive more than 30.
-
Thanks,
I believe I read there were over 30 a couple of years ago, before Kibo.
-
I have also a question concerning the CETA :
Before STS-119, both CETA were on port side of the MT. They relocated CETA2 on the starboard side, in order to allow the MT to reach the extremity of P6 during STS-127.
But why didn't they relocate CETA1 too ? In my mind, CETA1 will interfere with the translation to the P6 extremity just as CETA2 would have done...
They changed out a long connecting bar to the MT for a shorter one, so the MT can now move to either end without major swaps.
That being said, the CETA system doesn't seem that it was very well thought out from the beginning, otherwise all the time and effort to do swaps back and forth without any one of the carts used for what they were originally 'advertised' for (other than an APFR stowage device) could have been much diminished and the carts much better utilized.
-
I am not comparing the spacecraft to the sailing ship but I am convinced that naval procedures ensure crew readiness, effectiveness and moral on a confined and long voyage.
Performing watches reduces moral.
Readiness for what? They aren't going into battle
Effectiveness? It would reduce it since some of the crew isn't going to work together
So where is your data? The ISS proves otherwise
Data... Let me first thank all the brilliant scientists and engineers that make all this possible with their attention to data. Let me also make a case for the importance of humanity's adventurous spirit. The scientists made the ships that got us to the moon but it was the visions of people like JFK that inspired them in the first place. Perhaps watches are no longer needed but traditions are. A chill runs down my spine every time they ring that bell announcing arrivals and departures. I wonder where will the next "shellback ceremony" take place? Perhaps crossing the orbit of mars? These things may seem trivial but on long voyages with the same shipmates day in and day out, voyaging into the unknown, these little tradition are what bind crews together.
On the other hand perhaps the future has no place for these romantic notions of exploration? I will be lucky to live long enough to see man set foot on mars. After that is up to the walmart generation, I wish them the best.
-
[musing about the 'future'] Even if the ISS is a precursor to a Mars Transfer vehicle there'd still be constant telemetry monitoring/command upload by Earth ground stations (via DSN or some other communication system perhaps?) on the MTV. And automation of whatever can be automated. Just like they do on robotic probes. They'd be woken up when hands-on is needed. It's a many months long boring-to-tears trip! Actually it might be wise to have most of them sleep most of the time.
Incorrect. They'll be quite busy on the outbound leg. Most of their training will be done onboard. It would be wise to assign them as Principal Investigators on the various experiments as well, so that they will be busy analyzing results and writing their papers on the inbound leg.
-
A chill runs down my spine every time they ring that bell announcing arrivals and departures. I wonder where will the next "shellback ceremony" take place? Perhaps crossing the orbit of mars?
I will incurr the wrath of some people. I find them meaningless. Most astronauts and spaceflight workers are not naval. The Russians don't follow the traditions, they have their own spaceflight ones. Commercial spaceflight is not going to follow them.
-
Being a proud member of "another" service I echo Jim's comment. I sat on a watch (1 of 15 in our theater) for two years just so Generals and Admirals would have a belly button to push in case they had a question. An incredible waste of manpower and demoralizing for those who endure monotonous and seemingly endless shifts and not necessary in space. I also find some traditions meaningless and others down right disturbing but that's probably because my service is only sixty years old and we don't have any traditions.
-
I also find some traditions meaningless and others down right disturbing but that's probably because my service is only sixty years old and we don't have any traditions.
Make that don't need traditions.
-
On longer duration missions, when Houston has a time delay (NEO, maybe Mars someday) could this change. Would somebody need to monitor systems continuously.
-
I, too, get a chill when a shuttle commander gets ringed aboard ISS, and was very gratified that Col Padalka nailed it yesterday. However, I concur with my light blue brethren that a watch rotation on a ship that is not in a position that would necessitate rapid movement to avoid shipping or nav hazards is not necessary.
And for Jim, I complimented CAPT Shepherd back in March on establishing naval traditions on ISS if for no other reason that to get the USAF's goat! :D
-
I, too, get a chill when a shuttle commander gets ringed aboard ISS, and was very gratified that Col Padalka nailed it yesterday. However, I concur with my light blue brethren that a watch rotation on a ship that is not in a position that would necessitate rapid movement to avoid shipping or nav hazards is not necessary.
And for Jim, I complimented CAPT Shepherd back in March on establishing naval traditions on ISS if for no other reason that to get the USAF's goat! :D
One truly disturbing tradition is hot-bunking. I know it's almost mandatory on subs due to space but--yuck! Well, in space it isn't an issue since "hot-floating" isn't nearly as bad.
For the sake of service harmony I won't bring up names stitched on dungarees ;)
-
I, too, get a chill when a shuttle commander gets ringed aboard ISS, and was very gratified that Col Padalka nailed it yesterday. However, I concur with my light blue brethren that a watch rotation on a ship that is not in a position that would necessitate rapid movement to avoid shipping or nav hazards is not necessary.
And for Jim, I complimented CAPT Shepherd back in March on establishing naval traditions on ISS if for no other reason that to get the USAF's goat! :D
One truly disturbing tradition is hot-bunking. I know it's almost mandatory on subs due to space but--yuck! Well, in space it isn't an issue since "hot-floating" isn't nearly as bad.
For the sake of service harmony I won't bring up names stitched on dungarees ;)
Yeah, yeah, I served on three gators, so I've heard that one before. :)
Seriously, I feel that traditions and ceremony (not the yucky ones at any rate) are what separate the service(s) from a job. They also help beat back the boredom that comes from long times at sea surrounded by noting but several million square miles of water.
I know some folks who have served in command centers like you did, and they felt the same thing about their time there. But when you stand the watch on a ship's bridge where the safety of several hundred to several thousand people ride on your decisions and skills, it becomes very important and anything but dull.
-
On longer duration missions, when Houston has a time delay (NEO, maybe Mars someday) could this change. Would somebody need to monitor systems continuously.
As mentioned earlier in the thread, there would be far too much for the crew to continually monitor.
The crew would simply have to accept as part of the overall risk that they rely upon computer-based monitoring of critical systems. Probably Windows-based at that!! :-\
Joking aside, this does highlight that software controlling any space craft has to be equally as well-honed as the hardware - all adding to the expense of it all...
-
Is there not 1 of the 13 astronauts or cosmonauts that will be manning the controls of the most complex machine ever built by mankind during the sleep period?!?
It is called Mission Control.
-
It is called Mission Control.
Can you give us a ballpark of how many people are on 24/7 in the various MCCs ?
-
I am not comparing the spacecraft to the sailing ship but I am convinced that naval procedures ensure crew readiness, effectiveness and moral on a confined and long voyage.
A voyage in which there are no tides, changes in wind direction, sand banks or other ships to hit. The rocks (asteroids) can be seen several days in advance. Things may change when several ships are manoeuvring at the same time.
-
Ok, here's a question that has been bugging me for a long time now:
Why are the exterior ISS Truss cameras always oriented with the nadir (earth-facing) direction at the top of the frame?
All the interior (labels, racks & workstations on port & stbd sides, etc) are oriented (eg lettering) with their lower edge toward nadir. I would think, if for no other reason than the robotics workstations, the exterior views would be best oriented in the same way.
-
Has a spacewalking astronaut used a CETA cart yet?
I know they have repositioned them, but can't remember using them for their intended purpose.
First use was STS-113(11A) EVA2, used for EVA crew transfer and WETA transfer to the P1 truss.
Another used U.S. EVA 8(Feb., 2007), for EVA crew transfer to the P3 truss.
-
Hey all,
this question went through my mind a lot of times so I thought it might be worth asking now.
Sorry, if already asked be someone else, but i cannot find the answer here yet.
As we're going again to the moon and beyond real soon, why is there STILL sometimes LOS, no KU-coverage of ISS and Shuttle missions etc?
Arent there all TDRSS satellites available for KU ?
Which TDRSSs are in use for this purpose in generall during shuttle missions ?
Are there any satellites besides TDRSS in use during shuttle missions and/or for ISS comm and if so, who are they ?
Thanks for all your answers in advance.
Greets, Marcus
-
Seeing Dr. Barrat wearing PPE today has me wondering if there is a danger from hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in the station's waste collection system? I was responsible for the waste collection system for an aircraft carrier, and H2S was a constant threat (we lost a sailor about 6 months before I reported aboard from H2S exposure).
-
Hey all,
this question went through my mind a lot of times so I thought it might be worth asking now.
Sorry, if already asked be someone else, but i cannot find the answer here yet.
As we're going again to the moon and beyond real soon, why is there STILL sometimes LOS, no KU-coverage of ISS and Shuttle missions etc?
1) NASA only schedules TDRS-Z during critical ops.
2) Both the shuttle and ISS sometimes have blockage between the Ku antenna and the line-of-sight to TDRS, hence no coverage.
Arent there all TDRSS satellites available for KU ?
Yes. They are not always available for shuttle/ISS. Shuttle/ISS are not the only users of TDRSS, and sometimes they are not even the highest priority users.
Are there any satellites besides TDRSS in use during shuttle missions and/or for ISS comm and if so, who are they ?
The Russian equivalent is Altair (LUCH) , but the constellation only provides partial coverage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altair_(satellite)
-
Hey all,
this question went through my mind a lot of times so I thought it might be worth asking now.
Sorry, if already asked be someone else, but i cannot find the answer here yet.
As we're going again to the moon and beyond real soon, why is there STILL sometimes LOS, no KU-coverage of ISS and Shuttle missions etc?
Arent there all TDRSS satellites available for KU ?
Which TDRSSs are in use for this purpose in generall during shuttle missions ?
Are there any satellites besides TDRSS in use during shuttle missions and/or for ISS comm and if so, who are they ?
Thanks for all your answers in advance.
Greets, Marcus
This has been answered many time in the Shuttle Q&A thread
-
Seeing Dr. Barrat wearing PPE today has me wondering if there is a danger from hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in the station's waste collection system? I was responsible for the waste collection system for an aircraft carrier, and H2S was a constant threat (we lost a sailor about 6 months before I reported aboard from H2S exposure).
Yes, you are correct.
-
Seeing Dr. Barrat wearing PPE today has me wondering if there is a danger from hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in the station's waste collection system? I was responsible for the waste collection system for an aircraft carrier, and H2S was a constant threat (we lost a sailor about 6 months before I reported aboard from H2S exposure).
Yes, you are correct.
Okay, then the next question I have is, what do they do about it? On my ship, we would test atmosphere (while wearing SCBAs), ventilate for 24 hours, then test again before anyone would enter a possible H2S environment.
-
Seeing Dr. Barrat wearing PPE today has me wondering if there is a danger from hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in the station's waste collection system? I was responsible for the waste collection system for an aircraft carrier, and H2S was a constant threat (we lost a sailor about 6 months before I reported aboard from H2S exposure).
Yes, you are correct.
Okay, then the next question I have is, what do they do about it? On my ship, we would test atmosphere (while wearing SCBAs), ventilate for 24 hours, then test again before anyone would enter a possible H2S environment.
The stuff we use (sorry, can't recall the chemical) is not that toxic. Just mainly we want to not get it on the skin or mucous mebranes and clean up any that leaks.
-
It is called Mission Control.
Can you give us a ballpark of how many people are on 24/7 in the various MCCs ?
ooh, that is tough because staff is thinner during local night hours. Assuming no shuttle up, I would guess the smallest number of people monitoring worldwide would be about 20, monitoring every single system on ISS. More than enough. And the crew is trained for really bad cases with no MCC.
-
Does anyone here know the approximate number of laptops currently in use on the ISS.
Thanks.
(I did search the forums, but did not find this info)
When you add the numbers for procedures/personal (~ 12), core system monitoring (~6), and medical/payload (~10), 28-30 is about right.
-
What will they if a SARJ fail completely? I read in another thread they they are not design for on-orbit replacemet. What would the impact be of they were forced to lock it down in a fixed position?
-
Are ISS crew members allowed on a docked shuttle or is it out of bounds?
and is there anywhere on the ISS that Shuttle crews cannot go.
What are the general rules here?
-
Are ISS crew members allowed on a docked shuttle or is it out of bounds?
and is there anywhere on the ISS that Shuttle crews cannot go.
What are the general rules here?
Rule is that crews must complete a safety briefing before they can wander around the other vehicle.
-
Bump as this wasn't answered...
I searched but didn't find the answer to this question:
Why can't the Russians push back the Soyuz launch day-for-day until the Shuttle launches?
In other words, the shuttle slipped day-for-day due to weather so why can't the Soyuz slip day-for-day for the shuttle?
-
Frequently the supplies on the Soyuz are time-sensitive. Rarely is the shuttle time-sensitive.
-
Bump as this wasn't answered...
I searched but didn't find the answer to this question:
Why can't the Russians push back the Soyuz launch day-for-day until the Shuttle launches?
In other words, the shuttle slipped day-for-day due to weather so why can't the Soyuz slip day-for-day for the shuttle?
1) To minimize prop.
2) Because they want to protect for a failed dock and reentry and they want to land in their nomninal zones
3) Because they don't want to - and that is the biggest.
The only time sensitive items on the Soyuz are crew - and just like US that could change if really needed. See reason 3 above.
-
Frequently the supplies on the Soyuz are time-sensitive. Rarely is the shuttle time-sensitive.
3) Because they don't want to - and that is the biggest.
The only time sensitive items on the Soyuz are crew - and just like US that could change if really needed. See reason 3 above.
Okay. But...
1) To minimize prop.
2) Because they want to protect for a failed dock and reentry and they want to land in their nomninal zones
I don't understand these two. The first one should be irrelevant because fuel doesn't matter until you launch, and the second one shouldn't matter because ISS plane alignments happen every day.
I understand that the Soyuz can only loiter for a certain period of time before docking, but that isn't what I'm asking as that's after the Soyuz has launched. If you have a 20-day launch window, can't you launch on day seven and loiter until day twelve just as easily as launching on day one and loitering until day six?
-
Frequently the supplies on the Soyuz are time-sensitive. Rarely is the shuttle time-sensitive.
3) Because they don't want to - and that is the biggest.
The only time sensitive items on the Soyuz are crew - and just like US that could change if really needed. See reason 3 above.
Okay. But...
1) To minimize prop.
2) Because they want to protect for a failed dock and reentry and they want to land in their nomninal zones
I don't understand these two. The first one should be irrelevant because fuel doesn't matter until you launch, and the second one shouldn't matter because ISS plane alignments happen every day.
I understand that the Soyuz can only loiter for a certain period of time before docking, but that isn't what I'm asking as that's after the Soyuz has launched. If you have a 20-day launch window, can't you launch on day seven and loiter until day twelve just as easily as launching on day one and loitering until day six?
Sorry but I am not following your confusion on prop. You always want to get to ISS with as much prop as you can - to allow for contingencies, loiter or now a days, reboost of ISS. Soyuz, with sevre belt tightening can loiter about 5 days. And you want to preserve every day of that. As to plane alingments - you want to put together the best trajectory, with good ligthing, with rendezvous over particular Russian ground sites, with good 1 orbit returns... adds up to limited launch windows. And reason 3 is the key - so why change?
-
I understand that the Soyuz can only loiter for a certain period of time before docking, but that isn't what I'm asking as that's after the Soyuz has launched. If you have a 20-day launch window, can't you launch on day seven and loiter until day twelve just as easily as launching on day one and loitering until day six?
No, or at least not always.
The ISS orbits in a plane, the earth rotates underneath the orbit. Your launch site passes underneath twice a day. At the moment that your launch site passes underneath the orbit, ISS may be directly overhead, on the other side of the planet, or anywhere in between. So once you get into the orbital plane, you have to spend some time in a lower orbit to catch up to the ISS. There's a limit to how low you can go (the atmosphere!) and thus how quickly you can catch up. Three days is enough time, so you plan on taking that long so you don't have to change things around if your launch slips a week.
The next part is new to me, but makes sense when you think about it. Soyuz has a preferred landing site, but doesn't have much crossrange. The same process applies in reverse: starting in orbit at an arbitrary time, you may have to wait a few days for a landing opportunity at your preferred site.
If you want a particular lighting condition when you land or to be over a ground station during rendezvous, you may have to wait longer.
So if you want to be able to launch, rendezvous, attempt to dock while over a ground station, fix what went wrong and try again, and then land at your preferred location, all within the fairly limited orbital lifetime of the Soyuz, you can see how you might end up with limited launch windows.
-
Soyuz has a preferred landing site, but doesn't have much crossrange. The same process applies in reverse: starting in orbit at an arbitrary time, you may have to wait a few days for a landing opportunity at your preferred site.
If you want a particular lighting condition when you land or to be over a ground station during rendezvous, you may have to wait longer.
Ah, okay. This is the part I was missing -- thanks. :) I know about all the problems with orbital plane changing and phasing, but the shuttle has to do the same thing, so I couldn't see what was so special about Soyuz. So I take it that even though the shuttle has multiple landing opportunities per day, Soyuz doesn't?
But... urgh... this doesn't apply to Progress, since it doesn't land. :P
However...
...attempt to dock while over a ground station...
Do the Russians only have a limited number of ground stations? And this is not a problem for the USA as they have worldwide coverage? That would make more sense...
-
When does the ISS flip ( with zvesda going from X- to X+ ) before a shuttle docking? 1 day, 2 days?
-
Shortly after shuttle docking. The shuttle docks by making final approach from in front of the station. This attitude also places the shuttle's TPS "into the wind". Shortly after docking the shuttle's thrusters are used to yaw the station around so that the shuttle's TPS is better protected.
-
Soyuz has a preferred landing site, but doesn't have much crossrange. The same process applies in reverse: starting in orbit at an arbitrary time, you may have to wait a few days for a landing opportunity at your preferred site.
If you want a particular lighting condition when you land or to be over a ground station during rendezvous, you may have to wait longer.
Ah, okay. This is the part I was missing -- thanks. :) I know about all the problems with orbital plane changing and phasing, but the shuttle has to do the same thing, so I couldn't see what was so special about Soyuz. So I take it that even though the shuttle has multiple landing opportunities per day, Soyuz doesn't?
But... urgh... this doesn't apply to Progress, since it doesn't land. :P
However...
...attempt to dock while over a ground station...
Do the Russians only have a limited number of ground stations? And this is not a problem for the USA as they have worldwide coverage? That would make more sense...
Correct - they have coverage only certains times of the days.
-
Why aren´t there any live views from the Russian Segemnt during one-hour ISS Mission Coverage or during shuttle missions?
Are the Russians against it?
Thanks.
-
Why aren´t there any live views from the Russian Segemnt during one-hour ISS Mission Coverage or during shuttle missions?
Are the Russians against it?
Thanks.
Limited live downlink capability. They can only downlink video over a RS Ground Site (in Russia). Also, there's not as much going on in the Russian Segment during shuttle missions since all the robotics and EVA activities occur on the US Segment.
-
So this is most likely a dumb topic, but on viewing the brand new ISS images, one thing came to mind. The exterior of most of the ISS blends together, as one big greyish metal beast. One module is at least shiny and interesting to look at. With such a big object in the sky, wouldn't it be interesting to put colored running lights on the ISS? I dont think it would cost too much in electricity usage, and with bright enough bulbs to be seen from earth, would give people something to gaze at and remind us that yes, we are in space.
Aside from that, what about painting modules? Or putting advertising on the outside? This would be a generator of monies for the space program.
A big red/green streaking star would certainly generate interest in at least some people!
-
wouldn't be able to discern the lights from the ground
-
1. Aside from that, what about painting modules?
2. Or putting advertising on the outside?
1. It would upset the thermal properties
2. NASA isn't allowed.
-
So this is most likely a dumb topic, but on viewing the brand new ISS images, one thing came to mind. The exterior of most of the ISS blends together, as one big greyish metal beast. One module is at least shiny and interesting to look at. With such a big object in the sky, wouldn't it be interesting to put colored running lights on the ISS? I dont think it would cost too much in electricity usage, and with bright enough bulbs to be seen from earth, would give people something to gaze at and remind us that yes, we are in space.
The problem is no one would see these running lights ever. Shuttles and Soyuz crews would briefly but otherwise that's it. As for on the ground, ISS is a big star due to the arrays and the rest of the structure. Any colored lights would have to be very powerful to overpower the brightness of the rest of the structure.
-
So this is most likely a dumb topic, but on viewing the brand new ISS images, one thing came to mind. The exterior of most of the ISS blends together, as one big greyish metal beast. One module is at least shiny and interesting to look at. With such a big object in the sky, wouldn't it be interesting to put colored running lights on the ISS? I dont think it would cost too much in electricity usage, and with bright enough bulbs to be seen from earth, would give people something to gaze at and remind us that yes, we are in space.
Aside from that, what about painting modules? Or putting advertising on the outside? This would be a generator of monies for the space program.
A big red/green streaking star would certainly generate interest in at least some people!
There are already red/green running lights on the tips of the Zvezda solar arrays.
You underestimate the power requirements for bright lights. Any lights bright enough to be seen from the ground would be an enormous waste.
-
Why aren´t there any live views from the Russian Segemnt during one-hour ISS Mission Coverage or during shuttle missions?
Are the Russians against it?
Thanks.
Very poor quality and only available over Russian Ground Sites.
-
In today's MMT briefing Mike Suffredini said they needed a specific LEE to grab HTV, and to get that LEE in position would require a "triple walkoff." What is the difference between the two LEEs? Is is the actual end effectors—are they different somethow, or something to do with the joints? I believe the SSRMS is somewhat asymmetrical--does that have something to do with it?
-
Thanks for the replies guys! I only asked because i remember reading something from Bigelow stating their habitats could put lights up and been multi-colored and seen from the ground. Wether or not that was true, i did not know. It appears it is not.
-
In today's MMT briefing Mike Suffredini said they needed a specific LEE to grab HTV, and to get that LEE in position would require a "triple walkoff." What is the difference between the two LEEs? Is is the actual end effectors—are they different somethow, or something to do with the joints? I believe the SSRMS is somewhat asymmetrical--does that have something to do with it?
The light is failed on one side and we need the light for HTV.
-
What would have happened if the solar array tear during STS-120 had happened a few bays farther out than Scott could reach? He could barely reach it where it was. How would they have worked on it? Wasn't ISS in a terribly unsafe situation from the point of view of loads before the array was repaired and stretched to full tension? Would they have undocked and tried to station keep the orbiter out there or something?
-
What would have happened if the solar array tear during STS-120 had happened a few bays farther out than Scott could reach? He could barely reach it where it was. How would they have worked on it? Wasn't ISS in a terribly unsafe situation from the point of view of loads before the array was repaired and stretched to full tension? Would they have undocked and tried to station keep the orbiter out there or something?
No. Could not have maintained stationkeeping without exceeding plume impingement load limits on the array. NASA was just plain lucky the tear was where it was.
-
was there any thought as to how to fix it if the tear was further out? or was it more of an abandon ship mentality?
-
was there any thought as to how to fix it if the tear was further out? or was it more of an abandon ship mentality?
If there was any what-iffing about that scenario, the EVA group kept it internal. Which means they didn't consider undocking, since that would have required the involvement of rendezvous and a bunch of other groups.
-
They would have had to jettison the entire solar array blanket. Don't know if they would have had to retract/jettison the other blanket.
Someone more knowledgeable: Would the wing have been stable in the deployed position with only one blanket? (I'm thinking that the mast might not have been able to handle the unbalanced forces.)
-
is the ISS propulsion module going to come back? Or is it totally cancelled? is it needed?
-
is the ISS propulsion module going to come back? Or is it totally cancelled? is it needed?
No, cancelled, not needed.
-
What will they be doing for station keeping then? Keeping on with the 6 russian launches, with ATV to help? Are there any contingencies in place if a launch should fail?
-
What will they be doing for station keeping then? Keeping on with the 6 russian launches, with ATV to help?
Yes.
Are there any contingencies in place if a launch should fail?
The FGB has literally tons of prop in its tanks.
-
Quick question. (searching failed to produce an answer)
I am going to assume that the MLPM will be attached to Node 2 Nadir, is this correct?
Where will PMA2 be docked to? Will it be on Node 3? (and if so, what about clearance with the radiator?) Am I correct in thinking that a PMA cannot be mated to an MLPM?
Any prospects that Orion could dock to PMA2 if it's put somewhere convenient?
Thanks.
-
MPLMs are attached to Node-2 nadir. The place for the PLM (modified MPLM) is anyones guess: I say Node-1 nadir or Node-2 zenith.
PMA-2 is at Node-2 forward and stays there. I assume you are talking about PMA-3. A MPLM only has one CBM, so no place for a PMA.
PMA-2 is convenient for Orion and shuttle. You mean PMA-3. No idea where it gets, maybe Node-1 nadir if PLM does not go there, or somethere at Node-3. These positions would be problematic for docking Orion. But why bother? Orion is still about 8 years away and likely will never need two ports at ISS.
Analyst
-
Node 2 zenith would be unlikely as it is one the worst, if nit the worst locations on station in terms of MMOD.
-
Not worse than any other module (or truss) in the ram direction, e.g. Kibo, Kibo Logistics, Columbus, Node-2 forward with PMA-2. Not worse than MPLM at Node-2 nadir (remember whole ISS turns when Shuttle is docked, placing the MPLM into the (new) ram direction).
Analyst
-
Node 2 zenith would be unlikely as it is one the worst, if nit the worst locations on station in terms of MMOD.
Yeah, but all the old models and graphics showing the CAM on Node 2 Zenith would be useful again, more or less.
-
I think the language situation in geneal is solved by time.
For most of Europe English education is standard practice and the Internet greatly helps with that. I'd say anyone getting a a science or engineering degree will be fluent in English in the future.
My mother tongue is German but I think my English would be good enough for all the communication needed to work with someone from an English speaking country without too much of a hazzle.
Would be interesting to know how good Russian speaking students are now concerning knowledge of the English language.
Also, any idea about Expedition 21 EVAs?
There are some cosmonauts who seem not to speak English. Maxim Suraev ––– I don't have sufficient evidence, but in a JSC press conference he was hard of it and spoke Russian. Vinogradov seems not to be able to speak it either, no? Also, Moschenko didn't speak it either, but he had his fair share of other problems. It's not disturbing to me that we don't speak a common language, I just don't see how it's possible to have a spaceflight when we can't talk to each other for 6 months.
-
I have started this topic in order to have more information about the Umbilical tray for Node 3.
This tray is located on face 3 of the S0 truss and is supposed to be used once Node 3 is attached to Unity. In the original configuration, Node 3 was supposed to attach to the Nadir port of Unity, but now it will attach to the port side of Unity.
Will the Umbilical tray for Node 3 be of any use now that the configuration has been changed?
-
I was gonna put this in the Shuttle Q&A, but it applies to shuttle and station.
What determines when crews sleep shift?
I'm reading that the STS 127 crew is sleep shifting for their launch. Is sleep shifting always done due to the launch time? What other variables are there?
-
I was gonna put this in the Shuttle Q&A, but it applies to shuttle and station.
What determines when crews sleep shift?
I'm reading that the STS 127 crew is sleep shifting for their launch. Is sleep shifting always done due to the launch time? What other variables are there?
Docking time. Whether they were going to do dual shift like on some Spacelabs.
-
Also, they sleep shift during the mission in order to sync up to the landing time.
If you go back to the STS-120 thread, you'll note that they were sleep shifting toward a nominal EOM landing and then, into the mission, they had to reverse that back because their landing time changed significantly to accommodate the unforeseen Solar Array repair.
-
Hi everybody,
Do someone have a "map" showing the locations of the Worksites (WS) used by SSRMS ?
Thank you very much !
-
There is a robotics handbook on L2.
The SSRMS has 6 PDGF bases currently: Lab, Node-2, MBS (4 PDGFs). The MT has 8 worksites along the truss: Two each at S1, S0 and P1, one each at S3 and P3. There are two more sites, unreachable without the cancelled CETA rails, on S6 and P6.
Analyst
-
There are two more sites, unreachable without the cancelled CETA rails, on S6 and P6.
Could these worksites for the MT "reasonably" to revived, if there was a new money (and time) to fly the CETA rail extensions?
-
Sure. This was the original plan. But it is very doubtful because of money. Needs upmass, EVA time. I am not sure these rails are even existing (anymore).
Analyst
-
There is a robotics handbook on L2.
The SSRMS has 6 PDGF bases currently: Lab, Node-2, MBS (4 PDGFs). The MT has 8 worksites along the truss: Two each at S1, S0 and P1, one each at S3 and P3. There are two more sites, unreachable without the cancelled CETA rails, on S6 and P6.
Analyst
I believe that there is an uninstalled PGDF, stored somewhere on the truss, that is someday going to be installed on the FGB.
-
This PDGF is at P6. It has been the plan for quite some time to install it at the FGB. AFAIK it is no longer needed because the SSRMS is not needed anymore to relocate things on the Russian side.
There is a PDGF each on Kibo and Columbus, but these don't work as a base for the SSRMS.
Analyst
-
There is a robotics handbook on L2.
Sorry Analyst, but I have not found it... :-[ ???
-
As for map of MT work-sites, we discussed that on http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8438.msg151642#msg151642 and http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8438.msg151677#msg151677
-
Thanks a lot Anik ! I wonder how you are doing to find hidden informations so quickly !
-
Here's an ISS federal regs/ops question for those in the know:
If the US portion of ISS funding & control authority was handed to another body (not NASA, though almost as a sub-contract), in terms of being regarded as a National Lab, how would commercial resupply be handled. Also, what about if they needed shuttle re-supply? Would that be a contract service? I know there are some grey areas there.
I hope I'm saying this correctly enough. I'm planning an interesting thought process post for the Augustine Commission thread, and I need a correct point of reference.
-
Here's an ISS federal regs/ops question for those in the know:
If the US portion of ISS funding & control authority was handed to another body (not NASA, though almost as a sub-contract), in terms of being regarded as a National Lab, how would commercial resupply be handled. Also, what about if they needed shuttle re-supply? Would that be a contract service? I know there are some grey areas there.
I hope I'm saying this correctly enough. I'm planning an interesting thought process post for the Augustine Commission thread, and I need a correct point of reference.
NASA would still handle everything. The ISS funding & control authority would just tell NASA what to do.
-
Contracts are between the Government and the private sector. It would not matter which agency had it. It could probably go either way.
-
Per comms from Houston to the Station they've had a 38 minute and 53 minute LOS today. Is anyone aware why they are so long since I've only heard 15~ minute LOS due to ZOE? Is there maintenance of TDRS or the ground system going on?
-
Per comms from Houston to the Station they've had a 38 minute and 53 minute LOS today. Is anyone aware why they are so long since I've only heard 15~ minute LOS due to ZOE? Is there maintenance of TDRS or the ground system going on?
Already answered.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=4392.msg441548#msg441548
-
I presume the ISS cooling system is closed loop config. Does anyone know why they need to replenish the ammonia?
-
Current tanks were used to fill the system, and therefore near empty. Full tanks protect verses future leak risk.
-
A little off the wall, but I was just talking about ISS reboosts to someone and they asked about ion thrusters. I'd always assumed that at 24kw/Newton you'd need too much of the station's limited electrical capacity for ion, but didn't really know. I keep seeing columnists refer to VASIMR as a possibility, but it's less efficient than a Hall effect thruster.
Does anyone know the average drag on the structure?
-
Does anyone know the average drag on the structure?
The ISS status reports frequently give mean altitude loss per day, you should be able to figure it out from there. e.g.
http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/somd/reports/iss_reports/2009/09032009.html
Mean altitude loss in the last 24 hours -- 80 m
Note that this varies quite a lot depending on ISS configuration, solar activity, current altitude etc.
ISTR various kinds of continuous electric reboost have been proposed. Not only is it efficient, it can give you a cleaner microgravity environment.
-
Does anyone know the average drag on the structure?
The ISS status reports frequently give mean altitude loss per day, you should be able to figure it out from there. e.g.
http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/somd/reports/iss_reports/2009/09032009.html (http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/somd/reports/iss_reports/2009/09032009.html)
Mean altitude loss in the last 24 hours -- 80 m
Note that this varies quite a lot depending on ISS configuration, solar activity, current altitude etc.
ISTR various kinds of continuous electric reboost have been proposed. Not only is it efficient, it can give you a cleaner microgravity environment.
Here's a chart I prepared earlier (I gave up after the daily ISS reports became inconsistent in reporting altitude changes). Triangles mark the arrival of various spacecraft. The big spikes at the beginning are due to a STS-119 boost & debris avoidance maneuver (DAM).
Average daily altitude change from mid-April to late June is -70.4 metres.
Hope this is of help.
-
I presume the ISS cooling system is closed loop config. Does anyone know why they need to replenish the ammonia?
Even in closed config you get leaks.
-
Does anyone know the average drag on the structure?
The ISS status reports frequently give mean altitude loss per day, you should be able to figure it out from there. e.g.
http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/somd/reports/iss_reports/2009/09032009.html (http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/somd/reports/iss_reports/2009/09032009.html)
Mean altitude loss in the last 24 hours -- 80 m
Note that this varies quite a lot depending on ISS configuration, solar activity, current altitude etc.
ISTR various kinds of continuous electric reboost have been proposed. Not only is it efficient, it can give you a cleaner microgravity environment.
Here's a chart I prepared earlier (I gave up after the daily ISS reports became inconsistent in reporting altitude changes). Triangles mark the arrival of various spacecraft. The big spikes at the beginning are due to a STS-119 boost & debris avoidance maneuver (DAM).
Average daily altitude change from mid-April to late June is -70.4 metres.
Hope this is of help.
Thanks AnalogMan. I'm getting, very roughly, 1.5N thrust continuous. That would be about 40kw with something like the 3N Hall effect thruster Glenn came up with a few years ago. A lot of juice considering there's only around 40-45kw?? available for science.
-
Re: LIVE: STS-128 Flight Day 12 - Undock, Flyaround, Late Inspection
« Reply #15 on: 09/08/2009 05:32 PM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Station manuever has begun, should take about 55 minutes to put the complex in proper orientation for undocking
Why, there is nothing in the way, why no just reorient the solar panels on ISS and the 2 Soyuz and just undock?
Thanks
Oxford750
-
Re: LIVE: STS-128 Flight Day 12 - Undock, Flyaround, Late Inspection
« Reply #15 on: 09/08/2009 05:32 PM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Station manuever has begun, should take about 55 minutes to put the complex in proper orientation for undocking
Why, there is nothing in the way, why no just reorient the solar panels on ISS and the 2 Soyuz and just undock?
Thanks
Oxford750
The nominal shuttle undocking procedures (which are required, if one wants a flyaround, which was the case here) require a particular undocking attitude.
-
Do we have any video showing the complex reorientation? I've seen a computer generated video, but never a real one.
-
Watch the hour today from NASA TV. If you're asking about external video from something not on the ISS - I don't know how that would be possible.
-
Re: LIVE: STS-128 Flight Day 12 - Undock, Flyaround, Late Inspection
« Reply #15 on: 09/08/2009 05:32 PM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Station manuever has begun, should take about 55 minutes to put the complex in proper orientation for undocking
Why, there is nothing in the way, why no just reorient the solar panels on ISS and the 2 Soyuz and just undock?
Thanks
Oxford750
The nominal shuttle undocking procedures (which are required, if one wants a flyaround, which was the case here) require a particular undocking attitude.
Can you please expand on that explaination please Jorge.
I mean they boosted the orbit of the ISS the other day. Does the ISS realy need boosting of its orbit every couple of days?
Surely it does not take 55 min to move solar panels and put both ISS and Shuttle in free drift?
Thanks
Oxford750
-
For undocking, the stack rotates 180 degrees putting the shuttle to the front of the station along the Vbar (velocity vector). This is to "undo" the rotate that occurred after docking (somewhat protecting the shuttle TPS from MMOD strikes that have a higher probability when "facing into the wind")
-
Re: LIVE: STS-128 Flight Day 12 - Undock, Flyaround, Late Inspection
« Reply #15 on: 09/08/2009 05:32 PM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Station manuever has begun, should take about 55 minutes to put the complex in proper orientation for undocking
Why, there is nothing in the way, why no just reorient the solar panels on ISS and the 2 Soyuz and just undock?
Thanks
Oxford750
The nominal shuttle undocking procedures (which are required, if one wants a flyaround, which was the case here) require a particular undocking attitude.
Can you please expand on that explaination please Jorge.
You will need to expand first on that question, since I'm not sure at all what you're asking. General questions get general answers.
I mean they boosted the orbit of the ISS the other day. Does the ISS realy need boosting of its orbit every couple of days?
No. It mostly relies on visiting vehicles (e.g. shuttle) for that. But I fail to see the connection between that and your question.
Surely it does not take 55 min to move solar panels and put both ISS and Shuttle in free drift?
It took 55 minutes for the maneuver because the maneuver was performed on ALT DAP. The maneuver must be performed very slowly to prevent loads issues on the station. And don't call me Shirley.
-
Re: LIVE: STS-128 Flight Day 12 - Undock, Flyaround, Late Inspection
« Reply #15 on: 09/08/2009 05:32 PM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Station manuever has begun, should take about 55 minutes to put the complex in proper orientation for undocking
Why, there is nothing in the way, why no just reorient the solar panels on ISS and the 2 Soyuz and just undock?
Thanks
Oxford750
The nominal shuttle undocking procedures (which are required, if one wants a flyaround, which was the case here) require a particular undocking attitude.
Can you please expand on that explaination please Jorge.
I mean they boosted the orbit of the ISS the other day. Does the ISS realy need boosting of its orbit every couple of days?
Surely it does not take 55 min to move solar panels and put both ISS and Shuttle in free drift?
Thanks
Oxford750
First there is a difference between a reboost (to set up for a visiting vehicle like HTV) and a debris avoidnace maneuver.
Second, there is first to flip the ISS. The arrays are parked long before you flip for structural reasons. After undock we wait until the russian segemenbt has control and has gotten us back in to the nominal flight attitude, then we unpark the arrays.
-
When I saw how much current the SARJ motors drew during the P6 evaluation I kept thinking it was a misprint, it was such a tiny amount. It makes sense that they'd have to be locked down for any change in Station movement.
Do they park them anytime Soyuz or Progress or the ATV docks?
-
Yesterday while watching the usual green worldmap plotting ISS orbits, I saw the LAT go all the way to 51.8 (sorry, no screen shot; IIRC ISS was over western Russia at the time). I've always heard that ISS was inclined to 51.6.
So what's going on here?
- mis-calibration/rounding of the real-time data?
- this display is not showing accurate data or has some mis-calculation?
- ISS altitude makes 0.2 degree difference somehow? (isn't LAT radially same though?)
- Earth has moved/wobbled/shifted since ISS was launched?
- something else?
-
Re: LIVE: STS-128 Flight Day 12 - Undock, Flyaround, Late Inspection
« Reply #15 on: 09/08/2009 05:32 PM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Station manuever has begun, should take about 55 minutes to put the complex in proper orientation for undocking
Why, there is nothing in the way, why no just reorient the solar panels on ISS and the 2 Soyuz and just undock?
Thanks
Oxford750
The nominal shuttle undocking procedures (which are required, if one wants a flyaround, which was the case here) require a particular undocking attitude.
Can you please expand on that explaination please Jorge.
You will need to expand first on that question, since I'm not sure at all what you're asking. General questions get general answers.
I mean they boosted the orbit of the ISS the other day. Does the ISS realy need boosting of its orbit every couple of days?
No. It mostly relies on visiting vehicles (e.g. shuttle) for that. But I fail to see the connection between that and your question.
Surely it does not take 55 min to move solar panels and put both ISS and Shuttle in free drift?
It took 55 minutes for the maneuver because the maneuver was performed on ALT DAP. The maneuver must be performed very slowly to prevent loads issues on the station. And don't call me Shirley.
I will ask more specifec questions in the future. With all the different answers I got I had "NO IDEA" what all was invovled, as you have so many different factors to cosider.
Thanks
Oxford750
-
For undocking, the stack rotates 180 degrees putting the shuttle to the front of the station along the Vbar (velocity vector). This is to "undo" the rotate that occurred after docking (somewhat protecting the shuttle TPS from MMOD strikes that have a higher probability when "facing into the wind")
Thanks wjbarnett, I never knew this info before.
Oxford750
-
Re: LIVE: STS-128 Flight Day 12 - Undock, Flyaround, Late Inspection
« Reply #15 on: 09/08/2009 05:32 PM » Reply with quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Station manuever has begun, should take about 55 minutes to put the complex in proper orientation for undocking
Why, there is nothing in the way, why no just reorient the solar panels on ISS and the 2 Soyuz and just undock?
Thanks
Oxford750
The nominal shuttle undocking procedures (which are required, if one wants a flyaround, which was the case here) require a particular undocking attitude.
Can you please expand on that explaination please Jorge.
I mean they boosted the orbit of the ISS the other day. Does the ISS realy need boosting of its orbit every couple of days?
Surely it does not take 55 min to move solar panels and put both ISS and Shuttle in free drift?
Thanks
Oxford750
First there is a difference between a reboost (to set up for a visiting vehicle like HTV) and a debris avoidnace maneuver.
Second, there is first to flip the ISS. The arrays are parked long before you flip for structural reasons. After undock we wait until the russian segemenbt has control and has gotten us back in to the nominal flight attitude, then we unpark the arrays.
Thanks erioladastra.
Oxford750
-
When I saw how much current the SARJ motors drew during the P6 evaluation I kept thinking it was a misprint, it was such a tiny amount. It makes sense that they'd have to be locked down for any change in Station movement.
Do they park them anytime Soyuz or Progress or the ATV docks?
I don't recall the power draw off the top of my head but I don't think it is anything significant. The arrays are parked for any vehicle docking to protect for loads induced by thruster pluming.
-
Has the US ever successfully put a dog into space? I know China and Russia have done it.
cheers Peter
-
Has the US ever successfully put a dog into space? I know China and Russia have done it.
cheers Peter
The US never tried. It used primates
-
Has the US ever successfully put a dog into space? I know China and Russia have done it.
cheers Peter
The US never tried. It used primates
Still does.
-
The US never tried. It used primates
Still does.
Best line of the month.
-
I'd like to know how practical it would be to do crew transfer from some vehicle to the ISS with an EVA (the space craft being crappled bei the station arm and moved as close to the airlock as possible).
Im thinking of a Gemini style space craft with a graple fixture added.
-
I'd like to know how practical it would be to do crew transfer from some vehicle to the ISS with an EVA (the space craft being crappled bei the station arm and moved as close to the airlock as possible).
Im thinking of a Gemini style space craft with a graple fixture added.
what spacesuits are they wearing
-
Jim, he might mean an emergency 2001/Dave Bowman style transfer into the airlock.
-
Now that the FGB no longer has the functions of providing propulsion or electrical power from its arrays, is the interior of the FGB being stripped of the components for those functions? Can the panels be opened up, and the hardware removed, or does it still sit there?
-
Does anyone know if there are strain gauges (or similar) installed on the solar arrays that could sense drag?
(From an ISS status report: [“Night Glider” drag reduction biasing of the solar arrays with BGAs (Beta Gimbal Assemblies) has been in use since the early days of ISS ops.])
-
Jim, he might mean an emergency 2001/Dave Bowman style transfer into the airlock.
"Dave.....without your space helmet, you're going to find that rather difficult."
-
Does anyone know if there are strain gauges (or similar) installed on the solar arrays that could sense drag?
(From an ISS status report: [“Night Glider” drag reduction biasing of the solar arrays with BGAs (Beta Gimbal Assemblies) has been in use since the early days of ISS ops.])
No, there aren't. There are accelerometers on the truss itself, but they are used to measure the stresses and vibrations on the truss from the solar array movements and things like dockings and thruster firings (mainly for excess forces and overall fatigue monitoring).
Trying to gauge the extremely small forces due to drag like that would be futile - any infinitesimal drag forces would be overwhelmed by the forces of the SARJ/BGA movements and the constant movement of masses (crew/equipment/air/liquids) within the habitable ISS portions and even the truss itself (ammonia through pumps and radiators).
It's easier to determine drag data from the ground via orbital periods and altitude readings.
-
Jim, he might mean an emergency 2001/Dave Bowman style transfer into the airlock.
I don't think any of the ISS ingress points have an "emergency airlock pressurization" handle that you can pull. It's going to take a lot longer than a few seconds to shut the (non motorized) hatch and repressurize.
--
Darren
-
Question re: Truss vs. lab assembly. Was there a study of available power to ISS that allowed the S-6 truss delivery mission (15A) to be moved after the installation of the lab modules (Node 2, Columbus and Kibo)? In all the launch manifests until 2006, mission 15A was flown prior to 10A. Was there more power available on the station than previously thought, and that allowed the launch of the lab modules before the whole power truss was completed?
-
Question re: Truss vs. lab assembly. Was there a study of available power to ISS that allowed the S-6 truss delivery mission (15A) to be moved after the installation of the lab modules (Node 2, Columbus and Kibo)? In all the launch manifests until 2006, mission 15A was flown prior to 10A. Was there more power available on the station than previously thought, and that allowed the launch of the lab modules before the whole power truss was completed?
Mostly politics? As long as NASA verified there was at least enough power available to keep the modules alive, I believe they really wanted to get the other partners' modules installed ASAP, as they had been delayed so long as a consequence of Columbia and RTF. That at least gave the governments involved a 'return on investment' reality check to see them installed as a part of the ISS, and gave the station and Shuttle mission crews a little bit of extra time to prepare them to be fully operational right away once enough power was finally available.
-
Question re: Truss vs. lab assembly. Was there a study of available power to ISS that allowed the S-6 truss delivery mission (15A) to be moved after the installation of the lab modules (Node 2, Columbus and Kibo)? In all the launch manifests until 2006, mission 15A was flown prior to 10A. Was there more power available on the station than previously thought, and that allowed the launch of the lab modules before the whole power truss was completed?
Mostly politics? As long as NASA verified there was at least enough power available to keep the modules alive, I believe they really wanted to get the other partners' modules installed ASAP, as they had been delayed so long as a consequence of Columbia and RTF. That at least gave the governments involved a 'return on investment' reality check to see them installed as a part of the ISS, and gave the station and Shuttle mission crews a little bit of extra time to prepare them to be fully operational right away once enough power was finally available.
That is more or less correct. There was no change in the amount of available power. The partners wanted maximum utilization of their modules prior to shuttle retirement so their flights were accelerated ahead of S6.
-
Question re: Truss vs. lab assembly. Was there a study of available power to ISS that allowed the S-6 truss delivery mission (15A) to be moved after the installation of the lab modules (Node 2, Columbus and Kibo)? In all the launch manifests until 2006, mission 15A was flown prior to 10A. Was there more power available on the station than previously thought, and that allowed the launch of the lab modules before the whole power truss was completed?
Mostly politics? As long as NASA verified there was at least enough power available to keep the modules alive, I believe they really wanted to get the other partners' modules installed ASAP, as they had been delayed so long as a consequence of Columbia and RTF. That at least gave the governments involved a 'return on investment' reality check to see them installed as a part of the ISS, and gave the station and Shuttle mission crews a little bit of extra time to prepare them to be fully operational right away once enough power was finally available.
That is more or less correct. There was no change in the amount of available power. The partners wanted maximum utilization of their modules prior to shuttle retirement so their flights were accelerated ahead of S6.
Okay, thanks!!!!
-
Question re: Truss vs. lab assembly. Was there a study of available power to ISS that allowed the S-6 truss delivery mission (15A) to be moved after the installation of the lab modules (Node 2, Columbus and Kibo)? In all the launch manifests until 2006, mission 15A was flown prior to 10A. Was there more power available on the station than previously thought, and that allowed the launch of the lab modules before the whole power truss was completed?
Mostly politics? As long as NASA verified there was at least enough power available to keep the modules alive, I believe they really wanted to get the other partners' modules installed ASAP, as they had been delayed so long as a consequence of Columbia and RTF. That at least gave the governments involved a 'return on investment' reality check to see them installed as a part of the ISS, and gave the station and Shuttle mission crews a little bit of extra time to prepare them to be fully operational right away once enough power was finally available.
That is more or less correct. There was no change in the amount of available power. The partners wanted maximum utilization of their modules prior to shuttle retirement so their flights were accelerated ahead of S6.
Correct - though to clarify. Both ESA's and JAXA's programs were under threat of cancelation by their respective goverment bodies. Max utilzation was nto really required so much as just getting the things up there first to keep the money flowing.
-
Today, during an ESA in-flight event, De Winne mentioned that most of the ISS modules don´t have windows. My question is: which modules have windows?
Thanks.
-
Today, during an ESA in-flight event, De Winne mentioned that most of the ISS modules don´t have windows. My question is: which modules have windows?
Thanks.
Lab
Kibo
Zvezda
pretty sure that is it for now until Cupola gets on board (not sure about the hatches on the two nodes - I seem to recall they have small windows but not sure if that is common on each hatch or not??)
-
Today, during an ESA in-flight event, De Winne mentioned that most of the ISS modules don´t have windows. My question is: which modules have windows?
Thanks.
Lab
Kibo
Zvezda
pretty sure that is it for now until Cupola gets on board (not sure about the hatches on the two nodes - I seem to recall they have small windows but not sure if that is common on each hatch or not??)
By Lab, do you mean Destiny?
-
Lab
Kibo
Zvezda
I think that windows are also at Pirs (in two EVA hatches), Unity and Harmony (in CBM hatches).
-
Today, during an ESA in-flight event, De Winne mentioned that most of the ISS modules don´t have windows. My question is: which modules have windows?
Thanks.
Lab
Kibo
Zvezda
pretty sure that is it for now until Cupola gets on board (not sure about the hatches on the two nodes - I seem to recall they have small windows but not sure if that is common on each hatch or not??)
By Lab, do you mean Destiny?
Yes, I mean destiny...
-
Lab
Kibo
Zvezda
I think that windows are also at Pirs (in two EVA hatches), Unity and Harmony (in CBM hatches).
That's correct. There's a CBCS hatch window in each active CBM.
-
If a Soyuz was being launched, and had to abort the mission before it got to the ISS, how much longer could the Soyuz that is being replaced wait before it has to land?
And how long will the wait be to get another Soyuz to launch?
-
If a Soyuz was being launched, and had to abort the mission before it got to the ISS, how much longer could the Soyuz that is being replaced wait before it has to land?
And how long will the wait be to get another Soyuz to launch?
TMA-9 stayed in orbit for 215 days. That's 5 weeks longer than the nominal 6-month period for on-orbit stays of Soyuz.
If I recall correctly, early in the ISS program RSA suggested 1-year crew rotations on ISS, instead of 6-months rotations. That was based on the assumption of using the Soyuz-TM, which would suggest Energia's engineers aren't worried about long stays of Soyuz on orbit.
Currently Soyuz launches are scheduled every 3 months. I very much doubt they could move forward the launch date very much for the next Soyuz if one has to abort its mission. They would just continue with the schedule as is and leave one part of the expedition crew in orbit for 9 months.
-
If a Soyuz was being launched, and had to abort the mission before it got to the ISS, how much longer could the Soyuz that is being replaced wait before it has to land?
And how long will the wait be to get another Soyuz to launch?
TMA-9 stayed in orbit for 215 days. That's 5 weeks longer than the nominal 6-month period for on-orbit stays of Soyuz.
If I recall correctly, early in the ISS program RSA suggested 1-year crew rotations on ISS, instead of 6-months rotations. That was based on the assumption of using the Soyuz-TM, which would suggest Energia's engineers aren't worried about long stays of Soyuz on orbit.
You don't recall correctly. It would have required an upgrade to Soyuz.
Currently Soyuz launches are scheduled every 3 months. I very much doubt they could move forward the launch date very much for the next Soyuz if one has to abort its mission. They would just continue with the schedule as is and leave one part of the expedition crew in orbit for 9 months.
That is correct.
-
Currently Soyuz launches are scheduled every 3 months. I very much doubt they could move forward the launch date very much for the next Soyuz if one has to abort its mission. They would just continue with the schedule as is and leave one part of the expedition crew in orbit for 9 months.
That is correct.
So from now on the crew don't go down in the same Soyuz they launched in?
-
Currently Soyuz launches are scheduled every 3 months. I very much doubt they could move forward the launch date very much for the next Soyuz if one has to abort its mission. They would just continue with the schedule as is and leave one part of the expedition crew in orbit for 9 months.
That is correct.
So from now on the crew don't go down in the same Soyuz they launched in?
I don't understand the question.
-
In reading Chris B.'s article today on the Soyuz TMA-16 launch/Safe Haven Evaluations, I was struck by the description of what would happen to the crew during a decompression event.
“Assuming crew will be capable of taking action, documents note the Soyuz will take approximately 5 minutes to isolate, which is already longer than the 3 minutes to reach vacuum.”
I had assumed that there were emergency oxygen masks located in various modules that they could don in this type of emergency. Is that not the case?
Thanks,
David
-
Oxygen masks do not help when you are in a vacuum, for that you need a full pressure suit. Otherwise you would be able to EVA just a mask.
-
Oxygen masks do not help when you are in a vacuum, for that you need a full pressure suit. Otherwise you would be able to EVA just a mask.
I understand that a normal EVA needs a regular pressure suit. What I'm asking about is the use of an oxygen mask in an emergency vacuum situation.
My question arises from the U.S. Air Force studies in the 1960s that indicated that a human could survive vacuum for brief periods.* I'm interested to know if an emergency oxygen mask could extend the survival period, and therefore if the ISS carries such masks. Would an emergency oxygen mask increase the chance that an ISS crewmember would be able to reach the safety of the Soyuz in this type of emergency?
* from "The Making of Kubrick's 2001" Jerome Agel, 1970 - in the description of Dave Bowman's emergency transfer from a space pod to Discovery mother ship: "U.S. Air Force tests with chimpanzees and dog proved that man could live exposed to vacuum for brief time".
-
They breathe regular air on the ISS, right? If they lost most of their pressure the nitrogen in their blood would start foaming out almost instantly. Those tests might have been with animals breathing the 5 psi pure O2 atmosphere NASA liked.
-
The problem is, you would pass out right away (look at what happened to the Soyuz 11 crew, for example). You'd need a tight, pressurized oxygen mask to do a suitless EVA of short duration. Your skin is tight enough to hold pressure and the main problem with blood nitrogen is due to the surface area exposed in your lungs' alveoli. Of course, there'd be quite a "pucker requirement" as well! Fortunately, sphincter muscles are very sturdy. The capillaries in your skin would start to hemmorhage too, and I think that would be quite painful. The scene from 2001 is based on an idea Clarke had that goes back to his early writing career, and I think he may have been making the assumption a human could keep their epiglottis closed tight. I don't think this is true. Most mammals (and human babies) have a structural arrangement in their throats that allows them to bypass the esophagus/trachea interconnect (so they can breathe while drinking, among other things), but adults lose that after their nasopharynx changes shape to allow human speech sounds to be made. That's the big trade humans made and chimps did not: We can talk, but we can also choke to death.
-
They have tight breathing masks onboard ISS, they look similar to a full face diving mask. You can see them on some of the ISS tours the crew has done.
-
Another question about the recent Soyuz Safe Haven article.
If the loud bang due to MMOD impact makes the crew go deaf, how do they communicate with the ground? I would imagine they have some sort of text-based communication?
-
They have tight breathing masks onboard ISS, they look similar to a full face diving mask. You can see them on some of the ISS tours the crew has done.
Thanks, everyone, for the replies. Interesting info!
-
Another question about the recent Soyuz Safe Haven article.
If the loud bang due to MMOD impact makes the crew go deaf, how do they communicate with the ground? I would imagine they have some sort of text-based communication?
Nope. Hence one reason NASA wants the hatch closed. Odds are you have lost the crew but there is a slim chance.
BTW, there were some errors in the original that have been revised (Moscow does not want to close the hatch, NASA does).
-
Could an emergency EVA be done with Sokol suits? If yes how dangerous would it be to use a similiar suit for nominal crew transfer for example with a Gemini style spacecraft without a real docking mechanism but with grapple fixtures.
-
Which of the exterior ports are compatible with one another? I have the impression that the Russion PIERS and Zvezda ports have the same form factor, the PMA's have a completely different design, and the US module ports are the largest. Is this correct?
-
Thanks, erioladastra
One unrelated question (I searched the forum, but alas could not find),
Where on ISS will the VASIMR engine go?
-
Which of the exterior ports are compatible with one another? I have the impression that the Russion PIERS and Zvezda ports have the same form factor, the PMA's have a completely different design, and the US module ports are the largest. Is this correct?
Here are the docking/berthing systems used by ISS and the locations with available ports:
APAS - PMA-2 forward, PMA-3 port
Standard probe & drogue - Zvezda aft, Pirs nadir, Zarya nadir
Hybrid probe & drogue - Zvezda zenith
CBM - Unity nadir, Harmony nadir, Harmony zenith
Locations on the same row are compatible, locations on different rows are incompatible.
-
Locations on the same row are compatible, locations on different rows are incompatible.
I didn't realize there were two versions of the Russian port. I guess that mean the spacecraft must be built differently in order to use the 'hybrid' port, which would limit the ability to move vehicles around on the Russian segment.
-
Locations on the same row are compatible, locations on different rows are incompatible.
I didn't realize there were two versions of the Russian port. I guess that mean the spacecraft must be built differently in order to use the 'hybrid' port, which would limit the ability to move vehicles around on the Russian segment.
Once MRM-2 is docked to Zvezda zenith, this will no longer be a problem since it will occupy the last hybrid port. MRM-2 will provide its own standard drogue (for a total of four, all interchangeable).
-
Thanks, erioladastra
One unrelated question (I searched the forum, but alas could not find),
Where on ISS will the VASIMR engine go?
No clue yet if it will go at all (serious power issues etc) and if so where. Still all being discussed.
-
Alright, thank-you =)
-
Is the PnP requirement a cumulative damage thing (enough small holes and you can no longer sustain pressure) or is it a one-time big enough hole that causes excessive pressure loss?
-
Thanks, erioladastra
One unrelated question (I searched the forum, but alas could not find),
Where on ISS will the VASIMR engine go?
No clue yet if it will go at all (serious power issues etc) and if so where. Still all being discussed.
I'd wondered about that. What the point of putting it on the ISS would be if all you could get was fraction of a second runs from big capacitors or something. Batteries that could put out 200kw would be huge and even if they were willing to give it the entire solar array output supplemented by station batteries I doubt if ISS power system is wired for anything like that.
-
Batteries that could put out 200kw would be huge and even if they were willing to give it the entire solar array output supplemented by station batteries I doubt if ISS power system is wired for anything like that.
Actually, Lithium Polymer is up to 3.6kW/kg for a sustained discharge. That's 56kg for 200kW, which is pretty remarkable.
-
And how long do they deliver 3.6kW/kg?
Analyst
-
Batteries that could put out 200kw would be huge and even if they were willing to give it the entire solar array output supplemented by station batteries I doubt if ISS power system is wired for anything like that.
Actually, Lithium Polymer is up to 3.6kW/kg for a sustained discharge. That's 56kg for 200kW, which is pretty remarkable.
Shows that I need to keep a little more up to date. Now that I look at the latest testing I see up to 30 times the amp hour rating for discharge. I didn't realize they had that low of an internal resistance. I see claims of up to 200watt hours per kg, or twice standard Li-Ions, so 1,000 kg pack of those would keep your engine humming for an hour.
But even a few kilowatts is a pretty huge amount of juice from the ISS so the duty cycle would have to be pretty low. It might be a case of using any surplus current from the main arrays to charge the batteries as it's available. I hear anywhere from 30 to 60kw available for science. I guess it depends on if they're already rationing watts or there'll be some left over at times.
Maybe they could use one of the perpetual motion generators from Advanced Concepts.
-
In the Shannon/Sufferdini briefing yesterday, Shannon said STS-129 could slip to December due to range conflicts in mid-November. If that happens, that's when there will only be two crew members on board ISS. I kept hoping a reporter would ask what impact this might have on docked mission objectives, if any.
Also, it seems like there are several ways they could have maintained a crew of 3 and 6 during the next increment - Stott could have stayed until March (breaking Suni's record, but not Lopez-Alegria's), the Russians could have flown an additional crew member on TMA-16 in lieu of Guy (Ok, that would mean 7 on board station until TMA-15 departs next month), or STS-129 could have brought up a replacement for Stott (assuming 129 isn't up-mass-constrained).
Shannon did say that next year's shuttle missions were all up-mass-constrained (answering a reporter's question as to why the crews are smaller and missions shorter than recent history). I suspect that's also the case with STS-129 with two fully loaded ELC's.
No doubt the program decided to drop the crew to 2 and then 5 for good reason. I just wish they had talked a bit more about the trades involved.
-
In the Shannon/Sufferdini briefing yesterday, Shannon said STS-129 could slip to December due to range conflicts in mid-November. If that happens, that's when there will only be two crew members on board ISS.
Three ISS crewmembers. Stott doesn't leave until Atlantis departs. According to the MOD FRR docs on L2, she remains ISS crew for planning purposes until hatch closure on FD9.
the Russians could have flown an additional crew member on TMA-16 in lieu of Guy (Ok, that would mean 7 on board station until TMA-15 departs next month)
That is an absolute non-starter. One of these crewmembers would have no ticket home in an emergency.
The reason Stott has to land on 129 is that she has to be off-station before TMA-16 departs. Stott's seat on TMA-16 is only for emergency return. NASA hasn't paid for Stott to return nominally on TMA-16.
TMA-16 is set to depart 18 March, the same day 131 launches. So only 129 and 130 are available to bring Stott home. If they change Stott's trip home to 130 and then 130 slips too much, that might push 130's arrival past TMA-16's departure. So, to be on the cautious side, they bring Stott home on 129.
-
Three ISS crewmembers. Stott doesn't leave until Atlantis departs. According to the MOD FRR docs on L2, she remains ISS crew for planning purposes until hatch closure on FD9.
the Russians could have flown an additional crew member on TMA-16 in lieu of Guy (Ok, that would mean 7 on board station until TMA-15 departs next month)
That is an absolute non-starter. One of these crewmembers would have no ticket home in an emergency.
No, but they could have flown an additional crew member in lieu of Williams. Then Williams could have flown to the station on STS-129 to replace Stott. Of course, this would lead to no American crew members on board Soyuz TMA-16, which was unpalatable to NASA. Screwed by politics again.
-
Three ISS crewmembers. Stott doesn't leave until Atlantis departs.
Of course. Still, there will be impacts to docked ops if Atlantis slips to December when the station only has 3 crew. For example, I think De Winne is involved in some of the robotics.
Regarding STS-129 up mass...
In the Mission Overview briefing, I see that Atlantis is bringing up 2 heavily loaded ELC's so I guessing it's already mass-constrained.
Regarding 7 crew on ISS...
I didn't consider emergency return.
Thanks for the feedback.
-
Question: (I hope this hasn't been asked recently. I did search.) Today's orbital debris threat to the ISS made me wonder about recovering the ISS after a MMOD hit and depressurization. I'm thinking about a small enough hit that the crew was able to escape in the soyuz. Would the ISS be lost if such a hit occured? Or could it be recovered by later missions? Has there been any planning on how this would be done? What do the plans envision?
I'm assuming the station is still controllable from the ground, has power, and sufficient onboard gases for repressurization when possible.
I'll be interested in your thoughts. Thanks.
-
Question: (I hope this hasn't been asked recently. I did search.) Today's orbital debris threat to the ISS made me wonder about recovering the ISS after a MMOD hit and depressurization. I'm thinking about a small enough hit that the crew was able to escape in the soyuz. Would the ISS be lost if such a hit occured? Or could it be recovered by later missions? Has there been any planning on how this would be done? What do the plans envision?
I'm assuming the station is still controllable from the ground, has power, and sufficient onboard gases for repressurization when possible.
I'll be interested in your thoughts. Thanks.
Bottom line is that we don't know. The smallest debris we can track wil make a hole about 20 cm. It is concisdered catastrophic and will almost certainly mean the loss of crew and station. Such a rupture will likely cause the ISS to "unzip" and likely become unstable and unsalvagable. No real procedures - we will do what we can when the situation arises because there are too many variables.
-
How does the Common Berthing Mechanism provide for fluid transfers? Are the connections automatically made when a module is berthed? Are they pre-allocated for e.g. air and water? Is there any provision for other fluids such as propellants or refrigerants?
-
How does the Common Berthing Mechanism provide for fluid transfers? Are the connections automatically made when a module is berthed? Are they pre-allocated for e.g. air and water? Is there any provision for other fluids such as propellants or refrigerants?
The CBM does not directly provide fluid lines. The CBM is really a bolt assembly that joins two vestibules together. On either side of the vesitbule you have sets of air ducts, power, data and fluid lines. Then you install a jumper/duct between the two vestibules. No prop or refrigerants (none of which exists on the US side of the station except for ammonia lines but that is all external).
-
This was probably already asked and answered, but with 80+ pages on this thread alone, I'll ask: Does anyone know when (if) Dextre will finally do something? Seems like a lot of money, time and effort to put it up there. If anyone knows when and for what task. Thanks
-
This was probably already asked and answered, but with 80+ pages on this thread alone, I'll ask: Does anyone know when (if) Dextre will finally do something? Seems like a lot of money, time and effort to put it up there. If anyone knows when and for what task. Thanks
Planning to do an RPCM changeout next year. Just waiting mainly on the time to do it (ground resources pretty tied up right now in all the robotics activities).
-
Now that nasa is launching more of them;
How many high pressure oxygen and nitrogen tanks can
be put on the quest air lock?
-
Now that nasa is launching more of them;
How many high pressure oxygen and nitrogen tanks can
be put on the quest air lock?
I *think* no more, maybe one more. Next up will be the Nitrogen Oxygen Recharge System (NORS) that will go up on HTV/COTS and plug in to recharcge the tanks. Something like 2015.
-
The Science Power Platform ( SPP ) was orgininally planned to dock where Poisk just docked ( zenith port Zvesda ) with what will be the Rassvet docking compartment as the base.
What was gonna be the 4th docking port in that original senerio?
-
What was gonna be the 4th docking port in that original scenario?
The configuration of Russian segment in 2004 shows Pirs on lateral port of Science Power Module (see image from Novosti kosmonavtiki magazine below).
-
What was gonna be the 4th docking port in that original scenario?
The configuration of Russian segment in 2004 shows Pirs on lateral port of Science Power Module (see image from Novosti kosmonavtiki magazine below).
I don't think that Pirs' cone port would have been usable in that configuration.
-
I posted this in the Shuttle Q&A, but didn't get a responce.
I was just checking Heavens Above on the ISS Height Profile and noticed that they did show the 1.5 k re-boost that was performed by the shuttle. However, I also noticed that the ISS had an altitude of almost 358 km around 1/10/09, and prior to yesterdays re-boast the altitude was 340 km, which is a drop of 18km. During that periord they had a couple of re-boost in July, which raised the ISS about 2.5km.
With the 27 min burn by the shuttle to raise the ISS the 1.5km, what is the maximum re-boost that has ever been done? Also related somewhat to the same question, what is the min altitude the ISS can get too before it needs a re-boost.
-
I was wondering how much (percentage) of rack space on the ISS is dedicated to "science" and how much is required to house the various systems used to house the inhabitants, maintain "life support - (O2, CO2, H2O, waste processing etc), oversee the operation of the ISS mechanical, electrical, and "cyber" systems and storage.
I know space is at a premium up there right now with the rush to get as much sparing on orbit as possible, but the science vs just opperating the ISS (which I think is valuable science if we are ever going to do long duration space flight BEO) time has been a sore spot for years - esp now that we are going down to 2 crew members for 3 weeks.
Appreciate any insights!
Lee
-
Any insight on the reasons? And for how long will the ISS be staffed by five people? Looks like it is going to be like that until end of 2010, or am I wrong? Thank you.
-
Soyuz TMA-15 returns with Romanenko, De Winne and Thirsk tomorrow, so this will leave just two crew until the next Soyuz arrives just before Christmas.
That means there will be a five person crew until next April, when three more arrive and only Williams and Surayev leave.
I've no idea why this has arisen or why another expedition crew member wasn't brought up on STS-129.
-
And for how long will the ISS be staffed by five people? Looks like it is going to be like that until end of 2010, or am I wrong? Thank you.
The station will return to six crew members with the arrival of Soyuz TMA-18 in April 2010.
-
Soyuz TMA-15 returns with Romanenko, De Winne and Thirsk tomorrow, so this will leave just two crew until the next Soyuz arrives just before Christmas.
That means there will be a five person crew until next April, when three more arrive and only Williams and Surayev leave.
I've no idea why this has arisen or why another expedition crew member wasn't brought up on STS-129.
The ISS program is switching to solely Soyuz crew rotation, Nicole Scott was the last shuttle rotated crew member. Right now the crew of two/five is just a transition.
-
The ISS program is switching to solely Soyuz crew rotation, Nicole Scott was the last shuttle rotated crew member. Right now the crew of two/five is just a transition.
Its still not clear if the departure of Ms. Stott was due to a technical issue, or whether simply NASA didn't pay for her return seat on Soyuz.
-
The ISS program is switching to solely Soyuz crew rotation, Nicole Scott was the last shuttle rotated crew member. Right now the crew of two/five is just a transition.
Its still not clear if the departure of Ms. Stott was due to a technical issue, or whether simply NASA didn't pay for her return seat on Soyuz.
Um... what? Nicole's seat on the Soyuz in case of emergency return was paid for just like any other Shuttle rotating ISS crew member in the history of the ISS Program. Nicole was always scheduled to return on STS-129 at the end of her tour on the ISS.
Please explain your comments.
-
Um... what? Nicole's seat on the Soyuz in case of emergency return was paid for just like any other Shuttle rotating ISS crew member in the history of the ISS Program. Nicole was always scheduled to return on STS-129 at the end of her tour on the ISS.
The answer to the question of why Ms. Stott was scheduled to return on Shuttle and not Soyuz is ... because she was scheduled to return on Shuttle.
Perhaps I am the only here who believes that there is one price to NASA for Roskosmos providing an emergency return seat on Soyuz, and another, higher, price for both emergency and normal return. At any rate, it appears that there will be a Soyuz returning to Earth in the future with just two passengers, for no obvious reason.
-
The usual terminology for a rack that houses life support and other systems is "system rack". I believe that there are still some racks devoted to storage, and they are "Storage racks". So.... the real question is the allocation of racks for system use, science utilization, or storage. I don't know the answer, BTW.
-
Thank you so very much for all the comments.
I noticed something else, that as the remaining manifest flights are reduced, there will be only one shuttle flight with seven astronauts, and that is sts-131, and it will occur when there are five people on the station; thus there will never be more than 12 people on ISS for the rest of the STS program. The difference may be very relevant in the event of a problem with an Orbiter that make it unsafe for landing. It is my opinion that the disabling contingencies could be very different and varied, not necessarily we can assume it'd be a piece of foam or other debris damaging the thermal protection system (which, by the way, is now a very well managed risk). Then, in such an event, it's not so obvious there would be a next flight, even a rescue one. This would become especially true at the very end of the program. However the ISS can hold the crews safely for extended periods, even though there would be a loss of the "guaranteed evacuation" safety net, because there'd be more astronauts on board than Soyuz seats. On the other hand, there are Soyuzes on the way up at the right time, if you check the manifest (ISS can support 13 people for about 80 days, I think); and it's possible to send them up empty, of course this would mess up crew rotation and ISS activities but, in such a scenario, it'd be the least of people's concerns. Of course the dates are already properly arranged in concert with the Progress (and ATV) resupply flights. Such way out of trouble becomes non-viable with 13 people on board, though. Because either we keep for a long time a person with no return ticket (for about 3-4 extra months beyond the docking of the following two Soyuzes) or we feel super extra confident that another Shuttle can surely and certainly fly there, and the contingency will not occur again and the rescue Orbiter will be able to land safely with 11 astronauts on board.
I would expect more Soyuzes to fly with two astronauts / cosmonauts after the end of the STS program, because there will be a need for downmass which sometimes will become desperate, but I see no other reason now, to fly a Soyuz with an empty seat, than those I outlined. Please share your thoughts.
-
Maybe this is also a shuttle payload issue as well? One person less -> more payload to the station.
-
there is a layout of the ISS on L2 that shows all the info requested
-
An older (2007) version is public domain.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/168740main_AIAA_2007_ISSPostAssemblyUtilization.pdf
Page 12.
-
Nicole was always scheduled to return on STS-129 at the end of her tour on the ISS
Not always. There was period of time when Nicole Stott should return on Soyuz TMA-15 and Robert Thirsk - on STS-129. But it was before her launch.
-
Want to ask about a way to route the power&data signals to Mobile Base System (surely through the Transporter under it, but then how it came to this machine). Via some additional trail or elastic tape?
edit: Thanks for answer eergo.
-
Want to ask about a way to route the power&data signals to Mobile Base System (surely through the Transporter under it, but then how it came to this machine). Via some additional trail or elastic tape?
The TUS (Trailing Umbilical System) reel assembly performs this role. It releases or retracts cable depending upon the position of the MBS, much like the cable in a domestic vacuum cleaner. An spare ORU of this was actually sent to Station on the last STS flight, 129.
-
Why doesn't the top module on Kibo have an active CBM on its ceiling so that HTV may berth with it?
-
Why doesn't the top module on Kibo have an active CBM on its ceiling so that HTV may berth with it?
Could be any of the following:
1. Structural loads of the logistics module would not be able to handle it
2. Dynamics and control of the stack with a large pretruberance (the HTV) hanging out there.
3. MMOD concerns with it on the zenith
4. Another air leak path from yet another CBM
5. The list could go on...
-
Why doesn't the top module on Kibo have an active CBM on its ceiling so that HTV may berth with it?
Cost of adding a CBM when there are more then enough on ISS already.
-
IIRC, the Kibo Logistics module was originally envisioned as a up & down repeated transport module, much like MPLMs are. But was changed to remain permanently attached after Columbia.
-
What is the reason for a Russian Airlock on the ISS and an American airlock on the ISS? How do they decide which airlock to use? How do they decide which suits to use? Why do they have Russian suits and American suits.
Example:January 14 - spacewalk (ISS Russian EVA-24) from Pirs airlock [Kotov, Suraev]
It may just be me but it seems like they should always use the American suits as they have always come off to me as being the easier to use suits but any input would be great!
Thanks
-
What is the reason for a Russian Airlock on the ISS and an American airlock on the ISS? How do they decide which airlock to use? How do they decide which suits to use? Why do they have Russian suits and American suits.
Example:January 14 - spacewalk (ISS Russian EVA-24) from Pirs airlock [Kotov, Suraev]
It may just be me but it seems like they should always use the American suits as they have always come off to me as being the easier to use suits but any input would be great!
Thanks
It depends on which part of the ISS they are working on RS or USOS.
-
What is the reason for a Russian Airlock on the ISS and an American airlock on the ISS? How do they decide which airlock to use? How do they decide which suits to use? Why do they have Russian suits and American suits.
Example:January 14 - spacewalk (ISS Russian EVA-24) from Pirs airlock [Kotov, Suraev]
It may just be me but it seems like they should always use the American suits as they have always come off to me as being the easier to use suits but any input would be great!
Thanks
It depends on which part of the ISS they are working on RS or USOS.
Does this also effect the suits used?
Why is the Russian airlock never used during shuttle missions?
Thanks
-
Does this also effect the suits used?
Why is the Russian airlock never used during shuttle missions?
Thanks
Because that is the agreement, work on the Russian segment means Russian Airlock and Russian suits.
Russian airlock is not during shuttle missions because the work is on the US segment.
-
Thanks you Jim.
:)
-
What is the reason for a Russian Airlock on the ISS and an American airlock on the ISS? How do they decide which airlock to use? How do they decide which suits to use? Why do they have Russian suits and American suits.
Example:January 14 - spacewalk (ISS Russian EVA-24) from Pirs airlock [Kotov, Suraev]
It may just be me but it seems like they should always use the American suits as they have always come off to me as being the easier to use suits but any input would be great!
Thanks
It depends on which part of the ISS they are working on RS or USOS.
Does this also effect the suits used?
Why is the Russian airlock never used during shuttle missions?
Thanks
Right now, neither side completed hardware in each lock making them interchangeable with suits. They could use it in an emegerncy.
-
Any updates on SARJ status?
-
How do they move these large ISS components in and out of the clean rooms without breaking the clean room environment?
-
How do they move these large ISS components in and out of the clean rooms without breaking the clean room environment?
in containers like the transportation canister
-
How do they move these large ISS components in and out of the clean rooms without breaking the clean room environment?
in containers like the transportation canister
Right. What I mean was not how they don't break the environment for the item in motion, but how do they get the canister in and out of the room/building without breaking the environment in the rest of the room.
-
Right. What I mean was not how they don't break the environment for the item in motion, but how do they get the canister in and out of the room/building without breaking the environment in the rest of the room.
The better facilities have airlocks
-
Right. What I mean was not how they don't break the environment for the item in motion, but how do they get the canister in and out of the room/building without breaking the environment in the rest of the room.
The better facilities have airlocks
Okay, thanks for the info. I couldn't figure a way to do it without one, so I feel better that that's what NASA does as well.
-
Does anyone know where these components will be docked after STS-133?
-
Does anyone know where these components will be docked after STS-133?
Look in the ISS Q&A thread
-
To my knowledge, Tranquility will be on Unity Portside, PLM (the permanently-installed MPLM) will be on Unity Nadir, the cupola will be on Tranquility Forward and PMA-3 will be on Tranquility Nadir.
-
PMM will actually go onto Node-2 zenith.
-
To my knowledge, Tranquility will be on Unity Portside, PLM (the permanently-installed MPLM) will be on Unity Nadir, the cupola will be on Tranquility Forward and PMA-3 will be on Tranquility Nadir.
The Cupola will be on Node-3 nadir after 20A and I would presume the desire for it to stay on a nadir-facing CBM.
-
To my knowledge, Tranquility will be on Unity Portside, PLM (the permanently-installed MPLM) will be on Unity Nadir, the cupola will be on Tranquility Forward and PMA-3 will be on Tranquility Nadir.
The Cupola will be on Node-3 nadir after 20A and I would presume the desire for it to stay on a nadir-facing CBM.
Correct. The rest of the plan is PMA-3 on Node 3 port and PMM on Node 1 nadir. Though stay tuned, the PMA-3 plan could change again (might stay on Node 2 zenith at least until after 130, instead of being relocated during 130).
-
The rest of the plan is PMA-3 on Node 3 port
I had thought that had been shot down because of the problems of clearance between Tranquility and the portside radiator array. I'm presuming that the docking port would never be used in the scenario that Jorge describes.
-
The rest of the plan is PMA-3 on Node 3 port
I had thought that had been shot down because of the problems of clearance between Tranquility and the portside radiator array. I'm presuming that the docking port would never be used in the scenario that Jorge describes.
The clearance between PMA-3 and the P1 radiator is indeed tight (less than 30 cm). NASA is looking at removing the TCS retroreflector from PMA-3 to improve the clearance. It will probably not be worth the hassle unless the mounting bracket can be removed along with the reflector.
Neither PMA will ever be used for a docking again after shuttle retirement, now that the decision has been made that the new common docking adapter will connect directly to CBM rather than to a PMA.
-
PMM will actually go onto Node-2 zenith.
That was the plan at one point, yes, but I think the N1Z location is now more correct. Then again, these things are subject to change.
-
PMM will actually go onto Node-2 zenith.
That was the plan at one point, yes, but I think the N1Z location is now more correct. Then again, these things are subject to change.
N1N, not N1Z. N1Z has been occupied by the Z1 truss since 2000.
-
:'( :'(
Oops; genuine typo. Thanks for the correction.
-
With the station configured as described, is it correct that a crew member could go from the Cupola,
* through a CBM into Tranquility, then
* through a CBM into Unity, then
* through a CBM into Destiny, then
* through a CBM into Harmony, then
* through a CBM into Kibo PM, then
* through a CBM into Kibo ELM-PS
i.e. pass through 6 CBMs without ever backing up? Topologically will this be the longest such string of CBM-connected modules?
-
That sounds about right.
-
The rest of the plan is PMA-3 on Node 3 port
I had thought that had been shot down because of the problems of clearance between Tranquility and the portside radiator array. I'm presuming that the docking port would never be used in the scenario that Jorge describes.
The clearance between PMA-3 and the P1 radiator is indeed tight (less than 30 cm). NASA is looking at removing the TCS retroreflector from PMA-3 to improve the clearance. It will probably not be worth the hassle unless the mounting bracket can be removed along with the reflector.
Neither PMA will ever be used for a docking again after shuttle retirement, now that the decision has been made that the new common docking adapter will connect directly to CBM rather than to a PMA.
The reflector will not be removed. It was integrated into structure and cannot easily be removed EVA.
-
Given that South Korea and India are looking to join the ISS program, where would their modules be added to ISS?
-
Given that South Korea and India are looking to join the ISS program, where would their modules be added to ISS?
What modules? Joining the program doesn't mean they have to provide a module
-
A little question about early ISS assembly.
Do you know what is shown on this picture reportedly taken at the end of STS-101 :
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-101/html/sts101-714-028.html
At the beginning, I thought it was the "Strela" crane (GStM-1), but 101's astronauts moved it on PMA-1 (it is quiet visible here : http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-101/html/sts101-720-058.html)
-
Photo STS101-714-028 was made before STS-101 docking: part of GStM-2 cargo boom is on PMA-2, OTD crane is on PMA-1.
Photo STS101-720-58 was made after STS-101 undocking: assembled GStM-2 cargo boom and OTD crane are on PMA-1.
-
Photo STS101-714-028 was made before STS-101 docking: part of GStM-2 cargo boom is on PMA-2, OTD crane is on PMA-1.
OK, so we agree that NASA's caption is wrong.
Thank you Anik !
-
OK, so we agree that NASA's caption is wrong
And, as I have understood, we agree now it is GStM-2, not GStM-1.
-
OK, so we agree that NASA's caption is wrong
And, as I have understood, we agree now it is GStM-2, not GStM-1.
Yes, excuse me for this little mistake ! ;)
-
In either case, how does the cargo boom attach to a PMA?
-
In either case, how does the cargo boom attach to a PMA?
On PMA-2 it was attached via adapter on one of two grapple fixtures:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-96/hires/s96e5146.jpg
On PMA-1 it was attached via adapter on one of points:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-101/hires/sts101-720-058.jpg
Adapter:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-96/hires/s96e5020.jpg
-
Another question regarding GStM-2 :
According to Energia's 1996-2001 book, STS-101 went to the station with three components of the crane :
- балки стрелы
- мобильного звена
- страховочно-транспортировочново устройства (СТУ)
Could you help me identify these three elements on the ICC ?
(http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/imageviewer.cfm?mediaid=3530&mr=l&w=0&h=0&fn=00pp0372&sn=KSC-00PP-0372)
Thank you very very much ! (I am writing an article about GStM for my website ;) )
-
1 - Балка стрелы
2 - Мобильное звено
3 - Страховочно-транспортировочное устройство
-
Thanks Anik !
-
I was wondering if anyone knows the official procedures (or if they don't exist, likely scenario) if the ISS suffered a total loss of communication with the ground that could not be re-established. This includes the HAM radio, and the docked Soyuz(s)
Is the crew capable of 'piloting' the Soyuz(s) back to Earth without any comm with the ground?
I know this scenario is very unlikely and next-to impossible, but I'm curious just the same. Thanks!
-
Adapter:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-96/hires/s96e5020.jpg
I am sorry, but it is part of GStM-2, not adapter. This part is called the docking device for installation on base point on Pirs module. See number 1 on photos below.
Adapter (see number 2 on photos below) was installed on one of two grapple fixtures on PMA-2 during STS-96. Then an operator post of GStM-2 was installed on adapter in STS-96. Then in STS-101 a cargo boom was assembled with an operator post and GStM-2 with adapter was transferred to PMA-1. During RS EVA-4 GStM-2 was transferred and installed on Pirs. Then during US EVA-1 adapter was moved from PMA-1 to a grapple fixture on Zarya module. During RS EVA-15 adapter was transferred on one of two grapple fixtures on PMA-3. Then during STS-116 EVA-3 a set of debris panels was installed on adapter. During RS EVA-18 debris panels were moved on Zvezda module and adapter was left on PMA-3.
-
3 - Страховочно-транспортировочное устройство
I have another question : do you know what is the purpose of this device ?
I guess this is the same that the one visible on the picture below ?
-
do you know what is the purpose of this device?
First purpose is safety for cosmonauts (they fasten tethers to it when they use Strela), second purpose is facilitation of traveling for cosmonauts along all Strela length.
I guess this is the same that the one visible on the picture below?
Yes, it is earlier version of this device. This photo from Mir in 1996. But the first device (square) was made of aluminum with sticky tape on station by Aleksandr Serebrov and used during spacewalk on October 29, 1993.
-
I was wondering if anyone knows the official procedures (or if they don't exist, likely scenario) if the ISS suffered a total loss of communication with the ground that could not be re-established. This includes the HAM radio, and the docked Soyuz(s)
Is the crew capable of 'piloting' the Soyuz(s) back to Earth without any comm with the ground?
I know this scenario is very unlikely and next-to impossible, but I'm curious just the same. Thanks!
Soyuz is periodically updated with coordinates for emergency landing sites. If all radios failed, could Soyuz land? Hmmmmm ..... the answer is: sure, but where it landed, that's a different story. Remember that retrofire occurs out of radio range anyway, so effectively every Soyuz flies back home without radio for much of its flight. The problem in this case is that no one would be expecting them. NORAD would track the Soyuz return, but they may land thousands of miles from Kazakhstan, so there would be no rescue team for a long, long time.
-
During STS-130 launch coverage, they showed a video of Tranquility being loaded into the payload carrier. In the background was what appeared to be another full size pressurized module. Anyone know what it is?
-
During STS-130 launch coverage, they showed a video of Tranquility being loaded into the payload carrier. In the background was what appeared to be another full size pressurized module. Anyone know what it is?
MPLM
-
1 - Балка стрелы
2 - Мобильное звено
3 - Страховочно-транспортировочное устройство
It's me again with a question on the GStM...
Do you know for what purpose is the "Мобильное звено" ? Is it an extension you can put on the GStM and remove from it, as often as you want ?
-
Do you know for what purpose is the "Мобильное звено"?
It is removable extension for boom, which can rotate in axises.
-
When ISS passes over KSC, can the VAB and/or SLF runway be seen with the naked eye?
-
I was wondering if anyone knows the official procedures (or if they don't exist, likely scenario) if the ISS suffered a total loss of communication with the ground that could not be re-established. This includes the HAM radio, and the docked Soyuz(s)
Is the crew capable of 'piloting' the Soyuz(s) back to Earth without any comm with the ground?
I know this scenario is very unlikely and next-to impossible, but I'm curious just the same. Thanks!
Soyuz is periodically updated with coordinates for emergency landing sites. If all radios failed, could Soyuz land? Hmmmmm ..... the answer is: sure, but where it landed, that's a different story. Remember that retrofire occurs out of radio range anyway, so effectively every Soyuz flies back home without radio for much of its flight. The problem in this case is that no one would be expecting them. NORAD would track the Soyuz return, but they may land thousands of miles from Kazakhstan, so there would be no rescue team for a long, long time.
Thank you kindly.
-
When ISS passes over KSC, can the VAB and/or SLF runway be seen with the naked eye?
Only during daytime.
-
Can I ask what are no doubt 3 stupid questions? (Actuallly, including that one its four):
1. At some time in the future, when the shuttle is retired and there is a 6 person crew on ISS, they're all in the US segment when something (bigish) hits Zarya. A quick thinking astronaught is able to shut either the hatch from PMA1 to Zarya or between Unity and PMA1 (I'm not sure if that is possible?). How might the crew get home?
At the heart of this question is the assumption that Soyuz can't dock to anywhere on the US section (including PMA2 and PMA3) and no-one else has anything capable of bringing them home 'til Dragon.
I'm thinking maybe a series of back and forwards internal spacewalks using suits stored in Quest (?), with repressurizing and de-pressurizing and possibly using Orlan suits retreived from the Russian segment to get them to the Soyuz craft?
2. Why weren't the MPLMs built bigger? Maybe something approaching the size of Kibo. I'm assuming its a mass thing. i.e. a full loaded MPLM (at current size) get close to either the launch or landing mass limit of the shuttle.
3. Could (what I'm sure would be an uncomfortable) crewmember (or crewmembers) survive re-entry inside an MPLM in the shuttle payload bay? Obviously with a means to breath, drink etc. for a couple of days.
-
Can I ask what are no doubt 3 stupid questions? (Actuallly, including that one its four):
1. At some time in the future, when the shuttle is retired and there is a 6 person crew on ISS, they're all in the US segment when something (bigish) hits Zarya. A quick thinking astronaught is able to shut either the hatch from PMA1 to Zarya or between Unity and PMA1 (I'm not sure if that is possible?). How might the crew get home?
At the heart of this question is the assumption that Soyuz can't dock to anywhere on the US section (including PMA2 and PMA3) and no-one else has anything capable of bringing them home 'til Dragon.
I'm thinking maybe a series of back and forwards internal spacewalks using suits stored in Quest (?), with repressurizing and de-pressurizing and possibly using Orlan suits retreived from the Russian segment to get them to the Soyuz craft?
First step: EVA from Quest to Poisk to grab a couple of Orlans, bring them back to Quest. Once in Quest, the Orlans could be worn by 2 crew. They transfer to Poisk. One crew stays in the Service Module, the other goes back to Quest, carrying the second Orlan.
Shampoo, rinse, repeat until all 6 crew are in the Russian segment. It would be quicker if there were 3 Orlans available.
-
2. Why weren't the MPLMs built bigger? Maybe something approaching the size of Kibo. I'm assuming its a mass thing. i.e. a full loaded MPLM (at current size) get close to either the launch or landing mass limit of the shuttle.
3. Could (what I'm sure would be an uncomfortable) crewmember (or crewmembers) survive re-entry inside an MPLM in the shuttle payload bay? Obviously with a means to breath, drink etc. for a couple of days.
2. $$ and mass limits
3. No temp control.
-
3. No temp control.
Not even Donatello?
-
Can I ask what are no doubt 3 stupid questions? (Actuallly, including that one its four):
1. At some time in the future, when the shuttle is retired and there is a 6 person crew on ISS, they're all in the US segment when something (bigish) hits Zarya. A quick thinking astronaught is able to shut either the hatch from PMA1 to Zarya or between Unity and PMA1 (I'm not sure if that is possible?). How might the crew get home?
At the heart of this question is the assumption that Soyuz can't dock to anywhere on the US section (including PMA2 and PMA3) and no-one else has anything capable of bringing them home 'til Dragon.
I'm thinking maybe a series of back and forwards internal spacewalks using suits stored in Quest (?), with repressurizing and de-pressurizing and possibly using Orlan suits retreived from the Russian segment to get them to the Soyuz craft?
First step: EVA from Quest to Poisk to grab a couple of Orlans, bring them back to Quest. Once in Quest, the Orlans could be worn by 2 crew. They transfer to Poisk. One crew stays in the Service Module, the other goes back to Quest, carrying the second Orlan.
Shampoo, rinse, repeat until all 6 crew are in the Russian segment. It would be quicker if there were 3 Orlans available.
Cool, thanks!
So kinda like the fox, chicken and grain thing?
So was I correct to assume that there's no adapter for a new Soyuz (x2) to dock to a PMA?
-
2. Why weren't the MPLMs built bigger? Maybe something approaching the size of Kibo. I'm assuming its a mass thing. i.e. a full loaded MPLM (at current size) get close to either the launch or landing mass limit of the shuttle.
Mass had a lot to do with it. Kibo (and the other large modules, like Destiny) were so massive on their own that they had to be launched nearly empty and outfitted over multiple flights. The MPLM's total raison d'etre is, you know, carrying stuff. Why make it as large as Kibo if that means you have to launch it empty? Kinda defeats the purpose. Any size above what you can pack to the gills and still fly on the shuttle is wasted.
And $$$, like Jim says, but historically I think it worked in reverse. Alenia built both the MPLMs (for NASA) and Columbus (for ESA), and ESA decided to shrink Columbus to the size of an MPLM to reduce the development cost. Still a bit of a sore subject in some circles (don't even think of referring to Columbus as "Michelangelo" in front of the wrong people, for reasons that a bit of thought should make clear).
-
Can I ask what are no doubt 3 stupid questions? (Actuallly, including that one its four):
1. At some time in the future, when the shuttle is retired and there is a 6 person crew on ISS, they're all in the US segment when something (bigish) hits Zarya. A quick thinking astronaught is able to shut either the hatch from PMA1 to Zarya or between Unity and PMA1 (I'm not sure if that is possible?). How might the crew get home?
At the heart of this question is the assumption that Soyuz can't dock to anywhere on the US section (including PMA2 and PMA3) and no-one else has anything capable of bringing them home 'til Dragon.
I'm thinking maybe a series of back and forwards internal spacewalks using suits stored in Quest (?), with repressurizing and de-pressurizing and possibly using Orlan suits retreived from the Russian segment to get them to the Soyuz craft?
First step: EVA from Quest to Poisk to grab a couple of Orlans, bring them back to Quest. Once in Quest, the Orlans could be worn by 2 crew. They transfer to Poisk. One crew stays in the Service Module, the other goes back to Quest, carrying the second Orlan.
Shampoo, rinse, repeat until all 6 crew are in the Russian segment. It would be quicker if there were 3 Orlans available.
Cool, thanks!
So kinda like the fox, chicken and grain thing?
So was I correct to assume that there's no adapter for a new Soyuz (x2) to dock to a PMA?
Soyuz TM-16 used an APAS-89 mechanism to dock to Kristall on Mir. Presumably a Soyuz TMA could be outfitted with an APAS-95 mechanism to dock to a PMA. But it would have to be built that way, of course. And there are no Kurs antennas on the PMAs, so the final approach would have to be performed entirely without Kurs, but it is possible.
-
Does ISS attitude at all affect spatial awareness of those on board? Have any astronauts ever mentioned that in debriefs? The lack of windows would make me think no, but I wanted to ask anyway.
-
I did not follow Endeavour's docking events with the station closely, but read some where that the initial approach of the shuttle to the station was from the front and later the whole shuttle-station stack was swung back (shuttle is now at the end - relative to the velocity vector of the stack). The explanation was to protect shuttle's TPS from any debris. Is this correct?. if so how this swung back is performed ?
-
I did not follow Endeavour's docking events with the station closely, but read some where that the initial approach of the shuttle to the station was from the front and later the whole shuttle-station stack was swung back (shuttle is now at the end - relative to the velocity vector of the stack). The explanation was to protect shuttle's TPS from any debris. Is this correct?.
Yes.
if so how this swung back is performed ?
The shuttle performs the maneuver using the vernier RCS, then hands over control to the station once complete.
-
How will the oxygen and nitrogen tanks on the Quest airlock be recharged after Shuttle is retired? ATV/HTV? CRS?
-
Soyuz TM-16 used an APAS-89 mechanism to dock to Kristall on Mir. Presumably a Soyuz TMA could be outfitted with an APAS-95 mechanism to dock to a PMA. But it would have to be built that way, of course. And there are no Kurs antennas on the PMAs, so the final approach would have to be performed entirely without Kurs, but it is possible.
The above is correct in that Soyuz must be outfitted with a docking adapter on the ground, but the choice of docking adapter can be made very late in the assembly process. Of course, APAS is very heavy, so flying APAS on Soyuz means other equipment or cargo may have to be left behind.
-
Soyuz TM-16 used an APAS-89 mechanism to dock to Kristall on Mir. Presumably a Soyuz TMA could be outfitted with an APAS-95 mechanism to dock to a PMA. But it would have to be built that way, of course. And there are no Kurs antennas on the PMAs, so the final approach would have to be performed entirely without Kurs, but it is possible.
The above is correct in that Soyuz must be outfitted with a docking adapter on the ground, but the choice of docking adapter can be made very late in the assembly process. Of course, APAS is very heavy, so flying APAS on Soyuz means other equipment or cargo may have to be left behind.
on the other hand, if this was indeed a rescue scenario, the Soyuz 'modded' with APAS would most likely be sent up with only 1 crew, perhaps? So that might negate the mass penalty.
-
How will the oxygen and nitrogen tanks on the Quest airlock be recharged after Shuttle is retired? ATV/HTV? CRS?
There's a new system called NORS that is currently being developed. It will consist of portable tanks that can be transported into the Airlock to resupply the tanks. None of these vehicles have the ability to repress the tanks directly.
-
After watching the activities last night during the Node 3 Vestibule outfitting (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20491.0), I got to wondering about the hatches--where do they go? Looking at the photos of the installation, it doesn't appear to me there is room for them to slide in the CBM.
I downloaded the ISS manuals on L2 and started piecing the information together, and think I have it, but was wondering if someone here could correct me.
The two rings of the CBM lock together to seal the modules together (fantastic works of engineering by the way--I am sorry I haven't paid closer attention to how they operate!).
At first I thought the hatches were part of the CBM, but I found reference to a "Hatch Frame"--so do the hatches slide in this frame, like some sliding closet doors? I see how they could be large enough, if they are the same diameter as the module.
Then to make sure I understand, the "vestibule" is the area formed by the two CBM rings? I have attached a crude sketch of how I understand this to work.
Now, I am wondering do the four CPA boxes stick out into the passageway? They weren't apparent to me last night watching the video when they took the camera into Node 3, but I see some pictures of them as they discuss the problems with installing the Node-3 Axial Port Center Disk Cover. I wasn't sure it was OK to post the view from the CBM manual on L2, but they look huge.
Another question, does the Cupola and Node 3 have a vestibule? The distances in the video we see are deceiving as it doesn't appear the passageway between those components is as long as the passageway between Node 1 and Node 3.
edit: corrected the description of the problem with Node 3
-
To answer your question about where the hatch goes: it slide up into the module.
This picture (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-130/hires/s130e007173.jpg) shows the hatch between Harmony and Columbus. You can clearly see the opening and the hatch with window above it.
To answer your question about the CPAs: yes, they stick out into the passage way, but are removed once the module had been installed.
This picture (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-128/hires/iss020e037110.jpg) shows three of the four CPAs. They are the three silver boxes. One is mostly hidden behind Frank (the guy to the right), another is partially obscured by Christer, and a third is right above Christer's head. This is the nadir hatch between Harmony and Leonardo during STS-128.
-
After watching the activities last night during the Node 3 Vestibule outfitting (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20491.0), I got to wondering about the hatches--where do they go? Looking at the photos of the installation, it doesn't appear to me there is room for them to slide in the CBM.
I downloaded the ISS manuals on L2 and started piecing the information together, and think I have it, but was wondering if someone here could correct me.
The two rings of the CBM lock together to seal the modules together (fantastic works of engineering by the way--I am sorry I haven't paid closer attention to how they operate!).
At first I thought the hatches were part of the CBM, but I found reference to a "Hatch Frame"--so do the hatches slide in this frame, like some sliding closet doors? I see how they could be large enough, if they are the same diameter as the module.
Then to make sure I understand, the "vestibule" is the area formed by the two CBM rings? I have attached a crude sketch of how I understand this to work.
Now, I am wondering do the four CPA boxes stick out into the passageway? They weren't apparent to me last night watching the video when they took the camera into Node 3, but I see some pictures of them as they discuss the problems with installing the thermal cover on the Cupola hatch area. I wasn't sure it was OK to post the view from the CBM manual on L2, but they look huge.
Another question, does the Cupola and Node 3 have a vestibule? The distances in the video we see are deceiving as it doesn't appear the passageway between those components is as long as the passageway between Node 1 and Node 3.
Okay, this is going to take a bit of explaining. ;)
The CBM rings are what actually seal the modules together.
They are pulled together by the latches, and held together by the 16 bolts.
The ACBM ring has no seals, and the PCBM ring has triple seals.
The ACBM ring sits flush with the module, whereas the PCBM ring protrudes from the module.
You can see a protruding PCBM ring in this image of the JPM:
www.spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-124/lores/s124e006127.jpg
The hatch frames are designed so that connections can be made between CBMs, without having to have cables/hoses dragged thorough the hatchways themselves. All the connections are airtight, so that in the event of depressurisation, the hatches could be closed without the need to disconnect anything (although Inter Module Ventilation (IMV) would need to be shut off).
The hatch frames & CBM rings are welded together & cannot be separated.
The hatch frames are recessed from the CBM ring. Thus, when two CBM rings are brought together, there is a space in between them. This is called the vestibule.
The CBM ring is circular, but the actual hatches are square. So the hatch frame is circular on the outside edge, and square on the inside edge.
The hatches themselves are separate from the CBM ring & hatch frame.
They slide away from the hatch frame on glide rails.
The hatches are recessed from the CBM frame.
You can see a hatch frame & recessed hatch in these images:
www.spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-128/lores/iss020e037623.jpg
www.spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-128/lores/iss020e037099.jpg
The CPAs control the berthing sequence of the CBMs. They stick out into the passageway, until they are removed by crewmembers post-berthing (once the modules are berthed, they are no longer needed). They can be re-installed if a module needs to be un-berthed.
You can see a hatchway with 4 CPAs installed in this image:
http://www.spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-21/lores/iss021e016676.jpg
There is no vestibule between Node 3 & Cupola, because Cupola does not have a hatch frame or a hatch.
I hope I have answered your question! :)
-
Thanks! I guess this view from last night was confusing me. The hatch is on the Node 3 side...I thought it was sliding somewhere between the nodes.
-
Thanks! I guess this view from last night was confusing me. The hatch is on the Node 3 side...I thought it was sliding somewhere between the nodes.
Nope - it slides behind the Node 3 hatch frame (the edge of which is visible in the very right of that image).
As it happens, Node 3's AFT (ISS STBD) hatch is a little different than most others, in that it slides toward ISS FWD, instead of OVHD like most other hatches on station do.
This is due to the Node 3 Aft CBM reclocking, following the decision to relocate Node 3 from Node 1 Nadir to Node 1 Port.
-
Something I have had for a few years. Written by Richard J. McLaughlin and William H. Warr
-
During todays EVA they outfitted Node3 with handrails. Why couldn't they launch Node3 with the HR already attached?
-
Why couldn't they launch Node3 with the HR already attached?
Issues with clearance between module and shuttle's cargo bay, obviously.
-
The next task for STS-130 crew is the relocation of PMA-3 to Node 3.
Why don't they locate it where the shuttle can dock with it (eg. Node 2 nadir)?
So in case PMA-2 gets damaged in a shuttle docking they can immediately dock with the other instead of cancelling the mission and waiting for the replacement PMA to be moved?
Thanks for your insights
-
Node 2 nadir CBM is needed open for shuttle/MLPM berthings, plus for future CRS vehicles visits.
-
The next task for STS-130 crew is the relocation of PMA-3 to Node 3.
Why don't they locate it where the shuttle can dock with it (eg. Node 2 nadir)?
So in case PMA-2 gets damaged in a shuttle docking they can immediately dock with the other instead of cancelling the mission and waiting for the replacement PMA to be moved?
Thanks for your insights
Node 2 nadir is the prime berthing location for HTV and other visiting vehicles that utilize SSRMS berthing.
-
Ok, Nadir is needed (I'm not sure about Node 2 zenith), but ISS has so many unused ports (on node 3).
Is it then so unlikely that a shuttle will damage a PMA?
Or can it be moved so quickly that the mission doen not have to be cancelled?
-
Ok, Nadir is needed (I'm not sure about Node 2 zenith), but ISS has so many unused ports (on node 3).
Is it then so unlikely that a shuttle will damage a PMA?
It is extremely unlikely.
-
The next task for STS-130 crew is the relocation of PMA-3 to Node 3.
Why don't they locate it where the shuttle can dock with it (eg. Node 2 nadir)?
From a recent presser, the use of PMA-3 is for storage and MMOD shielding for Node 3.
-
When depressing crew lock for EVA, how much air is recovered before they call it "good enough" and allow the remaining air to escape?
EDIT: Never mind. Found the information here: http://tinyurl.com/y977o2j
"Prior to starting the EVA a depress pump is used to reduce the pressure in the Crew Lock to 0.2 bar. This is 20% of normal air pressure. The remaining atmosphere is vented to space through the pressure equalisation valve on the EVA hatch."
-
While going through the newly released images of Node 3, I noticed the "TO ....." signs marking each CBM. The only one which is presently valid is the now nadir CBM, which is marked with the "TO CUP(ola)" sign. But it sparked my curiosity as to what labeling would the other CBMs have.
Even though they're covered, you can read "TO HAB" and "TO CRV" in the now aft and forward CBMs respectively. If I'm not mistaken, the now port CBM was always expected to host PMA-3... but what about the now zenith hatch? Was it ever expected to host a module? If so, which?
-
AFAIK, the Tranquility zenith was always intended to be the stowage location for the Dextre Canada Hand. I don't believe there was ever a plan to locate a module in this location.
Thanks for spotting the covered labels, I didn't see those. Does seem a pity that these modules will never be launched.
-
AFAIK, the Tranquility zenith was always intended to be the stowage location for the Dextre Canada Hand. I don't believe there was ever a plan to locate a module in this location.
There was never going to be room to put a whole module there. That CBM would have faced aft in the old Node 3-on-Node 1 nadir configuration, and would have been blocked by whatever Russian module was going to go there (there was always one, from the DCM to the Spacehab Enterprise module to the MRM, etc).
-
After docking the whole Shuttle-ISS stack has been swung back. My question is just before Endeavour undocks, will the whole stack be swung back again to retain the original orientation of the iSS (before Endeavour docked)?
-
After docking the whole Shuttle-ISS stack has been swung back. My question is just before Endeavour undocks, will the whole stack be swung back again to retain the original orientation of the iSS (before Endeavour docked)?
Yes. Makes more sense to use the orbiter to turn the stack.
-
After docking the whole Shuttle-ISS stack has been swung back. My question is just before Endeavour undocks, will the whole stack be swung back again to retain the original orientation of the iSS (before Endeavour docked)?
Yes, just like all the other flights starting with 114.
-
not really a question but an observation as to why relocate PMA-3 to the end (Port) CBM on Node-3. The axial active CBMs dont have the petal thermal covers that the radial CBMs have. Leaving the CBM open would require an additional cover that would have to be installed and removed by EVA. Installing PMA-3 there nicely solves that problem.
-
1. Was Node 3 clocked 90 degrees so the "floor" would line up with the rest of station?
2. Is the PDGF now on Node 3's zenith CBM location?
-
1. Was Node 3 clocked 90 degrees so the "floor" would line up with the rest of station?
2. Is the PDGF now on Node 3's zenith CBM location?
Node 3 doesn't have a PDGF on it's actual shell.
However, it's Zenith CBM port has been blocked off & a PDGF has been placed there.
-
Is Node 3 Zenith port really blocked, since the struss structure is mounted to the forward end of Z1:
(http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/416680main_korth7_011110.jpg)
If we speculate a little bit: Is it possible to build a special module that would fit to Zenith port of Tranquility? Meaning the special module's CBM would be at the outer edge (not center like normal modules have) or it would have smaller diameter (or even structural dent to avoid the struss). So if we forget that "there is no need for such thing" discussion, would this be possible in theory?
-
The Integrated Truss Structure(ITS) is mounted on top of the US Lab, not Z1. And Z1 is located on Node 1 zenith, not Node 3 zenith.
See this photo of S0 ITS and the US Lab from STS-111: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-111/hires/sts111-310-011.jpg
-
The Integrated Truss Structure(ITS) is mounted on top of the US Lab, not Z1. And Z1 is located on Node 1 zenith, not Node 3 zenith.
See this photo of S0 ITS and the US Lab from STS-111: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-111/hires/sts111-310-011.jpg
Yes I did know Z1 is mounted Node 1 Zenith, but the fact about struss structure mounted on the top of Destiny was new to me.
Still my question remains... Is Node 3 Zenith port really blocked by something? So badly that there is no possibility to build a special module that has a slightly different geometry to make it fit?
Perhaps PMA-2 could be stowed to Node 3 Zenith if it is not needed by any spacecraft when the shuttle retires? But that would need some other module or docking mechanism to front port of Node 2 if I have understood previous posts correctly (due some thermal/MMOD cover need).
-
The Integrated Truss Structure(ITS) is mounted on top of the US Lab, not Z1. And Z1 is located on Node 1 zenith, not Node 3 zenith.
See this photo of S0 ITS and the US Lab from STS-111: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-111/hires/sts111-310-011.jpg
Yes I did know Z1 is mounted Node 1 Zenith, but the fact about struss structure mounted on the top of Destiny was new to me.
Still my question remains... Is Node 3 Zenith port really blocked by something? So badly that there is no possibility to build a special module that has a slightly different geometry to make it fit?
Perhaps PMA-2 could be stowed to Node 3 Zenith if it is not needed by any spacecraft when the shuttle retires? But that would need some other module or docking mechanism to front port of Node 2 if I have understood previous posts correctly (due some thermal/MMOD cover need).
It is impossible to berth anything to Node 3's Zenith port.
The port is physically blocked by the PDGF hardware, and all latching hardware has been removed.
-
iirc, this PDGF is intended as DEXTRE's usual home
-
1. Was Node 3 clocked 90 degrees so the "floor" would line up with the rest of station?
2. Is the PDGF now on Node 3's zenith CBM location?
Yes, but technically it was clocked to have the lights on the ceiling like the rest of the station.
-
Will Cupola be used for RPMs for STS-131 onwards?
Orbiter
-
iirc, this PDGF is intended as DEXTRE's usual home
Does anyone know when they are planning to move DEXTRE to it? It doesn't sound like it will be durring STS-130.
-
Do the PMA have 2 hatches or one? Another way of asking the question would be, are they pressurized when they are moved or is the interior exposed to vacuum? Any type of cross-section schematic available, public or L2? Thanks.
-
Do the PMA have 2 hatches or one? Another way of asking the question would be, are they pressurized when they are moved or is the interior exposed to vacuum? Any type of cross-section schematic available, public or L2? Thanks.
One hatch. They are just a tube.
-
Where will future shuttle missions (STS-131 onwards) will dock on ISS ? Will they use PMA-3?
-
Where will future shuttle missions (STS-131 onwards) will dock on ISS ? Will they use PMA-3?
No, they will dock to PMA-2, just as every shuttle flight starting with STS-102 has done.
-
Will Cupola be used for RPMs for STS-131 onwards?
Orbiter
No, not good enough quality.
-
Do the PMA have 2 hatches or one? Another way of asking the question would be, are they pressurized when they are moved or is the interior exposed to vacuum? Any type of cross-section schematic available, public or L2? Thanks.
When PMAs are moved, their interior is exposed to vacuum.
Here's a picture:
www.spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-22/html/s130e008517.html
-
Thank you Jim and Space Pete.
-
Will Cupola be used for RPMs for STS-131 onwards?
Orbiter
No, not good enough quality.
Also, flight rules require the cupola shutters to be closed when an approaching/departing shuttle is in the FOV and within 2000 ft.
-
I was wondering what the general rules are for use of the cupola. Ask permission/how many shutters opened at once/ how long open, etc???
-
I was wondering what the general rules are for use of the cupola. Ask permission/how many shutters opened at once/ how long open, etc???
From what that said during FD09 MSB the big center window can be opened when the crew wants it with a few exceptions, mainly thermal reasons. The smaller windows that is pointing fwd will only be opened during Robotic operations as there is a increased risk of MMOD. I think the other smaller windows have the same rules as the big center window but not sure.
-
I was wondering what the general rules are for use of the cupola. Ask permission/how many shutters opened at once/ how long open, etc???
Paraphrasing the flight rules:
The nominal state of the shutters is closed.
In the normal LVLH flight attitude, no constraints on the center and aft facing windows during crew awake, all others will be kept closed when not actively being used. In other ISS attitudes, shutters will be opened only when the window is actively being used.
If a debris pane on a window is damaged, its shutter will be closed. If a redundant (pressure) pane is damaged, the Cupola hatch will be closed.
If a window temperature sensor exceeds the limit (98 F) its shutter will be closed.
Shutters may be opened, even when restricted, when required for crew safety or completion of critical mission objectives.
Where practical the SSRMS should maintain 10 ft clearance from an open window.
Shutters will be closed when EVA crew is within 10 ft. EVA crew should avoid contact with windows or shutters. However, if a shutter mechanism is jammed such that an IV crewmember cannot close it, the EVA crew may close it using the EVA override until the mechanism can be repaired.
In addition to the shuttle constraints, there are shutter constraints for other visiting vehicles. Too complex to list them all here but the shutters may be opened for SSRMS grapple (and in fact that is the primary rationale for the Cupola being placed where it is, and the robotic workstation being relocated into it).
There are shutter constraints when ISS and/or docked visiting vehicles are firing thrusters, performing purges/dumps, or if a leak occurs. Too complex to list them all here.
The scratch panes should be removed only for maintenance, and when removed, the shutter must be closed.
Cleaning of the debris panes or the exterior surface of the outer pressure panes shall not be attempted. The scratch panes and the inner surface of the inner pressure panes shall be cleaned only when necessary and only using prescribed materials and procedures.
-
Jorge, thanks for listing those flight rules, but I would love to see the complete set of them if you don't mind, be it in a dedicated thread or PM.
-
Does anyone have a good ISS schematic that shows all the current components in their correct positions?
And more specifically - Where is PMA-3 located at? And will it stay there for the foreseeable future?
-
Does anyone have a good ISS schematic that shows all the current components in their correct positions?
And more specifically - Where is PMA-3 located at? And will it stay there for the foreseeable future?
This wiki entry is pretty good:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_of_the_International_Space_Station
There's an artist's impression of the final station at the top and an exploded module diagram further down, in addition to details about the assembly sequence and such.
PMA-3 is the on the port CBM of Node 3 (Tranquility), which is the axial end of the module. It will remain there for the foreseeable future as a storage volume and MMOD shield.
Pending Shuttle retirement and unclear plans for the Chinese Shenzhou docking system, there may not be a future for the APAS adapter on the PMAs. As I understand it, new PMA-like adapters would be delivered to the ISS for use with any future LIDS spacecraft, and the SSRMS-grappled CBM spacecraft don't need such adapters.
-
Thanks for the link!
It would seem more prudent to move PMA-3 to Node 2 zenit, though, since it would be available as a backup port for shuttles that way.
And future spacecraft using LIDS - If LIDS ends up being used by Orion/Dragon/whatever, would it not make more sense to create a small APAS-LIDS adapter that attaches to the PMA's instead of having a large LIDS-CBM delivered to the station?
-
It would seem more prudent to move PMA-3 to Node 2 zenit, though, since it would be available as a backup port for shuttles that way.
Clearance issues there?
-
It would seem more prudent to move PMA-3 to Node 2 zenit, though, since it would be available as a backup port for shuttles that way.
There might be clearance issues between the shuttle cabin and the ISS, and maybe between the shuttle nose and the truss?
-
Paraphrasing the flight rules...
Thank you!
-
It would seem more prudent to move PMA-3 to Node 2 zenit, though, since it would be available as a backup port for shuttles that way.
I think Node 2 zenith is where they want to berth the HTV and other SSRMS-grappled cargo vehicles, I don't think there's much value in a backup docking port for Shuttle at this point, and PMA-3 doesn't have the Station-to-Shuttle Power Transfer System like PMA-2 does.
-
Thanks for the link!
It would seem more prudent to move PMA-3 to Node 2 zenit, though, since it would be available as a backup port for shuttles that way.
Regardless of where PMA-3 is, if PMA-2 fails PMA-3 would be relocated to Node 2 forward anyway, so this does not save any work.
And future spacecraft using LIDS - If LIDS ends up being used by Orion/Dragon/whatever, would it not make more sense to create a small APAS-LIDS adapter that attaches to the PMA's instead of having a large LIDS-CBM delivered to the station?
No, it would not make more sense. In fact it was the baseline plan at one time but was rejected.
1) The APAS on the PMA is a passive mechanism, so the APAS-LIDS adapter (ATLAS) would have required an active APAS mechanism, which would have to be purchased from Russia, and the ATLAS would require power interfaces in order to operate the APAS.
2) The CBM on the Node is an active mechanism, so the CBM-LIDS adapter (CLAS) could use a passive CBM, which is much cheaper than an active APAS. Since the passive CBM requires no power, that makes the CLAS much simpler.
3) The CLAS does not need to be as big as a PMA since there are no issues with shuttle cabin clearance. In fact, it will be much thinner since it needs to fit inside the unpressurized compartment of an HTV. So it will really be no bigger than ATLAS would have been.
-
At this moment, the Shuttle is doing a maneuver to change the attitude of the ISS for undocking. I have two questions about that maneuver.
- Do they desaturate the CMGs during this maneuver?
- Is this maneuver designed to be net Delta-V positive?
-
At this moment, the Shuttle is doing a maneuver to change the attitude of the ISS for undocking. I have two questions about that maneuver.
- Do they desaturate the CMGs during this maneuver?
No need, the CMGs are at around 20% of momentum capacity right now. US GNC mode is taken to drift prior to the handover and desats cannot be performed in drift.
- Is this maneuver designed to be net Delta-V positive?
Delta-V is not a design parameter for this maneuver; it's designed for controllability and loads, and the delta-V effect just falls out of it. But it should be mostly neutral. Posigrade delta-V from the start of the maneuver and retrograde delta-V from the stop at the end.
-
On STS 132 Atlantis will deliver the MRM 1 to the ISS. The shuttle will be docked to PMA2 and can some one explain the procedure of how MRM 1 will be delivered to Zarya's nadir from Shuttle's cargo bay ?. Also for installation/outfitting who will conduct the spacewalks? US astronauts or Russian cosmonauts?
-
On STS 132 Atlantis will deliver the MRM 1 to the ISS. The shuttle will be docked to PMA2 and can some one explain the procedure of how MRM 1 will be delivered to Zarya's nadir from Shuttle's cargo bay ?.
Straight from an L2 presentation (which also has a great picture of this):
SRMS hands off to SSRMS
SSRMS based on Lab PDGF
-
On STS 132 Atlantis will deliver the MRM 1 to the ISS. The shuttle will be docked to PMA2 and can some one explain the procedure of how MRM 1 will be delivered to Zarya's nadir from Shuttle's cargo bay ?. Also for installation/outfitting who will conduct the spacewalks? US astronauts or Russian cosmonauts?
Try this:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=7493.0 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=7493.0)
-
At this moment, the Shuttle is doing a maneuver to change the attitude of the ISS for undocking. I have two questions about that maneuver.
- Do they desaturate the CMGs during this maneuver?
- Is this maneuver designed to be net Delta-V positive?
As already noted, the CMGs are left alone.
For delta V - there usually is a small positive gain from the attitude manuever. For post undock trajectory we clear both a zero gain and a small gain to make sure it is safe from debris.
-
Just as Node 3 has ammonia jumpers (installed during STS-130 EVA2), are there ammonia jumpers between the rest of the modules??? I'm trying to find pictures and can't find jumpers between other modules......
-
Only Destiny, Node-2 and Node-3 are connected to the external ammonia cooling system.
Analyst
-
As I remember correctly, Node 2 ammonia lines are within each of the port and starboard trays that were mounted during EVAs.
-
Only Destiny, Node-2 and Node-3 are connected to the external ammonia cooling system.
Analyst
Why aren't the A/L, COL & JEM connected to the external ammonia cooling system?
Thanks.
-
The JAL and Node 1 ITCS (water) cooling loops are connected to Destiny's water loop, so heat from those modules is rejected through Destiny's ammonia connection.
The COL and JEM water loops are connected to the Node 2 loops.
-
Can some one explain the level of difficulty of EVAs that astronauts are performing in recent/current missions such as STS-128-129,130 etc. They make it look like fun and easy but i am sure they are difficult to perform. Also, I see some times that astronauts are not tied to the ISS. Wonder is there a danger of them drifting into space ! (I guess laws of physics apply and both the ISS and an astronaut have the same orbital speed?). Can they virtually work anywhere on the ISS as well or are there any constraints ?
-
Can some one explain the level of difficulty of EVAs that astronauts are performing in recent/current missions such as STS-128-129,130 etc. They make it look like fun and easy but i am sure they are difficult to perform. Also, I see some times that astronauts are not tied to the ISS.
May be an optical illusion, or low resolution video, or something. ISS EVAs always use dual-tether protocol.
Wonder is there a danger of them drifting into space ! (I guess laws of physics apply and both the ISS and an astronaut have the same orbital speed?).
If an EVA crewmember becomes untethered, they can use the SAFER cold-gas jetpack to return to structure.
Can they virtually work anywhere on the ISS as well or are there any constraints ?
There are keep out zones in many areas around ISS and these are covered extensively in EVA training.
-
Has Russia abandoned the idea of sending female cosmonauts to the space station. Many future expeditions crews are now announced, yet there are no female Russian cosmonauts. On the contrary, NASA is sending several female astronauts to the ISS (also shuttle crews have several female members on upcoming missions such as sts-131 and sts-133.). Any view on why Russia has refrain from sending females into space in recent times?
-
From what I have read, the russian cosmonaut group is quite the 'mans world'.
Jim Oberg wrote an article about it a few years ago: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6955149/
I do not believe there are any active (or soon to be active) female cosmonauts - therefore none can be selected for an ISS mission.
edit...Correction - I did some more reading:
- Nadezhda Kuzhelnaya was a recent one, but she got tired of waiting for a ride and took a civil job.
- Yelena Serova is a current cosmonaut in training. No flight selection yet, apparently. There may be quite a line in front of her.
-
A question about ISS resupply. Currently, the very expensive ATV is thrown away after one use. ULA has proposed a concept that reuses an ATV as a tug for a Payload Bay Fairing that carries an MPLM-like payload that is pressurised but doesn't have any propulsion. This would presumably work even better if there was a way for the ATV to be refueled in orbit. Variable costs for the PBF + MPLM would likely be less than for a full ATV.
I'm wondering if it would be possible to make things even simpler. Would something like the following be possible:
- use upper stage to provide attitude control and await tug
- use tug to bring dumb, unpressurised cargo container to the ISS
- use robot arm to retrieve sealed crates (possibly pressurised ones) from cargo container
- put crates into airlock
- close airlock, retrieve cargo
If it were this simple they'd probably be doing it this way. So why don't they? Would this really be simpler? Would it even be possible? What would be some of the snags and complications involved?
-
A question about ISS resupply. Currently, the very expensive ATV is thrown away after one use. ULA has proposed a concept that reuses an ATV as a tug for a Payload Bay Fairing that carries an MPLM-like payload that is pressurised but doesn't have any propulsion. This would presumably work even better if there was a way for the ATV to be refueled in orbit. Variable costs for the PBF + MPLM would likely be less than for a full ATV.
I'm wondering if it would be possible to make things even simpler. Would something like the following be possible:
- use upper stage to provide attitude control and await tug
- use tug to bring dumb, unpressurised cargo container to the ISS
- use robot arm to retrieve sealed crates (possibly pressurised ones) from cargo container
- put crates into airlock
- close airlock, retrieve cargo
If it were this simple they'd probably be doing it this way. So why don't they? Would this really be simpler? Would it even be possible? What would be some of the snags and complications involved?
A. Why would it be simpler? Using the arm to retrieve "crates" is complex.
B. Anyways, the airlock hatch is too small.
C. and would take 10's of cycles depress and repress to move all the cargo.
-
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think this whole idea was/is a concept that allows shipping to ISS those large cargo that can not be sent up by shuttle - because of program termination - and that is very expensive to send with other vehicles - because loads have already been computed for shuttle cargo bay and a very expensive cradle would need to be designed for mating to different launch vehicles. Instead the ULA idea proposes a payload fairing which is very similar to the shuttle cargo bay and can deliver "close to ISS" and then a tug which is certified for ISS approach and docking can finish the job.
However, there are not very many payloads that fit under that category, and these ORU may or may not be needed, may be they'll stay in storage until EOL of ISS and no one will ever need to ship them upstairs.
I think it is possible but i imagine lead time from allocating budget to delivery would be a couple years or so.
-
A. Why would it be simpler? Using the arm to retrieve "crates" is complex.
Sorry, not simpler. I meant to ask if it would be "simple enough" and cheaper than throwing away an expensive spacecraft every time.
B. Anyways, the airlock hatch is too small.
C. and would take 10's of cycles depress and repress to move all the cargo.
Would it be possible to develop an airlock that would be big enough? In theory, couldn't a node or module be used as an emergency airlock? If so, maybe you could add an extra module as a huge airlock. Is venting to space the only practical way to evacuate a module or is there some way to save most of the atmospheric gases?
If this is not a viable approach, is there another way to avoid having to throw away an expensive spacecraft every time? Not necessarily just for the ISS, but also for potential commercial stations.
-
A. Why would it be simpler? Using the arm to retrieve "crates" is complex.
Sorry, not simpler. I meant to ask if it would be "simple enough" and cheaper than throwing away an expensive spacecraft every time.
B. Anyways, the airlock hatch is too small.
C. and would take 10's of cycles depress and repress to move all the cargo.
Would it be possible to develop an airlock that would be big enough? In theory, couldn't a node or module be used as an emergency airlock? If so, maybe you could add an extra module as a huge airlock. Is venting to space the only practical way to evacuate a module or is there some way to save most of the atmospheric gases?
If this is not a viable approach, is there another way to avoid having to throw away an expensive spacecraft every time? Not necessarily just for the ISS, but also for potential commercial stations.
Airlock 101.
Airlocks are made small to limit the amount of air lost when they are depressed. Having the astronauts in the airlock helps this because they displace most of the air out of the lock before the inner door is closed. The US Airlock on the station has a pump used to pump the airlock down to about 3 psi before the rest is dumped overboard. That wouldn't be really practical on a large airlock since it would take hours to do, esspecialy since the airlock would be empty in your sinario. Also, none of the hatches on the hatches on the ISS except the outer ones on the small experiment airlocks (the JEM-PS and MRM-1 when it gets there) can be remotely operated.
As far as the throwing away of an "expensive" spacecraft, the ATV mission, including building the expendable ATV and H-II LV costs afraction of a shuttle mission using a reusable orbiter and MLPM so I don't really see it as all that bad. adding all the complexity to make the ATV longlived and refulable would probably offset any other cost savings.
As to your last question about better ideas, there already is one out there. It is called Falcon 9 and Dragon.
-
Does anyone know what the planned ISS orbit/altitude is, post-Shuttle? IIRC, it was going to be raised a bit from the current ~350 km/190 nautical mile altitude.
Thanks.
-
Thanks for the explanation on airlock operations. I figured that was why the airlock is so small. Still, if a bigger airlock were only used for cargo transfer (and not for regular EVA) you could bring up the extra nitrogen/oxygen with the cargo. Might still be cheaper than throwing away a pressurised human-rated cargo container, even if you vented directly to space without salvaging any gases. Not claiming it would be a good idea, just wondering.
As far as the throwing away of an "expensive" spacecraft, the ATV mission, including building the expendable ATV and H-II LV costs afraction of a shuttle mission using a reusable orbiter and MLPM so I don't really see it as all that bad. adding all the complexity to make the ATV longlived and refulable would probably offset any other cost savings.
I was thinking more of recurring costs. If you want to see large scale commercial activity in LEO as I do, then you would need cost-effective resupply. Neither the Shuttle nor the present ATV counts as such. Of course the ISS was designed to be resupplied by Shuttle, but potential future stations wouldn't be. The idea of developing a system with lower recurring costs would be intended as an investment in opening up space, not as a project that has to break even on ISS resupply.
As to your last question about better ideas, there already is one out there. It is called Falcon 9 and Dragon.
Are you saying a disposable spacecraft would be the cheapest solution? Wouldn't a tug at least save the recurring cost of an expendable propulsion system?
-
sealed crates (possibly pressurised ones) from cargo container
These are going to be like mini MPLM's since most of the hardware needs to be in a pressurized environment. And where are they going to be stored (inside of the ISS?)and how are they going to be disposed of? They will need grapple fixtures and since there are going to be many of them, how many before they will cost more than the pressurized section of the ATV?
The ATV is just a tug with a dumb pressurized section.
-
These are going to be like mini MPLM's since most of the hardware needs to be in a pressurized environment.
Would things like food and clothing require the same quality pressurised environment as hardware? In a hypothetical future scenario where you have many such flights to commercial stations, might it make sense to develop specialised, cheaper containers for easier payloads?
And where are they going to be stored (inside of the ISS?)and how are they going to be disposed of?
Astronauts will stomp on 'em! If you've ever played Dead Space you'll know what I'm talking about. ;)
They will need grapple fixtures and since there are going to be many of them, how many before they will cost more than the pressurized section of the ATV?
The ATV is just a tug with a dumb pressurized section.
I was under the impression that the pressurised section was expensive because it needed to be human-rated, so that's why I thought a dedicated cargo lock might be cheaper (in recurring costs). But if the pressurised section is cheap there would be no point in trying to devise a cheaper system. Especially if it makes operations more complicated.
-
Does anyone know what the planned ISS orbit/altitude is, post-Shuttle?
Russian ballisticians want to raise ISS altitude up to 400-410 kilometers after Shuttle will retire, also Soyuz TMA has limit of 425 kilometers.
-
Does anyone know what the planned ISS orbit/altitude is, post-Shuttle?
Russian ballisticians want to raise ISS altitude up to 400-410 kilometers after Shuttle will retire, also Soyuz TMA has limit of 425 kilometers.
Is 425 km a launch vehicle constraint, or does Soyuz simply stop working at 426 km?
-
Does anyone know what the planned ISS orbit/altitude is, post-Shuttle?
Russian ballisticians want to raise ISS altitude up to 400-410 kilometers after Shuttle will retire, also Soyuz TMA has limit of 425 kilometers.
Thanks, anik.
-
Are you saying a disposable spacecraft would be the cheapest solution? Wouldn't a tug at least save the recurring cost of an expendable propulsion system?
I'm not saying that they would definetly be cheaper, just that reusable systems can be more expensive. It sure turned out that way with the space shuttle. I don't think enough has been done yet to say one way or the other. Theoretically, Falcon 9 and Dragon are supposed to be reusable, but I think that it will take several flights before they start worying about making it work. They haven't tried it yet with falcon 1.
A refulable tug still needs to get more fuel from somewhere. that would either be a seperate launch or with the cargo flight itself, plus the cargo will need thrusters of its own for orbital fefinement and attitude control anyways so there isn't much benefit to a tug.
-
Are you saying a disposable spacecraft would be the cheapest solution? Wouldn't a tug at least save the recurring cost of an expendable propulsion system?
The tug has higher development costs.
If the flight rate is insufficient to amortize the development costs of the tug, then yes, the disposable spacecraft is the cheaper solution.
-
If the flight rate is insufficient to amortize the development costs of the tug, then yes, the disposable spacecraft is the cheaper solution.
Of course, but I was thinking only of recurring cost, with a view towards investing in opening up space. Even from that point of view disposable could still be preferable of course.
Any educated guesses as to the percentual break down of recurring and variable costs of an ATV mission into the following subcategories?
- launch costs
ATV subsystem construction costs
- propulsion system
- avionics
- docking and rendez-vous system
- pressurised section
- propellant transfer system (both the existing ATV to ISS as well as a hypothetical depot to ATV or ATV to ATV)
- other relevant subsystems
-
Just got the lates ESA bulletin in the mail and they had an article about Node3 in which they mentioned a payload, Condensing Heat Exchanger (CHX), which was originally planned to go up in Node3. I haven't heard about this payload before and couldn't find any info on it here on the forums. It was apparently already installed in Node3 and it was a hassle to get it out of there.
What was the purpose of this payload? And was it in a ISPR. And why was it canceled?
-
A refulable tug still needs to get more fuel from somewhere. that would either be a seperate launch or with the cargo flight itself, plus the cargo will need thrusters of its own for orbital fefinement and attitude control anyways so there isn't much benefit to a tug.
A reasonable upper stage would be able to provide the orbital refinement and attitude control for the cargo canister while the tug approaches.
-
There's a paper on the ULA website that estimates that an ATV could be reused as a tug two to three times in addition to its nominal mission and that is without refueling. It doesn't take an inordinate amount of delta-v, so using a reusable tug would free up launch mass, volume and save construction cost. I would expect variable costs to be lower with a tug, though not necessarily enough to justify it just for the ISS. With an extension to 2028 that might be different. In any event variable costs are a limiting factor for commercial manned activity in LEO.
-
I asked this a few times on L2, but didn't get a response, so I thought I'd try here.
It has been known for a while now (since before STS-128) that STS-133 would carry a permanent MPLM. Given the new work required for the conversion, the schedule threats, and the uncertainty (at the time) of whether STS-133 or STS-134 would fly first, why did they decide to fly the same module for STS-131 and STS-133? It was pretty clear from the beginning that Leonardo would be the MPLM selected for the modifications, so why wasn't it planned for Rafaello to fly on STS-131?
It seems to me that this would have allowed plenty of flexibility in the MPLM conversion, and plenty of lead time to figure out what needed to be done and do it. But now with the schedule slips and time crunches, there's very little wiggle room available to turn Leonardo into a PMM once it lands from STS-131.
-
How long until HTV and ATV are more routine? Like more than once a year? If it will be anything like progress.
Thanks
-
How long until HTV and ATV are more routine? Like more than once a year? If it will be anything like progress.
Never, more or less. ESA and JAXA are only obligated to provide ATV and HTV to meet their logistics requirements for ISS. I don't think they'll ever be on the hook for more than one per year.
-
Just got the lates ESA bulletin in the mail and they had an article about Node3 in which they mentioned a payload, Condensing Heat Exchanger (CHX), which was originally planned to go up in Node3. I haven't heard about this payload before and couldn't find any info on it here on the forums. It was apparently already installed in Node3 and it was a hassle to get it out of there.
What was the purpose of this payload? And was it in a ISPR. And why was it canceled?
This is not a payload but a part of the cooling system: It is the heat exchanger between the ammonia external cooling system and the internal water cooling system. After a short look at the ESA bulletin I can't see them calling it a payload, nor saying it has been canceled. It has been replaced before launch because of some test results. This is all.
Analyst
-
From another thread...
3. It can't support more than 6-7. There isn't the power nor the life support capabilities. Adding a Bigelow module does nothing to increase these. 5 years is too short to develop a new module and launch it.
How about replacing some or all of the solar arrays with more modern ones? I read somewhere that the same design with a newer generation of cells might generate double the power. Is that true?
Could something like the old Russian solar power tower still be added?
-
This is not a payload but a part of the cooling system: It is the heat exchanger between the ammonia external cooling system and the internal water cooling system. After a short look at the ESA bulletin I can't see them calling it a payload, nor saying it has been canceled. It has been replaced before launch because of some test results. This is all.
Analyst
Thanks for clarifying that. I assumed the wrong thing after reading the article but it makes much more sense after your explanation.
-
From another thread...
3. It can't support more than 6-7. There isn't the power nor the life support capabilities. Adding a Bigelow module does nothing to increase these. 5 years is too short to develop a new module and launch it.
How about replacing some or all of the solar arrays with more modern ones? I read somewhere that the same design with a newer generation of cells might generate double the power. Is that true?
Could something like the old Russian solar power tower still be added?
No. The base of the SPP was scavenged to build MRM-1.
-
From another thread...
3. It can't support more than 6-7. There isn't the power nor the life support capabilities. Adding a Bigelow module does nothing to increase these. 5 years is too short to develop a new module and launch it.
How about replacing some or all of the solar arrays with more modern ones? I read somewhere that the same design with a newer generation of cells might generate double the power. Is that true?
Could something like the old Russian solar power tower still be added?
No. The base of the SPP was scavenged to build MRM-1.
TO add on, there were proposals for Scientific and Power Producing Modules 1 and 2 to add power to the Russian segment, but really there is no need for more modules or power as the USOS is already underutilized,the crew of 6. is fine right now.
-
TO add on, there were proposals for Scientific and Power Producing Modules 1 and 2 to add power to the Russian segment, but really there is no need for more modules or power as the USOS is already underutilized,the crew of 6. is fine right now.
The question arose in the context of supporting more crew. Would replacing the solar arrays with more modern variants be an option? Is the power system limited by the solar arrays or by the cooling capacity of the radiators?
-
The question arose in the context of supporting more crew. Would replacing the solar arrays with more modern variants be an option? Is the power system limited by the solar arrays or by the cooling capacity of the radiators?
To have a bigger crew you not only need more power you need a bigger ECLSS system as Jim sad earlier. The current system can't sustain a bigger crew and to improve that you need to fly more modules. These take up both money and power and don't forget the money it would cost.
-
The question arose in the context of supporting more crew. Would replacing the solar arrays with more modern variants be an option? Is the power system limited by the solar arrays or by the cooling capacity of the radiators?
To have a bigger crew you not only need more power you need a bigger ECLSS system as Jim sad earlier. The current system can't sustain a bigger crew and to improve that you need to fly more modules. These take up both money and power and don't forget the money it would cost.
Not neccessarily. You have all the spaces in the US LAB for regen racks that went into the Node. Eventually you will move the other CDRA in there. But it is plumbed. Now to do this of course you will lose some payload options. But theoretically you could do it without a new module. Lifeboats is the bigger constraints and power.
-
Not neccessarily. You have all the spaces in the US LAB for regen racks that went into the Node. Eventually you will move the other CDRA in there. But it is plumbed. Now to do this of course you will lose some payload options. But theoretically you could do it without a new module. Lifeboats is the bigger constraints and power.
Is there really that much space? They needed the PMM because they didn't have room for all the stowage. To add a crewmember I guess you need another ARS, OGS and I don't know about WRS. And you also need a CQ. Thats at least 3 more racks.
The first ARS are staying in the Lab so that space is already taken. They could install a new OGS in the spot that the old one had in the Lab. But do they have to ability to install another ARS? Do they need a vent-valve and in that case can they install another one in any of the modules?
A lifeboat would have been solved if Orian wasn't scrapped. Now we have to rely on a commercial vehicle if we need another lifeboat.
-
I believe there's to be a third RS CQ in MLM (assuming it ever launches). That would give 3 RS CQ and 4 US CQ. So, 1 less rack.
-
Is the grapple fixture on JEM PDGF or just a grapple fixture?
And if it is a PDGF will it ever be used for the SSRMS during shuttle mission?
Thanks
-
Is the grapple fixture on JEM PDGF or just a grapple fixture?
And if it is a PDGF will it ever be used for the SSRMS during shuttle mission?
Thanks
JPM has 1 PDGF and 1 FRGF.
This PDGF used for LTA heater power transfer befor JPM activation complete.
-
During STS-131 they used a different method to install a new ATA tank compared to STS-128. Why did they decide to change the procedure?
-
I've read that the American EVA suits cannot be ingressed by the user without help. During the days after the Columbia accident, how did the two man ISS crew put on the spacesuits?
It would seem to me that the spacesuits are too bulky to help someone else get inside of it, but that it he only way I can think of that they could have gotten into the EVA suits.
-
Finally, there's a detailed explanation to how MRM-1 Rassvet will be docked/berthed to the station using the SSRMS (apologies if the explanation was given before and I somehow didn't see it):
In Ken Ham's words:
The MRM 1 is unique on space station in that I believe it is the only module that is going to be berthed or attached to space station with the mechanism that the Russians use for free flyer captures which are typically the Soyuz for crew or Progress for supplies. If you remember the free flyer has a probe and the space station has a cone and you kind of fly in and run down the cone and into the bottom of the cone you catch some latches down there and then the mechanism retracts, makes a hard mated seal. Sounds pretty easy. The mechanism’s been around for quite a while and it’s been very, very successful. I don’t think they’ve had any real failures that they couldn’t account for. However, that whole system was built for a free flyer to come in with a lot of inertia and a mass of the vehicle and some velocity to get through these soft captures latches. In our case we’re going to use the space station robotic arm to berth the module. So the big arm is going to reach down into the payload bay of the space shuttle, pull the module out and then run it all the way over to the Russian side and essentially take that probe and try to drive it into this cone. That is something we’ve never done before and we’re not exactly sure how it’s going to work. We have a lot of good guesses and a lot of good engineering behind it. So essentially there are two choices. You can either hold the probe up to the cone and then push really hard with the arm or you can kind of hold it out here a little bit and go fast and hopefully it rides down the cone and goes through the latches. And what we’ve decided on is essentially a combination of the two ways. We can’t go too fast because we might break the arm. We can’t go too slow because the arm may not have enough strength to push through those latches so we’re going at basically a slow rate and hopefully we’re going to drive it right in and it’ll work well.
And in Reisman's words, the operator of the robot arm:
Well, we first use the shuttle robot arm to pull the Russian module out of the payload bay or the cargo bay, kind of the trunk of the shuttle. So it picks it up maybe just a couple meters out of the bay. There we have it on the shuttle arm and I like to call the shuttle arm the little arm, the space station arm the big arm. Now Tony flies the little arm so he might object to this nomenclature but that’s his problem. So he will use the little arm to pull it out of the bay. I’ll come by with the big arm and grab it so now we do a handoff right as it’s hovering just a few yards outside of the shuttle. And once we’ve handed off the big arm, Tony takes his little tiny, tiny arm and he moves it away and I take the big arm and I swing it all the way around from the shuttle all the way back to where it docks on the space station, being very careful not to hit anything in between. That’s very important. So then we take it back there and then we bring it in nice and slow. We turn on a bunch of its systems and Piers will be sending commands from inside controlling the systems in that module. One of the things it does is it has this docking probe and he will extend the docking probe out so that it is ready to engage to the space station. So he extends that thing out and we line it up really carefully and then basically what I do then is I just go ramming speed on the, on the robot arm. I just, I floor it, which is kind of fun. So I just (swoosh) go in the, lay on the throttle and we bring that thing, ‘because that thing is designed to, to be coming in under its own thrusters, way faster than the, than the robot arm can, can really bring it in safely. So, so I give it all, all she’s got. OK, like Scottie back there. “I’m giving it all it’s got, Captain.” And you know, fly it right down the middle hopefully and, and then it penetrates the cone and we all know what happens next. I mean, the latches mate and then it’s mated. Any questions?
Complete interviews in http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/sts132/interview_reisman.html and http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/sts132/interview_ham.html
This is going to be interesting to watch!
-
I have noticed that designs using the passive CBM do not embed the CBM ring in the design, the passive CBM ring invariably protrudes from the shell of the vehicle, whether it be an MPLM or Dragon (the PMA rings don't protrude because the widest diameter of the PMA is where the ring is located). On the other hand, when the passive and active CBMs are mated, the passive ring is neither enveloped by the active ring, nor does it penetrate the active ring, it just sits there.
So, why does the passive CBM ring always protrude from the shell of spacecraft?
-
So, why does the passive CBM ring always protrude from the shell of spacecraft?
So that the spacecraft hull does not hit the node hull. The radial CBM's are somewhat recessed.
-
OK, just to demonstrate my ignorance about the CBM, does opening the hatch for the Passive CBM require a major "sweep area" like the Russian hatches, or is there some way to slide it out of the way? The reason I am asking is that the Dragon cartoons imply that there is no hatch sweep area:
(http://www.spacex.com/assets/img/dragonweb3a.jpg)
-
OK, just to demonstrate my ignorance about the CBM, does opening the hatch for the Passive CBM require a major "sweep area" like the Russian hatches, or is there some way to slide it out of the way? The reason I am asking is that the Dragon cartoons imply that there is no hatch sweep area:
(http://www.spacex.com/assets/img/dragonweb3a.jpg)
It slides open like a garage door.
-
The Passive CBM (PCBM) protrudes from the module in order to create the "vestibule" area when it is berthed to the Active CBM (ACBM).
The CBM hatches slide out of the way on "glide rails".
-
The CBM hatches slide out of the way on "glide rails".
This begs the question as to why the PMAs and Cupola don't have a hatch for their CBM.
-
The CBM hatches slide out of the way on "glide rails".
This begs the question as to why the PMAs and Cupola don't have a hatch for their CBM.
I doubt there is enough space available for the hatch to slide into.
-
The CBM hatches slide out of the way on "glide rails".
This begs the question as to why the PMAs and Cupola don't have a hatch for their CBM.
They have hatches, like every CBM. They are slid out of the way. On all module CBM, there is one "direction" that is a clear zone for the hatch to be "stored"
-
OK, just to demonstrate my ignorance about the CBM, does opening the hatch for the Passive CBM require a major "sweep area" like the Russian hatches, or is there some way to slide it out of the way? The reason I am asking is that the Dragon cartoons imply that there is no hatch sweep area:
(http://www.spacex.com/assets/img/dragonweb3a.jpg)
I have later cartoons that I can't share that should the "sweep area". The volume for the cargo does take this into account and hence the volume shape is not symmetric on the axis perpendicular to the hatch movement.
-
The CBM hatches slide out of the way on "glide rails".
This begs the question as to why the PMAs and Cupola don't have a hatch for their CBM.
They have hatches, like every CBM. They are slid out of the way. On all module CBM, there is one "direction" that is a clear zone for the hatch to be "stored"
The PMAs and the Cupola have hatches? Why are they transported unpressurized?
???
-
The PMAs and the Cupola have hatches? Why are they transported unpressurized?
???
I misunderstood the question, I was referring to the CMB on the node.
Chandonn is correct, there is no room and also, it is not needed.
-
The CBM hatches slide out of the way on "glide rails".
This begs the question as to why the PMAs and Cupola don't have a hatch for their CBM.
They have hatches, like every CBM. They are slid out of the way. On all module CBM, there is one "direction" that is a clear zone for the hatch to be "stored"
The PMAs and the Cupola have hatches? Why are they transported unpressurized?
???
The Cupola did not have a hatch. The berthing ring on the bottom of the Cupola attached to the Node berthing ring to form an air tight seal.
The PMAs only have the APAS hatch on the docking end. The aft end has the berthing ring to attach to the berthing ring on the Node. The Node 50" hatch then is used to access that end.
-
Thank you!
-
How does MCC work during ISS/Shuttle missions work? It always seems like they show only ISS MCC when docked but when undocked they show the shuttle MCC. Do they leave shuttle MCC when docked to ISS?
Thanks
-
How does MCC work during ISS/Shuttle missions work? It always seems like they show only ISS MCC when docked but when undocked they show the shuttle MCC. Do they leave shuttle MCC when docked to ISS?
Thanks
Both rooms are staffed with three shifts throughout the shuttle mission. PAO generally keeps NASA TV in the ISS FCR during docked ops because that's where the action is.
-
Don't know if this was brought up before, but why is it that the shuttle could not be at the ISS when a Soyuz (or Progress) was either arriving or departing, but during STS 71 MIR, it was alright for Soyuz to separate from the station prior to Atlantis undocking?
Thanks.
-
Don't know if this was brought up before, but why is it that the shuttle could not be at the ISS when a Soyuz (or Progress) was either arriving or departing, but during STS 71 MIR, it was alright for Soyuz to separate from the station prior to Atlantis undocking?
In 1995 there was Russian Space Station. Now here is International Space Station. Coordination, agreements, consideration, papers, papers, papers...
-
Don't know if this was brought up before, but why is it that the shuttle could not be at the ISS when a Soyuz (or Progress) was either arriving or departing, but during STS 71 MIR, it was alright for Soyuz to separate from the station prior to Atlantis undocking?
In 1995 there was Russian Space Station. Now here is International Space Station. Coordination, agreements, consideration, papers, papers, papers...
Actually, you can do it now. The flight rules stipulated this because of concern of manamging two vehicles in flight. We could do it if needed. The bigger issue is more the stress on the crew than orbital interactions.
-
OK...got a question about the future. We've all been enthralled with the flyaround pictures of ISS from the shuttle. But of course sometime next year or thereabouts this would of course no longer be happening :( . Would the Soyuz be able to perform flyaround inspections? Or would any flyarounds have to wait for a manned Dragon/Orion/whatever?
-
Would the Soyuz be able to perform flyaround inspections?
Yes.
-
The flyaround images for me have been about seeing how the ISS changes over time as it continues to grow and new modules added on. Thus with ISS complete later, the absence of flyaround images after the shuttle is gone won't sadden me.
-
The flyaround images for me have been about seeing how the ISS changes over time as it continues to grow and new modules added on. Thus with ISS complete later, the absence of flyaround images after the shuttle is gone won't sadden me.
There is still the MLM which is supposed to come up NET2011
-
Is there any chance the MLM would be docked to ISS before STS-134 or STS-135 if it flies?
-
No. Latest launch date I heard at post STS 132 launch presser was early 2012, this will be long after the last shuttle flight.
-
Latest launch date I heard at post STS 132 launch presser was early 2012
To be more exactly, Aleksey Krasnov, the head of department of piloted programs of Roskosmos, said during that press-conference that MLM launch is planned at the end of second quarter of 2012.
-
It is a bit of surprising to see that there are no Russian female cosmonauts. On the other hand NASA has sent a large number of female astronauts aboard the shuttle and to the ISS. (Japan/ESA has also sent). I read that China (a new comer to human space travel) has also recruited 2 female members into their ranks. Hence, what is the reason that Russia does not want to send female crewmembers to the ISS?
-
It is a bit of surprising to see that there are no Russian female cosmonauts. On the other hand NASA has sent a large number of female astronauts aboard the shuttle and to the ISS. (Japan/ESA has also sent). I read that China (a new comer to human space travel) has also recruited 2 female members into their ranks. Hence, what is the reason that Russia does not want to send female crewmembers to the ISS?
There is one Russian female cosmonaut:
Yelena Serova, who was selected as a cosmonaut candidate by Energia in 2006.
She is the wife of cosmonaut Mark Serov (who was selected by Energia in 2003).
http://www.spacefacts.de/bios/cosmonauts/english/serova_yelena.htm (http://www.spacefacts.de/bios/cosmonauts/english/serova_yelena.htm)
-
Concerning Zarya's solar panels, I see they are folded to make room for the US radiators. I understand that they are still active, collecting solar energy in its folded state, albeit less energy than had them be unfolded. Correct me if I am wrong about any of this so far. Any way, my question is, could the Russians move these panels to a better position of the station where these panels could be completed unfolded and maximize their power-generating potential? If not, could a future Russian module be designed with place-holders where it could be moved to?
-
Solar panels degrade with age and radiation exposure. It would be much more sensible to launch a new panels. If the panels are not designed to be relocated in orbit (which AFAIK they are not), it would be very difficult.
A new module (or at least significant supporting hardware) would be required to put panels somewhere else, so launching the actual panels shouldn't be a big problem.
-
my question is, could the Russians move these panels
That is the issue. They aren't designed for it.
-
Another question:
Concerning the US solar wings and their truss segments, do the open ends of the (assembled) truss have "hooks" that could allow for an extension on either side for assembly of additional US-supplied panels?
This is just a hypothetical question. Nevermind the fact that these can only be carried up by shuttle and that additional power is not required at this time, but suppose a future COTS contract makes this possible and future (as of now unplanned) expansion modules require additional power.
-
Another question:
Concerning the US solar wings and their truss segments, do the open ends of the (assembled) truss have "hooks" that could allow for an extension on either side for assembly of additional US-supplied panels?
No, but not saying it couldn't be engineered.
-
Zarya's solar panels are not currently capable of generating power, as the hardware to support power generation has been removed from inside Zarya.
Regarding your question about whether additional solar arrays could be added to the P6 or S6 Trusses, the answer theoretically is yes. The S6 and P6 Trusses do not have any attachment mechanisms to add additional Truss segments (nor did the P3/P4 or S3/S4 Trusses – the P5/S5 Trusses had to be added to allow the P6/S6 Trusses to be attached). Therefore, any new solar arrays would have to incorporate an element like the P5/S5 Trusses (seen here: www.spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-116/hires/iss014e09479.jpg), which would enable the new arrays to attach to the P6/S6 Trusses.
However, extensive re-wiring would be needed, and the existing Truss system might not be able to take the extra loads that additional Truss segments would induce.
-
The S6 and P6 Trusses do not have any attachment mechanisms to add additional Truss segments (nor did the P3/P4 or S3/S4 Trusses – the P5/S5 Trusses had to be added to allow the P6/S6 Trusses to be attached).
Not true. There isn't anything to on the end of P6/S6 to attach another P5/S5 type trusses
-
nor did the P3/P4 or S3/S4 Trusses – the P5/S5 Trusses had to be added to allow the P6/S6 Trusses to be attached
I thought the reason for the P5/S5 truss was shuttle payload limitations, they couldn't fit the combined length of the solar array elements and the spacer element. The attachment points for P5 were already present on P4.
-
my question is, could the Russians move these panels
That is the issue. They aren't designed for it.
Although I don't know if the FGB panels are removable, certainly earlier FGB class spacecraft featured removable solar panels. The Kristal module's panels were removed for clearance issues with Shuttle dockings, and were translated to the Kvant module on Mir.
-
Another question:
Concerning the US solar wings and their truss segments, do the open ends of the (assembled) truss have "hooks" that could allow for an extension on either side for assembly of additional US-supplied panels?
This is just a hypothetical question. Nevermind the fact that these can only be carried up by shuttle and that additional power is not required at this time, but suppose a future COTS contract makes this possible and future (as of now unplanned) expansion modules require additional power.
The S6 and P6 Trusses do not have any attachment mechanisms to add additional Truss segments (nor did the P3/P4 or S3/S4 Trusses – the P5/S5 Trusses had to be added to allow the P6/S6 Trusses to be attached).
Not true. There isn't anything to on the end of P6/S6 to attach another P5/S5 type trusses
It's almost impossible. The only way I see this being done is if the SSRMS grappled the entire stack of Truss modules (P3-P6 or S3-S6) and moved them somewhere else while another spacer or solar array module was added. This is virtually impossible though as it takes at least two robotic arms to move Truss components into place, let alone that Canadarm2 can only lift 60 tons at a time. Also, the P3 and P4 and S3 and S4 are inseparable and therefore you'd have these new modules opposite the SARJ.
Now, a quick question…what's the difference between a PVGF and an FRGF?
-
A PVGF - Power and Video Grapple Fixture, allows the SSRMS to provide power to the grappled payload, and receive a video signal back from it (for berthing purposes). It can be found on ESP-3, ICC-VLD, ELC-1, ELC-2, Node 3 Zenith (Where the Zenith CBM used to be) and possibly other places I don't recall offhand.
A FRGF - Flight Releasable Grapple Fixture, is just the grapple fixture, no power, no video, no data. It can be found on the PMAs, MPLMs, the mid-point of the OBSS, and possibly other places I don't recall offhand.
-
A PVGF - Power and Video Grapple Fixture, allows the SSRMS to provide power to the grappled payload, and receive a video signal back from it (for berthing purposes). It can be found on ESP-3, ICC-VLD, ELC-1, ELC-2, Node 3 Zenith (Where the Zenith CBM used to be) and possibly other places I don't recall offhand.
A FRGF - Flight Releasable Grapple Fixture, is just the grapple fixture, no power, no video, no data. It can be found on the PMAs, MPLMs, the mid-point of the OBSS, and possibly other places I don't recall offhand.
Ah, meaning that the SSRMS can provide thermal control/electrical power need be to the payload via a PVGF? That means then that modules with a PVGF would have a berthing mechanism built-in, though, correct?
(My 100th post)
-
A PVGF - Power and Video Grapple Fixture, allows the SSRMS to provide power to the grappled payload, and receive a video signal back from it (for berthing purposes). It can be found on ESP-3, ICC-VLD, ELC-1, ELC-2, Node 3 Zenith (Where the Zenith CBM used to be) and possibly other places I don't recall offhand.
A FRGF - Flight Releasable Grapple Fixture, is just the grapple fixture, no power, no video, no data. It can be found on the PMAs, MPLMs, the mid-point of the OBSS, and possibly other places I don't recall offhand.
Ah, meaning that the SSRMS can provide thermal control/electrical power need be to the payload via a PVGF? That means then that modules with a PVGF would have a berthing mechanism built-in, though, correct?
(My 100th post)
During STS-132, the SSRMS was able to receive video from and provide power to plus have command & control of MRM-1 via its PVGF.
PDGFs provide command & control capability of the SSRMS, and so are only used on modules where the SSRMS is going to be based.
(Ooh, just noticed, my 1001th post!) :D
-
Now that Poisk is at the station, why can't it be used as a backup airlock instead of the Pkoh/Zvesda docking node?
-
Now that Poisk is at the station, why can't it be used as a backup airlock instead of the Pkoh/Zvesda docking node?
Poisk module has Soyuz spacecraft on its zenith port. So if we will use Poisk as backup airlock, then we should have crew inside Soyuz. What to do if Poisk can not be repressurized? Especially in case one extravehicular cosmonaut belongs to one Soyuz crew, and other extravehicular cosmonaut belongs to another Soyuz crew. Do we need such difficulties with depressurizations of orbital module of Soyuz, which is docked to Poisk, and depressurization of the transfer compartment of Zvezda module? What is the problem with using of the transfer compartment as backup airlock? In my opinion, this variant of providing of safety is less difficult than others.
-
During the most recent station spacewalk (Russian EVA-25), the cosmonauts literally threw away an old video camera, by jettisoning it.
I assume that some certain parameters regarding direction, angle, speed, etc. in relation to the ISS need to be met, when jettisoning trashed equipment from the station, to make sure its orbit degrades and it burns up as soon as possible.
What are these parameters approximately?
Was the camera really thrown by hand, or was some device used?
What was the actual angle, speed, and direction imparted on the camera, in relation to the ISS? (I assume it was jettisoned "backwards", i.e. in the -x direction, with some downward angle)
When is the camera expected to approximately deorbit and burn up with the achieved orbital parameters?
-
During the most recent station spacewalk (Russian EVA-25), the cosmonauts literally threw away an old video camera, by jettisoning it.
I assume that some certain parameters regarding direction, angle, speed, etc. in relation to the ISS need to be met, when jettisoning trashed equipment from the station, to make sure its orbit degrades and it burns up as soon as possible.
What are these parameters approximately?
Was the camera really thrown by hand, or was some device used?
What was the actual angle, speed, and direction imparted on the camera, in relation to the ISS? (I assume it was jettisoned "backwards", i.e. in the -x direction, with some downward angle)
When is the camera expected to approximately deorbit and burn up with the achieved orbital parameters?
Objects are generally always jettisoned negative to the ISS's velocity vector. That way, the object's speed will be reduced and it will drop into a lower orbit. The object will then overtake the ISS due to the fact that it is in a lower orbit, and so it will not pose a debris threat to the ISS. I don't know what Delta-V of the jettison was, but it would be interesting to know.
-
When is the camera expected to approximately deorbit and burn up with the achieved orbital parameters?
NASA TV said approximately 120 days.
-
During the most recent station spacewalk (Russian EVA-25), the cosmonauts literally threw away an old video camera, by jettisoning it.
I assume that some certain parameters regarding direction, angle, speed, etc. in relation to the ISS need to be met, when jettisoning trashed equipment from the station, to make sure its orbit degrades and it burns up as soon as possible.
What are these parameters approximately?
Was the camera really thrown by hand, or was some device used?
What was the actual angle, speed, and direction imparted on the camera, in relation to the ISS? (I assume it was jettisoned "backwards", i.e. in the -x direction, with some downward angle)
When is the camera expected to approximately deorbit and burn up with the achieved orbital parameters?
Objects are generally always jettisoned negative to the ISS's velocity vector. That way, the object's speed will be reduced and it will drop into a lower orbit. The object will then overtake the ISS due to the fact that it is in a lower orbit, and so it will not pose a debris threat to the ISS. I don't know what Delta-V of the jettison was, but it would be interesting to know.
Requirement is min 5 cm/s purely retro.
-
Just out of curiosity, and purely hypothetically speaking, what happen if ISS loses both A and B cooling systems?
Could they shut everything down and repair on orbit?
-
Hungry - no.
I am advised that the current failure is one of the "Big Fourteen" -- the most serious contingencies which leave the ISS no-fault-tolerant in other areas. It would imply quick evacuation of at least half the crew.
That was mentioned on L2 this morning... I can't find a list of those "14" anywhere online - any help?
-
A little more generally, I get the impression that the cooling system is one of the more temperamental system on the station, and that there have been more problems over the years than anticipated. Presumably because of moving parts and liquids, at various temperatures. Are there alternative technologies that could be used to increase the reliability of the cooling system? What should the next generation of space habitats (e.g., Bigelow) be thinking about with regards to cooling?
-
A little more generally, I get the impression that the cooling system is one of the more temperamental system on the station, and that there have been more problems over the years than anticipated. Presumably because of moving parts and liquids, at various temperatures. Are there alternative technologies that could be used to increase the reliability of the cooling system? What should the next generation of space habitats (e.g., Bigelow) be thinking about with regards to cooling?
Which other situations are you thinking of? I believe this unplanned loop 'shutdown' is a first.
-
HI
Could anyone help with the following:
I have read that de & re pressurisation takes place in the crew airlock rather than the equipment airlock on the ISS.
I was wondering if the pressure of the crew airlock was controlled from within the crew airlock or by someone else within the equipment airlock or another part of the ISS?
If it is controlled in the crew airlock are the pressure controls part of the EVA panel or on the hatch door?
Many thanks
-
Not quite sure where this question belongs. . .NASA TV showed video today from the NBL of a run-through of Friday's ISS EVA to deal with the coolant pump failure. Today's EVA rehearsal crew was identified multiple times as Bobby Satcher and Rick Sturckow. Satcher makes sense, but how did Rick Sturckow get this assignment? He's a Shuttle CDR. No CDR or PLT has ever made an EVA (not counting PLTs who made the switch to MS). To my knowledge no CDR or PLT has even trained for EVA since the earliest days of the program. There is nothing in Sturckow's background to indicate he's trained for EVA, or ISS ops. There should be an abundance of experienced EVAers around JSC who seem better suited to this work. Can anyone enlighten me?
-
No CDR or PLT has ever made an EVA (not counting PLTs who made the switch to MS). To my knowledge no CDR or PLT has even trained for EVA since the earliest days of the program.
You're forgetting Ken Bowersox.
-
No CDR or PLT has ever made an EVA (not counting PLTs who made the switch to MS). To my knowledge no CDR or PLT has even trained for EVA since the earliest days of the program.
You're forgetting Ken Bowersox.
Well, that's slightly different, he was a ISS Expedition CDR and they along with the rest the Expedition crew members receive EVA training.
But in this case we have STS CDR with no specific ISS Expedition training performing an NBL EVA run. I guess that places him out-of-standard as there is plenty of other EVA qualified STS MS's and other astronauts than an STS CDR who most likely only has IV training.
The practice of training STS CDRs/PLTs ended with the completion of the OFTs and the crew expanded to more than two. The first two flown MS's with EVA training was Lenoir and Allen on STS-5.
-
No CDR or PLT has ever made an EVA (not counting PLTs who made the switch to MS). To my knowledge no CDR or PLT has even trained for EVA since the earliest days of the program.
The entire STS-125 crew was EVA qualified in case of LON and STS-400. Scooter and Ray Jay were EVA qualified.
-
No CDR or PLT has ever made an EVA (not counting PLTs who made the switch to MS). To my knowledge no CDR or PLT has even trained for EVA since the earliest days of the program.
The entire STS-125 crew was EVA qualified in case of LON and STS-400. Scooter and Ray Jay were EVA qualified.
Makes sense for STS-125, and perhaps even the earlier post-RTF flights in case of ATO or underspeed. Depends on how much confidence they had in the repair materials.
You'd think that the CDR or PLT on many flights would have to be EVA qualified, since there's always been a concern for contingency EVA, and one of the (two?) MS could be ill or incapacitated.
-Alex
-
Thanks to those who have offered feedback. There are 20 or so unassigned MSs with either EVA or ISS experience—most with both—who seem much better qualified to do the training run. Their experience and feedback would be much more valuable, and much more knowledgeable than Rick Sturckow's--a CDR who has never gone EVA, who has never been out on the truss. Which brings me back to the original question: why would Sturckow be doing the training run?
-
My imagination and also I did not see the NASA TV video. But is Sturckow (a CDR) / Satcher (a MS) training has something to do with the possible flight of STS-135?
Thanks to those who have offered feedback. There are 20 or so unassigned MSs with either EVA or ISS experience—most with both—who seem much better qualified to do the training run. Their experience and feedback would be much more valuable, and much more knowledgeable than Rick Sturckow's--a CDR who has never gone EVA, who has never been out on the truss. Which brings me back to the original question: why would Sturckow be doing the training run?
-
My imagination and also I did not see the NASA TV video. But is Sturckow (a CDR) / Satcher (a MS) training has something to do with the possible flight of STS-135?
No. This was training for Friday's ISS EVA.
-
No CDR or PLT has ever made an EVA (not counting PLTs who made the switch to MS). To my knowledge no CDR or PLT has even trained for EVA since the earliest days of the program.
You're forgetting Ken Bowersox.
Well, that's slightly different, he was a ISS Expedition CDR and they along with the rest the Expedition crew members receive EVA training.
Sure (and I forgot Scott Kelly and Kevin Ford, at least).
But rhetorically, does that preclude astronauts who aren't assigned to future ISS crews from participating in a development training run? Edit -- put another way, does the first time an astronaut goes in the pool in an EMU have to be after assignment to a crew?
-
No CDR or PLT has ever made an EVA (not counting PLTs who made the switch to MS). To my knowledge no CDR or PLT has even trained for EVA since the earliest days of the program.
You're forgetting Ken Bowersox.
Well, that's slightly different, he was a ISS Expedition CDR and they along with the rest the Expedition crew members receive EVA training.
Not neccessarily true. Not all expedition crew members get EVA training and with 6 crew ops and limited resources, even less so. TC and Wheels got a little more than normal since thet received generic training for the big 14 and also for the specific one they were originalyl scheduled to do. But not every increment plans an EVA.
-
On today's EVA to replace the failed PM, there seemed to have been a fair amount of ammonium that leaked from the cooling lines. This raised some questions: How much can they afford to loose? How could it be replenished, if necessary? Is there some ammonium stored on ISS somewhere that can be used to replenish the cooling circuits? Or would they just replace the depleted ammonium tank with a full one (ORU)? If so, how many full ORU ammonium tanks are aboard ISS / will be aboard by the end of Shuttle ops?
-
On today's EVA to replace the failed PM, there seemed to have been a fair amount of ammonium that leaked from the cooling lines. This raised some questions: How much can they afford to loose? How could it be replenished, if necessary? Is there some ammonium stored on ISS somewhere that can be used to replenish the cooling circuits? Or would they just replace the depleted ammonium tank with a full one (ORU)? If so, how many full ORU ammonium tanks are aboard ISS / will be aboard by the end of Shuttle ops?
If they need more ammonia they have to replace the entire ATA. Both the port and starboard ATAs have been recently replaced (Port during STS-128 and Starboard during STS-131).
In addition, there is a spare ATA on ELC-1, and another spare to be launched on ELC-3 / STS-134.
-
Thanks for your reply, Hammer!
-
No CDR or PLT has ever made an EVA (not counting PLTs who made the switch to MS). To my knowledge no CDR or PLT has even trained for EVA since the earliest days of the program.
You're forgetting Ken Bowersox.
Well, that's slightly different, he was a ISS Expedition CDR and they along with the rest the Expedition crew members receive EVA training.
Sure (and I forgot Scott Kelly and Kevin Ford, at least).
But rhetorically, does that preclude astronauts who aren't assigned to future ISS crews from participating in a development training run? Edit -- put another way, does the first time an astronaut goes in the pool in an EMU have to be after assignment to a crew?
I seem to remember a flight crew selected (in the mid '90's?) in whIch the PLT was actually chosen as one of the two EVA crewmembers on the mission.
Does anyone recall that crew?
Also, Ron Garan a PLT who flew as MS-2 on STS 124 performed 3 EVA's.
-
A few questions I've been wondering for a while now...
What are all the methods of communication the astronauts onboard the ISS have with ground, including backup?
In the event of a total communication loss (including docked spacecraft and with the ground) and the station had to be evacuated, could the astronauts fly the Soyuz safely to the ground? Are the docked spacecraft programed with emergency landing sites they could 'auto-pilot' themselves too? If so, are they all in Kazakhstan/Russia? Any in North America?
Thanks!
-
A few questions I've been wondering for a while now...
What are all the methods of communication the astronauts onboard the ISS have with ground, including backup?
In the event of a total communication loss (including docked spacecraft and with the ground) and the station had to be evacuated, could the astronauts fly the Soyuz safely to the ground? Are the docked spacecraft programed with emergency landing sites they could 'auto-pilot' themselves too? If so, are they all in Kazakhstan/Russia? Any in North America?
Thanks!
Concerning the landing questions, the answer for all of them is pretty much "yes", and there are alternate sites around the world.
-
A few questions I've been wondering for a while now...
What are all the methods of communication the astronauts onboard the ISS have with ground, including backup?
In the event of a total communication loss (including docked spacecraft and with the ground) and the station had to be evacuated, could the astronauts fly the Soyuz safely to the ground? Are the docked spacecraft programed with emergency landing sites they could 'auto-pilot' themselves too? If so, are they all in Kazakhstan/Russia? Any in North America?
Thanks!
S-band is the main link. The crew can call down on IP phone if there is Ku. Then there is VHF. The Russians send up a list of VHF ground sites each day just in case they have to reenter with no comm.
-
Just a quick question re the Quick Disconnects...
Would there be any way to detect if there was a leak where the QD's mount to the new Pump Module? These weren't tested to full pressure whilst the EVA was underway, IIUC.
Could this be detected via instrumentation on the module / cooling loop?
Is the PM in view from anywhere inside the station, to visually check for snowstorm, etc?
cheers, Martin
-
Would there be any way to detect if there was a leak where the QD's mount to the new Pump Module?
Pressure drop in the lines
-
Thanks.
Would that detect even a pinhole (very slow) leak?
Or do I take it from the answer below (recent replacement) that a slow loss of Ammonia is already expected?
cheers, Martin
On today's EVA to replace the failed PM, there seemed to have been a fair amount of ammonium that leaked from the cooling lines. This raised some questions: How much can they afford to loose? How could it be replenished, if necessary? Is there some ammonium stored on ISS somewhere that can be used to replenish the cooling circuits? Or would they just replace the depleted ammonium tank with a full one (ORU)? If so, how many full ORU ammonium tanks are aboard ISS / will be aboard by the end of Shuttle ops?
If they need more ammonia they have to replace the entire ATA. Both the port and starboard ATAs have been recently replaced (Port during STS-128 and Starboard during STS-131).
In addition, there is a spare ATA on ELC-1, and another spare to be launched on ELC-3 / STS-134.
-
Just repeating rdale's question from a few weeks back, does anyone know the list of the "Big Fourteen" contingency EVAs for the ISS? Does anyone know how many spares for each of the EVAs will reside on the station post shuttle?
-
Just repeating rdale's question from a few weeks back, does anyone know the list of the "Big Fourteen" contingency EVAs for the ISS?
There is a list of ISS critical maintenance tasks in the "Expedition 24" thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16584.msg624830#msg624830
-
According to Wikipedia, there is ten ORUs on ESP-2. But this platform has only 8 FRAM. Could someone clarify, please ?
Thanks !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_Stowage_Platform
-
According to Wikipedia, there is ten ORUs on ESP-2. But this platform has only 8 FRAM. Could someone clarify, please ?
Thanks !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_Stowage_Platform
Not all ORUs use FRAMs (such as the PM and the SHOSS).
-
Thank you very much Pete.
Another little question : do you know when the SHOSS-ED and the BCDU were put on the ESP-2, and when the DCSU was put on ESP-1 ?
Thanks a lot !
-
Thank you very much Pete.
Another little question : do you know when the SHOSS-ED and the BCDU were put on the ESP-2, and when the DCSU was put on ESP-1 ?
Thanks a lot !
SHOSS-ED was originally pland at ULF-1.1 but it was deferred.
BCDU is not put on ESP-2. Wikipedia is wrong.
DCSU was put on ESP-1 at 6A flight.
-
According to Wikipedia, there is ten ORUs on ESP-2. But this platform has only 8 FRAM. Could someone clarify, please ?
Thanks !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_Stowage_Platform
Not all ORUs use FRAMs (such as the PM and the SHOSS).
Wikipedia should delete following ORUs. These are originally planned but, old information.
4. Battery Charge/Discharge Unit (BCDU)
6. SPACEHAB/Oceaneering Space Systems - Extended Deployable
Pete, PM was attached ESP-2 using FRAM.
-
Fuji - are you sure the PM was attached to ESP-2 using FRAM? I understood that PMs do not have a PFRAM interface at all, they are attached with 4 bolts.
-
Fuji - are you sure the PM was attached to ESP-2 using FRAM? I understood that PMs do not have a PFRAM interface at all, they are attached with 4 bolts.
Check this STS-121 picture. It seems ICC/PM interface is FRAM.
http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/images/large/06pd0735.jpg
-
Fuji - are you sure the PM was attached to ESP-2 using FRAM? I understood that PMs do not have a PFRAM interface at all, they are attached with 4 bolts.
Check this STS-121 picture. It seems ICC/PM interface is FRAM.
http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/images/large/06pd0735.jpg
Upon further research, you are correct. In this image (http://www.spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-121/hires/s121e07904.jpg), taken after the STS-121 undocking, you can see a vacated FRAM on the left of the ICC. As is visible in this image (http://www.spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-121/hires/iss013e48783.jpg), that FRAM site was occupied by the PM installed during the recent EVAs prior to docking.
-
You are correct that the PM is attached to a FRAM. According to my ORU database, there is also a LAPA, or Large Adapter Plate Assembly, for Flight Support Equipment, and 2 MECPs. I don't know what a MECP is, though. Do you?
F=ma
-
You are correct that the PM is attached to a FRAM. According to my ORU database, there is also a LAPA, or Large Adapter Plate Assembly, for Flight Support Equipment, and 2 MECPs. I don't know what a MECP is, though. Do you?
F=ma
LAPA? I've never heard of that, are you sure it isn't LWAPA (Light Weight Adaptor Plate Assembly)? It's attached to the COL EPF, and is basically an adaptor platform that has a FRAM interface on one side, and attachment points for MISSE PECs on the other side.
-
I misread the column heading - the FRAM is the FSE, and the LAPA is the adapter plate. There are small, medium and large adapter plate assemblies, and an LSAPA, Lightweight Small Adapter Plate Assembly, listed in the doc.
You are correct that the PM is attached to a FRAM. According to my ORU database, there is also a LAPA, or Large Adapter Plate Assembly, for Flight Support Equipment, and 2 MECPs. I don't know what a MECP is, though. Do you?
F=ma
LAPA? I've never heard of that, are you sure it isn't LWAPA (Light Weight Adaptor Plate Assembly)? It's attached to the COL EPF, and is basically an adaptor platform that has a FRAM interface on one side, and attachment points for MISSE PECs on the other side.
-
How many docking ports does the ISS have ?
-
2 Pressurized Mating Adapters with passive APAS on the US side. PMA 2 is on Harmony (Node 2) forward and is the standard shuttle docking port. PMA 3 is on Tranquility (Node 3) Port and cannot be used where it is, but could be moved to a usable location. PMA 1 permanently connects Unity (Node 1) and Zarya (FGB).
4 classic probe and drogue on the Russian side, Zvezda (SM) aft, Rassvet (MRM-1) nadir, Pirs (DC) nadir, and Poisk (MRM-2) zenith. There is also a classic probe and drogue between Zarya and Rassvet. There are hybrid probe and drogue between Zvezda and Zarya, Pirs and Poisk. The hybrid probe and drogue has a larger diameter than the classic.
-
After the initial capture (of Soyuz spacecraft or Space shuttle), what happens next? Does the spacecraft use, for example, electro-magnets or a mechanical lock to keep the craft docked at the ISS? How does this whole docking mechanism work???
-
After the initial capture (of Soyuz spacecraft or Space shuttle), what happens next? Does the spacecraft use, for example, electro-magnets or a mechanical lock to keep the craft docked at the ISS? How does this whole docking mechanism work???
Mechanical hooks and latches on both the station and visiting vehicle(VV) sides.
-
A very old thread. And a bizarre question.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=243.0
Let's suppose I live in Seattle and see the ISS pass over my head. Very good.
1H30 later the ISS should pass again excepted that, unfortunately the Earth rotated since then.
So, my question is: how many days before the ISS pass again, the same way, over my head ?
I found that, for example, Spot needed 26 days, and Envisat 35 days.
(in french)
De plus, le satellite est phasé ; il repasse exactement au même endroit après un certain nombre de révolutions. Pour ENVISAT ce cycle est de 501 révolutions soit 35 jours.
The satellite has a phased orbit; this mean it passes at the very same point after a certain number of orbits. For ENVISAT this number amounts to 501 orbits or 35 days.
So, is the ISS orbit "phased" (I hope this is the correct word) the same way ?
Thank you in advance...
-
All objects in an orbit have a "phase". Phase is just the mathematic term for describing the position of a point somewhere around a circle.
-
All objects in an orbit have a "phase". Phase is just the mathematic term for describing the position of a point somewhere around a circle.
The other complicating factor is that in order to see the ISS, you need to have certain lighting conditions. It has to be dark on earth and light in orbit. That's a pretty short window. You can usually see ISS for a couple days at a time before it will be another month (-ish) before you can see it again.
-
so it needs a month or so , thank you so far for the answers !
-
- A basic question : how did FGB to maintain itself and Node-1 in orbit before the arrival of Zvezda, since no Progress came to refuel it ?
- In this (http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/165/13.shtml) article, it is written that FGB's SSVP has been replaced by a SSVP-M. In my mind, it was exactly the opposite. Could you confirm NK made a mistake ?
Thank you very much !
-
- A basic question : how did FGB to maintain itself and Node-1 in orbit before the arrival of Zvezda, since no Progress came to refuel it ?
The drag of the vehicle was low and the altitude high enough that it didn't require reboosting that often.
-
- A basic question : how did FGB to maintain itself and Node-1 in orbit before the arrival of Zvezda, since no Progress came to refuel it ?
In the early days, Shuttles used to re-boost the FGB/Node 1 every time they visited, until the SM arrived.
-
- A basic question : how did FGB to maintain itself and Node-1 in orbit before the arrival of Zvezda, since no Progress came to refuel it ?
In the early days, Shuttles used to re-boost the FGB/Node 1 every time they visited, until the SM arrived.
The FGB also used its own propulsion system to perform reboosts and debris avoidance maneuvers prior to SM launch. The FGB was also the active vehicle in the FGB-SM rendezvous/docking.
-
- A basic question : how did FGB to maintain itself and Node-1 in orbit before the arrival of Zvezda, since no Progress came to refuel it ?
In the early days, Shuttles used to re-boost the FGB/Node 1 every time they visited, until the SM arrived.
The FGB also used its own propulsion system to perform reboosts and debris avoidance maneuvers prior to SM launch. The FGB was also the active vehicle in the FGB-SM rendezvous/docking.
Yes, since the FGB has both translational and rotational RCS, and the SM only has rotational RCS. This is because there was no need for the SM to have translational RCS, as the only time it would have been used was during the FGB docking – and so the FGB was chosen to be the active vehicle in the docking, in order to minimise the amount of thrusters needed on the Russian segment.
-
Yes, since the FGB has both translational and rotational RCS, and the SM only has rotational RCS. This is because there was no need for the SM to have translational RCS, as the only time it would have been used was during the FGB docking – and so the FGB was chosen to be the active vehicle in the docking, in order to minimise the amount of thrusters needed on the Russian segment.
This is not entirely correct. AFAIK, the thrusters on the Service Module are useful for orbit correction (here I am speaking of the small thrusters), and certainly the two large thrusters on the SM are capable of significant delta-V. Given that there are two distinct orbit correction engine systems on the SM, the Service Module was not designated as the passive vehicle to minimize the amount of thrusters, but rather that the FGB software and avionics set was long tested as an active vehicle, and there was no comparable hardware or software to allow the SM to serve as an active vehicle during rendezvous.
Furthermore, the FGB/Node complex was very similar to the Kvant/Service Module complex that docked with the Mir base block, and so this prior art gave mission planners some confidence for using FGB as a tug.
-
Yes, since the FGB has both translational and rotational RCS, and the SM only has rotational RCS. This is because there was no need for the SM to have translational RCS, as the only time it would have been used was during the FGB docking – and so the FGB was chosen to be the active vehicle in the docking, in order to minimise the amount of thrusters needed on the Russian segment.
This is not entirely correct. AFAIK, the thrusters on the Service Module are useful for orbit correction (here I am speaking of the small thrusters), and certainly the two large thrusters on the SM are capable of significant delta-V. Given that there are two distinct orbit correction engine systems on the SM, the Service Module was not designated as the passive vehicle to minimize the amount of thrusters, but rather that the FGB software and avionics set was long tested as an active vehicle, and there was no comparable hardware or software to allow the SM to serve as an active vehicle during rendezvous.
Furthermore, the FGB/Node complex was very similar to the Kvant/Service Module complex that docked with the Mir base block, and so this prior art gave mission planners some confidence for using FGB as a tug.
Correct, we can use the SM aft thrusters for translation manuevers, mainly reboosts, but to minimize lifetime issues, normally a Progress or ATV is used. But it has been done.
-
Correct, we can use the SM aft thrusters for translation manuevers, mainly reboosts, but to minimize lifetime issues, normally a Progress or ATV is used. But it has been done.
Actually, its more than that. There are more than the two main engines, there are thrusters on the edge of the rear of the SM that generate about 40 kg of thrust each, and can be used for impromptu collision avoidance maneuvers.
-
Correct, we can use the SM aft thrusters for translation manuevers, mainly reboosts, but to minimize lifetime issues, normally a Progress or ATV is used. But it has been done.
Actually, its more than that. There are more than the two main engines, there are thrusters on the edge of the rear of the SM that generate about 40 kg of thrust each, and can be used for impromptu collision avoidance maneuvers.
As long as no other vehicle is docked to the SM aft. And not sure what you mean by impromtu maneuvers. If by impromptu you mean at least 28 hours of time for planning and preparing for it, then you are correct.
-
With ISS / Shuttle spacewalks, a thing I noticed was
1. US spacewalks are planned for 6 hours and 30 minutes
2. Russian spacewalks are planned for 6 hours (at least lately, and I do not know whether it was always the case)
However, there have both US and Russian EVAs that have exceed these planned durations.
My question is, why Russian EVAs are planned for a lesser duration? Is it due to the Orlan spacesuit design?
-
My question is, why Russian EVAs are planned for a lesser duration? Is it due to the Orlan spacesuit design?
Don't think so. Orlan suits could support spacewalks up to 9/10 hours.
-
My question is, why Russian EVAs are planned for a lesser duration? Is it due to the Orlan spacesuit design?
Don't think so. Orlan suits could support spacewalks up to 9/10 hours.
Fromt he start fo the day to the end it is pretty long on a day with an EVA. You probably want to target for that duration but not sure of any real limits.
-
My question is, why Russian EVAs are planned for a lesser duration? Is it due to the Orlan spacesuit design?
Don't think so. Orlan suits could support spacewalks up to 9/10 hours.
Fromt he start fo the day to the end it is pretty long on a day with an EVA. You probably want to target for that duration but not sure of any real limits.
You hit the nail on the head. US EVAs occur from the US Airlock, which is designed for going to vacuum and does not have a lot of outside system reconfiguration that needs to occur by the crew before the EVA occurs.
RS EVAs occur from the DC-1, with the ball of the SM being isolated, so there is a lot of system reconfiguration, hatch closures, leak checks, etc that have to occur. RS EVAs lead to a very long crew day, so you want to limit it to the tasks you need to do and nothing more. They do not plan get-ahead tasks, when they're done, they're done.
-
Is a complete map of FGB's DPS/DTS thrusters available anywhere ?
I am trying to establish it with informations published in NK n°1999-1 (pages 5 and 12), but it's rather confusing...
Thanks a lot !
-
Is a complete map of FGB's DPS/DTS thrusters available anywhere ?
I am trying to establish it with informations published in NK n°1999-1 (pages 5 and 12), but it's rather confusing...
Thanks a lot !
According to NK n°1999-1 page 12 :
ДПС
№№1–8 и 39–42 для управления по оси OY ФГБ и стабилизации по тангажу и крену
№№9–20 – для управления по осям OX и OZ ФГБ и стабилизации по рысканию
I think there is an error with the axes, and that you should read :
ДПС
№№1–8 и 39–42 для управления по оси OX и OZ ФГБ и стабилизации по тангажу и крену
№№9–20 – для управления по осям OY ФГБ и стабилизации по рысканию
It would be more logical with the engines numbering given on page 5. Any confirmation ?
-
Is a complete map of FGB's DPS/DTS thrusters available anywhere ?
I am trying to establish it with informations published in NK n°1999-1 (pages 5 and 12), but it's rather confusing...
Thanks a lot !
-
OK, since there isn't a thread for general space questions, I will ask it here:
Let's say that someone were to place a wet/damp ISS uniform (or pair of jeans or other article of clothing) in one of the ISS airlocks immediately before an EVA. During the EVA, the airlock would be depressurized. Assuming the ISS uniform were secured (so it wouldn't be sucked out during depressurization), and assuming that the temperature of the airlock wouldn't fall below freezing during the EVA, what would be the condition of the uniform after the EVA? Would it be dry, or no change, or is it impossible to keep the temperature of the airlock above freezing for 6+ hours?
-
OK, since there isn't a thread for general space questions, I will ask it here:
Let's say that someone were to place a wet/damp ISS uniform (or pair of jeans or other article of clothing) in one of the ISS airlocks immediately before an EVA. During the EVA, the airlock would be depressurized. Assuming the ISS uniform were secured (so it wouldn't be sucked out during depressurization), and assuming that the temperature of the airlock wouldn't fall below freezing during the EVA, what would be the condition of the uniform after the EVA? Would it be dry, or no change, or is it impossible to keep the temperature of the airlock above freezing for 6+ hours?
it would be dry
-
OK, since there isn't a thread for general space questions, I will ask it here:
Let's say that someone were to place a wet/damp ISS uniform (or pair of jeans or other article of clothing) in one of the ISS airlocks immediately before an EVA. During the EVA, the airlock would be depressurized. Assuming the ISS uniform were secured (so it wouldn't be sucked out during depressurization), and assuming that the temperature of the airlock wouldn't fall below freezing during the EVA, what would be the condition of the uniform after the EVA? Would it be dry, or no change, or is it impossible to keep the temperature of the airlock above freezing for 6+ hours?
it would be dry
Which leads to the follow-up question: do temperatures inside the Quest or Pirs or Poisk airlocks stay above freezing during the course of an EVA?
-
OK, since there isn't a thread for general space questions, I will ask it here:
Let's say that someone were to place a wet/damp ISS uniform (or pair of jeans or other article of clothing) in one of the ISS airlocks immediately before an EVA. During the EVA, the airlock would be depressurized. Assuming the ISS uniform were secured (so it wouldn't be sucked out during depressurization), and assuming that the temperature of the airlock wouldn't fall below freezing during the EVA, what would be the condition of the uniform after the EVA? Would it be dry, or no change, or is it impossible to keep the temperature of the airlock above freezing for 6+ hours?
it would be dry
depends on if it is in the shade, open to deep space, etc. I believe an evacuated airlock with the hatch closed enough to not allow viewing of the outside environment would be a "closed" system unless there is a light on inside it. This "closed" system means that the temp of the airlock walls is going to be the driver of the temp of the objects inside of it.
Which leads to the follow-up question: do temperatures inside the Quest or Pirs or Poisk airlocks stay above freezing during the course of an EVA?
-
Per the discussion in the exp. 26 thread about contingency EVAS..
Are they required to have 2 crew members trained in both EMU and Orlan on each Soyuz or just among a 6 person crew? If only among 6 person crew what would happen if they need to do a contingency EVA during crew rotation with only 3 crew members onboard?
-
Per the discussion in the exp. 26 thread about contingency EVAS..
Are they required to have 2 crew members trained in both EMU and Orlan on each Soyuz or just among a 6 person crew? If only among 6 person crew what would happen if they need to do a contingency EVA during crew rotation with only 3 crew members onboard?
Requirement is for the 6 crew (or 3 crew if will be that way for an extended time).
-
For the upcoming HTV-2 flight, why are they going to shuffle the HTV between the zenith and nadir ports of Harmony? The current plan is to do a capture-nadir-zenith-nadir-release sequence. Since they know, before the launch, that it will need to be berthed to the zenith port to provide clearance for the shuttle, why can't they immediately berth to the zenith port after capturing?
-
For the upcoming HTV-2 flight, why are they going to shuffle the HTV between the zenith and nadir ports of Harmony? The current plan is to do a capture-nadir-zenith-nadir-release sequence. Since they know, before the launch, that it will need to be berthed to the zenith port to provide clearance for the shuttle, why can't they immediately berth to the zenith port after capturing?
HTV-2 will be berthed to the Node 2 Nadir port upon arrival so that the EP can be extracted with the SSRMS and attached to the JEF. If HTV-2 was berthed to the Zenith port upon arrival, there would not be sufficient clearances to extract the EP.
Once the EP has been extracted, HTV-2 will be relocated from Nadir to Zenith due to the upcoming arrival of Shuttle Discovery on STS-133. If HTV-2 was berthed to the Nadir port when Discovery arrived, it would block the SSRMS from removing payloads from Discovery's PLB.
Once Discovery departs, HTV-2 will be moved back to the Nadir port so that the EP can be re-inserted.
-
For the upcoming HTV-2 flight, why are they going to shuffle the HTV between the zenith and nadir ports of Harmony? The current plan is to do a capture-nadir-zenith-nadir-release sequence. Since they know, before the launch, that it will need to be berthed to the zenith port to provide clearance for the shuttle, why can't they immediately berth to the zenith port after capturing?
HTV-2 will be berthed to the Node 2 Nadir port upon arrival so that the EP can be extracted with the SSRMS and attached to the JEF. If HTV-2 was berthed to the Zenith port upon arrival, there would not be sufficient clearances to extract the EP.
Once the EP has been extracted, HTV-2 will be relocated from Nadir to Zenith due to the upcoming arrival of Shuttle Discovery on STS-133. If HTV-2 was berthed to the Nadir port when Discovery arrived, it would block the SSRMS from removing payloads from Discovery's PLB.
Once Discovery departs, HTV-2 will be moved back to the Nadir port so that the EP can be re-inserted.
Just out of curiosity, what is causing the clearance issue with the EP at the Nadir position? I would assume that if the arm is mounted on the MBS, it should be able to reach the compartment on the HTV easily. Is it that the nadair port orientates the opening the wrong way or that the arm cant reach the EF when mounted on the MBS?
-
For the upcoming HTV-2 flight, why are they going to shuffle the HTV between the zenith and nadir ports of Harmony? The current plan is to do a capture-nadir-zenith-nadir-release sequence. Since they know, before the launch, that it will need to be berthed to the zenith port to provide clearance for the shuttle, why can't they immediately berth to the zenith port after capturing?
HTV-2 will be berthed to the Node 2 Nadir port upon arrival so that the EP can be extracted with the SSRMS and attached to the JEF. If HTV-2 was berthed to the Zenith port upon arrival, there would not be sufficient clearances to extract the EP.
Once the EP has been extracted, HTV-2 will be relocated from Nadir to Zenith due to the upcoming arrival of Shuttle Discovery on STS-133. If HTV-2 was berthed to the Nadir port when Discovery arrived, it would block the SSRMS from removing payloads from Discovery's PLB.
Once Discovery departs, HTV-2 will be moved back to the Nadir port so that the EP can be re-inserted.
Just out of curiosity, what is causing the clearance issue with the EP at the Nadir position? I would assume that if the arm is mounted on the MBS, it should be able to reach the compartment on the HTV easily. Is it that the nadair port orientates the opening the wrong way or that the arm cant reach the EF when mounted on the MBS?
Upon further thought, it may not be a clearance issue at all. It may be to do with the EP extraction not being visible from the Cupola if HTV was at Zenith. Nadir has Cupola visibility and a lot of external camera coverage. Zenith has no Cupola visibility, and very little external camera coverage.
-
Cool, thanks for the prompt response!
The camera coverage makes sense to me, since the zenith port is supposed to be a backup for visiting vehicles. It wouldn't make a good backup if there were clearance problems.
-
On the ISS tours we can see that they have a big collection of cameras and lenses onboard ISS, does anyone have a list of what they actually have up there?
-
Cool, thanks for the prompt response!
The camera coverage makes sense to me, since the zenith port is supposed to be a backup for visiting vehicles. It wouldn't make a good backup if there were clearance problems.
Free flying visiting vheicles can only be captured at Node 2 nadir (cameras etc not available on zenith). However, the structure of the HTV interfers with the shuttle. Zenith right now is an emergency only berth option for HTV and in fact cables need to be built to support data on zenith. The cables are burried in the PMM but will take too long to access so new ones ar ebeing made. Folks are looking into making this a nominal backup port but there are all kinds of complications with this.
-
There's talk of manifesting PMA-3 for a ride home on STS-135 if it flies. My question... why bother? I understand the need to get it out of the way to clear CBM ports for other purposes, but why not just pick an out-of-the-way spot on the truss, park it there and be done with it? Or, pick a CBM that was planned to not be used and put it there for a bit of extra stowage?
-
There's talk of manifesting PMA-3 for a ride home on STS-135 if it flies. My question... why bother? I understand the need to get it out of the way to clear CBM ports for other purposes, but why not just pick an out-of-the-way spot on the truss, park it there and be done with it? Or, pick a CBM that was planned to not be used and put it there for a bit of extra stowage?
APAS docking systems are expensive!
Actually, there is no good place on the truss to store a PMA, the extra mass is something that ISS doesn't need, and it could be used to transport some items back down if put in the payload bay.
Are there really functional CBMs that are not planned to be used?
??? ???
-
Are there really functional CBMs that are not planned to be used?
No - and that is the reason for wanting PMA-3 on the ground.
Let's go over the available ports on ISS post-Shuttle:
• Node 2 Forward: Being considered for Cupola, or Node 4/DHS, or other docking adapter.
• Node 2 Nadir: Primary VV port.
• Node 2 Zenith: B/U VV port, also being considered for docking adapter.
• Node 1 Nadir: If PMM went to Node 3 Aft, would become a VV port.
• Node 3 Aft: Being considered for PMM, would be PMA-2's home if PMA-3 doesn't come down.
• Node 3 Forward: Being considered for Cupola.
• Node 3 Nadir: If Cupola goes to Node 2 or 3 Forward, would become VV port.
• Node 3 Port: If PMA-3 went down, would become home for PMA-2.
As you can see, there is a lot of juggling that could be done up there. Keeping PMA-3 would severely complicate that, while providing very little gains.
-
There's talk of manifesting PMA-3 for a ride home on STS-135 if it flies. My question... why bother? I understand the need to get it out of the way to clear CBM ports for other purposes, but why not just pick an out-of-the-way spot on the truss, park it there and be done with it? Or, pick a CBM that was planned to not be used and put it there for a bit of extra stowage?
APAS docking systems are expensive!
Actually, there is no good place on the truss to store a PMA, the extra mass is something that ISS doesn't need, and it could be used to transport some items back down if put in the payload bay.
Are there really functional CBMs that are not planned to be used?
??? ???
Since the CBM side of the PMAs doesn't have a hatch, storing things in there when it is undocked from the station probably isn't a good idea.
The better question is "Why not just jetison the thing?" Push it off with the arm at perigee just before they do a reboost of the station so there is no chance of recontact. they can calculate its drag coeficient and do it at the right time so that anything that is left comes down in the pacific.
When PMA3 was launched, it went up on a spcelab pallet. To bring it back they would have to do the same thing. That's a lot of up mass that won't be delivered to the station as spare parts.
-
Could PMA-3 perhaps be brought down with the next HTV? Perhaps some attachment would have to be improvised...
Another option would be to attach it to the trunk of a departing future Dragon flight. That should be possible, right?
-
Could PMA-3 perhaps be brought down with the next HTV? Perhaps some attachment would have to be improvised...
Another option would be to attach it to the trunk of a departing future Dragon flight. That should be possible, right?
It would not be possible to bring PMA-3 down in the next HTV, as there wouldn't be enough room in the ULC for both the EP and PMA-3.
In theory, it should be possible to bring PMA-3 down in a Dragon trunk - you would just need to attach an ACBM collar to the trunk.
-
you would just need to attach an ACBM collar to the trunk.
Not exactly a trivial engineering challenge, to make it extendable. Plus, you wouldn't need an ACBM. (expensive and heavy) All you need is a RMS end effector like the POA on the MBS. The PMAs have 2 grapple fixtures so you would attach it with the second one.
as there wouldn't be enough room in the ULC for both the EP and PMA-3.
You could do the same thing on the HTVs EP. Make it fold out when the EP is attached to the JEM-EF so that it fits inside the shroud at launch but can hold the PMA outside the body of the HTV at departure.
-
you would just need to attach an ACBM collar to the trunk.
Not exactly a trivial engineering challenge, to make it extendable. Plus, you wouldn't need an ACBM. (expensive and heavy) All you need is a RMS end effector like the POA on the MBS. The PMAs have 2 grapple fixtures so you would attach it with the second one.
I should think that an ACBM and a LEE would cost & weigh about the same. I don't think it would be possible to fit a PMA in the Trunk sideways on, which would have to be done in order for a LEE to grapple a PMA's FRGF. Also, why would the ACBM need to extend? It could simply be launched sitting flush with the end of the Trunk's shroud.
as there wouldn't be enough room in the ULC for both the EP and PMA-3.
You could do the same thing on the HTVs EP. Make it fold out when the EP is attached to the JEM-EF so that it fits inside the shroud at launch but can hold the PMA outside the body of the HTV at departure.
Yes, but that would be very expensive & complicated. It would be much more simple to launch HTV with an ACBM pre-integrated into the ULC.
Just for reference, I have attached an image of an ACBM below.
-
you would just need to attach an ACBM collar to the trunk.
Not exactly a trivial engineering challenge, to make it extendable. Plus, you wouldn't need an ACBM. (expensive and heavy) All you need is a RMS end effector like the POA on the MBS. The PMAs have 2 grapple fixtures so you would attach it with the second one.
I should think that an ACBM and a LEE would cost & weigh about the same.
Not even close, I'm afraid.
as there wouldn't be enough room in the ULC for both the EP and PMA-3.
You could do the same thing on the HTVs EP. Make it fold out when the EP is attached to the JEM-EF so that it fits inside the shroud at launch but can hold the PMA outside the body of the HTV at departure.
Yes, but that would be very expensive & complicated. It would be much more simple to launch HTV with an ACBM pre-integrated into the ULC.
Just for reference, I have attached an image of an ACBM below.
That doesn't look like a complete ACBM to me. No CPAs or latch actuators.
The ULC isn't big enough for a PMA. The CDA had to be designed to fit into the ULC, and it wound up being half the size of a PMA.
-
you would just need to attach an ACBM collar to the trunk.
Not exactly a trivial engineering challenge, to make it extendable. Plus, you wouldn't need an ACBM. (expensive and heavy) All you need is a RMS end effector like the POA on the MBS. The PMAs have 2 grapple fixtures so you would attach it with the second one.
I should think that an ACBM and a LEE would cost & weigh about the same.
Not even close, I'm afraid.
Really? Although an ACBM is larger, a LEE is packed full of systems & electronics.
as there wouldn't be enough room in the ULC for both the EP and PMA-3.
You could do the same thing on the HTVs EP. Make it fold out when the EP is attached to the JEM-EF so that it fits inside the shroud at launch but can hold the PMA outside the body of the HTV at departure.
Yes, but that would be very expensive & complicated. It would be much more simple to launch HTV with an ACBM pre-integrated into the ULC.
Just for reference, I have attached an image of an ACBM below.
That doesn't look like a complete ACBM to me. No CPAs or latch actuators.
The ULC isn't big enough for a PMA. The CDA had to be designed to fit into the ULC, and it wound up being half the size of a PMA.
Yes, that is correct. If the ACBM were to be mounted to the Trunk however, then the CPAs could be positioned elsewhere, as they would not need to be removed by the on-orbit crew.
Interesting to know about the ULC, thanks. That's probably the reason why NASA would like to bring PMA-3 down on the Shuttle - if Dragon doesn't work out, they'll have no way of getting it down.
-
I should think that an ACBM and a LEE would cost & weigh about the same. I don't think it would be possible to fit a PMA in the Trunk sideways on, which would have to be done in order for a LEE to grapple a PMA's FRGF. Also, why would the ACBM need to extend? It could simply be launched sitting flush with the end of the Trunk's shroud.
Just for reference, I have attached an image of an ACBM below.
You wouldn't need an LEE, just a normal EE as is on the shuttles RMS. it doesnt need to transfer power or data. The EE only has 2 motors vs the ACBMs 20, so it would be a lot cheaper and simpler
Why would the PMA have to go into the trunk? (or the iterior of the HTV for that matter) It could be stay outside the volume. Its not like either is comming back to the ground.
There is a large unusable volume at the bottom of the trunk where the top dome of the scond stage sticks into it. It over a meter deep so anything on the center line would have to extend to clear the bottom of the skirt and there wouldn't be room for the SSRMS to insert the PMA that deep into the trunk without the LEE hitting the side.
That picture is just the mating ring and the guide petals, not a full ACBM. I'm not sure, but I think they use that to fit test newly installed PCBMs on modules before flight.
-
I should think that an ACBM and a LEE would cost & weigh about the same. I don't think it would be possible to fit a PMA in the Trunk sideways on, which would have to be done in order for a LEE to grapple a PMA's FRGF. Also, why would the ACBM need to extend? It could simply be launched sitting flush with the end of the Trunk's shroud.
Just for reference, I have attached an image of an ACBM below.
You wouldn't need an LEE, just a normal EE as is on the shuttles RMS. it doesnt need to transfer power or data. The EE only has 2 motors vs the ACBMs 20, so it would be a lot cheaper and simpler
Why would the PMA have to go into the trunk? (or the iterior of the HTV for that matter) It could be stay outside the volume. Its not like either is comming back to the ground.
There is a large unusable volume at the bottom of the trunk where the top dome of the scond stage sticks into it. It over a meter deep so anything on the center line would have to extend to clear the bottom of the skirt and there wouldn't be room for the SSRMS to insert the PMA that deep into the trunk without the LEE hitting the side.
That picture is just the mating ring and the guide petals, not a full ACBM. I'm not sure, but I think they use that to fit test newly installed PCBMs on modules before flight.
Just for the record, LEE is Latching End Effector, and they are present on both the SSRMS and SRMS. While you are correct in that the SSRMS LEE is very different the the SRMS LEE, the same acronym applies to both.
I completely agree that the entire volume of the Trunk would be needed to dispose of a PMA. My idea was to mount the ACBM in the unusable volume you described. That way, the LEE would not need to go inside the Trunk. This idea, however, would leave the PMA protruding from the Trunk.
Again, while you are correct in that the image does not show a full ACBM, as Jorge stated, the only additional hardware that would be needed is the hooks & CPAs. No hatches, petals, MLI coverings, etc. would be needed.
-
Why would it matter if something extended ou of the trunk for disposal? It shouldn't.
The only limit would be if Dragon could handle the mass distribution of the PMA for the orbital maneuvers and deorbit burn. (before trunk separation)
-
Just for the record, LEE is Latching End Effector, and they are present on both the SSRMS and SRMS. While you are correct in that the SSRMS LEE is very different the the SRMS LEE, the same acronym applies to both.
I completely agree that the entire volume of the Trunk would be needed to dispose of a PMA. My idea was to mount the ACBM in the unusable volume you described. That way, the LEE would not need to go inside the Trunk. This idea, however, would leave the PMA protruding from the Trunk.
Again, while you are correct in that the image does not show a full ACBM, as Jorge stated, the only additional hardware that would be needed is the hooks & CPAs. No hatches, petals, MLI coverings, etc. would be needed.
I don't want to get into a big back and forth argument, but with all due respect you're off on these points.
The LEE is unique to the station equipment. The "latching" part refers to the 4 mechanical latches around the perimeter. Those are not on the shuttle arm.
Here are a couple of links to MDAs website. You will note that they specifically do not use "LEE" on the candarm page.
http://sm.mdacorporation.com/what_we_do/can_description.html
http://sm.mdacorporation.com/what_we_do/canadarm2.html
As far as the drgons trunk, my point was that you can't mount anything in that space on account of it being occupied by the top of the second stage tank.
-
Just for the record, LEE is Latching End Effector, and they are present on both the SSRMS and SRMS. While you are correct in that the SSRMS LEE is very different the the SRMS LEE, the same acronym applies to both.
I completely agree that the entire volume of the Trunk would be needed to dispose of a PMA. My idea was to mount the ACBM in the unusable volume you described. That way, the LEE would not need to go inside the Trunk. This idea, however, would leave the PMA protruding from the Trunk.
Again, while you are correct in that the image does not show a full ACBM, as Jorge stated, the only additional hardware that would be needed is the hooks & CPAs. No hatches, petals, MLI coverings, etc. would be needed.
I don't want to get into a big back and forth argument, but with all due respect you're off on these points.
The LEE is unique to the station equipment. The "latching" part refers to the 4 mechanical latches around the perimeter. Those are not on the shuttle arm.
Here are a couple of links to MDAs website. You will note that they specifically do not use "LEE" on the candarm page.
http://sm.mdacorporation.com/what_we_do/can_description.html
http://sm.mdacorporation.com/what_we_do/canadarm2.html
As far as the drgons trunk, my point was that you can't mount anything in that space on account of it being occupied by the top of the second stage tank.
Thanks for those links. I've never heard of the SSRMS LEE having a latching ability.
This is from the NASA ISS Familiarization Training Manual:
The SSRMS uses more than one type of grapple fixture on the ISS. One type, the PDGF, provides power, data, and video connections to the arm. The PDGF, illustrated in Figure 8-5, is the only interface that can be used as a base for the SSRMS. These grapple fixtures are located throughout the ISS (Lab, Japanese Experiment Module (JEM), Node 2, Functional Cargo Block (FGB), and MBS) and provide interfaces to other elements and payloads. There will eventually be 10 of these grapple fixtures located on the ISS.
Good point about the Dragon Trunk. I'm starting to see the real appeal of returning PMA-3 on STS-135! :)
-
There's talk of manifesting PMA-3 for a ride home on STS-135 if it flies. My question... why bother? I understand the need to get it out of the way to clear CBM ports for other purposes, but why not just pick an out-of-the-way spot on the truss, park it there and be done with it? Or, pick a CBM that was planned to not be used and put it there for a bit of extra stowage?
To get the ports we need for additonal vehciles or growth we might need to get rid of the PMA. Jettison would be really dangerous so that is one option being looked at.
-
How long can ISS remain unmanned?
If there was a situation where we lost the ability to send people to the ISS, and had to temporarily un-man it, how long could the ISS remain un-manned before it became at risk (assuming no major mishaps occurred,
like MMOD, fire, communication failures, etc)?
What would be the limiting factor for continuing to be un-manned?
Can they perform reboosts remotely?
Dan
-
How long can ISS remain unmanned?
If there was a situation where we lost the ability to send people to the ISS, and had to temporarily un-man it, how long could the ISS remain un-manned before it became at risk (assuming no major mishaps occurred,
like MMOD, fire, communication failures, etc)?
What would be the limiting factor for continuing to be un-manned?
Can they perform reboosts remotely?
Dan
There is no specific duration. It's essentially "until the first failure occurs that the ground can't work around by remote commanding".
-
How long can ISS remain unmanned?
If there was a situation where we lost the ability to send people to the ISS, and had to temporarily un-man it, how long could the ISS remain un-manned before it became at risk (assuming no major mishaps occurred,
like MMOD, fire, communication failures, etc)?
What would be the limiting factor for continuing to be un-manned?
Can they perform reboosts remotely?
Dan
There is no specific duration. It's essentially "until the first failure occurs that the ground can't work around by remote commanding".
Is that even really necessarily the end? I remember contact with Salyut 7 was lost (it had lost electrical power and was drifting without ACS, rolling about its long axis, and the inside was very cold and covered with frost and the water tanks were frozen) for a while but was revived by Soyuz T-13 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_T-13).
A question: If ISS lost ACS entirely (including the gyros), would it be held in a stable attitude by the gravity gradient?
-
This is from the NASA ISS Familiarization Training Manual:
The PDGF, illustrated in Figure 8-5, is the only interface that can be used as a base for the SSRMS. These grapple fixtures are located throughout the ISS (Lab, Japanese Experiment Module (JEM), Node 2, Functional Cargo Block (FGB), and MBS) and provide interfaces to other elements and payloads.
Is there really a PDGF on the FGB??
??? ???
-
This is from the NASA ISS Familiarization Training Manual:
The PDGF, illustrated in Figure 8-5, is the only interface that can be used as a base for the SSRMS. These grapple fixtures are located throughout the ISS (Lab, Japanese Experiment Module (JEM), Node 2, Functional Cargo Block (FGB), and MBS) and provide interfaces to other elements and payloads.
Is there really a PDGF on the FGB??
??? ???
Not at the moment, but there will be after STS-134 EVA-3! :)
-
Hi all,
Have the ISS CDRs forbidden to perform EVAs?
Thanks
-
Hi all,
Have the ISS CDRs forbidden to perform EVAs?
Thanks
Nope, why would they????
-
Have the ISS CDRs forbidden to perform EVAs?
Nope, why would they????
I'll try to explain me better :P
Can an ISS Commander perform an EVA or must be inside (commanding the station) during EVAs?
-
Have the ISS CDRs forbidden to perform EVAs?
Nope, why would they????
I'll try to explain me better :P
Can an ISS Commander perform an EVA or must be inside (commanding the station) during EVAs?
Unless there has been a recent rule change, there have been many ISS commanders who have performed an EVA.
Ex 2's Usachev was the first.
-
Wasn't Peggy Whitson ISS Commander when she did her EVAs?
-
Wahoo, I've just realized that STS-92 docked to PMA-2 "up and down".
I didn't think it was possible. Can an orbiter dock its APAS to a PMA with any angle ?
-
If you look closely, you'll see that PMA-2 is oriented 180 degrees from the orientation it would have later.
STS-88, 96, 101, 106, and 92 all docked "tail-zenith", because that's the way PMA-2 was oriented.
When PMA-2 was relocated from Node 1 forward to Lab forward it was re-oriented so that future shuttle missions all docked "tail-nadir".
Compare this image from STS-88 (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-88/hires/sts088-703-019.jpg) with this image from STS-102 (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-102/hires/sts102-326-034.jpg). In the first image the PMA is rotated so that the narrow section is toward the zenith. In the second image the PMA is rotated so that the narrow section is toward the nadir.
-
Thank you very much The-Hammer for this explanation !
It's a shame I'd not noticed that before !
-
Wasn't Peggy Whitson ISS Commander when she did her EVAs?
Affirmative.
-
Have the ISS CDRs forbidden to perform EVAs?
Nope, why would they????
I'll try to explain me better :P
Can an ISS Commander perform an EVA or must be inside (commanding the station) during EVAs?
No constraints. Agreements are made who is on charge and what to do in case of an emergency.
-
Someone has a scheme showing the locations of the different "attachment points" (ФП) of the Zvezda module ?
Thanks !
-
Someone has a scheme showing the locations of the different "attachment points" (ФП) of the Zvezda module?
http://www.spaceref.com/iss/eva/9720.EVA.Ref.3A.STS92.pdf (pages 77-96)
-
Can anyone tell me where on ISS this image is looking? I took the screenshot from the ISS coverage on NASa TV today at about 2:30. I see the label "to MPLM" on the hatch in the "floor" and the "JEM" note on the left side, so with the CBM bordering the shot I'm wondering if it's looking into Node 2, but then what's all the stuff against the FWD wall? Shouldn't that be the way to the PMA if this shot is looking the way I think it is? I'd appreciate any clarification anyone could provide.
-
Can anyone tell me where on ISS this image is looking? I took the screenshot from the ISS coverage on NASa TV today at about 2:30. I see the label "to MPLM" on the hatch in the "floor" and the "JEM" note on the left side, so with the CBM bordering the shot I'm wondering if it's looking into Node 2, but then what's all the stuff against the FWD wall? Shouldn't that be the way to the PMA if this shot is looking the way I think it is? I'd appreciate any clarification anyone could provide.
You are correct. They are using the PMA as a storage area as it is not being used to access the Orbiter at the moment.
Corrections from experts always appreciated.
Rob
-
Can anyone tell me where on ISS this image is looking? I took the screenshot from the ISS coverage on NASa TV today at about 2:30. I see the label "to MPLM" on the hatch in the "floor" and the "JEM" note on the left side, so with the CBM bordering the shot I'm wondering if it's looking into Node 2, but then what's all the stuff against the FWD wall? Shouldn't that be the way to the PMA if this shot is looking the way I think it is? I'd appreciate any clarification anyone could provide.
You are correct. They are using the PMA as a storage area as it is not being used to access the Orbiter at the moment.
Corrections from experts always appreciated.
Rob
Yep, that is looking Forward into Node 2, from the Lab.
PMA-2 itself isn't being used for stowage, as it is depressurised at the moment, but the Node 2 Forward end-cone area (NOD2P/S/O/D1) is.
-
Thanks very much, Pete and Rob. Knew the experts would be able to get to the bottom of this.
-
Thanks very much, Pete and Rob. Knew the experts would be able to get to the bottom of this.
better view
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23940.msg685121#msg685121
-
Thanks very much, Pete and Rob. Knew the experts would be able to get to the bottom of this.
better view
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23940.msg685121#msg685121
And a hires view here : http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-26/html/iss026e017685.html
-
I wonder if all that is the "trash" to be loaded into HTV prior to departure (or sooner, since needs to be moved prior to Discovery arrival)
-
I wonder if all that is the "trash" to be loaded into HTV prior to departure (or sooner, since needs to be moved prior to Discovery arrival)
NOD2 FWD end-cone stowage is miscellaneous water from NOD2O2. It has been moved to there as the NOD2O2 hatchway needs to be clear for the HTV-2 relocation. I imagine it will be moved to NOD2D2 prior to STS-133.
-
How come they don't use fuel cells on ISS?
-
How come they don't use fuel cells on ISS?
Sunlight is free and doesn't require logistics flights like H2 and O2 would
-
How come they don't use fuel cells on ISS?
Fuel cells are a bad power source for any long term(>2-4 weeks) spacecraft. They require hydrogen and oxygen which in the case of a space station would have to be shiped in.
Solar plus battery is better for this application. For the Shuttle and Apollo fuel cells were a great idea becuase their mission length was not as long.
For Orion Fuel cells were no good becuase Orion had to be able to be kept unmanned for 6 months.
-
How come they don't use fuel cells on ISS?
Sunlight is free and doesn't require logistics flights like H2 and O2 would
Fuel cells are a bad power source for any long term(>2-4 weeks) spacecraft. They require hydrogen and oxygen which in the case of a space station would have to be shipped in.
Solar plus battery is better for this application. For the Shuttle and Apollo fuel cells were a great idea becuase their mission length was not as long.
For Orion Fuel cells were no good becuase Orion had to be able to be kept unmanned for 6 months.
I agree about sunlight, but they still need batteries for when they are in the shadow of the Earth. I guess my question is Why use heavy batteries manufactured by Loral that have to be replaced every 6.5 years instead of fuel cells?
I guess the issue is where are you going to get fresh supplies of oxygen and hydrogen. The ULA paper (Zegler et al. 2009) kind of envisioned a Lunar station where a cycle would be set up where solar would electrolyze water during the daylight, and then electricity would be generated during the night and water produced.
So my question really boils down to: What's so hard about electrolyzing water on the ISS? If they could reuse the water produced by their fuel cells, they wouldn't require shipments of fresh O2 and H2 very often.
-
So my question really boils down to: What's so hard about electrolyzing water on the ISS? If they could reuse the water produced by their fuel cells, they wouldn't require shipments of fresh O2 and H2 very often.
Electrolyzing water takes a lot of energy and you need to seperate the hydrogen from the oxygen. It would be a much more complex and trouble prone set up.
The oxygen generation system on the ISS electrolizes water and has on occasion hickuped. ISS has and needs no fuel cells.
Solar power plus battery are enough. Even for a moon base solar power plus battery would be much better than fuel cells(which are a lot more trouble prone than batteries), tanks(for the gases), solar panels(needed anyway), and machine to electrolize the water.
There are applications where fuel cells could make sense for instance they could power a lunar lander or say a limited BEO spacecraft(one not made to support itself more than 2-3 weeks).
Anyway the ISS needs water for the crew's drinking and water to turn into oxygen for breathing. It also takes oxygen gas both as back up to the first system and to support EVA's.
Hydrogen atm is a bit of a waste product although the water recovery system uses it to generate methane and water from C02. The methane is currently being dumped along with excess hydrogen.
-
I guess the issue is where are you going to get fresh supplies of oxygen and hydrogen. The ULA paper (Zegler et al. 2009) kind of envisioned a Lunar station where a cycle would be set up where solar would electrolyze water during the daylight, and then electricity would be generated during the night and water produced.
Anyway for a lunar ISRU base using fuel cells at night might make some sense. The base would need tanks for hydrogen, oxygen, and processed water anyway plus would by definition have large scale electrolyzing machinery. However that is a totally different application of the technology. Plus even then I would expect batteries as back up.
-
Hello to all; first post here.
I was reading an article in about how a future mission employing the Orion may go.
In this scenario, it stated "After a two day chase, the Orion Spacecraft would meet up with the ISS"
I just know a little bit about orbits, but why does it take so long to get there? Don't orbits "start" as ellipses and then, if desired, get circularized? If so, then how long would that ellipse that reaches the ISS take for one orbit?
Sorry if I'm posting in the wrong place.
-
How come they don't use fuel cells on ISS?
I can't swear to these numbers, but I think the highest electrolysis/generating efficiency you're going to get from using fuel cells will be about 70%. The ISS batteries charge/discharge efficiencies should be around 85%. That alone, with such a small fraction of the power system's output available for science, would be enough to tip the scales to batteries.
-
Hello to all; first post here.
I was reading an article in about how a future mission employing the Orion may go.
In this scenario, it stated "After a two day chase, the Orion Spacecraft would meet up with the ISS"
I just know a little bit about orbits, but why does it take so long to get there? Don't orbits "start" as ellipses and then, if desired, get circularized? If so, then how long would that ellipse that reaches the ISS take for one orbit?
Sorry if I'm posting in the wrong place.
Short answer is that there is a tradeoff between prompt rendezvous and launch window duration. If you want to have an every-day launch window from KSC to ISS, rendezvous needs to be on flight day 3. Orion can do flight day 1 rendezvous (and MPCV may wind up baselining that) but this will result in losing everyday launch capability.
Long answer is here, among other places:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=4273.msg66595#msg66595
-
Why couldn't HTV-2 have stayed berthed to Harmony (zenith) for the duration of its stay at ISS?
I understand why it had to be moved from nadir location for the shuttle docking, but why is it important to have it stay in the nadir location at all?
Thanks.
-
If it is berthed at the Harmony's nadir, it prevents SSRMS from accessing Shuttle's Payload Bay.
If it is berthed at the Harmony's zenith, it SSRMS can't access its unpressurized compartment (ULC).
-
Hello to all; first post here.
I was reading an article in about how a future mission employing the Orion may go.
In this scenario, it stated "After a two day chase, the Orion Spacecraft would meet up with the ISS"
I just know a little bit about orbits, but why does it take so long to get there? Don't orbits "start" as ellipses and then, if desired, get circularized? If so, then how long would that ellipse that reaches the ISS take for one orbit?
Sorry if I'm posting in the wrong place.
Short answer is that there is a tradeoff between prompt rendezvous and launch window duration. If you want to have an every-day launch window from KSC to ISS, rendezvous needs to be on flight day 3. Orion can do flight day 1 rendezvous (and MPCV may wind up baselining that) but this will result in losing everyday launch capability.
Long answer is here, among other places:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=4273.msg66595#msg66595
Great explanation there, Jorge - very understandable. (First post, too.)
cheers, Martin
-
If it is berthed at the Harmony's nadir, it prevents SSRMS from accessing Shuttle's Payload Bay.
If it is berthed at the Harmony's zenith, it SSRMS can't access its unpressurized compartment (ULC).
I'm wondering why HTV will be relocated back to Nadir after STS-133.
I know that it needs to be at the Nadir location in order to perform the standard release manoeuvre - if it had to be released from the Zenith location, then the 6 hour manoeuvre to Nadir, and then the release manoeuvre would take too long to fit into a single work day.
But, why does HTV have to be berthed to Node 2 Nadir? Why not just manoeuvre it to Nadir with the SSRMS, leave it there overnight, and release it the following day? I shouldn't think that power would be an issue, as there wouldn't be any payloads in HTV at this point.
If it does need to be berthed due to load issues, then why does it need to be ingressed? Why not just berth it to Nadir overnight & release it the following day? Wouldn't it be far better to fill HTV with trash while it's on Zenith, and then it wouldn't need to be ingresses on Nadir?
It seems to me that relocating HTV to Node 2 Nadir & ingressing it will waste a lot of crew time.
-
Are we sure it will be ingressed at zenith? I can't remember reading anything about that.
-
Are we sure it will be ingressed at zenith? I can't remember reading anything about that.
Yes, the hatch is being opened on Monday, per yesterday's ISS report.
-
Pete, I saw that the SSRMS had different base for the Nadir to Zenith relocation, than it had for the original capture maneuver (and presumably the release as well) . Could that be the issue?
-
Pete, I saw that the SSRMS had different base for the Nadir to Zenith relocation, than it had for the original capture maneuver (and presumably the release as well) . Could that be the issue?
Yes, good thinking - that's why the relocation to Nadir is needed. I hadn't thought of that. :)
But, that still doesn't explain why HTV needs to be ingressed on Nadir. It could be loaded with trash while it's on Zenith, then be closed out for reentry. Not ingressing it on Nadir would save a lot of crew time. Perhaps it has something to do with the Zenith HTV contingency power jumper?
-
Pete, I saw that the SSRMS had different base for the Nadir to Zenith relocation, than it had for the original capture maneuver (and presumably the release as well) . Could that be the issue?
Yes, good thinking - that's why the relocation to Nadir is needed. I hadn't thought of that. :)
But, that still doesn't explain why HTV needs to be ingressed on Nadir. It could be loaded with trash while it's on Zenith, then be closed out for reentry. Not ingressing it on Nadir would save a lot of crew time. Perhaps it has something to do with the Zenith HTV contingency power jumper?
Could they be using some of the HTV volume to dispose of waste material from the PMM?
-
Could they be using some of the HTV volume to dispose of waste material from the PMM?
Yes, they are. Over 55% of HTV-2 trash will come from the PMM. However, why can't the trash be loaded into HTV when it is on Zenith - why must it be relocated to Nadir prior to trash loading?
-
Why couldn't HTV-2 have stayed berthed to Harmony (zenith) for the duration of its stay at ISS?
I understand why it had to be moved from nadir location for the shuttle docking, but why is it important to have it stay in the nadir location at all?
Thanks.
Good question. It has to be capture in the nadir location because that is the only way we can do that right now with cameras and sensors. However, the SSRMS cannot then berth it to zenith directly (the arm just can't reach and for HTV in the correct orientation). Since this is the first one, there was additional work like the jumpers that had to be built and have been/will be installed so it is not fully functional at the zenith. Therefore it was not optimal to move there so the plan was to keep it at nadir unless it really looked like the shuttle was coming for sure. Yes, by ingress on nadir and ingressing on zenith you use some extra crew time but it is not too bad to give you flexibility. There are plans in work to see if we can get a release fromt he zenith side or capture to zenith but that is a lot of work down the road...
-
This might have been already asked on here but I wasn't quite sure where to put this (or willing to go back 30 some odd pages..)
STS-134 was supposed to leave its OBSS attached to the ISS.
Now that STS-134 is not the last shuttle mission, will the OBSS be attached to the ISS during that mission or on STS-135?
Orbiter
-
STS-134 was supposed to leave its OBSS attached to the ISS.
Now that STS-134 is not the last shuttle mission, will the OBSS be attached to the ISS during that mission or on STS-135?
Still the plan, AFAIK, and was the plan when 134 was also not the last mission and 133 was.
-
STS-134 was supposed to leave its OBSS attached to the ISS.
Now that STS-134 is not the last shuttle mission, will the OBSS be attached to the ISS during that mission or on STS-135?
Still the plan, AFAIK, and was the plan when 134 was also not the last mission and 133 was.
Yup, will still be 134. The OBSS, also called the IBA (Integrated Boom Assembly) will have its EFGF (Electrical Flight Grapple Fixture) swapped out with an SSRMS-compatible PDGF during an EVA. It will then become an EIBA (Enhanced IBA).
-
A question just occurred to me as I was reading about some of the activities aboard the ISS today. In the process of building the ISS, each module they have added has obviously increased the mass of the station. Does the increase in mass require an increase in thrust/speed (however small it might be) in order to keep it in the same orbit?
-
A question just occurred to me as I was reading about some of the activities aboard the ISS today. In the process of building the ISS, each module they have added has obviously increased the mass of the station. Does the increase in mass require an increase in thrust/speed (however small it might be) in order to keep it in the same orbit?
Yes and no.
The amount of delta-V required to maintain orbit is a function of the area/mass ratio. While the mass of ISS has grown, the area has also grown thanks to the solar arrays and radiators, so this factor is pretty much a wash.
The amount of thrust-impulse required for a given delta-V is a function of the mass. Since the thrust of the ISS reboost engines (whether Progress, ATV, or ISS' own on the SM) is constant, the duration of reboost required to achieve a given delta-V has grown.
-
Just watched the PMM installation, and I saw there is step that calls for the SSRMS to limp after the PMM is berthed. What does that mean?
-
Just watched the PMM installation, and I saw there is step that calls for the SSRMS to limp after the PMM is berthed. What does that mean?
The arm joint motors are unpowered (not being driven) and the brakes are off. This allows the module to be pulled into alignment by the latches and bolts without the arm resiting the motion or appying a torque to it while still keeping the arm attached to the module just in case.
-
What are those box shaped objects seen between the hatches when say an MPLM or HTV is docked, prior to opening the MPLM or HTV hatch? http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-21/lores/iss021e016676.jpg
-
What are those box shaped objects seen between the hatches when say an MPLM or HTV is docked, prior to opening the MPLM or HTV hatch? http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-21/lores/iss021e016676.jpg
Those are the Controller Panel Assemblies (CPAs) that control the CBM latches and bolts.
-
Why are the ISS sleep times and wake times always about 30 minutes off from the Shuttle sleep/wake times on a docked mission?
-
Why are the ISS sleep times and wake times always about 30 minutes off from the Shuttle sleep/wake times on a docked mission?
So one crew can make breakfast for the other. :)
-
Seriously? That's pretty cool. :)
-
Seriously? That's pretty cool. :)
The ISS crew is up there for such a long time that they need the extra sleep. Shuttle is just on a shorter mission
-
What is the difference in size and style between M-bags and CTB-bags?
-
What is the difference in size and style between M-bags and CTB-bags?
M-Bags hold numerous CTB's
-
What is the difference in size and style between M-bags and CTB-bags?
M-Bags hold numerous CTB's
What about 3.0 CTB's? And why not just stick with one sort? If the want a really large bag they can just increase the CTB number since they already have several different CTB sizes.
-
What about 3.0 CTB's? And why not just stick with one sort? If the want a really large bag they can just increase the CTB number since they already have several different CTB sizes.
M-bags for transporting CTB's, not for hardware.
-
Another rather rookie question:
What is the difference between an ISP and a RSP. They are both platforms that look similar.
-
Another rather rookie question:
What is the difference between an ISP and a RSP. They are both platforms that look similar.
An ISP is a flat platform that fits into the base of a rack space (meaning that cargo can be mounted to it without protruding into the module aisleway).
An RSP is an L-shaped platform, onto which cargo can be mounted on both the front and back (meaning that the cargo does protrude into the aisleway).
-
What about 3.0 CTB's? And why not just stick with one sort? If the want a really large bag they can just increase the CTB number since they already have several different CTB sizes.
M-bags for transporting CTB's, not for hardware.
I believe that M-bags are used to transport Kurs boxes in the Shuttle mid-deck.
-
Correct, we can use the SM aft thrusters for translation manuevers, mainly reboosts, but to minimize lifetime issues, normally a Progress or ATV is used. But it has been done.
Actually, its more than that. There are more than the two main engines, there are thrusters on the edge of the rear of the SM that generate about 40 kg of thrust each, and can be used for impromptu collision avoidance maneuvers.
This was incorrect - the translational RCS thrusters are the same as the Progress thrusters - 14 kg thrust.
-
What happened with RGFSB during STS-132 EVA3 ? It should have been repaired, but if so, why there has been a "second" repair during STS-133 EVA2 ?
-
When the free drift-period period ended ~40 minutes after docking of STS-133, I heard the PAO say that they were using the shuttle's thrusters to put the station back in attitude after the pitchover excursion. Was there a particular reason why the shuttle's thrusters were used rather than the ISS thrusters?
Possibly to do with saving ISS propellant?
-
When the free drift-period period ended ~40 minutes after docking of STS-133, I heard the PAO say that they were using the shuttle's thrusters to put the station back in attitude after the pitchover excursion. Was there a particular reason why the shuttle's thrusters were used rather than the ISS thrusters?
Possibly to do with saving ISS propellant?
Correct. And that's the standard. Shuttle takes over first, damps the stack rates, maneuvers to docked TEA attitude, then hands over to ISS.
-
When the free drift-period period ended ~40 minutes after docking of STS-133, I heard the PAO say that they were using the shuttle's thrusters to put the station back in attitude after the pitchover excursion. Was there a particular reason why the shuttle's thrusters were used rather than the ISS thrusters?
Possibly to do with saving ISS propellant?
Correct. And that's the standard. Shuttle takes over first, damps the stack rates, maneuvers to docked TEA attitude, then hands over to ISS.
Thanks. (And I meant "free-drift period", but my fingers typed otherwise.) So the shuttle doesn't do any more attitude control to save ISS propellant after the handover?
Station holds attitude. Generally shuttle takes over for reboosts, and the maneuver to undocking attitude.
How often do the station's thrusters need to fire to maintain attitude, on average?
Not often. Sorry, don't know an exact frequency. TEA (Torque Equilibrium Attitude) is, pretty much by definition, designed to allow the station to control on CMGs and minimize thruster firings.
-
Is there a clear plan for how much extra reboosting the ISS will need during solar maximum? Do we have this issue covered?
Yes, after shuttle retirement ISS will reboosted from the current 350 km to over 400 km, to minimize drag during solar maximum. Much of that reboost will be performed by ATV-2, which is already docked to ISS. After that, the reboost plan is dependent on Progress and ATV launches, but Zarya has considerable propellant reserves to allow ISS to reboost itself in the event of a visiting vehicle shortfall.
-
Is there a clear plan for how much extra reboosting the ISS will need during solar maximum? Do we have this issue covered?
Yes, after shuttle retirement ISS will reboosted from the current 350 km to over 400 km, to minimize drag during solar maximum. Much of that reboost will be performed by ATV-2, which is already docked to ISS. After that, the reboost plan is dependent on Progress and ATV launches, but Zarya has considerable propellant reserves to allow ISS to reboost itself in the event of a visiting vehicle shortfall.
Always thought that was Zvezda. Been a few years since I went through the Russian modules I guess.
-
Is there a clear plan for how much extra reboosting the ISS will need during solar maximum? Do we have this issue covered?
Yes, after shuttle retirement ISS will reboosted from the current 350 km to over 400 km, to minimize drag during solar maximum. Much of that reboost will be performed by ATV-2, which is already docked to ISS. After that, the reboost plan is dependent on Progress and ATV launches, but Zarya has considerable propellant reserves to allow ISS to reboost itself in the event of a visiting vehicle shortfall.
At its current altitude of 350km, ISS uses about 19,000lb of propellant per year for reboosts.
Following the reboost to 400km, ISS will only use about 8,000lb of propellant per year.
-
What is the primary means of CO2 removal on station?
-
One thing I have never understood is why NASA never brought up a self propelled free flyer that could take pics & video of the station as it was being assembled over the years.
Just something that could get to a distance of a few hundred yards or so. Maybe with replaceable nitrogen tanks?
Equip it with an IMAX & other various cameras & dock to the truss or wherever.
Wouldn’t that boost NASA’s stock with the public at large not to mention having great historical coverage. You could even put it under the banner of inspections.
Why not?
Now IMAX has a 3D digital camera that doesn’t require film:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX
-
Is there a clear plan for how much extra reboosting the ISS will need during solar maximum? Do we have this issue covered?
Yes, after shuttle retirement ISS will reboosted from the current 350 km to over 400 km, to minimize drag during solar maximum. Much of that reboost will be performed by ATV-2, which is already docked to ISS. After that, the reboost plan is dependent on Progress and ATV launches, but Zarya has considerable propellant reserves to allow ISS to reboost itself in the event of a visiting vehicle shortfall.
Always thought that was Zvezda. Been a few years since I went through the Russian modules I guess.
Zvezda has the actual reboost engines, yes. But Zarya has the extra propellant tanks.
-
What is the primary means of CO2 removal on station?
There are two, Vozdukh on the Russian segment, CDRA on the US segment.
-
One thing I have never understood is why NASA never brought up a self propelled free flyer that could take pics & video of the station as it was being assembled over the years.
Just something that could get to a distance of a few hundred yards or so. Maybe with replaceable nitrogen tanks?
Equip it with an IMAX & other various cameras & dock to the truss or wherever.
Wouldn’t that boost NASA’s stock with the public at large not to mention having great historical coverage. You could even put it under the banner of inspections.
Why not?
Short answer is always "money". Budget for design, assembly, and basic operations has always been so tight that science projects like that don't get funded, or get cancelled after getting started.
-
Zvezda has the actual reboost engines, yes. But Zarya has the extra propellant tanks.
How much bigger tanks does Zarya have compared to Zvezda? And how much propellant can be stored in the ISS tanks total?
-
One thing I have never understood is why NASA never brought up a self propelled free flyer that could take pics & video of the station as it was being assembled over the years.
Just something that could get to a distance of a few hundred yards or so. Maybe with replaceable nitrogen tanks?
Equip it with an IMAX & other various cameras & dock to the truss or wherever.
Wouldn’t that boost NASA’s stock with the public at large not to mention having great historical coverage. You could even put it under the banner of inspections.
Why not?
Now IMAX has a 3D digital camera that doesn’t require film:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX
NASA are considering such a proposal as part of the FTD (Flagship Technology Demonstrations) program.
The free-flying cameras would be deployed from the JPM A/L slide table, be released to free-fly and take photos, then be retrieved by the JEM RMS and brought back inside the ISS. The project would be an evolution of the current SPHERES project.
-
Is there a clear plan for how much extra reboosting the ISS will need during solar maximum? Do we have this issue covered?
Yes, after shuttle retirement ISS will reboosted from the current 350 km to over 400 km, to minimize drag during solar maximum. Much of that reboost will be performed by ATV-2, which is already docked to ISS. After that, the reboost plan is dependent on Progress and ATV launches, but Zarya has considerable propellant reserves to allow ISS to reboost itself in the event of a visiting vehicle shortfall.
Clarifiction - not after shuttle retirement. ATV2 will reboost to the nominal altitude before it undocks. ULF7 will fly to the higher altitude.
-
Is there a clear plan for how much extra reboosting the ISS will need during solar maximum? Do we have this issue covered?
Yes, after shuttle retirement ISS will reboosted from the current 350 km to over 400 km, to minimize drag during solar maximum. Much of that reboost will be performed by ATV-2, which is already docked to ISS. After that, the reboost plan is dependent on Progress and ATV launches, but Zarya has considerable propellant reserves to allow ISS to reboost itself in the event of a visiting vehicle shortfall.
Clarifiction - not after shuttle retirement. ATV2 will reboost to the nominal altitude before it undocks. ULF7 will fly to the higher altitude.
You're right... just re-checked the altitude plan (12/10) and it didn't have ULF-7 on the manifest... I should have checked it more closely.
-
One thing I have never understood is why NASA never brought up a self propelled free flyer that could take pics & video of the station as it was being assembled over the years.
Just something that could get to a distance of a few hundred yards or so. Maybe with replaceable nitrogen tanks?
Equip it with an IMAX & other various cameras & dock to the truss or wherever.
Wouldn’t that boost NASA’s stock with the public at large not to mention having great historical coverage. You could even put it under the banner of inspections.
Why not?
Now IMAX has a 3D digital camera that doesn’t require film:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX
Yes that would be nice. First however would be the cost of building that. Then you need the team on the ground to monitor/plan it. Although Star Trek and magazines like to show how smart AI systems are, in reality, to design it to be safe around te ISS human environment would cost a LOT of money. It would be great if we could fund things like that, in the grand scheme of things it is hard to spend such money. Maybe some day.
-
When the free drift-period period ended ~40 minutes after docking of STS-133, I heard the PAO say that they were using the shuttle's thrusters to put the station back in attitude after the pitchover excursion. Was there a particular reason why the shuttle's thrusters were used rather than the ISS thrusters?
Possibly to do with saving ISS propellant?
Correct, saves ISS prop plus is easier to plan. For the Russian system you really have to plan/manage a tight choreography. Shuttle is more flexible - hey PLT, can you move us over here... done. :)
-
What is the primary means of CO2 removal on station?
There are two, Vozdukh on the Russian segment, CDRA on the US segment.
if you want o be technical.... CDRA is the primary method, then a little help from Vozduhk. LiOH is backup.
-
Thanks for the responses to previous question.
One more if I may:
How likely is it that NRO assets have taken detailed images of ISS?
Not possible / very unlikely / could have / most likely?
It would be neat if they had taken some of the ISS/Shuttle stack for posterity.
-
Thanks for the responses to previous question.
One more if I may:
How likely is it that NRO assets have taken detailed images of ISS?
Not possible / very unlikely / could have / most likely?
It would be neat if they had taken some of the ISS/Shuttle stack for posterity.
See this..
http://www.mikebrownsplanets.com/2009/05/heavens-above.html
-
That's cool! What a great link, thanks.
-
Does anyone here have an opinion about the question posed by Bill Harwood at a press conference during STS-133: Is RSA claiming a dominant position on ISS in the future by having 3 crewmembers compared to 2 from NASA? Is it unfair given how much NASA put into construction of ISS?
The ISS can in theory support 7 crew members and has surge capacity for more. It is limited to 6 by the lack of an US lifeboat and the 3 person soyuz capacity.
It would only be a matter of logistics for the russians but they can bring the extra crew there if they want.
-
Does that mean NASA has decided it doesn't want to, doesn't need to, or can't afford to put more than 2 astronauts on the ISS over the next few years, rather than this being determined by RSA from its ability to dictate the occupancy of Soyuz seats?
Soyuz only has a 3 person capability, 2 Soyuz becomes 6 seats. If and when commercial industry develops a new vehicle with a 4 person capability the USOS can go up to 4 persons.
Also remember that US have a 3 person crew sometimes, the agreement is 3 Russian and 3 USOS crew on ISS.
-
The piece of information I was missing here is that a JAXA or ESA crewmember counts as "U.S."
I believe that Roskosmos has previously allotted Russian seats to non-Russians.
-
The piece of information I was missing here is that a JAXA or ESA crewmember counts as "U.S."
It's because ISS is divided into the RS and the USOS where JAXA, CSA and ESA belongs to the USOS. 3 crew for RS and 3 crew for USOS.
USOS as a name of that segment is debatable but that's what we have.
-
The piece of information I was missing here is that a JAXA or ESA crewmember counts as "U.S."
Yes and the US has agreements to furnace transportation for Canadian, ESA and JAXA crew. In the future it could happen that these countries provide their own transportation.
-
I saw on an ISS coverage program yesterday the ISS assembly sequence and the Pirs will be undocked and replaced with the new and much larger Multipurpose Research Module Nauka.
How is Pirs going to be undocked? Will the ISS robot arm help with this or will it just undock and drift away?
-
I saw on an ISS coverage program yesterday the ISS assembly sequence and the Pirs will be undocked and replaced with the new and much larger Multipurpose Research Module Nauka.
How is Pirs going to be undocked? Will the ISS robot arm help with this or will it just undock and drift away?
Neither. A Progress will dock to it, then Pirs will be undocked and deorbited by the Progress.
-
Are there ANY plans for anyone doing longer-than-6-month stints at Station for the purpose of studying the effects of long-duration microgravity?
-
Are there ANY plans for anyone doing longer-than-6-month stints at Station for the purpose of studying the effects of long-duration microgravity?
The limiting factor is the on-orbit certification of the Soyuz. Until there's a manned vehicle that can stay for longer than 6 months, nobody will do longer than 6 months at the station.
-
The limiting factor is the on-orbit certification of the Soyuz. Until there's a manned vehicle that can stay for longer than 6 months, nobody will do longer than 6 months at the station.
That's not the limiting factor; it's perfectly possible to change out the Soyuz seat liner. That's what happened when the Shuttle did crew rotation.
-
The limiting factor is the on-orbit certification of the Soyuz. Until there's a manned vehicle that can stay for longer than 6 months, nobody will do longer than 6 months at the station.
That's not the limiting factor; it's perfectly possible to change out the Soyuz seat liner. That's what happened when the Shuttle did crew rotation.
And it's how Russia used to do >6 month crewmembers on Mir. The LD crewmember would simply move his seatliner to the new Soyuz during a swap.
-
I was looking at some of the notes that I keep for every manned mission and noticed that following the Soyuz TMA 16 launch in September 2009, there were three Soyuz' docked to ISS...with (at least for a week) three expedition crews (EXP 20, 21, and 22).
My question is, was that the only time 3 Soyuz spacecraft were docked to ISS at the same time?
Thank you.
-
My question is, was that the only time 3 Soyuz spacecraft were docked to ISS at the same time?
Yes. From October 2 to October 11, 2009 there were three Soyuzes docked to ISS at the same time: Soyuz TMA-14 - on Pirs, Soyuz TMA-15 - on Zarya and Soyuz TMA-16 - on Zvezda. It was the single case.
-
This situation was to accommodate Russia's last Spaceflight Participant, Guy Laliberté.
-
The piece of information I was missing here is that a JAXA or ESA crewmember counts as "U.S."
I believe that Roskosmos has previously allotted Russian seats to non-Russians.
Yes, Thomas Reiter in 2006.
-
I hear that the port sarj will be
Lobed on the next shuttle flight.
Are there any plans to lobe
The starboard sarj again in a
future Eva?
-
I hear that the port sarj will be Lobed on the next shuttle flight. Are there any plans to lobe The starboard sarj again in a future Eva?
I believe it's "lubed" that you mean. I've wondered about that as well, since the spare race ring was never taken up.
-
How many EVAs can can be performed before N2 and O2 on ISS run out (with out refill)?
-
Can all operations that Mission Control are capable of doing ( such as stopping the rotation of the solar arrays or venting coolant before an EVA ) be done on station by the astronauts?
-
Can all operations that Mission Control are capable of doing ( such as stopping the rotation of the solar arrays or venting coolant before an EVA ) be done on station by the astronauts?
Yes.
-
Can all operations that Mission Control are capable of doing ( such as stopping the rotation of the solar arrays or venting coolant before an EVA ) be done on station by the astronauts?
Yes.
Not completely correct. The vast majority of things the MCC people can do the crew can but there are many commands the crew does not have access too. There are many commands a display was never built for (usually because we didn't think the crew would need it) and there are some detailed commands that just don't work well on a display.
-
How many EVAs can can be performed before N2 and O2 on ISS run out (with out refill)?
Well the O2 would really depend since different crew use it at different rates, and if you had a ammonia spill where you have to do multiple airlock purges. But I think (can't recall of the top of my head) that there should be something like 7-8 worth of O2.
-
The ISS has around 8 229 square meters of solar arrays.
Hypothetical if you would also have a 8229 square meter of solar sail and some string. And you have a way to keep the sail at the opposide side of the sun could you double the energy that the solar panels produce?
-
Does station do any water recycling? Water vapor to drinking water should be easy. Urine to water for washing should also be easy.
-
Does station do any water recycling? Water vapor to drinking water should be easy. Urine to water for washing should also be easy.
'
US system turns all water recovered into water fit for drinking(vapor, Urine, even the C02 you breath out gets turned to methane recovering water ect. Russian system recovers water that can be used for emergency use only(not considered fit to drink).
Both systems electrolyze water as the main source of Oxygen for the station. The Russian system uses the recovered water. The US system uses it's water. The hydrogen is dumped into space(or on the US side combined with CO2 to make methane and water and the methane dumped).
One interesting incompatibility on the station is in the water. The US uses Iodine to make the water safe to drink. The Russians use a silver compound. If mixed the water can form Silver Iodide, a particulate which can clog equipment(like the space suit water source).
-
Can all operations that Mission Control are capable of doing ( such as stopping the rotation of the solar arrays or venting coolant before an EVA ) be done on station by the astronauts?
Yes.
Not completely correct. The vast majority of things the MCC people can do the crew can but there are many commands the crew does not have access too. There are many commands a display was never built for (usually because we didn't think the crew would need it) and there are some detailed commands that just don't work well on a display.
There isn't a way for the crew to drill down to some "command line interface" of some sort? That's pretty surprising to me.
You'd think there'd probably a serial port somewhere they can link up to and send commands through the serial port somehow (using one of the station laptops), even if the display doesn't give you access.
-
The ISS has around 8 229 square meters of solar arrays.
Hypothetical if you would also have a 8229 square meter of solar sail and some string. And you have a way to keep the sail at the opposide side of the sun could you double the energy that the solar panels produce?
I think you mean a space mirror, not a solar sail.
May God have mercy on your soul for suggesting a use for a space mirror.
-
There isn't a way for the crew to drill down to some "command line interface" of some sort? That's pretty surprising to me.
You'd think there'd probably a serial port somewhere they can link up to and send commands through the serial port somehow (using one of the station laptops), even if the display doesn't give you access.
In the International Space Station Familiarization Training Manual we can read the following:
The control centers, MCC-M and MCC-H (a.k.a. ìgroundî), are mainly responsible for core system planning and operations; the crew is mainly responsible for payloads, EVA, and robotic operations. Although the ground is ìprimeî for system operations, limited communication coverage requires that the crew be trained for routine core operations, have the capability to review all Caution and Warning (C&W) messages, and respond to time-critical anomalies from anywhere in the ISS. This means that the crew must have access to most of the vehicle commands. This is presently a technical challenge, since the crew currently does not have a single command and data interface for the entire vehicle (i.e., U.S. commands can only be sent from a U.S. laptop and Russian segment commands can only be sent from a Russian laptop.)
-
Can all operations that Mission Control are capable of doing ( such as stopping the rotation of the solar arrays or venting coolant before an EVA ) be done on station by the astronauts?
Yes.
Not completely correct. The vast majority of things the MCC people can do the crew can but there are many commands the crew does not have access too. There are many commands a display was never built for (usually because we didn't think the crew would need it) and there are some detailed commands that just don't work well on a display.
There isn't a way for the crew to drill down to some "command line interface" of some sort? That's pretty surprising to me.
You'd think there'd probably a serial port somewhere they can link up to and send commands through the serial port somehow (using one of the station laptops), even if the display doesn't give you access.
Nope, don't have that.
-
Questions on two of the racks on the ISS:
1. I know that there's a storage rack in Destiny called the Crew Health Care System rack, which I believe houses medical equipments for the astronauts. Does anybody know what equipments are actually housed there? A photo of the rack would be most useful.
2. The "kitchen" (or the gallery) on the ISS is housed on the EXPRESS-6 Rack inside Destiny. What equipments do the astronauts have on the station to process foods, and how does the rack compares with the gallery on the space shuttle orbiter's mid-deck? Again, I would be grateful if a photo of the rack can be found.
Thanks!
-
1. I know that there's a storage rack in Destiny called the Crew Health Care System rack, which I believe houses medical equipments for the astronauts. Does anybody know what equipments are actually housed there? A photo of the rack would be most useful.
Here's an older photograph of the Crew Health Care System (CHeCS) rack. I would guess there is a more up-to-date version available somewhere.
Its from the following document which has lots of detail on health related items.
International Space Station: CHeCS Medical Hardware Catalog
August 2009 ver 9.0 (324 pages ~10.4 MB)
http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/lsda_data/mrid_docs/CHeCSHWMaster.pdf
-
1. I know that there's a storage rack in Destiny called the Crew Health Care System rack, which I believe houses medical equipments for the astronauts. Does anybody know what equipments are actually housed there? A photo of the rack would be most useful.
Here's an older photograph of the Crew Health Care System (CHeCS) rack. I would guess there is a more up-to-date version available somewhere.
New photo is here.
CHeCS-2 rack (RSP) and EXPRESS-6 Rack ;)
-
What would be done in case of total SSRMS loss ?
Just cancel HTV and Cygnus programs ? ;-)
-
What would be done in case of total SSRMS loss ?
Just cancel HTV and Cygnus programs ? ;-)
And all of the comercial programs.
But seriously, what would cause a "total SSRMS" loss? They have spare joints and end effectors up there and the control systems are multiple redundant. That thing was built to last. the only thing they might not recover from is a snaped boom, but if somthing hits hard enough to cause that, the'll have other, much worse, problems.
-
What would be done in case of total SSRMS loss ?
Just cancel HTV and Cygnus programs ? ;-)
And all of the comercial programs.
The crew programs plan to dock. Plus there is a spare joint on orbit. ATV and Progress can dock. Dragon cargo and Cygnus use the arm to berth.
-
But seriously, what would cause a "total SSRMS" loss? They have spare joints and end effectors up there and the control systems are multiple redundant. That thing was built to last. the only thing they might not recover from is a snaped boom, but if somthing hits hard enough to cause that, the'll have other, much worse, problems.
What about a snapped PDGF? They recently installed one on the FGB to enable arm access past the Russian side. Suppose they forgot to tighten a bolt...
In all seriousness, how are PDGFs attached to modules? There has to be some sort of structural standard. Initial search on L2 turns up nothing helpful, but maybe someone could oblige...?
-
But seriously, what would cause a "total SSRMS" loss? They have spare joints and end effectors up there and the control systems are multiple redundant.
I was just wondering. I imagine that many engineers have asked themselves before about this unlikely event.
That thing was built to last. the only thing they might not recover from is a snaped boom, but if somthing hits hard enough to cause that, the'll have other, much worse, problems.
Please remember that Challenger, Columbia, Chernobyl, Titanic and Koursk were also built to last.
-
But seriously, what would cause a "total SSRMS" loss? They have spare joints and end effectors up there and the control systems are multiple redundant.
I was just wondering. I imagine that many engineers have asked themselves before about this unlikely event.
Yes they have, that's what engineers are paid to do.
That thing was built to last. the only thing they might not recover from is a snaped boom, but if somthing hits hard enough to cause that, the'll have other, much worse, problems.
Please remember that Challenger, Columbia, Chernobyl, Titanic and Koursk were also built to last.
Those failures were all very dynamic situations that happened to fast to effect repairs. That actually illustrates my point, which is that any realistically conceivable failure (somebody forgetting to tighten a bolt doesn’t even begin to fit that criteria) simply leaves you with an inoperable arm. they may need to suspend operations with it for a time, but they do have the spare parts and procedures to get the arm working again.
-
But seriously, what would cause a "total SSRMS" loss? They have spare joints and end effectors up there and the control systems are multiple redundant. That thing was built to last. the only thing they might not recover from is a snaped boom, but if somthing hits hard enough to cause that, the'll have other, much worse, problems.
What about a snapped PDGF? They recently installed one on the FGB to enable arm access past the Russian side. Suppose they forgot to tighten a bolt...
In all seriousness, how are PDGFs attached to modules? There has to be some sort of structural standard. Initial search on L2 turns up nothing helpful, but maybe someone could oblige...?
The FGB PDGF hasn't been installed yet - it will be during STS-134 EVA-3.
PDGFs are attached to the ISS via bolts that are driven with a PGT.
-
Thanks Space Pete!
Are there any numbers on the torque/tension strength/shear strength of the PDGF mounting bolts? If they're sturdy enough to move the shuttle itself around if needed, they must be pretty strong...
-
In these articles :
http://blogs.esa.int/atv/2011/04/29/atv-rotates-the-iss-for-progress-docking/
http://blogs.esa.int/atv/2011/04/23/atv-2-performs-iss-attitude-control/
It is written that ISS attitude has to be changed for Russian VV dockings and undockings.
Someone could clarify what has to be done ? What is the attitude requested for docking/undocking to/from Pirs module ?
Thanks !
-
In these articles :
http://blogs.esa.int/atv/2011/04/29/atv-rotates-the-iss-for-progress-docking/
http://blogs.esa.int/atv/2011/04/23/atv-2-performs-iss-attitude-control/
It is written that ISS attitude has to be changed for Russian VV dockings and undockings.
Someone could clarify what has to be done ? What is the attitude requested for docking/undocking to/from Pirs module ?
Thanks !
For Soyuz/Progress dockings/undockings from DC-1/MRM-2, the ISS pitches up 90 degrees, so that PMA-2 is facing Zenith. This means that DC-1 faces forwards, and MRM-2 faces Aft.
I think this is done in order to keep the Soyuz/Progress on the same vector as the ISS (i.e. the Soyuz/Progress doesn't need to fly above or below the ISS). For MRM-2 dockings/undockings, I think it also has to do with the fact that if ISS were in its standard LVLH attitude, then the moving Earth below MRM-2 would make the docking target hard to see.
-
In these articles :
http://blogs.esa.int/atv/2011/04/29/atv-rotates-the-iss-for-progress-docking/
http://blogs.esa.int/atv/2011/04/23/atv-2-performs-iss-attitude-control/
It is written that ISS attitude has to be changed for Russian VV dockings and undockings.
Someone could clarify what has to be done ? What is the attitude requested for docking/undocking to/from Pirs module ?
Thanks !
For Soyuz/Progress dockings/undockings from DC-1/MRM-2, the ISS pitches up 90 degrees, so that PMA-2 is facing Zenith. This means that DC-1 faces forwards, and MRM-2 faces Aft.
I think this is done in order to keep the Soyuz/Progress on the same vector as the ISS (i.e. the Soyuz/Progress doesn't need to fly above or below the ISS). For MRM-2 dockings/undockings, I think it also has to do with the fact that if ISS were in its standard LVLH attitude, then the moving Earth below MRM-2 would make the docking target hard to see.
Only partially correct. Undockings are generally performed so that the VV goes retrograde. That is, the port faces aft, not forward.
-
Is there a way to R&R a CBM hatch door?
-
Is there a way to R&R a CBM hatch door?
No - I don't think the CBM hatch could fit through the CBM hatchway, given that the hatch is slightly larger than the hatchway.
CBM hatches can be moved around within modules though - for example, following the installation of the Quest airlock onto Node 1 Port on STS-104, Quest's hatch was taken off its glide rails and installed between the Quest Equipment lock and Crew lock, which didn't have a hatch for launch. So, when you see the hatch being closed between the Quest Equipment lock and Crew lock on NASA TV, that hatch was at one time the hatch between Quest and space. Also, when the Equipment lock is depressed down to 10.2 psi for camp-outs, that's why the Node 1 Port hatch is closed - because Quest doesn't have a hatch between itself and Node 1. The rationale behind this is that they are never likely to move Quest, and there was no point launching two hatches inside Quest when only one would ever be used.
-
Is there a way to R&R a CBM hatch door?
No - I don't think the CBM hatch could fit through the CBM hatchway, given that the hatch is slightly larger than the hatchway.
No, a square hatch can easily fit thru it's opening. lets call the plane of the hatch when it is closed X-Y. That makes the z axis perpendicular to the hatch. To fit the hatch thru its opening, you rotate it 90 deg around either X or Y and then 45 deg around Z and it fits thru fine.
Old engineering trivia, that is the reason why manhole covers are round (so they can't fall thru the hole) and why the airlock hatches on the shuttle are D shaped (so they can pull the hatch out). I guess they don't teach that in school anymore.
-
General question brought to mind by the not-fly-about:
When ISS maneuvers to different attitudes to support VV docking/undocking etc, how is this commanded ? Is it sequenced in advanced for a particular time by the ground ? Or prepared in advance but initiated in real time by crew or ground ? Or something else ?
-
General question brought to mind by the not-fly-about:
When ISS maneuvers to different attitudes to support VV docking/undocking etc, how is this commanded ? Is it sequenced in advanced for a particular time by the ground ? Or prepared in advance but initiated in real time by crew or ground ? Or something else ?
Generally the former, though the latter is possible.
-
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?media_id=82589711 (http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?media_id=82589711)
ISS Tour - April 21, 2011
Expedition 27 Flight Engineer Cady Coleman flies through the International Space Station with a high-definition video camera.
nice video. don't know if it has already been linked to in this forum.
Once thing I think I noticed is that the station appears to be a lot less cluttered than it used to be. Might just be my impression and this video doesn't show the Russian parts of the station. Either the station wasn't always as cluttered as the few older videos I saw made it out to be, or possibly this video was shot at what happened to be a clean moment in the cycle of ISS ops. But maybe the Leonardo PMM does make that big of a difference? Good for them for having it up there then. Thanks STS-133
The other question, on the way into the PMM, the label says "To HAB". Why "HAB"? Google searched for "HAB and "ISS" don't show any acronym related to the PMM. I see some former discussions in other threads but they seem to imply that something would have been moved or relabeled by now? not sure.
Are those labels magnetic? Velcro? Stickers?
-
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?media_id=82589711 (http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?media_id=82589711)
ISS Tour - April 21, 2011
Expedition 27 Flight Engineer Cady Coleman flies through the International Space Station with a high-definition video camera.
nice video. don't know if it has already been linked to in this forum.
Once thing I think I noticed is that the station appears to be a lot less cluttered than it used to be. Might just be my impression and this video doesn't show the Russian parts of the station. Either the station wasn't always as cluttered as the few older videos I saw made it out to be, or possibly this video was shot at what happened to be a clean moment in the cycle of ISS ops. But maybe the Leonardo PMM does make that big of a difference? Good for them for having it up there then. Thanks STS-133
The other question, on the way into the PMM, the label says "To HAB". Why "HAB"? Google searched for "HAB and "ISS" don't show any acronym related to the PMM. I see some former discussions in other threads but they seem to imply that something would have been moved or relabeled by now? not sure.
Are those labels magnetic? Velcro? Stickers?
ISS certainly does look a lot less cluttered not than it did a few years ago, but that is because it has a lot more interior volume now (Node 3 and PMM). Node 3 has swallowed a lot of the big bulky equipment (ARED, WHC, Cupola RWS etc.) and the PMM has swallowed a lot of soft stowage (CTBs).
The "To HAB" sticker (yes it is a sticker) is on Node 1 Nadir because when Node 1 was launched back in 1998, it was envisioned that the now cancelled Habitation module would go on Node 1 Nadir. I imagine it hasn't been replaced with a "To PMM" sticker because there is a chance that in the future, the PMM may move to Node 3 Aft, and the Cupola may move to Node 1 Nadir.
-
Are there US spacesuits on the ISS? Just wondering, When the final Shuttle Spacewalk is conducted if the US are still able to do spacewalks from the ISS or if they'll have to rely on Russian suits.
-
Are there US spacesuits on the ISS? Just wondering, When the final Shuttle Spacewalk is conducted if the US are still able to do spacewalks from the ISS or if they'll have to rely on Russian suits.
Yes there are 4 US EMUs on-orbit. One of these are actually used by Greg during STS-134 as the shuttle only brought 2 EMUs with it.
It has not been common to let the station crew do EVAs as it is easier to let the shuttle crew train for a specific EVA and let the ISS crew focus on their mission. The last time an ISS crew did an EVA was last year to replaced a failed pump module.
-
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?media_id=82589711 (http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?media_id=82589711)
ISS Tour - April 21, 2011
Expedition 27 Flight Engineer Cady Coleman flies through the International Space Station with a high-definition video camera.
nice video. don't know if it has already been linked to in this forum.
Thank you for that video. That was impressive, a little spooky, often reminiscent of the game Descent, and then just pure joy at the Cupola.
Are there other similar videos, that go into the Russian segments, or have subtitles or narration about navigation? Even better would be one with a live 3D "map" of the station in the corner, as the camera moved about in real time. Rather like the video game ...
-Alex
-
FYI, the video mentioned below is available in HD on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8lFhaMihTg
Here's another recent ISS tour:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3gxY4wY8I4
-
Roughly speaking, what is the distribution efficiency of the ISS EPS? I'm talking from solar arrays to payloads, basically. I'm not sure how much is lost as it goes through the various converters, wires down the truss, etc.
Thanks!
-
Roughly speaking, what is the distribution efficiency of the ISS EPS? I'm talking from solar arrays to payloads, basically. I'm not sure how much is lost as it goes through the various converters, wires down the truss, etc.
Thanks!
The solar arrays generate primary power, which is between 150-160 VDC, and store it in the batteries. The DDCUs (DC to DC Conversion Units) then convert the primary power to secondary power (124 VDC), which is then distributed between the various power channels by the DDSUs (Direct Current Switching Units) and MBSUs (Main Bus Switching Units).
-
I understand all of that, but what percentage of that power is lost due to the all the line resistances, etc.?
-
During STS-133 EVA-2, astronauts already installed lens covers on SPDM's CLPA cameras.
Do you know why it was done "a second time" during STS-134 EVA-2 ?
-
Someone can identify where these three pictures have been taken ?
They were publishes some weeks ago on Kondratiev's blog.
-
Someone can identify where these three pictures have been taken ?
They were publishes some weeks ago on Kondratiev's blog.
Image one is on the aft-port side of the FGB.
(See top-left of this image: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-22/html/s130e006656.html)
Image two is on the zenith side of the Quest Airlock’s port endcone.
(See top of this image: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-26/html/s133e007288.html)
Image three is likely somewhere in MRM-1 (judging by the STS-132 patch).
-
During STS-133 EVA-2, astronauts already installed lens covers on SPDM's CLPA cameras.
Do you know why it was done "a second time" during STS-134 EVA-2 ?
STS-133 EVA-2 task was a install one of CLPAs on the SPDM.
This CLPA has installed lens cover inside the ISS (IVA tasks).
STS-134 EVA-2 task was LEE Camera (CLA) lens cover installation.
So, these are another tasks.
-
How much is needed for US-side logistics per year, in tons?
How many total for the station?
(PLEASE provide the source, if possible.)
-
Why do the PMAs have that asymmetric shape? It kinda looks like a short elephant trunk. Why not a more symmetric conic shape so it is a straight shot through?
My only guess is that this shape provides a little flexibility in case a docking craft comes in two fast? Or it is offset to provide additional clearance for certain vehicles, perhaps the shuttle?
-
Why do the PMAs have that asymmetric shape? It kinda looks like a short elephant trunk. Why not a more symmetric conic shape so it is a straight shot through?
My only guess is that this shape provides a little flexibility in case a docking craft comes in two fast? Or it is offset to provide additional clearance for certain vehicles, perhaps the shuttle?
The latter. It is shaped that way to improve clearance for payloads and modules being pulled out of the shuttle payload bay. If the PMA were straight conical, the node it's attached to would protrude farther over the payload bay.
-
Clearance for shuttle.
-
One reason is to make room in the shuttle payload bay when it is docked.
-
Re: ISS highest altitude...I'll look for some references, but does anyone offhand remember how high the Station was boosted during the Shuttle standdown after STS-107...IIRC, beginning some time in 2003? I thought it was around 400 km.
Edit: wrong time period, looks like maybe during/after ISS-2A and/or during 2001.
-
Re: ISS highest altitude...I'll look for some references, but does anyone offhand remember how high the Station was boosted during the Shuttle standdown after STS-107...IIRC, beginning some time in 2003? I thought it was around 400 km.
2/11/03, post-reboost orbit was 401.8 x 383.7 km. That's the post-107 altitude record, but not the all-time record for ISS. On 8/1/02, the station was reboosted to 413.8 x 378.0 km. Those are the highest apogees. Highest average altitude was 399.6 km on 12/21/98.
-
Re: ISS highest altitude...I'll look for some references, but does anyone offhand remember how high the Station was boosted during the Shuttle standdown after STS-107...IIRC, beginning some time in 2003? I thought it was around 400 km.
2/11/03, post-reboost orbit was 401.8 x 383.7 km. That's the post-107 altitude record, but not the all-time record for ISS. On 8/1/02, the station was reboosted to 413.8 x 378.0 km.
Would the latter still be "higher" than the current orbit and is there a single value measure for that? Is it mean altitude?
-
Re: ISS highest altitude...I'll look for some references, but does anyone offhand remember how high the Station was boosted during the Shuttle standdown after STS-107...IIRC, beginning some time in 2003? I thought it was around 400 km.
2/11/03, post-reboost orbit was 401.8 x 383.7 km. That's the post-107 altitude record, but not the all-time record for ISS. On 8/1/02, the station was reboosted to 413.8 x 378.0 km.
Hmm - so the NASA PAO info that the "ISS is now the highest it's ever been" is incorrect then?
Unless the current mean altitude is the highest it's ever been?
-
Hmm - so the NASA PAO info that the "ISS is now the highest it's ever been" is incorrect then?
See Jorge's edited post. It's mostly trivia in and of itself, but I'm curious and can follow up with PAO next week, as the altitude history is interesting. anik has noted there's a Progress reboost coming up next week, too.
Edit: what I was remembering was a note in an ISS status report shortly after the Columbia accident, referring to 400 km.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=7906
-
Why do the PMAs have that asymmetric shape? It kinda looks like a short elephant trunk. Why not a more symmetric conic shape so it is a straight shot through?
My only guess is that this shape provides a little flexibility in case a docking craft comes in two fast? Or it is offset to provide additional clearance for certain vehicles, perhaps the shuttle?
The latter. It is shaped that way to improve clearance for payloads and modules being pulled out of the shuttle payload bay. If the PMA were straight conical, the node it's attached to would protrude farther over the payload bay.
Thank you (and PahTo and Nicolas PILLET - nice pic!) for the response.
If the PMA was shaped that way primarily for the shuttle (and perhaps Venture Star?), why are all three shaped that way? Was is cheaper just to do them all the same? Is #3 kinda like a spare to #2 so had that shape just in case #2 failed?
I find it strange that PMA-1 was also shaped this way. Was the shuttle ever docked to PMA-1? does that shape cause any advantage or disadvantage in its permanent location between Unity and Zarya?
-
If the PMA was shaped that way primarily for the shuttle (and perhaps Venture Star?), why are all three shaped that way? Was is cheaper just to do them all the same? Is #3 kinda like a spare to #2 so had that shape just in case #2 failed?
I find it strange that PMA-1 was also shaped this way. Was the shuttle ever docked to PMA-1? does that shape cause any advantage or disadvantage in its permanent location between Unity and Zarya?
Venture Star was not a consideration
Cheaper to make them all alike.
#3 was used to dock a shuttle.
#1 was launched on Node #1 and mated to the FGB on the same mission. No chance for shuttle to dock to it
-
Why do the PMAs have that asymmetric shape? It kinda looks like a short elephant trunk. Why not a more symmetric conic shape so it is a straight shot through?
My only guess is that this shape provides a little flexibility in case a docking craft comes in two fast? Or it is offset to provide additional clearance for certain vehicles, perhaps the shuttle?
The latter. It is shaped that way to improve clearance for payloads and modules being pulled out of the shuttle payload bay. If the PMA were straight conical, the node it's attached to would protrude farther over the payload bay.
Thank you (and PahTo and Nicolas PILLET - nice pic!) for the response.
If the PMA was shaped that way primarily for the shuttle (and perhaps Venture Star?), why are all three shaped that way? Was is cheaper just to do them all the same? Is #3 kinda like a spare to #2 so had that shape just in case #2 failed?
3 is shaped like 2 because it is a backup shuttle PMA. Shuttles actually used it on STS-97 and 98 to support P6 and lab installation.
I find it strange that PMA-1 was also shaped this way. Was the shuttle ever docked to PMA-1?
No. It's just shaped like 2 and 3 to make them all the same.
-
No. It's just shaped like 2 and 3 to make them all the same.
In retrospect, it might have been better to make PMA1 much wider in diameter, since it is used for both stowage and as a passage.
-
No. It's just shaped like 2 and 3 to make them all the same.
In retrospect, it might have been better to make PMA1 much wider in diameter, since it is used for both stowage and as a passage.
not possible, it is constrained at both ends.
-
Was a second truss section built and not installed? Just wondering how many 1990's station designed parts might still be in storage.
-
Was a second truss section built and not installed? Just wondering how many 1990's station designed parts might still be in storage.
No, the P2 and S2 truss segments were deleted from the design long before hardware was built.
-
Was a second truss section built and not installed? Just wondering how many 1990's station designed parts might still be in storage.
No, the P2 and S2 truss segments were deleted from the design long before hardware was built.
Ah, you guys are taking me back. Nostalgia-land...
P2/S2 was originally intended as part of reboost system. Deleted when Freedom morphed to ISS. As for storage, well, the Hab shell (scarred but not outfitted) is still in storage. Back in the day, Mr. Bigelow expressed interest before he found TransHab...and the rest is history.
-
Was a second truss section built and not installed? Just wondering how many 1990's station designed parts might still be in storage.
No, the P2 and S2 truss segments were deleted from the design long before hardware was built.
Have always secretly hoped that NASA could eventually reintroduce the dual keel truss back into the design, but with the clearances for VV today doubt it could be possible if desired/funded.
-
P2/S2 was originally intended as part of reboost system. Deleted when Freedom morphed to ISS. As for storage, well, the Hab shell (scarred but not outfitted) is still in storage. Back in the day, Mr. Bigelow expressed interest before he found TransHab...and the rest is history.
On pg 66 of this report on Freedom in 1994, the propulsion modules are on S3 not S2:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19940006208_1994006208.pdf
-
P2/S2 was originally intended as part of reboost system. Deleted when Freedom morphed to ISS. As for storage, well, the Hab shell (scarred but not outfitted) is still in storage.
Being used for other purposes.
-
No. It's just shaped like 2 and 3 to make them all the same.
In retrospect, it might have been better to make PMA1 much wider in diameter, since it is used for both stowage and as a passage.
not possible, it is constrained at both ends.
The constraints are mating systems, specifically CBM and APAS. The entire structure could have been about the same diameter as CBM, leading to a frustrum containing the APAS. Technically, this would not have been a problem, and the result would have been much more stowage available for the crew.
Of course, at the time the decision was made, stowage was not really high on the list of priorities, getting the thing built was much bigger issue.
-
No. It's just shaped like 2 and 3 to make them all the same.
In retrospect, it might have been better to make PMA1 much wider in diameter, since it is used for both stowage and as a passage.
not possible, it is constrained at both ends.
The constraints are mating systems, specifically CBM and APAS. The entire structure could have been about the same diameter as CBM, leading to a frustrum containing the APAS. Technically, this would not have been a problem, and the result would have been much more stowage available for the crew.
Of course, at the time the decision was made, stowage was not really high on the list of priorities, getting the thing built was much bigger issue.
Getting the thing built within a constrained budget was even bigger. Doing a unique design for PMA-1 just to gain a few cubic feet of stowage was Out Of The Question, and I still think it was the right decision.
-
Just wondering, can the Station KU switch to radar mode like the shuttle, and could it track debris like the mysterious object that approached the station today? Anyone ever consider launching a dedicated debris radar for a spacecraft? seems like it would be necessary for interplanetary spacecraft as you get away from the protection of ground based radar.
-
Just wondering, can the Station KU switch to radar mode like the shuttle, and could it track debris like the mysterious object that approached the station today? Anyone ever consider launching a dedicated debris radar for a spacecraft? seems like it would be necessary for interplanetary spacecraft as you get away from the protection of ground based radar.
As you get away from Earth orbit, debris really isn't a huge problem (except for some places like the rings of Saturn...).
-
Just wondering, can the Station KU switch to radar mode like the shuttle, and could it track debris like the mysterious object that approached the station today?
No.
-
anyone know what this structure in the PHSF is? Looks like the top of a HTV with the CBM port on top.
-
anyone know what this structure in the PHSF is? Looks like the top of a HTV with the CBM port on top.
MSL cruise stage
-
Anyone know of a catalog/list with text of the warning, info, instruction, and other misc labels used aboard ISS?
-
I've just noticed on the Soyuz TMA-20/STS-134 "flyabout" pictures that the Zarya's solar panels have been rotated to an "horizontal" position...
Someone can explain why (and when) ?
-
Zarya's arrays were retracted (though not fully) in September 2007 to allow clearance for the large radiator panels to be deployed.
http://suzymchale.com/ruspace/fgb.html
Keith
-
I don't think that's what he meant. He asked why they were rotated, which seems to indicate that they were at some point retracted perpendicular to the axis of the station, as opposed to parallel like in the above picture.
-
The answer is the same. That's how they retracted. They haven't been rotated since retraction.
They are made from four seperate pieces and as they retract, the panels are 90 degrees to the module.
Here's a video of how it was done. There's a similar video for the starboard array.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QVVEpx2-IA
Keith
-
They haven't been rotated since retraction.
(...)
the panels are 90 degrees to the module.
But on the picture I sent, the panels are obviously not oriented 90° to the module...!
-
I think you are mis-interpreting the photo.
Have you actually watched the video?
Look at the video. They are at 90 degrees. In otherwords they are vertical to the module. As the array retracts, each square panel stays at the same orientation but concertinas up against each other. But they have not changed position since they were retracted!
Note that the thick central white "stripe" on the outside solar array panel is at all time parallel with the body of the module.
Keith
-
Maybe it's an optical illusion. In the first picture, even though the central white stripe is parallel with the module's axis, the solar panels appear to be "facing" toward the nadir.
-
Maybe it's an optical illusion.
It probably is. Probably because you don't expect the arrays to fold the way they do. I've coloured coded the photo to show the edges which mate together when unfolded.
You can't imagine how difficult it was to try and figure out their orientation when I was building the model, and I didn't have the benefit of that video or the unusual angle that the Soyuz photo gives. I ended up with three attempts to replicate it. Glad to say that further research showed I got it right.
The white stripes are the give away though, but I did think that the video was most explanetary.
Keith
PS It might be that the eye and mind expect the long side of each panel to be the width of the array where in fact that is part of the length.
-
I'm not quite sure what the original question was, but I noticed in the past that the retracted arrays are not exactly parallel (0°) or perpendicular (90°) to the FGB (see attachment).
-
New questions (at least I think they are, if previously asked, please direct and accept my apolgoies):
Why isn't/hasn't the observing window in the US lab ("Destiny") been used for RPM or other photography of the shuttle (or any photography in general that I'm aware of)? I believe that once Node-3 arrived, there was some shuffling of racks which made the window in the US lab more available for an observing experiment, but does that preclude use of the window at all times for simple viewing and photography?
Thanks!
-
Why isn't/hasn't the observing window in the US lab ("Destiny") been used for RPM or other photography of the shuttle (or any photography in general that I'm aware of)? I believe that once Node-3 arrived, there was some shuffling of racks which made the window in the US lab more available for an observing experiment, but does that preclude use of the window at all times for simple viewing and photography?
Thanks!
The US Lab window has never been used for Shuttle photography because USOS flight rules prevent the Lab window shutter from being open while a Shuttle is in close proximity, due to thruster pluming concerns.
The Lab window is made from high-quality optical glass, and so is only ever used specifically for Earth observation, not simple viewing & photography. In the past, it was possible for crewmembers to open up the Lab window and look out (although I believe they had to seek permission from the ground before doing so), but since the Window Observational Research Facility (WORF) rack was installed on STS-131, the Lab window has been used exclusively for Earth observation payloads.
See here for an example of what the Lab window is now used for: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22789.msg758373#msg758373
-
Good stuff--thanks for the explanation and link!
-
About when will they put the last high pressure oxygen gas tank
on the airlock?
-
Is it still possible e.g. in a contingency situation to create an air-tight seal at the CBM between Node-1 and PMA-1?
-
Is it still possible e.g. in a contingency situation to create an air-tight seal at the CBM between Node-1 and PMA-1?
Yes, at the CBM, by closing the CBM hatch.
To preempt any misinterpretation of this answer, the docking & berthing systems on PMA1 have been disabled.
-
About when will they put the last high pressure oxygen gas tank
on the airlock?
I don't think there are plans to put any more High Pressure Gas Tanks (HPGTs) on the A/L. The HGPTs that currently reside on the ELCs are spares.
-
Is it still possible e.g. in a contingency situation to create an air-tight seal at the CBM between Node-1 and PMA-1?
Yes, at the CBM, by closing the CBM hatch.
To preempt any misinterpretation of this answer, the docking & berthing systems on PMA1 have been disabled.
Was there ever any berthing system in PMA-1 on the CBM side? Or, more acurately, Was there ever any of the active components (latches, bolt drives, etc.) installed on Node 1 aft? I always wondered if they didn't just bolt the two together permanetly before launch.
-
Was there ever any berthing system in PMA-1 on the CBM side? Or, more acurately, Was there ever any of the active components (latches, bolt drives, etc.) installed on Node 1 aft? I always wondered if they didn't just bolt the two together permanetly before launch.
PMA-1 has a PCBM (Passive CBM), so there aren't and were never any active berthing components on PMA-1.
Node 1 Aft is an ACBM (Active CBM), which would have been used to attach Node 1 & PMA-1 together on the ground. However, I'm not sure whether the ACBM components (bolt & latch actuators) were removed from the Node 1 Aft CBM once PMA-1 was connected to Node 1.
-
Was there ever any berthing system in PMA-1 on the CBM side? Or, more acurately, Was there ever any of the active components (latches, bolt drives, etc.) installed on Node 1 aft? I always wondered if they didn't just bolt the two together permanetly before launch.
PMA-1 has a PCBM (Passive CBM), so there aren't and were never any active berthing components on PMA-1.
Node 1 Aft is an ACBM (Active CBM), which would have been used to attach Node 1 & PMA-1 together on the ground. However, I'm not sure whether the ACBM components (bolt & latch actuators) were removed from the Node 1 Aft CBM once PMA-1 was connected to Node 1.
PMA-1 was connected to Node 1 on the ground, so there's a possibility Node 1 never had ACBM bolt and latch actuators installed on it in the first place.
Or at least that's my interpretation of what Jay's asking.
I don't know, myself.
-
Was there ever any berthing system in PMA-1 on the CBM side? Or, more acurately, Was there ever any of the active components (latches, bolt drives, etc.) installed on Node 1 aft? I always wondered if they didn't just bolt the two together permanetly before launch.
PMA-1 has a PCBM (Passive CBM), so there aren't and were never any active berthing components on PMA-1.
Node 1 Aft is an ACBM (Active CBM), which would have been used to attach Node 1 & PMA-1 together on the ground. However, I'm not sure whether the ACBM components (bolt & latch actuators) were removed from the Node 1 Aft CBM once PMA-1 was connected to Node 1.
PMA-1 was connected to Node 1 on the ground, so there's a possibility Node 1 never had ACBM bolt and latch actuators installed on it in the first place.
Or at least that's my interpretation of what Jay's asking.
I don't know, myself.
After I posted the question, I found this image;
http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servlet/detail/nasaNAS~6~6~53764~157607:KENNEDY-SPACE-CENTER,-FLA-----The-P
It clearly showas the guide fins and the electronics boxes so I'd assume the powered bolts were used, but the latches are absent and the interface ring is covered over.
-
After I posted the question, I found this image;
http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servlet/detail/nasaNAS~6~6~53764~157607:KENNEDY-SPACE-CENTER,-FLA-----The-P
It clearly showas the guide fins and the electronics boxes so I'd assume the powered bolts were used, but the latches are absent and the interface ring is covered over.
The cover is just temporary, it would've been removed before PMA-1 was connected in order to expose the bolts and sealing surface. While it appears that the bolting hardware is present (due to the presence of the CPAs), it is possible that the latches were removed, since PMA-1 could've been aligned and positioned for berthing manually (i.e. people physically moving it into position).
-
Did the addition of a PDGF on Zarya have anything to do with the delay of the Russium MLM and the European Robotic Arm that will come up with it?
-
Did the addition of a PDGF on Zarya have anything to do with the delay of the Russium MLM and the European Robotic Arm that will come up with it?
No. The addition of the FGB PDGF was to provide the SSRMS (when coupled with the OBSS/EIBA) reach to all areas of the ISS, including the Russian segment. Also, the FGB PDGF will be needed for the PMM relocation from Node 1 Nadir to Node 3 Aft.
-
Search function doesn't seem to be working.
Does anyone have any documentation on the PMAs? If not than is there a pressure seal location on the APAS end of PMA-1 or is is it on Zarya?
-
Search function doesn't seem to be working.
Does anyone have any documentation on the PMAs? If not than is there a pressure seal location on the APAS end of PMA-1 or is is it on Zarya?
Both.
-
Rubber to rubber (or whatever the seals are made of)? Isn't it typically rubber to metal?
-
Does anyone have any documentation on the PMAs?
Yes.
If not than is there a pressure seal location on the APAS end of PMA-1 or is is it on Zarya?
Yes.
-
Does anyone have any documentation on the PMAs?
Yes.
Can you post the PDFs?
If not than is there a pressure seal location on the APAS end of PMA-1 or is is it on Zarya?
Yes.
Can you clarify?
-
Here is a photo of the Forward FGB port - it appears that there are no pressure seals present.
-
Here is a photo of the Forward FGB port - it appears that there are no pressure seals present.
Thank you. I guess this means that in the picture of PMA-1 that I had saw the pressure seals just had not been installed yet.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PMA-1.jpg
-
I was wondering if anyone had a list of the "Big 14" ISS Spacewalk Repairs handy ...
-
I was wondering if anyone had a list of the "Big 14" ISS Spacewalk Repairs handy ...
Listed in this post:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16584.msg624830#msg624830
-
Here is a photo of the Forward FGB port - it appears that there are no pressure seals present.
Thank you. I guess this means that in the picture of PMA-1 that I had saw the pressure seals just had not been installed yet.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PMA-1.jpg
I think the pressure seals must be covered, since the hooks are not visible in that photo either, meaning they must be covered too (so if the hooks are covered, chances are that the seals are too).
-
What is the minimum amount of time needed to perform an EVA, in both Orlan and EMU, on the ISS?
-
Just wondering at the end of "life" of ISS instead of a De-orbit burn could we use a tug to boost the ISS to a Lagrange point?
-
Just wondering at the end of "life" of ISS instead of a De-orbit burn could we use a tug to boost the ISS to a Lagrange point?
Too much mass, the propellant required would be massive; and the ISS was designed for LEO, not deep space
-
I realize the propellant need would be substantial But I thought it might be worth the effort. As far as deep space issues I concede radiation issues might be more significant. We keep talking about getting out of LEO why not use it?
-
I realize the propellant need would be substantial But I thought it might be worth the effort.
It's not.
As far as deep space issues I concede radiation issues might be more significant. We keep talking about getting out of LEO why not use it?
We should get out of LEO using spacecraft designed for the purpose. ISS won't survive passage through the Van Allen belts. It's not suitable as a beyond-LEO spacecraft.
-
I realize the propellant need would be substantial But I thought it might be worth the effort. As far as deep space issues I concede radiation issues might be more significant. We keep talking about getting out of LEO why not use it?
Because, it is not feasible.`
Not worth the effort, 100klb's of propellant needed.
It is not just radiation, the ISS was design for the thermal environment of LEO. It depends on GPS and the earth's horizon for attitude knowledge. It uses TDRSS and Russian LEO ground stations for comm. It uses gravity gradients to help with attitude control.
ISS is like a huge barge that has some limited maneuvering capability. It is ok to move around a few docks on a river but it is not capable of ocean going.
-
How would you deorbit the station with current assets?
Given the expense and risk of deorbit would it just be less effort to attach some kind of solar electric stage for orbit maintenance? I realize this would slightly alter the micro G environment I mean once science operations have ceased.
A somewhat related question: Could ACES be used for ISS reboost and ultimately deorbiting? Would this be a reasonable first mission for a propellant depot? Has ULA studied such an architecture?
-
This was some of NASA's thinking on the subject in October last year:
ISS End-of-Life Disposal Plan
Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel Briefing - October 2010
Michael T. Suffredini (International Space Station Program Manager)
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/578543main_asap_eol_plan_2010_101020.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/578543main_asap_eol_plan_2010_101020.pdf)
-
How would you deorbit the station with current assets?
The original plan was to use a ATV for de-orbit. I haven't heard of a different plan even though ATV is probably going to stop after ATV-5.
-
Would radial vehicles be required if the deorbit burn could occur from the US segment? (With or without PMA)
The report mentions that lunar variant CEV's were to be used for the deorbit - what was the plan before 2003?
Not having a current way to deorbit the station in the near term is a Bad Thing isn't it? (Emergency situations, c.f. debis presentation, c.f. uncrewed operation).
-
Not having a current way to deorbit the station in the near term is a Bad Thing isn't it? (Emergency situations, c.f. debis presentation, c.f. uncrewed operation).
You have to look at risk numbers when you analyze something like this. Manufacturing and delivering something special just for deorbiting the station might entail 50 times the risk of a worker getting killed or injured than the 1 in a million chance of an chunk of debris hitting someone on the head from an uncontrolled re-entry. There's a big difference between using an existing asset and a specialized one.
-
Would radial vehicles be required if the deorbit burn could occur from the US segment? (With or without PMA)
The report mentions that lunar variant CEV's were to be used for the deorbit - what was the plan before 2003?
Not having a current way to deorbit the station in the near term is a Bad Thing isn't it? (Emergency situations, c.f. debis presentation, c.f. uncrewed operation).
ATV?
-
This is what the Augustine Report said about de-orbit plans (my underline):
Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee
Page 53/54 October 2009
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main_HSF_Cmte_FinalReport.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main_HSF_Cmte_FinalReport.pdf)
"End-of-Life Considerations. How and when should the ISS be de-orbited? What should be returned to Earth before ISS de-orbit? Will the “down-mass” capabilities at the time of de-orbit allow significant retrieval of valuable equipment, experiments and facilities? How far in advance of a planned de-orbit should consultations among the international partners take place? These are a few of the issues that must be considered before a de-orbit can be implemented.
Because of its unprecedented size and mass (about 350 mt on orbit), de-orbiting the ISS is not a simple task. (See Figure 4.2.2-3.) There are currently no existing or planned vehicles that could de-orbit the entire ISS in a predictable manner.
Thus, either a new de-orbit module would have to be produced and launched to the ISS, or the station would have to be disassembled and the major portions de-orbited individually. The Committee requested an independent assessment of the difficulty of this task, and an estimation of the potential cost. The projected costs are $2 billion or more, depending on the method of de-orbiting required."
However during the early part of the ISS program NASA also said the following:
NASA’s Implementation Plan for International Space Station Continuing Flight
Page 143 Volume 2 Rev 2 February 15, 2005
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/110883main_Station_CFT_Rev2.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/110883main_Station_CFT_Rev2.pdf)
"To assure enough total impulse to transfer the ISS from a stable orbit to a guaranteed, targeted ocean impact within one-half orbit, the ISS Program assessed and verified the propulsive capabilities of the Russian segment and of the ESA ATV as being independently capable of delivering adequate impulse for a safe and controlled de-orbit of the Assembly Complete configuration of the ISS."
Perhaps this earlier view was found to be wrong after further analysis.
-
Thanks for the Augustine excepts.
Perhaps this earlier view was found to be wrong after further analysis.
That's what I'm puzzled by now. Seems incredible.
Have they really built this and are now saying they'll have to spend another $2 billion just to dispose of it in a non-embarrassing fashion, using an as yet to be determined method? Or is this a new problem caused by ISS extension beyond the planned ATV production.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if there is a more plebian explanation.
Way back when, it was preferable to say that the station could be de-orbited of using existing vehicles because that kept overall costs down and helped prevent the program getting axed before it flew. Now, it is more preferable to say it needs a new vehicle to deorbit it because that leads to a juicy new development program that is hard to cut because it is so needed.
Just my opinion
-
The baseline plan is that ESA has to cough up a new ATV for de-orbit.
However, if everything goes to hell in a handbasket, a single Progress could dump ISS in the Pacific if the ISS orbit were allowed to drift down to a nice 200 km perigee before the de-orbit burn.
-
What happened to the broken MELFI a while back? Was it fixed or deemed broken?
-
What happened to the broken MELFI a while back? Was it fixed or deemed broken?
The one that broke was MELFI-2, which was in the US Lab at the time. That left the two working MELFIs (1 and 3) in the JPM, which presented a problem since if the JPM ever lost power, then all working MELFIs on ISS would go down, taking with them valuable science samples.
So, the broken MELFI-2 in the US Lab was swapped with the working MELFI-3 in the JPM, so that the working MELFIs were spread out in different modules, which gives redundancy in case of a power loss in a particular module.
As far as I'm aware, MELFI-2 is still sitting in the JPM, broke. Maybe if the Shuttle was still flying, it could be returned in an MPLM, repaired and re-launched. But we'll never need rack return capability, right? ::)
-
As far as I'm aware, MELFI-2 is still sitting in the JPM, broke. Maybe if the Shuttle was still flying, it could be returned in an MPLM, repaired and re-launched. But we'll never need rack return capability, right? ::)
Right,
a. It doesn't have to fly in a rack to be returned
b. it doesn't have to be return, just fly a new one, which is cheaper than developing return rack capability.
-
Yeah remember that the swapped places but then I can't remember hearing anything about troubleshooting for MELFI-2. With all the repairs that has been done up there I kinda assumed they would be able to repair it on orbit.
After all wasn't the third MELFI flown as a spare anyway, and they had no plans to run all three at the same time? From the beginning there was only plans to keep 2 on orbit and then rotate them with Donatello.
-
As far as I'm aware, MELFI-2 is still sitting in the JPM, broke. Maybe if the Shuttle was still flying, it could be returned in an MPLM, repaired and re-launched. But we'll never need rack return capability, right? ::)
Right,
a. It doesn't have to fly in a rack to be returned
b. it doesn't have to be return, just fly a new one, which is cheaper than developing return rack capability.
Correct, it does not have to be returned.
Just like the broken pump module.
But it would be nice if the engineers could get a look at it.
-
Speaking of the failed pump module, have the ground engineers figured out what went wrong with it in orbit yet?
-
Speaking of the failed pump module, have the ground engineers figured out what went wrong with it in orbit yet?
Not yet. They found a short but that is likely a result of the pump failure (and suspected to what happened on orbit). They haven't torn the pump apart yet.
-
How many LiOH canisters are left on the station at this time and what are their expiration dates?
Is the plan to continue to provide new LiOH canisters for backup CO2 removal?
When was the last time that LiOH was actually used on the station for CO2 removal?
Thanks in advance.
-
LiOH canisters are used for EVA and not just CO2 removal inside ISS.
-
Understood. I should have clarified that I was asking about LiOH for the station atmosphere - not for spacewalks.
-
Since Harmony (Node-2) forward and zenith will be occupied with PMAs for Commercial Crew, could Tranquility (Node-3) be used as a location to berth COTS vehicles?
-
Since Harmony (Node-2) forward and zenith will be occupied with PMAs for Commercial Crew, could Tranquility (Node-3) be used as a location to berth COTS vehicles?
Yes, Node 3 is being considered as a berthing location for COTS vehicles.
It is likely that the PMM will move to Node 3 Aft, and the Cupola will move to Node 1 Nadir, leaving Node 3 Nadir (along with Node 2 Nadir) as berthing ports for HTV or COTS vehicles.
-
Yes, Node 3 is being considered as a berthing location for COTS vehicles.
It is likely that the PMM will move to Node 3 Aft, and the Cupola will move to Node 1 Nadir, leaving Node 3 Nadir (along with Node 2 Nadir) as berthing ports for HTV or COTS vehicles.
I still dont understand why they want to move Cupola, just leave it where it is and berth at Node 1 nadir for goodness sake!
But it will be awhile before we have to worry about that.
-
I still dont understand why they want to move Cupola, just leave it where it is and berth at Node 1 nadir for goodness sake!
But it will be awhile before we have to worry about that.
I think leaving Cupola on Node 3 Nadir and using Node 1 Nadir for VV berthings would create clearance issues for Soyuz dockings at MRM-1, and clearance issues between the SSRMS and MRM-1/Soyuz for VV robotics ops (such as HTV EP or Dragon Trunk ops).
-
I still dont understand why they want to move Cupola, just leave it where it is and berth at Node 1 nadir for goodness sake!
But it will be awhile before we have to worry about that.
And another reason I thought of - if VVs were berthed to Node 3 Nadir, then cargo could be very easily transferred (minimal translation) to the PMM at Node 3 Aft.
If the VV were berthed to Node 1 Nadir, then crews would need to translate past the bulky WHC cabin in order to transfer cargo to the PMM.
-
I still dont understand why they want to move Cupola, just leave it where it is and berth at Node 1 nadir for goodness sake!
But it will be awhile before we have to worry about that.
And another reason I thought of - if VVs were berthed to Node 3 Nadir, then cargo could be very easily transferred (minimal translation) to the PMM at Node 3 Aft.
If the VV were berthed to Node 1 Nadir, then crews would need to translate past the bulky WHC cabin in order to transfer cargo to the PMM.
AS other have noted - N1 nadir has clearance issues for dockings. The crew still wants cupola nadir because the views are better (for earth watching, not critical for robotics, Node forward would work fine for that). That leaves Node 3 nadir - something we knew way back as likely but short of swapping STS-130 to later in the sequnce we couldnt fix at the time of 20A. Node 2 nadir and zenith will be the COTS/HTV berthing points - that is official now.
-
I still dont understand why they want to move Cupola, just leave it where it is and berth at Node 1 nadir for goodness sake!
But it will be awhile before we have to worry about that.
And another reason I thought of - if VVs were berthed to Node 3 Nadir, then cargo could be very easily transferred (minimal translation) to the PMM at Node 3 Aft.
If the VV were berthed to Node 1 Nadir, then crews would need to translate past the bulky WHC cabin in order to transfer cargo to the PMM.
AS other have noted - N1 nadir has clearance issues for dockings. The crew still wants cupola nadir because the views are better (for earth watching, not critical for robotics, Node forward would work fine for that). That leaves Node 3 nadir - something we knew way back as likely but short of swapping STS-130 to later in the sequnce we couldnt fix at the time of 20A. Node 2 nadir and zenith will be the COTS/HTV berthing points - that is official now.
Think the NASA commercial crew folks have their eye on Node 2 zenith as the backup docking port as well. NASA will need to make a decision one way or the other - N2 zenith can't be both (PMA-3 relocation would be required).
-
That leaves Node 3 nadir - something we knew way back as likely but short of swapping STS-130 to later in the sequnce we couldnt fix at the time of 20A.
What's wrong with Node 3 nadir?
Node 2 nadir and zenith will be the COTS/HTV berthing points - that is official now.
But that contradicts these documents
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=107 (2011-10-11)
http://dockingstandard.nasa.gov/Documents/AIAA_ATS_NDS-IDSS_Overview_Draft1.pdf (2011-05-20)
-
Please pardon a question out of the blue.
Can the Quest outer airlock door be opened and closed remotely?
Images don't show a hinge motor, but I have not found any documentation to support that.
-
Please pardon a question out of the blue.
Can the Quest outer airlock door be opened and closed remotely?
Images don't show a hinge motor, but I have not found any documentation to support that.
no, it is manual like the shuttle's
-
I still dont understand why they want to move Cupola, just leave it where it is and berth at Node 1 nadir for goodness sake!
But it will be awhile before we have to worry about that.
And another reason I thought of - if VVs were berthed to Node 3 Nadir, then cargo could be very easily transferred (minimal translation) to the PMM at Node 3 Aft.
If the VV were berthed to Node 1 Nadir, then crews would need to translate past the bulky WHC cabin in order to transfer cargo to the PMM.
AS other have noted - N1 nadir has clearance issues for dockings. The crew still wants cupola nadir because the views are better (for earth watching, not critical for robotics, Node forward would work fine for that). That leaves Node 3 nadir - something we knew way back as likely but short of swapping STS-130 to later in the sequnce we couldnt fix at the time of 20A. Node 2 nadir and zenith will be the COTS/HTV berthing points - that is official now.
Think the NASA commercial crew folks have their eye on Node 2 zenith as the backup docking port as well. NASA will need to make a decision one way or the other - N2 zenith can't be both (PMA-3 relocation would be required).
Re-read my post - it IS official, N2 nadir and zenith will be for the unmanned COTS. Done.
-
That leaves Node 3 nadir - something we knew way back as likely but short of swapping STS-130 to later in the sequnce we couldnt fix at the time of 20A.
What's wrong with Node 3 nadir?
Node 2 nadir and zenith will be the COTS/HTV berthing points - that is official now.
But that contradicts these documents
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=107 (2011-10-11)
http://dockingstandard.nasa.gov/Documents/AIAA_ATS_NDS-IDSS_Overview_Draft1.pdf (2011-05-20)
All the paper work has not been finalized but it is a done deal.
-
I still dont understand why they want to move Cupola, just leave it where it is and berth at Node 1 nadir for goodness sake!
But it will be awhile before we have to worry about that.
And another reason I thought of - if VVs were berthed to Node 3 Nadir, then cargo could be very easily transferred (minimal translation) to the PMM at Node 3 Aft.
If the VV were berthed to Node 1 Nadir, then crews would need to translate past the bulky WHC cabin in order to transfer cargo to the PMM.
AS other have noted - N1 nadir has clearance issues for dockings. The crew still wants cupola nadir because the views are better (for earth watching, not critical for robotics, Node forward would work fine for that). That leaves Node 3 nadir - something we knew way back as likely but short of swapping STS-130 to later in the sequnce we couldnt fix at the time of 20A. Node 2 nadir and zenith will be the COTS/HTV berthing points - that is official now.
Think the NASA commercial crew folks have their eye on Node 2 zenith as the backup docking port as well. NASA will need to make a decision one way or the other - N2 zenith can't be both (PMA-3 relocation would be required).
Re-read my post - it IS official, N2 nadir and zenith will be for the unmanned COTS. Done.
Then where's the second docking port? This may be official "now" but it won't remain so, if it doesn't provide an accessible location for PMA-3.
-
Does anyone know what kind (brand and model) of HD Cam they are using on ISS for video? I am sure there are a few but if there is one they use for the PR videos I would love to know? Thank you.
-
Does anyone know what kind (brand and model) of HD Cam they are using on ISS for video? I am sure there are a few but if there is one they use for the PR videos I would love to know? Thank you.
I confirm following models.
SONY HVR-Z1, HVR-Z7E, HVR-Z7, HVR-Z1J, HVR-A1J
Canon XH G1
Panasonic TM750, AG-3DA1
-
I still dont understand why they want to move Cupola, just leave it where it is and berth at Node 1 nadir for goodness sake!
But it will be awhile before we have to worry about that.
And another reason I thought of - if VVs were berthed to Node 3 Nadir, then cargo could be very easily transferred (minimal translation) to the PMM at Node 3 Aft.
If the VV were berthed to Node 1 Nadir, then crews would need to translate past the bulky WHC cabin in order to transfer cargo to the PMM.
AS other have noted - N1 nadir has clearance issues for dockings. The crew still wants cupola nadir because the views are better (for earth watching, not critical for robotics, Node forward would work fine for that). That leaves Node 3 nadir - something we knew way back as likely but short of swapping STS-130 to later in the sequnce we couldnt fix at the time of 20A. Node 2 nadir and zenith will be the COTS/HTV berthing points - that is official now.
Think the NASA commercial crew folks have their eye on Node 2 zenith as the backup docking port as well. NASA will need to make a decision one way or the other - N2 zenith can't be both (PMA-3 relocation would be required).
Re-read my post - it IS official, N2 nadir and zenith will be for the unmanned COTS. Done.
Then where's the second docking port? This may be official "now" but it won't remain so, if it doesn't provide an accessible location for PMA-3.
Node 3 nadir - they are verifying the loads but it is expected to come back positive.
-
I still dont understand why they want to move Cupola, just leave it where it is and berth at Node 1 nadir for goodness sake!
But it will be awhile before we have to worry about that.
And another reason I thought of - if VVs were berthed to Node 3 Nadir, then cargo could be very easily transferred (minimal translation) to the PMM at Node 3 Aft.
If the VV were berthed to Node 1 Nadir, then crews would need to translate past the bulky WHC cabin in order to transfer cargo to the PMM.
AS other have noted - N1 nadir has clearance issues for dockings. The crew still wants cupola nadir because the views are better (for earth watching, not critical for robotics, Node forward would work fine for that). That leaves Node 3 nadir - something we knew way back as likely but short of swapping STS-130 to later in the sequnce we couldnt fix at the time of 20A. Node 2 nadir and zenith will be the COTS/HTV berthing points - that is official now.
Think the NASA commercial crew folks have their eye on Node 2 zenith as the backup docking port as well. NASA will need to make a decision one way or the other - N2 zenith can't be both (PMA-3 relocation would be required).
Re-read my post - it IS official, N2 nadir and zenith will be for the unmanned COTS. Done.
Then where's the second docking port? This may be official "now" but it won't remain so, if it doesn't provide an accessible location for PMA-3.
Node 3 nadir - they are verifying the loads but it is expected to come back positive.
Cool. Thanks for the info.
-
I still dont understand why they want to move Cupola, just leave it where it is and berth at Node 1 nadir for goodness sake!
But it will be awhile before we have to worry about that.
And another reason I thought of - if VVs were berthed to Node 3 Nadir, then cargo could be very easily transferred (minimal translation) to the PMM at Node 3 Aft.
If the VV were berthed to Node 1 Nadir, then crews would need to translate past the bulky WHC cabin in order to transfer cargo to the PMM.
AS other have noted - N1 nadir has clearance issues for dockings. The crew still wants cupola nadir because the views are better (for earth watching, not critical for robotics, Node forward would work fine for that). That leaves Node 3 nadir - something we knew way back as likely but short of swapping STS-130 to later in the sequnce we couldnt fix at the time of 20A. Node 2 nadir and zenith will be the COTS/HTV berthing points - that is official now.
Think the NASA commercial crew folks have their eye on Node 2 zenith as the backup docking port as well. NASA will need to make a decision one way or the other - N2 zenith can't be both (PMA-3 relocation would be required).
Re-read my post - it IS official, N2 nadir and zenith will be for the unmanned COTS. Done.
Then where's the second docking port? This may be official "now" but it won't remain so, if it doesn't provide an accessible location for PMA-3.
Node 3 nadir - they are verifying the loads but it is expected to come back positive.
Let me clarify my understanding - Node 3 nadir = ISS nadir, right? I've heard people use other axis conventions for Node 3 since it's rotated from its original planned orientation on ISS.
If that's correct, where is the Cupola going? As you noted before, CB wants it facing nadir.
-
So, the latest plan is:
PMM > Node 3 Aft
Cupola > Node 1 Nadir
PMA-3 > Node 3 Nadir
NDS adapters > PMA-2/3
Any timeframe for this? I know that the FGB PDGF will be required for the PMM relo, and the next chance to complete the FGB PDGF installation will be US EVA-18 in Jan. 2013 - so it's NET 2013 at least.
-
Does anyone know what kind (brand and model) of HD Cam they are using on ISS for video? I am sure there are a few but if there is one they use for the PR videos I would love to know? Thank you.
I confirm following models.
SONY HVR-Z1, HVR-Z7E, HVR-Z7, HVR-Z1J, HVR-A1J
Canon XH G1
Panasonic TM750, AG-3DA1
Thank you!!! At the risk of sounding greedy you don't happen to have accurate dimensions for the cupola, windows, outer mold line etc? thank you again.
-
Then where's the second docking port? This may be official "now" but it won't remain so, if it doesn't provide an accessible location for PMA-3.
Node 3 nadir - they are verifying the loads but it is expected to come back positive.
NASA doc seems to confirm what erioladastra has stated.
commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=342 (http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=342) (Oct 4th, 2011)
-
Some questions?
How many Progress dockings has their been?
Have their been any failures to dock?
Has their been any failures to transfer fluids/fuel?
-
How many Progress dockings has their been?
To the ISS?
-
How many Progress dockings has their been?
To the ISS?
Yes, to the ISS
-
Some questions?
How many Progress dockings has their been?
Have their been any failures to dock?
Has their been any failures to transfer fluids/fuel?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Progress_flights
-
Some questions?
How many Progress dockings has their been?
Have their been any failures to dock?
Has their been any failures to transfer fluids/fuel?
I believe there have been 47 Progresses launched to ISS, one of those failed (third stage). But all the others (eventually) docked with ISS successfully. ~97-98% success rate.
-
Some questions?
How many Progress dockings has their been?
Have their been any failures to dock?
Has their been any failures to transfer fluids/fuel?
I believe there have been 47 Progresses launched to ISS, one of those failed (third stage). But all the others (eventually) docked with ISS successfully. ~97-98% success rate.
In addition ATV has the ability to transfer propellant to ISS and there have been 2 dockings of it.
-
Some questions?
How many Progress dockings has their been?
Have their been any failures to dock?
Has their been any failures to transfer fluids/fuel?
I believe there have been 47 Progresses launched to ISS, one of those failed (third stage). But all the others (eventually) docked with ISS successfully. ~97-98% success rate.
In addition ATV has the ability to transfer propellant to ISS and there have been 2 dockings of it.
No, ATV can only do reboosts, it cannot transfer prop like Progress does. Only Progress can do that.
-
Some questions?
How many Progress dockings has their been?
Have their been any failures to dock?
Has their been any failures to transfer fluids/fuel?
I believe there have been 47 Progresses launched to ISS, one of those failed (third stage). But all the others (eventually) docked with ISS successfully. ~97-98% success rate.
In addition ATV has the ability to transfer propellant to ISS and there have been 2 dockings of it.
No, ATV can only do reboosts, it cannot transfer prop like Progress does. Only Progress can do that.
Are you sure of that?
http://www.esa.int/esaMI/ATV/SEMEJGRHKHF_0.html
18 June 2008
ESA’s Jules Verne ATV was used for the first time yesterday to transfer in one step 811 kg of refuelling propellant to the International Space Station while the two vehicles orbited Earth at 28 000 km/h. With this premiere for Europe, Jules Verne becomes the first western spaceship to succeed in refuelling another space infrastructure in orbit.
-
No, ATV can only do reboosts, it cannot transfer prop like Progress does. Only Progress can do that.
ATV is able to make props transfer. For example, ATV-2 carried 850,6kg od N2O4/UDMH to be transferred directly into RS tanks.
-
No, ATV can only do reboosts, it cannot transfer prop like Progress does. Only Progress can do that.
ATV is able to make props transfer. For example, ATV-2 carried 850,6kg od N2O4/UDMH to be transferred directly into RS tanks.
Sorry, I was confusing the two tank systems. Yes, some prop was tanken up and transferred. The main prop tanks (which are used for reboost) cannot be transferred. In fact ATV-2 undocked with a fair bit of unused prop that could not be transferred.
-
No, ATV can only do reboosts, it cannot transfer prop like Progress does. Only Progress can do that.
ATV is able to make props transfer. For example, ATV-2 carried 850,6kg od N2O4/UDMH to be transferred directly into RS tanks.
Sorry, I was confusing the two tank systems. Yes, some prop was tanken up and transferred. The main prop tanks (which are used for reboost) cannot be transferred. In fact ATV-2 undocked with a fair bit of unused prop that could not be transferred.
And that's an interesting design trade to have two different propellant systems (with slightly different but largely similar propellants). On the surface, it appears sub-optimal, but once you get deep into the systems engineering, it probably makes sense.
-
What prevents FRAMs from being used as a docking interface? Yes, I know there is no transfer tunnel, and yes, clearance issues must be addressed, and yes, there is the question of loads imparted on the structure bearing the FRAM, but the question is whether FRAMs could be mated without berthing.
-
What prevents FRAMs from being used as a docking interface? Yes, I know there is no transfer tunnel, and yes, clearance issues must be addressed, and yes, there is the question of loads imparted on the structure bearing the FRAM, but the question is whether FRAMs could be mated without berthing.
No offense meant, but by that same line vlecro could work. Sure there are other principles of mating that are options, but you can't really seperate them, you need to look at the whole package - tunnel, leak rates, robustness, etc.
-
No offense meant, but by that same line velcro could work.
Hmmm....
"Roger, you are GO for undocking..."
RRRRRRRRIIIIIIIPPPPPPPPPP....
Of course, in space no one can hear you undock.
-
No offense meant, but by that same line velcro could work.
Hmmm....
"Roger, you are GO for undocking..."
RRRRRRRRIIIIIIIPPPPPPPPPP....
Of course, in space no one can hear you undock.
Sound is transmitted through structure just fine. ;)
-
I know, but I just had to use that line.
-
If my memory serves me right there is only on MBSU spare on-orbit, is this correct? And if they decide to switch out MBSU-1 this summer when will they fly a spare.
The MBSUs are also designed for a 15 year lifetime and MBSU-1 have only been active since STS-116, less that 6 years. Wonder if there are any concern about the rest of the MBSUs and their lifetime. Maybe this is more L2 but would be interesting to get some information regarding this.
edit: Just to add, MBSU-1 was launched in 2002 and checked out during the mission and also later the same year but was not activated until 2006. Even if you count it's lifetime from 2002 you still come up way short of 15 years.
-
If my memory serves me right there is only on MBSU spare on-orbit, is this correct? And if they decide to switch out MBSU-1 this summer when will they fly a spare.
The MBSUs are also designed for a 15 year lifetime and MBSU-1 have only been active since STS-116, less that 6 years. Wonder if there are any concern about the rest of the MBSUs and their lifetime. Maybe this is more L2 but would be interesting to get some information regarding this.
edit: Just to add, MBSU-1 was launched in 2002 and checked out during the mission and also later the same year but was not activated until 2006. Even if you count it's lifetime from 2002 you still come up way short of 15 years.
There are two spare MBSUs on-orbit, one flown on STS-116 and the other on STS-120. Both are stored on ESP-2.
There are also two spare MBSUs on the ground, one set for launch on HTV-4 in July 2013, and the other for launch in 2017.
-
First time posting to the forum, please forgive if I'm not doing this right. Also, apologies if this has been asked or addressed before. I did a search, but no joy.
I used to occasionally read, and sometimes follow along with, the execute packages that NASA posted on the website for shuttle missions. I've never been able to find a source for the ones used specifically on the ISS. Is there anywhere online that I can find the ISS packages?
Thanks
Glenn
-
First time posting to the forum, please forgive if I'm not doing this right. Also, apologies if this has been asked or addressed before. I did a search, but no joy.
I used to occasionally read, and sometimes follow along with, the execute packages that NASA posted on the website for shuttle missions. I've never been able to find a source for the ones used specifically on the ISS. Is there anywhere online that I can find the ISS packages?
Thanks
Glenn
Welcome to the forum.
There are copies of the daily Radiograms sent to the Russian Crew available on the NASA website. These are partially translated into English and give a daily timetable of tasks to be performed by each crew member (full crew). Its in tabular form, so not quite as easy to see at a glance the general picture for the day.
You can find current and archived Radiograms here:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/timelines/index.html
There are the daily ISS reports, but these are posted "after the fact". Current and archive reports are here:
http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/reports/iss_reports/
There may be additional sources that Space Pete and others know about.
-
A tabular form, sometimes with additional explanation, is in the crew timeline at http://spacestationlive.jsc.nasa.gov/timeline/index.html
-
First time posting to the forum, please forgive if I'm not doing this right. Also, apologies if this has been asked or addressed before. I did a search, but no joy.
I used to occasionally read, and sometimes follow along with, the execute packages that NASA posted on the website for shuttle missions. I've never been able to find a source for the ones used specifically on the ISS. Is there anywhere online that I can find the ISS packages?
Thanks
Glenn
There really isn't an equivalent thing for ISS. The daily schedule is uplinked in a special webbased tool that isn't really portable (though you can export some data). There is also a daily summary which is a word file that has things like ISS config, big notes etc. That is probably the closest. And there is no daily humor. :( (There used to be but got to be too much work).
-
eriol - what are the chances of seeing those Word files on L2? I hear them mentioned occasionally, especially during the WPCs.
-
eriol - what are the chances of seeing those Word files on L2? I hear them mentioned occasionally, especially during the WPCs.
I don't know - but since they frequently contain payload and medical data I would be surprised if they would be released.
-
Forgive me for this question but I have not been able to find the answer.
Does anyone knows where are the 5 Service Module Debris Panels that were scheduled to be installed on the small diameter segment (RO1) of Zvezda during the Russian EVA-30?
This task has now been deferred for August 2012.
-
Does anyone knows where are the 5 Service Module Debris Panels that were scheduled to be installed on the small diameter segment (RO1) of Zvezda during the Russian EVA-30?
They are inside ISS after delivery aboard Progress M-14M in January 2012.
-
Thanks so much, Anik.
Is there any documentation or a layout graphic about these debris panels?
-
How would you deorbit the station with current assets?
The original plan was to use a ATV for de-orbit. I haven't heard of a different plan even though ATV is probably going to stop after ATV-5.
The link above you says a modified progress is the baseline plan.
-
The ATV-3 the other day performed its first station re-boost, elevating it to an altitude of 250 miles. This altitude hoovers close to the station's highest elevation, according to Wikipedia, of 255 miles. Since this latest station re-boost was just the first of a series of planned re-boosts by the latest ATV, I was wondering if they were planning on using this ATV to take the station above 255 miles. If so, what is the ISS' highest planned altitude and when? What is the highest they can raise the station and still be accessible by Soyuz, HTV, ATV, Dragon, and Cygnus without sacrificing payload capacity?
-
The ATV-3 the other day performed its first station re-boost, elevating it to an altitude of 250 miles. This altitude hoovers close to the station's highest elevation, according to Wikipedia, of 255 miles. Since this latest station re-boost was just the first of a series of planned re-boosts by the latest ATV, I was wondering if they were planning on using this ATV to take the station above 255 miles. If so, what is the ISS' highest planned altitude and when? What is the highest they can raise the station and still be accessible by Soyuz, HTV, ATV, Dragon, and Cygnus without sacrificing payload capacity?
I believe that the nominal highest orbital altitude for ISS to be accessible for Soyuz and Progress is 425 kilometers for ascent, and 450 km for descent.
-
You can find current and archived Radiograms here:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/timelines/index.html
a/k/a "Form 24"
-
The ATV-3 the other day performed its first station re-boost, elevating it to an altitude of 250 miles. This altitude hoovers close to the station's highest elevation, according to Wikipedia, of 255 miles. Since this latest station re-boost was just the first of a series of planned re-boosts by the latest ATV, I was wondering if they were planning on using this ATV to take the station above 255 miles. If so, what is the ISS' highest planned altitude and when? What is the highest they can raise the station and still be accessible by Soyuz, HTV, ATV, Dragon, and Cygnus without sacrificing payload capacity?
I believe that the nominal highest orbital altitude for ISS to be accessible for Soyuz and Progress is 425 kilometers for ascent, and 450 km for descent.
I had to convert this one to miles.
425 km = 264 miles
They're pushing it close! If Progress and Soyuz capsul are launched on a Soyuz 2 rocket, does the range and capacity go up?
-
I had to convert this one to miles.
425 km = 264 miles
They're pushing it close! If Progress and Soyuz capsul are launched on a Soyuz 2 rocket, does the range and capacity go up?
For very complicated reasons (drop zones among them), no for Soyuz. Progress maybe could get away with carrying a little more prop on Soyuz 2, though.
However, a greybeard at JSC once told me that 425 miles up was a hard limit due to avionics issues. I never really trusted anecdotes from greybeards, though.
-
Some ISS power/solar array questions!
•Do the U.S. segment arrays now provide all the power, or are the Russian module ones still used?
•How much power in watts does each U.S. and Russian solar array/wing generate?
-
The US arrays provide most of the power for the station.
When the Zarya arrays were retracted to allow the US radiators to fully deploy, the loss in power generation was made up from the US arrays.
The Zvesda arrays still provide power.
-
Some ISS power/solar array questions!
•Do the U.S. segment arrays now provide all the power, or are the Russian module ones still used?
•How much power in watts does each U.S. and Russian solar array/wing generate?
Although the SM arrays provide some power to the RS, it isn't enough, so the USOS does provide additional power to the RS via the ARCU (American-Russian Conversion Unit) on PMA-1, which converts standard USOS secondary power (124.5 VDC) to standard RS power (28 VDC).
US SAWs produce between 31kW and 26kW of power, depending on their age. SM array power output is unknown to me.
-
Some ISS power/solar array questions!
•Do the U.S. segment arrays now provide all the power, or are the Russian module ones still used?
•How much power in watts does each U.S. and Russian solar array/wing generate?
Although the SM arrays provide some power to the RS, it isn't enough, so the USOS does provide additional power to the RS via the ARCU (American-Russian Conversion Unit) on PMA-1, which converts standard USOS secondary power (124.5 VDC) to standard RS power (28 VDC).
US SAWs produce between 31kW and 26kW of power, depending on their age. SM array power output is unknown to me.
As part of the agreement over not having the SPP, NASA agreed to provide most of the RS power.
-
I would like to clarify the capabilities of the different grapple fixtures used on USOS...
Name | Power | Data | Video |
PDGF | Yes | Yes | Yes |
EFGF | | | |
PVGF | No | No | Yes |
FRGF | No | No | No |
I don't understand what is an EFGF.
Also, I don't understand the usefulness of transmitting a video signal between SSRMS and its payload...
Thanks for clarifications !
-
Found in the ISS Familiarization Manual :
The RWS has components which are either external or internal to the rack. The external components, illustrated in Figure 8-6, are portable and include three video monitors, a Translational Hand Controller (THC) and a Rotational Hand Controller (RHC), a Display and Control (D&C) panel, a Portable Computer System (PCS), and an Artificial Vision Unit Cursor Control Device (AVU CCD). Unlike the external components, which are moved between the Lab and the Cupola, the internal components are fixed into the Lab racks. The internal components include an AVU and a Control Electronics Unit (CEU) which houses the RWS software.
It means that there are two RWS racks (LAB and CUP), but only one set of "external components", which is shared between the two RWS ?
During STS-133 EVA1, Cupola's RWS failed, and they had to use LAB's RWS. It means that they had to transfer all external components ?
-
I would like to clarify the capabilities of the different grapple fixtures used on USOS...
I don't understand what is an EFGF.
Also, I don't understand the usefulness of transmitting a video signal between SSRMS and its payload...
An EFGF is an Electrical Flight Grapple Fixture - think of it as an FRGF with the capabilities of a PDGF. So, I hear you ask, why not just use a PDGF? Well, as I'm sure you know, PDGFs can only transmit their power/data/video through the SSRMS, and not other arms such as the SRMS or JEM RMS, since their LEE design is different. So EFGFs are used when payloads for arms other than the SSRMS need to have power/data/video transmission capabilities. EFGFs were only used on the OBSS, and currently, the JEM RMS SFA.
With regard the usefulness of transmitting a video signal between SSRMS and its payload via a PVGF, let's think back to STS-132. Remember that PVGFs also provide power (power is needed for the cameras on the payload that provide the video) - so your table is incorrect in that regard. Back on STS-132, when the SSRMS was installing MRM-1 to FGB Nadir, the SSRMS needed video views from MRM-1 in order to make sure the alignment with the docking port was correct. So a PVGF was used to transmit video from MRM-1 to the operator, through the SSRMS. A PDGF was not needed since no other data apart from video was needed from MRM-1, thus using a PDGF would have been wasting the data capability (PDGFs are maybe more expensive than PVGFs I think, thus are only used when they are needed).
So, here's a corrected version of your table:
Name | Power | Data | Video |
PDGF | Yes | Yes | Yes |
EFGF | Yes | Yes | Yes |
PVGF | Yes | No | Yes |
FRGF | No | No | No |
-
Thank you Pete for this clear answer.
-
Is there one that can transfer fluids? Or, rather, has that ever been seriously considered?
-
Is there one that can transfer fluids? Or, rather, has that ever been seriously considered?
No, there isn't one that can transfer fluids, and I don't think it's ever been seriously considered - no real need up to now. Interesting idea for a next gen Canadarm though...
-
Found in the ISS Familiarization Manual :
The RWS has components which are either external or internal to the rack. The external components, illustrated in Figure 8-6, are portable and include three video monitors, a Translational Hand Controller (THC) and a Rotational Hand Controller (RHC), a Display and Control (D&C) panel, a Portable Computer System (PCS), and an Artificial Vision Unit Cursor Control Device (AVU CCD). Unlike the external components, which are moved between the Lab and the Cupola, the internal components are fixed into the Lab racks. The internal components include an AVU and a Control Electronics Unit (CEU) which houses the RWS software.
It means that there are two RWS racks (LAB and CUP), but only one set of "external components", which is shared between the two RWS ?
During STS-133 EVA1, Cupola's RWS failed, and they had to use LAB's RWS. It means that they had to transfer all external components ?
Correct - the SSRMS is dual string but functions as a unit controlled by ONE primary RWS. So when the RWS goes down it either has to be rebooted and configured or you swap to the other if it is up and configured as hot backup.
-
It means that there are two RWS racks (LAB and CUP), but only one set of "external components", which is shared between the two RWS ?
I'm no expert, but isn't it quite the opposite? That is, a single rack with the AVU and CEU in the Lab, and two RWS - one set up in the Lab and one in Cupola, the latter being configured as primary.
If I'm right, how does the CUP RWS communicate with the internal components in the Lab?
-
I'm no expert, but isn't it quite the opposite? That is, a single rack with the AVU and CEU in the Lab, and two RWS - one set up in the Lab and one in Cupola, the latter being configured as primary.
If I'm right, how does the CUP RWS communicate with the internal components in the Lab?
No, there are two RWS racks - and by that I mean two MSS avionics racks, located at Lab Port 6 & Lab Starboard 6. The Lab RWS at Port 6 is mounted and connected directly to its MSS avionics rack, whereas the Cupola RWS is connected to its MSS avionics rack at Lab Starboard 6 through routed cables between the Cupola, Node 3, Node 1, and Lab.
-
Thanks for the explanation!
-
I'm no expert, but isn't it quite the opposite? That is, a single rack with the AVU and CEU in the Lab, and two RWS - one set up in the Lab and one in Cupola, the latter being configured as primary.
If I'm right, how does the CUP RWS communicate with the internal components in the Lab?
No, there are two RWS racks - and by that I mean two MSS avionics racks, located at Lab Port 6 & Lab Starboard 6. The Lab RWS at Port 6 is mounted and connected directly to its MSS avionics rack, whereas the Cupola RWS is connected to its MSS avionics rack at Lab Starboard 6 through routed cables between the Cupola, Node 3, Node 1, and Lab.
So, if the Cupola's RWS fails (as it was the case during STS-133), you have to use the second RWS (Port 6). But why do you have to transfer interfaces ? It would be easier to re-route Cupola's interfaces, in order to connect them to Port 6...?
-
So, if the Cupola's RWS fails (as it was the case during STS-133), you have to use the second RWS (Port 6). But why do you have to transfer interfaces ? It would be easier to re-route Cupola's interfaces, in order to connect them to Port 6...?
I should imagine swapping over a few hand controllers and monitors would be vastly quicker than re-routing cables through the CBM vestibule and/or standoffs from one side of the Lab to the other - especially given all the other cables that would become entangled in the process.
-
It was just mentioned in another thread that ISS crews enjoy sleeping in ATV. Would love to know more about this but would have been off-topic in that thread.
Why sleep in ATV?
Do all crew members have the option of where they sleep? Perhaps only Cosmonauts sleep on the Russian side where ATV is?
I think I also recall a Japanese astronaut slept in the ELM-PS. Perhaps it is nice to sleep in the more remote "corners" of the ISS that may be quieter?
-
It was just mentioned in another thread that ISS crews enjoy sleeping in ATV. Would love to know more about this but would have been off-topic in that thread.
Why sleep in ATV?
Do all crew members have the option of where they sleep? Perhaps only Cosmonauts sleep on the Russian side where ATV is?
I think I also recall a Japanese astronaut slept in the ELM-PS. Perhaps it is nice to sleep in the more remote "corners" of the ISS that may be quieter?
I think the crews enjoy sleeping in ATV since its fans make it a very quiet place to be.
The sleeping arrangements on ISS are typically two Russian crewmembers in the Service Module "Kayutas", with the remaining Russian and three US/international crewmembers all seeping in the four Crew Quarter (CQ) racks in Node 2. Crews aren't really supposed to sleep elsewhere since the proper sleep stations offer things like radiation protection, and have alarm speakers to wake the crew in case of an emergency.
Koichi Wakata, and afterwards Bob Thirsk slept in the JPM for a brief period in 2009 when there were more people on ISS than there were sleep stations.
-
It was just mentioned in another thread that ISS crews enjoy sleeping in ATV. Would love to know more about this but would have been off-topic in that thread.
Why sleep in ATV?
Do all crew members have the option of where they sleep? Perhaps only Cosmonauts sleep on the Russian side where ATV is?
I think I also recall a Japanese astronaut slept in the ELM-PS. Perhaps it is nice to sleep in the more remote "corners" of the ISS that may be quieter?
People like space. However, technically ATV is not qualified for that (no caution and warning panel, no comm, too much humidity). But, as they say, "in space no one can hear where you are snoring."
-
I've read somewhere that there are ten WS for MT on the ITS.
But on this document, I see only seven WS...
Someone has a scheme with all ten WS ?
Thanks !
-
That diagram doesn't show S3-6 so WS 1 is on S3 to mirror WS 8.
WS 9 and 10 were going to be outboard of the SARJ, but the extensions to the MT rails were cancelled at some point. I think it was a cost saving measure, but it might have been part of the post-Columbia manifest reduction.
-
Watching one of Dr. Don Pettit's videos, I hear him refer to his current home as "Station" and not "the station". I also hear Dr. David Linvingston leaving out the "the" when speaking of it (her?).
Is ISS a proper noun? Is saying "the ISS" wrong?
Skylab, it seems, was just that, "Skylab". It wasn't "the skylab". Was it also referred to as "she" and not "it"?
A space station can be a generic term. Mir was a space station. But when referring to the one that is up there now, it sounds like some folks are calling Station by name.
While on the subject, it makes me wonder why Armstrong said "THE Eagle has landed."
I have a feeling this has been discussed before but I couldn't nail down the search terms.
-
It was just mentioned in another thread that ISS crews enjoy sleeping in ATV. Would love to know more about this but would have been off-topic in that thread.
Why sleep in ATV?
Do all crew members have the option of where they sleep? Perhaps only Cosmonauts sleep on the Russian side where ATV is?
I think I also recall a Japanese astronaut slept in the ELM-PS. Perhaps it is nice to sleep in the more remote "corners" of the ISS that may be quieter?
A link from the Wikipedia Jules Verne ATV page:
http://www.esa.int/esaMI/ATV/SEM6IZUG3HF_0.html
Crewmembers meanwhile are using the European space supply vessel as a new area to sleep and wash
I remember seeing a video where an astronaut said he enjoyed sleeping in the ATV (I think it might have been my namesake, Garrett Reisman). I also remember hearing about one of the Russian cosmonauts who was capable of taking a nap anywhere in the ISS; he'd just shut his eyes in the corner of a module and fall asleep within a couple of minutes.
-
Someone knows the difference between SPDM's OTP and EOTP ?
What is the current status/location of each of them ?
Thanks !
-
I don't know what the difference is besides EOTP being larger and can potentially hold larger loads. I have attached a photo of EOTP and OTP so you can the difference.
ooh...and EOTP have a FRAM interface, doubt OTP have it based on the photo below.
-
Someone knows the difference between SPDM's OTP and EOTP ?
What is the current status/location of each of them ?
Thanks !
OTP is Square Grid Interface and No heater Interfaces.
EOTP has two FRAM interfaces.
OTP is temporary stowed on S0 truss (Zenith side) at STS-130 EVA#1.
-
Are the current FGB solar arrays removable (they are folded up right now)? If so, could new smaller, shorter arrays be installed so that the FGB could produce some small amount of power? The panels installed on Mir, for example, were transported inside a cargo ship, and extended during the installation process; perhaps similar panels could be installed on FGB.
-
I thought the FGB solar arrays were just retracted enough to make clearance for the radiators and not completely and that they still produced power.
-
I thought the FGB solar arrays were just retracted enough to make clearance for the radiators and not completely and that they still produced power.
I don't think they are active, but even if they were, they are so old and degraded that probably not much would be generated.
-
Are the current FGB solar arrays removable (they are folded up right now)? If so, could new smaller, shorter arrays be installed so that the FGB could produce some small amount of power? The panels installed on Mir, for example, were transported inside a cargo ship, and extended during the installation process; perhaps similar panels could be installed on FGB.
Weren't they only transported by the Shuttle during the installation of the Mir docking module?
-
Are the current FGB solar arrays removable (they are folded up right now)? If so, could new smaller, shorter arrays be installed so that the FGB could produce some small amount of power? The panels installed on Mir, for example, were transported inside a cargo ship, and extended during the installation process; perhaps similar panels could be installed on FGB.
Weren't they only transported by the Shuttle during the installation of the Mir docking module?
Some were, yes. Others had been transported up earlier.
-
Are the current FGB solar arrays removable (they are folded up right now)? If so, could new smaller, shorter arrays be installed so that the FGB could produce some small amount of power? The panels installed on Mir, for example, were transported inside a cargo ship, and extended during the installation process; perhaps similar panels could be installed on FGB.
No attach points or power connections for such panels
-
Are the current FGB solar arrays removable (they are folded up right now)? If so, could new smaller, shorter arrays be installed so that the FGB could produce some small amount of power? The panels installed on Mir, for example, were transported inside a cargo ship, and extended during the installation process; perhaps similar panels could be installed on FGB.
No attach points or power connections for such panels
I am assuming/wishing that the existing FGB solar panel attachments support removal of the panels, as did earlier TKS-based modules. I have no idea if this is true or not.
-
I am assuming/wishing that the existing FGB solar panel attachments support removal of the panels, as did earlier TKS-based modules.
Where is that documented? If the capability existed, it was never employed. Only the DOS's used that capability.
Also, it isn't the Russia's module to put such arrays on. Boeing nor NASA would have spec'ed such a requirement.
-
I thought the FGB solar arrays were just retracted enough to make clearance for the radiators and not completely and that they still produced power.
I don't think they are active - I remember reading in an ISS on-orbit status report a while back about some "no-longer needed" internal power generation/distribution equipment being removed from the FGB.
-
I thought the FGB solar arrays were just retracted enough to make clearance for the radiators and not completely and that they still produced power.
I don't think they are active - I remember reading in an ISS on-orbit status report a while back about some "no-longer needed" internal power generation/distribution equipment being removed from the FGB.
They were retracted for clearnace reasons so attaching new ones wouldn't be possible. Although retracted there is a trickle of power coming from them.
-
I am assuming/wishing that the existing FGB solar panel attachments support removal of the panels, as did earlier TKS-based modules.
Where is that documented? If the capability existed, it was never employed. Only the DOS's used that capability.
Also, it isn't the Russia's module to put such arrays on. Boeing nor NASA would have spec'ed such a requirement.
Since the earlier TKS modules did have the capability of moving around solar arrays, I suspect that NASA and Rockwell would have had to specify that this capability be deleted.
Note: I checked the FGB requirements, and it was specified to share operating mechanisms like solar panels, antennas, etc with the earlier Mir TKS modules. I think everyone knows that the solar panels on the TKS modules were able to be moved around from module to module.
-
I am assuming/wishing that the existing FGB solar panel attachments support removal of the panels, as did earlier TKS-based modules.
Where is that documented? If the capability existed, it was never employed. Only the DOS's used that capability.
Also, it isn't the Russia's module to put such arrays on. Boeing nor NASA would have spec'ed such a requirement.
Since the earlier TKS modules did have the capability of moving around solar arrays, I suspect that NASA and Rockwell would have had to specify that this capability be deleted.
Was Rockwell ever involved with the FGB? I would have thought that if Boeing "inherited" the FGB from anyone, it would have been MDAC.
-
Was Rockwell ever involved with the FGB? I would have thought that if Boeing "inherited" the FGB from anyone, it would have been MDAC.
My memory is that the documents I saw 20 years ago were from Rockwell. However, one of the requirements documents I have now specifies that its a Lockheed document.
I have no idea why Lockheed was involved with Khrunichev at that time; of course, Rockwell had a legacy of working with the Russians, so they were all over Energia and Khrunichev in the early 1990s.
MacDac was Work Package 2, I don't recall anything that MacDac had to do with the Russians, but more importantly, Boeing didn't get MacDac until the FGB was pretty much done.
-
could new smaller, shorter arrays be installed so that the FGB could produce some small amount of power?
Khrunichev had a project to replace the aft segments of the panels by smaller ones. See figure 6 in my page :
http://www.kosmonavtika.com/vaisseaux/mks/elements/zaria/tech/12/12.html
Also, I confirm that systems used for power production were removed after the retraction of the panels, and that consequently it is strictly impossible to produce power with FGB's panels.
-
Its interesting to see that Khrunichev thought that FGB solar panels could be removed and replaced.
As for the removal of power elements that preclude future use of the FGB solar panels, I suspect that these could probably be replaced if there were a requirement to do so. Right now, there is no requirement for additional power.
This ignores the big question of what to do with the existing folded panels if they were to be replaced.
-
could new smaller, shorter arrays be installed so that the FGB could produce some small amount of power?
Khrunichev had a project to replace the aft segments of the panels by smaller ones. See figure 6 in my page :
http://www.kosmonavtika.com/vaisseaux/mks/elements/zaria/tech/12/12.html
Also, I confirm that systems used for power production were removed after the retraction of the panels, and that consequently it is strictly impossible to produce power with FGB's panels.
Sorry, I missed this earlier. But your source is incorrect - the FGB panels produce up to about 500W of power. The Russians use this power and reduce what the pull from the USOS based on how much they are getting.
-
Also, I confirm that systems used for power production were removed after the retraction of the panels, and that consequently it is strictly impossible to produce power with FGB's panels.
Sorry, I missed this earlier. But your source is incorrect - the FGB panels produce up to about 500W of power. The Russians use this power and reduce what the pull from the USOS based on how much they are getting.
Really ?? My source is NASA :) But it wouldn't be the first time they are wrong while speaking about Russian hardware... ;)
-
During today's ISS Update hour on NTV, I noticed they were in the 'prior shuttle' FCR, rather than what I believe is the 'normal ISS' FCR (I don't remember the proper labels for the different FCRs). Do we know why? Is the station FCR being upgraded or something?
-
the FGB panels produce up to about 500W of power. The Russians use this power and reduce what the pull from the USOS based on how much they are getting.
Really?
Do you have a good source for this????
-
During today's ISS Update hour on NTV, I noticed they were in the 'prior shuttle' FCR, rather than what I believe is the 'normal ISS' FCR (I don't remember the proper labels for the different FCRs).
FCR-1 - ISS
FCR-2 - Apollo (historic restoration)
Red FCR - Training/ISS
White FCR - Shuttle/ISS
Blue FCR - Testbed
Do we know why? Is the station FCR being upgraded or something?
I believe they're getting the new intercom keysets.
-
Much thanks Jorge!
-
I believe they're getting the new intercom keysets.
Yes, I've seen posts about this on Twitter - the old DVIS keysets are being replaced with DVICE ones.
-
I believe they're getting the new intercom keysets.
Yes, I've seen posts about this on Twitter - the old DVIS keysets are being replaced with DVICE ones.
Pic that a friend posted, with comparison to the Gemini/Apollo era VIS.
-
the FGB panels produce up to about 500W of power. The Russians use this power and reduce what the pull from the USOS based on how much they are getting.
Really?
Do you have a good source for this????
Yep, i was just looking at a plot of the power output.
-
the FGB panels produce up to about 500W of power. The Russians use this power and reduce what the pull from the USOS based on how much they are getting.
Really?
Do you have a good source for this????
Yep, i was just looking at a plot of the power output.
If the aging FGB panels are still producing power in their folded state, then it is reasonable to assume that new panels in a different form factor that would allow full deployment within the available area would produce a lot more power. We know that solar panels on earlier TKS vehicles can be moved around.
This might be a topic for the Advanced Concepts section.
-
If the aging FGB panels are still producing power in their folded state, then it is reasonable to assume that new panels in a different form factor
Not really. The same area is exposed for the same given length and so the power output would not change
-
If the aging FGB panels are still producing power in their folded state, then it is reasonable to assume that new panels in a different form factor
Not really. The same area is exposed for the same given length and so the power output would not change
I believe that solar energy striking a panel that is at an angle, as are the folded FGB panels, will always produce less power than a panel that is perpendicular to the incoming solar rays. Therefore, a flat panel would produce more power than a folded panel.
More to the point, a new solar panel for FGB could be made wider and shorter to provide for more area for energy production.
Lastly, new panels could use new technology for the panels to provide for greater efficiency.
-
If the aging FGB panels are still producing power in their folded state, then it is reasonable to assume that new panels in a different form factor
Not really. The same area is exposed for the same given length and so the power output would not change
No, because in this position, FGB's panels are unable to track the Sun.
-
I believe that solar energy striking a panel that is at an angle, as are the folded FGB panels, will always produce less power than a panel that is perpendicular to the incoming solar rays. Therefore, a flat panel would produce more power than a folded panel.
Not true, the panels at an angle still provide the same projected area as a flat panel
-
Does it really matter, as the US SAW's are producing more than enough power for both the USOS and RS.....
-
Sorry if this has been asked before, but could someone make a sketch or something that illustrates exactly what a "beta" angle is and how it affects the ISS? I had great difficulty visualising it from the descriptions I've read. Thanks in advance. :)
-
Sorry if this has been asked before, but could someone make a sketch or something that illustrates exactly what a "beta" angle is and how it affects the ISS? I had great difficulty visualising it from the descriptions I've read. Thanks in advance. :)
This Flash presentation may be of help - click on the "Beta Angle" button to see an explanation and animations of ISS in high and low beta angle conditions.
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/flash/start.swf
-
Sorry if this has been asked before, but could someone make a sketch or something that illustrates exactly what a "beta" angle is and how it affects the ISS? I had great difficulty visualising it from the descriptions I've read. Thanks in advance. :)
This Flash presentation may be of help - click on the "Beta Angle" button to see an explanation and animations of ISS in high and low beta angle conditions.
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/flash/start.swf
That was awesome, thanks!
-
I was trying to find out how many portholes there are on the ISS, and where they are located, but no luck, so thought I'd try here. I found info for the Russian components, but nothing for the US. I read James Oberg saying there were quite a few, of good optical properties, but where are they? What direction do they face? Any help appreciated!
-
There is a window in Destiny, facing the Earth, and two in Kibo, facing port. And of course, Cuploa. Other than that, there are CBMs with small windows in the hatches, but I'm not sure if all of them do.
-
I was trying to find out how many portholes there are on the ISS, and where they are located, but no luck, so thought I'd try here. I found info for the Russian components, but nothing for the US. I read James Oberg saying there were quite a few, of good optical properties, but where are they? What direction do they face? Any help appreciated!
On the Russian Segment, there are six nadir-facing portholes in the Service Module (SM), as well as one porthole on each of the two EVA hatches of both the Docking Compartment-1 (DC-1) and Mini Research Module-2 (MRM-2). All four of these portholes are "clocked" at plus/minus 45 degrees to the positive/negative velocity vector - so DC-1 has portholes facing port-forward and starboard-aft, while MRM-2 has portholes facing starboard-forward and port-aft.
In addition, Soyuzes offer three portholes when docked - via two side-looking portholes in the Descent Module, and one forward-looking porthole in the Orbital Module. Due to their specific clocking when docked, a Soyuz docked to MRM-2 has portholes facing port, starboard, and nadir, while a Soyuz docked to MRM-1 has portholes facing starboard-forward, port-aft, and zenith.
On the US Segment, in addition to the obvious Cupola, there is one large nadir-facing optical-quality porthole on the US lab (which is used exclusively for Earth observation payloads via the WORF rack), and two port-facing portholes on the JPM.
In addition, every USOS CBM hatch has a porthole, however the portholes on unused ports/hatches are covered with an external flap (called a CBCS flap), which can only be uncovered via EVA if the port is unused. The only portholes on unused CBM ports that are currently NOT covered with a CBCS flap are the Node 2 nadir and zenith ports - so these are the only CBM hatch portholes that the crew can "see" out of (and there isn't really much to see out of the Node 2 zenith porthole - except the blackness of space). ;)
-
Are there any plans to have an astronaut on board the ISS for more than 2 expeditions? I can imagine they don't want to do that due to health concerns of the astronauts, but there would be some scientific value in having someone stay in space for longer than the 6 months that is standard for expedition-crews.
-
Are there any plans to have an astronaut on board the ISS for more than 2 expeditions? I can imagine they don't want to do that due to health concerns of the astronauts, but there would be some scientific value in having someone stay in space for longer than the 6 months that is standard for expedition-crews.
They want to eventual fly a few long duration crews but who knows if it will actually happen. Below is taken a NASA press conference on May 3rd, 2012.
Question: Reflight of Mars 500 mission on ISS?
Mike Suffredini (ISS Program Manager): “Clearly in order to be able explore beyond low earth orbit we are going to stay in orbit a little longer than six months and so one of things we have been talking about for some time, in fact since the advent of the low earth orbiting platform, is its benefit for human research and how long the human system can survive in a microgravity and can it survive in a microgravity environment for a extended period of time and then land on a foreign planet and expect the human to be able to do his or her tasks while they’re there and then return home and again experience the same microgravity environment for an extended period of time. That’s a long winded way of saying, yes, we’re considering that, we’re talking to our partners about that.
In-fact it was a bit of a discussion at our heads of agencies in Quebec about what kind of steps do we need to take to put in a position to extend the crew's time on orbit as part of the human research study on the human system’s ability to with-stand long duration spaceflight. Absolutely that’s part of what we’re looking at but Dina will tell about in just a second is really the beginning of a set of simulations that were to also include an extension of crew on-orbit, as so you said that’s not an activity that’s going to occur tomorrow but we’re taking step and we will evolve to this point over a number of years so that we can get all the data we need before the end of the ISS’ lifetime.”
-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16rfcTbU_D4&t=31m25s
-
Thanks Space Pete! That's the most informative answer I have had to date, by far. Kind of disappointing that they can't see out of some of the portholes, but there must be a good reason for them to be covered. Would it be to prevent too much harsh sunlight from entering so they don't need as big an air conditioning unit?
I was trying to find out how many portholes there are on the ISS, and where they are located, but no luck, so thought I'd try here. I found info for the Russian components, but nothing for the US. I read James Oberg saying there were quite a few, of good optical properties, but where are they? What direction do they face? Any help appreciated!
On the Russian Segment, there are six nadir-facing portholes in the Service Module (SM), as well as one porthole on each of the two EVA hatches of both the Docking Compartment-1 (DC-1) and Mini Research Module-2 (MRM-2). All four of these portholes are "clocked" at plus/minus 45 degrees to the positive/negative velocity vector - so DC-1 has portholes facing port-forward and starboard-aft, while MRM-2 has portholes facing starboard-forward and port-aft.
In addition, Soyuzes offer three portholes when docked - via two side-looking portholes in the Descent Module, and one forward-looking porthole in the Orbital Module. Due to their specific clocking when docked, a Soyuz docked to MRM-2 has portholes facing port, starboard, and nadir, while a Soyuz docked to MRM-1 has portholes facing starboard-forward, port-aft, and zenith.
On the US Segment, in addition to the obvious Cupola, there is one large nadir-facing optical-quality porthole on the US lab (which is used exclusively for Earth observation payloads via the WORF rack), and two port-facing portholes on the JPM.
In addition, every USOS CBM hatch has a porthole, however the portholes on unused ports/hatches are covered with an external flap (called a CBCS flap), which can only be uncovered via EVA if the port is unused. The only portholes on unused CBM ports that are currently NOT covered with a CBCS flap are the Node 2 nadir and zenith ports - so these are the only CBM hatch portholes that the crew can "see" out of (and there isn't really much to see out of the Node 2 zenith porthole - except the blackness of space). ;)
-
Thanks Space Pete! That's the most informative answer I have had to date, by far. Kind of disappointing that they can't see out of some of the portholes, but there must be a good reason for them to be covered. Would it be to prevent too much harsh sunlight from entering so they don't need as big an air conditioning unit?
Glad to be of help. :)
The reason for the porthole covers is related to orbital debris - specifically preventing any of it from hitting the portholes, which are very susceptible to debris strikes due to the fact that they are very thin.
I have attached an image of the exterior of a CBM hatch for you, in which you can see the open CBCS flap. In case you or others don't know, this flap is open as the port in question (Node 2 Nadir) is used regularly to attach cargo vehicles to the ISS - and as part of the berthing process, a camera system is mounted to the hatch porthole (on the interior side) to check alignment between the camera system and corresponding markers on the hatch of the cargo vehicle. This is called the Centerline Berthing Camera System (CBCS) - hence the name of the flaps. If the flap were closed, the camera wouldn't be able to see out of the porthole to view the alignment markers on the hatch of the cargo vehicle.
-
Alright question here because I have seen conflicting videos.
To confirm, The PMM (pressurized multipurpose module) Leonardo is currently located on Unity Nadir.
Correct or incorrect?
-
Alright question here because I have seen conflicting videos.
To confirm, The PMM (pressurized multipurpose module) Leonardo is currently located on Unity Nadir.
Correct or incorrect?
Correct.
-
Alright question here because I have seen conflicting videos.
To confirm, The PMM (pressurized multipurpose module) Leonardo is currently located on Unity Nadir.
Correct or incorrect?
As Jorge said, correct, however in the next few years it may be relocated to Node 3 (Tranquility) Aft.
-
Alright question here because I have seen conflicting videos.
To confirm, The PMM (pressurized multipurpose module) Leonardo is currently located on Unity Nadir.
Correct or incorrect?
Aft? As in center-line aft? How exactly would that work I was under the impression this was not possible.
As Jorge said, correct, however in the next few years it may be relocated to Node 3 (Tranquility) Aft.
-
Alright question here because I have seen conflicting videos.
To confirm, The PMM (pressurized multipurpose module) Leonardo is currently located on Unity Nadir.
Correct or incorrect?
Here's a useful website.
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/issartwork/ndxpage34.html
-
The reason for the porthole covers is related to orbital debris - specifically preventing any of it from hitting the portholes, which are very susceptible to debris strikes due to the fact that they are very thin.
Thanks Space Pete. Very thin though? They must be very tough then, as I thought the ISS was pressurised to 15 psi? The Cupola glass must be some amazing stuff.
@manboy
Here's a useful website
Thanks for that link. I do have the hi-def 3D model from NASA too, but I still can't identify the porthole locations, other than the Cupola, and perhaps a couple on the Russian module. Maybe someone could add them to some of the images? I'm attempting an animation, and I'd like it to be as accurate as possible.
I did use Celestia to do the Venus transit, if anyone is interested.
12.5 Meg ogg file:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B1--nP3tqe9sbmtUS2xhclluRU0
-
Thanks for that link. I do have the hi-def 3D model from NASA too, but I still can't identify the porthole locations, other than the Cupola, and perhaps a couple on the Russian module.
Suzy McHale's site has a description and links to some detailed diagrams of window locations on the SM: http://suzymchale.com/ruspace/sm.html
-
Aft? As in center-line aft? How exactly would that work I was under the impression this was not possible.
Node 3 Aft would be off the ISS centerline. I've attached an image for you using Orbiter spaceflight simulator.
It is possible to move PMM to Node 3 Aft, however there would be some issues with clearances with the folded FGB solar arrays during installation.
Thanks Space Pete. Very thin though? They must be very tough then, as I thought the ISS was pressurised to 15 psi? The Cupola glass must be some amazing stuff.
When I say thin, I'm speaking relatively, as in the hatch portholes are thin compared to the rest of the ISS structure. All ISS windows have multiple panes however.
The rest of the ISS structure (at least on the USOS) has an outer MMOD shield, followed by a layer of kevlar, followed by the pressure vessel. There is a few inches of space between the outer MMOD shields and the layer of kevlar, meaning if debris were to strike the shields, it would fragment and expand outward (thus spreading the impact over a larger area and thus decreasing the energy of the impact on any given area) prior to hitting the kevlar.
The portholes don't have such protection, and when coupled with the fact that glass is more brittle than metal, you can see why the windows are the the most vulnerable part of the ISS, and thus need protecting as much as possible.
-
Which of the 3 Russians has to sleep in node 2?
-
Hi. I've heard repeated references to the high cost of conducting EVAs. I'm curious about specifics regarding the main factors that contribute to those costs and what the costs actually are.
In other words: why are EVAs so expensive?
Consumables? Astronaut time? Ground controller time? Something else?
Thanks.
-
Hi. I've heard repeated references to the high cost of conducting EVAs. I'm curious about specifics regarding the main factors that contribute to those costs and what the costs actually are.
In other words: why are EVAs so expensive?
Consumables? Astronaut time? Ground controller time? Something else?
Thanks.
There is a lot that goes into it. First there is the operations team to plan one. This means flight controllers figuring out aplan, simulating it at 1-g, the likely doing a scuba run. Then the astronauts will do runs in the NBL as well as virtual reality. Anything in the NBL is pricey because you have to have safety divers, people handlign the equipment, technicians... Then there is the very special hardware used that has to be carefully built and tested. Then you have to get that hardware on orbit (and it is heavy and bulky). Then the consumables. it all adds up.
-
There is a lot that goes into it. First there is the operations team to plan one. This means flight controllers figuring out aplan, simulating it at 1-g, the likely doing a scuba run. Then the astronauts will do runs in the NBL as well as virtual reality. Anything in the NBL is pricey because you have to have safety divers, people handlign the equipment, technicians... Then there is the very special hardware used that has to be carefully built and tested. Then you have to get that hardware on orbit (and it is heavy and bulky). Then the consumables. it all adds up.
Thanks. I had assumed talk of the high cost of EVAs referred to direct costs like the hourly cost of operating an aircraft. I didn't realize they factored planning, training, etc. into it.
So a theoretical EVA where an experienced astronaut just 'hung out' near the airlock and did nothing really wouldn't be that expensive per hour?
-
So a theoretical EVA where an experienced astronaut just 'hung out' near the airlock and did nothing really wouldn't be that expensive per hour?
If you think ~$50M$25M (just to go out and come back in) plus ~$2M/hr to "hang out" isn't that expensive, then yes. (Caveat: BOTE, optimistic assumptions; actual costs are undoubtedly higher.)
edit: fixed cost was erroneously calculated based on 100% overhead; changed to exclude.
-
So a theoretical EVA where an experienced astronaut just 'hung out' near the airlock and did nothing really wouldn't be that expensive per hour?
If you think ~$50M (just to go out and come back in) plus ~$2M/hr to "hang out" isn't that expensive, then yes. (Caveat: BOTE, optimistic assumptions; actual costs are undoubtedly higher.)
Are you saying the $50 million plus $2 million per hour figure is what such a bare-bones spacewalk would actually cost? Or do those numbers include the planning, scuba runs, custom equipment, and other expenses that would not be required for an EVA with no A?
-
Are you saying the $50 million plus $2 million per hour figure is what such a bare-bones spacewalk would actually cost? Or do those numbers include the planning, scuba runs, custom equipment, and other expenses that would not be required for an EVA with no A?
No planning time, NBT time, equipment, etc. The primary cost driver is available crew time and the $/hr of that time. In round numbers:
1. US ISS cost is ~$3B/year and about $60M/seat for crew with a 6-month rotation.
2. Available crew time is ~35hr/week total (USOS, crew of 3)
- The time available after sleep, eat, exercise, maintenence, etc.
- That is based on a USOS ISS crew of 3 including IP's (for NASA only, it's ~27hrs/week total)
3. EVA pre- and post- effort is ~16hrs
- The crew time required for inspection, prebreathe, depress, repress etc.
- It's the same whether you spend 1 minute or 8 hours outside.
- That does not include support time from other crew (but you can't do it alone).
Ignoring cargo transportation costs (e.g., EVA equipment or consumables), the cost of a 1 minute EVA is ~$25M. For each EVA hour add ~$1.7M in direct crew time cost (the person doing the EVA). Add a token 10% for other ISS crew time to provide support, and you end up at ~$2M/hr.
p.s. Apologies, error in calc in original post; that $50M corrected to $25M.
-
No planning time, NBT time, equipment, etc. The primary cost driver is available crew time and the $/hr of that time.
That answers my question. Thanks.
-
I believe that solar energy striking a panel that is at an angle, as are the folded FGB panels, will always produce less power than a panel that is perpendicular to the incoming solar rays. Therefore, a flat panel would produce more power than a folded panel.
Not true, the panels at an angle still provide the same projected area as a flat panel
Ahem, while strictly true, it implies something false. Projected area is most certainly NOT the only factor. The reflectivity of the panel increases with the angle of incidence (notice how incredibly reflective still water is, so you can see trees reflected perfectly in a still morning on a lake... yet you can still peer down into the water and see fish and rocks, etc), thus less light gets through to the solar cells themselves and thus less power. And, of course, efficiency should be a good double of what the original arrays are, beginning of life. And after over a decade of degradation, there should be an even greater difference with replacing them.
I'm not saying it's worth it.
-
Expedition 3 EVA question. Was the EVA conducted on December 3rd 2001, to clear the aft Zvezda docking port of debris prior to STS-108, staged out of the Pirs airlock?
-
Expedition 3 EVA question. Was the EVA conducted on December 3rd 2001, to clear the aft Zvezda docking port of debris prior to STS-108, staged out of the Pirs airlock?
From NASA website:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/crew/exp3/eva/index.html
The Expedition Three crew performed four spacewalks to continue the on-orbit construction and maintenance on the International Space Station. The first three spacewalks focussed on outfitting the Russian Docking Compartment, which is named Pirs. The fourth spacewalk focused on the removal of an obstruction that was blocking the hard docking of the Progress 6 cargo ship to the station. All four space walks were conducted from Pirs.
Spacewalk 4
Vladimir Dezhurov, Mikhail Tyurin
Time: 2 hours, 46 minutes
Start time: 7:20 a.m. CST (1320 GMT) Dec. 3, 2001
End time: 10:06 a.m. CST (1606 GMT) Dec. 3, 2001
Dezhurov and Tyurin removed an obstruction that prevented a Progress resupply ship from firmly docking with the International Space Station. They also took pictures of the debris, which was a rubberized seal from the previous cargo ship, and of the docking interface.
-
The reflectivity of the panel increases with the angle of incidence (notice how incredibly reflective still water is, so you can see trees reflected perfectly in a still morning on a lake... yet you can still peer down into the water and see fish and rocks, etc), thus less light gets through to the solar cells themselves and thus less power.
Spectacles have a non-reflective coating. Do they not put something similar on PV panels?
cheers, Martin
-
Thanks AM! That'll teach me to read the entire page.
Expedition 3 EVA question. Was the EVA conducted on December 3rd 2001, to clear the aft Zvezda docking port of debris prior to STS-108, staged out of the Pirs airlock?
From NASA website:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/crew/exp3/eva/index.html
The Expedition Three crew performed four spacewalks to continue the on-orbit construction and maintenance on the International Space Station. The first three spacewalks focussed on outfitting the Russian Docking Compartment, which is named Pirs. The fourth spacewalk focused on the removal of an obstruction that was blocking the hard docking of the Progress 6 cargo ship to the station. All four space walks were conducted from Pirs.
Spacewalk 4
Vladimir Dezhurov, Mikhail Tyurin
Time: 2 hours, 46 minutes
Start time: 7:20 a.m. CST (1320 GMT) Dec. 3, 2001
End time: 10:06 a.m. CST (1606 GMT) Dec. 3, 2001
Dezhurov and Tyurin removed an obstruction that prevented a Progress resupply ship from firmly docking with the International Space Station. They also took pictures of the debris, which was a rubberized seal from the previous cargo ship, and of the docking interface.
-
The reflectivity of the panel increases with the angle of incidence (notice how incredibly reflective still water is, so you can see trees reflected perfectly in a still morning on a lake... yet you can still peer down into the water and see fish and rocks, etc), thus less light gets through to the solar cells themselves and thus less power.
Spectacles have a non-reflective coating. Do they not put something similar on PV panels?
cheers, Martin
That may make the effect of off-angle incidence even more pronounced.
The trick with non-reflective coatings is that they are tuned very carefully to thickness... If your effective thickness is much different because you're at a large angle with the normal vector, then the reflective coating's effectiveness is compromised. (i.e. at the normal vector--i.e. straight in--, reflections between the layers interfere destructively, reducing reflection... change that by a significant thickness by having your light come in at a large angle, and you're no longer interfering destructively...)
But remember also that the coating has to survive the atomic oxygen and hard-UV environment of LEO, or you have to put ANOTHER layer on top which /can/ survive that environment.
-
Why does the CBMs have a micrometeorite covering but NDS does not?
-
Are there pictures of the jumpers used inside the station?
-
Why does the CBMs have a micrometeorite covering but NDS does not?
Because the CBMs are exposed to space long-term, and so see increased chance of an MMOD strike than NDS, which is only exposed to space for a much shorter time period between launch and docking and undocking/landing. Also, CBMs have a larger surface area than NDS, which also increases the chances of an MMOD strike.
But the CBM covers don't completely protect against MMOD strikes anyway - the only open forward-facing CBM (Node 3 Forward) had to have its covering "beefed up" to provide adequate protection.
Are there pictures of the jumpers used inside the station?
You mean the SPDA and LTCJ?
-
Yes, Space Pete.
-
Any orbit other than polar or retrograde benefits from an equatorial launch, the question is how much. Obviously the closer to 0 degrees inclination the better.
I don't know how to calculate the benefit.
The effect is a wash if you assume spherical earth in the computations. The equatorial bulge provides a slight benefit.
This is extremely rounded (and I may be goofy besides), but my understanding is the benefit from launching due east at a given lattitude comes from the eastward rotational velocity of the ground at that lattitude. So if the ground is moving eastwards at the equator at 1000mph (it's actually a little more than that) and at the poles at 0mph, then you can calculate the eastward velocity for a given lattitude by calculating the circumferance of the earth at that lattitude and multiplying by the ration of that diameter vs. the equatorial diameter against the equatorial velocity. So I measured on a Robinson projection with a tape measure and came up with 0.9x ratio at 45deg. So if you moved Kourou from Guiana to Bangor, ME, you wouldn't lose much.
(Robinson projections are the ones with correct lattitude distances, and look like wide, flat ovals in consequence.)
For a spherical earth the effects cancel entirely. Might be easier just to show my work.
First cut: assume spherical earth, radius r and angular velocity omega.
So the easterly speed at any latitude (lat) on the earth's surface due to earth rotation is:
ve = r*omega*cos(lat)
The relationship between latitude, launch azimuth (az), and orbital inclination (i) is:
cos(i) = cos(lat)*sin(az)
But the only component of the earth's rotation that helps during launch is the component along the launch azimuth:
vl = ve*sin(az)
so after a little algebra, we get:
vl = r*omega*cos(i)
Amazing, the effects of launch site latitude and launch azimuth cancel out, and the "earth assist" simplifies to a pure function of inclination.
Accounting for the equatorial bulge, r gets a little bigger toward the equator, which increases the rotational velocity a bit (about 0.3%).
Edit: fixed last reference to omega.
Hello...
I know this is an old post, but I think it is not a good idea to leave this closed in that way.
You are right, the projection of the earth velocity over the orbital plane is constant, but this is not the matter.
What you have to compute is the modulus of the difference between the orbital velocity and the earth velocity. This is what the launcher has to provide. And it depends on the latitude.
Before to send this comment, I have done some computations. If it is needed, I can translate (I don't write the comments of my code in english) and show it.
Regards
David
-
Now that the space shuttle is retired, how are the high pressure gas tanks on the exterior of Quest recharged?
-
Now that the space shuttle is retired, how are the high pressure gas tanks on the exterior of Quest recharged?
NASA has developed Nitrogen Oxygen Recharge System (NORS). NORS Recharge Tank Assembly (RTA) will be transfered to the ISS by HTV or COTS resupply vehicles.
See the following information.
ISS Resupply Important to Kennedy's Past and Future (Jun 28, 2012)
http://www.space-travel.com/reports/ISS_Resupply_Important_to_Kennedys_Past_and_Future_999.html
Current Status of the Nitrogen Oxygen Recharge System (Jun, 2011)
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20110012004&qs=Ns%3DLoaded-Date|1%26N%3D4294701423
-
Great presentation by my current favorite, Don Pettit. Lots of information about photography in space. Haven't seen the video posted/discussed elsewhere on this forum.
http://m.gizmodo.com/5958413/watch-a-nasa-astronaut-describe-the-complexities-of-photography-in-space
My question: So what's the deal with failing Hard Drives in space, or at least on the station? Is it true, as Don says, that we don't know why they are failing? Are SSDs also failing?
I would think that this problem must be fixed I'd we are to take longer trips BEO.
-
Great presentation by my current favorite, Don Pettit. Lots of information about photography in space. Haven't seen the video posted/discussed elsewhere on this forum.
http://m.gizmodo.com/5958413/watch-a-nasa-astronaut-describe-the-complexities-of-photography-in-space
My question: So what's the deal with failing Hard Drives in space, or at least on the station? Is it true, as Don says, that we don't know why they are failing? Are SSDs also failing?
I would think that this problem must be fixed I'd we are to take longer trips BEO.
Most likely due to radiation
-
Great presentation by my current favorite, Don Pettit. Lots of information about photography in space. Haven't seen the video posted/discussed elsewhere on this forum.
http://m.gizmodo.com/5958413/watch-a-nasa-astronaut-describe-the-complexities-of-photography-in-space
My question: So what's the deal with failing Hard Drives in space, or at least on the station? Is it true, as Don says, that we don't know why they are failing? Are SSDs also failing?
I would think that this problem must be fixed I'd we are to take longer trips BEO.
Most likely due to radiation
Not likely. Radiation normally hits electronics and just causes a brain fart that can be reset by a reboot. I havent seen damage reports but have not heard anything unusual discussed. But I guess there could be the fact that you have little spinning gyros.
-
Great presentation by my current favorite, Don Pettit. Lots of information about photography in space. Haven't seen the video posted/discussed elsewhere on this forum.
http://m.gizmodo.com/5958413/watch-a-nasa-astronaut-describe-the-complexities-of-photography-in-space
My question: So what's the deal with failing Hard Drives in space, or at least on the station? Is it true, as Don says, that we don't know why they are failing? Are SSDs also failing?
I would think that this problem must be fixed I'd we are to take longer trips BEO.
Most likely due to radiation
Not likely. Radiation normally hits electronics and just causes a brain fart that can be reset by a reboot. I havent seen damage reports but have not heard anything unusual discussed. But I guess there could be the fact that you have little spinning gyros.
Thanks for the info! Are there any plans to move to SSDs?
-
Thanks for the info! Are there any plans to move to SSDs?
FYI.
C&C MDM's MSD(Mass Storage Device) were already upgraded to the SSMMU (solid state mass memory unit) in 2001-2002, due to MSD hard disk troubles ;)
-
Thanks for the info! Are there any plans to move to SSDs?
FYI.
C&C MDM's MSD(Mass Storage Device) were already upgraded to the SSMMU (solid state mass memory unit) in 2001-2002, due to MSD hard disk troubles ;)
Was thinking about the standard hard drives in the laptops.
-
Thanks for the info! Are there any plans to move to SSDs?
FYI.
C&C MDM's MSD(Mass Storage Device) were already upgraded to the SSMMU (solid state mass memory unit) in 2001-2002, due to MSD hard disk troubles ;)
Was thinking about the standard hard drives in the laptops.
I think it planned long term but really depends on evolution of laptops using it onthe ground since designed around a COTS laptop.
The MSD problem was due to problems in the hardware and issues in ground processing. The change to SSMMUs were accelerated after the problems on orbit.
-
Thanks for the info! Are there any plans to move to SSDs?
FYI.
C&C MDM's MSD(Mass Storage Device) were already upgraded to the SSMMU (solid state mass memory unit) in 2001-2002, due to MSD hard disk troubles ;)
Was thinking about the standard hard drives in the laptops.
I think it planned long term but really depends on evolution of laptops using it onthe ground since designed around a COTS laptop.
The MSD problem was due to problems in the hardware and issues in ground processing. The change to SSMMUs were accelerated after the problems on orbit.
Thanks for the info! This is an important issue to work our before BEO missions since they won't have the same bandwidth capacity to downlink GBs of, for example, photos.
-
Thanks for the info! Are there any plans to move to SSDs?
FYI.
C&C MDM's MSD(Mass Storage Device) were already upgraded to the SSMMU (solid state mass memory unit) in 2001-2002, due to MSD hard disk troubles ;)
Was thinking about the standard hard drives in the laptops.
I think it planned long term but really depends on evolution of laptops using it onthe ground since designed around a COTS laptop.
The MSD problem was due to problems in the hardware and issues in ground processing. The change to SSMMUs were accelerated after the problems on orbit.
Thanks for the info! This is an important issue to work our before BEO missions since they won't have the same bandwidth capacity to downlink GBs of, for example, photos.
ummm... Gigabytes? More like terabytes, from Mars:
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/news/whatsnew/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=980
We already can transfer tens of terabytes using just radio from Mars. Why sneaker-net the data back to Earth?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneakernet
If we switched to optical communications (or even just higher power Ka-band), we can increase throughput at least another order of magnitude or two, approaching petabytes.
-
Thanks for the info! Are there any plans to move to SSDs?
FYI.
C&C MDM's MSD(Mass Storage Device) were already upgraded to the SSMMU (solid state mass memory unit) in 2001-2002, due to MSD hard disk troubles ;)
Was thinking about the standard hard drives in the laptops.
I think it planned long term but really depends on evolution of laptops using it onthe ground since designed around a COTS laptop.
The MSD problem was due to problems in the hardware and issues in ground processing. The change to SSMMUs were accelerated after the problems on orbit.
Thanks for the info! This is an important issue to work our before BEO missions since they won't have the same bandwidth capacity to downlink GBs of, for example, photos.
ummm... Gigabytes? More like terabytes, from Mars:
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/news/whatsnew/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=980
Over a span of four years which translates into only about 720 MB per day or 1.2 MB per minute.
-
Does anyone have any hardware pictures of the "Space Station Berthing Mechanism" that was being developed by McDonnell Douglas in the 1980s for SSF? I know some testing took place at Marshall in 1988.
-
Does anyone know how much the active common berthing mechanism (ACBM) on the ISS and the passive common berthing mechanism (PCBM) used by resupply craft mass? JUST the ACBM and PCBM mass I am looking for, as if it were a sort of "bolt on" structure in a way.
-
Apparently a new Russian treadmill named BD-2 will be delivered to the ISS on the next Progress flight this month, replacing the good old TVIS. What improvements do the new treadmill have over the old one? Ease of maintainence I guess? (those who read the old ISS status reports will note how often the TVIS is out of service due to many recurring problems ::))
-
I am looking for lessons learned from the ISS papers published by NASA. So far I've found 2.
Review of International Space Station Phase I Lessons Learned Activity http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/old/inspections_assessments/g-98-012.pdf (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/old/inspections_assessments/g-98-012.pdf) from 1998.
and
ISS Lessons as Applied to Exploration http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/511133main_ISS_Lessons_Learned_7-22-09_complete.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/511133main_ISS_Lessons_Learned_7-22-09_complete.pdf) from 2009
Does anyone know of any others?
-
Yes, but I need to dig it out for you. Stand by.
F=ma
Does anyone know how much the active common berthing mechanism (ACBM) on the ISS and the passive common berthing mechanism (PCBM) used by resupply craft mass? JUST the ACBM and PCBM mass I am looking for, as if it were a sort of "bolt on" structure in a way.
-
Yes, but I need to dig it out for you. Stand by.
F=ma
Does anyone know how much the active common berthing mechanism (ACBM) on the ISS and the passive common berthing mechanism (PCBM) used by resupply craft mass? JUST the ACBM and PCBM mass I am looking for, as if it were a sort of "bolt on" structure in a way.
Thanks F=ma, it would be very much appreciated.
-
Does anyone know how much the active common berthing mechanism (ACBM) on the ISS and the passive common berthing mechanism (PCBM) used by resupply craft mass? JUST the ACBM and PCBM mass I am looking for, as if it were a sort of "bolt on" structure in a way.
I believe that the Passive CBM has a mass about 115 kg.
-
The value that I have says that the PCBM is 390 lbs. I will keep looking for a reference and ACBM mass for you.
F=ma
Yes, but I need to dig it out for you. Stand by.
F=ma
Does anyone know how much the active common berthing mechanism (ACBM) on the ISS and the passive common berthing mechanism (PCBM) used by resupply craft mass? JUST the ACBM and PCBM mass I am looking for, as if it were a sort of "bolt on" structure in a way.
Thanks F=ma, it would be very much appreciated.
-
The value that I have says that the PCBM is 390 lbs. I will keep looking for a reference and ACBM mass for you.
F=ma
Your source is correct, per NASA documentation (177 kg being the max mass allowable for PCBM).
-
Is station capable of orbit boost or maneuvering without using Progress or ATV? I thought I read that one of the Russian modules had propulsion but I can't find it. Also, are Progress and ATV the only craft capable of doing this? Do they need to be docked at specific births to do so?
Thanks
-
ISS has it’s own engines in theZvezda module. Progress and ATV at the moment are the only crafts capable of both refueling the ISS and boosting it. The prefered method of boosting is to use the Progress or ATV if available but the ISS can do some maneuvering without them and there usualy is a Progress docked to the station at all times.
-
ISS has it’s own engines in theZvezda module. Progress and ATV at the moment are the only crafts capable of both refueling the ISS and boosting it. The prefered method of boosting is to use the Progress or ATV if available but the ISS can do some maneuvering without them and there usualy is a Progress docked to the station at all times.
Aligned with the center of mass? That's the part I was having some trouble visualising...
-
ISS has it’s own engines in theZvezda module. Progress and ATV at the moment are the only crafts capable of both refueling the ISS and boosting it. The prefered method of boosting is to use the Progress or ATV if available but the ISS can do some maneuvering without them and there usualy is a Progress docked to the station at all times.
Aligned with the center of mass? That's the part I was having some trouble visualising...
It is the last module on the station. It is where the ATV docks.
-
What is the average magnitude of the amount of atmospheric drag the ISS experiences? Is there any good site with useful information like this or information about decrease in altitude over time from which this data could be calculated? I want to run the numbers with mounting various types of high ISP low thrust propulsion modules on the ISS and see what kind of effect it would have.
-
As I recall, it's just a bit under 1N.
http://www.heavens-above.com/IssHeight.aspx
-
As I recall, it's just a bit under 1N.
http://www.heavens-above.com/IssHeight.aspx
Seems about right. I remember figuring that an ion station keeper would average 20 or 30kw and take the entire amount available for science.
-
I'm sooooooo disappointed! I thought this was going to be a hilarious new thread discussing cross-dressing ISS crew...
-
As I recall, it's just a bit under 1N.
http://www.heavens-above.com/IssHeight.aspx
Seems about right. I remember figuring that an ion station keeper would average 20 or 30kw and take the entire amount available for science.
1N is quite a bit. I had thought it would be and order of magnitude less. That is indeed troublesome.
With regard to heavens above, I know that site well, but it doesn't give hard numbers. Extracting pixels from a plot is more trouble than its worth. It also doesn't easily show when changes in altitude were from actions the ISS performed rather than natural effects.
-
As I recall, it's just a bit under 1N.
http://www.heavens-above.com/IssHeight.aspx (http://www.heavens-above.com/IssHeight.aspx)
Seems about right. I remember figuring that an ion station keeper would average 20 or 30kw and take the entire amount available for science.
1N is quite a bit. I had thought it would be and order of magnitude less. That is indeed troublesome.
Remember it varies with altitude and solar activity. As I recall, at one point they were using something like 6,600kg of propellant per year (for the Russian thrusters and/or ATV or Shuttle altitude raising burns - all hypergol) for altitude maintenance. That may have been before drag reduction and while still at Shuttle-access altitude, but that's data point you could use to compute average drag.
-
Ok, with the solstice today, it seems the perfect time to ask these questions that have been bugging me for a while. It seems the ISS's periods of high beta angle are consistently a few weeks prior to the solstice (both winter and summer). It this real (or am I imagining it) and (assuming so) why?
I understand that high beta angle has do with the plane of the orbit 'rotating' into alignment with the day/night terminator (and therefore long periods of no or little shadowing from the earth hitting the structure, and/or the reverse with long periods of little or no sunshine). Was the original orbital plane (not inclination) of ISS selected intentionally, or was it an artifact of the first Russian launch way back in 1998?
And while we're on this topic, given the shadow of the Earth is NOT equal to 1/2 of an Earth's orbit, why does NASA and others describe the ISS as having "45 mins of daylight and 45 mins of darkness" on each 90 min orbit. Seems wrong to me on so many levels (not even 'on average')!
-
As I recall, it's just a bit under 1N.
http://www.heavens-above.com/IssHeight.aspx
Seems about right. I remember figuring that an ion station keeper would average 20 or 30kw and take the entire amount available for science.
Don't forget the benefits of having extended true zero-g time periods for doing science experiments made possible by a continuous counter thrust to cancel out drag forces. Probably only justifiable as a free flying unmanned science capsule. Here is a wild one: Perhaps a free flying Dragon Lab with ion/ high isp continuous counter thrust true zero g abilities could make periodic visits to station for man tending and experiment change-out/ upkeep.
-
Ok, with the solstice today, it seems the perfect time to ask these questions that have been bugging me for a while. It seems the ISS's periods of high beta angle are consistently a few weeks prior to the solstice (both winter and summer). It this real (or am I imagining it) and (assuming so) why?
Imagine the earth had no tilt. As the orbital plane (with 51 degree inclination) rotated about the earth's axis, the ISS would move from 0 to 51 degrees of beta angle.
During the equinoxes, this is also the case. The maximum beta around that time is 51 degrees.
But since the inclination is with respect to the earth's axis, any tilt of the earth toward the sun must be added. So during a solstice, the maximum beta becomes 51 + 23 or 74 degrees.
I understand that high beta angle has do with the plane of the orbit 'rotating' into alignment with the day/night terminator (and therefore long periods of no or little shadowing from the earth hitting the structure, and/or the reverse with long periods of little or no sunshine). Was the original orbital plane (not inclination) of ISS selected intentionally, or was it an artifact of the first Russian launch way back in 1998?
Given precession, I wouldn't think anyone would care about the original plane. I have no information but would assume it was simply set by the initial launch.
And while we're on this topic, given the shadow of the Earth is NOT equal to 1/2 of an Earth's orbit, why does NASA and others describe the ISS as having "45 mins of daylight and 45 mins of darkness" on each 90 min orbit. Seems wrong to me on so many levels (not even 'on average')!
I've never noticed that. Do you have a specific reference? I'm used to the PAO announcers noting that the nighttime period is less than the daytime, but they may not be representative.
-
Is all attitude control done by the Russian section? Or a better question, of all station attitude control, using reaction wheels or thrusters, where is each piece located and what actions do they each perform and in what situations?
-
Is all attitude control done by the Russian section? Or a better question, of all station attitude control, using reaction wheels or thrusters, where is each piece located and what actions do they each perform and in what situations?
attitude control most done with the USOS CMG's located on the Z-truss. The Russian propulsion system is used for desaturation and orbit adjustment. The Russian basic system is in the Service Module but augmented ATV and Progress for orbit adjustment.
-
Hate to be a bit of a pest, but I still can't find the mass for an ACBM. Can anyone find/dig this out of somewhere maybe? Just looking for the ACBM mass as if it were a bolt on structure in a sense.
-
I also have a CBM question. What's the outer diameter of this ring? I've estimated that it's around 70 in but I would like to have a more accurate number.
-
I also have a CBM question. What's the outer diameter of this ring? I've estimated that it's around 70 in but I would like to have a more accurate number.
80 in(2.0 m). The inside diameter is 71 in(1.8 m) with a depth of 7.6 in(0.19 m).
-
Is all attitude control done by the Russian section? Or a better question, of all station attitude control, using reaction wheels or thrusters, where is each piece located and what actions do they each perform and in what situations?
attitude control most done with the USOS CMG's located on the Z-truss. The Russian propulsion system is used for desaturation and orbit adjustment. The Russian basic system is in the Service Module but augmented ATV and Progress for orbit adjustment.
I've seen some kind of RCS fire in video of ATV approach on the Russian section, whats the purpose of that?
-
Article on Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/07/how-nasa-steers-the-international-space-station-around-space-junk/)
It has six living, breathing human beings on board. How does one move 400 tons of fragile space station when there's an asteroid or something bearing down on it?
...
"They're not up there with joysticks zooming the station around, are they?" I asked. "No," laughed Parris. "It's all commanded from the ground."
Also a photo-gallery of MCC-H. (http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/07/gallery-the-international-space-station-flight-control-room/)
-
If the ISS is going the speed of sound, wouldn't the astronauts inside not need to be facing a certain direction to let the other people at the station hear them? From what I think you would have to face the opposite direction of the way the station is going to let youself be heard?
-
Doesn't work that way: in a supersonic aircraft going faster than sound, the crew can talk to each other just fine - the environment within the aircraft let alone a spacecraft is a separate 'bubble' that has little to do with the movement of air - or vacuum - outside.
-
Is all attitude control done by the Russian section? Or a better question, of all station attitude control, using reaction wheels or thrusters, where is each piece located and what actions do they each perform and in what situations?
attitude control most done with the USOS CMG's located on the Z-truss. The Russian propulsion system is used for desaturation and orbit adjustment. The Russian basic system is in the Service Module but augmented ATV and Progress for orbit adjustment.
I've seen some kind of RCS fire in video of ATV approach on the Russian section, whats the purpose of that?
Maintaining attitude for the ATV - need good attitude control especially for the relative navigation sensors.
-
Anybody have a document listing consumables needed for every man day aboard the ISS? Keep finding conflicting amounts from different sources...
-
That was a good article!
-
I had a question about the Japanese Experiment Module and the Exposed Facility ...
I know that Kibo has its own communications system attached to the Exposed Facility ...
I also know that there is an External Facility unit attach point on the Experiment Logistics Module that, had the shuttle been kept flying would be used much more often as a temporary stowage area for experiment pallets.
Might the Communications gear be attached to this ELM attach point instead of the exposed facility and free up another experiment attach point on the EF itself?
Or, might an experiment be designed to specifically attach to the ELM attach point instead? It seems that that attach point could be used for something as opposed to nothing now.
-
I had a question about the Japanese Experiment Module and the Exposed Facility ...
I know that Kibo has its own communications system attached to the Exposed Facility ...
I also know that there is an External Facility unit attach point on the Experiment Logistics Module that, had the shuttle been kept flying would be used much more often as a temporary stowage area for experiment pallets.
Might the Communications gear be attached to this ELM attach point instead of the exposed facility and free up another experiment attach point on the EF itself?
Or, might an experiment be designed to specifically attach to the ELM attach point instead? It seems that that attach point could be used for something as opposed to nothing now.
It would depend on whether or not the EFU on the JLP has the same power and data capability as those on the JEF. I don't imagine that it would have high rate data capability.
-
If the ISS is going the speed of sound, wouldn't the astronauts inside not need to be facing a certain direction to let the other people at the station hear them? From what I think you would have to face the opposite direction of the way the station is going to let youself be heard?
The ISS, the astronauts inside it and the air inside it are all orbiting the earth approximately 23 times the speed of sound. Because the air is moving the same speed as the astronauts and station, relative to the astronauts the air is not moving. There is no sensation of movement when you are on board the station, in fact there is no sense of any kind of forces on you what so ever. There are also no distortions to your voice.
-
I still never got an answer regarding my question on crew consumables aboard the ISS, so I'll ask again... (politely :) )
Is there a document/documents that give detailed explanation of food and water intake on the ISS? E.g. mass of food and water allocated for a day, food packaging, calories per meal, etc.
-
On the MERLIN freezers(at least two) there are decals, One is a polar bear, another is a pinguin. Anyone got pictures of the decals as well as a brief description? Are there more? One of the decals said MERLIN-5 How many merlins are there aboard or in rotation?
edit 1
I see serial numbers as high as 007, and on Merlin 3, it looks like there is a MERLIN decal.
edit 2
I found a document from CBSE entitled "CBSE NIH Implementation Partner" in the public side...
7 Merlins Flight certified.
6 Glaciers flight certified.
I'm still looking for the decal photos that are non-standard with brief description.
Edit 3
Correction, the polar bear is on ARTIC 1, but it looks very much like a MERLIN...
Same with the pinguin, it appears to be on a fridge in the russian segment...
Both have the Oceaneering word in the photo, one on the Polar bear decal itself, and the other looks like a brand mark above the decal. Makes me wonder what other animals can be found onboard?
-
I still never got an answer regarding my question on crew consumables aboard the ISS, so I'll ask again... (politely :) )
Is there a document/documents that give detailed explanation of food and water intake on the ISS? E.g. mass of food and water allocated for a day, food packaging, calories per meal, etc.
I found this document in the public side, not sure that it has everything you want...
File Name "143163main_Space.Food.and.Nutrition.pdf" , NASA document number EG-1999-02-115-HQ
It was designed for educators, K-8
-
I found this document in the public side, not sure that it has everything you want...
File Name "143163main_Space.Food.and.Nutrition.pdf" , NASA document number EG-1999-02-115-HQ
It was designed for educators, K-8
Mmmm... thank you!
I still looking for a little bit more though! ;D
-
I just skimmed through the latest article on the Orb-D launch, and came to know that it's ferrying up some printers.
1. WHY OH WHY are we sending printers into space? Unless it's to print out some cue-cards and pictures for a contingency EVA - paper being something that the astronauts can stick into their wrist checklists (and something that can be exposed to the space environment without any protection), what can't be one by taking the laptops (or tablets even) and letting it float beside you when you need to work inside the station?
(I asked the same thing with respect to Soyuz once, and was countered with "Paper doesn't break under launch loads, or run out of power". But now I'm talking about crew-habitable pressurised volume in the orbital ISS.)
2. What printers did they send up, whose functionality isn't adversely affected by microgravity? Laserjet? Injket?
...unless of course, Cygnus carried a 3-D printer.
-
I just skimmed through the latest article on the Orb-D launch, and came to know that it's ferrying up some printers.
1. WHY OH WHY are we sending printers into space? Unless it's to print out some cue-cards and pictures for a contingency EVA - paper being something that the astronauts can stick into their wrist checklists (and something that can be exposed to the space environment without any protection), what can't be one by taking the laptops (or tablets even) and letting it float beside you when you need to work inside the station?
(I asked the same thing with respect to Soyuz once, and was countered with "Paper doesn't break under launch loads, or run out of power". But now I'm talking about crew-habitable pressurised volume in the orbital ISS.)
Still can have power and data problems.
-
Still can have power and data problems.
A printer needs power too! And COME ON. Are you really telling me that printers are more compliant and forgiving of different user inputs than computers? <Gets baseball bat, and breaks into rap> They already want to defund us on Capitol Hill!
In any case, anyone know the answer to my second question? And also, any technical details of how the Additive Manufacturing Facility manufactured by "Made In Space" works? It's going up next year (CRS-5 apparently), and looks like an FDM machine, but the little information I've crawled so far doesn't explain how they're compensating for zero-g. Capillary flow?
-
A printer needs power too! And COME ON.
COME ON and think. The power and data comment is as it relates to hard copies. The A PDF file of emergency instructions on laptop is useless without power and is not as accessible.
-
The power and data comment is as it relates to hard copies. The A PDF file of emergency instructions on laptop is useless without power and is not as accessible.
They've multiple laptops, and each laptop has its own battery. Even if they don't have spare batteries on station, wouldn't you give it alteast 1 hour of power per (half-charged before COMPLETE power outage) battery? And if they've got the emergency files on all computers, then multiply that by number of laptops on-board? The number shoots up if you're going to consider a lower-power tablet/smartphone operating in flight-mode. Anyway, halve whatever number you get for that arbitrary safety factor. Now..
I'm not well-versed in have little knowledge of statutory ISS Emergency procedures; I'm not sure where you draw the line between a Soyuz evacuation and on-orbit crew aided R&R. But isn't there enough juice in those laptop batteries so that they aren't a limiting condition, with regard to this line? Paper emergency procedures are only as good as flash-light batteries too.
EDIT: Forgot about sunlight through windows
EDIT2: Plus, with laptops, you can have videos of emergency drills conducted on orbit: on the flight hardware itself, to lend an intuitive feel of the forces, the contortions, the jury rigging etc. required. (Although ideally, these 'Operational Experiences' would've been transcribed into words in the procedures)
Never mind all that. In any case - they've already now got paper copies of emergency procedures. Unless the frequency of errata additions/modifications is greater than VV frequency (and if it is, I'd hang a question mark over the claim of ISS-having-transitioned-to-science), why d'you need on-orbit printing? Why not just send the updated material? It's not like you're saving up-mass. They still need the paper.
-
Never mind all that. In any case - they've already now got paper copies of emergency procedures. Unless the frequency of errata additions/modifications is greater than VV frequency (and if it is, I'd hang a question mark over the claim of ISS-having-transitioned-to-science), why d'you need on-orbit printing? Why not just send the updated material? It's not like you're saving up-mass. They still need the paper.
It is used for labels and bar codes.
-
It is used for labels and bar codes.
Err.. same thing applies? Send a whole load of bar-code stickers. Peel-off and stick on desired item. And for the non-scanned items, send up some blank labels, felt tip pens and a set of crayons.
They can do some interior decor by drawing murals. Depictions of single-handedly catching storks, swans and dragons - and maybe chronicling the temporary hosting of other hunters (Orion). Caves were the earliest human dwellings, and they had minimalist art. It's be nice to repeat that in our first dwelling in the new frontier. If we do that, and supplement it with some creative language in Washington - it might even qualify the ISS for NEA funding.
-
They've multiple laptops, and each laptop has its own battery. Even if they don't have spare batteries on station, wouldn't you give it alteast 1 hour of power per (half-charged before COMPLETE power outage) battery?
As I understand it, every possible machine on ISS runs without battery, as li-ion batteries pose a major fire risk. Other battery types would require maintainance (charge-discharge) to maintain their function, and they do that for the main ISS solar batteries for simplicity...
-
Err.. same thing applies?
No, it doesn't. And I wouldn't want my handwriting on permanent labels. The issue is time. And also MCC can print things for them.
-
Now that the ISS is becoming more dependent on these "berthed" vehicles rather than docking ships, what's the contingency if the Canadarm has a serious fault? There's nothing big enough to send a replacement, are there sufficient spares?
-
Now that the ISS is becoming more dependent on these "berthed" vehicles rather than docking ships, what's the contingency if the Canadarm has a serious fault? There's nothing big enough to send a replacement, are there sufficient spares?
The joints and end effectors are designed to be replaced on orbit, and there are spares on station.
I can't imagine there being a problem with the arm itself, but in the unlikely event they had to replace the boom, they could probably rig up something segmented or telescoping as either a temporary or permanent replacement. When the arm came to the station, the booms were folded in half (http://images.ksc.nasa.gov/photos/2000/captions/KSC-00PP-1149.html) and had to be bolted together on orbit.
-
Re: printing on the ISS -
There is a need to print a lot of things on the ISS. FIrst, as people have noted, you have to have the emergency procedures printed out. Yes, the PCS laptops have a requirement for at least 1 hour of battery operation (so the batteries are rotated to meet that), there is no similar requirement if I recall for the SSCs. But even if they were battery powered, you can't easily drag one with you to fight a fire. And you could be oeprating off emergency procedures for hours. Generally we try to send up new procedures but sometimes changes occur on the fly. There is alsoa daily summaries that the crew needs to print out (e.g., state of the station for solar arrays positioning in the event of an emergency). While we do ship up pre-printed labels, you can't always anticipate a needed label. FOr example, the crew might realize putting every type of glove into a pantry might be a good idea. Need a "glove pantry" label. ANd if you need a bar code the ground can send one up - to print out. The crews also print out the scripts for their PAO events.
As to batteries - there are a LOT of batteries on ISS. There are some for the laptops and hand held tools (e.g., drills) that are rechargeable. There are also iPODs etc. Most however are non rechargeable or are rechargeable but not recharged on orbit.
-
Last year, we saw a post of a great document titled "ISS ECLS Status for the Prior Year: 2010-2011".
I, for one, would love to see a more recent status report like that.
We get to see occasional status reports on individual ECLS components failing and being repaired, but a year-end
summary would help put this in perspective.
For example, in a recent ISS status report, the Amine Swingbed was mentioned as a backup for the two CDRA's and Russian Vozdukh CO2 removal systems during 9-crew operation. This made me wonder if the Amine Swingbed is going to be added to the standard mix of systems. Is it ready for prime time? Is an upgrade planned?
The WPA seems to have had its share of problems. Is there an upgrade planned to improve reliability?
I'd enjoy reading about all of the ECLS components and the planned upgrades, if any. I know we have at least one ECLS expert posting, so please tell us more.
Better yet, start a new ISS thread dedicated to ECLS!
-
Now that the ISS is becoming more dependent on these "berthed" vehicles rather than docking ships, what's the contingency if the Canadarm has a serious fault? There's nothing big enough to send a replacement, are there sufficient spares?
The joints and end effectors are designed to be replaced on orbit, and there are spares on station.
I can't imagine there being a problem with the arm itself, but in the unlikely event they had to replace the boom, they could probably rig up something segmented or telescoping as either a temporary or permanent replacement. When the arm came to the station, the booms were folded in half (http://images.ksc.nasa.gov/photos/2000/captions/KSC-00PP-1149.html) and had to be bolted together on orbit.
Exactly what I wanted to know, thanks!
-
How long can the ISS life support systems handle the nine-person crew that we have just seen? Also, where did the extra three people sleep during this period? Are there extra sleep stations, or did they simply attach sleeping bags to a surface somewhere? Are there any other special arrangements that had to be made for the higher than usual numbers?
-
Indefinitely if all systems are functioning. They used spare modules (e.g., the Columbus). Maybe not as nice as the crew quarters but hey, you get a lot more space :) Yes, when the shuttle docked it was similar in that you would have a lot of people, some would sleep over on ISS.
-
Thanks, somewhere I had gotten the idea that seven people was the maximum that could be handled for more than a few days.
-
Has anyone here seen this image before?
-
How far in advance are reboost maneuvers planned?
It seems they are posted on this page: http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/realdata/sightings/SSapplications/Post/JavaSSOP/orbit/ISS/SVPOST.html about 1 to 2 weeks before they happen. Is that the same sort of time horizon that the internal flight directors work on?
-
How far in advance are reboost maneuvers planned?
Year.
-
How far in advance are reboost maneuvers planned?
It seems they are posted on this page: http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/realdata/sightings/SSapplications/Post/JavaSSOP/orbit/ISS/SVPOST.html about 1 to 2 weeks before they happen. Is that the same sort of time horizon that the internal flight directors work on?
Technically, years. Place holders and altitude strategy is mapped out years in advance. Fine tuning goes on at about one year - but still rough place holders. As the year goes on the time and frequency is then chosen. Than months out really start planning for it. Specifics are worked out the final weeks. In other words, like most things on ISS - its a long, ongoing process.
-
Hi, something I have been pondering for a while. What are the procedures for a medical emergency that require immediate hospital treatment? I know it will be to CASEVAC in one of the Soyuz but what if its a spinal injury? That kind of injury requires total and immediate immobilisation, especially of the head, neck, back and pelvis, or the spinal column risks (more) damage Trying to put the patient in one of the Soyuz couches, then going through re-entry, then hard landing on solid earth will most likely make the injury a lot worse as far as I know, or is there another way its done so the injury isnt made any worse?
-
Assuming the PM that is currently being installed, will be functional, and now not counted as an extra. How many extra functional PM's are on station?
TIA.
As a medical professional, I cant think of much better positions for a spinal injury to be in than in a Soyuz couch.
A big issue would be getting a Soyuz flight suit on the patient while providing vertebrael immobilisation. Because the person is laying supine (face upward) that type of loading during chute opening and reefing along with the final moment thruster firing and then landing, while not ideal, is better than other body positioning.
Much better scenario than a Shuttle landing that would require a patient to be seated, unless they could lash the patient supine to the mid-deck floor somehow. The the more gentle g-loading and conversion to aero flight and pressure during the flare and landing would be preferable in a supine over seated position.
Some thing catastrophic would have to happen for that type of injury to occur, like a quick and massive release of gasses(gas canister quickly discharging, or some type of explosion), giving some massive object enough inertia to sustain this type of injury. If this type of energy was released, worry about possible ambulatory injuries that might be encountered after such an incident, would probably be paled to in comparison of the actual incident itself.
-
Much better scenario than a Shuttle landing that would require a patient to be seated, unless they could lash the patient supine to the mid-deck floor somehow. The the more gentle g-loading and conversion to aero flight and pressure during the flare and landing would be preferable in a supine over seated position.
Recumbent shuttle seating
-
That would make for an interesting launch ;)
-
Much better scenario than a Shuttle landing that would require a patient to be seated, unless they could lash the patient supine to the mid-deck floor somehow. The the more gentle g-loading and conversion to aero flight and pressure during the flare and landing would be preferable in a supine over seated position.
Recumbent shuttle seating
That would work splendidly. If that can be configured on orbit, then the Shuttle would be the preferred method of bringing a patient back to Earth compared to Soyuz. If the choice were available.
-
If that can be configured on orbit,
It was
-
Technically, years. Place holders and altitude strategy is mapped out years in advance. Fine tuning goes on at about one year - but still rough place holders. As the year goes on the time and frequency is then chosen. Than months out really start planning for it. Specifics are worked out the final weeks. In other words, like most things on ISS - its a long, ongoing process.
So does that mean that the drag at ISS altitude, and the effect of the sun on the tenuous atmosphere there is fairly well understood? I'd assume you'd need to know to plan a boost - otherwise - what's the point of plannig a boost if you haven't decayed enough... or even not boosting when you've decayed more than expected? We keep hearing of the uncertainty in decay dates for almost all other bodies. Is this predictability an effect of the sheer size of station?
-
If that can be configured on orbit,
It was
Why was Shuttle seating configured from upright to recumbant seating on orbit? To ensure the ability, or for actual recumbent crew transfer? And if I dare to incite more of an elaboration, what mission(s)? If you recall, easily?
Thanks in advance Jim.
-
Recumbent seating was a standard part of the protocol to make re-entry easier on long duration crew members. To my knowledge, it was used every time station crew members returned onboard the shuttle.
-
Technically, years. Place holders and altitude strategy is mapped out years in advance. Fine tuning goes on at about one year - but still rough place holders. As the year goes on the time and frequency is then chosen. Than months out really start planning for it. Specifics are worked out the final weeks. In other words, like most things on ISS - its a long, ongoing process.
So does that mean that the drag at ISS altitude, and the effect of the sun on the tenuous atmosphere there is fairly well understood? I'd assume you'd need to know to plan a boost - otherwise - what's the point of plannig a boost if you haven't decayed enough... or even not boosting when you've decayed more than expected? We keep hearing of the uncertainty in decay dates for almost all other bodies. Is this predictability an effect of the sheer size of station?
Yes, you understand why it is so tricky! It is well understood...just not always well predictable. You can analyze long term trends and know roughly when and how much fo a boost you will need. But the specifics take more data closer in. The solar activity changes the drag. If the arrays are normally rotating then you can average the drag - but if you have to park them for various activities the drag will change. Even the little changes from docking or undocking a visiting vehicle can change it. So the TOPOs track all that and will factor in upcoming Soyuz, Progress or whatever to when they need a reboost.
-
I saw a web page on the nasa.gov site that had hour-by-hour, minute-by-minute schedules for each ISS astronaut, but I can't find it now. Can someone please point me in the right direction?
-
http://spacestationlive.nasa.gov/timeline/
-
Yep, that's the one. Thank you!
-
Recumbent seating was a standard part of the protocol to make re-entry easier on long duration crew members. To my knowledge, it was used every time station crew members returned onboard the shuttle.
Thank for the response, that makes total sense. Take new Astros sitting upright, and bring back long duration Astros back recumbant. I had never heard of that Shuttle seating position before.
Long Duration exchange missions were
STS-102
STS-105
STS-108
STS-111
STS-113
STS-121
STS-116
STS-117
STS-120
STS-122
STS-123
STS-124
STS-126
STS-119
STS-127
STS-128
STS-129
I wonder if that seating position was used for any of the MIR missions?
I also notice that in Jim's pic there is 1 upright and 3 recumbant. Was there always 4 seated on the flight deck, then 5-8 were seated on the mid deck?
-
Only two missions had four seats on the middeck. STS-61A and STS-71.
-
In regards to the specific photographic that Jim posted. The first two recumbent astronauts on the right look to be Ed Lu and Yuri Malenchenko, members of expedition 7. Presumably this picture was taken pre Columbia, during training for expedition 7's eventual return flight onboard STS-114.
Obviously, post Columbia that version of STS-114 never flew and both Lu and Malenchenko launched and landed aboard Soyuz TMA-2.
-
I wonder if that seating position was used for any of the MIR missions?
I also notice that in Jim's pic there is 1 upright and 3 recumbant. Was there always 4 seated on the flight deck, then 5-8 were seated on the mid deck?
I assume that similar seating positions were used during the MIR missions, but I don't have confirmation of such.
As to the number of each deck: ever since very early in the program, once the shuttle was declared operational, every mission flew with 4 on the flight deck. To my knowledge, the 4 person flight deck crew were the minimum compliment required for normal shuttle operations. However, all station era shuttle flights, with the exception of STS-135 flew with at least one additional crew in the mid deck.
-
I assume that similar seating positions were used during the MIR missions, but I don't have confirmation of such.
It didn't exist for MIR missions
-
What are the capabilities enabled by the FGB PDGF? I can think of a couple already...
* Extends coverage of the OBSS to (or farther along) the Russian segment
* Allows additional access options for spacewalkers mounted in the SSRMS foot restraint
And when was it decided to put a PDGF on the FGB anyhow? I was looking for information in L2, but found nothing. (I searched on FGB PDGF and Zarya PDGF.)
-
Here's my question. What is the white covering on external payload experiments ? Is this the space equivalent of a "tarpaulin" type protective material ? Its white so I guess part of the purpose it to reflect sunlight away.
Full size version of attached image here (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Columbus_exposed_facilities_on_LCC-lite_carrier.jpg).
-
Here's my question. What is the white covering on external payload experiments ? Is this the space equivalent of a "tarpaulin" type protective material ? Its white so I guess part of the purpose it to reflect sunlight away.
MLI. Multi Layered Insulation. It for thermal control both in sun and darkness. Common to many payloads, spacecraft and items. Look at other payloads such as Spacelab in the shuttle payload bay.
Do a google image search of MLI blanket.
-
Why NASA don't install shower TUBE in ISS where astronauts can enter, close the hermetic TUBE door and after pressing button from all direction water starts under high pressure to fizzle from small jets into the TUBE?
Vaccum spots in the same time from upper and down part of TUBE absorb water into the filter tank and back into the main fresh water tank.
Of course between main water tank and shower TUBE there is a chamber for making HOT water and COLD water where mixture of pleasantly water for showering can be adjust inside the shower TUBE.
Also there is tank with shampoo which can be mixed with combined water before fizzled into the shower TUBE when astronaut needed.
NOTE: Interchange of tolerably HOT water and ICE water is extremely beneficial for body health and blood circulation. Also high pressure fizzle doing skin massage helping astronaut to be instantly relaxed, with present moment crystal clear mind which is especially important in space.
-
Why NASA don't install shower TUBE in ISS where astronauts can enter, close the hermetic TUBE door and after pressing button from all direction water starts under high pressure to fizzle from small jets into the TUBE?
a. It would take too much water. Doesn't have full scale water recycling, just condensate and urine for O2 production.
b. The astronaut would have to wear a face mask to provide air and to prevent inhaling water and also, googles to protect the eyes.
c. On Skylab, a shower was shown to take too much time for little extra benefit.
d. In zero g, sponge bathes are just as good. The astronaut does one limb/body part at a time. The water envelopes the body part as though it is immersed in water.
-
NOTE: Interchange of tolerably HOT water and ICE water is extremely beneficial for body health and blood circulation. Also high pressure fizzle doing skin massage helping astronaut to be instantly relaxed, with present moment crystal clear mind which is especially important in space.
Where is the medical proof of instance relaxation and creation of "present moment crystal clear mind" from a massaging shower? And where is it documented that a "present moment crystal clear mind" is important much less in space?
-
Here's my question. What is the white covering on external payload experiments ? Is this the space equivalent of a "tarpaulin" type protective material ? Its white so I guess part of the purpose it to reflect sunlight away.
MLI. Multi Layered Insulation. It for thermal control both in sun and darkness. Common to many payloads, spacecraft and items. Look at other payloads such as Spacelab in the shuttle payload bay.
Do a google image search of MLI blanket.
Brilliant. Thanks ! Plenty of info there to be getting on with. Of course there's a WP page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation).
-
Someone knows what is the purpose of the "protective ring" (защитное кольцо) that the Russian cosmonauts put on the hatch during spacewalks ?
-
Someone knows what is the purpose of the "protective ring" (защитное кольцо) that the Russian cosmonauts put on the hatch during spacewalks ?
I'm not sure but I'd say it's there to avoid contamination by foreign objects that could then damage the seals on the hatch and cause a leak.
-
Why NASA don't install shower TUBE in ISS where astronauts can enter, close the hermetic TUBE door and after pressing button from all direction water starts under high pressure to fizzle from small jets into the TUBE?
a. It would take too much water. Doesn't have full scale water recycling, just condensate and urine for O2 production.
b. The astronaut would have to wear a face mask to provide air and to prevent inhaling water and also, googles to protect the eyes.
c. On Skylab, a shower was shown to take too much time for little extra benefit.
d. In zero g, sponge bathes are just as good. The astronaut does one limb/body part at a time. The water envelopes the body part as though it is immersed in water.
Do you have any info on the shower that was planned for freedom/ISS?
-
A while back, Space Pete said:
..so these are the only CBM hatch portholes that the crew can "see" out of (and there isn't really much to see out of the Node 2 zenith porthole - except the blackness of space). ;)
I recently read an interview of Chris Hadfield, on NPR, in which he says:
The contrast of your body and your mind inside ... essentially a one-person spaceship, which is your spacesuit, where you're holding on for dear life to the shuttle or the station with one hand, and you are inexplicably in between what is just a pouring glory of the world roaring by, silently next to you — just the kaleidoscope of it, it takes up your whole mind. It's like the most beautiful thing you've ever seen just screaming at you on the right side, and when you look left, it's the whole bottomless black of the universe and it goes in all directions. It's like a huge yawning endlessness on your left side and you're in between those two things and trying to rationalize it to yourself and trying to get some work done.
Bottomless black, yawning endlessness. Your "blackness of space". This has some rather serious implications for all of astronomy if true, so am I to take him at his word?
I was trying to find out how many portholes there are on the ISS, and where they are located, but no luck, so thought I'd try here. I found info for the Russian components, but nothing for the US. I read James Oberg saying there were quite a few, of good optical properties, but where are they? What direction do they face? Any help appreciated!
On the Russian Segment, there are six nadir-facing portholes in the Service Module (SM), as well as one porthole on each of the two EVA hatches of both the Docking Compartment-1 (DC-1) and Mini Research Module-2 (MRM-2). All four of these portholes are "clocked" at plus/minus 45 degrees to the positive/negative velocity vector - so DC-1 has portholes facing port-forward and starboard-aft, while MRM-2 has portholes facing starboard-forward and port-aft.
In addition, Soyuzes offer three portholes when docked - via two side-looking portholes in the Descent Module, and one forward-looking porthole in the Orbital Module. Due to their specific clocking when docked, a Soyuz docked to MRM-2 has portholes facing port, starboard, and nadir, while a Soyuz docked to MRM-1 has portholes facing starboard-forward, port-aft, and zenith.
On the US Segment, in addition to the obvious Cupola, there is one large nadir-facing optical-quality porthole on the US lab (which is used exclusively for Earth observation payloads via the WORF rack), and two port-facing portholes on the JPM.
In addition, every USOS CBM hatch has a porthole, however the portholes on unused ports/hatches are covered with an external flap (called a CBCS flap), which can only be uncovered via EVA if the port is unused. The only portholes on unused CBM ports that are currently NOT covered with a CBCS flap are the Node 2 nadir and zenith ports - so these are the only CBM hatch portholes that the crew can "see" out of (and there isn't really much to see out of the Node 2 zenith porthole - except the blackness of space). ;)
-
I never got a response to this question...
What are the capabilities enabled by the FGB PDGF? I can think of a couple already...
* Extends coverage of the OBSS to (or farther along) the Russian segment
* Allows additional access options for spacewalkers mounted in the SSRMS foot restraint
And when was it decided to put a PDGF on the FGB anyhow? I was looking for information in L2, but found nothing. (I searched on FGB PDGF and Zarya PDGF.)
Does anyone have any information? I can't imagine this would be an obscure question, given how recently the new PDGF was activated.
-
What are the capabilities enabled by the FGB PDGF? I can think of a couple already...
* Extends coverage of the OBSS to (or farther along) the Russian segment
* Allows additional access options for spacewalkers mounted in the SSRMS foot restraint
And when was it decided to put a PDGF on the FGB anyhow? I was looking for information in L2, but found nothing. (I searched on FGB PDGF and Zarya PDGF.)
SSP 50227 is the document that answers your questions.
-
I never got a response to this question...
What are the capabilities enabled by the FGB PDGF? I can think of a couple already...
* Extends coverage of the OBSS to (or farther along) the Russian segment
* Allows additional access options for spacewalkers mounted in the SSRMS foot restraint
And when was it decided to put a PDGF on the FGB anyhow? I was looking for information in L2, but found nothing. (I searched on FGB PDGF and Zarya PDGF.)
Does anyone have any information? I can't imagine this would be an obscure question, given how recently the new PDGF was activated.
The PDGF on FGB is required for the ISS RMS to install the airlock module on Nauka (if the ERA is not used for this).
-
The PDGF on FGB is required for the ISS RMS to install the airlock module on Nauka (if the ERA is not used for this).
I was aware that they needed the FGB PDGF for at least one assembly task. But I doubt that's the only piece of information available, or the only reason they added it.
And even if it is the only reason, I can't imagine there's absolutely no paper trail behind it. For example, where did the PDGF come from in the first place? Is it the same one that was used to dock Zarya to Unity, or was it bolted on later?
-
The PDGF on FGB is required for the ISS RMS to install the airlock module on Nauka (if the ERA is not used for this).
I was aware that they needed the FGB PDGF for at least one assembly task. But I doubt that's the only piece of information available, or the only reason they added it.
And even if it is the only reason, I can't imagine there's absolutely no paper trail behind it. For example, where did the PDGF come from in the first place? Is it the same one that was used to dock Zarya to Unity, or was it bolted on later?
I have been vaguely following this for some time. About 5 years ago, Jim told us that the PDGF was stowed on the truss.
Of course, PDGfs are not used for docking operations, but they can assist with berthing, serving as a base for the RMS. Zarya was berthed to Unity using the Shuttle arm, however.
The original driver for the FGB PDGF was the requirement to use the ISS arm to berth the SSP to Zvezda zenith, but that module was cancelled.
-
NASA's Real-Life 'Gravity' Images Will Blow You Away (PICTURES)
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/03/02/nasa-gravity-real-life_n_4884967.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/03/02/nasa-gravity-real-life_n_4884967.html)
-
I have been vaguely following this for some time. About 5 years ago, Jim told us that the PDGF was stowed on the truss.
No, the FGB PDGF was launched in the Payload Bay of STS-132, brought inside on that mission, and taken back outside and installed on STS-134. The PDGF on the Truss (P6) was the one that was installed on the OBSS/EIBA, also on STS-134.
With regard uses of the FGB PDGF, while I don't know about the original requirements for it, I do know that NASA want to have it active in time for mid-2015, because the SSRMS will need the FGB PDGF in order to perform the PMM relocation from Node 1 Nadir to Node 3 Forward.
-
http://www.esa.int/For_Media/Press_Releases/International_Space_Station_docks_successfully_with_Zvezda_module
Got a question regarding the European computer - the "Data Management System"
"ESA will use similar data management systems on later elements that Europe is currently preparing for the Space Station, including the European space laboratory Columbus and the Automated Transfer Vehicle, in the continuing drive to minimise development and maintenance costs."
Does this mean the Columbus and ATV are redundant computers available if a failure event would happen in the main DMS in Zvezda?
-
In the recent Channel 4 (UK) 'Live from Space' series it was mentioned in passing that the crew of the USOS hardly ever see their Russian companions. In the programs, the Russians were only seen when helping Luca back inside after the emergency ingress following the EMU failure.
Is this an accurate representation? Are the two halves of the station effectively 'ships in the night'?
-
In the recent Channel 4 (UK) 'Live from Space' series it was mentioned in passing that the crew of the USOS hardly ever see their Russian companions. In the programs, the Russians were only seen when helping Luca back inside after the emergency ingress following the EMU failure.
Is this an accurate representation? Are the two halves of the station effectively 'ships in the night'?
I'm unsure but I do know one of the Russian crew members always sleeps in one of the four USOS (USA/Canada/Europe/Japan) crew quarters (which are located in the Harmony module). This is because there are three Russian crew members and three USOS crew members and the Russian portion of the station only has two crew quarters (both in Zvezda).
A seventh crew quarter is planned to be inside of Nauka. And after the Commercial Crew Vehicle becomes operational the USOS crew will increase to four. This means that the Russian crew member that usually sleeps in Harmony will now most likely be sleeping in Nauka.
-
Someone knows what is this hatch at 0'55" in this video ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzS0VnS4PJ4
-
I have found the answer to my question ! :D
This is the hatch between Zvezda's PKhO and main Compartment.
-
Hi all -
Short version: what times on Halloween night will ISS be in DAYLIGHT?
Long version:
I am hosting my annual telescope / moon viewing party for friends and neighbors next week. We do this every year, setting up multiple telescopes for people to look through, and one of the scopes is hooked to a video projector that throws the moon image up on the side of the house.
I also set up another projector showing some sort of space video. This year, I'd like to take the live video feed from ISS (either the old "Live ISS stream (http://www.ustream.tv/channel/live-iss-stream)" or the newer "HD Earth View (http://www.ustream.tv/channel/iss-hdev-payload)" camera) and project that as well.
However, the HDEV camera only shows video during the half-orbit that ISS is on the daylight side -- on the nighttime side, the video is black. I'd like to know WHEN those times will be, approximately, on the evening of October 31st, so I can display a schedule. That way, if someone sees black, they'll be able to see that they just need to wait X minutes until something appears.
I'm in the US Eastern timezone, but I can convert if you provide in GMT.
-
Hey I often read about trash and equipment being jettisoned from the ISS during spacewalks. How long does this stuff stay in orbit?
-
While I'm monitoring this thread for answers to my own question ...
Typically, jettisoned items will deorbit in a few weeks. It's fairly rare for them to do this (during an EVA) but when they do, they give is it a shove in a very particular direction. Usually that's the "minus V bar" direction, or opposite to the direction of ISS travel, or towards the rear. That gives the object slightly LESS orbital energy, and it WILL decay within weeks (or months at the most). You might this graph of ISS height (http://www.heavens-above.com/IssHeight.aspx) helpful -- it illustrates how the ISS itself is always decaying, and only periodic pushes from visiting vehicles (Soyuz, mostly) keep it up in space.
However, they don't do this with "trash" per se, rather, they do this with larger items that are too big (or toxic) to bring in the hatch.
Trash normally gets packed into the visiting cargo vehicles. Those unmanned cargo craft then detach from ISS and burn up in the atmosphere. Those things have engines, and they fire them to brake the velocity and force the craft down in a safe place, normally the Pacific Ocean. I don't think much if any debris makes it down to the surface, but if it does, it's a harmless splash.
-
http://www.esa.int/For_Media/Press_Releases/International_Space_Station_docks_successfully_with_Zvezda_module
Got a question regarding the European computer - the "Data Management System"
"ESA will use similar data management systems on later elements that Europe is currently preparing for the Space Station, including the European space laboratory Columbus and the Automated Transfer Vehicle, in the continuing drive to minimise development and maintenance costs."
Does this mean the Columbus and ATV are redundant computers available if a failure event would happen in the main DMS in Zvezda?
No. The data management systems are similar in that they use similar hardware and similar operating system software. The synergies regarding development and maintenance are mostly in these two aspects. The vehicle-specific software, running under DMS control, is substantially different between the three vehicles.
-
Can the NORS Recharge Tank Assemblies fit through NDS? Russian docking ports? Or do those have to go through CBM?
Thanks.
-
Can the NORS Recharge Tank Assemblies fit through NDS? Russian docking ports? Or do those have to go through CBM?
Thanks.
I dunno, how big is it?
-
Can the NORS Recharge Tank Assemblies fit through NDS? Russian docking ports? Or do those have to go through CBM?
Thanks.
That would not fit through the docking tunnel. It's a pretty close clearance with the CBM as it is.
-
Hi all -
Short version: what times on Halloween night will ISS be in DAYLIGHT?
Long version:
I am hosting my annual telescope / moon viewing party for friends and neighbors next week. We do this every year, setting up multiple telescopes for people to look through, and one of the scopes is hooked to a video projector that throws the moon image up on the side of the house.
I also set up another projector showing some sort of space video. This year, I'd like to take the live video feed from ISS (either the old "Live ISS stream (http://www.ustream.tv/channel/live-iss-stream)" or the newer "HD Earth View (http://www.ustream.tv/channel/iss-hdev-payload)" camera) and project that as well.
However, the HDEV camera only shows video during the half-orbit that ISS is on the daylight side -- on the nighttime side, the video is black. I'd like to know WHEN those times will be, approximately, on the evening of October 31st, so I can display a schedule. That way, if someone sees black, they'll be able to see that they just need to wait X minutes until something appears.
I'm in the US Eastern timezone, but I can convert if you provide in GMT.
Bumping this up once, a day before my event, in the hope that someone can answer. Obviously I can monitor during Friday afternoon and get a rough estimate of the evening times, but I've already got my hands full ...
-
Hi all -
Short version: what times on Halloween night will ISS be in DAYLIGHT?
Long version:
I am hosting my annual telescope / moon viewing party for friends and neighbors next week. We do this every year, setting up multiple telescopes for people to look through, and one of the scopes is hooked to a video projector that throws the moon image up on the side of the house.
I also set up another projector showing some sort of space video. This year, I'd like to take the live video feed from ISS (either the old "Live ISS stream (http://www.ustream.tv/channel/live-iss-stream)" or the newer "HD Earth View (http://www.ustream.tv/channel/iss-hdev-payload)" camera) and project that as well.
However, the HDEV camera only shows video during the half-orbit that ISS is on the daylight side -- on the nighttime side, the video is black. I'd like to know WHEN those times will be, approximately, on the evening of October 31st, so I can display a schedule. That way, if someone sees black, they'll be able to see that they just need to wait X minutes until something appears.
I'm in the US Eastern timezone, but I can convert if you provide in GMT.
Bumping this up once, a day before my event, in the hope that someone can answer. Obviously I can monitor during Friday afternoon and get a rough estimate of the evening times, but I've already got my hands full ...
Do you have any satellite tracking software like Orbitron? Get it running, download the latest TLEs from sites like Celestrak, then runs it to your party time and see which side on the Earth is the ISS traveling. ;)
-
OK thanks. It also occurred to me to look for crew timelines for Friday. I recall seeing one that showed daytime / nighttime on it, although that might have been a shuttle mission timeline. I did some searching and didn't find it, just found this timeline which is a straight listing of crew tasks for the day. http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/103114_tl.pdf
-
I'm by no means an expert at this, but one possible method is using a program like Gpredict (http://gpredict.oz9aec.net/) to plot the future trajectory of the ISS. It will also give you predictions for spotting the ISS in the sky from your location, though Heavens Above (http://www.heavens-above.com/) is a lot simpler for doing just that. It would be cool to have your guests look up on the ISS while seeing it look down to them. Depending on your location, you may have a small chance at a good pass early in the evening.
Using Gpredict, the ISS should be in daylight:
5:05 to 6:19
6:39 to 7:53
8:11 to 9:26
9:45 to 10:59
These times are all EDT in the evening, assuming I converted correctly.
They are based on when Gpredict says the ISS visibility changes between being in daylight and being eclipsed, not when the ground beneath it is in day or night. I don't know what HDEV uses to switch the video, but hopefully these times give you a rough idea.
-
http://www.n2yo.com/
It shows the station overlaid on map of the earth. You can zoom out on the view and see daylight / nighttime layer.
-
Thanks guys. I'm not talking about seeing ISS from the ground, I'm talking about seeing the ground from ISS. Heavens-Above is great and I've been using it for about a decade, but they don't predict what I'm looking for.
N2YO does show what's happening now, and shows the predicted groundtrack for ONE orbit, but doesn't show times and doesn't go farther into the future.
I kept an eye on the HDEV stream for a couple hours last night, and have reverse engineered the day/night schedule for tonight, for both sun on orbit and sun on ground. I'm using an orbital time of 92.85 minutes which so far today has been dead on.
-
This thread:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35685.0
mentions a report in the first post, which says:
For example, the cost to procure a new Remote Power Controller Module is $2.2 million per unit...
A rpcm is essentially a high reliable space rated and computer controlled switch with some built in test, diagnosis, etc. It happens me to know that a specific space rated relais on the Ariane 5 costs 800$, so I will use a relais based rpcm (there are some with relais, some solid state). You can see one here:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-9/hires/iss009e10554.jpg
Aside from the relais all numbers are estimates (I believe not too optimistic and not too pessimistic):
My estimated cost for one rpcm:
cost($) | Item |
800 | Relais |
15000 | CPU-Card with bus logic |
5000 | PCB currentsensing, overcurrent protection |
4000 | PCB emc-filter |
5000 | Housing |
8000 | 10 days testing for this single unit, qualified person with 150000$/p.a. |
15000 | storage, overhead, management, logistics, ... |
5000 | assembly |
------------ | |
57.800 | sum |
Should be good enough for space rated parts, all metal machined from one block of aluminum alloy, highly reliable components, extensive qualification and burn in, etc. As there is a mass of this units on the ISS, I guess there might some discount on cpus, relais', etc.
Could someone explain me discrepancy between my estimated 57.800$ and the actual 2.200.000$ ?
It's not transportation cost, transportation cost is mentioned at a different point in the report. Even if you take a solid state rpcm, use another 5000$ for pcb, solid state switch, gate driver, ... it is still a huge difference, which I don't understand.
edit: And I'm quite sure, on top of the 2.2E6$ comes the development. Typically these projects always have separate unit costs and development costs.
-
It's not transportation cost, transportation cost is mentioned at a different point in the report. Even if you take a solid state rpcm, use another 5000$ for pcb, solid state switch, gate driver, ... it is still a huge difference, which I don't understand.
You forgot environmental testing and qual testing to ensure it works in a space environment for the planned duration.
-
You forgot environmental testing and qual testing to ensure it works in a space environment for the planned duration.
This would be development costs, not unit costs.
-
well, if one orders one more component / spare, it will have to be built from newly-acquired/built subcomponents, and thus the new batch will also need its own qual unit & qual testing & acceptance testing. Thats just one of the aspects of why space is so expensive.
-
well, if one orders one more component / spare, it will have to be built from newly-acquired/built subcomponents, and thus the new batch will also need its own qual unit & qual testing & acceptance testing.
For good reasons all components must be space qualified, all suppliers must be certified, their suppliers must be certified, and so on. The supplier itself e.g. will test destructively every n-th relais. For that reason the relais is 800$ and not 8$ (because of extensive testing, because of QA, because of certification, ...). Same goes for most of others components.
But the design qualification test is not repeated for every batch. There is extensive testing on each single unit (I guessed for a rpcm 10 days, so a batch of 20 would be close to one man year of testing), there is 100% testing of all units, there are even tests of subassemblies, etc., but not a design qualification test. This is only done if the design was changed or reality/experience doesn't match predictions, something went wrong,...
If it's part of the contract, every n-th rpcm will be tested destructively, e.g. till break down. So one could argue that I have to multiply my estimates by 11/10 (1 out of 11 tested nonreversibel). Still a long way till 2E6$.
-
well, if one orders one more component / spare, it will have to be built from newly-acquired/built subcomponents, and thus the new batch will also need its own qual unit & qual testing & acceptance testing.
For good reasons all components must be space qualified, all suppliers must be certified, their suppliers must be certified, and so on. The supplier itself e.g. will test destructively every n-th relais. For that reason the relais is 800$ and not 8$ (because of extensive testing, because of QA, because of certification, ...). Same goes for most of others components.
But the design qualification test is not repeated for every batch. There is extensive testing on each single unit (I guessed for a rpcm 10 days, so a batch of 20 would be close to one man year of testing), there is 100% testing of all units, there are even tests of subassemblies, etc., but not a design qualification test. This is only done if the design was changed or reality/experience doesn't match predictions, something went wrong,...
If it's part of the contract, every n-th rpcm will be tested destructively, e.g. till break down. So one could argue that I have to multiply my estimates by 11/10 (1 out of 11 tested nonreversibel). Still a long way till 2E6$.
FYI very few things for ISS have been destructively tested. Most items are tested to spec, no more. No test to failure.
-
I had a couple questions regarding the crew rotation for the up coming year long stay of two astronauts on the international space station. My first question is how will the crew members be rotated to and from the station As only two crew members are staying for the full year and that will leave a crew member that needs a ride back home. Since the soyuz only seats three crew members how will the fourth member be rotated to and from the station. I understand the third crew member will accompany the two astronauts into orbit, but how will he return home once his expedition is complete. I would doubt that the soyuz would be launched with only two crew members but i could be wrong. Could any one shed some light on this question? I have looked through the forums and haven't found a posting of how this will be accomplished, but i could be wrong and missed it. Any information would be greatly appreciated.
-
I had a couple questions regarding the crew rotation for the up coming year long stay of two astronauts on the international space station. My first question is how will the crew members be rotated to and from the station As only two crew members are staying for the full year and that will leave a crew member that needs a ride back home. Since the soyuz only seats three crew members how will the fourth member be rotated to and from the station. I understand the third crew member will accompany the two astronauts into orbit, but how will he return home once his expedition is complete. I would doubt that the soyuz would be launched with only two crew members but i could be wrong. Could any one shed some light on this question? I have looked through the forums and haven't found a posting of how this will be accomplished, but i could be wrong and missed it. Any information would be greatly appreciated.
Sarah Brightman and (if I recall right) one ESA astronaut will do a short ISS mission, returning with the one member of that crew that isn't staying for full year.
So, 3 go up on Soyuz
6 months later, 3 go up on Soyuz, two of them come down a week later or so, with one 6 month stay crewmember coming with them.
6 months later normal rotation, 3 go up, 3 come down, two of which were up for a full year.
-
I see S. Kelley and R M. Kornienko flying with R G. Padalka to the iss S. Kelley and R M. Kornienko stay for 342 days and R G. Padalka stays for 168 days i also see N K. Lindgren, J K. Yui and R O. Kononenko Fly to the station and then as you mentioned the short duration crew comes aboard R S. Volkov, S. Brightman and E A. Mogensen, with R S. Volkov staying for an additional 184 days. But before that happens the two short duration crew members and the third crew member from the expedition 40 returns with S. Brightman, E A. Mogensen and R G. Padalka allowing for the crew member that will complete a 6 month mission to return with S. Kelley and R M. Kornienko on completion of the year long mission with S. Kelley and R M. Kornienko who will then return to earth with R S. Volkov as the third crew member for the soyuz and then begins the normal rotation again. In simpler terms 3 go up then 3 more go up for expedition 41 then 3 more go up for the short duration mission, then 3 come down 1 being the third member of the expedition 40 crew who switches with R S. Volkov who then becomes the third member to come down with S. Kelley and R M. Kornienko to bring the station back to normal crew rotations. One of which stays on board for the remaining days to complete the year long mission. once that is complete those 3 return home and normal crew rotation come back into place. The normal rotation will start with expedition 43 with crew members N T. Kopra, E T. Peake and R Y. Malenchenko. Please let me know if this makes sense and is correct. Thank you for the quick response.
-
Its laid out graphically in the chart in the following post:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29401.msg1242557#msg1242557 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29401.msg1242557#msg1242557)
-
Correct that was the flight plan i was looking at before. I understand it now, I just didn't notice the switch of the third crew member from the short duration crew to the 6 month mission. Thank you though.
-
I'm not aware of any English language description of the ISS refueling system, but from what I remember people saying here I understand it does not vent pressurant gas as it is compressed and heated during transfer of propellant. Does anyone know what the design rationale for this is? Were the designers perhaps afraid of leaks, or was this just simpler?
-
I'm not aware of any English language description of the ISS refueling system, but from what I remember people saying here I understand it does not vent pressurant gas as it is compressed and heated during transfer of propellant. Does anyone know what the design rationale for this is? Were the designers perhaps afraid of leaks, or was this just simpler?
Why would a space station design the refueling system to vent compressed gases?
The system is designed to balance out the pressure difference between vehicles during the pumping process, ie Progress pumps prop while the pressure on its side is higher than on the station side. If gases were vented from Progress during this process, then Progress wouldn't be able to pump any further prop. If gases were vented from the station side to facilitate pumping, then how would the gases be replaced in the station propellent system? Those gases are required for situations where prop is moved from the station to Progress mid-thrusters.
-
Why would a space station design the refueling system to vent compressed gases?
I thought the lack of venting was a limiting factor in the flow rate and cycle time and required more pressure and thus heavier tanks on the Progress side.
If gases were vented from the station side to facilitate pumping, then how would the gases be replaced in the station propellent system? Those gases are required for situations where prop is moved from the station to Progress mid-thrusters.
Sure, it would mean the pressurant would have to be replaced as well with additional valves and complexity. I'm not saying this would be worth it, just trying to understand the design considerations.
-
dear community,
I wonder wether it has been documented so far that during spaceflight/zero gravity the activity of UCPs (uncoupling proteins) in skeletal muscles of astronauts is raised? I have not found any publication about that topic in the databases so far. A raised UCP activity would contribute to an energy deficit that is recognized by the brain as a kind of cellular starvation, which in turn allocates energy from the periphery. That leads to muscle degradation.
I came to this assumption just because I am currently writing an article about mitochondrial uncouplers and their connection to ALS, a disease that presents with muscular wasting.
Thus, an inhibition of uncouplers may slow down the progression of muscle wasting during spaceflight.
I apologize if this post is completely out of topic.
Best regards,
Michael Hoffmann,
Duesseldorf - Germany
-
I'm not aware of any such information, but that does not mean it's not out there. If it hasn't been studied, you should take it on. This is exactly what groups like CASIS are there to help with. I'm not sure what the European equivalent would be, but this sounds like a good idea for a science payload.
-
Correct that was the flight plan i was looking at before. I understand it now, I just didn't notice the switch of the third crew member from the short duration crew to the 6 month mission. Thank you though.
Sergey Alexandrovich Volkov was on station during STS-135.
Though on ISS FPIP he is listed at RA Volkov for the 10 day mission and then RS Volkov for the subsequent 155 day mission. Typo.
-
I recently learnt that some of the fragments floating around the ISS are paint peeling off, mainly from the Russian segments. This is mainly due to the effect of cosmic rays and thermal stress.
So, looking over the internet I found this (http://globalaviationreport.com/2014/02/02/russian-scientists-iss-skin-peeling-under-impact-of-cosmic-radiation/) article, but I would like to understand better the issue.
First, I guess paint main role is for thermal control. So, I wonder if this may have some impact on thermal management, specially after decades in space.
Moreover, those fragments looks like innocuous debris when seen from a Soyuz approaching, but they actually move at the ISS speed and their mass maybe more than a few grams. So, until they disintegrate into Earth atmosphere, shouldn't them be considered as debris endangering (http://www.spaceacademy.net.au/watch/debris/sdfacts.htm) other spacecrafts?
Is this a mainly ISS related issue or is it common to most spacecraft but just more detectable?
I was surprised I couldn't find many info or images about this problem over the internet. If someone got any please post them here - thanks.
-
I recently learnt that some of the fragments floating around the ISS are paint peeling off, mainly from the Russian segments. This is mainly due to the effect of cosmic rays and thermal stress.
So, looking over the internet I found this (http://globalaviationreport.com/2014/02/02/russian-scientists-iss-skin-peeling-under-impact-of-cosmic-radiation/) article, but I would like to understand better the issue.
First, I guess paint main role is for thermal control. So, I wonder if this may have some impact on thermal management, specially after decades in space.
Moreover, those fragments looks like innocuous debris when seen from a Soyuz approaching, but they actually move at the ISS speed and their mass maybe more than a few grams. So, until they disintegrate into Earth atmosphere, shouldn't them be considered as debris endangering (http://www.spaceacademy.net.au/watch/debris/sdfacts.htm) other spacecrafts?
Is this a mainly ISS related issue or is it common to most spacecraft but just more detectable?
I was surprised I couldn't find many info or images about this problem over the internet. If someone got any please post them here - thanks.
You are correct that this is a serious problem and something that the flight control teams take very seriously. If the debris is observed floating away the flight control team will do their best to identify and track it. Stuff like paint or thermal insulation generally can't be tracked but fortunately has a very high drag coefficient and will quickly leave the vicinity of the ISS. Vehicles have some forward shielding to help with this sort of debris on rendezvous but generally there is always some risk. The main defense is that space is big, the spacecraft small and therefore the odds low. As to other spacecraft (e.g., satellites) they fortunately tend to be at higher altitudes. In fact, they are often the source of debris that comes down to the ISS orbit. But all spacecraft are routinely being hit and pitted by small debris. Debris that is large enough to track - then the vehicles/spacecraft move out of the way if possible.
-
I read today's article on Dragon berthing, and noticed this
With the ISS’ thrusters inhibited and Dragon confirmed to be in free drift, the arm’s LEE was translated over the Grapple Fixture (GF) pin on Dragon to trigger the capture sequence ahead of pre-berthing.[/size]
...
Desats were inhibited prior to the translation of the Dragon into Common Berthing Module (CBM) interface to begin the securing of the spacecraft to the ISS.[/size]
I googled it, and sure enough, found an old thread on this forum that discusses the point.
I think the question is, if the thrusters are already inhibited, isn't it true that no desats could be accomplished anyway, thus what is the second step of inhibiting desats doing?
Ah, I see.
Well, there are two scenarios there:
1) Inhibiting thrusters doesn't inhibit firings during desats, in which case inhibiting desats is needed in order to prevent those firings occurring.
2) Inhibiting thrusters does inhibit firings during desats, which means that if a desat were not inhibited and occurred during a capture event, the torque generated by the desat would suddenly cause ISS to change attitude, with no thruster burn to correct it.
So, both ways leas to attitude changes when you don't want it - so even though I don't know which scenario is the case, both explain the need for desat inhibits.
So...desaturation is carried out by different thrusters than the ones that are referred to in the beginning?
-
Hello,
This is my first post in this fora.
I have a question about the one year crews molded soyuz seats. To my understandning it is very important that the seats is perfectly molded to the astronauts body, I guess mostly when it comes to landing.
The one year crew Scott Kelly and Mikhail Kornienko will fly up with 42s TMA-16M but will fly back in 44s TMA-18M (and vice versa for Andreas Mogensen and Sarah Brightman).
So what will they do with the molded seats, will they exchange them between the soyuz's ?
I have searched around for info on this topic, but haven't been able to find anything about it.
Hope some of you can enlighten me.
/BDuelund
-
Hello,
This is my first post in this fora.
I have a question about the one year crews molded soyuz seats. To my understandning it is very important that the seats is perfectly molded to the astronauts body, I guess mostly when it comes to landing.
The one year crew Scott Kelly and Mikhail Kornienko will fly up with 42s TMA-16M but will fly back in 44s TMA-18M (and vice versa for Andreas Mogensen and Sarah Brightman).
So what will they do with the molded seats, will they exchange them between the soyuz's ?
I have searched around for info on this topic, but haven't been able to find anything about it.
Hope some of you can enlighten me.
/BDuelund
They will shuffle the seat liners around on orbit. They've done this in the past with, for example, crew arriving on shuttle and departing via soyuz (and vice versa).
-
They will shuffle the seat liners around on orbit. They've done this in the past with, for example, crew arriving on shuttle and departing via soyuz (and vice versa).
Thank you for the info. Thought it was so, but couldn't find it anywhere.
/BDuelund
-
During the 10 day soyuz exchange, there will be 9 people on board iss, have there ever been so many at the same time ?
/BDuelund
-
During the 10 day soyuz exchange, there will be 9 people on board iss, have there ever been so many at the same time ?
/BDuelund
-
Nice :-)
Thanks!
-
I read today's article on Dragon berthing, and noticed this
With the ISS thrusters inhibited and Dragon confirmed to be in free drift, the arms LEE was translated over the Grapple Fixture (GF) pin on Dragon to trigger the capture sequence ahead of pre-berthing.[/size]
...
Desats were inhibited prior to the translation of the Dragon into Common Berthing Module (CBM) interface to begin the securing of the spacecraft to the ISS.[/size]
I googled it, and sure enough, found an old thread on this forum that discusses the point.
I think the question is, if the thrusters are already inhibited, isn't it true that no desats could be accomplished anyway, thus what is the second step of inhibiting desats doing?
Ah, I see.
Well, there are two scenarios there:
1) Inhibiting thrusters doesn't inhibit firings during desats, in which case inhibiting desats is needed in order to prevent those firings occurring.
2) Inhibiting thrusters does inhibit firings during desats, which means that if a desat were not inhibited and occurred during a capture event, the torque generated by the desat would suddenly cause ISS to change attitude, with no thruster burn to correct it.
So, both ways leas to attitude changes when you don't want it - so even though I don't know which scenario is the case, both explain the need for desat inhibits.
So...desaturation is carried out by different thrusters than the ones that are referred to in the beginning?
Not well writen - when thrusters are inhibits desats are also inhibited.
-
Question about when Expedition numbers changes.
Do the Exp. number change when a crew is flying home ?
Current expedition number is 42, will it change to 43 at March 12 when Wilmore, Samokutyayev and Serova fly home ?
And then be 43 until May 14 when Virts, Shkaplerov and Cristoforetti fly home.
Or do they follow another scheme ?
/BDuelund
-
Question about when Expedition numbers changes.
Do the Exp. number change when a crew is flying home ?
Current expedition number is 42, will it change to 43 at March 12 when Wilmore, Samokutyayev and Serova fly home ?
And then be 43 until May 14 when Virts, Shkaplerov and Cristoforetti fly home.
Or do they follow another scheme ?
/BDuelund
I think you've got it basically right. My understanding is that the new expedition begins when the departing Soyuz undocks; look at the FPIP charts in the forum.
I've seen them do a little transfer of command ceremony on NASA TV, but I think they technically change the expedition number on departure.
When USCV comes online in a few years I guess it will be pretty much the same, with the new expedition beginning when the previous expedition commander undocks.
I'm assuming there's a real precise answer to this question written down somewhere.
-
As of right now, with Soyuz being the one and only crew turnover vehicle, change of command occurs when the Soyuz seat liners are swapped out to the new command/abandon configuration. This usually happens a few days before undocking and crew return.
This was even the case back when STS did crew turnover missions. Since Soyuz has always been the only emergency return vehicle, and will continue in that role up until the US crew vehicles stand station (so to speak) for full increments, even when ISS crew came up to the station on Shuttle they brought their Soyuz seat liners up with them.
Since, AFAIK, the US crew vehicles won't have personalized seat liners, a new benchmark point will probably have to be invented for change of command/increment. It will also be interesting to see which crewmembers even have Soyuz seat liners on-station. Some crew would be designated for emergency return on the US crew vehicle(s), but depending on where you are when an emergency happens, lack of seat liners for some of the crew could result in some people forced to abandon station on a Soyuz without their own seat liner.
Fortunately, I'm assuming neither CST-100 or Dragon will have the same restriction -- if you can get to one of those, it won't matter whether or not it's your own designated emergency vehicle.
-
What determines the design of MMOD on the station? I know different areas need different levels of protection, but I'm referring to the design used. (i.e. the design is different for JEM than say, Columbus/Node2/Node3/Node1 or Destiny) With this in mind, what would the design have been for canceled modules like the Hab module or the CAM?
Would they have been the same as the other modules by their manufacturers; CAM looking like JEM and Hab looking like Destiny?
-
As of right now, with Soyuz being the one and only crew turnover vehicle, change of command occurs when the Soyuz seat liners are swapped out to the new command/abandon configuration. This usually happens a few days before undocking and crew return.
There is no more seat swap out, since each crew member lands in the same Soyuz he was launched in.
-
What determines the design of MMOD on the station? I know different areas need different levels of protection, but I'm referring to the design used. (i.e. the design is different for JEM than say, Columbus/Node2/Node3/Node1 or Destiny) With this in mind, what would the design have been for canceled modules like the Hab module or the CAM?
Would they have been the same as the other modules by their manufacturers; CAM looking like JEM and Hab looking like Destiny?
For the most part, most of the differences can be boiled down to the fact that the modules were designed and manufactured by different teams. To a certain extent, the modules do experience different exposure risks, which are dependent on the module configuration. This likely informed some of the design trades that were made.
-
Days ago I posted a video (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35623.msg1325103#msg1325103) about a screw lost at the ISS.
I imagine it may have serious consequences up there: blocked fans, short circuits, pinched gaskets or appliances, etc.
I would like to know from people aware about ISS procedures and policies how these kind of situations are dealt with routinely. Thanks.
-
I imagine it may have serious consequences up there: blocked fans, short circuits, pinched gaskets or appliances, etc.
I would like to know from people aware about ISS procedures and policies how these kind of situations are dealt with routinely. Thanks.
It happens all the time. The crew will look for it on the air return filters.
-
I imagine it may have serious consequences up there: blocked fans, short circuits, pinched gaskets or appliances, etc.
I would like to know from people aware about ISS procedures and policies how these kind of situations are dealt with routinely. Thanks.
It happens all the time. The crew will look for it on the air return filters.
Ok, thanks.
-
I imagine it may have serious consequences up there: blocked fans, short circuits, pinched gaskets or appliances, etc.
I would like to know from people aware about ISS procedures and policies how these kind of situations are dealt with routinely. Thanks.
It happens all the time. The crew will look for it on the air return filters.
Ok, thanks.
Aboard Skylab, the crews sometimes used the big air return screens at the top of the workshop as an impromptu workbench. The airflow would help objects hold still.
Also, the screens were the place where lost items could often be found.
-
As of right now, with Soyuz being the one and only crew turnover vehicle, change of command occurs when the Soyuz seat liners are swapped out to the new command/abandon configuration. This usually happens a few days before undocking and crew return.
There is no more seat swap out, since each crew member lands in the same Soyuz he was launched in.
Except for the coming one year crew (Kelly and Kornienko) and those who replace their Soyuz (Mogensen and Brightman).
-
What determines the design of MMOD on the station? I know different areas need different levels of protection, but I'm referring to the design used. (i.e. the design is different for JEM than say, Columbus/Node2/Node3/Node1 or Destiny) With this in mind, what would the design have been for canceled modules like the Hab module or the CAM?
Would they have been the same as the other modules by their manufacturers; CAM looking like JEM and Hab looking like Destiny?
On the USOS they all use the same spec. All the forward facing sides of the modules (based on LVLH -X flying which is the majority) will have extra protection, though there is still debris coming from all directions. RS has not met the requriements for many of the modules. Some modules that are forward facing (parts of FGB and SM) have add additional debris panels added via EVA). Not sure where the RS stands but don't think all of the forward facing areas are fully protected.
-
Fortunately, I'm assuming neither CST-100 or Dragon will have the same restriction -- if you can get to one of those, it won't matter whether or not it's your own designated emergency vehicle.
Not a valid assumption - concept of operations will always have a crew go together. We do not, and will not have, if you get to a vehicle that si good enough. Stay as a team.
-
EVA-30 still scheduled for Wed Feb 25 Am EST?
-
U
EVA-30 still scheduled for Wed Feb 25 Am EST?
Until otherwise noted...
-
UEVA-30 still scheduled for Wed Feb 25 Am EST?
Until otherwise noted...
Thank you Sir!
-
After the incident during today's EVA and in light of past spacesuit water leaks, the question came up on another forum of what the procedure would be if there were a fatality on board the ISS. I can find answers for most past programs, but not for the ISS. Any ideas, or is this an L2 question?
-
ALL,
I'm looking for anyone with specific knowledge of ECLSS systems. For example, I would be interested in communicating with someone who has a working knowledge of materials used in or on the CDRA, Urine recycling, water purification, Hydrogen/Oxygen production, Thermal controls, Valve control systems, etc. I have a pretty good working knowledge of most of the systems, but...I do not have direct access to materials used in these systems onboard the ISS. I'm not looking for a bunch of "free-bee" answers -- Just some "off line" COMM with folks who actually work on ECLSS systems.
If you're my Guy, or Gal -- hit me up and we can chat. Thanks
-
Following Exp-44 commander Gennady Padalka's return to Earth in September, the next 4 increments will be commanded by the U.S. [Kelly (twice), Kopra and Williams].
Is there a reason for that?
Thanks.
-
Hi!
I'm writing a science-fiction book, and one of the subplots deals with a fire on the ISS.
My first question is: How quickly could the astronauts evacuate into a Soyuz?
The current scenario happens in 2011. There is a fire in MRM1. There is a Soyuz docked to the service module (Zvezda). How quickly could three of the astronauts get into that Soyuz and undock?
Many thanks!
Al
-
I'm writing a sci-fi book that will involve the ISS. I'd like to get a good feeling for the conventions that are used in transmissions between the ground and the ISS.
I know I can listen live, but I'd like to have some recorded transmissions that I can listen to.
Something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RllFH-hzcYw
But without the commentary on top of it.
Thanks,
Al
-
One place to look would be this (http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=1&id=1&Itemid=65) Nasa multimedia archive, maintained (I assume) by John44 on these forums. It mostly covers the major events. The EVA's would probably be the best place to look for lots of talking with little commentary.
-
There is also this thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19337.0
-
Excellent, thanks, guys.
I guess I have to search through to find actual conversations. The color commentary is interesting, but not what I'm looking for.
I'll post the scene when I get it done, and you can tell me what I've got wrong.
-
For a book I'm writing, I want to get the dialogue right for conversations between Houston and the ISS. I've been listening to transmissions, but I still have some questions:
1. Sometimes there are beeps between transmissions, other times not. Does that mean anything?
2. Are there strict protocols, or is there some latitude in conventions?
3. It seems that a conversation started by Houston usually starts like this: "Station. Houston on two for Terry. Blah blah." After that, it's just normal conversation as between two people. Right?
4. Is "roger" ever used? Instead I usually hear "copy" or "affirm" or "affirmative."
5. Are first names always used?
6. How would this work: Houston is talking with Bob and then Steve has an urgent message. Would it work like this:
"Station. Houston on two to Bob. Affirmative. You are go to remove the USB cable."
"Copy. Will Do."
"Houston, this is Steve. I'm showing an ammonia alarm in Destiny sensor four. Do you see that?"
Thanks,
Al
-
What I'm doing now is listening here:
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/iss_ustream.html#.VTuiVZONBS0
and I set Audacity to record with voice-activated recording, then I'll come back later to review.
-
https://archive.org/details/spacestationaudiocollection
-
Here's the direct link to the current Expedition. The "Space-to-grounds" is what you want.
https://archive.org/download/Expedition43
-
For a book I'm writing, I want to get the dialogue right for conversations between Houston and the ISS. I've been listening to transmissions, but I still have some questions:
1. Sometimes there are beeps between transmissions, other times not. Does that mean anything?
2. Are there strict protocols, or is there some latitude in conventions?
3. It seems that a conversation started by Houston usually starts like this: "Station. Houston on two for Terry. Blah blah." After that, it's just normal conversation as between two people. Right?
4. Is "roger" ever used? Instead I usually hear "copy" or "affirm" or "affirmative."
5. Are first names always used?
6. How would this work: Houston is talking with Bob and then Steve has an urgent message. Would it work like this:
"Station. Houston on two to Bob. Affirmative. You are go to remove the USB cable."
"Copy. Will Do."
"Houston, this is Steve. I'm showing an ammonia alarm in Destiny sensor four. Do you see that?"
Thanks,
Al
Well since I suspect people have the same questions....
1. That is a quindar. When a person on the ground keys their mic it makes that noise so the ground knows the signal is going up.
2. yes, there are protocols and people get training on how to talk on the loops. Some training is to help ensure the information is accurate and clear and some is to make sure you don't say inappropriate things.
3. Protocol is <person being called> <who is calling> <on shat space-to-ground loop> <who> and maybe <subject>. This is the exact same protocol the flight use in MCC. Once you have the conversation going you don't need to repeat that. Now the astronauts get the luxury of reserved loops - the flight controllers often share loops so you may have multiple conversations going on.
4. Yes, roger, copy, affirmative and wilco are all used.
5. First names or nicknames.
6. Yeah, that would work without the steve (we can usually tell by the voice and you don't need to say, especially in something critical). If you need to interrupt some one you always say "break break"
-
Here's a question -- suppose you have one crewperson in, say, Node 1 (call him Bob) and another on the far side of Destiny (call her Jill). Bob in the node is asking a question about a stowage issue on the space-to-ground one (I'll call it StG1) loop, and Jill in the lab has a question about a reading on a rack where she is. She's far enough away from Bob that she's not aware he is talking with the ground right then.
Does Jill in the lab see (or hear) that Bob in the node is using StG1 and have the option to use StG2, for example? Or does she just barge in, with no idea she should begin with a "break break" interruption notice?
I guess I am thinking that the comm loops would act like the old-fashioned home phone, and you wouldn't know someone else is using the line until you pick up the phone. Is that right, or does each comm station on the ISS blare out both ends of whatever conversation is occurring on the loop to which it's set?
-
Here's a question -- suppose you have one crewperson in, say, Node 1 (call him Bob) and another on the far side of Destiny (call her Jill). Bob in the node is asking a question about a stowage issue on the space-to-ground one (I'll call it StG1) loop, and Jill in the lab has a question about a reading on a rack where she is. She's far enough away from Bob that she's not aware he is talking with the ground right then.
Does Jill in the lab see (or hear) that Bob in the node is using StG1 and have the option to use StG2, for example? Or does she just barge in, with no idea she should begin with a "break break" interruption notice?
I guess I am thinking that the comm loops would act like the old-fashioned home phone, and you wouldn't know someone else is using the line until you pick up the phone. Is that right, or does each comm station on the ISS blare out both ends of whatever conversation is occurring on the loop to which it's set?
Right now we have 4 Space-to-Ground loops, creatively called S/G-1, 2, 3, 4 though 3 & 4 are only when we have Ku-band coverage. We generally reserve loops for specific conversations. For example, S/G-1 goes all the way into the Russian segment so it is the whole ship comm loop. S/G-2 tends to be for general stuff in the USOS. Loops 3 and 4 are usually dedicated to either family conferences or say Joe running experiment X will use one of those loops to focus on that conversation. But yes, people can step on each other. it is a little bit like a party line if you know the term. Usually the astronauts will have the loops punched up on the ATU so they will know if there is a conversation going but now and then someone will step on someone else. And if something becomes more detailed we may say "lets move over to S/G-X".
-
Let's say there were only two astronauts on the ISS. Would they be able to suit one another up in prep for an EVA?
I'm guessing that if one astronaut were in the EVA suit, he/she wouldn't have the dexterity needed to finish suiting up the other.
If the answer is no, what modifications to a suit might make it possible?
Thanks,
Al
-
Using the Orlan suits? Or do they need a third cosmonaut to be donned as well?
-
Let's say there were only two astronauts on the ISS. Would they be able to suit one another up in prep for an EVA?
I'm guessing that if one astronaut were in the EVA suit, he/she wouldn't have the dexterity needed to finish suiting up the other.
If the answer is no, what modifications to a suit might make it possible?
Thanks,
Al
Yes. That was done when the shuttle flights were grounded . There are pics of expedition six testing this before the two men expeditions started.
-
Silly question, but why wasn't PMM relocated to Node 3 Port? Wouldn't that have allowed Node 3 aft to be used for VV, too?
-
Silly question, but why wasn't PMM relocated to Node 3 Port? Wouldn't that have allowed Node 3 aft to be used for VV, too?
Node 3 Port has clearance issues with the rotating P1 Truss radiators. PMA-3 only just fits there.
Node 3 Aft was determined not to be usable for VVs due to clearance issues and robotics access, and that was before the FGB array issue was discovered.
-
When visiting vehicles depart, do they always perform a retrograde burn and then wait until that gets them down the radial vector and then do a second retrograde burn? (I'm pretty sure I've seen diagrams showing that, but is it only for some vehicles?)
-
Accidental firing of Soyuz engines? Has this ever happened before?
http://rt.com/news/266146-soyuz-iss-thrusters-misfire/
-
Accidental firing of Soyuz engines? Has this ever happened before?
http://rt.com/news/266146-soyuz-iss-thrusters-misfire/
According to CSA astronaut Chris Hadfield, it happened on Exp. 7: https://twitter.com/Cmdr_Hadfield/status/608400777254739968
-
Accidental firing of Soyuz engines? Has this ever happened before?
http://rt.com/news/266146-soyuz-iss-thrusters-misfire/
According to CSA astronaut Chris Hadfield, it happened on Exp. 7: https://twitter.com/Cmdr_Hadfield/status/608400777254739968
Here is a reported incident from Sep 2003 (during Exp 7) where the attached Progress fired its thrusters early and the ISS gyros tried to counter the motion caused by the unexpected firing.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=1PAeAAAAIBAJ&sjid=A4QEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3757%2C4318302
-
When visiting vehicles depart, do they always perform a retrograde burn and then wait until that gets them down the radial vector and then do a second retrograde burn? (I'm pretty sure I've seen diagrams showing that, but is it only for some vehicles?)
Yes, they need to back away a required minimum distance before performing any large burns or extended thruster firings. The primary concern is the engine nozzle exhaust plume tends to hang around the station and can have some nasty effects.
Jim
-
Where do ESA astronauts do their postflight rehabilitation?
According to her twitter, Samantha Cristoforetti flew directly to Houston on the NASA private jet. Alexander Gerst stayed in Europe after the flight. Why the difference? Or is it a personal choice of every crewmember?
-
Sorry dumb question but .. how exactly does water re-supply happen on USOS right now ? Is it just transfer of resupply CWC bladders from the ATV/HTVs ? I've quickly skimmed this and a couple other docs and i don't feel much wiser:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110012703.pdf
There is plenty written about all the recycling systems, but how the replenishment / restocking actually happens is not so obviously called out often. IIRC neither Dragon or Cygnus ever carried any water up, although Cygnus was cleared to do so.
Progress just pumps its water over, correct ?
-
Sorry dumb question but .. how exactly does water re-supply happen on USOS right now ? Is it just transfer of resupply CWC bladders from the ATV/HTVs ? I've quickly skimmed this and a couple other docs and i don't feel much wiser:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110012703.pdf
There is plenty written about all the recycling systems, but how the replenishment / restocking actually happens is not so obviously called out often. IIRC neither Dragon or Cygnus ever carried any water up, although Cygnus was cleared to do so.
Progress just pumps its water over, correct ?
Water either goes up in Progress (was also ATV) in RODNIK tanks and transferred to the RS (and then filled with urine) or using CWCs via US cargo vehicles.
-
This is about the Kibo Exposed Facility.
It appears that the SEDA-AP has been moved from EFU9 to EFU 11. Can anybody confirm this? If so, when did it happen?
I cannot find any reference about this anywhere.
I know this is in preparation for the CALET payload coming soon.
Thanks.
-
This is about the Kibo Exposed Facility.
It appears that the SEDA-AP has been moved from EFU9 to EFU 11. Can anybody confirm this? If so, when did it happen?
I cannot find any reference about this anywhere.
I know this is in preparation for the CALET payload coming soon.
Thanks.
Can someone answer this please?
Thanks
-
This is about the Kibo Exposed Facility.
It appears that the SEDA-AP has been moved from EFU9 to EFU 11. Can anybody confirm this? If so, when did it happen?
I cannot find any reference about this anywhere.
I know this is in preparation for the CALET payload coming soon.
Thanks.
Can someone answer this please?
Thanks
Answer in the Exp. 44 updates thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37011.msg1410958#msg1410958
-
Thanks DaveS
-
Are there any MFDs aboard ISS?, if so where, and what are they used for? Source docs or links would be helpful...
Thanks in advance.
-
Are there any MFDs aboard ISS?, if so where, and what are they used for? Source docs or links would be helpful...
Thanks in advance.
You mean Multi Function Displays? There are none, the ISS uses laptops for crew interface.
-
Fair enough, easy to replace, easy to update, portable. Thanks Jim for confirming my suspicion.
-
So, here's a corrected version of your table:
Name | Power | Data | Video |
PDGF | Yes | Yes | Yes |
EFGF | Yes | Yes | Yes |
PVGF | Yes | No | Yes |
FRGF | No | No | No |
Are you sure that's correct? Slide 21 of this document (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140008717.pdf) is claiming PVGF allows data transfer. Plus doesn't it use the same electrical connections as the PDGF?
-
What happens if SSRMS cannot be fixed? Are there backups for Cygnus and Dragon berthing?
- Ed Kyle
-
What happens if SSRMS cannot be fixed? Are there backups for Cygnus and Dragon berthing?
- Ed Kyle
Based on the data available that the one of the CETA carts have its brakes engaged, the offending CETA cart can be decoupled from the MT/MBS and then the MT/MBS with the SSRMS can be translated freely to the nearest W/S. That will then enable use of the SSRMS as usual.
-
What is driving the urgency of getting the MT free, thus the short notice EVA? Is it electrical (i.e. life) support to the SSRMS?
-
What is driving the urgency of getting the MT free, thus the short notice EVA? Is it electrical (i.e. life) support to the SSRMS?
The MT normally spends its time latched down to a worksite, which provides reinforced structure and electrical connections. Latching to a worksite allows the MT to clamp down to substantially thicker portions of the rails and gets its mass off the wheels and suspension that allow it to drive across the truss.
When it is not on a worksite, the MT's loads are reacted by much thinner structure on the rails, and all of its power is delivered by the TUS (trailing umbilical system), which can't deliver as much power and is more vulnerable to damage than the heavily shielded permanent cables that power the worksite umbilicals.
Aside from the power issue, the MT, together with the MBS that it carries around, weigh about as much as a small car. If the ISS is going to do anything even moderately dynamic, you're gonna want that thing clamped down onto some sturdy structure, not floating around, held only to relatively thin rails by wheels attached to a springloaded suspension. This means that things like docking, undocking, attitude changes (especially via thruster firings), reboosts, and debris avoidance maneuvers are highly unsavory, carrying risk of damaging the MT suspension components or even the rails, which are integral parts of the truss structure.
Needless to say, they really want this thing latched back down on a worksite as soon as possible.
-
How many US spacesuits are currently on the ISS? How many flight qualified suits are on the ground?
-
How many US spacesuits are currently on the ISS? How many flight qualified suits are on the ground?
EMU spacesuits consist of parts - HUT, PLSS, LTA etc. which replace from time to time, so it is difficult to count spacesuits. If we will count spacesuits using PLSS, then:
On board ISS
3003, 3005, 3008, 3010, 3011
On Earth
3004, 3006, 3009, 3013, 3015, 3018
-
Thanks Anik. Are new EMU's being produced? If so, at what rates?
-
Are new EMU's being produced?
No, the last PLSS 3018 was produced in 2000-2001 (if I remember correctly).
-
This might be a dumb question, but one never knows...
Are these same series of EMUs used in MBL, or are there special versions with different serial numbers?
-
Are these same series of EMUs used in MBL, or are there special versions with different serial numbers?
Different.
-
Does anyone have any idea what modules these are in the background of this image?
Cygnus is in the front of the image on the right being prepped for it's March launch (BTW, I saw it heading south on I-95 the other day towards KSC in its road carrier. That was neat.).
The other unlaunched modules have been there for years, and you could see them when the Kennedy video feed used to show this room.
-
Does anyone have any idea what modules these are in the background of this image?
Cygnus is in the front of the image on the right being prepped for it's March launch (BTW, I saw it heading south on I-95 the other day towards KSC in its road carrier. That was neat.).
The other unlaunched modules have been there for years, and you could see them when the Kennedy video feed used to show this room.
I believe the other modules in the SSPF are Rafaello (as shown on the banner to the left of Cygnus), Donatello, and the Node STA.
-
Does anyone have any idea what modules these are in the background of this image?
Cygnus is in the front of the image on the right being prepped for it's March launch (BTW, I saw it heading south on I-95 the other day towards KSC in its road carrier. That was neat.).
The other unlaunched modules have been there for years, and you could see them when the Kennedy video feed used to show this room.
I believe the other modules in the SSPF are Rafaello (as shown on the banner to the left of Cygnus), Donatello, and the Node STA.
ELC -5 a bunch of shuttle hardware and Spacehab ULC's and such in various areas of SSPF
-
This is my list of SSPF hardware, although some of this may have been removed now (and other items added):
. MPLM FM-2 "Raffaello"
-Last flew on STS-135
. MPLM FM-3 "Donatello"
-Never flew in space
. Node 1 STA (Structural Test Article)
-Was evaluated for use as ISS Node 4, or a deep-space platform
. ELC-5 (ExPrESS Logistics Carrier)
-External stowage platform for ISS, never flew
. x2 SLP (Space Lab Pallet)
-Used to hold unpressurised cargo in the Shuttle payload bay
. x2 LMC (Lightweight MPESS Carrier)
-Used to hold unpressurised cargo in the Shuttle payload bay
. x2 external airlocks + connecting tunnels
-Shuttle airlocks, considered for use in future deep space platform based on Node 1 STA
. x3 ODS (Orbiter Docking System)
-Shuttle APAS docking systems, considered for use in other vehicles, however will be incompatible with future ISS IDA SIMAC docking system
. Numerous RSR (Resupply Stowage Rack) and RSP (Resupply Stowage Platform)
-Stowage racks used for MPLM flights to ISS, still usable for future vehicles
-
So, here's a corrected version of your table:
Name | Power | Data | Video |
PDGF | Yes | Yes | Yes |
EFGF | Yes | Yes | Yes |
PVGF | Yes | No | Yes |
FRGF | No | No | No |
Are you sure that's correct? Slide 21 of this document (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140008717.pdf) is claiming PVGF allows data transfer. Plus doesn't it use the same electrical connections as the PDGF?
Sorry, I've only just noticed that I never replied to this.
My understanding is that PVGF data connections are only sufficient for offering payload insight, but are not sufficient to provide commanding to the SSRMS, hence why PVGFs cannot be used as SSRMS base points.
The pinning on the connectors hidden behind the hinged doors is the same I believe on both the PVGF and PDGF, however that doesn't necessarily mean that the fixtures both have the same data capabilities.
There is a PVGF on Node 3 Zenith that can serve as a storage location for the SPDM, but I don't think the SPDM could be commanded from that location.
I always assumed that having "video" in the name implied a lack of data (since data includes video), but after reading that slide I'm not so sure now. Any ROBO experts on here? ;)
-
Has a FRAM ever failed? Have the contingency mounting pins ever been used?
-
I watched Tim Peake's video made during the progress re-boost last week. And I noticed that the Galley equipment is stil in EX(press rack)-6. Was there some trouble with the Galley rack delivered during HTV-5 {at Node 1 Port}?
Or does the relocation work still have to take place, and was it postponed because of new equipment being delayed by the three launch failures?
-
I watched Tim Peake's video made during the progress re-boost last week. And I noticed that the Galley equipment is stil in EX(press rack)-6. Was there some trouble with the Galley rack delivered during HTV-5 {at Node 1 Port}?
Or does the relocation work still have to take place, and was it postponed because of new equipment being delayed by the three launch failures?
Yep, the galley rack is still installed in LAB1O4. It, along with some other ISS reconfig tasks have been deferred due to the delays caused by the loss of IDA 1 and associated hardware last year.
-
From this morning's SpaceX CRS-8 rendezvous thread (thanks ugordon):
Space station now in free-drift was called on radio.
ugordon then quotes from someone on Twitter who bills himself as a "NASA flight controller for the International Space Station. BS in Aerospace Eng from ERAU. Specialist in guidance system operations."
https://twitter.com/spaceguy87/status/719123354511286273
To clarify one more time: ISS never goes free drift at all. Only Dragon does.
And a couple more replies:
ISS Updates @ISS101
@spaceguy87 NASA TV keeps reporting free drift on every VV arrival...
Ben Honey @spaceguy87
@ISS101 I think I'll go talk to them next week.
So, to clarify the above, an ISS flight controller is saying that the ISS never goes into free drift. THAT is a surprise to me. Anyone want to explain?
-
Attitude hold is I believe what ISS does during capture ops.
-
So, to clarify the above, an ISS flight controller is saying that the ISS never goes into free drift. THAT is a surprise to me. Anyone want to explain?
Turns out that @spaceguy87 had tweeted about the ADCO procedure before the "erroneous" call out, in the run up to the docking. Follow the conversation chain from this tweet on: https://twitter.com/spaceguy87/status/719120795448946688 (and, because Twitter branched the conversation, this one too: https://twitter.com/spaceguy87/status/719161988366995456?replies_view=true&cursor=AFCU0hT6-gk)
TL;DR - ISS is hardly ever in free-drift (unless you count the times when a VV performs a boost (or even an attitude adjustment?) using its thrusters (He mentions Soyuz/Progress and Shuttle, but you'd think ATV and HTV(?) too). What they do prior to a docking/capture is attitude hold via CMGs. What the pick, however is also determined by the configuration in the moments right up until the docking. If they're on thruster control (and there's not enough time to spin up the CMGs, and calibrate that platform, I assume) then they transition to free drift. If they're on CMGs, then they enter in a thruster-inhibited attitude hold (No desaturation firings).
They prefer CMG attitude hold (with thrusters inhibited) because it cuts out impulse loads on interfacing structures (before a hard mate), since CMG corrections, are presumably slower rate corrections.
-
Based on this shot (http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/iss041e033462.jpg) from the Cupola, where Dragon is berthed to Node 2 Nadir, and this shot (http://blogs.esa.int/tim-peake/files/2016/02/122F3203.jpg) of Cygnus at Node 1 Nadir, will it likely be possible for the station crew to get a good photo from the Cupola of both visiting vehicles berthed to station? Will both vehicles be able to be in a photo together without using a super-wide angle lens?
-
I suspect the only way we'll get a Cupola photo of Dragon & Cygnus together is via the wide-angle lens. Alternatively, they could take multiple photos while panning the camera around and then stitch them together via software. Either way, I really hope the crew take such a photo - and that the PAO then releases it.
-
I suspect the only way we'll get a Cupola photo of Dragon & Cygnus together is via the wide-angle lens. Alternatively, they could take multiple photos while panning the camera around and then stitch them together via software. Either way, I really hope the crew take such a photo - and that the PAO then releases it.
It seems to be (barely) possible... Tim Peake tweeted this photo of dragon and cygnus about 5h ago.
-
I've seen different numbers like 9.2, 9.4, or 9.5 km/s for delta-v to a generic LEO. But what is the delta-v needed to get to the ISS from KSC?
And is it much different to get there from Baikonur or the ESA launch site in French Guiana?
-
So, here's a corrected version of your table:
Name | Power | Data | Video |
PDGF | Yes | Yes | Yes |
EFGF | Yes | Yes | Yes |
PVGF | Yes | No | Yes |
FRGF | No | No | No |
Are you sure that's correct? Slide 21 of this document (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140008717.pdf) is claiming PVGF allows data transfer. Plus doesn't it use the same electrical connections as the PDGF?
Sorry, I've only just noticed that I never replied to this.
My understanding is that PVGF data connections are only sufficient for offering payload insight, but are not sufficient to provide commanding to the SSRMS, hence why PVGFs cannot be used as SSRMS base points.
The pinning on the connectors hidden behind the hinged doors is the same I believe on both the PVGF and PDGF, however that doesn't necessarily mean that the fixtures both have the same data capabilities.
There is a PVGF on Node 3 Zenith that can serve as a storage location for the SPDM, but I don't think the SPDM could be commanded from that location.
I always assumed that having "video" in the name implied a lack of data (since data includes video), but after reading that slide I'm not so sure now. Any ROBO experts on here? ;)
I think I might contact the author and see if I can get them to clear it up.
-
Hello my name is scarlett neira and I'm studying aviation engineering, actually Im taking a course in thermodynamics in which I have to do a research on the climate control inside the ISS, besides evaluating its costs and find a way to optimize it. I'd appreciate any kinf of help wether with information or a contact, thank you. :P :P
-
Welcome to the forum. Here are some starting points on the ECLSS systems for the ISS:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISS_ECLSS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISS_ECLSS)
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/104840main_eclss.pdf (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/104840main_eclss.pdf)
http://astronautical.org/sites/default/files/issrdc/2013/issrdc_2013-07-17-1600_carrasquillo.pdf (http://astronautical.org/sites/default/files/issrdc/2013/issrdc_2013-07-17-1600_carrasquillo.pdf)
And here is information from 1996 on this:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19960045292.pdf (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19960045292.pdf)
-
That Wikipedia article, by the way, is in desperate need of updating by someone knowledgeable. Any volunteers?
-
Hi! I have a rather extreme wonderment about rendezvous with ISS, and some comments that have been made recently regarding same.
Someone recently asked why, if Progress now can manage a 4-orbit rendezvous, is the Dragon (and other resupply vehicles) being put into a 2-day rendezvous trajectory. The answer given was that ISS must maneuver to get to where the Progress is heading, in order for a 4-orbit rendezvous to work, and as of now, it can only do so in conjunction with a Kurs system.
I heard that, and a very loud voice in my head said "WTF?????!!!!!"
Gemini rendezvous trajectories were four orbits, max, without any rendezvous maneuvers being initiated by what was always referred to as the passive target. In Apollo, the standard for rendezvous in lunar orbit was three orbits under the co-elliptic plan, while the direct rendezvous mode used in later Apollo flights achieved what Gemini XI did -- first-orbit rendezvous.
These were all in low-inclination orbits, you might say, and a high-inclination orbit makes things more difficult. I guess first, I don't see that -- orbital mechanics are such that, as long as you launch into the correct inclination at the correct time, it really makes no difference what that inclination is. Especially over a period of between 90 minutes and six hours.
And, on top of that -- three routine launches of Apollo CSMs to Skylab, in a higher-inclination orbit than ISS now occupies, achieved rendezvous in no more than four orbits. Again, with no maneuvering of the passive rendezvous target, Skylab.
Can someone explain why one- to four-orbit rendezvous has been a no-sweat operation for American manned space flight for 50 years, but this is somehow next to impossible, requiring maneuvering on both ends, for anything that has Russian technology in it?
Because, lacking any kind of convincing explanation, I'm calling BS on this and blaming it on a lack of understanding of rendezvous (at least, of rendezvous as the Americans have always been able to do it) on the part of the Russians. Or, at any rate, an inability of their active rendezvous vehicles to make maneuvers with the precision required to do what Gemini did 50 years ago...
-
Both Gemini and Apollo had an excess of dv available and had higher T/W. We haven't had the capability for 50 years. Shuttle wasn't able to do M=4, much less a M=1rendezvous.
MGA are no longer valid measuring sticks.
Also, M=4 rendezvous doesn't allow for launch Windows on subsequent days
-
When there are six people aboard the ISS, are there two escape capsules ready to go?
-
They would use the two Soyuz spacecraft. There are no separate escape capsules, just the vehicles the crew used to get to the station.
-
So the ISS has places to dock two capsules?
-
More than two
-
How many?
-
How many?
TWO!!!
-
How many?
TWO!!!
There are two capsules docked. But there is place for more than two.
-
RS has 4 and USOS will have 2
-
What is RS and USOS?
-
Here's a good place to start looking for answers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station
-
What is RS and USOS?
It's a good idea to do your own research for getting answers to basic questions like this, rather than asking people in a discussion forum to spoon-feed it all to you. (If you want personal tutors, you have to hire them and pay for them... ;) )
That said, I will tell you that space discussions are chock-full of acronyms. Unless you're already familiar with the various common acronyms used throughout the space industries (much less the more specific and odd acronyms that also pop up in these discussions), you're going to be a little lost. Note there is a big stickied post in the General Discussion section of this forum that has a huge list of common acronyms.
In this case, RS stands for Russian Segment, and USOS stands for United States Operating Segment -- if I recall the exact meanings of the acronyms correctly... ;)
-
What happens if a crew member gets sick (stomach virus or the cold)? And how would that get in the way of that crew members scheduled activities like experiments for that day. I'm sure there's medicine on-board. I'm just asking in general.
-
What happens if a crew member gets sick (stomach virus or the cold)? And how would that get in the way of that crew members scheduled activities like experiments for that day. I'm sure there's medicine on-board. I'm just asking in general.
Other people would take over as required
-
The NBL was originally planned to be at JSC, does anyone know where on JSC it was planned to be built?
-
I do have vague recollection of video showing an EMU being transferred from the Shuttle to ISS through the PMA-2 passageway. Is that memory correct? Would the larger EMU components fit through that (800 mm) hatch?
But you could use iLIDS, and for especially large cargo, remove the docking petals.
I was somehow under the impression that some large items, like say the hard upper torso of an EMU, simply would not fit through an 800mm circular hatch, petals or no.
The airlock hatch diameter is in the order of 1 meter to allow clear passage of the hard upper torso of an EMU. A long time ago the airlock/vehicle hatch diameter requirement for an EMU was 914 mm. Not sure if this has changed, but if the old requirement still applies then 800mm is indeed not enough.
So you're saying the EMU couldn't fit through the Shuttle's docking adapter? I'm pretty sure that it can.
Trying to get out an airlock while wearing a pressurized spacesuit is different than bringing an empty spacesuit through a docking hatch.
...additionally, the Russians seem to have no problem with their spacesuits, and their docking adapter is the same size.
-
I do have vague recollection of video showing an EMU being transferred from the Shuttle to ISS through the PMA-2 passageway. Is that memory correct? Would the larger EMU components fit through that (800 mm) hatch?
But you could use iLIDS, and for especially large cargo, remove the docking petals.
I was somehow under the impression that some large items, like say the hard upper torso of an EMU, simply would not fit through an 800mm circular hatch, petals or no.
The airlock hatch diameter is in the order of 1 meter to allow clear passage of the hard upper torso of an EMU. A long time ago the airlock/vehicle hatch diameter requirement for an EMU was 914 mm. Not sure if this has changed, but if the old requirement still applies then 800mm is indeed not enough.
So you're saying the EMU couldn't fit through the Shuttle's docking adapter? I'm pretty sure that it can.
Trying to get out an airlock while wearing a pressurized spacesuit is different than bringing an empty spacesuit through a docking hatch.
...additionally, the Russians seem to have no problem with their spacesuits, and their docking adapter is the same size.
Docking system dimensions are thoroughly discussed in detail in the MLM threads, but this one of many easily sharable page on this for comparison reasons to cut to the chase for you all: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/docking.html
-
I'm sorry, did you intend to link to a page that discusses the passage diameter requirements for internally transferring a US EVA EMU between two docked vehicles? (I don't see that on the docking page you linked....)
-
I'm sorry, did you intend to link to a page that discusses the passage diameter requirements for internally transferring a US EVA EMU between two docked vehicles? (I don't see that on the docking page you linked....)
Im sure that a page exists with those details but I cant presently find it, but the easiest way is to take the inside diameter of the docking port tunnel and subtract the EMU width and you get your answer. Detailed APAS/IDA tunnel dimensions can be found here: http://www.internationaldockingstandard.com/download/IDSS_IDD_Revision_D_043015.pdf
-
Let's be pedantically clear, shall we? The docking rings are the metal cylinders that when pressed together form the atmospheric seal that allows a pressurized connection between two docked vehicles. For the IDA and lots of other standards, the inner diameter of those rings is specified to be 800mm. (Sure, the spec gives you a tiny bit of leeway -- after all none of us are perfect! ;) )
Robotbeat correctly points out that the APAS docking rings also have 800mm inner diameters. Yet he and I both think ISS EMU hardware was brought through those rings from Shuttle to ISS. For the NASA EMU HUT is that truly possible, or are we mis-remembering that part of ISS history? Exact clearances required for transferring a NASA HUT are not easy to find....
(BTW an Orlan "obviously" fits through a 800mm docking connection! This is of interest in the context of a NASA BLEO habitat because one would want to know if the diameters of the resupply vehicle connections need to be larger than what IDA provides.)
Hope that clarifies the question!
-
Let's be pedantically clear, shall we? The docking rings are the metal cylinders that when pressed together form the atmospheric seal that allows a pressurized connection between two docked vehicles. For the IDA and lots of other standards, the inner diameter of those rings is specified to be 800mm. (Sure, the spec gives you a tiny bit of leeway -- after all none of us are perfect! ;) )
Robotbeat correctly points out that the APAS docking rings also have 800mm inner diameters. Yet he and I both think ISS EMU hardware was brought through those rings from Shuttle to ISS. For the NASA EMU HUT is that truly possible, or are we mis-remembering that part of ISS history? Exact clearances required for transferring a NASA HUT are not easy to find....
(BTW an Orlan "obviously" fits through a 800mm docking connection! This is of interest in the context of a NASA BLEO habitat because one would want to know if the diameters of the resupply vehicle connections need to be larger than what IDA provides.)
Hope that clarifies the question!
The IDSS document (http://www.internationaldockingstandard.com/download/IDSS_IDD_Revision_D_043015.pdf) gives the external docking tunnel diameter as 1255mm and the nominal crew transfer tunnel internal diameter is 800mm during mated ops (Petals in stowed config) and 645mm during docking ops (Petals in docking config). Removal of the soft capture system results in a hybrid version of APAS-95/IDSS called in Russian SSPA-GM with a crew transfer tunnel internal diameter of 1200mm. This config will be used on MLM-U docking ports after installed docking adapters are removed via departing Progress, UM docking ports after installed docking adapters are removed via departing Progress, and other new generation Russian modules and transport spacecraft.
Older documentation: http://research.jsc.nasa.gov/BiennialResearchReport/2011/248-2011-Biennial.pdf
-
Thanks -- I now see your point! From the figure attached, the hard capture mating surfaces for the USOS IDA ports will clearly have internal diameters greater than the 1250mm SCS outer diameter. The Russian SSPA-GM sounds quite clever. Those are for semi-permanent connections, though? For visiting USOS vehicles it doesn't seem likely the SCS hardware would ever be removed. (But for connecting modules of a hypothetical deep space habitat, maybe they could be.)
Even with this, it still doesn't seem certain a resupply vehicle visiting a DSH that supported only IDA docking could provide all necessary replacement hardware for a (current NASA) EMU.
(P.S. to add: the diameter of the CBM transfer passage is 50 inches, or 1270 mm.)
-
EMUs were routinely transferred from Shuttle to ISS via the PMA hatchway.
-
How many docking ports does the ISS have? And where are they located?
-
6
4 probe and drogue on the Russian side. 1 APAS-95 on pma-3, and 1 IDA on PMA-3
That should be PMA-2, not PMA-3.
-
Where are they on this drawing?
See the attachment.
-
Probe & Drogue, Russian Segment:
-Service Module (SM) Aft
-DC-1 Nadir
-MRM-2 Zenith
-MRM-1 Nadir
NDS/SIMAC, US Segment:
-PMA-2 at Node 2 Forward
-PMA-3 at Node 2 Zenith (future - awaiting relocation)
CBM, US Segment (berthing only - not docking):
-Node 2 Nadir
-Node 1 Nadir
-
This does not show where they are located.
-
This does not show where they are located.
I feel like I'm doing your class work. There's an excellent diagram on Wikipedia showing which modules are where.
-
Where are they on this drawing?
See the attachment.
Your drawing isn't accurate. There's modules where there shouldn't be.
-
Do you mean how many *free* docking ports or how many *free and occupied* docking ports?
For example at launch the Zarya module has two longitudinal docking ports, but one is occupied by the Unity module and the other by the Zvezda module.
-
It seems to me that whenever I see pictures or video in the station there is almost always (at least to my somewhat borderline OCD eyes) a high level of clutter on nearly every surface. Is all that stuff in active, regular use? Or does it accumulate and and gets addressed/put away/circle filed when the astros have time? Is there a protocol for managing all that stuff?
-
Several questions about the situation with lost Progress:
Is it necessary to compensate the lost Progress with an extra flight of Progress in 2017?
As I see this, there are two aspects to this question:
1. Are there any rules (like contract clauses) on such matter?
The second aspect is more important -
2. For how long one Proton Progress can provide re-boost to ISS? - approximately of course :)
Thanks in advance.
Edit: corrected typo.
-
It seems to me that whenever I see pictures or video in the station there is almost always (at least to my somewhat borderline OCD eyes) a high level of clutter on nearly every surface. Is all that stuff in active, regular use? Or does it accumulate and and gets addressed/put away/circle filed when the astros have time? Is there a protocol for managing all that stuff?
I have not found any real protocol for this. It bothers the hell out of me as well.
I'm developing a protocol for the H-10-K GWS house keeping crew to perform routine "return to storage" tasks but nothing is cast in stone so far. The difficulty seems to be getting the time built into the task or experiment to perform end of shift cleanup tasks much like what is done in the ground facilities. CTK Tool and parts accountability is vital for FOD prevention.
It looks like they clean up only when things seem to get out of hand, or when flight directs them to do so.
-
Not sure where to put this. I did several searches to see if it was already here and couldn't find it.
This really helped me to understand orientation on ISS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY1jYYhpGJM
-
It seems to me that whenever I see pictures or video in the station there is almost always (at least to my somewhat borderline OCD eyes) a high level of clutter on nearly every surface. Is all that stuff in active, regular use? Or does it accumulate and and gets addressed/put away/circle filed when the astros have time? Is there a protocol for managing all that stuff?
I have not found any real protocol for this. It bothers the hell out of me as well.
I'm developing a protocol for the H-10-K GWS house keeping crew to perform routine "return to storage" tasks but nothing is cast in stone so far. The difficulty seems to be getting the time built into the task or experiment to perform end of shift cleanup tasks much like what is done in the ground facilities. CTK Tool and parts accountability is vital for FOD prevention.
It looks like they clean up only when things seem to get out of hand, or when flight directs them to do so.
There is a protocol. There is no desks or workbenches in a one g orientation and so items have to place on the racks. What would a workbench would look like if you placed it against a wall?
-
Time is allocated to removing things from storage and to put them back (if not at the task time on the weekend). Things that are no longer used are generally removed or trashed. But it might take a little bit of time to trash something (for example, an old payload part - the scientists and flight controllers have to research and make sure it isn't needed in the future or be useful and then there is paperwork and then finding a vehicle...). Things are left out if likely need/want access in the future. So not really any old/abandoned equipment just laying around out.
-
It seems to me that whenever I see pictures or video in the station there is almost always (at least to my somewhat borderline OCD eyes) a high level of clutter on nearly every surface. Is all that stuff in active, regular use? Or does it accumulate and and gets addressed/put away/circle filed when the astros have time? Is there a protocol for managing all that stuff?
I have not found any real protocol for this. It bothers the hell out of me as well.
I'm developing a protocol for the H-10-K GWS house keeping crew to perform routine "return to storage" tasks but nothing is cast in stone so far. The difficulty seems to be getting the time built into the task or experiment to perform end of shift cleanup tasks much like what is done in the ground facilities. CTK Tool and parts accountability is vital for FOD prevention.
It looks like they clean up only when things seem to get out of hand, or when flight directs them to do so.
There is a protocol. There is no desks or workbenches in a one g orientation and so items have to place on the racks. What would a workbench would look like if you placed it against a wall?
For H-10-K GWS, nearly all the work is done in zero-G, but some work is done in the HAB ring, Cooking on a stove, eating on a table, playing games while seated in a chair, weight lifting.
Some of this stuff should have items not needed after use, and it all should be put away, Thus a Protocol(procedure) is needed to keep common areas clean, neat, and tidy.
On GWS, yes there are horizontal work surfaces, on ISS when the treadmill was undergoing repairs,a vice was used, a file created filings, and a vacuum was used to contain floaties. The worker use goggles and a mask. On GWS in 1-AG, you still need to clean up the floor, Tables, drawer liners, and surrounding area for FOD. Yes Yes special containers and precautions are taken in 1-AG, to prevent fly a ways in the event of AG loss.
Our concern is that if you stick everything you use on the outside of a ISPR(rack) surface, why bother having the storage drawers and coveys these things belong in.
As for parts that have been replaced, and future use may be needed, just store it when the task is done, get it out of the path of traffic. Trash has a designated collection point, put it there.
No, surfaces of all ISPRs, will not be totally clean, but the less clutter, the more well organized the entire area will be, the easier the traffic will flow through the area. Less opportunity to damage the items, and less opportunity to inflict harm on your own body.
So Jim, if there is a protocol, is it in writing? Where would we find this?
-
Looking around, I couldn't find an answer to this elsewhere. Since the RD-0110 engine (used on the crewed variants of Soyuz) is made at the Voronezh Mechanical Plant which was recently implicated in the cause of the recent Progress launch failure, are we expecting crewed Soyuz flights to be impacted? If so, as there is not an alternative crew vehicle currently available, could this prevent us from continuing to crew the ISS?
-
Has the Orbital Replacement Unit Transfer Device (OTD), brought by STS-96, ever been used ?
-
HDEV seems to have been on the switching cameras/loss of signal screen for the past week, is there something wrong with it?
-
HDEV seems to have been on the switching cameras/loss of signal screen for the past week, is there something wrong with it?
I'm pretty sure the HDEV feed is processed in Bldg 8 at JSC, which is one of the buildings that sustained hurricane damage.
-
Can anyone point me to or does anyone have an annotated picture/diagram with the various Mobile Transporter worksites along the truss marked out? I've recently realized that although I read the ISS status notes regularly, and they routinely mention the MT moving from WS# to WS#, I don't really have any feel for where the worksites are along the truss. I know there aren't that many of them, but when reading about WS# I can't picture in my mind approximately where along the truss that translates to. I've searched via google, eoportal, spaceref, etc. Can't seem to find anywhere with it delineated. Any help much appreciated.
-
Think WS1 most starboard to WS10 most port, but could be wrong.
-
I may be referencing old documentation, but what I have cites WS1-8 going starboard to port on the inboard trusses (S3 to P3), with WS9 and WS10 on the since-deleted outboard truss rails at S6 and P6 respectively.
In this image: (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/ISS_Mobile_Transporter_railway_system.jpg), you can see the locations of the worksites by looking for a pair of small boxes just nadir of the lower MT rail.
For reference:
WS1 is somewhat hidden in shadow, just above the ELC4 pallet on the left side of the image.
WS2 is near the shadow terminator, forward of the HRS radiator.
WS3 is visible just above and to the left of the airlock.
WS4 is just above the left side of the lab.
WS5 appears to be where the MT is parked.
WS6 is hidden behind the MT just to the right of its center.
WS7 is in front of the radiator on the right side of the image.
WS8 is just above and to the left of the ELC1 pallet at the far right.
-
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nov_2017_nac_iss_status_and_transition_final.pdf
-
Can someone identify this
retractable rotating structure for me?
It looks like it's located on the S1-Segment and I think it's neither a Radiator, Logistics-Palett (ESP or ELC) nor a Mobile Base System...my internet research has not been very fruitful so far.
The images are screenshots from the ustream livestream
(http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/110154721 (http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/110154721) @ 01:06:52, 29Nov2017 ~ 1300 UTC)
Thanks a lot!
EDIT:
It looks like it is the rear side of a "Radiator beam".
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/HRS.png/800px-HRS.png (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/HRS.png/800px-HRS.png)
I got irritated because it rotated way faster than the solar arrays in the background.
-
It's the radiator from the Heat Rejection System.
EDIT: Ah, I see now that you edited your own post with this info already.
-
In the recent NAC HEO presentation on ISS, they had an FPIP chart (attaching a blow up). I was under the impression that the ISS didn't do visiting vehicle ops during high solar beta angle periods. But this shows that, while a high beta period is beginning on Dec. 17 and lasting to Dec. 27, there is a Soyuz crew rotation planned to launch on the 17th (apparently using the 2-day rendezvous plan) which arrives on Dec. 19th. Is the beta angle not a problem because Soyuz is docking and doesn't need use of Station robotics? Or is that limitation just for VVs on the US side of the station for some reason?
edit: oops, forgot attachment. fixed.
-
http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/satellites/a14471796/luxury-hotel-iss/
Russia's Plan To Build a Luxury Hotel on the ISS
-
I recently learned that the new laptops or SSC (Station Support Computers) onboard the ISS are going to be HP ZBook 15's G2 and all the Thinkpad T61p's and A31p'sare going to be phased out. (Sorry for the misused apostrophe here just wanted to express the correct model number)
https://www.businessdirect.bt.com/blog/nasa-sends-hp-zbook-workstations-to-the-international-space-station-4349
Supposedly they will all be loaded with Windows 10 (Enterprise Edition?) or Debian Linux.
The question: What are the exact model specs and software manifest? What configuration and setting's changes are made?
The goal here is to of course make my next laptop as close as possible hardware and software wise - obviously, NASA seems to strip away all the frivolous settings, applications and processes on the flown versions and its nothing like what a typical user experience out of the box. Thankfully, I will not need to fabricate a green brick power supply. The 'trackpoint" tips have been replaced with Lenovo ones from pictures I have seen as the standard one sits too far below the key height.
-
I recently learned that the new laptops or SSC (Station Support Computers) onboard the ISS are going to be HP ZBook 15's G2 and all the Thinkpad T61p's and A31p'sare going to be phased out. (Sorry for the misused apostrophe here just wanted to express the correct model number)
https://www.businessdirect.bt.com/blog/nasa-sends-hp-zbook-workstations-to-the-international-space-station-4349
Supposedly they will all be loaded with Windows 10 (Enterprise Edition?) or Debian Linux.
The question: What are the exact model specs and software manifest? What configuration and setting's changes are made?
The goal here is to of course make my next laptop as close as possible hardware and software wise - obviously, NASA seems to strip away all the frivolous settings, applications and processes on the flown versions and its nothing like what a typical user experience out of the box. Thankfully, I will not need to fabricate a green brick power supply. The 'trackpoint" tips have been replaced with Lenovo ones from pictures I have seen as the standard one sits too far below the key height.
Don't bother -- the version of Solitaire that comes with Windows 10 is rubbish, plus MS wants you to pay them to use it... :D
-
Is there an explicit reason why the ISS Program chooses to essentially always use the same berths for both Cygnus and Dragon? I know that only the 2 nadir ports are available for cargo vehicles, but Cygnus seems to always get berthed on N1-Nadir. And Dragon on N2-Nadir. I know they can be berthed on either, and I seem to recall Dragon being on Node 1 at least one trip. But ever since the ISS reconfiguration to move the PMM, I think only once or twice have either of the vehicles been berthed to the "unusual" node.
As a guess, maybe it has to do with access to the unpressurized cargo that rides up in Dragon's trunk? So, if there is a benefit to being on N2 instead of N1 for that purpose, it might also make sense to always berth Cygnus on N1 just so that the wear & tear gets more evenly spread over both CBMs.
-
Does somebody know how much velocity the ISS loses per year due to drag?
-
Does somebody know how much velocity the ISS loses per year due to drag?
It's roughly 15 m/s per year, but this varies quite a bit depending on a multitude of factors, primarily the level of solar activity and its corresponding influence on the density of the upper atmosphere. Reboosts typically add 1-2 m/s in velocity and a couple of kilometers in altitude, and they are performed several times per year.
-
https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1045030412467281920
Cruz - you agree would be completely unacceptable if China only country with space station in LEO?
Bridenstine - yes.
Cruz - technically possible to keep ISS till 2030?
Bridenstine - yes, perhaps longer, but need to assess cost, risk.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1045028808544448512
Cruz: concerned about Chinese space station in 2022, if ISS deorbited in 2024?
Bridenstine: no plan to deorbit ISS in 2024. Focus is on commercialization, though.
-
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1046777995720085504
-
Salo's ISS schedule has a relocation for MS-11 from Poisk to Rassvet in it now, a week or so before MS-12 launches. Not sure what the source is on that, haven't found anything in any of the relevant threads, although maybe I wasn't looking right, but assuming this is true:
All three astronauts have to be in the Soyuz, in case something goes wrong and they have to abort and land, correct? In which case:
Would you count that as an uncrewed ISS? I guess technically for however long that relocation takes (Anyone remember the last time this was done from the top of their head? And has it ever happened before with the full crew 'leaving' the station to relocate?) the ISS is unmanned, is it not?
Or would you say "They can undock, re-dock and stage Space Formula 1 races around the Station, as long as someone is sleeping there every 24 hours it's a manned station!"
-
Salo's ISS schedule has a relocation for MS-11 from Poisk to Rassvet in it now, a week or so before MS-12 launches. Not sure what the source is on that, haven't found anything in any of the relevant threads, although maybe I wasn't looking right, but assuming this is true:
All three astronauts have to be in the Soyuz, in case something goes wrong and they have to abort and land, correct? In which case:
Would you count that as an uncrewed ISS? I guess technically for however long that relocation takes (Anyone remember the last time this was done from the top of their head? And has it ever happened before with the full crew 'leaving' the station to relocate?) the ISS is unmanned, is it not?
Or would you say "They can undock, re-dock and stage Space Formula 1 races around the Station, as long as someone is sleeping there every 24 hours it's a manned station!"
Correct - the ISS will be placed in an unmanned configuration if a solo crewed vehicle does a relocation. Just to be prepared in case the redock fails. If I recall correctly it has happened a few times early on when there were fewer docking ports.
-
With all the (expected) delays regarding commercial crew, what's the current status of NASA contract for Soyuz seats? When will it expire? I suppose there's a transition period in which both Soyuz and commercial crew vehicles will be used for launching American astronauts into orbit, but since the date for the first commercial launch still slipping, how are these delyas going to affect the current and future contract with the Russian side?
-
With all the (expected) delays regarding commercial crew, what's the current status of NASA contract for Soyuz seats? When will it expire? I suppose there's a transition period in which both Soyuz and commercial crew vehicles will be used for launching American astronauts into orbit, but since the date for the first commercial launch still slipping, how are these delyas going to affect the current and future contract with the Russian side?
https://ria.ru/20190205/1550382756.html
Google Translation
"The previous version of the ISS flight program provided for the return of foreign astronauts under a contract with the US side from the station to Earth on the Soyuz space on February 6, 2020. Now this deadline is shifted to December 18, 2019 due to the refinement of the ISS flight program," interlocutor of the agency.
He recalled that on June 25 the Soyuz MS-11 ship with Russian Oleg Kononenko, Canadian David Saint-Jacques and American Ann McClain would return to Earth. The Canadian and American will be the last astronauts that Russia brought to the ISS and return to Earth under a contract with NASA.
"On the Soyuz MS-12" ship, on October 3, Russian Alexei Ovchinin and Americans Nick Haig and Christina Cook will return to Earth on March 14, and Alexander Sukvortsov, Italian Luca, starting on July 6, will return to Earth on the Union MS-13. Parmitano and American Andrew Morgan. These four astronauts will be the last ones that Russia will deliver to the station and return to Earth under a contract with Boeing, "the source explained.
According to him, further contracts with NASA to deliver foreign astronauts on the ISS and return to Earth on the Russian Soyuz spacecraft are not signed, and the flights will most likely be carried out on a barter basis: an astronaut on the Russian spacecraft for an astronaut in the US.
-
The previous one was last week. This is from today.
https://sputniknews.com/science/201902121072328776-usa-russia-iss-soyuz-missions-extension/
The United States will extend the use of Russian Soyuz spacecraft to bring NASA astronauts to the International Space Station and ensure their return to Earth until April 2020, a Russian space industry source told Sputnik.
“The following scheme is planned for now: two NASA astronauts will remain on the ISS for nine months instead of the usual six. So, Nick Hague starts his mission on March 14 [2019] on the Soyuz MS-12 and returns to Earth on 18 December on the Soyuz MS-13, while Andrew Morgan will travel to the orbital station on Soyuz MS-13 on 6 July and will return on Soyuz MS-15 in April 2020", the source said.
According to the source, this will allow NASA to have at least one astronaut in the US segment of the station to maintain it and, therefore, to have a plan B in case of the delay in the start of regular flights of new US manned spacecraft.
-
Watching the Crew Dragon docking, I've always wondered why the PMAs have an off-axis design. Something to do with shuttle payload bay/docking clearances during the early ISS assembly missions? Thanks
-
Watching the Crew Dragon docking, I've always wondered why the PMAs have an off-axis design. Something to do with shuttle payload bay/docking clearances during the early ISS assembly missions? Thanks
It allows for more clearance for removing objects from the Shuttle payload bay. It's also that shape to accommodate the hatch opening on the inside.
I found the answer here:
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/19564/why-is-the-pressurized-mating-adapter-slanted
-
I've learned more stuff on NSF in the past four years than the previous 40 :) Thanks again to Whitelancer.
-
New deployer for the ISS
https://www.lamontaerospace.org/uploads/1/0/4/8/104841513/rm3s_overview_promo__1_.pdf
-
Hi,
recently I watched ISS pass by my sky over middle Europe and I spot a bright dot orbiting in front of the ISS, it was orbiting about 20° in front of ISS and about 5-10 times dimmer than ISS. at firs, I thought it is a resuply ship, but when I check it wasn't any resupply ship schedule for the previous week 23. this week I see it twice which has raised my suspicion and I gooogled it and there were no results, so I am asking you to explain what it is ?!!!?
-
Hi,
recently I watched ISS pass by my sky over middle Europe and I spot a bright dot orbiting in front of the ISS, it was orbiting about 20° in front of ISS and about 5-10 times dimmer than ISS. at firs, I thought it is a resuply ship, but when I check it wasn't any resupply ship schedule for the previous week 23. this week I see it twice which has raised my suspicion and I gooogled it and there were no results, so I am asking you to explain what it is ?!!!?
Maybe one of the experiment packages jettisoned from ISS during the Russian EVA VKD-46 a couple of weeks ago?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48121.0
-
I hope this isn't a repeat. Several types of searches didn't turn it up.
A guy named "Jared Owen" did a nice animation of the ISS assembly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLrOnEmy_GA
-
Always wondered who the tapestry portraits were in the back of these PR shots. Anyone have the answer?
[zubenelgenubi: Attach images. Do not embed them.]
-
Apologies if this question has been answered before...cross-post:
Um, where do 9 people sleep? :)
On any approved surface.
Where do crew members #7, 8, 9, etc. bunk?
-
Analysis had to be performed to determine locations with proper ventilation, rack front, limited continuous activity in the module, etc for the 3 extra crew to stay for the short timeframe of the direct handover. Of this list of approved locations, the crew was allowed to decide where they would like to stay.
-
I remember some of the shuttle crews slept in the JEM or even the logistics module.
-
Is there a full chart somewhere of the ISS orbital height during its full lifetime? I believe after the latest reboosts the Station is in a higher orbit than ever before, is that so?
-
Is there a full chart somewhere of the ISS orbital height during its full lifetime? I believe after the latest reboosts the Station is in a higher orbit than ever before, is that so?
Yep: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station#/media/File:Altitude_of_International_Space_Station.svg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station#/media/File:Altitude_of_International_Space_Station.svg)
It has (briefly) been in a comparably-high (yet not quite as much) orbit in 2012, but as you correctly state, now it's on its highest apogee at 439.1 km.
-
The last shuttle mission, STS-135 landed in July 2011 and the first ISS assembly missions were in 1998.
"the space station uses about 19,000 pounds of propellant a year to maintain a consistent orbit(down at the shuttle era altitudes 330-350km). At the new, slightly higher altitude(over 400), the station is expected to expend about 8,000 pounds of propellant a year.
As of right now :
perigee height: 415 km
apogee height: 421 km
Not sure where you are getting a current 439.1 km for ISS? Back in August September 2012, the ISS was at its highest altitude.
Here's all the orbit data for right now Dec 31/19 afternoon EST.
Epoch (UTC): 31 December 2019 14:18:13
Eccentricity: 0.0004866
inclination: 51.6436°
perigee height: 415 km
apogee height: 421 km
right ascension of ascending node: 102.6998°
argument of perigee: 87.8908°
revolutions per day: 15.49542703
mean anomaly at epoch: 272.2800°
orbit number at epoch: 587
attach
Here is it's "mean" height for the last 2 years.
-
As of right now :
perigee height: 415 km
apogee height: 421 km
Not sure where you are getting a current 439.1 km for ISS? Back in August September 2012, the ISS was at its highest altitude.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48025.msg2030291#msg2030291
May it be a typo? Or perhaps the TLEs you used are not updated?
-
Is there any thread on ESA's astronaut corps? I've read on Wikipedia only the 2009 cadre. And there was a posting denouncing favoritism in ASI that forced Samantha to resign. If anybody has any resources I would appreciate it. Thanks!
-
Is there any thread on ESA's astronaut corps? I've read on Wikipedia only the 2009 cadre. And there was a posting denouncing favoritism in ASI that forced Samantha to resign. If anybody has any resources I would appreciate it. Thanks!
The ESA 2009 cadre are the only ones currently on flight status with the recent addition of Matthias Maurer who was a 2009 reserve or runner-up.
Lot's of noise about an Italian Air Force candidate Walter Villadei but I don't think ESA or NASA have ever acknowledged him. He has trained in Russia etc, see links here:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=740.3040
-
Anyone have an accurate ISS altitude? Another major reboost coming up in support of the Feb 6 Soyuz landing, I thought this was completed Dec 27?
-
During the ESA Director General's press briefing (2020 year opening briefing) There was a question from AFAIK a French journalist about upcoming flight assignment for European astronauts. DG Jan Wörner answered that the aim for two missions for all astronauts from the 2009 group remains.
British astronaut Tim Peake decided to take a sabbatical from the Astronaut group, for personal reasons.
So the astronauts most likely to get a mission assignment are:
Andreas Mogensen, Matthias Maurer, Samantha Cristoforetti and Thomas Pesquet.
-
New question: what is this net in front of the Fluids Integrated Rack (FIR)? The only mention of it that I can find is someone in a video saying it's there because FIR is an ARIS (Active Rack Isolation System) rack. So does that mean the net is just there to prevent objects from bumping into it? If so, why is the FIR the only rack with a net? And has it been there since the beginning, or was it added later? Ideally looking for an official document. Thanks!
-
New question: what is this net in front of the Fluids Integrated Rack (FIR)? The only mention of it that I can find is someone in a video saying it's there because FIR is an ARIS (Active Rack Isolation System) rack. So does that mean the net is just there to prevent objects from bumping into it? If so, why is the FIR the only rack with a net? And has it been there since the beginning, or was it added later? Ideally looking for an official document. Thanks!
The "net" is known as a Microgravity Rack Barrier (MRB) in ISS-speak. The ARIS racks are sensitive to crew contact, so prior to the start of an experiment they fit one of these barriers to protect against inadvertent contact.
I've attached a paper on ISS microgravity which mentions this (page 7 of pdf).
-
New question: what is this net in front of the Fluids Integrated Rack (FIR)? The only mention of it that I can find is someone in a video saying it's there because FIR is an ARIS (Active Rack Isolation System) rack. So does that mean the net is just there to prevent objects from bumping into it? If so, why is the FIR the only rack with a net? And has it been there since the beginning, or was it added later? Ideally looking for an official document. Thanks!
There are other racks with MRB's. Some often get installed when racks or cargo are moved.
-
Nice, thanks! Having the official name was helpful for getting more google results.
Another question I have now; is the net made of elastic straps, or just regular straps (like you'd find in a ratchet strap)?
-
Nice, thanks! Having the official name was helpful for getting more google results.
Another question I have now; is the net made of elastic straps, or just regular straps (like you'd find in a ratchet strap)?
Think a web of bungee cords or rubberbands. A cargo net type also exists but is not normally used on ARIS rather they are used on PRIS and behind HDP's, storage areas and such.
-
ISS/coronavirus discussion moved to "Coronavirus and its impact to spaceflight"
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50233.0
-
The ASAP has brought up the subject of repairing/replacing ISS components to ensure operations until at least 2028. Any info out there describing what will eventually push the station beyond the point of repair? Solar array degradation? Insulation degradation. Battery life? Coolant leakage? What happens if the Russian segment (oldest) must be shut down before the rest of the station? Some fateful day NASA will announce a nominal deorbit date when a certain threshold of failures occurs, in effect taking the ISS off life support. Thanks for any info therein.
PS: I suspect some inventive engineers will come forward with ideas to sustain the ISS into the 2030's but NASA may not fund them.
-
Either I'm to dumb to work the search function or just lazy, but I can't find a reference to this.
Long ago, I heard that there was an expiration date of 2028 for welding certifications on Destiny that pretty much ruled out keeping the ISS going any longer than that. Has that been reevaluated, reinspected or is it just a false memory?
-
Either I'm to dumb to work the search function or just lazy, but I can't find a reference to this.
Long ago, I heard that there was an expiration date of 2028 for welding certifications on Destiny that pretty much ruled out keeping the ISS going any longer than that. Has that been reevaluated, reinspected or is it just a false memory?
While I cannot confirm or deny any specific date or reason for that date, when reaching the end of certification dates for the module, engineers look at things like actual module stress and loading as determined by sensors on ISS against the predicted loading that went into the certification date to assess risk and decide for module certification extension.
-
This was brought up in another sub-forum, but is probably better asked here...
Now that commercial crew has started, when there is a direct crew handover, and both IDA-2 and IDA-3 are being used - once the IDA-2 craft leaves, will the IDA-3 craft be re-positioned to IDA-2? (Similar to Soyuz moves)
Or are both ports equally good for a visiting vehicle long duration stay? Or is IDA-2 the preferred port for long stays?
(EDIT: Replaced IDA-1 with IDA-2)
-
Isn’t IDA-1 at the bottom of the Atlantic? Or did they change the numbers of the operational adaptors?
Anyway, I’d also like to know if there are going to be USCV relocations
-
Isn’t IDA-1 at the bottom of the Atlantic? Or did they change the numbers of the operational adaptors?
Anyway, I’d also like to know if there are going to be USCV relocations
D'oh, I stand corrected. I will edit my question to use IDA-2 instead.
-
The ASAP has brought up the subject of repairing/replacing ISS components to ensure operations until at least 2028. Any info out there describing what will eventually push the station beyond the point of repair? Solar array degradation? Insulation degradation. Battery life? Coolant leakage? What happens if the Russian segment (oldest) must be shut down before the rest of the station? Some fateful day NASA will announce a nominal deorbit date when a certain threshold of failures occurs, in effect taking the ISS off life support. Thanks for any info therein.
PS: I suspect some inventive engineers will come forward with ideas to sustain the ISS into the 2030's but NASA may not fund them.
There is (or was) a concept / plan to add large ROSA type solar panels over the existing ISS solar arrays. I can't for the life of me remember what it's properly called, so my searches aren't finding it. However, that would be a fairly simple way to extend the usable power capacity of the ISS, if that were needed for future use. And they are in the process of upgrading the battery system on the ISS right now. So power generation and storage capacity aren't limiting factors.
Insulation is protected by MMOD (Micro Meteorite and Orbital Debris) blankets, made of Kevlar and Vectran, and the MMOD blankets that suffer the most damage are discarded and replaced as needed.
Damage do the radiators / coolant system would be, and have been from time to time, a problem. There are two redundant coolant loops on the ISS that can be switched between as needed. This has actually happened a couple of times already due to small leaks.
Fatigue on the structure is the main limiting factor. The core modules and the truss can't be removed from the ISS, they were permanently bolted together, so once the oldest modules approach the end of their fatigue lifetime, the ISS will be done.
For that reason I personally don't see the ISS being extended much further than 2030. The available lifespan in the core segments will be extremely limited by that point, and far newer modules should be in orbit by then (Axiom, for example) that can be the basis for a new microgravity space research station.
-
I seem to recall that there used to be a rule on how close together vehicles could arrive at ISS (such as, I think, STS-115's launch date having to account for the launch of TMA-9). If I'm right, is this still a requirement? What I'm wondering is whether Crew-1 has to launch by a certain date or else wait until after the MS-16/MS-17 crew rotation.
-
There is (or was) a concept / plan to add large ROSA type solar panels over the existing ISS solar arrays.
iROSA thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51528.0).
-
I seem to recall that there used to be a rule on how close together vehicles could arrive at ISS (such as, I think, STS-115's launch date having to account for the launch of TMA-9). If I'm right, is this still a requirement? What I'm wondering is whether Crew-1 has to launch by a certain date or else wait until after the MS-16/MS-17 crew rotation.
There is a requirement, but it is focused on making sure vehicles are not contaminated by another's arrival/departure or risk collision in the event of an abort. This is on the order of a day or two. So, it just means Crew-1 can't arrive at same time as the Soyuz arrival or departure.
-
Ah, got it. I had in mind that it was way longer than that (maybe a week or week and a half). Thanks!
-
Two Questions, not sure this is the right place to ask this, or if it was already ask?
A: With Crew-1 the ISS will be up to 7 people. To my knowledge there are only 6 sleeping places onboard ISS. Where will the seventh person sleep?
B: With a potential overlap of Crew-1 and 2 as speculated by some: Where will the 8th to 11th person sleep? (Similar, if CFT-1 happens during Crew-1 or Crew-2 is at the ISS) +
Or more in general: What are the living arangements on the ISS for larger crew numbers, how many people can the life-support handle over a few days/weeks/month.
-
Two Questions, not sure this is the right place to ask this, or if it was already ask?
A: With Crew-1 the ISS will be up to 7 people. To my knowledge there are only 6 sleeping places onboard ISS. Where will the seventh person sleep?
B: With a potential overlap of Crew-1 and 2 as speculated by some: Where will the 8th to 11th person sleep? (Similar, if CFT-1 happens during Crew-1 or Crew-2 is at the ISS) +
Or more in general: What are the living arangements on the ISS for larger crew numbers, how many people can the life-support handle over a few days/weeks/month.
Merged your post. See up-thread at https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=4392.msg1995278#msg1995278 .
-
Anyone know what the standard for color coding and labeling of compressed gas/fluid lines on the ISS is called? I tried looking on NTRS but I couldn't find anything. I assume there must be a standard or at least a description.
-
Regarding the upcoming leak troubleshooting this weekend:
After the culprit module or hatch seal is identified, how exactly is the specific location identified?
Once it is, what kind of patching options are possible?
Thanks!
Kelly
-
Regarding the upcoming leak troubleshooting this weekend:
After the culprit module or hatch seal is identified, how exactly is the specific location identified?
Once it is, what kind of patching options are possible?
Thanks!
Kelly
Once the module is identified, a plan of possible leak points will be put together and crew will use an Ultrasonic Leak Detector to try and "hear" for a leak, but this particular leak is near the bottom end of the detectable limit.
There are several types of patches available depending on the location of the leak and what caused it. These range from a putty material to a hard covering.
-
Regarding docking adapters:
Over on the Starliner (CST-100) General discussion thread, some have noted that there will be a degree of traffic management requires for Dragon-2 crew and cargo being on-station at the same time, especially if another Dragon or Starliner is on the way for crew transfer. Has there been any discussion about installing a third IDA (maybe on Unity Nadir) to give some margin?
-
Regarding docking adapters:
Over on the Starliner (CST-100) General discussion thread, some have noted that there will be a degree of traffic management requires for Dragon-2 crew and cargo being on-station at the same time, especially if another Dragon or Starliner is on the way for crew transfer. Has there been any discussion about installing a third IDA (maybe on Unity Nadir) to give some margin?
No discussion I'm aware of in a place that matters (i.e. within NASA). IDA is an APAS to NDS adapter... a third IDA by itself would be completely useless, without a fourth PMA to adapt it to CBM. (Nor is there any discussion of a direct CBM to NDS adapter that I'm aware of).
The proposed Axiom modules would add additional NDS ports, though.
-
Regarding the upcoming leak troubleshooting this weekend:
After the culprit module or hatch seal is identified, how exactly is the specific location identified?
Once it is, what kind of patching options are possible?
Thanks!
Kelly
Once the module is identified, a plan of possible leak points will be put together and crew will use an Ultrasonic Leak Detector to try and "hear" for a leak, but this particular leak is near the bottom end of the detectable limit.
There are several types of patches available depending on the location of the leak and what caused it. These range from a putty material to a hard covering.
I assume they catered for the possibility that the leak might have been in the vestibule between 2 modules?
Did they shut both hatches between each module and test the vestibules independently?
-
Regarding the upcoming leak troubleshooting this weekend:
After the culprit module or hatch seal is identified, how exactly is the specific location identified?
Once it is, what kind of patching options are possible?
Thanks!
Kelly
Once the module is identified, a plan of possible leak points will be put together and crew will use an Ultrasonic Leak Detector to try and "hear" for a leak, but this particular leak is near the bottom end of the detectable limit.
There are several types of patches available depending on the location of the leak and what caused it. These range from a putty material to a hard covering.
I assume they catered for the possibility that the leak might have been in the vestibule between 2 modules?
Did they shut both hatches between each module and test the vestibules independently?
It was verified that the leak is not likely in the USOS.
-
I've been looking around for more information about the recent crack in the Zvezda module, but I can't seem to find where it's being discussed (this may be due to my poor searching skills on this forum). Isn't a growing crack in a pressure vessel normally a very concerning issue? Images of the Aloha air incident appear in my mind as an example of what a small crack can do in a large pressure vessel.
Since NASA and Roscosmos haven't raised an alarm about it then it obviously isn't that serious, but I would love to know why it's not an issue (due to the hull being thicker maybe?).
-
I've been looking around for more information about the recent crack in the Zvezda module, but I can't seem to find where it's being discussed (this may be due to my poor searching skills on this forum). Isn't a growing crack in a pressure vessel normally a very concerning issue? Images of the Aloha air incident appear in my mind as an example of what a small crack can do in a large pressure vessel.
Since NASA and Roscosmos haven't raised an alarm about it then it obviously isn't that serious, but I would love to know why it's not an issue (due to the hull being thicker maybe?).
I've asked the same question in a number of places (including L2) - I haven't seen any pictures or discussions about possible causes (MMOD/Fatigue damage/Manufacturing defect) and possible permanent solutions. No responses to date
-
I've been looking around for more information about the recent crack in the Zvezda module, but I can't seem to find where it's being discussed (this may be due to my poor searching skills on this forum). Isn't a growing crack in a pressure vessel normally a very concerning issue? Images of the Aloha air incident appear in my mind as an example of what a small crack can do in a large pressure vessel.
Since NASA and Roscosmos haven't raised an alarm about it then it obviously isn't that serious, but I would love to know why it's not an issue (due to the hull being thicker maybe?).
I've asked the same question in a number of places (including L2) - I haven't seen any pictures or discussions about possible causes (MMOD/Fatigue damage/Manufacturing defect) and possible permanent solutions. No responses to date
Any leak is serious but it is small and patchable. Still being analyzed.
-
Can anyone point me toward discussions of the early-on machine vision system for SSRMS navigation, particularly its developments goals, how far ahead it got and why it never came to (full) fruition? I mean the one that was supposed to use the black-and-white circular targets plastered all over Destiny/Unity/central truss that apparently got discontinued after the post-Columbia standdown or thereabouts. From what little I could gather with a few cursory searches it appears it was a laser camera system, kind of predecessor to LIDAR?
-
Looking forward from the Crew-1 launch yesterday, in the foreseeable future there will be a large contingent of crew members on the ISS delivered by Dragon (and perhaps eventually Starliner) rather than by Soyuz. I was wondering how that affects contingency planning for onboard emergencies that may require rapid evacuation, with the main dangers being fire or MMOD.
In my understanding, the existing emergency procedure is to first muster the crew in the SM. This makes sense given that the SM serves as the control center of the station, but also because the Soyuz "lifeboats" are all docked nearby in case evacuation is deemed necessary (the farthest Russian docking port is Rassvet, just one module away). Now that the "lifeboats" for much of the crew will be docked at IDA-2 and 3 on at the opposite end of the station, it seems like there is a high probability that Dragon crewmembers mustering in the SM in an emergency will end up with the fire/MMOD damage between them and their lifeboat.
Is there any plan to reconsider mustering in the SM as the default first response to onboard emergencies?
-
Seems to be more Q's than A's recently, but does anyone know what is the orange coating is near the node 2 nadir port?
(I think that's what that port is...)
Thruster resedue? Idk why it would collect there specifically though...
Outgassing from the cover hinges/latches maybe?
The @Space_Station got reinforcements! In the morning today the #CrewDragon docked to the ISS adding 4 crew members: @Astro_illini, @AstroVicGlover, @Astro_Soichi and Shannon Walker. Of course, I wanted to see the docking, but it is important to keep regular hours before the EVA.
https://twitter.com/KudSverchkov/status/1328756438785724416
-
Seems to be more Q's than A's recently, but does anyone know what is the orange coating is near the node 2 nadir port?
(I think that's what that port is...)
Thruster residue? Idk why it would collect there specifically though...
Outgassing from the cover hinges/latches maybe?
Glad I can provide an A ;)
Yes, it's hypergolic residue, it can be seen more starkly, due to the higher volume of direct dockings, their long duration and the age of the modules, on the (whiter) Russian Segment, especially around Zvezda's aft, where both dockings perpendicular to the aft surface and the module's own engines operate. The preferential accumulation around N2N is due to the fact this has been almost exclusively the port where most VVs were berthed (HTV, Cygnus and Dragon-1). There's probably some (very minor, but it accumulates) leaking involved from the forward thrusters, as well as some preferential deposition from the final approach/departure burns.
-
Seems to be more Q's than A's recently, but does anyone know what is the orange coating is near the node 2 nadir port?
(I think that's what that port is...)
Thruster residue? Idk why it would collect there specifically though...
Outgassing from the cover hinges/latches maybe?
Glad I can provide an A ;)
Yes, it's hypergolic residue, it can be seen more starkly, due to the higher volume of direct dockings, their long duration and the age of the modules, on the (whiter) Russian Segment, especially around Zvezda's aft, where both dockings perpendicular to the aft surface and the module's own engines operate. The preferential accumulation around N2N is due to the fact this has been almost exclusively the port where most VVs were berthed (HTV, Cygnus and Dragon-1). There's probably some (very minor, but it accumulates) leaking involved from the forward thrusters, as well as some preferential deposition from the final approach/departure burns.
Thanks for the response!
I would think the berthing method, being grappled by the robotic arm while being positioned a little ways away should lessen the amount deposited. Or at least spread out the residue over a larger area.
Do you think we will we see a faster accumulation around the docking ports now that Dragon and Starliner will be using them?
-
Seems to be more Q's than A's recently, but does anyone know what is the orange coating is near the node 2 nadir port?
(I think that's what that port is...)
Thruster residue? Idk why it would collect there specifically though...
Outgassing from the cover hinges/latches maybe?
Glad I can provide an A ;)
Yes, it's hypergolic residue, it can be seen more starkly, due to the higher volume of direct dockings, their long duration and the age of the modules, on the (whiter) Russian Segment, especially around Zvezda's aft, where both dockings perpendicular to the aft surface and the module's own engines operate. The preferential accumulation around N2N is due to the fact this has been almost exclusively the port where most VVs were berthed (HTV, Cygnus and Dragon-1). There's probably some (very minor, but it accumulates) leaking involved from the forward thrusters, as well as some preferential deposition from the final approach/departure burns.
Thanks for the response!
I would think the berthing method, being grappled by the robotic arm while being positioned a little ways away should lessen the amount deposited. Or at least spread out the residue over a larger area.
Do you think we will we see a faster accumulation around the docking ports now that Dragon and Starliner will be using them?
Most probably, although the PMA and N2F having perpendicular surfaces farther away from the docked vehicle's thrusters, the deposits will probably be less starkly visible for longer.
-
A very stupid question. :)
From where this photo was made?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasa2explore/50665171351/in/album-72157715449337458/
-
From Zarya FGB module like this photo:
https://www.roscosmos.ru/media/gallery/big/29460/4922848167.jpg
-
From Zarya FGB module like this photo:
https://www.roscosmos.ru/media/gallery/big/29460/4922848167.jpg
It's impossible. Soyuz on this photo is docked to the FORWARD part of Zarya (via Rassvet). Cygnus is berthed to Unity, which is IN FRONT of Zarya. We can also see Cupola, which is berthed to the left of Unity, also in front of Zarya.
It all means that Zarya is beyond right/top edge of the photo.
-
Yes, you're right. Sorry.
This photo was taken by External High Definition Camera 2 on the port truss.
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/09/eva-37-first-external-hd-camera-ttcr-retract/
-
This photo was taken by External High Definition Camera 2 on the port truss.
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/09/eva-37-first-external-hd-camera-ttcr-retract/
Oh, right. Nikon D4. :) Thank you!
-
Started watching ISS construction videos.
It looks like they docked Unity to Shuttle's docking before mating it to Zarya. https://youtu.be/vT5PF_wcYwc?t=311
Was this just a test or they mated Zarya while Unity was docked?
-
Look at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasa2explore/9359149695/in/album-72157634778547113/ and its description.
-
The initial contact and capture between Zarya and Unity didn't go quite as planned. There was a very slight misalignment between the two. Mission control told the arm operator (name?) to loosen up the arm joints a bit, allowing Zarya to natually adjust its orientation to Unity. (At least that's how I remember it....correct me if wrong.)
-
Probably been asked before, but what if someone on the earth hit the Stupid button and detonated a nuke? Is the ISS radiation shielding enough to protect it from EMP? Thoughts are that it would depend where the device was detonated (if it was on the other side of the planet, would the earth mass be enough to shield it?), and that since weight was a consideration there was probably not enough margin to include enough shielding to protect it from such an event.
TIA
-
Is this the first time (either in space or ISS), where there are two astronauts aboard a vessel (ISS or a space vessel) from a single country who are NOT Americans or Russians? I know the Shuttle has carried many Canadian, ESA and JAXA astronauts, but I do not remember there ever being two from one country at the same time. ESA does not count as a "country".
Seeing Akihiko Hoshide and Sôichi Noguchi together aboard the ISS was VERY cool. I would have thought that this moment would have garnered a lot of coverage in Japan. Great moment for JAXA! I look forward to the day when ESA too has multiple astronauts in space at the same time. When Crew Dragon flights become "routine", I expect JAXA and ESA to fund free fly astronaut training flights on Crew Dragon, like the Inspiration 4 mission. $100 million (or maybe less) to train 4 astronauts in real space flight for one week.
-
If I remember correctly, Italy (Roberto Vittori during STS-134 met Paolo Nespoli on Expedition 26/27) and Canada (Julie Payette during STS-127 met Robert Thirsk on Expedition 20/21) also had.
-
If I remember correctly, Italy (Roberto Vittori during STS-134 met Paolo Nespoli on Expedition 26/27) and Canada (Julie Payette during STS-127 met Robert Thirsk on Expedition 20/21) also had.
It's correct answer. You will check all such situations just do below operations:
Look at the thread: Week-by-Week ISS Timeline (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50830.0):
the first link to check all crews from the beginning crewed ISS!
Enjoy!
-
Do the ISS solar arrays have an always-Sun-facing side (conversly an always-shadowed side)? That would have to be the case for the new overlay arrays to work. In other words, do the Beta Gimble Assemblies (BGAs) ever rotate the arrays through 180 degrees so that both sides of each array get their "Day in the Sun"? :) Thanks
-
Do the ISS solar arrays have an always-Sun-facing side (conversly an always-shadowed side)? That would have to be the case for the new overlay arrays to work. In other words, do the Beta Gimble Assemblies (BGAs) ever rotate the arrays through 180 degrees so that both sides of each array get their "Day in the Sun"? :) Thanks
one sided
-
A question regarding Russian Orlan suits on the ISS...
Historically, it seems that each rotation of new Orlan suits to the ISS has been comprised of three suits. For instance:
* Three Orlan-M's (#12, #14, #23) were launched with the ISS in 2000/2001 (two with Zvezda, one with Pirs)
* Three replacement suits (Orlan-M #25, #26, #27) were launched in 2004 by Progress M1-11 and M-45
* Three Orlan-MK's (#4, #5, #6) were launched in 2009 by Progress M-65, M-66, and M-02M
* Three Orlan-MKS's (#3, #4, #5) were launched in 2017-2019; #3 was lost with Progress MS-04, #4 and #5 arrived successfully on MS-05 and MS-09
In recent pictures of Pirs posted by cosmonauts, I've seen that Orlan-MK #4 and #6 are still present on the ISS, even though only the newer MKS units are still used in spacewalks. Is it known what the plan is regarding these? Are they to be retained at the ISS as spares, or will they be disposed of with Pirs?
Historically, what has the policy been regarding the keeping of spare Orlans on the ISS? Given that replacements are done in rounds of three, are three considered a full supply, or is one of the previous generation kept so that there are two spares (similar to the USOS policy of maintaining 4 EMUs on station at all times)? Has that plan changed due to the loss of Orlan-MKS #3 with Progress MS-04?
-
In light of the recent MMOD hit on the station arm, have there been any reports of an audible hit on a crew module by any station crew member? I assume not because no piece of debris large enough to be heard over the station 'machinery' noise has yet been encountered. Of course, a large impact mark on a module would be quite conspicuous.
Notes: This question could be extended to any U.S. or Russian manned spacecraft in history. Skylab crews sometimes heard pops and bangs, but these were caused by rapid temperature changes in the station's structure as it when in and out of shadow.
-
A question regarding Russian Orlan suits on the ISS...
Historically, it seems that each rotation of new Orlan suits to the ISS has been comprised of three suits. For instance:
* Three Orlan-M's (#12, #14, #23) were launched with the ISS in 2000/2001 (two with Zvezda, one with Pirs)
* Three replacement suits (Orlan-M #25, #26, #27) were launched in 2004 by Progress M1-11 and M-45
* Three Orlan-MK's (#4, #5, #6) were launched in 2009 by Progress M-65, M-66, and M-02M
* Three Orlan-MKS's (#3, #4, #5) were launched in 2017-2019; #3 was lost with Progress MS-04, #4 and #5 arrived successfully on MS-05 and MS-09
In recent pictures of Pirs posted by cosmonauts, I've seen that Orlan-MK #4 and #6 are still present on the ISS, even though only the newer MKS units are still used in spacewalks. Is it known what the plan is regarding these? Are they to be retained at the ISS as spares, or will they be disposed of with Pirs?
Historically, what has the policy been regarding the keeping of spare Orlans on the ISS? Given that replacements are done in rounds of three, are three considered a full supply, or is one of the previous generation kept so that there are two spares (similar to the USOS policy of maintaining 4 EMUs on station at all times)? Has that plan changed due to the loss of Orlan-MKS #3 with Progress MS-04?
I have been trying to clarify these issues for several months, but Roscosmos is silent about its plans. Everything indicates that the MK-4 and MK-6 will be destroyed along with the Pier on July 16, 2021!
MK-5 was destroyed on July 20, 2017 during Progress MS-05/66P destruction in the Earth's atmosphere
@anik can you confirm this fact!
-
Are they to be retained at the ISS as spares, or will they be disposed of with Pirs?
The first variant.
-
In light of the current solar array upgrades, are there any concerns with degradation of the thermal radiators? There they also becoming less efficient? Are upgrades possible? Thx
-
The docking hub in the center Among other things, # ProgressMS17 will deliver a number of scientific equipment to the # ISS . In particular, the materials of the Correction experiment will arrive at the station to develop effective means of preventing changes in the bone tissue of astronauts in zero gravity.
https://twitter.com/roscosmos/status/1410762366678093830
It looks like the ISS was flying upside down during docking of MS-17. I think i saw a few Soyuz dockings to nadir ports (Pirs and Rassvet) where the orientation was normal in process.
What's the difference this time?
Sorry if it was asked before.
Edit: OK, disregard this question. :) I've mistaken the docking port - it's Poisk zenith, not Pirs nadir.
But now I have another question about the same docking.
https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1410762409745260545
Apparent clouds motion on this video is from top to bottom. If it is correct, than the station must be flying with Zvezda in the front. Is it just an illusion?
-
Edit: OK, disregard this question. :) I've mistaken the docking port - it's Poisk zenith, not Pirs nadir.
But now I have another question about the same docking.
https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1410762409745260545 (https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1410762409745260545)
Apparent clouds motion on this video is from top to bottom. If it is correct, than the station must be flying with Zvezda in the front. Is it just an illusion?
ISS has different attitude modes. Nominal one is +XVV / LVLH (positive X axis in the Velocity Vector, in the Local Vertical-Local Horizontal reference frame), with the truss perpendicular to the direction of flight and the USOS leading, +Z toward local zenith.
When Shuttle was docked, the preferred attitude for TPS safety reasons against ramming MMOD was generally -XVV. Not sure why it was used in this case (maybe wake plasma environment?), but certainly looks like it was.
https://www.unoosa.org/documents/pdf/psa/hsti/Bartolomeo/BTL-UG.pdf
http://wsn.spaceflight.esa.int/docs/EuropeanUserGuide/chapter_7_iss.pdf
-
Very stupid question to all:
A few days ago at this link https://www.nasa.gov/feature/facts-and-figures
was wroted:
"Space Station Facts
242 individuals from 19 countries have visited the International Space Station
(Last Updated: May 13, 2021/Editor: Mark Garcia)"
Now we can read bellow information:
" Space Station Facts
243 individuals from 19 countries have visited the International Space Station
(Last Updated: Jul 12, 2021/Editor: Mark Garcia)"
the same is at: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/visitors-to-the-station-by-country/
"243 individuals from 19 countries have visited the International Space Station."
but a few days earlier, NASA had listed 244 as the total number of visitors to date in all press articles.
So for me as a math, a NASA artmetic is quite strange not to write more. Until now, I thought that we only have a brothel in Europe, but it turns out that the USA is no different!
Can anyone, contrary to NASA's calculations, sum it up correctly from her website * the address mentioned above *, which data is CORRECT:
"United States - 153 people
Russia - 50 people
Japan - 9 people
Canada - 8 people
Italy - 5 people
France - 4 people
Germany - 3 people
Belgium - one people
Netherlands - one people
Sweden - one people
Brazil - one people
Denmark - one people
Kazakhstan - one people
Spain - one people
Great Britain - one people
Malaysia - one people
South Africa - one people
South Korea - one people
United Arab Emirates - one people
and the final answer is 244!
ONE NASA reference from: https://blogs.nasa.gov/spacestation/2021/06/25/spacewalkers-complete-second-roll-out-solar-array-installation/
In November 2020, the International Space Station surpassed its 20-year milestone of continuous human presence, providing opportunities for unique research and technological demonstrations that help prepare for long-duration missions to the Moon and Mars and also improve life on Earth. In that time, 244 people from 19 countries have visited the orbiting laboratory that has hosted nearly 3,000 research investigations from researchers in 108 countries and areas.
Why some people complicate the reality very clearly defined by history?
@Mark Garcia from NASA like this page adminitrator:
what was done in counting lessons in elementary school?
Let know this guy about correct number - 244 ;)
-
ISS has different attitude modes. Nominal one is +XVV / LVLH (positive X axis in the Velocity Vector, in the Local Vertical-Local Horizontal reference frame), with the truss perpendicular to the direction of flight and the USOS leading, +Z toward local zenith.
When Shuttle was docked, the preferred attitude for TPS safety reasons against ramming MMOD was generally -XVV. Not sure why it was used in this case (maybe wake plasma environment?), but certainly looks like it was.
https://www.unoosa.org/documents/pdf/psa/hsti/Bartolomeo/BTL-UG.pdf
http://wsn.spaceflight.esa.int/docs/EuropeanUserGuide/chapter_7_iss.pdf
Thank you for the explanation!
Very interesting documents. I never knew about XPOP attitude usage in the early days.
Are you saying that -XVV attitude was used at all times whenever Shuttle was docked to the forward port? Not only during docking process?
-
ISS has different attitude modes. Nominal one is +XVV / LVLH (positive X axis in the Velocity Vector, in the Local Vertical-Local Horizontal reference frame), with the truss perpendicular to the direction of flight and the USOS leading, +Z toward local zenith.
When Shuttle was docked, the preferred attitude for TPS safety reasons against ramming MMOD was generally -XVV. Not sure why it was used in this case (maybe wake plasma environment?), but certainly looks like it was.
https://www.unoosa.org/documents/pdf/psa/hsti/Bartolomeo/BTL-UG.pdf
http://wsn.spaceflight.esa.int/docs/EuropeanUserGuide/chapter_7_iss.pdf
Thank you for the explanation!
Very interesting documents. I never knew about XPOP attitude usage in the early days.
Are you saying that -XVV attitude was used at all times whenever Shuttle was docked to the forward port? Not only during docking process?
It was the default attitude for MMOD reasons (TPS on belly was better shielded that way, being on the wake side, otherwise it'd be ramming head-on onto the 'wind'). It probably was maneuvered away frequently depending on other more pressing constraints: I remember such issues when the truss segments were installed among other occasions. I'm not positive it was used during STS dockings themselves, I'd have to go look back some of the old coverages :)
-
ISS has different attitude modes. Nominal one is +XVV / LVLH (positive X axis in the Velocity Vector, in the Local Vertical-Local Horizontal reference frame), with the truss perpendicular to the direction of flight and the USOS leading, +Z toward local zenith.
When Shuttle was docked, the preferred attitude for TPS safety reasons against ramming MMOD was generally -XVV. Not sure why it was used in this case (maybe wake plasma environment?), but certainly looks like it was.
https://www.unoosa.org/documents/pdf/psa/hsti/Bartolomeo/BTL-UG.pdf
http://wsn.spaceflight.esa.int/docs/EuropeanUserGuide/chapter_7_iss.pdf
Thank you for the explanation!
Very interesting documents. I never knew about XPOP attitude usage in the early days.
Are you saying that -XVV attitude was used at all times whenever Shuttle was docked to the forward port? Not only during docking process?
ISS -XVV attitude was *never* used for the shuttle "during docking process". Only while docked.
The following attitudes were used for shuttle/ISS dockings:
STS-88/ISS-2A through STS-96/ISS-3A: ISS -XLV/-ZVV, shuttle -ZLV/-XVV, -Rbar approach (from above coming down) to PMA-2.
STS-97/ISS-4A and STS-98/ISS-5A: ISS +ZLV/+XVV, shuttle +ZLV/-XVV, +Rbar approach (from below coming up) to PMA-3.
STS-102/ISS-5A.1 and subsequent: ISS +ZLV/+XVV, shuttle -XLV/+ZVV, +Vbar approach (from forward coming aft) to PMA-2.
-
The ISS made a rotation of 90° in the axis of the pitch and 180° in the axis of the roll for the undocking of Pirs.
So, if I understand correctly, this is the first time the ISS has been in this position. Is this true?
-
Hope this is a good place for this question.
What is the rated max torque that the docking interfaces on ISS can take? The fight between the MLM and ISS just had me wondering and I can't seem to find it with my google fu.
-
Very stupid question to all:
A few days ago at this link https://www.nasa.gov/feature/facts-and-figures
was wroted:
"Space Station Facts
242 individuals from 19 countries have visited the International Space Station
(Last Updated: May 13, 2021/Editor: Mark Garcia)"
Now we can read bellow information:
" Space Station Facts
243 individuals from 19 countries have visited the International Space Station
(Last Updated: Jul 12, 2021/Editor: Mark Garcia)"
the same is at: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/visitors-to-the-station-by-country/
"243 individuals from 19 countries have visited the International Space Station."
but a few days earlier, NASA had listed 244 as the total number of visitors to date in all press articles.
So for me as a math, a NASA artmetic is quite strange not to write more. Until now, I thought that we only have a brothel in Europe, but it turns out that the USA is no different!
Can anyone, contrary to NASA's calculations, sum it up correctly from her website * the address mentioned above *, which data is CORRECT:
"United States - 153 people
Russia - 50 people
Japan - 9 people
Canada - 8 people
Italy - 5 people
France - 4 people
Germany - 3 people
Belgium - one people
Netherlands - one people
Sweden - one people
Brazil - one people
Denmark - one people
Kazakhstan - one people
Spain - one people
Great Britain - one people
Malaysia - one people
South Africa - one people
South Korea - one people
United Arab Emirates - one people
and the final answer is 244!
ONE NASA reference from: https://blogs.nasa.gov/spacestation/2021/06/25/spacewalkers-complete-second-roll-out-solar-array-installation/
In November 2020, the International Space Station surpassed its 20-year milestone of continuous human presence, providing opportunities for unique research and technological demonstrations that help prepare for long-duration missions to the Moon and Mars and also improve life on Earth. In that time, 244 people from 19 countries have visited the orbiting laboratory that has hosted nearly 3,000 research investigations from researchers in 108 countries and areas.
Why some people complicate the reality very clearly defined by history?
@Mark Garcia from NASA like this page adminitrator:
what was done in counting lessons in elementary school?
Let know this guy about correct number - 244 ;)
Success on today (Aug 2, 2021):
244 individuals from 19 countries have visited the International Space Station.
at: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/visitors-to-the-station-by-country/
-
https://twitter.com/Ian_Benecken/status/1422510282400751617
-
As we know, the shuttle's payload mass to orbit was reduced when the ISS was moved up to 51.6 deg. inclination. Of course Kibo (35,000 lbs./15,900 kg., 37.6 ft.) fell within the Shuttle's 51.6 launch capacity. So why didn't the U.S. opt for an equally long Destiny module that could house more science racks? Destiny is only 28.0 ft. long and ~3000 lbs. lighter than Kibo. Cost limitations? ESA chose to base the Columbus module on the even smaller MPLM design. Strange that a consortium of European nations could not finance a new module comparable in habitable volume to Destiny or Kibo, each constructed by a single country. Thanks for any comments or any prior forum links covering this.
-
What is that which is attached to the Canadarm2 in this picture?
https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/hurricane-ida-makes-landfall-in-louisiana (https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/hurricane-ida-makes-landfall-in-louisiana)
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/thumbnails/image/hurricaneida2.jpg)
-
As we know, the shuttle's payload mass to orbit was reduced when the ISS was moved up to 51.6 deg. inclination. Of course Kibo (35,000 lbs./15,900 kg., 37.6 ft.) fell within the Shuttle's 51.6 launch capacity. So why didn't the U.S. opt for an equally long Destiny module that could house more science racks? Destiny is only 28.0 ft. long and ~3000 lbs. lighter than Kibo. Cost limitations? ESA chose to base the Columbus module on the even smaller MPLM design. Strange that a consortium of European nations could not finance a new module comparable in habitable volume to Destiny or Kibo, each constructed by a single country. Thanks for any comments or any prior forum links covering this.
nothing but cost
-
What is that which is attached to the Canadarm2 in this picture?
SPDM
-
One question, does NASA or Roscosmos have a page or list where all the orbital corrections that have been made are listed?
-
One question, does NASA or Roscosmos have a page or list where all the orbital corrections that have been made are listed?
I have:
001/1 21.11.1998 МКС Заря
002/2 21.11.1998 МКС Заря
003/3 23.11.1998 МКС Заря
004/4 23.11.1998 МКС Заря
005/5 24.11.1998 МКС Заря
006/1 08.12.1998 МКС Индевор (STS-88)
007/6 16.12.1998 МКС Заря
008/7 21.12.1998 МКС Заря
009/8 21.12.1998 МКС Заря
010/2 03.06.1999 МКС Дискавери (STS-96)
011/9 26.10.1999 МКС Заря Уклонение от космического мусора
012/10 01.12.1999 МКС Заря
013/11 01.12.1999 МКС Заря
014/3 24.05.2000 МКС Атлантис (STS-101)
015/4 25.05.2000 МКС Атлантис (STS-101)
016/5 25.05.2000 МКС Атлантис (STS-101)
017/12 18.07.2000 МКС Заря
018/13 18.07.2000 МКС Заря
019/14 25.07.2000 МКС Заря
020/15 25.07.2000 МКС Заря
021/16 25.07.2000 МКС Заря
022/17 26.07.2000 МКС Заря Маневры при сближении со Звездой подсчитаны за один
023/1 15.08.2000 МКС Прогресс М1-3
024/2 17.08.2000 МКС Прогресс М1-3
025/6 11.09.2000 МКС Атлантис (STS-106)
026/7 14.09.2000 МКС Атлантис (STS-106)
027/8 15.09.2000 МКС Атлантис (STS-106)
028/9 17.09.2000 МКС Атлантис (STS-106)
029/3 29.09.2000 МКС Прогресс М1-3 Уклонение от космического мусора
030/10 16.10.2000 МКС Дискавери (STS-92)
031/11 17.10.2000 МКС Дискавери (STS-92)
032/12 18.10.2000 МКС Дискавери (STS-92)
033/13 10.02.2001 МКС Атлантис (STS-98) Уклонение от космического мусора
034/14 11.02.2001 МКС Атлантис (STS-98)
035/15 11.02.2001 МКС Атлантис (STS-98)
036/16 13.02.2001 МКС Атлантис (STS-98)
037/17 13.02.2001 МКС Атлантис (STS-98)
038/18 14.02.2001 МКС Атлантис (STS-98)
039/19 15.02.2001 МКС Атлантис (STS-98)
040/20 15.02.2001 МКС Атлантис (STS-98)
041/21 14.03.2001 МКС Дискавери (STS-102)
042/22 16.03.2001 МКС Дискавери (STS-102)
043/23 17.03.2001 МКС Дискавери (STS-102)
044/4 04.04.2001 МКС Прогресс М-44
045/5 08.04.2001 МКС Прогресс М-44
046/6 09.04.2001 МКС Прогресс М-44
047/24 23.04.2001 МКС Индевор (STS-100)
048/25 27.04.2001 МКС Индевор (STS-100)
049/26 16.07.2001 МКС Атлантис (STS-104)
050/27 18.07.2001 МКС Атлантис (STS-104)
051/28 19.07.2001 МКС Атлантис (STS-104)
052/7 22.07.2001 МКС Прогресс М1-6
053/8 22.07.2001 МКС Прогресс М1-6
054/9 23.07.2001 МКС Прогресс М1-6
055/10 25.07.2001 МКС Прогресс М1-6
056/11 25.07.2001 МКС Прогресс М1-6
057/29 14.08.2001 МКС Дискавери (STS-105)
058/30 17.08.2001 МКС Дискавери (STS-105)
059/12 11.10.2001 МКС Прогресс М-45
060/13 11.10.2001 МКС Прогресс М-45
061/31 09.12.2001 МКС Индевор (STS-108)
062/32 11.12.2001 МКС Индевор (STS-108)
063/33 12.12.2001 МКС Индевор (STS-108)
064/34 15.12.2001 МКС Индевор (STS-108) Уклонение от космического мусора
065/14 10.01.2002 МКС Прогресс М1-7
066/15 10.01.2002 МКС Прогресс М1-7
067/16 21.02.2002 МКС Прогресс М1-7
068/17 21.02.2002 МКС Прогресс М1-7
069/18 06.03.2002 МКС Прогресс М1-7
070/19 06.03.2002 МКС Прогресс М1-7
071/20 13.03.2002 МКС Прогресс М1-7
072/21 13.03.2002 МКС Прогресс М1-7
073/35 13.04.2002 МКС Атлантис (STS-110)
074/36 14.04.2002 МКС Атлантис (STS-110)
075/37 17.04.2002 МКС Атлантис (STS-110)
076/22 19.04.2002 МКС Прогресс М1-8
077/23 15.05.2002 МКС Прогресс М1-8 Уклонение от космического мусора
078/38 10.06.2002 МКС Индевор (STS-111)
079/39 12.06.2002 МКС Индевор (STS-111)
080/40 14.06.2002 МКС Индевор (STS-111)
081/24 01.08.2002 МКС Прогресс М-46
082/25 12.09.2002 МКС Прогресс М-46
083/41 12.10.2002 МКС Атлантис (STS-112)
084/42 14.10.2002 МКС Атлантис (STS-112)
085/26 18.10.2002 МКС Прогресс М1-9
086/43 27.11.2002 МКС Индевор (STS-113)
087/44 29.11.2002 МКС Индевор (STS-113)
088/45 01.12.2002 МКС Индевор (STS-113)
089/27 11.02.2003 МКС Прогресс М-47
090/28 12.03.2003 МКС Прогресс М-47
091/29 13.03.2003 МКС Прогресс М-47
092/30 04.04.2003 МКС Прогресс М-47
093/31 10.04.2003 МКС Прогресс М-47
094/32 30.05.2003 МКС Прогресс М-47 Уклонение от космического мусора
095/33 01.10.2003 МКС Прогресс М-48
096/34 08.01.2004 МКС Прогресс М-48
097/35 02.03.2004 МКС Прогресс М1-11
098/36 18.05.2004 МКС Прогресс М1-11
099/37 20.08.2004 МКС Прогресс М-50
100/38 26.08.2004 МКС Прогресс М-50
101/39 23.09.2004 МКС Прогресс М-50
102/40 17.11.2004 МКС Прогресс М-50
103/41 15.01.2005 МКС Прогресс М-51
104/42 16.02.2005 МКС Прогресс М-51
105/43 25.03.2005 МКС Прогресс М-52
106/44 11.05.2005 МКС Прогресс М-52
107/45 29.06.2005 МКС Прогресс М-53
108/46 06.07.2005 МКС Прогресс М-53
109/47 18.10.2005 МКС Прогресс М-54
110/48 26.10.2005 МКС Прогресс М-54
111/49 10.11.2005 МКС Прогресс М-54
112/50 10.11.2005 МКС Прогресс М-54
113/51 11.02.2006 МКС Прогресс М-55
114/52 22.02.2006 МКС Прогресс М-54
115/53 04.05.2006 МКС Прогресс М-56
116/54 09.06.2006 МКС Прогресс М-56
117/55 26.07.2006 МКС Прогресс М-56
118/56 23.08.2006 МКС Прогресс М-56
119/57 29.11.2006 МКС Прогресс М-58
120/58 04.12.2006 МКС Прогресс М-58
121/59 16.03.2007 МКС Прогресс М-58
122/1 25.04.2007 МКС Звезда
123/2 28.04.2007 МКС Звезда
124/60 23.05.2007 МКС Прогресс М-60
125/61 21.07.2007 МКС Прогресс М-60
126/62 23.07.2007 МКС Прогресс М-60
127/3 24.09.2007 МКС Звезда
128/4 12.01.2008 МКС Звезда
129/46 16.02.2008 МКС Атлантис (STS-122)
130/5 28.02.2008 МКС Звезда
131/1 21.04.2008 МКС Жюль Верн (ATV-1)
132/2 25.04.2008 МКС Жюль Верн (ATV-1)
133/3 19.06.2008 МКС Жюль Верн (ATV-1)
134/4 23.07.2008 МКС Жюль Верн (ATV-1)
135/5 13.08.2008 МКС Жюль Верн (ATV-1)
136/6 27.08.2008 МКС Жюль Верн (ATV-1) Уклонение от космического мусора
137/63 04.10.2008 МКС Прогресс М-65
138/64 29.10.2008 МКС Прогресс М-65
139/47 21.11.2008 МКС Индевор (STS-126)
140/65 17.12.2008 МКС Прогресс М-01М
141/6 14.01.2009 МКС Звезда
142/48 22.03.2009 МКС Индевор (STS-119) Уклонение от космического мусора
143/49 18.07.2009 МКС Индевор (STS-127) Уклонение от космического мусора
144/66 01.08.2009 МКС Прогресс М-67
145/50 24.11.2009 МКС Атлантис (STS-129)
146/7 22.01.2010 МКС Звезда
147/8 24.01.2010 МКС Звезда
148/51 18.02.2010 МКС Индевор (STS-130)
149/67 20.02.2010 МКС Прогресс М-04М
150/68 24.03.2010 МКС Прогресс М-04М
151/69 23.04.2010 МКС Прогресс М-04М
152/70 26.05.2010 МКС Прогресс М-05М
153/9 05.06.2010 МКС Звезда
154/71 08.06.2010 МКС Прогресс М-05М
155/72 08.06.2010 МКС Прогресс М-05М
156/73 16.07.2010 МКС Прогресс М-06М
157/74 18.08.2010 МКС Прогресс М-06М
158/75 15.09.2010 МКС Прогресс М-07М
159/76 20.10.2010 МКС Прогресс М-07М
160/77 26.10.2010 МКС Прогресс М-07М Уклонение от космического мусора
161/78 25.11.2010 МКС Прогресс М-07М
162/79 22.12.2010 МКС Прогресс М-07М
163/80 13.01.2011 МКС Прогресс М-07М
164/81 09.02.2011 МКС Прогресс М-07М
165/7 25.02.2011 МКС Иоганн Кеплер (ATV-2)
166/52 03.03.2011 МКС Дискавери (STS-133)
167/8 18.03.2011 МКС Иоганн Кеплер (ATV-2)
168/9 02.04.2011 МКС Иоганн Кеплер (ATV-2) Уклонение от космического мусора
169/10 05.05.2011 МКС Иоганн Кеплер (ATV-2)
170/53 29.05.2011 МКС Индевор (STS-134)
171/11 02.06.2011 МКС Иоганн Кеплер (ATV-2)
172/12 12.06.2011 МКС Иоганн Кеплер (ATV-2)
173/13 12.06.2011 МКС Иоганн Кеплер (ATV-2)
174/14 15.06.2011 МКС Иоганн Кеплер (ATV-2)
175/15 17.06.2011 МКС Иоганн Кеплер (ATV-2)
176/82 29.06.2011 МКС Прогресс М-11М
177/83 01.07.2011 МКС Прогресс М-11М
178/10 29.09.2011 МКС Звезда Уклонение от космического мусора
179/11 19.10.2011 МКС Звезда
180/12 26.10.2011 МКС Звезда
181/13 18.11.2011 МКС Звезда
182/14 30.11.2011 МКС Звезда
183/15 09.12.2011 МКС Звезда
184/16 13.01.2012 МКС Звезда Уклонение от космического мусора
185/17 28.01.2012 МКС Звезда Уклонение от космического мусора
186/18 29.02.2012 МКС Звезда
187/16 31.03.2012 МКС Эдоардо Амальди (ATV-3)
188/17 05.04.2012 МКС Эдоардо Амальди (ATV-3)
189/18 25.04.2012 МКС Эдоардо Амальди (ATV-3)
190/19 04.05.2012 МКС Эдоардо Амальди (ATV-3)
191/20 26.05.2012 МКС Эдоардо Амальди (ATV-3)
192/21 20.06.2012 МКС Эдоардо Амальди (ATV-3)
193/22 18.07.2012 МКС Эдоардо Амальди (ATV-3)
194/23 15.08.2012 МКС Эдоардо Амальди (ATV-3)
195/24 22.08.2012 МКС Эдоардо Амальди (ATV-3)
196/25 22.08.2012 МКС Эдоардо Амальди (ATV-3)
197/26 14.09.2012 МКС Эдоардо Амальди (ATV-3)
198/19 17.10.2012 МКС Звезда
199/84 31.10.2012 МКС Прогресс М-16М Уклонение от космического мусора
200/85 16.12.2012 МКС Прогресс М-16М
201/86 23.12.2012 МКС Прогресс М-17М
202/87 17.01.2013 МКС Прогресс М-17М
203/88 22.02.2013 МКС Прогресс М-17М
204/89 21.03.2013 МКС Прогресс М-17М
205/90 03.04.2013 МКС Прогресс М-17М
206/91 28.04.2013 МКС Прогресс М-19М
207/92 08.05.2013 МКС Прогресс М-19М
208/93 17.05.2013 МКС Прогресс М-19М
209/27 19.06.2013 МКС Альберт Эйнштейн (ATV-4)
210/28 10.07.2013 МКС Альберт Эйнштейн (ATV-4)
211/29 31.08.2013 МКС Альберт Эйнштейн (ATV-4)
212/30 15.09.2013 МКС Альберт Эйнштейн (ATV-4)
213/31 02.10.2013 МКС Альберт Эйнштейн (ATV-4)
214/32 24.10.2013 МКС Альберт Эйнштейн (ATV-4)
215/94 11.12.2013 МКС Прогресс М-21М
216/95 13.12.2013 МКС Прогресс М-21М
217/96 18.01.2014 МКС Прогресс М-21М
218/97 13.03.2014 МКС Прогресс М-21М
219/98 17.03.2014 МКС Прогресс М-22М Уклонение от космического мусора
220/99 28.03.2014 МКС Прогресс М-21М
221/100 03.04.2014 МКС Прогресс М-21М Уклонение от космического мусора
222/101 12.04.2014 МКС Прогресс М-21М
223/102 29.04.2014 МКС Прогресс М-21М
224/20 25.06.2014 МКС Звезда
225/21 11.07.2014 МКС Звезда
226/22 23.07.2014 МКС Звезда Уклонение от космического мусора
227/33 14.08.2014 МКС Жорж Леметр (ATV-5)
228/34 27.08.2014 МКС Жорж Леметр (ATV-5)
229/35 14.09.2014 МКС Жорж Леметр (ATV-5)
230/36 08.10.2014 МКС Жорж Леметр (ATV-5)
231/37 27.10.2014 МКС Жорж Леметр (ATV-5) Уклонение от космического мусора
232/38 12.11.2014 МКС Жорж Леметр (ATV-5) Уклонение от космического мусора
233/39 28.01.2015 МКС Жорж Леметр (ATV-5)
234/103 26.02.2015 МКС Прогресс М-26М
235/104 03.03.2015 МКС Прогресс М-26М
236/105 18.03.2015 МКС Прогресс М-26М
237/106 02.04.2015 МКС Прогресс М-26М
238/107 23.04.2015 МКС Прогресс М-26М Уклонение от космического мусора
239/108 06.05.2015 МКС Прогресс М-26М
240/109 18.05.2015 МКС Прогресс М-26М
241/110 08.06.2015 МКС Прогресс М-26М Уклонение от космического мусора
242/111 18.06.2015 МКС Прогресс М-26М
243/112 10.07.2015 МКС Прогресс М-26М
244/113 26.07.2015 МКС Прогресс М-26М Уклонение от космического мусора
245/114 31.08.2015 МКС Прогресс М-28М
246/115 07.09.2015 МКС Прогресс М-28М
247/23 14.09.2015 МКС Звезда
248/116 27.09.2015 МКС Прогресс М-28М Уклонение от космического мусора
249/117 25.11.2015 МКС Прогресс М-29М
250/118 11.01.2016 МКС Прогресс М-29М
251/119 27.01.2016 МКС Прогресс М-29М
252/120 17.02.2016 МКС Прогресс М-29М
253/121 05.03.2016 МКС Прогресс М-29М
254/122 13.04.2016 МКС Прогресс МС-02
255/123 08.06.2016 МКС Прогресс МС-02
256/124 24.08.2016 МКС Прогресс МС-02
257/125 10.09.2016 МКС Прогресс МС-02
258/24 02.11.2016 МКС Звезда
259/25 02.03.2017 МКС Звезда
260/26 03.04.2017 МКС Звезда
261/27 27.04.2017 МКС Звезда
262/28 17.05.2017 МКС Звезда
263/126 09.08.2017 МКС Прогресс МС-06
264/127 27.08.2017 МКС Прогресс МС-06
265/128 27.09.2017 МКС Прогресс МС-06
266/129 02.11.2017 МКС Прогресс МС-06
267/130 29.11.2017 МКС Прогресс МС-06
268/29 17.01.2018 МКС Звезда
269/30 30.01.2018 МКС Звезда
270/131 13.03.2018 МКС Прогресс МС-08
271/132 18.04.2018 МКС Прогресс МС-08
272/133 12.05.2018 МКС Прогресс МС-08
273/134 23.06.2018 МКС Прогресс МС-08
274/1 10.07.2018 МКС Лебедь (OA-9)
275/135 26.07.2018 МКС Прогресс МС-08
276/31 06.09.2018 МКС Звезда
277/32 20.09.2018 МКС Звезда
278/136 27.12.2018 МКС Прогресс МС-10
279/137 18.01.2019 МКС Прогресс МС-10
280/138 26.02.2019 МКС Прогресс МС-10
281/139 23.03.2019 МКС Прогресс МС-10
282/140 23.05.2019 МКС Прогресс МС-10
283/33 03.07.2019 МКС Звезда
284/141 15.08.2019 МКС Прогресс МС-12
285/142 15.08.2019 МКС Прогресс МС-12
286/34 14.09.2019 МКС Звезда
287/143 07.11.2019 МКС Прогресс МС-12
288/144 27.12.2019 МКС Прогресс МС-13
289/145 27.12.2019 МКС Прогресс МС-13
290/146 23.01.2020 МКС Прогресс МС-13
291/147 23.01.2020 МКС Прогресс МС-13
292/148 19.03.2020 МКС Прогресс МС-13
293/149 02.04.2020 МКС Прогресс МС-13
294/35 19.04.2020 МКС Звезда
295/150 03.07.2020 МКС Прогресс МС-14 Уклонение от космического мусора
296/151 11.07.2020 МКС Прогресс МС-14
297/152 29.07.2020 МКС Прогресс МС-14
298/153 10.09.2020 МКС Прогресс МС-14
299/154 22.09.2020 МКС Прогресс МС-14 Уклонение от космического мусора
300/155 07.10.2020 МКС Прогресс МС-14
301/156 12.11.2020 МКС Прогресс МС-14
302/157 21.01.2021 МКС Прогресс МС-14
303/158 12.03.2021 МКС Прогресс МС-14
304/159 02.04.2021 МКС Прогресс МС-14
305/160 20.05.2021 МКС Прогресс МС-16
306/161 24.06.2021 МКС Прогресс МС-16
307/36 21.08.2021 МКС Звезда
308/37 11.09.2021 МКС Звезда
-
One question, does NASA or Roscosmos have a page or list where all the orbital corrections that have been made are listed?
I have:
...
Wow, excellent information! Is the current list by chance maintained somewhere on the Web that can be bookmarked as a reference?
-
Here is such list from 255 ISS TCM in pdf file:
http://lk.astronautilus.pl/temp/neo/ISS_TCMs.pdf
or
https://tinyurl.com/4rk7n6fa (short link as you prefer).
-
Is the current list by chance maintained somewhere on the Web that can be bookmarked as a reference?
I have not a link, it is my personal list.
-
Is the current list by chance maintained somewhere on the Web that can be bookmarked as a reference?
I have not a link, it is my personal list.
Thank you very much for sharing your personal list, do you have only that information or do you also have the ISS orbital data (before and after correction) or the duration of each correction?
-
do you have only that information or do you also have the ISS orbital data (before and after correction) or the duration of each correction?
Up to 2008: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28777.msg892477#msg892477
Columns 9 and 10 - ISS orbit mean altitude before and after correction
Column 8 - duration of correction
-
From 2009 to 2018:
Columns 10 and 11 - ISS orbit mean altitude before and after correction
Column 8 - duration of correction
All these lists are from book Управление орбитальным движением МКС (1998-2018 годы) by Е.К.Мельников
-
From 2009 to 2018:
Columns 10 and 11 - ISS orbit mean altitude before and after correction
Column 8 - duration of correction
All these lists are from book Управление орбитальным движением МКС (1998-2018 годы) by Е.К.Мельников
Thank you very much for sharing the information, I was also making a similar table, if you need help or information from 2018 onwards I could pass it on as well.
-
I was wondering about the universal waste management system (UWMS) the new toilet that was delivered to the ISS in October 2020 is it installed yet? I cant find anything other than it going up on Cygnus-14.
I know that NASA and the astronauts are a bit silent on waste disposal but if it was installed wouldn't they talk about it more. I just hope they can get it working before Artimus II that will use the same UWMS. It would be embarrassing to run into an issue like on I4 with its toilet fan problem, at least on ISS you have the Russian's toilet if yours goes down while you work out the kinks. I guess in a pinch you could do it the old-fashioned Apollo way without a vacuum.
UPDATE: Thomas pesquet posted a 360 video in node 3 where the toilets are and you can see the UWMS, not in the stall so probably not in use. also Thomas pointed out the legacy toilet so it seems it is in place but not being used just yet I want to know what the hold up is. could it just be lack of time in the schedule with science and solar array taking priority? maybe when crew 3 transfer of when axios-1 come aboard they can work on it with the extra manpower.
here is the video on his facebook. https://www.facebook.com/ESAThomasPesquet/videos/289531449666336/
-
I was wondering about the universal waste management system (UWMS) the new toilet that was delivered to the ISS in October 2020 is it installed yet? I cant find anything other than it going up on Cygnus-14.
I know that NASA and the astronauts are a bit silent on waste disposal but if it was installed wouldn't they talk about it more. I just hope they can get it working before Artimus II that will use the same UWMS. It would be embarrassing to run into an issue like on I4 with its toilet fan problem, at least on ISS you have the Russian's toilet if yours goes down while you work out the kinks. I guess in a pinch you could do it the old-fashioned Apollo way without a vacuum.
UPDATE: Thomas pesquet posted a 360 video in node 3 where the toilets are and you can see the UWMS, not in the stall so probably not in use. also Thomas pointed out the legacy toilet so it seems it is in place but not being used just yet I want to know what the hold up is. could it just be lack of time in the schedule with science and solar array taking priority? maybe when crew 3 transfer of when axios-1 come aboard they can work on it with the extra manpower.
here is the video on his facebook. https://www.facebook.com/ESAThomasPesquet/videos/289531449666336/ (https://www.facebook.com/ESAThomasPesquet/videos/289531449666336/)
Installed and activated back in May, but problems with the motor ensued, which forced them to abandon activation in mid-June. Then the Nauka integration appears to have taken precedence. As of now, they appear to have solved some of the main issues but there's still an off-nominal sensor that can be faulty or signaling a water pre-treatment problem that will need samples sent to the ground for analysis on the next available opportunity (possibly SpX-23's Dragon later this week).
-
Installed and activated back in May
UWMS installation has begun in December. There are problems with its activation. I have not heard during ISS conversations that it is working.
P.S.: I see that you updated post.
-
From 2009 to 2018:
Columns 10 and 11 - ISS orbit mean altitude before and after correction
Column 8 - duration of correction
All these lists are from book Управление орбитальным движением МКС (1998-2018 годы) by Е.К.Мельников
Thank you very much for sharing the information, I was also making a similar table, if you need help or information from 2018 onwards I could pass it on as well.
Here is my own current list, which largely agrees with Anik's but keeps a few more details in some cases
-
From 2009 to 2018:
Columns 10 and 11 - ISS orbit mean altitude before and after correction
Column 8 - duration of correction
All these lists are from book Управление орбитальным движением МКС (1998-2018 годы) by Е.К.Мельников
Thanks for posting these!
Only wish they also included kg of propellant used...
[EDIT: LOOKS CLOSER] oh, they DO include that! Fantastic.
Now I only wish we had the same tables for TCM1-140 and for Mir and Salyut :-)
-
I've been wondering... unlike the US, which has the TDRS constellation, Russia still has to restrict a lot of their operations to times when the ISS is within range of their domestic ground stations. This was a notable issue when the unplanned Nauka firings occurred, but it also came up during various recent docking attempts that I watched. Why doesn't Russia have the capability to stay connected with the ISS beyond reach of their ground stations? They do have the Luch network, which seems to have been updated over the last years, but apparently it cannot be put to use in this role? I tried to find out why, but it has proven somewhat difficult to find information on this, and i would love to know more about what the limiting factor is here.
-
I've been wondering... unlike the US, which has the TDRS constellation, Russia still has to restrict a lot of their operations to times when the ISS is within range of their domestic ground stations. This was a notable issue when the unplanned Nauka firings occurred, but it also came up during various recent docking attempts that I watched. Why doesn't Russia have the capability to stay connected with the ISS beyond reach of their ground stations? They do have the Luch network, which seems to have been updated over the last years, but apparently it cannot be put to use in this role? I tried to find out why, but it has proven somewhat difficult to find information on this, and i would love to know more about what the limiting factor is here.
Some functions are indeed already covered by Luch - see for example the recent Progress MS-18 launch:
The Luch relay system has successfully completed the tasks of launching the Progress MS-18 cargo vehicle
02.11.2021 20:43
The Luch multifunctional space relay system successfully completed its target tasks during the launch of the Soyuz-2.1a launch vehicle with the Progress MS-18 transport cargo vehicle.
After the Progress MS-18 spacecraft left the range of radio visibility of ground communication facilities (11th minute of flight), telemetry and command information from the spacecraft was transmitted by means of the Luch system (operator - Gonets satellite system). For these purposes, the channels of spacecraft of the Luch-5 series, onboard equipment installed on the spacecraft, and ground infrastructure were used. The operator's on-duty shifts in the normal mode completed the tasks of planning and controlling the retransmission sessions.
In total, starting from the launch of Progress into near-earth orbit and until the completion of its docking with the ISS on October 30, 2021 at 04:31 Moscow time, 35 relay sessions were successfully carried out. Target information was successfully obtained and communicated to end users. The planned operation of the Luch multifunctional space relay system with the docked Progress MS-18 spacecraft continues in accordance with the established schedule.
https://www.roscosmos.ru/33212/
The Nauka affair was not covered because the module was reportedly not configured for Luch transmission, needing connections and reconfigurations by the ISS crew through some of the other modules. Not sure why it had to be like that though.
I agree there's a fair bit of confusion as to exactly how much, and why, Luch appears to give an inferior level of service than TDRSS, even with the Lyra antenna relocation during an EVA a few years ago.
-
Does anyone know where the high-res stills from Dragon Endeavour's fly-around went? I've only seen one still image accompanying the various articles. As a modeler, these images that show various angles of the external payloads are eagerly awaited!
-
Does anyone know where the high-res stills from Dragon Endeavour's fly-around went?
Nasa finally put three up on their ISS web page, although one is out of focus... hopefully the rest will be released as well.
-
I posted the news on the Exp. 66 thread earlier with a link to the NASA Flickr site.
I noticed that very few images had been posted over the last two weeks and I guessed the person responsible for uploading them to Flickr was perhaps on holiday, and my guess or hope was that they would appear today when they returned. And they did!
I too had been looking forward to seeing these as like yourself I am a modeller. I had hoped to see an image directly from the aft end showing the MLM from a perspective not seen so far. Pesquet is a superb photographer and he spent nearly 2 hours imaging the ISS so he probably took hundreds though I do not expect to see a fraction of them.
Keith
-
There is a grapple fixture on top of the zenith hatch of Node 3. Is it active or passive?
If it's passive, what is its purpose? Is it for moving Node 3 around or just for removing the hatch cover remotely?
-
There is a grapple fixture on top of the zenith hatch of Node 3. Is it active or passive?
If it's passive, what is its purpose? Is it for moving Node 3 around or just for removing the hatch cover remotely?
N3Z has a PVGF (Power Video Grapple Fixture) like FGB Zenith. It is the backup storage location for providing SPDM with keep alive power and health status. It is unusable due to Z1 antenna clearances (Nanoracks cancelled LUNA SAR earth observation payload module is the maximum sized module that can be placed there minus all of its motorised deployable instrumentation arms). It is bulkheaded with an MMOD thermal cover and mounting beam for the PVGF. The Common Docking Adapters, the PCBM to IDSS version, will now launch with the Axiom hubs but were originally planned for Node 3 and other ports.
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/12/iss-managers-long-term-configuration-international-space-station/
-
What's the story behind this? Is that bent or intentional for some reason? From the recent fly-around photos.
Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk
-
What's the story behind this? Is that bent or intentional for some reason? From the recent fly-around photos.
Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk
The panel never fully deployed after launch and cannot be fixed on orbit.
-
What is the current status of ISS lifetime extension/agreements? I've seen 2025, 2028, and 2030 mentioned...
-
What is the current status of ISS lifetime extension/agreements? I've seen 2025, 2028, and 2030 mentioned...
End CY2025 is the only committed termination date. The other extensions are not committed by all involved parties however extension analysis is mostly completed by all parties.
-
Complicating the extension discussions is the module-by-module attachment of the Axiom space station. ISS has to wait until that is complete and ready for separation.
-
The 'Power Tower' (for lack of a better term), on Axiom's space station is reminiscent of a similar structure planned for the Russian segment some years ago. It was to be deployed from Zvezda's space-facing docking port. I'm assuming the tower was canceled because of the cost. But how was it to be delivered and deployed? Proton? Progress? Shuttle/Canadarm2? Could its extra arrays have given the Russian segment 'energy independence', so to speak?
Thx
-
The 'Power Tower' (for lack of a better term), on Axiom's space station is reminiscent of a similar structure planned for the Russian segment some years ago. It was to be deployed from Zvezda's space-facing docking port. I'm assuming the tower was canceled because of the cost. But how was it to be delivered and deployed? Proton? Progress? Shuttle/Canadarm2? Could its extra arrays have given the Russian segment 'energy independence', so to speak?
Thx
Was planned originally on Zenit (cancelled for early geopolitical reasons regarding CIS et al) and shifted to STS. The Columbia disaster and STS retirement deadline initially cancelled the flight then the manifest was partially restored but the flight article couldn't achieve the flights timeline so the mothballed Resarch Module 1 later rechristened MRM-1 Rassvet was assigned and flown instead to complete the barter agreement for FGB-1 Zarya's construction and other reasons. Various pieces of the articles of the SPP hardware exist in a mothballed state just like every module except for Prichal that have flown to ISS. AFAIU, yes it would have with the connections presently to USOS primarily planned to be contingency power.
-
Some questions on iss Russian segment
1) what Is the warranty of iss spare elbow joint on iss mrm module I need to know that to see the final period till which it can be used in case actual Era gets some problems
2) is MLM radiator and MLM heat exchanger same
3) how will Era position mlm airlock from mrm to nauka as it has only one frgf grapple fixture when Era grapple fixtures are different
4)is Era portable workpost and nauka means of attachment of large payloads different. If yes like as shown in the image below then is there a timeline for transferring Era portable workpost from mrm to nauka
and installation it. And which Progress MS delivered the means of attachment of large payloads.
-
Been reading about ISS this month, so have a few questions ;)
1) Now that we have an extra member due to Crew Dragon, do we know how many astronaut-hours are spent on science vs maintenance per week?
In 2014, it was around 40 hours/week for USOS. (Slide 14 in https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NACRS_ISSResourceOverview_022014T.pdf)
2) Are there any plans to add International Docking Adapter to Prichal?
3) I want to learn more about the life support systems, are there any books about this?
4) Are daily schedules of astronauts published anywhere? (It was till 2014, but couldn't find the link now)
-
Been reading about ISS this month, so have a few questions ;)
1) Now that we have an extra member due to Crew Dragon, do we know how many astronaut-hours are spent on science vs maintenance per week?
In 2014, it was around 40 hours/week for USOS. (Slide 14 in https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NACRS_ISSResourceOverview_022014T.pdf)
2) Are there any plans to add International Docking Adapter to Prichal?
3) I want to learn more about the life support systems, are there any books about this?
4) Are daily schedules of astronauts published anywhere? (It was till 2014, but couldn't find the link now)
2. no
3. no books, but there might be some briefings on this site.
4. no
-
I am not sure where to post this, but why am I not seeing anything here about NASAWatch's new story about NASA cutting back on PA coverage of the ISS? Seems like an important topic!
-
I am not sure where to post this, but why am I not seeing anything here about NASAWatch's new story about NASA cutting back on PA coverage of the ISS? Seems like an important topic!
Most recent thread from the last time they tried and had to reach a compromise:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51118.0
-
What happens to the CubeSat deplorers on the ISS after they've deployed their satellite?
-
Will Strela no longer be needed once the ERA is operational? Also, can the ERA be equipped with a portable foot restraint?
Thx
-
Will Strela no longer be needed once the ERA is operational? Also, can the ERA be equipped with a portable foot restraint?
Thx
they will be supplementary then a notable thing is the era grapple fixtures are only on nauka and prichal so maybe strela are needed for other modules in ros segment and for ERA foot restraint it is already on iss transported with rassvet as mlm outfitting on sts-127 like the nauka airlock, radiator and era spare elbow joint. Hope this helps out.
-
May 6 11:15 - Crew Dragon Endeavour [C206.4] (Crew-6/USCV-6) undocking (from Harmony PMA 3 / IDA-Z) [Exp 69/70: Bowen, Hoburg, Al Neyadi, Fedyaev]
May 6 11:58 - Crew Dragon Endeavour [C206.4] (Crew-6/USCV-6) docking (to Harmony PMA 2 / IDA-F) [Exp 69/70: Bowen, Hoburg, Al Neyadi, Fedyaev]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
NET September - Crew Dragon (Crew-7/USCV-7) undocking (from Harmony PMA 3 / IDA-Z) [Moghbeli, Mogensen, Furukawa, Borisov]
May 6 11:58 - Crew Dragon (Crew-7/USCV-7) docking (to Harmony PMA 2 / IDA-F) [Moghbeli, Mogensen, Furukawa, Borisov]
Why do we need redocking?????
-
Will Strela no longer be needed once the ERA is operational? Also, can the ERA be equipped with a portable foot restraint?
Thx
Yes, their use will lessen but is not fully eliminated. The Strela booms can be mounted on Nauka as was a proposed plan at one point when the original ROS proposal came about. ERA range can be extended by installing additional grapple fixtures on the rest of ISS RS. Even ERA grapple fixtures on the Columbus module was once considered as a part of an earlier plan before it was bumped to the Russian Segment as a barter for Russian technology transfer for the ATV programme, etal.
-
To do dock Dragon CRS-28 at the zénith port of Harmony and unload iRosa with the SSRMS arm.
-
To do dock Dragon CRS-28 at the zénith port of Harmony and unload iRosa with the SSRMS arm.
but 2nd redocking and why 1st Redock now let axiom go then do
-
What happens to the CubeSat deplorers on the ISS after they've deployed their satellite?
Nanoracks told me that they come back on Dragon cargo missions to be used again, some of been to space more than 5 times!
-
Does anyone happen to know anything about a new piece of station equipment called a Mini Pump Module? I've seen it referred to a few times in sources from ~2021, but I can't find any explanation of what it is or when it would be launched.
-
I know of no such "module"
-
What happens to the CubeSat deplorers on the ISS after they've deployed their satellite?
ISS crew is carefully selected and trained, so if any of them deplore CubeSats, they keep their thoughts to themselves. :)
-
I know of no such "module"
The sources I'm looking at, incidentally:
- The ISS Daily Summary Report for 1 February 2021, which lists "Imagery of Mini Pump Module worksite area" as a get-ahead performed by Hopkins and Glover during EVA-70
https://blogs.nasa.gov/stationreport/2021/02/01/
- This 2021 tweet from Koichi Wakata about doing a development run in the NBL:
https://twitter.com/Astro_Wakata/status/1425285580263415810
- NASA's FY2022 Budget Estimates document, which mentions it in the ISS section on page 205 / SO-10: "In the vehicle area, ISS is poised to extend the Functional Cargo Block through 2024; deploy the large equipment launch carrier development Ammonia Tank Assembly, BCDU, and Mini-Pump Module; and continue spares procurements for cupola scratch panes, heat exchanger parts, tanks, pump assembly, catalytic reactor, hydrogen dome, and ancillary components and parts."
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/fy2022_congressional_justification_nasa_budget_request.pdf
-
I know of no such "module"
The sources I'm looking at, incidentally:
- The ISS Daily Summary Report for 1 February 2021, which lists "Imagery of Mini Pump Module worksite area" as a get-ahead performed by Hopkins and Glover during EVA-70
https://blogs.nasa.gov/stationreport/2021/02/01/
- This 2021 tweet from Koichi Wakata about doing a development run in the NBL:
https://twitter.com/Astro_Wakata/status/1425285580263415810
- NASA's FY2022 Budget Estimates document, which mentions it in the ISS section on page 205 / SO-10: "In the vehicle area, ISS is poised to extend the Functional Cargo Block through 2024; deploy the large equipment launch carrier development Ammonia Tank Assembly, BCDU, and Mini-Pump Module; and continue spares procurements for cupola scratch panes, heat exchanger parts, tanks, pump assembly, catalytic reactor, hydrogen dome, and ancillary components and parts."
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/fy2022_congressional_justification_nasa_budget_request.pdf
The Pump Module is the External Active Thermal Control System pump and valve control ORU.
The Mini Pump Module contains upgrades to the ORU based on the years of operational history and failures that have occurred.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
The Pump Module is the External Active Thermal Control System pump and valve control ORU.
The Mini Pump Module contains upgrades to the ORU based on the years of operational history and failures that have occurred.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Fun fact: the Mini Pump Module used to be called the EPCVP (External Pump and Control Valve Package). They changed the name to Mini Pump Module because everyone kept tripping over the old acronym.
-
Does all of the USOS modules share the same end cone design and therefore dimensions? From photos it does look like that the general design is the same, with only minor module specific changes like EVA handrail stanchion bolt hole locations. If this is correct, does anyone have their dimensions, length, minor diameter and major diameter?
-
Today NASA posted this article that mentions a fourth port at ISS in 2024 (see below): Anyone know more about this? Is it the Axiom module, perhaps?
https://www.nasa.gov/history/10-years-ago-the-first-operational-cygnus-cargo-mission-to-the-space-station/ (https://www.nasa.gov/history/10-years-ago-the-first-operational-cygnus-cargo-mission-to-the-space-station/)
Upgrades to the space station itself, such as opening up a second berthing port on the Unity module in 2015 allowed two cargo vehicles to be docked at the same time, with a third port available in 2019 for SpaceX crew and cargo vehicles to dock directly at the station without the need for astronauts to use Canadarm2 to grapple and berth them. Beginning in 2024, a fourth port will allow four cargo and crew vehicles to remain at the station simultaneously.
-
Today NASA posted this article that mentions a fourth port at ISS in 2024 (see below): Anyone know more about this? Is it the Axiom module, perhaps?
https://www.nasa.gov/history/10-years-ago-the-first-operational-cygnus-cargo-mission-to-the-space-station/ (https://www.nasa.gov/history/10-years-ago-the-first-operational-cygnus-cargo-mission-to-the-space-station/)
Upgrades to the space station itself, such as opening up a second berthing port on the Unity module in 2015 allowed two cargo vehicles to be docked at the same time, with a third port available in 2019 for SpaceX crew and cargo vehicles to dock directly at the station without the need for astronauts to use Canadarm2 to grapple and berth them. Beginning in 2024, a fourth port will allow four cargo and crew vehicles to remain at the station simultaneously.
That's puzzling. I thought there were already four ports, namely two berthing ports for Cygnus (Unity nadir and Harmony nadir) and two docking ports for Dragons (Harmony zenith and Harmony forward). I know the two docking ports have been used simultaneously.
-
Today NASA posted this article that mentions a fourth port at ISS in 2024 (see below): Anyone know more about this? Is it the Axiom module, perhaps?
https://www.nasa.gov/history/10-years-ago-the-first-operational-cygnus-cargo-mission-to-the-space-station/ (https://www.nasa.gov/history/10-years-ago-the-first-operational-cygnus-cargo-mission-to-the-space-station/)
Upgrades to the space station itself, such as opening up a second berthing port on the Unity module in 2015 allowed two cargo vehicles to be docked at the same time, with a third port available in 2019 for SpaceX crew and cargo vehicles to dock directly at the station without the need for astronauts to use Canadarm2 to grapple and berth them. Beginning in 2024, a fourth port will allow four cargo and crew vehicles to remain at the station simultaneously.
That's puzzling. I thought there were already four ports, namely two berthing ports for Cygnus (Unity nadir and Harmony nadir) and two docking ports for Dragons (Harmony zenith and Harmony forward). I know the two docking ports have been used simultaneously.
Node 1 Nadir is currently equipped only for Cygnus visits at this time. It will be upgraded to support multiple VV providers allowing HTV-X and Dream Chaser to Berth at N1N paving the way for future PMA-2/IDA-2 relocation to N2N to allow Axiom Space Station Hub 1 to arrive and berthing to at ISS. The change is required during the A.S.S. station assembly phase.
-
... paving the way for future PMA-2/IDA-2 relocation to N2N to allow Axiom Space Station Hub 1 to arrive and berthing to at ISS.
Do you know if they're planning to stick PMA-2 back on the "nose" of the Axiom module, sort of like how it moved forward from Node 1 to Lab to Node 2 during the assembly sequence? Or will Axiom's module have its own docking port built in already?