Well that would mean four Soyuz ports if Pirs was still there. So 3 Soyuz and either one of progress or AVT. I can't see any show stoppers.
Is Payette in line for a future expedition, or is it just Hadfield?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8226309.stmAccording to this article, ESA may procure an extra Soyuz in 2013 for its own requirements at ISS. There are other threads about whether this will happen, but what I want to discuss there is HOW would an extra Soyuz dock with ISS in 2013, given the limitations on docking ports at ISS.Your thoughts are welcome. Let us assume that this extra Soyuz would be attached to ISS for not less than 3 months, and that ISS would have the current configuration of the Russian segment plus MRM1 and MRM2, but not MLM.
HOW would an extra Soyuz dock with ISS in 2013, given the limitations on docking ports at ISS.
Quote from: Danderman on 08/28/2009 03:10 PMHOW would an extra Soyuz dock with ISS in 2013, given the limitations on docking ports at ISS.Install an APAS and TRIDAR and dock with PMA3. Soyuz has flown with an APAS before so that isn't a problem. TRIDAR hasn't frown on Soyuz but it shouldn't be a problem given enough engineering budget. Then all you need is to get the cooperation of NASA (to use the PMA).
Quote from: JayP on 10/29/2009 01:36 PMQuote from: Danderman on 08/28/2009 03:10 PMHOW would an extra Soyuz dock with ISS in 2013, given the limitations on docking ports at ISS.Install an APAS and TRIDAR and dock with PMA3. Soyuz has flown with an APAS before so that isn't a problem. TRIDAR hasn't frown on Soyuz but it shouldn't be a problem given enough engineering budget. Then all you need is to get the cooperation of NASA (to use the PMA).Current plan is for PMA-3 to end up on Node 3 port, rendering it inaccessible to visiting vehicles.Russians won't use TriDAR; they'll stick with Kurs."Given enough engineering budget" = "push the Soyuz seat price even higher".
MLM provides roll control, so no need for second Progress.
Kurs to proximity; then SSRMS!
Quote from: Stan Black on 10/28/2009 08:09 PMMLM provides roll control, so no need for second Progress. Really? Is that documented, or is that a guess? The reason that I am asking is that the system requirements for FGB were that its thrusters would be made inoperative as soon as docking with Zvezda was complete, so I assumed that MLM would have the same requirement.
Quote from: Danderman on 11/05/2009 05:02 PMQuote from: Stan Black on 10/28/2009 08:09 PMMLM provides roll control, so no need for second Progress. Really? Is that documented, or is that a guess? The reason that I am asking is that the system requirements for FGB were that its thrusters would be made inoperative as soon as docking with Zvezda was complete, so I assumed that MLM would have the same requirement.Управление МКС по каналу крена с помощью двигателей установленных на гермоадаптере.http://www.khrunichev.ru/main.php?id=55
I wonder if this statement refers to the potential of MLM's length allowing a docked Progress to provide roll control for ISS. AFAIK, no Russian module docked to a space station has provided active control since Cosmos 1686 (I am not counting FGB control for Unity at the beginning of ISS). My recollection is that all of the modules docked to the Mir core module became inactive after docking.
Quote from: Stan Black on 11/05/2009 07:18 PMQuote from: Danderman on 11/05/2009 05:02 PMQuote from: Stan Black on 10/28/2009 08:09 PMMLM provides roll control, so no need for second Progress. Really? Is that documented, or is that a guess? The reason that I am asking is that the system requirements for FGB were that its thrusters would be made inoperative as soon as docking with Zvezda was complete, so I assumed that MLM would have the same requirement.Управление МКС по каналу крена с помощью двигателей установленных на гермоадаптере.http://www.khrunichev.ru/main.php?id=55I wonder if this statement refers to the potential of MLM's length allowing a docked Progress to provide roll control for ISS. AFAIK, no Russian module docked to a space station has provided active control since Cosmos 1686 (I am not counting FGB control for Unity at the beginning of ISS). My recollection is that all of the modules docked to the Mir core module became inactive after docking.
ISS routinely integrates Progress into the attitude control system. Surely a permanent module wouldn't be any much different technically ? If anything it seems like it should be easier, since you'd basically set it up once and forget about it.There were also the VDUs on Mir http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15078.0