Quote from: Analyst on 12/01/2008 12:09 pm1) No. Three crew quarters will be in Node-2, one most likely stays in Destiny (TESS), two are in SM. Node-3 will mostly carry environmental racks like the ones launched with STS-126.AnalystPersonally I think that it would be better to have the 4 crew quater racks in Node 3 as they are more out of the way as Node 2 is a busy junction and more exposed. I think the astronauts would rather have a more private module to sleep in, with the other 4 rack spaces for storage and habitation. Just my opinion... Just out of interest, the 'new galley' launched on STS-126, where will this go? There woud be plenty of space in the Node 3 hatch area, as no other components apart from PMA3 will be attached to the module, so that's a useful area to have a crew dining area..
1) No. Three crew quarters will be in Node-2, one most likely stays in Destiny (TESS), two are in SM. Node-3 will mostly carry environmental racks like the ones launched with STS-126.Analyst
It appears that the Cupola will be launched while mated to Node 3 via CBM. This means that CBM will have to withstand launch loads in this mated condition, which I don't imagine was one of the design criteria for CBM. I would bet that a lot of analysis was done to make this possible.Has any other docking or berthing interface ever been launched with attached objects on both sides of the interfaces? I don't think so.
Quote from: Danderman on 09/01/2009 03:09 pmIt appears that the Cupola will be launched while mated to Node 3 via CBM. This means that CBM will have to withstand launch loads in this mated condition, which I don't imagine was one of the design criteria for CBM. I would bet that a lot of analysis was done to make this possible.Has any other docking or berthing interface ever been launched with attached objects on both sides of the interfaces? I don't think so.Wasn't Unity launched with PMAs attached to both ends via CBM?
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2009/09/node_3_location.htmlI was hoping to see some comment on this decision here but everyone is silent. Budget is driving choices that will end up costing the program more in the long run is my initial take.Relocating (swapping) both Node 3 and PLM doesn't strike me as very practical or easy. No indication as to the final resting place for PMA3 is given either, presumably Node 3 Port.This decision ought to be pointed out to Congress, it will clearly put an end to any possible future expansion of the station.
What's the big cost inmoving it back to node1 z? The extra EVAs needed?
There are other options for growth so nothing is blocked.
No it does not put any end. There are still options one of which could be moving Node 3. However, the issue was whether to do that now. After all the work to head towards putting Node 3 on the port, to move it back to nadir would cost a huge amount now if it were to happen next year. The big driver is the end of the shuttle. If there were more time it could be accomodated more reasonably. But to replan at such a late date was too risky. There are other options for growth so nothing is blocked. Now, perhaps things could have been better planned out but we are where we are - the ending of the shuttle is a huge impact to ISS and this is one example.
Quote from: erioladastra on 09/11/2009 02:40 amThere are other options for growth so nothing is blocked. I hope people are reading between the lines on this one...
Quote from: erioladastra on 09/11/2009 02:40 amNo it does not put any end. There are still options one of which could be moving Node 3. However, the issue was whether to do that now. After all the work to head towards putting Node 3 on the port, to move it back to nadir would cost a huge amount now if it were to happen next year. The big driver is the end of the shuttle. If there were more time it could be accomodated more reasonably. But to replan at such a late date was too risky. There are other options for growth so nothing is blocked. Now, perhaps things could have been better planned out but we are where we are - the ending of the shuttle is a huge impact to ISS and this is one example.Thanks Eric,Assuming that Augustine Committee recommendations are adopted, at least as far as the more realistic Shuttle end date of mid 2011 and the extension of ISS to 2020, and assuming these activities are fully funded... LOL - OK that's too many assumptions even for me.I hope that Congress can and will restore enough funding within the 2010 and 2011 budgets to get Node 3 back where it belongs.
At this point even extending the shuttle to 2011 won't change where Node 3 goes at this point. If we add more shuttles and Orion is really coming in the 'near future', then it might move. However, like I said, there is not neccesarily a reason to at this point. A lot depends on what happens in the ISS program and if a real need is identified.
Quote from: erioladastra on 09/12/2009 12:55 amAt this point even extending the shuttle to 2011 won't change where Node 3 goes at this point. If we add more shuttles and Orion is really coming in the 'near future', then it might move. However, like I said, there is not neccesarily a reason to at this point. A lot depends on what happens in the ISS program and if a real need is identified.And the only real reason I can see is if another module coming up. And that's a BIG if.
Quote from: arkaska on 09/12/2009 05:59 pmQuote from: erioladastra on 09/12/2009 12:55 amAt this point even extending the shuttle to 2011 won't change where Node 3 goes at this point. If we add more shuttles and Orion is really coming in the 'near future', then it might move. However, like I said, there is not neccesarily a reason to at this point. A lot depends on what happens in the ISS program and if a real need is identified.And the only real reason I can see is if another module coming up. And that's a BIG if.Well, erm, we do have another module coming up. PLM Raffaello.
Quote from: Orbiter on 09/12/2009 06:40 pmQuote from: arkaska on 09/12/2009 05:59 pmQuote from: erioladastra on 09/12/2009 12:55 amAt this point even extending the shuttle to 2011 won't change where Node 3 goes at this point. If we add more shuttles and Orion is really coming in the 'near future', then it might move. However, like I said, there is not neccesarily a reason to at this point. A lot depends on what happens in the ISS program and if a real need is identified.And the only real reason I can see is if another module coming up. And that's a BIG if.Well, erm, we do have another module coming up. PLM Raffaello. But that will have its place on Node 1 zenith. I was talking about a module that isn't planned today and will need a place currently not available.