Author Topic: Node 3 / Cupola news  (Read 52889 times)

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6179
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Node 3 / Cupola news
« Reply #120 on: 03/16/2010 11:47 PM »
That is Node 1 nadir.

Sorry, that is what I meant. Is the plan to move Node3 and Cupola to a Nadir position or are they being left where they are, and if so why?



Most likely they will remain.

Why do you want to move it?
JRF

Offline Sparky

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • Connecticut
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Node 3 / Cupola news
« Reply #121 on: 03/17/2010 01:27 AM »
That is Node 1 nadir.

Sorry, that is what I meant. Is the plan to move Node3 and Cupola to a Nadir position or are they being left where they are, and if so why?



That was the original plan, but it was changed so as to put Node3 on the port, rather than nadir, of Node1.

I was never exactly clear on why, though.

Offline arkaska

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3041
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Node 3 / Cupola news
« Reply #122 on: 03/17/2010 09:39 AM »

Umbilical reach, for one. SSRMS reach (can't pull shuttle payloads out of the bay because it's further away) for another.

Don't Node3 have a PDGF?

Offline Space Pete

Re: Node 3 / Cupola news
« Reply #123 on: 03/17/2010 11:09 AM »

Umbilical reach, for one. SSRMS reach (can't pull shuttle payloads out of the bay because it's further away) for another.

Don't Node3 have a PDGF?

Node 3 doesn't have a PDGF on it's actual shell, but it's Zenith CBM is blocked off and a PDGF is located there.
« Last Edit: 03/17/2010 11:56 AM by Space Pete »
Electronic Engineer by day, NASASpaceflight's ISS Editor by night | Read my NASASpaceflight articles here

Offline Pheogh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 897
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Node 3 / Cupola news
« Reply #124 on: 03/17/2010 06:02 PM »
That is Node 1 nadir.

Sorry, that is what I meant. Is the plan to move Node3 and Cupola to a Nadir position or are they being left where they are, and if so why?



Most likely they will remain.

Why do you want to move it?

Wouldn't it have a better vantage point for grappling approaching vehicles destined for Node 2 Nadir. Also it would be along the central long axis of the station.

On the other hand the benefit of where it is now is that it provides a vantage point fwd and aft of ISS.

I was just fishing for documentation because I seem to remember only seeing it positioned at Node 1 Nadir


Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6179
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Node 3 / Cupola news
« Reply #125 on: 03/17/2010 11:00 PM »
That is Node 1 nadir.

Sorry, that is what I meant. Is the plan to move Node3 and Cupola to a Nadir position or are they being left where they are, and if so why?



Most likely they will remain.

Why do you want to move it?

Wouldn't it have a better vantage point for grappling approaching vehicles destined for Node 2 Nadir.

No, they're about equal.

Quote
Also it would be along the central long axis of the station.

What is the advantage of that? And the Node 3 port location has advantage of keeping the "floor" and "ceiling" of ISS consistent.
JRF

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6179
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Node 3 / Cupola news
« Reply #126 on: 03/17/2010 11:10 PM »

Umbilical reach, for one. SSRMS reach (can't pull shuttle payloads out of the bay because it's further away) for another.

Don't Node3 have a PDGF?

Node 3 doesn't have a PDGF on it's actual shell, but it's Zenith CBM is blocked off and a PDGF is located there.

OK, to clarify, it's not the first part of the operation that is affected, it's the last part.

With the shuttle docked to PMA-2 on Node 2, the SRMS can't pull payloads out of the bay due to Kibo blocking the elbow. So for station payloads destined for the truss (such as the ELCs), a double-handoff is required: SSRMS on Lab PGDF extracts payload from bay, hands off to SRMS, then the SSRMS translates over to the MBS, the MBS translates to the appropriate worksite, then the SRMS hands the payload off to the SSRMS for installation.

If Node 3 were installed to Node 2 forward, the double handoff would not be required since the SRMS now has adequate clearance from Kibo. The SRMS could extract the payload from the bay and the SSRMS could go directly to the MBS. But the two arms would then be too far apart for the handoff, especially if the payload were destined for the starboard truss.
JRF

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1246
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Node 3 / Cupola news
« Reply #127 on: 03/18/2010 12:31 AM »

Umbilical reach, for one. SSRMS reach (can't pull shuttle payloads out of the bay because it's further away) for another.

Don't Node3 have a PDGF?

Node 3 doesn't have a PDGF on it's actual shell, but it's Zenith CBM is blocked off and a PDGF is located there.

OK, to clarify, it's not the first part of the operation that is affected, it's the last part.

With the shuttle docked to PMA-2 on Node 2, the SRMS can't pull payloads out of the bay due to Kibo blocking the elbow. So for station payloads destined for the truss (such as the ELCs), a double-handoff is required: SSRMS on Lab PGDF extracts payload from bay, hands off to SRMS, then the SSRMS translates over to the MBS, the MBS translates to the appropriate worksite, then the SRMS hands the payload off to the SSRMS for installation.

If Node 3 were installed to Node 2 forward, the double handoff would not be required since the SRMS now has adequate clearance from Kibo. The SRMS could extract the payload from the bay and the SSRMS could go directly to the MBS. But the two arms would then be too far apart for the handoff, especially if the payload were destined for the starboard truss.

True - but why?  We can do the double handoff just fine, there are only a few more shuttle flights left and it would be very hard to have put Node 3 there.  Not worth it.

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6179
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Node 3 / Cupola news
« Reply #128 on: 03/18/2010 12:49 AM »

Umbilical reach, for one. SSRMS reach (can't pull shuttle payloads out of the bay because it's further away) for another.

Don't Node3 have a PDGF?

Node 3 doesn't have a PDGF on it's actual shell, but it's Zenith CBM is blocked off and a PDGF is located there.

OK, to clarify, it's not the first part of the operation that is affected, it's the last part.

With the shuttle docked to PMA-2 on Node 2, the SRMS can't pull payloads out of the bay due to Kibo blocking the elbow. So for station payloads destined for the truss (such as the ELCs), a double-handoff is required: SSRMS on Lab PGDF extracts payload from bay, hands off to SRMS, then the SSRMS translates over to the MBS, the MBS translates to the appropriate worksite, then the SRMS hands the payload off to the SSRMS for installation.

If Node 3 were installed to Node 2 forward, the double handoff would not be required since the SRMS now has adequate clearance from Kibo. The SRMS could extract the payload from the bay and the SSRMS could go directly to the MBS. But the two arms would then be too far apart for the handoff, especially if the payload were destined for the starboard truss.

True - but why?  We can do the double handoff just fine, there are only a few more shuttle flights left and it would be very hard to have put Node 3 there.  Not worth it.

I'm not sure you read my post carefully enough, in particular the last sentence that starts with "But...". That's a key sentence because it essentially renders the previous sentences in the paragraph moot. (I will admit I could have structured that paragraph better). I *agree* it's not worth it and I'm arguing in favor of *leaving* Node 3 where it is, and in particular, that putting Node 3 on Node 2 forward would have created a bunch of unnecessary headaches.
« Last Edit: 03/18/2010 12:54 AM by Jorge »
JRF

Offline Pheogh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 897
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Node 3 / Cupola news
« Reply #129 on: 10/12/2011 03:50 AM »
I know this is a total shot in the dark but if anyone is going to know it would be here:

I am looking for a engineering model of the window mold lines for the Cupola. I understand this information tends to be guarded but I am not looking for the whole model just the mold line of the 7 windows as a 3D model (any format). For what I am doing it will need to be accurate, very accurate.

Anyone that knows where I might be able to obtain this or who to ask it will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Tags: