|
RocketmanUS
|
|
« Reply #15 on: 04/05/2012 01:07 AM » |
|
Batteries for the DSH.
What are their individual mass, size, volts, amp hour rating?
What temperature range can they operate at?
How much of a charge is left after standing for 30 days unused from a full charge?
Will the SEV or single person FlexCraft use the same type of batteries as the DSH?
|
|
|
|
robertross
|
|
« Reply #16 on: 04/05/2012 01:11 AM » |
|
Batteries for the DSH.
What are their individual mass, size, volts, amp hour rating?
What temperature range can they operate at?
How much of a charge is left after standing for 30 days unused from a full charge?
Will the SEV or single person FlexCraft use the same type of batteries as the DSH?
All TBD at this stage most likely, but comparable ratings & capabilities taken from ones used on ISS (or other existing spacecraft) correction: from (a snippet of) L2 information: DSH power systems are either off the shelf, or MPCV derived
|
|
|
|
renclod
|
|
« Reply #17 on: 04/05/2012 10:39 AM » |
|
Batteries for the DSH.
What are their individual mass, size, volts, amp hour rating?
1.11 kg 53 mm dia x 250 mm height 3.6 V 50 Ah nominal What temperature range can they operate at?
Charge + 10°C to + 35°C Discharge 0°C to + 40°C [SAFT VES 180 from the Smitherman presentation  *you* linked 4 days ago in the other thread... page 24]
|
|
|
|
|
|
RocketmanUS
|
|
« Reply #19 on: 04/12/2012 07:10 PM » |
|
Could the 500 day version be used for an EML2 starter station with the node 1?
Add remote manipulator arms , two I think would be better than one. Out that far from LEO if one did not work then we would have the other one to use.
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #20 on: 04/12/2012 09:04 PM » |
|
Add remote manipulator arms
Why?
|
|
|
|
RocketmanUS
|
|
« Reply #21 on: 04/13/2012 03:52 AM » |
|
Add remote manipulator arms
Why?
Good question. So it can add modules, connect the Cygnus or like it for resupply, ect.
|
|
|
|
A_M_Swallow
|
|
« Reply #22 on: 04/13/2012 07:42 AM » |
|
Add remote manipulator arms
Why?
Good question.
So it can add modules, connect the Cygnus or like it for resupply, ect.
At EML1/2 spacestation the arms can be used to: Transfer unpressurised cargo from the LV to a reusable lunar lander Attach and detach refuelling pipes Repair landers and Mars transfer vehicles for instance by acting as the space crane when replacing an engine Move astronauts around when they are performing an EVA Move spacecraft from the docking ports to the holding bays Permit the berthing of spacecraft
|
|
|
|
parham55
|
|
« Reply #23 on: 04/13/2012 03:55 PM » |
|
Add remote manipulator arms
Why?
Good question.
So it can add modules, connect the Cygnus or like it for resupply, ect.
At EML1/2 spacestation the arms can be used to:
Transfer unpressurised cargo from the LV to a reusable lunar lander
Attach and detach refuelling pipes
Repair landers and Mars transfer vehicles for instance by acting as the space crane when replacing an engine
Move astronauts around when they are performing an EVA
Move spacecraft from the docking ports to the holding bays
Permit the berthing of spacecraft
Jim, are you asking why we need to do these things with an arm? I can't answer that question but I'll ask; is an arm the best way to do these things? Are these activities that can be avoided based on design? Is an arm the least expensive option? Do we want an arm or do we need an arm? Either way is fine by me as long as it is the fastest way to get some exploration started. This is when I would like to be able to earmark my income taxes, I'd check the NASA box. Rob
|
|
|
|
Ronsmytheiii
|
|
« Reply #24 on: 04/13/2012 04:23 PM » |
|
Add remote manipulator arms
Why?
Indeed an arm is NOT required, a DSH can be assembled at ISS. And since ISPR's will likely be integrated and not moved from module to module, direct docking will be the perferred method, especially since there will likely be periods when it is unmanned (grapple/berth requires a crew) If we are talking about EVA acess for repair, Strela (or whatever its real name is) would probably be lighter and cheaper, and most importantly do the job.
|
|
|
|
Ben the Space Brit
|
|
« Reply #25 on: 04/13/2012 05:57 PM » |
|
Add remote manipulator arms
Why?
I've said this before in answer to the same question from the same poster. A RMS is a 'nice to have' on a large, deep-space spaceship. It allows you to do extra stuff like docking without needing active-thruster docking far from Earth. It also allows berthing of pre-positioned assets like cargo pods meaning that you don't automatically have to carry all the mission payload all the way from LEO. Berthing means large CBM-style interfaces rather than narrow LIDS-style ones meaning you can carry larger items, potentially leading to easier installation and swap-out of equipment. A large RMS will also allow crew-members on maintenance EVAs (a certainty on a long flight) to get to where they need to be without having to laboriously crawl along the hull. An RMS is hardly a necessity but it does add capability and mission flexibility to the spacecraft. I know that I'd like one if I was a mission planner for a Mars or other Inner Planets exploration mission.
|
|
|
|
manboy
|
|
« Reply #26 on: 04/13/2012 07:30 PM » |
|
Add remote manipulator arms
Why?
Indeed an arm is NOT required, a DSH can be assembled at ISS. And since ISPR's will likely be integrated and not moved from module to module, direct docking will be the perferred method, especially since there will likely be periods when it is unmanned (grapple/berth requires a crew) If we are talking about EVA acess for repair, Strela (or whatever its real name is) would probably be lighter and cheaper, and most importantly do the job.
The Mobile Servicing System requires a crew but automated grappling and berthing was demonstrated by Orbital Express. Add remote manipulator arms
Why?
Good question.
So it can add modules, connect the Cygnus or like it for resupply, ect.
Although I guess a small robotic arm who's only purpose would be to berth re-supply vehicles wouldn't be too expensive. But then again how much larger is CBM transfer passage in comparison to NDS' 32 inches?
|
|
|
|
RocketmanUS
|
|
« Reply #27 on: 04/13/2012 07:54 PM » |
|
Add remote manipulator arms
Why?
Indeed an arm is NOT required, a DSH can be assembled at ISS. And since ISPR's will likely be integrated and not moved from module to module, direct docking will be the perferred method, especially since there will likely be periods when it is unmanned (grapple/berth requires a crew) If we are talking about EVA acess for repair, Strela (or whatever its real name is) would probably be lighter and cheaper, and most importantly do the job.
The Mobile Servicing System requires a crew but automated grappling and berthing was demonstrated by Orbital Express.
Add remote manipulator arms
Why?
Good question.
So it can add modules, connect the Cygnus or like it for resupply, ect.
Although I guess a small robotic arm who's only purpose would be to berth re-supply vehicles wouldn't be too expensive. But then again how much larger is CBM transfer passage in comparison to NDS' 32 inches?
CBM 50' diagonal , it is a square opening. RMA is for adding parts to an EML1/2 station also. The station might not be assembled or at least not totally assembled at ISS. Less mass to get out to EML1/2. Nice to have the option of the RMS. Can start out with one and add the other later. If something goes wrong with an automated docking of a resupply vehicle the there could be the option to use a RMA. How fast does the RMS move on the ISS to berth the Dragon or Cygnus. Is in not slow enough to use remote control from Earth if we wanted to. Other good replies above for use of a RMA.
|
|
|
|
Robotbeat
|
|
« Reply #28 on: 04/13/2012 07:57 PM » |
|
If they use a SEP tug, then more mass in LEO is not a problem. In fact, it's a lot more efficient to build it ALL in LEO and push it up with the tug than to build some of it in LEO and some at EML1/2.
|
|
|
|
RocketmanUS
|
|
« Reply #29 on: 04/13/2012 08:22 PM » |
|
If they use a SEP tug, then more mass in LEO is not a problem. In fact, it's a lot more efficient to build it ALL in LEO and push it up with the tug than to build some of it in LEO and some at EML1/2.
All good when we get SEP. For now I'd like to keep the option and the ability for it to grow or assemble other platforms in and for EML1/2 ect. Then there is repairs or replacements.( EDIT: for the station )
|
|
|
|
