Author Topic: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)  (Read 23194 times)

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9592
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 462
Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« on: 03/05/2015 02:54 AM »
Reports are that Nanoracks is investigating the development of a new airlock to allow for greater throughput for payloads destined for deployment.

This thread is about this new system, which has the nickname of "Bishop".

This would be the first commercial airlock ever deployed.

Offline Space Pete

Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #1 on: 03/05/2015 02:19 PM »
Would be interested in seeing any design details or graphics, and also where it would be deployed (would have to be Node 3 Port or Node 3 Aft).
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2082
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #2 on: 03/16/2015 02:50 AM »
Would be interested in seeing any design details or graphics, and also where it would be deployed (would have to be Node 3 Port or Node 3 Aft).
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3985
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 808
  • Likes Given: 489
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #3 on: 03/18/2015 09:46 PM »
Would be interested in seeing any design details or graphics, and also where it would be deployed (would have to be Node 3 Port or Node 3 Aft).
it would be a bit more complex than the previous methods due to berthing, unberthing and robotics ops of an object that is either roughly equivalent to the measurements of the full size Cygnus standard PCM in the enhanced proposal or half of one in the currently standard proposal.

Offline Space Pete

Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #4 on: 03/18/2015 10:44 PM »
I'd say that would be best placed on Node 3 Aft, with the SSRMS based on the FGB PDGF for berthing ops, although that would mean that all usable CBM ports would be permanently occupied/reserved for VVs.

ISS really could do with a new node. I wonder whether there will ever be enough commercial interest for a privately-owned node/lab module, with it's own integrated external facility/cubesat deployer, etc?
« Last Edit: 03/18/2015 10:46 PM by Space Pete »
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Offline Graham

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 220
  • Aerospace Engineer
  • New York
  • Liked: 215
  • Likes Given: 113
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #5 on: 03/20/2015 01:42 PM »
Isn't the current plan to berth BEAM to the aft port? Perhaps the zenith port would be an acceptable alternative for this
I have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the night
- Sarah Williams

Offline Space Pete

Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #6 on: 03/20/2015 11:27 PM »
Isn't the current plan to berth BEAM to the aft port? Perhaps the zenith port would be an acceptable alternative for this

Node 3 Zenith is not a usable port due to clearance issues with SGANT-1 on the Z1 Truss. Thus, Node 3 Zenith is blocked off by a PVGF basepoint for Dextre.

BEAM will indeed be installed on Node 3 Aft, however it is only planned to be there for a couple of years.
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8196
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 265
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #7 on: 03/22/2015 09:14 PM »
Isn't the current plan to berth BEAM to the aft port? Perhaps the zenith port would be an acceptable alternative for this

Node 3 Zenith is not a usable port due to clearance issues with SGANT-1 on the Z1 Truss. Thus, Node 3 Zenith is blocked off by a PVGF basepoint for Dextre.

BEAM will indeed be installed on Node 3 Aft, however it is only planned to be there for a couple of years.

Since cubesats are significantly smaller than VV I suspect they could be fired so as to miss the PVGF basepoint.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3985
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 808
  • Likes Given: 489
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #8 on: 03/24/2015 02:57 AM »
Would be interested in seeing any design details or graphics, and also where it would be deployed (would have to be Node 3 Port or Node 3 Aft).
If it the type of PCBM ring collar shown wasn't present it could go on the Node 3 end cone CBM after the PMA-3 relocate task.
« Last Edit: 03/24/2015 03:01 AM by russianhalo117 »

Offline lesxiarxis

  • Member
  • Posts: 4
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #9 on: 03/24/2015 10:47 AM »
How about Node 3 port? It will be available after the relocations.

Offline Space Pete

Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #10 on: 03/24/2015 10:22 PM »
Since cubesats are significantly smaller than VV I suspect they could be fired so as to miss the PVGF basepoint.

By "blocked off", I don't mean that the PVGF is causing a clearance issue, I mean that a PVGF has actually been installed over the CBM port, hence the port is permanently unusable. See attached photo.

How about Node 3 port? It will be available after the relocations.

Node 3 Port has clearance issues with the rotating Port TRRJ, hence robotics access may be an issue.
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Offline okan170

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1010
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 5292
  • Likes Given: 1259
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #11 on: 03/26/2015 11:42 PM »
Though its not 100% accurate, NASA's ISS model can give us an idea of the clearance at the end of Node 3 port with PMA-3 removed.  The radiators get very very close and I'm honestly amazed that PMA-3 fits on the end where it is.

Offline Space Pete

Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #12 on: 01/27/2016 10:58 PM »
Good article on NanoRacks' proposed ISS experiment airlock, including pictures of the proposed design.

NASA could give NanoRacks the go-ahead for construction as soon as next month, and the airlock could launch via Dragon in 2018, for installation on the Node 3 Port CBM.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/to-boost-commercial-activity-nasa-may-add-private-airlock-to-iss/

A really great idea, I hope it gets the green light! :)
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9592
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 462
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #13 on: 01/27/2016 11:37 PM »
Seems to have "Evolved" in the last year.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9592
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 462
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #14 on: 01/27/2016 11:38 PM »
IIRC, some of the Node 3 CBM ports aren't really there, they were never fully outfitted.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3985
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 808
  • Likes Given: 489
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #15 on: 01/27/2016 11:39 PM »
IIRC, some of the Node 3 CBM ports aren't really there, they were never fully outfitted.

only Zenith

Offline Space Pete

Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #16 on: 01/28/2016 12:36 AM »
only Zenith

Correct, the Node 3 Zenith port is blocked off with a PVGF, which can serve as a stowage location for the SPDM. This was done as the Z1 Truss SGANT-1 antenna presents clearance issues for any module berthed at Node 3 Zenith. However, this may in hindsight have been a bad decision, as small modules (such as the NanoRacks airlock) could possibly have been berthed at Node 3 Zenith without presenting any clearance issues with the Z1.

I don't know whether the Node 3 Zenith CBM port itself would actually be usable if the PVGF were removed, i.e. whether the berthing collar, alignment guides, hooks, bolts etc. are installed.
« Last Edit: 01/28/2016 12:48 AM by Space Pete »
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Offline okan170

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1010
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 5292
  • Likes Given: 1259
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #17 on: 01/28/2016 04:29 AM »
I don't know whether the Node 3 Zenith CBM port itself would actually be usable if the PVGF were removed, i.e. whether the berthing collar, alignment guides, hooks, bolts etc. are installed.

In all the images I've gone over, the Zenith CBM appears to have a thermal cover on it and lacks any visible petals, though it does appear to have the articulation mechanisms for them.  Combined with whatever the PVGF is hooked up to, it would seem to be at least a little modified fro the standard CBM.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3985
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 808
  • Likes Given: 489
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #18 on: 01/28/2016 07:33 PM »
only Zenith

Correct, the Node 3 Zenith port is blocked off with a PVGF, which can serve as a stowage location for the SPDM. This was done as the Z1 Truss SGANT-1 antenna presents clearance issues for any module berthed at Node 3 Zenith. However, this may in hindsight have been a bad decision, as small modules (such as the NanoRacks airlock) could possibly have been berthed at Node 3 Zenith without presenting any clearance issues with the Z1.

I don't know whether the Node 3 Zenith CBM port itself would actually be usable if the PVGF were removed, i.e. whether the berthing collar, alignment guides, hooks, bolts etc. are installed.
As I seem to recall the Zenith CBM was not fully outfitted on the ground with its ACBM (Active CBM) components but the Cover with the PVGF has a berthing collar is secured to the module via diving the bolts on modules berthing collar into the covers berthing collar. i have still images on my old laptop from the KSC video feeds of it being installed on the Zenith Port. There are no alignment Guide petals that i remember seeing in the images.

PS I wish the Nanoracks LUNA Module was still planned.
« Last Edit: 02/07/2017 06:24 PM by russianhalo117 »

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9592
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 462
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #19 on: 01/28/2016 09:33 PM »
The "Escape corridor" from an airlock is generally downwards and away from the station, so an airlock for CubeSATs on Node 3 Zenith is probably not feasible.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3985
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 808
  • Likes Given: 489
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #20 on: 01/28/2016 10:26 PM »
The "Escape corridor" from an airlock is generally downwards and away from the station, so an airlock for CubeSATs on Node 3 Zenith is probably not feasible.
The ACBMs are only the storage locations for this proposed module and is not the deployment location, which would be below cupola and unity with the arm pointing nadir and payloads could be deployed in almost any degree of downward direction that does not deploy towards the RS.

Offline Space Pete

Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #21 on: 02/01/2016 02:02 PM »
In order to turn Node 3 Zenith into a usable CBM port, this is what I think, at minimum, would need to be done (and all this is based on some big assumptions):

Firstly, the actual PVGF cover itself would need to be removed. If it is true that this cover is attached via a PCBM collar, then the ACBM bolts on Node 3 Zenith would need to be driven in order to remove the cover. However, I don't know whether the four CPAs that would be needed to control the driving of the bolts are present, meaning the cover would first have to be cut open, and the four CPAs installed via EVA - which would be very difficult, as they require manual connections to be made which would be very fiddly to perform while wearing EMU gloves.

Once the cover is removed and any PVGF electrical connections were demated, the eight CBM alignment guides would need to be installed, with each one needing eight separate bolts to be driven, making for 64 bolts in total (although perhaps a reduced number of bolts would be acceptable, so this number could possibly be lower). In any case these bolts were not designed to be driven via EVA, and would be difficult to install.

Only then, assuming all the other relevant hardware was present on the Node 3 Zenith CBM (such as the hooks), would it be possible to berth a module to Node 3 Zenith.

All in all, it would likely be more trouble that it's worth, so I doubt we'll ever see it happen. If ISS really needs more ports, a better idea would be to allow industry to design their own module, with it's own internal, external, and airlock/deployer facilities, and possibly even separate power/ECLSS capabilities to cut down integration with ISS. Put it on Node 2 Forward (with PMA-2 moved to the forward end of the new commercial module).
« Last Edit: 02/01/2016 02:03 PM by Space Pete »
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1440
  • Liked: 386
  • Likes Given: 459
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #22 on: 02/01/2016 02:34 PM »

All in all, it would likely be more trouble that it's worth, so I doubt we'll ever see it happen. If ISS really needs more ports, a better idea would be to allow industry to design their own module, with it's own internal, external, and airlock/deployer facilities, and possibly even separate power/ECLSS capabilities to cut down integration with ISS. Put it on Node 2 Forward (with PMA-2 moved to the forward end of the new commercial module).

I suspect you think the chances of this are low, but if it did go ahead, why node 2 FWD?

Node 2 FWD will be the primary comm. crew docking location and is already a mess of adapters and such. I think they would prefer to replace PMA-3 at Node 2 Zenith, or am I forgetting something?

At either location, I also think it would be easier to just build an IDSS port into the new module and dump the PMA, rather than re-attach it.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9592
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 462
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #23 on: 02/03/2016 05:30 PM »
I am wondering if the new design is large enough to accommodate an astronaut in a space suit.

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1440
  • Liked: 386
  • Likes Given: 459
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #24 on: 02/04/2016 01:49 PM »
I am wondering if the new design is large enough to accommodate an astronaut in a space suit.

You'd have to be in a pretty desperate situation to consider using it for such a purpose...

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9592
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 462
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #25 on: 02/04/2016 03:10 PM »
I am wondering if the new design is large enough to accommodate an astronaut in a space suit.

You'd have to be in a pretty desperate situation to consider using it for such a purpose...

Apart from there being no resources for either Orlan or the US suit, what are the other issues that would make it desperate?  If the prime US airlock were to suffer some sort of off-nominal situation, could this be used as a backup?

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1440
  • Liked: 386
  • Likes Given: 459
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #26 on: 02/04/2016 04:42 PM »
I am wondering if the new design is large enough to accommodate an astronaut in a space suit.

You'd have to be in a pretty desperate situation to consider using it for such a purpose...

Apart from there being no resources for either Orlan or the US suit, what are the other issues that would make it desperate?  If the prime US airlock were to suffer some sort of off-nominal situation, could this be used as a backup?


Bishop doesn't have a hatch. In order to "open" the airlock, you close the CBM on station and use SSRMS to maneuver the whole Bishop module to your smallsat deployment attitude or ORU workstation or whatever.

To reenter the station, the astronaut would have to crawl inside Bishop and hold real still while it's re-berthed and the CBM is opened.

Pirs is available for backup EVA.

May be possible to get in and out via Soyuz Orbital Module? I don't know if EMU will fit.

Other options would be find a way to spacewalk from a Commercial Crew Vehicle, get an Orion capsule to station, install a hatch in a Cygnus cargo module, refurbish ISS test/spare hardware, etc.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9592
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 462
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #27 on: 02/06/2016 12:29 AM »
Yeah, getting back in might be tough.

Soyuz does not have a hatch that can be used for EVA any more, except in the movie "Gravity".

« Last Edit: 02/07/2016 12:29 PM by Danderman »

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1440
  • Liked: 386
  • Likes Given: 459
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #28 on: 02/07/2016 02:58 AM »
Soyuz does not have a hatch that cannot EVA any more, except in the movie "Gravity".

You are probably correct that the Soyuz side hatch cannot be operated by EVA astronaut.

I was confused: crew have practiced using the Soyuz Orbital Module as an airlock, but entering from Pirs via docking hatch. Then moving Soyuz to another port (or returning to earth).

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9592
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 462
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #29 on: 02/07/2016 12:30 PM »
Correct. There is some utility equipment for Orlan in the OM, so the module can be used for internal unpressurized operations.

Offline Asteroza

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 498
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #30 on: 02/09/2016 06:28 AM »
Simple design is great, but that also means no provisions for handling small cargo delivery vehicles, or their cargo.

For example, a powered hard stand that can grapple the bell cap and a small delivery vehicle (grabbed by the arm and placed at the hardstand), allowing transfer of an external payload capsule from the delivery vehicle to be stuffed into the bell, which can then be reberthed for final delivery.

Simple example might be something like delivering an Intuitive Machines TRV, or an upmass only minimal pressuized cylinder to haul small sized cargos (food, gas/liquids) that are flexible or not dimensionally challenged (which would otherwise require a full sized cargo delivery vehicle).

This would essentially create an additional secondary cargo services market ecosystem, which would allow all those smallsat launchers to compete as small cargo delivery launch providers (and provide them with an anchor customer). Hell, the actual payload+service module delivery vehicle set could be made by the smallsat launcher folks or a thirdy party contracting with them.

This isn't all that far from a rumored proposal for a small cargo vehicle coming to ISS, getting locked down on the JEM porch, then passing the cargo through the JEM airlock.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8196
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 265
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #31 on: 02/09/2016 06:32 AM »
Simple design is great, but that also means no provisions for handling small cargo delivery vehicles, or their cargo.

For example, a powered hard stand that can grapple the bell cap and a small delivery vehicle (grabbed by the arm and placed at the hardstand), allowing transfer of an external payload capsule from the delivery vehicle to be stuffed into the bell, which can then be reberthed for final delivery.

Simple example might be something like delivering an Intuitive Machines TRV, or an upmass only minimal pressuized cylinder to haul small sized cargos (food, gas/liquids) that are flexible or not dimensionally challenged (which would otherwise require a full sized cargo delivery vehicle).

This would essentially create an additional secondary cargo services market ecosystem, which would allow all those smallsat launchers to compete as small cargo delivery launch providers (and provide them with an anchor customer). Hell, the actual payload+service module delivery vehicle set could be made by the smallsat launcher folks or a thirdy party contracting with them.

This isn't all that far from a rumored proposal for a small cargo vehicle coming to ISS, getting locked down on the JEM porch, then passing the cargo through the JEM airlock.

Would your proposed small items fit through a suit port?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitport

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9592
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 462
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #32 on: 02/09/2016 12:44 PM »
In theory, a cargo container delivered by a small vehicle could be grappled by Dextre using a micro square fixture, transferred to an facility on the exterior of ISS, and then transferred into ISS via the Bishop hatch.

Offline Asteroza

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 498
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #33 on: 02/09/2016 10:27 PM »
Simple design is great, but that also means no provisions for handling small cargo delivery vehicles, or their cargo.

For example, a powered hard stand that can grapple the bell cap and a small delivery vehicle (grabbed by the arm and placed at the hardstand), allowing transfer of an external payload capsule from the delivery vehicle to be stuffed into the bell, which can then be reberthed for final delivery.

Simple example might be something like delivering an Intuitive Machines TRV, or an upmass only minimal pressuized cylinder to haul small sized cargos (food, gas/liquids) that are flexible or not dimensionally challenged (which would otherwise require a full sized cargo delivery vehicle).

This would essentially create an additional secondary cargo services market ecosystem, which would allow all those smallsat launchers to compete as small cargo delivery launch providers (and provide them with an anchor customer). Hell, the actual payload+service module delivery vehicle set could be made by the smallsat launcher folks or a thirdy party contracting with them.

This isn't all that far from a rumored proposal for a small cargo vehicle coming to ISS, getting locked down on the JEM porch, then passing the cargo through the JEM airlock.

Would your proposed small items fit through a suit port?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitport

I generally was picturing JEM airlock max dimension cargo cylinders or the Intuitive Machines TRV. Suitport might work if there's room on the far side to change orientation to fit through the port.

In theory, a cargo container delivered by a small vehicle could be grappled by Dextre using a micro square fixture, transferred to an facility on the exterior of ISS, and then transferred into ISS via the Bishop hatch.

Using Dextre seems like an interesting idea for capture, especially the smaller grapple fixture on the arriving vehicle side. The annoyance is the cargo transfer from the vehicle to bishop, as both bishop and the vehiclle more or less have to be next to each other and mounted on something to free the arm for the transfer operation, as it can't hold onto bishop while doing so. Well, unless you somehow use arm+Dextre to grab the vehicle, set it on the hardstand, offload Dextre onto the hardstand, then use the arm to get bishop close to Dextre for the cargo transfer. The final trick is the powered hardstand to hard dock the visiting vehicle and keep it idle powered to keep it warm. Arm reach from capture position to hardstand in one move might be difficult, considering the limited positions to place such a hardstand. I wonder if a PMA could be reused/retrofitted as a hardstand for a visiting small vehicle?

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9592
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 462
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #34 on: 02/10/2016 12:45 AM »
Nanoracks already has an External Platform at ISS that may be useful in this regard.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9079
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 5764
  • Likes Given: 3850
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #35 on: 02/10/2016 12:57 AM »
This would essentially create an additional secondary cargo services market ecosystem, which would allow all those smallsat launchers to compete as small cargo delivery launch providers (and provide them with an anchor customer). Hell, the actual payload+service module delivery vehicle set could be made by the smallsat launcher folks or a thirdy party contracting with them.
How much attention from the crew would this take? Thought there were already issues with crew time spent on cargo operations rather than science....
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Asteroza

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 498
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #36 on: 02/10/2016 09:06 AM »
This would essentially create an additional secondary cargo services market ecosystem, which would allow all those smallsat launchers to compete as small cargo delivery launch providers (and provide them with an anchor customer). Hell, the actual payload+service module delivery vehicle set could be made by the smallsat launcher folks or a thirdy party contracting with them.
How much attention from the crew would this take? Thought there were already issues with crew time spent on cargo operations rather than science....

Well, that depends on how much must be manually done still, and in the future. If arm+Dextre grapple and cargo ops can be done from the ground and bishop airlock operations can be largely untended, then it reduces to sniffing the airlock for contaminants, opening the CBM hatch, then popping the cargo cannister cap open and transfering goods. If those SPHERES robot balls ever get manipulators, they might be able to even do that from the ground as well. The point of bishop right now is to be an easier to use, somewhat larger cargo airlock compared to the JEM airlock, but that also assumes current crew and current cargo procedures largely (and NASA still allowing crew to do cargo servicing, at low cost).

One also cannot discount the possibility that the increasing pace of coresident commercial activities on ISS causing NASA to throw up their hands saying no more, forcing the need of a commercial crew astronaut being added at some point whose primary activities are servicing commercial payloads and cargo, and NASA farmng more internal maintenance activities to the contractor astronaut, ostensibly to allow "science" astronauts to focus on NASA/partner science work (outsourcing in space). One can easily imagine the contractor being asked to stay in the BEAM module.

Other possibilities include dragooning short stay space tourists as longshoremen with SPHERES oversight.


The long term view is providing a government anchor customer to develop the smallsat launchers and small cargo delivery systems as a marketplace, with the underlying assumption that the ISS experience will create defacto standards for later use on commercial stations/depots/facilities (Bigelow food deliveries, GEO space coral backbones adding limpet-like customers, spiderFAB construction shack materials deliveries). The absolute practicality of small cargo delivery to ISS may be marginal in and of itself, but it informs us about real operations that applies elsewhere. CCdev lit a fire under the larger space industry to provide cargo and crew systems in the absence of the shuttle, but the capsules/technology are still usable for other interests/uses. However, CCdev set the bar somewhat high, keeping most new players out of the game. Can you imagine what it would be like now without CCdev, maybe Orion, and that's it? With a suitable small cargo contract competition (aka microCCdev), all the smaller players can participate. Though that ends up placing a lot of responsibility/burden on Nanoracks to effectively shepard a new secondary marketplace, but to a degree they already dug that hole for themselves arranging cubesat tossing.

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 763
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 159
  • Likes Given: 65
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #37 on: 02/12/2016 01:24 AM »
I expect a lot of mounting locations for CLPA's /MDA's (wedge); Nanoracks refers to them as JCAP (JEM CLPA Adapter Plate), inside the airlock. I also expect that the required crew-time will be minimized, by launching ground assembled packages that can be bolted onto MDA (wedge) interfaces like the Kaber.
I read through the presentations from the Nanoracks Conference from last december (leiden, the Netherlands), and realised that really a lot of payloads need to go trough one of the airlocks. Lets name the different payload types:
1) JAXA Cubesats on J-SSOD
2) JAXA larger deployer
3) JAXA JOTI (ORU Transfer interface) i.a. the external material payloads, and ORU's
4) JAXA's Small Fine arm for modifications and repairs
5) NASA's Cyclops for small sat deployment
6) NanoRacks CubeSat Deployers NRCSD
7) Nanoracks Kaber with small sats
8 ) NREP (Nanoracks External Platform)
9) Payloads for MUSES (Teledyne) multi-payload camara platform (on platform derived from ESA's Solar?)
10) MISSE-X material experiments
11) MDA mounted external experiments (when the {experiment ELC} Bartolemeo platform is mounted to Columbus)
So the Bishop airlock is really necessary.

I expect that an (radiation hardened) E-nose (gas analising tool) will be mounted on the outside of node3, inside the CBM. It can analise the air so the crew doesn't have to do that.
{side node: hundreds of E-noses are used to monitor the air quality at the Port of Rotterdam, the Netherlands}
Most probably the Bishop will only do about five airlock cycles per year. Will it be stowed at the LEE on the mobile base (MBS), so the payloads can be extracted and deployed or placed with Dextre (SPDM)?
« Last Edit: 02/12/2016 01:24 AM by Rik ISS-fan »


Online Chris Bergin

Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #39 on: 02/06/2017 01:56 PM »
Eric's clearly been sat on this story for a while and had one ready to go :)

https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/to-boost-commercial-activity-nasa-may-add-private-airlock-to-iss/

(more images and quotes).


Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9209
  • Liked: 1191
  • Likes Given: 785
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #41 on: 02/06/2017 03:32 PM »
I can't find the SAA. I can find it listed in this document (21367, Low-Earth Orbit Commercial Services Development):

https://searchpub.nssc.nasa.gov/servlet/sm.web.Fetch/NonFed_Agreements_Active_Pub3_31_2014_AE.pdf?rhid=1000&did=1848490&type=released

According to the Aviation Week, it is unfunded.

I imagine that transportation to the ISS is provided by NASA free of charge.
« Last Edit: 02/06/2017 03:34 PM by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9209
  • Liked: 1191
  • Likes Given: 785
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #42 on: 02/06/2017 03:33 PM »
Eric's clearly been sat on this story for a while and had one ready to go :)

https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/to-boost-commercial-activity-nasa-may-add-private-airlock-to-iss/

(more images and quotes).

Although still relevant, that article is actually from last year.
« Last Edit: 02/06/2017 03:42 PM by yg1968 »

Offline Space Pete

Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #43 on: 02/06/2017 04:09 PM »
Excellent news! A great use of the Node 3 Port CBM (since pretty much nothing else will fit there).

Good to see an increasing number of commercial modules being added to ISS - hopefully BEAM will become a permanent module too.
« Last Edit: 02/06/2017 04:09 PM by Space Pete »
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Offline Space Pete

Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #44 on: 02/06/2017 04:16 PM »
Here's a relevant presentation.
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Offline Sam Ho

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 513
  • Liked: 187
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #45 on: 02/06/2017 06:10 PM »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8477
  • UK
  • Liked: 1382
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #46 on: 02/06/2017 07:46 PM »
I assuming this will be launched as an external Dragon payload.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3985
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 808
  • Likes Given: 489
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #47 on: 02/06/2017 08:18 PM »
I assuming this will be launched as an external Dragon payload.
yes, NR applied for 2019 flight and is awaiting approval or denial with bump to available 2020 slot. The Dragon Trunk (ULC) slot will be decided at a later date.

Offline brickmack

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 294
  • USA
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #48 on: 02/06/2017 11:19 PM »
Boeing? Thats interesting, last I heard OrbitalATK would be building Bishop. Maybe Boeing figured this would be useful for their other station plans

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9592
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 462
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #49 on: 02/06/2017 11:30 PM »
Boeing is fabricating the passive CBM.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3985
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 808
  • Likes Given: 489
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #50 on: 02/07/2017 12:44 AM »
Boeing? Thats interesting, last I heard OrbitalATK would be building Bishop. Maybe Boeing figured this would be useful for their other station plans
Boeing is USOS Prime Contractor. Boeing will supply the PCBM and associated hardware and OA will build the remaining hardware and perform integration and testing.

Online Johnnyhinbos

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1034
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 1029
  • Likes Given: 162
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #51 on: 02/07/2017 12:40 PM »
So let me see if I have this straight. Boeing / NanoRacks is getting $15,000,000 to essentially build a cap...
John Hanzl. Author, action / adventure www.johnhanzl.com

Offline ethan829

Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #52 on: 02/07/2017 02:28 PM »
So let me see if I have this straight. Boeing / NanoRacks is getting $15,000,000 to essentially build a cap...
A cap that has to be berthed and unberthed many times and can contain payload dispensers. And I don't think the $15 million is just for construction, it's the overall project cost.

Offline SWGlassPit

  • I break space hardware
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 447
  • Liked: 257
  • Likes Given: 35
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #53 on: 02/07/2017 02:42 PM »
So let me see if I have this straight. Boeing / NanoRacks is getting $15,000,000 to essentially build a cap...

If you had any idea of the requirements that go into it and what it takes to meet them, you'd see that $15M is really not a lot of money.  This adds a new pressurized element to ISS, and it's being designed to be removed, replaced, and reconfigured several times.

If you're into clothing for ISS, there's a new shield going up soon that is colloquially referred to as the "bow tie."  That goes hand-in-hand with the cummerbund that's already up there.

All we need is a monocle and some tails, and we're all set!

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9209
  • Liked: 1191
  • Likes Given: 785
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #54 on: 02/07/2017 05:19 PM »
So let me see if I have this straight. Boeing / NanoRacks is getting $15,000,000 to essentially build a cap...

Nanoracks isn't getting funding from NASA. It's their own money. It's an unfunded SAA.
« Last Edit: 02/08/2017 02:11 AM by yg1968 »

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4838
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 3493
  • Likes Given: 1129
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #55 on: 09/27/2017 07:23 AM »
Quote
Jeff Manber discussing NanoRacks’ commercial airlock plans; notes it’s “close to be manifested” for launch to ISS in 2019. #IAC2017

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/912855075109855232

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3985
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 808
  • Likes Given: 489
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #56 on: 09/27/2017 03:31 PM »
So let me see if I have this straight. Boeing / NanoRacks is getting $15,000,000 to essentially build a cap...

Nanoracks isn't getting funding from NASA. It's their own money. It's an unfunded SAA.
Nanoracks pays Boeing to build Bishop

Online QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8280
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3075
  • Likes Given: 739
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #57 on: 09/27/2017 08:54 PM »
Nanoracks having their own crew on the ISS would be a watershed moment, I think.
Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? Well... have you heard of Zeno's paradox?

Offline Asteroza

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 498
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #58 on: 09/28/2017 03:28 AM »
Nanoracks having their own crew on the ISS would be a watershed moment, I think.

If the pace of deployables keeps picking up, they'll need it because NASA doesn't want astronauts to be part time warehouse monkeys when they have maintenance and science to do.

Which would mean a Nanoracks astronaut would essentially be the outsourced doorman/janitor for ISS. Not that is such a bad thing, and there are people willing to kill for such a slot, even if they have to shack up in BEAM...

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 763
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 159
  • Likes Given: 65
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #59 on: 09/29/2017 03:20 PM »
I think a lot off people have missed the bad part of the current news release about the bishop airlock.
When it was first published, at the 2016 ISS R&D conference if I'm not mistaken, it was planned for launch in 2018. Now it is planned for 2019.
The bishop airlock and the Bartolomeo exposed payload platform were compeating for the trunk space of two SpX Dragon launches. Apparently Bartolomeo got the first slot and Bishop the second. I'm wondering the reasoning behind this, because Bishop is needed for the full utilisation of Bartolomeo.

Edit: It were SpX19 and SpX21 were Bishop and Bartolomeo were compeating for. Both were planed for NET 2019.
IDA-3 was planned for SpX-16, possibly the complete schedule is altered.
« Last Edit: 10/04/2017 09:28 PM by Rik ISS-fan »

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4838
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 3493
  • Likes Given: 1129
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #60 on: 10/04/2017 02:18 PM »
Quote
NanoRacks raises funding for commercial airlock module
by Jeff Foust — October 3, 2017

SYDNEY — NanoRacks announced Oct. 3 that it had raised an undisclosed amount to support development of a commercial airlock module for the International Space Station.

http://spacenews.com/nanoracks-raises-funding-for-commercial-airlock-module/

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 763
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 159
  • Likes Given: 65
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #61 on: 11/01/2017 07:48 AM »
Nanoracks gave a presentation about their airlock at the ISS R&D Conference 2017.
It can be downloaded here. ISS R&D 2017 - commercial airlock
[Click the paper name _ Scroll to the bottom of the pop-up window _ "Click to view" pdf link]
« Last Edit: 11/01/2017 07:50 AM by Rik ISS-fan »

Offline deruch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1714
  • California
  • Liked: 1286
  • Likes Given: 1890
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #62 on: 11/05/2017 12:04 AM »
After reading plans of Bartolomeo platform allowing larger external payloads if they could fit through the Bishop A/L, I've been trying to find info on how such payloads would be transferred.  How does the hand-off work?  I thought Bishop was depressurized and unberthed as a unit and held by the SSRMS.  So, I get how they are deploying the "haybale" deployers (NRSS or Lightband) but how do they move external payloads out with the arm already engaged in holding the airlock?
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline deruch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1714
  • California
  • Liked: 1286
  • Likes Given: 1890
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #63 on: 11/05/2017 12:22 AM »
<snip>
Node 3 Port has clearance issues with the rotating Port TRRJ, hence robotics access may be an issue.

In the presentation you linked in this comment there was a slide that listed the clearance with the A/L installed on Node 3 Port to the Port HRS as 18 inches.  Linking a screencap.
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Online jebbo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 450
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 134
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #64 on: 12/06/2017 03:59 PM »
Quote
Manber: NanoRacks’ airlock module manifested for launch to the ISS in 2019. Will allow us to do more satellite deployments from the station than possible today with the Japanese module airlock. #SpaceComExpo

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/938433459944591362

--- Tony

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9592
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 462
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #65 on: 12/09/2017 10:33 AM »
Virtually all new systems suffer schedule slip.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8196
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 265
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #66 on: 01/01/2018 12:52 PM »
Virtually all new systems suffer schedule slip.

Schedule and cost estimates assume that nothing will go wrong. Since something always goes wrong then either double or triple the estimate to get how much you are going to pay and when to expect to get the item.

Offline the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2594
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 1618
  • Likes Given: 2910
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #67 on: 01/01/2018 02:16 PM »
In point of fact, almost all major projects have "slip time" built into them.  This is time pre-dedicated to handle the unanticipated problems that will crop up as a program processes.

AFAIK, very few (if any) major development programs have ever come in on time and on budget without slip times having been built in.  All that it means is that the program proposers had a better-than-average feel for the kinds of issues they might encounter, and how much slip time to build into their development schedule to account for them.

When you hear about a major program that can "still officially make its launch date" but that almost everyone is expecting to encounter a major slip, it usually means that all of the project's slip time has been used up, well short of the finish line.  If absolutely nothing else happens to delay any aspect of the development, then yeah, it will make the date.  But that it's extraordinarily unlikely that there will be no further delays to deal with....
-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)

Tags: