|
Danderman
|
|
« Reply #1905 on: 05/17/2012 04:56 PM » |
|
Are the current FGB solar arrays removable (they are folded up right now)? If so, could new smaller, shorter arrays be installed so that the FGB could produce some small amount of power? The panels installed on Mir, for example, were transported inside a cargo ship, and extended during the installation process; perhaps similar panels could be installed on FGB.
No attach points or power connections for such panels
I am assuming/wishing that the existing FGB solar panel attachments support removal of the panels, as did earlier TKS-based modules. I have no idea if this is true or not.
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #1906 on: 05/17/2012 05:03 PM » |
|
I am assuming/wishing that the existing FGB solar panel attachments support removal of the panels, as did earlier TKS-based modules.
Where is that documented? If the capability existed, it was never employed. Only the DOS's used that capability. Also, it isn't the Russia's module to put such arrays on. Boeing nor NASA would have spec'ed such a requirement.
|
|
|
|
Space Pete
|
|
« Reply #1907 on: 05/17/2012 05:25 PM » |
|
I thought the FGB solar arrays were just retracted enough to make clearance for the radiators and not completely and that they still produced power.
I don't think they are active - I remember reading in an ISS on-orbit status report a while back about some "no-longer needed" internal power generation/distribution equipment being removed from the FGB.
|
|
|
|
erioladastra
|
|
« Reply #1908 on: 05/17/2012 06:58 PM » |
|
I thought the FGB solar arrays were just retracted enough to make clearance for the radiators and not completely and that they still produced power.
I don't think they are active - I remember reading in an ISS on-orbit status report a while back about some "no-longer needed" internal power generation/distribution equipment being removed from the FGB.
They were retracted for clearnace reasons so attaching new ones wouldn't be possible. Although retracted there is a trickle of power coming from them.
|
|
|
|
Danderman
|
|
« Reply #1909 on: 05/17/2012 08:22 PM » |
|
I am assuming/wishing that the existing FGB solar panel attachments support removal of the panels, as did earlier TKS-based modules.
Where is that documented? If the capability existed, it was never employed. Only the DOS's used that capability.
Also, it isn't the Russia's module to put such arrays on. Boeing nor NASA would have spec'ed such a requirement.
Since the earlier TKS modules did have the capability of moving around solar arrays, I suspect that NASA and Rockwell would have had to specify that this capability be deleted. Note: I checked the FGB requirements, and it was specified to share operating mechanisms like solar panels, antennas, etc with the earlier Mir TKS modules. I think everyone knows that the solar panels on the TKS modules were able to be moved around from module to module.
|
|
|
|
Jorge
|
|
« Reply #1910 on: 05/17/2012 08:31 PM » |
|
I am assuming/wishing that the existing FGB solar panel attachments support removal of the panels, as did earlier TKS-based modules.
Where is that documented? If the capability existed, it was never employed. Only the DOS's used that capability.
Also, it isn't the Russia's module to put such arrays on. Boeing nor NASA would have spec'ed such a requirement.
Since the earlier TKS modules did have the capability of moving around solar arrays, I suspect that NASA and Rockwell would have had to specify that this capability be deleted.
Was Rockwell ever involved with the FGB? I would have thought that if Boeing "inherited" the FGB from anyone, it would have been MDAC.
|
|
|
|
Danderman
|
|
« Reply #1911 on: 05/17/2012 08:42 PM » |
|
Was Rockwell ever involved with the FGB? I would have thought that if Boeing "inherited" the FGB from anyone, it would have been MDAC.
My memory is that the documents I saw 20 years ago were from Rockwell. However, one of the requirements documents I have now specifies that its a Lockheed document. I have no idea why Lockheed was involved with Khrunichev at that time; of course, Rockwell had a legacy of working with the Russians, so they were all over Energia and Khrunichev in the early 1990s. MacDac was Work Package 2, I don't recall anything that MacDac had to do with the Russians, but more importantly, Boeing didn't get MacDac until the FGB was pretty much done.
|
|
|
|
Nicolas PILLET
|
|
« Reply #1912 on: 05/17/2012 10:57 PM » |
|
could new smaller, shorter arrays be installed so that the FGB could produce some small amount of power? Khrunichev had a project to replace the aft segments of the panels by smaller ones. See figure 6 in my page : http://www.kosmonavtika.com/vaisseaux/mks/elements/zaria/tech/12/12.htmlAlso, I confirm that systems used for power production were removed after the retraction of the panels, and that consequently it is strictly impossible to produce power with FGB's panels.
|
|
|
|
Danderman
|
|
« Reply #1913 on: 05/18/2012 12:19 AM » |
|
Its interesting to see that Khrunichev thought that FGB solar panels could be removed and replaced.
As for the removal of power elements that preclude future use of the FGB solar panels, I suspect that these could probably be replaced if there were a requirement to do so. Right now, there is no requirement for additional power.
This ignores the big question of what to do with the existing folded panels if they were to be replaced.
|
|
|
|
erioladastra
|
|
« Reply #1914 on: 05/24/2012 09:54 PM » |
|
could new smaller, shorter arrays be installed so that the FGB could produce some small amount of power?
Khrunichev had a project to replace the aft segments of the panels by smaller ones. See figure 6 in my page :
http://www.kosmonavtika.com/vaisseaux/mks/elements/zaria/tech/12/12.html
Also, I confirm that systems used for power production were removed after the retraction of the panels, and that consequently it is strictly impossible to produce power with FGB's panels.
Sorry, I missed this earlier. But your source is incorrect - the FGB panels produce up to about 500W of power. The Russians use this power and reduce what the pull from the USOS based on how much they are getting.
|
|
|
|
Nicolas PILLET
|
|
« Reply #1915 on: 05/27/2012 05:20 PM » |
|
Also, I confirm that systems used for power production were removed after the retraction of the panels, and that consequently it is strictly impossible to produce power with FGB's panels.
Sorry, I missed this earlier. But your source is incorrect - the FGB panels produce up to about 500W of power. The Russians use this power and reduce what the pull from the USOS based on how much they are getting.
Really ?? My source is NASA  But it wouldn't be the first time they are wrong while speaking about Russian hardware... 
|
|
|
|
wjbarnett
|
|
« Reply #1916 on: 05/30/2012 07:36 PM » |
|
During today's ISS Update hour on NTV, I noticed they were in the 'prior shuttle' FCR, rather than what I believe is the 'normal ISS' FCR (I don't remember the proper labels for the different FCRs). Do we know why? Is the station FCR being upgraded or something?
|
|
|
|
Danderman
|
|
« Reply #1917 on: 05/30/2012 08:13 PM » |
|
the FGB panels produce up to about 500W of power. The Russians use this power and reduce what the pull from the USOS based on how much they are getting.
Really? Do you have a good source for this? 
|
|
|
|
Jorge
|
|
« Reply #1918 on: 05/30/2012 08:53 PM » |
|
During today's ISS Update hour on NTV, I noticed they were in the 'prior shuttle' FCR, rather than what I believe is the 'normal ISS' FCR (I don't remember the proper labels for the different FCRs). FCR-1 - ISS FCR-2 - Apollo (historic restoration) Red FCR - Training/ISS White FCR - Shuttle/ISS Blue FCR - Testbed Do we know why? Is the station FCR being upgraded or something?
I believe they're getting the new intercom keysets.
|
|
|
|
wjbarnett
|
|
« Reply #1919 on: 05/30/2012 09:01 PM » |
|
Much thanks Jorge!
|
|
|
|
