Author Topic: General ISS Q&A thread  (Read 653897 times)

Offline rdale

  • Assistant to the Chief Meteorologist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9903
  • Lansing MI
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: General ISS Q&A thread
« Reply #1860 on: 02/11/2012 12:43 PM »
A tabular form, sometimes with additional explanation, is in the crew timeline at http://spacestationlive.jsc.nasa.gov/timeline/index.html

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: General ISS Q&A thread
« Reply #1861 on: 02/11/2012 07:25 PM »
First time posting to the forum, please forgive if I'm not doing this right. Also, apologies if this has been asked or addressed before. I did a search, but no joy.

I used to occasionally read, and sometimes follow along with, the execute packages that NASA posted on the website for shuttle missions. I've never been able to find a source for the ones used specifically on the ISS. Is there anywhere online that I can find the ISS packages?

Thanks
Glenn

There really isn't an equivalent thing for ISS.  The daily schedule is uplinked in a special webbased tool that isn't really portable (though you can export some data).  There is also a daily summary which is a word file that has things like ISS config, big notes etc.  That is probably the closest.  And there is no daily humor.  :(  (There used to be but got to be too much work).

Offline rdale

  • Assistant to the Chief Meteorologist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9903
  • Lansing MI
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: General ISS Q&A thread
« Reply #1862 on: 02/11/2012 09:14 PM »
eriol - what are the chances of seeing those Word files on L2? I hear them mentioned occasionally, especially during the WPCs.

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: General ISS Q&A thread
« Reply #1863 on: 02/13/2012 04:50 PM »
eriol - what are the chances of seeing those Word files on L2? I hear them mentioned occasionally, especially during the WPCs.

I don't know - but since they frequently contain payload and medical data I would be surprised if they would be released.

Offline axmor61

  • Member
  • Posts: 41
  • Port Saint Lucie, Fl
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: General ISS Q&A thread
« Reply #1864 on: 02/17/2012 01:21 AM »
Forgive me for this question but I have not been able to find the answer.
Does anyone knows where are the 5 Service Module Debris Panels that were scheduled to be installed on the small diameter segment (RO1) of Zvezda during the Russian EVA-30?
This task has now been deferred for August 2012.

Offline anik

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7366
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 284
Re: General ISS Q&A thread
« Reply #1865 on: 02/17/2012 06:47 PM »
Does anyone knows where are the 5 Service Module Debris Panels that were scheduled to be installed on the small diameter segment (RO1) of Zvezda during the Russian EVA-30?

They are inside ISS after delivery aboard Progress M-14M in January 2012.

Offline axmor61

  • Member
  • Posts: 41
  • Port Saint Lucie, Fl
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: General ISS Q&A thread
« Reply #1866 on: 02/17/2012 08:50 PM »
Thanks so much, Anik.
Is there any documentation or a layout graphic about these debris panels?

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2082
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: General ISS Q&A thread
« Reply #1867 on: 03/07/2012 10:25 AM »
How would you deorbit the station with current assets?

The original plan was to use a ATV for de-orbit. I haven't heard of a different plan even though ATV is probably going to stop after ATV-5.
The link above you says a modified progress is the baseline plan.
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline PeterAlt

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 706
  • West Palm Beach, FL
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: General ISS Q&A thread
« Reply #1868 on: 04/02/2012 11:56 PM »
The ATV-3 the other day performed its first station re-boost, elevating it to an altitude of 250 miles. This altitude hoovers close to the station's highest elevation, according to Wikipedia, of 255 miles. Since this latest station re-boost was just the first of a series of planned re-boosts by the latest ATV, I was wondering if they were planning on using this ATV to take the station above 255 miles. If so, what is the ISS' highest planned altitude and when? What is the highest they can raise the station and still be accessible by Soyuz, HTV, ATV, Dragon, and Cygnus without sacrificing payload capacity?

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9629
  • Liked: 362
  • Likes Given: 464
Re: General ISS Q&A thread
« Reply #1869 on: 04/03/2012 02:50 AM »
The ATV-3 the other day performed its first station re-boost, elevating it to an altitude of 250 miles. This altitude hoovers close to the station's highest elevation, according to Wikipedia, of 255 miles. Since this latest station re-boost was just the first of a series of planned re-boosts by the latest ATV, I was wondering if they were planning on using this ATV to take the station above 255 miles. If so, what is the ISS' highest planned altitude and when? What is the highest they can raise the station and still be accessible by Soyuz, HTV, ATV, Dragon, and Cygnus without sacrificing payload capacity?

I believe that the nominal highest orbital altitude for ISS to be accessible for Soyuz and Progress is 425 kilometers for ascent, and 450 km for descent.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9629
  • Liked: 362
  • Likes Given: 464
Re: General ISS Q&A thread
« Reply #1870 on: 04/03/2012 02:56 AM »

Offline PeterAlt

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 706
  • West Palm Beach, FL
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: General ISS Q&A thread
« Reply #1871 on: 04/03/2012 03:55 AM »
The ATV-3 the other day performed its first station re-boost, elevating it to an altitude of 250 miles. This altitude hoovers close to the station's highest elevation, according to Wikipedia, of 255 miles. Since this latest station re-boost was just the first of a series of planned re-boosts by the latest ATV, I was wondering if they were planning on using this ATV to take the station above 255 miles. If so, what is the ISS' highest planned altitude and when? What is the highest they can raise the station and still be accessible by Soyuz, HTV, ATV, Dragon, and Cygnus without sacrificing payload capacity?

I believe that the nominal highest orbital altitude for ISS to be accessible for Soyuz and Progress is 425 kilometers for ascent, and 450 km for descent.


I had to convert this one to miles.

425 km = 264 miles

They're pushing it close! If Progress and Soyuz capsul are launched on a Soyuz 2 rocket, does the range and capacity go up?

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9629
  • Liked: 362
  • Likes Given: 464
Re: General ISS Q&A thread
« Reply #1872 on: 04/03/2012 06:10 AM »
I had to convert this one to miles.

425 km = 264 miles

They're pushing it close! If Progress and Soyuz capsul are launched on a Soyuz 2 rocket, does the range and capacity go up?

For very complicated reasons (drop zones among them), no for Soyuz. Progress maybe could get away with carrying a little more prop on Soyuz 2, though.

However, a greybeard at JSC once told me that 425 miles up was a hard limit due to avionics issues. I never really trusted anecdotes from greybeards, though.



Offline Suzy

  • Reality disappoints me
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 597
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • Portal
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 44
Re: General ISS Q&A thread
« Reply #1873 on: 04/07/2012 08:21 AM »
Some ISS power/solar array questions!

•Do the U.S. segment arrays now provide all the power, or are the Russian module ones still used?
•How much power in watts does each U.S. and Russian solar array/wing generate?

Offline brahmanknight

  • I don't have all the right answers, but I do have all the right questions
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 688
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 99
Re: General ISS Q&A thread
« Reply #1874 on: 04/07/2012 01:26 PM »
The US arrays provide most of the power for the station.   

When the Zarya arrays were retracted to allow the US radiators to fully deploy, the loss in power generation was made up from the US arrays.   

The Zvesda arrays still provide power.

Offline Space Pete

Re: General ISS Q&A thread
« Reply #1875 on: 04/07/2012 03:32 PM »
Some ISS power/solar array questions!

•Do the U.S. segment arrays now provide all the power, or are the Russian module ones still used?
•How much power in watts does each U.S. and Russian solar array/wing generate?

Although the SM arrays provide some power to the RS, it isn't enough, so the USOS does provide additional power to the RS via the ARCU (American-Russian Conversion Unit) on PMA-1, which converts standard USOS secondary power (124.5 VDC) to standard RS power (28 VDC).

US SAWs produce between 31kW and 26kW of power, depending on their age. SM array power output is unknown to me.
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: General ISS Q&A thread
« Reply #1876 on: 04/10/2012 06:29 PM »
Some ISS power/solar array questions!

•Do the U.S. segment arrays now provide all the power, or are the Russian module ones still used?
•How much power in watts does each U.S. and Russian solar array/wing generate?

Although the SM arrays provide some power to the RS, it isn't enough, so the USOS does provide additional power to the RS via the ARCU (American-Russian Conversion Unit) on PMA-1, which converts standard USOS secondary power (124.5 VDC) to standard RS power (28 VDC).

US SAWs produce between 31kW and 26kW of power, depending on their age. SM array power output is unknown to me.

As part of the agreement over not having the SPP, NASA agreed to provide most of the RS power.

Offline Nicolas PILLET

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2271
  • Gien, France
    • Kosmonavtika
  • Liked: 426
  • Likes Given: 58
Re: General ISS Q&A thread
« Reply #1877 on: 04/14/2012 04:27 PM »
I would like to clarify the capabilities of the different grapple fixtures used on USOS...

NamePowerDataVideo
PDGFYesYesYes
EFGF
PVGFNoNoYes
FRGFNoNoNo

I don't understand what is an EFGF.
Also, I don't understand the usefulness of transmitting a video signal between SSRMS and its payload...

Thanks for clarifications !
Nicolas PILLET
Kosmonavtika : The French site on Russian Space

Offline Nicolas PILLET

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2271
  • Gien, France
    • Kosmonavtika
  • Liked: 426
  • Likes Given: 58
Re: General ISS Q&A thread
« Reply #1878 on: 04/14/2012 05:19 PM »
Found in the ISS Familiarization Manual :

Quote
The RWS has components which are either external or internal to the rack. The external components, illustrated in Figure 8-6, are portable and include three video monitors, a Translational Hand Controller (THC) and a Rotational Hand Controller (RHC), a Display and Control (D&C) panel, a Portable Computer System (PCS), and an Artificial Vision Unit Cursor Control Device (AVU CCD). Unlike the external components, which are moved between the Lab and the Cupola, the internal components are fixed into the Lab racks. The internal components include an AVU and a Control Electronics Unit (CEU) which houses the RWS software.

It means that there are two RWS racks (LAB and CUP), but only one set of "external components", which is shared between the two RWS ?

During STS-133 EVA1, Cupola's RWS failed, and they had to use LAB's RWS. It means that they had to transfer all external components ?
Nicolas PILLET
Kosmonavtika : The French site on Russian Space

Offline Space Pete

Re: General ISS Q&A thread
« Reply #1879 on: 04/14/2012 05:33 PM »
I would like to clarify the capabilities of the different grapple fixtures used on USOS...

I don't understand what is an EFGF.
Also, I don't understand the usefulness of transmitting a video signal between SSRMS and its payload...

An EFGF is an Electrical Flight Grapple Fixture - think of it as an FRGF with the capabilities of a PDGF. So, I hear you ask, why not just use a PDGF? Well, as I'm sure you know, PDGFs can only transmit their power/data/video through the SSRMS, and not other arms such as the SRMS or JEM RMS, since their LEE design is different. So EFGFs are used when payloads for arms other than the SSRMS need to have power/data/video transmission capabilities. EFGFs were only used on the OBSS, and currently, the JEM RMS SFA.

With regard the usefulness of transmitting a video signal between SSRMS and its payload via a PVGF, let's think back to STS-132. Remember that PVGFs also provide power (power is needed for the cameras on the payload that provide the video) - so your table is incorrect in that regard. Back on STS-132, when the SSRMS was installing MRM-1 to FGB Nadir, the SSRMS needed video views from MRM-1 in order to make sure the alignment with the docking port was correct. So a PVGF was used to transmit video from MRM-1 to the operator, through the SSRMS. A PDGF was not needed since no other data apart from video was needed from MRM-1, thus using a PDGF would have been wasting the data capability (PDGFs are maybe more expensive than PVGFs I think, thus are only used when they are needed).

So, here's a corrected version of your table:

NamePowerDataVideo
PDGFYesYesYes
EFGFYesYesYes
PVGFYesNoYes
FRGFNoNoNo
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor