ShuttleDiscovery - 13/3/2008 12:03 PMNo! Cupola is launched attached to the forward end of Node 3 (no clearance issues) and the relocated to the side afterwards...
stockman - 13/3/2008 11:57 AMI could be wrong but I thought that node 3 and cupula were going up on the same flight but that the cupula would be on a pallet (not attached to Node3 for the flight. Once Node 3 gets attached then cupula could be attached to the appropriate port Speaking of cupula.. here is a current picture of her sitting in the ISS processing facility.
anik - 13/3/2008 7:33 AMhttp://www.esa.int/esapub/bulletin/bulletin133/bul133_pip.pdfThe quote from page 69:"Node 3 has been advanced in the Assembly Sequence and is currently scheduled to launch October 2009 (with the Cupola attached) following delivery of Node-3 to NASA in February 2009"
catfry - 13/3/2008 12:20 PMIt makes perfect sense now, thanks.I have always been a bit fascinated by the Cupola. Isn't it a bit of a frivolity? Are there any operational uses at all?
DwightM - 13/3/2008 7:37 PMSo this means that STS-130 is now 20A and that 19A and ULF 4 will shift to the right, correct?
stockman - 13/3/2008 6:45 PM1) Earth observation made easier - that is one of the primary goals of ISS so big windows make that job easier2) maintenance visibility - Gives a clear human eye view to certain types of maintenance instead of just relying on Camera views from inside.3) Human mental health - I would be willing to bet that the most used part of the station (next to the toilet) is the LAB window because it is larger than the Russian Portholes and provides a nice clear view of the Earth below. When you are stuck in a tin can for 6 months or more at a time it is good for the mind to be able to look outside and see the universe. The cupola will give the equivalent of 5 or 6 large LAB windows. I can imagine half the crew in that module during off duty time.
stockman - 12/3/2008 6:45 PMQuotecatfry - 13/3/2008 12:20 PMIt makes perfect sense now, thanks.I have always been a bit fascinated by the Cupola. Isn't it a bit of a frivolity? Are there any operational uses at all?I certainly don't think its frivolous. Can you live without it? probably but there are some uses here.1) Earth observation made easier - that is one of the primary goals of ISS so big windows make that job easier
2) maintenance visibility - Gives a clear human eye view to certain types of maintenance instead of just relying on Camera views from inside.
3) Human mental health - I would be willing to bet that the most used part of the station (next to the toilet) is the LAB window because it is larger than the Russian Portholes and provides a nice clear view of the Earth below. When you are stuck in a tin can for 6 months or more at a time it is good for the mind to be able to look outside and see the universe. The cupola will give the equivalent of 5 or 6 large LAB windows. I can imagine half the crew in that module during off duty time.
perian - 13/3/2008 12:34 PMQuotestockman - 13/3/2008 6:45 PM1) Earth observation made easier - that is one of the primary goals of ISS so big windows make that job easier2) maintenance visibility - Gives a clear human eye view to certain types of maintenance instead of just relying on Camera views from inside.3) Human mental health - I would be willing to bet that the most used part of the station (next to the toilet) is the LAB window because it is larger than the Russian Portholes and provides a nice clear view of the Earth below. When you are stuck in a tin can for 6 months or more at a time it is good for the mind to be able to look outside and see the universe. The cupola will give the equivalent of 5 or 6 large LAB windows. I can imagine half the crew in that module during off duty time. 4) control of the space station remote manipulator system (robotic workstations will be in Cupola)
Chandonn - 13/3/2008 12:14 PMIn some earlier versions of the launch sequence, the cupola was to be launched on a pallet and later attached to the port CBM of Unity. That may be the source of the confusion. It is simpler to attach it to the forward active CBM of Node 3 when it's all launched up together, and then relocate it.
erioladastra - 13/3/2008 4:11 PMTo answer some other questions... It will now go on the port side of Node 1 and the Cupola will be nadir.
JJ.. - 15/3/2008 5:33 PMso .. will node 3 be on the opposite side of unity to quest ?have i got that right ?thanks,JJ..
redgryphon - 15/3/2008 6:27 PMWasn't there an issue with soyuz/progress dockings to Zarya nadir port if Node 3 was installed on Node 1 nadir? At least until the Russian DCM was installed?
hanschristian - 16/3/2008 12:59 AMI think Node 3 nadir of Node 1 would be much better...If Node 3's gonna ba permanently bolted to Node 1 port, practically all of Node 3's CBMs are inaccessible to future expansion of the ISS (if there IS a plan), plus PMA 3 cannot be used for its main purpose., leaving the ISS 1 docking port short... and the Cupola would be limited in its SSRMS workstation capability... although Earth Observation would not be compromised much...I think what erioladastra's opinion is more valid for the meantime, to give way for the DCM to be docked on Zarya's Nadir port... it makes a lot more sense to me...But for the meantime, I'll just wait for them to launch these things... BTW, what is the current status of the DCM?
hanschristian - 17/3/2008 8:04 AMAnd also, I've heard that the AMS experiment instruments are still "under construction", but from what I've learned from here, there's no shuttle launch available for it...so what would be the future of this equipment
hanschristian - 16/3/2008 12:59 AMI think Node 3 nadir of Node 1 would be much better...1. If Node 3's gonna ba permanently bolted to Node 1 port, practically all of Node 3's CBMs are inaccessible to future expansion of the ISS (if there IS a plan)2. , plus PMA 3 cannot be used for its main purpose., leaving the ISS 1 docking port short..
Jim - 17/3/2008 3:36 PMQuotehanschristian - 16/3/2008 12:59 AMI think Node 3 nadir of Node 1 would be much better...1. If Node 3's gonna ba permanently bolted to Node 1 port, practically all of Node 3's CBMs are inaccessible to future expansion of the ISS (if there IS a plan)2. , plus PMA 3 cannot be used for its main purpose., leaving the ISS 1 docking port short..1. What expansion? there is none. 2. How so?
hanschristian - 19/3/2008 12:36 AM After all, why bother making Node 3 with all of those unused CBMs (and I mean no module permanently bolted in it)? Why just make it with only the necessary CBMs in it, and sump the rest and put a permanent plug in it, just like those deleted docking ports on Zvezda's port and starboad side?
Jim - 19/3/2008 6:31 AMQuotehanschristian - 19/3/2008 12:36 AM After all, why bother making Node 3 with all of those unused CBMs (and I mean no module permanently bolted in it)? Why just make it with only the necessary CBMs in it, and sump the rest and put a permanent plug in it, just like those deleted docking ports on Zvezda's port and starboad side?Because it is cheaper than making a 3rd node configuration.
hanschristian - 19/3/2008 11:32 AMThird Node config, you mean a redesign or remanufacture? A bit confused on that part... sorry....
Jim - 19/3/2008 10:49 AMQuotehanschristian - 19/3/2008 11:32 AMThird Node config, you mean a redesign or remanufacture? A bit confused on that part... sorry....new drawings and analysis.
FDRD Mission Baseline Presentation for STS-130/Node3/Cupola was presented to the shuttle managers late this week, and is on L2 to download if you have it. Probably will be a news article in the future too.
Probably will be a news article in the future too.
i just watched an interactive on the nasa.gov site relating to the 10 year anniversy of the station and the 360 fly around in animation has node 3 on the port side CBM instead of the nadir... i guess its offical... makes no sence to me.. i think its a mistake to locate node 3 there.. i guess the british HEM idea will stay just an IDEA
So if Node-3 can't go on the bottom of Node-1... then what will become of PMA-3? Will it be to risky to try and dock Orion to it with MRM-2 just next door? Node-3 would have helped it stick out more.
Quote from: amaturespacecase on 11/23/2008 11:20 amSo if Node-3 can't go on the bottom of Node-1... then what will become of PMA-3? Will it be to risky to try and dock Orion to it with MRM-2 just next door? Node-3 would have helped it stick out more.Orion will dock to PMA-2, PMA-3 will become a spare part, like it is now. Sad, but true?
I thought PMA-3 was always considered an on-orbit spare (note how its been constantly shuffled around on Node-1 and to and from Z-1 with no actual use from it).
1) so if node 3 will be berthed on Node 1 port, then that means Node 3 will supposedly the "new" habitation module, since they will fit it with the necessary stuff for astro/cosmonaut lodging, right?2) as for cupola, will it be placed on Node 3 nadir?
1) No. Three crew quarters will be in Node-2, one most likely stays in Destiny (TESS), two are in SM. Node-3 will mostly carry environmental racks like the ones launched with STS-126.Analyst
Quote from: Analyst on 12/01/2008 12:09 pm1) No. Three crew quarters will be in Node-2, one most likely stays in Destiny (TESS), two are in SM. Node-3 will mostly carry environmental racks like the ones launched with STS-126.AnalystPersonally I think that it would be better to have the 4 crew quater racks in Node 3 as they are more out of the way as Node 2 is a busy junction and more exposed. I think the astronauts would rather have a more private module to sleep in, with the other 4 rack spaces for storage and habitation. Just my opinion... Just out of interest, the 'new galley' launched on STS-126, where will this go? There woud be plenty of space in the Node 3 hatch area, as no other components apart from PMA3 will be attached to the module, so that's a useful area to have a crew dining area..
It appears that the Cupola will be launched while mated to Node 3 via CBM. This means that CBM will have to withstand launch loads in this mated condition, which I don't imagine was one of the design criteria for CBM. I would bet that a lot of analysis was done to make this possible.Has any other docking or berthing interface ever been launched with attached objects on both sides of the interfaces? I don't think so.
Quote from: Danderman on 09/01/2009 03:09 pmIt appears that the Cupola will be launched while mated to Node 3 via CBM. This means that CBM will have to withstand launch loads in this mated condition, which I don't imagine was one of the design criteria for CBM. I would bet that a lot of analysis was done to make this possible.Has any other docking or berthing interface ever been launched with attached objects on both sides of the interfaces? I don't think so.Wasn't Unity launched with PMAs attached to both ends via CBM?
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2009/09/node_3_location.htmlI was hoping to see some comment on this decision here but everyone is silent. Budget is driving choices that will end up costing the program more in the long run is my initial take.Relocating (swapping) both Node 3 and PLM doesn't strike me as very practical or easy. No indication as to the final resting place for PMA3 is given either, presumably Node 3 Port.This decision ought to be pointed out to Congress, it will clearly put an end to any possible future expansion of the station.
What's the big cost inmoving it back to node1 z? The extra EVAs needed?
There are other options for growth so nothing is blocked.
No it does not put any end. There are still options one of which could be moving Node 3. However, the issue was whether to do that now. After all the work to head towards putting Node 3 on the port, to move it back to nadir would cost a huge amount now if it were to happen next year. The big driver is the end of the shuttle. If there were more time it could be accomodated more reasonably. But to replan at such a late date was too risky. There are other options for growth so nothing is blocked. Now, perhaps things could have been better planned out but we are where we are - the ending of the shuttle is a huge impact to ISS and this is one example.
Quote from: erioladastra on 09/11/2009 02:40 amThere are other options for growth so nothing is blocked. I hope people are reading between the lines on this one...
Quote from: erioladastra on 09/11/2009 02:40 amNo it does not put any end. There are still options one of which could be moving Node 3. However, the issue was whether to do that now. After all the work to head towards putting Node 3 on the port, to move it back to nadir would cost a huge amount now if it were to happen next year. The big driver is the end of the shuttle. If there were more time it could be accomodated more reasonably. But to replan at such a late date was too risky. There are other options for growth so nothing is blocked. Now, perhaps things could have been better planned out but we are where we are - the ending of the shuttle is a huge impact to ISS and this is one example.Thanks Eric,Assuming that Augustine Committee recommendations are adopted, at least as far as the more realistic Shuttle end date of mid 2011 and the extension of ISS to 2020, and assuming these activities are fully funded... LOL - OK that's too many assumptions even for me.I hope that Congress can and will restore enough funding within the 2010 and 2011 budgets to get Node 3 back where it belongs.
At this point even extending the shuttle to 2011 won't change where Node 3 goes at this point. If we add more shuttles and Orion is really coming in the 'near future', then it might move. However, like I said, there is not neccesarily a reason to at this point. A lot depends on what happens in the ISS program and if a real need is identified.
Quote from: erioladastra on 09/12/2009 12:55 amAt this point even extending the shuttle to 2011 won't change where Node 3 goes at this point. If we add more shuttles and Orion is really coming in the 'near future', then it might move. However, like I said, there is not neccesarily a reason to at this point. A lot depends on what happens in the ISS program and if a real need is identified.And the only real reason I can see is if another module coming up. And that's a BIG if.
Quote from: arkaska on 09/12/2009 05:59 pmQuote from: erioladastra on 09/12/2009 12:55 amAt this point even extending the shuttle to 2011 won't change where Node 3 goes at this point. If we add more shuttles and Orion is really coming in the 'near future', then it might move. However, like I said, there is not neccesarily a reason to at this point. A lot depends on what happens in the ISS program and if a real need is identified.And the only real reason I can see is if another module coming up. And that's a BIG if.Well, erm, we do have another module coming up. PLM Raffaello.
Quote from: Orbiter on 09/12/2009 06:40 pmQuote from: arkaska on 09/12/2009 05:59 pmQuote from: erioladastra on 09/12/2009 12:55 amAt this point even extending the shuttle to 2011 won't change where Node 3 goes at this point. If we add more shuttles and Orion is really coming in the 'near future', then it might move. However, like I said, there is not neccesarily a reason to at this point. A lot depends on what happens in the ISS program and if a real need is identified.And the only real reason I can see is if another module coming up. And that's a BIG if.Well, erm, we do have another module coming up. PLM Raffaello. But that will have its place on Node 1 zenith. I was talking about a module that isn't planned today and will need a place currently not available.
Quote from: arkaska on 09/12/2009 08:16 pmQuote from: Orbiter on 09/12/2009 06:40 pmQuote from: arkaska on 09/12/2009 05:59 pmQuote from: erioladastra on 09/12/2009 12:55 amAt this point even extending the shuttle to 2011 won't change where Node 3 goes at this point. If we add more shuttles and Orion is really coming in the 'near future', then it might move. However, like I said, there is not neccesarily a reason to at this point. A lot depends on what happens in the ISS program and if a real need is identified.And the only real reason I can see is if another module coming up. And that's a BIG if.Well, erm, we do have another module coming up. PLM Raffaello. But that will have its place on Node 1 zenith. I was talking about a module that isn't planned today and will need a place currently not available. Nit (because it's often-repeated): If it goes on Node 1 Zenith, they'll have to move the Z1 truss.
Quote from: Orbiter on 09/12/2009 06:40 pmQuote from: arkaska on 09/12/2009 05:59 pmQuote from: erioladastra on 09/12/2009 12:55 amAt this point even extending the shuttle to 2011 won't change where Node 3 goes at this point. If we add more shuttles and Orion is really coming in the 'near future', then it might move. However, like I said, there is not neccesarily a reason to at this point. A lot depends on what happens in the ISS program and if a real need is identified.And the only real reason I can see is if another module coming up. And that's a BIG if.Well, erm, we do have another module coming up. PLM Raffaello. There are enough ports for the PLM with Node 3 on the port side. PLM will be just fine on Node 1 nadir.
however it will obstruct the viewing area for the cupola, while it will not on node 2 zenith
Node 2 zenith is not an option as I understand the situation for a couple of reasons; the primary one of which is its high MMOD risk. N2z is also the backup placement location for both shuttle MPLM and free flight modules such as HTV should a problem develop with the Node 2 nadir port.
Quote from: Norm Hartnett on 09/14/2009 06:19 pmNode 2 zenith is not an option as I understand the situation for a couple of reasons; the primary one of which is its high MMOD risk. N2z is also the backup placement location for both shuttle MPLM and free flight modules such as HTV should a problem develop with the Node 2 nadir port.there will be the same amount of MMOD risk at N2 zenith as there is at n1 nadir, as both are in the plane of motion.
cupola nicely mated and ready...
Quote from: stockman on 09/14/2009 08:02 pmcupola nicely mated and ready... I thought it was going to be launched in the permanent position, I guess I was wrong. So does the Cupola have a hatch like all the other modules?
(they should have several Cupolas spread around the station )
Quote from: arkaska on 09/14/2009 08:52 pmQuote from: stockman on 09/14/2009 08:02 pmcupola nicely mated and ready... I thought it was going to be launched in the permanent position, I guess I was wrong. So does the Cupola have a hatch like all the other modules?Can't be launched on any of the radial CBMs, won't fit in the orbiter. Z1 also has a hatch and vestibule.
Quote from: Ronsmytheiii on 09/14/2009 07:52 pmQuote from: Norm Hartnett on 09/14/2009 06:19 pmNode 2 zenith is not an option as I understand the situation for a couple of reasons; the primary one of which is its high MMOD risk. N2z is also the backup placement location for both shuttle MPLM and free flight modules such as HTV should a problem develop with the Node 2 nadir port.there will be the same amount of MMOD risk at N2 zenith as there is at n1 nadir, as both are in the plane of motion.Incorrect. The ISS TEA attitude is pitched down several degrees, so N2 and Destiny provide some MMOD shadowing for N1n. Also, the MMOD flux is higher on the top sides than the bottom.
Quote from: Jorge on 09/14/2009 07:54 pmQuote from: Ronsmytheiii on 09/14/2009 07:52 pmQuote from: Norm Hartnett on 09/14/2009 06:19 pmNode 2 zenith is not an option as I understand the situation for a couple of reasons; the primary one of which is its high MMOD risk. N2z is also the backup placement location for both shuttle MPLM and free flight modules such as HTV should a problem develop with the Node 2 nadir port.there will be the same amount of MMOD risk at N2 zenith as there is at n1 nadir, as both are in the plane of motion.Incorrect. The ISS TEA attitude is pitched down several degrees, so N2 and Destiny provide some MMOD shadowing for N1n. Also, the MMOD flux is higher on the top sides than the bottom. Wouldn't you rather have the MPLM provide some shadowing for Destiny?
Quote from: psloss on 09/14/2009 09:03 pmQuote from: arkaska on 09/14/2009 08:52 pmQuote from: stockman on 09/14/2009 08:02 pmcupola nicely mated and ready... I thought it was going to be launched in the permanent position, I guess I was wrong. So does the Cupola have a hatch like all the other modules?Can't be launched on any of the radial CBMs, won't fit in the orbiter. Z1 also has a hatch and vestibule.Of course it wouldn't fit the orbiter, maybe I should use my brain next time. But does the Cupola have a hatch? I can't see where it would fit in an open configuration.
Had no idea Z1 had an pressurized vestibule, always heard is completely unpressurized.
Preparatory to accessing the "dome" volume of the Z1 truss, the crew removed the RED from the Node "ceiling". (RED was temporarily removed from its Node location by disconnecting parts from the hardmount plate, in order to gain access to the dome hatch. Tomorrow, two new and two old support block and pad assemblies will be reinstalled after lubrication. Afterwards the RED will be recalibrated.)The crew then ingressed the Z1 dome and rearranged stowage equipment in the normally sealed space. (This was the second of a three-part stowage reconfiguration aimed at maximizing available stowage space and alleviating some of the current stowage congestion in an effort to improve habitability on ISS. Since there was no pressure inside the Z1 volume, the crew first opened the MPEV (manual pressure equalization valve), and the resulting change in cabin pressure was to verify that there was no leak from Z1 to vacuum before hatch opening. Wearing goggles and dust masks, the crew then opened the hatch and ingressed the space. They removed items approved for stowage into PMA-3 (Pressurized Mating Adapter 3) and then filled the empty space with hardware approved for the Z1 environment. The hatch was closed afterwards.)
Quote from: Ronsmytheiii on 09/14/2009 05:06 amhowever it will obstruct the viewing area for the cupola, while it will not on node 2 zenithNode 2 zenith is not an option as I understand the situation for a couple of reasons; the primary one of which is its high MMOD risk. N2z is also the backup placement location for both shuttle MPLM and free flight modules such as HTV should a problem develop with the Node 2 nadir port.
Quote from: Norm Hartnett on 09/14/2009 06:19 pmQuote from: Ronsmytheiii on 09/14/2009 05:06 amhowever it will obstruct the viewing area for the cupola, while it will not on node 2 zenithNode 2 zenith is not an option as I understand the situation for a couple of reasons; the primary one of which is its high MMOD risk. N2z is also the backup placement location for both shuttle MPLM and free flight modules such as HTV should a problem develop with the Node 2 nadir port.Actually N2z is perfectly fine. Any place is going to require the PLM to increase its MMOD shielding. Until last week when it was decided to leave Node 3 on N1 port, N2z was the preffered spot for the PLM since it would be close to your visiting vehicles. The crew wants the PLM to be along the axis of the station for efficiency so N2z or N1n works equally well.PLM on N1n does not affect any planned/needed views from the cupola.
Quote from: erioladastra on 09/16/2009 05:14 pmQuote from: Norm Hartnett on 09/14/2009 06:19 pmQuote from: Ronsmytheiii on 09/14/2009 05:06 amhowever it will obstruct the viewing area for the cupola, while it will not on node 2 zenithNode 2 zenith is not an option as I understand the situation for a couple of reasons; the primary one of which is its high MMOD risk. N2z is also the backup placement location for both shuttle MPLM and free flight modules such as HTV should a problem develop with the Node 2 nadir port.Actually N2z is perfectly fine. Any place is going to require the PLM to increase its MMOD shielding. Until last week when it was decided to leave Node 3 on N1 port, N2z was the preffered spot for the PLM since it would be close to your visiting vehicles. The crew wants the PLM to be along the axis of the station for efficiency so N2z or N1n works equally well.PLM on N1n does not affect any planned/needed views from the cupola.It will, however, affect Orion's need for a second docking port.
CDA? Is this something new or just a change in name following the installation of ATLAS (or whatever the APAS-LIDS adapter is called now-a-days).
Right. Would this be as a replacement for both PMA2 and PMA3?
Any idea as to LV - I guess it would be too wide to be launched atop Orion. Is this something that could be flight ready by the end of STS or go up in the HTV unpressurised section. (I think this was mentioned in an 8th floor update).
Learned the answer today. PMA-3 (later CDA) will go to N2z.
Quote from: Jorge on 09/16/2009 09:51 pmLearned the answer today. PMA-3 (later CDA) will go to N2z.With PMA-3 at Node-2 zenith you lose the backup CBM for visiting vehicles (unless a Node-3 CBM could be used, which I don't know). But you have two PMAs at useable locations at a time when you don't need any PMA (from the end of STS to Orion, 7 years).Wouldn't it be better to have two CBMs for visiting vehicles (Node 2 nadir and zenith) at a time when such flights will happen (HTV, COTS) and just one PMA (like today) when none is actually needed? Put PMA-3 at Node-3 until needed.
Quote from: arkaska on 09/14/2009 09:52 pmHad no idea Z1 had an pressurized vestibule, always heard is completely unpressurized. I remember this coming up before. It is known as the Z1 Dome, if I recall. At one point, someone posted pics of the dome area here.Still trying to find interior images. No luck yet.
Quote from: YesRushGen on 09/15/2009 04:03 pmQuote from: arkaska on 09/14/2009 09:52 pmHad no idea Z1 had an pressurized vestibule, always heard is completely unpressurized. I remember this coming up before. It is known as the Z1 Dome, if I recall. At one point, someone posted pics of the dome area here.Still trying to find interior images. No luck yet.I've got two images of Sergei Krikalev accessing the pressurized volume of Z1 but I don't remember if they are L2 are not (Chris, please advise)
Those pics are available on the NASA website.http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/118032main_hassman_iss_briefing4_med.jpg
Quote from: simon-th on 09/18/2009 07:59 amThose pics are available on the NASA website.http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/118032main_hassman_iss_briefing4_med.jpgHuh, thanks. So what is that used for these days? Storage?
NASA managers originally intended to attach Tranquility to Unity's Earth-facing port but later decided to mount it on the left side instead. Connectors needed to circulate ammonia coolant to and from Tranquility were not correctly positioned, or "clocked," for Tranquility to be attached to Unity's left-side port.As a result, custom hoses and connectors were ordered to compensate for the offset. During a ground test this week, a hose ruptured below the expected threshold. The failure occurred at a pressure of nearly 1,000 pounds per square inch, much higher than normal station pressures of around 300 psi, but engineers are looking into the issue to find out what might be needed to resolve the matter.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/01/sts-130-may-postponed-node-3-threatens-swap/I thought NASA tested everything to a fair-the-well. What happened that they would discover this at the last minute?
OMG I thought NASA tested everything to a fair-the-well. What happened that they would discover this at the last minute?
I seem to remember that Node 3 and Cupola were to be moved to the Nadir port of Node 2 is that still happening or did I miss something?
Why didn't they put Node 3 at Node 2 forward?
Quote from: Pheogh on 03/16/2010 11:06 pmI seem to remember that Node 3 and Cupola were to be moved to the Nadir port of Node 2 is that still happening or did I miss something?That was never the plan. Node 3 was originally planned to be berthed to Node 1 nadir. I don't believe there are any plans to relocate it.
That is Node 1 nadir.
Quote from: Jim on 03/16/2010 11:23 pmThat 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?
Umbilical reach, for one. SSRMS reach (can't pull shuttle payloads out of the bay because it's further away) for another.
Quote from: Jorge on 03/16/2010 11:17 pmUmbilical 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?
Quote from: Pheogh on 03/16/2010 11:30 pmQuote from: Jim on 03/16/2010 11:23 pmThat 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?
Quote from: Jorge on 03/16/2010 11:47 pmQuote from: Pheogh on 03/16/2010 11:30 pmQuote from: Jim on 03/16/2010 11:23 pmThat 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.
Quote from: arkaska on 03/17/2010 09:39 amQuote from: Jorge on 03/16/2010 11:17 pmUmbilical 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.
Quote from: Space Pete on 03/17/2010 11:09 amQuote from: arkaska on 03/17/2010 09:39 amQuote from: Jorge on 03/16/2010 11:17 pmUmbilical 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.
Quote from: Jorge on 03/17/2010 11:10 pmQuote from: Space Pete on 03/17/2010 11:09 amQuote from: arkaska on 03/17/2010 09:39 amQuote from: Jorge on 03/16/2010 11:17 pmUmbilical 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.