Look, you know I'm not trying to promote LEGO space ships. It just seems to me that modular space stations should be a lot easier to design than modular launchers. From what Herb said it sounds as if doing this within current limitations is so difficult it may even be impossible.
Quote from: Analyst on 02/17/2009 07:25 amQuote from: erioladastra on 02/17/2009 01:59 amThe Nadir CBM is being converted into a PVGF so that SPDM can be based there.Nadir? Isn't this the place for the Cupola?AnalystSorry, I was waaaay too tired last night. Zenith.
Quote from: erioladastra on 02/17/2009 01:59 amThe Nadir CBM is being converted into a PVGF so that SPDM can be based there.Nadir? Isn't this the place for the Cupola?Analyst
The Nadir CBM is being converted into a PVGF so that SPDM can be based there.
Quote from: erioladastra on 02/18/2009 01:33 amQuote from: Analyst on 02/17/2009 07:25 amQuote from: erioladastra on 02/17/2009 01:59 amThe Nadir CBM is being converted into a PVGF so that SPDM can be based there.Nadir? Isn't this the place for the Cupola?AnalystSorry, I was waaaay too tired last night. Zenith.So this means the Zarya PDGF is back off the table again?
There are things about design requirements for pressurized element module interfaces that are not intuitive at all.
Anyway, these requirements taken all together ended up meaning that there just couldn't be a one-size-fits-all interface for station pressurized elements.
Damn, Herb...I deal with this type of stuff at work, but never put it into context for ISS. Thanks for that great explanation. All the sampling lines, probably stainless, all independant running through the modules. Obviously the serviceability of solenoid valves to isolate & purge a tee-ring design is self defeating in the end...Don't want to stray the thread too OT though.Are most of the racks local controlled (IE: software, settings) with remote ops, or is it mostly dependant on the racks themselves depending on the level of ground/crew involvement required?
316L stainless. (My name's on the base, and Rev. A through around B/C range for most of the design drawings for that stuff for the ARS, buried deep, deep inside some MSFC and Boeing data archives).
Quote from: Herb Schaltegger on 02/19/2009 07:02 pm316L stainless. (My name's on the base, and Rev. A through around B/C range for most of the design drawings for that stuff for the ARS, buried deep, deep inside some MSFC and Boeing data archives).I can even get the sense of pride from your statement, and rightly so. Quite an engineering masterpiece. Nice to talk with one of the creators. Good old 316L. I wonder if they use Swagelok for those tubes & fittings, or possibly Parker instrumentation. I used to be a hydraulics plumber (among other jobs), but now have a desk job. Now I get to complain when someone doesn't follow one of my drawings correctly, or they don't know how to bend tube (it's an art).
1) It has just occurred to me however that Node 2 might not be piped correctly for a Nadir Module, perhaps it was piped for a Zenith instead. We've had ELM-PS up there (fully understanding that ELM-PS is not a full module of any sort)2) Basically it comes down to needing 2 pma's and 2 available berthings in final config. Not sure how to do that without usable Node 3 CBMs3) ARED causes other issues to my hypothetical arrangement. It's quite obtrusive. And would not be friendly to unloading a docked cargo craft. Is there any reason that it could not be returned it's current node 1 position?4) And to whom ever said that they don't expect to see MRM-1, aren't we required to launch that for the Russians, when are they expected to deliver it to the cape? Does anyone have a real sense of it's current status.Don
It has just occurred to me however that Node 2 might not be piped correctly for a Nadir Module, perhaps it was piped for a Zenith instead. We've had ELM-PS up there (fully understanding that ELM-PS is not a full module of any sort)
To continue the CBM discussion...In my mind I have the logical requirement that we will eventually need PMA2 and PMA3 (with some adapter perhaps) to do US crew change out (whether it's Orion or COTS-D or whatever). So that's two "un-obstructed ports" needed. I'll assign Node 2 Forward and Nadir for now.We could get away with having just one "Cargo" berthing port, ie Node 2 Zenith, but that seems short sighted to me. With the current expectation for HTV, Dragon and Cygnus having two would be nice. But more from a contingency stand point having a backup is a good idea.If Node 3's currently unused ports are not made useable from the start as has been suggested, we are out of ports.I understand that when attached to Node 1 Port all of the remaining CBMs are obstructed, however a future relocation (post shuttle), to Node 2 nadir (with PMA 3 going where it was originally planned to go new node 3 nadir) would open the ports up. (I'd put Cupola on the new node 3 aft at this point, see the whole station and earth).I"m not suggesting that we plan ahead for future modules, simply outfit Node 3 cbm's for what is necessary for HTV, Dragon, Cygnus berthing. If the one remaining node 2 CBM becomes damaged or worn out, supply gets really tricky if node 3 is hatchless.It has just occurred to me however that Node 2 might not be piped correctly for a Nadir Module, perhaps it was piped for a Zenith instead. We've had ELM-PS up there (fully understanding that ELM-PS is not a full module of any sort)Basically it comes down to needing 2 pma's and 2 available berthings in final config. Not sure how to do that without usable Node 3 CBMsARED causes other issues to my hypothetical arrangement. It's quite obtrusive. And would not be friendly to unloading a docked cargo craft. Is there any reason that it could not be returned it's current node 1 position?And to whom ever said that they don't expect to see MRM-1, aren't we required to launch that for the Russians, when are they expected to deliver it to the cape? Does anyone have a real sense of it's current status.Don
Did you even read my post? There are currently 5 free ports on orbit:- Node 1 nadir (PMA-3)- Node 1 port (CBM)- Node 2 zenith (CBM)- Node 2 nadir (CBM)- Node 2 front (PMA-2)Whereever you put Node-3 - and independent of relocating PMAs or not - you will always have 2 PMAs and 2 CBMs left. There is no shortage of docking ports.Node-3 at Node-2 is not needed. And it is not possible: S0 carries (since launched in 2002) Node-3 umbilicals (power, ammonia cooling) to connect it directly to S0. This won't work being at Node-2.Analyst