Author Topic: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)  (Read 25102 times)

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5191
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 4251
  • Likes Given: 1228
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: 806
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 70
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: 1866
  • California
  • Liked: 1421
  • Likes Given: 2252
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: 1866
  • California
  • Liked: 1421
  • Likes Given: 2252
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: 497
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 178
  • Likes Given: 182
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: 9593
  • Liked: 353
  • 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: 8224
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 268
  • Likes Given: 108
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.

Online the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2673
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 1704
  • Likes Given: 3190
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)

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 806
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 70
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #68 on: 02/05/2018 03:03 PM »
Some news about the Bishop airlock from Nanoracks
Thales Alenia Space will be added to the industrial team. They will build and test the pressure shell.
Launch is planned for End 2019, SpX-19. (nice combination  :D)
« Last Edit: 02/05/2018 03:09 PM by Rik ISS-fan »

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4070
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 852
  • Likes Given: 497
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #69 on: 02/05/2018 07:07 PM »
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?
Since Bishop A/L has a few grapple fixtures on its exterior would be handed off to eitherJEM RMS or MBS POA and the object extracted via Dextre. The Deployers I believe would be attached to Bishop via a common FRAM interface.

Tags: