Author Topic: Node 3 to Node 2 Nader... anyone else thinks a cool ideaA?  (Read 8254 times)

Offline PaulyFirmbiz

  • Member
  • Posts: 44
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
so i know i dont post much.. i just like to sit back and read what all you awsome minds bring to the table.. but i was adding some detail to my Intermountain railway model of the ISS and i was playing around moving modules in differnt configs and i put node 3 on the nadar port of harmony... i know they wanna use this module for mplms and later the htvs and dragons ect.... but couldnt they use unitys nadar for those actions and throw node 3 there for the cupolas views, maybe put cupola on the back port of node 3 facing the russian segment...

i dunno i am just pondering ideas and i wanna know what all you briliant minds think

Thanks!!

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
so i know i dont post much.. i just like to sit back and read what all you awsome minds bring to the table.. but i was adding some detail to my Intermountain railway model of the ISS and i was playing around moving modules in differnt configs and i put node 3 on the nadar port of harmony... i know they wanna use this module for mplms and later the htvs and dragons ect.... but couldnt they use unitys nadar for those actions and throw node 3 there for the cupolas views, maybe put cupola on the back port of node 3 facing the russian segment...

Kibo has two retroreflectors that HTV's laser sensors hone in on during final approach; therefore the HTV berthing box must remain in that general area. Having a module on Node 2 nadir would cause clearance issues.
JRF

Offline Sesquipedalian

  • Whee!
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 729
  • Liked: 302
  • Likes Given: 988
Interesting; I've been on a Node 3 kick recently but I hadn't thought of attaching it to Node 2.  What about putting Node 3 on Node 2 zenith?

Or here's an idea: put Node 3 on the end of Node 2, where PMA-2 currently is!  PMA-2 would then go on the end of Node 3.

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 1275
Interesting; I've been on a Node 3 kick recently but I hadn't thought of attaching it to Node 2.  What about putting Node 3 on Node 2 zenith?

Or here's an idea: put Node 3 on the end of Node 2, where PMA-2 currently is!  PMA-2 would then go on the end of Node 3.

With the Cupola and the support racks Node 3 contains (like the toilet, water systems, and exercise equipment), it's not a good idea to locate it right beside (or in the middle of) the high-traffic areas around Node 2 and the PMA.

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Node-3 cooling and power connections come from S0 (they are already on S0). They are not long enough to go all the way from S0 via the lab to Node-2.

All this Node-3 / Cupola stuff has been already discussed in many threads ad infinitum.

Analyst

Offline PaulyFirmbiz

  • Member
  • Posts: 44
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Node-3 cooling and power connections come from S0 (they are already on S0). They are not long enough to go all the way from S0 via the lab to Node-2.

All this Node-3 / Cupola stuff has been already discussed in many threads ad infinitum.

Analyst

like i said i dont post much.. i simply read what you great minds come up with and it causes me to ponder ideas..  i didnt know that plumbing was already in place on S0 for node3.. i know that perminate controls have to be done once installation is complete but i thought or was under the impression that all those hook ps and connections wee universal givin the probability of movment between the modules in past ISS construction flights.. (IE node 2 movment and PMa relocations) but i do see your point with all the traffic on that part of station..

i just thought that since the CBMs were there and the clearence from the russian segment were well out of range from being a problem, that maybe, just maybe one day if the money comes for more modules or labs or possibly a HAB, that those slots could be utelized for the reasons they were there in the first place..

thats just me tho

Offline Colds7ream

  • Tomorrow's Flight Surgeon
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 185
  • Scientia Dabit Alas
  • RAF Akrotiri, Cyprus
    • SalopianJames - en Wikipedia
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Node-3 cooling and power connections come from S0 (they are already on S0). They are not long enough to go all the way from S0 via the lab to Node-2.

All this Node-3 / Cupola stuff has been already discussed in many threads ad infinitum.

Analyst

Does that mean the (now unnecessary) plumbing for the CAM, HAB and so on are also already in place on S0?

Offline ShuttleDiscovery

  • NASA's first teenage astronaut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2125
  • UK
    • Shuttle Discovery's Space Page
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Surely the connections from S0 can be extended along Destiny to Node 2 to support Node 3 on Node 2 zenith? In this position the cupola could go on the rear facing CBM, so the entire station is visible (apart from Columbus and Kibo), meaning it would be fantastic for robotics.
« Last Edit: 04/19/2009 07:09 pm by ShuttleDiscovery »

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Surely the connections from S0 can be extended along Destiny to Node 2 to support Node 3 on Node 2 zenith?

Yes, they can. And don't call me Shirley.

Quote
In this position the cupola could go on the rear caing CBM, so the entire station is visible (apart from Columbus and Kibo), meaning it would be fantastic for robotics.

But absolutely lousy for robotics involving HTV/Dragon capture operations, which is why it's now on the nadir side.

Look, of *course* it *can* be done. What none of you have bothered to do so far is to provide justification for why it *should* be done that is even remotely worth the hassle, expense, and EVA risk.
« Last Edit: 04/19/2009 07:04 pm by Jorge »
JRF

Offline ShuttleDiscovery

  • NASA's first teenage astronaut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2125
  • UK
    • Shuttle Discovery's Space Page
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Surely the connections from S0 can be extended along Destiny to Node 2 to support Node 3 on Node 2 zenith?

Yes, they can. And don't call me Shirley.

Quote
In this position the cupola could go on the rear facing CBM, so the entire station is visible (apart from Columbus and Kibo), meaning it would be fantastic for robotics.

But absolutely lousy for robotics involving HTV/Dragon capture operations, which is why it's now on the nadir side.

Look, of *course* it *can* be done. What none of you have bothered to do so far is to provide justification for why it *should* be done that is even remotely worth the hassle, expense, and EVA risk.

Well from a robotics point of view it would be far better than looking down at the Earth (like almost every other ISS window), but you're right it's not worth the extra hassle..
« Last Edit: 04/19/2009 07:11 pm by ShuttleDiscovery »

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: Node 3 to Node 2 Nader... anyone else thinks a cool ideaA?
« Reply #10 on: 04/19/2009 07:27 pm »
Surely the connections from S0 can be extended along Destiny to Node 2 to support Node 3 on Node 2 zenith?

Yes, they can. And don't call me Shirley.

Quote
In this position the cupola could go on the rear facing CBM, so the entire station is visible (apart from Columbus and Kibo), meaning it would be fantastic for robotics.

But absolutely lousy for robotics involving HTV/Dragon capture operations, which is why it's now on the nadir side.

Look, of *course* it *can* be done. What none of you have bothered to do so far is to provide justification for why it *should* be done that is even remotely worth the hassle, expense, and EVA risk.

Well from a robotics point of view it would be far better than looking down at the Earth (like almost every other ISS window)

What robotics point of view? Do you work in ISS robotics or something?

Sure, in the nadir location, robotics operations on the truss are not visible. But SSRMS operators have done that for years without needing the Cupola. The thing is, anything you're going to grapple on the truss is going to be fixed in place until after you've grappled it. You're not going to be chasing anything.

The real advantage of a nadir view for robotics operations, as I have *repeatedly* stated, is that it provides the SSRMS operator a direct view for free-flyer capture of HTV, Dragon, Cygnus, and other potential vehicles that rely on SSRMS berthing. Those targets *won't* be perfectly stationary, so a direct view provides a stronger advantage than the typical SSRMS stationary grapple task. It is, strictly speaking, not a *requirement* - the first HTV capture will be performed without the benefit of the Cupola - but in the long run, if free-flyer capture is to become a regular event, having a direct view of the capture is a huge operational and safety win.
JRF

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: Node 3 to Node 2 Nader... anyone else thinks a cool ideaA?
« Reply #11 on: 04/19/2009 07:31 pm »
Is that the real reason, or is the Cupola going to be put in the place where it provides the most beautiful view, not the most useful view? From a public relations point of view that might not be a bad idea, especially if it is not strictly needed in another location. From a crew well-being point of view it might not be such a bad idea either. Or is it urgently needed to support Dragons?
« Last Edit: 04/19/2009 09:45 pm by mmeijeri »
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: Node 3 to Node 2 Nader... anyone else thinks a cool ideaA?
« Reply #12 on: 04/19/2009 07:35 pm »
Is that the real reason, or is the Cupola going to be put in the place where it provides the most beautiful view, not the most useful view?

It is the real reason. Why would you think otherwise? Do you think I'm making this stuff up?

Quote
Or is it urgently needed to support Dragons?

How many times do I need to repeat this:

"It is, strictly speaking, not a *requirement* - the first HTV capture will be performed without the benefit of the Cupola - but in the long run, if free-flyer capture is to become a regular event, having a direct view of the capture is a huge operational and safety win."

The Mir crew didn't have a good direct view of Progress approach either. It wasn't a *requirement* - they had several successful TORU approaches without a direct view. Until the one day they could have really used one.
JRF

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: Node 3 to Node 2 Nader... anyone else thinks a cool ideaA?
« Reply #13 on: 04/19/2009 07:49 pm »
It is the real reason. Why would you think otherwise?

Because I think there may be good reasons to put the Cupola there even if it weren't for the robotics aspect. Just curious what the real reason was, because it isn't always the obvious one or even the stated one.

Quote
Do you think I'm making this stuff up?

Of course not, no need to get all defensive. On the contrary, I asked it because I thought you as an insider might know.

Quote
How many times do I need to repeat this:

You don't have to repeat it, because I saw it the first time. You have given an argument for why the planned location is a good one. I have suggested two other potential reasons why the same location might be a good one. Maybe there are even more reasons. Or maybe my potential reasons aren't good reasons after all. I asked my question because I was interested in NASA's motivation to put it there, not necessarily your reasons for supporting that decision, although I'm interested in that as well.
« Last Edit: 04/19/2009 07:58 pm by mmeijeri »
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: Node 3 to Node 2 Nader... anyone else thinks a cool ideaA?
« Reply #14 on: 04/19/2009 09:01 pm »
It is the real reason. Why would you think otherwise?

Because I think there may be good reasons to put the Cupola there even if it weren't for the robotics aspect. Just curious what the real reason was, because it isn't always the obvious one or even the stated one.

OK, fair enough, I think I see where you're coming from.

Quote
You don't have to repeat it, because I saw it the first time. You have given an argument for why the planned location is a good one. I have suggested two other potential reasons why the same location might be a good one. Maybe there are even more reasons. Or maybe my potential reasons aren't good reasons after all. I asked my question because I was interested in NASA's motivation to put it there, not necessarily your reasons for supporting that decision, although I'm interested in that as well.

From the perspective of the folks in the trenches, the right decision got made (not that there was really even an argument). If management had ulterior motives for supporting it, they kept them to themselves.
JRF

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8566
  • Liked: 3603
  • Likes Given: 327
Re: Node 3 to Node 2 Nader... anyone else thinks a cool ideaA?
« Reply #15 on: 04/19/2009 09:17 pm »
"It is, strictly speaking, not a *requirement* - the first HTV capture will be performed without the benefit of the Cupola - but in the long run, if free-flyer capture is to become a regular event, having a direct view of the capture is a huge operational and safety win."

I know this is OT for this thread, but can you point me to the relative rate requirements for free-flier capture?

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: Node 3 to Node 2 Nader... anyone else thinks a cool ideaA?
« Reply #16 on: 04/19/2009 11:28 pm »
i just asked the question.. i was not implying that i thought the node should be placed there.. but i think that with all those extra places to berth modules.. putting node 3 where its going is a waste of a perfectly good node..

So, do you really think that the primary purpose of Node 3 is the CBMs to allow other modules to be attached? That may have been true at one time, but not any more. Node 3, like Node 2, is an "extended" node, with extra rack spaces. With the cancellation of the Hab, Node 3 now provides primary life support and crew habitability for the USOS. That is its main purpose now. And with the cancellation of the components originally scheduled to be attached to it (X-38, Hab), it is unlikely those CBMs will ever be needed. It is therefore not a "waste" of the node to place it where it is going now.

Quote
as far as the cupola.. the cameras on the endefector on the canadarm 2 is perfect capable of doing its job and we have all seen this time and time again from the flawless robotics work of our nations astronauts..

For "perfectly capable", substitute "adequate, but improvement would be welcomed". We haven't seen a single free-flyer capture using the SSRMS. All SSRMS grapples to date involved targets in fixed position - either latched in the shuttle payload bay, held by the SRMS, or attached to the station itself.

Just because a free-flyer capture *can* be done without the Cupola (and will be done, on the first HTV capture) does not mean that the advantages of the Cupola in providing a direct view should be dismissed as lightly as you do.

SRMS free-flyer captures were routine at one time, but note that the SRMS operator had four windows to view the target, and a lot more cameras (four bulkhead cameras, usually a keel camera as well). NASA has never performed a free-flyer capture without direct visibility - HTV will be the first *ever*. And hopefully the only one.

Quote
  besides the MMOD risk and the loss of visabilty for the cargo vessals, the nadar port of harmony would give the ISS an extensive expansion capabilty and if NASA was smart they would leave themselves that kind of option for the future..

NASA *is* being smart. They recognize that funds for future ISS expansion are unlikely to materialize any time soon. They recognize that Node 1 is the easiest place to put Node 3 because the plumbing is already there. They recognize that direct views of free-flyer capture provide an advantage to the operator. And they recognize that, however small the decrease in MMOD risk is at the Node 1 port CBM is, a win's a win. And *finally*, they recognize that if funding for ISS expansion *does* materialize, they can relocate Node 3 back to Node 1 nadir after MRM-1 arrival - not trivial, and a bit of a hassle, but not impossible. That would free up two CBMs (port and starboard).
JRF

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: Node 3 to Node 2 Nader... anyone else thinks a cool ideaA?
« Reply #17 on: 04/19/2009 11:37 pm »
Slightly off-topic question: I know keeping MPLMs permanently stationed has been considered (and not adopted), how about a permanently attached ATV as a small ISS extension? Has that ever been considered? Can the ATV dock at more than one position?
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: Node 3 to Node 2 Nader... anyone else thinks a cool ideaA?
« Reply #18 on: 04/19/2009 11:55 pm »
Slightly off-topic question: I know keeping MPLMs permanently stationed has been considered (and not adopted), how about a permanently attached ATV as a small ISS extension? Has that ever been considered?

Loss of one of the Russian docking ports would make six-person crew swaps a pain.

Quote
Can the ATV dock at more than one position?

ATV's docking mechanism is compatible with any of the standard probe & drogue locations (Zvezda aft, Pirs nadir, Zarya nadir at present; MRM and MLM will replace the latter two). But only Zvezda is equipped with retroreflectors for ATV's rendezvous navigation system. They would have to be added to MRM or MLM to allow ATV to dock there. I am not aware of any negotiations between ESA and the Russians to modify MRM or MLM in that manner, but I likely wouldn't know anyway.
JRF

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Node 3 to Node 2 Nader... anyone else thinks a cool ideaA?
« Reply #19 on: 04/20/2009 12:27 am »
With the cancellation of the Hab, Node 3 now provides primary life support and crew habitability for the USOS. That is its main purpose now. And with the cancellation of the components originally scheduled to be attached to it (X-38, Hab), it is unlikely those CBMs will ever be needed.


And some of the CBM will be covered with exercise equipment using the volume around the CBM

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0