Author Topic: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)  (Read 29989 times)

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6112
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 5555
  • Likes Given: 1572
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: 835
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 183
  • Likes Given: 71
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

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2188
  • California
  • Liked: 1695
  • Likes Given: 3400
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

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2188
  • California
  • Liked: 1695
  • Likes Given: 3400
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: 582
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 235
  • Likes Given: 221
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: 9600
  • Liked: 356
  • Likes Given: 460
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: 8382
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 307
  • Likes Given: 133
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.

Offline the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2726
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 1782
  • Likes Given: 3387
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: 835
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 183
  • Likes Given: 71
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 »

Online russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4372
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1006
  • Likes Given: 559
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.

Offline ethan829

Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #70 on: 04/17/2018 02:47 PM »
http://nanoracks.com/airlock-bishop-completes-critical-design-review/
Quote
The NanoRacks Space Station Airlock Module “Bishop” met another major milestone with completion of the Critical Design Review (CDR) on March 20 and 21, 2018 in Houston, Texas.  This milestone begins the transition from the engineering design phase to the fabrication phase.  Detailed design drawings such as those for the critical pressure shell will be signed and released to NanoRacks fabrication partner, Thales Alenia Space, in order for them to continue their fabrication efforts.

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2188
  • California
  • Liked: 1695
  • Likes Given: 3400
Re: Nanoracks' Proposed New Airlock (Bishop)
« Reply #71 on: 04/18/2018 05:19 AM »
http://nanoracks.com/airlock-bishop-completes-critical-design-review/
Quote
The NanoRacks Space Station Airlock Module “Bishop” met another major milestone with completion of the Critical Design Review (CDR) on March 20 and 21, 2018 in Houston, Texas.  This milestone begins the transition from the engineering design phase to the fabrication phase.  Detailed design drawings such as those for the critical pressure shell will be signed and released to NanoRacks fabrication partner, Thales Alenia Space, in order for them to continue their fabrication efforts.
From the same press release:
Quote
The next major milestone is the Phase II Safety Review scheduled for June 2018.  The project is still on track to meet the SpaceX CRS-19 launch, targeting fourth quarter 2019.
Given the trend in scheduling of distant CRS missions, likely to end up in 2020.


Also, in perusing NanoRack's airlock webpage, I came across a new version of their airlock presentation.  Compared to the 2017 version, they added some nice new slides in the beginning giving company information/highlights as well as mentioning their intentions to move into building commercial stations in the future.  Besides that and an update to their schedule most of the changes are minor/cosmetic.  I'm attaching both the new presentation in pdf form and a screencap of the updated schedule (which, based on the press release posted above, is now looking like it is a month behind).
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Tags: