If you are going to continue to list Progress M1, then the max capability of this spacecraft when flown on Soyuz 2/ST should be shown, which is about 3200 kg combined payload. This variant is currently not flown, because the added mass of the 8 prop tanks eats up about 200 kg of payload, and the prop isn't need. However, when Soyuz 2 becomes the standard launcher for ISS, Progress M1 may be re-introduced to take advantage of the additional payload capability.
Jim - 24/2/2008 8:36 AM Here is a hard question for you, antonioe. What is the time and location of the latest access to the PCM before launch?
I believe the plan is to use a diving board through a payload fairing hatch to the CBM hatch just before the assembly rolls out the horizontal assembly building, nominally 24 hours before launch. I don't kow the details (I don't think we've worked them out yet) on how to cope with the fact that the assembly (and the PCM cargo) is in a horizontal position. I hear something about a "late-access cargo shelf", L-shaped so it can react both 1-g horizontal loads (while being loaded) and launch loads. No on-pad access is currently planned.
I'll ask Jim.
SIIAlum - 23/2/2008 8:53 PM Thanks! That brings up another question: After looking at the Shuttle manifest, it appears that all six CAS locations will be full at Shuttle retirement (5 ELCs and AMS-02 if it goes). What is the plan for this issue. Maybe I'm misinterpreting the manifest and/or ISS assembly sequence and maybe one fo the NASA folks on the forum can clarify?
The original concept of operations for the Express Pallet was to have the pallets carry ORUs up to the station, and then return failed ORUs at a later date. I would not be surprised if ELCs 1 and 2 came back in 2009-10, if only to provide engineers with data on failed ORUs (if not to have the ORUs repaired and sent up again by HTV/COTS.
As far as the CAS locations, there are two distinct flavors, the S1 and P1 locations, which are segregated by function between payload and ORUs. AFAIK, none of the payload locations will be used, except possibly for AMS-02.
Danderman - 24/2/2008 9:43 AM If you are going to continue to list Progress M1, then the max capability of this spacecraft when flown on Soyuz 2/ST should be shown, which is about 3200 kg combined payload. This variant is currently not flown, because the added mass of the 8 prop tanks eats up about 200 kg of payload, and the prop isn't need. However, when Soyuz 2 becomes the standard launcher for ISS, Progress M1 may be re-introduced to take advantage of the additional payload capability.
Thanks, David. Will incorporate in the next release of the table. Do you know what the resulting launch mass would be? Does the pressurized volume change? As a matter of fact, could you pls put together the correct "M1 on Soyuz 2" line for the table? Tnx.
Corrected Progress M1 line:
Launch Mass: 8,250 kg
Max net pressurized: 1,800 kg
unpressurized: 0 (although this is not exactly true)
ISS "fuel" (prop): 1,885 kg
Combined: 3,200 kg (this is a function of the LV limit, not Progress M1)
Payload ratio: 0.387
Comments: Out of production, but available
I take the 3,200 Kg combined limit is with the "Upgraded Soyuz"? Is "Soyuz 2" the correct nomenclature for this LV? Is this the one powered by RD0124's?
Also, any thoughts on the correct pressurized volume? So far, AFAIK,
HELP!!!
From everything I see, the most reliable estimate of the Progress M capability using a "Soyuz Classic" LV is 1,800 Kg of pressurized cargo (based on all the data sources), a combined total of 2,500 kg (based on the latest Energia press releases, Anatoly Zak states "2,350 Kg"), and 6.6m3 of pressurized cargo volume. Everybody OK? Going, going...
antonioe - 23/2/2008 11:12 PMQuotesimpl simon - 23/2/2008 2:54 PM ... cannot understand how it is proposed to accommodate 6000 kg in a volume less than that of ATV.Do you have a reputable source for that volume? I could not find squat.
simpl simon - 23/2/2008 2:54 PM ... cannot understand how it is proposed to accommodate 6000 kg in a volume less than that of ATV.
Do you have a reputable source for that volume? I could not find squat.
Sorry antonioe, I spent some time looking, but cannot find my original source. Looks like I leaned too far out the window with that statement. Lucky Jim didn't jump on me......All I can now find (I guess you have the same data), is the generalised information that the HTV PLC can carry 8 ISPR's or equivalent. In addition, there are stand-offs provided in the corners betweeen the racks. Each rack is capable of carrying 804,67 kg but that is a structural limit, not necessarily the weight of cargo that can be accommodated.I'm sure the truth is out there somewhere.......
antonioe - 24/2/2008 12:25 PMHELP!!!
antonioe - 24/2/2008 7:12 AMQuotesimpl simon - 23/2/2008 2:54 PM ... cannot understand how it is proposed to accommodate 6000 kg in a volume less than that of ATV.Do you have a reputable source for that volume? I could not find squat.
(Fishes out an envelope) My very rough (from a diagram) measurements put the PCM length at 2.9m excluding the CBM. That gives a volume of about 44m3. 6000 kg translates to 136kg/m3, 4500 translates to about 100m3. Progress apparently packed stuff in at about 240 kg/m3 from what I can work out.
Quote I have seen a figure of 4500 kg reported for HTV pressurized cargo, and that makes more sense to me (see: http://iss.jaxa.jp/en/htv/overview/) Any suggestions from anybody else for what figure we should carry on the table?
I have seen a figure of 4500 kg reported for HTV pressurized cargo, and that makes more sense to me (see: http://iss.jaxa.jp/en/htv/overview/)
Any suggestions from anybody else for what figure we should carry on the table?
"approximately 4500kg" is what everything I have seen from either Mitsubishi or JAXA, including JAXA's in-house magazine, says. I guess that is what the load limit is. Given that HTV is the dedicated experiment carrier for Kibo, then it would probably be going up with experiment pallets all the time. It might be able to go up with 6000kg of pressurised cargo but then again it may not be designed around those kinds of loads and C of G. My feeling is HTV does what it says on the label.
antonioe - 24/2/2008 12:25 PMFrom everything I see, the most reliable estimate of the Progress M capability using a "Soyuz Classic" LV is 1,800 Kg of pressurized cargo (based on all the data sources), a combined total of 2,500 kg (based on the latest Energia press releases, Anatoly Zak states "2,350 Kg"), and 6.6m3 of pressurized cargo volume. Everybody OK? Going, going...
2500 kg dry cargo mass for Progress M is good enough, as far as I am concerned. The 6.6 m3 for the cargo volume is what most people use. Its certainly not correct, but I don't have a public source for the correct volume.
SIIAlum - 25/2/2008 9:29 PMAssuming a successful flight, is there anything else required to certify the T-II to fly other NASA medium class payloads? If I understand the NLS requirements correctly, I think the T-II will be certified to fly Category 1 & 2 payloads but not Cat 3 which takes something like 14 missions? Also, any idea what NASA will require for the launch vehicle for COTS 2? I guess we'll find out soon as I believe the draft RFP will be released in the near future.
SIIAlum - 25/2/2008 10:29 PM1. I think the T-II will be certified to fly Category 1 & 2 payloads but not Cat 3 which takes something like 14 missions? 2. Also, any idea what NASA will require for the launch vehicle for COTS 2? I guess we'll find out soon as I believe the draft RFP will be released in the near future.
antonioe - 24/2/2008 3:25 PMI take the 3,200 Kg combined limit is with the "Upgraded Soyuz"? Is "Soyuz 2" the correct nomenclature for this LV? Is this the one powered by RD0124's?
Ronsmytheiii - 10/4/2008 12:32 AMI don't know much about Wallops and the pad numbering, could someone label the pads below and state what vehicle they service? Maybe I should put an L2 request out for Wallops launch area details. Kind of embarrassing since I live down the shore on the opposite side of the state!