NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
International Space Station (ISS) => ISS Section => Topic started by: PeterAlt on 05/03/2011 02:45 pm
-
This thread is to watch the status of Node 4. Last I heard was that they were cleaning it up and repairing any corrosion. Is that the most recent news on it's status? What would be the necessary steps to get it flight worthy?
-
It is not an approved project yet and there is a possibility that it will never be one.
There is a thread for it here
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22088.0
This is a recurring theme for you. Do some searching and reading before starting threads
-
It is not an approved project yet and there is a possibility that it will never be one.
There is a thread for it here
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22088.0
This is a recurring theme for you. Do some searching and reading before starting threads
That thread is L2. Perhaps PeterAlt doesn't have L2 access?
-
I don't have L2 access. I do plan on subscribing, though.
Concerning this whole business about my track record of not doing research before posting, I've made a few mistakes of jumping the gun on posting before checking thoroughly, but for the most part I do research before posting, and now more so that I have been made aware due to recent scrutiny. <sigh>
Back to the subject, which office or account will Node 4 approval/funding need to come from? Station operations?
-
I don't have L2 access. I do plan on subscribing, though.
Concerning this whole business about my track record of not doing research before posting, I've made a few mistakes of jumping the gun on posting before checking thoroughly, but for the most part I do research before posting, and now more so that I have been made aware due to recent scrutiny. <sigh>
Back to the subject, which office or account will Node 4 approval/funding need to come from? Station operations?
It would be funded by Exploration, and in fact if it had to be funded by station, it probably wouldn't happen. Station doesn't want it badly enough to pay for it.
How this will change once ESMD and SOMD are merged is anyone's guess.
-
Back to the subject, which office or account will Node 4 approval/funding need to come from? Station operations?
Right now, the more important questions are whether or not funding / authority to proceed happens, and then if so, when that happens.
Working backwards, it may be that when that module might be needed has changed since we first read about it last year. In that time, there's been a decent amount of uh...fiscal turmoil.
-
Attachment is from page 13 of the following presentation:
International Space Station as a Platform for Exploration Beyond Low Earth Orbit (PDF, 3.07 MB).
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Raftery_5-25-11/Raftery_5-25-11.pdf
The DHS tunnel has been replaced by PMA-2. It also appears that the Zenith, Forward and Nadir ports will be IDSS, while Port & Starboard will be CBMs.
-
International Space Station as a Platform for Exploration Beyond Low Earth Orbit (PDF, 3.07 MB).
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Raftery_5-25-11/Raftery_5-25-11.pdf
The nice thing is that they have provided audio of the telecon:
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Raftery_5-25-11/Raftery.mp3
Page for presentation material:
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Raftery_5-25-11/
Unfortunately, both the document and audio also highlight the currently unfunded nature of this project.
-
Attachment is from page 13 of the following presentation:
International Space Station as a Platform for Exploration Beyond Low Earth Orbit (PDF, 3.07 MB).
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Raftery_5-25-11/Raftery_5-25-11.pdf
The DHS tunnel has been replaced by PMA-2. It also appears that the Zenith, Forward and Nadir ports will be IDSS, while Port & Starboard will be CBMs.
The use of the PMA will hamper its use for logistics vehicles
-
It's good to see that Boeing appears totally supportive of Node 4! I think the point off the presentation is that Node 4 makes the current ISS able to function as a "base camp" that could support a "high camp" at EML1 or EML2.
-
The use of the PMA will hamper its use for logistics vehicles
Agreed - that narrow hatchway will make transfers very difficult, especially with all the drag-through ducting & cables.
-
Attachment is from page 13 of the following presentation:
International Space Station as a Platform for Exploration Beyond Low Earth Orbit (PDF, 3.07 MB).
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Raftery_5-25-11/Raftery_5-25-11.pdf
The DHS tunnel has been replaced by PMA-2. It also appears that the Zenith, Forward and Nadir ports will be IDSS, while Port & Starboard will be CBMs.
I believe this part os out of date. DHS has been canceled. NASA is moving out on attaching the NASA Docking System (NDS) on PMA2 at Node 2 forward and on PMA3, probably on N1 or N3 nadir.
-
I believe this part os out of date. DHS has been canceled. NASA is moving out on attaching the NASA Docking System (NDS) on PMA2 at Node 2 forward and on PMA3, probably on N1 or N3 nadir.
Interesting (but sad that DHS has been cancelled).
So where would the back-up cargo VV port be? N2Z (although Cygnus can't go there)?
I take it the PMM is pretty much certain to go to N3A at this point, and if N3N becomes a crewed VV port via PMA-3, then the Cupola would go to N1N?
The bad thing about this plan is that it doesn't leave any ports open for expansion - so no inflatable (unless Cupola goes to N3F, leaving N3N/N1N for a crew/cargo port and N2Z for an inflatable).
This is all so complicated! :D
-
Very interesting PDF. Thanks for the link.
Pete, why would there still be so many port problems after Node 4 adds another four ports?
-
Very interesting PDF. Thanks for the link.
Pete, why would there still be so many port problems after Node 4 adds another four ports?
Node 4 is not funded.
-
Any reason why CBM Node 2 port cant link up with CBM Node 4 aft with PMA2 at the end of Node 4?
Orbiter
-
Any reason why CBM Node 2 port cant link up with CBM Node 4 aft with PMA2 at the end of Node 4?
Orbiter
If you directly berth N2F with N4A there wouldn't be enough space to use the radial ports on node 4. Some sort of spacer is needed.
-
Pete, why would there still be so many port problems after Node 4 adds another four ports?
The problem with the USOS in its current configuration is that, while there are enough ports for VVs and the back-ups, there aren't enough ports for expansion.
Adding Node 4 (which seems unlikely now) would solve the port problems by providing three additional VV ports, and two additional CBMs for expansion.
Any reason why CBM Node 2 port cant link up with CBM Node 4 aft with PMA2 at the end of Node 4?
Node 4 could berth directly to Node 2 Forward providing Node 4 had a CBM extender in order to provide enough clearances between new modules and the JPM/Columbus. But, PMA-2 would still need an NDS adaptor - so you might as well launch Node 4 with the NDS adaptor pre-integrated.
-
How's this for a solution...
The Bigelow inflatable module is to have CBM ports on both sides of the module. Launch the Bigelow module first - ahead of Node 4. Move PMA-2, currently at Node 2 forward, out of the way, to one of the unusable ports on Node 3. Dock the Bigelow module to the now-freed Node 2 forward. At a later date, launch Node 4 and dock it to the Bigelow module's free foward CBM port. The Bigelow module, in this configuration, would provide the needed extended space between Nodes 2 & 4. No need to use PMA-2 or "tunnel".
-
How's this for a solution...
The Bigelow inflatable module is to have CBM ports on both sides of the module. Launch the Bigelow module first - ahead of Node 4. Move PMA-2, currently at Node 2 forward, out of the way, to one of the unusable ports on Node 3. Dock the Bigelow module to the now-freed Node 2 forward. At a later date, launch Node 4 and dock it to the Bigelow module's free foward CBM port. The Bigelow module, in this configuration, would provide the needed extended space between Nodes 2 & 4. No need to use PMA-2 or "tunnel".
Where is the money for the Bigelow inflatable module?
Also, Node 4 needs to connect to Node 2 to get services, which Node 2 supplies to Bigelow.
-
How's this for a solution...
The Bigelow inflatable module is to have CBM ports on both sides of the module. Launch the Bigelow module first - ahead of Node 4. Move PMA-2, currently at Node 2 forward, out of the way, to one of the unusable ports on Node 3. Dock the Bigelow module to the now-freed Node 2 forward. At a later date, launch Node 4 and dock it to the Bigelow module's free foward CBM port. The Bigelow module, in this configuration, would provide the needed extended space between Nodes 2 & 4. No need to use PMA-2 or "tunnel".
Where is the money for the Bigelow inflatable module?
Also, Node 4 needs to connect to Node 2 to get services, which Node 2 supplies to Bigelow.
Before the 011 Budget was signed the NASA rep made a major visit to Bigelow the deal was to be announced, but never happened.
-
As I have suggested before, the solution to this problem is for NASA to issue the specific requirements, and to put the entire project out to bid. As long as the requirements do not imply a design, I suspect that innovative solutions would emerge, at a much lower cost to the taxpayer.
And, of course, this requires NASA to forgo making the requirements imply a Cadillac SUV design that includes Exploration desirements, as well. You know, "the Node shall provide for independent ECLSS capable of supporting a crew of 3 for 2 years". NASA should make the requirements as simple as possible.
There is a chance that a commercial initiative to generate a 4th node might actually get through a Republican House of Representatives.
-
As I have suggested before, the solution to this problem is for NASA to issue the specific requirements, and to put the entire project out to bid. As long as the requirements do not imply a design, I suspect that innovative solutions would emerge, at a much lower cost to the taxpayer.
And, of course, this requires NASA to forgo making the requirements imply a Cadillac SUV design that includes Exploration desirements, as well. You know, "the Node shall provide for independent ECLSS capable of supporting a crew of 3 for 2 years". NASA should make the requirements as simple as possible.
There is a chance that a commercial initiative to generate a 4th node might actually get through a Republican House of Representatives.
All the paperwork hasn’t been done, but this is a done deal. Who is the highest Senator in Congress? Bigelow is located in Nevada, and next year when the elections are in progress a presidential visit will take place “bringing jobs to Nevada”.
-
There is no reason why a Cygnus cargo module equipped with the appropriate CBMs and other mating systems, could not be attached to Node 2 and used for expansion of ISS, as a simple thought experiment. In a pinch, a radial CBM on the Cygnus could be used a storage location for the PMA, as well.
This would require the Cygnus cargo module to be separated from the bus, but its probable that this would be a trivial modification.
Similarly, a Cygnus cargo module (after separation from the bus) could be mated to the end of Node 3, and used as a permanent stowage module.
-
Similarly, a Cygnus cargo module (after separation from the bus) could be mated to the end of Node 3, and used as a permanent stowage module.
If by "the end of Node 3" you mean Node 3 Port (where PMA-3 currently is), then that would not be possible as it would impede the rotation of the P1 TCS radiator.
-
As I have suggested before, the solution to this problem is for NASA to issue the specific requirements, and to put the entire project out to bid. As long as the requirements do not imply a design, I suspect that innovative solutions would emerge, at a much lower cost to the taxpayer.
And, of course, this requires NASA to forgo making the requirements imply a Cadillac SUV design that includes Exploration desirements, as well. You know, "the Node shall provide for independent ECLSS capable of supporting a crew of 3 for 2 years". NASA should make the requirements as simple as possible.
There is a chance that a commercial initiative to generate a 4th node might actually get through a Republican House of Representatives.
One major points of Node 4 is to use the existing STA structure
-
Similarly, a Cygnus cargo module (after separation from the bus) could be mated to the end of Node 3, and used as a permanent stowage module.
If by "the end of Node 3" you mean Node 3 Port (where PMA-3 currently is), then that would not be possible as it would impede the rotation of the P1 TCS radiator.
Maybe not. Since the Cupola was originally located there, and the radiator had clearance, the issue is the actual available clearance, compared with the 3 meter length of the Cygnus cargo module.
-
As I have suggested before, the solution to this problem is for NASA to issue the specific requirements, and to put the entire project out to bid. As long as the requirements do not imply a design, I suspect that innovative solutions would emerge, at a much lower cost to the taxpayer.
And, of course, this requires NASA to forgo making the requirements imply a Cadillac SUV design that includes Exploration desirements, as well. You know, "the Node shall provide for independent ECLSS capable of supporting a crew of 3 for 2 years". NASA should make the requirements as simple as possible.
There is a chance that a commercial initiative to generate a 4th node might actually get through a Republican House of Representatives.
One major points of Node 4 is to use the existing STA structure
Well, I am talking about a world where NASA abandons some of its existing desirements in order to facilitate there being a new Node. Your guess is as good as mine as to whether NASA would actually give up those desirements.
Using the STA structure requires some sort of new cargo delivery system to ISS, and NASA is not going to pay for that anytime soon. Only after NASA understands that will there be a new Node.
-
As I have suggested before, the solution to this problem is for NASA to issue the specific requirements, and to put the entire project out to bid. As long as the requirements do not imply a design, I suspect that innovative solutions would emerge, at a much lower cost to the taxpayer.
And, of course, this requires NASA to forgo making the requirements imply a Cadillac SUV design that includes Exploration desirements, as well. You know, "the Node shall provide for independent ECLSS capable of supporting a crew of 3 for 2 years". NASA should make the requirements as simple as possible.
There is a chance that a commercial initiative to generate a 4th node might actually get through a Republican House of Representatives.
One major points of Node 4 is to use the existing STA structure
Well, I am talking about a world where NASA abandons some of its existing desirements in order to facilitate there being a new Node. Your guess is as good as mine as to whether NASA would actually give up those desirements.
Using the STA structure requires some sort of new cargo delivery system to ISS, and NASA is not going to pay for that anytime soon. Only after NASA understands that will there be a new Node.
Jim is right. "Node 4" arose out of a "gee, wouldn't it be cool to do something with this STA structure that's just sitting around", not "gee, we really need a new node on ISS." If using the STA proves impractical, the idea of a new ISS node on the US segment will quietly go away.
-
By the way, I did read that PDF from Boeing concerning the idea of using ISS for exploration... TWICE (to make sure I was reading it correctly).
The proposal emphasizes the idea of making use of electrical propulsion to traverse between the ISS and a proposed extension of the ISS at L1 or L2. My thoughts on this are 'if electric propulsion could traverse a tug vehicle between the ISS at its orbit in LEO and an extension at an L1/L2 point, why not just use electric propulsion to slowly move the orbit of the ISS to L1/L2?'
An Orion lifted by SLS will have the capability to carry it to L1/L2, so why not have ISS there, with all of it's existing infrastructure and systems there as well, ready to support all incoming and outgoing crews to and from any destination the community of nations fund exploration missions for. A suppose SpaceX' Falcon V Heavy would be capable of sending Dragon to L1/L2 as well, so this move would not exclude the Dragon from visiting in its logistics or human flight capacities. I'm sure the Russians have rockets that could modify the Soyuz and Progress lift capacities to the new location of the ISS at L1/L2 as well - so they won't be left out either. I'm just not sure about how ESA's ATV or Japan's HTV would get to the new L1/L2 outpost (as well as Orbital Science's Cygnus).
But if this could be done, crews would be "so much closer" to possible destinations such as the moon, Mars, astroids, Venus, Ceres that any future mission to these destinations would be easer and cheaper. Also making the ISS an outpost in that location, it could be used to house reusable landers for moon and Mars destinations.
Another plus to moving the station there is that it would be truly weightless and this would be a big benefit for experiments that require weightlessness. Also, the gravity neutral nature of the L1/L2 points would be less stressful to the wear and tear of the station, effectively increasing the lifetime expectancy of the station exponentially.
-
The proposal emphasizes the idea of making use of electrical propulsion to traverse between the ISS and a proposed extension of the ISS at L1 or L2. My thoughts on this are 'if electric propulsion could traverse a tug vehicle between the ISS at its orbit in LEO and an extension at an L1/L2 point, why not just use electric propulsion to slowly move the orbit of the ISS to L1/L2?'
Then NASA would have to build a replacement spacestation in LEO.
If you want an EML spacestation build one. You could construct it in a LEO space ship yard if you think that is cheaper and/or quicker.
-
By the way, I did read that PDF from Boeing concerning the idea of using ISS for exploration... TWICE (to make sure I was reading it correctly).
The proposal emphasizes the idea of making use of electrical propulsion to traverse between the ISS and a proposed extension of the ISS at L1 or L2. My thoughts on this are 'if electric propulsion could traverse a tug vehicle between the ISS at its orbit in LEO and an extension at an L1/L2 point, why not just use electric propulsion to slowly move the orbit of the ISS to L1/L2?'
An Orion lifted by SLS will have the capability to carry it to L1/L2, so why not have ISS there, with all of it's existing infrastructure and systems there as well, ready to support all incoming and outgoing crews to and from any destination the community of nations fund exploration missions for. A suppose SpaceX' Falcon V Heavy would be capable of sending Dragon to L1/L2 as well, so this move would not exclude the Dragon from visiting in its logistics or human flight capacities. I'm sure the Russians have rockets that could modify the Soyuz and Progress lift capacities to the new location of the ISS at L1/L2 as well - so they won't be left out either. I'm just not sure about how ESA's ATV or Japan's HTV would get to the new L1/L2 outpost (as well as Orbital Science's Cygnus).
But if this could be done, crews would be "so much closer" to possible destinations such as the moon, Mars, astroids, Venus, Ceres that any future mission to these destinations would be easer and cheaper. Also making the ISS an outpost in that location, it could be used to house reusable landers for moon and Mars destinations.
Another plus to moving the station there is that it would be truly weightless and this would be a big benefit for experiments that require weightlessness. Also, the gravity neutral nature of the L1/L2 points would be less stressful to the wear and tear of the station, effectively increasing the lifetime expectancy of the station exponentially.
The ISS can not operate L1/L2, it was only designed for LEO.
There are other threads on this that explain this
-
Nodes 2 and 3 have been produced by Thales in Italy.
ESA is looking for semething to do after ATV #5 in order to compensate for their ISS costs till 2020.
Wouldn't it be a good idea to delegate the production of Node 4 to ESA with Thales producing the thing.
-
Attachment is from page 13 of the following presentation:
International Space Station as a Platform for Exploration Beyond Low Earth Orbit (PDF, 3.07 MB).
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Raftery_5-25-11/Raftery_5-25-11.pdf
The DHS tunnel has been replaced by PMA-2. It also appears that the Zenith, Forward and Nadir ports will be IDSS, while Port & Starboard will be CBMs.
I believe this part os out of date. DHS has been canceled. NASA is moving out on attaching the NASA Docking System (NDS) on PMA2 at Node 2 forward and on PMA3, probably on N1 or N3 nadir.
Forward PMA is being replaced by a Common Docking Adapter (CDA).
(November 2010)
http://dockingstandard.nasa.gov/Meetings/TIM_%28Nov-17-2010%29/NDS_TIM_presentation.pdf
-
Attachment is from page 13 of the following presentation:
International Space Station as a Platform for Exploration Beyond Low Earth Orbit (PDF, 3.07 MB).
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Raftery_5-25-11/Raftery_5-25-11.pdf
The DHS tunnel has been replaced by PMA-2. It also appears that the Zenith, Forward and Nadir ports will be IDSS, while Port & Starboard will be CBMs.
I believe this part os out of date. DHS has been canceled. NASA is moving out on attaching the NASA Docking System (NDS) on PMA2 at Node 2 forward and on PMA3, probably on N1 or N3 nadir.
Forward PMA is being replaced by a Common Docking Adapter (CDA).
your info is outdated. erioladastra works ISS.
-
Nodes 2 and 3 have been produced by Thales in Italy.
ESA is looking for semething to do after ATV #5 in order to compensate for their ISS costs till 2020.
Wouldn't it be a good idea to delegate the production of Node 4 to ESA with Thales producing the thing.
Did you 4 posts earlier? Node 4 only exists because the STA exists. NASA isn't going to build a new one.
-
Attachment is from page 13 of the following presentation:
International Space Station as a Platform for Exploration Beyond Low Earth Orbit (PDF, 3.07 MB).
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Raftery_5-25-11/Raftery_5-25-11.pdf
The DHS tunnel has been replaced by PMA-2. It also appears that the Zenith, Forward and Nadir ports will be IDSS, while Port & Starboard will be CBMs.
I believe this part os out of date. DHS has been canceled. NASA is moving out on attaching the NASA Docking System (NDS) on PMA2 at Node 2 forward and on PMA3, probably on N1 or N3 nadir.
Forward PMA is being replaced by a Common Docking Adapter (CDA).
your info is outdated. erioladastra works ISS.
Really? Gahhh NASA is terrible at PR. Couldn't they at least have updated their NDS website?
-
Nodes 2 and 3 have been produced by Thales in Italy.
ESA is looking for semething to do after ATV #5 in order to compensate for their ISS costs till 2020.
Wouldn't it be a good idea to delegate the production of Node 4 to ESA with Thales producing the thing.
Did you 4 posts earlier? Node 4 only exists because the STA exists. NASA isn't going to build a new one.
Obviously you don't understand my post.
-
Nodes 2 and 3 have been produced by Thales in Italy.
ESA is looking for semething to do after ATV #5 in order to compensate for their ISS costs till 2020.
Wouldn't it be a good idea to delegate the production of Node 4 to ESA with Thales producing the thing.
Did you 4 posts earlier? Node 4 only exists because the STA exists. NASA isn't going to build a new one.
Obviously you don't understand my post.
You don't understand the purpose of Node 4.
-
Let me reexplain: ESA won't build any ATV past number 5. But they owe money to NASA to pay for their participation to the ISS till 2020.
This represent a bunch of money, $640 million according to the article here.
http://spacenews.com/civil/arianespace-subsidies-space-station-extension-win-esa-backing.html
"The remaining three years’ charges, totaling 450 million euros, will be paid by some other hardware development program yet to be decided by ESA and NASA. "
So with this money they could develop any piece of ISS hardware which NASA finds useful such as an ISS module, or an element for transportation or for exploration. They can start from scratch, Node 3 was developed from scratch. They don't need the STA to start from.
-
I thought ESA decided to study the idea of an evolved ATV that can return payloads to Earth. That study could lead to production for use after they complete their current obligations. The evolved ATV with reentry capabilities could eventually evolve into a manned vehicle.
-
Hmm... Looks like ESA may be moving toward a lifting wing vehicle...
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1106/10ixv/
-
I think that the article has a picture of the failed Hermes shuttle. The experiment itself is more about a lifting body, and validating control of atmospheric reentry.
-
I thought ESA decided to study the idea of an evolved ATV that can return payloads to Earth. That study could lead to production for use after they complete their current obligations. The evolved ATV with reentry capabilities could eventually evolve into a manned vehicle.
It's dead, Jim.
-
I think that the article has a picture of the failed Hermes shuttle. The experiment itself is more about a lifting body, and validating control of atmospheric reentry.
The Hermes pic is halfway down the article -- the IXV pic is at the top.
-
By the way, I did read that PDF from Boeing concerning the idea of using ISS for exploration... TWICE (to make sure I was reading it correctly).
Now you've done it! You have gone full circle in why the ISS was designed. But the thinking was SpaceShuttle and space station.
-
Nodes 2 and 3 have been produced by Thales in Italy.
ESA is looking for semething to do after ATV #5 in order to compensate for their ISS costs till 2020.
Wouldn't it be a good idea to delegate the production of Node 4 to ESA with Thales producing the thing.
Did you 4 posts earlier? Node 4 only exists because the STA exists. NASA isn't going to build a new one.
Obviously you don't understand my post.
You don't understand the purpose of Node 4.
Can you point us in the right direction Jim?
-
Can you point us in the right direction Jim?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25035.msg757187#msg757187
-
It just occurred to me that a way to connect Node 4 without modification of the tunnel addition could be if they flip Node 2 around so that the Foward end of that node becomes the Aft end and visa versa. This would bring the extended side of the module to where Node 4 would be connected, giving clearance to all of Node 4's ports.
Wait a minute... we do have that passive/active port compatibility problem, right? Could they create an adapter, or would it just be cheaper to go the with the originally planned tunnel? Also, I realize that, if it could be done, it would be a major pain because it would rsquire the removal and reinstallation of Kibo and Columbus.
-
It just occurred to me that a way to connect Node 4 without modification of the tunnel addition could be if they flip Node 2 around so that the Foward end of that node becomes the Aft end and visa versa. This would bring the extended side of the module to where Node 4 would be connected, giving clearance to all of Node 4's ports.
Wait a minute... we do have that passive/active port compatibility problem, right? Could they create an adapter, or would it just be cheaper to go the with the originally planned tunnel? Also, I realize that, if it could be done, it would be a major pain because it would rsquire the removal and reinstallation of Kibo and Columbus.
That would not be doable due to:
1) The re-wiring complexities of flipping Node 2 around.
2) Where to put the JPM and COL while Node 2 is rotated (they can't remain attached since it would be too much mass for the SSRMS to move).
3) You cannot mate PCBM to PCBM, and an adaptor could not be constructed since there would be no way to get power to it without doing some internal/external re-wiring.
It would be much simpler, quicker and cheaper just to dock Node 4 to PMA-2 on Node 2 Forward.
-
Here's a great FISO presentation "Using Existing ISS Hardware to Prepare for Exploration Beyond LEO", which includes some amazing graphics and downright awesome video of Node 4/DHS, including launch atop an Atlas V, docking with the ISS, and expandable docking ports! :)
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Hatfield_8-10-11/Hatfield_8-10-11.zip (93.9 MB, .zip file).
-
Here's a great FISO presentation "Using Existing ISS Hardware to Prepare for Exploration Beyond LEO", which includes some amazing graphics and downright awesome video of Node 4/DHS, including launch atop an Atlas V, docking with the ISS, and expandable docking ports! :)
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Hatfield_8-10-11/Hatfield_8-10-11.zip (93.9 MB, .zip file).
some images:
-
Hmm, I know a Centaur stage has a lot of capability, but can it really take that component all the way to the space station? It seems dubious... Some sort of propulsion bus with rendezvous capability would likely be needed.
-
Hmm, I know a Centaur stage has a lot of capability, but can it really take that component all the way to the space station? It seems dubious... Some sort of propulsion bus with rendezvous capability would likely be needed.
Did you look at the presentation in question? It quite clearly shows a propulsion bus with rendezvous capability (which would definitely be needed, as you suggested).
-
the presentation [...] shows a propulsion bus with rendezvous capability.
Indeed, and it's one of the most exciting aspects of this presentation. They call it a Launch Mission Kit (LMK). See attached image.
-
I looked over the LMK presentation and, while I admit it's a great concept, I'm not liking it so much (and believe me, I want to!).
It's not the plan I don't like. It's hard for me to let go of Node 4 as a permanent new element of ISS and see it repurposed like that for a shoe string exploration program budget. Look, exploration will have their own new funds to build new, cooler things. Exploration should leave station assets for station ops to figure out how to get these assets out of the hangers and into orbit for the eventual expansion of ISS.
Node 4 looks horrible attached to PMA-2 like that. They just don't go together. Node 4 needs to find another CBM port at station. If the tunnel is too costly to develop (from the original proposal), then let's look at other possible places we can add it (besides Node 2 Foward).
We have the other two ports on Node 2 that are still unused. We can transfer the planned uses of either port to Node 4. Are there issues prohibiting this? How's the clearance issues with this?
There is the port on Kibo Lab Module that currently hosts the Kibo Logistics Module. Can we put Node 4 there and relocate the Kibo Logistics Module (possibly to Node 4 or even Node 3)?
There's also the free ports on Node 3. Remember, NASA is considering moving Node 3 and the PMM, so the free ports on Node 3 once (if) these two modules are moved should also be considered.
The whole idea of Node 4 is to add new docking ports for both commercial cargo and crew, while allowing new experimental modules (such as the experimental Bigelow inflatable) to find docking attachment points, and additionally leave room for future US segment expansion (and exploration vehicle docking) options - both commercially and for NASA, ESA, JAXA, and other government partners. That said, Node 4 belongs to station, not exploration. That said, I think I made a comepelling rationale for its use as a station component that even Exploration will benefit from.
-
How expensive would it be to build another node identical to Node 4?
-
. That said, I think I made a compelling rationale for its use as a station component that even Exploration will benefit from
Funding for Node 4 would come from Exploration, not from ISS. ISS does not want to pay for it, so that shows you how much ISS really needs it. Therefore if Exploration has another use for it, they have every right to use it.
-
How expensive would it be to build another node identical to Node 4?
That line was shut down long ago. Node 4 is the STA node which was built before Node 1. It is being looked at to see if it can be upgraded to flight status. Node 2 & 3 were built by the Italians.
-
the presentation [...] shows a propulsion bus with rendezvous capability.
Indeed, and it's one of the most exciting aspects of this presentation. They call it a Launch Mission Kit (LMK). See attached image.
The sheer sanity of this idea: a LMK heavily derived from Centaur, which already embodies many of the abilities required, but independent from Centaur proper so as not to affect launch vehicle qualification (see Atkin's Law #39!).
LMK == Lockheed Martin Kit :)
-Alex
-
[Node 4] is being looked at to see if it can be upgraded to flight status.
Skip Hatfield (NASA/JSC) puts that in the past tense. "After extensive analysis and inspection STA has been deemed structurally suitable for flight." He also indicates the interior volume could be outfitted "with existing systems and components" by raiding the ISS spares pool.
-
. That said, I think I made a compelling rationale for its use as a station component that even Exploration will benefit from
Funding for Node 4 would come from Exploration, not from ISS. ISS does not want to pay for it, so that shows you how much ISS really needs it. Therefore if Exploration has another use for it, they have every right to use it.
How much would it cost to "finish" the module for preparation for launch? I'm assuming two price tags: one with the "tunnel" addition, and one without. I'm also assuming the cost with the tunnel would be much greater than the cost without. If they can figure out the clearance problem by docking it somewhere other than Node 2 Forward, they don't need the tunnel, thus lowering the cost significantly; and the real cost would be launch. The cost of launch could come out of operations and written off as logistic cargo. Could Dragon, Cygnus, or HTV tug it to station?
-
What is the main rationale fir wanting Node 4 to attach to the station using a PMA?
If a HTV can be captured and berthed, why not Node 4?
-
What is the main rationale fir wanting Node 4 to attach to the station using a PMA?
If a HTV can be captured and berthed, why not Node 4?
At the moment there isn't enough room for Node-4 on Node-2 foward without a tunnel or the OMA-2 between.
-
.The cost of launch could come out of operations and written off as logistic cargo. Could Dragon, Cygnus, or HTV tug it to station?
No, the cost can not be written off as logistic cargo because the station would be short a logistics mission in terms of supplies. Also, the logistics contract is for delivery of small items and not the launch of a spacecraft.
The whole point of Node 4 is not ISS desires for more attach points, the point is to develop the systems and vehicles needed to deliver such a payload to the ISS. How many times does that have to be stated. ISS program does not have the money for Node 4 and can live without it.
-
Funding for Node 4 would come from Exploration, not from ISS. ISS does not want to pay for it, so that shows you how much ISS really needs it. Therefore if Exploration has another use for it, they have every right to use it.
Right - so the funding would've come from ESMD, not SOMD. However, now that ESMD and SOMD have merged to become HEOMD, I wonder how that affects Node 4 funding?
-
Funding for Node 4 would come from Exploration, not from ISS. ISS does not want to pay for it, so that shows you how much ISS really needs it. Therefore if Exploration has another use for it, they have every right to use it.
Right - so the funding would've come from ESMD, not SOMD. However, now that ESMD and SOMD have merged to become HEOMD, I wonder how that affects Node 4 funding?
It doesn't.
There is still the ISS program office and it doesn't matter which mission directorate it is in, it doesn't have the money.
-
Jim while you are here, do you see any problems with the Launch Mission Kit? Specifically:
1. Centaur being carried to station
2. ULA's stipulation that it cannot create spacecraft.
Would there be any creative ways around the latter? I guess for example by using Centaur all the way to station would be one way around.
-
Jim while you are here, do you see any problems with the Launch Mission Kit? Specifically:
1. Centaur being carried to station
2. ULA's stipulation that it cannot create spacecraft.
Would there be any creative ways around the latter? I guess for example by using Centaur all the way to station would be one way around.
1. it might need redundant pressure controls
2. I wouldn't call it a spacecraft.
-
There is the port on Kibo Lab Module that currently hosts the Kibo Logistics Module. Can we put Node 4 there and relocate the Kibo Logistics Module (possibly to Node 4 or even Node 3)?
The Kibo zenith CBM can only provide about 3000 watts of power, so a Node 4 there would be severely constrained, and would not be able to host a Bigelow module.
-
2. I wouldn't call it a spacecraft.
Because unlike Agena it would be short-lived?
-
What is the main rationale fir wanting Node 4 to attach to the station using a PMA?
If a HTV can be captured and berthed, why not Node 4?
At the moment there isn't enough room for Node-4 on Node-2 foward without a tunnel or the OMA-2 between.
What is in the way?
-
There is the port on Kibo Lab Module that currently hosts the Kibo Logistics Module. Can we put Node 4 there and relocate the Kibo Logistics Module (possibly to Node 4 or even Node 3)?
The Kibo zenith CBM can only provide about 3000 watts of power, so a Node 4 there would be severely constrained, and would not be able to host a Bigelow module.
What about moving Node 3 to Node 2 Forward and then Node 4 to where Node 3 is currently (or planned to be)?
Since there are clearance issues with many of the ports of Node 3, just move it to where there's no clearance issues. And since it's elongated, it won't have the problems Node 4 would have if attached to Node 2 Forward. Node 4 could then be added to Node 1, where, understandably, most of its ports will be unusable.
-
No, Node 3 needs to be where is it at because of the power it requires and the services it provides to the ISS.
The ISS pieces are not interchangeable.
-
There is the port on Kibo Lab Module that currently hosts the Kibo Logistics Module. Can we put Node 4 there and relocate the Kibo Logistics Module (possibly to Node 4 or even Node 3)?
The Kibo zenith CBM can only provide about 3000 watts of power, so a Node 4 there would be severely constrained, and would not be able to host a Bigelow module.
What about moving Node 3 to Node 2 Forward and then Node 4 to where Node 3 is currently (or planned to be)?
Since there are clearance issues with many of the ports of Node 3, just move it to where there's no clearance issues. And since it's elongated, it won't have the problems Node 4 would have if attached to Node 2 Forward. Node 4 could then be added to Node 1, where, understandably, most of its ports will be unusable.
How about this:
Given the Shuttle port won't be used anymore. Take the ISS adapter off one of the Shuttles.
2) Install said adapter into an HTV, dock HTV in old shuttle port. Also bring up node 4 in the HTV.
3) The HTV is too fine a craft to be used as a trashcan. Reuse it as a new ISS section with extra docking ports.
Just throwing this idea out, would have to research it more.
See where Im going with this?
-
How about this:
Given the Shuttle port won't be used anymore. Take the ISS adapter off one of the Shuttles.
2) Install said adapter into an HTV, dock HTV in old shuttle port. Also bring up node 4 in the HTV.
3) The HTV is too fine a craft to be used as a trashcan. Reuse it as a new ISS section with extra docking ports.
Just throwing this idea out, would have to research it more.
See where Im going with this?
Sorry, I admire your enthusiasm, but almost none of this would work without reengineering the HTV into a completly new vehicle.
A. HTV has no support (power or structural) for APAS
B. HTV can't dock, only berth. APAS requires docking velocity and forces. The SSRMS can't generate those.
C. HTV is the same diameter as the nodes, so you can't install one inside the other.
D. HTV isn't designed for long (indefinet) duration flight.
-
How about this:
Given the Shuttle port won't be used anymore. Take the ISS adapter off one of the Shuttles.
2) Install said adapter into an HTV, dock HTV in old shuttle port. Also bring up node 4 in the HTV.
3) The HTV is too fine a craft to be used as a trashcan. Reuse it as a new ISS section with extra docking ports.
Just throwing this idea out, would have to research it more.
See where Im going with this?
Sorry, I admire your enthusiasm, but almost none of this would work without reengineering the HTV into a completly new vehicle.
A. HTV has no support (power or structural) for APAS
B. HTV can't dock, only berth. APAS requires docking velocity and forces
C. HTV is the same diameter as the nodes, so you cant install one inside the other.
Actually, HTV's diameter is *less* than that of the nodes...
D. HTV isn't designed for long (indefinet) duration flight.
E. HTV's rendezvous sensors are on the top side, not the front, where they would need to be for a direct approach to docking.
-
Since we are tossing ideas around...
The ATV has a tunnel section at its aft that has no use. I read somewhere that it might be possible to put a docking ring on the aft side of it, pressurize the tunnel, and add a hatch door. Such a modification would allow multiple ATV's to string together, but that's not why I brought this up.
ESA is planning on using the new international docking standard with the ATV. So, in theory, ATV could dock in the US side (once the adaptors are installed). If we pay them to modify the tunnel with the docking ring, pressurized section, and hatch door for just one ATV, this could be moved to Node 2 Foward at the end of its mission and used as a spacer for Node 4. If the tunnel section could be split off from the rest of the craft, even better.
-
ESA is planning on using the new international docking standard with the ATV. So, in theory, ATV could dock in the US side (once the adaptors are installed). If we pay them to modify the tunnel with the docking ring, pressurized section, and hatch door for just one ATV, this could be moved to Node 2 Foward at the end of its mission and used as a spacer for Node 4. If the tunnel section could be split off from the rest of the craft, even better.
ATV needs certain equipment to dock that is only available right now on the SM aft docking port. Also, for all of that effort one could simply launch an APAS/NDS adapter as currently planned for a lot less money and effort, and probably the second for PMA-3 as well. Node 4 is only a "nice to have" and is not essential, so a complicated tunnel is not warranted at all. PMA-2 is up there, the smart decision is to use it.
-
Also bring up node 4 in the HTV.
3) The HTV is too fine a craft to be used as a trashcan. Reuse it as a new ISS section with extra docking ports.
Node 4 won't fit in the HTV.
As for using the HTV pressurized section as an ISS pressurized module, it could be done, but would be difficult and expensive.
-
ESA is planning on using the new international docking standard with the ATV.
Really?
:o :o
-
ESA is planning on using the new international docking standard with the ATV.
Really?
:o :o
Certainly not with any ISS missions. I suppose they have floated the idea of using ATV derived vehicles as mini-habs/stations on exploration missions (which would use the new docking standard if used with US hardware), but that is all powerpoint at this stage.
-
B. HTV can't dock, only berth. APAS requires docking velocity and forces. The SSRMS can't generate those.
You are suggesting that SSRMS cannot berth modules that have APAS? I don't think that is correct.
-
APAS requires docking velocity and forces. The SSRMS can't generate those.
Ahem... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/S99_03776.jpg
(yeah, I know it is the shuttle arm, not the station arm - but it should be able to handle it just as well)
-
What is in the way?
Columbus and Kibo
-
APAS requires docking velocity and forces. The SSRMS can't generate those.
Ahem... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/S99_03776.jpg
(yeah, I know it is the shuttle arm, not the station arm - but it should be able to handle it just as well)
The arm was unlocked and the shuttle was accelerating the two components into another.
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-88/sts-88-day-04-highlights.html (http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-88/sts-88-day-04-highlights.html)
"After slowly and carefully aligning Zarya's docking mechanism with a comparable mechanism on Unity's Pressurized Mating Adapter-1, Commander Bob Cabana fired Endeavour's downward jets at 8:07 p.m. to drive the two large modules together. "
-
ESA is planning on using the new international docking standard with the ATV.
Really?
:o :o
Certainly not with any ISS missions. I suppose they have floated the idea of using ATV derived vehicles as mini-habs/stations on exploration missions (which would use the new docking standard if used with US hardware), but that is all powerpoint at this stage.
No, I did read it that that was the plan... Around the time that the specs for the standard were released... And it was probably here where I read it, or spacenews.com. Don't remember and I don't feeling searching for it. Seeing how ESA changes its mind quarterly on just about everything lately, I would't be surprised if this too is no longer in the plan.
-
APAS requires docking velocity and forces. The SSRMS can't generate those.
Ahem... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/S99_03776.jpg
(yeah, I know it is the shuttle arm, not the station arm - but it should be able to handle it just as well)
The arm was unlocked and the shuttle was accelerating the two components into another.
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-88/sts-88-day-04-highlights.html (http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-88/sts-88-day-04-highlights.html)
"After slowly and carefully aligning Zarya's docking mechanism with a comparable mechanism on Unity's Pressurized Mating Adapter-1, Commander Bob Cabana fired Endeavour's downward jets at 8:07 p.m. to drive the two large modules together. "
Given that the ISS RMS has berthed Rassvet, which uses a Russian docking system, I doubt that berthing APAS would be any more impossible.
-
APAS requires docking velocity and forces. The SSRMS can't generate those.
Ahem... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/S99_03776.jpg
(yeah, I know it is the shuttle arm, not the station arm - but it should be able to handle it just as well)
The arm was unlocked and the shuttle was accelerating the two components into another.
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-88/sts-88-day-04-highlights.html (http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-88/sts-88-day-04-highlights.html)
"After slowly and carefully aligning Zarya's docking mechanism with a comparable mechanism on Unity's Pressurized Mating Adapter-1, Commander Bob Cabana fired Endeavour's downward jets at 8:07 p.m. to drive the two large modules together. "
Given that the ISS RMS has berthed Rassvet, which uses a Russian docking system, I doubt that berthing APAS would be any more impossible.
APAS requires a higher force to effect capture than the russian probe and drogue docking system. That was the engineering rational for developing LIDS in the first place (before someone says "its velocity not force that's the concern"; F=MA)
Did you think they did it that way on STS-88 for kicks?