NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

International Space Station (ISS) => ISS Section => Topic started by: Spiff on 09/16/2006 02:20 PM

Title: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spiff on 09/16/2006 02:20 PM
There are 2 excellent Shuttle Q&A threads in the general discussion forum. I've really enjoyed both even if I've not posted. On the ISS forum however the questions are rather diversified over several threads which makes searching difficult and as a result sometimes causes doubling up of questions. I thought it would be a good idea to start a general ISS Q&A thread to serve as a knowledge centre for all readers and posters that have questions about the ISS. (There is an ISS assembly questions thread, but I was thinking more of a general questions thread.)

I'll start of with a few questions of my own:

1. Laundry. You hear a lot about the 'common tasks' that are a little different in space. Examples are food, hygiene, etc. However I have never heard how/if astronauts wash their clothing on the ISS. On the other hand, you do hear a lot about 'new sets of clothes' being brought up and dirty clothes being brought down. Is there no washing machine on the ISS? If not, is it too difficult/expensive to design one?

2. Oxygen generation. I know that the STS-121 mission brought up a new oxygen generator to the ISS that, when working together with the russian Elektron oxygen generator, will provide oxygen capacity for roughly 4 persons. Is this generator already tested/turned on? If not, how to provide oxygen currently for 3 persons? (Elektron provides oxygen for 2) And, when will it be turned on?

3. PVR's. I've never quite understood how these work, can anyone give a brief explanation?

That should be enough for a kick off. :)
Moderators, if this is considered a bad idea or if you don't like it for any other reason, feel free to modify/delete it. ;)
Regards,
Spiff
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: MKremer on 09/16/2006 02:45 PM
No washing machine. If you consider, it's pretty obvious - it's much cheaper to lift clean clothes to orbit than the much larger mass of water needed for washing those clothes (and thus wasted). Also, how would you dry them?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: MKremer on 09/16/2006 04:04 PM
Not sure what you mean, exactly, about how the PVR's work, apart from being solar cell arrays.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 09/16/2006 04:32 PM
Quote
MKremer - 16/9/2006  10:51 AM

Not sure what you mean, exactly, about how the PVR's work, apart from being solar cell arrays.

I'm not sure either, but he could be referring to the Photo Voltaic Radiators on each of the truss segments.

(Common point of confusion: those radiators don't literally cool the solar arrays... there are no coolant lines running through them. The radiators are there to cool all the batteries and electronics stuffed inside the truss segment.)
--
JRF
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: MKremer on 09/16/2006 04:59 PM
OK, yeah, that makes some sense. Some folks do wonder why spacecraft (or the ISS) would need radiators.
After all, they're in space where it's usually cold, right? ;) ;)

Electronics, especially power conversion and distribution modules, aren't 100% efficient - meaning a percentage of the input power gets converted to heat. Just like your average PC needs its own heat sink, electronics in space need their own heat sinks and a way to radiate that heat into space.

Since there's no air to distribute the heat into (and you don't want it done into the crew modules) you need a way to take the heat from the electronics and transfer it to a large enough space radiator for efficient heat dissipation.

Power converter and distribution electronics generate a lot of heat (lots of power, combined with less than 100% conversion efficiency). Liquid cooling works best in those cases, and running that heated fluid through large radiators exposed to space converts the heat in the fluid to infrared radiant energy, which in turn cools the fluid.

The same thing is done with Shuttle orbiters and their payload bay door radiators. The difference is the ISS uses long panel arrays, instead.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: hornet on 09/16/2006 05:35 PM
what do astronaust wear in space during their stays at the station and how long is a set of clothes considered to be good for before it is taken back to earth and before astronauts launch do they get to pick what clothes will be launched up to them later in their mission or do they just have to live with what they get?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: MKremer on 09/16/2006 06:30 PM
IIRC, much of the clothing is aready sized and fit for them some months before their flights. A few items are returned (probably the most expensive to make), but I gather a lot of clothing is dumped into a disposal bag for Progress or a future MPLM for disposal.

I don't know what would sort of time or wear period would be considered for classification as 'dirty', but I'd guess that clothing worn during exercise periods would be discarded much more quickly than others (or more specialized clothing, like mission jumpsuits or fluid-control pants).
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spiff on 09/16/2006 08:35 PM
Jorge, MKremer,

yea, I mean the radiators, not the solar arrays themselves. And, I gathered more or less that that's how they're supposed to work, but, I don't quite see how that could work during orbital day when the sun is shining rather brightly on those same radiators. Are they only turned on during night? Also, how can you radiate heat into the vacuum of space?

IOW, I kinda get it, but not completely. :)

Oh yea, and about the washing machine. That kinda makes sense, but still, I guess there could also be developed a system that could filter the water and use it again. And a dryer could also be developed I suppose....
Then again, probably it's not that obvious, or they would have done so long ago...
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 09/16/2006 09:15 PM
Quote
Spiff - 16/9/2006  4:22 PM
yea, I mean the radiators, not the solar arrays themselves. And, I gathered more or less that that's how they're supposed to work, but, I don't quite see how that could work during orbital day when the sun is shining rather brightly on those same radiators. Are they only turned on during night? Also, how can you radiate heat into the vacuum of space?
.

They face away and on edge to the sun.  

Basic physics.  Heat transfer is but 3 methods.  conductive, convective and radiant.  Radiant needs no medium to work.  Just a temp difference
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Suzy on 09/17/2006 01:09 AM

Quote
MKremer - 17/9/2006  12:32 AM

No washing machine. If you consider, it's pretty obvious - it's much cheaper to lift clean clothes to orbit than the much larger mass of water needed for washing those clothes (and thus wasted). Also, how would you dry them?

You can do laundry up there, after a fashion: Ken Bowersox demonstrated in one of the Expedition 6 videos (last one at bottom of page) how to wash favorite items of clothing: the clothes are first put into a plastic bag, into which is squirted water and soap. After several minutes of squeezing and prodding, the clothes are taken out and rinsed with more water in a separate bag. Russian wet/dry towels are used to squeeze as much water out as possible, then the clothes are secured behind bungee cords in Zarya to dry, which they do after around three hours. All evaporated water is reclaimed by the SRV-K2M condensate water processor that separates it into gas and liquid, then purifies and recycles the evaporate as potable water.

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Suzy on 09/17/2006 01:19 AM

Quote
Spiff - 17/9/2006  12:07 AM
 
 2. Oxygen generation. I know that the STS-121 mission brought up a new oxygen generator to the ISS that, when working together with the russian Elektron oxygen generator, will provide oxygen capacity for roughly 4 persons. Is this generator already tested/turned on? If not, how to provide oxygen currently for 3 persons? (Elektron provides oxygen for 2) And, when will it be turned on?
 

The U.S.-made Oxygen Generation System was brought up on STS-121 in July 2006 (the NASA article somewhat pointedly remarks that the OGS “promises to provide the International Space Station crew with more breathable air – in a more reliable way.”). It will not be up and running until 2007. It is manufactured by Hamilton Sundstrand. James Oberg has an article on the Elektron Device; see also "Oxygen problems plague Space Station".
 

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spiff on 09/17/2006 11:09 AM
Thanks for answers again everyone.
Jim, I'll google that for more info. Thanks
Suzy, thanks also, nice links. Any reason why it won't be turned on until 2007?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Suzy on 09/17/2006 09:08 PM

Quote
Spiff - 17/9/2006  8:56 PM

Thanks for answers again everyone.
Jim, I'll google that for more info. Thanks
Suzy, thanks also, nice links. Any reason why it won't be turned on until 2007?

I think the reason is it needs to undergo some tests in orbit (note: document isn't online anymore):

Feb 1, 10:09 PM

Generator to fly sooner

NASA wants backup oxygen maker on station before crew expansion

BY CHRIS KRIDLER
FLORIDA TODAY

NASA has moved up the launch of a new oxygen generator, which will fly to the International Space Station as soon as 2007.

It not only will provide a backup for the frequently troubled Russian oxygen generator, the Elektron, but it will support expansion of the station crew, officials said.

"Having another system up there helps build redundancy into the system and helps make the station more robust," said Dave Parker, manager for the project at Hamilton Sundstrand.

The company is developing the generator and plans to deliver it to NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center next month, so it can be integrated with its power supply.

Kennedy Space Center should get the generator by the end of the year, said Marshall's Bob Bagdigian, manager for the Regenerative Environmental Control Life Support System.

It's scheduled to fly in a cargo module about May 2007, he said, depending on how the schedule unfolds when the shuttles start flying this May.

It will be installed in the station's U.S. laboratory. Previously, it was to be housed in the yet-to-fly European-built Node 3.

If there were an earlier opportunity to fly the new oxygen generator, "the program would like to take advantage of that," Bagdigian said. It could be a backup for the Elektron sooner, and an earlier delivery would allow testing of its systems before the crew is expanded beyond two or three people.

"We'd like to get to orbit as soon as we can and do some checkout on it and make sure everything's in order before the program has to depend on it," he said.

The Elektron and the new system convert water into oxygen and hydrogen through electrolysis. An electrolyte is needed to complete the electrical circuit that makes the process work. The bubble-prone Russian system uses a liquid electrolyte, but the new U.S. system uses a solid one, Bagdigian said.

"You don't have to worry about the electrolyte leaking," he said.

"We've been building this basic technology in a lot of different forms for different customers over the years," including Navy submarines, Hamilton Sundstrand's Parker said. The difference is that the space hardware must be small and light and use as little power as possible.

The company, which produces a lot of space and spacesuit hardware, is working closely with NASA to make sure the generator is safe, Parker said.

"It has to be handled very, very carefully," he said.

"We're looking forward to delivering it," Bagdigian said. "We think it will be a useful addition to the program and one that will give them a lot more on-orbit capability and flexibility."

Contact Kridler at 242-3633 or [email protected]


Hardware facts

What: Oxygen Generation Assembly

Supplier: Hamilton Sundstrand, working with NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center

Purpose: Produces oxygen for International Space Station

Delivery to Kennedy Space Center: End of 2005

Expected launch on shuttle: Spring 2007

Station berth: U.S. Destiny lab (formerly slated for European Node 3)

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: tesheiner on 09/18/2006 11:14 AM
I have this question:

Do you remember that broken CMG (CMG-1) which was replaced during STS-114 last year and returned back?
Any information on what was found after opening it, reason for failure, etc?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spiff on 09/18/2006 01:45 PM
I'm hoping the new oxygen generator will work well. Don't get me wrong, I think the Elektron is a magnificent machine despite it's temper. But it will be good to have two systems in order to provide redundancy.

Additional question. From Suzy's link: The decomposition of 1 kg (2.2 lbs) of water yields 25 L (0.88 ft3) of oxygen per hour at a pressure of 760 mmHg, which is enough to support one crew member for one day.
That would mean that if you run the system 24 hours per day you could theoretically provide oxygen for 24 people. Right? So why have I seen it listed so far as supporting a maximum of 2 persons? Limited water supply?
The OGS provides approx. 6 kg of oxygen per day normally. (Six crewmembers) Is this at 24 hour/day operation? Or does it run only a few hours per day (as elektron seems to do.)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spiff on 09/21/2006 08:48 AM
Another question:

How do the different docking mechanisms (APAS, CBM, Russian (don't know the name of the russian system) ) compare in terms of inner diameter? IOW, what is the maximum payload diameter that can be taken up by soyuz/progress/ATV (Russian docking) MPLM/HTV (CBM) and Shuttle (APAS)?

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 09/21/2006 11:32 AM
It is elsewhere on another thread but APAS and Progress are around 33-36".    CBM is XX
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 09/21/2006 05:24 PM
Quote
Jim - 21/9/2006  6:15 AM

It is elsewhere on another thread but APAS and Progress are around 33-36".    CBM is XX

CBM hatch is 54", or about 1370 mm, square.

APAS and the standard probe & drogue hatch used on Soyuz and Progress are 800 mm, or about 31.5".

The hybrid probe & drogue hatch (of which Zvezda zenith is the only open port) is 1100 mm, or about 43.3".
--
JRF
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 09/21/2006 05:27 PM
I know there is a difference between an APAS and Progress
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: dutch courage on 09/21/2006 07:32 PM
Any info on the LIDS?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 09/21/2006 07:34 PM
same as APAS.  It will use the same tunnel on the CEV.   APAS will be used for ISS and LIDS for LSAM
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spiff on 09/26/2006 08:58 PM
Quote
Jorge - 21/9/2006  7:07 PM

The hybrid probe & drogue hatch (of which Zvezda zenith is the only open port) is 1100 mm, or about 43.3".
--
JRF

I didn't know this existed.
In which way is it 'hybrid?' is it meant for new kinds of russian vehicles/modules? Or something else?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 09/26/2006 09:09 PM
Quote
Spiff - 26/9/2006  3:41 PM

Quote
Jorge - 21/9/2006  7:07 PM

The hybrid probe & drogue hatch (of which Zvezda zenith is the only open port) is 1100 mm, or about 43.3".
--
JRF

I didn't know this existed.
In which way is it 'hybrid?' is it meant for new kinds of russian vehicles/modules? Or something else?

It's a hybrid between the standard probe & drogue and APAS. The standard probe & drogue is intended for docking small spacecraft like Soyuz/Progress while APAS has a wider structural ring with higher stiffness for docking hundred-ton vehicles together like Buran/Mir. The hybrid interface uses the APAS structural ring but with a probe & drogue capture mechanism.
--
JRF
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spiff on 09/26/2006 09:14 PM
Can it only be used with a probe & drogue? Or also with an active APAS on the other side?
After all APAS implies that it's Androgynous, and that 1 active side can dock with a passive side.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 09/27/2006 12:13 AM
Quote
Spiff - 26/9/2006  3:57 PM

Can it only be used with a probe & drogue? Or also with an active APAS on the other side?
After all APAS implies that it's Androgynous, and that 1 active side can dock with a passive side.

The Hybrid probe can only be used with a Hybrid drogue, but the mechanism can be swapped in-space with a passive APAS to accommodate an active APAS. That was the plan for docking the Interim Control Module to the FGB, had that become necessary.
--
JRF
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: reubenb on 10/05/2006 05:02 AM
What are the computer systems like on the ISS? I always see those laptops in the videos. What are the specs on those? Are these used to actually control the ISS systems or just used for experiments and email and stuff?

Also, is it true that computers in space are usually a couple years behind because they need to be hardened and tested with radiation to make sure they'll be ok?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 10/05/2006 05:29 AM
The laptops are the crew interface.  At assembly complete, there will be 44 Multiplexers/Demultiplexers(MDMs) that run all the ISS systems.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: hop on 10/05/2006 06:34 AM
The laptops are IBM thinkpads http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/space/space_thinkpad.html

That article as a bit old, most (if not all) the 760XD have been replaced with A31p

This page describes the modifications to the older models http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=213
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: MKremer on 10/05/2006 07:52 PM
The Thinkpad/laptop decisions for the major computing capabilities for the ISS have done remarkably well. (ok, once the hard drive situation was taken care of :) )

Unless you want to spend big, BIG, dollars for 99.99% rad-hard computing capabilities, you just have to live with random downtimes due to bit-flips, reboots, and resets. Fortunately, the ISS data processing hardware/software folks took all that into consideration and have done a tremendous job planning and keeping everything up and running, even through random, individual faults/failures.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 10/05/2006 08:07 PM
The laptops are only for crew interface.  The MDM's are the real controllers
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: bobthemonkey on 10/06/2006 07:54 PM
Any specs on the MDM's
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: bobthemonkey on 10/06/2006 07:54 PM
Any specs on the MDM's
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: bobthemonkey on 10/06/2006 07:54 PM
Any specs on the MDM's
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: bobthemonkey on 10/08/2006 08:12 PM
darn - triple post  - sorry
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: reubenb on 10/10/2006 08:08 PM
Thanks for the responses.

I'm a little confused though, isn't an MDM just a device for encoding/decoding communications signals? Does this mean that all critical systems are actually just controlled from the ground and commands are sent up?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 10/10/2006 11:09 PM
It depends on how you define the MDM.  On the ISS, they are computers.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: rosbif73 on 10/11/2006 03:05 PM
Quote
nethegauner - 11/10/2006  1:59 AM

I have a feeling, STS-119 will be dropped from the manifest for good with S6 remaining on the ground. Of course, I do not have an insider's knowledge -- it's just a gut feeling.

I've taken the liberty of quoting the above speculations from a current L2 thread - after all, they're just speculations, not privileged information.

Anyway, this begs the question of how much power margin the finished station will actually have.

Would there actually be enough power to operate the entire station, including all the international modules, even without the S6 arrays?
Or if problems arose during the P6 retraction or relocation leaving P6 inoperable for some reason?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: dutch courage on 10/11/2006 04:19 PM
A shuttle not launched is a billion dollars saved.

However if there's a failure in one of the other solar arrays - an MMOD hit for instance - you would be happy with a pair of extra wings.

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 10/12/2006 03:28 PM
Quote
dutch courage - 11/10/2006  11:02 AM

A shuttle not launched is a billion dollars saved.


Only at the end of the program, if it helps you retire the fleet earlier and eliminate the overhead costs of the program.

Mid-program, a shuttle not launched simply puts a three-month hole in the manifest. The program would still burn through a billion dollars every three months anyway, just as it did during the post-accident grounding period.
--
JRF
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: dutch courage on 10/14/2006 11:13 AM
Does anybody know what tasks will be preformed during the november 22/23 EVA by Tyurin and Lopez-Alegria?

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: anik on 10/14/2006 12:09 PM
Quote
dutch courage - 14/10/2006  2:56 PM

Does anybody know what tasks will be preformed during the november 22/23 EVA by Tyurin and Lopez-Alegria?

From ISS Expedition 14 Press Kit:

Russian EVA-17

1. Golf project: Tyurin will conduct a Russian commercial activity for a Canadian golf equipment manufacturer, hitting a golf ball from a “tee” mounted outside the Pirs airlock

2. Install Vsplesk on the large diameter part of the Zvezda Service Module (SM). VSPLESK is a science experiment in earthquake forecasting, observing the Earth both before and after an event

3. Install BTN-Neutron on the small diameter part of Zvezda. BTN-Neutron is a science experiment to develop a
model of the radiation background of the ISS space environment during different flight conditions

4. Changeout experiment CKK #5 with CKK #9 on the Zvezda large diameter aft end. CKKs are detachable
cassette-containers that measure the level and composition of contamination, and monitor the change in operating characteristics for samples of materials from the outside surfaces of the ISS Russian segment. The CKK is a two-flap structure, and consists of a casing and spool holders with samples. Samples of materials for the outside surfaces of the ISS Russian segment modules are exposed within the cassettes

5. Install bracket on Zvezda aft end and relocate WAL antenna #2 to it. The WAL #2 is a low gain antenna used for
space-to-space communication with the European Automated Transfer Vehicle

6. Inspect mechanisms on the Strela-2 crane system. During Russian EVA 16, the EVA crew reported that the stopper arms designed to prevent the Strela translation ring from coming off the end of the Strela boom were not fully deployed

Also see http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=61&start=259 (about "Vsplesk") and http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=61&start=211
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: dutch courage on 10/14/2006 12:29 PM
Thanks for your elaborate answer, anik :)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: rdale on 10/14/2006 04:22 PM
FYI that's available at http://www.shuttlepresskit.com
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spiff on 10/15/2006 12:04 PM
Now that Elektron is offline again they are using some of the oxygen 'candles' again on ISS.

1. How do these work?
2. How many do they have and how much oxygen does 1 provide?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 10/15/2006 01:01 PM
lithium perchlorate.  I believe one supplies 3 mandays of O2
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: tesheiner on 10/16/2006 03:18 PM
I made a question some time ago related to that broken CMG (CMG-1) which was replaced during STS-114 last year and returned back for analysis/refurbishment, but got no answer.
Now that the CMGs are on the news again I think it's time to ask for a second time if there are any info/results on the analysis of that CMG, which kind of damage was found inside, failure reasons, etc?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: dutch courage on 10/16/2006 06:33 PM
Quote
tesheiner - 16/10/2006  5:01 PM

Now that the CMGs are on the news again I think it's time to ask for a second time if there are any info/results on the analysis of that CMG, which kind of damage was found inside, failure reasons, etc?

During today's ISS Mission Coverage Kyle Herring said the ground controlers had been testing with the current failed CMG. Spinning it up to 500 rpm and testing for vibrations and deceleration times. A vibrating bearing cover is presumed to be the culprit.

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Suzy on 10/16/2006 09:05 PM
Quote
Spiff - 15/10/2006  9:47 PM
   
   Now that Elektron is offline again they are using some of the oxygen 'candles' again on ISS.
   
   1. How do these work?
   2. How many do they have and how much oxygen does 1 provide?
 

From the "ISS Russian Segment Life Support System (Star City, 1997)" guide (linked diagrams are stored on my Photobucket site):

   
 

The TGK (Fig. A-4) consists of a replaceable cartridge with an igniter, a striker mechanism, a filter, a dust collection filter, and a fan that are located inside one case. The TGK is designed for the thermal decomposition of an oxygen compound packaged in a cylindrical cartridge. When oxygen exits the generator, it is cooled by airflow. The oxygen generator is activated by the crew if ppO2 drops to 160 mmHg and per ground instructions. The TGK is activated by rotating the driving handle (knob) until a specific “click” sound is heard. This sound indicates that the pin has struck the ignition device and the chemical reaction has begun.

   

One cartridge yields 600 L (21.2 ftł) of oxygen. The contents of the cartridge take 5-20 minutes to decompose at a reaction temperature of 450-500°C (842-932°F). Temperature of the outer surface of the TGK may reach 50°C (122°F). If the fan is running, it takes approximately 3 hours for the cartridge to cool down.

   

The cartridge is replaced in the following way:

     
     
  • the fan is stopped;
  •    
  • the latch is opened;
  •    
  • the clamping handle is turned 180°;
  •    
  • the crossbar is unlatched;
  •    
  • the cartridge is pulled out of the TGK.
  •  
   

The cartridge replacement takes approximately 2 minutes.

   

A cloth dust collector is placed over the fan intake. The collector is changed when full. The TGK fan is turned on by means of toggle switches TGK-1, TGK-2 on the systems power supply panel (PPS-23) (Fig. A-5, B-2).

 

TGK = Tverdotoplivnyi Generator Kisloroda, the system for oxygen generation using solid state fuel (I don't know how many are on board, sorry  :(

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: hop on 10/16/2006 09:41 PM
It was mentioned recently that the old mechanical ignition system is being replaced with an electric ignition system.

see http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=22269

Last I heard they are using oxygen from Quest, having used up all the oxygen candles that were near their expiration date.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: tesheiner on 10/17/2006 10:28 AM
Quote
dutch courage - 16/10/2006  8:16 PM

Quote
tesheiner - 16/10/2006  5:01 PM

Now that the CMGs are on the news again I think it's time to ask for a second time if there are any info/results on the analysis of that CMG, which kind of damage was found inside, failure reasons, etc?

During today's ISS Mission Coverage Kyle Herring said the ground controlers had been testing with the current failed CMG. Spinning it up to 500 rpm and testing for vibrations and deceleration times. A vibrating bearing cover is presumed to be the culprit.


Thanks for the info about the current failed CMG.
But I'm still looking for data on the failed CMG which was replaced last year.  ;)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spiff on 10/17/2006 08:04 PM
Hey thanks everyone again for explanations and pictures!
Interesting is that Jim talks about Lithiumperchlorate (LiClO4) and hop's article about Potassiumperchlorate (KClO4.) Not that it matters much, the reaction is almost the same.
;)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: reubenb on 10/18/2006 05:07 AM
Quote
tesheiner - 17/10/2006  5:11 AM

Quote
dutch courage - 16/10/2006  8:16 PM

Quote
tesheiner - 16/10/2006  5:01 PM

Now that the CMGs are on the news again I think it's time to ask for a second time if there are any info/results on the analysis of that CMG, which kind of damage was found inside, failure reasons, etc?

During today's ISS Mission Coverage Kyle Herring said the ground controlers had been testing with the current failed CMG. Spinning it up to 500 rpm and testing for vibrations and deceleration times. A vibrating bearing cover is presumed to be the culprit.


Thanks for the info about the current failed CMG.
But I'm still looking for data on the failed CMG which was replaced last year.  ;)

Don't remember where I read it, but I read it was being refurbished to have as a spare.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: tesheiner on 10/18/2006 09:34 AM
Yep.
This last report about the currently falied CMG also includes a note talking about refurbishment of the old CMG-1, but no details wrt its condition right after returning it back from the station.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spirit on 10/19/2006 04:41 PM
Why will Roskosmos increase the production of Progress ships after 2009 when ATV and HTV will be flying. Now for a crew of three the Russians launch four Progress ships per year. The Progress transports 1 700 kg of cargo. 4 x 1 700 = 6 800 kg. That's for three crew members. ATV alone delievers 7 500 kg and HTV 7 900 kg. So one ATV and one HTV launches per year should be enough to support a six member crew. And still the Russians plan to increase Progress production instead of decreasing it. What's wrong with my calculations?

A second question: 4 x Souyz per year for supporting six crew member rotation. This means that no space tourists and no short duration (8-10 days) cosmonauts will fly after 2009. Is that going to happen?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 10/19/2006 05:28 PM
It is not just crew support.  The Progress and ATV provide fuel and attitude control.   Larger mass and drag profile of the ISS means more fuel is required.   With the addition of the Columbus and KIBO, there will be more experiments to fly to the ISS.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Danderman on 10/19/2006 06:38 PM
Quote
Spirit - 19/10/2006  9:24 AM

Why will Roskosmos increase the production of Progress ships after 2009 when ATV and HTV will be flying. Now for a crew of three the Russians launch four Progress ships per year. The Progress transports 1 700 kg of cargo. 4 x 1 700 = 6 800 kg. That's for three crew members. ATV alone delievers 7 500 kg and HTV 7 900 kg. So one ATV and one HTV launches per year should be enough to support a six member crew. And still the Russians plan to increase Progress production instead of decreasing it. What's wrong with my calculations?

A second question: 4 x Souyz per year for supporting six crew member rotation. This means that no space tourists and no short duration (8-10 days) cosmonauts will fly after 2009. Is that going to happen?

It is not uncommon for Russian plans to have large numbers of Soyuzes and Progresses flying in the "out" years. However, the real plans are decided upon about 18 months before launch of any particular article.

As for the 4 Soyuzes a year, there would be double the number of flight opportunities for space tourists if that came to pass.

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spirit on 10/19/2006 08:53 PM
I don't understand that. There will be 4 Souyzes. The first two will transport x3 astrounats that are members of a 6 moth expedition. Then the second two will transport the 6 crew members of the next expedition 6 moths later. So where are the tourists?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 10/20/2006 01:56 AM
Quote
Spirit - 19/10/2006  3:36 PM

I don't understand that. There will be 4 Souyzes. The first two will transport x3 astrounats that are members of a 6 moth expedition. Then the second two will transport the 6 crew members of the next expedition 6 moths later. So where are the tourists?

Same place they are now, in the third seat of the Soyuz, at least until September 2010. Currently ISS has a crew of three, with one rotating on shuttle and the other two rotating on Soyuz. That opens up the third seat on Soyuz for a tourist. The same scheme can continue when the crew goes to six, with four on Soyuz and two on shuttle, leaving two seats open for tourists. After the shuttle fleet is retired, all six will rotate on Soyuz and there will be no tourists seats until either COTS or Orion becomes available, or Russia ramps up Soyuz production further to add dedicated tourist flights.
--
JRF
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: dbhyslop on 10/20/2006 02:05 AM
Quote
Jorge - 19/10/2006  9:39 PM
After the shuttle fleet is retired, all six will rotate on Soyuz and there will be no tourists seats until either COTS or Orion becomes available, or Russia ramps up Soyuz production further to add dedicated tourist flights.

Since they're going to have to double the flight rate just for ISS staffing, is it realistic from an operational perspective that there would be additional flights just for tourists?

Dan
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: lmike on 10/20/2006 02:06 AM
Quote
Spirit - 19/10/2006  9:24 AM
...
So one ATV and one HTV launches per year should be enough to support a six member crew.
...

I think it's not only the amount that's important but also the frequency (relating to the cost of a launch as well).  Or at least an ability to deliver small amount of crucial supplies on shorter notice.  Fresh fruit, parcels from family, drinking water, tool replacements, spare parts to repair broken machinery, perishables, etc...  (some of these may not sound important, but they do help folks up there endure half a year stretch in space)  A super large delivery capability is certainly desirable for some things, but frequent (well, relatively, once in 3 months at least) small and (relatively) inexpensive deliveries will still be needed.  With a larger crew the frequency also increases in importance as a parameter.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: dutch courage on 10/20/2006 02:01 PM
Quote
dbhyslop - 20/10/2006  3:48 AM

Quote
Jorge - 19/10/2006  9:39 PM
After the shuttle fleet is retired, all six will rotate on Soyuz and there will be no tourists seats until either COTS or Orion becomes available, or Russia ramps up Soyuz production further to add dedicated tourist flights.

Since they're going to have to double the flight rate just for ISS staffing, is it realistic from an operational perspective that there would be additional flights just for tourists?

An extra seat would be available if the four persons ACTS would be developed befor the Shuttle retirement. Although I don't see this happening before 2014.

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 10/20/2006 03:02 PM
ACTS?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: bobthemonkey on 10/20/2006 03:07 PM
advanced crew transportation system - RSA/ESA joint venture to develop a new vehicle.  Its in a bit of a political quagmire at the moment. If I wasa betting man then Id say if anything comes from it, its going to be a Guyana launched soyuz with some technology from ATV and maybe the zond heatshield. But thats a guess, and proably too optimistic.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: mr.columbus on 10/20/2006 04:01 PM
Quote
Jorge - 19/10/2006  9:39 PM

Quote
Spirit - 19/10/2006  3:36 PM

I don't understand that. There will be 4 Souyzes. The first two will transport x3 astrounats that are members of a 6 moth expedition. Then the second two will transport the 6 crew members of the next expedition 6 moths later. So where are the tourists?

Same place they are now, in the third seat of the Soyuz, at least until September 2010. Currently ISS has a crew of three, with one rotating on shuttle and the other two rotating on Soyuz. That opens up the third seat on Soyuz for a tourist. The same scheme can continue when the crew goes to six, with four on Soyuz and two on shuttle, leaving two seats open for tourists. After the shuttle fleet is retired, all six will rotate on Soyuz and there will be no tourists seats until either COTS or Orion becomes available, or Russia ramps up Soyuz production further to add dedicated tourist flights.
--
JRF

There seems to be another way to go that people are often forgetting about. As someone else has mentioned on another thread, the next generation of Soyuz (starting 2008) will be certified to stay on orbit for 1 year. That means you could just leave the flight rate at 2 Soyuz per year and increase the crew rotation periods from 6 months to 12 months.

That said, Soyuz flight rates of 4 per year are not a condition for a permanent crew of 6. The real bottleneck are Progress flights which will have to be increased from currently 4 a year to at least 6 a year.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Danderman on 10/21/2006 01:39 AM
Quote
That said, Soyuz flight rates of 4 per year are not a condition for a permanent crew of 6. The real bottleneck are Progress flights which will have to be increased from currently 4 a year to at least 6 a year.

I believe the real plan is to continue the 4 Progress per year, and have ESA pay its common ops costs via cargo transport on ATV, and for JAXA to do the same with HTV. That is how they get to a 6 person crew; excepting that its TBD how 4 Soyuz a year get paid for.

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: MKremer on 10/21/2006 02:16 AM
If ATV is successful, it's probably worth at least a couple of Progress vehicles per year (supplies/gasses/thrust), so I can't see a need for extra Progress flights for a 6-person crew, in that case.
Also, don't forget JAXA's supply vehicle is within that period (assuming it finishes development and flies within the current projected schedule).
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: dutch courage on 10/21/2006 03:25 PM
Quote
Danderman - 21/10/2006  3:22 AM

I believe the real plan is to continue the 4 Progress per year, and have ESA pay its common ops costs via cargo transport on ATV, and for JAXA to do the same with HTV. That is how they get to a 6 person crew; excepting that its TBD how 4 Soyuz a year get paid for.

With the high oil and natural gas prices Russia is making a lot of money. Ofcourse how the money is divided is always a hot issue.

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spirit on 10/21/2006 04:51 PM
I watched the latest ISS assembly video on www.nasa.gov and I saw several elements that are not included in the latest ISS Configuration model. Which are the components in red on this screen shot and what are their functions?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 10/21/2006 04:56 PM
Pre positioned spare ORU's, which might be carried on 3 of the last 4 flights
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spirit on 10/21/2006 05:57 PM
So the ORUs will contain CMGs, pumps and other stuff of that sort?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spirit on 10/23/2006 07:14 PM
Who docks and undocks the Progress ships - the ISS crew or the ground control?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spiff on 10/23/2006 08:54 PM
automatic afaik. Manual back up by Tyurin if things go wrong.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: hop on 10/23/2006 09:42 PM
Quote
Spiff - 23/10/2006  1:37 PM

automatic afaik. Manual back up by Tyurin if things go wrong.
Indeed, the ground has no capability for real-time remote control. AFAIK undockings are normally pre-programmed from the ground. Of course, the crew still has to button up the hatches etc. beforehand.

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spirit on 10/23/2006 09:51 PM
AFAIK undockings?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: reubenb on 10/24/2006 06:49 AM
(As Far As I Know)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Danderman on 10/26/2006 04:07 PM
With the new truss segment, are there new cameras available that are farther from the center of the station than the previous cameras? I was wondering why the views of the latest Progress docking could not image the approaching vehicle (on the -V bar).
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: dutch courage on 10/27/2006 02:44 PM
Quote
Danderman - 26/10/2006  5:50 PM

With the new truss segment, are there new cameras available that are farther from the center of the station than the previous cameras? I was wondering why the views of the latest Progress docking could not image the approaching vehicle (on the -V bar).

The best view would be from the aft Zvezda (SM) windows. Thomas Reiter made some photo's of the approaching Progress out of the Zvezda windows.

The external TV camera's can't be placed further out or else they would be (in future anyway) rotating all the time. ;)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Danderman on 10/27/2006 04:48 PM
I am still trying to find a photo of that aft window!
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: dutch courage on 10/28/2006 01:05 PM
Quote
Danderman - 27/10/2006  6:31 PM

I am still trying to find a photo of that aft window!

After some searching I found a Zvezda details page with near the bottom a number of detailed drawings of Zvezda.
In the 'Forward view' you can see Window 26 which faces aft.

Go to: http://www.suzymchale.com/mks/sm.html

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Danderman on 10/28/2006 05:23 PM
Yep, there it is, thanks.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: dutch courage on 10/29/2006 12:04 PM
Yesterday I was watching the National Geographic documentary 'Inside: space launch' which showed the training and spaceflight of Greg Olson. Returning with expedition 11 Sergei Krikalev and John Philips there was air leaking from the docking port. In 1971 three cosmonauts died when air leaked from their Soyuz.

I haven't heard anything on this during/after Expedition 11 neither from NASA nor from the media.

From MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9888881/ Dangling strap to blame for scary space leak?


Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: hop on 10/29/2006 08:52 PM
Quote
dutch courage - 29/10/2006  4:47 AM
I haven't heard anything on this during/after Expedition 11 neither from NASA nor from the media.
The problems were mentioned, although as usual for the Russian side, the details didn't come out until after the landing.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Suzy on 10/30/2006 06:41 AM

Quote
dutch courage - 29/10/2006  9:47 PM

 

Yesterday I was watching the National Geographic documentary 'Inside: space launch' which showed the training and spaceflight of Greg Olson. Returning with expedition 11 Sergei Krikalev and John Philips there was air leaking from the docking port. In 1971 three cosmonauts died when air leaked from their Soyuz.

 

I haven't heard anything on this during/after Expedition 11 neither from NASA nor from the media.

 
 

From the ISS-11 Post-Increment Evaluation Report PDF document mentioned in this post:

 
 

The separation command initiation and physical separation were approximately 4 minutes later than originally planned due to discussions on the Descent Module pressure integrity. It was noted by Sergei Krikalev and the Russian Mission Control that the pressure in the Habitation Module) was holding steady; however the pressure in the Descent Module was slowly decreasing. Subsequent evaluation determined that the pressure decrease was primarily driven by the crew’s consumption of the Descent Module Oxygen (O2) and the removal of CO2 by the Soyuz CO2 scrubber system. Prior to this, two other small issues were found and resolved. The first issue occurred during the leak check between the Habitation Module and the Descent Module. Sergei Krikalev noted an audible leak during the leak check and isolated it to the pressure equalization valve between the modules. After cycling the equalization valve the leak was eliminated and the leak check was successfully completed. The second issue occurred during the pressure leak check of the crews SOKOL suits. It was noted that there was no oxygen flow to the suits. The crew re-initialized the leak check, cycled the Soyuz O2 valve and successful O2 flow was initiated with the suit. The de-orbit burn was nominally performed with a delta velocity of 115.2 meters per second.

 
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: dutch courage on 10/30/2006 01:36 PM
Thanks Suzy. Nice site you have by the way with all kinds of Russian spacenews.
What's your special interest in Russian spaceflight?

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Suzy on 10/31/2006 02:25 AM
Thanks :) Don't know, I just like it, and the way they do things (except for dumb advertising stunts).
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: dutch courage on 11/07/2006 02:57 PM
I was watching the animation of the mating of P5 to P4 and I saw that the station arm was almost fully stretched. I'm wondering if the arm can reach the end of P5 to mate P6?

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Gary on 11/07/2006 05:16 PM
Don't forget that CanadaArm2 can 'inchworm' it's way across the ISS to special attachment points so that it can be in the best place for any work it needs to do.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: spacedreams on 11/08/2006 05:57 AM
The arm will be based off the Mobile Servicer which can translate down the track to a parking spot close enough for the mate.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: dutch courage on 11/10/2006 03:22 PM
The JAXA KIBO module is being moved. Any reason?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spirit on 11/12/2006 06:50 PM
Check this out: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/15A_Install.html
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spirit on 12/02/2006 08:40 PM
In a recent NASAcast Mike Leinbach said that Discovery launched P3/4 because it was too heavy for Atlantis and that Atlantis is heavier than Discovery. But Atlantis is launching S3/4! Does this mean that P3/4 is heavier than S3/4?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: psloss on 12/02/2006 09:15 PM
Quote
Spirit - 2/12/2006  4:23 PM

In a recent NASAcast Mike Leinbach said that Discovery launched P3/4 because it was too heavy for Atlantis and that Atlantis is heavier than Discovery. But Atlantis is launching S3/4! Does this mean that P3/4 is heavier than S3/4?
Other way around -- Atlantis launched P3/P4 on ISS-12A (STS-115, as shown) and is also scheduled to launch S3/S4 on ISS-13A (STS-117).  From what I understand, the weight difference is only a few hundred pounds, but those two launches have narrow performance margins.  In that situation, a couple hundred pounds becomes more significant.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: triddirt on 12/09/2006 12:33 AM
Based on the recent performance by the Expedition 14 Astronaut Happy Birthday band there is obviously an electronic keyboard and an acoustic guitar on board.
Does someone have a list of other musical instruments currently on board and their status (permanent or personal).

I've got to believe a harmonica has come and gone at some time.

So who is our ISS Musical history buff?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: nacnud on 12/12/2006 02:17 AM
The P6 truss as currently mounted to the Z1 truss has three radiators sticking out of it. However when finally attached to the P5 truss it only seems to have one radiator. What happens to the other two? Will they be attached to the either of the three panel radiators inboard of the solar arrays?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 12/12/2006 05:20 AM
Quote
nacnud - 11/12/2006  9:00 PM

The P6 truss as currently mounted to the Z1 truss has three radiators sticking out of it. However when finally attached to the P5 truss it only seems to have one radiator. What happens to the other two? Will they be attached to the either of the three panel radiators inboard of the solar arrays?

Nope, they are different types of radiators. The three panel radiators inboard (P1/S1) are the External Active Thermal Control System (EATCS) while the additional radiators on P6 are Early EATCS (EEATCS). The EEATCS radiators are actually Photo Voltaic Radiators (PVRs) taken from the S4 and S6 truss segments. They are smaller than the EATCS radiators and are not interchangeable. The center EATCS radiators on each have been deployed, and the other two are still retracted and will be deployed later (this can't be done until after the FGB solar arrays are retracted, since they stick out far enough to interfere with TRRJ rotation).

The PVR on the forward side of P6 is the permanent one; the starboard and aft PVRs are EEATCS. Originally, the plan was to launch the S3/S4 and S6 truss segments without PVRs and relocate the P6 EEATCS radiators to them via EVA. That plan has changed for STS-117. The flight was oversubscribed on EVA hours and as a get-well NASA decided to launch S3/S4 with its own PVR. As far as I know, NASA still plans to launch S6 without a PVR on STS-119 and relocate an EEATCS radiator to it. The EEATCS radiator that would have gone to S4 will simply be retracted and remain on P6.
--
JRF
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: fburnell on 12/12/2006 05:30 AM
From my understanding, it was originally planned to transfer the extra two radiators to S4 and S6.  However, it was later decided to fly S4 and S6 with radiators attached. I believe they will be stored on P6 as on-orbit spares.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: jarthur on 12/14/2006 04:26 PM
This question goes back aways, but why is the PMA from Unity to the FGB angled? Why not just have all the modules, i.e.  Destiny, Unity, Zarya and Zvesda in line with each other instead of the US and Russian segments slightly offset from each other?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Squid.erau on 12/14/2006 05:05 PM
Another question, probably easy to answer, but i'm curious.  I know for the last few shuttle missions to the ISS, whenever an EVA was planned, the astronauts had to 'camp out' in the Quest airlock overnight before the EVA.  So, I'm guessing that this means that they have to eat/go to the bathroom etc. while in the airlock, prior to EVA.  Are there specific facilities in the airlock for this, or do they just use the EVA suit equipment?  Thanks in advance.

Matt
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: dutch courage on 12/14/2006 05:38 PM
Quote
Squid.erau - 14/12/2006  6:48 PM

Another question, probably easy to answer, but i'm curious.  I know for the last few shuttle missions to the ISS, whenever an EVA was planned, the astronauts had to 'camp out' in the Quest airlock overnight before the EVA.  So, I'm guessing that this means that they have to eat/go to the bathroom etc. while in the airlock, prior to EVA.  Are there specific facilities in the airlock for this, or do they just use the EVA suit equipment?  Thanks in advance.
After the EVA crew wake up they will put on masks and breath pure oxigen.
They will than go back into the station and do their business.

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 12/14/2006 05:56 PM
Quote
jarthur - 14/12/2006  12:09 PM

This question goes back aways, but why is the PMA from Unity to the FGB angled? Why not just have all the modules, i.e.  Destiny, Unity, Zarya and Zvesda in line with each other instead of the US and Russian segments slightly offset from each other?

Because it uses the same PMA design as PMA1 & 2 which the shuttle docks to.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: jarthur on 12/14/2006 06:59 PM
Quote
Because it uses the same PMA design as PMA1 & 2 which the shuttle docks to.

Was that purely a budget decision?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Mark Nguyen on 12/14/2006 07:13 PM
Probably... It accomplishes the same goal and an interconnect is needed anyway, so why not simply build a third PMA instead of designing a new one? It doesn't really affect station attitude and the complex is balanced properly along the main axis anyway. I guess it really just keeps someone from throwing a baseball straight down the entire length of the station. :)

Mark
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 12/14/2006 07:21 PM
Quote
jarthur - 14/12/2006  2:42 PM

Quote
Because it uses the same PMA design as PMA1 & 2 which the shuttle docks to.

Was that purely a budget decision?

Not budget, but common sense.  Why use another design, when you have one that works?  Especially for just looks.

PMA are made to go from APAS to CBM's.   The Node has CBM's and the shuttle and FGB have APAS
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: thomasafb on 12/14/2006 08:03 PM
Question regarding the people manning the consoles (esp. ADCO and PHALCON) at the ISS FCR:

is there a list of who they are?

Frankly, i don't think that they get all the credit they deserve, with the media (and the JSC website) mostly focusing on the astronauts but not the controllers.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Mark Nguyen on 12/14/2006 09:34 PM
It's the same old story as Hollywood, where the glamourous people high up get the credit (i.e. the actors / astronauts, and the director / NASA Administrator). Everyone else below them do extremely important jobs critical to the overall success of the mission, but they're barely mentioned in the press.

Mark
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Squid.erau on 12/14/2006 10:52 PM
Thank you for the answer Dutch Courage :)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: spacedreams on 12/15/2006 09:01 PM

Quote
Squid.erau - 14/12/2006 9:48 AM Another question, probably easy to answer, but i'm curious. I know for the last few shuttle missions to the ISS, whenever an EVA was planned, the astronauts had to 'camp out' in the Quest airlock overnight before the EVA. So, I'm guessing that this means that they have to eat/go to the bathroom etc. while in the airlock, prior to EVA. Are there specific facilities in the airlock for this, or do they just use the EVA suit equipment? Thanks in advance. Matt

Unfortunately the airlock doesn't have any facilities. While the hatch is closed they just have to "hold it" but they are asleep most of thetime anyhow. There are extra MAGs (astronaut diapers) on board so that is an option but they would never tell us if they did.  Of course they can take some food in the airlock if they have the munchies for the campout period. In the morning they open up the hatch for a hygeine break to get breakfast, brush teeth, use the facilities. During that time they have to wear a mask that has a pure O2 supply. And yes, brushing your teeth with a mask on can be a little tricky.
 

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Chandonn on 12/16/2006 03:40 AM
Couple of questions  When are the FGB arrays scheduled to be retracted?

Also, as I understand it, while the shuttle has about 90% KU-band coverage per orbit, ISS has about 50% due to structural blocking.  WHen the port P6 array finally retracts, will KU-band coverage increase?

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: MKremer on 12/16/2006 04:42 AM
Quote
Chandonn - 15/12/2006  10:23 PM

Couple of questions  When are the FGB arrays scheduled to be retracted?
Until/unless the Russian 'power tower' is launched and docked all the Russian portion arrays will be needed.

Quote
Also, as I understand it, while the shuttle has about 90% KU-band coverage per orbit, ISS has about 50% due to structural blocking.  WHen the port P6 array finally retracts, will KU-band coverage increase?

I don't think that 90% figure includes ISS docking - ISS has as much or more KU availability than a docked orbiter because of antenna 'blocking'.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 12/16/2006 05:47 AM
Quote
MKremer - 15/12/2006  11:25 PM

Quote
Chandonn - 15/12/2006  10:23 PM

Couple of questions  When are the FGB arrays scheduled to be retracted?
Until/unless the Russian 'power tower' is launched and docked all the Russian portion arrays will be needed.

The Russian power tower (Science Power Platform) is no longer part of the ISS Assembly Sequence. This occurred when the total number of post-Columbia shuttle flights was reduced from 28 to 20. The US has agreed to transfer power to the Russian segment to compensate. Therefore the SPP is no longer a constraint to FGB solar array retraction.

The FGB solar arrays must be retracted prior to deploying the inboard and outboard EATCS radiators on the S1 and P1 trusses. Currently, FGB solar array retraction is scheduled for the 13A stage just prior to STS-118. The S1 EATCS radiators will be deployed during STS-120, while the P1 radiators will have to wait until the 10A stage after Node 2 is relocated to its permanent location on Destiny.
--
JRF
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: anik on 12/16/2006 06:43 AM
Quote
Jorge - 16/12/2006  9:30 AM

Currently, FGB solar array retraction is scheduled for the 13A stage just prior to STS-118

Jorge, is it fresh information?...

According to NASA Increment Definition and Requirements Document for ISS Increment 15 (SSP 54015, September 2006, see on pages 29 [in table] and 67 [item 7]) (http://images.spaceref.com/news/2006/SSP54015.pdf), this operation is planned during 13A.1 stage (i.e between STS-118 and STS-120)...

According to page 71 [item C] and my information, the contingency spacewalk from Pirs airlock for manual retraction of Zarya module's solar arrays (if they are not retracted automatically) is scheduled in August 2007...
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 12/16/2006 04:19 PM
Quote
anik - 16/12/2006  1:26 AM

Quote
Jorge - 16/12/2006  9:30 AM

Currently, FGB solar array retraction is scheduled for the 13A stage just prior to STS-118

Jorge, is it fresh information?...

According to NASA Increment Definition and Requirements Document for ISS Increment 15 (SSP 54015, September 2006, see on pages 29 [in table] and 67 [item 7]) (http://images.spaceref.com/news/2006/SSP54015.pdf), this operation is planned during 13A.1 stage (i.e between STS-118 and STS-120)...

I thought it was fresh, but not as fresh as yours. My source was the ISS Assembly and Mass Properties Databook, Rev W, July 2006. Thanks for the update!
--
JRF
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 12/16/2006 10:56 PM
Quote
MKremer - 16/12/2006  12:25 AM

Quote
Chandonn - 15/12/2006  10:23 PM

Couple of questions  When are the FGB arrays scheduled to be retracted?
Until/unless the Russian 'power tower' is launched and docked all the Russian portion arrays will be needed.

Quote
Also, as I understand it, while the shuttle has about 90% KU-band coverage per orbit, ISS has about 50% due to structural blocking.  WHen the port P6 array finally retracts, will KU-band coverage increase?

I don't think that 90% figure includes ISS docking - ISS has as much or more KU availability than a docked orbiter because of antenna 'blocking'.

He was referring to the P6 truss and array blocking the ISS KU.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spiff on 12/17/2006 01:05 PM
Question about the P6 solar array retraction and Soyuz dockings.

Why is it a problem to dock to FGB Nadir with the P6 partially extended? It's been fully extended for years with soyuses/progresses docking there a lot of times.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: psloss on 12/17/2006 01:23 PM
Quote
Spiff - 17/12/2006  8:48 AM

Question about the P6 solar array retraction and Soyuz dockings.

Why is it a problem to dock to FGB Nadir with the P6 partially extended? It's been fully extended for years with soyuses/progresses docking there a lot of times.
I believe during one of the recent briefings it was noted that the blankets on a fully extended wing are under tension, which makes the structure more rigid.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spiff on 12/17/2006 02:37 PM
Ah ok. Thanks Philip
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Avron on 12/17/2006 09:59 PM
Have the CETA carts been used at all? ( or are they just there for weight lifting)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: spacedreams on 12/18/2006 06:11 AM
The CETA carts have been used a few times now. I even remember Mike LA using them during his 11A assembly mission and commenting on how smooth they were. The EVA guys have indicated that they are an invaluable tool but just a little inconvenient during this initial assembly phase because if you kept one on each side you couldn't get the Mobile Servicer + Robotic arm out far enough to attach the outer trusses. It is a combination of where the CETA cart stops are and where the bases for the MSS are
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: jarthur on 12/18/2006 03:48 PM
Quote
Mark Nguyen - 14/12/2006  12:56 PM

so why not simply build a third PMA instead of designing a new one? It doesn't really affect station attitude and the complex is balanced properly along the main axis anyway.

Mark

So I guess this makes me wonder why have it angles in the first place? My initial thought would be that they want to provide extra clearances by moving the station further away from the crew cabin, but picture show it does just the opposite.  Perhaps they wanted to open up more space above the payload bay to help get station components out of the bay?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Mark Nguyen on 12/18/2006 09:11 PM
It's built that way for shuttle clearance, as I recall. They have to have certain bits of equipment in the PMA to function properly, so the PMA can't be a simple tube. However, it can be angled off-axis for connection to the shuttle adapter, but it has to clear the shuttle's upper flight deck in order to do so. You should be able to find pics of the shuttle docked at ISS from the side that demonstrates this.

Mark
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: gordo on 12/26/2006 11:08 PM
When Node 2 goes up, PMA 2 is re-located onto it, ao with all the other hardware now up there can the Orbiter still dock to PMA1 on Unity?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: nacnud on 12/26/2006 11:56 PM
I think it has to be able to as a contingency
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Chandonn on 12/27/2006 01:21 AM
Quote
gordo - 26/12/2006  6:51 PM

When Node 2 goes up, PMA 2 is re-located onto it, ao with all the other hardware now up there can the Orbiter still dock to PMA1 on Unity?

PMA-1 connects Unity to Zarya.  The shuttle cannot dock there.  PMA-3 is currently attached to the Port side CBM of Unity (to free up the Nadir CBM for MPLM's to dock, as they have to outfit the lab early on -- but that's about to change).

Before STS-120 is launched next summer, PMA-3 will be relocated to the Nadir CBM on Unity, freeing up the Port side CBM.  When the shuttle arrives with Node-2 it will be temporarily dicked to the Port side CBM (for issues related to the SSRMS's reach with a shuttle docked).  After the shuttle leaves, PMA-2 will be disconnected from the Forward end of Destiny, then docked to the end of Node-2.  Then The station crew wil move Node-2 to the forward end of Destiny.  When the shuttle returns for STS-122 (and the Columbus lab) it will dock to PMA-2 at the forward end of Node-2 and Destiny.

It's kind of a spacewalk ballet as these modules are rotated in and out between shuttle flights.

Hope that helps!   I asked the same questions myself a while back!



Chris
[edited for typos and brevity]
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Relic on 12/29/2006 04:14 PM
I have a question about the expansion of ISS crew from 3 to 6 in late '08?

With the habitation module down and out, and with the recent reshuffle of the assembly sequence, has this agreed-upon "bump" in permanent crew without the habitation module been adquately explained recently? Now, I understand the STS-128 flight of Endeavour will take up to the station "three-person crew facilities," which includes a "kitchen" and new treadmill. What exactly does this mean? Will this boost in crew quarters be incorporated permanently inside be the "Donatello" MPLM, which, I believe, is the only one of the three Italian modules that can carry powered cargo. Will Donatello be left behind on the station when the shuttle debarks from the station? Or, like the science racks installed into Destiny, will these be crew quarter racks moved into slots on Destiny, or either Node 2 or Node 3?

Or perhaps I'm jumping the gun and no determination has yet been made on how exactly this will be done. If so, I apologize.

Thanks in advance for any information. It's appreciated.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 12/29/2006 06:03 PM
MPLM can not be left in orbit.   However, there is Node 3
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: hornet on 12/31/2006 09:34 AM
Anyone know when the U.S. oxygen generator will come online i think it was delivered on the sts-121 mission and is supposed to come on early in 2007 but anyone a more specific time?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: hektor on 12/31/2006 10:10 AM
Donatello will never fly.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 12/31/2006 04:00 PM
Quote
hornet - 31/12/2006  4:17 AM

Anyone know when the U.S. oxygen generator will come online i think it was delivered on the sts-121 mission and is supposed to come on early in 2007 but anyone a more specific time?

After the CCS R6 software load is uplinked to the station.
--
JRF
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: TJL on 01/02/2007 02:47 AM
Quote
hektor - 31/12/2006  5:53 AM

Donatello will never fly.

Why's that?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 01/02/2007 02:59 AM
Quote
TJL - 1/1/2007  10:30 PM

Quote
hektor - 31/12/2006  5:53 AM

Donatello will never fly.

Why's that?
It has be "mothballed" along with XXXXX (need to look this up) since there are only 3 MPLM flights left
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: hektor on 01/02/2007 06:49 AM
Donatello will never fly because there are only (P) missions of MPLM in the manifest - no (A) mission.
Its CBM could be cannibalized and used for a future LIDS adapter on the ISS.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Olaf on 01/02/2007 07:36 AM
Quote
hektor - 2/1/2007  1:32 AM

Donatello will never fly because there are only (P) missions of MPLM in the manifest - no (A) mission.
Its CBM could be cannibalized and used for a future LIDS adapter on the ISS.

What is the difference between a (P) or (A) mission?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 01/02/2007 12:00 PM
Active and passive
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Olaf on 01/02/2007 01:29 PM
Quote
Jim - 2/1/2007  6:43 AM

Active and passive

Thanks. But another question, what does active and passive mean for a MPLM?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 01/02/2007 01:34 PM
Active could support powered payloads
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Olaf on 01/02/2007 01:58 PM
Quote
Jim - 2/1/2007  8:17 AM

Active could support powered payloads

Thanks again.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Relic on 01/02/2007 02:38 PM
According to the launch manifest, the three sleeping cabins will be sent up by the shuttle roughly a year before Node 3 is due to be linked to the station. Will these "cabins" temporarily be housed inside either Node 2 or even the Destiny lab? Eventually, the way I have it, the station's six permanent sleeping cabins are as follows: Three (eventually) inside Node 3, 1 currently inside the Destiny lab, and the 2 permanent cabins inside Zvezda.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: bobthemonkey on 01/02/2007 03:55 PM
i think another permanent cabin is meant to be in the MLM, which is due for launch in 2009 if memory serves

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Relic on 01/02/2007 04:10 PM
Interesting, this is the first I've heard about this. So, there will be three cabins on the "Russian" side, and three on the "U.S./Europe/Japan" side?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: bobthemonkey on 01/02/2007 04:22 PM
if i remember correctly yes. The info probably came from a post by anik on here.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: norm103 on 01/04/2007 02:35 PM
dose anyone know when the next parts of the iss will be at the cape, exp. node 3, JEM-PM, JEM-EF, ect
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: hektor on 01/04/2007 02:39 PM
They all are except Node 3
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: hektor on 01/04/2007 02:39 PM
I am still interested in the launch sequence of the MPLMs models, for the last three flights.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: norm103 on 01/04/2007 05:32 PM
when did they come in last i knew was that they were in jap.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 01/04/2007 06:29 PM
Quote
norm103 - 4/1/2007  1:15 PM

when did they come in last i knew was that they were in jap.

Been here for years
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Rapoc on 01/04/2007 07:42 PM
Kibo Japanese Experiment Module - Pressurized Module (JEM-PM)
Kibo Japanese Experiment Module - Exposed Facility (JEM EF)
Kibo Japanese Experiment Logistics Module - Exposed Section (ELM-ES)
Kibo Japanese Experiment Logistics Module - Pressurized Section (ELM-PS)
Japanese Remote Manipulator System (JEM RMS)

These are the five components from Japan. I have only seen photos from the JEM-PM at KSC. Why are no photos of the arrival of the other parts in the media library?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 01/04/2007 07:51 PM
Quote
Rapoc - 4/1/2007  3:25 PM

Kibo Japanese Experiment Module - Pressurized Module (JEM-PM)
Kibo Japanese Experiment Module - Exposed Facility (JEM EF)
Kibo Japanese Experiment Logistics Module - Exposed Section (ELM-ES)
Kibo Japanese Experiment Logistics Module - Pressurized Section (ELM-PS)
Japanese Remote Manipulator System (JEM RMS)

These are the five components from Japan. I have only seen photos from the JEM-PM at KSC. Why are no photos of the arrival of the other parts in the media library?

 The PM is the center piece and gets the attention.  The others are only "support" components and PAO didn't think it is worth photograhing the arrivals
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Suzy on 01/04/2007 11:20 PM
Another ISS computer question: what is the operating system used on the personal laptops - Windows 98 or XP?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 01/05/2007 02:41 AM
Quote
Suzy - 4/1/2007  6:03 PM

Another ISS computer question: what is the operating system used on the personal laptops - Windows 98 or XP?

The old (IBM ThinkPad 760XD) laptops ran Windows 98. The new (IBM A31p) laptops run Windows 2000.
--
JRF
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: MKremer on 01/05/2007 02:53 AM
I wonder how soon they'll be switching to Linux?
(don't see how any of the existing equipment can handle Vista, and Win2000 is close to EOL status for MS support/upgrades)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 01/05/2007 12:17 PM
Quote
MKremer - 4/1/2007  9:36 PM

I wonder how soon they'll be switching to Linux?
(don't see how any of the existing equipment can handle Vista, and Win2000 is close to EOL status for MS support/upgrades)

They can buy a couple of years by upgrading to XP. Granted, that's not NASA's usual modus operandi; they usually skip every other Windows release on the laptops.

Vista will probably run on an A31p (NASA's are 1.8 GHz P4) with all the bells and whistles turned off, and if it won't, it will probably still be cheaper for NASA to replace all the laptops than to port and re-certify their custom applications under Linux. Even the COTS applications will be problematic; NASA makes extensive use of VB macros in MS Office docs that probably won't port well to OpenOffice.

Granted, NASA is making use of Linux in many other areas (such as MCC and in the training simulators), but as a Unix replacement, not a Windows replacement.
--
JRF
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Suzy on 01/08/2007 06:33 AM
...Another laptop question: at one time there were some Wiener Power laptops in the Russian segment (mentioned in this old document). Are these still in use, or were they replaced with ThinkPads?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Gerald Andrew Richli on 01/10/2007 11:58 AM
What are the current plans for SpaceDRUMS and Vulcan research facilites on the space station? Have they been cancelled in the wake of Columbia disaster? They would pave they way for manufacturing in space.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 01/10/2007 12:24 PM
Quote
Gerald Andrew Richli - 10/1/2007  7:41 AM

What are the current plans for SpaceDRUMS and Vulcan research facilites on the space station? Have they been cancelled in the wake of Columbia disaster? They would pave they way for manufacturing in space.

They have been many experiments/facilities that will or have flown and have this goal.  These two aren't any different.  They still have to prove themselves
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spiff on 01/12/2007 02:34 PM
This has been asked before but I can't seem to find it. So excuse me for asking again.

Why do the Soyuz craft always dock at Zvezda aft and are then subsequently moved to Zarya nadir? It is usually done in advance of a Progress docking at Zvezda, but why not dock the Progress at Zarya?

Thanks in advance!
Spiff
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: anik on 01/12/2007 06:42 PM
Quote
Spiff - 12/1/2007  6:17 PM

Why do the Soyuz craft always dock at Zvezda aft and are then subsequently moved to Zarya nadir? It is usually done in advance of a Progress docking at Zvezda, but why not dock the Progress at Zarya?

The using of Progress engines for raising ISS orbit is more profitable, when the cargo ship is docked to the aft end port of Zvezda module, not to the port of Pirs module or to the nadir port of Zarya module...
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spiff on 01/18/2007 08:24 AM
Ok thanks Anik I understand that. :) Follow up question.
Can Progress craft move to another port once they've docked? For example. The Progress that was launched this morning will dock at Pirs. Can it move to Zvezda for better orbit raising performance?
Or will it pump it's propellant to ISS for reboost using Zvezda engines?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: anik on 01/18/2007 07:15 PM
Quote
Spiff - 18/1/2007  12:24 PM

Can Progress craft move to another port once they've docked? For example. The Progress that was launched this morning will dock at Pirs. Can it move to Zvezda for better orbit raising performance?

Progresses can do such relocations, because they have enough fuel for that after docking... There were many cases of relocations of Progresses (however with undocking and docking from/to the same port) in the past...

But there is no necessity in such relocations in the near future... Progress M-58 engines will perform raisings of ISS orbit till April 8... Zvezda engines will be used for that from May 4 till August 11... If there will be necessity to make orbit's raisings between April 9 and May 3, Progress M-59 engines can be used for that then...

Quote
Spiff - 18/1/2007  12:24 PM

Or will it pump it's propellant to ISS for reboost using Zvezda engines?

All Progresses are pumping part of their fuel to Zarya or Zvezda tanks...
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Rapoc on 01/19/2007 09:35 AM
Quote
Jim - 4/1/2007  9:51 PM

Quote
Rapoc - 4/1/2007  3:25 PM

Kibo Japanese Experiment Module - Pressurized Module (JEM-PM)
Kibo Japanese Experiment Module - Exposed Facility (JEM EF)
Kibo Japanese Experiment Logistics Module - Exposed Section (ELM-ES)
Kibo Japanese Experiment Logistics Module - Pressurized Section (ELM-PS)
Japanese Remote Manipulator System (JEM RMS)

These are the five components from Japan. I have only seen photos from the JEM-PM at KSC. Why are no photos of the arrival of the other parts in the media library?

 The PM is the center piece and gets the attention.  The others are only "support" components and PAO didn't think it is worth photograhing the arrivals

JEM-PS delivery scheduled for March 2007, launch on STS-123
JEM-PM on site in SSPF (delivered in April 2003), launch on STS-124
JEM-RMS scheduled for delivery in January 2007, launch with JEM-PM on STS 124
JEM-EF and ELM-ES delivery scheduled for April 2008, launch on STS-127

Here are the dates I have found.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Rapoc on 01/23/2007 09:21 PM
Here is the JEM-RMS

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: jarthur on 01/23/2007 09:46 PM
With the launch of Columbus occurring later this year, or early next year, I have started wondering about its capabilities and have found conflicting info on the web. How many research racks does it carry? I have found both 10 and 8 plus 3 avionics racks and 3 storage racks. Either way, the numbers I have found will not lead to a symmetric module, so what is the extra space being used for?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Analyst on 01/24/2007 06:03 AM
Columbus has 16 rack positions, 4 on each side. It will launch with 3 system racks, and 5 other racks (science and stowage).
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 01/27/2007 05:23 PM
Quote
Suzy - 8/1/2007  1:33 AM

...Another laptop question: at one time there were some Wiener Power laptops in the Russian segment (mentioned in this old document). Are these still in use, or were they replaced with ThinkPads?

They are being replaced by the A31p. A bunch of them went up on a Progress in December. I don't know if they've transitioned to using them yet. Even after that, there will be one Wiener Power laptop used as a server for some time.
--
JRF
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Voyager1 on 02/14/2007 05:17 PM
Does anyone know when, after the proposed 2010 completion of the station, full time scientific research will begin? How many scientists will be allowed research time? Will NASA's astronaut program expand much because of this?

Also, has there been any speculation as to the future of biological research aboard the ISS?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 02/14/2007 06:05 PM
Quote
Voyager1 - 14/2/2007  1:17 PM

1. Does anyone know when, after the proposed 2010 completion of the station, full time scientific research will begin?

2. How many scientists will be allowed research time?

3. Will NASA's astronaut program expand much because of this?

4. Also, has there been any speculation as to the future of biological research aboard the ISS?

1.  There is research on the ISS now.  There really won't be "full time" research since some of the astronauts time is involved in maintance, etc.  "Full time" research with respect to ISS and 2010  means that it will no longer be under construction and can be fully manned and the emphasis will be on research.  

2.  If you mean how many on aboard?  It doesn't work that way.  scientists build experiments that get flown to the ISS.  Astronaut tend to the experiments.  A few of the astronauts may be researchers, but most of them are career astronauts

3. There are too many as it is

4.  It is ongoing and will continue
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: TJL on 02/14/2007 10:04 PM
I have a question regarding the flight duration of current and future shuttle delivered Flight Engineers aboard the ISS.
Sunita Williams is scheduled to spend over 200 days in space on her current flight.
Clayton Anderson is scheduled to spend approximately 90 days.
Dan Tani...approx. 90 days.
Leo Eyharts...approx. 60 days.
Garrett Reisman...approx. 200 days.
Sandy Magnus...approx. 90 days.
My question is, (with the exception of Anderson) why would "rookie" astronauts get longer flights than the veterans?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Gerald Andrew Richli on 02/17/2007 12:52 PM
Destiny "Laboratory" Module is more than a Laboratory module. The functions of Destiny module is Research equipment, lab space, power distribution, enviroment control, Life Support, attitude control, robotics workstations. It is a multipurpose module. It could be renamed the Destiny Command Module for the ISS. What say ya?:)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 02/17/2007 02:26 PM
Quote
Gerald Andrew Richli - 17/2/2007  8:52 AM

Destiny "Laboratory" Module is more than a Laboratory module. The functions of Destiny module is Research equipment, lab space, power distribution, enviroment control, Life Support, attitude control, robotics workstations. It is a multipurpose module. It could be renamed the Destiny Command Module for the ISS. What say ya?:)

"Power distribution, enviroment control, Life Support, attitude control, robotics workstations" most of these will be moved into Nodes 2&3

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 02/17/2007 02:49 PM
Quote
Jim - 17/2/2007  3:26 PM

Quote
Gerald Andrew Richli - 17/2/2007  8:52 AM

Destiny "Laboratory" Module is more than a Laboratory module. The functions of Destiny module is Research equipment, lab space, power distribution, enviroment control, Life Support, attitude control, robotics workstations. It is a multipurpose module. It could be renamed the Destiny Command Module for the ISS. What say ya?:)

"Power distribution, enviroment control, Life Support, attitude control, robotics workstations" most of these will be moved into Nodes 2&3


I have read on several sites that since the cancellation of the Habitation module, node 3 will house those things, which makes sense as the stuff from destiny is being moved into there. But will any sleeping stations be put in that module? And if not, where will a crew of six sleep?

Thanks :)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Gerald Andrew Richli on 02/17/2007 08:09 PM
Crew  will be expanded to 6 before Node 3 is launched. Node 3 requires favorable political climate to be launched. Let's hope the  budget is not cut. 2 will sleep in Zvesda, 2 in Node 2 and perhaps 2 will sleep in Multipurpose Laboratory Module. Galley Rack will be in Node 2. I believe that Russian Multipurpose Laboratory Module is Required for a creww of 6. S6 Truss with solar arrays is also required for a crew of 6 since SSP is cancelled.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Gerald Andrew Richli on 02/20/2007 10:21 PM
When will Window Observation Research Facility (WORF) be delivered to Destiny Module?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Rocket Guy on 02/23/2007 03:54 PM
It was delivered with it installed. http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/worf/
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: parham55 on 04/02/2007 04:10 PM
Now that I'm at the end of the thread I still have a question given recent events.  Why is it necessary to move the current Soyuz from Zarya’s nadir to Zvezda’s aft so the incoming Soyuz can dock?  It seems that it would be easier and safer to only have one docking maneuver rather than having one undocking and two docking maneuvers.  It seems a bit redundant to me.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 04/02/2007 05:38 PM
The storage position of the Soyuz is Zarya’s nadir.  Either way, Zvezda’s aft has to be open for Progress dockings, so there still would be a movement of a Soyuz.  The "old" goes to the aft since it will be returning to earth soon after the "new" soyuz arrives
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: anik on 04/02/2007 05:39 PM
Quote
parham55 - 2/4/2007  8:10 PM

Why is it necessary to move the current Soyuz from Zarya’s nadir to Zvezda’s aft so the incoming Soyuz can dock? It seems that it would be easier and safer to only have one docking maneuver rather than having one undocking and two docking maneuvers. It seems a bit redundant to me

At first, there was such variant: Soyuz TMA-10 will dock to Zvezda's aft, then (after Soyuz TMA-9 landing) Soyuz TMA-10 will relocate to Zarya's nadir, then Progress M-60 will dock to Zvezda's aft...

But after postponing of STS-117 flight, Expedition 14 crew has gotten much free time... Therefore Russian and U.S. specialists have decided to perform another variant: Soyuz TMA-9 will relocate to Zvezda's aft, then Soyuz TMA-10 will dock to Zarya's nadir, then (after Soyuz TMA-9 landing) Progress M-60 will dock to Zvezda's aft...
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: parham55 on 04/02/2007 05:46 PM
Jim and Anik, thank you both.  I can't believe I forgot about Progress.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Analyst on 04/02/2007 08:36 PM
Quote
Ben - 23/2/2007  5:54 PM

It was delivered with it installed. http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/worf/

I believe this is not correct. Destiny was delivered with the window itself (of course), but WORF is a special rack to mount cameras etc. behind this window. I am sure it has not been launched yet and is delayed or even canceled.

Analyst
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: MKremer on 04/02/2007 10:57 PM
Quote
Analyst - 2/4/2007  3:36 PM

Quote
Ben - 23/2/2007  5:54 PM

It was delivered with it installed. http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/worf/

I believe this is not correct. Destiny was delivered with the window itself (of course), but WORF is a special rack to mount cameras etc. behind this window. I am sure it has not been launched yet and is delayed or even canceled.

Analyst
Yeah, for whatever reason, WORF isn't there yet. Anyone can easily confirm that by viewing daily ISS video feeds from Destiny via NASA-TV.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: bobthemonkey on 04/02/2007 11:41 PM
According to http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/168741main_AIAA_2007_ISSProgress.pdf 2008, but this would mean flying in one of the partner modules or Node 2. The next MPLM flight is set for ULF 2 in 09.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: spacetiger on 05/01/2007 11:48 AM
Quote
MKremer - 2/4/2007  5:57 PM

Quote
Analyst - 2/4/2007  3:36 PM

Quote
Ben - 23/2/2007  5:54 PM

It was delivered with it installed. http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/worf/

I believe this is not correct. Destiny was delivered with the window itself (of course), but WORF is a special rack to mount cameras etc. behind this window. I am sure it has not been launched yet and is delayed or even canceled.

Analyst
Yeah, for whatever reason, WORF isn't there yet. Anyone can easily confirm that by viewing daily ISS video feeds from Destiny via NASA-TV.

WORF is not there, yet. Currently planned for Flight 17A, but possibly ULF2 if some of the ECLSS racks get behind in schedule. There are a couple of payloads planned to utilize WORF once it gets there. WORF was originally scheduled and loaded on ULF1 but was re-prioritized after Columbia.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Endeavour118 on 05/29/2007 02:15 AM
since return to flight  they get the crew of 3 up to the iss 2 ways
2 up/down soyuz
1 up/down shuttle
When The Iss Crew is expanded to 6 soon what will they do?
3 up/down soyuz
3 up/down shuttle
Or another way
How Come They do not do teams of 3 anymore?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: MKremer on 05/29/2007 02:44 AM
Seems to me going from 3 to 6 as a "permanent" crew size is either very heavily depending on Soyuz, or successful and operational manned COTS-type (ie: private industry contracted) missions, for successful crew transfer.
Not to mention it will also require/depend on at least 2 Soyuz craft continuously docked for emergency evacuation lifeboats even well before the Shuttle program is done for.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Danderman on 06/07/2007 06:57 PM

Quote
MKremer - 28/5/2007  7:44 PM  Seems to me going from 3 to 6 as a "permanent" crew size is either very heavily depending on Soyuz, or successful and operational manned COTS-type (ie: private industry contracted) missions, for successful crew transfer. Not to mention it will also require/depend on at least 2 Soyuz craft continuously docked for emergency evacuation lifeboats even well before the Shuttle program is done for.

 

Ergo, NASA is paying for construction of 3 extra Soyuzes for 2009-11.

 

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 06/07/2007 08:36 PM
Quote
Endeavour118 - 28/5/2007  9:15 PM

How Come They do not do teams of 3 anymore?

The Russians like it because they can sell the third seat to tourists.

The US likes it because they can rotate the third crewmember more often.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: hornet on 06/11/2007 09:34 AM
Will the Japanese resupply craft be able to return to Earth? I haven't been able to find the answer myself and i think it will be no but i could be wrong. Thanks in advance
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 06/11/2007 11:04 AM
Quote
hornet - 11/6/2007  5:34 AM

Will the Japanese resupply craft be able to return to Earth? I haven't been able to find the answer myself and i think it will be no but i could be wrong. Thanks in advance

It has no reentry vehicle
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Ankle-bone12 on 06/12/2007 05:46 AM
does anyone know where I ccan find a comlete layout of all cameras stationed on the ISS. Im sure there's something in L2-- maybe somebody can link me...?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: MKremer on 06/12/2007 07:06 AM
Quote
Ankle-bone12 - 12/6/2007  12:46 AM

does anyone know where I ccan find a comlete layout of all cameras stationed on the ISS. Im sure there's something in L2-- maybe somebody can link me...?
External? I believe there's one on Destiny (forward, zenith), 4 on the truss (2 nadir and zenith ends of P1/S1), and the SSRMS cameras.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 06/12/2007 07:14 PM
Quote
Ankle-bone12 - 12/6/2007  6:46 AM

does anyone know where I ccan find a comlete layout of all cameras stationed on the ISS. Im sure there's something in L2-- maybe somebody can link me...?

On the inside, I think there are two cameras each in Destiny and Unity, one at each end avove the hatch entrance... :)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 06/14/2007 02:01 AM
Are there any updates on the status of the Russian computers?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Satori on 06/14/2007 05:04 PM
I'm seraching for information regarding the possible studies about the use of RTG's on the ISS. Can anyone point me on the right direction?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: shostetler on 06/18/2007 09:59 PM
Ok, so the ISS is moving at 17,500mph right? I was wondering this today, if they are moving that fast, then how if you're in space do you know you're stopped? How do you really know how fast you're traveling if there's nothing to gauge it by? And how do we know the ISS isn't really just stationary and that the earth is really just moving underneath it, making it seem like it's moving at 17,500mph? Is the ISS on a continual path dodging other objects up there? Just had to ask this...
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 06/18/2007 10:01 PM
read up on orbital mechanics
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: eeergo on 06/18/2007 11:15 PM
Jim's right, if you want to really understand how this works, you should read some book about orbital physics. Even wikipedia would do for starters. However, I'll try to explain in a few words the basic idea behind what you ask.

You've actually deduced by yourself the relativity principle, which states that if you're moving at a constant velocity, it's impossible for you to know (and for anyone else moving at CONSTANT velocity with respect to you) if you're the one moving or your reference is the one moving. Or a combination of both, of course. In fact, it's irrelevant who's moving, what matters is the relative velocity between you and your reference. That implies there isn't a real "reference" to compare your velocity with, it's only a matter of convinience.

A satellite, however, is somewhat different. It's not moving at constant velocity (the value of the velocity is constant, but its direction is not) and, as you'll realize if you digg deeper into this, there are forces that act upon it. The same happens with Earth revolving around the sun, or, in general, any ordinary circular movement. Draw in your head the Station's velocity as an arrow, pointing in the direction it's moving. If you look from far away, you'll realize this arrow is always changing direction, trying to point towards Earth: it's trying to fall. That's why it's commonly said astronauts around Earth are not beyond gravity's reach, but only falling. But, as Earth is round, it goes so quick it always falls beyond its 'rim', thus circling it forever. Try imagining a cannon: you can fire balls from it, and they'll fall to the ground, but if you manage to fire them with enough velocity, the curve of the Earth will make them fall ever farther, until they start circling it.

So, here the Earth attracts the ISS, making it 'fall' (exerting a force) We conclude it's moving around us because of this force. As I've said, only if something's moving without any force acting upon it, is when you can't know if it's you moving or that something.

As for the question about the continuous path, dodging objects... well, there ARE many pieces of orbital debris, but not so many threaten the ISS so as to dogde them. Every now and then it must slightly change its orbit to avoid collisions, but nothing like every day! Space is immense, and even LEO is quite roomy :)

Hope to have clarified things a bit. But I strongly suggest you to look for more detailed information, you've already hinted a good lot all by yourself!
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 06/20/2007 01:12 AM
"Are there any updates on the status of the Russian computers"

No change.  The secondary power supply over voltage/current circuit has been bypassed.  4 lanes are up (2 each type) and 1 lane is cold.  Cause not yet identified.  Likely will be like this until the new computers, retrofitted with new power supply filters are launched on 26P on July 22.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 06/21/2007 12:48 AM
Will the station be permanently "flying" with the Russian segment going nose first, or will it be turned back around with the US segment going nose first?  I know it was turned around recently using the CMG's in a test of non propulsion menuvuering.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 06/21/2007 02:13 AM
US lab/PMA 2 flight front (what we call XVV - +X in the velocity vector) is the norm.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 06/21/2007 02:21 AM
Quote
brahmanknight - 20/6/2007  7:48 PM

Will the station be permanently "flying" with the Russian segment going nose first, or will it be turned back around with the US segment going nose first?  I know it was turned around recently using the CMG's in a test of non propulsion menuvuering.

It is already turned back around with the US segment going nose first.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 06/25/2007 07:09 PM
Is there a baseline yet for how the crewmembers for 6 person ISS will be yet?  You now have a commander, a flight engineer, and science officer.  Will the others just be SO's?  And what are the flight engineer's duties?  The other two positions are self explanitory.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: jarthur on 06/29/2007 10:20 PM
On the subject of cmg's, what is their current status? I am probably way behind, but last I remember cmg-3 was down and perhaps there was one other flaky one?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 06/30/2007 05:44 AM
Is there a list somewhere of when the Beta Angle Cutouts occur? Are they regularly occuring events and easy to predict?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: psloss on 06/30/2007 12:54 PM
Quote
Trekkie07 - 30/6/2007  1:44 AM

Is there a list somewhere of when the Beta Angle Cutouts occur?
Not sure where else, but they are in documents in L2 on this site.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 07/07/2007 12:31 AM
"On the subject of cmg's, what is their current status? I am probably way behind, but last I remember cmg-3 was down and perhaps there was one other flaky one?"

CMG-3 will be replaced on 13A.1.  The other are fine though some showing the same sort of behavior.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: dutch courage on 07/11/2007 01:37 PM
There's some movement in the SSPF. They are about to move Columbus, any idea why?

NOPE, it didn't go anywhere...  :bleh:
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Space Cadet on 07/19/2007 04:11 AM
This is from a NASA Request for Information to contractors vying to provide crew quarters, galley, waste management and other facilities/equipment for the expansion to a six-person crew on ISS. From 2003:

Part A: ISS Astronaut Crew Habitability Equipment
Introduction In order for the crew of the ISS to increase from a size of 3 crew members to a size of 4 - 7 crew members, additional crew habitability equipment (CHE) is required onboard the ISS. CHE includes: Crew Quarters, Crew Galley, Wardroom Table, Waste and Hygiene Compartment, and Waste Collection System.
These items are briefly described below. All items will have operating lifetimes of 15 years. It is expected that all items will fit within and utilize an International Standard Payload Rack (ISPR) location. The ISPR locations to be used may be located either in Node 3 or in the US Laboratory Destiny. (Information about the dimensions and characteristics of an ISPR location is contained in Part D.) The equipment will allow for periodic inspections, preventative or corrective maintenance, restoration to original performance, and replacement of components. All items will be transported to the ISS using the Space Shuttle and must withstand the launch environments.

So it looks like Node 3 and Destiny will be used. The full document is available here:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10387

Hope that helps.


 :bleh:
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 07/20/2007 03:48 PM
When are they going to flip the station around for the EAS disposal?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 07/21/2007 02:42 AM

GMT 22:00 on July 22 is the maneuver to -XVV.  The flip back is late Monday night, about 11 hours after the jettison.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Maty on 07/21/2007 02:41 PM
First the formalities: Long time lurker, first time poster.

Now for the meat: The upcoming EVA will include cleaning of the docking port on Unity, how will this be achieved?  Surely it won't be a simple case of a spray with some compressed air, as the first thought would be down here.  Will it be wiped clean?  Or another method more suited to a spacewalker?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 07/21/2007 03:12 PM
Just wiped  and inspecting
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 07/21/2007 06:34 PM
I wish they would use a camara to document the "flip."  Just for us orbital mechanic geeks.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: psloss on 07/21/2007 08:03 PM
Quote
brahmanknight - 21/7/2007  2:34 PM

I wish they would use a camara to document the "flip."
You can get something of that flavor watching downlink in the post orbiter docking and pre orbiter undocking periods given the maneuver they do to go from the normal station attitude to the docked attitude and back.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: MKremer on 07/21/2007 10:01 PM
Quote
brahmanknight - 21/7/2007  1:34 PM

I wish they would use a camara to document the "flip."  Just for us orbital mechanic geeks.

Might be interesting, but whether using the CMGs or Progress thrusters it would take too long from start to finish (15-30 minutes or longer) to warrant some type of constant video recording. Most ISS maneuvers happen in pretty 'slow motion' and don't lend themselves to realtime video monitoring.

You have to remember that 99% of the on-orbit video is to support the folks onboard ISS, not just to downlink "cool images" for the rest of us here on Earth.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 07/22/2007 02:53 AM
I understand that.  Like I wrote, "I wish."
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 07/22/2007 05:53 AM
"Just wiped and inspecting"

Fyodor Yurchikin will use a scraper tool used for TPS repair.  it will be like cleaning snow off a car if you live in teh north.  If that doesn't work, tape will be used.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 07/22/2007 05:55 AM
"Might be interesting, but whether using the CMGs or Progress thrusters it would take too long from start to finish (15-30 minutes or longer) to warrant some type of constant video recording. Most ISS maneuvers happen in pretty 'slow motion' and don't lend themselves to realtime video monitoring. "

It will be done on Thursters.  The cameras will be on and you might see something.  But keep in mind this is not Star Trek where there is always that mysterious camera that is far off and can provide some outside view - the cameras here are attached to the ISS.  :)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: C5C6 on 07/22/2007 07:06 AM
just a thought, has there been sattelite (or UFO) sightings from the ISS?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: NotGncDude on 07/23/2007 01:34 AM
I am scratching my head trying to figure out why the ISS inclination is 51.6 deg since Baikonur's latitude is 45.6 deg . Why the extra 6 degrees?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: DaveS on 07/23/2007 01:38 AM
Quote
GncDude - 23/7/2007  3:34 AM

I am scratching my head trying to figure out why the ISS inclination is 51.6 deg since Baikonur's latitude is 45.6 deg . Why the extra 6 degrees?
To avoid dumping spent stages into Chinese territory. It would be like NASA dumping the spent SRBs onto Cuba.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: NotGncDude on 07/23/2007 05:09 AM
LOL. I like your comparison. Thanks.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 07/28/2007 04:50 PM
Great link on ISS attitudes

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/flash/iss_attitude.html
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 07/28/2007 05:13 PM
Quote
C5C6 - 22/7/2007  9:06 AM

just a thought, has there been sattelite (or UFO) sightings from the ISS?

No.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 07/28/2007 07:04 PM
Quote
Jim - 28/7/2007  5:50 PM

Great link on ISS attitudes

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/flash/iss_attitude.html

Thanks Jim. Found that really helpful as I didn't have a clue what the Solar beta Angle was all about!  ;)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 07/29/2007 02:50 PM
What OS does the Russian Segment computers run?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 07/29/2007 05:00 PM
When did NASA decide to rotate expeditions in the manner they are doing currently....with an ex 15a crew for one part and an ex 15b crew for another part?  Was this the plan all along, or a post-Columbia thing?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 07/29/2007 05:31 PM
Quote
brahmanknight - 29/7/2007  12:00 PM

When did NASA decide to rotate expeditions in the manner they are doing currently....with an ex 15a crew for one part and an ex 15b crew for another part?  Was this the plan all along, or a post-Columbia thing?

Post-Columbia.

Pre-Columbia, the plan (as followed on STS-102, 105, 108, 111, and 113) was to rotate all three crewmembers at once on the shuttle. Short-duration "taxi crews" rotated out the Soyuz every six months, but did not remain on station. Sometimes the third seat on these taxi crews was sold to tourists.

After the accident there was some sentiment to moving the entire ISS crew to Soyuz but the Russians wanted to continue selling the third seat. So now we have two rotating on Soyuz and one on the shuttle. Since it is impossible to keep the two schedules lined up, that means the ISS crewmember rotating on shuttle overlaps two main expeditions.

This has had some drawbacks and some advantages. The shuttle crewmember doesn't get to train as much with his/her crewmates, but on the other hand, moving two of the ISS crew off shuttle has allowed the shuttle crew to be filled out with specialists trained on the complex assembly tasks, so it's not such a big deal that the third crewmember doesn't train much with the other two. It has also made crew handovers much more effective. Before, all three crewmembers handed over at once and you had to cram all the handover tasks into a week. Now, there are crewmembers that overlap expeditions and are familiar with the station, so it's not so time-critical to hand over every detail during that one week.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 07/29/2007 06:12 PM
Quote
Jorge - 29/7/2007  12:31 PM

Quote
brahmanknight - 29/7/2007  12:00 PM

When did NASA decide to rotate expeditions in the manner they are doing currently....with an ex 15a crew for one part and an ex 15b crew for another part?  Was this the plan all along, or a post-Columbia thing?

Post-Columbia.

I should add that, though this change coincided with return-to-flight after Columbia, the accident was not the direct cause.

The Intergovernmental Agreements on ISS required Russia to provide the first eleven Soyuz spacecraft as the ISS crew return vehicle. The eleven craft ran out in 2005, by which point (the assumption at the time was) the US X-38 CRV would be ready.

After the accident, Russia reminded NASA that the agreement was due to expire and that NASA would have to pay for any Soyuz use after 2005. This was a bid to get Congress to amend the Iran Nonproliferation Act, which forbade the US government from making payments to Russia related to ISS. The bid was successful; Congress caved and amended the act, allowing NASA to buy Soyuz flights through the end of 2011.

But these hardball tactics by the Russians also spurred NASA to end the practice of free shuttle rides for Russian cosmonauts. Since the Russians would not pay, that forced their crew rotations to Soyuz. Nikolai Budarin, on STS-113 in 2002, will in all likelihood have been the last Russian ever to launch on a shuttle.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 07/29/2007 09:04 PM
"The shuttle crewmember doesn't get to train as much with his/her crewmates, but on the other hand, moving two of the ISS crew off shuttle has allowed the shuttle crew to be filled out with specialists trained on the complex assembly tasks, so it's not such a big deal that the third crewmember doesn't train much with the other two. It has also made crew handovers much more effective. Before, all three crewmembers handed over at once and you had to cram all the handover tasks into a week. Now, there are crewmembers that overlap expeditions and are familiar with the station, so it's not so time-critical to hand over every detail during that one week."

Far more disadvantages.  It makes training and planning for the crew extremely difficult.  As shuttles move around (with and without an expeidtion person) we have to replan a lot.  The crew now get a lot more training much of it obsolete by the time they fly.  It would be one thing if so many other issues weren't tied to specific dates that can't change.  And as for handover, it works well in the case of Reiter to Williams with L-A on board, but doesn't fit for all crews just as when Clay took over.  So I would not say that is a big savings.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: fburnell on 08/02/2007 06:32 AM
In a number of ISS On-Orbit Status Reports over the years there has been mention of various noise abatement measures being taken on  the ISS such as replacing fans and installing dampeners.  I remember reading that early on the crew had to wear ear plugs which interfered with them hearing the caution and warning  alarms.  

Does anyone know how much progress has been made in this area?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 08/03/2007 12:47 AM
"Does anyone know how much progress has been made in this area?"

Still on going.  Sounds baffles still being added to equipment in the RS.  Some in the FGB in the near future as closeout panels are added.  Still very noisy up there.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Andy_Small on 08/13/2007 08:28 PM
how will parts like the CMG be replaced after the retirement of the orbiter?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: MKremer on 08/13/2007 08:30 PM
Assuming there's more failures than on-orbit spares, COTS or HTV.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Andy_Small on 08/13/2007 08:31 PM
their hatches are large enough for things like CMG?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: MKremer on 08/13/2007 08:36 PM
External (non-pressurized) cargo area on the resupply vehicle. Also some talk of redesigning for smaller (but more) CMG modules to attach to the same fittings.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 08/13/2007 08:36 PM
Quote
Andy_Small - 13/8/2007  4:31 PM

their hatches are large enough for things like CMG?

They can be carried externally
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Andy_Small on 08/13/2007 08:38 PM
awesome.  Thanks guys!
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: bobthemonkey on 08/16/2007 02:55 PM
Just want to clarify a few things about CETA carts in my mind.

They are hand propelled, and use the same rails as the MBS, so must be moved to allow the MBS to access the end worksites as it cannot travel 'over' them?

I've seen a few references to them being moved on EVA's but little mention of operational use. What are they actually used for, and can't the same tasks be performed by SSRMS, or simply by the EVA'ers without the carts.  

I guess I'm missing something here, such as moving ORU's without grapple fixtures, but would like confirmation, as there seems to be very little information in the public domain.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: eeergo on 08/16/2007 03:01 PM

Quote
bobthemonkey - 16/8/2007 4:55 PM Just want to clarify a few things about CETA carts in my mind. They are hand propelled, and use the same rails as the MBS, so must be moved to allow the MBS to access the end worksites as it cannot travel 'over' them? I've seen a few references to them being moved on EVA's but little mention of operational use. What are they actually used for, and can't the same tasks be performed by SSRMS, or simply by the EVA'ers without the carts. I guess I'm missing something here, such as moving ORU's without grapple fixtures, but would like confirmation, as there seems to be very little information in the public domain.

I saw a spacewalk where the EVAers used the CETA carts, I think it was in 116 (although I'm not really sure) These carts are used when the spacewalkers have to transport some extra equipment that cannot be attached to their suits, and at the same time the SSRMS isn't available or is not practical for holding one spacewalker on a foot restraint.

Maybe someone with more access to ISS hardware info can expand this, or correct something...

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: j2_ on 08/16/2007 03:30 PM
I think I remember Mike Lopez Alegria and Suni Williams using the CETA carts on one of their ISS spacewalks.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: bobthemonkey on 08/16/2007 04:44 PM
Thanks. It seemed at least that most of the CETA operations were moving it out of the way, rather than using it in an operational sense.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/16/2007 07:58 PM
Why do transfer operations seem to take so much time and so many people?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: stockman on 08/16/2007 08:04 PM
Quote
Lee Jay - 16/8/2007  3:58 PM

Why do transfer operations seem to take so much time and so many people?


because all the payload entering the ISS has to be catalogued as to WHAT is going WHERE in their inventory system. Can't just have a bunch of STUFF thrown in there willy-nilly

Conversely items going into shuttle for return is catalogued as well as probably weight distributed so you don't have an imbalance to one side of the orbitor.

There may be other reasons but that is my nickels worth.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: jarthur on 08/16/2007 08:13 PM
Here's an out of the blue question, but I was trying to get it straight in my mind about the current research capabilities on ISS.

So, of the 24 rack locations in the Destiny lab, I believe there are 22 actual racks in place, 1 zero g storage racks, and the window which will eventually hold worf. Is this correct?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: bobthemonkey on 08/16/2007 08:42 PM
I believe so, but some of those are avionics, rather than research.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 08/16/2007 09:02 PM
Quote
jarthur - 16/8/2007  4:13 PM

Here's an out of the blue question, but I was trying to get it straight in my mind about the current research capabilities on ISS.

So, of the 24 rack locations in the Destiny lab, I believe there are 22 actual racks in place, 1 zero g storage racks, and the window which will eventually hold worf. Is this correct?

there is less.  there is map on L2
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: jarthur on 08/16/2007 09:09 PM
Quote
Jim - 16/8/2007  3:02 PM

there is less.  there is map on L2

Oh L2. If I wasn't concerned about loosing absolutely all productivity, I would be all over it. I guess my question boils down to: is there still one zero g storage rack in Destiny?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 08/16/2007 09:21 PM
I will look tomorrow
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: jarthur on 08/16/2007 09:43 PM
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: jarthur on 08/16/2007 09:44 PM
Nevermind, I think this image answers my question. There is a zero g stowage rack in the lab105 location. Thanks though!

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 08/16/2007 11:36 PM
there is more than one
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: jarthur on 08/17/2007 05:06 PM
Quote
Jim - 16/8/2007  5:36 PM

there is more than one

Thanks?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 08/17/2007 07:02 PM
I was wrong, there is only one now.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: hornet on 08/19/2007 12:00 AM
What do they use to "shower" on the station? Because I know they can't just turn the water on just like we do here.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: bobthemonkey on 08/19/2007 12:10 AM
wet towels. There was a study looking at a more conventional shower for the Hab, but that was some time ago and didn't get very far as far as I am aware.

There was a shower on Mir (Kvant 2) but It took a lot of work to set up and clean down, and in the end I believe that it was used as a storage area.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 08/19/2007 12:17 PM
How long until the wireless system for the truss is operational?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: TJL on 08/19/2007 07:00 PM
Which shuttle flight holds the record for longest period docked to ISS?
Thank you.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 08/19/2007 07:11 PM
Currently we will step up to it in late September at the earliest.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Michael Z Freeman on 08/24/2007 10:15 PM
OK, here's mine.

Is there a public resource showing all the elements of the ISS, so it's easy to find out what every part does and how it's involved in the operating of the station ?

A related issue. Is there a public, up to date, model of the ISS somewhere, in, say, DXF or some shareable format ? I know about the NASA VRML model, but its difficult to import VRML97 ... I want to make a model of the ISS with hi res photo's mapped onto sheets that will show clearly the details and where they are.

DJ Barney
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Bruce on 08/24/2007 10:22 PM
Quote
DJ Barney - 24/8/2007  11:15 PM

I want to make a model of the ISS

DJ Barney

Look here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1806&posts=444&highlight=model&highlightmode=1

http://www.marscenter.it/eng/veicol.asp?pa=6055
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Michael Z Freeman on 08/24/2007 10:29 PM

Thanks Bruce. That looks like the business  :cool:

DJ Barney

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Andy_Small on 08/27/2007 02:44 AM
What is the purpose of the white circles on the outside structures of ISS?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 08/27/2007 03:06 AM
Quote
Andy_Small - 26/8/2007  9:44 PM

What is the purpose of the white circles on the outside structures of ISS?

Those are targets for the Space Vision System (SVS), a sensor developed by Canada to aid RMS/SSRMS berthing for cases where the arm operator has no direct view.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Andy_Small on 08/27/2007 03:09 AM
Quote
Jorge - 26/8/2007  10:06 PM

Quote
Andy_Small - 26/8/2007  9:44 PM

What is the purpose of the white circles on the outside structures of ISS?

Those are targets for the Space Vision System (SVS), a sensor developed by Canada to aid RMS/SSRMS berthing for cases where the arm operator has no direct view.
So are the active or passive sensors?  
I was thinking they were the grapple fixtures for the RMS and SSRRMS but I guess those are more complicated than just a small circle
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: MKremer on 08/27/2007 03:44 AM
Passive - the program compares the dot positions from several different camera views to use in calculating the correct positioning and alignment of modules to help with CBM docking and some truss units' assembly.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Michael Z Freeman on 08/29/2007 05:08 PM

Hello Bruce !

Great links about the modelling, especially the gold Shuttle / carrier that belongs to one of the editors here  :cool:

There is no information there that I can find about digital models though.

There was a virtual walk through  (should that be float through?) of the ISS produced in about 2001, but it is now somewhat outdated and not importable into other packages.

NASA do have an entire page devoted to a VRML model of the station, but again I cannot find anything that imports  it ( VRML97 / VRML 2.0 ).

There's the same problem with these CAD models , amazing as they are.

AGI (the people that supply NASA's realtime simulation software, that you see running alongside launches)  also have models, but again, I can't view them with their free viewer, and the software that I think I need to load the model is only available to contracters. Even if I can get that software, again, I don't think I can extract the model for other packages.

I want to build a public page that will show a digital model along with hi res photos alongside the model (ie actually IN the running model world) to make understanding where the astronauts are working as clear as possible. I find it difficult to believe that there is not a model out there somewhere that is in DXF, 3DS or some other importable format.

DJ Barney

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: atmahan on 08/29/2007 07:01 PM
DJ Barney,

I'm the guy that made the models at:

http://www.geocities.com/i_s_s_alpha/iss_alpha.htm

I am interested in what you are proposing. Let me know what you need and maybe I can help you out.

atmahan
[email protected]
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: tnphysics on 09/03/2007 11:24 PM
Can somebody post details about the docking mechanisims used on the ISS?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: MKremer on 09/04/2007 12:15 AM
Quote
tnphysics - 3/9/2007  6:24 PM

Can somebody post details about the docking mechanisims used on the ISS?

http://www.google.com
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Chandonn on 09/04/2007 01:36 AM
Quote
tnphysics - 3/9/2007  7:24 PM

Can somebody post details about the docking mechanisims used on the ISS?

US On-orbit Segment (USOS):

APAS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgynous_Peripheral_Attach_System
CBM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Berthing_Mechanism

Russian Segment (RS):

Probe & Drogue/Hybrid/APAS: http://suzymchale.com/kosmonavtka/issdock.html

There is also data in the International Space Station Familiarization Guide:
http://snebulos.mit.edu/projects/reference/International-Space-Station/FAM-C-22109RA.pdf
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: station55 on 09/05/2007 10:18 AM
I've got 3 questions:

1) I wonder will ISS have any influence in preparations to lunar flights? I mean will ISS serve as "bus-stop" to the Moon.
2) How long will ISS serve in Earth's orbit? till 2015? 2020 ?
3) Will Orion spacecrafts dock to ISS via CBM or PMA ?

Thx for reply.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 09/05/2007 11:16 AM
3) Will Orion spacecrafts dock to ISS via CBM or PMA ?

Orion will dock to PMA.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 09/05/2007 11:16 AM
1.  not currently
2 current until 2016
3 APAS on the PMA's using a LIDS adapter

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/15/2007 12:25 AM
The ISS is and will be electrolyzing water to provide Oxygen for the crew.  The hydrogen also generated will be dumped overboard.  If this H2 were put through a cold-gas thruster directed to provide positive delta V for the station, could any significant amount of reboost propellant be saved over the long term?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/15/2007 07:54 PM
Quote
Lee Jay - 14/9/2007  6:25 PM

The ISS is and will be electrolyzing water to provide Oxygen for the crew.  The hydrogen also generated will be dumped overboard.  If this H2 were put through a cold-gas thruster directed to provide positive delta V for the station, could any significant amount of reboost propellant be saved over the long term?

I attempted some very rough back-of-the-envelope calculations and came up with around 200kg/year with the 6-person crew.  It's entirely possible that I didn't do this correctly so I certainly would still like an answer from someone better equipped than me to answer this question.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: TJL on 09/16/2007 12:26 AM
Is there a reason why the next few Shuttle delivered ISS crew members time aboard the station are so limited?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 09/16/2007 03:17 AM
I think it has to do with assured US delivery by a US spaceship.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: mr.columbus on 09/16/2007 11:54 AM

What is the current plan of allocation of crew places for 2009 and 2010 on the ISS? Especially I would be interested if there already are negotiations for the 12 Soyuz seats available in 2010?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 09/17/2007 01:19 AM
"Is there a reason why the next few Shuttle delivered ISS crew members time aboard the station are so limited?"

The crews train for specific missions and stages.  When shuttle flights move around so do they.  For example, Clay Anderson (Exp 15 up there now) was to be much shorter until they moved his flight up (but that was because there were concerns Suni Williams stage would be too long).  Other people like Tani trained for Node 2.  Leo Eyharts is training for the 1E stage.  Then you add in "requirements" like you must have a European for the COlumbus stage, a Japanese for that stage... it chops it up quite a bit.

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: nathan.moeller on 09/26/2007 07:37 PM
Probably an odd question, but part of my Architectural design for this semester currently involves rotating elements based on the ISS solar arrays.  Here we go...

The SARJ assemblies allow the arrays to rotate 360 degrees in the YZ plane with relation to the station's normal direction of travel.  I know they can also rotate in the XZ plane.  Can they rotate 360 degrees in the XZ plane as well?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: texas_space on 10/17/2007 01:38 PM
Space.com article:
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/ap-071016-china-iss.html

China still wants to be part of the ISS I guess.  Politically I think it is a huge long shot that China will be invited to the ISS as a partner.  Technically speaking though what obstacles would prevent just a "visit" by a Shenzou spacecraft to the ISS? I know that it is similar to the Russian Soyuz, but wasn't sure if one could dock as the way the spacecraft is currently configured.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 10/17/2007 01:55 PM
Nathan, AFAIK, yes, the beta (XY ) joints can rotate 360 degrees.  The P6 truss, had to use the Betas to rotate since they didn't have a SARJ at the time and they were on a different rotation plane at the time.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 10/17/2007 02:42 PM
Quote
texas_space - 17/10/2007  8:38 AM

Space.com article:
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/ap-071016-china-iss.html

China still wants to be part of the ISS I guess.  Politically I think it is a huge long shot that China will be invited to the ISS as a partner.  Technically speaking though what obstacles would prevent just a "visit" by a Shenzou spacecraft to the ISS? I know that it is similar to the Russian Soyuz, but wasn't sure if one could dock as the way the spacecraft is currently configured.

China purchased APAS docking mechanisms from Russia. This would allow them to dock to either of the PMAs on the US segment. They didn't mount them on previous Shenzhou spacecraft.

The biggest obstacle is that the Chinese have zero experience in rendezvous and docking, and are extremely secretive about Shenzhou. That is not the way to convince NASA they can approach and dock safely. NASA has considerable insight into ATV and HTV, for example - NASA engineers have been working with ESA and JAXA for over a decade on them. NASA and Russia "grandfathered" each other on ISS since each recognized (back in the mid-90's) that the other had over three decades of rendezvous/docking experience.

So which route will China choose? Will they let NASA engineers crawl up their butts with proctoscopes for a decade to gain the insight necessary to convince themselves that Shenzhou is safe? Or will they let China gain three decades of rendezvous/docking experience on their own before inviting them into ISS?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: stockman on 10/17/2007 02:50 PM
What if the russians simply say, "sure come on up and dock on our side of the station?" - probably not a lot NASA could do to stop it. Similar to the first Space Tourist - Tito - years ago that Nasa was dead set against but couldn't stop.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 10/17/2007 02:52 PM
But you can't use APAS on the Russian side.  They use the older Russian equiment with the probe docking approach.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: MKremer on 10/17/2007 03:06 PM
Quote
stockman - 17/10/2007  9:50 AM

What if the russians simply say, "sure come on up and dock on our side of the station?" - probably not a lot NASA could do to stop it. Similar to the first Space Tourist - Tito - years ago that Nasa was dead set against but couldn't stop.

The ISS international partners would sure have something to say about that, too.

There just won't be room. The Partners won't agree to use a Chinese craft for evacuation, so there will still have to be 2 Soyuz on station. ATVs will dominate the aft end of Zvezda docking use, and there will still likely be more Progress flights as well.
Russia never started their docking module addition before they cancelled it, so there's no chance something like that could make it there before the 2015 deadline.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 10/20/2007 10:31 AM
On Soyouz TMA-11, Malentchenko is the commander (Kommandir), Whitson is the flight engineer (Bort injenier), but which role Anderson is playing ?

Thanks!
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: anik on 10/20/2007 10:52 AM
Quote
Nicolas PILLET - 20/10/2007  2:31 PM

On Soyouz TMA-11, Malentchenko is the commander (Kommandir), Whitson is the flight engineer (Bort injenier), but which role Anderson is playing ?

He is flight engineer-2...
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 10/20/2007 10:58 AM
But in order to have the status of "flight engineer n°2", it is necessary to pass a kind of diploma at TsPK. Do you mean that all the international astronauts arriving with the shuttle have to pass this complicated exam ?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: anik on 10/20/2007 12:33 PM
Quote
Nicolas PILLET - 20/10/2007  2:58 PM

Do you mean that all the international astronauts arriving with the shuttle have to pass this complicated exam ?

All foreign astronauts, included in ISS Expedition crews, are training in GCTC as flight engineers (FE-1 or FE-2) of Soyuz spacecrafts...
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Suzy on 10/22/2007 04:10 AM
Is there any news of whether the Russian equivalent of the EMU SAFER - the USK for the Orlan spacesuit - will ever be launched to the ISS?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: anik on 10/23/2007 06:25 PM
Quote
Suzy - 22/10/2007  8:10 AM

Is there any news of whether the Russian equivalent of the EMU SAFER - the USK for the Orlan spacesuit - will ever be launched to the ISS?

USK was designed and made by NPP Zvezda enterprise at request of NASA, therefore it will be delivered on ISS in any case...

Two USK flight units has already produced and tested... They are possibly ready for launch now...

They can be installed onto Orlan-M and Orlan-MK spacesuits... But I was told that the main task for us now is delivery of the first two new Orlan-MK spacesuits on Progress M-64 (May 2008) and Progress M-66 (September 2008)... Two USK units will arrive to ISS only after that... Probably in 2009...
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: catfry on 10/23/2007 09:16 PM
Any info on differences between Orlan-M and Orlan MK?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Skyrocket on 10/24/2007 12:35 PM
Why is the japanese Experiment Logistics Module launched before the main Kibo lab module. This way the ELM needs to be docked on a interim position on Node-2 and then needs to be relocated, when Kibo has arrived. I am sure, there is a reason for it.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 10/24/2007 01:01 PM
The logistics module carries all the racks that will outfit Kibo when it gets to the station.   Since the lab is so large and heavy, it will be launched as empty as possible.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Skyrocket on 10/24/2007 01:11 PM
Quote
brahmanknight - 24/10/2007  3:01 PM

The logistics module carries all the racks that will outfit Kibo when it gets to the station.   Since the lab is so large and heavy, it will be launched as empty as possible.

But why has the Logistics module to be there before Kibo?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: anik on 10/24/2007 02:07 PM
Quote
catfry - 24/10/2007  1:16 AM

Any info on differences between Orlan-M and Orlan MK?

The answer is here (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=61&start=214)...
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 10/24/2007 03:09 PM
Quote
Skyrocket - 24/10/2007  2:11 PM

Quote
brahmanknight - 24/10/2007  3:01 PM

The logistics module carries all the racks that will outfit Kibo when it gets to the station.   Since the lab is so large and heavy, it will be launched as empty as possible.

But why has the Logistics module to be there before Kibo?

Well maybe certain other parts of STS-123 need to be done to allow STS-124 to go smoothly, maybe spacewalks?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 10/24/2007 06:04 PM
Quote
anik - 24/10/2007  4:07 PM

Quote
catfry - 24/10/2007  1:16 AM

Any info on differences between Orlan-M and Orlan MK?

The answer is here (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=61&start=214)...

An Orlan-MK was exhibited at MAKS-2005. Here are my pictures of the event :

http://membres.lycos.fr/maks2005/maks/008.html
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: catfry on 10/24/2007 07:02 PM
Thank you anik. The lcd screen does not appear to be visible on the pictures.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ChrisC on 10/25/2007 03:55 AM
I have a question that probably has been answered, but I didn't find anything via this forum's search function.  I did search back through 2 years of this Q+A thread before posting ...

A couple years ago I found this nice NASA flash app that explained the various ISS attitudes:

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/flash/iss_attitude.html

For example, it explains XVV and beta angle.  However, the explanations it provides are for the station BEFORE it got the final solar wings deployed.  Now that it has both P and S wings are deployed in their final positions, I believe that the attitude modes should have now changed.

Has anyone seen a good writeup of the new attitudes?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: MKremer on 10/25/2007 04:30 AM
It's now always LVLH (or the XVV) attitude. The only alteration is when an orbiter is docked, in which case it 'swaps ends' so the Russian segment is in front (which helps protect the orbiter from MMOD hits while docked).
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: mtakala24 on 10/28/2007 04:50 PM
About the current issue with the SARJ: Can a SARJ be replaced on-orbit? If not, could it be possible to implement a system that would enable its EVA R&R? Something like this: bring up a solidifier bar with shuttle, bolt the ends of the truss segments around the SARJs to it so that the structure is rigid, and then R&R the SARJ?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: HIPAR on 10/28/2007 08:39 PM
Were the ISS structures assembled on the ground to confirm the interfaces?

---  CHAS
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: rdale on 10/28/2007 08:43 PM
Not all of them, that would have required the ISS to be completely assembled first...
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 10/28/2007 09:14 PM
Quote
HIPAR - 28/10/2007  5:39 PM

Were the ISS structures assembled on the ground to confirm the interfaces?

---  CHAS

Some were connected in what was called MEIT
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Joffan on 11/02/2007 02:49 PM
I just wanted to repost here a Q&A from the STS-120 FD11 thread

Quote
edimus - 2/11/2007  9:28 AM

Quote
Joffan - 2/11/2007  11:19 AM

I know Dextre is on its way upstairs in early 2008 but the boom seems like a useful piece of kit to have around on the space station too. Does anyone know of a plan to leave one up there post-Shuttle? Preferably one adapted to be used by the SSRMS as it is by the SRMS?

The current plan is to stow one on STS-123 on the S1 Truss.  Two support struts were installed on STS-118 on the S1 zenith trunion pins to hold it.  Their is a plan in work to provide power to it while it is stowed.  The sensors would still only be compatible with the SRMS and the SSRMS would still only grapple it from the middle.

Thanks edimus.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Lee Jay on 11/02/2007 04:32 PM
With the coming EVA to repair the torn solar array, there's significant discussion about the electrical hazard posed by the array to an EV astronaut.  This was also mentioned in the past in the context of trying to get the P6 arrays pulled in.

My question is this.  Most of the questions are assuming the hazard is in the electrical power generation of the PV arrays.  But this voltage is quite low, and not generally available at close locations on the array.  I thought the real hazard was instead electrostatic because the arrays are very large and surrounded in a very non-conductive material (Kapton/Polyimide) which can lead its surface to store substantial electric charge.  What is the real source of the electrical hazard to the EV astronauts?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: station55 on 11/05/2007 10:14 AM
guys, what about still stowed radiators on P1 truss segment? When will be deployed as "brothers" located on S1...
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: psloss on 11/05/2007 10:35 AM
Quote
station55 - 5/11/2007  6:14 AM

guys, what about still stowed radiators on P1 truss segment? When will be deployed as "brothers" located on S1...
Chandonn made a good observation in the FD14 thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=10615&start=61#M208505
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ApolloLee on 11/05/2007 04:07 PM
Brought up in the Discovery FD14 thread, but the the thermal cover put up in the Destiny outgoing hatch before hatch closure...Is this a normal proceedure or just for the Harmony relocation?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: stockman on 11/05/2007 04:10 PM
Quote
ApolloLee - 5/11/2007  12:07 PM

Brought up in the Discovery FD14 thread, but the the thermal cover put up in the Destiny outgoing hatch before hatch closure...Is this a normal proceedure or just for the Harmony relocation?
 

I believe this is strictly in preparation for PMA relocate and then subsequent Harmony/PMA locate back to front of Lab... Normally the hatch is left open I believe.

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: MKremer on 11/05/2007 05:47 PM
Quote
stockman - 5/11/2007  11:10 AM

Quote
ApolloLee - 5/11/2007  12:07 PM

Brought up in the Discovery FD14 thread, but the the thermal cover put up in the Destiny outgoing hatch before hatch closure...Is this a normal proceedure or just for the Harmony relocation?
 

I believe this is strictly in preparation for PMA relocate and then subsequent Harmony/PMA locate back to front of Lab... Normally the hatch is left open I believe.

The lab hatch is usually left open, but the PMA hatch is closed (to depressurize and power down the main heaters). They have been using the lab/PMA vestibule for additional storage space up till now (between shuttle missions).
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: dsmillman on 11/08/2007 09:04 PM
Looking at the STS-122 documents I do not see any EVA activity connecting Columbus to the electric power, cooling or avionics systems of the ISS.  How is Columbus connected to those systems?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: MKremer on 11/08/2007 09:40 PM
Quote
dsmillman - 8/11/2007  4:04 PM

Looking at the STS-122 documents I do not see any EVA activity connecting Columbus to the electric power, cooling or avionics systems of the ISS.  How is Columbus connected to those systems?
Within the vestibules.  Same with Kibo, IIRC.

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 11/08/2007 09:46 PM
They might be internal from Node 2.

Beat me to it.  I checked the IDRD and it shows only vestibule work and no EVA's
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: TJL on 11/10/2007 01:56 PM
Did the solar array deployed on STS-41D Discovery on its maiden flight, have the same dimensions as the ones on ISS?
Thanks.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 11/10/2007 02:06 PM
Quote
TJL - 10/11/2007  9:56 AM

Did the solar array deployed on STS-41D Discovery on its maiden flight, have the same dimensions as the ones on ISS?
Thanks.

No, it was smaller
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Danderman on 11/11/2007 07:09 PM
DELETED due to double entry.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Danderman on 11/11/2007 07:14 PM
Concerning the recent PMA-2 redeployment, I believe that the passive CBM on the end of the PMA (APAS is on the other end)  does not have a hatch. I gathered this from the note that the PMA was depressurized during the SSRMS maneuver and also because there doesn't seem to be room inside the PMA for a hatch to be stowed.

So, hatch or no hatch?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 11/11/2007 07:17 PM
Only one hatch on PMA, the one on the APAS
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: psloss on 11/11/2007 08:53 PM
Quote
Danderman - 11/11/2007  3:14 PM

Concerning the recent PMA-2 redeployment, I believe that the passive CBM on the end of the PMA (APAS is on the other end)  does not have a hatch. I gathered this from the note that the PMA was depressurized during the SSRMS maneuver and also because there doesn't seem to be room inside the PMA for a hatch to be stowed.

So, hatch or no hatch?
There are probably pictures of the other two PMAs during ground processing which you can also search for on the KSC Media Gallery (http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/), but here's a couple of pictures of PMA-3 from focusing a search on 'PMA' and the STS number for ISS-3A.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: David413 on 11/12/2007 10:13 AM
I've been trying to find out at what angle the STBD SARJ is parked.  Anybody know?  Also, is the PORT SARJ and all of the various BGAs now actively tracking?

Thanks,
Dave
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: DaveS on 11/12/2007 10:19 AM
Quote
David413 - 12/11/2007  12:13 PM

I've been trying to find out at what angle the STBD SARJ is parked.  Anybody know?  Also, is the PORT SARJ and all of the various BGAs now actively tracking?

Thanks,
Dave
I believe I have read that it's parked at 135° rotation. And yes, the port SAWs are in AUTOTRACK following the successful repair of the P6 4B SAW. That was the only constraint for port SARJ rotation.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: David413 on 11/12/2007 11:41 AM
Do you have a source for the 135 degrees?  I'd like to see it for myself, and additionally, the Port side is in autotrack but what about the starboard BGAs?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 11/14/2007 07:22 AM
Where can I get a detailed description of the external payloads for the Columbus module?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: MKremer on 11/14/2007 07:45 AM
Quote
brahmanknight - 14/11/2007  2:22 AM

Where can I get a detailed description of the external payloads for the Columbus module?

http://www.esa.int/esaHS/ESAFRG0VMOC_iss_0.html

Hopefully more details will be released once the mission is ongoing and Columbus and its payloads are installed.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: MKremer on 11/14/2007 07:50 AM
Quote
David413 - 12/11/2007  6:41 AM

Do you have a source for the 135 degrees?  I'd like to see it for myself, and additionally, the Port side is in autotrack but what about the starboard BGAs?

Starboard BGAs are working and tracking fine. They just aren't ready to move the SARJ anymore until they absolutely need to (moving to a different fixed angle as compromise between changing beta angle power production vs. array protection for vehicle docking/undocking thruster firings).

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: David413 on 11/14/2007 12:34 PM
Quote
MKremer - 14/11/2007  2:50 AM

Quote
David413 - 12/11/2007  6:41 AM

Do you have a source for the 135 degrees?  I'd like to see it for myself, and additionally, the Port side is in autotrack but what about the starboard BGAs?

Starboard BGAs are working and tracking fine. They just aren't ready to move the SARJ anymore until they absolutely need to (moving to a different fixed angle as compromise between changing beta angle power production vs. array protection for vehicle docking/undocking thruster firings).


Thanks!  Is the 135 degrees previously mentioned accurate?  Or, do they occasionally still move the stbd SARJ?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jester on 11/14/2007 02:24 PM
Quote
brahmanknight - 14/11/2007  9:22 AM

Where can I get a detailed description of the external payloads for the Columbus module?


Eutef
http://www.spaceflight.esa.int/users/downloads/factsheets/fs030_10_eutef.pdf

Solar:

http://www.spaceflight.esa.int/users/downloads/factsheets/fs021_10_solar.pdf

Aces:
http://www.spaceflight.esa.int/users/downloads/factsheets/fs031_10_aces.pdf
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 11/14/2007 05:13 PM
How come some say the ISS is being built by 16 nations and some say 15 and leave out the UK?

Even on the ship's log it dosen't have my flag... :frown:

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-14/hires/iss014e19526.jpg
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: jmjawors on 11/14/2007 05:18 PM
Look on top of the American flag.

EDIT :: Oh... the logbook itself.  Sorry... I was just looking at the space over the hatch.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: DMeader on 11/14/2007 05:34 PM
I did some searching around but couldn't come up with anything.

I've wondered why the APAS hatch on the PMA is offset from the centerline of the passive CBM port on the other end? Why is the PMA not a more symmetrical cone-shape? Perhaps to allow the APAS hatch to stow flat against the wall?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 11/14/2007 05:45 PM
Quote
David413 - 14/11/2007  7:34 AM

Quote
MKremer - 14/11/2007  2:50 AM

Quote
David413 - 12/11/2007  6:41 AM

Do you have a source for the 135 degrees?  I'd like to see it for myself, and additionally, the Port side is in autotrack but what about the starboard BGAs?

Starboard BGAs are working and tracking fine. They just aren't ready to move the SARJ anymore until they absolutely need to (moving to a different fixed angle as compromise between changing beta angle power production vs. array protection for vehicle docking/undocking thruster firings).


Thanks!  Is the 135 degrees previously mentioned accurate?  Or, do they occasionally still move the stbd SARJ?

The starboard SARJ is currently at a directed position of 44 degrees.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 11/14/2007 05:46 PM
Quote
DMeader - 14/11/2007  12:34 PM

I did some searching around but couldn't come up with anything.

I've wondered why the APAS hatch on the PMA is offset from the centerline of the passive CBM port on the other end? Why is the PMA not a more symmetrical cone-shape? Perhaps to allow the APAS hatch to stow flat against the wall?

It puts the node farther forward to improve clearances for pulling modules out of the payload bay with the RMS.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 11/14/2007 05:47 PM
Quote
jmjawors - 14/11/2007  6:18 PM

Look on top of the American flag.

EDIT :: Oh... the logbook itself.  Sorry... I was just looking at the space over the hatch.

That's what I mean. Some things have the UK on and other things don't... :o
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: David413 on 11/14/2007 09:23 PM
Quote
Jorge - 14/11/2007  12:45 PM


The starboard SARJ is currently at a directed position of 44 degrees.

Thanks!
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Danderman on 11/16/2007 05:05 AM
What is a "ROBO?"
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: DaveS on 11/16/2007 07:21 AM
Quote
Danderman - 16/11/2007  7:05 AM

What is a "ROBO?"
ROBO = Short for ROBOtics. The ISS FCR console name for the officer in charge of the robotics system on ISS.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Crispy on 11/16/2007 09:59 AM
Quote
Jorge - 14/11/2007  6:46 PM
It puts the node farther forward to improve clearances for pulling modules out of the payload bay with the RMS.
As this image shows:
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: jarthur on 11/16/2007 05:57 PM
I'll change things up a bit by asking a question about Columbus. Why does it only have spots for 10 racks? Based on symmetry my initial guess would be that it would have a multiple of 4, so 12 or 16 racks. What is the other space being used for?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: j2_ on 11/16/2007 07:11 PM
Why did they bring back the SASA on STS-120 instead of jettisoning it? Are they planning to repair and return to station?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 11/16/2007 07:35 PM
Quote
jarthur - 16/11/2007  6:57 PM

I'll change things up a bit by asking a question about Columbus. Why does it only have spots for 10 racks? Based on symmetry my initial guess would be that it would have a multiple of 4, so 12 or 16 racks. What is the other space being used for?

Four racks down the left and right walls, two on the roof. Potentially it can hold more but stowage will probably take up the remaining spaces. :)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Analyst on 11/16/2007 07:36 PM
Quote
jarthur - 16/11/2007  7:57 PM

I'll change things up a bit by asking a question about Columbus. Why does it only have spots for 10 racks? Based on symmetry my initial guess would be that it would have a multiple of 4, so 12 or 16 racks. What is the other space being used for?

Columbus has spots for 16 racks. 10 is wrong. It is launched with 10 racks (3 system, 4 science, 3 stowage).

Quote
j2_ - 16/11/2007  9:11 PM

Why did they bring back the SASA on STS-120 instead of jettisoning it? Are they planning to repair and return to station?

Yes.

Analyst
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Analyst on 11/16/2007 07:39 PM
Quote
ShuttleDiscovery - 16/11/2007  9:35 PM

Quote
jarthur - 16/11/2007  6:57 PM

I'll change things up a bit by asking a question about Columbus. Why does it only have spots for 10 racks? Based on symmetry my initial guess would be that it would have a multiple of 4, so 12 or 16 racks. What is the other space being used for?

Four racks down the left and right walls, two on the roof. Potentially it can hold more but stowage will probably take up the remaining spaces. :)

Are you sure? Not every rack position that looks not empty in a picture is actually holding a rack.

Analyst
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 11/16/2007 07:42 PM
In Destiny aren't the plain white ones on the floor stowage? I assumed this wold be the case with all the other spcaes in Columbus..
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Analyst on 11/16/2007 07:50 PM
Quote
ShuttleDiscovery - 16/11/2007  9:42 PM

In Destiny aren't the plain white ones on the floor stowage? I assumed this wold be the case with all the other spcaes in Columbus..

No. I don't have the rack topology here right now. But I am pretty sure Destiny has only one stowage (ZSR) rack right now. The floor has system and science racks, like the other 3 walls (except for the one ZSR).

Analyst
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 11/16/2007 09:04 PM
OK, my bad. So what are the other spaces in Columbus actually being used for?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: postalworker on 11/17/2007 12:34 PM
Quote
ShuttleDiscovery - 16/11/2007  5:04 PM

OK, my bad. So what are the other spaces in Columbus actually being used for?

According to the 11/15 briefing, ESA has 50% of rack space for their use, NASA has the rest.  The empty rack space will be used for much needed storage until the racks are used for experiments.

Jeff
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Analyst on 11/17/2007 02:49 PM
Quote
Analyst - 16/11/2007  9:36 PM

Quote
jarthur - 16/11/2007  7:57 PM

I'll change things up a bit by asking a question about Columbus. Why does it only have spots for 10 racks? Based on symmetry my initial guess would be that it would have a multiple of 4, so 12 or 16 racks. What is the other space being used for?

Columbus has spots for 16 racks. 10 is wrong. It is launched with 10 racks (3 system, 4 science, 3 stowage).

Quote
j2_ - 16/11/2007  9:11 PM

Why did they bring back the SASA on STS-120 instead of jettisoning it? Are they planning to repair and return to station?

Yes.

Analyst

Edited for the rack numbers. Thanks Ronald.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Analyst on 11/17/2007 02:49 PM
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 11/17/2007 04:33 PM
"Why did they bring back the SASA on STS-120 instead of jettisoning it? Are they planning to repair and return to station?"

Upgrades.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Avron on 11/18/2007 01:48 PM
What is under cover 7 on the SARJ?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Avron on 11/18/2007 09:34 PM
Quote
Avron - 18/11/2007  9:48 AM

What is under cover 7 on the SARJ?


Hello.. wow a question, with no answer in more than 12 ( edit-ok - also cannot do basic math)  hours.. whats wrong.. is it too tough for the NSF team..???

( dont' see a tread to cover the SARJ and its difficulties - may warrant one - ed's?)

Ok.. to give some prospective, the third EVA on 112 may have some task to remove the cover on number 7 to looks and see what could be the problem ( cover 12- If I recall was removed last time)..

What we do know thus far is the metal shavings are from the race .. no mention of the DLA or trundle bearings..  so how come we only see shavings of race material ??

What is so hard that it could scrape the race but not leave behind any material .. maybe its not scraped.. maybe its a failure of the hardening process on the race when subjected to the space env.. could it be that the race is flaking off - space corrosion?

need some inputs please - cover 7 of the SARJ contains, a race ring and what??
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: rdale on 11/19/2007 12:56 AM
Remember for those of us in North America (i.e. NASA people) it's a Sunday.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 11/19/2007 01:32 AM
Quote
Avron - 18/11/2007  4:34 PM

Quote
Avron - 18/11/2007  9:48 AM

What is under cover 7 on the SARJ?


Hello.. wow a question, with no answer in more than 12 ( edit-ok - also cannot do basic math)  hours.. whats wrong.. is it too tough for the NSF team..???

What an outrage... you should ask Chris for a refund, ASAP.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Avron on 11/19/2007 03:42 AM
Quote
Jorge - 18/11/2007  9:32 PM

Quote
Avron - 18/11/2007  4:34 PM

Quote
Avron - 18/11/2007  9:48 AM

What is under cover 7 on the SARJ?


Hello.. wow a question, with no answer in more than 12 ( edit-ok - also cannot do basic math)  hours.. whats wrong.. is it too tough for the NSF team..???

What an outrage... you should ask Chris for a refund, ASAP.


You have to be joking...  


Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Avron on 11/19/2007 03:53 AM
Quote
rdale - 18/11/2007  8:56 PM

Remember for those of us in North America (i.e. NASA people) it's a Sunday.

Rob the first part was tongue-in-cheek..  I fully understand that its Sunday.. and maybe is not a good day for bad humor on my behalf..

But any answers to the question would be most welcome...
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 11/19/2007 04:55 AM
Quote
Avron - 18/11/2007  10:42 PM

Quote
Jorge - 18/11/2007  9:32 PM

Quote
Avron - 18/11/2007  4:34 PM

Quote
Avron - 18/11/2007  9:48 AM

What is under cover 7 on the SARJ?


Hello.. wow a question, with no answer in more than 12 ( edit-ok - also cannot do basic math)  hours.. whats wrong.. is it too tough for the NSF team..???

What an outrage... you should ask Chris for a refund, ASAP.


You have to be joking...  



I was equally tongue-in-cheek as you.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: mark147 on 11/19/2007 01:08 PM
Quote
Avron - 18/11/2007  10:34 PM
need some inputs please - cover 7 of the SARJ contains, a race ring and what??
Here's a diagram of the SARJ from one of the STS-120 mission status briefings:



There doesn't seem to be anything exciting under cover 7.  The things marked C are covers, LL launch locks, TBA trundle bearing assemblies, DLA drive lock assemblies.

Mark
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: OpsAnalyst on 11/19/2007 09:39 PM
Looking for any updates coming out of EA and/or Boeing on the starboard SARJ engineering analysis - anyone know anything?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: jmjawors on 11/19/2007 09:43 PM
Engineering analysis?  Are you talking about the analysis of the material collected by Dan Tani?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: OpsAnalyst on 11/20/2007 12:37 AM
The materials analysis indicated that the filings were from the race ring.  NASA (with Boeing's support, and presumably with the SARJ vendor's support (Lockheed Martin)) is conducting a FMEA using updated operations history/data, original design, and as-built close-out data.  There was a great deal of effort and attention given to the SARJs back in 1999/2000/2001; lots of folks were worried about them then.  I was asking if there are any updates about that analysis effort.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: jmjawors on 11/20/2007 01:26 AM
Only update I know of is that it's from the race ring, as you already know.  Beyond that I'm clueless!   :bleh:  

My impression, though, is that there is not much more that can be done on the ground.  More eyes need to be placed on the SARJ itself on orbit, so ISS is desperately trying to get that work done as soon as possible.  Potentially during STS-122.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: jdeber on 11/20/2007 06:01 PM
I was wondering how many of the non-essential ISS internal systems are powered off during crew sleep.  For example, do they turn off the lights or display monitors?  Or does the crew simply wear sleep masks to block out the light?

Thanks for the great forum.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 11/20/2007 10:22 PM
"I was wondering how many of the non-essential ISS internal systems are powered off during crew sleep. For example, do they turn off the lights or display monitors? Or does the crew simply wear sleep masks to block out the light? "

Very few.  Lights are turned off of course because it is hard to sleep otherwise.  Laptops that are not being used have their screens shut down since we have had a problem with the screens burning out.  Otherwise it is just screen savers.  Other than that I can't really think of any lights (except a scattering of status LEDs which you can't really turn off).
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: jdeber on 11/21/2007 08:19 PM
Quote
erioladastra - 20/11/2007  6:22 PM

"I was wondering how many of the non-essential ISS internal systems are powered off during crew sleep. For example, do they turn off the lights or display monitors? Or does the crew simply wear sleep masks to block out the light? "

Very few.  Lights are turned off of course because it is hard to sleep otherwise.  Laptops that are not being used have their screens shut down since we have had a problem with the screens burning out.  Otherwise it is just screen savers.  Other than that I can't really think of any lights (except a scattering of status LEDs which you can't really turn off).

Is there something about the station's environment that is particularly hard on the fluorescent bulbs in the LCD backlights, or were they simply burning out due to normal wear and tear?

Thanks for the info.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 11/22/2007 01:15 AM
"Is there something about the station's environment that is particularly hard on the fluorescent bulbs in the LCD backlights, or were they simply burning out due to normal wear and tear? "

Um, lets just say there has been quality control issues with the manufacturer.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Avron on 11/24/2007 04:31 PM
From EVA 12 --- enlarge... looks pitted to me
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: j2_ on 11/24/2007 10:51 PM
What kind of lighting technology do the CETA lights use?

Some sort of HID? Is it something exotic, or fairly mundane?

How do they dissipate heat into space?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ctrlz on 11/26/2007 02:35 PM
Quote
Avron - 24/11/2007  11:31 AM

From EVA 12 --- enlarge... looks pitted to me
Agree.  More heavily pitted on outboard aspect of race.  Be interesting to see if this is consistent over the entire circumference.

I suspect that type of damage is caused by a rotating element such as a damaged bearing.  The surface does not appear to be scored in linear fashion as if something were dragging on the race.

I can't find much on-line on these assemblies.  The trundle bearing assemblies (TBA's) have a failsafe in that the journal bearing starts to rotate in the event the primary bearing seizes.  Such seizure triggers a microswitch to signal a problem.  I do not believe this type of event has been recorded.  I do not know if an out-of-round bearing would cause any intermittent activation of the microswitch.

At this point I anticipate two stages of repair:
1) Initial replacement of the damaged TBA, DLA, or removal of interfering debris.   Then the race and ferrous dust will be cleaned up with some kind of magnetic "sponge."  Managers will live with the pitted race for awhile, provided the SARJ can again rotate freely.
2) Ultimately the SARJ will have to be rebuilt with a new race.  I believe the TBA's and DLA's can be reconfigured to transfer the 1000 lb. load to a backup race on the existing ring.

I think the next step will be video of the joint in motion.

Interesting problem.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: mark147 on 11/26/2007 06:09 PM
Have any of the hi res digital photos of the SARJ been published yet?  Presumably they were downlinked immediately after the EVA?  Would be great to see what it really looks like.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Mike_1179 on 11/26/2007 06:49 PM
Quote
ctrlz - 26/11/2007  10:35 AM

2) Ultimately the SARJ will have to be rebuilt with a new race.  I believe the TBA's and DLA's can be reconfigured to transfer the 1000 lb. load to a backup race on the existing ring.

I think the next step will be video of the joint in motion.

Interesting problem.

The SARJ has two sets of races in it - the inner race and outer race.  If you transfer to use of the back-up, why would you have to replace anything?  You just don't want to switch to the back-up if there is a still a defect there which would cause you to destroy that one as well.  

The matter of how you propose to replace it a different question entirely.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ctrlz on 11/26/2007 08:17 PM
Quote
Mike_1179 - 26/11/2007  1:49 PM

The SARJ has two sets of races in it - the inner race and outer race.  If you transfer to use of the back-up, why would you have to replace anything?  You just don't want to switch to the back-up if there is a still a defect there which would cause you to destroy that one as well.  

The matter of how you propose to replace it is a different question entirely.
If I understand what I have read correctly, each ring has a primary race and a backup.  The DLA's and TBA's need to be reconfigured to transfer the load to the backup race.  This is a manual task which would require several EVA's.  The advantage is that the ring itself can stay in place.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/space/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385&plckPostId=Blog%3a04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385Post%3a88908263-7189-4446-bd20-334dc5f9dbdb&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

The source of the defect would have to be determined first in any repair scenario.  Cargo has already been reconfigured for the Dec 6 STS mission allowing for transport of replacement TBA's in anticipation of future repairs.

I think chances are good that one of the TBA's is bad or misaligned, since these are the assemblies which roll along the race.  But I admit I'm doing a lot of guessing based on very limited information.

Page 33 of the STS-115 Press Kit has some explanation of SARJ operation:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/350093/NASA-154433main-sts115-press-kit2

Some STS-120 briefing photos offer clear pictures of these assemblies:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/sts120/news/msb_sts120_fd07.html
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: MKremer on 11/26/2007 08:39 PM
No, they would install all new TBAs and DLAs if the backup ring is used. It would be rather dumb to attempt to re-use already contaminated bearing and drive lock/motor assemblies.

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 11/27/2007 01:27 AM
"The SARJ has two sets of races in it - the inner race and outer race. If you transfer to use of the back-up, why would you have to replace anything? You just don't want to switch to the back-up if there is a still a defect there which would cause you to destroy that one as well. "

It requires a hardware swap of the trundle bearing assemblies.  However, this is not a desired option - the iner race ring is NOT fully redudant.  If the hardware was configured the software is not in place not would you be able to lock the arrays due to lack of redudant hardware.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ETEE on 11/27/2007 12:03 PM
So judging from what has been seen so far, we have a gearbox contaminated with metal particles.  To save wasted effort with bearing repairs that may not succeed long term due to the possibility of contamination after the mechanism has been "cleaned", a total SARJ replacement must be a real possibility now.  Perhaps the old SARJ can be brought down and rebuilt as a spare?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: DMeader on 11/27/2007 01:02 PM
I doubt that an all-up replacement exists, and building a new one would involve years of lead time. By the time it was finished there would be no way to get it there.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: missinglink on 11/27/2007 01:26 PM
*gulp*

This could be fairly serious, then.

The pitting by the way looks neither "linear", i.e., caused by scratches from a dragging obstruction, nor does it seem to display a periodically repeating pattern as might be expected from a deformed bearing.

It looks like... corrosion! Now I know there is very little oxygen floating around in low earth orbit to cause rust. But could the SARJ have brought its own oxygen up from the ground if the surface of the race was insufficiently ... what's the word ... annealed?

Not being a metallurgist or even an engineer, it's probably a silly question to ask...
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: mwfair on 11/27/2007 03:05 PM
In the EVA picture it seems like only the outboard race ring has pitting.  Hard to imagine plain oxidation corrosion since the inner ring seems fine.
Could it be galvanic corrosion, since the ring and the bearings and the DLA gears are different metals?  On the other hand, it is clear that the pitting has resulted in shavings as though the race ring has been cut into, not simply dissolved or altered.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: DMeader on 11/27/2007 07:56 PM
Quote
mwfair - 27/11/2007  11:05 AM
Could it be galvanic corrosion, since the ring and the bearings and the DLA gears are different metals?

That would require some sort of electrolyte, would it not? A lot of the equipment I deal with at work has aluminum and stainless-steel hardware in contact. It is only if it is exposed to wet (in my case salty winter-time highway contamination) conditions that I get the whitish corrosion on the aluminum where the two metals meet. If things stay dry, then no problems.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Bret on 11/28/2007 02:45 PM
A reboost question in honor of today's scheduled ISS reboost:

Does the thrust impart a meaningful amount of gravity to the crew? That is, can they "feel" the effect of the thrust, or is it so small as to be imperceptible?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: eeergo on 11/28/2007 03:31 PM

Quote
Bret - 28/11/2007 3:45 PM A reboost question in honor of today's scheduled ISS reboost: Does the thrust impart a meaningful amount of gravity to the crew? That is, can they "feel" the effect of the thrust, or is it so small as to be imperceptible?

Yes, I've seen videos of astronauts letting go of things in the middle of the station and you can see them accelerating towards the rear (they are in www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org, but I don't quite remember where, sorry... I think one of them actually have the 'reboost' word in its title) Sometimes, the 'things' accelerating were the astros themselves :) Also, in Peggy's or Suni's personal logs in NASA's site, I remember reading something about this.

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 11/29/2007 01:39 AM
There is a video of Suni Williams during a reboost where she releases her feet (after throwing popcorn balls) and she flies in to the aft wall of the SM.  I think it was shown during a press conference during increment 15.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: rdale on 11/29/2007 03:25 AM
Quote
Bret - 28/11/2007  10:45 AM

A reboost question in honor of today's scheduled ISS reboost:

Reboost was canceled about a week ago.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Chandonn on 11/29/2007 04:41 AM
Quote
rdale - 28/11/2007  11:25 PM

Quote
Bret - 28/11/2007  10:45 AM

A reboost question in honor of today's scheduled ISS reboost:

Reboost was canceled about a week ago.

... which many of us just found out about today.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=61&mid=217674#M217674
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: rdale on 11/29/2007 02:30 PM
Quote
Chandonn - 29/11/2007  12:41 AM

Quote
rdale - 28/11/2007  11:25 PM

Reboost was canceled about a week ago.

... which many of us just found out about today.


Actually anik posted it last week -- the rest of NASA apparently wasn't aware :>

Quote
anik - 25/11/2007  5:37 AM


This maneuver will not be performed due to cancelling of NASA request...
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 12/05/2007 03:30 PM
Is it possible to unconnect a module that is now on orbit, such as Quest?  Purely hypothetical.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 12/05/2007 03:47 PM
Quote
brahmanknight - 5/12/2007  4:30 PM

Is it possible to unconnect a module that is now on orbit, such as Quest?  Purely hypothetical.

They moved Harmony form Unity to Destiny.

 ;)


I suppose it would take a few spacewalks to disconnect and relocate things such as ESP2 if you were to move Quest, but I would've thought it is possible...
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: MKremer on 12/05/2007 03:48 PM
Quote
brahmanknight - 5/12/2007  10:30 AM

Is it possible to unconnect a module that is now on orbit, such as Quest?  Purely hypothetical.

Sure, just like they did the last few weeks with the PMA and Harmony rearrangements (or the MPLM docking/undockings). The CBM docking connections don't have to be 'permanent'.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 12/05/2007 03:51 PM
Quote
MKremer - 5/12/2007  4:48 PM

Quote
brahmanknight - 5/12/2007  10:30 AM

Is it possible to unconnect a module that is now on orbit, such as Quest?  Purely hypothetical.

Sure, just like they did the last few weeks with the PMA and Harmony rearrangements (or the MPLM docking/undockings). The CBM docking connections don't have to be 'permanent'.

I think it would be a lot  more stressful to move a Russian module!  ;)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 12/05/2007 04:29 PM
Quote
brahmanknight - 5/12/2007  11:30 AM

Is it possible to unconnect a module that is now on orbit, such as Quest?  Purely hypothetical.

Node 1 can't be disconnected from the FGB, just as the LAB can't be disconnected from Node 1 without shutting down the ISS.  USOS can't survive without the RS
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ckiki lwai on 12/05/2007 08:35 PM
I was reading the "Russian segment" thread where they were talking about separating the ISS which reminded me that the Russians wanted to reuse one of their modules of Mir on the ISS (which NASA refused).
So question 1: how did they wanted to do that (or could have done that)?
question 2: could they do that with the MLM module, so they can reuse it for their next space station?

and a question about the Columbus module
question 3: why is it so small in comparison to the other science modules? Budget restricitions? More compact?
It's just strange that the Japanese module is so much bigger.

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 12/05/2007 09:32 PM
Quote
ckiki lwai - 5/12/2007  3:35 PM

I was reading the "Russian segment" thread where they were talking about separating the ISS which reminded me that the Russians wanted to reuse one of their modules of Mir on the ISS (which NASA refused).
So question 1: how did they wanted to do that (or could have done that)?

Most likely, by launching Zarya into Mir's orbit plane and docking Zarya to the forward port of Mir, which at that time was typically used by Soyuz. Mir would have substituted for Zvezda. The Zarya aft docking port would have needed to be modified from hybrid probe & drogue (used on the Zvezda forward port) to standard probe & drogue (used on the Mir forward port).

Quote
question 2: could they do that with the MLM module, so they can reuse it for their next space station?

It depends on how the MLM is built. If it is small enough, it could be undocked with a Progress docked to it and the Progress could serve as a tug to take it to the new station. Of course, the Russians have not funded a new station. And if the MLM is based on the FGB hull, it will be too large.

Quote
and a question about the Columbus module
question 3: why is it so small in comparison to the other science modules? Budget restricitions?

Yes. Columbus is based on the MPLM design. The commonality reduced costs.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 12/12/2007 06:20 PM
Do the astronauts and cosmonauts choose where they sleep (Zvezda or Destiny)?

Because during Expedition 15 Williams and Clay both used the Destiny compartment, so I assumed that it was the FE2s that used it, and the two that come up on the Soyuz use Zvezda. However, Tani uses a Zvezda one and Peggy in the lab....


Just wondered why they change around, because in that scenario Peggy and (Clay or Dan) must have swapped.  :o
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 12/12/2007 09:24 PM
Quote
ShuttleDiscovery - 12/12/2007  1:20 PM

Do the astronauts and cosmonauts choose where they sleep (Zvezda or Destiny)?

Because during Expedition 15 Williams and Clay both used the Destiny compartment, so I assumed that it was the FE2s that used it, and the two that come up on the Soyuz use Zvezda. However, Tani uses a Zvezda one and Peggy in the lab....


Just wondered why they change around, because in that scenario Peggy and (Clay or Dan) must have swapped.  :o

Female crewmembers seem to prefer the Destiny bunk; the distance from Zvezda provides a bit more privacy.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 12/13/2007 12:29 AM
"Do the astronauts and cosmonauts choose where they sleep (Zvezda or Destiny)?

Because during Expedition 15 Williams and Clay both used the Destiny compartment, so I assumed that it was the FE2s that used it, and the two that come up on the Soyuz use Zvezda. However, Tani uses a Zvezda one and Peggy in the lab.... "

They decide among themselves.  Tani uses the airlock (when not in use).
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 12/13/2007 05:23 PM
Quote
Jorge - 12/12/2007  10:24 PM

Quote
ShuttleDiscovery - 12/12/2007  1:20 PM

Do the astronauts and cosmonauts choose where they sleep (Zvezda or Destiny)?

Because during Expedition 15 Williams and Clay both used the Destiny compartment, so I assumed that it was the FE2s that used it, and the two that come up on the Soyuz use Zvezda. However, Tani uses a Zvezda one and Peggy in the lab....


Just wondered why they change around, because in that scenario Peggy and (Clay or Dan) must have swapped.  :o

Female crewmembers seem to prefer the Destiny bunk; the distance from Zvezda provides a bit more privacy.

That would make sense, thanks!
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 12/14/2007 12:41 AM
Actually, all the US folks prefer the TESS in the lab module.  Generally as soon as the new person arrives the old resident moves out right away.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: j2_ on 12/14/2007 12:56 AM
Tani's recent video tour shows him sleeping in the Zvevda.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 12/14/2007 11:05 PM
Quote
j2_ - 14/12/2007  1:56 AM

Tani's recent video tour shows him sleeping in the Zvevda.

Yeah I saw that - he has M&Ms to snack on if he's hungry!
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 12/19/2007 11:54 AM
So after the delivery of the Kibo logisitcs module, can the remaining launch schdule be moved around if we can't find an immediate cause for the SARJ problems?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: DMeader on 12/19/2007 12:43 PM
Quote
brahmanknight - 19/12/2007  7:54 AM

So after the delivery of the Kibo logisitcs module, can the remaining launch schdule be moved around if we can't find an immediate cause for the SARJ problems?

To what end? If you're thinking to be able to take up a replacement SARJ, I doubt very much that one exists or could be built before the Shuttle stops flying.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 12/19/2007 01:20 PM
No.  I was thinking that the Kibo lab will use to much energy considering the limitations of the power generating systems right now.  I was wondering if anything else could be bumped up.   It probably can't, but I'm just wondering.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 12/22/2007 05:22 PM
Yes, some flights could be bumped up potentially but I think it would have to kill the HST flight.  That is already mucking up the ISS assembly missions.  The bigger issue is that a significant (not sure how much) amount of the Japanese mission has to be done before April 1 or they are in serious danger of canceling the program.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: TJL on 12/22/2007 06:14 PM
Any reason why the launch of S6 wasn't scheduled prior to both the European and Japanese modules?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 12/22/2007 06:33 PM
Quote
TJL - 22/12/2007  1:14 PM

Any reason why the launch of S6 wasn't scheduled prior to both the European and Japanese modules?

It was. Surely it hasn't escaped your notice that "119" comes before "122", "123", and "124"?

The Europeans and Japanese requested that the launch of their modules be accelerated, and NASA accommodated that by deferring S6.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Bubbinski on 12/23/2007 05:06 AM
Quote
erioladastra - 22/12/2007  11:22 AM

 The bigger issue is that a significant (not sure how much) amount of the Japanese mission has to be done before April 1 or they are in serious danger of canceling the program.

So if STS-123 (Kibo logistics module) doesn't go up before 4/1/08, the Japanese would actually cancel their part of ISS, with completed modules staying on the ground?  Would that also take away future HTV support missions?  That would really change the ISS program.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Analyst on 12/23/2007 05:34 PM
Quote
Bubbinski - 23/12/2007  7:06 AM

Quote
erioladastra - 22/12/2007  11:22 AM

 The bigger issue is that a significant (not sure how much) amount of the Japanese mission has to be done before April 1 or they are in serious danger of canceling the program.

So if STS-123 (Kibo logistics module) doesn't go up before 4/1/08, the Japanese would actually cancel their part of ISS, with completed modules staying on the ground?  Would that also take away future HTV support missions?  That would really change the ISS program.

Says who?

Analyst
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 12/24/2007 10:56 AM
I understand the Japanese working year (- don't know the correct term) starts on the 1 April, but this is ridiculous. They have completed modules on the ground waiting to be launched. This is an excellent oppurtunity for Japan in terms of progressing with human spaceflight, I can't think of any reasons they wpould give this up if it can't be launched by april after working this hard on the Kibo program. Where did you hear this from!?  :o
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: TJL on 12/24/2007 02:03 PM
With STS-122 being delayed from December to (possibly) January, does anyone know if the following flights (123 and 124) will still carry ISS crew replacements?
If so, it seems like very brief ISS increments for Eyharts and/or Reisman.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 12/24/2007 04:33 PM
I know, a shame really for Eyharts seeing as he is ESA and probably won't fly again afterwards.

I doubt they'd cahnge the crews around this time like with STS-117/STS-118 because all of the flights (120-128) have or are going to rotate an ISS crew member.

We were lucky with the STS-117/118 scenario becuase 117 was originally not planned to rotate, so by adding Anderson to that flight had no impact on future schedules as he was still able to land on STS-120. If Eyharts was to stay until STS-124, then everyone else would be pushed back one flight which isn't fair on those other astronauts (Reisman, Chamitoff, Magnus, Wakata, Kopra, Stott) who are also scheduled to launch to ISS over the next year and a half.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: DwightM on 12/24/2007 05:01 PM
Quote
ShuttleDiscovery - 24/12/2007  8:33 AM

I know, a shame really for Eyharts seeing as he is ESA and probably won't fly again afterwards.

I doubt they'd cahnge the crews around this time like with STS-117/STS-118 because all of the flights (120-128) have or are going to rotate an ISS crew member.

We were lucky with the STS-117/118 scenario becuase 117 was originally not planned to rotate, so by adding Anderson to that flight had no impact on future schedules as he was still able to land on STS-120. If Eyharts was to stay until STS-124, then everyone else would be pushed back one flight which isn't fair on those other astronauts (Reisman, Chamitoff, Magnus, Wakata, Kopra, Stott) who are also scheduled to launch to ISS over the next year and a half.

I don't think it's so much about being 'fair' than flying the increments they've been training to support.  So whether an astronaut gets 30 days or 90 days doesn't much matter - the next astronaut has trained for the next stage.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: anik on 12/24/2007 05:27 PM
Quote
TJL - 24/12/2007  6:03 PM

With STS-122 being delayed from December to (possibly) January, does anyone know if the following flights (123 and 124) will still carry ISS crew replacements?

Nothing has changed for now... But you should understand Eyharts can not stay till STS-124... NASA will not allow it... Expedition 17 should consist of two Russians and one American, therefore Eyharts should land on STS-123 or on Soyuz TMA-11 if STS-123 launch will be after Soyuz TMA-12 launch...
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 12/24/2007 06:05 PM
I forgot about that, so that's another reason why they wouldn't change it... :)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 12/24/2007 11:27 PM

"Says who? "

The Japanese DIAT and the head of JAXA.  Perhaps it is bluffing or posturing but Griffin is treating it very seriously.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Bubbinski on 12/25/2007 04:02 AM
Quote
erioladastra - 24/12/2007  5:27 PM


"Says who? "

The Japanese DIAT and the head of JAXA.  Perhaps it is bluffing or posturing but Griffin is treating it very seriously.

The Japanese DIAT - do you mean the Diet, the Japanese legislature?  Or is it another organization in the Japanese government?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: marcellino4 on 12/30/2007 12:00 PM
hi, i want to ask, how many propellatn is in the fuell tank on ISS? how many is in Zvezda and in Zarya? how big are these tanks in these modules? and how many fuell is spent on increase of orbit and on desatiration off gyros? thanks so much
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: anik on 12/30/2007 12:43 PM
Quote
marcellino4 - 30/12/2007  4:00 PM

how big are these tanks in these modules?

Zarya module has 16 tanks (8 for fuel, 8 for oxidizer), which can contain up to 6100 kilograms of propellant in total...  

Zvezda module has 4 tanks (2 for fuel, 2 for oxidizer), which can contain up to 860 kilograms of propellant in total...

Note: "Propellant" thread is moved into "General ISS Q&A" thread
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 12/31/2007 12:35 AM
Quote
marcellino4 - 30/12/2007  7:00 AM

hi, i want to ask, how many propellatn is in the fuell tank on ISS? how many is in Zvezda and in Zarya? how big are these tanks in these modules? and how many fuell is spent on increase of orbit and on desatiration off gyros? thanks so much

Current prop quantities as of 2007/365/01:25:08 GMT (in kg) are:

Zarya fuel 1867.3 ox 3365.0 total 5232.3
Zvezda fuel 297.0 ox 572.0 total 869.0
Total fuel 2164.3 ox 3937.0 total 6101.3

Almost all prop from the Zarya/Zvezda tanks is used for CMG desat and attitude maneuvers. Reboost is generally performed by Progress using the Progress tanks. It is possible to perform a reboost with Progress while feeding prop from Zvezda but I understand this is rare due to the desire to use Zvezda prop as efficiently as possible. Zvezda prop is used whenever the Zvezda reboost engines are tested but this is also rare.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 12/31/2007 02:10 AM
"The Japanese DIAT - do you mean the Diet, the Japanese legislature? Or is it another organization in the Japanese government?"

I knew that didn't look right but thought DIET might be more wrong - thanks and sorry.  Yes, the DIET.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: DMeader on 01/03/2008 01:22 PM
In the "LIVE: Expedition 16" thread, I see that...

"...crew members pressurized and entered Pressurized Mating Adapter 3 (PMA-3) so they could remove a spare Bearing Motor Roll Ring Module, also known as a "broom".

It never occurred to me that the PMA would be used for stowage, especially as an unpressurized volume attached to the station. Not wanting to contaminate the Expedition 16 thread, some questions do come to mind...

-PMA-3 was used during STS-97 and STS-98. Was the PMA launched with the "broom" stowed there,  or was it stowed there later?

-Is the normal status of a PMA without a module/spacecraft docked to the APAS side unpressurized, with the CBM-side hatch closed?

-Realizing that space is at a premium and any un-used corner is fair game, what other unlikely nooks and crannies are used for stowage? For instance, is PMA-2 used for stowage when it is not in use during docked operations?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 01/03/2008 02:08 PM
Quote
DMeader - 3/1/2008  9:22 AM

1.  PMA-3 was used during STS-97 and STS-98. Was the PMA launched with the "broom" stowed there,  or was it stowed there later?

2.  Is the normal status of a PMA without a module/spacecraft docked to the APAS side unpressurized, with the CBM-side hatch closed?

3.  Realizing that space is at a premium and any un-used corner is fair game, what other unlikely nooks and crannies are used for stowage? For instance, is PMA-2 used for stowage when it is not in use during docked operations?

1.  The BMRRM was not launched on the PMA
2.  There are only two PMA's that don't have spacecraft attached to them.  It looks like it is 50/50 wrt pressurization

3.  yes, the PMA-2 is used.  So is PMA-1.  Most of its volume is not needed for a passage way.  The FGB is nothing but storage.  The hatch on the zenith CBM that the Z-1 truss is attached will never be opened so the volume in front of it is used for storage.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 01/04/2008 12:48 AM
"-PMA-3 was used during STS-97 and STS-98. Was the PMA launched with the "broom" stowed there, or was it stowed there later?

-Is the normal status of a PMA without a module/spacecraft docked to the APAS side unpressurized, with the CBM-side hatch closed?

-Realizing that space is at a premium and any un-used corner is fair game, what other unlikely nooks and crannies are used for stowage? For instance, is PMA-2 used for stowage when it is not in use during docked operations?"

AS noted already, the BMRRM was not launched in the PMA but moved there later along with a lot of other storage.  During Exp 14 the crew went and took everything out but the huge BMRRM.  It has been kept at vacuum.  PMA2 is pressurized before a docking.  There is nothing stowed in there.

Yes, every nook and cranny is filled and you would be amazed at where you can stick stuff.  We couldn't find a pump module - about the size of a 2 drawer filing cabinet - since it was so well tucked.  Z1 dome is also full of stuff.  With Node 2 we are a little better now.  Node 1 is pretty packed - there is a mass of water bags, called the 'cement pond' blocking the hatch to PMA3 which had to be moved to access it.

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 01/04/2008 01:12 PM
Wait....Z1 dome?  There is crew access INSIDE of Z1?  What is inside?  I need photos, guys.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 01/04/2008 01:24 PM
Quote
brahmanknight - 4/1/2008  9:12 AM

Wait....Z1 dome?  There is crew access INSIDE of Z1?  What is inside?  I need photos, guys.

Not inside the Z1 truss.   That CBM never gets opened.  It is the volume I had described
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ChrisC on 01/04/2008 08:18 PM
Can someone explain to me why shuttle launches to ISS advance by 25 minutes every day?

I would understand if they advanced by 4 minutes (24 hours divided by 365.25 days) ....

Does the ISS orbit precess around the earth more than once a year?

I didn't take the orbital dynamics course in college so bear with me :)  It was either that or hypersonics and I chose hypersonics ...
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 01/04/2008 08:26 PM
Quote
ChrisC - 4/1/2008  3:18 PM

Can someone explain to me why shuttle launches to ISS advance by 25 minutes every day?

I would understand if they advanced by 4 minutes (24 hours divided by 365.25 days) ....

Does the ISS orbit precess around the earth more than once a year?

Yes. The gravitational attraction of Earth's equatorial bulge causes ISS' orbit to regress westward at about five degrees per day. Since the Earth rotates roughly a degree every four minutes, that accounts for the other 20 minutes of launch window shift.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Danderman on 01/04/2008 11:35 PM

Quote
Jim - 4/1/2008  6:24 AM  
Quote
brahmanknight - 4/1/2008  9:12 AM  Wait....Z1 dome?  There is crew access INSIDE of Z1?  What is inside?  I need photos, guys.
 Not inside the Z1 truss.   That CBM never gets opened.  It is the volume I had described

I believe this volume is called a "vestibule".

 

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ChrisC on 01/05/2008 08:15 PM
Quote
Jorge - 4/1/2008  4:26 PM
The gravitational attraction of Earth's equatorial bulge causes ISS' orbit to regress westward at about five degrees per day.

Aha.  Thanks!

Doing some math on Bill Harwood's most recent table of launch windows, it seems that it advances by about 24 minutes a day, but it actually does so in two different modes.  On half the days, it advances by 22m31s, and on the other half (alternating) it advances by 25m43.  That averages to 24m07s, so "24 minutes" is good enough for long-term planning purposes, but why does the number change back and forth on alternating days?

I suspect it has something to do with an alternating number of actual passes over the equatorial bulge ...
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 01/05/2008 08:29 PM
Quote
Jim - 4/1/2008  2:24 PM

Quote
brahmanknight - 4/1/2008  9:12 AM

Wait....Z1 dome?  There is crew access INSIDE of Z1?  What is inside?  I need photos, guys.

Not inside the Z1 truss.   That CBM never gets opened.  It is the volume I had described

Oh, I thought it was something like this:
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 01/05/2008 09:33 PM
Quote
ChrisC - 5/1/2008  3:15 PM

Quote
Jorge - 4/1/2008  4:26 PM
The gravitational attraction of Earth's equatorial bulge causes ISS' orbit to regress westward at about five degrees per day.

Aha.  Thanks!

Doing some math on Bill Harwood's most recent table of launch windows, it seems that it advances by about 24 minutes a day, but it actually does so in two different modes.  On half the days, it advances by 22m31s, and on the other half (alternating) it advances by 25m43.  That averages to 24m07s, so "24 minutes" is good enough for long-term planning purposes, but why does the number change back and forth on alternating days?

I suspect it has something to do with an alternating number of actual passes over the equatorial bulge ...

This is going to take a while to explain. I think I've answered this once before but can't find the post right now, so here goes.

It's due to difference in phase angle (the angle between the station and the orbiter, projected into the station's orbit plane, measured from the center of the Earth). Since the interval between launch opportunities is not an exact multiple of the ISS orbital period, ISS is not in the same location within its orbit when the orbit plane coincides with KSC, so the phase angle is different each day. After launch, the orbiter completes the rendezvous by inserting into a lower orbit and using the shorter orbital period to catch up to the station, driving the phase angle to zero. The larger the difference in altitude between the orbits, the larger the difference in period and therefore the higher the catch-up rate (phasing rate).

Since the planned time of rendezvous is nearly constant (docking is always planned for Flight Day 3), the phase angle determines the altitude strategy for the orbiter's rendezvous. If the phase angle is small, the orbiter doesn't have a lot of catching up to do, so it inserts into an orbit that is nearly the same altitude as ISS and catches up slowly. If the phase angle is large, the orbiter stays in a lower orbit longer, so it can catch up more quickly.

The gravitational attraction of the Earth's equatorial bulge acts on both the station and the orbiter during the rendezvous. But this effect is a function of altitude (the lower the altitude, the closer the spacecraft is to the bulge, and therefore the greater the attraction, and the greater the westward shift in the orbit). This effect must be accounted for in the launch targeting, otherwise the orbiter will wind up out-of-plane from the station by the time of the planned rendezvous. So the launch is actually targeted not for the station's orbital plane, but for a "phantom plane" that will regress into the station's plane by the time of the rendezvous. For a large phase angle case, the phantom plane will regress faster than for a small phase angle due to the lower altitude. That will result in a slightly different launch time for each case.

The reason the shift in launch times appears to alternate on a two-day cycle is that the orbital altitude of ISS puts the interval between launch opportunities very close to being a multiple of half the orbital period. This is called a two-day phase-repeating orbit. Every other day, the phase angle is small and on the alternate days, the phase angle is larger (about 180 degrees greater).
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 01/05/2008 09:42 PM
Quote
Danderman - 4/1/2008  7:35 PM

Quote
Jim - 4/1/2008  6:24 AM  
Quote
brahmanknight - 4/1/2008  9:12 AM  Wait....Z1 dome?  There is crew access INSIDE of Z1?  What is inside?  I need photos, guys.
 Not inside the Z1 truss.   That CBM never gets opened.  It is the volume I had described

I believe this volume is called a "vestibule".


Vesitbule is the space between two CBM hatches
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 01/06/2008 04:28 AM
"I believe this volume is called a "vestibule"."

No, we officially call this the Z1 dome.  Not truly dome shaped but it is a smallar compartment between the hatch and the Z1.  Not very big but we have it crammed pretty type with stuff we don't need to access often.   I would hazard a guess of about 50ish cubic feet.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 01/06/2008 10:17 AM
Quote
erioladastra - 6/1/2008  5:28 AM

"I believe this volume is called a "vestibule"."

No, we officially call this the Z1 dome.  Not truly dome shaped but it is a smallar compartment between the hatch and the Z1.  Not very big but we have it crammed pretty type with stuff we don't need to access often.   I would hazard a guess of about 50ish cubic feet.

But Jim says the CBM hatch never gets opened. I'm confused!  :o
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 01/06/2008 10:19 AM
Oh wait I found pictures of the Z1 dome!

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/118032main_hassman_iss_briefing4_med.jpg

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/118030main_hassman_iss_briefing3_med.jpg
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 01/06/2008 12:09 PM
Quote
ShuttleDiscovery - 6/1/2008  6:17 AM

Quote
erioladastra - 6/1/2008  5:28 AM

"I believe this volume is called a "vestibule"."

No, we officially call this the Z1 dome.  Not truly dome shaped but it is a smallar compartment between the hatch and the Z1.  Not very big but we have it crammed pretty type with stuff we don't need to access often.   I would hazard a guess of about 50ish cubic feet.

But Jim says the CBM hatch never gets opened. I'm confused!  :o

I stand corrected.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ChrisC on 01/07/2008 01:57 PM
Quote
Jorge - 5/1/2008  5:33 PM
The reason the shift in launch times appears to alternate on a two-day cycle is that the orbital altitude of ISS puts the interval between launch opportunities very close to being a multiple of half the orbital period. This is called a two-day phase-repeating orbit. Every other day, the phase angle is small and on the alternate days, the phase angle is larger (about 180 degrees greater).
Thank you Jorge for the fabulous answer!  Very linear and easy to follow.

One followup question that should be easy ... which of the two day-to-day offsets puts the shuttle into the small-phase situation?  Is the 22m31s offset followed by a low phase-angle launch, or is the 25m43 followed by a low phase-angle launch?

If it's a low phase-angle launch, then that should mean that I'll stand a better chance of seeing the shuttle "chasing" ISS in the evening sky.  It's already close and is approaching slowly, and so on both evenings prior to docking I should get a chance.  With high phase-angle launches, it's far away (180 degrees!) and approaching fast, so really only the last evening prior to docking is my opportunity to see it.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: DMeader on 01/07/2008 02:35 PM
Quote
ShuttleDiscovery - 6/1/2008  6:19 AM

Oh wait I found pictures of the Z1 dome!

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/118030main_hassman_iss_briefing3_med.jpg

Is that a Makita cordless drill I see off to the right in this photo?  :)

Thanks to all who provided all these good replies and information.

Wondering a bit more about the Z1 dome. Was this space just a happy accident that someone discovered or was it intended as a little bit more stowage? Seems like seals and environmental conditioning would have been taken into account for stowage use, but not necessarily if that CBM was only intended to physically mate Z1. Is the surface I see behind the crewman in the first image the undersurface of Z1, or was the CBM blanked off since access to Z1 was not required?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 01/07/2008 03:13 PM
The CBM is the 8 "fingers" in the corners of the hatch open.  The white cloth is the covering the dome
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 01/07/2008 03:55 PM
Quote
ChrisC - 7/1/2008  8:57 AM

Quote
Jorge - 5/1/2008  5:33 PM
The reason the shift in launch times appears to alternate on a two-day cycle is that the orbital altitude of ISS puts the interval between launch opportunities very close to being a multiple of half the orbital period. This is called a two-day phase-repeating orbit. Every other day, the phase angle is small and on the alternate days, the phase angle is larger (about 180 degrees greater).
Thank you Jorge for the fabulous answer!  Very linear and easy to follow.

One followup question that should be easy ... which of the two day-to-day offsets puts the shuttle into the small-phase situation?  Is the 22m31s offset followed by a low phase-angle launch, or is the 25m43 followed by a low phase-angle launch?

Ahhh, I'll need to think out loud for that one. The phantom plane will regress westward faster for the large phase angle case, so it will start out further to the east, so it will be later than average while the small phase angle case will be earlier. So the launch window will shift less earlier for the large phase angle case.

Quote
If it's a low phase-angle launch, then that should mean that I'll stand a better chance of seeing the shuttle "chasing" ISS in the evening sky.  It's already close and is approaching slowly, and so on both evenings prior to docking I should get a chance.  With high phase-angle launches, it's far away (180 degrees!) and approaching fast, so really only the last evening prior to docking is my opportunity to see it.

What I'm calling a small phase angle just means it's less than 180, so you may not see the two vehicles together even then.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Olaf on 01/12/2008 03:40 PM
I´ve now learned that Italy will get extra time on the ISS.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/01/10/220678/esa-pushes-for-more-astronaut-time-on-space-station.html

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 01/12/2008 03:59 PM
"I´ve now learned that Italy will get extra time on the ISS."

Unless you are referring to something not in the article...this is a push, not a final agreement.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: DMeader on 01/16/2008 01:01 PM
Space.com has a story about someone in the UK wanting to develop two hab modules to be berthed to Node3, to be launched via a Soyuz booster no earlier than 2011. Does this plan actually have any traction or is it just some wishful thinking?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 01/16/2008 03:34 PM
Quote
DMeader - 16/1/2008  2:01 PM

Space.com has a story about someone in the UK wanting to develop two hab modules to be berthed to Node3, to be launched via a Soyuz booster no earlier than 2011. Does this plan actually have any traction or is it just some wishful thinking?

Read this thread, it has more info:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=11351&posts=52&start=1
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: DMeader on 01/16/2008 06:55 PM
Thanks..... as luck would have it one of the threads I'd never ventured into before...
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Andy_Small on 01/22/2008 01:36 AM
Will Orion use the SSPT while docked to ISS?  Will there really be a need for it?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 01/22/2008 02:26 AM
Quote
Andy_Small - 21/1/2008  9:36 PM

Will Orion use the SSPT while docked to ISS?  Will there really be a need for it?

One of the "S" is shuttle in SSPT.   Orion has solar panels and not fuel cells

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: NASAGeek on 01/30/2008 01:47 AM
I got a question about ISS commentary on NASA TV. It seemed like when Exp 1 was on station. The commentary lasted two hours instead of the one hour we get now and then somewhere they downgraded to one hour. Why did they go from two hours to one hour commentary? I really like watching the commentary hour
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: MKremer on 01/30/2008 07:21 PM
Most likely PAO determined the live daily coverage wasn't that popular, plus budget crunch reductions would have helped decide to reduce it to only one hour Mon-Fri. (It's also probably why their 24/7 live audio feed was terminated several years ago -- see the separate audio feed thread that's in this section)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: litton4 on 02/02/2008 02:26 PM
I just noticed the following in the ISS Schedule thread:

February 15 (TBD) - ISS orbit's raising by Atlantis's engines

How can they use a Shuttle's engines to raise the orbit of the ISS?

I thought that the thrust would have to be along the velocity vector, but the shuttle
is docked with the OMS pointing in the nadir direction.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 02/02/2008 02:47 PM
Quote
litton4 - 2/2/2008  10:26 AM

I just noticed the following in the ISS Schedule thread:

February 15 (TBD) - ISS orbit's raising by Atlantis's engines

How can they use a Shuttle's engines to raise the orbit of the ISS?

I thought that the thrust would have to be along the velocity vector, but the shuttle
is docked with the OMS pointing in the nadir direction.


They use RCS thrusters

Also, the OMS would have too much thrust

Shuttle does this almost every mission
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 02/02/2008 07:28 PM
"February 15 (TBD) - ISS orbit's raising by Atlantis's engines "

And it is not a given - it will only be done if the prop is available (and will be discussed during the misison on whether we extend, do a fly around etc).  We will see when we get there.  Likely though.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: litton4 on 02/02/2008 08:10 PM
Quote
Jim - 2/2/2008  3:47 PM

They use RCS thrusters

Also, the OMS would have too much thrust

Shuttle does this almost every mission

Ok, I didn't think the RCS would have enough thrust to perform this efficiently.

How much thrust can the RCS deliver? (I know there are at least 2 different type of thruster,
small 'verniers' and larger ones, in addition to the OMS engines)

Also, a side question - is there any video released from the recent reboost?

It would be quite cool to see internal video from the relatively uncluttered Harmony module.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: litton4 on 02/02/2008 08:23 PM
Quote
erioladastra - 2/2/2008  8:28 PM

"February 15 (TBD) - ISS orbit's raising by Atlantis's engines "

And it is not a given - it will only be done if the prop is available (and will be discussed during the misison on whether we extend, do a fly around etc).  We will see when we get there.  Likely though.

Ok, what drives the decision, assuming that propellant is available?

Is it just a case of "Well, we've lifted it up there, we might as well use it" in order to save Progress/Zveza resources?

I assume that there is something more to it, though!

The schedule of reboosts seems quite arbitrary. with them frequently being moved/cancelled.

I can understand them being changed to match changing flight schedules (for rendevous optimising etc), but there seem to be more changes than this would require.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 02/02/2008 08:32 PM
Quote
litton4 - 2/2/2008  3:10 PM

Quote
Jim - 2/2/2008  3:47 PM

They use RCS thrusters

Also, the OMS would have too much thrust

Shuttle does this almost every mission

Ok, I didn't think the RCS would have enough thrust to perform this efficiently.

It is not efficient, but efficiency is not the point. The point is that if a shuttle has spare propellant, it is better to use that propellant to perform the reboost, inefficient though it may be, rather than pay the Russians for another Progress.

Low thrust isn't the reason shuttle reboosts are inefficient. The primary RCS thrusters actually have more thrust than the Progress main engine, and the vernier RCS thrusters are comparable to the Progress RCS thrusters. Shuttle reboosts are inefficient due to the large moment offsets between the RCS thrusters and the shuttle/ISS stack c.g., which results in some propellant being wasted on attitude control, to keep the stack pointed the right way during the reboost.

Quote
How much thrust can the RCS deliver? (I know there are at least 2 different type of thruster, small 'verniers' and larger ones, in addition to the OMS engines)

24 lbf for verniers, 870 lbf for primaries. (Compare to 13.3 kgf and 300 kgf for the Progress RCS and main engine, respectively.)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 02/02/2008 08:48 PM
Quote
litton4 - 2/2/2008  4:23 PM

1.  Ok, what drives the decision, assuming that propellant is available?

2.  Is it just a case of "Well, we've lifted it up there, we might as well use it" in order to save Progress/Zveza resources?

3.  I assume that there is something more to it, though!

The schedule of reboosts seems quite arbitrary. with them frequently being moved/cancelled.

I can understand them being changed to match changing flight schedules (for rendevous optimising etc), but there seem to be more changes than this would require.

1.  the shuttle has to be there for a shuttle reboost.  
It is always planned when the shuttle is there

2.  that is it

3. other reboosts are scheduled around other activities and events

4.  no, that is it.  Also, there are collision burns too
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: DMeader on 02/03/2008 12:38 AM
Quote
Jorge - 2/2/2008  4:32 PM

24 lbf for verniers, 870 lbf for primaries. (Compare to 13.3 kgf and 300 kgf for the Progress RCS and main engine, respectively.)

Will they use the primaries or the verniers? How long would the burns be for each?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 02/04/2008 12:04 AM
Is there are reason why there was no crew rotation on sts 114?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: psloss on 02/04/2008 02:36 AM
Quote
brahmanknight - 3/2/2008  8:04 PM

Is there are reason why there was no crew rotation on sts 114?
Not enough logistics capability in the post-disaster time period to support a three-person crew without the shuttle flying for so long.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ichilton on 02/12/2008 07:28 AM
Hi,

How will it work with a 6 person crew? - will they have 2x Soyuz up there all the time, with crew exchanges in 2 parts - 3 leave, then 3 more come, then the other 3 leave and another 3 come?

Thanks

Ian
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ichilton on 02/12/2008 07:31 AM
Hi,

Now that Columbus is attached, I was thinking of the control centre in Germany they were on about..... how does that communicate with Columbus - do they relay through NASA?

Do NASA have a separate data/telemetry/control channel which is separate to the other voice/video stuff or does it all just go across the same s-band/Ku?

Will the Columbus control centre in Germany be able to talk direct to ISS/the lab? - if so, will that be over Space-To-Ground 1/2 as normal (presumably relayed by nasa) or will they have a separate link?

Thanks

Ian
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: mikes on 02/12/2008 03:47 PM
During today's PAO event some of the crew were spinning a large brass gauge around. When asked, they said it's used to measure the pressure in the airlock during prebreathe. I assume there are more modern (and probably rather smaller!) gauges fixed in Quest, and that this is an item used as much for entertainment as for utility. Can anyone point me to some information about it? Riley1066 suggests it's a Russian gauge.
thanks
Mike

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 02/12/2008 04:25 PM
Quote
ichilton - 12/2/2008  3:31 AM

Hi,

1.  Now that Columbus is attached, I was thinking of the control centre in Germany they were on about..... how does that communicate with Columbus - do they relay through NASA?

2.  Do NASA have a separate data/telemetry/control channel which is separate to the other voice/video stuff or does it all just go across the same s-band/Ku?

3.  Will the Columbus control centre in Germany be able to talk direct to ISS/the lab? - if so, will that be over Space-To-Ground 1/2 as normal (presumably relayed by nasa) or will they have a separate link?

Thanks

Ian

1. yes

2.  same  s-band/Ku band

3.  it will be linked through the NASA system


Once Kibo is up and running, there will be a separate high data rate available through it via artemis and DTS.


this is all in the Columbus Handbook on L2

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 02/12/2008 05:01 PM
Is is correct that between Destiny and Harmony,  Columbus and Harmony, and Unity and Quest, and Unity and Destiny, there is protective covering?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/get-attachment.asp?action=view&attachmentid=40721

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-16/lores/iss016e021042.jpg

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-15/lores/iss015e15670.jpg
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 02/12/2008 05:05 PM
Yes
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 02/12/2008 05:18 PM
Quote
ichilton - 12/2/2008  2:28 AM

Hi,

How will it work with a 6 person crew? - will they have 2x Soyuz up there all the time, with crew exchanges in 2 parts - 3 leave, then 3 more come, then the other 3 leave and another 3 come?

Yes.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 02/12/2008 05:27 PM
Quote
Jorge - 12/2/2008  6:18 PM

Quote
ichilton - 12/2/2008  2:28 AM

Hi,

How will it work with a 6 person crew? - will they have 2x Soyuz up there all the time, with crew exchanges in 2 parts - 3 leave, then 3 more come, then the other 3 leave and another 3 come?


Well, Expedition 19 is a bit more confusing, but this might help show how it is going to work with the last shuttle crew rotation...

http://www.spacefacts.de/schedule/e_iss.htm
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: anik on 02/12/2008 07:18 PM
Quote
ShuttleDiscovery - 12/2/2008  9:27 PM

Well, Expedition 19 is a bit more confusing, but this might help show how it is going to work with the last shuttle crew rotation...

http://www.spacefacts.de/schedule/e_iss.htm

Alas, this website has outdated information... According to recent NASA press release (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/feb/HQ_08052_Crew_Announcements.html), Thirsk will return on STS-129, not on Soyuz TMA-14... And it means there will be changes in Soyuz TMA-16 crew...
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: jarthur on 02/12/2008 07:22 PM
Does anyone have a link to Columbus' current topology (I don't have access to L2 for productivity reasons :)  )?   I found a really old one via a google search but it also listed the CAM so I am not sure how out of date it is.

Thanks!
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 02/13/2008 02:32 PM
Quote
anik - 12/2/2008  8:18 PM

Quote
ShuttleDiscovery - 12/2/2008  9:27 PM

Well, Expedition 19 is a bit more confusing, but this might help show how it is going to work with the last shuttle crew rotation...

http://www.spacefacts.de/schedule/e_iss.htm

Alas, this website has outdated information... According to recent NASA press release (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/feb/HQ_08052_Crew_Announcements.html), Thirsk will return on STS-129, not on Soyuz TMA-14... And it means there will be changes in Soyuz TMA-16 crew...

So it does, thanks anik!  :o
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 02/13/2008 02:35 PM
How many spacesuits do they have permanantly on the ISS (US and Russian) and how many SAFER systems?

Thanks

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: daj24 on 02/13/2008 02:47 PM
Jim (or anyone) on todays live thread (day 7) you said:

Riley1066 - 13/2/2008 10:02 AM

Interesting that neither Harmony or Columbus (nor Kibo) seem to require those Space Vision System Dots that cover the station from Destiny to Zarya.


because it didn't work

Can you please explain the rational behind the dots and why they did not work?  TIA

OK, this was later answered in the live thread, via a link to a wiki.  I still would not be opposed to anything that you would care to add.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: anik on 02/13/2008 03:17 PM
Quote
ShuttleDiscovery - 13/2/2008  6:35 PM

How many spacesuits do they have permanantly on the ISS (US and Russian) and how many SAFER systems?

Currently:

Three EMU spacesuits (#3006, #3008, #3018) plus spare HUT (hard upper torso)

Three Orlan-M spacesuits (#25, #26, #27)

Three SAFERs
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 02/13/2008 04:17 PM
Thanks anik. Speaking of US spacesuits, could someone post a list of all the active US space suits? :)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: anik on 02/13/2008 04:26 PM
Quote
ShuttleDiscovery - 13/2/2008  8:17 PM

Speaking of US spacesuits, could someone post a list of all the active US space suits?

EMUs: 3003 (Earth), 3004 (Earth), 3005 (Earth), 3006 (ISS), 3008 (ISS), 3009 (Earth), 3010 (Earth), 3011 (Earth), 3013 (Earth), 3015 (STS-122), 3017 (STS-122), 3018 (ISS)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 02/13/2008 05:40 PM
Quote
anik - 13/2/2008  5:26 PM

Quote
ShuttleDiscovery - 13/2/2008  8:17 PM

Speaking of US spacesuits, could someone post a list of all the active US space suits?

EMUs: 3003 (Earth), 3004 (Earth), 3005 (Earth), 3006 (ISS), 3008 (ISS), 3009 (Earth), 3010 (Earth), 3011 (Earth), 3013 (Earth), 3015 (STS-122), 3017 (STS-122), 3018 (ISS)

Thank you!

I didn't realise there are only 12! - I assumed there were more but I suppose they don't need any more as only a maximum of around 5 are in space at any one time... :)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: SpaceAdmin on 02/13/2008 05:53 PM
Quote
mikes - 12/2/2008  10:47 AM

During today's PAO event some of the crew were spinning a large brass gauge around. When asked, they said it's used to measure the pressure in the airlock during prebreathe. I assume there are more modern (and probably rather smaller!) gauges fixed in Quest, and that this is an item used as much for entertainment as for utility. Can anyone point me to some information about it? Riley1066 suggests it's a Russian gauge.
thanks
Mike

Having worked the ISS ECLSS console until about 2 1/2 years ago, I can tell you exactly what that gauge is. It's a piece of Russian equipment - a manometer. And yes, they use it in the airlock to monitor pressure changes during the EVA prebreathe, depress, and repress timeline.

Of course there are sensors in the airlock that report the pressure. Those sensors report the pressure to the crew displays and to the ground. But, a suited crewmember can't operate the crew computer due to the gloved hand. Nor is the computer certified for vacuum. Additionally, there is so much going on during the EVA timeframe, that the crew computer is more of a nuisance. It's just in the way.

Also, there is little that can go wrong with this thing. It does not need power and won't suffer any data drop-outs, etc.

So, they use this gauge as their primary total pressure indicator. There is another hand-held O2 sensor they use during the prebreathe timeframe. It's a battery operated device called the CSA-CP. It, along with ground monitored O2 readings from the MCA, is how they monitor their O2 saturation levels.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 02/13/2008 06:55 PM
With something of the mass of the SAWs, how does the turning of the SARJs keep from spinning the rest of the station with it?  Shouldn't it be similar to having a tail rotor on a helicoptor to to keep the airframe from yawing?   Is that the function of the CMGs to keep the station from pitching?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 02/13/2008 07:21 PM
Quote
brahmanknight - 13/2/2008  2:55 PM
Is that the function of the CMGs to keep the station from pitching?

Yes
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 02/13/2008 07:49 PM
"Also, there is little that can go wrong with this thing. It does not need power and won't suffer any data drop-outs, etc. "

Yet I have seen at least 2 fail on orbit.

Of course, the CSA-CPs also wear out.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: steve_slitheen on 02/13/2008 08:31 PM
Why are the PMA's such a dark colour when the rest of the station is silver and white?  I would expect something so dark to absorb a lot of heat.

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: SpaceAdmin on 02/13/2008 08:31 PM
Quote
erioladastra - 13/2/2008  2:49 PM

"Also, there is little that can go wrong with this thing. It does not need power and won't suffer any data drop-outs, etc. "

Yet I have seen at least 2 fail on orbit.

Of course, the CSA-CPs also wear out.

Which is why I didn't say, they never fail.

Though I would say that they never fail during an EVA timeline. They check them out first. Ensuring that this mechanical device works beforehand means that sensor failures, power outages, data hits, (remote as they are) are more likely.

The CSA-CP is a joke of a device. There are better sensors available commercialy for less. The CSA-CPs they had when I was there would only read accurately at 14.7. So, as the pressure changed, you had to apply a factor to the reading.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Analyst on 02/14/2008 09:02 AM
Quote
jarthur - 12/2/2008  9:22 PM

Does anyone have a link to Columbus' current topology?

I would be interested in it too. For launch and after reconfig.

Analyst

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 02/14/2008 10:53 AM
Quote
Analyst - 14/2/2008  5:02 AM

Quote
jarthur - 12/2/2008  9:22 PM

Does anyone have a link to Columbus' current topology?

I would be interested in it too. For launch and after reconfig.

Analyst


L2
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 02/14/2008 06:54 PM
Are there 7 rack spaces along the walls in Destiny (not actual science racks, but spaces)?

In Kibo is it the same but with the added airlock area?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Analyst on 02/14/2008 07:51 PM
Quote
ShuttleDiscovery - 14/2/2008  8:54 PM

Are there 7 rack spaces along the walls in Destiny (not actual science racks, but spaces)?

In Kibo is it the same but with the added airlock area?

6, not 7. For a total of 23, because Destiny has the window and Kibo the zenith CBM.

Analyst
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: jarthur on 02/14/2008 07:57 PM
Quote
Jim - 14/2/2008  4:53 AM

Quote
Analyst - 14/2/2008  5:02 AM

Quote
jarthur - 12/2/2008  9:22 PM

Does anyone have a link to Columbus' current topology?

I would be interested in it too. For launch and after reconfig.

Analyst


L2

Ah, the ever helpful Jim. Thank buddy.

Analyst, here is what I have been able to piece together from public sources. Anyone feel free to chime in if I have made a mistake. I am pretty confident about the location of the ESA racks. I think there should be 1 more ZSR launched, but and not sure where and have put a ZSR operationally on O2 through the process of elimination. The US rack locations are taken from an awfully old source and should be taken with caution. Especially since 1 of the racks has yet to launch (is it still planned to launch?)

Location   Launch   Operational
O1                 FSL           FSL
O2                 Biolab   ZSR
O3                 EPM          ZSR
O4                 EDR          ZSR
A1                 Empty       EXP #3
A2                 ZSR          Biolab
A3                 Empty       EPM
A4                 Empty       HRF #2
D1                 Systems   Systems
D2                 Systems   Systems
D3                 Systems   Systems
D4                 ETC          ETC
F1                 Empty       EDR
F2                  Empty       MSG
F3                  ZSR         MAR-ES
F4                  Empty      HRF #1



Also, Analyst, do you know if the WORF is still planned for the Window you were talking about in Destiny?

edit: sorry about the columns not lining up, they did when I typed it but not once I posted it :(
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 02/14/2008 08:12 PM
"The CSA-CP is a joke of a device. There are better sensors available commercialy for less. The CSA-CPs they had when I was there would only read accurately at 14.7. So, as the pressure changed, you had to apply a factor to the reading."

We now have special CSA-O2s for EVA use.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jason Davies on 02/15/2008 03:19 AM
Quote
jarthur - 14/2/2008  2:57 PM

Quote
Jim - 14/2/2008  4:53 AM

Quote
Analyst - 14/2/2008  5:02 AM

Quote
jarthur - 12/2/2008  9:22 PM

Does anyone have a link to Columbus' current topology?

I would be interested in it too. For launch and after reconfig.

Analyst


L2

Ah, the ever helpful Jim. Thank buddy.


He means L2 for the "STS-122: Columbus Module Bible (175mb - 8700 Pages)". There's no short answer to your question as I think we're talking over a 100 pages at least on your question, if it's what I think it was :o  :laugh:
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: jarthur on 02/15/2008 03:45 AM
Quote
Jason Davies - 14/2/2008  9:19 PM

Quote
jarthur - 14/2/2008  2:57 PM

Quote
Jim - 14/2/2008  4:53 AM

Quote
Analyst - 14/2/2008  5:02 AM

Quote
jarthur - 12/2/2008  9:22 PM

Does anyone have a link to Columbus' current topology?

I would be interested in it too. For launch and after reconfig.

Analyst


L2

Ah, the ever helpful Jim. Thank buddy.


He means L2 for the "STS-122: Columbus Module Bible (175mb - 8700 Pages)". There's no short answer to your question as I think we're talking over a 100 pages at least on your question, if it's what I think it was :o  :laugh:

Sure there is, it could be summarized quite compactly like I attempted to in my post that  you quoted but wasn't certain if I was completely right or not.  My response to his answer was based on the fact that I explicitly stated I did not have L2 access in my original post.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Analyst on 02/15/2008 06:43 AM
Quote
Jason Davies - 15/2/2008  5:19 AM

Quote
jarthur - 14/2/2008  2:57 PM

Quote
Jim - 14/2/2008  4:53 AM

Quote
Analyst - 14/2/2008  5:02 AM

Quote
jarthur - 12/2/2008  9:22 PM

Does anyone have a link to Columbus' current topology?

I would be interested in it too. For launch and after reconfig.

Analyst


L2

Ah, the ever helpful Jim. Thank buddy.


He means L2 for the "STS-122: Columbus Module Bible (175mb - 8700 Pages)". There's no short answer to your question as I think we're talking over a 100 pages at least on your question, if it's what I think it was :o  :laugh:

I have scanned (not read :) ) the "Columbus Bible", but I am pretty sure the actual rack topology (Which rack is where at which time.) is not discussed, only the general topology (How many rack positions, numbering of these etc.). If am am wrong, please point me to the relevant pages of this pdf. Thanks.

Analyst
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Se Elmeri on 02/15/2008 09:16 AM
Clay-Anderson-jettisoned ISS ammonia tank has obviously just re-entered.

http://www.reentrynews.com/1998067az.html
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Analyst on 02/15/2008 09:52 AM
Quote
jarthur - 14/2/2008  9:57 PM

Also, Analyst, do you know if the WORF is still planned for the Window you were talking about in Destiny?

This (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070031903_2007030977.pdf) document from 2007 indicates flight 19A (STS-130, last MPLM flight). But I wouldn't be surprised if US science on ISS gets cut back even more.

Analyst
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 02/15/2008 11:30 AM
Quote
jarthur - 14/2/2008  11:45 PM

Quote
Jason Davies - 14/2/2008  9:19 PM

Quote
jarthur - 14/2/2008  2:57 PM

Quote
Jim - 14/2/2008  4:53 AM

Quote
Analyst - 14/2/2008  5:02 AM

Quote
jarthur - 12/2/2008  9:22 PM

Does anyone have a link to Columbus' current topology?

I would be interested in it too. For launch and after reconfig.

Analyst


L2

Ah, the ever helpful Jim. Thank buddy.


He means L2 for the "STS-122: Columbus Module Bible (175mb - 8700 Pages)". There's no short answer to your question as I think we're talking over a 100 pages at least on your question, if it's what I think it was :o  :laugh:

Sure there is, it could be summarized quite compactly like I attempted to in my post that  you quoted but wasn't certain if I was completely right or not.  My response to his answer was based on the fact that I explicitly stated I did not have L2 access in my original post.

No, there is a topology for all the modules on L2
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Analyst on 02/15/2008 11:42 AM
Quote
Jim - 15/2/2008  1:30 PM

No, there is a topology for all the modules on L2

Yes,

- but it is dated,
- only shows the then planned end result (including Node3)
- and not the launch and intermediate configurations.

Analyst
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/15/2008 12:34 PM
I'm happy to screenshot anything of use out of L2 on the question noted on the previous page, if anyone has a pointer.

The Columbus bible is huge, so I'd need someone to PM me some page numbers. Also assuming we're talking about the image in the ""International Space Station - Six Crew Strategic Planning Document - FINAL" ?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: anik on 02/15/2008 12:51 PM
Quote
Se Elmeri - 15/2/2008  1:16 PM

Clay-Anderson-jettisoned ISS ammonia tank has obviously just re-entered.

http://www.reentrynews.com/1998067az.html

It was not EAS... 1998-067AZ/31927 is VSSA FSE + EFRAM... EAS is 1998-067BA/31928...
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Analyst on 02/15/2008 01:09 PM
Quote
Chris Bergin - 15/2/2008  2:34 PM

The Columbus bible is huge, so I'd need someone to PM me some page numbers. Also assuming we're talking about the image in the ""International Space Station - Six Crew Strategic Planning Document - FINAL" ?

Correct, this is the document giving the final planned rack topology; but with all the limitations I noted in my last post. I have not found something like this - and I don't mean "looking" like this but having the same kind of information - in the "Columbus Bible" for Columbus, let alone the other modules.

The ISS Increment Defintion documents are good sources too for this stuff, but they are also dated and don't include late changes etc. Forget the STS press kits.

The question is: Which rack is at which position at a given time (launch, after activation etc.)?

Analyst
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Se Elmeri on 02/15/2008 01:24 PM
Quote
anik - 15/2/2008  3:51 PM

Quote
Se Elmeri - 15/2/2008  1:16 PM

Clay-Anderson-jettisoned ISS ammonia tank has obviously just re-entered.

http://www.reentrynews.com/1998067az.html

It was not EAS... 1998-067AZ/31927 is VSSA FSE + EFRAM... EAS is 1998-067BA/31928...

All right... it was maybe that video stanchion assembly, then...
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: jarthur on 02/15/2008 02:17 PM
Quote
Analyst - 15/2/2008  3:52 AM

Quote
jarthur - 14/2/2008  9:57 PM

Also, Analyst, do you know if the WORF is still planned for the Window you were talking about in Destiny?

This (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070031903_2007030977.pdf) document from 2007 indicates flight 19A (STS-130, last MPLM flight). But I wouldn't be surprised if US science on ISS gets cut back even more.

Analyst

Thanks for the info! I would be disappointed to see a further cut in ISS science, but perhaps not surprised. It would be a shame to see good science that is ready to go not find a place in space, especially the AMS which looks doomed.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Analyst on 02/16/2008 10:58 AM
Quote
jarthur - 14/2/2008  9:57 PM

Location   Launch   Operational
O1                 FSL           FSL
O2                 Biolab   ZSR
O3                 EPM          ZSR
O4                 EDR          ZSR
A1                 Empty       EXP #3
A2                 ZSR          Biolab
A3                 Empty       EPM
A4                 Empty       HRF #2
D1                 Systems   Systems
D2                 Systems   Systems
D3                 Systems   Systems
D4                 ETC          ETC
F1                 Empty       EDR
F2                  Empty       MSG
F3                  ZSR         MAR-ES
F4                  Empty      HRF #1


What is your source for the ZSR positions (launch and operational)? I am sure the European rack positions are correct, including systems.

Analyst
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: janmb on 02/16/2008 12:15 PM
I'm a bit puzzled and annoyed that we just had a 36 minute reboost burn, most of it with perfect ku coverage, and the NASA TV production covers exactly 0 seconds of it and instead spends 10 of those minutes showing immobile solar panels.

Is there a technical reasons why they don't want cameras on the shuttle during this burn, or is this an example of very very bad tv production skills? NASA tends to be pretty good at covering the important stuff so I like to believe there's a technical constraint here, but having a hard time imagining why.

Second question.. Reboost burns are basically earth tangent, building velocity, are they not? While this definitely boosts altitude (which is the point in this case), doesn't it also make the orbit elliptical? Is a corresponding burn at T+90 minutes performed to circularize it, and if not, why is that not required?


Third... How is it that this burn apparently causes no acceleration what so ever from the crews' point of view? Simply because the acceleration is microscopic? One would like to believe it's pretty impossible to make any kind of burn at all without it being noticeable at all on the inside of the vehicle.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 02/16/2008 12:21 PM
Quote
janmb - 16/2/2008  8:15 AM

I'm a bit puzzled and annoyed that we just had a 36 minute reboost burn, most of it with perfect ku coverage, and the NASA TV production covers exactly 0 seconds of it and instead spends 10 of those minutes showing immobile solar panels.

Is there a technical reasons why they don't want cameras on the shuttle during this burn, or is this an example of very very bad tv production skills? NASA tends to be pretty good at covering the important stuff so I like to believe there's a technical constraint here, but having a hard time imagining why.

Second question.. Reboost burns are basically earth tangent, building velocity, are they not? While this definitely boosts altitude (which is the point in this case), doesn't it also make the orbit elliptical? Is a corresponding burn at T+90 minutes performed to circularize it, and if not, why is that not required?


Third... How is it that this burn apparently causes no acceleration what so ever from the crews' point of view? Simply because the acceleration is microscopic? One would like to believe it's pretty impossible to make any kind of burn at all without it being noticeable at all on the inside of the vehicle.

They are watching the solar arrays during the burn to watch them  react to the acceleration

It will be elliptical and there will be another burn in the future (days, weeks) that will make it more circular.  37 minutes is all the excess propellant the shuttle has.   A slightly elliptical orbit is not an issue

Yes, the acceleration is low


(FYI, there is an ISS Q&A thread)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: janmb on 02/16/2008 01:08 PM
Thanks Jim

And also for the pointer to the ISS Q&A thread - still getting used to the rather extensive structure of this forum so pardon if a post ends up in a non-optimal location now and then ;)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Lawntonlookirs on 02/16/2008 02:34 PM
I thought I read in a recent forum that they didn't use the shutle to boost the ISS.  I guess who posted that was wrong.  Another question is was this a scheduled reboost?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: anik on 02/16/2008 02:37 PM
Quote
Lawntonlookirs - 16/2/2008  6:34 PM

Another question is was this a scheduled reboost?

Yes, it was...
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: rdale on 02/16/2008 02:45 PM
Quote
Lawntonlookirs - 16/2/2008  10:34 AM

I thought I read in a recent forum that they didn't use the shutle to boost the ISS.

Stay with NSF in the future - much more accurate info...
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: janmb on 02/16/2008 09:55 PM
Quote
Lawntonlookirs - 15/2/2008  8:34 PM

I thought I read in a recent forum that they didn't use the shutle to boost the ISS.  I guess who posted that was wrong.  Another question is was this a scheduled reboost?

Yes they were wrong, and yes it was scheduled.

I do think progress reboosts as well as zarya (or zwezda, always get the two mixed up) are a lot more common tho, been a long while since I can remember seeing any shuttle reboost before today
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: psloss on 02/17/2008 12:48 AM
I think I heard the shuttle CapCom give a 2002 date, which would correspond to STS-113 (that mission did three):
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/spacenews/reports/sts-113/sts-113-17.html

Also note the difference in altitude then (approx. 247 miles / 397 km) vs. now (approx. 212 miles / 342 km).
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: janmb on 02/17/2008 03:30 PM
I must admit I'm having a slightly hard time seeing how boosting the velocity (and implicit the altitude) improves anything in terms of docking opportunities tbh, but it clearly is the main reason they did this reboost. In general, I thought a low altitude would be favorable for virtually all docked operations, but that's clearly not the case.

Is this boiling down to a simple matter of orbital timing? Since the angular velocity clearly is reduced when increasing the orbital altitude, the time slots obviously change in accordance, but how does that really affect FD3 docking opportunities vs. FD4?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: quickshot89 on 02/17/2008 03:41 PM
i have a few things that i would like an answer to, so here they are:

1) what is the date that the ISS will be deorbited
2)once NASA pulls out of the ISS, would private comanies pay to own it? (im pretty sure they did that with Mir, but lack of funding caused it to be scrapped)
3) would another orbital oupost be build again or will everything be made just for moon/mars/solar exploration, IMO i would love to see an ISS2 that would be bigger and more powerful, and maybe act as a mid point from earth to the moon and beyond
4) wikipedia states that Orion crews will return to the ISS after they have been to the moon etc, is that true?
5) is there a link that i can get that gives me measurements of all station parts so i could attempt to build a scale model?

cheers in advance
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 02/17/2008 03:45 PM
Quote
quickshot89 - 17/2/2008  11:41 AM

i have a few things that i would like an answer to, so here they are:

1) what is the date that the ISS will be deorbited
2)once NASA pulls out of the ISS, would private comanies pay to own it? (im pretty sure they did that with Mir, but lack of funding caused it to be scrapped)
3) would another orbital oupost be build again or will everything be made just for moon/mars/solar exploration, IMO i would love to see an ISS2 that would be bigger and more powerful, and maybe act as a mid point from earth to the moon and beyond
4) wikipedia states that Orion crews will return to the ISS after they have been to the moon etc, is that true?
5) is there a link that i can get that gives me measurements of all station parts so i could attempt to build a scale model?

cheers in advance

1.  Not known at this time

2.  not really possible, too ingrained in NASA

3. Too far in the future.  No plans

4.  Nope.  Prime example why not to use wikipedia for space info
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: quickshot89 on 02/17/2008 03:49 PM
s once NASA switches all attention to the moon the ISS will be neglected

its a shame that so much money has been put into it and they cant be bothered to let it stay up there, upgrades would be possible, (new micro shielding blankets etc) i mean, hubble is getting upgrades to make it last, why not do the same with the ISS, really bit waste of time if they dont make it last 20+ years

how long was Mir up there for? and the russians did that on low budget
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 02/17/2008 04:23 PM
Quote
janmb - 17/2/2008  10:30 AM

I must admit I'm having a slightly hard time seeing how boosting the velocity (and implicit the altitude) improves anything in terms of docking opportunities tbh, but it clearly is the main reason they did this reboost. In general, I thought a low altitude would be favorable for virtually all docked operations, but that's clearly not the case.

Is this boiling down to a simple matter of orbital timing? Since the angular velocity clearly is reduced when increasing the orbital altitude, the time slots obviously change in accordance, but how does that really affect FD3 docking opportunities vs. FD4?

Not a matter of time so much as phase. The phase angle is the angle between the orbiter and the station, measured at the center of the Earth. The objective of rendezvous is to drive the phase angle to zero by launching into a lower orbit with a shorter period and catching up to the station from behind. This is called "phasing".

Phasing rate is roughly proportional to the difference in altitude between the orbiter and station. Since the orbiter's minimum altitude is fixed, the maximum phasing rate is limited by the altitude of the station. At higher station altitudes faster phasing is possible because the difference in orbital periods is greater.

The standard shuttle docking time is during flight day 3, but at the current low altitude of the station, this is not always possible. On some days the phase angle is too large for the shuttle to catch up by FD3, so a FD4 rendezvous would be necessary. Right now the station is close to a two-day phase repeating orbit, meaning that the phase angle at launch time alternates between a short phase angle on one day and a long phase angle (~180 degrees greater) on the alternating days. By performing a reboost to slightly increase the altitude (and orbital period) of the station, the long phasing cases can be adjusted to bring them into the FD3 phasing limit.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: DaveS on 02/17/2008 04:59 PM
Quote
quickshot89 - 17/2/2008  5:49 PM
how long was Mir up there for? and the russians did that on low budget
15 years: Feb. 1986 to March 2001. Zarya and Unity+PMA 1 and 2 is approaching 10 years old this year(Zarya in November and Unity+the two PMAs in December).
So by 2015, those components is going to be older that some of the components of Mir. Zvezda is celebrating it's 15th anniversary in July 2015.

15th anniversary for some of the various components:
Zarya: Nov. 2014
Unity: Dec. 2014
PMA-1: Dec. 2014
PMA-2: Dec. 2014
Zvezda: Jul. 2015
Destiny: Feb. 2016
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: SpaceAdmin on 02/17/2008 05:15 PM
Quote
quickshot89 - 17/2/2008  10:41 AM

i have a few things that i would like an answer to, so here they are:

5) is there a link that i can get that gives me measurements of all station parts so i could attempt to build a scale model?

cheers in advance

Might be cheaper to just buy one...

http://www.thespacestore.com/spstmo.html
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: quickshot89 on 02/17/2008 05:22 PM
now wheres the fun in buyng it
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Toddie_DC on 02/19/2008 02:32 AM
I have been challenged by a friend of mine that works at ISS MOCR to come up with some "real" questions about the ISS.

Anyone have some "real" questions about the ISS I can send her way??

Todd
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ckiki lwai on 02/19/2008 07:18 AM
When I saw the pictures of the ISS during the flyaround of STS-122 I noticed that the starboard solar arrays were moved. (compared to this picture  where the solar arrays face the Earth)

I thought they didn't want to rotate the starboard SARJ anymore.
Is the position of the solar arrays that more important than further damaging an irreplaceable SARJ?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: psloss on 02/19/2008 10:53 AM
Quote
ckiki lwai - 19/2/2008  3:18 AM

I thought they didn't want to rotate the starboard SARJ anymore.
Is the position of the solar arrays that more important than further damaging an irreplaceable SARJ?
They don't want the starboard SARJ in auto-track and are also minimizing any manual positioning.  

But don't forget that approaching and departing vehicles tend to use thrusters that produce plumes that could hit the arrays, and those arrays can only take so much force.  I believe this is one of the reasons why the orbiter flyaround distance was increased to 600 feet and more beginning with ISS-12A.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: mikes on 02/19/2008 03:09 PM
Quote
SpaceAdmin - 13/2/2008  6:53 PM
Having worked the ISS ECLSS console until about 2 1/2 years ago, I can tell you exactly what that gauge is. It's a piece of Russian equipment - a manometer. And yes, they use it in the airlock to monitor pressure changes during the EVA prebreathe, depress, and repress timeline.
Thanks SpaceAdmin! I think this is the device referred to in various places as "MB" which is presumably a transcription of the cyrillic which transliterates into latin script as "MV" standing for the Russian for "vacuum manometer". There's a brief description at
Quote
http://suzymchale.com/kosmonavtka/issrslss.html
The vacuum manometer is a mechanical aneroid instrument which measures total pressure in the habitable compartments. It is a portable unit with two dials with measurement ranges 0-460 mmHg and 470-960 mmHg. It has a range indicator to ensure a proper reading, and a mirror scale to ensure an accurate reading. Instrument error is ± 2 mmHg.
Is this the one, or something different? I don't suppose you have easy access to a document that says who makes it or even a part number? I'm feeling geeky enough to write to them to ask for some details.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: dsobin on 02/19/2008 04:00 PM
In the STS-122 thread, there was a mention of the oxygen transfer from Atlantis to ISS. Why,
I wonder, would there be a need to transfer oxygen to ISS when it has a functioning OGS that
can produce enough oxygen to support even the largest of crews?

So, a few questions here:

1) Is the OGS running?
2) What is its duty cycle?
3) How much oxygen is it currently producing?
4) How much can it produce in its current location?
5) Is it ultimately going to be relocated?
6) If it's up and running, why is oxygen transferred from the Shuttle to ISS?
7) What issues are there with regards to running OGS at a higher rate?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: rdale on 02/19/2008 04:59 PM
This is high-pressure oxygen for the EVA tanks... OGS is low pressure so can't fill those.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: psloss on 02/19/2008 05:19 PM
Quote
dsobin - 19/2/2008  12:00 PM

In the STS-122 thread, there was a mention of the oxygen transfer from Atlantis to ISS. Why,
I wonder, would there be a need to transfer oxygen to ISS when it has a functioning OGS that
can produce enough oxygen to support even the largest of crews?
Standard conservation measures.  I believe they also used the orbiter ECLSS to repressurize the station atmosphere because it's easier to replenish the consummables on shuttle orbiters than on the station.

Both the Elektron and the OGS use water and that has to be resupplied.  If the orbiter can reduce the load on the station's oxygen generation systems, that conserves the station water supply.  (While that supply is also being augmented from the orbiter fuel cells.)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Lee Jay on 02/19/2008 05:33 PM
Quote
rdale - 19/2/2008  10:59 AM

This is high-pressure oxygen for the EVA tanks... OGS is low pressure so can't fill those.

Isn't the orbiter cryo low-pressure too?  They have a "pump" (compressor) that has to run for many hours to pump O2 into those high-pressure tanks.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 02/19/2008 05:47 PM
OGS output is not stored.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: edfishel on 02/19/2008 06:00 PM
Todd - thanks to your friend for asking. Here are the things I'm curious about:

1. As we make major strides in the ISS construction, at this junction what percentage of the 3-person's crew is devoted to maintenance, new construction, and science?  When it becomes a 6-person station, does it automatically follow that all three new crewmembers will be devoted to science?

2. Where are the results of the science experiments being published? I would love to seen a report (or book)...written for lay people...on the discoveries already made on the ISS.

3. We understand that except for moving things around, all other types of work in a weighless environment are more difficult. Are there any cute little inventions or techniques that have evolved to cope with that problem.  For example, are "toe-holds" or straps being added at key locations to help the crew stabilize themselves. Another example was watching Cmdr Whitson and other crew members wrap their legs around the astronauts they were helping get suited up...to get stability while putting on their helmets.

4. Has ISS crew training become more "general" with emphasis on certain basic skills as the ISS continues to become more complex; i.e. - emphasis on basic computer training, space-walk training, operations training...while expecting the astronauts to learn specific tasks as problems are encountered in space. How has the training evolved over time?

5.. How worried are the insiders about the SARJ problem?

6. Sounds silly, but I really don't know: where do the astronauts go to sleep? Do they have any nooks and crannies that are their own yet? As the sleep periods followed faithfully or do they...like many of us...take cat-naps during the day to sustain them?

7.  Have there been any improvements in the food?

8. Is the idea of an inflatable habitat to provide the astronauts more private space gone forever or it anyone keeping the concept alive.

9. How the issue of noise levels been mitigated over the years or is it still a problem?

Thanks, again, Todd.

Ed
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: iamlucky13 on 02/19/2008 06:16 PM
Quote
edfishel - 19/2/2008  11:00 AM

2. Where are the results of the science experiments being published? I would love to seen a report (or book)...written for lay people...on the discoveries already made on the ISS.
Ed, check this link for a complete list. It looks like about 700 individual experiments...all conducted so far without Columbus (or Kibo) and on a 2-3 man crew, with occasional short term supplement from the shuttles.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/science/experiments/Expedition.html

Quote
8. Is the idea of an inflatable habitat to provide the astronauts more private space gone forever or it anyone keeping the concept alive.
It seems to have been abandoned. To the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been active work on it (aside from Bigelow's) in years. However, there's a proposal in the UK to build a pair of small "Habitat Extension Modules" of a more conventional construction that would give each crewmember a small private "room," plus a communal area. If they go forward with it, they would probably be launched by Russia in 2011.

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/080116-tw-british-iss.html
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 02/20/2008 12:53 AM
"Isn't the orbiter cryo low-pressure too? They have a "pump" (compressor) that has to run for many hours to pump O2 into those high-pressure tanks."

Correct - but there is no fitting/plumbing to go from OGS to the O2 tanks, plus it spits it out so low leves vice what the pump pulls it would burn out.  To answer the other questions, OGS is not running because there is not enough excess water to support it.  We are trying to get it running as much as possible to shake it down so that when we get to 6 people and water reclamation (e.g., urine) it can run all the time.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 02/20/2008 12:57 AM

1. No but the ratio should be approximately that.

3.  Yes, we are putting toe holds in Columbus for example.

4. Trying to get there.  With 6 people we are moving to more of an operator/user type category but some of this is still be hammered out.  It is still too much training.

5.  Very.

6. In the RS two people sleep in the Kayuta sleep stations and in the US we have the TESS - all are phone booth sized sleeping nooks.

10.  Still very high on the RS (US is fine).  We just installed sound baffles in the FGB and that is helping.  But it is probably about as good as it is going to get.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: edfishel on 02/20/2008 01:51 PM
Thank you!
Ed
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 02/24/2008 10:35 AM
How come there is no internet on the Space Station, and are there any plans to create an ISS internet connection in the future?  :o
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 02/24/2008 12:55 PM
Quote
ShuttleDiscovery - 24/2/2008  6:35 AM

How come there is no internet on the Space Station, and are there any plans to create an ISS internet connection in the future?  :o

They have the ability but it is not continuous due to TDRS coverage constraints, I believe.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: eeergo on 02/24/2008 01:10 PM

Quote
Jim - 24/2/2008 2:55 PM
Quote
ShuttleDiscovery - 24/2/2008 6:35 AM How come there is no internet on the Space Station, and are there any plans to create an ISS internet connection in the future? :o
They have the ability but it is not continuous due to TDRS coverage constraints, I believe.

I have a question relating to this that has puzzled me for a long time. Most of the basic (audio, video, data...) capabilities for both the Shuttle and the ISS go through TDRSS and there are frequent losses of signal because of lack of coverage (or sometimes data allocation?)

So, my question is... if the only limitation is the number of satellites, couldn't they just launch 2 or 3 more TDRSs and have global coverage, with no LOS? I know it would mean $$ but I think the benefits would far outweight the cons, missions could be far more efficient if they had continuous video, audio and data, and internet capabilities would also greatly optimize how the work is carried out in ISS. I think there's a TDRS launch scheduled for this year, so it's not like the system is going to be replaced or handed over to other satellites. So, is this a purely economic problem? Or are there plans to expand the network?

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 02/24/2008 03:01 PM
Quote
eeergo - 24/2/2008  9:10 AM
1.  So, my question is... if the only limitation is the number of satellites, couldn't they just launch 2 or 3 more TDRSs and have global coverage, with no LOS?

2.  I know it would mean $$ but I think the benefits would far outweight the cons, missions could be far more efficient if they had continuous video, audio and data, and internet capabilities would also greatly optimize how the work is carried out in ISS.

3.  I think there's a TDRS launch scheduled for this year, so it's not like the system is going to be replaced or handed over to other satellites.

4.So, is this a purely economic problem? Or are there plans to expand the network?


1.  Number of satellites is not the "issue"  It is number of ground sites.  TDRSS has only one main ground site (the Guam site for ZOE doesn't supply complete support)  White Sands.   So all satellites have to be in view of it, which limits the on orbit locations.   The ISS structure blocks the view of the antenna of these onorbit locations.   That and the ZOE are the reason for the outages

2.  There isn't really any benefit.  video, audio and data is not required or that important.  The ground doesn't need 100% video coverage.  Only a few of us, space nerds.

3.  no launch for a few years

4.  Not a problem

Also TDRSS supports more than shuttle and ISS.


Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: eeergo on 02/24/2008 04:12 PM
Quote
Jim - 24/2/2008 5:01 PM
Quote
eeergo - 24/2/2008 9:10 AM 1. So, my question is... if the only limitation is the number of satellites, couldn't they just launch 2 or 3 more TDRSs and have global coverage, with no LOS? 2. I know it would mean $$ but I think the benefits would far outweight the cons, missions could be far more efficient if they had continuous video, audio and data, and internet capabilities would also greatly optimize how the work is carried out in ISS. 3. I think there's a TDRS launch scheduled for this year, so it's not like the system is going to be replaced or handed over to other satellites. 4.So, is this a purely economic problem? Or are there plans to expand the network?

 

1. Number of satellites is not the "issue" It is number of ground sites. TDRSS has only one main ground site (the Guam site for ZOE doesn't supply complete support) White Sands. So all satellites have to be in view of it, which limits the on orbit locations. The ISS structure blocks the view of the antenna of these onorbit locations. That and the ZOE are the reason for the outages 2. There isn't really any benefit. video, audio and data is not required or that important. The ground doesn't need 100% video coverage. Only a few of us, space nerds. 3. no launch for a few years 4. Not a problem Also TDRSS supports more than shuttle and ISS.

1- Thanks, I understand the issue now. Is ZOE there because of the lack of ground stations? Then the optimal solution to this could pass by placing another GS (maybe in Australia? maybe in cooperation with allies à-la-DSN? probably too expensive now, not just a pair of satellites to launch...) That would mean ZOE would disappear and structural interference wouldn't be a problem, right? I'm of course assuming there was a reason for spending the money.

2- I, however, don't see the possible benefits so inconsequential (from my humble perspective, that is) There are some obvious adavantages that are non-trivial, and would be important for future projects in LEO. Internet access would mean they wouldn't have to worry about allocating time for IMS dowloading to the three main ground stations, as the first example that came to my mind. Science capabilities would also be boosted, and that could mean less had to be spent to achieve the same results (no need for waiting for the crew to download results, make them do little adjustments that could be done remotely but aren't right now just because of the lack of coverage, or plainly making a experiment last much longer and fail repeatedly (I'm thinking about SPHERES) just because of the blackouts) While watching Shuttle missions, they are always joggling around with the coverage to get documents up and down. Imagine they could access the database the engineers are working with on the ground, and use it with planning, troubleshooting, organizing... And of course we would have video :) Which also would save money, when the EVAers are outside and they have to wait long minutes doing nothing waiting for HelmetCam video to stream. I'm sure every EVA minute costs a lot.

3- I double-checked this and, indeed, the next launch is in 2012, I thought it was nearer.

And also as you say, TDRSS supports other customers (which ones, out of curiosity?) who probably would like to have less LOS.

Thanks for expanding my knowledge here, Jim, greatly appreciated!

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 02/24/2008 04:34 PM
Quote
eeergo - 24/2/2008  12:12 PM

1- Thanks, I understand the issue now. Is ZOE there because of the lack of ground stations? Then the optimal solution to this could pass by placing another GS (maybe in Australia? maybe in cooperation with allies ŕ-la-DSN? probably too expensive now, not just a pair of satellites to launch...) That would mean ZOE would disappear and structural interference wouldn't be a problem, right? I'm of course assuming there was a reason for spending the money.



2- I, however, don't see the possible benefits so inconsequential (from my humble perspective, that is) There are some obvious advantages that are non-trivial, and would be important for future projects in LEO. Internet access would mean they wouldn't have to worry about allocating time for IMS dowloading to the three main ground stations, as the first example that came to my mind. Science capabilities would also be boosted, and that could mean less had to be spent to achieve the same results (no need for waiting for the crew to download results, make them do little adjustments that could be done remotely but aren't right now just because of the lack of coverage, or plainly making a experiment last much longer and fail repeatedly (I'm thinking about SPHERES) just because of the blackouts) While watching Shuttle missions, they are always joggling around with the coverage to get documents up and down. Imagine they could access the database the engineers are working with on the ground, and use it with planning, troubleshooting, organizing... And of course we would have video :) Which also would save money, when the EVAers are outside and they have to wait long minutes doing nothing waiting for HelmetCam video to stream. I'm sure every EVA minute costs a lot.



3- I double-checked this and, indeed, the next launch is in 2012, I thought it was nearer.

And also as you say, TDRSS supports other customers (which ones, out of curiosity?) who probably would like to have less LOS.

Thanks for expanding my knowledge here, Jim, greatly appreciated!


1.  The Guam station is there for the ZOE but it has limited capability

2.  Other than  IMS, there is no real issue.  The only real "issue" is Ku-band data.  S-band is not as constrained.  KU is for high data volumes like video bit other data can be recorded onboard and then played back later.      Commanding is not really limited as much either.   EVA's can occur without helmetcam, like they did before


3  Users

http://msp.gsfc.nasa.gov/tdrss/oview.html

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 02/24/2008 06:28 PM
Thanks for the reply Jim!
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 02/25/2008 12:25 AM
"They have the ability but it is not continuous due to TDRS coverage constraints, I believe."

Not really - we uplink web pages and they can use an IP phone when there is Ku, but they cannot surf in any means of the definition, even when there is Ku.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 02/25/2008 12:26 AM
"There isn't really any benefit. video, audio and data is not required or that important. The ground doesn't need 100% video coverage. Only a few of us, space nerds."

Actually, video can be extremely useful at times like EVAs and hence why we try to maximize ir when we have access.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 02/25/2008 12:30 AM
"Internet access would mean they wouldn't have to worry about allocating time for IMS dowloading to the three main ground stations, as the first example that came to my mind. Science capabilities would also be boosted, and that could mean less had to be spent to achieve the same results (no need for waiting for the crew to download results, make them do little adjustments that could be done remotely but aren't right now just because of the lack of coverage, or plainly making a experiment last much longer and fail repeatedly (I'm thinking about SPHERES) just because of the blackouts) While watching Shuttle missions, they are always joggling around with the coverage to get documents up and down. "

Allocating time to things like mail and IMS is more to have the crew out of the application at those times.  However, even with direct link since there is so much work on the ground to interface with different country systems, applications etc that it really wouldn't buy you anything.  Science data is not affects - as noted already, much is recorded and downlinked when we have Ku.  SPHEREs does not require video, it relies on crew and telemetry so no impact there.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Opie on 03/04/2008 03:07 AM
How do the MBS and the CETA carts translate past each other. Aren't they located on the same rails?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: nedry on 03/12/2008 05:03 PM
I read though this whole thread, and didn't see this discussed, so, here goes...

Does anyone know what the budget consequences are of operating the ISS after it's "design life" of 2016? Is NASA planning on splashing it to free up money spent maintaining it for use for the return to the moon program? Or is it the agency planning on continuing to operate it, or handing it over to it's partners in the project... or... ?

It seems strange that they would design Orion to dock at the space station if they were planning on splashing it one year ofter Orion is supposed to be operational.... hmmmm....

Enquiring minds want to know...

Thanks!

Mark
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 03/12/2008 07:34 PM
If the CETA carts are in the way, the SSRMS with an astronaut on the end of it, is used to pick up the CETA cart and move it to the opposite side of the rails to clear the path.  This is a picture from STS 116.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 03/13/2008 01:46 AM
Quote
nedry - 12/3/2008  2:03 PM

1.Does anyone know what the budget consequences are of operating the ISS after it's "design life" of 2016?

2.  Is NASA planning on splashing it to free up money spent maintaining it for use for the return to the moon program?

3.  Or is it the agency planning on continuing to operate it, or handing it over to it's partners in the project... or... ?


Mark

1.  no, not access yet
2.  yes, that is one thought
3.  US/NASA has to be involve with ISS as long as it is flying.  No US, no ISS
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Lawntonlookirs on 03/13/2008 11:21 AM
When I was watching a video of the launch from a camera along the bay, it showed the flare burning off the acess H2.  About three minutes after lift off the size of the flare burn got much larger.  It appears as if at launch, or shortly after they purge the hydrogen lines and burn the acess off.  Any more detail on how the flare works and what actually it is connected to?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 03/13/2008 11:30 AM
Quote
Lawntonlookirs - 13/3/2008  8:21 AM

When I was watching a video of the launch from a camera along the bay, it showed the flare burning off the acess H2.  About three minutes after lift off the size of the flare burn got much larger.  It appears as if at launch, or shortly after they purge the hydrogen lines and burn the acess off.  Any more detail on how the flare works and what actually it is connected to?

The flare has a LNG burner in it to keep it continuously lit.  It is connected to the ET vent line.  The fill and drain line is connected to it to allow purging of the line after launc
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Lawntonlookirs on 03/13/2008 11:35 AM
Quote
Jim - 13/3/2008  8:30 AM

Quote
Lawntonlookirs - 13/3/2008  8:21 AM

When I was watching a video of the launch from a camera along the bay, it showed the flare burning off the acess H2.  About three minutes after lift off the size of the flare burn got much larger.  It appears as if at launch, or shortly after they purge the hydrogen lines and burn the acess off.  Any more detail on how the flare works and what actually it is connected to?

The flare has a LNG burner in it to keep it continuously lit.  It is connected to the ET vent line.  The fill and drain line is connected to it to allow purging of the line after launc

Thanks Jim

Richard
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 03/13/2008 09:19 PM
Can the Cupola be moved around after it is attached to the Node 3?  Can it be moved from the V + CBM to the V - CBM?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 03/14/2008 01:27 AM
Quote
brahmanknight - 13/3/2008  6:19 PM

Can the Cupola be moved around after it is attached to the Node 3?  Can it be moved from the V + CBM to the V - CBM?

It can be moved
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: cabbage on 03/14/2008 05:45 PM
The ISS six crew strategic planning document on L2 gives kg per crewmember per day figures. (page 34 and 35 of the PDF). There are also figures for logistics and maintenance payloads - obviously that will be different for a lunar outpost, but they'll still need to allow some quantity for that.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 03/15/2008 12:07 AM
Quote
nedry - 12/3/2008  2:03 PM

I read though this whole thread, and didn't see this discussed, so, here goes...

Does anyone know what the budget consequences are of operating the ISS after it's "design life" of 2016? Is NASA planning on splashing it to free up money spent maintaining it for use for the return to the moon program? Or is it the agency planning on continuing to operate it, or handing it over to it's partners in the project... or... ?

It seems strange that they would design Orion to dock at the space station if they were planning on splashing it one year ofter Orion is supposed to be operational.... hmmmm....

Enquiring minds want to know...

Thanks!

Mark

The following is from a thread elsewhere on ISS after 2016....you might want to check that thread to see the context for the following exchange:

Quote
"Continuing an ISS-related discussion from another thread:


"Clongton: My understanding, and correct me if I am wrong, is that Station has a potential useful life out to 2020, but the Constellation program has all of the US ISS budget switching to the lunar effort beginning with FY2017. Without shifting all the US ISS budget to Constellation beginning 2017, the 2020 date for the lunar landing cannot happen. At the beginning of 2017, ALL US manned effort will be directed to Constellation and the lunar goal. That, for all intents and purposes, takes the US out of the ISS business at the end of FY2016. The international partners are welcomed to keep the ISS running beyond 2016, if they can. Normal supply chain will be Progress and ATV, flown on foreign launchers. The US will no longer be involved in logistical support of any kind once Core Complete is established. This is the budget outlines I have seen from multiple sources.

"The IMS shows only 1, possibly 2 Orion flights to ISS, and they are both shakedown flights for Orion, not ISS support flights, although IF the 1st flight goes ok AND there is time (still 2016), Orion-2 might do a crew rotation. But that's the end of US involvement with ISS.

"And I agree this is getting off topic. There is a thread under General Discussion titled “ISS After 2016”. I suggest we continue this discussion over there. Here’s the link:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=4011


Quote
"References to Constellation's "budget" in 2016 or even ISS, or even NASA are mystical numbers. NASA is funded on an annual basis, and the determination of the amount starts with the President's annual budget request, sent to the Congress in February of each year. Included in that request is what is called a "run-out" for a five-year period, which reflects the Administration's estimate of what IT WILL REQUEST in each of those succeeding five years, and is generally at a very low level of detail; limited mainly to primary appropriations accounts and some sub-accounts. Those are not and should not be considered to be "budgets." Even the Administration does not recognize them as such, and often requests numbers in those subsequent years that are different, as things change, events transpire, and priorities are adjusted along the way. The point is, I am aware of no document that could be called a "Constellation Budget" that even shows any projections beyond 2012, which is as far as the five-year "run-out" projections go which are included in the FY 2008 Budget request. If you have such a document, I'd love to see it. But given the annual appropriations process, there's no way such a document, even if it exists, could be considered a viable "projection," let alone a "budget."

You are also assuming a "zero-sum" situation, in which NASA's total budget amount is fixed in stone, and thus "new work" such as Constellation can ONLY proceed by stopping the expenditures on "old work" and using those erstwhile funds to do the "new work." That is a budgetary fiction that the present Office of Management and Budget would like you to believe--and too many, frankly, accept it as "gospel." But it just isn't true. Please re-read the quote from Bill Gerstenmeier at the ISS National Laboratory briefing....I'll repeat it here for those who didn't see it on the other thread:


Quote
"QUESTIONER: Hi. I just wanted to ask about the life span of the Space Station. I know the report talked about life beyond 2016, but how much beyond 2016 do you all envision the Space Station to be operating?
Then also, to some people, this might be seen as a way to justify the Space Station's existence beyond once you reach the point that, "Okay. We just wanted to see if we could build it. Now that we have built it, what are we going to do with it?" If you could just address that criticism.
MR. GERSTENMAIER: Okay. I think that the first piece is that, technically, the Space Station could fly until probably 2020, 2022. We have added some instrumentation in some of our truss pieces out there to actually determine how long the technical life would be.
Again, I would think what probably drives the life is not necessarily the technical life, but how much the Space Station is utilized and how commercial transportation comes online, how accessible it is, et cetera.
So I think what really drives the practical life of the Space Station is how useful it is and does it fit a niche.
What we are trying to do with this report is we put a framework out that opens up utilization to Space Station to a larger group than just NASA, and that is our advantages. We are not trying to show justification or show reason for Station. We are saying this is available, and we are going to see what interest is available out there in the government and in the commercial sector and see if it warrants continued use of Space Station beyond a certain date."


He didn't say anything about a 2016 cutoff date being certain. from the standpoint of budget or otherwise. What he said was, if I'm reading correctly, that we'd base a decision in around 2014 on whether and for how long to extend the ISS utilization BEYOND 2016 (up to, potentially, at least around 2020-2022, which is the currently-assumed "technical" on-orbit lifespan of its physical components, according to Mr. Gerstenmaier's statement). That decision in 2014 will be largely based on what the demonstrated capacity, capabilities, interest and commitment for utilization, and abilities to sustain and support it will have been in the preceding four years, from 2010 (when it's finally built) and 2014.

I don't know how much clearer it can be that the future of the ISS is still an open question, and is not directly tied to Constellation or any other program (though will, of course, be materially impacted by the ability--or lack of ability--to equip, sustain, maintain and operate it with on-board crew and ground support.)

-----

Edited by 51D Mascot 26/11/2007 12:28 PM
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ChrisC on 03/15/2008 03:21 AM
The Wikipedia article* about Kibo says that "it is the largest planned module for the ISS".  A quick check of the numbers says that Zarya and Zvezda are both larger, in mass and length.  What could they be referring to?  Obviously if it's wrong it's wrong, but I'm wondering if there's some stat in which Kibo IS the biggest module.

* spare me the "Wikipedia sucks" slagging, I know, I know
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 03/15/2008 05:25 PM
It is the largest planned module of the US side of the station.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: on 03/15/2008 05:56 PM
Would this be possible? After watching EVA1 the other day, and how they first did some JLP prep before moving to work on DEXTRE, i was thinking could it be possible for 3 astronauts to perform an EVA to lighten the workload (especially this mission with 5 EVA's in total). This way 2 could say work on DEXTRE while the other works on JLP.

Is it for safety reasons, or lack of space on the shuttle for an extra EMU that they dont go with 3 astronauts for an EVA
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Bubbinski on 03/15/2008 05:59 PM
The program has done 3-astronaut EVA's before, but the only one I can think of was STS-49 (Intelsat rescue) - I was on the edge of my seat watching CNN and C-Span live coverage of that one.  

There's not a lot of space in the Quest airlock - they may be able to pull off a 3-person EVA but I don't know.  There's more that could go wrong, probably more coordination needed.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: cape51 on 03/15/2008 06:05 PM
I was thinking about the same thing the other day while I was watching the coverage.  Although, I think it would it possible, I don't think that there is enough room in the airlock on the station to hold three astronauts forthe campout, and etc...  I haven't read any technical specs lately but I think the quest airlock was only spec'd out for a max of two astronauts.  Now with Dextre on board, that will essentially function as a third astronaut...for all intensive purposes.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 03/15/2008 06:53 PM
There isn't an SCU for a 3rd EVA member.  STS-49 was a once and only once  in blue moon event.  The airlock is sized for 2.  They could do a russian EVA using Orlan suits from Pier
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 03/15/2008 06:53 PM
Quote
Bubbinski - 15/3/2008  1:59 PM

The program has done 3-astronaut EVA's before, but the only one I can think of was STS-49 (Intelsat rescue) - I was on the edge of my seat watching CNN and C-Span live coverage of that one.  

There's not a lot of space in the Quest airlock - they may be able to pull off a 3-person EVA but I don't know.  There's more that could go wrong, probably more coordination needed.

The Quest airlock is the same size as the shuttle airlock, so if it worked for STS-49 it should work at ISS. Operationally, NASA wouldn't do it unless the situation absolutely requires it. People forget just how much of a Hail Mary that STS-49 EVA-3 really was.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: bruha on 03/15/2008 08:24 PM
I recently learned about SpaceX's development of their Dragon spacecraft for crew/cargo.  I'm curious why NASA is funding this since it has Soyuz and, eventually, Orion.  And for cargo they have Progress, ATV and HTV.

note:  This is my first post...  I only read up on the Shuttle/ISS around shuttle missions... I'm a former Rockwell Int'l employee... worked in Downey in Flight Simulation Lab.

-bruceh
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 03/15/2008 09:05 PM
Quote
bruha - 15/3/2008  5:24 PM

I recently learned about SpaceX's development of their Dragon spacecraft for crew/cargo.  I'm curious why NASA is funding this since it has Soyuz and, eventually, Orion.  And for cargo they have Progress, ATV and HTV.

note:  This is my first post...  I only read up on the Shuttle/ISS around shuttle missions... I'm a former Rockwell Int'l employee... worked in Downey in Flight Simulation Lab.

-bruceh

NASA doesn't have Soyuz, that is russian.  Progress, ATV and HTV are for Russian, ESA and Japan's logistics  obligations and not the US's.  NASA wants a US solution
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ChrisC on 03/16/2008 02:06 AM
Quote
ChrisC - 15/3/2008  12:21 AM
The Wikipedia article about Kibo says that "it is the largest planned module for the ISS".  A quick check of the numbers says that Zarya and Zvezda are both larger, in mass and length.  What could they be referring to?  Obviously if it's wrong it's wrong, but I'm wondering if there's some stat in which Kibo IS the biggest module.
Quote
brahmanknight - 15/3/2008  2:25 PM
It is the largest planned module of the US side of the station.
Really?  That's it?  Seems pretty lame on the part of whoever first claimed that Kibo was the largest.

(goes off to correct the Wikipedia article)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 03/16/2008 12:03 PM
Quote
ChrisC - 15/3/2008  11:06 PM

Quote
ChrisC - 15/3/2008  12:21 AM
The Wikipedia article about Kibo says that "it is the largest planned module for the ISS".  A quick check of the numbers says that Zarya and Zvezda are both larger, in mass and length.  What could they be referring to?  Obviously if it's wrong it's wrong, but I'm wondering if there's some stat in which Kibo IS the biggest module.
Quote
brahmanknight - 15/3/2008  2:25 PM
It is the largest planned module of the US side of the station.
Really?  That's it?  Seems pretty lame on the part of whoever first claimed that Kibo was the largest.

(goes off to correct the Wikipedia article)

did anyone look at  volume?  FGB has little
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: bruha on 03/16/2008 03:25 PM
Quote
Jim - 15/3/2008  3:05 PM

Quote
bruha - 15/3/2008  5:24 PM

I recently learned about SpaceX's development of their Dragon spacecraft for crew/cargo.  I'm curious why NASA is funding this since it has Soyuz and, eventually, Orion.  And for cargo they have Progress, ATV and HTV.

note:  This is my first post...  I only read up on the Shuttle/ISS around shuttle missions... I'm a former Rockwell Int'l employee... worked in Downey in Flight Simulation Lab.

-bruceh

NASA doesn't have Soyuz, that is russian.  Progress, ATV and HTV are for Russian, ESA and Japan's logistics  obligations and not the US's.  NASA wants a US solution
But isn't Orion a US solution?

-bruceh
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 03/16/2008 03:28 PM

not for the near term and not for logistics.  The unmanned cargo version was cancelled
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: bruha on 03/16/2008 04:17 PM
Quote
Jim - 16/3/2008  9:28 AM
not for the near term and not for logistics.  The unmanned cargo version was cancelled
So is the plan for Orion to go to the ISS a contingency plan (e.g. COTS doesn't work out)?

Thanks for the replies...

-bruceh
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 03/16/2008 05:15 PM
Quote
bruha - 16/3/2008  1:17 PM

Quote
Jim - 16/3/2008  9:28 AM
not for the near term and not for logistics.  The unmanned cargo version was cancelled
So is the plan for Orion to go to the ISS a contingency plan (e.g. COTS doesn't work out)?

Thanks for the replies...

-bruceh

No, it is still the primary vehicle to ISS for US Crew
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Suzy on 03/19/2008 06:15 AM
Just curious: the U.S. solar arrays are black in color; the Russian panels are blue (example photo ) - what material is used to make each?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Lawntonlookirs on 03/19/2008 11:57 AM
Quote
Suzy - 19/3/2008  3:15 AM

Just curious: the U.S. solar arrays are black in color; the Russian panels are blue (example photo ) - what material is used to make each?

Are you sure that the blue is not just the reflection of the light off the solar array. I think they are all a gold to orange color.  :o
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: nacnud on 03/19/2008 02:03 PM
The gold/orange colour is the blanket supporting the US cells, the Russian cells have a ridid supporting structure. The photovoltaic cells them selves are dark in colour As far as I can find out all cells are made from either silicon or some recent cells are made of gallium arsenide. The colour difference could be due to that or different coatings etc.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: hyper_snyper on 03/22/2008 07:09 PM
How do long duration astronauts on the ISS vote?  Absentee ballots?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 03/22/2008 07:42 PM
Quote
hyper_snyper - 22/3/2008  3:09 PM

How do long duration astronauts on the ISS vote?  Absentee ballots?

Yes.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 03/23/2008 07:07 PM
When there are 2 Russians onboard station, it seems they don't do much on the US side ( going from the viewing of the one hour broadcast on the weekdays ).  Is that accurate?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: janmb on 03/25/2008 05:47 PM
Does anyone know of a resource that explains the CMG system in detail? Or if anyone would take the time to do so it would be great.

I'm generally seeking info on how the four CMGs are mounted, their orientation, and HOW they are used for attitude control...

Are they mounted fixed in relation to the station or are they manipulated by servos? Is the attitude control achieved by spinning up/down the rpm or is the rpm entirely fixed and attitude control acheived by having servos attempt to rotate the gyro (which it will obviously resist)?

Any comments welcome, but a complete technical overview on this would be preferable
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 03/25/2008 05:53 PM
Quote
janmb - 25/3/2008  1:47 PM

Does anyone know of a resource that explains the CMG system in detail? Or if anyone would take the time to do so it would be great.

I'm generally seeking info on how the four CMGs are mounted, their orientation, and HOW they are used for attitude control...

Are they mounted fixed in relation to the station or are they manipulated by servos? Is the attitude control achieved by spinning up/down the rpm or is the rpm entirely fixed and attitude control acheived by having servos attempt to rotate the gyro (which it will obviously resist)?

I am not an expert on the system but I can answer this: it is the latter (constant RPM, variable spin axis), and in fact that is the defining characteristic of a control moment gyro. The opposite (variable RPM, fixed spin axis) is called a momentum wheel, not a CMG.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 03/25/2008 07:00 PM
Motion Control Subsystem

The motion control subsystem (MCS) hardware launched as part of the Z1 element includes the CMGs and the CMG assemblies. This hardware will not be activated until Mission 5A, when the GN&C MDM will be activated with the U.S. Lab.

The CMG assembly consists of four CMGs and a micrometeorite/orbital debris shield. The four CMGs, which will control the attitude of the ISS, have a spherical momentum storage capability of 14,000 ft-lb/sec, the scalar sum of the individual CMG wheel moments. The momentum stored in the CMG system at any given time equals the vector sum of the individual CMG momentum vectors.

To maintain the ISS in the desired attitude, the CMG system must cancel, or absorb, the momentum generated by the disturbance torques acting on the station. If the average disturbance torque is nonzero, the resulting CMG output torque is also nonzero, and momentum builds up in the CMG system. When the CMG system saturates, it is unable to generate the torque required to cancel the disturbance torque, which results in the loss of attitude control.

The CMG system saturates when momentum vectors have become parallel and only momentum vectors change. When this happens, control torques perpendicular to this parallel line are possible, and controllability about the parallel line is lost.

Russian segment thrusters are used to desaturate the CMGs.

An ISS CMG consists of a large flat wheel that rotates at a constant speed (6,600 rpm) and develops an angular momentum of 3,500 ft-lb/sec about its spin axis. This rotating wheel is mounted in a two-degree-of-freedom gimbal system that can point the spin axis (momentum vector) of the wheel in any direction.

At least two CMGs are needed to provide attitude control. The CMG generates an output reaction torque that is applied to the ISS by inertially changing the direction of its wheel momentum. The CMG's output torque has two components, one proportional to the rate of change of the CMG gimbals and a second proportional to the inertial body rate of the ISS as sensed at the CMG base. Because the momentum along the direction of the spin axis is fixed, the output torque is constrained to lie in the plane of the wheel. That is why one CMG cannot provide the three-axis torque needed to control the attitude of the ISS.

Each CMG has a thermostatically controlled survival heater to keep it within thermal limits before the CMGs are activated on Mission 5A. The heaters are rated at 120 watts and have an operating temperature range of -42 to -35°F.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: janmb on 03/25/2008 10:21 PM
Thanks for those great answers.

Couple more follow-ups that I didn't quite manage to filter out of that description tho:

Are the four gyros mounted as a single package, all of the sharing the same rotation axis,

or

are they mounted as a single package with differing rotation axis,

or

are they mounted separately, each axis being individually adjustable?


Another small issue I'm trying to work my mind around here... The stabilizing part of this gyro package is not hard to grasp at all - that part is pretty straight forward for any gyro. What I do have some issues understanding tho, is how you achieve the torque to actually rotate the station... Trying to adjust the gyros' rotational axis obviously creates a torque and I guess that's all there is to it really, but the issue that keeps bothering me a bit is that since all of this needs to happen so very very slowly, you also tend to lose a lot of the retention offered by the gyros.

No idea if the question is even understandable here, but in short, what I am asking is this:

How much a gyro resists having its rotational axis shifted is very much a factor of how fast you try to shift it. And since the system on the station obviously has to work very slowly indeed, the resistance offered by those gyros, even despite the massive momentum they have stored, ought to be fairly low, so how do they manage to sufficiently resist changes to their rotational axis'?


Any diagrams/pictures/schematics would be highly welcome too :)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 03/25/2008 11:20 PM
mounted separately, each axis being individually adjustable?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: janmb on 03/26/2008 10:16 AM
Thanks again Jim.

So in short, the gyros let the station do attitude control by staying in place, spinning at a constant rate, which electrical servos (I presume) try to change the rotational axis' of said gyros - which they will resist and thus create a torque on the station instead.

But, again, why is not the slow rates of rotation a problem here? Unless my basic physics are entirely screwed up here, how much a gyro resists having its axis change is very much a factor of how fast that axis is being attempted changed. The servos driving the gimbals containing the gyros necessarily have to work very very slowly on the station, which lead to the question on how you get sufficient resistance from the gyros at all...
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: iamlucky13 on 03/27/2008 05:04 PM
I don't think rate of change in the axis affects anything expect the torque applied to the station. The higher the torque, the shorter the time it has to be applied, so that balances out. Just keep the conceptualization at conservation of momentum. It doesn't matter how fast you change the momentum, the total change is the same.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: janmb on 03/28/2008 12:17 AM
Quote
iamlucky13 - 27/3/2008  7:04 PM

I don't think rate of change in the axis affects anything expect the torque applied to the station. The higher the torque, the shorter the time it has to be applied, so that balances out. Just keep the conceptualization at conservation of momentum. It doesn't matter how fast you change the momentum, the total change is the same.

You sure about that? Forget the station for a moment and consider the basic physics of a gyro... Unless I'm getting older than I was hoping, I'm pretty sure the total work needed to rotate a gyro's axis say... 90 degrees... is not constant, but a factor of the time spent doing it.

The first glance, logical way to assume how this works is to think the work needed is the integral below the torque/time graph, thus work being constant. I do belive that is not the case tho.

Anyways a moot point really, since I strongly doubt they use any kind of continous applied force during attitude corrections, but rather a short time burst with a corresponding, opposite burst to stop it - much like you would if using thrusters too.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: janmb on 03/28/2008 12:25 AM
A completely different question I can't seem to find answered anywhere....

WHY are high beta angles a constaint for docked shuttle missions? Termal issues?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Lee Jay on 03/28/2008 12:48 AM
The gyros can provide continuous torque to the station, and in fact when they get to their maximum torque and can apply no more, thrusters fire to "desaturate" the gyros.  Remember, each gyro wheel masses only a few hundredths of a percent of the station mass.  There are net torques on the station from a variety of sources.

High beta angles mean insufficient cooling for the docked, combined vehicle.  So, yes, thermal issues.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 03/28/2008 09:22 AM
What ever happened to recycling waste water on the station?  Will that happen when the full life support systems for 6 people come uphill?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: janmb on 03/28/2008 09:32 AM
Quote
Lee Jay - 28/3/2008  2:48 AM

The gyros can provide continuous torque to the station, and in fact when they get to their maximum torque and can apply no more, thrusters fire to "desaturate" the gyros.  Remember, each gyro wheel masses only a few hundredths of a percent of the station mass.  There are net torques on the station from a variety of sources.

High beta angles mean insufficient cooling for the docked, combined vehicle.  So, yes, thermal issues.

Thanks :)


And I assume the reason this is only a problem for docked operation is because you don't have the freedom of individual attitudes on each vehicle? I also assume this is mainly a constraint introduced by the shuttle, since the station has rotating radiators...?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: janmb on 03/28/2008 07:07 PM
Quote
brahmanknight - 28/3/2008  11:22 AM

What ever happened to recycling waste water on the station?

What about it? As far as I know, they have been recycling water on the station all along and still are.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: hop on 03/29/2008 12:42 AM
Quote
janmb - 28/3/2008  1:07 PM

Quote
brahmanknight - 28/3/2008  11:22 AM

What ever happened to recycling waste water on the station?

What about it? As far as I know, they have been recycling water on the station all along and still are.
Condensate is currently collected and used in the oxygen generator. Urine is simply disposed of in progress (IIRC, recycling urine was demonstrated on Mir). While the shuttle is operating, there is a lot of water available from the fuel cells.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 03/29/2008 01:26 AM
Quote
janmb - 28/3/2008  5:32 AM

Quote
Lee Jay - 28/3/2008  2:48 AM

The gyros can provide continuous torque to the station, and in fact when they get to their maximum torque and can apply no more, thrusters fire to "desaturate" the gyros.  Remember, each gyro wheel masses only a few hundredths of a percent of the station mass.  There are net torques on the station from a variety of sources.

High beta angles mean insufficient cooling for the docked, combined vehicle.  So, yes, thermal issues.

Thanks :)


And I assume the reason this is only a problem for docked operation is because you don't have the freedom of individual attitudes on each vehicle?

Correct.

Quote
I also assume this is mainly a constraint introduced by the shuttle, since the station has rotating radiators...?

No, it's combined constraints. You have station solar power constraints, station thermal constraints, and shuttle thermal constraints. When the beta angle is greater than 65 degrees, you can't find a docked attitude that is certified to satisfy all three at once. Simple as that.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: kfsorensen on 03/29/2008 01:41 AM
Why is the audio quality on astronaut voice transmissions so poor?  I mean, we have GEO satellites bouncing conversations across the globe all the time--millions of them--why is the astronaut audio quality (bounced off a dedicated GEOsat: TDRSS) so poor?  It sounds just as bad during an astronaut press conference as it did when Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Life_Support_32 on 04/02/2008 01:42 AM
Quote
hop - 28/3/2008  8:42 PM

Quote
janmb - 28/3/2008  1:07 PM

Quote
brahmanknight - 28/3/2008  11:22 AM

What ever happened to recycling waste water on the station?

What about it? As far as I know, they have been recycling water on the station all along and still are.
Condensate is currently collected and used in the oxygen generator. Urine is simply disposed of in progress (IIRC, recycling urine was demonstrated on Mir). While the shuttle is operating, there is a lot of water available from the fuel cells.

Full water processing capability on the US segment, including taking urine and making potable water is going to fly on the ULF-2 mission.  ULF-2 is going to prepare the ISS for 6-crew operations the following year.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Takalok on 04/02/2008 08:23 PM
The recent joint problems with the ISS solar arrays got me thinking again of what they would do should the arrays fail to provide sufficient power (lack of orientation, power spike, physical damage etc.)

I know the ISS has batteries on board, but what about a RTG (radioisotope thermoelectric generator)?  Just for backup.  You could easily send up a 1kW RTG with a 20 year lifespan just for emergencies.

Also, does anyone know the total potential watts of all the arrays currently up there?

Edit:  OK, according to http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/intspacestation_worldbook.html the ISS will eventually have 100 kW of power.  But that doesn't tell me the current capacity, or what baseline capacity is needed for life support (ie. would 1kW keep the astronauts alive?)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: DaveS on 04/02/2008 10:24 PM
1 kW is not anywhere near the minimum power requirement for ISS. Maybe you get down to about 4-6 kW if you turned off every single light in ISS, all experiments, ECLSS(even there you would have to go to bare minimum, like just fans and CO2 scrubbers) for all but Destiny and Zvezda and every but a few of the vital MDMs.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Lee Jay on 04/02/2008 10:34 PM
Isn't the *average* power available right now something on the order of 20kW?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: hop on 04/02/2008 11:38 PM
Quote
Takalok - 2/4/2008  1:23 PM
I know the ISS has batteries on board, but what about a RTG (radioisotope thermoelectric generator)?  Just for backup.  You could easily send up a 1kW RTG with a 20 year lifespan just for emergencies.
Not easily. For one, we don't have enough Pu 238 to build enough RTGs to provide the amount of power required for ISS survival. Other fuels can be used, but they are less efficient, and in the US would require significant development. See here for a recent article about the supply problems http://www.space.com/news/080306-nasa-plutonium-shortage-fin.html

The cost of building, certifying and launching RTGs would cover a lot of additional solar power.

Having RTGs on ISS would significantly complicate end-of-mission as well.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: iamlucky13 on 04/04/2008 06:35 PM
Quote
janmb - 27/3/2008  6:17 PM

Quote
iamlucky13 - 27/3/2008  7:04 PM

I don't think rate of change in the axis affects anything expect the torque applied to the station. The higher the torque, the shorter the time it has to be applied, so that balances out. Just keep the conceptualization at conservation of momentum. It doesn't matter how fast you change the momentum, the total change is the same.

You sure about that? Forget the station for a moment and consider the basic physics of a gyro... Unless I'm getting older than I was hoping, I'm pretty sure the total work needed to rotate a gyro's axis say... 90 degrees... is not constant, but a factor of the time spent doing it.

The first glance, logical way to assume how this works is to think the work needed is the integral below the torque/time graph, thus work being constant. I do belive that is not the case tho.

Anyways a moot point really, since I strongly doubt they use any kind of continous applied force during attitude corrections, but rather a short time burst with a corresponding, opposite burst to stop it - much like you would if using thrusters too.
Well now you're making me doubt myself, but I'm almost positive the work is constant. I admit precession and working polar coordinates always made my head spin a little bit in dynamics class, so if anyone can either confirm or deny this principle, that would be great.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: iamlucky13 on 04/04/2008 07:05 PM
Why was the ISS designed for 14.7 psi? Certainly they could have reduced structural weight a worthwhile amount by reducing the pressure.

Humans live and work with minimal loss of performance in lower pressures (for example, 12 psi in Denver, 10-11 psi on airliners), and that's without an adjusted oxygen ratio. Of course, I understand fire risk is a major consideration, but combustibility is dependent both on vapor pressure (absolute amount of oxygen available per volume) and ratio (other gasses steal heat from the combustion).

I would have expected a reduced total pressure of perhaps 10 psi with an O2 vapor pressure only slightly reduced relative to sea level, or about 30% O2 and 70% N2 so that the fire hazard is unchanged. Pressure on the station skin would then be 33% lower, not to mention the 33% reduction in free air mass.

In contrast, Apollo ran 5.3 psi cabin pressure with an essentially sea-level O2 vapor pressure of about 3 psi (60% O2, 40% N2).
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Lee Jay on 04/04/2008 07:19 PM
I was wondering the same, and wondering it along with the camp-out protocol (i.e., not needing to do it).
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 04/04/2008 08:21 PM
Quote
iamlucky13 - 4/4/2008  3:05 PM

Why was the ISS designed for 14.7 psi? Certainly they could have reduced structural weight a worthwhile amount by reducing the pressure.

Humans live and work with minimal loss of performance in lower pressures (for example, 12 psi in Denver, 10-11 psi on airliners), and that's without an adjusted oxygen ratio. Of course, I understand fire risk is a major consideration, but combustibility is dependent both on vapor pressure (absolute amount of oxygen available per volume) and ratio (other gasses steal heat from the combustion).

I would have expected a reduced total pressure of perhaps 10 psi with an O2 vapor pressure only slightly reduced relative to sea level, or about 30% O2 and 70% N2 so that the fire hazard is unchanged. Pressure on the station skin would then be 33% lower, not to mention the 33% reduction in free air mass.

In contrast, Apollo ran 5.3 psi cabin pressure with an essentially sea-level O2 vapor pressure of about 3 psi (60% O2, 40% N2).

Russian systems are setup for 14.7 and always have.  They would need re engineering.  Zarya and Zsveda were basically off the shelf items
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Life_Support_32 on 04/04/2008 09:14 PM
Quote
Jim - 4/4/2008  3:21 PM

Quote
iamlucky13 - 4/4/2008  3:05 PM

Why was the ISS designed for 14.7 psi? Certainly they could have reduced structural weight a worthwhile amount by reducing the pressure.

Humans live and work with minimal loss of performance in lower pressures (for example, 12 psi in Denver, 10-11 psi on airliners), and that's without an adjusted oxygen ratio. Of course, I understand fire risk is a major consideration, but combustibility is dependent both on vapor pressure (absolute amount of oxygen available per volume) and ratio (other gasses steal heat from the combustion).

I would have expected a reduced total pressure of perhaps 10 psi with an O2 vapor pressure only slightly reduced relative to sea level, or about 30% O2 and 70% N2 so that the fire hazard is unchanged. Pressure on the station skin would then be 33% lower, not to mention the 33% reduction in free air mass.

In contrast, Apollo ran 5.3 psi cabin pressure with an essentially sea-level O2 vapor pressure of about 3 psi (60% O2, 40% N2).

Russian systems are setup for 14.7 and always have.  They would need re engineering.  Zarya and Zsveda were basically off the shelf items

Some of the US Systems are, also.  If the pressure gets below 13.9, some systems have to be turned off (including some required Medical equipment).
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: iamlucky13 on 04/04/2008 09:30 PM
Quote
Jim - 4/4/2008  1:21 PM

Russian systems are setup for 14.7 and always have.  They would need re engineering.  Zarya and Zsveda were basically off the shelf items

I see, although now that just leaves me wondering why the Russians went with 14.7.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 04/05/2008 12:33 PM
Quote
iamlucky13 - 4/4/2008  5:30 PM

Quote
Jim - 4/4/2008  1:21 PM

Russian systems are setup for 14.7 and always have.  They would need re engineering.  Zarya and Zsveda were basically off the shelf items

I see, although now that just leaves me wondering why the Russians went with 14.7.

Their electronics are only qualified for 14.7.  even on unmanned vehicles, the electronics are in pressurized (hermetic) compartments
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Lee Jay on 04/05/2008 02:23 PM
Quote
Jim - 5/4/2008  6:33 AM

Quote
iamlucky13 - 4/4/2008  5:30 PM

Quote
Jim - 4/4/2008  1:21 PM

Russian systems are setup for 14.7 and always have.  They would need re engineering.  Zarya and Zsveda were basically off the shelf items

I see, although now that just leaves me wondering why the Russians went with 14.7.

Their electronics are only qualified for 14.7.  even on unmanned vehicles, the electronics are in pressurized (hermetic) compartments

Strange.  Most electronics on Earth are qualified for 0 to 2000 meters, or 0 to 10,000 feet.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: hmh33 on 04/07/2008 01:55 AM
Likely air cooling issues
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Lee Jay on 04/07/2008 02:28 AM
Quote
hmh33 - 6/4/2008  7:55 PM

Likely air cooling issues

Right - same reason for Earth-bound electronics.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Lawntonlookirs on 04/07/2008 02:43 PM
I have a general question as to how much joint training do the ISS expedition’s crew has with the crew of the orbiter prior to a specific mission.  Do they spend a lot of time going over the procedures and training together, or do they train separately?  With the ISS crew dealing with all of the activities (shuttle, progress, ATV and etc) it must be hard to remember everything.

Edit:

I think I found something in L2 on the FRR for STS 118 tha will answer my question.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 04/07/2008 02:49 PM
Quote
Lawntonlookirs - 7/4/2008  9:43 AM

I have a general question as to how much joint training do the ISS expedition’s crew has with the crew of the orbiter prior to a specific mission.  Do they spend a lot of time going over the procedures and training together, or do they train separately?  With the ISS crew dealing with all of the activities (shuttle, progress, ATV and etc) it must be hard to remember everything.

Very little. It's hard to sync their schedules. The shuttle crew gets a few joint classes with the ISS crew in some areas. In others, like rendezvous, they just get a one-hour tagup together. Once the expedition crew has launched, the shuttle crew periodically participates with the ISS crew in the planning conferences.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Lawntonlookirs on 04/07/2008 02:55 PM
Thanks Jorge.  That is what I was thinking because they have a lot of time constraints in the training process.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Lawntonlookirs on 04/20/2008 01:47 PM
With the thoughts of the recent landing of the Soyuz and expedition 16, and the previous landing of Soyuz 1, 10 that went ballistic.  Which type of landing would the people on board the capsule rather encounter?

 I can remember when the first man in space projects were started the astronauts, who were, if I recall, all test pilots, weren’t at all happy with being placed inside a capsule in which they had little if any control of when returning to earth.  That was one of the big advantages of the Shuttle.

Why don’t they use a module that is similar in shape to the shuttle that is placed in LEO.  It wouldn’t have to be as large as the shuttle or capable of caring large loads into orbit.  When they want to return to earth, they connect to it, de-orbit and land.  Once the lander has landed and  checked out, it could be sent back up for its next mission.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Lee Jay on 04/20/2008 02:03 PM
Quote
Lawntonlookirs - 20/4/2008  7:47 AM
Why don’t they use a module that is similar in shape to the shuttle that is placed in LEO.

Wings and wheels weigh a great deal more than parachutes.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Lawntonlookirs on 04/20/2008 10:26 PM
Thanks for the comments.  I still think a winged landing would be better.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Lee Jay on 04/20/2008 10:30 PM
Quote
Lawntonlookirs - 20/4/2008  4:26 PM

Thanks for the comments.  I still think a winged landing would be better.

Better in what ways?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: hop on 04/20/2008 11:22 PM
Quote
Gary - 20/4/2008  9:15 AM
Imagine piloting a vehicle after 6 months weightless. I suspect it's a near impossible task.
The Soyuz commander and flight engineer still have to "fly" the vehicle, in the sense that they have to do the right thing in real time, and if they don't the results could be fatal. In terms of staying conscious and keeping your wits about you in the process, the Soyuz is a much harsher ride. This is especially true in a ballistic descent where they can hit up to 10G instead of the expected 4 (which should answer Lawntonlookirs question about which is preferred.)

The whole winged vs. capsule thing is a bit OT for an ISS Q&A thread. It's a horse that's been well flogged elsewhere.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: bobthemonkey on 04/24/2008 06:25 PM
Am I correct in thinking there are a specific set of requirements (maximum time to hatch, close, undock etc) for crewed vehicles on the ISS in the case of emergency.

Would any vehicle using a CBM, as opposed to APAS or P&D be able to meet these requirements. I'm thinking specifically in terms of undock times due to the need to use (SS)RMS to unberth the vehicle, unlike the other systems that use springs as I understand it.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 04/24/2008 07:50 PM
There is and it is mentioned in another thread
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: grakenverb on 04/26/2008 01:39 PM
After shuttle retirement, could ISS orbit altitude be increased? What would the maximum obit height that the ISS could safely operate at be?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 04/26/2008 02:00 PM
Quote
grakenverb - 26/4/2008  9:39 AM

After shuttle retirement, could ISS orbit altitude be increased? What would the maximum obit height that the ISS could safely operate at be?

It is the Soyuz that limits the altitude of the ISS and not the shuttle
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: anik on 04/26/2008 02:43 PM
Quote
Jim - 26/4/2008  6:00 PM

It is the Soyuz that limits the altitude of the ISS and not the shuttle

No, ISS altitude is now limited by shuttles, because they carry very heavy payloads. After retirement of shuttles ISS altitude will be increased up to 400 kilometres and will be really limited by Soyuz.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: dawei on 04/26/2008 03:27 PM
Quote
anik - 26/4/2008  11:43 PM

Quote
Jim - 26/4/2008  6:00 PM

It is the Soyuz that limits the altitude of the ISS and not the shuttle

No, ISS altitude is now limited by shuttles, because they carry very heavy payloads. After retirement of shuttles ISS altitude will be increased up to 400 kilometres and will be really limited by Soyuz.

My oh my, it seems that I have finally witnessed someone who has corrected Jim.  That is a first in my experience!  Of course, I have to admit I have been corrected multiple times and  Jim has posted .... once or twice .... more than I have. ;)

Thanks to both Anik and Jim for all they add to these forums.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: catfry on 04/28/2008 06:57 AM
During Soyuz relocation the station is put in unmanned configuration, hatches are closed. What hatches? Is it only in russian segment? Are there any hatches that cannot easily be closed on station due to permanent cables, ducts etc.?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Life_Support_32 on 04/29/2008 12:29 AM
Quote
catfry - 28/4/2008  1:57 AM

During Soyuz relocation the station is put in unmanned configuration, hatches are closed. What hatches? Is it only in russian segment? Are there any hatches that cannot easily be closed on station due to permanent cables, ducts etc.?

All hatches are closed across the station.  This is because you're protecting for a station emergency while the crew is undocked or the unlikely event that they cannot dock again.  The vehicle can isolate the ventilation and shut down systems, but it cannot close its own hatches.  

There are hatches in the Russian segment that do have ducting across them, but anything that goes through a hatch must be able to be disconnected and freed from the hatch rapidly.  In the case of ducting, it is designed to be disconnected.  If cables are through the hatch, a cable cutter must be nearby.  On the US segment, ducting does not go through the hatch, so US hatches can be closed in ~30 seconds.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: nacnud on 04/29/2008 01:15 AM
I've been wondering about the ducting on the US side, is there separate valves in the ducting in case the hatch needs to be closed? How does it work?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: catfry on 04/29/2008 06:14 AM
Thank you, I had read about the need for the crew to learn where wire cutters where during training for emergencies, and guessed it was for permanent cables over ducts that needed to be closed. I guess it only is a matter of how fast you need to close it wether you use a wire cutter.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Life_Support_32 on 04/29/2008 09:52 PM
Quote
nacnud - 28/4/2008  8:15 PM

I've been wondering about the ducting on the US side, is there separate valves in the ducting in case the hatch needs to be closed? How does it work?

There are valves on each side of the hatch that isolate the vestibule.  The ducting goes through the vestibule in a closeout area that is accessed by the crew when installing a new module or troubleshooting issues in the vestibule.  The ducting is seperate from the hatch, so there is no need to remove ducting, like needs to be done on the RS side.  

These valves are automatically controlled, with a manual override.  In an emergency, commands are automatically sent to close the valves and the crew is trained to check that the valves are closed before closing the hatch, because if you close the hatch with the valves open, it doesn't do much good.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: robertross on 05/04/2008 02:50 PM
How does one go about finding info here (pictures and documents) on the ISS arm? I've searched under Canadarm2, SSRMS, MBS, MSS...nothing. I already have L2 Robo documents. Any help or links (aside from CSA/MDA, I know those) would be helpful. Thanks.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Longhorn John on 05/04/2008 04:17 PM
Quote
robertross - 4/5/2008  9:50 AM

How does one go about finding info here (pictures and documents) on the ISS arm? I've searched under Canadarm2, SSRMS, MBS, MSS...nothing. I already have L2 Robo documents. Any help or links (aside from CSA/MDA, I know those) would be helpful. Thanks.

Seen as you're on L2, you could use the L2 Shopping List and one of the guys will see what additional can be uploaded.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: robertross on 05/04/2008 04:44 PM
Thanks Longhorn. I was going to, but thought it inappropriate to jump the gun in case I simply wasn't looking in the right spot. I figured I'd start here first. I'll give it a couple days, I'm in no hurry (found my happy place).   :)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: tesheiner on 05/15/2008 08:00 AM
While reading the article about the Freon leak (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5423) I saw a reference to the Elektron. It reminded me that it's quite a long time without news about this troublesome device.
When was the last time Elektron was R&R?
Is it working fine since then or perhaps its maintenance doesn't deserve a line in the ISS Status Reports?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: swhitt on 05/18/2008 04:05 AM
I have a question about the NTA trade out.

We have already replaced 1 and will do another on the next flight. The question is why?

The NTA is used to pressurize the ammonia.

So how can you run out of nitrogen and not ammonia?

Also, weren't all the components pre-charged so it would not take a lot of ammonia out of the tank?

This change out seems planned and not due to a leak, so I am confused as to where the nitrogen went.

Can any one clear this up for me?

Steve
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: SRBseparama on 05/18/2008 04:13 AM
After reading this http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5425 I find myself asking the question about when the ISS goes to six crew. Will there be two Soyuz craft docked to the ISS when that happens, and two will always have to be fully trained in Soyuz commanding?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 05/18/2008 04:48 AM
Quote
SRBseparama - 17/5/2008  11:13 PM

After reading this http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5425 I find myself asking the question about when the ISS goes to six crew. Will there be two Soyuz craft docked to the ISS when that happens, and two will always have to be fully trained in Soyuz commanding?

Yes.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: TRS717 on 05/24/2008 01:58 PM
I noticed, during his May 7 video diary, Garrett Reisman mentioning that there are only two windows in the US segment, one in Node 2, and the large, optically-correct one in the lab. Then he mentioned that the astronauts and cosmonauts were not allowed to use the lab window. (One presumes by "use" he means open the protective cover.)

Question: Are they *never* allowed to open the cover on the lab window, and if not, why not?

Thanks!
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 05/24/2008 05:23 PM
It is a very high quality optical window so we take pains to protect it from debris or gasses.  We allow them limited use but right now with SPDM parked in front, there is the concern for off gassing so it is essentially not allowed right now.

(Two last messages are moved from "ISS Windows" thread - anik)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: gordo on 06/03/2008 09:57 PM
anyone know the level of spares stock of TBAs, can they replace them all, or will some need to be brought home for overhaul before they swap to the other race ring
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: pargoo on 06/04/2008 06:09 AM
     At 4.4 meters diameter, I was wondering why Kibo was considered
too large for the OBSS boom to be fitted when there's adequate
clearance for the RMS on the opposite side of the bay.  Assuming it was
a *weight* issue??
     Image: both modules compared in orbit :)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: MKremer on 06/04/2008 08:40 AM
Take a look at the Kibo PDGF in the RH picture - with that in place there's no room for the launch/landing position of the OBSS with the doors closed.

One had to go for the mission - either the PDGF or the OBSS.

Over several years of study, including building a "mini-boom" option (and all the reports/documents for every option are buried here in the main forum and L2 somewhere), the cost/benefit/EVA workload figures worked out best for storing the OBSS and keeping the PDGF attached to the Kibo module.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Susan27 on 06/05/2008 11:43 AM
Hi,

NASA TV the term "KU (coverage/window)" is used a lot of times:

Could someone please tell me what this exactly means? I think that it hasnt to do with audio broadcasting because it can be heard all the time (when ISS is circling the earth).

So does KU has to do with the ability of TV-coverage from ISS (TDRS?)...?

Thanks very much! :)

Kind regards

Susan
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: maxx on 06/05/2008 11:57 AM
it's a frequency range (from 12 to 18 GHz) just like FM is from 88MHz to 108Mhz
[edit] The bandwidth available does allow TV transmission and other hight data rate signals[/edit]

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_band (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_band) for all the details

HTH
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: nacnud on 06/05/2008 11:58 AM
KU is the name of the radio frequence used by the Tracking and Data Relay Satellites for high speed communitcations to and from the ISS and Shuttle.

I found this image showing where the TDRS are located.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Susan27 on 06/05/2008 12:04 PM
Thanks for your explanation:

But does that mean that TV coverage from ISS isnt possible all the time? I thought that nowadays the whole world is covered with TDRS SATs...Isnt that correct...?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: nacnud on 06/05/2008 12:08 PM
Not sure... but NASA isn't the only user the Pentagon also uses the Sats. Also there are sometimes physical obstructions between the tranciever on the ISS and the sat, ie trusses etc.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: maxx on 06/05/2008 12:18 PM
From what I understand the ISS attitude sometimes prevent the communication between the orbiting complex and the satellites...

I'll appreciate if someone can give me more explanation on the subject...
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 06/05/2008 01:10 PM
This is all covered in the shutte AND the ISS Q&A threads
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: TyMoore on 06/05/2008 02:20 PM
What is the alloy used in the construction of the main ISS laboratory modules? I remember reading somewhere that Boeing had to switch to a copper-based alloy because of 'quality of weld' issues, but I can't seem to find the specifics on the alloy used.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Speedracer on 06/05/2008 06:34 PM
Was it pressurized before it was attached to ISS?

How would they equalize the pressure before hatch opening?

Along the same lines, will logistics module be de-pressurized/re-pressurized when it's moved to Kibo?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 06/05/2008 06:36 PM
The modules all are pressurized and retain their gases during movement. 
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 06/06/2008 02:25 AM
Is there a list of all of the PDGFs on the ISS?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: DMeader on 06/06/2008 05:40 PM
Why did the racks have to be relocated from the JLM to the main lab, before the JLM itself was moved to the permanent location?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: William Graham on 06/06/2008 06:08 PM
In this image of the 3 June 2008 EVA, one of the "petals" on the Harmony module is open, but the other three are still closed. Does anyone know why? Were they doing some work on the port or something?

 http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-124/html/iss017e008746.html
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: martin_nv on 06/06/2008 09:22 PM
It appears that they are covering the empty rack spaces in Kibo with a fabric cover of some sort. It certainly does make the module look smaller! Is this for visual purposes, ventilation or so they don't get stuck floating in the middle?
Thanks.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 06/06/2008 09:58 PM
Why did the racks have to be relocated from the JLM to the main lab, before the JLM itself was moved to the permanent location?

Easier to maneuver the SSRMS with a lower load.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 06/06/2008 10:56 PM
It appears that they are covering the empty rack spaces in Kibo with a fabric cover of some sort. It certainly does make the module look smaller! Is this for visual purposes, ventilation or so they don't get stuck floating in the middle?
Thanks.


My guess would be to protect the rack connectors from damage/contamination.  If memory serves there are covers in Destiny as well as Columbus.  With STS-126 more racks should be brought up.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: maxx on 06/07/2008 01:56 PM
Why did the racks have to be relocated from the JLM to the main lab, before the JLM itself was moved to the permanent location?
Easier to maneuver the SSRMS with a lower load.

Weight doesn't seems to be the issue here, the SSRMS is able to move the JEM...
Some (most?) of the critical racks were launched inside JLM to reduce the JEM's weight.

If memory serves me well, there was a rack required to activate a power channel (B?) and the robotic console needed for today's activity (STS-124 FD8) inside the logistic's module... Also if there is a problem with the logistic's module heaters, the equipment will be protected from condensation (IIRC, PAO mentioned condensation as a reason to not open it now).

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong...
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: eeergo on 06/07/2008 02:08 PM
In this image of the 3 June 2008 EVA, one of the "petals" on the Harmony module is open, but the other three are still closed. Does anyone know why? Were they doing some work on the port or something?

 http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-124/html/iss017e008746.html (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-124/html/iss017e008746.html)

It had to do with EVA 1's tasks: they were inspecting the CBM to verify it's ready for Donatello in STS-126, and I suspect they're still checking the lost bolt from 120 isn't lurking in some corner waiting to jam the mechanism. Perhaps that petal was the only one they hadn't properly looked under, or still held some suspicions.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: William Graham on 06/07/2008 03:11 PM
In this image of the 3 June 2008 EVA, one of the "petals" on the Harmony module is open, but the other three are still closed. Does anyone know why? Were they doing some work on the port or something?

 http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-124/html/iss017e008746.html (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-124/html/iss017e008746.html)

It had to do with EVA 1's tasks: they were inspecting the CBM to verify it's ready for Donatello in STS-126, and I suspect they're still checking the lost bolt from 120 isn't lurking in some corner waiting to jam the mechanism. Perhaps that petal was the only one they hadn't properly looked under, or still held some suspicions.

Thanks.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 06/07/2008 03:36 PM
Why did the racks have to be relocated from the JLM to the main lab, before the JLM itself was moved to the permanent location?
Easier to maneuver the SSRMS with a lower load.

Weight doesn't seems to be the issue here, the SSRMS is able to move the JEM...

Of course. I never said it was an "issue". But with the JLM they had a *choice*. They could either offload the racks first, then relocate, or relocate then offload. Given the choice, they offloaded first.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 06/07/2008 03:51 PM
In this image of the 3 June 2008 EVA, one of the "petals" on the Harmony module is open, but the other three are still closed. Does anyone know why? Were they doing some work on the port or something?

 http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-124/html/iss017e008746.html (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-124/html/iss017e008746.html)

It had to do with EVA 1's tasks: they were inspecting the CBM to verify it's ready for Donatello in STS-126, and I suspect they're still checking the lost bolt from 120 isn't lurking in some corner waiting to jam the mechanism. Perhaps that petal was the only one they hadn't properly looked under, or still held some suspicions.

It is not Donatello for STS-126, it is Leonardo.  Donatello is going up on STS-128.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: amaturespacecase on 06/07/2008 04:47 PM
I was wondering about the power grid on the ISS and whether or not the solar panels on the Soyuz/Progress spacecrafts contribute power to it. Do their solar panels provide power to the ISS grid or do they just provide power for themselves?

Btw, this website has some of the most brilliant people on it!
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 06/07/2008 05:03 PM
I was wondering about the power grid on the ISS and whether or not the solar panels on the Soyuz/Progress spacecrafts contribute power to it. Do their solar panels provide power to the ISS grid or do they just provide power for themselves?

Btw, this website has some of the most brilliant people on it!

Just for the Soyuz I believe
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: catfry on 06/07/2008 05:10 PM
Are the Kibo windows the largest horizontally pointing windows on ISS?

EDIT: Prior to Cupola I mean.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: DMeader on 06/07/2008 11:21 PM

Of course. I never said it was an "issue". But with the JLM they had a *choice*. They could either offload the racks first, then relocate, or relocate then offload. Given the choice, they offloaded first.

I just wondered why maneuver them out of the JLM, through Harmony and into Kibo as opposed to waiting and moving them straight out of the JLM into Kibo.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: maxx on 06/07/2008 11:47 PM
Easier to maneuver the SSRMS with a lower load.
Weight doesn't seems to be the issue here, the SSRMS is able to move the JEM...
Of course. I never said it was an "issue". But with the JLM they had a *choice*. They could either offload the racks first, then relocate, or relocate then offload. Given the choice, they offloaded first.

Oops... I should have given more weight to the rest of my reply, dropped that SSRMS part completely and stressed the fact that "critical" racks were inside the JLM.

I just wondered why maneuver them out of the JLM, through Harmony and into Kibo as opposed to waiting and moving them straight out of the JLM into Kibo.

From what I understand, the JLM "must" have been unloaded in order to activate the main Kibo laboratory and proceed with today's activities, at least it's the impression I got. I'm sure they needed the robotic console to unlatch the Japanese RMS before tomorrow's EVA (STS-124 FD9) and remove the last launch cover on one of Kibo's window.

Now that JLM is offloaded and Kibo is activated, it has become a low priority item.
In the Mission Status Briefing yesterday, Annette Hasbrook, ISS Flight Director reacting on a question on why to wait 'till Monday before opening JLM, said: "[...] based on the priority of tasks there's no driving need to go back in there, we tried to pull everything out of it, that we thought we would need, and so, it's not a high priority to get it done prior to the EVA. But it's good to open it up because the baseline configuration for on-orbit operation is to leave that hatch open, so we do want have it open [...] it gonna be a great storage place for the crew in the short term until people think up some other ideas how to use it [...]".

I'm a bit puzzled by that... If it's now a low priority item, why do they want to move it while the shuttle is docked? Crew training?

Again sorry if I haven't made my previous reply clearer. I hope I'm not too pretentious or overconfident for a newbie ;)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 06/08/2008 12:24 AM
I think I have the answer.  The JLM couldn't be activiated nor entered if first attached to the JEM because the racks necessary to provide services to the JLM were inside the JLM. 
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Danderman on 06/08/2008 01:30 PM
I was wondering about the power grid on the ISS and whether or not the solar panels on the Soyuz/Progress spacecrafts contribute power to it. Do their solar panels provide power to the ISS grid or do they just provide power for themselves?


AFAIK, neither Soyuz nor Progress has the capability at this time to provide power to ISS. However, both may receive power from ISS.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: DMeader on 06/10/2008 02:55 PM
As fun as it is to see, doesn't Karen's long hair floating around pose a bit of a hazard, in terms of whatever hairs might get loose? As in, an inhalation hazard for the crew, getting into equipment, etc.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Lawntonlookirs on 06/10/2008 03:14 PM
As fun as it is to see, doesn't Karen's long hair floating around pose a bit of a hazard, in terms of whatever hairs might get loose? As in, an inhalation hazard for the crew, getting into equipment, etc.

Good question as I was thinking of that also.  Especially with the HVAC system they have and the filters that would catch the hair.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/10/2008 03:43 PM
As fun as it is to see, doesn't Karen's long hair floating around pose a bit of a hazard, in terms of whatever hairs might get loose? As in, an inhalation hazard for the crew, getting into equipment, etc.

Long hair or short, Humans shed hair (and skin) like crazy.  The systems need to be able to handle that.

I was wondering why she doesn't braid it, but they I realized that might make it into a whip, which might be even more hazardous to the rest of the crew.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: parham55 on 06/11/2008 05:28 PM
Looking for more info on the transfer of consumables to the ISS from the orbiter.  Mostly, how is the O2 transfered that is used for the EMUs.  I imagine it being pumped from the orbiter to the ISS through some mechanism in the ODS/PMA.  Any pictures of this system available?  Also, how/where is the power transfer connection made?  What does it look like?  Thanks!
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: DMeader on 06/12/2008 03:42 PM
What is used for laptop computer mounting on ISS? Something commercially-available or designed and built for the specific application?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 06/12/2008 03:44 PM
What is used for laptop computer mounting on ISS? Something commercially-available or designed and built for the specific application?
Bogen arms
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 06/12/2008 03:49 PM
Looking for more info on the transfer of consumables to the ISS from the orbiter.  Mostly, how is the O2 transfered that is used for the EMUs.  I imagine it being pumped from the orbiter to the ISS through some mechanism in the ODS/PMA.  Any pictures of this system available?  Also, how/where is the power transfer connection made?  What does it look like?  Thanks!

The power connections are on the ODS/PMA
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spacenick on 06/12/2008 07:08 PM
Where can we find the images taken on the recent fly around?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ckiki lwai on 06/12/2008 08:37 PM
here: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/index.html
on the left you can select a flightday of STS-124, choose flightday 12.
But they aren't uploaded yet, we have to wait.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spiff on 06/17/2008 09:43 AM
Several have been uploaded now.
IMO s124e009990.jpg is the winner, but of course everybody has the right to their own opinion. :)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spiff on 06/17/2008 09:48 AM
Question:

From may 2009 there will always be at least 2 soyuzes (<- spelling?) docked to the ISS. This currently leaves only 1 dockingport for ATV/Progress. Or, at times of crew rotations, even 0 dockingports. What is the plan to manage this logistically?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 06/17/2008 11:17 AM
Question:

From may 2009 there will always be at least 2 soyuzes (<- spelling?) docked to the ISS. This currently leaves only 1 dockingport for ATV/Progress. Or, at times of crew rotations, even 0 dockingports. What is the plan to manage this logistically?


Pirs ( Zvesda nadir ) will be moved to Zvesda zenith ( currently not used ).  Zvesda nadir will receive the Docking Cargo Module on one of the Contingency Logistics Flights of the STS.  That leaves 4 ports to be used, two for logistics. 
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spiff on 06/17/2008 11:29 AM
True, but that is not planned until 2010, which leaves 2009 with only 3 dockingports. Also, officially the contingency flights (and therefore the DCM) are not manifested.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: eeergo on 06/17/2008 02:04 PM
DCM flight is not contingency (it's STS-131), it's a regular flight. Both CLFs are carrying Express pallets with spares (132 and 133)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: anik on 06/17/2008 04:58 PM
From may 2009 there will always be at least 2 soyuzes (<- spelling?) docked to the ISS. This currently leaves only 1 dockingport for ATV/Progress. Or, at times of crew rotations, even 0 dockingports. What is the plan to manage this logistically?

The Russian segment (RS) will have three docking ports (Zarya nadir, Pirs, Zvezda aft) for Soyuz/Progress till August 2009. In August 2009 MRM-2 will be launched and docked to the zenith port of Zvezda module. So RS will have four docking ports (Zarya nadir, Pirs, Zvezda aft, MRM-2). In March 2010 MRM-1 will be launched (STS-132) and docked to the nadir port of Zarya module. So RS will have four docking ports (MRM-1, Pirs, Zvezda aft, MRM-2). In 2011 Pirs will be undocked and deorbited, MLM will be launched and docked to the nadir port of Zvezda module. So RS will have four docking ports (MRM-1, MLM, Zvezda aft, MRM-2).

Rotations of Expedition crews after May 2009 can be performed in two ways: the first (direct) - an arrival of new Soyuz, then a departing of old Soyuz; the second (indirect) - a departing of old Soyuz, then an arrival of new Soyuz.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spiff on 06/18/2008 12:15 PM
Erm... getting a bit confused here. Sorry. Let me see if I can get the timeline straight. Below I'm trying to combine the information from eeergo and anik.

May 2009 is Soyuz TMA-15 which will increase ISS crew to 6. (3 dockingports)
August 2009 is MRM-2 for 1 additional dockingport (6 crew, 4 dockingports) How is MRM-2 launched?
Q1 2010 is STS-131 with DCM. I'm confused is this something else then MRM? Where is it attached? Does it have a dockingport? (6 crew, 4? dockingports)
Q1 2010 is STS-132 (CLF1) with MRM-1 (6 crew, 4? dockingports)
2011 MLM launches on Proton and Pirs is deorbited. (6 crew, 4 dockingports)

I think I'm confused somewhat in the names of DCM, MRM-1, MRM-2. But I don't quite see how. ;)

Of course indirect crew rotations make it a bit easier. I hadn't thought of that.

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 06/18/2008 12:34 PM
I should have noted that the DCM is now the MRM 1 ( Mini Research Module 1 ).  It has a docking port on both ends. 
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spiff on 06/18/2008 12:46 PM
Ah that explains. :) Thanks!
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: eeergo on 06/18/2008 02:31 PM
How is MRM-2 launched?


I think MRM-2 is a twin of Pirs, and it will be launched as Pirs was: with a modified Progress, via Soyuz.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: mjp25 on 06/25/2008 01:38 AM
Garrett Reisman mentioned in his video diary from a few weeks ago that there is only warm and hot water available to the astronauts. Why? Is the water used at all to cool electronics? I thought all of the coolant loops used ammonia, but obviously if I knew for sure I wouldn't be asking here.  ;) Thanks.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Danderman on 06/25/2008 11:16 PM
How is MRM-2 launched?


I think MRM-2 is a twin of Pirs, and it will be launched as Pirs was: with a modified Progress, via Soyuz.

A more pertinent question is how MRM-2 will be docked to ISS.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Danderman on 06/25/2008 11:19 PM


Pirs ( Zvesda nadir ) will be moved to Zvesda zenith ( currently not used ).  Zvesda nadir will receive the Docking Cargo Module on one of the Contingency Logistics Flights of the STS.

Well, I am not sure if moving Pirs is still on the table, and DCM will not go to Zvesda nadir, that's for sure.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: bobthemonkey on 06/26/2008 01:31 PM
DCM no longer exists - it is now MRM-1.

MRM2 will by launched on Soyuz, and dock on Zvezda zenith.
MRM1 will then be launched to Zarya Nadir by STS 1??
Pirs will be undocked from Zvezda nadir by Progress and deorbited.
FGB-2(not current designation) will be laucnhed by Proton to Zvezda Nadir.

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: eeergo on 06/26/2008 03:40 PM
How is MRM-2 launched?


I think MRM-2 is a twin of Pirs, and it will be launched as Pirs was: with a modified Progress, via Soyuz.

A more pertinent question is how MRM-2 will be docked to ISS.


I wasn't paying much attention to the ISS program back when Pirs was launched and added to the Station, but I recall seeing a modified Progress without what would be in a Soyuz the Orbital Module, replaced by an enlarged one, which was Pirs. I'm under the impression it has an androgynous docking system like all RS docking interfaces except PMA1-Zarya. So, being MRM-2 more or less a renewed Pirs, I would expect it to follow the same docking approach.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: psloss on 06/26/2008 03:52 PM
Possibly redundant link, but some ground processing shots of Pirs/DC1:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=3263
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 06/26/2008 03:55 PM

I wasn't paying much attention to the ISS program back when Pirs was launched and added to the Station, but I recall seeing a modified Progress without what would be in a Soyuz the Orbital Module, replaced by an enlarged one, which was Pirs.

Not just the orbital module; Pirs replaced what would have been the descent module as well.

Quote
I'm under the impression it has an androgynous docking system like all RS docking interfaces except PMA1-Zarya.

Reversed. PMA-1/Zarya is the only androgynous interface; all other RS docking interfaces are probe and drogue.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: eeergo on 06/26/2008 04:15 PM

all other RS docking interfaces are probe and drogue.

Yeah, that's what I meant, thanks for the correction :)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Danderman on 06/28/2008 06:31 PM
So, being MRM-2 more or less a renewed Pirs, I would expect it to follow the same docking approach.

Not possible. Pirs was docked to Service Module nadir, which had Kurs antennas at the time. Service Module zenith has no Kurs. Also, big difference between +R and -R dockings.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: usn_skwerl on 06/30/2008 11:50 AM
I saw a commercial in the last couple days for some product or company, that showed what looked like a complete ISS with three strobe lights.

Are there actually any strobes on the ISS? I would assume no, as I've never seen them on any live feeds, so I was curious. If there are strobes up there, could we see them from down here with say a pair of binocs?

Thanks
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: anik on 07/02/2008 06:50 PM
Not possible. Pirs was docked to Service Module nadir, which had Kurs antennas at the time. Service Module zenith has no Kurs

All Kurs target and antennas, required for the supporting of MRM-2 docking to the zenith port of Zvezda module, will be installed onto the transfer compartment (PkhO) in future Russian spacewalks.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 07/02/2008 08:41 PM
Do Russian spacewalks still cease during the "night" passes?  Or have they refined that procedure. 
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: cd-slam on 07/03/2008 05:00 AM
DCM flight is not contingency (it's STS-131), it's a regular flight. Both CLFs are carrying Express pallets with spares (132 and 133)

Not true, MRM-1 is manifested on flight STS-132, which is still listed as a contingency flight.The ELCs are manifested on flights STS-129 and STS-133. However US Congress had already passed a bill authorizing the two CLF flights, plus possibly an additional flight STS-134 for AMS.

In any case the launch of MRM-1 is covered under NASA agreement with Russia, in the event the CLF flights were cancelled it would have to be transferred to a non-CLF flight.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: usn_skwerl on 07/03/2008 07:15 AM
Anyone have any info on my question about the strobes?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: DaveS on 07/03/2008 11:19 AM
Anyone have any info on my question about the strobes?
No strobes whatsoever. It's plain wrong.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 07/09/2008 03:44 AM
Will the two strela be transferred from PIRS to MRM-2?  Will Russian EVA's go out of MRM-2 or will they finally finish off Quest?  In the meeting today, Mike Sufferdini indicated that Node three will only temporarily be attached to the port side of Unity until the MRM-1 is brought up indicating that once up the node would be moved to the nadir side, is this true or is it the final position?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: anik on 07/09/2008 04:31 AM
Will Russian EVA's go out of MRM-2 or will they finally finish off Quest?

MRM-2 is replacement of Pirs for the performing of Russian spacewalks.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: cd-slam on 07/09/2008 04:50 AM

MRM-2 is replacement of Pirs for the performing of Russian spacewalks.

Hi Anik, as per your earlier post in ISS Russian Segment thread, MRM-2 was to be used as a cabin for the 3rd member of Russian ISS crew. Is there enough space for both the crew cabin and the airlock?

Further in that post, the MLM module was to have a separate airlock, this is also shown on RKA model for Russian segment attached. As MLM will be available after Pirs is undocked, it seems redundant to have an airlock also on MRM-2. Or has the airlock on MLM been cancelled?


Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: anik on 07/09/2008 02:26 PM
as per your earlier post in ISS Russian Segment thread, MRM-2 was to be used as a cabin for the 3rd member of Russian ISS crew. Is there enough space for both the crew cabin and the airlock?

There will not be separate cabin for crewmember in MRM-2. Simply all volume of this module will be used as the cabin for crewmember, or as the airlock, or as the place for the performing of experiments.

the MLM module was to have a separate airlock, this is also shown on RKA model for Russian segment attached. As MLM will be available after Pirs is undocked, it seems redundant to have an airlock also on MRM-2. Or has the airlock on MLM been cancelled?

The airlock for MLM will be delivered with MRM-1 in STS-132. But this airlock is for scientific equipment, not for spacewalkers.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: nacnud on 07/09/2008 03:14 PM
MRM-2 was to be used as a cabin for the 3rd member of Russian ISS crew.

The extra cabin is to be in the MLM
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Danderman on 07/10/2008 12:15 AM

Hi Anik, as per your earlier post in ISS Russian Segment thread, MRM-2 was to be used as a cabin for the 3rd member of Russian ISS crew. Is there enough space for both the crew cabin and the airlock?

Think of MRM-2 as Pirs-2, ie an exact replacement. Just as crew does not sleep in Pirs today, they probably won't sleep in Pirs-2.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: cd-slam on 07/10/2008 04:09 AM
as per your earlier post in ISS Russian Segment thread, MRM-2 was to be used as a cabin for the 3rd member of Russian ISS crew. Is there enough space for both the crew cabin and the airlock?

There will not be separate cabin for crewmember in MRM-2. Simply all volume of this module will be used as the cabin for crewmember, or as the airlock, or as the place for the performing of experiments.

the MLM module was to have a separate airlock, this is also shown on RKA model for Russian segment attached. As MLM will be available after Pirs is undocked, it seems redundant to have an airlock also on MRM-2. Or has the airlock on MLM been cancelled?

The airlock for MLM will be delivered with MRM-1 in STS-132. But this airlock is for scientific equipment, not for spacewalkers.

Aahh, bolshoe spasibo, thanks for all this information. That clears up a lot of my confusion regarding the Russian segment.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: cd-slam on 07/10/2008 04:30 AM
Think of MRM-2 as Pirs-2.


Certainly is easier to say. I believe we will be getting more PAO-friendly names for these modules MRM-1, MRM-2, MLM closer to the launch date, just as we already have FGB = Zarya, SM = Zvezda, DC1 = Pirs.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: quickshot89 on 07/10/2008 09:31 AM
once the station is complete, and if a MPLM is left on the station, how many berthing ports are left on the US side of the station?

and which ports would COTS ships dock to?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: The-Hammer on 07/10/2008 09:31 PM
once the station is complete, and if a MPLM is left on the station, how many berthing ports are left on the US side of the station?

Assuming the MPLM will be berthed to Node 2 Zenith...

Node 3 Port,
Node 3 Starboard,
Node 3 Aft (Unusable, blocked by MRM-1),
Node 1 Port,
Node 2 Nadir (Used periodically by HTV) 

So 3 usable, 5 total.

Quote
and which ports would COTS ships dock to?

PMA-2
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: nacnud on 07/10/2008 09:47 PM
and which ports would COTS ships dock to?

PMA-2

Dragon uses a CBM, I've seen animations for nadir and zenith Harmony, but I see no reason why other ports could not be used.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: psloss on 07/10/2008 09:50 PM
Assuming the MPLM will be berthed to Node 2 Zenith...
Do you have a source for this?  (Or COTS using PMA-2 for that matter.)

FYI, Node 1 port is where Node 3 is going:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12262.msg255310#msg255310
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: nacnud on 07/10/2008 09:55 PM
The Unity port CBM is only temporary for Node 3, until the MRM-1 is placed at Zarya nadir. Then Node 3 can be moved to the Unity nadir CBM.

At least that is what I think is happening....
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 07/11/2008 01:08 AM

and which ports would COTS ships dock to?

PMA-2

both COTS vehicles and HTV use CBM's.  As for CSR, it is TBD until the contractors are announced, but more than likely it will be CBM's
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: cd-slam on 07/11/2008 04:58 AM
The Unity port CBM is only temporary for Node 3, until the MRM-1 is placed at Zarya nadir. Then Node 3 can be moved to the Unity nadir CBM.

At least that is what I think is happening....

That WAS the plan, up until about March this year. Then as per info from erioladastra (I think, my apology if wrong), the plan was changed to move the Node 3 permanently to the Node 1 port CBM and leave the PMA-3 on the Node 1 nadir CBM where it is now. See attached blow-up.

I tend to agree with previous post, the location of PMA-3 on Node 1 nadir berth looks virtually inaccessible for shuttle or Orion with MRM-1 on one side and HTV-1/MPLM on the other. Perhaps there will be a change in configuration closer to the Orion launch date.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: wjbarnett on 07/11/2008 11:43 AM
So where might AMS be mounted if that element gets to station?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 07/11/2008 01:31 PM
Same place as the ELC2/3 but on the port side.

I believe
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 07/11/2008 01:53 PM
Same place as the ELC2/3 but on the port side.

I believe


It would have been on S3 Zenith side according to this:

http://ams-02project.jsc.nasa.gov/Documents/SDP/Section%205-4.pdf
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 07/11/2008 02:43 PM
Same place as the ELC2/3 but on the port side.

I believe


It would have been on S3 Zenith side according to this:

http://ams-02project.jsc.nasa.gov/Documents/SDP/Section%205-4.pdf

So the ISS has moved past AMS and plans to put ELC 4  in its place
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: mrbliss on 07/11/2008 03:08 PM
The Unity port CBM is only temporary for Node 3, until the MRM-1 is placed at Zarya nadir. Then Node 3 can be moved to the Unity nadir CBM.

That WAS the plan, up until about March this year. Then as per info from erioladastra (I think, my apology if wrong), the plan was changed to move the Node 3 permanently to the Node 1 port CBM and leave the PMA-3 on the Node 1 nadir CBM where it is now. See attached blow-up.

It seems like that position (berthed to Node 1 port CBM) puts Node 3 really close to P1's HRS Radiator? 
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Analyst on 07/11/2008 03:14 PM
Quote
So the ISS has moved past AMS and plans to put ELC 4  in its place

There are 6 places on S3 and P3 together, enough for 5 ELCs AND AMS.

Quote
It seems like that position (berthed to Node 1 port CBM) puts Node 3 really close to P1's HRS Radiator?

There is enough spacing: The radiator axis is above the Node 3 plane. Has been discussed before.

Analyst
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: psloss on 07/11/2008 03:41 PM
There are 6 places on S3 and P3 together, enough for 5 ELCs AND AMS.
Looks like ESP-3 would have to be relocated to accommodate that, since it's taking up one of the places on the port side already.  But then both AMS and ELC-5 are on the bubble, so to speak.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Analyst on 07/12/2008 07:51 PM
Correct, I forgot ESP-3. Btw., why does the number of mounting ports differ between P3 and S3?

Analyst
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: cd-slam on 07/15/2008 04:58 AM
Quote
It seems like that position (berthed to Node 1 port CBM) puts Node 3 really close to P1's HRS Radiator?

There is enough spacing: The radiator axis is above the Node 3 plane. Has been discussed before.

Analyst
But what has NOT been discussed AFAIK, is why Node 3 should be permanently located on Port berth of Node 1 when it could have been relocated to Nadir berth of Node 1 after the arrival of MRM-1.

Then the PMA-3 berth could have been placed on Node 3 nadir and presented a much easier target for a future Orion mission.
Perhaps there is another reason that I am not aware of.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Analyst on 07/15/2008 06:56 AM
Only reason I have seen officially: This configuration puts all US-side modules (exept Kibo logistics) into one plane, e.g. the "floor" is always in the same plane. Node-3 is not "out of plane".

Others from me: Saves relocating PMA-3 to Node-3 and then relocating Node-3 together with PMA-3. And it gives a good view of the US AND Russian side from the Cupola. The new position behind Kibo may also be better from a MOD point of view, but this is probably not a main factor.

Orion is many, many years in the future. It can use PMA-2. Besides, Node-3/PMA-3 could be relocated then, if needed (which I doubt). Or put PMA-3 at Node-2 nadir. Whatever, this "problem" won't be one before 2016+.

Analyst
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: cd-slam on 07/21/2008 04:57 AM
Only reason I have seen officially: This configuration puts all US-side modules (exept Kibo logistics) into one plane, e.g. the "floor" is always in the same plane. Node-3 is not "out of plane".

Others from me: Saves relocating PMA-3 to Node-3 and then relocating Node-3 together with PMA-3. And it gives a good view of the US AND Russian side from the Cupola. The new position behind Kibo may also be better from a MOD point of view, but this is probably not a main factor.

Orion is many, many years in the future. It can use PMA-2. Besides, Node-3/PMA-3 could be relocated then, if needed (which I doubt). Or put PMA-3 at Node-2 nadir. Whatever, this "problem" won't be one before 2016+.

Analyst

Thanks Analyst, I had not seen this reason (single plane of modules) given in an official sense before. I guess it makes sense for that reason.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Analyst on 07/21/2008 07:19 AM
Is there any SSRMS work planned with the SSRMS based on the (soon to be installed) FGB-PDGF (which itself will be relocated from P6)? MRM-1 installation at Zarya nadir?

Analyst
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: bobthemonkey on 07/21/2008 09:47 AM
Analyst, I believe the PDGF installation has now been cancelled/postponed. Reason being it was needed for the Pirs/DC1 relocation which is now no longer happening.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Analyst on 07/21/2008 03:05 PM
Thanks. I was thinking something along this, because MRM-1 to Zarya nadir can most likely be done from the LAB PDGF. And STS-126 (which was planned to do the PDGF relocation from P6) is quite full now (EVA wise) with SARJ work.

Analyst
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Danderman on 07/26/2008 12:15 AM
Analyst, I believe the PDGF installation has now been cancelled/postponed. Reason being it was needed for the Pirs/DC1 relocation which is now no longer happening.

However, MRM-1 will be located at FGB Nadir, which may require that the ISS RMS be stationed nearby, for the transfer from the Shuttle payload bay.

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: bobthemonkey on 07/26/2008 12:24 AM
Analyst, I believe the PDGF installation has now been cancelled/postponed. Reason being it was needed for the Pirs/DC1 relocation which is now no longer happening.

However, MRM-1 will be located at FGB Nadir, which may require that the ISS RMS be stationed nearby, for the transfer from the Shuttle payload bay.



As Analyst said, the lab PDGF should be sufficient.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: eeergo on 08/25/2008 05:01 PM
What is a SORR? (seen in today's ISS status report):

"08/25/08 -- Progress M-64/29 SORR (Stage Operations Readiness Review) @ NASA/JSC"

And why is it needed for the Progress undocking (happening on the Sept 1st)?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/25/2008 05:10 PM
once it is not needed, how will pirs be separated from station?  I am sure that a large module will not simply be thrown off.  My best guess is a progress docking to it, and then bothe the module and progress would be separated.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 08/25/2008 05:17 PM
What is a SORR? (seen in today's ISS status report):

"08/25/08 -- Progress M-64/29 SORR (Stage Operations Readiness Review) @ NASA/JSC"

And why is it needed for the Progress undocking (happening on the Sept 1st)?

SORR (Stage Operations Readiness Review)

A gate before a change in the station's configuration/stage
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: eeergo on 08/25/2008 05:24 PM

SORR (Stage Operations Readiness Review)

A gate before a change in the station's configuration/stage

A "gate" like in an opportunity for many departments to meet and sum up the state of the play before a big change? I'm not familiar with the term... :-\ And what would that change be, MRM-2 perhaps?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: quickshot89 on 08/25/2008 05:25 PM
with orion using LIDS, will PMA 2 and 3 be replaced? or will a new PMA be brought to the station via COTS?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: eeergo on 08/25/2008 05:26 PM
once it is not needed, how will pirs be separated from station?  I am sure that a large module will not simply be thrown off.  My best guess is a progress docking to it, and then bothe the module and progress would be separated.

Yes, that's the plan from what I've heard so far.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 08/25/2008 05:27 PM

SORR (Stage Operations Readiness Review)

A gate before a change in the station's configuration/stage

A "gate" like in an opportunity for many departments to meet and sum up the state of the play before a big change? I'm not familiar with the term... :-\ And what would that change be, MRM-1 perhaps?

Most reviews are seen as gates whether they are for design or readiness.  The next step can't be taken until the review is satisfactory.

WRT review, I would say Progress undocking is the change/event.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 08/25/2008 05:37 PM
with orion using LIDS, will PMA 2 and 3 be replaced? or will a new PMA be brought to the station via COTS?

Neither. The current plan is for the first two Orion flights to carry an APAS to LIDS adapter (ATLAS) that would attach permanently to the PMAs and allow subsequent Orions to dock using just the LIDS.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: eeergo on 08/25/2008 05:46 PM
Thanks for the fast answers.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: quickshot89 on 09/19/2008 05:47 PM
is it possible for two shuttles to dock to the ISS, one at each spare PMA?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 09/19/2008 05:54 PM
no room or clearance
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spacenick on 09/20/2008 05:57 PM
Would it be possible for a Shenzhou crew to use the ISS as a safe haven for example if Shenzhou 7 couldn't reenter could they reach the ISS and transfer to it by spacesuit or even with their sokol suits if nothing else were available. if the Orbits are incompatible would it be possible if China launched Shenzhou in a compatible Orbit?
And is it possible to more from one sapcecr4aft to another in a Sokol type suit dumping the first spacecraft. I know the suit would probably blow up so much that moving would be really hard, but I guess it would survive 50 second trip through vacuum, or wouldn't it?

EDIT: All of this under the presumption that it's an unplanned last way out type of situation where political boundaries or normal safety procedures don't apply
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 09/20/2008 08:20 PM
Would it be possible for a Shenzhou crew to use the ISS as a safe haven for example if Shenzhou 7 couldn't reenter could they reach the ISS and transfer to it by spacesuit or even with their sokol suits if nothing else were available. if the Orbits are incompatible would it be possible if China launched Shenzhou in a compatible Orbit?
And is it possible to more from one sapcecr4aft to another in a Sokol type suit dumping the first spacecraft. I know the suit would probably blow up so much that moving would be really hard, but I guess it would survive 50 second trip through vacuum, or wouldn't it?

EDIT: All of this under the presumption that it's an unplanned last way out type of situation where political boundaries or normal safety procedures don't apply

To get to ISS you have to plan to go there, if anything goes wrong on Shenzhou & they are SOL.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spacenick on 09/20/2008 08:48 PM
Doesn't this depend solely on the delta-v available and the inclination used?
If I were the Chinese planners and the rocket ahd the capacity I'd send my Shenzhou craft on an Orbit in reach of the ISS. If I remember correctly there was a case where a Soyuz brought a Crew from Salyut 5 to Salyut 6 and back again I guess their orbit was different but not too different.
I'd choose an Orbit similiar to the pakring Orbit used by the ATV while it waited for the Shuttle mission to be completed.
However, my question is more centered about the second pahse of such a scenario, provided the delta-v to reach the ISS to within 5 meteres with manual control.
Could a Shenzhou be grabbed by the robot arm and could the Taikonauts leave it in their Sokol suits (as far as I know those should protect from vacuum though they are not real space suits)
and would it be possible to survive a trip to the airlock and into the station with this bare minimum of equipment maybe even without additional oxigen simply closing the Sokol suit air tight.
Another scenario thinkable for Shenzhou 7 would be to let the rescue Shuttle get the Chinese craft, this would probably pose huge political boundaries and leave the shuttle mission without backup, on the other hand it would probably be a huge plus for PR.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 09/20/2008 08:55 PM

1.  Could a Shenzhou be grabbed by the robot arm and

2.  could the Taikonauts leave it in their Sokol suits (as far as I know those should protect from vacuum though they are not real space suits)
and would it be possible to survive a trip to the airlock and into the station with this bare minimum of equipment maybe even without additional oxigen simply closing the Sokol suit air tight.

Not viable

The Chinese haven't done rendezvous yet. 
Shenzhou doesn't have a grabble fixture.  The ISS  team hasn't done the  integration at this time to even allow the Shenzhou near the ISS

2.  Doubtful


The shuttle can't rescue it, no grabble
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spacenick on 09/20/2008 09:16 PM
So even if a Shuttle could reach the Shenzhou or the Shenzhou could reach the ISS to within 5 meteres they would probably be left to die? To me that sounds doubtful in most cases where things go so much out of control security advisories might be ignored, I mean it's even better trying to free fly from a free flying Shenzhou to ISS than giving up, isn't it?
Another question would be whether NASA could stand the public when there is a manned NASA Spacecraft in reach of another one stranded on Orbit and technically a fueled Space Shuttle on the pad is in reach of any possible Shenzhou Orbit.

About the Chinese not having done rendezvous, if I remember correctly the Soviets did a manual docking with a Salyut that was out of control and even without electricity so a Space Shuttle should be more then capable of maneuvering to a passive Shenzhou to within a few meters without too much risk, then the Chinese astronauts could try to free drift slowly away from their spacecraft in their space suits and the Space Shuttle could literally catch them with the cargo bay. I know that's a McGyver style maneuver, but catching a passive free drifting human body with the cargo bay shouldn't be more dangerous for the Shuttle crew then a free drifting sattelite with much greater value. And let's not forget the thing NASA needs most these days are heroes so even if the Chinese wouldn't survive it, it's the only way for NASA to get out of the situation anything else than idiots.
Such a scenario is quite thinkable just imagine a complete loss of thrusters on Shenzhou 7. A scenario where the ISS as a safe haven is the last resort is much less likely but still imaginable. I don't think sticking strictly to safety protocols would be understood by the public.
One possibility I can imagine here is evacuating the ISS with a Soyuz before letting the Chinese try their luck.

EDIT: As for the lack of a grappel fixture technically Shenzhou has handle bars and thus it could be grabbed by an EVAing astronaut I'm pretty sure our Russian friends would be brave enough to try grabing a Shenzhou by hand suspended from ISS by Strela.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 09/20/2008 09:29 PM
1.  So even if a Shuttle could reach the Shenzhou or the Shenzhou could reach the ISS to within 5 meteres they would probably be left to die? To me that sounds doubtful in most cases where things go so much out of control security advisories might be ignored,

2. I mean it's even better trying to free fly from a free flying Shenzhou to ISS than giving up, isn't it?


3.  Another question would be whether NASA could stand the public when there is a manned NASA Spacecraft in reach of another one stranded on Orbit and technically a fueled Space Shuttle on the pad is in reach of any possible Shenzhou Orbit.

1.  The issue is even getting close to the ISS.  If is can't get to the ISS, it can deorbit

2.  Getting to the ISS would be the problem.  Better to work the problem with the spacecraft and try landing with it

3.  The shuttle is not a quick response vehicle.  It couldn't mount a Shenzhou rescue quick enough.  Also the shuttle on orbit wouldn't be close enough

Also who says the Chinese is going to ask for help

There are so many ifs and unknowns that this is highly probable
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: psloss on 09/20/2008 09:32 PM
And let's not forget the thing NASA needs most these days are heroes so even if the Chinese wouldn't survive it, it's the only way for NASA to get out of the situation anything else than idiots.
These are your assumptions and you're way oversimplifying everything.  NASA would not be blamed in a situation where they have not been asked for assistance or consulted minimally, if at all.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 09/20/2008 09:32 PM
And let's not forget the thing NASA needs most these days are heroes so even if the Chinese wouldn't survive it, it's the only way for NASA to get out of the situation anything else than idiots.

NASA doesn't need this
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 09/20/2008 09:34 PM
Sokol doesn't have an self contained oxygen supply.  It can't go EVA.  So all your scenarios are not plausible
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spacenick on 09/20/2008 09:40 PM
Not if the Chinese don't ask for help, if they do it depends. I don't know the exact timeline for Shenzhou 7 but as far as I know during the mission there is Atlantis on the pad ready to go for a quick response mission in case of a problem with the upcoming Hubble mission. I don't know the details and of cause this is nothing more than a thought experiment but I'd guess that a Shuttle ready for a rescue mission could reach any Shenzhou Orbit within 48 hours which might be within the oxygen margin of a Shenzhou mission.
The fact I'm doing this though experiement is not only because of the upcoming missions but because of the fact, that with more and more Nations doing manned spaceflight and after the cold war it's highly likely that some spacecraft will be in need for help from a foreign spacecraft sometime in the next 50 years.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 09/20/2008 09:43 PM

EDIT: As for the lack of a grappel fixture technically Shenzhou has handle bars and thus it could be grabbed by an EVAing astronaut I'm pretty sure our Russian friends would be brave enough to try grabing a Shenzhou by hand suspended from ISS by Strela.

That is ludicrous.  Anyways, the Shenzhou couldn't get near the Strela

"I'm pretty sure" is not sufficient justification
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 09/20/2008 09:46 PM
there is Atlantis on the pad ready to go for a quick response mission in case of a problem with the upcoming Hubble mission. I
Because it is a planned rescue
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spacenick on 09/20/2008 09:47 PM
Jim I know that Sokol doesn't have it's own oxygen supply, that's why I am specifically asking about Sokol and not real EVA suits. Specifically i was thinking in terms of using Sokol like the Rescue ball (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/reseball.htm), the oxygen from the Astronaut's lungs and from within the suit should keep the Astronaut alive for about 7 minutes though he might become unconsciousness. That's really not much but better then the minute you get from going without any suit and enough to be worth a try when stranded in LEO.

What I'm asking for are the real specific technical no go details that make such a thing IMPOSSIBLE and nothing less. What I mean is that even it's not probable or not planned or even completly stupid if the risk for the crew trying to rescue the other one is less then extreme and the probability for the rescued crew to surive is more than zero, then WHY not. From my point of view losing 6 people when trying to rescue 3 after having had a chance of 10% of all of them surviving and a chance of 70% of the 3 people from the rescue crew surviving is much better than leaving the 3 people stranded in Orbit with the PR disaster that follows.
You know this policy is called leaving no one behind and it's common practice in politics. Just think about hostages it's not uncommon to lose both policemen and hostages and still doing nothing is considered the worst possible approach.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: psloss on 09/20/2008 09:50 PM
Not if the Chinese don't ask for help, if they do it depends.
Seriously doubt the Chinese want any help, but if they did ask for help, they would need to stand down their launch preparations and be prepared to go through a multi-lateral process to come up with viable rescue, which would take years.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 09/20/2008 09:54 PM
Jim I know that Sokol doesn't have it's own oxygen supply, that's why I am specifically asking about Sokol and not real EVA suits.  the oxygen from the Astronaut's lungs and from within the suit should keep the Astronaut alive for about 7 minutes though he might become unconsciousness. .

Rescue ball had an O2 supply

Not viable.  Can't do anything in less than a 1/2 hour.  Have to depressurized the cabin, have to repressurized airlock, have to open hatches, have to shut airlock hatch, etc.   How is the Sokol  sealed? 
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 09/20/2008 09:56 PM
the PR disaster that follows.

Is only the Chinese.  NASA has nothing to do with this
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 09/20/2008 09:57 PM

You know this policy is called leaving no one behind and it's common practice in politics.

Not applicable to spaceflight
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 09/20/2008 10:00 PM

What I'm asking for are the real specific technical no go details that make such a thing IMPOSSIBLE and nothing less.

Even with a Soyuz, there isn't anything that could be done.  The Soyuz is on its own.

If there is a problem before ISS rendezvous, it deorbits.  If happens after ISS separation, it deorbits
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spacenick on 09/20/2008 10:08 PM
Quote
Not viable.  Can't do anything in less than a 1/2 hour.  Have to depressurized the cabin, have to repressurized airlock, have to open hatches, have to shut airlock hatch, etc.   How is the Sokol  sealed?

That's what I wanted to hear, hard details, thank you Jim.
While depressurizing the Shenzhou should be no problem as the Sokol suit is designed to keep the Astronaut alive in a depressurized cabin for hours at a time the repressurisation phase would likely be too long. I'm not sure however how long someone can survive an in a Sokol suit that is filled with pure oxygen (as it is when used pressurized). Sealing it should probably be possible I'm pretty sure there is some way to seal the umbilical that is normaly connected to the spacecraft as there is a pressure regulation valve on the Sokol it should be possible to completly close that. At least it seems logical that there is such a mechanism for example to leave a cabin filled with smoke after landing without letting smoke into the suit.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spacenick on 09/20/2008 10:09 PM
Whats the rescue plan for a Soyuz that loses maneuverability after ISS seperation with an American on board?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 09/20/2008 10:12 PM
Whats the rescue plan for a Soyuz that loses maneuverability after ISS seperation with an American on board?

I doubt there is a plan.  The shuttle can't be launched in time and the ISS can't do anything.  The plan would be to work the problem on the Soyuz
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spacenick on 09/20/2008 10:15 PM
Can't the ISS be maneuvered with the Russian segement throusters and/or ATV and/or docked Soyuz? What would be the delta-v available?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: psloss on 09/20/2008 10:15 PM
What I'm asking for are the real specific technical no go details that make such a thing IMPOSSIBLE and nothing less.
Wow.  Why didn't you just open with that?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 09/20/2008 10:22 PM
Can't the ISS be maneuvered with the Russian segement throusters and/or ATV and/or docked Soyuz? What would be the delta-v available?

no, that is for attitude control and orbit raising.  Rendezvous maneuvering is completely different

that is the reason for the SAFER units on the EVA'ers.  It
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Danderman on 09/24/2008 02:05 PM
Whats the rescue plan for a Soyuz that loses maneuverability after ISS seperation with an American on board?

A Soyuz that "loses maneuverability" would have significant problems, as there is all sorts of redundancy in the Soyuz maneuver system. It would be hard to answer this question unless the actual situation here were described better. Is this a scenario where the Soyuz instrument module has exploded, and only the descent module is somehow unharmed?

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Rik HS on 09/25/2008 07:38 PM
I've seen it said that PMA-1 is "deactivated".  What was done to deactivate it?  Is it reversable?

Also, since PMA-1 was attached to Node 1 at launch, does the CBM that PMA-1 is attached to "work", or is it not a fully operable version?

Just my curiosity.

(Great site BTW, well done to Chris and the team).
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 09/25/2008 10:40 PM
I've seen it said that PMA-1 is "deactivated".  What was done to deactivate it?  Is it reversable?

Also, since PMA-1 was attached to Node 1 at launch, does the CBM that PMA-1 is attached to "work", or is it not a fully operable version?


The power and data lines to the ASAP on PMA-1 have been removed, hence deactivated.  There is no need for it since the Node 1 and FGB connection is "permanent" 

No need for the CBM to work too
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Rusty_Barton on 10/03/2008 12:58 AM
Astronauts that have walked on the moon report that when they repressurized the LM, lunar dust gave off a odor somewhat like burned gunpowder. Have near earth spacewalkers reported any odors from near earth space? Ozone, electrical discharge odors, etc?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 10/03/2008 01:54 AM
Astronauts that have walked on the moon report that when they repressurized the LM, lunar dust gave off a odor somewhat like burned gunpowder. Have near earth spacewalkers reported any odors from near earth space? Ozone, electrical discharge odors, etc?

Yes, they notice a short term smell
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 10/04/2008 07:25 PM
From the ISS status report of 13th august, dealing with the ATV reboost :

Quote
The reboost consumed 325.4 kg of propellant for the maneuver and 195 kg of propellant for attitude control.

I didn't know that so much propellant was used for attitude control !! Is it normal ?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 10/08/2008 04:07 PM
Astronauts that have walked on the moon report that when they repressurized the LM, lunar dust gave off a odor somewhat like burned gunpowder. Have near earth spacewalkers reported any odors from near earth space? Ozone, electrical discharge odors, etc?

Yes, they notice a short term smell

I wish I could remember the link, but Mr. Chamitoff said it smells sorta metallic, but different.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: eeergo on 10/08/2008 09:10 PM
Ansari and Simonyi talk about a certain "cookie-like" smell inside the station. But most astronauts present during EVA post-ops describe a metallic-like odour (like brahmanknight says) that is speculated might come from ionized metal coming off the structure because of radiation or atomic oxygen plasma. However, on the reports I read they don't appear to know for sure. They call it "the smell of space" :)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: theonlyspace on 10/10/2008 12:24 AM
Expedition 18 launches in 3 days.  Anyone know when the Expedition 18 Press Kit
is going to be made public on the internet so we can all read it?
Also does NASA do any kind of reports before hand such as a Flight Readiness
Reports and studies to confirm that  the crew is ready for flight, as they do the shuttle?
If so where and how can we obtain these reports?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 10/10/2008 12:37 AM
Press kits will come out when they come out.  Asking here doesn't make it come out quicker, just like all the other times you asked about press kits
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: theonlyspace on 10/10/2008 10:38 AM
Thanks  But that does not answer my question.  With all the members here ,some
who belong to NASA and also our Russian members I thought maybe someone on the inside track could give me an answer.   Also is there any Flight Readiness Reports on each ISS Expedition?  If so ,how do we get these?  Another thing is there Russian Press Kits,such as on each Progress Flights?  I know there was on Progress M-50/15P. What about any others?  If so, how do we get these?  Maybe some of our Russian freinds can shed some useful information on this.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 10/10/2008 10:55 AM
Russians don't do press kits on progress flights.  Neither does NASA.
Flight Readiness reviews for Soyuz flights would be in Russian.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: theonlyspace on 10/10/2008 01:51 PM
Does anyone else have any usefull  information on my questions?  How about someone else weighting in on how we can get inside NASA or Russian information on the ISS Flight crews missions or Progress flights?? Thanks
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 10/10/2008 01:54 PM
Does anyone else have any usefull  information on my questions?  How about someone else weighting in on how we can get inside NASA or Russian information on the ISS Flight crews missions or Progress flights?? Thanks

There isn't any and if there was it would be on L2 since it would be "inside" information
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: interstellaryeller on 10/21/2008 09:30 PM
How long does it take for iss to repeat a pass over any one location or point above the earth.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: rdale on 10/21/2008 09:50 PM
Depends on the location. Takes about 90 minutes to orbit.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: toddbronco2 on 10/21/2008 09:56 PM
In general though (for a location at a latitude smaller than the ISS's inclination), the ISS will fly nearly overhead twice during a 24 hour period.  If you assume that the inertial orientation of the ISS orbit doesn't change much over the course of a day, then as the world turns underneath the ISS, a location on the Earth will pass directly under the ISS orbit twice per revolution.  That does NOT mean that the ISS will be at that point of its orbit exactly twice per day, but if we ball park it, then it will pass nearly over the same place twice per day.
I know I'm going to get objections to this, but I'm trying to give a general answer.  If we were to ask how often does it fly over EXACTLY the same point, then I suppose the answer is technically never!
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: interstellaryeller on 10/22/2008 11:18 AM
Thanks, that is the exact answer i was hoping to hear. have a great day.

("ISS" thread is moved into "General ISS Q&A thread" thread - anik)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 10/25/2008 08:33 PM
I know its launch is still over one year away, but does anyone know if NASA plans to name Node-3 themselves or open the naming processing up to school children again as they did with Node-2?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 10/25/2008 08:52 PM
I know its launch is still over one year away, but does anyone know if NASA plans to name Node-3 themselves or open the naming processing up to school children again as they did with Node-2?

Most likely there will be a contest.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 10/28/2008 06:39 PM
Before Columbia, 3 member Expedition crews were rotated by Shuttle while Soyuz were replaced by "taxi" flights.  how were 6-crew expeditions expected to rotate?  Would it have been multiple shuttle flights, or would half of the crew come up on shuttle and the other on Soyuz?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Life_Support_32 on 10/28/2008 10:00 PM
Before Columbia, 3 member Expedition crews were rotated by Shuttle while Soyuz were replaced by "taxi" flights.  how were 6-crew expeditions expected to rotate?  Would it have been multiple shuttle flights, or would half of the crew come up on shuttle and the other on Soyuz?

I don't know for sure, but this is an educated guess.  With 6 crew, you always need 2 Soyuz on board for rescue possibility.  Since this was so long ago in Station program years, the Crew Rescue Vehicle could have been still considered, which may have allowed fewer Soyuz, but it's not likely, since every spacecraft has a limit to how long they can stay certified in orbit, including the Soyuz (leading to a 6-month expedition).
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: scienceguy on 10/29/2008 11:07 PM
How do they clean the air on the ISS? When someone goes the bathroom, that bad air has to go somewhere, right?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Life_Support_32 on 10/30/2008 02:03 AM
How do they clean the air on the ISS? When someone goes the bathroom, that bad air has to go somewhere, right?

Depends on the contaminant.  Dust and large particles are sucked up in HEPA filters at the inlets to the many fans that circulate the air.  There are two Trace Contaminant Removal systems that remove trace gasses that are produced by people and the equipment.  There are also charcoal filters that clean the atmosphere.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: robertross on 11/01/2008 01:52 AM
With the new Regen-ECLSS components (Water Processor Assembly (WPA) & Urine Processor Assembly (UPA) specifically) being flown on STS-126, how does it handle the possible pharmaceuticals & human hormone content in the reclaimed water?

This is becoming a major problem here on Earth for processed water from a sewage treatment facility going back into the loop. This is because they are only now able to detect the presence of the extremely minute quantities in question. Of course the scientists aren't 100% sure about the safe levels people can tolerate. I wonder if this might become a factor in the long-term as to what medications the astronauts might be allowed to take prior- and on-orbit.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: wjbarnett on 11/06/2008 12:19 AM
With the new Regen-ECLSS components (Water Processor Assembly (WPA) & Urine Processor Assembly (UPA) specifically) being flown on STS-126, how does it handle the possible pharmaceuticals & human hormone content in the reclaimed water?

I don't know if this helps clarify or just adds more confusion, but near the end of 126 crew news conference, Don Petit gave a reasonably clear description of the processes used by the WPA & UPA.

Specifically it is a distillation process, which I believe they can control by temperature/pressure to only/mostly recover just H2O. He said that it also uses a carbon filter and some additional absorption beds to clean out any remaining "backwash", then it gets tested for organics. If the quality test fails, the process is repeated. Additionally for water to be consumed via the galley water, it adds some salts and minerals to make the water more palatable for human taste (& biology).

You may wish to listen to his answer for yourself, rather than depending on my memory. Link for recording of STS-126 Crew News Conference is
http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4408
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: wjbarnett on 11/06/2008 01:12 AM
My own interest/questions are about ISS ground operations at MCC-H (and no, I'm not on L2):

I understand each flight director has his/her own flight control team (each called a "flight") that basically staffs a single MCC-H shift, either
 - Orbit 1 (on a 'normal' day: from just prior to crew wake to lunch time),
 - Orbit 2 (crew afternoon & early evening)
 - Planning/Orbit 3 (crew pre-sleep and most of sleep)
Per PAO descriptions, I believe each shift is 9 hours long (8 + an hour handover with prior orbit).

It seems that each Expedition has specific flights assigned. Plus it appears that during (and maybe just prior to) joint operations with a visiting shuttle mission, that there are separate mission specific flight directors & teams that staff MCC during these times. Per Bill Hardwood's pages there are at least 4 ISS flight control teams assigned for ULF2: 3 Orbits and a "Team 4" (on-call, if needed).

Questions:
0. Is the above description accurate?
1. How many flights are in the normal rotation? (normally for other 24x7x365 operations I know of, I could assume an answer of at least 5, but more likely 6) But maybe there's a "team 4" also during stage ops...
2. What is the "normal" duty cycle for each active flight? For example: for 6 teams, each flight works their assigned orbit for 9 hours for 3 day in row, then 3 days off duty, and repeat...
3. Are flight teams disbanded at the end of an expedition and new teams reformed by each flight director when assigned to a new mission? Or is there some continuity (e.g. alternating expeditions)?
4. How many people are normally assigned to each flight? And of these, how many are actual flight controllers (sit on console)?
5. Are all positions in MCC-H staffed for all orbits? For example, it would seem to me that Robo, Visiting Spacecraft officer, flight surgeon, EVA, etc would only be needed during specific time periods, rather than always.

Thanks in advance indulging my curiosity!
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 11/07/2008 06:25 AM
My own interest/questions are about ISS ground operations at MCC-H (and no, I'm not on L2):

I understand each flight director has his/her own flight control team (each called a "flight") that basically staffs a single MCC-H shift, either
 - Orbit 1 (on a 'normal' day: from just prior to crew wake to lunch time),
 - Orbit 2 (crew afternoon & early evening)
 - Planning/Orbit 3 (crew pre-sleep and most of sleep)
Per PAO descriptions, I believe each shift is 9 hours long (8 + an hour handover with prior orbit).

It seems that each Expedition has specific flights assigned. Plus it appears that during (and maybe just prior to) joint operations with a visiting shuttle mission, that there are separate mission specific flight directors & teams that staff MCC during these times. Per Bill Hardwood's pages there are at least 4 ISS flight control teams assigned for ULF2: 3 Orbits and a "Team 4" (on-call, if needed).

Questions:
0. Is the above description accurate?
1. How many flights are in the normal rotation? (normally for other 24x7x365 operations I know of, I could assume an answer of at least 5, but more likely 6) But maybe there's a "team 4" also during stage ops...
2. What is the "normal" duty cycle for each active flight? For example: for 6 teams, each flight works their assigned orbit for 9 hours for 3 day in row, then 3 days off duty, and repeat...
3. Are flight teams disbanded at the end of an expedition and new teams reformed by each flight director when assigned to a new mission? Or is there some continuity (e.g. alternating expeditions)?
4. How many people are normally assigned to each flight? And of these, how many are actual flight controllers (sit on console)?
5. Are all positions in MCC-H staffed for all orbits? For example, it would seem to me that Robo, Visiting Spacecraft officer, flight surgeon, EVA, etc would only be needed during specific time periods, rather than always.

Thanks in advance indulging my curiosity!

Mostly accurate.  Here is the scoop:

- The shifts are nominally 9 hours as you state.  MCC-H does 13 hours shifts on the weekends - not all the control centers do that however.
- Yes, Orbit 1 starts at 0600 GMT.  This is more to align with Moscow's time (originally, the crew day was supposed to start at regular hours Houston time, but Moscow refused).
- Typically, people work 7 Orbit 1 or orbit 2s in a row, or 5 orbit 3s.
- On weekends when there is just orbit 1 & 2, the share the planning.
- During an increment there is no assigned flight directors for console in the sense they take turns just working whatever shifts are needed.
- There is a lead flight director for an increment who oversees all the operations on a day to day basis.  Typically 12-16 hour days.  The lead coordinates all the long term and big issues for the on console folks to work in real-time.
- Each discipline also has a lead for an increment.  The increment leads usualy don't sit console much but do the hard leg work in all the planning and prep.  Generally, the increment team doesn't work on console or sim together as a team.
- For special events like an EVA or a Soyuz docking leads will be assigned and will work all aspects of that - planning, training, prep and execution.
- For a shuttle mission, there is a lead flight director and 2 others for ISS and ditto for shuttle.  Generally the leads work the Orbit 1 or orbit 2 shift but it depends on the activities.  And here the Orbits are driven by shuttle time and are generally shifted from the incrment Orbits.  So each flight director gets a team and they will do all the training together as a team and execute as a team (e.g., the "white" team).
- After a mission, increment or event, the teams disband and get shuffled to be reassigned for the next task in the queue.
- Team 4s are assigned just during shuttle missions.
- There are about a dozen or so flight directors cycling through but when assigned a mission or increment they tend not work console.
- Some consoles - ADCO, PHJALCON, THOR, ODIN, CATO, and ECLSS are always staffed, though there are GEMINIs that combine (i.e., TITAN = CATO+ODIN+ADCO, ATLAS = ECLSS+PHALCON+THOR) on weekends and slower shifts.  Others have reduced hours, or as you noted only support specific tasks.
- So to answer you question how many assigned to a flight - well for ISS you have all the console positions(~18), plus their support teams (i.e., back rooms that can be 1-5 people), times 3 shifts.  Of course there is then the shuttle teams and the Boeing engineering support.  Then team 4 which is aproximately every console position (some will have backups, some not).

I think that answers all the questions.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: wjbarnett on 11/08/2008 03:55 PM
I think that answers all the questions.

Very much appreciated!
Thanks,
Jack
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: robertross on 11/09/2008 02:50 AM
With the new Regen-ECLSS components (Water Processor Assembly (WPA) & Urine Processor Assembly (UPA) specifically) being flown on STS-126, how does it handle the possible pharmaceuticals & human hormone content in the reclaimed water?

I don't know if this helps clarify or just adds more confusion, but near the end of 126 crew news conference, Don Petit gave a reasonably clear description of the processes used by the WPA & UPA.

Specifically it is a distillation process, which I believe they can control by temperature/pressure to only/mostly recover just H2O. He said that it also uses a carbon filter and some additional absorption beds to clean out any remaining "backwash", then it gets tested for organics. If the quality test fails, the process is repeated. Additionally for water to be consumed via the galley water, it adds some salts and minerals to make the water more palatable for human taste (& biology).

You may wish to listen to his answer for yourself, rather than depending on my memory. Link for recording of STS-126 Crew News Conference is
http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4408

Many thanks, Jack!
Distillation might be the way around this concern I had. Everything else that is downstream in the process probably won't cut it, imo.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: mjcrsmith on 11/19/2008 02:29 PM
Is there a link to documentation that shows the current location of the installed racks and the final configuration?  I am searching the site, but so far no luck.

Thanks in advance,
Roger
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: kschachn on 11/19/2008 02:48 PM
In this article:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2008/11/sts-126-eva-1-major-effort-repair-sarj/

it says that:

"This mission also includes the transfer, installation, and activation of several systems to support six person crew, such as ... a food refrigerator..."

But that refrigerator is elsewhere described as a "lab refrigerator". Is the ISS really getting a food refrigerator?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Eerie on 11/19/2008 03:03 PM
I understand that most glove damage in EVA happen during moving around? Is that true? If so, why astronauts don`t use some overall gloves, chain-mail maybe?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 11/19/2008 03:33 PM
Is there a link to documentation that shows the current location of the installed racks and the final configuration?  I am searching the site, but so far no luck.

Thanks in advance,
Roger

L2
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 11/19/2008 03:34 PM
In this article:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2008/11/sts-126-eva-1-major-effort-repair-sarj/

it says that:

"This mission also includes the transfer, installation, and activation of several systems to support six person crew, such as ... a food refrigerator..."

But that refrigerator is elsewhere described as a "lab refrigerator". Is the ISS really getting a food refrigerator?

It is a refrigerator  designed for ISS lab use being used as a food refrigerator
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: mjcrsmith on 11/19/2008 03:45 PM
Is there a link to documentation that shows the current location of the installed racks and the final configuration?  I am searching the site, but so far no luck.

Thanks in advance,
Roger

L2


Thanks Jim, I will check there.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: aldelphi on 11/19/2008 08:27 PM

  Does anyone know when and who is going to install the sixth sleeping quarters on the ISS.
 
  There are two sleeping spaces in Zvezda.

  There is one Temporary Sleep Station (TeSS) in Destiny.

  There are now two sleep stations in Harmony.

  For a six person crew there will need to be one more sleep station.  I saw somewhere that Japan is going to install a sleep station in the Kibo module but have not been able to confirm this.  Does anyone have any more info about sleep quarters for the sixth ISS astronaut?  Will sleeping quarters be moved to Node3 when that arrives?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 11/19/2008 10:34 PM

  Does anyone know when and who is going to install the sixth sleeping quarters on the ISS.
 
  There are two sleeping spaces in Zvezda.

  There is one Temporary Sleep Station (TeSS) in Destiny.

  There are now two sleep stations in Harmony.

  For a six person crew there will need to be one more sleep station.  I saw somewhere that Japan is going to install a sleep station in the Kibo module but have not been able to confirm this.  Does anyone have any more info about sleep quarters for the sixth ISS astronaut?  Will sleeping quarters be moved to Node3 when that arrives?


This was answered in the ISS Q&A thread
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: eeergo on 11/22/2008 11:02 AM
In this article:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2008/11/sts-126-eva-1-major-effort-repair-sarj/ (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2008/11/sts-126-eva-1-major-effort-repair-sarj/)

it says that:

"This mission also includes the transfer, installation, and activation of several systems to support six person crew, such as ... a food refrigerator..."

But that refrigerator is elsewhere described as a "lab refrigerator". Is the ISS really getting a food refrigerator?

It is a refrigerator  designed for ISS lab use being used as a food refrigerator

They're carrying two refrigerators: GLACIER, for scientific purposes, is going to be installed in MELFI. Apart from that, MERLIN (once intended as a scientific freezer, as Jim says) is the one now intended for food&drink cooling.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 11/22/2008 11:13 PM
I understand that most glove damage in EVA happen during moving around? Is that true? If so, why astronauts don`t use some overall gloves, chain-mail maybe?

WEll they do.  First, it was not clear what was causing the problem.  And it doesn't look to be external but part of the design combined with external.  Secondly, the gloves are already very hard to move and tire the hands.  Putting more on make it harder and actually more dangerous (you don't want them to get so tired they let go while translating).  So when the problem first arose, they used some over gloves but the crew hated them.  Since they have added turtle skin to the worst areas and that si what we are using now.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Wicky on 11/22/2008 11:58 PM
Hi

I've searched for "knocking noise" "banging sound" without a relevant result

When I watch NASA TV for the EVAs, the audio between the astronauts and controllers carries a background banging noise, like someone banging a barrel?? 

Very odd...  ???

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: robertross on 11/23/2008 12:00 AM
Hi

I've searched for "knocking noise" "banging sound" without a relevant result

When I watch NASA TV for the EVAs, the audio between the astronauts and controllers carries a background banging noise, like someone banging a barrel?? 

Very odd...  ???



You sure it wasn't their mics coming on when they breathe?? The mics are voice activated, and if they breathe hard enough it activates transmission.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Wicky on 11/23/2008 12:42 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=related&v=rqjubO_KSMU

Found this clip from a previous mission which has the percussive knocking on the audio at 0.27 0.28 then at 0.50 0.51

 / 2.48 2.51-2-52 and at several other points throughout the clip


 ???

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: TJL on 11/23/2008 09:33 PM
Though it rarely occurs, I often wondered which flight patch an ISS crew member wears on their suit when they perform an EVA with the docked shuttle crew?
As an example, Clay Anderson, member of ISS 15 (and STS 117) took part in an EVA with the STS 118 crew. I can't seem to locate any photos that could answer this question.
Thank you.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: henryhallam on 11/24/2008 11:01 PM
Shuttle and American spacewalks have SAFER as a backup if an astronaut's tether comes loose, but as I understand it there is no similar jetpack used on the Russian-side EVAs.   Is there any emergency procedure if an astronaut in an Orlan suit loses his/her tether and drifts away?   Would an attempt be made to use Soyuz to rendezvous? (Assuming there is no orbiter available)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: YesRushGen on 11/25/2008 02:39 PM
Shuttle and American spacewalks have SAFER as a backup if an astronaut's tether comes loose, but as I understand it there is no similar jetpack used on the Russian-side EVAs.   Is there any emergency procedure if an astronaut in an Orlan suit loses his/her tether and drifts away?

I've wondered about that too, thanks for asking. I'm sure someone with the answer will chime in.

A speculative thought: Being that the "stranded" EVA person is in their own independant orbit, could the ISS conceivably alter it's orbit such that there would be a rendezvous with the stranded astronaut? Seems possible in theory at least. Also seems like it would take ultra-precise targeting to prevent the astronaut from running into an undesirable location, like a solar array.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: anik on 11/25/2008 03:38 PM
Shuttle and American spacewalks have SAFER as a backup if an astronaut's tether comes loose, but as I understand it there is no similar jetpack used on the Russian-side EVAs

Many years ago NPP Zvezda enterprise has manufactured three USK jetpacks (http://suzymchale.com/kosmonavtka/usk.html) (analogue of SAFER) for using on Orlan-M/MK spacesuits. But later it was decided not to send them on ISS for now. So, during Russian spacewalks each cosmonaut continues to use two tether.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 11/25/2008 03:51 PM
Shuttle and American spacewalks have SAFER as a backup if an astronaut's tether comes loose, but as I understand it there is no similar jetpack used on the Russian-side EVAs.   Is there any emergency procedure if an astronaut in an Orlan suit loses his/her tether and drifts away?

I've wondered about that too, thanks for asking. I'm sure someone with the answer will chime in.

A speculative thought: Being that the "stranded" EVA person is in their own independant orbit, could the ISS conceivably alter it's orbit such that there would be a rendezvous with the stranded astronaut? Seems possible in theory at least. Also seems like it would take ultra-precise targeting to prevent the astronaut from running into an undesirable location, like a solar array.

ISS can only translate in one direction (+X) and so any rendezvous maneuver would require rotating the whole station to point the +X axis in the required direction for the delta-V.

ISS is extremely massive so any rendezvous maneuver requires a very long burn arc.

In short, it is impractical.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: markius on 11/26/2008 06:21 PM
Hi

I read in one of the STS-126 live threads that once operational, the WRS will actually produce more potable water than the *noughts will consume with the excess being used as a raw material for the new OGA.

Is this correct?
Based on 3 inhabitants of the ISS, by how much does the WRS reduce the need for potable water to transferred from the ground?
Assuming the OGA will do some form of electrolysis, what will the hydrogen be used for?

Thanks in advance
Mark
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: AnalogMan on 11/26/2008 06:39 PM
Hi

I read in one of the STS-126 live threads that once operational, the WRS will actually produce more potable water than the *noughts will consume with the excess being used as a raw material for the new OGA.

Is this correct?
Based on 3 inhabitants of the ISS, by how much does the WRS reduce the need for potable water to transferred from the ground?
Assuming the OGA will do some form of electrolysis, what will the hydrogen be used for?

Thanks in advance
Mark

This is what NASA says about the WRS in the STS-126 presskit:

"The WRS is designed to recycle crew member urine and wastewater for reuse as clean water.

Each crew member uses about 3.5 liters (0.9 gallons) of water a day. Enough for 2 liters (0.52 gallons) a day is provided by deliveries from Russian Progress resupply vehicles, ESA’s Jules Verne Automatic Transfer Vehicle and the space shuttles. The remaining 1.5 liters (0.4 gallons) is recovered condensate from the Russian water processor. The two cargo vehicles carry water to the station in onboard supply tanks. The shuttle delivers water produced as a byproduct of the fuel cells that generate its electricity.

The WRS will reduce the amount of water that needs to be delivered to the station for each crew member by 1.3 liters (0.34 gallons) a day, or about 65 percent. Over the course of a year, it will reduce water deliveries to the station for a six‐person crew by 2,850 liters (743 gallons).
"

And on the oxygen generator:

"The heart of the Oxygen Generation Assembly is the cell stack, which electrolyzes, or breaks apart, water provided by the WRS, yielding oxygen and hydrogen as byproducts. The oxygen is delivered to the cabin atmosphere,and the hydrogen is vented overboard."

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/287211main_sts126_press_kit2.pdf
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: wjbarnett on 11/26/2008 07:07 PM
Assuming the OGA will do some form of electrolysis, what will the hydrogen be used for?

Thanks in advance
Mark

IIRC (real experts correct me please), the hydrogen is dumped overboard. Can't easily store it, since it's produced as a gas at low pressure, and large quantities would probably increase risk of LOM/LOC. Too bad, as saving H for propellant use could reduce the future costs of leaving LEO (not that ISS's orbit is very efficient for that).
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: nacnud on 11/26/2008 07:29 PM
The only use I could think of for the hydrogen is as propellant would be in the VASIMR that trying to find it's way up there.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: rdale on 11/26/2008 07:38 PM
So is the starboard SARJ in autotrack mode, or is it back to the old style "move only when needed" until a later date?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: wjbarnett on 11/26/2008 07:54 PM
So is the starboard SARJ in autotrack mode, or is it back to the old style "move only when needed" until a later date?
Just answered by Holly during FD13 press conference: not in autotrack, pending further engineering analysis (several weeks/months testing to come).
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: dmac on 11/26/2008 08:13 PM
Hi,regards ISS mission control.Do the teams generally do the same
shift times.If not  it must effect their own body clocks/family life.I assume they all live "locally"

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Life_Support_32 on 11/26/2008 08:30 PM
Hi,regards ISS mission control.Do the teams generally do the same
shift times.If not  it must effect their own body clocks/family life.I assume they all live "locally"



Flight Controllers generally work the same shift for a week at a time.  It depends on the group, but I know in my group, you can expect to be on-console about one week/month.  Depending on certifications, several of the flight control disciplines can be combined for weekend/night shifts into one of two GEMINI positions to take some of the load off the individual groups.  With the changing station, though, it is becoming very difficult for some of the positions to be combined into a GEMINI (too much work load), so those console positions are being manned for 3 shifts a day (2 per weekend).

As far as how it affects your body, Flight Controllers have learned what it takes them individually to shift to night/early/late, so it generally isn't a problem, once you get shifted.  It is tough having a social life if you're sleeping most of the day and working at night, but you work around it, and you accept it as part of the job.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Life_Support_32 on 11/26/2008 08:32 PM
The only use I could think of for the hydrogen is as propellant would be in the VASIMR that trying to find it's way up there.

One potential use for the Hydrogen is to be merged with CO2 to produce Methane and Water.  The Methane would be dumped overboard and the Water would be sent to the Water Processing Assembly.  There is a piece of hardware that is slated to fly in 2010, but not sure if it will make it up there or not.  That would close the Life Support System loop as much as is planned for ISS.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: markius on 11/26/2008 09:53 PM
The only use I could think of for the hydrogen is as propellant would be in the VASIMR that trying to find it's way up there.

One potential use for the Hydrogen is to be merged with CO2 to produce Methane and Water.  The Methane would be dumped overboard and the Water would be sent to the Water Processing Assembly.

Wow... so the Hydrogen could be used to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere AND produce more water.  How would you merge Hydrogen and CO2?  My first thought was by burning the Hydrogen in a CO2 atmosphere... Can you tell I was always better at physics that chemistry?!

How about for use in a fuel cell similar to those on board the orbiter?  I'm guessing that there's a FC maintenance issue along with the inherent risk of storing hydrogen stated earlier.

Thanks for your replies so far.

Mark
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: quickshot89 on 11/26/2008 10:02 PM
its called the sabatier where it takes CO2, H2 and alot of energy and it creates H2O and CH4, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_process

this should be used for mars IMO
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: markius on 11/26/2008 10:58 PM
Cool... thanks for the link.  Interesting stuff
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: GoForTLI on 11/27/2008 01:12 AM
Why do we still have a ZOE during shuttle missions these days?  Can't a TDRS see an anetnna on the ISS/Shuttle complex and then relay transmission to one of the TDRS satellites than can see White Sands? 
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: rdale on 11/27/2008 01:14 AM
Many reasons including orientation of station / resources available / etc. Search here (especially the shuttle Q&A thread) for the longer answer.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: GoForTLI on 11/27/2008 01:52 AM
I searched "zone of exclusion" and got only 1 page of hits.  Maybe I'm not searching right. 

I would think that station attitude/antenna blockage would have something to do with it.  But that there is a portion of the earth with no coverage, with all the TDRS satellites and spares in orbit, that's what I'm trying to figure out. 
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 11/27/2008 02:01 AM
I searched "zone of exclusion" and got only 1 page of hits.  Maybe I'm not searching right. 

I would think that station attitude/antenna blockage would have something to do with it.  But that there is a portion of the earth with no coverage, with all the TDRS satellites and spares in orbit, that's what I'm trying to figure out. 

NASA only schedules TDRS Z during critical phases of flight, so there is a ZOE during noncritical phases.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: GoForTLI on 11/27/2008 02:16 AM
Thanks for the replies.  I ordered "READ YOU LOUD AND CLEAR!", The Story of NASA's Spaceflight Tracking and Data Network.  I'm curious about how all this works. 
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: rdale on 11/27/2008 02:28 AM
Searching "ZOE" came up with this one - http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=3247.0

and a section in the ISS Q&A too for you.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Michael Z Freeman on 11/27/2008 11:40 PM
Hello  :D,

I have been posting images from an X3D model (made by Bob Hundley for Celestia) and a Solidworks export made by David Velasquez. I have permission from both of them, although I have lost contact with David Velasquez (where are you  ???).

I am posting them to inform and educate. It's not always easy to see what is happening !

So is the latest edit of this model correct compared to the current ISS config ? The Truss segments are not as accurate as they could be, but I'm working on importing the correct truss segments from the X3D model.

Executable standalone viewer (http://djbarney.silentflame.com/storage/ISS_Current_Config.exe).

eDrawing (http://djbarney.silentflame.com/storage/ISS_Current_Config.easm) (needs viewer (http://www.solidworks.com/sw/support/eDrawings/e2_register.htm)).

The model can also be viewed with a browser plugin (http://djbarney.silentflame.com/storage/ISS_Current_Config.html).
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: nacnud on 11/27/2008 11:45 PM
No, starboard side of the truss  currently only has one set of solar wings. Pirs is in the wrong place, should be Zvezda Nadir. Also the strella cranes are not currently deployed, still it is nice to see the model has them :)

Better that most models you seen in the media :D

I just looked at the complete model and Node 3 seems to be in the wrong place, it will end up on node 1 port.

Hope that helps!
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Michael Z Freeman on 11/28/2008 01:49 PM
It does   ;D !

When you say the stella cranes are not deployed do you mean that they are folded up ? If so I will leave them as they are on the model unless I can work out how to fold up the arms using the eDrawings viewer (may be possible).

I'll examine your other suggestions and adjust the model accordingly.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: nathan.moeller on 11/29/2008 02:05 AM
Surprised no one has mentioned the big one - There is no shuttle docked!

Kidding, of course ;)  I see this was made before Endeavour departed this morning.  Excellent model, mate!  Good to see someone undertake something like this.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: hop on 11/29/2008 02:27 AM
It does   ;D !

When you say the stella cranes are not deployed do you mean that they are folded up ? If so I will leave them as they are on the model unless I can work out how to fold up the arms using the eDrawings viewer (may be possible).
The strella booms telescope. You can see them in their stowed configuration in these pictures
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-124/html/s124e010045.html
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-15/html/iss015e19036.html

You can see one extended here
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-17/html/iss017e011097.html

and just FWIW, flyaround images from the shuttle missions should give you an excellent "ground truth" of the current configuration ;)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Michael Z Freeman on 11/29/2008 07:12 PM
Thanks.

I just uploaded some ani gifs I made of the flyaround that I will be examining.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Sts-126-fd15-flyaround_part1.gif

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Sts-126-fd15-flyaround_part2.gif

I am going to make a higher quality APNG animation from my NASA TV frames. I can't find any higher quality sources for the images. I expected NASA or another agency to publish high definition images of the fly around.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Lee Jay on 11/29/2008 07:32 PM
I can't find any higher quality sources for the images. I expected NASA or another agency to publish high definition images of the fly around.

They will be here on flight day 15 when they get put up.

http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Michael Z Freeman on 11/29/2008 09:09 PM
Ah, thanks. I thought I was being a little impatient  ::)

Here's the APNG animation ...

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Sts-126-fd15-flyaround.png
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Michael Z Freeman on 11/30/2008 09:40 PM
Surprised no one has mentioned the big one - There is no shuttle docked!

Kidding, of course ;)  I see this was made before Endeavour departed this morning.  Excellent model, mate!  Good to see someone undertake something like this.

Yes, made before undock. Just to be clear the model was not actually made by me (see first post) but thanks for the encouragement !

I'm in the process of modifying it and adding things. Looks like I'm going to have to model the Pirs module myself as I can only move elements in eDrawer and not rotate them as I will need to do to put it nadir.

EDIT: I modelled the Pirs module successfully, but then found that eDrawing cannot import as I thought. So my first attachment shows what should now be the current config apart from Pirs and Progress being upside down (limitation of eDrawing).

However no problem, NASA have just published a hi-res model of the ISS (29th October 2008) (http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/3d_resources/assets/iss-hi-res.html).

I have included a render of the Quest airlock as the second attachment. As you can see it's the full deal and the entire final config is included ! Now I just have to attach all the parts and set up as the current config.

Thankyou NASA !  :o  ;D
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: scienceguy on 12/03/2008 09:56 PM
At what date is construction of the ISS going to be completed? How long will it be used after that?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: rdale on 12/03/2008 10:56 PM
Assembly complete is scheduled for 2010... It will be used for at least 5 years afterwards.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: PaulyFirmbiz on 12/03/2008 11:00 PM
At what date is construction of the ISS going to be completed? How long will it be used after that?

as per the manifest by nasa the US complete is the last shuttle flight in 2010 slated to fly in the summer,

as far as the russians go they have a few more proton flights with labs and docking units.

station will fly through 2015 but you will defintly see an extension through 2020 possibly 2025

i hope to see station flying that long.. it would be a real shame after all the heartache and trials and tribulations to see this thing deorbit anytime before 2025.. remember some of those parts including the first 3 modules have been up there 10 and almost 10 yearrs alredy.. most of these modules are garunteed 10 years shelve life but im sure all agencys involved have added redundency in there systems to outlast the warrenty many many years. just look at MIR and hubble..

im no rocket scientist or even a smart guy for that matter.. im just a 26 year old kid with a passion for manned space flght..  i model these awsome machines and i for one hope that the station flys a nice long life and brings on a new age of lunar and maybe even martian exploration for humans..


Paul Frabizzio
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: floron on 12/04/2008 12:12 AM
why are the lower solar panels at a slightly different angle to the upper panels? Wouldn't this lower the amount of sunlight they collect by a little bit?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Comga on 12/04/2008 05:11 AM
why are the lower solar panels at a slightly different angle to the upper panels? Wouldn't this lower the amount of sunlight they collect by a little bit?
Notice that the solar panel is dark and the radiator is sunlit.  This is not an operational orientation.  It may have been transitioning or parked during rendezvous or maintenance. 
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: floron on 12/04/2008 06:17 AM
why are the lower solar panels at a slightly different angle to the upper panels? Wouldn't this lower the amount of sunlight they collect by a little bit?
Notice that the solar panel is dark and the radiator is sunlit.  This is not an operational orientation.  It may have been transitioning or parked during rendezvous or maintenance. 

as far as i can remember the portside (working) arrays have always been angled like that too...and even when the P6 was the only array on the station...

perhaps it's a way of deliberately limiting how much power the array generates? if there's a surplus of power being generated? hmm.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: The-Hammer on 12/04/2008 03:38 PM
perhaps it's a way of deliberately limiting how much power the array generates? if there's a surplus of power being generated? hmm.

The Sequential Shunt Unit handles limiting the total power generated.

EDIT: Power limitation is achieved by "shunting" individual strings. (Shorting them back to themselves). Each SAW is composed of 82 "strings", with 41 in each blanket.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 12/04/2008 03:56 PM
why are the lower solar panels at a slightly different angle to the upper panels? Wouldn't this lower the amount of sunlight they collect by a little bit?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=3207.msg202801#msg202801
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: floron on 12/04/2008 08:20 PM
why are the lower solar panels at a slightly different angle to the upper panels? Wouldn't this lower the amount of sunlight they collect by a little bit?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=3207.msg202801#msg202801

wow, this space stuff is complicated.   :o

thanks for the explanation!
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 12/06/2008 06:12 PM
However no problem, NASA have just published a hi-res model of the ISS (29th October 2008) (http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/3d_resources/assets/iss-hi-res.html).

That is an outdated model, Node 3 is in the wrong position and there still is a Research module rather than the MRM-1
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Colds7ream on 12/07/2008 06:06 PM
Just a quick question, folks - is there any particular place where all the ISS's vital statistics are kept (fully up-to-date)? Specifically, I'm looking for:

Mass
Length (from Zvezda to PMA-2)
Width (along truss)
Height
Living volume
Perigee
Apogee

Thanks in advance!  :)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: I14R10 on 12/08/2008 01:18 PM
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/index.html
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Colds7ream on 12/08/2008 05:18 PM
Uh, thanks for an interesting link, but no page within that site lists any overall dimensions, so it isn't really very helpful...
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: usn_skwerl on 12/09/2008 10:00 AM
best i can find, i think...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Colds7ream on 12/09/2008 03:19 PM
Funnily enough, its that I'm trying to update! :D
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Almurray1958 on 12/09/2008 03:42 PM
Colds7ream...

from here
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/main/index.html

click the "interactive Space Station reference guide"

which should go here
http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/ISSRG/ 

choose [How it works]     choose [ scale] icon
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Colds7ream on 12/09/2008 05:29 PM
Thanking you! :)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Michael Z Freeman on 12/10/2008 03:58 PM
I've reached an impasse with this model. I am unable to properly update it because I do not have a copy of Solidworks to import / export the eDrawing.

So I have started working with the hi-res (http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/3d_resources/assets/iss-hi-res.html) nasa model. It just needs the Destiny model from my VRML/X3D ISS.

That is an outdated model, Node 3 is in the wrong position and there still is a Research module rather than the MRM-1

Hello and thanks.

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iss#Pressurised_modules) and NASA (http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/166624main_iss_config_012007.jpg) node 3 is yet to be launched. Did you mean another node ?

What do you mean by "Research module" ?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ChrisC on 12/13/2008 04:23 AM
This seems as good a place as any to post this vague question ...

I heard a week ago somewhere, possibly here, about a book that was published about NASA telemetry system, likely including the TDRS satellites.  Does anyone know what that book is?  As I recall, it was more about earth orbit comms, not deep space comms as provided by DSN, but I certainly could be wrong.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Hungry4info3 on 12/13/2008 06:26 PM
Indeed, Node3 hasn't been launched, I don't see Node3 on the ISS model several posts up either.

Correct me if I am wrong, but was the External Stowage Platform that used to be attached to the port side of the truss relocated to the centre of the truss? Perhaps attached to the device that can translate down the length of the truss which the robotic arm attaches to? (I don't know its name?  :( )
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Michael Z Freeman on 12/13/2008 07:01 PM
Now the full res images of the fly around (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-126/flightday15/ndxpage1.html) have been published this task has suddenly become a lot easier .. and accurate.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: eeergo on 12/13/2008 07:45 PM
Indeed, Node3 hasn't been launched, I don't see Node3 on the ISS model several posts up either.

Correct me if I am wrong, but was the External Stowage Platform that used to be attached to the port side of the truss relocated to the centre of the truss? Perhaps attached to the device that can translate down the length of the truss which the robotic arm attaches to? (I don't know its name?  :( )

From Dec 3rd's Status Report (posted by anik here http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13186.msg340983#msg340983):
""ESP-3 Relocation Lookahead: Return of the External Stowage Platform 3 from its current (temporary) location on the MBS (Mobile Base System) to the zenith side of the P3 truss with the SSRMS (Space Station Remote Manipulator System) is planned for 12/5 (Friday)"

The 'device that translates along the truss' is the MBS, and the ESP was attached to the Payload and Orbital-Replacement-Unit Accommodation (POA) ;)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: robertross on 12/13/2008 11:18 PM
I've reached an impasse with this model. I am unable to properly update it because I do not have a copy of Solidworks to import / export the eDrawing.


I have Autodesk Inventor at work. I can't make any promises, but I'll see if I can import the eDrawing file and convert it into something useable. My manager has KeyCreator, which has more options...it might work for him if mine doesn't...

Don't ask why we have 2 different software packages  :(
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Michael Z Freeman on 12/14/2008 09:54 PM
I have Autodesk Inventor at work. I can't make any promises, but I'll see if I can import the eDrawing file and convert it into something useable. My manager has KeyCreator, which has more options...it might work for him if mine doesn't...

Don't ask why we have 2 different software packages  :(

That would be helpful :) . I think I have everything apart from the US Destiny Science module which is in the eDrawing file. I could take it from the VRML/X3D model I have but that is far from accurate. The eDrawing is based on the ISS engineering drawings published by NASA (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/multimedia/scalemodel/index.html).
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ede545 on 12/22/2008 01:16 PM
A couple of days ago I watched Sandy Magnus working in one of the new crew quarters.  Since the mic-cable wasn't long enough she had to partly communicate with MCC by hand signals through the video link.

I was just wondering if there ever have been plans to use some sort of wireless headsets on the station.  Not for "normal operations" of course, but for those (rare?) situations where they have either no mic around or need it very frequently.

I totally understand that adding any new radio device to the station environment requires careful evaluation, so it won't be done without having a reasonable benefit.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 12/22/2008 01:22 PM
A couple of days ago I watched Sandy Magnus working in one of the new crew quarters.  Since the mic-cable wasn't long enough she had to partly communicate with MCC by hand signals through the video link.

I was just wondering if there ever have been plans to use some sort of wireless headsets on the station.  Not for "normal operations" of course, but for those (rare?) situations where they have either no mic around or need it very frequently.

I totally understand that adding any new radio device to the station environment requires careful evaluation, so it won't be done without having a reasonable benefit.


The shuttle even had a wireless system.  It ended up being a pain, with battery charging, and interference.   Also always wearing it was a pain.

That was years ago, maybe a WIFI or Bluetooth system could work
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ede545 on 12/22/2008 05:59 PM
The shuttle even had a wireless system.  It ended up being a pain, with battery charging, and interference.   Also always wearing it was a pain.

That was years ago, maybe a WIFI or Bluetooth system could work

Well, wearing it all the time really sounds uncomfortable.  I was rather thinking of an option for those tasks where it might be helpful.  But I admit that sophisticated solutions are not always the best choice.

But interesting to learn that it had been used in the past.



I would like to use the opportunity to thank you so much for all the background information you are providing here, Jim.  It's a pleasure to read through the Q&A threads.  Thanks!

Eric
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 12/23/2008 12:41 AM
A couple of days ago I watched Sandy Magnus working in one of the new crew quarters.  Since the mic-cable wasn't long enough she had to partly communicate with MCC by hand signals through the video link.

I was just wondering if there ever have been plans to use some sort of wireless headsets on the station.  Not for "normal operations" of course, but for those (rare?) situations where they have either no mic around or need it very frequently.

I totally understand that adding any new radio device to the station environment requires careful evaluation, so it won't be done without having a reasonable benefit.


No plans.  With reliability concerns (e.g., being able to assuredly pass alarms), it has some problems.  Plus there is a real problem getting anything wireless for the RS (the Russians don't like it - plus most signals don't do well on their side).  But there are some decent wireless systems and we are working to improve the system.  So maybe one day.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 12/23/2008 02:21 PM
Not sure if this belongs in here or the shuttle Q&A, however I will post here.  In the August 1999 version of Popular Science (yes, a little old!)  There was talk of a proposed double docking module to be built by Spacehab so that Columbia could service the Station, and that it would not use an ODS.  Anyone any more information about this proposed module?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 12/23/2008 02:24 PM
Not sure if this belongs in here or the shuttle Q&A, however I will post here.  In the August 1999 version of Popular Science (yes, a little old!)  There was talk of a proposed double docking module to be built by Spacehab so that Columbia could service the Station, and that it would not use an ODS.  Anyone any more information about this proposed module?

It would have had an APAS in the roof of the aft module. 
What else would you like to know?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 12/23/2008 07:57 PM
Not sure if this belongs in here or the shuttle Q&A, however I will post here.  In the August 1999 version of Popular Science (yes, a little old!)  There was talk of a proposed double docking module to be built by Spacehab so that Columbia could service the Station, and that it would not use an ODS.  Anyone any more information about this proposed module?

It would have had an APAS in the roof of the aft module. 
What else would you like to know?

Hmm, well let me tell you first what the general idea of what I think the module would have been, and feel free to correct me.  I beleive it would have been a version of or the modified double module seen on STS-107.  There would have been a hatch near the front section with an extendable APAS ring.  The internal airlock remains and would connect to the Spacehab at the rear of the shuttle by an extended version of the Spacelab tunnel.

Would the Spacehab itself have sat near the rear bulkhead of the payload bay or about midway in the bay?
How wold the shift of docking position affected the shuttle/station complex (clearances, preventing the torque as seen on STS-126,)
Also was the shuttle system so taxed that NASA was looking to this to solve a supply problem (ie spending much more for a unique asset instead of launching Columbia with a lighter MPLM) or was this simply an unsolicited proposal from SpaceHab?

Thanks Jim, this has been kind of bugging me for 9 years.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 12/23/2008 08:23 PM
unsolicited proposal from SpaceHab
APAS in aft module
the module would be in the same position as 107

The STS/ISS integration for this module never got far enough to look at torques and clearances
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Danderman on 12/25/2008 03:51 AM
Not sure if this belongs in here or the shuttle Q&A, however I will post here.  In the August 1999 version of Popular Science (yes, a little old!)  There was talk of a proposed double docking module to be built by Spacehab so that Columbia could service the Station, and that it would not use an ODS.  Anyone any more information about this proposed module?

I saw some of the propaganda for this proposal - the core rationale for the APAS equipped Double Docking Module was to allow the Shuttle to be docked with ISS with the docking adapter in the centerline; this would presumably make attitude control by Shuttle much more efficient. Also, Shuttle would not have to carry ODS, which would increase performance.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 12/25/2008 04:42 AM
Not sure if this belongs in here or the shuttle Q&A, however I will post here.  In the August 1999 version of Popular Science (yes, a little old!)  There was talk of a proposed double docking module to be built by Spacehab so that Columbia could service the Station, and that it would not use an ODS.  Anyone any more information about this proposed module?

I saw some of the propaganda for this proposal - the core rationale for the APAS equipped Double Docking Module was to allow the Shuttle to be docked with ISS with the docking adapter in the centerline; this would presumably make attitude control by Shuttle much more efficient. Also, Shuttle would not have to carry ODS, which would increase performance.


It did have some serious disadvantages, though.

It could not be co-manifested with an assembly flight. The DDM was mounted aft in the payload bay, so nothing could fit behind it, and the tunnel would prevent anything from fitting in front of it.

It could not replace any of the MPLM flights since ISS racks could not fit through the APAS hatch.

It could not even replace the existing Spacehab flights on the ISS manifest. It could not have been made ready in time to replace the 2A.x logistics flights, and it could not have been flown on 12A.1 or 13A.1 due to being co-manifested with the P5 and S5 truss segments.

It did not buy back all the performance cost of the ODS since it still needed an airlock in the tunnel to protect for shuttle-based contingency EVAs (most of the mass of the ODS is the integral airlock).

It would have improved docking performance by minimizing torques on the mechanism, but the current Post-Contact Thrusting scheme already minimizes that fairly well, and even in the cases where it doesn't (such as 126), it is more of an annoyance than a threat to either safety or mission success.

So in the end, it's really hard for me to see what the target market was for the DDM, especially after the loss of Columbia.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: A8-3 on 01/05/2009 04:28 PM
Sorry if this is explained elsewhere, just give me a link if it is.

I keep hearing that the station crew is going to be enlarged this year. Since the Soyuz can only hold three crew, what is the plan for lifeboats? Will there be two Soyuz?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 01/05/2009 04:51 PM
Sorry if this is explained elsewhere, just give me a link if it is.

I keep hearing that the station crew is going to be enlarged this year. Since the Soyuz can only hold three crew, what is the plan for lifeboats? Will there be two Soyuz?


Yes.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: cd-slam on 01/15/2009 03:47 AM
Sorry if this is explained elsewhere, just give me a link if it is.

I keep hearing that the station crew is going to be enlarged this year. Since the Soyuz can only hold three crew, what is the plan for lifeboats? Will there be two Soyuz?

Read anik's excellent Schedule of ISS events thread which includes the Soyuz docking & undocking events. There will be two Soyuz docked to the station whenever 6 crew are on board.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: robertross on 01/16/2009 08:11 PM
I've reached an impasse with this model. I am unable to properly update it because I do not have a copy of Solidworks to import / export the eDrawing.


I have Autodesk Inventor at work. I can't make any promises, but I'll see if I can import the eDrawing file and convert it into something useable. My manager has KeyCreator, which has more options...it might work for him if mine doesn't...

Don't ask why we have 2 different software packages  :(

No joy on this DJ Barney. The only Solidworks import options I have are prt, sldprt, asm, sldasm.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: NavySpaceFan on 01/16/2009 11:29 PM
I was watching Mission to MIR (amazing on Blu-Ray BTW) and John Blaha mentioned that going from one module to an other took some getting used to because of the change in orientation (i.e. which way was considered "up") from module to module.  On ISS, all the modules are oriented the same way.  Was this by accident or design?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 01/16/2009 11:34 PM
I was watching Mission to MIR (amazing on Blu-Ray BTW) and John Blaha mentioned that going from one module to an other took some getting used to because of the change in orientation (i.e. which way was considered "up") from module to module.  On ISS, all the modules are oriented the same way.  Was this by accident or design?

By design.  Only Node 3 will be in a different plane
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: NavySpaceFan on 01/16/2009 11:49 PM
I was watching Mission to MIR (amazing on Blu-Ray BTW) and John Blaha mentioned that going from one module to an other took some getting used to because of the change in orientation (i.e. which way was considered "up") from module to module.  On ISS, all the modules are oriented the same way.  Was this by accident or design?

By design.  Only Node 3 will be in a different plane

Thanks Jim!  Sounds like this was one of the lessons learned from the Shuttle-MIR program.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: nacnud on 01/17/2009 12:04 AM
By design.  Only Node 3 will be in a different plane

Isn't it going on port unity, how is this a different plane or was the internal up and down 'reference points' set before the move?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Life_Support_32 on 01/17/2009 02:53 AM
By design.  Only Node 3 will be in a different plane

Isn't it going on port unity, how is this a different plane or was the internal up and down 'reference points' set before the move?

It was going to be on Nadir, but now it is being moved to Port.  Interestingly enough, it will need to be clocked 180 degrees in order to line up the ventilation system and also get the lights facing "up", like the other modules.  Makes for some interesting systems integration ;-)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: wjbarnett on 01/17/2009 02:33 PM

By design.  Only Node 3 will be in a different plane

JEM ELM is also "out of plane" since it is berthed on the JEM zenith. But I gather it is used more for storage, rather than "living or work space."
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: catfry on 01/19/2009 12:54 AM

JEM ELM is also "out of plane" since it is berthed on the JEM zenith. But I gather it is used more for storage, rather than "living or work space."

Also the MPLMs as seen on the last mission. It was quite disorienting having a camera looking 'down' into it and seeing an astronaut working 'upright' by the racks.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 01/20/2009 12:44 AM
By design.  Only Node 3 will be in a different plane

Isn't it going on port unity, how is this a different plane or was the internal up and down 'reference points' set before the move?

It was going to be on Nadir, but now it is being moved to Port.  Interestingly enough, it will need to be clocked 180 degrees in order to line up the ventilation system and also get the lights facing "up", like the other modules.  Makes for some interesting systems integration ;-)

It is only be rotated 90deg.  Also, the ventilation ahd to be redone anyway (as did all the other connections) from NADIR to PORT so a clocking of 90 degrees was not significant.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: eeergo on 01/24/2009 03:17 PM
The great Reinassance artists were four: Michellangelo, Donatello, Raffaelo and Leonardo (also the Ninja turtles, but we'll ignore this fact ;) ). As the MPLMs names are dedicated to three of them, what happened with Michellangelo?

Is it any training model, a spare, is Columbus considered the 'transformed Michellangelo', was it cancelled...?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 02/07/2009 08:09 PM
The great Reinassance artists were four: Michellangelo, Donatello, Raffaelo and Leonardo (also the Ninja turtles, but we'll ignore this fact ;) ). As the MPLMs names are dedicated to three of them, what happened with Michellangelo?

Is it any training model, a spare, is Columbus considered the 'transformed Michellangelo', was it cancelled...?

Well from Jorge awhile ago:

Quote
And of course, Michelangelo on STS-122... but don't dare use that name in front of the ESA folks; they're a bit touchy about it... :)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: eeergo on 02/07/2009 11:19 PM
I had some intuition :D thanks!

Quite strange ESA left that glaring loose end when they don't want to consider Columbus a "techy MPLM", though.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Suzy on 02/09/2009 03:01 AM
If a module in the ISS has a hull breach, and the crew can find the leak, do they have anything to seal the hole with (on the inside)? (Aside from chewing gum  :D )
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: bobthemonkey on 02/09/2009 06:01 PM
KERMit, but it worked on the outside; I have no idea if it ever flew but was used as a basis for some of the post STS-107 On orbit repair options.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 02/09/2009 11:58 PM
If a module in the ISS has a hull breach, and the crew can find the leak, do they have anything to seal the hole with (on the inside)? (Aside from chewing gum  :D )

Yes.  They have an ultrasonic leak detection kit.  And then they have a couple things to seal with but mainly a puddy like substance.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 02/11/2009 11:14 PM
What is unique about ESP-3 compared to the ELC's?  To me all the ESP seems to be is a smaller ELC that was made by SpaceHab.  would it be plausible/desirable to switch ESP-3 for the fifth ELC?

I am probably missing something here, however I think an ELC is alot more capable than ESP-3.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: The-Hammer on 02/11/2009 11:52 PM
The ESP s are all based on SpaceHab's ICC. ESP 2 and 3 are based on the full ICC and ESP 1 is based on the ICC-Lite. They had to be modified to attach to the station rather than stay in the shuttle.

The ELC s were formerly called ExPRESS Pallets and were intended from the beginning for external station attachment.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 02/12/2009 12:21 AM
So does that mean Items designed for the ICC/ESP cannot fit on an ELC?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 02/12/2009 12:54 AM
The ESP s are all based on SpaceHab's ICC. ESP 2 and 3 are based on the full ICC and ESP 1 is based on the ICC-Lite. They had to be modified to attach to the station rather than stay in the shuttle.


It is Astrium's ICC.  Spacehab is no longer associated with them
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: The-Hammer on 02/12/2009 08:57 PM
I've been following the ISS On-Orbit status reports over the past month and a half, and the exercise reports specifically over the past two weeks and I've noticed something.

The US crew (Mike and Sandy) seem to be the only ones who use the ARED and the Russian crew (Yury) seems to be the only one who uses the VELO bike.

Is this specifically a US/Russian separation thing, a crew preference thing, or have the crew simply not been scheduled for those devices while I've been paying attention?

If it's a US/Russian thing, will this change at all after 6 person crew?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 02/13/2009 12:06 AM
I've been following the ISS On-Orbit status reports over the past month and a half, and the exercise reports specifically over the past two weeks and I've noticed something.

The US crew (Mike and Sandy) seem to be the only ones who use the ARED and the Russian crew (Yury) seems to be the only one who uses the VELO bike.

Is this specifically a US/Russian separation thing, a crew preference thing, or have the crew simply not been scheduled for those devices while I've been paying attention?

If it's a US/Russian thing, will this change at all after 6 person crew?

Russians can use it if they want or their protocol has it in it.  The Russians are not as big on resistive exercise.  But just like Peggy wouldn't use the treadmill there are preferences.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Analyst on 02/13/2009 06:28 AM
So does that mean Items designed for the ICC/ESP cannot fit on an ELC?

No. They are compatible. They use common attach fittings for most ORUs.

Analyst
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 02/23/2009 02:54 PM
Discovery will deliver the Mini-Research Module 1 to the Russian segment.  As I understand, it will use the hybrid docking system of the Soyuz/Progress vein and will be lifted out of the shuttle bay and installed on Zarya by the SSRMS.  However, doesn't the docking system require a large momentum to engage ala APAS?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: eeergo on 02/23/2009 03:31 PM
Discovery will deliver the Mini-Research Module 1 to the Russian segment.  As I understand, it will use the hybrid docking system of the Soyuz/Progress vein and will be lifted out of the shuttle bay and installed on Zarya by the SSRMS.  However, doesn't the docking system require a large momentum to engage ala APAS?

We had some talk about that in the Soviet/Russian Q&A thread... to quote what The-Hammer said:

Quote
All of the Mir modules except the Base Block, Kvant-1, and the Docking Module were based on the TKS-FGB. They had their own permanent engines which they used to actuate the docking mechanism when they relocated.

Pirs/MRM1/MRM2 are completely different. Pirs used a Progress service/propulsion module which was jettisoned a couple of days after docking. MRM2 is quite similar to Pirs and will also use a Progress service module.

When the Pirs relocation was still planned they were going to leave a Progress docked to Pirs and use the Progress's engines to actuate the docking mechanism.

As for MRM1... it's based on the pressurized section of the now-canceled Science Power Platform. IANAE, but it's possible that it will have its own thrusters, purely to actuate the docking mechanism.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=5966.msg361121#msg361121
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: DMeader on 02/23/2009 05:42 PM
I am currently reading two books on Soyuz and the Salyut/Mir programs, and something does not make sense to me. All of the dockings described there between Soyuz as well as the TKS-based Mir addon modules refer to retracting the docking probe to achieve hard dock. No mention is made in the books of the engines being needed. is this incorrect?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 02/23/2009 06:52 PM
I am currently reading two books on Soyuz and the Salyut/Mir programs, and something does not make sense to me. All of the dockings described there between Soyuz as well as the TKS-based Mir addon modules refer to retracting the docking probe to achieve hard dock. No mention is made in the books of the engines being needed. is this incorrect?

Except for Kvant-1 and the docking module, Mir Modules had their own engines to approach and dock to the station (Kvant-1 had a tug ala Progress)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: DMeader on 02/23/2009 07:08 PM
I am currently reading two books on Soyuz and the Salyut/Mir programs, and something does not make sense to me. All of the dockings described there between Soyuz as well as the TKS-based Mir addon modules refer to retracting the docking probe to achieve hard dock. No mention is made in the books of the engines being needed. is this incorrect?

Except for Kvant-1 and the docking module, Mir Modules had their own engines to approach and dock to the station (Kvant-1 had a tug ala Progress)

I'm aware of that, but that is not my question.

I know the addon modules were based on the TKS resupply module that Chelomei designed for use with his Almaz military space station. As such they had their own engine systems, and had the conventional Soyuz probe-and-drogue docking system. What I am trying to determine is whether or not those engines were required for hard docking. Based on everything that I have read, they were not. After soft dock with the Konus drogue on the Mir baseblock, hard dock was achieved by retracting the docking probe, not by firing the engines. Also, after the difficulty with hard dock when Kvant was installed on the Mir baseblock, the spacewalking cosmonauts removed the errant trashbag that was fouling the port, and then the probe was commanded to retract for hard dock. No mention in that situation is made of an engine firing.

The docking port on the Kristall module was of the APAS type as was the port on the docking module. As such, it did require impulse from the client spacecraft for hard dock. If this is all wrong, please correct me with references, but this is how I understand it to work.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 02/23/2009 07:15 PM
I am currently reading two books on Soyuz and the Salyut/Mir programs, and something does not make sense to me. All of the dockings described there between Soyuz as well as the TKS-based Mir addon modules refer to retracting the docking probe to achieve hard dock. No mention is made in the books of the engines being needed. is this incorrect?

Except for Kvant-1 and the docking module, Mir Modules had their own engines to approach and dock to the station (Kvant-1 had a tug ala Progress)

I'm aware of that, but that is not my question.

I know the addon modules were based on the TKS resupply module that Chelomei designed for use with his Almaz military space station. As such they had their own engine systems, and had the conventional Soyuz probe-and-drogue docking system. What I am trying to determine is whether or not those engines were required for hard docking. Based on everything that I have read, they were not. After soft dock with the Konus drogue on the Mir baseblock, hard dock was achieved by retracting the docking probe, not by firing the engines. Also, after the difficulty with hard dock when Kvant was installed on the Mir baseblock, the spacewalking cosmonauts removed the errant trashbag that was fouling the port, and then the probe was commanded to retract for hard dock. No mention in that situation is made of an engine firing.

The docking port on the Kristall module was of the APAS type as was the port on the docking module. As such, it did require impulse from the client spacecraft for hard dock. If this is all wrong, please correct me with references, but this is how I understand it to work.

Other way around, impulse is needed for soft docking, hard dock is established by pulling in hooks
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: DMeader on 02/23/2009 07:23 PM
We seem to be talking at cross purposes so I'll let it go. I know the active spacecraft has to fly up to the target with its own engines. By citing other examples I was trying to diplomatically correct...

Quote
...However, doesn't the docking system require a large momentum to engage ala APAS?

....which I do not think is correct.  "The hybrid docking system of the Soyuz/Progress vein" does not require what is described as "a large momentum".
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: axmor61 on 03/11/2009 12:42 AM
Question regarding the S6 truss:
 Will this truss have the Visual Target dots as the P6 truss?

Alfonso
www.axmpaperspacescalemodels.com
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: axmor61 on 03/11/2009 12:48 AM
Question regarding the Node 3 module:

Now that the Node 3 final location has changed from the nadir to the port side of Unity, how will the Node 3 Umbilical tray be placed for this new configuration?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: anik on 03/11/2009 02:35 PM
Question regarding the S6 truss:
Will this truss have the Visual Target dots as the P6 truss?

No, according to photos of both trusses made before their installation in payload canister.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Danderman on 03/14/2009 06:07 PM
Concerning the hard dock/hybrid/probe and cone impulse vs hooks question, everyone should remember that MRM-1 will be mated to FGB Nadir via the ISS RMS, not using a propulsion system. Therefore, after soft dock, there will be no engine firings, the hard dock will be accomplished using the docking hooks. MRM-1 will use a probe and cone docking system. The best way to describe this attachment method is "berthing" as opposed to "docking".

Also, MLM will have a radial docking port, again probe and cone, to which something may be berthed using some sort of arm, maybe the ERA.

Concerning hybrid vs probe and cone, in this particular aspect, I believe the capabilities are similar to interface using what is effectively berthing vs docking.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Danderman on 03/14/2009 06:09 PM
I am currently reading two books on Soyuz and the Salyut/Mir programs, and something does not make sense to me. All of the dockings described there between Soyuz as well as the TKS-based Mir addon modules refer to retracting the docking probe to achieve hard dock. No mention is made in the books of the engines being needed. is this incorrect?

This brings up an interesting point: since the Mir node was on the end of the station, if a TKS module attaching to a node radial port via the Lyappa arm had fired its engine, the impulse would not travel anywhere near the station c/g, so the engine firing, instead of accomplishing a hard dock, should have simply imparted a spin to the station.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Danderman on 03/14/2009 06:10 PM
Discovery will deliver the Mini-Research Module 1 to the Russian segment.  As I understand, it will use the hybrid docking system of the Soyuz/Progress vein and will be lifted out of the shuttle bay and installed on Zarya by the SSRMS.  However, doesn't the docking system require a large momentum to engage ala APAS?

MRM-1 will use probe and cone, not hybrid.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 03/14/2009 08:36 PM
Question regarding the Node 3 module:

Now that the Node 3 final location has changed from the nadir to the port side of Unity, how will the Node 3 Umbilical tray be placed for this new configuration?


When did this happen?  Somehow I missed that!  So, is this representation no longer correct?  (Most recent assembly manifest graphic I could find - scroll down to the bottom)

http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts117/fdf/manifest.html

I take it Node 3 will be directly across from the Quest airlock now.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spacenick on 03/14/2009 09:58 PM
On another thread it was stated that the ISS would be lost if unmanned for a longer period of time without proper preparations, so I wonder, what exactly could happen to it that can be prevented by preparation but not by ground commandment?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 03/18/2009 01:44 AM
On another thread it was stated that the ISS would be lost if unmanned for a longer period of time without proper preparations, so I wonder, what exactly could happen to it that can be prevented by preparation but not by ground commandment?

A lot of things but if I recall I think a failure in the internal cooling system would be the most critical failure where a crew would be needed to respond quickly or you lose everything.  For the USOS, we jumper the cooling system in a way that we have two seperate loops so one failure can't do that - but it takes a while for the crew to do that and it couldn't be done last week.  The next would probably be a loss of attitude control where we lose comm and again would need the crew to respond quickly.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: cd-slam on 03/18/2009 03:56 AM
Question regarding the Node 3 module:

Now that the Node 3 final location has changed from the nadir to the port side of Unity, how will the Node 3 Umbilical tray be placed for this new configuration?


When did this happen?  Somehow I missed that!  So, is this representation no longer correct?  (Most recent assembly manifest graphic I could find - scroll down to the bottom)

http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts117/fdf/manifest.html

I take it Node 3 will be directly across from the Quest airlock now.
Actually Node 3 attachment was changed some time ago from nadir to port side, and reported on another thread. But just recently this appeared on Anik's schedule of ISS events:

end of June (TBD) - PMA-3 relocation from nadir to left port of Unity module with SSRMS help

So not sure if this indicates a change in plans or if the PMA-3 will be relocated back again before Node 3 arrives.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 03/18/2009 04:01 AM
Question regarding the Node 3 module:

Now that the Node 3 final location has changed from the nadir to the port side of Unity, how will the Node 3 Umbilical tray be placed for this new configuration?


When did this happen?  Somehow I missed that!  So, is this representation no longer correct?  (Most recent assembly manifest graphic I could find - scroll down to the bottom)

http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts117/fdf/manifest.html

I take it Node 3 will be directly across from the Quest airlock now.
Actually Node 3 attachment was changed some time ago from nadir to port side, and reported on another thread. But just recently this appeared on Anik's schedule of ISS events:

end of June (TBD) - PMA-3 relocation from nadir to left port of Unity module with SSRMS help

So not sure if this indicates a change in plans or if the PMA-3 will be relocated back again before Node 3 arrives.

The latter.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: MikeMi. on 03/18/2009 03:42 PM
I have the question regarding to the yestarday reorientation of the ISS from +XVV to -XVV. Was it made by usin of CMG (Control Moment Gyroscope)? Or by thrusters (Progress, RCS of shuttle)?

I think that first option is correct. Never heard any word about this manevour and how it is done..

Thanks for answer!
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: MKremer on 03/18/2009 03:52 PM
I have the question regarding to the yestarday reorientation of the ISS from +XVV to -XVV. Was it made by usin of CMG (Control Moment Gyroscope)? Or by thrusters (Progress, RCS of shuttle)?

I think that first option is correct. Never heard any word about this manevour and how it is done..

Thanks for answer!

The orbiter takes over station maneuvering after docking - getting the station under control from free drift and into the new orientation after docking would overtax the CMGs and use up too much Russian segment propellants.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: MikeMi. on 03/18/2009 06:30 PM
Thanks Kremer.. now I understand it very well and people from my astro/astronautic forum in Pl also  ;)

Have the next one :
SSRMS moving away for mobile base relocation

Why it had to move to starboard side, I mean it wouldnt be easier to grapple S6 from stb side and then move with it to Workstation-1? I guess that for mobile transporter S6 would be to heavy, thats the reason of making this handoff movements (SSRMS-SRMS-SSRMS)?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Ben E on 03/19/2009 05:41 PM
With the current installation of S-6 ongoing, I have a query:

Why is the central truss piece known as 'S-0' (Starboard-0)? Surely its central position atop Destiny makes it neither port or starboard?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: parham55 on 03/20/2009 05:05 PM
Can someone please describe the way the mast/mast motor deploy the arrays?  I can't visualize the way the folded mast is pushed out and made ridged.  What's going on inside that canister?  Thanks
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 03/20/2009 05:10 PM
Can someone please describe the way the mast/mast motor deploy the arrays?  I can't visualize the way the folded mast is pushed out and made ridged.  What's going on inside that canister?  Thanks

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=6062.0
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: parham55 on 03/20/2009 05:31 PM
Thanks, Jim.  You seem to know exactly what to search for or you have the whole site mapped in your head.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: rerickson on 03/20/2009 07:38 PM
Why did the "target dots" turn out not to be usable for SSRMS navigation? This probably was a significant lesson learned, as it'd have been a good thing for Canadarm2 to be able to confirm its position autonomously, rather than depending on crewmembers with video monitors as a backup to the joint sensors. :( This would only have applied to relocation tasks with ample clearances; one could imagine the arm making a series of inchworm moves without human involvement, once you can trust the control systems.

By the way, is any (non-L2) speeded-up video available of the SSRMS relocating as an inchworm? I would've expected NASA to assemble a series of such moves, for the visual interest.

In reading the interesting 62pp of this thread, I found mention of the target dots' purpose, as well as their not being provided on recent modules because they didn't work as planned -- but nothing as to why they failed.

NSF is the best! Thanks.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 03/20/2009 07:41 PM
Why did the "target dots" turn out not to be usable for SSRMS navigation? This probably was a significant lesson learned, as it'd have been a good thing for Canadarm2 to be able to confirm its position autonomously, rather than depending on crewmembers with video monitors as a backup to the joint sensors. :( This would only have applied to relocation tasks with ample clearances; one could imagine the arm making a series of inchworm moves without human involvement, once you can trust the control systems.

By the way, is any (non-L2) speeded-up video available of the SSRMS relocating as an inchworm? I would've expected NASA to assemble a series of such moves, for the visual interest.

In reading the interesting 62pp of this thread, I found mention of the target dots' purpose, as well as their not being provided on recent modules because they didn't work as planned -- but nothing as to why they failed.

NSF is the best! Thanks.

Inadequate contrast using real-world cameras in real-world lighting conditions displayed on real-world monitors.

Worked great in the ivory tower, though.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: MKremer on 03/20/2009 08:02 PM
In reading the interesting 62pp of this thread, I found mention of the target dots' purpose, as well as their not being provided on recent modules because they didn't work as planned -- but nothing as to why they failed.

NSF is the best! Thanks.

Remembering the several times the space vision system was used in early station assembly and MPLM supply missions, they kept running into problems because it couldn't recognize all the targets consistently enough to depend on it to reliably and accurately position or move anything with confidence.

It ended up that Mark I eyeballs were much more reliable, versatile and accurate, which is what is used today with the help of alignment guides, targets, and multiple views.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: rerickson on 03/20/2009 11:15 PM
That makes sense; a fixed-sized dot on a white background isn't very distinctive once you add noise and fuzziness. They should've put a distinctive pattern around the periphery of the white circle, so it would stand out under even adverse conditions. You could even encode a unique dot-id for increased navigation confidence.
Next station...
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 03/21/2009 12:15 AM
That makes sense; a fixed-sized dot on a white background isn't very distinctive once you add noise and fuzziness. They should've put a distinctive pattern around the periphery of the white circle, so it would stand out under even adverse conditions.

Don't think that would help enough. The dots weren't visible at all in conditions of deep shadow. Sun reflection off shiny nearby surfaces could also cause the camera to "bloom" and white out, and sometimes the iris would close down and make the whole scene dark. The existing CCTV system simply doesn't have the dynamic range needed to handle all these conditions. The real fix is to replace the CCTV system, not the targets.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: parker on 03/22/2009 04:10 PM
good morning,

I have a simple question re ISS size.
For the technolgy we have now is there a maximum size it can be build
& stay in orbit.
Reason for my question. Why we do not use each supply ship that is sent as an extra section, so it gets bigger & bigger,
I would guess, that the larger the size, the great effect on the pull of gravity to earth,
could this be overcome, by changing orbit a few miles.

Seems such waist when equipment  is just sent to burn up in re-entry,
maybe sent it to the moon ?? specific location ?
have so many questions, hoping to find all the answers here in this forum.

thanks

"a new visiter to site"
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 03/22/2009 04:24 PM

1.   Why we do not use each supply ship that is sent as an extra section, so it gets bigger & bigger,

2.  I would guess, that the larger the size, the great effect on the pull of gravity to earth,could this be overcome, by changing orbit a few miles.


1.  No $$$$

2.  Size* or weight has no effect on the orbit of the ISS.  Once an object is in orbit, it will stay in the same orbit

* other posters don't muck up the discussion with drag
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: jimvela on 03/22/2009 04:36 PM

1.   Why we do not use each supply ship that is sent as an extra section, so it gets bigger & bigger,

2.  I would guess, that the larger the size, the great effect on the pull of gravity to earth,could this be overcome, by changing orbit a few miles.


1.  No $$$$

2.  Size* or weight has no effect on the orbit of the ISS.  Once an object is in orbit, it will stay in the same orbit

* other posters don't muck up the discussion with drag

Sorry, couldn't resist.  Aside from drag created by more modules, aren't there other reasons to limit mass?

+  As mass increases, the amount of reboost you can do per unit of available thrust decreases, meaning it gets harder and harder to keep the station at the correct orbit.

+  Similarly, as you increase mass, it gets harder and harder for CMGs and thrusters to change attitude, at some point making the existing systems ineffective.

+  Each module would need some amount of power, cooling, and ventilation to keep it conditioned for habitation, which at some point takes away from power needed to to meaningful work, and ultimately exceeds the capabilities of the station power systems.

+  The mass would soon exceed the ratings of the trusses, which requires further design and buildout to support the adding of more junk modules.

+  Modules need regular cleaning and maintenance so they don't end up with big blobs of water and crap floating around in them.  At some size, this becomes more than the crew can handle and still do meaningful work.

+  Modules need to be monitored for leaks, fire, etc.  There isn't provisions to do this with the existing systems.

I'm sure there are many other reasons that I'm missing.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 03/22/2009 04:56 PM
+  As mass increases, the amount of reboost you can do per unit of available thrust decreases, meaning it gets harder and harder to keep the station at the correct orbit.


 ;)  reboost is required because drag
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ChrisC on 03/22/2009 05:37 PM
During last week's post launch news conference, there was some Q+A about expedition handover, overlap, crew changeout, etc.  One of the guys (Gerst or Suffredini) was talking about "direct handover" vs "indirect handover".  I didn't quite follow what he was talking about.  I think it was in the context of making sure that the expedition crews had a full 7-10 days of overlap in order to do a good transition, without the distraction of also having a shuttle mission docked, but I didn't fully understand the jargon.  Can someone explain?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 03/22/2009 05:49 PM
During last week's post launch news conference, there was some Q+A about expedition handover, overlap, crew changeout, etc.  One of the guys (Gerst or Suffredini) was talking about "direct handover" vs "indirect handover".  I didn't quite follow what he was talking about.  I think it was in the context of making sure that the expedition crews had a full 7-10 days of overlap in order to do a good transition, without the distraction of also having a shuttle mission docked, but I didn't fully understand the jargon.  Can someone explain?


erioladastra is probably the one to answer this, but my understanding is that direct handover means the new Soyuz docks before the old one leaves, allowing the new crewmembers to take the handover directly from the departing crewmembers, while indirect handover means the old Soyuz leaves first, so the handover is performed by the three "holdover" crewmembers. (Obviously only applies with a 6-person crew; an indirect handover with a 3-person crew leaves ISS temporarily uninhabited.)

The reason why this might be necessary is shortage of Soyuz/Progress/ATV docking ports. There are currently only three, and a direct handover will require all three (two for the old Soyuzes and one for the new one). That means that the Soyuz rotation schedule will be tightly coupled with the Progress/ATV schedule. Indirect handover frees up a port so that the Progress/ATV schedule can be kept independent (to some extent) from the Soyuz schedule.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ChrisC on 03/22/2009 05:53 PM
Ah, yes, that makes sense.  With 3-person crew, I knew they wouldn't have 2 depart and leave just the 1 person as the "holdover" crewmember until the next 2 showed up (or leave it unmanned).  I didn't think of 6-person crew.

It's going to be pretty tight for those 5 years ...
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 03/22/2009 07:59 PM
During last week's post launch news conference, there was some Q+A about expedition handover, overlap, crew changeout, etc.  One of the guys (Gerst or Suffredini) was talking about "direct handover" vs "indirect handover".  I didn't quite follow what he was talking about.  I think it was in the context of making sure that the expedition crews had a full 7-10 days of overlap in order to do a good transition, without the distraction of also having a shuttle mission docked, but I didn't fully understand the jargon.  Can someone explain?


erioladastra is probably the one to answer this, but my understanding is that direct handover means the new Soyuz docks before the old one leaves, allowing the new crewmembers to take the handover directly from the departing crewmembers, while indirect handover means the old Soyuz leaves first, so the handover is performed by the three "holdover" crewmembers. (Obviously only applies with a 6-person crew; an indirect handover with a 3-person crew leaves ISS temporarily uninhabited.)

The reason why this might be necessary is shortage of Soyuz/Progress/ATV docking ports. There are currently only three, and a direct handover will require all three (two for the old Soyuzes and one for the new one). That means that the Soyuz rotation schedule will be tightly coupled with the Progress/ATV schedule. Indirect handover frees up a port so that the Progress/ATV schedule can be kept independent (to some extent) from the Soyuz schedule.

While that is true that is not usually what we mean by direct or indirect (but I guess some might use those terms).  Normally it means this:  Direct we schedule N hours of timne for the crew to go over a handover book or specific topic (e.g., emergency response).  Indirect is where we do handover by showing - for example robotics where the new person gets to feel the thing while the old person is there to guide and show features.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: eeergo on 03/22/2009 10:33 PM
Is Brazil still contributing to the ISS program with an ELC? If so, which of them is it? If not, what happened to the project and who's making up for the change?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 03/22/2009 11:03 PM
GSFC is in charge of the ELC's
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Almurray1958 on 03/23/2009 04:04 PM
question on CETA move:

Doesn't CETA have (unpowered) Grapple fixture attached? 
Why use astronaut as end-effector? 
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 03/23/2009 04:12 PM
question on CETA move:

Doesn't CETA have (unpowered) Grapple fixture attached? 
Why use astronaut as end-effector? 


No, it would be in the way
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 03/23/2009 05:36 PM
Isnt ESP-3 berthed to a UCCAS or  a PAS?  If so, when was the first deployed (UCCAS or PAS)?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: The-Hammer on 03/23/2009 05:52 PM
ESP-3 is berthed to the P3 Zenith UCCAS which was deployed February 08, 2007 during Expedition 14 EVA 4. ESP-3 was berthed August 17, 2007 during STS-118.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: usn_skwerl on 03/23/2009 06:37 PM
what is the white circle with black center? i've seen quite a few of these along the truss on both sides. thanks.

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: anik on 03/23/2009 06:55 PM
what is the white circle with black center?

One of targets of Space Vision System.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ChrisC on 03/25/2009 02:08 AM
I have a question about the orbital mechanics of the ISS.  I understand that the ISS orbital plane "precesses" around the Earth by about 5 degrees per day, which results in the shuttle launch windows advancing by about 20 minutes per day.  This is due to the non-spherical shape of the Earth, per an answer to an earlier question (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=4392.msg228972#msg228972) I posted.

Does this then mean that ISS overflight viewing conditions (i.e. lighting) should recur periodically?  That is, since it advances 5 degrees / 20 minute per day, then it should take about 72 days to come full circle (ha!) and repeat the pattern.

I ask because I'm sometime disappointed with the evening overflight viewing opportunities.  Right now in the U.S., ISS evening overflights are barely making it over the horizon before they blink out into shadow.  But in Europe you've got fantastic viewing.  If the 72-day cycle idea holds, then I just have to wait a few weeks and it'll probably be completely different timing.  In two months it'll be like this again.  Right?

Which leads to a related question.  Is there any seasonal pattern to viewability?  Is it generally better in the fall for the northern hemisphere, just to make an example?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Antares on 03/26/2009 02:13 AM
Why we do not use each supply ship that is sent as an extra section, so it gets bigger & bigger

Other reasons: these ships would occupy docking and berthing ports.  They don't each have two ports so they could not be daisy-chained.

Also, these ships are designed with less MMOD shielding, so they are statistically not allowed to stay attached longer than that designed-to period.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: duane on 03/26/2009 02:41 AM
Got a question I moved from the SpaceX Dragon thread to here:

Were the CBM on the ISS nodes designed for a specific number of total Berth/Unbearth actions ?  IE is there a upper limit on their total uses ? (Waranty number)

Just asking as it's my understanding that  Dragon, and Cygnus will be using the CBM's to deliver cargo (20 times in total ?).

Thanks a bunch!
Duane
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: MKremer on 03/26/2009 05:14 AM
Got a question I moved from the SpaceX Dragon thread to here:

Were the CBM on the ISS nodes designed for a specific number of total Berth/Unbearth actions ?  IE is there a upper limit on their total uses ? (Waranty number)

Just asking as it's my understanding that  Dragon, and Cygnus will be using the CBM's to deliver cargo (20 times in total ?).

Thanks a bunch!
Duane

The only mechanical parts are the latches and bolting mechanisms on the active (station) CBMs, and I haven't read anything that specified anything about design life issues.

The only limited life issues would be for exposed seal material, but the seals are installed on the docking craft's CBM (the passive side), and would normally be inspected and replaced if necessary before reuse.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ChrisC on 03/27/2009 03:45 AM
Just a pointer to an unanswered question (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=4392.msg382115#msg382115) about ISS orbital mechanics and viewing that I posted above a couple days ago ...
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 03/30/2009 08:21 PM
I have a question about the orbital mechanics of the ISS.  I understand that the ISS orbital plane "precesses" around the Earth by about 5 degrees per day, which results in the shuttle launch windows advancing by about 20 minutes per day.  This is due to the non-spherical shape of the Earth, per an answer to an earlier question (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=4392.msg228972#msg228972) I posted.

Don't forget (per the earlier question) that you also get an additional 4 minutes per day due to the Earth's motion around the Sun. So the average launch window advance is about 24 minutes per day.

Quote
Does this then mean that ISS overflight viewing conditions (i.e. lighting) should recur periodically?  That is, since it advances 5 degrees / 20 minute per day, then it should take about 72 days to come full circle (ha!) and repeat the pattern.

Closer to 60 days due to the additional effect mentioned above, but yes.

Quote
Which leads to a related question.  Is there any seasonal pattern to viewability?  Is it generally better in the fall for the northern hemisphere, just to make an example?

No. The launch window advance is mainly a function of ISS altitude, not season. There is nothing keeping it "in sync" with the seasons.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: agman25 on 03/31/2009 08:57 PM
Are estimates of the ISS mass required for reboosts. If yes, how do they keep track with all the coming and going?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: MKremer on 03/31/2009 09:14 PM
Are estimates of the ISS mass required for reboosts. If yes, how do they keep track with all the coming and going?

They keep very strict accounting of every kg of mass that arrives or leaves the station. (One reason they're so picky with transfer item details on every Shuttle mission.)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: William Barton on 03/31/2009 09:26 PM
What happens if a major module fails suddenly? Let's say, due to an undetected structure weakness, Node 1 suddenly ruptures (I'm imagining something too big to patch, though not so big the station breaks up).
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: rdale on 03/31/2009 09:35 PM
Abandon ship.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: maxx on 03/31/2009 09:48 PM
Abandon ship.
OK for Node1&2 and the Lab but if it is Colombus or Kibo, can't they just close the hatch if the leak isn't immediately life threatening?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: nomadd22 on 03/31/2009 09:57 PM
Abandon ship.
How do you abandon ship if you can't pass through Node 1?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: William Barton on 03/31/2009 10:04 PM
Abandon ship.
How do you abandon ship if you can't pass through Node 1?

Are all the places a Soyuz can dock on the Russian segment?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 03/31/2009 10:07 PM
Abandon ship.
How do you abandon ship if you can't pass through Node 1?

I would think the answer would be obvious.If there is no USOS CRV (Orion, Dragon), then the crew on the USOS side cannot escape.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 03/31/2009 10:07 PM
Abandon ship.
How do you abandon ship if you can't pass through Node 1?

Are all the places a Soyuz can dock on the Russian segment?

Yes.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 04/01/2009 02:03 AM
Abandon ship.
How do you abandon ship if you can't pass through Node 1?

First response is to close hatches and move closer to the Soyuz.  If it is something like Columbus, JEM, or airlock we would seal it off and be done with it.  If node 1, we would still have time to escape (by definition, if it too rapid of a depress we wouldn't be be talking further on this thread), seal it off.  Depending on which hatches were closed in the USOS you might be able to fix it down the road with an interna EVA.  You coul stay for a while on the RS but long term you would have to abandon ship.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 04/01/2009 02:09 AM
During last week's post launch news conference, there was some Q+A about expedition handover, overlap, crew changeout, etc.  One of the guys (Gerst or Suffredini) was talking about "direct handover" vs "indirect handover".  I didn't quite follow what he was talking about.  I think it was in the context of making sure that the expedition crews had a full 7-10 days of overlap in order to do a good transition, without the distraction of also having a shuttle mission docked, but I didn't fully understand the jargon.  Can someone explain?


erioladastra is probably the one to answer this, but my understanding is that direct handover means the new Soyuz docks before the old one leaves, allowing the new crewmembers to take the handover directly from the departing crewmembers, while indirect handover means the old Soyuz leaves first, so the handover is performed by the three "holdover" crewmembers. (Obviously only applies with a 6-person crew; an indirect handover with a 3-person crew leaves ISS temporarily uninhabited.)

The reason why this might be necessary is shortage of Soyuz/Progress/ATV docking ports. There are currently only three, and a direct handover will require all three (two for the old Soyuzes and one for the new one). That means that the Soyuz rotation schedule will be tightly coupled with the Progress/ATV schedule. Indirect handover frees up a port so that the Progress/ATV schedule can be kept independent (to some extent) from the Soyuz schedule.

While that is true that is not usually what we mean by direct or indirect (but I guess some might use those terms).  Normally it means this:  Direct we schedule N hours of timne for the crew to go over a handover book or specific topic (e.g., emergency response).  Indirect is where we do handover by showing - for example robotics where the new person gets to feel the thing while the old person is there to guide and show features.

Ok, I have to correct myself.  Turns out in 6-crew land, indirect does mean what is above my post.  Sorry for the error.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Colds7ream on 04/02/2009 01:44 PM
Apologies if this has been asked before, but I'm confused as to the difference between an ISS Expedition and an ISS Increment. Would anyone be able to explain what it is, please?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 04/02/2009 02:07 PM
ISS Expedition is "mission" designation for a specific crew

Increment is a planning phase that may cover multiple expeditions, shuttle and Soyuz launches.  It some times brackets large configuration changes to the ISS

Mods move this to ISS Q&A
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: rjb23 on 04/04/2009 06:02 PM
Comparing the baselines for upcoming flights, I don't understand the plan for the SGANTs.  STS-127 is bringing up a spare SGANT (stored on ESP-3).  STS-132 is bringing up another SGANT, SGANT boom and has an EVA task for installing both on Z1.  Is the STS-132 objective to replace the current SGANT on Z1 or install a second SGANT while leaving the current one untouched?  If replacing the current one, I didn't see a uninstall task anywhere - is that a stage EVA objective?  If installing a second SGANT, does this alleviate the no-KU periods caused by structural blockage?  If installing a second SGANT, will both be managed concurrently or will one be a hot backup?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Suzy on 04/05/2009 06:22 AM
Do the exteriors of the ISS windows ever get cleaned? Some of the photos taken through them look a bit spotted (like this one (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-19/lores/iss018e043607.jpg)).
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: MKremer on 04/05/2009 06:49 AM
Do the exteriors of the ISS windows ever get cleaned? Some of the photos taken through them look a bit spotted (like this one (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-19/lores/iss018e043607.jpg)).

The problem is, what would you clean them with (that would be usable outside in the space environment), and can it be guaranteed that the result would be more transparent than just leaving a couple of small spots alone?
(ever clean spots or dust off your glasses or sunglasses and find you'd made things worse because you've now smeared a thin oily film over the surface and bright areas in your vision now have a faint halo effect?)

There's also the possibility that the 'spots' are the result of microscopic MMOD impacts. In that case, attempting any kind of cleaning will do no good (and could probably make things worse).
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: MKremer on 04/05/2009 07:00 AM
Comparing the baselines for upcoming flights, I don't understand the plan for the SGANTs.  STS-127 is bringing up a spare SGANT (stored on ESP-3).  STS-132 is bringing up another SGANT, SGANT boom and has an EVA task for installing both on Z1.  Is the STS-132 objective to replace the current SGANT on Z1 or install a second SGANT while leaving the current one untouched?  If replacing the current one, I didn't see a uninstall task anywhere - is that a stage EVA objective?  If installing a second SGANT, does this alleviate the no-KU periods caused by structural blockage?  If installing a second SGANT, will both be managed concurrently or will one be a hot backup?

The first spare could really be just a spare ORU. Those dishes with the horns, along with their electronics/positioning mount, are pretty large. (They've occasionally had them out for testing in the SSPF over the last several years.)

It's very likely that they're too large to be transported by anything other than in the orbiter cargo bay, in which case it's best to get the spare up and stored on orbit while the Shuttles are still flying.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spacenick on 04/05/2009 10:14 AM
Why don't they measure the weight of ISS by means of F=ma if the force applied by reboost thrusters is known and you measurecd the acceleration then it would be no problem to deduce the mass of the station. So why calculate the mass for every kg brought to the US when measuring would be so easy...
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: AnalogMan on 04/05/2009 11:45 AM
Why don't they measure the weight of ISS by means of F=ma if the force applied by reboost thrusters is known and you measurecd the acceleration then it would be no problem to deduce the mass of the station. So why calculate the mass for every kg brought to the US when measuring would be so easy...

Its because as well as the total mass they also need to know how that mass is distributed for calculating center of mass, and the forces (torques) acting on various sections/joints of the station during maneuvers.

Mass is tracked to the nearest 1/10 of a lb (currently 685930.9 lb) which is better than one part per million - the accuracy with which the force of the thrusters is known will be orders of magnitude less than this.

EDIT:  A good example of what happens when you get mass distribution calculations wrong: during EVA 2 of the recent STS-119/15A mission the ISS lost attitude control because the Control Moment Gyroscopes (CMGs) were programmed with the wrong parameters.  These were based on the Mobile Transporter (MT) being at worksite 4, when in fact it was actually at worksite 1.

All was well though, because the orbiter took over station control and maintained correct attitude.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Analyst on 04/05/2009 12:47 PM
They will install a second SGANT including boom on Z1, STS-127 brings up a spare ORU SGANT without boom.

Analyst
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: rjb23 on 04/05/2009 02:42 PM
Thanks Analyst.  Any insight on the operational implications of having 2 SGANTs on Z1?

Also, are there other components of ISS that will be "doubled up" over the remaining flights?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spacenick on 04/05/2009 10:00 PM
Do the CMGs rely only on the mass estimates or do the have some kind of control feedback loop with accelorameters? i had thought that a lot of the the attitude control and other parts of spacecraft conrtol could be done with feedback loops and acceleration meassurement, maybe meassuring on different parts of the spacecraft.
If it is based on calculation rather then direct measurement, does this practice have it's roots in the age of the technology involved which for the most part was established many years before small accurate acceleration sensors became available?

Does the Soyuz also base it's thruster firings on caclulation rathern than on sensor measurements?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 04/06/2009 02:47 PM
Do the CMGs rely only on the mass estimates or do the have some kind of control feedback loop with accelorameters? i had thought that a lot of the the attitude control and other parts of spacecraft conrtol could be done with feedback loops and acceleration meassurement, maybe meassuring on different parts of the spacecraft.
If it is based on calculation rather then direct measurement, does this practice have it's roots in the age of the technology involved which for the most part was established many years before small accurate acceleration sensors became available?


The mass has to  be known for the gain settings (even with accels).  This is customary for most feedback systems
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spacenick on 04/09/2009 08:51 PM
I've a kind of silly question I've been thinking about for years.
Can a human propel himself backwards by blowing as strong as he can when in zero-g? i mean he definitely can to some extent otherwise F=ma  wouldn't be true, but is it enough so that one feels it?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/09/2009 10:43 PM
I've a kind of silly question I've been thinking about for years.
Can a human propel himself backwards by blowing as strong as he can when in zero-g? i mean he definitely can to some extent otherwise F=ma  wouldn't be true, but is it enough so that one feels it?

The person has to breath in as well as breathing out.
Heads can be turned to point (nearly) the opposite direction.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: nomadd22 on 04/09/2009 11:03 PM
 He might do better with burritos and a Zippo.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spacenick on 04/10/2009 10:20 AM
Yeah but breathing in is much slower and therefor it should be possible to propel onself when blowing very strongly, however I'm unsure how great the effect would be.
I doubt burritos would work better though, even if it were pure methane the flame wouldn't speed up the molecules in one particular direction therefor you won't get very far with that, appart from doing that in a space station is neither nice nor acceptable from a safety point of view, while blowing is probably safe.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: hop on 04/11/2009 04:09 AM
Can a human propel himself backwards by blowing as strong as he can when in zero-g? i mean he definitely can to some extent otherwise F=ma  wouldn't be true, but is it enough so that one feels it?
Density of air at sea level is roughly 1.2 kg/m^3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_density) =  0.0012 g/cc

Amount of air a typical adult male can exhale in one breath ~4.6l (http://) = 4600cc => 5.52g

Not sure what velocity you can exhale at, but lets say 10 m/s as a WAG*.

Assuming a 70kg (with a lung full of air) astronaut...

Plugging in dV =  10 * ln (70000/69994.48) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_equation)**
= ~ 0.00079 m/s

Assuming I haven't messed something up, this is not going to get you anywhere in a hurry.

* this feels optimistic, but a sneeze may be better (http://mlevit.wordpress.com/2007/07/16/random-fact-2-speed-we-sneeze-at/).

** OK, with a mass ratio like this you don't really need the rocket equation, but this is spaceflight gosh darnit ;)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: nomadd22 on 04/11/2009 05:52 PM
I doubt burritos would work better though, even if it were pure methane the flame wouldn't speed up the molecules in one particular direction
No problem. You just need a properly designed nozzle. And Russians are way to tough to complain about the fragrance. You might need to disable the fire suppression for a second though.
 And if you don't think you could get a respectable ISP from burritos, you haven't tried Jumburrito in Midland, Texas.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: NavySpaceFan on 04/22/2009 05:29 PM
Sorry to break into the "fun with methane" discussion ;), but I was wondering can individual modules be remotely depressurized?  For example, if there is a hull breach in Destiny, can Unity be depressurized in order to ingress Destiny and make repairs?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Life_Support_32 on 04/22/2009 11:15 PM
Sorry to break into the "fun with methane" discussion ;), but I was wondering can individual modules be remotely depressurized?  For example, if there is a hull breach in Destiny, can Unity be depressurized in order to ingress Destiny and make repairs?

The only module with that capability always activated is the US Lab.  Columbus and JPM contain that capability that would require some software configuration and the US Airlock would require crew action to reconfigure.  Node 1, Node 2 and the Russian Segment do not have the automated capability to do so.  There's always ways you could do this manually, but that's complex and not very attractive from the consummables standpoint.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: NavySpaceFan on 04/23/2009 12:09 AM
Sorry to break into the "fun with methane" discussion ;), but I was wondering can individual modules be remotely depressurized?  For example, if there is a hull breach in Destiny, can Unity be depressurized in order to ingress Destiny and make repairs?

The only module with that capability always activated is the US Lab.  Columbus and JPM contain that capability that would require some software configuration and the US Airlock would require crew action to reconfigure.  Node 1, Node 2 and the Russian Segment do not have the automated capability to do so.  There's always ways you could do this manually, but that's complex and not very attractive from the consummables standpoint.

Great response, thanks!!!!
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 04/28/2009 03:49 PM
From http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12063.75

UPA Failure:   On Thursday (4/23) evening, the Urine Processing Assembly experienced a check valve fault for each of four consecutive runs, which appears to be a re-occurrence of the sticky check valve issues previously seen on the UPA.  It had been determined before that the check valve is not required and will be removed.  Since the UPA had lost the capability to process urine and the WSTA (Wastewater Storage Tank Assembly was 70% full, the crew has been directed to use the SM ASU toilet facility through this weekend.  Specialists will convene to determine a forward plan which includes using the WHC (Waste & Hygiene Compartment) in manual mode, and developing IFM (In-Flight Maintenance) procedures to remove the valve.
<snip>

It is my understanding that these units need to be fully operational before the ISS is go for a six man crew. Does anyone know what the go/no go cutoff date is?

Perhaps better asked here than in the Expedition 19 thread.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 05/01/2009 02:18 AM
Sorry to break into the "fun with methane" discussion ;), but I was wondering can individual modules be remotely depressurized?  For example, if there is a hull breach in Destiny, can Unity be depressurized in order to ingress Destiny and make repairs?

The only module with that capability always activated is the US Lab.  Columbus and JPM contain that capability that would require some software configuration and the US Airlock would require crew action to reconfigure.  Node 1, Node 2 and the Russian Segment do not have the automated capability to do so.  There's always ways you could do this manually, but that's complex and not very attractive from the consummables standpoint.

To be clear, for Columbus and JEM, the software config is commandable from the ground so it does have the capability.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: catfry on 05/06/2009 11:40 AM
During a interview with Sandra Magnus she mentioned that as part of the shift to six person crew the communication ability will be upgraded from two channels to four. when is this and are there any available details about this? Any necessary hardware upgrades either on ground or orbit? Any reason this hadn't been done before?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: MKremer on 05/07/2009 08:11 PM
During a interview with Sandra Magnus she mentioned that as part of the shift to six person crew the communication ability will be upgraded from two channels to four. when is this and are there any available details about this? Any necessary hardware upgrades either on ground or orbit? Any reason this hadn't been done before?

STS-132 is currently manifested to bring up the new dish and support (see the previous page starting with #965).

There's still not a lot of details about the dual Ku channels - whether they will have the capability to immediately utilize the signals and bandwidth, or whether it's dependent on the new upgraded TDRS replacements in several years.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: MKremer on 05/07/2009 08:34 PM
I have a question about the temp move of PMA-3...

Why couldn't they just relocate it back up to the Z1 CMB and leave it there for possible future needs?
I realize it's passive, but recall there was a PMA stored there for a period of time previously.
Is there some other problem with thermal controls or other long-term survival conditions at that location? Or is it more a matter that EVAs would be required for installation/removal?

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spacenick on 05/07/2009 09:15 PM
I'd like to know whether Progress launches from Korou are planned and how much this would increase the upmass.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: The-Hammer on 05/07/2009 09:22 PM
I have a question about the temp move of PMA-3...

Why couldn't they just relocate it back up to the Z1 CMB and leave it there for possible future needs?

The Z1 MBM is permanently blocked by the S0 truss.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: catfry on 05/08/2009 08:04 AM
I'd like to know whether Progress launches from Korou are planned and how much this would increase the upmass.

Nothing official. Upmass capability wouldn't necessarily increase very much because Progress would be volumetrically restricted. Depends on the payload manifest.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Skylab on 05/12/2009 04:56 AM
I'd like to know whether Progress launches from Korou are planned and how much this would increase the upmass.
Given the inclination of ISS, I'd expect a serious negative impact on the Progress' capacity. Orbital plane changes expend a lot of fuel.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 05/12/2009 05:05 AM
I'd like to know whether Progress launches from Korou are planned and how much this would increase the upmass.
Given the inclination of ISS, I'd expect a serious negative impact on the Progress' capacity. Orbital plane changes expend a lot of fuel.

No need for a plane change, just choose the azimuth to launch directly into the ISS plane, as ATV does.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Skylab on 05/12/2009 05:11 AM
I'd like to know whether Progress launches from Korou are planned and how much this would increase the upmass.
Given the inclination of ISS, I'd expect a serious negative impact on the Progress' capacity. Orbital plane changes expend a lot of fuel.

No need for a plane change, just choose the azimuth to launch directly into the ISS plane, as ATV does.
I was talking relatively here, the inclination (guess I should've used that term) isn't beneficial. The question remains, would you gain any capacity relative to Baykonur? The real benefit at Kourou is for (near-)equatorial launches, not for an orbit like ISS has.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: catfry on 05/12/2009 07:44 AM
Any orbit other than polar or retrograde benefits from an equatorial launch, the question is how much. Obviously the closer to 0 degrees inclination the better.
I don't know how to calculate the benefit.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Nomadd on 05/12/2009 11:34 AM
 Kinda rough, but I'm getting a benefit from equatorial launches as long as the orbit is less than around 82 degrees, compared to launch from Baykonur.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 05/12/2009 12:41 PM
Any orbit other than polar or retrograde benefits from an equatorial launch, the question is how much. Obviously the closer to 0 degrees inclination the better.
I don't know how to calculate the benefit.

The effect is a wash if you assume spherical earth in the computations. The equatorial bulge provides a slight benefit.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: William Barton on 05/12/2009 01:00 PM
Any orbit other than polar or retrograde benefits from an equatorial launch, the question is how much. Obviously the closer to 0 degrees inclination the better.
I don't know how to calculate the benefit.

The effect is a wash if you assume spherical earth in the computations. The equatorial bulge provides a slight benefit.

This is extremely rounded (and I may be goofy besides), but my understanding is the benefit from launching due east at a given lattitude comes from the eastward rotational velocity of the ground at that lattitude. So if the ground is moving eastwards at the equator at 1000mph (it's actually a little more than that) and at the poles at 0mph, then you can calculate the eastward velocity for a given lattitude by calculating the circumferance of the earth at that lattitude and multiplying by the ration of that diameter vs. the equatorial diameter against the equatorial velocity. So I measured on a Robinson projection with a tape measure and came up with 0.9x ratio at 45deg. So if you moved Kourou from Guiana to Bangor, ME, you wouldn't lose much.

(Robinson projections are the ones with correct lattitude distances, and look like wide, flat ovals in consequence.)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 05/12/2009 05:08 PM
Any orbit other than polar or retrograde benefits from an equatorial launch, the question is how much. Obviously the closer to 0 degrees inclination the better.
I don't know how to calculate the benefit.

The effect is a wash if you assume spherical earth in the computations. The equatorial bulge provides a slight benefit.

This is extremely rounded (and I may be goofy besides), but my understanding is the benefit from launching due east at a given lattitude comes from the eastward rotational velocity of the ground at that lattitude. So if the ground is moving eastwards at the equator at 1000mph (it's actually a little more than that) and at the poles at 0mph, then you can calculate the eastward velocity for a given lattitude by calculating the circumferance of the earth at that lattitude and multiplying by the ration of that diameter vs. the equatorial diameter against the equatorial velocity. So I measured on a Robinson projection with a tape measure and came up with 0.9x ratio at 45deg. So if you moved Kourou from Guiana to Bangor, ME, you wouldn't lose much.

(Robinson projections are the ones with correct lattitude distances, and look like wide, flat ovals in consequence.)

For a spherical earth the effects cancel entirely. Might be easier just to show my work.

First cut: assume spherical earth, radius r and angular velocity omega.

So the easterly speed at any latitude (lat) on the earth's surface due to earth rotation is:

ve = r*omega*cos(lat)

The relationship between latitude, launch azimuth (az), and orbital inclination (i) is:

cos(i) = cos(lat)*sin(az)

But the only component of the earth's rotation that helps during launch is the component along the launch azimuth:

vl = ve*sin(az)

so after a little algebra, we get:

vl = r*omega*cos(i)

Amazing, the effects of launch site latitude and launch azimuth cancel out, and the "earth assist" simplifies to a pure function of inclination.

Accounting for the equatorial bulge, r gets a little bigger toward the equator, which increases the rotational velocity a bit (about 0.3%).

Edit: fixed last reference to omega.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spacenick on 05/14/2009 07:51 PM
Can someone tell me how much worse the radiation environment for a HST's orbit is when compared to the one of ISS?
If one could reboost a space station at very little cost (for example using a VASIMIR engine or M-E thrusters (if they are actually possible)) would it be feasable to have it at an altitude of >500 km? It has been mentioned that a Soyuz can only go as high as 450 km, is this only because of too little fuel and could therefor be overcome by upgrades? And is PPTS planned to be capable of reaching higher?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 05/15/2009 09:39 PM
One Soyuz or Progress is docked to the ISS, do they rely on station power or their own solar panels?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 05/19/2009 08:00 PM
Is there a stated reason as to why the ground controllers will be "driving" CanadaArm2 during the PMA-3 relocation from Destiny nadir to Destiny port?  I naively figure with 6 crew members onboard that they could accomplish this. 
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Sesquipedalian on 05/20/2009 09:35 PM
Why are Node 2 and Node 3 the same size, but Node 1 is smaller?

I know the short answer is that they were built by different contractors, but I was wondering more about the historical reasons.  Seems to me that it would be a nice place to put extra racks, if nothing else.  And you would have the advantage of all three nodes using the same design.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 05/20/2009 09:38 PM
Why are Node 2 and Node 3 the same size, but Node 1 is smaller?

You're asking it backward. Node 2 and 3 were originally to be the same size as Node 1, then 2 and 3 were expanded.

Quote
I know the short answer is that they were built by different contractors, but I was wondering more about the historical reasons.  Seems to me that it would be a nice place to put extra racks, if nothing else.

Correct, and that is why 2 and 3 were expanded. The decision was made after Node 1 was already under construction.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Bob the Avenger on 05/23/2009 01:40 PM
Not sure if it really goes here as it doesn't constitute a question but...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8064060.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8064060.stm)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: rdale on 05/23/2009 02:09 PM
Not really a Q or A - plus it already has a dedicated thread on the news side ;)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Bob the Avenger on 05/23/2009 05:06 PM
Sorry, like i said i wasn't sure if it belonged here. I did check the news section first to see if there was already a thread.

Edit:I hadn't noticed there was an ISS section on the forum - sorry
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 05/24/2009 06:27 PM
Life_Support_32 or others;

Can you expound on why this request was make by ISS?

"Discussed late breaking ISS (International Space Station) request to provide iodinated water on STS-127 and other flights.”

from Chris' recent article http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/05/atlantis-heading-to-california-fleet-status-update/

Thanks

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 05/27/2009 09:30 PM
Zvezda was launched on July 12, 2000.  It docked with Zarya on July 26, 2000. 

Why did it take so long for it to catch up to the station?  I don't recall that much of a gap between launch and docking before. 
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: bronder on 06/01/2009 03:00 PM
Does the ISS have one same side of it always facing earth (like the moon) or is it's rotation is independent of it's translation around the earth (like HST) ?


Congrats to the new expedition, finally 6 people in space. With sts-127 there will be a lot of people up there!

Bronder
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: eeergo on 06/01/2009 03:15 PM
Does the ISS have one same side of it always facing earth (like the moon) or is it's rotation is independent of it's translation around the earth (like HST) ?

Its attitude is mantained thanks to gyroscopes, and its "bottom side" -the nadir section, with Pirs, PMA-3...- usually points toward Earth, during the entire orbit. I suppose HST is left to orbit with the same orientation so that it can keep its watch on a certain area of the sky during a prolongued period.

However, ISS can -an does- change its attitude from time to time, especially during Shuttle missions (nadir is still facing Earth, but aft becomes forward and viceversa) At times, it also goes in free-drift, but only during relatively brief periods.

If I'm not mistaken, ISS doesn't use gravity gradient attitude stabilization, am I right?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/01/2009 03:49 PM
snip
If I'm not mistaken, ISS doesn't use gravity gradient attitude stabilization, am I right?

I don't think so.  Gravity gradient requires the long section to be oriented up and down relative to the Earth. 

Danny Deger
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 06/01/2009 04:25 PM
snip
If I'm not mistaken, ISS doesn't use gravity gradient attitude stabilization, am I right?

I don't think so.  Gravity gradient requires the long section to be oriented up and down relative to the Earth. 

Danny Deger

Correct. ISS flies Torque Equilibrium Attitude. This is not a gg-stable attitude, but an attitude that *balances* gg and aero torques (and aero torques are significant for a vehicle the size of ISS).
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: bronder on 06/02/2009 12:42 AM
Does the ISS have one same side of it always facing earth (like the moon) or is it's rotation is independent of it's translation around the earth (like HST) ?

Its attitude is mantained thanks to gyroscopes, and its "bottom side" -the nadir section, with Pirs, PMA-3...- usually points toward Earth, during the entire orbit. I suppose HST is left to orbit with the same orientation so that it can keep its watch on a certain area of the sky during a prolongued period.

I thought gyroscopes and thrusters were used to maintain the most efficient attitude for power generation from the solar arrays.

Why do they want one side to usually face towards Earth? Radio communications? There must be a good reason to spend all that effort witht the gyroscopes and the thrusters to desaturize them just to keep it's "bottom" facing earth most of the time.

If it's due to comms, then I guess it's cheaper or simpler to keep attitude than to use more antennas spread around the station. 
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 06/02/2009 12:54 AM
Does the ISS have one same side of it always facing earth (like the moon) or is it's rotation is independent of it's translation around the earth (like HST) ?

Its attitude is mantained thanks to gyroscopes, and its "bottom side" -the nadir section, with Pirs, PMA-3...- usually points toward Earth, during the entire orbit. I suppose HST is left to orbit with the same orientation so that it can keep its watch on a certain area of the sky during a prolongued period.

I thought gyroscopes and thrusters were used to maintain the most efficient attitude for power generation from the solar arrays.

Incorrect. The solar arrays are on two-axis gimbals (alpha and beta); they are capable of tracking the sun efficiently regardless of the station's attitude.

Quote
Why do they want one side to usually face towards Earth? Radio communications? There must be a good reason to spend all that effort witht the gyroscopes and the thrusters to desaturize them just to keep it's "bottom" facing earth most of the time.

TEA attitudes are defined Earth-relative, so it requires *less* effort, not *more* effort, to maintain an Earth-relative attitude with the gyros than an inertial attitude.

The particular TEA attitude commonly flown by the station (+XVV) was chosen because it maintains more of the ISS pressurized volume within the microgravity "sweet spot" than other attitudes. The thermal design of the US segment was optimized for this attitude.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: DMeader on 06/02/2009 01:09 AM
If the station were allowed to go into free drift (all attitude control discontinued) for an extended period of time, would it naturally fall into any particular orientation, or just tumble?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 06/04/2009 01:58 AM
One Soyuz or Progress is docked to the ISS, do they rely on station power or their own solar panels?

Once docked they use ISS power.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Analyst on 06/08/2009 05:55 PM
During ISS construction there were multiple CETA cart transfers from the port side to starboard of the MT and vice versa, each taking several EVA hours. With the MT able to reach the most outboard worksites (WS1 and WS8) with one CETA cart at port and one at starboard, why were these swaps done? The clearance was there from the beginning, wasn't it?

Analyst
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 06/08/2009 11:19 PM
If something were to go wrong with Quest during a US EVA, could the astronauts ingress Pirs or a Soyuz? 
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: The-Hammer on 06/09/2009 08:31 AM
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-104/lores/jsc2001e19791.jpg (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-104/lores/jsc2001e19791.jpg)

If the problem is with the crew lock (small diameter section), they can depress the equipment lock (large diameter section) and complete ingress there.

The equipment lock is fully equipped to handle EVAs. It has all the same umbilical hookups as the crew lock and the equipment can handle repeated depress/repress cycles.

If there is a orbiter docked, they can ingress through the orbiter airlock, though that takes more work. The shuttle crew will have to return to the shuttle, close hatches between orbiter/ISS, leak checks, depress shuttle lock, ingress, repress shuttle lock, re-open hatches.


I think Pirs also has some ability to support contingency ingress by US EMUs but I don't know the degree of that ability.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: MKremer on 06/10/2009 08:01 AM
During ISS construction there were multiple CETA cart transfers from the port side to starboard of the MT and vice versa, each taking several EVA hours. With the MT able to reach the most outboard worksites (WS1 and WS8) with one CETA cart at port and one at starboard, why were these swaps done? The clearance was there from the beginning, wasn't it?

Analyst

Not with the MT extended CETA connectors, IIRC. One of the reasons they swapped it out (on the one side) for a shorter connector.

It's still sort of confusing, IMO, why they didn't just have CETA cart mounts on either S1 or a couple of the other truss segments. It's not like they're so important they have to be there for every mission. (It's a fact that there's a huge amount more EVA time spent swapping carts back and forth than actually using them for anything important.)

They could have saved a lot of EVA time if the carts were mounted out of the way to begin with, and only moved to the track temporarily if they were needed during assembly and maintenance EVAs.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: C5C6 on 06/10/2009 12:21 PM
some JEM questions!!

why does the JEM-EF has two grapple fixtures?? isn't enough with only one??

are the EF payloads designed to be transfered through the JEM-PS airlock??

the HTV will deliver EF payloads is that correct??

is there a special reason the three EF payloads flying in STS-127 are flying in the JEM-ELM and not in a future HTV mission??



Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: The-Hammer on 06/10/2009 01:50 PM
why does the JEM-EF has two grapple fixtures?? isn't enough with only one??

Nope. The JEF will be unberthed from the payload bay by the SSRMS (on Node 2) and handed off to the SRMS. The SSRMS will rebase to the MT, then the SRMS will hand the JEF back to the SSRMS. The SSRMS will then berth the the JEF on the JPM.

Since the grapple fixtures are both on the zenith side of the JEF, and the Node 2 and Destiny PDGFs are both on the nadir side, the SSRMS cannot move the JEF directly from the payload bay to the JPM.

Quote
are the EF payloads designed to be transfered through the JEM-PS airlock??

That one I don't know.

Quote
the HTV will deliver EF payloads is that correct??

Correct.

Quote
is there a special reason the three EF payloads flying in STS-127 are flying in the JEM-ELM and not in a future HTV mission??

The simplest answer is simply that NASA has agreed to launch them on the shuttle.

More specifically, and IANAE, my understanding is that one of the JLE payloads (the ICS-EF) needs to be on-orbit before the HTV can be berthed. I believe it handles communication between the ISS and the HTV.

Since it is necessary to launch one payload and its carrier (JLE) and absent any severe upmass restrictions, there was little sense in leaving the other two spots on the JLE vacant.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Fuji on 06/11/2009 01:28 AM
Quote
are the EF payloads designed to be transfered through the JEM-PS airlock??

No.
EF ORUs and JEM Small Fine Arm are compatible design with JEM-PM airlock.


Quote
is there a special reason the three EF payloads flying in STS-127 are flying in the JEM-ELM and not in a future HTV mission??

Quote
The simplest answer is simply that NASA has agreed to launch them on the shuttle.

More specifically, and IANAE, my understanding is that one of the JLE payloads (the ICS-EF) needs to be on-orbit before the HTV can be berthed. I believe it handles communication between the ISS and the HTV.

The simplest answer is correct.

ICS-EF is not used HTV operations, directly.
HTV Proximity ops. will use another communication link (Proximity Communication System: PROX). It's already installed JPM.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/17/2009 09:31 PM
Is there any plan in place to put a human through a simulated mission to Mars and measure post landing performance?

Danny Deger
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: bobthemonkey on 06/17/2009 10:15 PM
I don't think you can. You can simulate the outbound trip, but Mars is 0.38g so how do you simulate that on Earth? The only way I could imaging is a variation of the bed rest studies for the surface duration, or do the outbound leg on the ISS, 190 days on earth (0.38 of the predicted 500 sol mars surface stay) and the return leg on the ISS.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Antares on 06/17/2009 10:57 PM
Vomit comets.  I don't know if the Centrifuge Accommodation Module was designed to spin at less than 1g, but it was canceled any way.

Edit due to bob's below: I had it in my head, but didn't say that it would have to be small animals or microbes in a Mars-g CAM.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: bobthemonkey on 06/17/2009 11:02 PM
The CAM rotor (the actual centrifuge) only ever held the Life Sciences Box. The bulk of the module was a static storage volume.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Suzy on 06/18/2009 03:14 AM
The water supply in the Russian segment uses silver ions to purify it. Is this the same as colloidal silver, overuse of which can turn a person's skin blue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argyria)? (I read about that condition recently, so I'm just curious!)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: YesRushGen on 06/18/2009 01:35 PM
I don't think you can. You can simulate the outbound trip, but Mars is 0.38g so how do you simulate that on Earth?

Hmmm....

Being that Helium pocesses "lifting power" when contained, I wonder if it could be made practical to contain enough Helium to remove 62% of a person's weight.

According to http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99471.htm you need about 163 grams of helium to lift 1 kg of mass. Other sources show about 440L (at 20C) to lift 1 lb.

For a 200lb human, we'd need to remove 124lbs... Works out to 54,560L of helium. Yikes. That's almost 55 m^3. Add even more to remove the weight of the containing device itself.

Any practicality at all???

Kelly
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spacenick on 06/18/2009 03:57 PM
But thats not the same,with it walking and jumping might feel quite like on mars ,at least unless your balloon is small enough or your not jumping high enough to make it act like a drag chute (which is quite problematic in itself). A team at the local university build a ballon with such properties for a festifal a few years back and they could jump from the top of a high building without any problem due to drag.
The other thing is that a balloon doesn't remove gravity from  your organs and thats what we really care about/ We don't care so much about walking in 0.38g but we care about what your blodd circulation and your organs feel aboiut 0.38g
Building such a balloon is no problem but its nowhere near simulation low g
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: bobthemonkey on 06/19/2009 12:17 AM
A while ago there was talk of building new mini CMGs to replace the current units. Three minis would replace each full size unit, and would be small enough to be launched as pressurised cargo (PMA/Quest AL hatch limits).

Has this progressed any further.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: YesRushGen on 06/19/2009 12:26 PM
The other thing is that a balloon doesn't remove gravity from  your organs and thats what we really care about/ We don't care so much about walking in 0.38g but we care about what your blodd circulation and your organs feel aboiut 0.38g

Ah-ha... I had not considered that aspect, which is clearly very important.

cheers!
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 06/20/2009 11:16 PM
A while ago there was talk of building new mini CMGs to replace the current units. Three minis would replace each full size unit, and would be small enough to be launched as pressurised cargo (PMA/Quest AL hatch limits).

Has this progressed any further.

No.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 06/20/2009 11:18 PM
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-104/lores/jsc2001e19791.jpg (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-104/lores/jsc2001e19791.jpg)

If the problem is with the crew lock (small diameter section), they can depress the equipment lock (large diameter section) and complete ingress there.

The equipment lock is fully equipped to handle EVAs. It has all the same umbilical hookups as the crew lock and the equipment can handle repeated depress/repress cycles.

If there is a orbiter docked, they can ingress through the orbiter airlock, though that takes more work. The shuttle crew will have to return to the shuttle, close hatches between orbiter/ISS, leak checks, depress shuttle lock, ingress, repress shuttle lock, re-open hatches.


I think Pirs also has some ability to support contingency ingress by US EMUs but I don't know the degree of that ability.

There would be no radio or cooling ingressing via Pirs I believe.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: bobthemonkey on 06/21/2009 12:27 AM
A while ago there was talk of building new mini CMGs to replace the current units. Three minis would replace each full size unit, and would be small enough to be launched as pressurised cargo (PMA/Quest AL hatch limits).

Has this progressed any further.

No.

Out of interest, how far along the path did it get; was it just an idea someone flaoted that got relayed to a journalist (Coppinger, I think) or did some in depth engineering find it unworkable?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: C5C6 on 06/24/2009 12:21 PM
should we expect brighter ISS sights from earth as the beta angle rises??? I'm looking forward for the brightest-ever (-3.4) pass I've ever seen!!
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: NavySpaceFan on 06/24/2009 06:34 PM
Does the ISS use the RMS Situational Awareness Display (RSAD), tested during STS-85, to maneuver loads out of direct view of the SSRMS operator, or is it another system?  If it is diferent, was it derived from RSAD?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 06/24/2009 07:30 PM
Does the ISS use the RMS Situational Awareness Display (RSAD), tested during STS-85, to maneuver loads out of direct view of the SSRMS operator, or is it another system?  If it is diferent, was it derived from RSAD?

ISS uses DOUG (Dynamic Onboard Ubiquitous Graphics) rather than RSAD. I think some of the information displayed on RSAD is already available on the ISS robotics workstation anyway.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: NavySpaceFan on 06/24/2009 07:53 PM
Does the ISS use the RMS Situational Awareness Display (RSAD), tested during STS-85, to maneuver loads out of direct view of the SSRMS operator, or is it another system?  If it is diferent, was it derived from RSAD?

ISS uses DOUG (Dynamic Onboard Ubiquitous Graphics) rather than RSAD. I think some of the information displayed on RSAD is already available on the ISS robotics workstation anyway.

Okay, so I guess my next question would be is DOUG derived from RSAD, or was it developed independently? 
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 06/24/2009 08:15 PM
Does the ISS use the RMS Situational Awareness Display (RSAD), tested during STS-85, to maneuver loads out of direct view of the SSRMS operator, or is it another system?  If it is diferent, was it derived from RSAD?

ISS uses DOUG (Dynamic Onboard Ubiquitous Graphics) rather than RSAD. I think some of the information displayed on RSAD is already available on the ISS robotics workstation anyway.

Okay, so I guess my next question would be is DOUG derived from RSAD, or was it developed independently? 

Independently. DOUG can also be used with the shuttle RMS.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 06/25/2009 11:51 PM
Has there ever been mention of a Expedition crew member to two staying on ISS for a year? 
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: NavySpaceFan on 06/26/2009 01:27 PM
Please allow me to re-phrase my previous question.  Are both ACVS and RSAD still in use, and if so, in what capacity?  If not, what replaced them?  And was ACVS used during missions 2A-6A as planned?

ETA: Same questions re: OSVS (Orbiter Space Vision System)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 06/27/2009 12:26 PM
Hello,

For my website, I try to explain what is happening with the P6's batteries.
I have found an interesting paper here :
gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/TM-2004-213218.pdf

In this paper, they mention batteries 2B1, 2B2, 2B3, 4B1, 4B2 and 4B3.

But during STS-119 EVA2, they spoke about batteries 2B1-1, 2B1-2, 2B2-1 and 2B2-2.

So, my questions are :

-what is the actual configuration of the batteries ?
-why do they need change ? I suppose that is because they are the oldest of the station...
-what did they do durong STS-119 EVA2 ? I don't understand the usefulness of beaking torque of the bolts and retorquing them after...

Thank you very much for help !
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: errant_trajectory on 06/27/2009 07:39 PM
Hey there!  Did a search on this but didn't find anything on the forums.

Anyways, I was watching NASA TV today and saw the tour of the pressurized section.  There was some talk of the Fire Ports.

I am curious as to the operation of these fire ports.  What do they do, how are they activated and so on.  Thanks!
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 06/27/2009 07:40 PM
Hey there!  Did a search on this but didn't find anything on the forums.

Anyways, I was watching NASA TV today and saw the tour of the pressurized section.  There was some talk of the Fire Ports.

I am curious as to the operation of these fire ports.  What do they do, how are they activated and so on.  Thanks!

They are just holes in panel in which to place the nozzle of a fire extinguisher.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 06/27/2009 07:48 PM
Please allow me to re-phrase my previous question.  Are both ACVS and RSAD still in use, and if so, in what capacity?  If not, what replaced them?  And was ACVS used during missions 2A-6A as planned?

ETA: Same questions re: OSVS (Orbiter Space Vision System)

I'm not familiar with ACVS (robotics is not my specialty). RSAD is still in use for shuttle robotics (SRMS). OSVS is no longer in use, and OSVS visual targets were never placed on the newer modules like Node 2, Columbus, and Kibo.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: errant_trajectory on 06/27/2009 07:51 PM
Hey there!  Did a search on this but didn't find anything on the forums.

Anyways, I was watching NASA TV today and saw the tour of the pressurized section.  There was some talk of the Fire Ports.

I am curious as to the operation of these fire ports.  What do they do, how are they activated and so on.  Thanks!

They are just holes in panel in which to place the nozzle of a fire extinguisher.

How do you mean?  Is this for the purpose of suppressing a fire behind the bulkhead or equipment?

Is there an automated fire suppression system on ISS?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 06/27/2009 07:54 PM
1.  Is this for the purpose of suppressing a fire behind the bulkhead or equipment?

2.  Is there an automated fire suppression system on ISS?

1.  Yes

2.  The fire extinguishers are portable/handheld

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: hop on 06/27/2009 09:38 PM
Has there ever been mention of a Expedition crew member to two staying on ISS for a year? 
I'm not entirely sure if this is what you are asking, but ISTR the Russians proposed year long stays in 2004 http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14059
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 06/28/2009 03:22 AM
Has there ever been mention of a Expedition crew member to two staying on ISS for a year? 
I'm not entirely sure if this is what you are asking, but ISTR the Russians proposed year long stays in 2004 http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14059

That's exactly what I was looking for. 

Going by what was said in that blurb, maybe we will see in happen sometime in the next 5 years. 
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: mr.columbus on 06/28/2009 01:29 PM
Any plan yet to increase the crew size to 7 once a 4-crew Orion is operational and servicing the ISS?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: anik on 06/28/2009 05:27 PM
what is the actual configuration of the batteries?

P6 truss has twelve batteries. Six of them (2B1A, 2B1B, 2B2A, 2B2B, 2B3A, 2B3B) are used for storage of power from solar array 2B, another six (4B1A, 4B1B, 4B2A, 4B2B, 4B3A, 4B3B) - from 4B.

why do they need change?

Batteries have a design life of 6.5 years, so six batteries of 2B channel will be replaced during STS-127 and six batteries of 4B channel - during STS-132.

what did they do during STS-119 EVA2?

They have broken torque and re-torqued H1 and H2 bolts of each of six batteries of 2B channel. It would be very bad if STS-127 crew could not do it, so STS-119 crew has checked torque of bolts beforehand. There is confidence now in successful loosening of bolts during STS-127 mission.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 06/28/2009 05:32 PM
Thank you VERY MUCH anik for these clear and accurate informations !
You're a living Wikipedia !
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: NavySpaceFan on 06/28/2009 05:33 PM
Please allow me to re-phrase my previous question.  Are both ACVS and RSAD still in use, and if so, in what capacity?  If not, what replaced them?  And was ACVS used during missions 2A-6A as planned?

ETA: Same questions re: OSVS (Orbiter Space Vision System)

I'm not familiar with ACVS (robotics is not my specialty). RSAD is still in use for shuttle robotics (SRMS). OSVS is no longer in use, and OSVS visual targets were never placed on the newer modules like Node 2, Columbus, and Kibo.

Thanks Jorge!!!!
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: C5C6 on 06/29/2009 02:22 PM
should we expect brighter ISS sights from earth as the beta angle rises??? I'm looking forward for the brightest-ever (-3.4) pass I've ever seen!!
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: drbuzz0 on 07/05/2009 04:16 AM
Hi-

Apparently the ISS now has a wifi system onboard, having been added with the Japanese research module with the Joint Station LAN now is avaliable via a series of Netgear access points.

Does anyone have any idea where I could find info as to whether the network is encrypted or not and what the SSID of it might be?   This might sound crazy to some, but I'm interested in experimenting with trying to see if I could pick up the signal on the ground.  I have a very large high gain dish with an S-band feedhorn and appropriate low noise preamp for wifi use.    There are a number of documented instances of wifi connections over hundreds of kilometers using large high gain antennas.

Let me just add:  I have no intention whatsoever of in any way accessing the network in an unauthorized manner.  If the signal could just be detected that would be great.  If it could actually get a solid network connection that would be amazing.   But I'm not going to try to mooch any internet access off of the ISS.



Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: hop on 07/05/2009 09:27 PM
Apparently the ISS now has a wifi system onboard, having been added with the Japanese research module with the Joint Station LAN now is avaliable via a series of Netgear access points.
Keep in mind:
1) The ISS pressure vessels are aluminum, and most of it is covered with an additional metallic layers. This is a very effective wifi shield.
2) Although the minimum distance of an overhead pass is relatively is close to the very longest wifi distance records (which use high gain antennas and max power at both ends), it will spend very little time at that distance. You'd need very precise tracking to keep it in view of your antenna for more than a fraction of a second.
3) Direct overhead passes will be rare.

If you just want to pick up a signal from ISS, get into ham radio.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: drbuzz0 on 07/06/2009 01:59 AM
Keep in mind:
1) The ISS pressure vessels are aluminum, and most of it is covered with an additional metallic layers. This is a very effective wifi shield.
2) Although the minimum distance of an overhead pass is relatively is close to the very longest wifi distance records (which use high gain antennas and max power at both ends), it will spend very little time at that distance. You'd need very precise tracking to keep it in view of your antenna for more than a fraction of a second.
3) Direct overhead passes will be rare.

I know all of this.   I'm not expecting a direct overhead pass but there will be several near overhead passes in the next couple of weeks and if it does not work on the near passes, I can drive to where I will get a direct overhead pass.

I know the structure is mostly aluminum.   That does not help things, but I'm still willing to give it a shot.  Yes, I know I need precise tracking. 

I also know there is going to be a lot of difficulty.

I have a very large dish that was previously used for industrial C-band satellite usage.  I'm not sure what the S-band gain on it would be, but it's definitely quite a lot.  I also have a smaller dish which I can disassemble to transport in my car. 

Also, low noise amplifiers, LMR-400 microwave coax and everything.  I'm not just hooking this up to a computer, I have a microwave spectrum analyzer as well and I have the proper mount for the antenna.





If you just want to pick up a signal from ISS, get into ham radio.

Been there - done that.  KB1IPD.

I'm interested in giving this a shot and I honestly don't know if it will work or not.  I think there's a pretty good chance I'll get nothing whatsoever.


If you think this is all folly and don't want to offer any info then fine.  However, I'd still like to give this a shot.   If anyone could just give me the info I requested then I'd really appreciate it.  It would make it all a lot easier.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 07/06/2009 04:02 AM
Hi-

Apparently the ISS now has a wifi system onboard, having been added with the Japanese research module with the Joint Station LAN now is avaliable via a series of Netgear access points.

Does anyone have any idea where I could find info as to whether the network is encrypted or not and what the SSID of it might be?   


First, the WiFi LAn was not brought up with the JEM - it predates that.

Second, the information is secured for very obvious reasons.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Nomadd on 07/06/2009 11:24 AM
 There are no "wi-fi connections over hundreds of kilometers". Although you could pick up the signal over a million kilometers with good enough antennas, wi-fi has a basic limitation of about 29 miles because the protocol can't handle the propogation delay after that. Any connection would have to be a different protocol.
 And getting any signal at that distance would require high gain antennas on both ends since background noise would probably be higher than the signal you're looking for at that distance.
 If you were terrestrial even a non amplified 40mw 2.4ghz signal would be fairly easy to pick up at 100 miles with a pair of 40db antennas if you had a good line of site. When one end is nothing but leakage through a metal shell and is moving about 14,000 mph, not too likely.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: arkaska on 07/06/2009 02:30 PM
Does anyone know if everybody onboard needs to be able to speak Russian? I have noticed during the press confereces that the russians onboard speak very little english so how do they communicate with the rest of the crew?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: drbuzz0 on 07/06/2009 05:53 PM
There are no "wi-fi connections over hundreds of kilometers". Although you could pick up the signal over a million kilometers with good enough antennas, wi-fi has a basic limitation of about 29 miles because the protocol can't handle the propogation delay after that.

A two-way connection is not possible over that distance without some minor protocol hacking, but you can still read the network ID and detect network broadcasts.   There have been connections using 2.4 or 5.8 wifi by using some workarounds like piggybacking other protocols onto unaddressed signals, which can require firmware modification.   Anyway, I don't anticipate a 2-way connection would be possible.



And getting any signal at that distance would require high gain antennas on both ends since background noise would probably be higher than the signal you're looking for at that distance.
 If you were terrestrial even a non amplified 40mw 2.4ghz signal would be fairly easy to pick up at 100 miles with a pair of 40db antennas if you had a good line of site. When one end is nothing but leakage through a metal shell and is moving about 14,000 mph, not too likely.

I didn't say success was guaranteed.  If nobody did anything that seemed like it might be unlikely nothing would ever progress.   I'm using an extremely large antenna system that is going to eventually be used for EME.   The feed does not connect to a simple wifi adapter, it's connected to a low noise amplifier that splits it off to a spectrum analyzer and a passive sniffer along with a standard low-noise wifi adapter.

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: bigboy_99 on 07/06/2009 06:25 PM
Does anyone know if everybody onboard needs to be able to speak Russian? I have noticed during the press confereces that the russians onboard speak very little english so how do they communicate with the rest of the crew?

Most speak Russian and English. All NASA astronauts do spend some time in Star City, Russia (just outside Moscow). Some even speak French, German, Japanese and some other languages. The Russians don't need to speak much English, and the English astronauts don't need to speak much Russian, so they all speak very limited in other languages. As for what they speak on the station to each other, I guess its up to each crew individually to figure out.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: arkaska on 07/06/2009 06:35 PM
Feels weird to call it an International space station when the austronaus/cosmonauts don't need to be able to speak the same language. Is it not better to have a general language onboard?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Sesquipedalian on 07/06/2009 06:46 PM
Can an ISPR fit through the LIDS?  (Let's assume that the LIDS is fastened directly to a CBM, not the APAS.)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 07/06/2009 07:36 PM
Can an ISPR fit through the LIDS?

No.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 07/08/2009 01:58 AM
Feels weird to call it an International space station when the austronaus/cosmonauts don't need to be able to speak the same language. Is it not better to have a general language onboard?

Well English is the official language by agreement.  All the partners abide by that except the Russians who decided it was too expensive to train their flight controllers (as a result NASA spends $$$ to translate everything, printed and oral discussions).  All the USOS personnel (sorry, I hate that term but that is the official name for all of ISS not Russian) learn and use English.  Even the Japanese flight controllers even though they use Japanese in their control center.  The USOS astronauts all know English well (and frequently many other languages) and Russian pretty well to get by.  The Russians genereally know some English.  They all need to know enough Russian/English to be able to respond in emergencies.  It is not ideal but the reality of the situation.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: DMeader on 07/08/2009 04:00 PM
I have a very large dish that was previously used for industrial C-band satellite usage.  I'm not sure what the S-band gain on it would be, but it's definitely quite a lot.  I also have a smaller dish which I can disassemble to transport in my car. 

Can you move the dish fast enough and accurately enough to track the spacecraft? Based on my own C-band experience I'd say that doing so with the big dish would be difficult, without creating quite a sophisticated (read, expensive) mount and drive system. Wouldn't be too bad with a smaller, say 3-foot dish, but that would have noplace near the gain you'd need.

I tinkered with some weather-satellite stuff (HRPT) back in the day, loop yagis and whatnot, and that was sporty enough with a (relatively) strong signal that was basically aimed right at me.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spacenick on 07/08/2009 09:23 PM
I think the language situation in geneal is solved by time.
For most of Europe English education is standard practice and the Internet greatly helps with that. I'd say anyone getting a a science or engineering degree will be fluent in English in the future.
My mother tongue is German but I think my English would be good enough for all the communication needed to work with someone from an English speaking country without too much of a hazzle.
Would be interesting to know how good Russian speaking students are now concerning knowledge of the English language.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: arkaska on 07/09/2009 08:18 AM
I think the language situation in geneal is solved by time.
For most of Europe English education is standard practice and the Internet greatly helps with that. I'd say anyone getting a a science or engineering degree will be fluent in English in the future.
My mother tongue is German but I think my English would be good enough for all the communication needed to work with someone from an English speaking country without too much of a hazzle.
Would be interesting to know how good Russian speaking students are now concerning knowledge of the English language.


I was in Russia (Moscow) a few months ago and you were lucky if you found somebody that could speak english, even among young people. But it's strange that russian cosmonauts don't need to be able to speak more english.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: dickgold on 07/10/2009 10:09 PM
Why is node 3 being put on the left side port of unity
instead of the downside port?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 07/11/2009 01:44 PM
Why is node 3 being put on the left side port of unity
instead of the downside port?

The search function works very well

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16683.msg391572#msg391572
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: TALsite on 07/13/2009 03:20 PM
(I have made a search but I haven't find the answer)

Prior to the Soyuz TMA-15 launch I was wondering what would happen if one Soyuz wasn't able to dock (as it happened years ago to the Soviets with Soyuz-3, Soyuz-15 or Soyuz-25) with the ISS, due to a human/non-human factor.

Let's go...

TMA-15 can't dock, and the crew perform a safe return.  PAdalka-Barrat-Wakata stay as Expedition 19.

What NASA and their partners would do?

1.- Rename Expedition 19 as Expedition 20 with only three members.
2.- Launch as soon as possible Romanenko-De Winne-Thirsk in the first available Soyuz (or their backups, in case of cosmonauts fault) to start Expedition 20 and the six men ocuppation.
3.- Wait and launch Soyuz TMA-16 with Surayev-Williams-(Professional Astronaut) as soon as possible, and start the six men ocuppation.
4.- Launch the Soyuz crew (as they did prior the loss of Columbia) in the first available shuttle.
5.- .....


Would they always do the same?
Thanks
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Sesquipedalian on 07/15/2009 02:56 PM
I searched but didn't find the answer to this question:

Why can't the Russians push back the Soyuz launch day-for-day until the Shuttle launches?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: honeyjones on 07/17/2009 08:47 PM
Is there not 1 of the 13 astronauts or cosmonauts that will be manning the controls of the most complex machine ever built by mankind during the sleep period?!?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 07/17/2009 08:52 PM
Is there not 1 of the 13 astronauts or cosmonauts that will be manning the controls of the most complex machine ever built by mankind during the sleep period?!?

No, there are no "controls" to man.  Most is automated, there are alarms for problems and Houston is also watching.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: honeyjones on 07/17/2009 08:56 PM
Is there not 1 of the 13 astronauts or cosmonauts that will be manning the controls of the most complex machine ever built by mankind during the sleep period?!?

No, there are no "controls" to man.  Most is automated, there are alarms for problems and Houston is also watching.

Still.... 

There is enough of a crew that some watch rotation should be established.  Reaction times for emergencies would certainly be shortened.  The duty officer could also continue with some light duties and not unduly burden the crew work schedule.

Upon further reflection ISS is really just a ship and would best be operated using tried naval procedures.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: NavySpaceFan on 07/17/2009 09:08 PM
Is there not 1 of the 13 astronauts or cosmonauts that will be manning the controls of the most complex machine ever built by mankind during the sleep period?!?

No, there are no "controls" to man.  Most is automated, there are alarms for problems and Houston is also watching.

Still.... 

There is enough of a crew that some watch rotation should be established.  Reaction times for emergencies would certainly be shortened.  The duty officer could also continue with some light duties and not unduly burden the crew work schedule.

Upon further reflection ISS is really just a ship and would best be operated using tried naval procedures.

As a retired US Navy officer, I agree to a point.  But with the degree of automation, and the fact they have folks on the ground watching 24/7, a watch rotation on board ISS really is not necessary.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: DfwRevolution on 07/17/2009 09:24 PM

Upon further reflection ISS is really just a ship and would best be operated using tried naval procedures.

Spaceflight has its own tried-and-true procedures. Spacecraft have been flown this way for decades.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 07/18/2009 01:52 AM

There is enough of a crew that some watch rotation should be established.  Reaction times for emergencies would certainly be shortened.  The duty officer could also continue with some light duties and not unduly burden the crew work schedule.

Upon further reflection ISS is really just a ship and would best be operated using tried naval procedures.

Still what?
Why do it if is totally unnecessary?   Union rules?
Is a ISS watch officer required just like a fireman on a diesel locomotive?

A.  It is a facility and not a ship
b.  There is no need for 24 hour watch and disturb the sleep of the astronauts.
c.  There is no need to shorten reaction times, the crews over the years, shuttle, Mir and ISS have reacted in time
d,  The watch officer would have little to do and be a waste of limited resource, crew time.
e.  Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, shuttle and ISS have demonstrated no need for an archaic institution
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: honeyjones on 07/18/2009 06:10 AM

There is enough of a crew that some watch rotation should be established.  Reaction times for emergencies would certainly be shortened.  The duty officer could also continue with some light duties and not unduly burden the crew work schedule.

Upon further reflection ISS is really just a ship and would best be operated using tried naval procedures.

Still what?
Why do it if is totally unnecessary?   Union rules?
Is a ISS watch officer required just like a fireman on a diesel locomotive?

A.  It is a facility and not a ship
b.  There is no need for 24 hour watch and disturb the sleep of the astronauts.
c.  There is no need to shorten reaction times, the crews over the years, shuttle, Mir and ISS have reacted in time
d,  The watch officer would have little to do and be a waste of limited resource, crew time.
e.  Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, shuttle and ISS have demonstrated no need for an archaic institution
All good arguments for not having a duty rotation and you may have a point about ISS being a facility rather than a ship.  However, one of the main purposes of this facility is to prepare us for the long duration flight to mars and that my friend will be a sailing voyage.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: arkaska on 07/18/2009 06:20 AM
But you still can't compare a ship sailing here on earth with a spacecraft. The differences both in vessel and enviroment is endless. And like several of the people before has pointed out the ISS and Shuttle for that matter isen't unwatched at night, tons of people on the ground monitor the systems and can do alot of changes from there if it should be nessesary.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: veryrelaxed on 07/18/2009 06:27 AM
[musing about the 'future'] Even if the ISS is a precursor to a Mars Transfer vehicle there'd still be constant telemetry monitoring/command upload by Earth ground stations (via DSN or some other communication system perhaps?) on the MTV.  And automation of whatever can be automated.  Just like they do on robotic probes.  They'd be woken up when hands-on is needed.  It's a many months long boring-to-tears trip!  Actually it might be wise to have most of them sleep most of the time.

[joke] Unless someone invents all knowing and wise HAL super computer AI, but we know how that would end ;)  -- see Space Odyssey 2001, and even there they were running it against the Earth HAL to verify, and bugging the 2 awake astronauts with radio links. 

And months into the transfer to Mars orbit insertion, a true emergency would not give them a chance for survival other than pressing on, perhaps.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: honeyjones on 07/18/2009 06:37 AM
But you still can't compare a ship sailing here on earth with a spacecraft. The differences both in vessel and enviroment is endless. And like several of the people before has pointed out the ISS and Shuttle for that matter isen't unwatched at night, tons of people on the ground monitor the systems and can do alot of changes from there if it should be nessesary.
I am not comparing the spacecraft to the sailing ship but I am convinced that naval procedures ensure crew readiness, effectiveness and moral on a confined and long voyage.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: hop on 07/18/2009 07:30 AM
Even if the ISS is a precursor to a Mars Transfer vehicle there'd still be constant telemetry monitoring/command upload by Earth ground stations (via DSN or some other communication system perhaps?) on the MTV.
Light time would make this rather different from the ISS situation. OTOH, previous space stations were frequently out of com for significant parts of their orbits. Compared to the total crewed life of Mir, a Mars flight is pretty short, yet they did OK without a watch.
I am not comparing the spacecraft to the sailing ship but I am convinced that naval procedures ensure crew readiness, effectiveness and moral on a confined and long voyage.
A watch should be maintained only if doing so significantly reduces the risk of mission failure. Appeal to the traditions of a different profession is not convincing.

My gut feeling is that whether they are awake or asleep, they will be depending on automated systems to alert them to most failures. Given realistic crew sizes, there's simply too much for them to monitor, even if you did have someone watching it all the time.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 07/18/2009 12:59 PM
I am not comparing the spacecraft to the sailing ship but I am convinced that naval procedures ensure crew readiness, effectiveness and moral on a confined and long voyage.

Performing watches reduces moral.
Readiness for what?  They aren't going into battle
Effectiveness?  It would reduce it since some of the crew isn't going to work together

So where is your data?  The ISS proves otherwise
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 07/18/2009 01:08 PM
Has a spacewalking astronaut used a CETA cart yet? 

I know they have repositioned them, but can't remember using them for their intended purpose.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Retired Downrange on 07/18/2009 02:22 PM
Does anyone here know the approximate number of laptops currently in use on the ISS.

Thanks.
(I did search the forums, but did not find this info)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 07/18/2009 02:48 PM
I have also a question concerning the CETA :

Before STS-119, both CETA were on port side of the MT. They relocated CETA2 on the starboard side, in order to allow the MT to reach the extremity of P6 during STS-127.

But why didn't they relocate CETA1 too ? In my mind, CETA1 will interfere with the translation to the P6 extremity just as CETA2 would have done...
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Fuji on 07/18/2009 03:24 PM
I belive more than 30.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Retired Downrange on 07/18/2009 03:56 PM
Thanks,

I believe I read there were over 30 a couple of years ago, before Kibo.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: MKremer on 07/18/2009 07:00 PM
I have also a question concerning the CETA :

Before STS-119, both CETA were on port side of the MT. They relocated CETA2 on the starboard side, in order to allow the MT to reach the extremity of P6 during STS-127.

But why didn't they relocate CETA1 too ? In my mind, CETA1 will interfere with the translation to the P6 extremity just as CETA2 would have done...

They changed out a long connecting bar to the MT for a shorter one, so the MT can now move to either end without major swaps.

That being said, the CETA system doesn't seem that it was very well thought out from the beginning, otherwise all the time and effort to do swaps back and forth without any one of the carts used for what they were originally 'advertised' for (other than an APFR stowage device) could have been much diminished and the carts much better utilized.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: honeyjones on 07/18/2009 07:01 PM
I am not comparing the spacecraft to the sailing ship but I am convinced that naval procedures ensure crew readiness, effectiveness and moral on a confined and long voyage.

Performing watches reduces moral.
Readiness for what?  They aren't going into battle
Effectiveness?  It would reduce it since some of the crew isn't going to work together

So where is your data?  The ISS proves otherwise
Data...  Let me first thank all the brilliant scientists and engineers that make all this possible with their attention to data.  Let me also make a case for the importance of humanity's adventurous spirit.  The scientists made the ships that got us to the moon but it was the visions of people like JFK that inspired them in the first place.  Perhaps watches are no longer needed but traditions are.  A chill runs down my spine every time they ring that bell announcing arrivals and departures.  I wonder where will the next "shellback ceremony" take place?  Perhaps crossing the orbit of mars?  These things may seem trivial but on long voyages with the same shipmates day in and day out, voyaging into the unknown, these little tradition are what bind crews together.   

On the other hand perhaps the future has no place for these romantic notions of exploration?  I will be lucky to live long enough to see man set foot on mars.  After that is up to the walmart generation, I wish them the best.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 07/18/2009 07:09 PM
[musing about the 'future'] Even if the ISS is a precursor to a Mars Transfer vehicle there'd still be constant telemetry monitoring/command upload by Earth ground stations (via DSN or some other communication system perhaps?) on the MTV.  And automation of whatever can be automated.  Just like they do on robotic probes.  They'd be woken up when hands-on is needed.  It's a many months long boring-to-tears trip!  Actually it might be wise to have most of them sleep most of the time.

Incorrect. They'll be quite busy on the outbound leg. Most of their training will be done onboard. It would be wise to assign them as Principal Investigators on the various experiments as well, so that they will be busy analyzing results and writing their papers on the inbound leg.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 07/18/2009 07:12 PM
A chill runs down my spine every time they ring that bell announcing arrivals and departures.  I wonder where will the next "shellback ceremony" take place?  Perhaps crossing the orbit of mars? 

I will incurr the wrath of some people.  I find them meaningless.  Most astronauts and spaceflight workers are not naval.  The Russians don't follow the traditions, they have their own spaceflight ones.  Commercial spaceflight is not going to follow them. 
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Targeteer on 07/18/2009 07:27 PM
Being a proud member of "another" service I echo Jim's comment. I sat on a watch (1 of 15 in our theater) for two years just so Generals and Admirals would have a belly button to push in case they had a question. An incredible waste of manpower and demoralizing for those who endure monotonous and seemingly endless shifts and not necessary in space. I also find some traditions meaningless and others down right disturbing but that's probably because my service is only sixty years old and we don't have any traditions.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 07/18/2009 07:47 PM
I also find some traditions meaningless and others down right disturbing but that's probably because my service is only sixty years old and we don't have any traditions.

Make that don't need traditions.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: agman25 on 07/18/2009 07:58 PM
On longer duration missions, when Houston has a time delay (NEO, maybe Mars someday) could this change. Would somebody need to monitor systems continuously.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: NavySpaceFan on 07/18/2009 08:27 PM
I, too, get a chill when a shuttle commander gets ringed aboard ISS, and was very gratified that Col Padalka nailed it yesterday.  However, I concur with my light blue brethren that a watch rotation on a ship that is not in a position that would necessitate rapid movement to avoid shipping or nav hazards is not necessary.

And for Jim, I complimented CAPT Shepherd back in March on establishing naval traditions on ISS if for no other reason that to get the USAF's goat!  :D
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Targeteer on 07/18/2009 08:42 PM
I, too, get a chill when a shuttle commander gets ringed aboard ISS, and was very gratified that Col Padalka nailed it yesterday.  However, I concur with my light blue brethren that a watch rotation on a ship that is not in a position that would necessitate rapid movement to avoid shipping or nav hazards is not necessary.

And for Jim, I complimented CAPT Shepherd back in March on establishing naval traditions on ISS if for no other reason that to get the USAF's goat!  :D

One truly disturbing tradition is hot-bunking. I know it's almost mandatory on subs due to space but--yuck!  Well, in space it isn't an issue since "hot-floating" isn't nearly as bad.

For the sake of service harmony I won't bring up names stitched on dungarees  ;)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: NavySpaceFan on 07/18/2009 09:24 PM
I, too, get a chill when a shuttle commander gets ringed aboard ISS, and was very gratified that Col Padalka nailed it yesterday.  However, I concur with my light blue brethren that a watch rotation on a ship that is not in a position that would necessitate rapid movement to avoid shipping or nav hazards is not necessary.

And for Jim, I complimented CAPT Shepherd back in March on establishing naval traditions on ISS if for no other reason that to get the USAF's goat!  :D

One truly disturbing tradition is hot-bunking. I know it's almost mandatory on subs due to space but--yuck!  Well, in space it isn't an issue since "hot-floating" isn't nearly as bad.

For the sake of service harmony I won't bring up names stitched on dungarees  ;)

Yeah, yeah, I served on three gators, so I've heard that one before.  :)

Seriously, I feel that traditions and ceremony (not the yucky ones at any rate) are what separate the service(s) from a job.  They also help beat back the boredom that comes from long times at sea surrounded by noting but several million square miles of water.

I know some folks who have served in command centers like you did, and they felt the same thing about their time there.  But when you stand the watch on a ship's bridge where the safety of several hundred to several thousand people ride on your decisions and skills, it becomes very important and anything but dull.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Celebrimbor on 07/18/2009 09:42 PM
On longer duration missions, when Houston has a time delay (NEO, maybe Mars someday) could this change. Would somebody need to monitor systems continuously.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, there would be far too much for the crew to continually monitor.

The crew would simply have to accept as part of the overall risk that they rely upon computer-based monitoring of critical systems. Probably Windows-based at that!!    :-\

Joking aside, this does highlight that software controlling any space craft has to be equally as well-honed as the hardware - all adding to the expense of it all...
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 07/18/2009 11:02 PM
Is there not 1 of the 13 astronauts or cosmonauts that will be manning the controls of the most complex machine ever built by mankind during the sleep period?!?

It is called Mission Control.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: hop on 07/18/2009 11:36 PM
It is called Mission Control.
Can you give us a ballpark of how many people are on 24/7 in the various MCCs ?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/19/2009 05:03 AM
I am not comparing the spacecraft to the sailing ship but I am convinced that naval procedures ensure crew readiness, effectiveness and moral on a confined and long voyage.

A voyage in which there are no tides, changes in wind direction, sand banks or other ships to hit.  The rocks (asteroids) can be seen several days in advance.  Things may change when several ships are manoeuvring at the same time.

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: wjbarnett on 07/19/2009 01:36 PM
Ok, here's a question that has been bugging me for a long time now:
Why are the exterior ISS Truss cameras always oriented with the nadir (earth-facing) direction at the top of the frame?

All the interior (labels, racks & workstations on port & stbd sides, etc) are oriented (eg lettering) with their lower edge toward nadir. I would think, if for no other reason than the robotics workstations, the exterior views would be best oriented in the same way.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Fuji on 07/19/2009 02:59 PM
Has a spacewalking astronaut used a CETA cart yet? 

I know they have repositioned them, but can't remember using them for their intended purpose.

First use was STS-113(11A) EVA2, used for EVA crew transfer and WETA transfer to the P1 truss.
Another used U.S. EVA 8(Feb., 2007), for EVA crew transfer to the P3 truss.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: m330533 on 07/19/2009 11:51 PM
Hey all,
this question went through my mind a lot of times so I thought it might be worth asking now.
Sorry, if already asked be someone else, but i cannot find the answer here yet.

As we're going again to the moon and beyond real soon, why is there STILL sometimes LOS, no KU-coverage of ISS and Shuttle missions etc?
Arent there all TDRSS satellites available for KU ?
Which TDRSSs are in use for this purpose in generall during shuttle missions ?
Are there any satellites besides TDRSS in use during shuttle missions and/or for ISS comm and if so, who are they ?

Thanks for all your answers in advance.
Greets, Marcus
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: NavySpaceFan on 07/20/2009 12:23 AM
Seeing Dr. Barrat wearing PPE today has me wondering if there is a danger from hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in the station's waste collection system?  I was responsible for the waste collection system for an aircraft carrier, and H2S was a constant threat (we lost a sailor about 6 months before I reported aboard from H2S exposure).
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 07/20/2009 12:24 AM
Hey all,
this question went through my mind a lot of times so I thought it might be worth asking now.
Sorry, if already asked be someone else, but i cannot find the answer here yet.

As we're going again to the moon and beyond real soon, why is there STILL sometimes LOS, no KU-coverage of ISS and Shuttle missions etc?

1) NASA only schedules TDRS-Z during critical ops.
2) Both the shuttle and ISS sometimes have blockage between the Ku antenna and the line-of-sight to TDRS, hence no coverage.

Quote
Arent there all TDRSS satellites available for KU ?

Yes. They are not always available for shuttle/ISS. Shuttle/ISS are not the only users of TDRSS, and sometimes they are not even the highest priority users.

Quote
Are there any satellites besides TDRSS in use during shuttle missions and/or for ISS comm and if so, who are they ?

The Russian equivalent is Altair (LUCH) , but the constellation only provides partial coverage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altair_(satellite)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 07/20/2009 01:46 AM
Hey all,
this question went through my mind a lot of times so I thought it might be worth asking now.
Sorry, if already asked be someone else, but i cannot find the answer here yet.

As we're going again to the moon and beyond real soon, why is there STILL sometimes LOS, no KU-coverage of ISS and Shuttle missions etc?
Arent there all TDRSS satellites available for KU ?
Which TDRSSs are in use for this purpose in generall during shuttle missions ?
Are there any satellites besides TDRSS in use during shuttle missions and/or for ISS comm and if so, who are they ?

Thanks for all your answers in advance.
Greets, Marcus

This has been answered many time in the Shuttle Q&A thread
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 07/20/2009 10:12 AM
Seeing Dr. Barrat wearing PPE today has me wondering if there is a danger from hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in the station's waste collection system?  I was responsible for the waste collection system for an aircraft carrier, and H2S was a constant threat (we lost a sailor about 6 months before I reported aboard from H2S exposure).

Yes, you are correct.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: NavySpaceFan on 07/20/2009 01:25 PM
Seeing Dr. Barrat wearing PPE today has me wondering if there is a danger from hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in the station's waste collection system?  I was responsible for the waste collection system for an aircraft carrier, and H2S was a constant threat (we lost a sailor about 6 months before I reported aboard from H2S exposure).

Yes, you are correct.

Okay, then the next question I have is, what do they do about it?  On my ship, we would test atmosphere (while wearing SCBAs), ventilate for 24 hours, then test again before anyone would enter a possible H2S environment.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 07/21/2009 01:24 AM
Seeing Dr. Barrat wearing PPE today has me wondering if there is a danger from hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in the station's waste collection system?  I was responsible for the waste collection system for an aircraft carrier, and H2S was a constant threat (we lost a sailor about 6 months before I reported aboard from H2S exposure).

Yes, you are correct.

Okay, then the next question I have is, what do they do about it?  On my ship, we would test atmosphere (while wearing SCBAs), ventilate for 24 hours, then test again before anyone would enter a possible H2S environment.

The stuff we use (sorry, can't recall the chemical) is not that toxic.  Just mainly we want to not get it on the skin or mucous mebranes and clean up any that leaks.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 07/21/2009 01:27 AM
It is called Mission Control.
Can you give us a ballpark of how many people are on 24/7 in the various MCCs ?

ooh, that is tough because staff is thinner during local night hours.  Assuming no shuttle up, I would guess the smallest number of people monitoring worldwide would be about 20, monitoring every single system on ISS.  More than enough.  And the crew is trained for really bad cases with no MCC.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 07/21/2009 01:30 AM
Does anyone here know the approximate number of laptops currently in use on the ISS.

Thanks.
(I did search the forums, but did not find this info)

When you add the numbers for procedures/personal (~ 12), core system monitoring (~6), and medical/payload (~10), 28-30 is about right.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: arkaska on 07/21/2009 03:22 PM
What will they if a SARJ fail completely? I read in another thread they they are not design for on-orbit replacemet. What would the impact be of they were forced to lock it down in a fixed position?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: madmardy on 07/26/2009 03:39 PM
Are ISS crew members allowed on a docked shuttle or is it out of bounds?
and is there anywhere on the ISS that Shuttle crews cannot go.

What are the general rules here?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 07/26/2009 06:19 PM
Are ISS crew members allowed on a docked shuttle or is it out of bounds?
and is there anywhere on the ISS that Shuttle crews cannot go.

What are the general rules here?

Rule is that crews must complete a safety briefing before they can wander around the other vehicle.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Sesquipedalian on 07/27/2009 01:21 AM
Bump as this wasn't answered...

I searched but didn't find the answer to this question:

Why can't the Russians push back the Soyuz launch day-for-day until the Shuttle launches?

In other words, the shuttle slipped day-for-day due to weather so why can't the Soyuz slip day-for-day for the shuttle?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: rdale on 07/27/2009 01:25 AM
Frequently the supplies on the Soyuz are time-sensitive. Rarely is the shuttle time-sensitive.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 07/27/2009 01:57 AM
Bump as this wasn't answered...

I searched but didn't find the answer to this question:

Why can't the Russians push back the Soyuz launch day-for-day until the Shuttle launches?

In other words, the shuttle slipped day-for-day due to weather so why can't the Soyuz slip day-for-day for the shuttle?

1) To minimize prop.
2) Because they want to protect for a failed dock and reentry and they want to land in their nomninal zones
3) Because they don't want to - and that is the biggest.

The only time sensitive items on the Soyuz are crew - and just like US that could change if really needed.  See reason 3 above.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Sesquipedalian on 07/27/2009 09:46 PM
Frequently the supplies on the Soyuz are time-sensitive. Rarely is the shuttle time-sensitive.
3) Because they don't want to - and that is the biggest.

The only time sensitive items on the Soyuz are crew - and just like US that could change if really needed.  See reason 3 above.

Okay.  But...

Quote
1) To minimize prop.
2) Because they want to protect for a failed dock and reentry and they want to land in their nomninal zones

I don't understand these two.  The first one should be irrelevant because fuel doesn't matter until you launch, and the second one shouldn't matter because ISS plane alignments happen every day.

I understand that the Soyuz can only loiter for a certain period of time before docking, but that isn't what I'm asking as that's after the Soyuz has launched.  If you have a 20-day launch window, can't you launch on day seven and loiter until day twelve just as easily as launching on day one and loitering until day six?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 07/28/2009 01:47 AM
Frequently the supplies on the Soyuz are time-sensitive. Rarely is the shuttle time-sensitive.
3) Because they don't want to - and that is the biggest.

The only time sensitive items on the Soyuz are crew - and just like US that could change if really needed.  See reason 3 above.

Okay.  But...

Quote
1) To minimize prop.
2) Because they want to protect for a failed dock and reentry and they want to land in their nomninal zones

I don't understand these two.  The first one should be irrelevant because fuel doesn't matter until you launch, and the second one shouldn't matter because ISS plane alignments happen every day.

I understand that the Soyuz can only loiter for a certain period of time before docking, but that isn't what I'm asking as that's after the Soyuz has launched.  If you have a 20-day launch window, can't you launch on day seven and loiter until day twelve just as easily as launching on day one and loitering until day six?

Sorry but I am not following your confusion on prop.  You always want to get to ISS with as much prop as you can - to allow for contingencies, loiter or now a days, reboost of ISS.  Soyuz, with sevre belt tightening can loiter about 5 days.  And you want to preserve every day of that.   As to plane alingments - you want to put together the best trajectory, with good ligthing, with rendezvous over particular Russian ground sites, with good 1 orbit returns...  adds up to limited launch windows.  And reason 3 is the key - so why change?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: yinzer on 07/28/2009 03:16 AM
I understand that the Soyuz can only loiter for a certain period of time before docking, but that isn't what I'm asking as that's after the Soyuz has launched.  If you have a 20-day launch window, can't you launch on day seven and loiter until day twelve just as easily as launching on day one and loitering until day six?

No, or at least not always.

The ISS orbits in a plane, the earth rotates underneath the orbit.  Your launch site passes underneath twice a day.  At the moment that your launch site passes underneath the orbit, ISS may be directly overhead, on the other side of the planet, or anywhere in between.  So once you get into the orbital plane, you have to spend some time in a lower orbit to catch up to the ISS.  There's a limit to how low you can go (the atmosphere!) and thus how quickly you can catch up.  Three days is enough time, so you plan on taking that long so you don't have to change things around if your launch slips a week.

The next part is new to me, but makes sense when you think about it.  Soyuz has a preferred landing site, but doesn't have much crossrange.  The same process applies in reverse: starting in orbit at an arbitrary time, you may have to wait a few days for a landing opportunity at your preferred site. 

If you want a particular lighting condition when you land or to be over a ground station during rendezvous, you may have to wait longer.

So if you want to be able to launch, rendezvous, attempt to dock while over a ground station, fix what went wrong and try again, and then land  at your preferred location, all within the fairly limited orbital lifetime of the Soyuz, you can see how you might end up with limited launch windows.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Sesquipedalian on 07/28/2009 03:40 AM
Soyuz has a preferred landing site, but doesn't have much crossrange.  The same process applies in reverse: starting in orbit at an arbitrary time, you may have to wait a few days for a landing opportunity at your preferred site. 

If you want a particular lighting condition when you land or to be over a ground station during rendezvous, you may have to wait longer.

Ah, okay.  This is the part I was missing -- thanks. :)  I know about all the problems with orbital plane changing and phasing, but the shuttle has to do the same thing, so I couldn't see what was so special about Soyuz.  So I take it that even though the shuttle has multiple landing opportunities per day, Soyuz doesn't?

But... urgh... this doesn't apply to Progress, since it doesn't land. :P

However...

Quote
...attempt to dock while over a ground station...

Do the Russians only have a limited number of ground stations?  And this is not a problem for the USA as they have worldwide coverage?  That would make more sense...
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 07/28/2009 12:23 PM
When does the ISS flip ( with zvesda going from X- to X+ ) before a shuttle docking?  1 day, 2 days? 
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: The-Hammer on 07/28/2009 01:29 PM
Shortly after shuttle docking. The shuttle docks by making final approach from in front of the station. This attitude also places the shuttle's TPS "into the wind". Shortly after docking the shuttle's thrusters are used to yaw the station around so that the shuttle's TPS is better protected.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 07/29/2009 01:48 AM
Soyuz has a preferred landing site, but doesn't have much crossrange.  The same process applies in reverse: starting in orbit at an arbitrary time, you may have to wait a few days for a landing opportunity at your preferred site. 

If you want a particular lighting condition when you land or to be over a ground station during rendezvous, you may have to wait longer.

Ah, okay.  This is the part I was missing -- thanks. :)  I know about all the problems with orbital plane changing and phasing, but the shuttle has to do the same thing, so I couldn't see what was so special about Soyuz.  So I take it that even though the shuttle has multiple landing opportunities per day, Soyuz doesn't?

But... urgh... this doesn't apply to Progress, since it doesn't land. :P

However...

Quote
...attempt to dock while over a ground station...

Do the Russians only have a limited number of ground stations?  And this is not a problem for the USA as they have worldwide coverage?  That would make more sense...

Correct - they have coverage only certains times of the days.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: aquarius on 07/29/2009 07:52 PM
Why aren´t there any live views from the Russian Segemnt during one-hour ISS Mission Coverage or during shuttle missions?

Are the Russians against it?

Thanks.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Life_Support_32 on 07/29/2009 08:57 PM
Why aren´t there any live views from the Russian Segemnt during one-hour ISS Mission Coverage or during shuttle missions?

Are the Russians against it?

Thanks.

Limited live downlink capability.  They can only downlink video over a RS Ground Site (in Russia).  Also, there's not as much going on in the Russian Segment during shuttle missions since all the robotics and EVA activities occur on the US Segment.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: cgrunska on 07/29/2009 11:56 PM
So this is most likely a dumb topic, but on viewing the brand new ISS images, one thing came to mind. The exterior of most of the ISS blends together, as one big greyish metal beast. One module is at least shiny and interesting to look at. With such a big object in the sky, wouldn't it be interesting to put colored running lights on the ISS? I dont think it would cost too much in electricity usage, and with bright enough bulbs to be seen from earth, would give people something to gaze at and remind us that yes, we are in space.

Aside from that, what about painting modules? Or putting advertising on the outside? This would be a generator of monies for the space program.

A big red/green streaking star would certainly generate interest in at least some people!

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 07/30/2009 12:15 AM
wouldn't be able to discern the lights from the ground
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 07/30/2009 12:17 AM
1.  Aside from that, what about painting modules?

2.  Or putting advertising on the outside?


1.  It would upset the thermal properties

2.  NASA isn't allowed.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Namechange User on 07/30/2009 12:23 AM
So this is most likely a dumb topic, but on viewing the brand new ISS images, one thing came to mind. The exterior of most of the ISS blends together, as one big greyish metal beast. One module is at least shiny and interesting to look at. With such a big object in the sky, wouldn't it be interesting to put colored running lights on the ISS? I dont think it would cost too much in electricity usage, and with bright enough bulbs to be seen from earth, would give people something to gaze at and remind us that yes, we are in space.



The problem is no one would see these running lights ever.  Shuttles and Soyuz crews would briefly but otherwise that's it.  As for on the ground, ISS is a big star due to the arrays and the rest of the structure.  Any colored lights would have to be very powerful to overpower the brightness of the rest of the structure. 
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 07/30/2009 12:53 AM
So this is most likely a dumb topic, but on viewing the brand new ISS images, one thing came to mind. The exterior of most of the ISS blends together, as one big greyish metal beast. One module is at least shiny and interesting to look at. With such a big object in the sky, wouldn't it be interesting to put colored running lights on the ISS? I dont think it would cost too much in electricity usage, and with bright enough bulbs to be seen from earth, would give people something to gaze at and remind us that yes, we are in space.

Aside from that, what about painting modules? Or putting advertising on the outside? This would be a generator of monies for the space program.

A big red/green streaking star would certainly generate interest in at least some people!

There are already red/green running lights on the tips of the Zvezda solar arrays.

You underestimate the power requirements for bright lights. Any lights bright enough to be seen from the ground would be an enormous waste.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 07/30/2009 01:55 AM
Why aren´t there any live views from the Russian Segemnt during one-hour ISS Mission Coverage or during shuttle missions?

Are the Russians against it?

Thanks.

Very poor quality and only available over Russian Ground Sites.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: billshap on 07/31/2009 02:18 AM
In today's MMT briefing Mike Suffredini said they needed a specific LEE to grab HTV, and to get that LEE in position would require a "triple walkoff."  What is the difference between the two LEEs?  Is is the actual end effectors—are they different somethow, or something to do with the joints?  I believe the SSRMS is somewhat asymmetrical--does that have something to do with it?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: cgrunska on 07/31/2009 07:29 PM
Thanks for the replies guys! I only asked because i remember reading something from Bigelow stating their habitats could put lights up and been multi-colored and seen from the ground. Wether or not that was true, i did not know. It appears it is not.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 08/04/2009 01:40 AM
In today's MMT briefing Mike Suffredini said they needed a specific LEE to grab HTV, and to get that LEE in position would require a "triple walkoff."  What is the difference between the two LEEs?  Is is the actual end effectors—are they different somethow, or something to do with the joints?  I believe the SSRMS is somewhat asymmetrical--does that have something to do with it?

The light is failed on one side and we need the light for HTV.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/04/2009 02:59 AM
What would have happened if the solar array tear during STS-120 had happened a few bays farther out than Scott could reach?  He could barely reach it where it was.  How would they have worked on it?  Wasn't ISS in a terribly unsafe situation from the point of view of loads before the array was repaired and stretched to full tension?  Would they have undocked and tried to station keep the orbiter out there or something?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 08/04/2009 03:30 AM
What would have happened if the solar array tear during STS-120 had happened a few bays farther out than Scott could reach?  He could barely reach it where it was.  How would they have worked on it?  Wasn't ISS in a terribly unsafe situation from the point of view of loads before the array was repaired and stretched to full tension?  Would they have undocked and tried to station keep the orbiter out there or something?

No. Could not have maintained stationkeeping without exceeding plume impingement load limits on the array. NASA was just plain lucky the tear was where it was.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: cgrunska on 08/05/2009 06:58 PM
was there any thought as to how to fix it if the tear was further out? or was it more of an abandon ship mentality?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 08/05/2009 07:05 PM
was there any thought as to how to fix it if the tear was further out? or was it more of an abandon ship mentality?

If there was any what-iffing about that scenario, the EVA group kept it internal. Which means they didn't consider undocking, since that would have required the involvement of rendezvous and a bunch of other groups.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: The-Hammer on 08/05/2009 07:05 PM
They would have had to jettison the entire solar array blanket. Don't know if they would have had to retract/jettison the other blanket.

Someone more knowledgeable: Would the wing have been stable in the deployed position with only one blanket? (I'm thinking that the mast might not have been able to handle the unbalanced forces.)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: cgrunska on 08/05/2009 09:05 PM
is the ISS propulsion module going to come back? Or is it totally cancelled? is it needed?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 08/05/2009 09:27 PM
is the ISS propulsion module going to come back? Or is it totally cancelled? is it needed?

No, cancelled, not needed.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: cgrunska on 08/05/2009 09:35 PM
What will they be doing for station keeping then? Keeping on with the 6  russian launches, with ATV to help? Are there any contingencies in place if a launch should fail?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 08/05/2009 09:38 PM
What will they be doing for station keeping then? Keeping on with the 6  russian launches, with ATV to help?

Yes.

Quote
Are there any contingencies in place if a launch should fail?

The FGB has literally tons of prop in its tanks.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Hungry4info3 on 08/07/2009 11:37 AM
Quick question. (searching failed to produce an answer)

I am going to assume that the MLPM will be attached to Node 2 Nadir, is this correct?

Where will PMA2 be docked to? Will it be on Node 3? (and if so, what about clearance with the radiator?) Am I correct in thinking that a PMA cannot be mated to an MLPM?

Any prospects that Orion could dock to PMA2 if it's put somewhere convenient?

Thanks.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Analyst on 08/07/2009 12:03 PM
MPLMs are attached to Node-2 nadir. The place for the PLM (modified MPLM) is anyones guess: I say Node-1 nadir or Node-2 zenith.

PMA-2 is at Node-2 forward and stays there. I assume you are talking about PMA-3. A MPLM only has one CBM, so no place for a PMA.

PMA-2 is convenient for Orion and shuttle. You mean PMA-3. No idea where it gets, maybe Node-1 nadir if PLM does not go there, or somethere at Node-3. These positions would be problematic for docking Orion. But why bother? Orion is still about 8 years away and likely will never need two ports at ISS.

Analyst
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: bobthemonkey on 08/07/2009 01:40 PM
Node 2 zenith would be unlikely as it is one the worst, if nit the worst locations on station in terms of MMOD.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Analyst on 08/07/2009 02:26 PM
Not worse than any other module (or truss) in the ram direction, e.g. Kibo, Kibo Logistics, Columbus, Node-2 forward with PMA-2. Not worse than MPLM at Node-2 nadir (remember whole ISS turns when Shuttle is docked, placing the MPLM into the (new) ram direction).

Analyst
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Danderman on 08/07/2009 03:04 PM
Node 2 zenith would be unlikely as it is one the worst, if nit the worst locations on station in terms of MMOD.

Yeah, but all the old models and graphics showing the CAM on Node 2 Zenith would be useful again, more or less.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: orbiter62995 on 08/08/2009 02:17 AM
I think the language situation in geneal is solved by time.
For most of Europe English education is standard practice and the Internet greatly helps with that. I'd say anyone getting a a science or engineering degree will be fluent in English in the future.
My mother tongue is German but I think my English would be good enough for all the communication needed to work with someone from an English speaking country without too much of a hazzle.
Would be interesting to know how good Russian speaking students are now concerning knowledge of the English language.

Also, any idea about Expedition 21 EVAs?


There are some cosmonauts who seem not to speak English.  Maxim Suraev ––– I don't have sufficient evidence, but in a JSC press conference he was hard of it and spoke Russian.  Vinogradov seems not to be able to speak it either, no?  Also, Moschenko didn't speak it either, but he had his fair share of other problems.  It's not disturbing to me that we don't speak a common language, I just don't see how it's possible to have a spaceflight when we can't talk to each other for 6 months.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: axmor61 on 08/12/2009 03:39 AM
I have started this topic in order to have more information about the Umbilical tray for Node 3.
This tray is located on face 3 of the S0 truss and is supposed to be used once Node 3 is attached to Unity. In the original configuration, Node 3 was supposed to attach to the Nadir port of Unity, but now it will attach to the port side of Unity.
Will the Umbilical tray for Node 3 be of any use now that the configuration has been changed?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 08/13/2009 06:39 PM
I was gonna put this in the Shuttle Q&A, but it applies to shuttle and station.

What determines when crews sleep shift?

I'm reading that the STS 127 crew is sleep shifting for their launch.  Is sleep shifting always done due to the launch time?  What other variables are there?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 08/13/2009 08:10 PM
I was gonna put this in the Shuttle Q&A, but it applies to shuttle and station.

What determines when crews sleep shift?

I'm reading that the STS 127 crew is sleep shifting for their launch.  Is sleep shifting always done due to the launch time?  What other variables are there?

Docking time.   Whether they were going to do dual shift like on some Spacelabs.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 08/13/2009 09:09 PM
Also, they sleep shift during the mission in order to sync up to the landing time.

If you go back to the STS-120 thread, you'll note that they were sleep shifting toward a nominal EOM landing and then, into the mission, they had to reverse that back because their landing time changed significantly to accommodate the unforeseen Solar Array repair.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 08/15/2009 10:39 AM
Hi everybody,

Do someone have a "map" showing the locations of the Worksites (WS) used by SSRMS ?

Thank you very much !
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Analyst on 08/15/2009 11:57 AM
There is a robotics handbook on L2.

The SSRMS has 6 PDGF bases currently: Lab, Node-2, MBS (4 PDGFs). The MT has 8 worksites along the truss: Two each at S1, S0 and P1, one each at S3 and P3. There are two more sites, unreachable without the cancelled CETA rails, on S6 and P6.

Analyst
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: wjbarnett on 08/15/2009 12:02 PM
There are two more sites, unreachable without the cancelled CETA rails, on S6 and P6.

Could these worksites for the MT "reasonably" to revived, if there was a new money (and time) to fly the CETA rail extensions?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Analyst on 08/15/2009 12:07 PM
Sure. This was the original plan. But it is very doubtful because of money. Needs upmass, EVA time. I am not sure these rails are even existing (anymore).

Analyst
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Danderman on 08/15/2009 02:37 PM
There is a robotics handbook on L2.

The SSRMS has 6 PDGF bases currently: Lab, Node-2, MBS (4 PDGFs). The MT has 8 worksites along the truss: Two each at S1, S0 and P1, one each at S3 and P3. There are two more sites, unreachable without the cancelled CETA rails, on S6 and P6.

Analyst


I believe that there is an uninstalled PGDF, stored somewhere on the truss, that is someday going to be installed on the FGB.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Analyst on 08/15/2009 02:44 PM
This PDGF is at P6. It has been the plan for quite some time to install it at the FGB. AFAIK it is no longer needed because the SSRMS is not needed anymore to relocate things on the Russian side.

There is a PDGF each on Kibo and Columbus, but these don't work as a base for the SSRMS.

Analyst
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 08/16/2009 08:49 AM
There is a robotics handbook on L2.

Sorry Analyst, but I have not found it...  :-[   ???
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: anik on 08/16/2009 09:15 AM
As for map of MT work-sites, we discussed that on http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8438.msg151642#msg151642 and http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8438.msg151677#msg151677
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 08/16/2009 01:28 PM
Thanks a lot Anik ! I wonder how you are doing to find hidden informations so quickly !
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: robertross on 08/17/2009 04:46 PM
Here's an ISS federal regs/ops question for those in the know:

If the US portion of ISS funding & control authority was handed to another body (not NASA, though almost as a sub-contract), in terms of being regarded as a National Lab, how would commercial resupply be handled. Also, what about if they needed shuttle re-supply? Would that be a contract service? I know there are some grey areas there.

I hope I'm saying this correctly enough. I'm planning an interesting thought process post for the Augustine Commission thread, and I need a correct point of reference.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 08/17/2009 08:40 PM
Here's an ISS federal regs/ops question for those in the know:

If the US portion of ISS funding & control authority was handed to another body (not NASA, though almost as a sub-contract), in terms of being regarded as a National Lab, how would commercial resupply be handled. Also, what about if they needed shuttle re-supply? Would that be a contract service? I know there are some grey areas there.

I hope I'm saying this correctly enough. I'm planning an interesting thought process post for the Augustine Commission thread, and I need a correct point of reference.

NASA would still handle everything.   The ISS funding & control authority would just tell NASA what to do.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Antares on 08/18/2009 02:26 AM
Contracts are between the Government and the private sector.  It would not matter which agency had it.  It could probably go either way.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Targeteer on 08/19/2009 04:35 PM
Per comms from Houston to the Station they've had a 38 minute and 53 minute LOS today. Is anyone aware why they are so long since I've only heard 15~ minute LOS due to ZOE?  Is there maintenance of TDRS or the ground system going on? 
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 08/19/2009 04:47 PM
Per comms from Houston to the Station they've had a 38 minute and 53 minute LOS today. Is anyone aware why they are so long since I've only heard 15~ minute LOS due to ZOE?  Is there maintenance of TDRS or the ground system going on? 


Already answered.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=4392.msg441548#msg441548
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ginahoy on 09/04/2009 12:43 AM
I presume the ISS cooling system is closed loop config. Does anyone know why they need to replenish the ammonia?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: wjbarnett on 09/04/2009 02:59 AM
Current tanks were used to fill the system, and therefore near empty. Full tanks protect verses future leak risk.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Nomadd on 09/05/2009 05:26 PM
 A little off the wall, but I was just talking about ISS reboosts to someone and they asked about ion thrusters. I'd always assumed that at 24kw/Newton you'd need too much of the station's limited electrical capacity for ion, but didn't really know. I keep seeing columnists refer to VASIMR as a possibility, but it's less efficient than a Hall effect thruster.
 Does anyone know the average drag on the structure?
 
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: hop on 09/05/2009 09:19 PM
Does anyone know the average drag on the structure?
 
The ISS status reports frequently give mean altitude loss per day, you should be able to figure it out from there. e.g.
http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/somd/reports/iss_reports/2009/09032009.html
Quote
Mean altitude loss in the last 24 hours -- 80 m
Note that this varies quite a lot depending on ISS configuration, solar activity, current altitude etc.

ISTR various kinds of continuous electric reboost have been proposed. Not only is it efficient, it can give you a cleaner microgravity environment.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: AnalogMan on 09/05/2009 11:02 PM
Does anyone know the average drag on the structure?
 
The ISS status reports frequently give mean altitude loss per day, you should be able to figure it out from there. e.g.
http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/somd/reports/iss_reports/2009/09032009.html (http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/somd/reports/iss_reports/2009/09032009.html)
Quote
Mean altitude loss in the last 24 hours -- 80 m
Note that this varies quite a lot depending on ISS configuration, solar activity, current altitude etc.

ISTR various kinds of continuous electric reboost have been proposed. Not only is it efficient, it can give you a cleaner microgravity environment.

Here's a chart I prepared earlier (I gave up after the daily ISS reports became inconsistent in reporting altitude changes).  Triangles mark the arrival of various spacecraft.  The big spikes at the beginning are due to a STS-119 boost & debris avoidance maneuver (DAM).

Average daily altitude change from mid-April to late June is -70.4 metres.

Hope this is of help.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 09/07/2009 01:24 AM
I presume the ISS cooling system is closed loop config. Does anyone know why they need to replenish the ammonia?

Even in closed config you get leaks.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Nomadd on 09/07/2009 08:33 PM
Does anyone know the average drag on the structure?
 
The ISS status reports frequently give mean altitude loss per day, you should be able to figure it out from there. e.g.
http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/somd/reports/iss_reports/2009/09032009.html (http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/somd/reports/iss_reports/2009/09032009.html)
Quote
Mean altitude loss in the last 24 hours -- 80 m
Note that this varies quite a lot depending on ISS configuration, solar activity, current altitude etc.

ISTR various kinds of continuous electric reboost have been proposed. Not only is it efficient, it can give you a cleaner microgravity environment.

Here's a chart I prepared earlier (I gave up after the daily ISS reports became inconsistent in reporting altitude changes).  Triangles mark the arrival of various spacecraft.  The big spikes at the beginning are due to a STS-119 boost & debris avoidance maneuver (DAM).

Average daily altitude change from mid-April to late June is -70.4 metres.

Hope this is of help.

 Thanks AnalogMan.  I'm getting, very roughly, 1.5N thrust continuous. That would be about 40kw with something like the 3N Hall effect thruster Glenn came up with a few years ago. A lot of juice considering there's only around 40-45kw?? available for science.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: oxford750 on 09/09/2009 01:11 AM
Re: LIVE: STS-128 Flight Day 12 - Undock, Flyaround, Late Inspection
« Reply #15 on: 09/08/2009 05:32 PM » Reply with quote 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Station manuever has begun, should take about 55 minutes to put the complex in proper orientation for undocking

Why, there is nothing in the way, why no just reorient the solar panels on ISS and the 2 Soyuz and just undock?

Thanks
Oxford750
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 09/09/2009 01:19 AM
Re: LIVE: STS-128 Flight Day 12 - Undock, Flyaround, Late Inspection
« Reply #15 on: 09/08/2009 05:32 PM » Reply with quote 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Station manuever has begun, should take about 55 minutes to put the complex in proper orientation for undocking

Why, there is nothing in the way, why no just reorient the solar panels on ISS and the 2 Soyuz and just undock?

Thanks
Oxford750

The nominal shuttle undocking procedures (which are required, if one wants a flyaround, which was the case here) require a particular undocking attitude.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 09/09/2009 02:39 AM
Do we have any video showing the complex reorientation?  I've seen a computer generated video, but never a real one.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: rdale on 09/09/2009 03:09 AM
Watch the hour today from NASA TV. If you're asking about external video from something not on the ISS - I don't know how that would be possible.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: oxford750 on 09/09/2009 11:15 AM
Re: LIVE: STS-128 Flight Day 12 - Undock, Flyaround, Late Inspection
« Reply #15 on: 09/08/2009 05:32 PM » Reply with quote 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Station manuever has begun, should take about 55 minutes to put the complex in proper orientation for undocking

Why, there is nothing in the way, why no just reorient the solar panels on ISS and the 2 Soyuz and just undock?

Thanks
Oxford750

The nominal shuttle undocking procedures (which are required, if one wants a flyaround, which was the case here) require a particular undocking attitude.


Can you please expand on that explaination please Jorge.


I mean they boosted the orbit of the ISS the other day.  Does the ISS realy need boosting of its orbit every couple of days?

Surely it does not take 55 min to move solar panels and put both ISS and Shuttle in free drift?

Thanks
Oxford750
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: wjbarnett on 09/09/2009 12:38 PM
For undocking, the stack rotates 180 degrees putting the shuttle to the front of the station along the Vbar (velocity vector). This is to "undo" the rotate that occurred after docking (somewhat protecting the shuttle TPS from MMOD strikes that have a higher probability when "facing into the wind")
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 09/09/2009 02:36 PM
Re: LIVE: STS-128 Flight Day 12 - Undock, Flyaround, Late Inspection
« Reply #15 on: 09/08/2009 05:32 PM » Reply with quote 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Station manuever has begun, should take about 55 minutes to put the complex in proper orientation for undocking

Why, there is nothing in the way, why no just reorient the solar panels on ISS and the 2 Soyuz and just undock?

Thanks
Oxford750

The nominal shuttle undocking procedures (which are required, if one wants a flyaround, which was the case here) require a particular undocking attitude.


Can you please expand on that explaination please Jorge.

You will need to expand first on that question, since I'm not sure at all what you're asking. General questions get general answers.

Quote
I mean they boosted the orbit of the ISS the other day.  Does the ISS realy need boosting of its orbit every couple of days?

No. It mostly relies on visiting vehicles (e.g. shuttle) for that. But I fail to see the connection between that and your question.

Quote
Surely it does not take 55 min to move solar panels and put both ISS and Shuttle in free drift?

It took 55 minutes for the maneuver because the maneuver was performed on ALT DAP. The maneuver must be performed very slowly to prevent loads issues on the station. And don't call me Shirley.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 09/09/2009 05:20 PM
Re: LIVE: STS-128 Flight Day 12 - Undock, Flyaround, Late Inspection
« Reply #15 on: 09/08/2009 05:32 PM » Reply with quote 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Station manuever has begun, should take about 55 minutes to put the complex in proper orientation for undocking

Why, there is nothing in the way, why no just reorient the solar panels on ISS and the 2 Soyuz and just undock?

Thanks
Oxford750

The nominal shuttle undocking procedures (which are required, if one wants a flyaround, which was the case here) require a particular undocking attitude.


Can you please expand on that explaination please Jorge.


I mean they boosted the orbit of the ISS the other day.  Does the ISS realy need boosting of its orbit every couple of days?

Surely it does not take 55 min to move solar panels and put both ISS and Shuttle in free drift?

Thanks
Oxford750

First there is a difference between a reboost  (to set up for a visiting vehicle like HTV) and a debris avoidnace maneuver.

Second, there is first to flip the ISS.  The arrays are parked long before you flip for structural reasons.  After undock we wait until the russian segemenbt has control and has gotten us back in to the nominal flight attitude, then we unpark the arrays.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Nomadd on 09/09/2009 05:57 PM
 When I saw how much current the SARJ motors drew during the P6 evaluation I kept thinking it was a misprint, it was such a tiny amount. It makes sense that they'd have to be locked down for any change in Station movement.
 Do they park them anytime Soyuz or Progress or the ATV docks?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: wjbarnett on 09/10/2009 12:08 AM
Yesterday while watching the usual green worldmap plotting ISS orbits, I saw the LAT go all the way to 51.8 (sorry, no screen shot; IIRC ISS was over western Russia at the time). I've always heard that ISS was inclined to 51.6.

So what's going on here?
 - mis-calibration/rounding of the real-time data?
 - this display is not showing accurate data or has some mis-calculation?
 - ISS altitude makes 0.2 degree difference somehow? (isn't LAT radially same though?)
 - Earth has moved/wobbled/shifted since ISS was launched?
 - something else?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: oxford750 on 09/10/2009 12:52 AM
Re: LIVE: STS-128 Flight Day 12 - Undock, Flyaround, Late Inspection
« Reply #15 on: 09/08/2009 05:32 PM » Reply with quote 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Station manuever has begun, should take about 55 minutes to put the complex in proper orientation for undocking

Why, there is nothing in the way, why no just reorient the solar panels on ISS and the 2 Soyuz and just undock?

Thanks
Oxford750

The nominal shuttle undocking procedures (which are required, if one wants a flyaround, which was the case here) require a particular undocking attitude.


Can you please expand on that explaination please Jorge.

You will need to expand first on that question, since I'm not sure at all what you're asking. General questions get general answers.

Quote
I mean they boosted the orbit of the ISS the other day.  Does the ISS realy need boosting of its orbit every couple of days?

No. It mostly relies on visiting vehicles (e.g. shuttle) for that. But I fail to see the connection between that and your question.

Quote
Surely it does not take 55 min to move solar panels and put both ISS and Shuttle in free drift?

It took 55 minutes for the maneuver because the maneuver was performed on ALT DAP. The maneuver must be performed very slowly to prevent loads issues on the station. And don't call me Shirley.


I will ask more specifec questions in the future.  With all the different answers I got I had "NO IDEA" what all was invovled, as you have so many different factors to cosider.

Thanks
Oxford750
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: oxford750 on 09/10/2009 12:55 AM
For undocking, the stack rotates 180 degrees putting the shuttle to the front of the station along the Vbar (velocity vector). This is to "undo" the rotate that occurred after docking (somewhat protecting the shuttle TPS from MMOD strikes that have a higher probability when "facing into the wind")

Thanks wjbarnett, I never knew this info before.

Oxford750
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: oxford750 on 09/10/2009 12:58 AM
Re: LIVE: STS-128 Flight Day 12 - Undock, Flyaround, Late Inspection
« Reply #15 on: 09/08/2009 05:32 PM » Reply with quote 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Station manuever has begun, should take about 55 minutes to put the complex in proper orientation for undocking

Why, there is nothing in the way, why no just reorient the solar panels on ISS and the 2 Soyuz and just undock?

Thanks
Oxford750

The nominal shuttle undocking procedures (which are required, if one wants a flyaround, which was the case here) require a particular undocking attitude.


Can you please expand on that explaination please Jorge.


I mean they boosted the orbit of the ISS the other day.  Does the ISS realy need boosting of its orbit every couple of days?

Surely it does not take 55 min to move solar panels and put both ISS and Shuttle in free drift?

Thanks
Oxford750

First there is a difference between a reboost  (to set up for a visiting vehicle like HTV) and a debris avoidnace maneuver.

Second, there is first to flip the ISS.  The arrays are parked long before you flip for structural reasons.  After undock we wait until the russian segemenbt has control and has gotten us back in to the nominal flight attitude, then we unpark the arrays.

Thanks erioladastra.


Oxford750
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 09/11/2009 02:31 AM
When I saw how much current the SARJ motors drew during the P6 evaluation I kept thinking it was a misprint, it was such a tiny amount. It makes sense that they'd have to be locked down for any change in Station movement.
 Do they park them anytime Soyuz or Progress or the ATV docks?

I don't recall the power draw off the top of my head but I don't think it is anything significant.  The arrays are parked for any vehicle docking to protect for loads induced by thruster pluming.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: pberrett on 09/13/2009 01:05 PM
Has the US ever successfully put a dog into space? I know China and Russia have done it.

cheers Peter
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 09/13/2009 02:01 PM
Has the US ever successfully put a dog into space? I know China and Russia have done it.

cheers Peter

The US never tried.  It used primates
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Nomadd on 09/13/2009 09:16 PM
Has the US ever successfully put a dog into space? I know China and Russia have done it.

cheers Peter

The US never tried.  It used primates

 Still does.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Antares on 09/13/2009 10:51 PM
The US never tried.  It used primates
Still does.

Best line of the month.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Spacenick on 09/17/2009 11:40 AM
I'd like to know how practical it would be to do crew transfer from some vehicle to the ISS with an EVA (the space craft being crappled bei the station arm and moved as close to the airlock as possible).

Im thinking of a Gemini style space craft with a graple fixture added.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jim on 09/17/2009 02:36 PM
I'd like to know how practical it would be to do crew transfer from some vehicle to the ISS with an EVA (the space craft being crappled bei the station arm and moved as close to the airlock as possible).

Im thinking of a Gemini style space craft with a graple fixture added.

what spacesuits are they wearing
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: YesRushGen on 09/17/2009 03:45 PM
Jim, he might mean an emergency 2001/Dave Bowman style transfer into the airlock.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Danderman on 09/22/2009 05:20 PM
Now that the FGB no longer has the functions of providing propulsion or electrical power from its arrays, is the interior of the FGB being stripped of the components for those functions? Can the panels be opened up, and the hardware removed, or does it still sit there?

Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: marshallsplace on 09/22/2009 07:49 PM
Does anyone know if there are strain gauges (or similar) installed on the solar arrays that could sense drag?

(From an ISS status report: [“Night Glider” drag reduction biasing of the solar arrays with BGAs (Beta Gimbal Assemblies) has been in use since the early days of ISS ops.])
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Alpha Control on 09/22/2009 08:00 PM
Jim, he might mean an emergency 2001/Dave Bowman style transfer into the airlock.


"Dave.....without your space helmet, you're going to find that rather difficult."
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: MKremer on 09/22/2009 09:56 PM
Does anyone know if there are strain gauges (or similar) installed on the solar arrays that could sense drag?

(From an ISS status report: [“Night Glider” drag reduction biasing of the solar arrays with BGAs (Beta Gimbal Assemblies) has been in use since the early days of ISS ops.])

No, there aren't. There are accelerometers on the truss itself, but they are used to measure the stresses and vibrations on the truss from the solar array movements and things like dockings and thruster firings (mainly for excess forces and overall fatigue monitoring).

Trying to gauge the extremely small forces due to drag like that would be futile - any infinitesimal drag forces would be overwhelmed by the forces of the SARJ/BGA movements and the constant movement of masses (crew/equipment/air/liquids) within the habitable ISS portions and even the truss itself (ammonia through pumps and radiators).

It's easier to determine drag data from the ground via orbital periods and altitude readings.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: ddunham on 09/23/2009 07:05 PM
Jim, he might mean an emergency 2001/Dave Bowman style transfer into the airlock.

I don't think any of the ISS ingress points have an "emergency airlock pressurization" handle that you can pull.  It's going to take a lot longer than a few seconds to shut the (non motorized) hatch and repressurize.

--
Darren
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: NavySpaceFan on 09/24/2009 07:08 PM
Question re: Truss vs. lab assembly.  Was there a study of available power to ISS that allowed the S-6 truss delivery mission (15A) to be moved after the installation of the lab modules (Node 2, Columbus and Kibo)?  In all the launch manifests until 2006, mission 15A was flown prior to 10A.  Was there more power available on the station than previously thought, and that allowed the launch of the lab modules before the whole power truss was completed?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: MKremer on 09/24/2009 10:38 PM
Question re: Truss vs. lab assembly.  Was there a study of available power to ISS that allowed the S-6 truss delivery mission (15A) to be moved after the installation of the lab modules (Node 2, Columbus and Kibo)?  In all the launch manifests until 2006, mission 15A was flown prior to 10A.  Was there more power available on the station than previously thought, and that allowed the launch of the lab modules before the whole power truss was completed?
Mostly politics? As long as NASA verified there was at least enough power available to keep the modules alive, I believe they really wanted to get the other partners' modules installed ASAP, as they had been delayed so long as a consequence of Columbia and RTF. That at least gave the governments involved a 'return on investment' reality check to see them installed as a part of the ISS, and gave the station and Shuttle mission crews a little bit of extra time to prepare them to be fully operational right away once enough power was finally available.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 09/24/2009 11:09 PM
Question re: Truss vs. lab assembly.  Was there a study of available power to ISS that allowed the S-6 truss delivery mission (15A) to be moved after the installation of the lab modules (Node 2, Columbus and Kibo)?  In all the launch manifests until 2006, mission 15A was flown prior to 10A.  Was there more power available on the station than previously thought, and that allowed the launch of the lab modules before the whole power truss was completed?
Mostly politics? As long as NASA verified there was at least enough power available to keep the modules alive, I believe they really wanted to get the other partners' modules installed ASAP, as they had been delayed so long as a consequence of Columbia and RTF. That at least gave the governments involved a 'return on investment' reality check to see them installed as a part of the ISS, and gave the station and Shuttle mission crews a little bit of extra time to prepare them to be fully operational right away once enough power was finally available.


That is more or less correct. There was no change in the amount of available power. The partners wanted maximum utilization of their modules prior to shuttle retirement so their flights were accelerated ahead of S6.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: NavySpaceFan on 09/24/2009 11:40 PM
Question re: Truss vs. lab assembly.  Was there a study of available power to ISS that allowed the S-6 truss delivery mission (15A) to be moved after the installation of the lab modules (Node 2, Columbus and Kibo)?  In all the launch manifests until 2006, mission 15A was flown prior to 10A.  Was there more power available on the station than previously thought, and that allowed the launch of the lab modules before the whole power truss was completed?
Mostly politics? As long as NASA verified there was at least enough power available to keep the modules alive, I believe they really wanted to get the other partners' modules installed ASAP, as they had been delayed so long as a consequence of Columbia and RTF. That at least gave the governments involved a 'return on investment' reality check to see them installed as a part of the ISS, and gave the station and Shuttle mission crews a little bit of extra time to prepare them to be fully operational right away once enough power was finally available.


That is more or less correct. There was no change in the amount of available power. The partners wanted maximum utilization of their modules prior to shuttle retirement so their flights were accelerated ahead of S6.

Okay, thanks!!!!
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: erioladastra on 09/26/2009 05:39 PM
Question re: Truss vs. lab assembly.  Was there a study of available power to ISS that allowed the S-6 truss delivery mission (15A) to be moved after the installation of the lab modules (Node 2, Columbus and Kibo)?  In all the launch manifests until 2006, mission 15A was flown prior to 10A.  Was there more power available on the station than previously thought, and that allowed the launch of the lab modules before the whole power truss was completed?
Mostly politics? As long as NASA verified there was at least enough power available to keep the modules alive, I believe they really wanted to get the other partners' modules installed ASAP, as they had been delayed so long as a consequence of Columbia and RTF. That at least gave the governments involved a 'return on investment' reality check to see them installed as a part of the ISS, and gave the station and Shuttle mission crews a little bit of extra time to prepare them to be fully operational right away once enough power was finally available.


That is more or less correct. There was no change in the amount of available power. The partners wanted maximum utilization of their modules prior to shuttle retirement so their flights were accelerated ahead of S6.

Correct - though to clarify.  Both ESA's and JAXA's programs were under threat of cancelation by their respective goverment bodies.  Max utilzation was nto really required so much as just getting the things up there first to keep the money flowing.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: aquarius on 09/29/2009 06:10 PM
Today, during an ESA in-flight event, De Winne mentioned that most of the ISS modules don´t have windows. My question is: which modules have windows?

Thanks.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: stockman on 09/29/2009 06:18 PM
Today, during an ESA in-flight event, De Winne mentioned that most of the ISS modules don´t have windows. My question is: which modules have windows?

Thanks.

Lab
Kibo
Zvezda


pretty sure that is it for now until Cupola gets on board (not sure about the hatches on the two nodes - I seem to recall they have small windows but not sure if that is common on each hatch or not??)
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: aquarius on 09/29/2009 06:24 PM
Today, during an ESA in-flight event, De Winne mentioned that most of the ISS modules don´t have windows. My question is: which modules have windows?

Thanks.

Lab
Kibo
Zvezda


pretty sure that is it for now until Cupola gets on board (not sure about the hatches on the two nodes - I seem to recall they have small windows but not sure if that is common on each hatch or not??)

By Lab, do you mean Destiny?
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: anik on 09/29/2009 06:29 PM
Lab
Kibo
Zvezda

I think that windows are also at Pirs (in two EVA hatches), Unity and Harmony (in CBM hatches).
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: stockman on 09/29/2009 06:50 PM
Today, during an ESA in-flight event, De Winne mentioned that most of the ISS modules don´t have windows. My question is: which modules have windows?

Thanks.

Lab
Kibo
Zvezda


pretty sure that is it for now until Cupola gets on board (not sure about the hatches on the two nodes - I seem to recall they have small windows but not sure if that is common on each hatch or not??)

By Lab, do you mean Destiny?

Yes, I mean destiny...
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 09/29/2009 10:19 PM
Lab
Kibo
Zvezda

I think that windows are also at Pirs (in two EVA hatches), Unity and Harmony (in CBM hatches).

That's correct. There's a CBCS hatch window in each active CBM.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: brahmanknight on 09/30/2009 05:07 PM
If a Soyuz was being launched, and had to abort the mission before it got to the ISS, how much longer could the Soyuz that is being replaced wait before it has to land? 

And how long will the wait be to get another Soyuz to launch? 
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: simon-th on 09/30/2009 05:27 PM
If a Soyuz was being launched, and had to abort the mission before it got to the ISS, how much longer could the Soyuz that is being replaced wait before it has to land? 

And how long will the wait be to get another Soyuz to launch? 

TMA-9 stayed in orbit for 215 days. That's 5 weeks longer than the nominal 6-month period for on-orbit stays of Soyuz.

If I recall correctly, early in the ISS program RSA suggested 1-year crew rotations on ISS, instead of 6-months rotations. That was based on the assumption of using the Soyuz-TM, which would suggest Energia's engineers aren't worried about long stays of Soyuz on orbit.

Currently Soyuz launches are scheduled every 3 months. I very much doubt they could move forward the launch date very much for the next Soyuz if one has to abort its mission. They would just continue with the schedule as is and leave one part of the expedition crew in orbit for 9 months.
Title: Re: General ISS Q&A thread
Post by: Jorge on 09/30/2009 06:11 PM
If a Soyuz was being launched, and had to abort the mission before it got to the ISS, how much longer could the Soyuz that is being replaced wait before it has to land? 

And how long will the wait be to get another Soyuz to launch? 

TMA-9 stayed in orbit for 215 days. Th