Author Topic: Russian Segment  (Read 161881 times)

Online The-Hammer

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 410
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Russian Segment
« Reply #180 on: 03/19/2008 05:26 pm »
Quote
hanschristian - 19/3/2008  11:22 AM

I almost forgot about the P-1 radiators... yeah, if Node 3 will be placed on port, then it may, or will impair rotation of the radiators...

I don't think it was an issue of NO clearance, just an issue of TIGHT clearances, especially with the robotics ops that were going on (PMA2 relocate, PMA2+Node2 relocate) and the Node2 outfitting spacewalks. Since those radiators weren't needed yet, it was easier just to leave them retracted until Node2 was relocated.

If Node3 is placed on Node1 port, then they can park the TRRJ when Node3 outfitting spacewalks and any relocation robotics are occuring.

Picture 1
Picture 2
Picture 3
Grant Imahara: Oxygen deficiency alarm? Is that something I should be worried about?
NASA worker: Only if it goes off.

Offline ShuttleDiscovery

  • NASA's first teenage astronaut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2141
  • UK
    • Shuttle Discovery's Space Page
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Russian Segment
« Reply #181 on: 03/19/2008 06:08 pm »
I thought you wouldn't be able to see much of Node 3 because of the truss, but after seeing those pictures of Node2 after STS-120, it's actually very visible.

Is MRM1 really needed now? Can Orion be docked to PMA3 on Unity nadir, and a Soyuz on Zarya at the same time, or do we HAVE to have MRM1 as an extension?

And if MRM1 was cancelled (and the russians still wanted the Zarya port for Soyuz) could PMA3 be located to the downward facing port of Node3 once it's attached to Unity port CBM so there is no clearance issues?

Offline mr.columbus

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 911
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Russian Segment
« Reply #182 on: 03/19/2008 09:23 pm »
Is MRM1 really needed now? Can Orion be docked to PMA3 on Unity nadir, and a Soyuz on Zarya at the same time, or do we HAVE to have MRM1 as an extension?
-----------
You need 4 Russian docking ports to manage the traffic on the Russian side. With a full crew of 6 two ports will always be (at any time) occupied by 2 Soyuz. For crew exchange you need a 3rd port for Soyuz, which only leaves one other port free at some times (for ATV, Progress etc.) BUT only if you get MRM1 or DCM, whatever you want to call it, up to the station.

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22571
  • Liked: 924
  • Likes Given: 352
Re: Russian Segment
« Reply #183 on: 03/21/2008 06:38 pm »
If MRM1 is launched and the Node 3 is placed as shown, will there not be clearance issues for Orion if it is to dock at PMA-3?  seems it woulld come into play during orion expedition transfers where there will be two orions at the station at the same time.

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1297
  • Liked: 90
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Russian Segment
« Reply #184 on: 03/22/2008 10:38 pm »
"I think Node-3 can't be located to either side of Unity because it would interfere the radiators on the truss in this position."

Not sure what you are basing that on but that is not correct.  Node 3 will now be on the Port side of Node 1.  There is no clearance issue.

The only clearance issues with Node -2 + PMA2 was deploying the radiators required the FGB arrays to be retracted.

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 9
RE: Russian Segment
« Reply #185 on: 03/23/2008 06:17 am »
I know there are cable and fluid trays on S0 to connect Node 3 to the power and cooling system (much as for Node-2). I assume their configuration (dimensions etc.) is independent of where Node-3 is located?

Analyst

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1297
  • Liked: 90
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Russian Segment
« Reply #186 on: 03/24/2008 12:06 am »
"I assume their configuration (dimensions etc.) is independent of where Node-3 is located? "

Essentially.  In fact the new location makes some of these umbilicals shorter.

Offline MSSpace

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 17
  • Siegen / NRW / Germany
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Russian Segment
« Reply #187 on: 04/16/2008 02:13 pm »
Quote
erioladastra - 23/3/2008  1:38 AM
Not sure what you are basing that on but that is not correct.  Node 3 will now be on the Port side of Node 1.  There is no clearance issue.

Are you really sure about that? Ok, I'm not keen on the exact measurements of the ISS-Elements but if I use a ruler on the picture the radiators are very likely to touch Node-2 in this position. Maybe the radiators are not necessarily needed and retracted again for this Node-3 position until the DCM/MRM is installed?
I have learned even if a diagram is provided by NASA that dosn't necessarily mean that it is fact or true :frown:
Greetings,
MSSpace...

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Russian Segment
« Reply #188 on: 04/16/2008 03:53 pm »
Quote
MSSpace - 16/4/2008  4:13 PM

1) Are you really sure about that?
2) Ok, I'm not keen on the exact measurements of the ISS-Elements but if I use a ruler on the picture the radiators are very likely to touch Node-2 in this position.
3) Maybe the radiators are not necessarily needed and retracted again for this Node-3 position until the DCM/MRM is installed?

1) Yes.
2) Keep in mind the radiators rotate at a point above the plane of Node 3 (and all other US segment modules exeapt the JEM logistics module). The radiators are on the P1 truss, which is above the lab, hence above Node 2.
3) They are needed and won't be retracted. There is clearance.

Analyst

Offline Thorny

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 711
  • San Angelo, Texas
  • Liked: 147
  • Likes Given: 184
Re: Russian Segment
« Reply #189 on: 04/16/2008 04:57 pm »
Quote
mr.columbus - 19/3/2008  5:23 PM

You need 4 Russian docking ports to manage the traffic on the Russian side. With a full crew of 6 two ports will always be (at any time) occupied by 2 Soyuz. For crew exchange you need a 3rd port for Soyuz, which only leaves one other port free at some times (for ATV, Progress etc.) BUT only if you get MRM1 or DCM, whatever you want to call it, up to the station.

Is it absolutely a requirement that the replacement Soyuz arrives before its predecessor departs? The port shortage problem could be solved by simply having the first Soyuz depart before arrival of the second thus freeing its port. That still leaves three crew on board ISS for crew transition/continuity.


Online The-Hammer

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 410
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Russian Segment
« Reply #190 on: 04/16/2008 06:31 pm »
Quote
Thorny - 16/4/2008  12:57 PM

Quote
mr.columbus - 19/3/2008  5:23 PM

You need 4 Russian docking ports to manage the traffic on the Russian side. With a full crew of 6 two ports will always be (at any time) occupied by 2 Soyuz. For crew exchange you need a 3rd port for Soyuz, which only leaves one other port free at some times (for ATV, Progress etc.) BUT only if you get MRM1 or DCM, whatever you want to call it, up to the station.

Is it absolutely a requirement that the replacement Soyuz arrives before its predecessor departs? The port shortage problem could be solved by simply having the first Soyuz depart before arrival of the second thus freeing its port. That still leaves three crew on board ISS for crew transition/continuity.


It's not an ABSOLUTE requirement, but highly desired. The astronauts arriving in the new Soyuz are taking over the duties of the one's who are about to depart. If both sets of astronauts are there at the same time they can have an in-person handover.

Think about all the times you've taken new jobs or new positions or even just new duties and how much easier that went on those occasions where your predecessor was available to orient you.
Grant Imahara: Oxygen deficiency alarm? Is that something I should be worried about?
NASA worker: Only if it goes off.

Offline catfry

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Russian Segment
« Reply #191 on: 04/16/2008 09:19 pm »
Could they not simply have three person crews, but where the handover activities took 3 months instead of a week? Ok so you wouldn't call it a handover period, and the crew could be called a six person crew, just with two parts that arrive/depart with three months difference.
So Soyuz departs ISS with half 6 person crew, and immediately get replaced by new Soyuz with new 3 person complement to six person crew, and three months later the other half of original six person crew depart and gets replaced and so on.

It seems to me to be the easiest way to reach almost continuous 6 persons except when the exchange takes place. The flow of launches would also be regular, making it easier on the ground efforts.

Of course it would be a problem to figure out what number to give the expedition...

Online The-Hammer

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 410
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
RE: Russian Segment
« Reply #192 on: 04/16/2008 09:42 pm »
You still wouldn't have direct handover from one crewman to the next. As I understand it the current plan is as follows:

Starting:

Expedition X
Soyuz 1
CDR Alpha
FE1 Bravo
FE2 Charlie

Soyuz 2
FE3 Delta
FE4 Echo
FE5 Foxtrot


Then Soyuz 3 docks with CDR Gold, FE1 Hotel, and FE2 India.

Alpha, Bravo, and Charlie conduct a week of handover with Gold, Hotel, and India.

Then Soyuz 1 with Alpha, Bravo, and Charlie undocks.

Two months later Soyuz 4 docks with FE3 Juliet, FE4 Kilo, and FE5 Lima.

Delta, Echo, and Foxtrot then conduct a week of handover with Juliet, Kilo, and Lima.

Then Soyuz 2 with Delta, Echo, and Foxtrot undocks.


4 months later Soyuz 5 docks with CDR Mike, FE1 November, and FE2 Oscar and the process repeats.




There's a document on L-2 "Six Crew Strategic Planning Document", that also discusses handover by all 6 crewmen from both the incoming and outgoing Expeditions when there are 4 Russian docking ports available, which would bring the ISS crew to 12 for a week twice a year.




Grant Imahara: Oxygen deficiency alarm? Is that something I should be worried about?
NASA worker: Only if it goes off.

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1297
  • Liked: 90
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Russian Segment
« Reply #193 on: 04/19/2008 04:25 pm »
"Are you really sure about that? Ok, I'm not keen on the exact measurements of the ISS-Elements but if I use a ruler on the picture the radiators are very likely to touch Node-2 in this position. Maybe the radiators are not necessarily needed and retracted again for this Node-3 position until the DCM/MRM is installed?
I have learned even if a diagram is provided by NASA that dosn't necessarily mean that it is fact or true"

It is 100% fact.  But I don't see what you mean about hitting the Node 2.  You mean Node 3?  No, the radiators will be clear of the Node 3, even when the cupola is based ont he end code (I don't recall the distance but several feet clear).  However, during berthing and relocation the TRRJs will have to be parked.

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1297
  • Liked: 90
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Russian Segment
« Reply #194 on: 04/19/2008 04:28 pm »
Still being worked out but likely what we will do is that each CDR will only be for 3 months - the first 3 months may be as "deputy" CDR and then when that CDr leaves, they would become CDR and a new deputy would be listed.  All these details are still beign worked out.

Offline Spirit

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 180
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Russian Segment
« Reply #195 on: 04/29/2008 09:10 pm »
How is it going with the future Russian ISS components?

1. What will be launched?
2. At what stage is the development?
3. Any target dates?
Regards,
Atanas

Offline mr.columbus

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 911
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Russian Segment
« Reply #196 on: 04/29/2008 09:19 pm »
Quote
Spirit - 29/4/2008  5:10 PM

How is it going with the future Russian ISS components?

1. What will be launched?
2. At what stage is the development?
3. Any target dates?

1. Currently the only elements to be launched for sure (at least we know the hardware is real and people are working on it) are the MLM and the MRM-1 aka DCM.
2. The MLM is the old FGB-2, the MRM-1 is based on the old pressurized section of the Russian Science Power Module. Apparently both modules are being worked on already.
3. MLM target date: NET 2011 for Proton (previously NET 2009); MRM-1 target date: NET early 2010 on Shuttle (STS-131)

All other planned future expansions of the Russian section only exist on paper.

Offline anik

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7483
  • Liked: 513
  • Likes Given: 294
RE: Russian Segment
« Reply #197 on: 04/30/2008 04:04 am »
Quote
Spirit - 30/4/2008  1:10 AM

1. What will be launched?
3. Any target dates?

Is it so difficult to find answers to these questions on one of previous pages of this thread?

August 15, 2009 - the launch of Mini-Research Module no. 2 (MRM-2) [in structure of Progress M-SO2 cargo ship-module] by Soyuz rocket;
April 8, 2010 - the launch of Mini-Research Module no. 1 (MRM-1) by the Space Shuttle Discovery (STS-132);
Not earlier than middle of 2011 - the launch of Multipurpose Laboratory Module (MLM) by Proton-M rocket.

Quote
Spirit - 30/4/2008  1:10 AM

2. At what stage is the development?

MRM-2 and MRM-1 are under construction very intensively at RSC Energia. I was told the body of MRM-2 is already built. The stage of construction of MLM and its future are unknown for me for now.

Offline mr.columbus

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 911
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Russian Segment
« Reply #198 on: 04/30/2008 07:44 am »

Good to see MRM-2 is also worked on.

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2178
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 357
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Russian Segment
« Reply #199 on: 05/26/2008 03:26 pm »
Do the "Mini Research Modules" provide any opportunities for research? Originally these modules were only to provide docking and airlock or docking and stowage space.


Tags: