-
#20
by
nacnud
on 15 Mar, 2008 11:46
-
Maybe having node 3 on the port CBM of unity is so the nadir port of Zarya is kept open. Having Node 3 on the Nair port of Unit blocks this. Node 3 can always be moved to Nadir Unity once a permanent module has been installed at Nadir Zarya
-
#21
by
erioladastra
on 15 Mar, 2008 14:22
-
"Node 3 on port CBM of Node 1 and Cupola will be on Node 1 Nadir CBM? "
No, Node 3 on port side of Node 1, and Cupola on Nadir of Node 3. We did look at Cupola on nadir of Mode 1 which actually would be slightly better but would cost more than it is worth to replan for it there.
-
#22
by
ShuttleDiscovery
on 15 Mar, 2008 14:31
-
By having Node 3 attached to the port Unity CBM, is this a sign that the Russian DCM module has been delayed?
-
#23
by
JJ..
on 15 Mar, 2008 15:33
-
so .. will node 3 be on the opposite side of unity to quest ?
have i got that right ?
thanks,
JJ..
-
#24
by
ShuttleDiscovery
on 15 Mar, 2008 15:41
-
JJ.. - 15/3/2008 5:33 PM
so .. will node 3 be on the opposite side of unity to quest ?
have i got that right ?
thanks,
JJ..
Apparantly, but it seems strange why they would do this. Having Node 3 on the nadir port seemed far better...
-
#25
by
redgryphon
on 15 Mar, 2008 16:27
-
I think the DCM is part of this question. When is it due to arrive at KSC?
-
#26
by
ShuttleDiscovery
on 15 Mar, 2008 16:30
-
redgryphon - 15/3/2008 6:27 PM
Wasn't there an issue with soyuz/progress dockings to Zarya nadir port if Node 3 was installed on Node 1 nadir? At least until the Russian DCM was installed?
Yes, but DCM was scheduled to be launched before Node 3 (not sure about the schedule now), so there wouldn't be a problem...
-
#27
by
hanschristian
on 16 Mar, 2008 03:59
-
I think Node 3 nadir of Node 1 would be much better...
If Node 3's gonna ba permanently bolted to Node 1 port, practically all of Node 3's CBMs are inaccessible to future expansion of the ISS (if there IS a plan), plus PMA 3 cannot be used for its main purpose., leaving the ISS 1 docking port short... and the Cupola would be limited in its SSRMS workstation capability... although Earth Observation would not be compromised much...
I think what erioladastra's opinion is more valid for the meantime, to give way for the DCM to be docked on Zarya's Nadir port... it makes a lot more sense to me...
But for the meantime, I'll just wait for them to launch these things...
BTW, what is the current status of the DCM?
-
#28
by
Chandonn
on 16 Mar, 2008 13:23
-
hanschristian - 16/3/2008 12:59 AM
I think Node 3 nadir of Node 1 would be much better...
If Node 3's gonna ba permanently bolted to Node 1 port, practically all of Node 3's CBMs are inaccessible to future expansion of the ISS (if there IS a plan), plus PMA 3 cannot be used for its main purpose., leaving the ISS 1 docking port short... and the Cupola would be limited in its SSRMS workstation capability... although Earth Observation would not be compromised much...
I think what erioladastra's opinion is more valid for the meantime, to give way for the DCM to be docked on Zarya's Nadir port... it makes a lot more sense to me...
But for the meantime, I'll just wait for them to launch these things...
BTW, what is the current status of the DCM?
Well, if DCM is still slated to be launched by a Proton, it may be a while after the recent failure. I seem to recall a few ideas about bringing it up via shuttle, but DCM was designed for a Proton, so I'm not sure how well that would work.
-
#29
by
ShuttleDiscovery
on 16 Mar, 2008 14:24
-
-
#30
by
hektor
on 16 Mar, 2008 15:45
-
Aren't you mixing MLM and DCM ?
-
#31
by
brahmanknight
on 16 Mar, 2008 15:53
-
Yeah....the Multipurpose Labratory Module will be launched Proton ( if it ever does ) and the Docking Cargo Module will be launched by shuttle on STS 131.
-
#32
by
hanschristian
on 17 Mar, 2008 11:04
-
Will the DCM be the last module to be flown to the ISS to be considered "complete"?
And also, I've heard that the AMS experiment instruments are still "under construction", but from what I've learned from here, there's no shuttle launch available for it...
so what would be the future of this equipment
-
#33
by
Jim
on 17 Mar, 2008 11:11
-
hanschristian - 17/3/2008 8:04 AM
And also, I've heard that the AMS experiment instruments are still "under construction", but from what I've learned from here, there's no shuttle launch available for it...
so what would be the future of this equipment
TBD
-
#34
by
Jim
on 17 Mar, 2008 19:36
-
hanschristian - 16/3/2008 12:59 AM
I think Node 3 nadir of Node 1 would be much better...
1. If Node 3's gonna ba permanently bolted to Node 1 port, practically all of Node 3's CBMs are inaccessible to future expansion of the ISS (if there IS a plan)
2. , plus PMA 3 cannot be used for its main purpose., leaving the ISS 1 docking port short..
1. What expansion? there is none.
2. How so?
-
#35
by
hanschristian
on 19 Mar, 2008 03:36
-
Jim - 17/3/2008 3:36 PM
hanschristian - 16/3/2008 12:59 AM
I think Node 3 nadir of Node 1 would be much better...
1. If Node 3's gonna ba permanently bolted to Node 1 port, practically all of Node 3's CBMs are inaccessible to future expansion of the ISS (if there IS a plan)
2. , plus PMA 3 cannot be used for its main purpose., leaving the ISS 1 docking port short..
1. What expansion? there is none.
2. How so?
1. I'm just making an assumption that since Node 3 will still be equipped with CBMs, they may consider expanding the station at some point after the official construction timeline is over, and/or if and only if NASA would extend ISS operations beyond 2016... After all, why bother making Node 3 with all of those unused CBMs (and I mean no module permanently bolted in it)? Why just make it with only the necessary CBMs in it, and sump the rest and put a permanent plug in it, just like those deleted docking ports on Zvezda's port and starboad side?
2. My reason for this is I was thinking during that time that the Cupola will be placed in Node 1 nadir port, not Node 3 nadir port... and that the PMA 3 would be berthed somewhere in Node 3, but after seeing the latest graphic for the current final planned configuration, then my reason is invalid anymore...
But that leaves me a question, is there any proximity issues for any future docking spacecraft that would use PMA 3? The DCM is just a few meters from it... so is there any issue?
-
#36
by
Jim
on 19 Mar, 2008 10:31
-
hanschristian - 19/3/2008 12:36 AM
After all, why bother making Node 3 with all of those unused CBMs (and I mean no module permanently bolted in it)? Why just make it with only the necessary CBMs in it, and sump the rest and put a permanent plug in it, just like those deleted docking ports on Zvezda's port and starboad side?
Because it is cheaper than making a 3rd node configuration.
-
#37
by
hanschristian
on 19 Mar, 2008 14:32
-
Jim - 19/3/2008 6:31 AM
hanschristian - 19/3/2008 12:36 AM
After all, why bother making Node 3 with all of those unused CBMs (and I mean no module permanently bolted in it)? Why just make it with only the necessary CBMs in it, and sump the rest and put a permanent plug in it, just like those deleted docking ports on Zvezda's port and starboad side?
Because it is cheaper than making a 3rd node configuration.
Third Node config, you mean a redesign or remanufacture? A bit confused on that part... sorry...
Also, I've read in the Russian Segment thread about the issue of Node 3 being not possible to be placed on Node 1 port because of the proximity issue of the Node to the P-1 truss radiators, and practically the reason why those radiators weren't deployed at the same time as the S-1 truss radiators during STS-120...
-
#38
by
Jim
on 19 Mar, 2008 14:49
-
hanschristian - 19/3/2008 11:32 AM
Third Node config, you mean a redesign or remanufacture? A bit confused on that part... sorry...
.
new drawings and analysis.
-
#39
by
hanschristian
on 20 Mar, 2008 15:26
-
Jim - 19/3/2008 10:49 AM
hanschristian - 19/3/2008 11:32 AM
Third Node config, you mean a redesign or remanufacture? A bit confused on that part... sorry...
.
new drawings and analysis.
Ah I see... thanks!
