-
#80
by
arkaska
on 12 Sep, 2009 23:16
-
At this point even extending the shuttle to 2011 won't change where Node 3 goes at this point. If we add more shuttles and Orion is really coming in the 'near future', then it might move. However, like I said, there is not neccesarily a reason to at this point. A lot depends on what happens in the ISS program and if a real need is identified.
And the only real reason I can see is if another module coming up. And that's a BIG if.
Well, erm, we do have another module coming up. PLM Raffaello. 
But that will have its place on Node 1 zenith. I was talking about a module that isn't planned today and will need a place currently not available.
Nit (because it's often-repeated): If it goes on Node 1 Zenith, they'll have to move the Z1 truss.
The earth facing port then, I always mix up the names of all the ports.
-
#81
by
erioladastra
on 13 Sep, 2009 16:15
-
At this point even extending the shuttle to 2011 won't change where Node 3 goes at this point. If we add more shuttles and Orion is really coming in the 'near future', then it might move. However, like I said, there is not neccesarily a reason to at this point. A lot depends on what happens in the ISS program and if a real need is identified.
And the only real reason I can see is if another module coming up. And that's a BIG if.
Well, erm, we do have another module coming up. PLM Raffaello.
There are enough ports for the PLM with Node 3 on the port side. PLM will be just fine on Node 1 nadir.
-
#82
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 14 Sep, 2009 05:06
-
At this point even extending the shuttle to 2011 won't change where Node 3 goes at this point. If we add more shuttles and Orion is really coming in the 'near future', then it might move. However, like I said, there is not neccesarily a reason to at this point. A lot depends on what happens in the ISS program and if a real need is identified.
And the only real reason I can see is if another module coming up. And that's a BIG if.
Well, erm, we do have another module coming up. PLM Raffaello.
There are enough ports for the PLM with Node 3 on the port side. PLM will be just fine on Node 1 nadir.
however it will obstruct the viewing area for the cupola, while it will not on node 2 zenith
-
#83
by
Norm Hartnett
on 14 Sep, 2009 18:19
-
however it will obstruct the viewing area for the cupola, while it will not on node 2 zenith
Node 2 zenith is not an option as I understand the situation for a couple of reasons; the primary one of which is its high MMOD risk. N2z is also the backup placement location for both shuttle MPLM and free flight modules such as HTV should a problem develop with the Node 2 nadir port.
-
#84
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 14 Sep, 2009 19:52
-
Node 2 zenith is not an option as I understand the situation for a couple of reasons; the primary one of which is its high MMOD risk. N2z is also the backup placement location for both shuttle MPLM and free flight modules such as HTV should a problem develop with the Node 2 nadir port.
there will be the same amount of MMOD risk at N2 zenith as there is at n1 nadir, as both are in the plane of motion. Also, without PMA-3 it would not be hard to berth a visiting spacecraft to node 1 nadir as the SSRMS and craft would not be obstructed by structures as much as they would be going to N2 zenith
-
#85
by
Jorge
on 14 Sep, 2009 19:54
-
Node 2 zenith is not an option as I understand the situation for a couple of reasons; the primary one of which is its high MMOD risk. N2z is also the backup placement location for both shuttle MPLM and free flight modules such as HTV should a problem develop with the Node 2 nadir port.
there will be the same amount of MMOD risk at N2 zenith as there is at n1 nadir, as both are in the plane of motion.
Incorrect. The ISS TEA attitude is pitched down several degrees, so N2 and Destiny provide some MMOD shadowing for N1n. Also, the MMOD flux is higher on the top sides than the bottom.
-
#86
by
stockman
on 14 Sep, 2009 20:02
-
cupola nicely mated and ready...
-
#87
by
arkaska
on 14 Sep, 2009 20:52
-
cupola nicely mated and ready...
I thought it was going to be launched in the permanent position, I guess I was wrong. So does the Cupola have a hatch like all the other modules?
(they should have several Cupolas spread around the station
)
-
#88
by
psloss
on 14 Sep, 2009 21:03
-
cupola nicely mated and ready...
I thought it was going to be launched in the permanent position, I guess I was wrong. So does the Cupola have a hatch like all the other modules?
Can't be launched on any of the radial CBMs, won't fit in the orbiter. Z1 also has a hatch and vestibule.
-
#89
by
simon-th
on 14 Sep, 2009 21:07
-
(they should have several Cupolas spread around the station )
Two were originally planned as far as I know. But they were determined to actually not be required. Actually, even that one Cupola isn't really required. It's more a "nice to have."
-
#90
by
arkaska
on 14 Sep, 2009 21:52
-
cupola nicely mated and ready...
I thought it was going to be launched in the permanent position, I guess I was wrong. So does the Cupola have a hatch like all the other modules?
Can't be launched on any of the radial CBMs, won't fit in the orbiter. Z1 also has a hatch and vestibule.
Of course it wouldn't fit the orbiter, maybe I should use my brain next time. But does the Cupola have a hatch? I can't see where it would fit in an open configuration.
Had no idea Z1 had an pressurized vestibule, always heard is completely unpressurized.
-
#91
by
Nomadd
on 14 Sep, 2009 22:11
-
Node 2 zenith is not an option as I understand the situation for a couple of reasons; the primary one of which is its high MMOD risk. N2z is also the backup placement location for both shuttle MPLM and free flight modules such as HTV should a problem develop with the Node 2 nadir port.
there will be the same amount of MMOD risk at N2 zenith as there is at n1 nadir, as both are in the plane of motion.
Incorrect. The ISS TEA attitude is pitched down several degrees, so N2 and Destiny provide some MMOD shadowing for N1n. Also, the MMOD flux is higher on the top sides than the bottom.
Wouldn't you rather have the MPLM provide some shadowing for Destiny?
-
#92
by
Jorge
on 14 Sep, 2009 22:26
-
Node 2 zenith is not an option as I understand the situation for a couple of reasons; the primary one of which is its high MMOD risk. N2z is also the backup placement location for both shuttle MPLM and free flight modules such as HTV should a problem develop with the Node 2 nadir port.
there will be the same amount of MMOD risk at N2 zenith as there is at n1 nadir, as both are in the plane of motion.
Incorrect. The ISS TEA attitude is pitched down several degrees, so N2 and Destiny provide some MMOD shadowing for N1n. Also, the MMOD flux is higher on the top sides than the bottom.
Wouldn't you rather have the MPLM provide some shadowing for Destiny?
Destiny already has adequate shielding for its placement at the station. The PLM does not.
-
#93
by
Jorge
on 14 Sep, 2009 22:27
-
cupola nicely mated and ready...
I thought it was going to be launched in the permanent position, I guess I was wrong. So does the Cupola have a hatch like all the other modules?
Can't be launched on any of the radial CBMs, won't fit in the orbiter. Z1 also has a hatch and vestibule.
Of course it wouldn't fit the orbiter, maybe I should use my brain next time. But does the Cupola have a hatch? I can't see where it would fit in an open configuration.
The Cupola has no hatch.
-
#94
by
YesRushGen
on 15 Sep, 2009 16:03
-
Had no idea Z1 had an pressurized vestibule, always heard is completely unpressurized.
I remember this coming up before. It is known as the Z1 Dome, if I recall. At one point, someone posted pics of the dome area here.
You can read about the procedure they used to access the volume here:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=16792Preparatory to accessing the "dome" volume of the Z1 truss, the crew removed the RED from the Node "ceiling". (RED was temporarily removed from its Node location by disconnecting parts from the hardmount plate, in order to gain access to the dome hatch. Tomorrow, two new and two old support block and pad assemblies will be reinstalled after lubrication. Afterwards the RED will be recalibrated.)
The crew then ingressed the Z1 dome and rearranged stowage equipment in the normally sealed space. (This was the second of a three-part stowage reconfiguration aimed at maximizing available stowage space and alleviating some of the current stowage congestion in an effort to improve habitability on ISS. Since there was no pressure inside the Z1 volume, the crew first opened the MPEV (manual pressure equalization valve), and the resulting change in cabin pressure was to verify that there was no leak from Z1 to vacuum before hatch opening. Wearing goggles and dust masks, the crew then opened the hatch and ingressed the space. They removed items approved for stowage into PMA-3 (Pressurized Mating Adapter 3) and then filled the empty space with hardware approved for the Z1 environment. The hatch was closed afterwards.)
Edit: In the KSC Media Gallery, there are images of Z1 before it's flight. This one shows the exterior of the dome area. It's on the right.
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=4694Still trying to find interior images. No luck yet.
-
#95
by
erioladastra
on 16 Sep, 2009 17:14
-
however it will obstruct the viewing area for the cupola, while it will not on node 2 zenith
Node 2 zenith is not an option as I understand the situation for a couple of reasons; the primary one of which is its high MMOD risk. N2z is also the backup placement location for both shuttle MPLM and free flight modules such as HTV should a problem develop with the Node 2 nadir port.
Actually N2z is perfectly fine. Any place is going to require the PLM to increase its MMOD shielding. Until last week when it was decided to leave Node 3 on N1 port, N2z was the preffered spot for the PLM since it would be close to your visiting vehicles. The crew wants the PLM to be along the axis of the station for efficiency so N2z or N1n works equally well.
PLM on N1n does not affect any planned/needed views from the cupola.
-
#96
by
Jorge
on 16 Sep, 2009 18:17
-
however it will obstruct the viewing area for the cupola, while it will not on node 2 zenith
Node 2 zenith is not an option as I understand the situation for a couple of reasons; the primary one of which is its high MMOD risk. N2z is also the backup placement location for both shuttle MPLM and free flight modules such as HTV should a problem develop with the Node 2 nadir port.
Actually N2z is perfectly fine. Any place is going to require the PLM to increase its MMOD shielding. Until last week when it was decided to leave Node 3 on N1 port, N2z was the preffered spot for the PLM since it would be close to your visiting vehicles. The crew wants the PLM to be along the axis of the station for efficiency so N2z or N1n works equally well.
PLM on N1n does not affect any planned/needed views from the cupola.
It will, however, affect Orion's need for a second docking port.
-
#97
by
Jorge
on 16 Sep, 2009 21:51
-
however it will obstruct the viewing area for the cupola, while it will not on node 2 zenith
Node 2 zenith is not an option as I understand the situation for a couple of reasons; the primary one of which is its high MMOD risk. N2z is also the backup placement location for both shuttle MPLM and free flight modules such as HTV should a problem develop with the Node 2 nadir port.
Actually N2z is perfectly fine. Any place is going to require the PLM to increase its MMOD shielding. Until last week when it was decided to leave Node 3 on N1 port, N2z was the preffered spot for the PLM since it would be close to your visiting vehicles. The crew wants the PLM to be along the axis of the station for efficiency so N2z or N1n works equally well.
PLM on N1n does not affect any planned/needed views from the cupola.
It will, however, affect Orion's need for a second docking port.
Learned the answer today. PMA-3 (later CDA) will go to N2z.
-
#98
by
bobthemonkey
on 16 Sep, 2009 22:20
-
CDA? Is this something new or just a change in name following the installation of ATLAS (or whatever the APAS-LIDS adapter is called now-a-days).
-
#99
by
Jorge
on 16 Sep, 2009 22:36
-
CDA? Is this something new or just a change in name following the installation of ATLAS (or whatever the APAS-LIDS adapter is called now-a-days).
Common Docking Adapter. Rather than being an APAS-LIDS adapter like ATLAS that fits on top of the existing PMA, CDA would be a CBM-LIDS adapter that replaces the PMA altogether.
But yes, as you say, that's just this week's plan.
