-
#20
by
Prober
on 14 Jun, 2011 14:42
-
How's this for a solution...
The Bigelow inflatable module is to have CBM ports on both sides of the module. Launch the Bigelow module first - ahead of Node 4. Move PMA-2, currently at Node 2 forward, out of the way, to one of the unusable ports on Node 3. Dock the Bigelow module to the now-freed Node 2 forward. At a later date, launch Node 4 and dock it to the Bigelow module's free foward CBM port. The Bigelow module, in this configuration, would provide the needed extended space between Nodes 2 & 4. No need to use PMA-2 or "tunnel".
Where is the money for the Bigelow inflatable module?
Also, Node 4 needs to connect to Node 2 to get services, which Node 2 supplies to Bigelow.
Before the 011 Budget was signed the NASA rep made a major visit to Bigelow the deal was to be announced, but never happened.
-
#21
by
Danderman
on 14 Jun, 2011 15:23
-
As I have suggested before, the solution to this problem is for NASA to issue the specific requirements, and to put the entire project out to bid. As long as the requirements do not imply a design, I suspect that innovative solutions would emerge, at a much lower cost to the taxpayer.
And, of course, this requires NASA to forgo making the requirements imply a Cadillac SUV design that includes Exploration desirements, as well. You know, "the Node shall provide for independent ECLSS capable of supporting a crew of 3 for 2 years". NASA should make the requirements as simple as possible.
There is a chance that a commercial initiative to generate a 4th node might actually get through a Republican House of Representatives.
-
#22
by
Prober
on 14 Jun, 2011 16:36
-
As I have suggested before, the solution to this problem is for NASA to issue the specific requirements, and to put the entire project out to bid. As long as the requirements do not imply a design, I suspect that innovative solutions would emerge, at a much lower cost to the taxpayer.
And, of course, this requires NASA to forgo making the requirements imply a Cadillac SUV design that includes Exploration desirements, as well. You know, "the Node shall provide for independent ECLSS capable of supporting a crew of 3 for 2 years". NASA should make the requirements as simple as possible.
There is a chance that a commercial initiative to generate a 4th node might actually get through a Republican House of Representatives.
All the paperwork hasn’t been done, but this is a done deal. Who is the highest Senator in Congress? Bigelow is located in Nevada, and next year when the elections are in progress a presidential visit will take place “bringing jobs to Nevada”.
-
#23
by
Danderman
on 14 Jun, 2011 23:08
-
There is no reason why a Cygnus cargo module equipped with the appropriate CBMs and other mating systems, could not be attached to Node 2 and used for expansion of ISS, as a simple thought experiment. In a pinch, a radial CBM on the Cygnus could be used a storage location for the PMA, as well.
This would require the Cygnus cargo module to be separated from the bus, but its probable that this would be a trivial modification.
Similarly, a Cygnus cargo module (after separation from the bus) could be mated to the end of Node 3, and used as a permanent stowage module.
-
#24
by
Space Pete
on 14 Jun, 2011 23:25
-
Similarly, a Cygnus cargo module (after separation from the bus) could be mated to the end of Node 3, and used as a permanent stowage module.
If by "the end of Node 3" you mean Node 3 Port (where PMA-3 currently is), then that would not be possible as it would impede the rotation of the P1 TCS radiator.
-
#25
by
Jim
on 15 Jun, 2011 01:52
-
As I have suggested before, the solution to this problem is for NASA to issue the specific requirements, and to put the entire project out to bid. As long as the requirements do not imply a design, I suspect that innovative solutions would emerge, at a much lower cost to the taxpayer.
And, of course, this requires NASA to forgo making the requirements imply a Cadillac SUV design that includes Exploration desirements, as well. You know, "the Node shall provide for independent ECLSS capable of supporting a crew of 3 for 2 years". NASA should make the requirements as simple as possible.
There is a chance that a commercial initiative to generate a 4th node might actually get through a Republican House of Representatives.
One major points of Node 4 is to use the existing STA structure
-
#26
by
Danderman
on 15 Jun, 2011 01:59
-
Similarly, a Cygnus cargo module (after separation from the bus) could be mated to the end of Node 3, and used as a permanent stowage module.
If by "the end of Node 3" you mean Node 3 Port (where PMA-3 currently is), then that would not be possible as it would impede the rotation of the P1 TCS radiator.
Maybe not. Since the Cupola was originally located there, and the radiator had clearance, the issue is the actual available clearance, compared with the 3 meter length of the Cygnus cargo module.
-
#27
by
Danderman
on 15 Jun, 2011 02:00
-
As I have suggested before, the solution to this problem is for NASA to issue the specific requirements, and to put the entire project out to bid. As long as the requirements do not imply a design, I suspect that innovative solutions would emerge, at a much lower cost to the taxpayer.
And, of course, this requires NASA to forgo making the requirements imply a Cadillac SUV design that includes Exploration desirements, as well. You know, "the Node shall provide for independent ECLSS capable of supporting a crew of 3 for 2 years". NASA should make the requirements as simple as possible.
There is a chance that a commercial initiative to generate a 4th node might actually get through a Republican House of Representatives.
One major points of Node 4 is to use the existing STA structure
Well, I am talking about a world where NASA abandons some of its existing desirements in order to facilitate there being a new Node. Your guess is as good as mine as to whether NASA would actually give up those desirements.
Using the STA structure requires some sort of new cargo delivery system to ISS, and NASA is not going to pay for that anytime soon. Only after NASA understands that will there be a new Node.
-
#28
by
Jorge
on 15 Jun, 2011 02:33
-
As I have suggested before, the solution to this problem is for NASA to issue the specific requirements, and to put the entire project out to bid. As long as the requirements do not imply a design, I suspect that innovative solutions would emerge, at a much lower cost to the taxpayer.
And, of course, this requires NASA to forgo making the requirements imply a Cadillac SUV design that includes Exploration desirements, as well. You know, "the Node shall provide for independent ECLSS capable of supporting a crew of 3 for 2 years". NASA should make the requirements as simple as possible.
There is a chance that a commercial initiative to generate a 4th node might actually get through a Republican House of Representatives.
One major points of Node 4 is to use the existing STA structure
Well, I am talking about a world where NASA abandons some of its existing desirements in order to facilitate there being a new Node. Your guess is as good as mine as to whether NASA would actually give up those desirements.
Using the STA structure requires some sort of new cargo delivery system to ISS, and NASA is not going to pay for that anytime soon. Only after NASA understands that will there be a new Node.
Jim is right. "Node 4" arose out of a "gee, wouldn't it be cool to do something with this STA structure that's just sitting around", not "gee, we really need a new node on ISS." If using the STA proves impractical, the idea of a new ISS node on the US segment will quietly go away.
-
#29
by
PeterAlt
on 15 Jun, 2011 05:50
-
By the way, I did read that PDF from Boeing concerning the idea of using ISS for exploration... TWICE (to make sure I was reading it correctly).
The proposal emphasizes the idea of making use of electrical propulsion to traverse between the ISS and a proposed extension of the ISS at L1 or L2. My thoughts on this are 'if electric propulsion could traverse a tug vehicle between the ISS at its orbit in LEO and an extension at an L1/L2 point, why not just use electric propulsion to slowly move the orbit of the ISS to L1/L2?'
An Orion lifted by SLS will have the capability to carry it to L1/L2, so why not have ISS there, with all of it's existing infrastructure and systems there as well, ready to support all incoming and outgoing crews to and from any destination the community of nations fund exploration missions for. A suppose SpaceX' Falcon V Heavy would be capable of sending Dragon to L1/L2 as well, so this move would not exclude the Dragon from visiting in its logistics or human flight capacities. I'm sure the Russians have rockets that could modify the Soyuz and Progress lift capacities to the new location of the ISS at L1/L2 as well - so they won't be left out either. I'm just not sure about how ESA's ATV or Japan's HTV would get to the new L1/L2 outpost (as well as Orbital Science's Cygnus).
But if this could be done, crews would be "so much closer" to possible destinations such as the moon, Mars, astroids, Venus, Ceres that any future mission to these destinations would be easer and cheaper. Also making the ISS an outpost in that location, it could be used to house reusable landers for moon and Mars destinations.
Another plus to moving the station there is that it would be truly weightless and this would be a big benefit for experiments that require weightlessness. Also, the gravity neutral nature of the L1/L2 points would be less stressful to the wear and tear of the station, effectively increasing the lifetime expectancy of the station exponentially.
-
#30
by
A_M_Swallow
on 15 Jun, 2011 11:56
-
The proposal emphasizes the idea of making use of electrical propulsion to traverse between the ISS and a proposed extension of the ISS at L1 or L2. My thoughts on this are 'if electric propulsion could traverse a tug vehicle between the ISS at its orbit in LEO and an extension at an L1/L2 point, why not just use electric propulsion to slowly move the orbit of the ISS to L1/L2?'
Then NASA would have to build a replacement spacestation in LEO.
If you want an EML spacestation build one. You could construct it in a LEO space ship yard if you think that is cheaper and/or quicker.
-
#31
by
Jim
on 15 Jun, 2011 13:19
-
By the way, I did read that PDF from Boeing concerning the idea of using ISS for exploration... TWICE (to make sure I was reading it correctly).
The proposal emphasizes the idea of making use of electrical propulsion to traverse between the ISS and a proposed extension of the ISS at L1 or L2. My thoughts on this are 'if electric propulsion could traverse a tug vehicle between the ISS at its orbit in LEO and an extension at an L1/L2 point, why not just use electric propulsion to slowly move the orbit of the ISS to L1/L2?'
An Orion lifted by SLS will have the capability to carry it to L1/L2, so why not have ISS there, with all of it's existing infrastructure and systems there as well, ready to support all incoming and outgoing crews to and from any destination the community of nations fund exploration missions for. A suppose SpaceX' Falcon V Heavy would be capable of sending Dragon to L1/L2 as well, so this move would not exclude the Dragon from visiting in its logistics or human flight capacities. I'm sure the Russians have rockets that could modify the Soyuz and Progress lift capacities to the new location of the ISS at L1/L2 as well - so they won't be left out either. I'm just not sure about how ESA's ATV or Japan's HTV would get to the new L1/L2 outpost (as well as Orbital Science's Cygnus).
But if this could be done, crews would be "so much closer" to possible destinations such as the moon, Mars, astroids, Venus, Ceres that any future mission to these destinations would be easer and cheaper. Also making the ISS an outpost in that location, it could be used to house reusable landers for moon and Mars destinations.
Another plus to moving the station there is that it would be truly weightless and this would be a big benefit for experiments that require weightlessness. Also, the gravity neutral nature of the L1/L2 points would be less stressful to the wear and tear of the station, effectively increasing the lifetime expectancy of the station exponentially.
The ISS can not operate L1/L2, it was only designed for LEO.
There are other threads on this that explain this
-
#32
by
hektor
on 15 Jun, 2011 13:47
-
Nodes 2 and 3 have been produced by Thales in Italy.
ESA is looking for semething to do after ATV #5 in order to compensate for their ISS costs till 2020.
Wouldn't it be a good idea to delegate the production of Node 4 to ESA with Thales producing the thing.
-
#33
by
manboy
on 15 Jun, 2011 13:54
-
-
#34
by
Jim
on 15 Jun, 2011 14:07
-
Attachment is from page 13 of the following presentation:
International Space Station as a Platform for Exploration Beyond Low Earth Orbit (PDF, 3.07 MB).
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Raftery_5-25-11/Raftery_5-25-11.pdf
The DHS tunnel has been replaced by PMA-2. It also appears that the Zenith, Forward and Nadir ports will be IDSS, while Port & Starboard will be CBMs.
I believe this part os out of date. DHS has been canceled. NASA is moving out on attaching the NASA Docking System (NDS) on PMA2 at Node 2 forward and on PMA3, probably on N1 or N3 nadir.
Forward PMA is being replaced by a Common Docking Adapter (CDA).
your info is outdated. erioladastra works ISS.
-
#35
by
Jim
on 15 Jun, 2011 14:09
-
Nodes 2 and 3 have been produced by Thales in Italy.
ESA is looking for semething to do after ATV #5 in order to compensate for their ISS costs till 2020.
Wouldn't it be a good idea to delegate the production of Node 4 to ESA with Thales producing the thing.
Did you 4 posts earlier? Node 4 only exists because the STA exists. NASA isn't going to build a new one.
-
#36
by
manboy
on 15 Jun, 2011 14:09
-
Attachment is from page 13 of the following presentation:
International Space Station as a Platform for Exploration Beyond Low Earth Orbit (PDF, 3.07 MB).
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Raftery_5-25-11/Raftery_5-25-11.pdf
The DHS tunnel has been replaced by PMA-2. It also appears that the Zenith, Forward and Nadir ports will be IDSS, while Port & Starboard will be CBMs.
I believe this part os out of date. DHS has been canceled. NASA is moving out on attaching the NASA Docking System (NDS) on PMA2 at Node 2 forward and on PMA3, probably on N1 or N3 nadir.
Forward PMA is being replaced by a Common Docking Adapter (CDA).
your info is outdated. erioladastra works ISS.
Really? Gahhh NASA is terrible at PR. Couldn't they at least have updated their NDS website?
-
#37
by
hektor
on 15 Jun, 2011 14:42
-
Nodes 2 and 3 have been produced by Thales in Italy.
ESA is looking for semething to do after ATV #5 in order to compensate for their ISS costs till 2020.
Wouldn't it be a good idea to delegate the production of Node 4 to ESA with Thales producing the thing.
Did you 4 posts earlier? Node 4 only exists because the STA exists. NASA isn't going to build a new one.
Obviously you don't understand my post.
-
#38
by
Jim
on 15 Jun, 2011 15:04
-
Nodes 2 and 3 have been produced by Thales in Italy.
ESA is looking for semething to do after ATV #5 in order to compensate for their ISS costs till 2020.
Wouldn't it be a good idea to delegate the production of Node 4 to ESA with Thales producing the thing.
Did you 4 posts earlier? Node 4 only exists because the STA exists. NASA isn't going to build a new one.
Obviously you don't understand my post.
You don't understand the purpose of Node 4.
-
#39
by
hektor
on 15 Jun, 2011 15:22
-
Let me reexplain: ESA won't build any ATV past number 5. But they owe money to NASA to pay for their participation to the ISS till 2020.
This represent a bunch of money, $640 million according to the article here.
http://spacenews.com/civil/arianespace-subsidies-space-station-extension-win-esa-backing.html"The remaining three years’ charges, totaling 450 million euros, will be paid by some other hardware development program yet to be decided by ESA and NASA. "
So with this money they could develop any piece of ISS hardware which NASA finds useful such as an ISS module, or an element for transportation or for exploration. They can start from scratch, Node 3 was developed from scratch. They don't need the STA to start from.