-
#40
by
PeterAlt
on 15 Jun, 2011 18:36
-
I thought ESA decided to study the idea of an evolved ATV that can return payloads to Earth. That study could lead to production for use after they complete their current obligations. The evolved ATV with reentry capabilities could eventually evolve into a manned vehicle.
-
#41
by
PeterAlt
on 15 Jun, 2011 19:29
-
-
#42
by
baldusi
on 15 Jun, 2011 23:34
-
I think that the article has a picture of the failed Hermes shuttle. The experiment itself is more about a lifting body, and validating control of atmospheric reentry.
-
#43
by
Danderman
on 16 Jun, 2011 00:23
-
I thought ESA decided to study the idea of an evolved ATV that can return payloads to Earth. That study could lead to production for use after they complete their current obligations. The evolved ATV with reentry capabilities could eventually evolve into a manned vehicle.
It's dead, Jim.
-
#44
by
kch
on 16 Jun, 2011 00:37
-
I think that the article has a picture of the failed Hermes shuttle. The experiment itself is more about a lifting body, and validating control of atmospheric reentry.
The Hermes pic is halfway down the article -- the IXV pic is at the top.
-
#45
by
Prober
on 20 Jun, 2011 17:54
-
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).
Now you've done it! You have gone full circle in why the ISS was designed. But the thinking was SpaceShuttle and space station.
-
#46
by
Prober
on 20 Jun, 2011 17:56
-
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.
Can you point us in the right direction Jim?
-
#47
by
Jim
on 20 Jun, 2011 18:34
-
-
#48
by
PeterAlt
on 13 Jul, 2011 14:25
-
It just occurred to me that a way to connect Node 4 without modification of the tunnel addition could be if they flip Node 2 around so that the Foward end of that node becomes the Aft end and visa versa. This would bring the extended side of the module to where Node 4 would be connected, giving clearance to all of Node 4's ports.
Wait a minute... we do have that passive/active port compatibility problem, right? Could they create an adapter, or would it just be cheaper to go the with the originally planned tunnel? Also, I realize that, if it could be done, it would be a major pain because it would rsquire the removal and reinstallation of Kibo and Columbus.
-
#49
by
Space Pete
on 13 Jul, 2011 14:33
-
It just occurred to me that a way to connect Node 4 without modification of the tunnel addition could be if they flip Node 2 around so that the Foward end of that node becomes the Aft end and visa versa. This would bring the extended side of the module to where Node 4 would be connected, giving clearance to all of Node 4's ports.
Wait a minute... we do have that passive/active port compatibility problem, right? Could they create an adapter, or would it just be cheaper to go the with the originally planned tunnel? Also, I realize that, if it could be done, it would be a major pain because it would rsquire the removal and reinstallation of Kibo and Columbus.
That would not be doable due to:
1) The re-wiring complexities of flipping Node 2 around.
2) Where to put the JPM and COL while Node 2 is rotated (they can't remain attached since it would be too much mass for the SSRMS to move).
3) You cannot mate PCBM to PCBM, and an adaptor could not be constructed since there would be no way to get power to it without doing some internal/external re-wiring.
It would be much simpler, quicker and cheaper just to dock Node 4 to PMA-2 on Node 2 Forward.
-
#50
by
Space Pete
on 11 Aug, 2011 19:21
-
-
#51
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 12 Aug, 2011 20:20
-
-
#52
by
Lars_J
on 12 Aug, 2011 21:04
-
Hmm, I know a Centaur stage has a lot of capability, but can it really take that component all the way to the space station? It seems dubious... Some sort of propulsion bus with rendezvous capability would likely be needed.
-
#53
by
Robotbeat
on 12 Aug, 2011 21:24
-
Hmm, I know a Centaur stage has a lot of capability, but can it really take that component all the way to the space station? It seems dubious... Some sort of propulsion bus with rendezvous capability would likely be needed.
Did you look at the presentation in question? It quite clearly shows a propulsion bus with rendezvous capability (which would definitely be needed, as you suggested).
-
#54
by
sdsds
on 12 Aug, 2011 22:34
-
the presentation [...] shows a propulsion bus with rendezvous capability.
Indeed, and it's one of the most exciting aspects of this presentation. They call it a Launch Mission Kit (LMK). See attached image.
-
#55
by
PeterAlt
on 15 Aug, 2011 00:33
-
I looked over the LMK presentation and, while I admit it's a great concept, I'm not liking it so much (and believe me, I want to!).
It's not the plan I don't like. It's hard for me to let go of Node 4 as a permanent new element of ISS and see it repurposed like that for a shoe string exploration program budget. Look, exploration will have their own new funds to build new, cooler things. Exploration should leave station assets for station ops to figure out how to get these assets out of the hangers and into orbit for the eventual expansion of ISS.
Node 4 looks horrible attached to PMA-2 like that. They just don't go together. Node 4 needs to find another CBM port at station. If the tunnel is too costly to develop (from the original proposal), then let's look at other possible places we can add it (besides Node 2 Foward).
We have the other two ports on Node 2 that are still unused. We can transfer the planned uses of either port to Node 4. Are there issues prohibiting this? How's the clearance issues with this?
There is the port on Kibo Lab Module that currently hosts the Kibo Logistics Module. Can we put Node 4 there and relocate the Kibo Logistics Module (possibly to Node 4 or even Node 3)?
There's also the free ports on Node 3. Remember, NASA is considering moving Node 3 and the PMM, so the free ports on Node 3 once (if) these two modules are moved should also be considered.
The whole idea of Node 4 is to add new docking ports for both commercial cargo and crew, while allowing new experimental modules (such as the experimental Bigelow inflatable) to find docking attachment points, and additionally leave room for future US segment expansion (and exploration vehicle docking) options - both commercially and for NASA, ESA, JAXA, and other government partners. That said, Node 4 belongs to station, not exploration. That said, I think I made a comepelling rationale for its use as a station component that even Exploration will benefit from.
-
#56
by
Jason1701
on 15 Aug, 2011 01:31
-
How expensive would it be to build another node identical to Node 4?
-
#57
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 15 Aug, 2011 01:51
-
. That said, I think I made a compelling rationale for its use as a station component that even Exploration will benefit from
Funding for Node 4 would come from Exploration, not from ISS. ISS does not want to pay for it, so that shows you how much ISS really needs it. Therefore if Exploration has another use for it, they have every right to use it.
-
#58
by
Jim
on 15 Aug, 2011 02:19
-
How expensive would it be to build another node identical to Node 4?
That line was shut down long ago. Node 4 is the STA node which was built before Node 1. It is being looked at to see if it can be upgraded to flight status. Node 2 & 3 were built by the Italians.
-
#59
by
alexw
on 15 Aug, 2011 03:04
-
the presentation [...] shows a propulsion bus with rendezvous capability.
Indeed, and it's one of the most exciting aspects of this presentation. They call it a Launch Mission Kit (LMK). See attached image.
The sheer sanity of this idea: a LMK heavily derived from Centaur, which already embodies many of the abilities required, but independent from Centaur proper so as not to affect launch vehicle qualification (see Atkin's Law #39!).
LMK == Lockheed Martin Kit
-Alex
