-
#60
by
sdsds
on 15 Aug, 2011 03:13
-
[Node 4] is being looked at to see if it can be upgraded to flight status.
Skip Hatfield (NASA/JSC) puts that in the past tense. "After extensive analysis and inspection STA
has been deemed structurally suitable for flight." He also indicates the interior volume could be outfitted "with existing systems and components" by raiding the ISS spares pool.
-
#61
by
PeterAlt
on 15 Aug, 2011 03:55
-
. 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.
How much would it cost to "finish" the module for preparation for launch? I'm assuming two price tags: one with the "tunnel" addition, and one without. I'm also assuming the cost with the tunnel would be much greater than the cost without. If they can figure out the clearance problem by docking it somewhere other than Node 2 Forward, they don't need the tunnel, thus lowering the cost significantly; and the real cost would be launch. The cost of launch could come out of operations and written off as logistic cargo. Could Dragon, Cygnus, or HTV tug it to station?
-
#62
by
Lars_J
on 15 Aug, 2011 07:36
-
What is the main rationale fir wanting Node 4 to attach to the station using a PMA?
If a HTV can be captured and berthed, why not Node 4?
-
#63
by
arkaska
on 15 Aug, 2011 09:17
-
What is the main rationale fir wanting Node 4 to attach to the station using a PMA?
If a HTV can be captured and berthed, why not Node 4?
At the moment there isn't enough room for Node-4 on Node-2 foward without a tunnel or the OMA-2 between.
-
#64
by
Jim
on 15 Aug, 2011 12:43
-
.The cost of launch could come out of operations and written off as logistic cargo. Could Dragon, Cygnus, or HTV tug it to station?
No, the cost can not be written off as logistic cargo because the station would be short a logistics mission in terms of supplies. Also, the logistics contract is for delivery of small items and not the launch of a spacecraft.
The whole point of Node 4 is not ISS desires for more attach points, the point is to develop the systems and vehicles needed to deliver such a payload to the ISS. How many times does that have to be stated. ISS program does not have the money for Node 4 and can live without it.
-
#65
by
Space Pete
on 15 Aug, 2011 12:49
-
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.
Right - so the funding would've come from ESMD, not SOMD. However, now that ESMD and SOMD have merged to become HEOMD, I wonder how that affects Node 4 funding?
-
#66
by
Jim
on 15 Aug, 2011 13:15
-
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.
Right - so the funding would've come from ESMD, not SOMD. However, now that ESMD and SOMD have merged to become HEOMD, I wonder how that affects Node 4 funding?
It doesn't.
There is still the ISS program office and it doesn't matter which mission directorate it is in, it doesn't have the money.
-
#67
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 15 Aug, 2011 13:37
-
Jim while you are here, do you see any problems with the Launch Mission Kit? Specifically:
1. Centaur being carried to station
2. ULA's stipulation that it cannot create spacecraft.
Would there be any creative ways around the latter? I guess for example by using Centaur all the way to station would be one way around.
-
#68
by
Jim
on 15 Aug, 2011 14:21
-
Jim while you are here, do you see any problems with the Launch Mission Kit? Specifically:
1. Centaur being carried to station
2. ULA's stipulation that it cannot create spacecraft.
Would there be any creative ways around the latter? I guess for example by using Centaur all the way to station would be one way around.
1. it might need redundant pressure controls
2. I wouldn't call it a spacecraft.
-
#69
by
Danderman
on 15 Aug, 2011 17:49
-
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)?
The Kibo zenith CBM can only provide about 3000 watts of power, so a Node 4 there would be severely constrained, and would not be able to host a Bigelow module.
-
#70
by
mmeijeri
on 15 Aug, 2011 19:52
-
2. I wouldn't call it a spacecraft.
Because unlike Agena it would be short-lived?
-
#71
by
Lars_J
on 15 Aug, 2011 23:35
-
What is the main rationale fir wanting Node 4 to attach to the station using a PMA?
If a HTV can be captured and berthed, why not Node 4?
At the moment there isn't enough room for Node-4 on Node-2 foward without a tunnel or the OMA-2 between.
What is in the way?
-
#72
by
PeterAlt
on 16 Aug, 2011 00:14
-
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)?
The Kibo zenith CBM can only provide about 3000 watts of power, so a Node 4 there would be severely constrained, and would not be able to host a Bigelow module.
What about moving Node 3 to Node 2 Forward and then Node 4 to where Node 3 is currently (or planned to be)?
Since there are clearance issues with many of the ports of Node 3, just move it to where there's no clearance issues. And since it's elongated, it won't have the problems Node 4 would have if attached to Node 2 Forward. Node 4 could then be added to Node 1, where, understandably, most of its ports will be unusable.
-
#73
by
Jim
on 16 Aug, 2011 00:23
-
No, Node 3 needs to be where is it at because of the power it requires and the services it provides to the ISS.
The ISS pieces are not interchangeable.
-
#74
by
Prober
on 16 Aug, 2011 01:25
-
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)?
The Kibo zenith CBM can only provide about 3000 watts of power, so a Node 4 there would be severely constrained, and would not be able to host a Bigelow module.
What about moving Node 3 to Node 2 Forward and then Node 4 to where Node 3 is currently (or planned to be)?
Since there are clearance issues with many of the ports of Node 3, just move it to where there's no clearance issues. And since it's elongated, it won't have the problems Node 4 would have if attached to Node 2 Forward. Node 4 could then be added to Node 1, where, understandably, most of its ports will be unusable.
How about this:
Given the Shuttle port won't be used anymore. Take the ISS adapter off one of the Shuttles.
2) Install said adapter into an HTV, dock HTV in old shuttle port. Also bring up node 4 in the HTV.
3) The HTV is too fine a craft to be used as a trashcan. Reuse it as a new ISS section with extra docking ports.
Just throwing this idea out, would have to research it more.
See where Im going with this?
-
#75
by
JayP
on 16 Aug, 2011 02:14
-
How about this:
Given the Shuttle port won't be used anymore. Take the ISS adapter off one of the Shuttles.
2) Install said adapter into an HTV, dock HTV in old shuttle port. Also bring up node 4 in the HTV.
3) The HTV is too fine a craft to be used as a trashcan. Reuse it as a new ISS section with extra docking ports.
Just throwing this idea out, would have to research it more.
See where Im going with this?
Sorry, I admire your enthusiasm, but almost none of this would work without reengineering the HTV into a completly new vehicle.
A. HTV has no support (power or structural) for APAS
B. HTV can't dock, only berth. APAS requires docking velocity and forces. The SSRMS can't generate those.
C. HTV is the same diameter as the nodes, so you can't install one inside the other.
D. HTV isn't designed for long (indefinet) duration flight.
-
#76
by
Jorge
on 16 Aug, 2011 02:20
-
How about this:
Given the Shuttle port won't be used anymore. Take the ISS adapter off one of the Shuttles.
2) Install said adapter into an HTV, dock HTV in old shuttle port. Also bring up node 4 in the HTV.
3) The HTV is too fine a craft to be used as a trashcan. Reuse it as a new ISS section with extra docking ports.
Just throwing this idea out, would have to research it more.
See where Im going with this?
Sorry, I admire your enthusiasm, but almost none of this would work without reengineering the HTV into a completly new vehicle.
A. HTV has no support (power or structural) for APAS
B. HTV can't dock, only berth. APAS requires docking velocity and forces
C. HTV is the same diameter as the nodes, so you cant install one inside the other.
Actually, HTV's diameter is *less* than that of the nodes...
D. HTV isn't designed for long (indefinet) duration flight.
E. HTV's rendezvous sensors are on the top side, not the front, where they would need to be for a direct approach to docking.
-
#77
by
PeterAlt
on 16 Aug, 2011 02:38
-
Since we are tossing ideas around...
The ATV has a tunnel section at its aft that has no use. I read somewhere that it might be possible to put a docking ring on the aft side of it, pressurize the tunnel, and add a hatch door. Such a modification would allow multiple ATV's to string together, but that's not why I brought this up.
ESA is planning on using the new international docking standard with the ATV. So, in theory, ATV could dock in the US side (once the adaptors are installed). If we pay them to modify the tunnel with the docking ring, pressurized section, and hatch door for just one ATV, this could be moved to Node 2 Foward at the end of its mission and used as a spacer for Node 4. If the tunnel section could be split off from the rest of the craft, even better.
-
#78
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 16 Aug, 2011 03:03
-
ESA is planning on using the new international docking standard with the ATV. So, in theory, ATV could dock in the US side (once the adaptors are installed). If we pay them to modify the tunnel with the docking ring, pressurized section, and hatch door for just one ATV, this could be moved to Node 2 Foward at the end of its mission and used as a spacer for Node 4. If the tunnel section could be split off from the rest of the craft, even better.
ATV needs certain equipment to dock that is only available right now on the SM aft docking port. Also, for all of that effort one could simply launch an APAS/NDS adapter as currently planned for a lot less money and effort, and probably the second for PMA-3 as well. Node 4 is only a "nice to have" and is not essential, so a complicated tunnel is not warranted at all. PMA-2 is up there, the smart decision is to use it.
-
#79
by
Danderman
on 16 Aug, 2011 05:49
-
Also bring up node 4 in the HTV.
3) The HTV is too fine a craft to be used as a trashcan. Reuse it as a new ISS section with extra docking ports.
Node 4 won't fit in the HTV.
As for using the HTV pressurized section as an ISS pressurized module, it could be done, but would be difficult and expensive.