-
#20
by
Jim
on 12 Apr, 2012 21:04
-
Add remote manipulator arms
Why?
-
#21
by
RocketmanUS
on 13 Apr, 2012 03:52
-
Add remote manipulator arms
Why?
Good question.
So it can add modules, connect the Cygnus or like it for resupply, ect.
-
#22
by
A_M_Swallow
on 13 Apr, 2012 07:42
-
Add remote manipulator arms
Why?
Good question.
So it can add modules, connect the Cygnus or like it for resupply, ect.
At EML1/2 spacestation the arms can be used to:
Transfer unpressurised cargo from the LV to a reusable lunar lander
Attach and detach refuelling pipes
Repair landers and Mars transfer vehicles for instance by acting as the space crane when replacing an engine
Move astronauts around when they are performing an EVA
Move spacecraft from the docking ports to the holding bays
Permit the berthing of spacecraft
-
#23
by
parham55
on 13 Apr, 2012 15:55
-
Add remote manipulator arms
Why?
Good question.
So it can add modules, connect the Cygnus or like it for resupply, ect.
At EML1/2 spacestation the arms can be used to:
Transfer unpressurised cargo from the LV to a reusable lunar lander
Attach and detach refuelling pipes
Repair landers and Mars transfer vehicles for instance by acting as the space crane when replacing an engine
Move astronauts around when they are performing an EVA
Move spacecraft from the docking ports to the holding bays
Permit the berthing of spacecraft
Jim, are you asking why we need to do these things with an arm? I can't answer that question but I'll ask; is an arm the best way to do these things? Are these activities that can be avoided based on design? Is an arm the least expensive option? Do we
want an arm or do we
need an arm?
Either way is fine by me as long as it is the fastest way to get some exploration started. This is when I would like to be able to earmark my income taxes, I'd check the NASA box.
Rob
-
#24
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 13 Apr, 2012 16:23
-
Add remote manipulator arms
Why?
Indeed an arm is NOT required, a DSH can be assembled at ISS. And since ISPR's will likely be integrated and not moved from module to module, direct docking will be the perferred method, especially since there will likely be periods when it is unmanned (grapple/berth requires a crew) If we are talking about EVA acess for repair, Strela (or whatever its real name is) would probably be lighter and cheaper, and most importantly do the job.
-
#25
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 13 Apr, 2012 17:57
-
Add remote manipulator arms
Why?
I've said this before in answer to the same question from the same poster. A RMS is a 'nice to have' on a large, deep-space spaceship. It allows you to do extra stuff like docking without needing active-thruster docking far from Earth. It also allows berthing of pre-positioned assets like cargo pods meaning that you don't automatically have to carry all the mission payload all the way from LEO. Berthing means large CBM-style interfaces rather than narrow LIDS-style ones meaning you can carry larger items, potentially leading to easier installation and swap-out of equipment. A large RMS will also allow crew-members on maintenance EVAs (a certainty on a long flight) to get to where they need to be without having to laboriously crawl along the hull.
An RMS is hardly a necessity but it does add capability and mission flexibility to the spacecraft. I know that I'd like one if I was a mission planner for a Mars or other Inner Planets exploration mission.
-
#26
by
manboy
on 13 Apr, 2012 19:30
-
Add remote manipulator arms
Why?
Indeed an arm is NOT required, a DSH can be assembled at ISS. And since ISPR's will likely be integrated and not moved from module to module, direct docking will be the perferred method, especially since there will likely be periods when it is unmanned (grapple/berth requires a crew) If we are talking about EVA acess for repair, Strela (or whatever its real name is) would probably be lighter and cheaper, and most importantly do the job.
The Mobile Servicing System requires a crew but automated grappling and berthing was demonstrated by Orbital Express.
Add remote manipulator arms
Why?
Good question.
So it can add modules, connect the Cygnus or like it for resupply, ect.
Although I guess a small robotic arm who's only purpose would be to berth re-supply vehicles wouldn't be too expensive. But then again how much larger is CBM transfer passage in comparison to NDS' 32 inches?
-
#27
by
RocketmanUS
on 13 Apr, 2012 19:54
-
Add remote manipulator arms
Why?
Indeed an arm is NOT required, a DSH can be assembled at ISS. And since ISPR's will likely be integrated and not moved from module to module, direct docking will be the perferred method, especially since there will likely be periods when it is unmanned (grapple/berth requires a crew) If we are talking about EVA acess for repair, Strela (or whatever its real name is) would probably be lighter and cheaper, and most importantly do the job.
The Mobile Servicing System requires a crew but automated grappling and berthing was demonstrated by Orbital Express.
Add remote manipulator arms
Why?
Good question.
So it can add modules, connect the Cygnus or like it for resupply, ect.
Although I guess a small robotic arm who's only purpose would be to berth re-supply vehicles wouldn't be too expensive. But then again how much larger is CBM transfer passage in comparison to NDS' 32 inches?
CBM 50' diagonal , it is a square opening.
RMA is for adding parts to an EML1/2 station also. The station might not be assembled or at least not totally assembled at ISS. Less mass to get out to EML1/2. Nice to have the option of the RMS. Can start out with one and add the other later. If something goes wrong with an automated docking of a resupply vehicle the there could be the option to use a RMA.
How fast does the RMS move on the ISS to berth the Dragon or Cygnus. Is in not slow enough to use remote control from Earth if we wanted to.
Other good replies above for use of a RMA.
-
#28
by
Robotbeat
on 13 Apr, 2012 19:57
-
If they use a SEP tug, then more mass in LEO is not a problem. In fact, it's a lot more efficient to build it ALL in LEO and push it up with the tug than to build some of it in LEO and some at EML1/2.
-
#29
by
RocketmanUS
on 13 Apr, 2012 20:22
-
If they use a SEP tug, then more mass in LEO is not a problem. In fact, it's a lot more efficient to build it ALL in LEO and push it up with the tug than to build some of it in LEO and some at EML1/2.
All good when we get SEP. For now I'd like to keep the option and the ability for it to grow or assemble other platforms in and for EML1/2 ect.
Then there is repairs or replacements.( EDIT: for the station )
-
#30
by
Robotbeat
on 13 Apr, 2012 20:46
-
If they use a SEP tug, then more mass in LEO is not a problem. In fact, it's a lot more efficient to build it ALL in LEO and push it up with the tug than to build some of it in LEO and some at EML1/2.
All good when we get SEP. For now I'd like to keep the option and the ability for it to grow or assemble other platforms in and for EML1/2 ect.
Then there is repairs or replacements.
SEP is short-term. A modified Boeing 702 can do at least up to 100kW, and already supports electric propulsion. Actually, the electric-propulsion-only version is their cheapest, I believe (though not 100kW).
-
#31
by
Robotbeat
on 13 Apr, 2012 22:50
-
This presentation is awesome.
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Raftery_5-25-11/Raftery_5-25-11.pdfShows how we can scale up from a 100-250kW tug for moving the DSH/Gateway from ISS to EML1/2, then a 250-400kW propulsion module departs from the EML1/2 gateway with a dedicated hab to an asteroid and back (possibly using iCPS/CPS for an initial boost), then a 1000kW solar-electric propulsion module to move a larger hab from the EML1/2 gateway to Mars orbit to rendezvous with a pre-placed Mars lander.
This has a much lower IMLEO for a Mars mission than the older NTR-based Mars DRM 5. Also uses much nearer-term propulsion (NTR is not near-term). And the architecture is reusable, since the whole MTV returns to the EML1/2 exploration gateway. Only thing not reusable for Mars missions is the lander (surface hab is pre-placed on Mars).
Anyway, very interesting. Very feasible with just incremental improvements. Wouldn't need a huge launch campaign like Mars DRM 5, and also doesn't need NTR (which just won't be happening anytime soon, let's all be honest... and that's coming from myself as an evangelist for nuclear power on Earth).
-
#32
by
Robotbeat
on 13 Apr, 2012 23:13
-
By the way, I've discovered the presentation that the article is based on in the public domain (no, not the NASASpaceflight.com-watermarked one).
And I could post it right here, but I won't BECAUSE YOU SHOULD ALL HAVE L2 ANYWAY!
(If you really can't afford L2, PM and I'll give you the link.)
-
#33
by
Patchouli
on 14 Apr, 2012 04:10
-
CBM 50' diagonal , it is a square opening.
RMA is for adding parts to an EML1/2 station also. The station might not be assembled or at least not totally assembled at ISS. Less mass to get out to EML1/2. Nice to have the option of the RMS. Can start out with one and add the other later. If something goes wrong with an automated docking of a resupply vehicle the there could be the option to use a RMA.
How fast does the RMS move on the ISS to berth the Dragon or Cygnus. Is in not slow enough to use remote control from Earth if we wanted to.
Other good replies above for use of a RMA.
An RMS also can simplify berthing of vehicles like the SEV and be used to assist in inspection and repair of the spacecraft.
I think it should be able to inch worm across the vehicle like the one on ISS.
-
#34
by
Chris Bergin
on 14 Apr, 2012 13:13
-
By the way, I've discovered the presentation that the article is based on in the public domain (no, not the NASASpaceflight.com-watermarked one).
And I could post it right here, but I won't BECAUSE YOU SHOULD ALL HAVE L2 ANYWAY!
(If you really can't afford L2, PM and I'll give you the link.)
Good man, that's so nice to see (your comment!)
As such you can post it on this thread. I've locked the L2 version as it's now public domain.
-
#35
by
Robotbeat
on 16 Apr, 2012 22:21
-
-
#36
by
RocketmanUS
on 24 Apr, 2012 02:56
-
If we get DSH as an EML2 station then it would help in finding out how crew handles space outside LEO for longer time periods than Apollo before we land on the moon , go to NEO, or Mars. So that could be a few missions till we have a lunar lander ( U.S. made or foreign partner made lander ).
If we get the EML2 station and Orion to it then a lunar partner might show up?
At least the high TRL with higher mass DSH design would most likely get us the EML2 station sooner and allow us to develop the lighter DSH for NEO and Mars based on our experience with a DSH based EML2 station.
-
#37
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 25 Apr, 2012 00:17
-
-
#38
by
pathfinder_01
on 25 Apr, 2012 01:10
-
Okay, here it is:
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Smitherman_3-14-12/Smitherman_3-14-12.pdf
There's MP3 audio of the teleconference where the author presents. It explains more details:
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Smitherman_3-14-12/Smitherman.mp3
By the way, there's a ton of somewhat-related presentations in here:
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/
Lots of information to mine in there. Great ideas.
One thing that I don't understand about the proposal is the tunnel, which is a new build. Why not instead use a shuttle airlock like the other proposal, which gives you the sideways hatch anyhow? The only thing sacrificed would be the ability to move racks from the MPLM to the Hab, and frankly it doesn't look like that is needed anyhow.
I’d rather doubt to use a shuttle airlock. They are like nearing 30 years old. Like you however I would probably prefer a built in airlock of some type rather than have the tunnel serve as one.
My guess is they expect something like the SEV to function as airlock and be available for every mission. The tunnel air lock would worry me because it would cut you off from supplies in the other part of the ship.
-
#39
by
MP99
on 15 Jul, 2012 09:41
-
