US Node 3 free but for want of a launch

Planning for including US Node 3 continues (covertly). The Italians have the
pressure shell completed and 95%+ of the flight software is done. The ECLSS
and ITCS racks, etc. built at MSFC are more or less on track. The problem US
Node 3 ( gift from Italy to the US for time on orbit) is not manifested. It
will cost the US a shuttle launch plus other costs. So what do people think?
Should the US fly Node 3 (FYI- Node 3 is just a little under twice the size
of Node 1 or 2, with crew bunks more life support capability and something's
that would once have been in the US Hab)? Might finally get a change to fly
the crew freezer!

Bit

bitflip wrote:

Planning for including US Node 3 continues (covertly). The Italians have the
pressure shell completed and 95%+ of the flight software is done. The ECLSS
and ITCS racks, etc. built at MSFC are more or less on track. The problem US
Node 3 ( gift from Italy to the US for time on orbit) is not manifested. It
will cost the US a shuttle launch plus other costs. So what do people think?
Should the US fly Node 3 (FYI- Node 3 is just a little under twice the size
of Node 1 or 2, with crew bunks more life support capability and something's
that would once have been in the US Hab)? Might finally get a change to fly
the crew freezer!

Funding for the outfitting and launch of Node 3 and the US-side ECLSS is
included in NASA's FY04 budget request as approved by the Bush admini-
stration's OMB. Barring any unforseen Congressional difficulties, Node 3
seems fairly certain at this point.

Thanks for the technical update. Am I reading you right in that they
ended up going with the 16-rack node instead of the 8-rack node originally
planned?

Mike

-----
Michael Kent Apple II Forever!!
St. Peters, MO

yep
"Michael Kent" wrote in message
...
bitflip wrote:

Planning for including US Node 3 continues (covertly). The Italians have
the
pressure shell completed and 95%+ of the flight software is done. The
ECLSS
and ITCS racks, etc. built at MSFC are more or less on track. The
problem US
Node 3 ( gift from Italy to the US for time on orbit) is not manifested.
It
will cost the US a shuttle launch plus other costs. So what do people
think?
Should the US fly Node 3 (FYI- Node 3 is just a little under twice the
size
of Node 1 or 2, with crew bunks more life support capability and
something's
that would once have been in the US Hab)? Might finally get a change to
fly
the crew freezer!

Funding for the outfitting and launch of Node 3 and the US-side ECLSS is
included in NASA's FY04 budget request as approved by the Bush admini-
stration's OMB. Barring any unforseen Congressional difficulties, Node 3
seems fairly certain at this point.

Thanks for the technical update. Am I reading you right in that they
ended up going with the 16-rack node instead of the 8-rack node originally
planned?

Mike

-----
Michael Kent Apple II Forever!!
St. Peters, MO

"bitflip" writes:

(FYI- Node 3 is just a little under twice the size
of Node 1 or 2, with crew bunks more life support capability and something's
that would once have been in the US Hab)? Might finally get a change to fly
the crew freezer!

Do you have sources for this ? Last time I checked, the Node 3 hull was
identical to the Node 2 hull, i.e 2 axial ports + 4 radial ports + 8 rack
spaces. Node 1 is smaller with only 4 rack spaces.

Reivilo Snuved writes:

Do you have sources for this ? Last time I checked, the Node 3 hull was
identical to the Node 2 hull, i.e 2 axial ports + 4 radial ports + 8 rack
spaces. Node 1 is smaller with only 4 rack spaces.

I agree. The references I've seen make Node 3 look like Node 2. I
know ESA and NASA were considering stretching Node 3 (to replace some
of the deleted HAB module functions), but it looks like the ESA web
site still shows Node 3 looking very similar to Node 2:

Node 3
http://www.esa.int/export/esaHS/ESAFQL0VMOC_iss_0.html

Node 2
http://www.esa.int/export/esaHS/ESAWEL0VMOC_iss_0.html

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

Guys, I was responsible for the IV&V on a good bit of US Node 3 flight
software. I know US Node 3 real well. It has space for an extra ring of
racks, i.e. it's bigger. US Node 1 and US Node 2 are 100% identical i.e. a
ring of 4 racks. US Node 1 and 2 serve as connecting hubs, US Node 3 has
crew racks (bunks, personal space) and extra ECLSS, ITCS capabilities
(racks). Somethings from the US Hab.
"jeff findley" wrote in message
...
Reivilo Snuved writes:

Do you have sources for this ? Last time I checked, the Node 3 hull was
identical to the Node 2 hull, i.e 2 axial ports + 4 radial ports + 8
rack
spaces. Node 1 is smaller with only 4 rack spaces.

I agree. The references I've seen make Node 3 look like Node 2. I
know ESA and NASA were considering stretching Node 3 (to replace some
of the deleted HAB module functions), but it looks like the ESA web
site still shows Node 3 looking very similar to Node 2:

Node 3
http://www.esa.int/export/esaHS/ESAFQL0VMOC_iss_0.html

Node 2
http://www.esa.int/export/esaHS/ESAWEL0VMOC_iss_0.html

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

"bitflip" writes:

Guys, I was responsible for the IV&V on a good bit of US Node 3 flight
software. I know US Node 3 real well. It has space for an extra ring of
racks, i.e. it's bigger. US Node 1 and US Node 2 are 100% identical i.e. a
ring of 4 racks. US Node 1 and 2 serve as connecting hubs, US Node 3 has
crew racks (bunks, personal space) and extra ECLSS, ITCS capabilities
(racks). Somethings from the US Hab.

Although in the initial plans, Node 1 STA was to be refurbished as Node 2,
this never happened in reality. Today's Node 2 was manufactured by Alenia
Spazio and has roughly MPLM dimensions. Node 1 STA lies unused in a hangar.
So Node 1 and Node 2 are markedly different. In fact Node 2 recently arrived
at KSC so I invite you to check for yourself there how it looks. You will
see that it holds 4 DDCU racks and 4 spaces are available.
Node 3 is also made by Alenia Spazio and I understand the hull design is
exactly the same. There was a window of opportunity for "extending" Node 3
which I think disappeared when the endcones were welded.

I agree US Node 2 was made in Italy and is a match for US Node 1. I know the
people who made it (I have seen both). The stop work order to Boeing came in
1997, when Italy agreed to build Node 2 for the US in exchange for time on
orbit. The Node STA was at one time going to be the heart of the USPM. A
little know reason for not using the Node STA is all the manufacturing
problems and mistakes that went into/on it. When they took the STA from
MSFC, I though it went to JSC for storage like the Hab (aka Lab STA), that's
what I was told when I saw it getting loaded on the guppy. Node 2 holds
ECLSS, ITCS and I forget the other two racks. US Node 3 pressure shell is
finished and will not be stretched. The only reason for making US Node 3
bigger is to put US Hab hardware on station.



"Reivilo Snuved" wrote in message
...
"bitflip" writes:

Guys, I was responsible for the IV&V on a good bit of US Node 3 flight
software. I know US Node 3 real well. It has space for an extra ring of
racks, i.e. it's bigger. US Node 1 and US Node 2 are 100% identical i.e.
a
ring of 4 racks. US Node 1 and 2 serve as connecting hubs, US Node 3 has
crew racks (bunks, personal space) and extra ECLSS, ITCS capabilities
(racks). Somethings from the US Hab.

Although in the initial plans, Node 1 STA was to be refurbished as Node 2,
this never happened in reality. Today's Node 2 was manufactured by Alenia
Spazio and has roughly MPLM dimensions. Node 1 STA lies unused in a
hangar.
So Node 1 and Node 2 are markedly different. In fact Node 2 recently
arrived
at KSC so I invite you to check for yourself there how it looks. You will
see that it holds 4 DDCU racks and 4 spaces are available.
Node 3 is also made by Alenia Spazio and I understand the hull design is
exactly the same. There was a window of opportunity for "extending" Node 3
which I think disappeared when the endcones were welded.

Brian Thorn wrote:

So what's the verdict?

The Node 2 that just arrived at KSC holds twice the number of racks as
Node 1 "Unity" on orbit (1 rack ring), and the Node 3 now being
included in the budget is the same as the Node 2 that just arrived at
KSC (2 rack rings), right?

That's my recollection as well: Node 1 has four racks, Nodes 2 & 3 have
eight each.

Mike

-----
Michael Kent Apple II Forever!!
St. Peters, MO

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...

The Node 2 that just arrived at KSC holds twice the number of racks as
Node 1 "Unity" on orbit (1 rack ring), and the Node 3 now being
included in the budget is the same as the Node 2 that just arrived at
KSC (2 rack rings), right?


Yes, that's correct. But for those people who are disappointed that Node 3
is not stretched and will not support deleted Hab module hardware, here is
some (old but) good news: The ECLSS systems that were being developed for
the U.S. Hab Module are funded in the President's FY'04 budget request. In a
NASA document that I have seen concerning that station's future development,
it lists a U.S. Habitation Module as a "future funded" module, after the
rest of the station is completed to come online probably soon after the OTV
is ready to be used as a permanent lifeboat. As a separately funded project,
the Hab Module may have a larger budget than what was previously planned.