Can 2 Shuttles dock to ISS at once?

If ISS is being configured as a safe haven for a crippled shuttle, is
it possible for the 2nd shuttle to also dock with ISS? If so, are
there time limitations for the 2 shuttles to be at ISS
simulataneously?

(Explorer8939) wrote in
om:

If ISS is being configured as a safe haven for a crippled shuttle, is
it possible for the 2nd shuttle to also dock with ISS?

No. There's no place to put the secondary docking mechanism (PMA-3) that
would allow positive clearance. For "safe haven", the first (damaged)
shuttle would be undocked unmanned, and deorbited destructively, prior to
the arrival of the second.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

No. There's no place to put the secondary docking mechanism (PMA-3) that
would allow positive clearance. For "safe haven", the first (damaged)
shuttle would be undocked unmanned, and deorbited destructively, prior to
the arrival of the second.


Oh sure lets just throw away a multi billion dollar irreplaceable asset........

Things like this should be planned for...

On 26 Oct 2003 18:03:38 GMT, (Hallerb) wrote:


No. There's no place to put the secondary docking mechanism (PMA-3) that
would allow positive clearance. For "safe haven", the first (damaged)
shuttle would be undocked unmanned, and deorbited destructively, prior to
the arrival of the second.

What about on the z-axis? Wasn't that where the shuttle docked when they added
the Lab and relocated PMA2?



Oh sure lets just throw away a multi billion dollar irreplaceable asset........

Things like this should be planned for...

You *do* realize that the "safe haven" concept is for when the shuttle cannot
come home and survive but can still dock, right? Apparently not.

You can't keep the shuttle hanging around for a year while you think up tile
repair scenarios, for example, or you've suffered failures that take away
deorbit capability.

And nothing is irreplacable - Endeavour replaced Challenger, for one.

--
Michael R. Grabois # http://chili.cjb.net # http://wizardimps.blogspot.com
"People say losing builds character. That's the stupidest thing I ever
heard. All losing does is suck. " -- Charles Barkley, 9/29/96

You *do* realize that the "safe haven" concept is for when the shuttle cannot
come home and survive but can still dock, right? Apparently not.

You can't keep the shuttle hanging around for a year while you think up tile
repair scenarios, for example, or you've suffered failures that take away
deorbit capability.

And nothing is irreplacable - Endeavour replaced Challenger, for one.


Well columbia isnt being replaced, and the next lost orbiter will likely ground
the other two permanetely. I dont believe there has been ANY serious talk of
more orbiters.

Lets imagine atlantis stuck at station and needing a repair that will take 2
moinths to accomplish. Wouldnt it be good NOW to figure out how to reinflate
the tires and work around whatever other critical system problems would prevent
a 2 month station stay?

The alternative is tossing out a oherwise good orbiter.

Thats like saying your car getting a flat should go to the junkyard and be
crushed

"Michael R. Grabois ... change $ to \"s\""
wrote in :

On 26 Oct 2003 18:03:38 GMT, (Hallerb) wrote:

No. There's no place to put the secondary docking mechanism (PMA-3)
that would allow positive clearance. For "safe haven", the first
(damaged) shuttle would be undocked unmanned, and deorbited
destructively, prior to the arrival of the second.

What about on the z-axis? Wasn't that where the shuttle docked when
they added the Lab and relocated PMA2?

Right, PMA-3 on the nadir (+Z) CBM. But with a shuttle already docked to
PMA-2, a tail-forward docking at PMA-3 (as was done for 4A and 5A) would
result in the two shuttles colliding. A nose-forward docking was never
possible due to collision with the FGB. A nose-out-of-plane docking isn't
possible due to collision with the Quest airlock.

It simply won't be possible to dock two shuttles to ISS until Nodes 2 and 3
are added. Then you could dock one shuttle to PMA-2 on Node 2, and another
to PMA-3 on Node 3, provided you "clock" PMA-3 for a nose-out-of-plane
docking. A nose-forward docking might also be possible at PMA-3 if the
Russian modules aren't added, but it's a constraint that one Russian module
*must* be added to FGB nadir prior to Node 3, else FGB nadir will no longer
be able to accommodate Soyuz.

Oh sure lets just throw away a multi billion dollar irreplaceable
asset........

Things like this should be planned for...

You *do* realize that the "safe haven" concept is for when the shuttle
cannot come home and survive but can still dock, right? Apparently
not.

And apparently he doesn't realize that ISS is only partially assembled, and
it is simply not possible to provide for *every* contingency scenario at
*every* stage of assembly.

Typical hallerb...


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

And apparently he doesn't realize that ISS is only partially assembled, and
it is simply not possible to provide for *every* contingency scenario at
*every* stage of assembly.

Typical hallerb...

I am more interested in the lack f interest by posters here in how to keep a
shutt;le at station longer than a month and return it safely.

Just as I am curious as to the lack of interest here in a small cargo fast to
orbit for a stranded shuttle or ISS emergency

These remind me of managers lacking interest in columbias foam impact on
launch

On 26 Oct 2003 22:15:37 GMT, (Hallerb) wrote:


You *do* realize that the "safe haven" concept is for when the shuttle cannot
come home and survive but can still dock, right? Apparently not.

You can't keep the shuttle hanging around for a year while you think up tile
repair scenarios, for example, or you've suffered failures that take away
deorbit capability.

And nothing is irreplacable - Endeavour replaced Challenger, for one.


Well columbia isnt being replaced, and the next lost orbiter will likely ground
the other two permanetely. I dont believe there has been ANY serious talk of
more orbiters.

Just because it's not being replaced doesn't mean it's irreplacable.

Lets imagine atlantis stuck at station and needing a repair that will take 2
moinths to accomplish. Wouldnt it be good NOW to figure out how to reinflate
the tires and work around whatever other critical system problems would prevent
a 2 month station stay?

You *can't* reinflate the tires because you can't *get* to the tires in the
wheel wells, because if you open the gear doors you can't get them closed.

You can't maintain orbiter systems without power, and you need pressurized cryo
to generate the power. There's not enough cryo to last that long even if you
power down everything. You need power to pressurize the tanks via heaters. They
are working on a way to power the orbiter via the ISS, but that's still a few
years off. Until then, you're stuck.


The alternative is tossing out a oherwise good orbiter.

But it's not an "oherwise" good orbiter. It's broken.

Thats like saying your car getting a flat should go to the junkyard and be
crushed

Hardly a fair analogy. A flat tire is a relatively minor repair; cars carry
spare tires and you can change it out easily. Are you equating a 15-inch hole
in the leading edge RCC with a flat tire on a car?

--
Michael R. Grabois # http://chili.cjb.net # http://wizardimps.blogspot.com
"People say losing builds character. That's the stupidest thing I ever
heard. All losing does is suck. " -- Charles Barkley, 9/29/96

Jorge:

To put this positively, if Node 2 is available and Node 3 is not, two
shuttles could dock at ISS at the same time.



"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message ...
"Michael R. Grabois ... change $ to \"s\""
wrote in :

On 26 Oct 2003 18:03:38 GMT, (Hallerb) wrote:

No. There's no place to put the secondary docking mechanism (PMA-3)
that would allow positive clearance. For "safe haven", the first
(damaged) shuttle would be undocked unmanned, and deorbited
destructively, prior to the arrival of the second.

What about on the z-axis? Wasn't that where the shuttle docked when
they added the Lab and relocated PMA2?

Right, PMA-3 on the nadir (+Z) CBM. But with a shuttle already docked to
PMA-2, a tail-forward docking at PMA-3 (as was done for 4A and 5A) would
result in the two shuttles colliding. A nose-forward docking was never
possible due to collision with the FGB. A nose-out-of-plane docking isn't
possible due to collision with the Quest airlock.

It simply won't be possible to dock two shuttles to ISS until Nodes 2 and 3
are added. Then you could dock one shuttle to PMA-2 on Node 2, and another
to PMA-3 on Node 3, provided you "clock" PMA-3 for a nose-out-of-plane
docking. A nose-forward docking might also be possible at PMA-3 if the
Russian modules aren't added, but it's a constraint that one Russian module
*must* be added to FGB nadir prior to Node 3, else FGB nadir will no longer
be able to accommodate Soyuz.

Oh sure lets just throw away a multi billion dollar irreplaceable
asset........

Things like this should be planned for...

You *do* realize that the "safe haven" concept is for when the shuttle
cannot come home and survive but can still dock, right? Apparently
not.

And apparently he doesn't realize that ISS is only partially assembled, and
it is simply not possible to provide for *every* contingency scenario at
*every* stage of assembly.

Typical hallerb...

(Explorer8939) wrote in
om:

To put this positively, if Node 2 is available and Node 3 is not, two
shuttles could dock at ISS at the same time.

I don't think so. The shuttle that docks to PMA-3 would still collide with
Quest. Node 3 is required to provide clearance between the shuttle and
Quest.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.