Node 3 officially added back into station design...

http://space.com/php/multimedia/imag...Credit%3A+NASA

I haven't reviewed this carefully, so there may be other surprises in
here, besides the addition of Node 3... Let me know if you find any...

BTW, this is from the international meeting that they were supposed to
have had Columbia come home in one peice (they finally had it the
meeting yesterday... see
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...ew_040723.html ) ... This
could be a sign that things are starting to get back on track!

Peter Altschuler wrote:
http://space.com/php/multimedia/imag...Credit%3A+NASA

I haven't reviewed this carefully, so there may be other surprises in
here, besides the addition of Node 3... Let me know if you find any...

ESA was always going to deliver Node 3 to NASA as part of the barter
agreement in exchange for the launch of Columbus (IIRC, it's been a
while since I last looked at the details of the arrangements surrounding
Columbus, the MPLMs, and the Nodes).

If ESA is going to deliver the thing to NASA, then NASA's got no real
reason not to launch it.

Other things of interest are the presence of the CAM, and the number of
things still planned for the Russian Segment (the SPM, RM, and MPM). I
would have thought that the Heads of Agency meeting would have been a
good opportunity for the other heads to ask the Russians to be more
realistic about what they expect to deliver, but they apparently didn't.

--Chris

Chris Bennetts wrote in message ...

Other things of interest are the presence of the CAM, and the number of
things still planned for the Russian Segment (the SPM, RM, and MPM). I
would have thought that the Heads of Agency meeting would have been a
good opportunity for the other heads to ask the Russians to be more
realistic about what they expect to deliver, but they apparently didn't.

--Chris


Actually it looks like they did come up with some compromises. The
Universal Docking Module (UDM), which was originally going to be a
brand new design but was later replaced by the FGB back-up module, has
now been renamed the Russian Research Module.

Originally there were going to be 2 Russian Research Modules in
addition to the UDM but now it looks like all three have been combined
into one. The Research Modules were removed from the Russian Segment
of ISS during the Russian Design Review of August 2001 (although that
design only showed the Russian segment through 2007).

Also, I remember the Russians wanting the US to launch the Enterprise
Multi-Purpose Laboratory Module (MLM) along with the Science Power
Platform (SPP) via space shuttle (in exchange for providing the second
Soyuz for ISS?) but now it looks like it will be delivered by Russian
booster.

How far the SPP, RM, and Enterprise are coming along and whether they
will ever be launched is another matter!

DJV

Also, I remember the Russians wanting the US to launch the Enterprise
Multi-Purpose Laboratory Module (MLM) along with the Science Power
Platform (SPP) via space shuttle (in exchange for providing the second
Soyuz for ISS?) but now it looks like it will be delivered by Russian
booster.

So, my recollection was that there was one space shuttle flight
manifested for this for a long time. At one point, the Russian plan
was to launch Enterprise and the SPP both on that same mission, I
believe.

So my first reaction is that shuttle flight is back to SPP-only,
sounds like. If so, does that mean they will scale up SPP back to its
original size (it was downsized at least in part so it could fit on
the shuttle along with Enterprise)?

But now I actually look for evidence, and the plot seems to have
thickened. At http://www.spaceonline.tv/iss_assembly_flights.htm the
SPP is split across two shuttle flights. So maybe my recollection
about "one shuttle flight" is out of date.

The http://www.spaceref.com/iss/schedules/10.30.00.as.html page, which
would seem to be slightly more up to date than that one, but is still
3 years old, also shows multiple shuttle flights for SPP.

I didn't see any post-Columbia assembly sequences; I suppose
everyone is focused on return to flight.

How far the SPP, RM, and Enterprise are coming along and whether they
will ever be launched is another matter!

Well, yes. This could make the above points moot.

But if they don't have the RM, there will be problems docking at the
nadir port now used by Soyuz (Zvezda or Zarya, I forget which) (If
memory serves the problems start once Node 3 arrives at Node 1 nadir).

And if they don't have the SPP, isn't there a problem with the solar
panels on Zvezda and/or Zarya getting shadowed by expansion on the US
side, and the Russian segment being low on power as a result?

Jim Kingdon wrote:
And if they don't have the SPP, isn't there a problem with the solar
panels on Zvezda and/or Zarya getting shadowed by expansion on the US
side, and the Russian segment being low on power as a result?

My take on this is that somehow, the Russians won't have to send SPP up
because the USA will agree to just give them more power.

I suspect that right now, the Russians, having saved the day during Shuttle
stand-down without any financial help from the USA, will probbaly have
negotiated some non-financial services from the USA, including increased power transfers.

The question is whether they will need to upgrade the power converters on Z1
that bridge between USA and Russian segments or whether those were designed to
handle the "whole" load to begin with.

Jim Kingdon wrote:

So, my recollection was that there was one space shuttle flight
manifested for this for a long time. At one point, the Russian plan
was to launch Enterprise and the SPP both on that same mission, I
believe.

That's my recollection, too.

So my first reaction is that shuttle flight is back to SPP-only,
sounds like. If so, does that mean they will scale up SPP back to its
original size (it was downsized at least in part so it could fit on
the shuttle along with Enterprise)?

Not likely. Sizing it back up would drive the costs back up, and the
Russians can't afford even the simplified version.

But now I actually look for evidence, and the plot seems to have
thickened. At http://www.spaceonline.tv/iss_assembly_flights.htm the
SPP is split across two shuttle flights. So maybe my recollection
about "one shuttle flight" is out of date.

The http://www.spaceref.com/iss/schedules/10.30.00.as.html page, which
would seem to be slightly more up to date than that one, but is still
3 years old, also shows multiple shuttle flights for SPP.

I can only see one flight (9A.1) in each of those for the launch of the
SPP itself. Later flights in those schedules do carry extra sets of
solar arrays for it (the SPP was to be launched with only four arrays,
another four were to be added later), but only the one flight for the
SPP itself.

The earliest plans had the SPP being launched in two parts on Russian
expendables.

I didn't see any post-Columbia assembly sequences; I suppose
everyone is focused on return to flight.

I did see an ISS planning document appear on Nasawatch/Spaceref.com
sometime after the loss of Columbia. I can't seem to find it now.

But if they don't have the RM, there will be problems docking at the
nadir port now used by Soyuz (Zvezda or Zarya, I forget which) (If
memory serves the problems start once Node 3 arrives at Node 1 nadir).

That's right. The approach to Zarya's nadir port becomes unacceptably
tight (especially in the case of a docking abort) after the arrival of
Node 3.

And if they don't have the SPP, isn't there a problem with the solar
panels on Zvezda and/or Zarya getting shadowed by expansion on the US
side, and the Russian segment being low on power as a result?

Not if power keeps being supplied from the US segment. I do recall,
though, that further expansion on the Russian side is unviable without
the extra power provided by the SPP.

--Chris

Chris Bennetts wrote:
Not likely. Sizing it back up would drive the costs back up, and the
Russians can't afford even the simplified version.

There is a difference between "can't afford" and "won't give the funds".

Russia is making tons of oil money. And the government is in the process of
appropriating some $3 billion bucks from the largest oil company (Yukos)
claiming Yukos owes it that much in back taxes.

Of course, there are other priorities than space and that is the real issue.

It is doubtful that Russia will scale UP the SPP. And in a way, it makes sense
to put Pirs on top of the station since this is where most EVAs want to go to anyways.

Jim Kingdon wrote in message ...

The http://www.spaceref.com/iss/schedules/10.30.00.as.html page, which
would seem to be slightly more up to date than that one, but is still
3 years old, also shows multiple shuttle flights for SPP.

AFAIK, originally there were going to be 3 assembly flights for the
SPP (tower + 2 solar panels, then 2 more flights carrying 2 solar
panels each plus the radiators).

The scaled down SPP only has 4 solar panels and no radiators, so I
guess that is where the two scheduled shuttle flights for the SPP come
from.

The original purpose of the SPP was to provide power for all of the
Russian modules. Now, however, there won't be so many Russian modules
anymore. So, who knows?

DJV