|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Andrew Gray wrote in
: On 2004-08-15, bob haller wrote: All of the remaining truss sections are at KSC and progressing towards launch. Pressurised modules at KSC are Node 2 and the JEM. Node 3, Columbus (I think), the centrifuge, and the JEM logistics module are yet to arrive, possibly due to lack of room in the SSPF. On the Russian side, the FGB backup exists, but has presumably been in storage without any progress since about 1998. Beyond parts of the SPP (the old design, not the current version), I would be very surprised if any other Russian hardware exists at all. --Chris If we flew ONLY assemble module flights how many would there be? This isn't hard to, you know, try to work out yourself. http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/spac...e/manifest.txt Discounting minor or secondary payloads (there's probably some minor hardware flown on supply flights): STS-114 (LF-1) has the replacement CMG. This may seem like a minor/secondary payload, but it's on the critical path: 12A and 12A.1 *cannot* be completed without it, and 12A lacks the performance to carry it, and the EVA resources/timeline to install it. STS-121 (ULF-1.1) is a bit more of a gray area; it is not necessary for assembly, but it *is* an essential test flight for many of the return-to- flight techniques and hardware required by the CAIB before the assembly sequence can resume. STS-115 (12A) has the P3/P4 truss segment STS-xxx (12A.1) has the P5 truss segment (not yet manifested, it seems - but would be STS-116?) Yes, STS-116. That flight is manifested, though not yet baselined in the FDRD (it, along with STS-117-120, were removed from the FDRD after the accident). STS-117 (13A) has the S3/S4 truss segment STS-118 (13A.1) has the S5 truss segment STS-119 (15A) has the S6 truss segment STS-120 (10A) has Node 2 - we're in 2007 by now, and US Core Complete? STS-123 (1E) has Columbus; the first "barter flight". I wouldn't pay attention to the STS numbers for the flights below. STS-129 (1J/A) has Kibo, the Japanese module Actually, this is just the Kibo external logistics module. This flight also carries the SPDM, unless it gets diverted to HST. STS-126 (1J) has the main Kibo pressurized module STS-129 (2J/A) has the Kibo exposed facility STS-130 (20A) has Node 3 STS-134 (UF-7) has the CAM STS-132 (9A.1) has VCC-RD1, which seems to be the Science Power Platform and other Russian bits. STS-134 (2J/A) has VCC-RD2, which is parts of the SPP... Actually, this is 9A.2, not 2J/A, which is a Japanese flight (see above). and finally... STS-136 (14A) the Cupola, which I think makes International Core Complete. So eleven, plus a couple of bits and pieces on other flights. Call it an even dozen, maybe, out of the 24 manifested flights? I call it 15 (arguably 16 or 17, with STS-114 and 121) out of 28, but I think my manifest is a bit more up-to-date than Steven's. I doubt you could compress it further, although the fact that the SPP has about as much chance of making it to the station as I do probably could shave a fight off that number. I agree. Maybe two (9A.1 and 9A.2). STS-125 (UF4) is nominally an "operations" flight, but does bring parts of the arm equipment, which is external "infrastructure" hardware. Incidentally, it also notes it's an EDO flight (of Atlantis) - I thought the only EDO hardware was lost with Columbia? More to the point, is there a specific reason for flying this particular ISS flight as EDO? Paging Jorge... I'm curious now. Gotta be a typo, or cut-n-paste error from an old manifest. Mine has no EDO flights on it. STS-137 is manifested, but has no listed payload or mission - just "ISS-40", no LF or UF number. It may be sacrificial to the schedule if things slip? More like a placeholder. The process has gone something like this (roughly): STS: How many flights you need? ISS: (checks upmass requirements, divides by capacity) 28. So now STS fills out a manifest, and fills in the flight names (12A, 12A.1, etc) of the flights that already had defined launch packages. The rest get placeholder names ("ISS-40", etc). Next ISS divides the remaining upmass into launch packages, and STS starts filling out the manifest. The IPs get involved, not just due to their module schedules (COF, JEM) but their visiting vehicle schedules: the launch of COF obligates ESA to start flying ATV, so COF (1E) has to wait until ESA thinks ATV will be ready, even if the module is ready sooner. Ditto JAXA with the JEM and HTV. The logistics/supply flights are actually pretty important to the survival of ISS after shuttle retirement. In the endgame, many of those flights are "pre-positioning" supplies and spares that can only be carried up by the shuttle, such that the station can survive malfunctions and supply disruptions after there are no more shuttle flights. -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
On 15 Aug 2004 16:04:06 GMT, Andrew Gray
wrote: Strange. I remember reading Colombus had arrived and been tested and is now in storage at KSC. Did I misremember? Some poking around doesn't seem to tell me; I can find a couple dozen iterations of the "we have Node 2 and JEM" press release, but if they recieved Columbus they kept quiet about it. g Delivery to KSC is now scheduled for March, 2006... "http://www.eads.net/frame/lang/en/1024/xml/content/OF00000000400004/5/48/30812485.html" Brian |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On 2004-08-15, Jorge R. Frank wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote in : On 2004-08-15, bob haller wrote: All of the remaining truss sections are at KSC and progressing towards launch. Pressurised modules at KSC are Node 2 and the JEM. Node 3, Columbus (I think), the centrifuge, and the JEM logistics module are yet to arrive, possibly due to lack of room in the SSPF. On the Russian side, the FGB backup exists, but has presumably been in storage without any progress since about 1998. Beyond parts of the SPP (the old design, not the current version), I would be very surprised if any other Russian hardware exists at all. --Chris If we flew ONLY assemble module flights how many would there be? This isn't hard to, you know, try to work out yourself. http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/spac...e/manifest.txt Discounting minor or secondary payloads (there's probably some minor hardware flown on supply flights): STS-114 (LF-1) has the replacement CMG. This may seem like a minor/secondary payload, but it's on the critical path: 12A and 12A.1 *cannot* be completed without it, and 12A lacks the performance to carry it, and the EVA resources/timeline to install it. Hmm, good point. I wasn't thinking of replacement hardware and "outfittings" as counting for what BH was asking, and the CMGs slipped my mind. (They are pretty much Shuttle-only, right?) There'll likely be other hardware, too, that fails like a CMG; it may be another one, or similar hardware, but a Shuttle-limited replacement flight is fairly likely over the next few years, I'd have thought. STS-121 (ULF-1.1) is a bit more of a gray area; it is not necessary for assembly, but it *is* an essential test flight for many of the return-to- flight techniques and hardware required by the CAIB before the assembly sequence can resume. In theory, could these be done on an assembly flight, or would timelines not allow? STS-115 (12A) has the P3/P4 truss segment STS-xxx (12A.1) has the P5 truss segment (not yet manifested, it seems - but would be STS-116?) Yes, STS-116. That flight is manifested, though not yet baselined in the FDRD (it, along with STS-117-120, were removed from the FDRD after the accident). FDRD? Flight Design ? ? STS-117 (13A) has the S3/S4 truss segment STS-118 (13A.1) has the S5 truss segment STS-119 (15A) has the S6 truss segment STS-120 (10A) has Node 2 - we're in 2007 by now, and US Core Complete? STS-123 (1E) has Columbus; the first "barter flight". I wouldn't pay attention to the STS numbers for the flights below. STS-129 (1J/A) has Kibo, the Japanese module Actually, this is just the Kibo external logistics module. This flight also carries the SPDM, unless it gets diverted to HST. STS-126 (1J) has the main Kibo pressurized module STS-129 (2J/A) has the Kibo exposed facility STS-130 (20A) has Node 3 STS-134 (UF-7) has the CAM I got very confused by the Kibo flights. Are all three parts limited to Shuttle and flown up once only? Also, is there a particular reason UF-7 is listed as a utilization flight not an assembly flight? STS-132 (9A.1) has VCC-RD1, which seems to be the Science Power Platform and other Russian bits. STS-134 (2J/A) has VCC-RD2, which is parts of the SPP... Actually, this is 9A.2, not 2J/A, which is a Japanese flight (see above). and finally... STS-136 (14A) the Cupola, which I think makes International Core Complete. So eleven, plus a couple of bits and pieces on other flights. Call it an even dozen, maybe, out of the 24 manifested flights? I call it 15 (arguably 16 or 17, with STS-114 and 121) out of 28, but I think my manifest is a bit more up-to-date than Steven's. Hmm. So, once you've trimmed the SPP (which is generally thought to be vapourware, I understand) flights, it looks like about half being required flights for hardware that can't be carried other than on Shuttle, plus potentially a couple of "contingency" ones for failures. I'm making the slightly flaky but general assumption that anything manifested on a "cargo" flight can be shoehorned into an ATV or Progress, at least in theory. STS-125 (UF4) is nominally an "operations" flight, but does bring parts of the arm equipment, which is external "infrastructure" hardware. Incidentally, it also notes it's an EDO flight (of Atlantis) - I thought the only EDO hardware was lost with Columbia? More to the point, is there a specific reason for flying this particular ISS flight as EDO? Paging Jorge... I'm curious now. Gotta be a typo, or cut-n-paste error from an old manifest. Mine has no EDO flights on it. It'd make sense. I was really rather confused by that; even were there an EDO pallet around, flying it to ISS would seem odd. More like a placeholder. The process has gone something like this (roughly): (...) Thanks. The logistics/supply flights are actually pretty important to the survival of ISS after shuttle retirement. In the endgame, many of those flights are "pre-positioning" supplies and spares that can only be carried up by the shuttle, such that the station can survive malfunctions and supply disruptions after there are no more shuttle flights. Hmm, interesting. -- -Andrew Gray |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Andrew Gray wrote in
: On 2004-08-15, Jorge R. Frank wrote: STS-114 (LF-1) has the replacement CMG. This may seem like a minor/secondary payload, but it's on the critical path: 12A and 12A.1 *cannot* be completed without it, and 12A lacks the performance to carry it, and the EVA resources/timeline to install it. Hmm, good point. I wasn't thinking of replacement hardware and "outfittings" as counting for what BH was asking, and the CMGs slipped my mind. (They are pretty much Shuttle-only, right?) At this time, yes. It is possible to retrofit a Progress, ATV, or HTV to carry one (it would have to be an external carrier, since the CMG can't fit through the hatches), but that would not be ready before the shuttle. STS-121 (ULF-1.1) is a bit more of a gray area; it is not necessary for assembly, but it *is* an essential test flight for many of the return-to- flight techniques and hardware required by the CAIB before the assembly sequence can resume. In theory, could these be done on an assembly flight, or would timelines not allow? The latter. If anything, the timelines on the assembly flights are oversubscribed. FDRD? Flight Design ? ? Flight Definition and Requirements Directive. The document that contains top-level flight requirements, so that Flight Design can go off and do their more detailed work. I got very confused by the Kibo flights. Are all three parts limited to Shuttle and flown up once only? Yes. Also, is there a particular reason UF-7 is listed as a utilization flight not an assembly flight? What's in a name? :-) Hmm. So, once you've trimmed the SPP (which is generally thought to be vapourware, I understand) flights, I agree, the SPP is vaporware. I'm making the slightly flaky but general assumption that anything manifested on a "cargo" flight can be shoehorned into an ATV or Progress, at least in theory. Standard ISS equipment racks won't fit through their hatches. The only vehicle other than the shuttle that can carry these racks is the HTV. -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ANN: New Version of Deepsky Software (DAS) | Deepsky Astronomy Software | Astronomy Misc | 0 | June 3rd 04 11:44 PM |
ANN: New Version of Deepsky Software (DAS) | Deepsky Astronomy Software | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | June 3rd 04 11:43 PM |
ICCD XX1700 Modules | Ted G | CCD Imaging | 0 | April 10th 04 07:07 AM |
ISS Modules without Shuttle? | Josh Gigantino | Policy | 10 | November 27th 03 05:30 AM |
Commercial ISS Modules? | BenignVanilla | Space Station | 7 | July 13th 03 03:33 PM |