NASA seeking ideas for use of space station docking port

NASA seeking ideas for use of space station docking port
by Jeff Foust ? July 15, 2016
http://spacenews.com/nasa-seeking-id...space-station-
docking-port/

Interesting. You'd think this would be the ideal spot for a "full
size" Bigelow expandable module, but some new startup (Axiom Space) is
proposing a conventional (aluminum) module.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

Perhaps with the Americans love for guns it could become a zero g firing
range?

grin.
Brian
--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

NASA seeking ideas for use of space station docking port
by Jeff Foust ? July 15, 2016
http://spacenews.com/nasa-seeking-id...space-station-
docking-port/

Interesting. You'd think this would be the ideal spot for a "full
size" Bigelow expandable module, but some new startup (Axiom Space) is
proposing a conventional (aluminum) module.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...


NASA seeking ideas for use of space station docking port
by Jeff Foust ? July 15, 2016
http://spacenews.com/nasa-seeking-id...space-station-
docking-port/

Interesting. You'd think this would be the ideal spot for a "full
size" Bigelow expandable module, but some new startup (Axiom Space) is
proposing a conventional (aluminum) module.

Jeff


Interesting. My guess is Axiom is being a bit risk adverse. I can sort of
see that.

This got me looking at the current config of the US side of the space
station.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...April_2016.svg

So if I have this right, Leonardo is basically parallel to Destiny? Didn't
realize that.

Looking at Node-2, it looks like PMA-3 will be relocated to that along wig
with IDA-3 (to be launched).
So that in theory frees up another slot.

But what confused me, is that nodes (Unity, Harmony, Tranquility) each have
6 ports.

Unity has 5 in use (PMA-1 aft, Leonardo port, Destiny forward, Quest
starboard and Z1 Trust Sement Zenith, nothing on the Nadir port)
Harmony has 5 in use (Quest on Aft, Kibo on Port, PMA-2 Forward, Columbus
starboard and eventually PMA-3/IDA3 Zenith, again nothing on Nadir)
Tranquility has 3 in use (BEAM currently Aft (port in question for this
one), PMA-3 (Currently) Port, Leonardo Forward, Unity Port and Cupola Nadir,
nothing Zenith).

It seems to me, a number of ports are free. I believe Tranquility doesn't
have all ports set to necessarily provide power/etc. But it seems to me
there's additional ports NASA could be looking at to make available. Any
idea why they're only offering the BEAM port?

And there is of course if they want to fly it, Node 4.





--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

In article ,
says...

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...


NASA seeking ideas for use of space station docking port
by Jeff Foust ? July 15, 2016
http://spacenews.com/nasa-seeking-id...space-station-
docking-port/

Interesting. You'd think this would be the ideal spot for a "full
size" Bigelow expandable module, but some new startup (Axiom Space) is
proposing a conventional (aluminum) module.

Jeff


Interesting. My guess is Axiom is being a bit risk adverse. I can sort of
see that.

This got me looking at the current config of the US side of the space
station.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...April_2016.svg

So if I have this right, Leonardo is basically parallel to Destiny? Didn't
realize that.

Looking at Node-2, it looks like PMA-3 will be relocated to that along wig
with IDA-3 (to be launched).
So that in theory frees up another slot.

But what confused me, is that nodes (Unity, Harmony, Tranquility) each have
6 ports.

Unity has 5 in use (PMA-1 aft, Leonardo port, Destiny forward, Quest
starboard and Z1 Trust Sement Zenith, nothing on the Nadir port)
Harmony has 5 in use (Quest on Aft, Kibo on Port, PMA-2 Forward, Columbus
starboard and eventually PMA-3/IDA3 Zenith, again nothing on Nadir)
Tranquility has 3 in use (BEAM currently Aft (port in question for this
one), PMA-3 (Currently) Port, Leonardo Forward, Unity Port and Cupola Nadir,
nothing Zenith).

It seems to me, a number of ports are free. I believe Tranquility doesn't
have all ports set to necessarily provide power/etc. But it seems to me
there's additional ports NASA could be looking at to make available. Any
idea why they're only offering the BEAM port?

And there is of course if they want to fly it, Node 4.

Have you taken into account the CBM port(s) used for Commercial Cargo
vehicles? I'd think there would be at least two of these (one primary
and one backup).

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...


NASA seeking ideas for use of space station docking port
by Jeff Foust ? July 15, 2016
http://spacenews.com/nasa-seeking-id...space-station-
docking-port/

Interesting. You'd think this would be the ideal spot for a "full
size" Bigelow expandable module, but some new startup (Axiom Space) is
proposing a conventional (aluminum) module.

Jeff


Interesting. My guess is Axiom is being a bit risk adverse. I can sort of
see that.

This got me looking at the current config of the US side of the space
station.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...April_2016.svg

So if I have this right, Leonardo is basically parallel to Destiny?
Didn't
realize that.

Looking at Node-2, it looks like PMA-3 will be relocated to that along
wig
with IDA-3 (to be launched).
So that in theory frees up another slot.

But what confused me, is that nodes (Unity, Harmony, Tranquility) each
have
6 ports.

Unity has 5 in use (PMA-1 aft, Leonardo port, Destiny forward, Quest
starboard and Z1 Trust Sement Zenith, nothing on the Nadir port)
Harmony has 5 in use (Quest on Aft, Kibo on Port, PMA-2 Forward, Columbus
starboard and eventually PMA-3/IDA3 Zenith, again nothing on Nadir)
Tranquility has 3 in use (BEAM currently Aft (port in question for this
one), PMA-3 (Currently) Port, Leonardo Forward, Unity Port and Cupola
Nadir,
nothing Zenith).

It seems to me, a number of ports are free. I believe Tranquility doesn't
have all ports set to necessarily provide power/etc. But it seems to me
there's additional ports NASA could be looking at to make available. Any
idea why they're only offering the BEAM port?

And there is of course if they want to fly it, Node 4.

Have you taken into account the CBM port(s) used for Commercial Cargo
vehicles? I'd think there would be at least two of these (one primary
and one backup).


Hmm, good point. Looking at Wikipedia, it appears that nadir and zenith
ports of Harmony (node 2) are currently used for this purpose.
So that really only eaves the nadir port on Unit (Zenith on Tranquility
probably is blocked by the Truss.)


Jeff

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

Could this be a mass issue of some kind, ie it has to be balanced to keep
any twisting or other unfortunate problems from occuring when its moved for
avoidiing action or reboosting?
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...


NASA seeking ideas for use of space station docking port
by Jeff Foust ? July 15, 2016
http://spacenews.com/nasa-seeking-id...space-station-
docking-port/

Interesting. You'd think this would be the ideal spot for a "full
size" Bigelow expandable module, but some new startup (Axiom Space) is
proposing a conventional (aluminum) module.

Jeff


Interesting. My guess is Axiom is being a bit risk adverse. I can sort of
see that.

This got me looking at the current config of the US side of the space
station.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...April_2016.svg

So if I have this right, Leonardo is basically parallel to Destiny?
Didn't
realize that.

Looking at Node-2, it looks like PMA-3 will be relocated to that along
wig
with IDA-3 (to be launched).
So that in theory frees up another slot.

But what confused me, is that nodes (Unity, Harmony, Tranquility) each
have
6 ports.

Unity has 5 in use (PMA-1 aft, Leonardo port, Destiny forward, Quest
starboard and Z1 Trust Sement Zenith, nothing on the Nadir port)
Harmony has 5 in use (Quest on Aft, Kibo on Port, PMA-2 Forward, Columbus
starboard and eventually PMA-3/IDA3 Zenith, again nothing on Nadir)
Tranquility has 3 in use (BEAM currently Aft (port in question for this
one), PMA-3 (Currently) Port, Leonardo Forward, Unity Port and Cupola
Nadir,
nothing Zenith).

It seems to me, a number of ports are free. I believe Tranquility doesn't
have all ports set to necessarily provide power/etc. But it seems to me
there's additional ports NASA could be looking at to make available. Any
idea why they're only offering the BEAM port?

And there is of course if they want to fly it, Node 4.

Have you taken into account the CBM port(s) used for Commercial Cargo
vehicles? I'd think there would be at least two of these (one primary
and one backup).

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

In article ,
says...

Could this be a mass issue of some kind, ie it has to be balanced to keep
any twisting or other unfortunate problems from occuring when its moved for
avoidiing action or reboosting?

I'm sure that's part of it along with available power, drag, and etc.
Plus this is NASA. Backups for everything likely means they've already
"allocated" the other CBM ports for other purposes. Plus, as Brian
mentioned, some CBM ports are physically blocked from use by other parts
of the station even though they don't have anything attached.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

Could this be a mass issue of some kind, ie it has to be balanced to keep
any twisting or other unfortunate problems from occuring when its moved
for
avoidiing action or reboosting?

I'm sure that's part of it along with available power, drag, and etc.
Plus this is NASA. Backups for everything likely means they've already
"allocated" the other CBM ports for other purposes. Plus, as Brian
mentioned, some CBM ports are physically blocked from use by other parts
of the station even though they don't have anything attached.

Jeff


The nadir ports should probably be OK and probably cause the least issues in
terms of balance.
But yeah, NASA is being cautious.

Still think it's worth them looking into flying Node 4 so they do have extra
ports.


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net