| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Space - Station Forum » Mobile Transporter movements
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| John Doe |
 Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 3:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Does anyone know if the mobile transporter can move with the arm
attached to it ?
Could it move with not only the arm attached to it, but with a payload
attached to the end of the arm ?
From the way they explained today's operations, it appears that the MT
must move without anything attached to it. But I had the impression that
the MT had been designed to not only move with the arm attached, but
also have EVA astronauts attached to the MT with the little cargo
carrier tagging along as as the MT moved.
Was I dreaming these capabilities, or has NASA just decided to be
conservative and have the MT always move all alone ? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| John Doe |
| Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Am seeing the MT move now and it appears that the station arm is
attached to the MT while it is moving. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mike Ross |
| Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 11:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"John Doe" <jdoe@doe.org> wrote in message
news:4dec5$472ae54b$cef8887a$3368@TEKSAVVY.COM...
Quote: Does anyone know if the mobile transporter can move with the arm attached
to it ?
Could it move with not only the arm attached to it, but with a payload
attached to the end of the arm ?
From the way they explained today's operations, it appears that the MT
must move without anything attached to it. But I had the impression that
the MT had been designed to not only move with the arm attached, but also
have EVA astronauts attached to the MT with the little cargo carrier
tagging along as as the MT moved.
Was I dreaming these capabilities, or has NASA just decided to be
conservative and have the MT always move all alone ?
When the Mobile Transporter moves, all the Canadian equipment it carries
(MBS and possibly SSRMS, and later SPDM) is unpowered and beginning to
freeze. CSA doesn't like to have their assets risked in this way unless it
is necessary. Analysis must be done before each translation to show that
the unpowered equipment has at least 3 hours before something freezes.
Sometimes those analyses show we could lose a camera in 20 minutes, and all
translations take from 30 minutes to an hour, so we don't translate then.
Mike Ross. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| John Doe |
| Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 3:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Mike Ross wrote:
Quote: When the Mobile Transporter moves, all the Canadian equipment it carries
(MBS and possibly SSRMS, and later SPDM) is unpowered and beginning to
freeze.
Thanks, I had not thought of that at all, but now I remember that the MT
must stop at specifc points where it mechanically plugs itself into a
station plug to get power.
I am curious: since there is already a "ribbon cable" to power the MT
during its translations ( a bit like a dot matrix print head being fed
power/data as it moves from left to right), couldn't they have provided
power/data via the ribbon cable with a few more conductors in it and
remove the need for the MT to "plug in" at each work site ?
How many conductors are needed for the PDGF between the base and the arm? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mike Ross |
| Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 12:25 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John Doe wrote:
Quote: Mike Ross wrote:
When the Mobile Transporter moves, all the Canadian equipment it carries
(MBS and possibly SSRMS, and later SPDM) is unpowered and beginning to
freeze.
Thanks, I had not thought of that at all, but now I remember that the MT
must stop at specifc points where it mechanically plugs itself into a
station plug to get power.
I am curious: since there is already a "ribbon cable" to power the MT
during its translations ( a bit like a dot matrix print head being fed
power/data as it moves from left to right), couldn't they have provided
power/data via the ribbon cable with a few more conductors in it and
remove the need for the MT to "plug in" at each work site ?
How many conductors are needed for the PDGF between the base and the arm?
Many of the present flaws like this are due to the evolution of the space
station through several forms, cutbacks, and, biggest of all, changing to a
51.6 deg orbit to accommodate the Russians, before it finally got going.
The original 28 deg orbit would have been much more thermally benign.
Mike Ross |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 23, 2008 4:33 am
|
|