Would more ISS modules reduce traffic jams?

[willpittenger]

Currently, when two Russian ships are present, no orbiter can be there. Will that change once we have more modules attached? Presumably, at least the ESA module and/or Node2 would move the orbiter's dock point away from the Russian components. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

A pic I have seen of a completed station shows 4 ships docked. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[erioladastra]

"Currently, when two Russian ships are present, no orbiter can be there. Will that change once we have more modules attached? Presumably, at least the ESA module and/or Node2 would move the orbiter's dock point away from the Russian components. "<br /><br />No. The reason for not docking the orbiter there with the soyuz taxi mission is mainly because the structural loads have not been assessed in this config and because of resource issues. There are plenty of docking ports (for now). This will change once we get more life support equipment.

 

[willpittenger]

The problem that I heard had nothing to do with the number of docking ports but rather clearance. Remember an orbiter is rather long compared to a simple capsule. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[moonmadness]

When they said the launch would have to wait because "it would be to crowded" I though that meant no Soyuz and Shuttle at same time at first.<br /><br />It seemed odd because I seemed to remember 'artist concepts' showing a Progress(life boat), a Soyuz, and and a Shuttle(or X-33) docked at the same time.<br /><br />After consideration I believe they were refering to the number of people inside of the station.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>I'm not a rocket scientist, but I do play one on the TV in my mind.</p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

You appear to be mixed up. First, the Progress is an unmanned cargo ship. The lifeboat is currently a Soyuz. The problem with the shuttle appears to mainly involve multiple Russian ships. Second, those drawings you mentioned might have shown the complex completed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[rocketman5000]

Pictures..... An artist can draw whatever he wants without being imposed upon by physics or reality. It could have been an idea when the station was originally proposed. After all it is the "international" space station. It would be politically bad to only show one nations spacecraft<br />

 

[erioladastra]

"It seemed odd because I seemed to remember 'artist concepts' showing a Progress(life boat), a Soyuz, and and a Shuttle(or X-33) docked at the same time."<br /><br />It is doable - there is no a priori reason not to do it right now other than structural and environmental. With CSCS now in post columbia it may not occur but it is possible. Already the traffic pattern is getting complicated - once you add ATV and another Soyuz these sort of issues will be more common.