View allAll Photos Tagged structural
This turned out to be one of the most joyous, life affirming places that we've visited on our travels. The sparkling, late summer sunshine, the arresting modern architecture set amid so much history, the superb collection of early 20th century paintings on the 5th floor, and the throng of tourists and Parisians enjoying themselves on a Saturday combined to make this a most memorable afternoon.
"Centre Georges Pompidou commonly shortened to Centre Pompidou; also known as the Pompidou Centre in English) is a complex building in the Beaubourg area of the 4th arrondissement of Paris, near Les Halles, rue Montorgueil and the Marais. The Place Georges Pompidou in front of the museum is noted for the presence of street performers, such as mimes and jugglers. In the spring, miniature carnivals are installed temporarily into the place in front with a wide variety of attractions: bands, caricature and sketch artists, tables set up for evening dining, and even skateboarding competitions.
The nearby Stravinsky Fountain (also called the Fontaine des automates), on Place Stravinsky, features sixteen whimsical moving and water-spraying sculptures by Jean Tinguely and Niki de Saint-Phalle, which represent themes and works by composer Igor Stravinsky. The black-painted mechanical sculptures are by Tinguely, the colored works by de Saint-Phalle. The fountain opened in 1983.
It houses the Bibliothèque publique d'information (Public Information Library), a vast public library, the Musée National d'Art Moderne, which is the largest museum for modern art in Europe, and IRCAM, a centre for music and acoustic research. Because of its location, the Centre is known locally as Beaubourg. It is named after Georges Pompidou, the President of France from 1969 to 1974 who commissioned the building, and was officially opened on 31 January 1977 by President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing.
The sculpture, Horizontal by Alexander Calder, a free-standing mobile that is twenty-five feet high, was placed in 2012 in front of the Centre Pompidou.
The Centre was designed by Italian architect Renzo Piano; British architect Richard Rogers; and Italian architect Gianfranco Franchini, assisted by Ove Arup & Partners.The project was awarded to this team in an architectural design competition, whose results were announced in 1971. It was the first time in France that international architects were allowed to participate. World-renowned architects Oscar Niemeyer, Jean Prouvé and Philip Johnson made up the jury which would select one design out of the 681 entries.
National Geographic described the reaction to the design as "love at second sight." An article in Le Figaro declared "Paris has its own monster, just like the one in Loch Ness." But two decades later, while reporting on Rogers' winning the Pritzker Prize in 2007, The New York Times noted that the design of the Centre "turned the architecture world upside down" and that "Mr. Rogers earned a reputation as a high-tech iconoclast with the completion of the 1977 Pompidou Centre, with its exposed skeleton of brightly coloured tubes for mechanical systems. The Pritzker jury said the Pompidou "revolutionized museums, transforming what had once been elite monuments into popular places of social and cultural exchange, woven into the heart of the city.".
Initially, all of the functional structural elements of the building were colour-coded: green pipes are plumbing, blue ducts are for climate control, electrical wires are encased in yellow, and circulation elements and devices for safety (e.g., fire extinguishers) are red."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_Georges_Pompidou
...
Diving into the mesmerizing details of Panama's architectural wonders, this collection offers a symphonic display of lines, grids, and patterns. The black and white palette accentuates the interplay of light and shadow, turning ordinary building facades into captivating abstract canvases. From the mirrored reflections on glass to the rhythmic patterns of windows and structural lines, these images unveil the intricate beauty hidden within the towering structures of Panama's urban jungle.
Wing strength in rows of ascending arches (as compared to a flat surface); a positive camber arches upward, typically desirable (as compared to negative camber) [camber: to curve or bend slightly, adding extra structural support to a wide span or space and in long spans has the purpose of counteracting deflection due to load]
I was thrilled to find this luna moth, one of two I saw here today!
State Parks are great!
The best of our 848 captures are in a mini-themed album:
• Outing to Oconee State Park, SC – 2021APR13
◦ Moody Spring – 2021APR13 – SC Highway 107
◦ Oconee State Park – 2021APR13 – Mountain Rest, SC
◦ Wigington Overlook – 2021APR13 – SC Highway 413
Hope you enjoy 35% of these 155 luna captures I took today!
Prior to the construction of Waddesdon Manor, no house existed on the site. Ferdinand de Rothschild wanted a house in the style of the great Renaissance châteaux of the Loire Valley.[25] Ferdinand chose as his architect Gabriel-Hippolyte Destailleur.[26] Destailleur was already experienced in working in this style, having overseen the restoration of many châteaux in that region, in particular that of the Château de Mouchy.
Through Destailleur's vision, Waddesdon embodied an eclectic style based on the châteaux so admired by his patron, Baron Ferdinand. The towers at Waddesdon were based on those of the Château de Maintenon, and the twin staircase towers, on the north facade, were inspired by the staircase tower at the Château de Chambord.[27] However, following the theme of unparalleled luxury at Waddesdon, the windows of the towers at Waddesdon were glazed, unlike those of the staircase at Chambord. They are also far more ornate.
The structural design of Waddesdon was not all retrospective. Hidden from view were the most modern innovations of the late 19th century including a steel frame, which took the strain of walls on the upper floors, which consequently permitted the layout of these floors to differ completely from the lower floors.[28] The house also had hot and cold running water in its bathrooms, central heating, and an electric bell system to summon the numerous servants. The building contractor was Edward Conder & Son.[29]
After the Manor was completed in 1883, Ferdinand quickly decided it was too small. The Bachelors' Wing to the east was extended after 1885 and the Morning Room, built in late-Gothic style, was added to the west after 1888.[30] The stables to the west of the Manor were built in 1884. Ferdinand and his stud groom devised the plan, working with Conder. Destailleur designed the façades in a French 17th-century style.[31]
Wine Cellars[edit]
Wine Cellars
The Wine Cellars in the Manor were created during the Centenary Restoration and opened in 1994. They are modeled on the private cellars at Château Lafite Rothschild. More than 15,000 bottles are stored in the Cellars, some 150 years old, the majority from the Château Lafite Rothschild and Château Mouton Rothschild estates. It is the largest private collection of Rothschild wines in the world. There are also wine labels designed by artists such as Salvador Dali and Andy Warhol.[32]
Collections[edit]
Blenheim House's redevelopment in Wigmore Street/St Christopher's Place provides a home for a new "industry".
Client: SCP Estates Ltd
Value: £7,500,000
Contract: Design and Build
Project Manager: Norman Rourke Pryme LLP
Architect: ESA Architects
Quantity Surveyor: Norman Rourke Pryme LLP
Structural Engineer: Chamberlain Consulting
M&E Consultant: ITD Consultants
These old, worn pillars of a pier at Portishead made for an interesting subject on a recent club photo-shoot.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
During development of the earlier Hawker Typhoon, the design team, under the leadership of Sydney Camm, had already planned out a series of design improvements; these improvements cumulated in the Hawker P. 1012, otherwise known as the Typhoon II or Thin-Wing Typhoon. Although the Typhoon was generally considered to be a good design, Camm and his design team were disappointed with the performance of its wing, which had proved to be too thick in its cross section, and thus created airflow problems which inhibited flight performance, especially at higher altitudes and speeds where it was affected by compressibility. In addition, there had been other issues experienced with the Typhoon, such as engine unreliability, insufficient structural integrity, and the inability to perform high altitude interception duties.
In March 1940, engineers were assigned to investigate the new low–drag laminar flow wing developed by NACA in the United States, which was later used in the North American P-51 Mustang.
The wing planform was changed to a near-elliptical shape to accommodate the 800 rounds of ammunition for the four 20 mm Hispano cannons, which were moved back further into the wing. The new wing had greater area than the Typhoon's, but it sacrificed the leading-edge fuel tanks of the Typhoon: to make up for this loss in capacity, Hawker engineers added a new 21 in (53 cm) fuel bay in front of the cockpit, with a 76 Igal (345 l) fuel tank. In addition, two inter-spar wing tanks, each of 28 Igal (127 l), were fitted on either side of the center section and, starting with late model Tempest Vs, a 30 Igal (136 l) tank was carried in the leading edge of the port wing root, giving the Tempest a total internal fuel capacity of 162 Igal (736 l).
The ailerons were fitted with spring-loaded tabs which lightened the aerodynamic loads, making them easier for the pilot to use and dramatically improving the roll rate above 250 mph (402 km/h). The spar structure of the Tempest V also allowed the wings to carry up to 2,000 lb (907 kg) of external stores. Also developed specifically for the Tempest by Hawker was a streamlined 45 gal (205 l) "drop tank" to extend the operational radius by 500 mi (805 km) and carrier fairing; the redesigned wing incorporated the plumbing for these tanks, one to each wing.
Another important feature of the new wing was Camm's proposal that the radiators for cooling the engine be fitted into the leading edge of the wing inboard of the undercarriage. This eliminated the distinctive "chin" radiator of the Typhoon and improved aerodynamics. A further improvement of the Tempest wing over that of the Typhoon was the exceptional, flush-riveted surface finish, essential on a high-performance laminar flow airfoil. The new wing and airfoil, and the use of a four-bladed propeller, acted to eliminate the high frequency vibrations that had plagued the Typhoon. The design team also chose to adopt the new Napier Sabre IV engine for the Tempest, drawings of which had become available to Hawker in early 1941.
In February 1941, Camm commenced a series of discussions with officials within the Ministry of Aircraft Production on the topic of the P.1012. In March 1941 of that year, clearance to proceed with development of the design, referred to at this point as the Typhoon II, was granted. By October 1941, development of the proposal had advanced to the point where the new design was finalized.
The majority of production Tempests, including the initial Mk. V, were powered by variants of the high-powered Napier Sabre II 24-cylinder engine, which was capable of producing over 2,400 hp (1,789 kW) on emergency boost for short periods of time, driving either a four-bladed, 14 ft (4.267 m) diameter de Havilland Hydromatic or Rotol propeller. Alternative engines were used on some production variants, such as the Tempest II, for which a Bristol Centaurus 18-cylinder two-row radial engine was adopted, or the final Tempest VI, upon which a Napier Sabre V was used. Most Tempests, esp. the later Mk. II and VI variants, were tropicalized with air filters and other special equipment and measures, because from late 1944 on the Tempests were primarily earmarked for deployment to the South-East Asian theatre of operations, e. g. for combat against Japan and as escort fighters of Tiger Force, a proposed British Commonwealth long-range bomber force based on Okinawa.
One of these late sub-variants for the SEA theatre was a highly modified high-altitude interceptor, the HF. Mk. IV. The designation was re-used from a planned fighter variant with a Rolls-Royce Griffon 61 piston engine. One prototype (LA614) was built and tested, but the Tempest’s planned Griffon-powered variants (including the Mk. III with a Rolls-Royce Griffon 85 and contra-rotating propellers) were all cancelled in February 1943. The HF. Mk. IV was based on the Mk. II fighter that had just entered production; it was built by Gloster as a dedicated response to counter Japanese fast and high-flying reconnaissance aircraft like the Mitsubishi Ki-46 (“Dinah”), which operated with impunity. The HF. Mk. IV was, like the Mk. II, powered by a Centaurus V with an output of up to 2,590 hp/1,932 kW. To keep the engine’s operation stable at height the Centaurus was outfitted with two-stage, two-speed superchargers and an intercooler. The intercooler’s fairing was housed in a small fairing under the fuselage in front of the landing gear wells and housed both its radiator as well as an auxiliary oil cooler. Both superchargers and the intercooler were mounted behind the engine and partly occupied the fuel bay in front of the cockpit, reducing its capacity by 20 Igal.
Instead of a four-blade propeller the HF. Mk. IV’s engine drove a new five-blade propeller with a 12 ft 9 in (3.89 m) diameter from Rotol to better convert the engine’s power into propulsion at height, even though this caused additional drag at low altitudes. Extended, "pointed" tips were fitted to the wings to improve lift, increasing the wingspan by 7½ ft to 48 ft 4 in (14,76 m). With these modifications, the Tempest’s ceiling was raised by about 6.000 ft (2.000 m) to 44,000 ft (13,000 m). Consequently, the cockpit was pressurized through a Marshall-manufactured compressor. This was mounted in a compartment above the superchargers behind the engine and drew its air through a small intake in front of the windscreen. An automatic valve allowed a maximum pressure differential of +2 lb./sq.in. This was built up during the climb and was maintained at heights of 28,000 ft and above. To compensate the loss of internal fuel capacity, the HF. Mk. IV received specially designed underwing slipper tanks with a 90 imp gal (110 US gal; 410 l) capacity. They were more aerodynamic than the standard drop tanks, so that the aircraft’s performance was less impaired, but they could not be jettisoned.
Only fifty-two Hawker Tempest HF Mk. IIs were eventually built (two prototypes converted from early Mk. II airframes and 50 serial aircraft), because in early 1945 it was foreseeable that Japan was under heavy pressure and retreating to its homeland, so that Tiger Force was never established. Instead, most Tempest HF Mk. IVs were sent to Burma and India, where they served in their intended role as high altitude interceptors against Japanese reconnaissance aircraft until the end of hostilities.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 34 ft 5 in (10,50 m)
Wingspan: 48 ft 4 in (14,76 m)
Height: 16 ft 1 in (4,90 m) (tail down with one propeller blade vertical)
Wing area: 338 sq ft (31,5 m²)
Gross weight: 12,500 lb (5,700 kg)
Maximum takeoff weight: 14,650 lb (6,645 kg)
Fuel capacity: 160 imp gal (190 US gal; 730 l) internal
plus optional undwrwing tanks with 90 imp gal (110 US gal; 410 l)
or 180 imp gal (220 US gal; 820 l)
Oil tank capacity: 16 imp gal (19 US gal; 73 l)
Powerplant:
1× Bristol Centaurus V with two-stage, two-speed superchargers and intercooler,
delivering a maximum output of 2,590 hp/1,932 kW, driving a five-bladed Rotol propeller
Performance:
Maximum speed: 405 mph (652 km/h, 360 kn) at 17,000 ft (5.200 m)
385 mph (620 km/h, 335 kn) at 26,000 ft (7.900 m)
370 mph (595 km/h, 330 kn) at sea level
Combat range: 420 mi (680 km, 360 nmi) with internal fuel
Service ceiling: 44,000 ft (13,000 m)
Rate of climb: 5,300 ft/min (27 m/s)
Time to altitude: 21,500 ft (7,050 m) in 6 minutes at combat power
30,000 ft (9,000 m) in 12 minutes
Wing loading: 40 lb/sq ft (193,6 kg/m²) at 13,500 lb (6.100 kg)
Power/mass: 0.19 hp/lb (0,32 kW/kg) at 13,500 lb (6.100 kg)
Armament:
4× 20 mm (0.787 in) Mark V Hispano cannon in the outer wings, 200 RPG
Two underwing hardpoints, typically occupied by a pair of 67.5 Igal (81 US gal; 300 l) slipper tanks,
alternatively 2× 45 imp gal (54 US gal; 200 l) or 2× 90 imp gal (110 US gal; 410 l) drop tanks, or 2×
bombs of up to 1.000 lb (4545 kg) caliber
The kit and its assembly:
This fictional high-altitude Hawker Tempest variant was inspired by leftover wing tip extensions from an AZ Models Spitfire kit. I remembered that the late Spitfire variants had a modified wing shape, much like the Tempest’s oval shape, and from this the idea to transplant these tips was born.
The rest of the modifications of the Matchbox kit at the core of the build were logical steps - and I must say that the Matchbox Tempest is not a bad kit. It goes together really well, and while the recessed surface details are somewhat soft, the overall impression is good to me.
For a high-altitude variant I added a leftover five blade propeller from a Pioneer 2 Hawker Sea Fury that was modified with a styrene tube adapter to match the OOB MK. II’s Centaurus engine. A radiator from a Macchi C.205V was added for the intercooler, and a small compressor’s air intake was added in front of the cockpit. The bulges for the compressors and their respective plumbings in front of the cockpit are curved pieces of sprue material - simple, but effective.
Under the wings the post-war attachment points for missile launch rails were PSRed away and the pitot, originally an L-shaped device under the left wing, was relocated to the leading edge – similar to the tropicalized export Tempests. The slipper tanks come from a Hobby Boss MiG-15, but they had to be PSRed to match the Tempest’s very different wing shape. I found that they’d look more elegant than the original drop tanks.
Inside of the cockpit I added a dashboard and a small gunsight behind the windscreen (the canopy had been cut into two pieces for open display) , scratched from styrene sheet – I could not live with the void in front of the pilot, and anything is probably better than nothing in this case, since the Matchbox kit only offers a seat (and a pilot figure, though), but no dashboard, floor or side panels. The kit comes, however, with nice oxygen flasks behind the seat. Weird.
Painting and markings:
I wanted an unusual paint scheme for this high-altitude Tempest, even though something typically British. Inspiration came from a recce Spitfire in SEAC markings, and I liked its combination of Medium Sea Grey upper surfaces and PRU Blue undersides, coupled with a low waterline and the small, all-blue SEAC roundels. The paints I used were Humbrol 165 and 230. On top of that I added white ID bands, what made IMO sense as a fighter, and as an odd color contrast the spinner was painted in Sky (Tamiya XF-23).
The cockpit was painted mostly in almost-black (Revell 06, Anthracite), just with the bucket seat and the floor painted in Cockpit Green (Humbrol 78). This was also used for the landing gear wells.
The decals come mostly from an Xtradecal sheet for SEAC Spitfires, e. g. the roundels and the fin flash. The aircraft's serial number did not exist at all and was puzzled together with material from the same sheet, so that the font matched. The white ID bands were created with generic decal sheet material (from TL Modellbau), and lots of decal softener was used to make the stripes conform to the guns' bulgings on the upper wing surfaces. Woerked well, though. The tactical code was created from separate white 6mm letters, also generic stuff from TL Modellbau. Many SEAC aircraft either did not carry a unit code, or they used smaller, non-regular fonts, so that this solution is quite plausible.
After some final weathering with post-shading as well as oil and soot stains with graphite the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.
A relatively simple build, since there were no structural changes - but I am amazed how different and good the extended Spitfire wing tips look on the Tempest? A very elegant shape, and from certain angles the model looks like a beefed up Mistubishi A5M or reminds (oddly) of a Vickers Wellesley? The grey/blue livery also adds an exotic touch, as well as the small SEAC roundels. However, the hardware combo works very well.
Venice, Italy.
Notice the iron bars which have been used to draw the wall into a more level,position. Venice is built on foundations of wooden piers driven into mud, not an ideal structural support.
Installed in the 1920s after a major renovation, the Jesus as the Good Shepherd window was created by Melbourne stained glass manufacturer Brooks, Robinson and Company Glass Merchants, who dominated the market in stained glass in Melbourne during the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. The image of Jesus clutching a lamb is commonly found in windows such as these. The image refers to a passage in John's Gospel in the New Testament, wherein Jesus describes himself as the good shepherd. The image of the Good Shepherd is designed to remind parishioners of Jesus' love for all his sheep, even the black ones, and the value that each person has for him.
He stands benevolently with his shepherds' crook, clutching a lamb, whilst in the vignette below him at the bottom of the lancet window, Jesus is shown bringing his wayward flock safely into the safety of the barn. The sheep to his left looks wistfully up at him, whilst the lamb held in his arms in the main depiction is shown in the vignette draped over the crook of his arm.
The letters IHS appear intertwined in a monogram at the top of the lancet window. These letters are a contraction for "Iesus Hominum Salvator"; "Jesus, Savior of Men".
Built amid workers' cottages and terrace houses of shopkeepers, St. Mark the Evangelist Church of England sits atop an undulating rise in the inner Melbourne suburb of Fitzroy. Nestled behind a thick bank of agapanthus beyond its original cast-iron palisade fence, it would not look out of place in an English country village with its neat buttresses, bluestone masonry and simple, unadorned belfry.
St. Mark the Evangelist was the first church to be built outside of the original Melbourne grid as Fitzroy developed into the city's first suburb. A working-class suburb, the majority of its residents were Church of England and from 1849 a Mission Church and school served as a centre for religious, educational and recreational facilities. The school was one of a number of denominational schools established by the Church of England and was partly funded by the Denominational School Board.
St. Mark the Evangelist Church of England was designed by architect James Blackburn and built in Early English Gothic style. Richard Grice, Victorian pastoralist and philanthropist, generously contributed almost all the cost of its construction. Work commenced in 1853 to accommodate the growing Church of England congregation of Fitzroy. On July 1st, 1853, the first stone of St. Mark the Evangelist was laid by the first Bishop of Melbourne, The Right Rev. Charles Perry.
Unfortunately, Blackburn did not live to see its completion, dying the following year in 1854 of typhoid. This left St. Mark the Evangelist without an architect to oversee the project, and a series of other notable Melbourne architects helped finish the church including Lloyd Tayler, Leonard Terry and Charles Webb. Even then when St. Mark the Evangelist opened its doors on Sunday, January 21st, 1855, the church was never fully completed with an east tower and spire never realised. The exterior of the church is very plain, constructed of largely unadorned bluestone, with simple buttresses marking structural bays and tall lancet windows. The church's belfry is similarly unadorned, yet features beautiful masonry work. It has a square tower and broach spire.
Inside St. Mark the Evangelist Church of England it is peaceful and serves as a quiet sanctuary from the noisy world outside. I visited it on a hot day, and its enveloping coolness was a welcome relief. Walking across the old, highly polished hardwood floors you cannot help but note the gentle scent of the incense used during mass. The church has an ornately carved timber Gothic narthex screen which you walk through to enter the nave. Once there you can see the unusual two storey arcaded gallery designed by Leonard Terry that runs the entire length of the east side of building. Often spoken of as “The Architect’s Folly” Terry's gallery was a divisive point in the Fritzroy congregation. Some thought it added much beauty to the interior with its massive square pillars and seven arches supporting the principals of the roof. Yet it was generally agreed that the gallery was of little effective use, and came with a costly price tag of £3,000.00! To this day, it has never been fully utlised by the church. St. Mark the Evangelist has been fortunate to have a series of organs installed over its history; in 1854 a modest organ of unknown origin: in 1855 an 1853 Foster and Andrews, Hull, organ which was taken from the Athenaeum Theatre in Melbourne's Collins Street: in 1877 an organ built by Melbourne organ maker William Anderson: and finally in 1999 as part of major renovation works a 1938 Harrison and Harrison, Durham, organ taken from St. Luke's Church of England in Cowley, Oxfordshire. The church has gone through many renovations over the ensuing years, yet the original marble font and pews have survived these changes and remain in situ to this day. Blackwood reredos in the chancel, dating from 1939, feature a mosaic of the last supper by stained glass and church outfitters Brooks, Robinson and Company. A similar one can be found at St. Matthew's Church of England in High Street in Prahran. The fine lancet stained glass windows on the west side of St. Mark the Evangelist feature the work of the stained glass firms Brooks, Robinson and Company. and William Montgomery. Many of the windows were installed in the late Nineteenth Century.
The St. Mark the Evangelist Parish Hall and verger's cottage were added in 1889 to designs by architects Hyndman and Bates. The hall is arranged as a nave with clerestorey windows and side aisles with buttresses. In 1891 the same architects designed the Choir Vestry and Infants Sunday School on Hodgson Street, to replace the earlier school of 1849 which had been located in the forecourt of the church.
The present St. Mark the Evangelist's vicarage, a two-storey brick structure with cast-iron lacework verandahs, was erected in 1910.
I am very grateful to the staff of Anglicare who run the busy adjoining St. Mark's Community Centre for allowing me to have free range of the inside of St. Mark the Evangelist for a few hours to photograph it so extensively.
James Blackburn (1803 - 1854) was an English civil engineer, surveyor and architect. Born in Upton, West Ham, Essex, James was the third of four sons and one daughter born to his parents. His father was a scalemaker, a trade all his brothers took. At the age of 23, James was employed by the Commissioners of Sewers for Holborn and Finsbury and later became an inspector of sewers. However, his life took a dramatic turn in 1833, when suffering economic hardship, he forged a cheque. He was caught and his penalty was transportation to Van Diemen’s Land (modern day Tasmania). As a convicted prisoner, yet also listed as a civil engineer, James was assigned to the Roads Department under the management of Roderic O’Connor, a wealthy Irishman who was the Inspector of Roads and Bridges at the time. On 3 May 1841 James was pardoned, whereupon he entered private practice with James Thomson, another a former convict. In April 1849, James sailed from Tasmania aboard the "Shamrock" with his wife and ten children to start a new life in Melbourne. Once there he formed a company to sell filtered and purified water to the public, and carried out some minor architectural commissions including St. Mark the Evangelist in Fitzroy. On 24 October he was appointed city surveyor, and between 1850 and 1851 he produced his greatest non-architectural work, the basic design and fundamental conception of the Melbourne water supply from the Yan Yean reservoir via the Plenty River. He was injured in a fall from a horse in January 1852 and died on 3 March 1854 at Brunswick Street, Collingwood, of typhoid. He was buried as a member of St. Mark The Evangelist Church of England. James is best known in Tasmania for his ecclesiastical architectural work including; St Mark's Church of England, Pontville, Tasmania (1839-1841), Holy Trinity Church, Hobart, Tasmania (1841-1848): St. George's Church of England, Battery Point, Tasmania, (1841-1847).
Leonard Terry (1825 - 1884) was an architect born at Scarborough, Yorkshire, England. Son of Leonard Terry, a timber merchant, and his wife Margaret, he arrived in Melbourne in 1853 and after six months was employed by architect C. Laing. By the end of 1856 he had his own practice in Collins Street West (Terry and Oakden). After Mr. Laing's death next year Leonard succeeded him as the principal designer of banks in Victoria and of buildings for the Anglican Church, of which he was appointed diocesan architect in 1860. In addition to the many banks and churches that he designed, Leonard is also known for his design of The Melbourne Club on Collins Street (1858 - 1859) "Braemar" in East Melbourne (1865), "Greenwich House" Toorak (1869) and the Campbell residence on the corner of Collins and Spring Streets (1877). Leonard was first married, at 30, on 26 June 1855 to Theodosia Mary Welch (d.1861), by whom he had six children including Marmaduke, who trained as a surveyor and entered his father's firm in 1880. Terry's second marriage, at 41, on 29 December 1866 was to Esther Hardwick Aspinall, who bore him three children and survived him when on 23 June 1884, at the age of 59, he died of a thoracic tumor in his last home, Campbellfield Lodge, Alexandra Parade, in Collingwood.
Lloyd Tayler (1830 - 1900) was an architect born on 26 October 1830 in London, youngest son of tailor William Tayler, and his wife Priscilla. Educated at Mill Hill Grammar School, Hendon, and King's College, London, he is said to have been a student at the Sorbonne. In June 1851 he left England to join his brother on the land near Albury, New South Wales. He ended up on the Mount Alexander goldfields before setting up an architectural practice with Lewis Vieusseux, a civil engineer in 1854. By 1856 he had his own architectural practice where he designed premises for the Colonial Bank of Australasia. In the 1860s and 1870s he was lauded for his designs for the National Bank of Australasia, including those in the Melbourne suburbs of Richmond and North Fitzroy, and further afield in country Victoria at Warrnambool and Coleraine. His major design for the bank was the Melbourne head office in 1867. With Edmund Wright in 1874 William won the competition for the design of the South Australian Houses of Parliament, which began construction in 1881. The pair also designed the Bank of Australia in Adelaide in 1875. He also designed the Australian Club in Melbourne's William Street and the Melbourne Exchange in Collins Street in 1878. Lloyd's examples of domestic architecture include the mansion "Kamesburgh", Brighton, commissioned by W. K. Thomson in 1872. Other houses include: "Thyra", Brighton (1883): "Leighswood", Toorak, for C. E. Bright: "Roxcraddock", Caulfield: "Cherry Chase", Brighton: and "Blair Athol", Brighton. In addition to his work on St. Mark the Evangelist in Fitzroy, Lloyd also designed St. Mary's Church of England, Hotham (1860); St Philip's, Collingwood, and the Presbyterian Church, Punt Road, South Yarra (1865); and Trinity Church, Bacchus Marsh (1869). The high point of Lloyd's career was the design for the Melbourne head office of the Commercial Bank of Australia. His last important design was the Metropolitan Fire Brigade Headquarters Station, Eastern Hill in 1892. Lloyd was also a judge in 1900 of the competition plans for the new Flinders Street railway station. Lloyd was married to Sarah Toller, daughter of a Congregational minister. They established a comfortable residence, Pen-y-Bryn, in Brighton, and it was from here that he died of cancer of the liver on the 17th of August 1900 survived by his wife, four daughters and a son.
Charles Webb (1821 - 1898) was an architect. Born on 26 November 1821 at Sudbury, Suffolk, England, he was the youngest of nine children of builder William Webb and his wife Elizabeth. He attended Sudbury Academy and was later apprenticed to a London architect. His brother James had migrated to Van Diemen's Land in 1830, married in 1833, gone to Melbourne in 1839 where he set up as a builder in and in 1848 he bought Brighton Park, Brighton. Charles decided to join James and lived with James at Brighton. They went into partnership as architects and surveyors. The commission that established them was in 1850 for St Paul's Church, Swanston Street. It was here that Charles married Emma Bridges, daughter of the chief cashier at the Bank of England. Charles and James built many warehouses, shops and private homes and even a synagogue in the city. After his borther's return to England, Charles designed St. Andrew's Church, Brighton, and receiving an important commission for Melbourne Church of England Grammar School in 1855. In 1857 he added a tower and a slender spire to Scots Church, which James had built in 1841. He designed Wesley College in 1864, the Alfred Hospital and the Royal Arcade in 1869, the South Melbourne Town Hall and the Melbourne Orphan Asylum in 1878 and the Grand Hotel (now the Windsor) in 1884. In 1865 he had designed his own home, "Farleigh", in Park Street, Brighton, where he died on 23 January 1898 of heat exhaustion. Predeceased by Emma in 1893 and survived by five sons and three daughters, he was buried in Brighton cemetery.
Brooks, Robinson and Company first opened their doors on Elizabeth Street in Melbourne in 1854 as importers of window and table glass and also specialised in interior decorating supplies. Once established the company moved into glazing and were commonly contracted to do shopfronts around inner Melbourne. In the 1880s they commenced producing stained glass on a small scale. Their first big opportunity occurred in the 1890s when they were engaged to install Melbourne's St Paul's Cathedral's stained-glass windows. Their notoriety grew and as a result their stained glass studio flourished, particularly after the closure of their main competitor, Ferguson and Urie. They dominated the stained glass market in Melbourne in the early 20th Century, and many Australian glass artists of worked in their studio. Their work may be found in the Princess Theatre on Melbourne's Spring Street, in St John's Church in Toorak, and throughout churches in Melbourne. Brooks, Robinson and Company was taken over by Email Pty Ltd in 1963, and as a result they closed their stained glass studio.
The Orion structural test article short stack, consisting of the service module and crew module, are being prepared for a model vibration test in a test chamber at Lockheed Martin near Denver. The structural test articles are structural twins of the flight Orion and are used to perform various test to how the structures will perform during launch, flight and landing.
This was my first sketch of the day at the Center for Wooden Boats on South Lake Union in Seattle, WA. The Seattle Urban Sketchers met for a day of sketching there by the Museum Of History and Industry which is right by the Center. Lots of things to sketch there. I love boats so I was drawn to the docks and the Center right away.
This is the old Fire Boat Duwamish. She is an interesting vessel. She is 120 feet long and 28 feet wide. She is a very strongly built vessel because she was built to actually ram and sink burning boats as a last resort if she could not put a fire out. She had the largest water pumping capacity on the coast until 2003 I believe, when a new fireboat was built and launched for the City of Los Angeles. Not bad for a boat built in 1909. She served the City well, fighting vessel and structural Fires on the coast until she was retired in 1985.
It is possible to board her and check her out if there is staff on hand. Call MOHAI for information since she is actually cared for and maintained by MOHAI.
We don't really understand why a taller building needs less external supports than a smaller one, but whatever works!
Taken at Tourne Park, Mountain Lakes, NJ,
From Google research this morning.
If you were to take the red plumage from say, a Northern Cardinal, and grind it up into a powder, it would still look red. If you were to take the plumage of a bluebird, and grind it into a powder, it would look colourless.
The big difference between the colour of the two feathers, is that one is caused by pigments (in the cardinal case, by red pigments) absorbed by the bird through its food, and the other is caused, not by pigments, but by the structure of the feather.
Structural colours, as they’re called, are generated by light interacting with a three-dimensional structure (in the bluebird’s case, the structure of the feather). When the bluebird feather cell grows, complex keratin structures are formed. When the cell dies (feathers are made of dead material), the liquid inside them dries, leaving the keratin structure intact. Red and Yellow light cancel each other out, when they pass through the structure, but blue light is unaffected. It is quite a feat of evolution for organisms to be able to build such precise nanostructures.
For best view hit 'L' for large on black.
After I finished off the first wing prototyp I wanted to attach it to the cockpit pod just to notice that the wing turned out way to heavy for the joints I´ve build, as they immediatly cracked under the pressure.
So next thing to do is to get those joints stronger.
Otherwise the poor pilot will never ever know how it feels to fly among the stars, well at least among a planetary surface.
See the finished MOC here.
The International Space Station (ISS) is a space station (habitable artificial satellite) in low Earth orbit. The ISS programme is a joint project between five participating space agencies: NASA (United States), Roscosmos (Russia), JAXA (Japan), ESA (Europe), and CSA (Canada).[6][7] The ownership and use of the space station is established by intergovernmental treaties and agreements.[8]
The ISS serves as a microgravity and space environment research laboratory in which crew members conduct experiments in biology, human biology, physics, astronomy, meteorology, and other fields.[9][10][11] The station is suited for the testing of spacecraft systems and equipment required for missions to the Moon and Mars.[12] The ISS maintains an orbit with an average altitude of 400 kilometres (250 mi) by means of reboost manoeuvres using the engines of the Zvezda module or visiting spacecraft.[13] It circles the Earth in roughly 92 minutes and completes 15.5 orbits per day.[14]
The station is divided into two sections, the Russian Orbital Segment (ROS), which is operated by Russia, and the United States Orbital Segment (USOS), which is shared by many nations. Roscosmos has endorsed the continued operation of ISS through 2024,[15] but had previously proposed using elements of the Russian segment to construct a new Russian space station called OPSEK.[16]As of December 2018, the station is expected to operate until 2030.[17]
The first ISS component was launched in 1998, with the first long-term residents arriving on 2 November 2000.[18] Since then, the station has been continuously occupied for 18 years and 359 days.[19] This is the longest continuous human presence in low Earth orbit, having surpassed the previous record of 9 years and 357 days held by Mir. The latest major pressurised module was fitted in 2011, with an experimental inflatable space habitat added in 2016. Development and assembly of the station continues, with several major new Russian elements scheduled for launch starting in 2020. The ISS is the largest human-made body in low Earth orbit and can often be seen with the naked eye from Earth.[20][21] The ISS consists of pressurised habitation modules, structural trusses, solar arrays, radiators, docking ports, experiment bays and robotic arms. Major ISS modules have been launched by Russian Proton and Soyuz rockets and US Space Shuttles.[22]
The ISS is the ninth space station to be inhabited by crews, following the Soviet and later Russian Salyut, Almaz, and Mir stations as well as Skylab from the US. The station is serviced by a variety of visiting spacecraft: the Russian Soyuz and Progress, the US Dragon and Cygnus, the Japanese H-II Transfer Vehicle,[6] and the European Automated Transfer Vehicle. The Dragon spacecraft allows the return of pressurised cargo to Earth (downmass), which is used for example to repatriate scientific experiments for further analysis. The Soyuz return capsule has minimal downmass capability next to the astronauts.
The ISS has been visited by astronauts, cosmonauts and space tourists from 18 different nations. As of 14 March 2019, 236 people from 18 countries had visited the space station, many of them multiple times. The United States sent 149 people, Russia sent 47, nine were Japanese, eight were Canadian, five were Italian, four were French, three were German, and there were one each from Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, the Netherlands, South Africa, United Arab Emirates, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.[23]
Contents
1 Purpose
2 Manufacturing
3 Assembly
4 Structure
5 Systems
6 Operations
7 Mission controls
8 Fleet operations
9 Life aboard
10 Crew health and safety
11 Orbital debris threats
12 End of mission
13 Cost
14 International co-operation
15 Sightings from Earth
16 See also
17 Notes
18 References
19 Further reading
20 External links
Purpose
The ISS was originally intended to be a laboratory, observatory, and factory while providing transportation, maintenance, and a low Earth orbit staging base for possible future missions to the Moon, Mars, and asteroids. However, not all of the uses envisioned in the initial Memorandum of Understanding between NASA and Roskosmos have come to fruition.[24] In the 2010 United States National Space Policy, the ISS was given additional roles of serving commercial, diplomatic[25] and educational purposes.[26]
Scientific research
Main article: Scientific research on the International Space Station
Comet Lovejoy photographed by Expedition 30 commander Dan Burbank
Expedition 8 Commander and Science Officer Michael Foale conducts an inspection of the Microgravity Science Glovebox
Fisheye view of several labs
CubeSats are deployed by the NanoRacks CubeSat Deployer
The ISS provides a platform to conduct scientific research, with power, data, cooling, and crew available to support experiments. Small uncrewed spacecraft can also provide platforms for experiments, especially those involving zero gravity and exposure to space, but space stations offer a long-term environment where studies can be performed potentially for decades, combined with ready access by human researchers.[27][28]
The ISS simplifies individual experiments by allowing groups of experiments to share the same launches and crew time. Research is conducted in a wide variety of fields, including astrobiology, astronomy, physical sciences, materials science, space weather, meteorology, and human research including space medicine and the life sciences.[9][10][11][29][30] Scientists on Earth have timely access to the data and can suggest experimental modifications to the crew. If follow-on experiments are necessary, the routinely scheduled launches of resupply craft allows new hardware to be launched with relative ease.[28] Crews fly expeditions of several months' duration, providing approximately 160 person-hours per week of labour with a crew of 6. However, a considerable amount of crew time is taken up by station maintenance.[9][31]
Perhaps the most notable ISS experiment is the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS), which is intended to detect dark matter and answer other fundamental questions about our universe and is as important as the Hubble Space Telescope according to NASA. Currently docked on station, it could not have been easily accommodated on a free flying satellite platform because of its power and bandwidth needs.[32][33] On 3 April 2013, scientists reported that hints of dark matter may have been detected by the AMS.[34][35][36][37][38][39] According to the scientists, "The first results from the space-borne Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer confirm an unexplained excess of high-energy positrons in Earth-bound cosmic rays."
The space environment is hostile to life. Unprotected presence in space is characterised by an intense radiation field (consisting primarily of protons and other subatomic charged particles from the solar wind, in addition to cosmic rays), high vacuum, extreme temperatures, and microgravity.[40] Some simple forms of life called extremophiles,[41] as well as small invertebrates called tardigrades[42] can survive in this environment in an extremely dry state through desiccation.
Medical research improves knowledge about the effects of long-term space exposure on the human body, including muscle atrophy, bone loss, and fluid shift. This data will be used to determine whether high duration human spaceflight and space colonisation are feasible. As of 2006, data on bone loss and muscular atrophy suggest that there would be a significant risk of fractures and movement problems if astronauts landed on a planet after a lengthy interplanetary cruise, such as the six-month interval required to travel to Mars.[43][44]
Medical studies are conducted aboard the ISS on behalf of the National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI). Prominent among these is the Advanced Diagnostic Ultrasound in Microgravity study in which astronauts perform ultrasound scans under the guidance of remote experts. The study considers the diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions in space. Usually, there is no physician on board the ISS and diagnosis of medical conditions is a challenge. It is anticipated that remotely guided ultrasound scans will have application on Earth in emergency and rural care situations where access to a trained physician is difficult.[45][46][47]
Free fall
ISS crew member storing samples
A comparison between the combustion of a candle on Earth (left) and in a free fall environment, such as that found on the ISS (right)
Gravity at the altitude of the ISS is approximately 90% as strong as at Earth's surface, but objects in orbit are in a continuous state of freefall, resulting in an apparent state of weightlessness.[48] This perceived weightlessness is disturbed by five separate effects:[49]
Drag from the residual atmosphere.
Vibration from the movements of mechanical systems and the crew.
Actuation of the on-board attitude control moment gyroscopes.
Thruster firings for attitude or orbital changes.
Gravity-gradient effects, also known as tidal effects. Items at different locations within the ISS would, if not attached to the station, follow slightly different orbits. Being mechanically interconnected these items experience small forces that keep the station moving as a rigid body.
Researchers are investigating the effect of the station's near-weightless environment on the evolution, development, growth and internal processes of plants and animals. In response to some of this data, NASA wants to investigate microgravity's effects on the growth of three-dimensional, human-like tissues, and the unusual protein crystals that can be formed in space.[10]
Investigating the physics of fluids in microgravity will provide better models of the behaviour of fluids. Because fluids can be almost completely combined in microgravity, physicists investigate fluids that do not mix well on Earth. In addition, examining reactions that are slowed by low gravity and low temperatures will improve our understanding of superconductivity.[10]
The study of materials science is an important ISS research activity, with the objective of reaping economic benefits through the improvement of techniques used on the ground.[50] Other areas of interest include the effect of the low gravity environment on combustion, through the study of the efficiency of burning and control of emissions and pollutants. These findings may improve current knowledge about energy production, and lead to economic and environmental benefits. Future plans are for the researchers aboard the ISS to examine aerosols, ozone, water vapour, and oxides in Earth's atmosphere, as well as cosmic rays, cosmic dust, antimatter, and dark matter in the universe.[10]
Exploration
A 3D plan of the Russia-based MARS-500 complex, used for ground-based experiments which complement ISS-based preparations for a human mission to Mars
The ISS provides a location in the relative safety of Low Earth Orbit to test spacecraft systems that will be required for long-duration missions to the Moon and Mars. This provides experience in operations, maintenance as well as repair and replacement activities on-orbit, which will be essential skills in operating spacecraft farther from Earth, mission risks can be reduced and the capabilities of interplanetary spacecraft advanced.[12] Referring to the MARS-500 experiment, ESA states that "Whereas the ISS is essential for answering questions concerning the possible impact of weightlessness, radiation and other space-specific factors, aspects such as the effect of long-term isolation and confinement can be more appropriately addressed via ground-based simulations".[51] Sergey Krasnov, the head of human space flight programmes for Russia's space agency, Roscosmos, in 2011 suggested a "shorter version" of MARS-500 may be carried out on the ISS.[52]
In 2009, noting the value of the partnership framework itself, Sergey Krasnov wrote, "When compared with partners acting separately, partners developing complementary abilities and resources could give us much more assurance of the success and safety of space exploration. The ISS is helping further advance near-Earth space exploration and realisation of prospective programmes of research and exploration of the Solar system, including the Moon and Mars."[53] A crewed mission to Mars may be a multinational effort involving space agencies and countries outside the current ISS partnership. In 2010, ESA Director-General Jean-Jacques Dordain stated his agency was ready to propose to the other four partners that China, India and South Korea be invited to join the ISS partnership.[54] NASA chief Charlie Bolden stated in February 2011, "Any mission to Mars is likely to be a global effort".[55] Currently, US federal legislation prevents NASA co-operation with China on space projects.[56]
Education and cultural outreach
Original Jules Verne manuscripts displayed by crew inside Jules Verne ATV
The ISS crew provides opportunities for students on Earth by running student-developed experiments, making educational demonstrations, allowing for student participation in classroom versions of ISS experiments, and directly engaging students using radio, videolink and email.[6][57] ESA offers a wide range of free teaching materials that can be downloaded for use in classrooms.[58] In one lesson, students can navigate a 3-D model of the interior and exterior of the ISS, and face spontaneous challenges to solve in real time.[59]
JAXA aims to inspire children to "pursue craftsmanship" and to heighten their "awareness of the importance of life and their responsibilities in society."[60] Through a series of education guides, a deeper understanding of the past and near-term future of crewed space flight, as well as that of Earth and life, will be learned.[61][62] In the JAXA Seeds in Space experiments, the mutation effects of spaceflight on plant seeds aboard the ISS is explored. Students grow sunflower seeds which flew on the ISS for about nine months. In the first phase of Kibō utilisation from 2008 to mid-2010, researchers from more than a dozen Japanese universities conducted experiments in diverse fields.[63]
Menu
0:00
ESA Astronaut Paolo Nespoli's spoken voice, recorded about the ISS in November 2017, for Wikipedia
Cultural activities are another major objective. Tetsuo Tanaka, director of JAXA's Space Environment and Utilization Center, says "There is something about space that touches even people who are not interested in science."[64]
Amateur Radio on the ISS (ARISS) is a volunteer programme which encourages students worldwide to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics through amateur radio communications opportunities with the ISS crew. ARISS is an international working group, consisting of delegations from nine countries including several countries in Europe as well as Japan, Russia, Canada, and the United States. In areas where radio equipment cannot be used, speakerphones connect students to ground stations which then connect the calls to the station.[65]
First Orbit is a feature-length documentary film about Vostok 1, the first crewed space flight around the Earth. By matching the orbit of the International Space Station to that of Vostok 1 as closely as possible, in terms of ground path and time of day, documentary filmmaker Christopher Riley and ESA astronaut Paolo Nespoli were able to film the view that Yuri Gagarin saw on his pioneering orbital space flight. This new footage was cut together with the original Vostok 1 mission audio recordings sourced from the Russian State Archive. Nespoli, during Expedition 26/27, filmed the majority of the footage for this documentary film, and as a result is credited as its director of photography.[66] The film was streamed through the website firstorbit.org in a global YouTube premiere in 2011, under a free licence.[67]
In May 2013, commander Chris Hadfield shot a music video of David Bowie's "Space Oddity" on board the station; the film was released on YouTube.[68] It was the first music video ever to be filmed in space.[69]
In November 2017, while participating in Expedition 52/53 on the ISS, Paolo Nespoli made two recordings (one in English the other in his native Italian) of his spoken voice, for use on Wikipedia articles. These were the first content made specifically for Wikipedia, in space.[70][71]
Manufacturing
Main article: Manufacturing of the International Space Station
ISS module Node 2 manufacturing and processing in the SSPF
Since the International Space Station is a multi-national collaborative project, the components for in-orbit assembly were manufactured in various countries around the world. Beginning in the mid 1990s, the U.S. components Destiny, Unity, the Integrated Truss Structure, and the solar arrays were fabricated at the Marshall Space Flight Center and the Michoud Assembly Facility. These modules were delivered to the Operations and Checkout Building and the Space Station Processing Facility for final assembly and processing for launch.[72]
The Russian modules, including Zarya and Zvezda, were manufactured at the Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center in Moscow. Zvezda was initially manufactured in 1985 as a component for Mir-2, but was never launched and instead became the ISS Service Module.[73]
The European Space Agency Columbus module was manufactured at the European Space Research and Technology Centre (ESTEC) in the Netherlands, along with many other contractors throughout Europe.[74] The other ESA-built modules - Harmony, Tranquility, the Leonardo MPLM, and the Cupola - were initially manufactured at the Thales Alenia Space factory located at the Cannes Mandelieu Space Center. The structural steel hulls of the modules were transported by aircraft to the Kennedy Space Center SSPF for launch processing.[75]
The Japanese Experiment Module Kibō, was fabricated in various technology manufacturing facilities in Japan, at the NASDA (now JAXA) Tanegashima Space Center, and the Institute of Space and Astronautical Science. The Kibo module was transported by ship and flown by aircraft to the KSC Space Station Processing Facility.[76]
The Mobile Servicing System, consisting of the Canadarm2 and the Dextre grapple fixture, was manufactured at various factories in Canada and the United States under contract by the Canadian Space Agency. The mobile base system, a connecting framework for Canadarm2 mounted on rails, was built by Northrop Grumman.
Assembly
Main articles: Assembly of the International Space Station and List of ISS spacewalks
The assembly of the International Space Station, a major endeavour in space architecture, began in November 1998.[3] Russian modules launched and docked robotically, with the exception of Rassvet. All other modules were delivered by the Space Shuttle, which required installation by ISS and shuttle crewmembers using the Canadarm2 (SSRMS) and extra-vehicular activities (EVAs); as of 5 June 2011, they had added 159 components during more than 1,000 hours of EVA (see List of ISS spacewalks). 127 of these spacewalks originated from the station, and the remaining 32 were launched from the airlocks of docked Space Shuttles.[77] The beta angle of the station had to be considered at all times during construction.[78]
The first module of the ISS, Zarya, was launched on 20 November 1998 on an autonomous Russian Proton rocket. It provided propulsion, attitude control, communications, electrical power, but lacked long-term life support functions. Two weeks later, a passive NASA module Unity was launched aboard Space Shuttle flight STS-88 and attached to Zarya by astronauts during EVAs. This module has two Pressurised Mating Adapter (PMAs), one connects permanently to Zarya, the other allowed the Space Shuttle to dock to the space station. At that time, the Russian station Mir was still inhabited, and the ISS remained uncrewed for two years. On 12 July 2000, Zvezda was launched into orbit. Preprogrammed commands on board deployed its solar arrays and communications antenna. It then became the passive target for a rendezvous with Zarya and Unity: it maintained a station-keeping orbit while the Zarya-Unity vehicle performed the rendezvous and docking via ground control and the Russian automated rendezvous and docking system. Zarya's computer transferred control of the station to Zvezda's computer soon after docking. Zvezda added sleeping quarters, a toilet, kitchen, CO2 scrubbers, dehumidifier, oxygen generators, exercise equipment, plus data, voice and television communications with mission control. This enabled permanent habitation of the station.[79][80]
The first resident crew, Expedition 1, arrived in November 2000 on Soyuz TM-31. At the end of the first day on the station, astronaut Bill Shepherd requested the use of the radio call sign "Alpha", which he and cosmonaut Krikalev preferred to the more cumbersome "International Space Station".[81] The name "Alpha" had previously been used for the station in the early 1990s,[82] and its use was authorised for the whole of Expedition 1.[83] Shepherd had been advocating the use of a new name to project managers for some time. Referencing a naval tradition in a pre-launch news conference he had said: "For thousands of years, humans have been going to sea in ships. People have designed and built these vessels, launched them with a good feeling that a name will bring good fortune to the crew and success to their voyage."[84] Yuri Semenov, the President of Russian Space Corporation Energia at the time, disapproved of the name "Alpha" as he felt that Mir was the first modular space station, so the names "Beta" or "Mir 2" for the ISS would have been more fitting.[83][85][86]
Expedition 1 arrived midway between the flights of STS-92 and STS-97. These two Space Shuttle flights each added segments of the station's Integrated Truss Structure, which provided the station with Ku-band communication for US television, additional attitude support needed for the additional mass of the USOS, and substantial solar arrays supplementing the station's existing 4 solar arrays.[87]
Over the next two year, the station continued to expand. A Soyuz-U rocket delivered the Pirs docking compartment. The Space Shuttles Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavour delivered the Destiny laboratory and Quest airlock, in addition to the station's main robot arm, the Canadarm2, and several more segments of the Integrated Truss Structure.
The expansion schedule was interrupted by the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster in 2003 and a resulting hiatus in flights. The Space Shuttle was grounded until 2005 with STS-114 flown by Discovery.[88]
Assembly resumed in 2006 with the arrival of STS-115 with Atlantis, which delivered the station's second set of solar arrays. Several more truss segments and a third set of arrays were delivered on STS-116, STS-117, and STS-118. As a result of the major expansion of the station's power-generating capabilities, more pressurised modules could be accommodated, and the Harmony node and Columbus European laboratory were added. These were soon followed by the first two components of Kibō. In March 2009, STS-119 completed the Integrated Truss Structure with the installation of the fourth and final set of solar arrays. The final section of Kibō was delivered in July 2009 on STS-127, followed by the Russian Poisk module. The third node, Tranquility, was delivered in February 2010 during STS-130 by the Space Shuttle Endeavour, alongside the Cupola, followed in May 2010 by the penultimate Russian module, Rassvet. Rassvet was delivered by Space Shuttle Atlantis on STS-132 in exchange for the Russian Proton delivery of the US-funded Zarya module in 1998.[89] The last pressurised module of the USOS, Leonardo, was brought to the station in February 2011 on the final flight of Discovery, STS-133.[90] The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer was delivered by Endeavour on STS-134 the same year.[91]
As of June 2011, the station consisted of 15 pressurised modules and the Integrated Truss Structure. Five modules are still to be launched, including the Nauka with the European Robotic Arm, the Prichal module, and two power modules called NEM-1 and NEM-2.[92] As of March 2019, Russia's future primary research module Nauka is set to launch in the summer of 2020, along with the European Robotic Arm which will be able to relocate itself to different parts of the Russian modules of the station.[93]
The gross mass of the station changes over time. The total launch mass of the modules on orbit is about 417,289 kg (919,965 lb) (as of 3 September 2011).[94] The mass of experiments, spare parts, personal effects, crew, foodstuff, clothing, propellants, water supplies, gas supplies, docked spacecraft, and other items add to the total mass of the station. Hydrogen gas is constantly vented overboard by the oxygen generators.
The ISS is a third generation[95] modular space station.[96] Modular stations can allow modules to be added to or removed from the existing structure, allowing greater flexibility.
Below is a diagram of major station components. The blue areas are pressurised sections accessible by the crew without using spacesuits. The station's unpressurised superstructure is indicated in red. Other unpressurised components are yellow. The Unity node joins directly to the Destiny laboratory. For clarity, they are shown apart.
Zarya
Zarya as seen by Space Shuttle Endeavour during STS-88
Zarya (Russian: Заря́, lit. 'Dawn'), also known as the Functional Cargo Block or FGB (from the Russian: "Функционально-грузовой блок", lit. 'Funktsionalno-gruzovoy blok' or ФГБ), is the first module of the ISS to be launched.[97] The FGB provided electrical power, storage, propulsion, and guidance to the ISS during the initial stage of assembly. With the launch and assembly in orbit of other modules with more specialized functionality, Zarya is now[when?] primarily used for storage, both inside the pressurized section and in the externally mounted fuel tanks. The Zarya is a descendant of the TKS spacecraft designed for the Russian Salyut program. The name Zarya, which means sunrise,[97] was given to the FGB because it signified the dawn of a new era of international cooperation in space. Although it was built by a Russian company, it is owned by the United States.[98]
Zarya was built from December 1994 to January 1998 at the Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center (KhSC) in Moscow.[97]
Zarya was launched on 20 November 1998 on a Russian Proton rocket from Baikonur Cosmodrome Site 81 in Kazakhstan to a 400 km (250 mi) high orbit with a designed lifetime of at least 15 years. After Zarya reached orbit, STS-88 launched on 4 December 1998 to attach the Unity module.
Unity
Unity as seen by Space Shuttle Endeavour during STS-88
Main article: Unity (ISS module)
The Unity connecting module, also known as Node 1, is the first U.S.-built component of the ISS. It connects the Russian and United States segments of the station, and is where crew eat meals together.
The module is cylindrical in shape, with six berthing locations (forward, aft, port, starboard, zenith, and nadir) facilitating connections to other modules. Unity measures 4.57 metres (15.0 ft) in diameter, is 5.47 metres (17.9 ft) long, made of steel, and was built for NASA by Boeing in a manufacturing facility at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. Unity is the first of the three connecting modules; the other two are Harmony and Tranquility.
Unity was carried into orbit as the primary cargo of the Space Shuttle Endeavour on STS-88, the first Space Shuttle mission dedicated to assembly of the station. On 6 December 1998, the STS-88 crew mated the aft berthing port of Unity with the forward hatch of the already orbiting Zarya module. This was the first connection made between two station modules.
Zvezda
Zvezda as seen by Space Shuttle Endeavour during STS-97
Main article: Zvezda (ISS module)
Zvezda (Russian: Звезда́, meaning "star"), Salyut DOS-8, also known as the Zvezda Service Module, is a module of the ISS. It was the third module launched to the station, and provides all of the station's life support systems, some of which are supplemented in the USOS, as well as living quarters for two crew members. It is the structural and functional center of the Russian Orbital Segment, which is the Russian part of the ISS. Crew assemble here to deal with emergencies on the station.[99][100][101]
The basic structural frame of Zvezda, known as "DOS-8", was initially built in the mid-1980s to be the core of the Mir-2 space station. This means that Zvezda is similar in layout to the core module (DOS-7) of the Mir space station. It was in fact labeled as Mir-2 for quite some time in the factory. Its design lineage thus extends back to the original Salyut stations. The space frame was completed in February 1985 and major internal equipment was installed by October 1986.
The rocket used for launch to the ISS carried advertising; it was emblazoned with the logo of Pizza Hut restaurants,[102][103][104] for which they are reported to have paid more than US$1 million.[105] The money helped support Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center and the Russian advertising agencies that orchestrated the event.[106]
On 26 July 2000, Zvezda became the third component of the ISS when it docked at the aft port of Zarya. (U.S. Unity module had already been attached to the Zarya.) Later in July, the computers aboard Zarya handed over ISS commanding functions to computers on Zvezda.[107]
Destiny
The Destiny module being installed on the ISS
Main article: Destiny (ISS module)
The Destiny module, also known as the U.S. Lab, is the primary operating facility for U.S. research payloads aboard the International Space Station (ISS).[108][109] It was berthed to the Unity module and activated over a period of five days in February, 2001.[110] Destiny is NASA's first permanent operating orbital research station since Skylab was vacated in February 1974.
The Boeing Company began construction of the 14.5-tonne (32,000 lb) research laboratory in 1995 at the Michoud Assembly Facility and then the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.[108] Destiny was shipped to the Kennedy Space Center in Florida in 1998, and was turned over to NASA for pre-launch preparations in August 2000. It launched on 7 February 2001 aboard the Space Shuttle Atlantis on STS-98.[110]
Quest
Quest Joint Airlock Module
Main article: Quest Joint Airlock
The Quest Joint Airlock, previously known as the Joint Airlock Module, is the primary airlock for the ISS. Quest was designed to host spacewalks with both Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) spacesuits and Orlan space suits. The airlock was launched on STS-104 on 14 July 2001. Before Quest was attached, Russian spacewalks using Orlan suits could only be done from the Zvezda service module, and American spacewalks using EMUs were only possible when a Space Shuttle was docked. The arrival of Pirs docking compartment on September 16, 2001 provided another airlock from which Orlan spacewalks can be conducted.[citation needed]
Pirs and Poisk
The Pirs module attached to the ISS.
Poisk after arriving at the ISS on 12 November 2009.
Main articles: Pirs (ISS module) and Poisk (ISS module)
Pirs (Russian: Пирс, lit. 'pier') and Poisk (Russian: По́иск, lit. 'search') are Russian airlock modules, each having 2 identical hatches. An outward-opening hatch on the Mir space station failed after it swung open too fast after unlatching, because of a small amount of air pressure remaining in the airlock.[111] All EVA hatches on the ISS open inwards and are pressure-sealing. Pirs was used to store, service, and refurbish Russian Orlan suits and provided contingency entry for crew using the slightly bulkier American suits. The outermost docking ports on both airlocks allow docking of Soyuz and Progress spacecraft, and the automatic transfer of propellants to and from storage on the ROS.[112]
Pirs was launched on 14 September 2001, as ISS Assembly Mission 4R, on a Russian Soyuz-U rocket, using a modified Progress spacecraft, Progress M-SO1, as an upper stage. Poisk was launched on 10 November 2009[113][114] attached to a modified Progress spacecraft, called Progress M-MIM2, on a Soyuz-U rocket from Launch Pad 1 at the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan.
Harmony
Harmony shown connected to Columbus, Kibo, and Destiny. PMA-2 faces. The nadir and zenith locations are open.
Main article: Harmony (ISS module)
Harmony, also known as Node 2, is the "utility hub" of the ISS. It connects the laboratory modules of the United States, Europe and Japan, as well as providing electrical power and electronic data. Sleeping cabins for four of the six crew are housed here.[115]
Harmony was successfully launched into space aboard Space Shuttle flight STS-120 on October 23, 2007.[116][117] After temporarily being attached to the port side of the Unity node,[118][119] it was moved to its permanent location on the forward end of the Destiny laboratory on November 14, 2007.[120] Harmony added 2,666 cubic feet (75.5 m3) to the station's living volume, an increase of almost 20 percent, from 15,000 cu ft (420 m3) to 17,666 cu ft (500.2 m3). Its successful installation meant that from NASA's perspective, the station was "U.S. Core Complete".
Tranquility
Tranquility in 2011
Main article: Tranquility (ISS module)
Tranquility, also known as Node 3, is a module of the ISS. It contains environmental control systems, life support systems, a toilet, exercise equipment, and an observation cupola.
ESA and the Italian Space Agency had Tranquility built by Thales Alenia Space. A ceremony on November 20, 2009 transferred ownership of the module to NASA.[121] On February 8, 2010, NASA launched the module on the Space Shuttle's STS-130 mission.
Columbus
The Columbus module on the ISS
Main article: Columbus (ISS module)
Columbus is a science laboratory that is part of the ISS and is the largest single contribution to the ISS made by the European Space Agency (ESA).
Like the Harmony and Tranquility modules, the Columbus laboratory was constructed in Turin, Italy by Thales Alenia Space. The functional equipment and software of the lab was designed by EADS in Bremen, Germany. It was also integrated in Bremen before being flown to the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in Florida in an Airbus Beluga. It was launched aboard Space Shuttle Atlantis on 7 February 2008 on flight STS-122. It is designed for ten years of operation. The module is controlled by the Columbus Control Centre, located at the German Space Operations Centre, part of the German Aerospace Center in Oberpfaffenhofen near Munich, Germany.
The European Space Agency has spent €1.4 billion (about US$2 billion) on building Columbus, including the experiments that will fly in it and the ground control infrastructure necessary to operate them.[122]
Kibō
Kibō Exposed Facility on the right
Main article: Kibo (ISS module)
The Japanese Experiment Module (JEM), nicknamed Kibo (きぼう Kibō, Hope), is a Japanese science module for the ISS developed by JAXA. It is the largest single ISS module, and is attached to the Harmony module. The first two pieces of the module were launched on Space Shuttle missions STS-123 and STS-124. The third and final components were launched on STS-127.[123]
Pressurised Module
Experiment Logistics Module
Exposed Facility
Experiment Logistics Module
Remote Manipulator System
Cupola
The Cupola's windows with shutters open.
Main article: Cupola (ISS module)
The Cupola is an ESA-built observatory module of the ISS. Its name derives from the Italian word cupola, which means "dome". Its seven windows are used to conduct experiments, dockings and observations of Earth. It was launched aboard Space Shuttle mission STS-130 on 8 February 2010 and attached to the Tranquility (Node 3) module. With the Cupola attached, ISS assembly reached 85 percent completion. The Cupola's central window has a diameter of 80 cm (31 in).[124]
Rassvet
Rassvet as seen from the Cupola module during STS-132 with a Progress in the lower right
Main article: Rassvet (ISS module)
Rassvet (Russian: Рассве́т; lit. "dawn"), also known as the Mini-Research Module 1 (MRM-1) (Russian: Малый исследовательский модуль, МИМ 1) and formerly known as the Docking Cargo Module (DCM), is a component of the ISS. The module's design is similar to the Mir Docking Module launched on STS-74 in 1995. Rassvet is primarily used for cargo storage and as a docking port for visiting spacecraft. It was flown to the ISS aboard Space Shuttle Atlantis on the STS-132 mission on May 14, 2010,[125] and was connected to the ISS on May 18.[126] The hatch connecting Rassvet with the ISS was first opened on May 20.[127] On 28 June 2010, the Soyuz TMA-19 spacecraft performed the first docking with the module.[128]
Leonardo
Leonardo Permanent Multipurpose Module
Main article: Leonardo (ISS module)
The Leonardo Permanent Multipurpose Module (PMM) is a module of the ISS. It was flown into space aboard the Space Shuttle on STS-133 on 24 February 2011 and installed on 1 March. Leonardo is primarily used for storage of spares, supplies and waste on the ISS, which was until then stored in many different places within the space station. The Leonardo PMM was a Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (MPLM) before 2011, but was modified into its current configuration. It was formerly one of three MPLM used for bringing cargo to and from the ISS with the Space Shuttle. The module was named for Italian polymath Leonardo da Vinci.
Bigelow Expandable Activity Module
Progression of expansion of BEAM
Main article: Bigelow Expandable Activity Module
The Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM) is an experimental expandable space station module developed by Bigelow Aerospace, under contract to NASA, for testing as a temporary module on the ISS from 2016 to at least 2020. It arrived at the ISS on 10 April 2016,[129] was berthed to the station on 16 April, and was expanded and pressurized on 28 May 2016.
International Docking Adapter
IDA-1 upright
Main article: International Docking Adapter
The International Docking Adapter (IDA) is a spacecraft docking system adapter developed to convert APAS-95 to the NASA Docking System (NDS)/International Docking System Standard (IDSS). An IDA is placed on each of the ISS' two open Pressurized Mating Adapters (PMAs), both of which are connected to the Harmony module.
IDA-1 was lost during the launch failure of SpaceX CRS-7 on 28 June 2015.[130][131][132]
IDA-2 was launched on SpaceX CRS-9 on 18 July 2016.[133] It was attached and connected to PMA-2 during a spacewalk on 19 August 2016.[134] First docking was achieved with the arrival of Crew Dragon Demo-1 on 3 March 2019. [135]
IDA-3 was launched on the SpaceX CRS-18 mission in July 2019.[136] IDA-3 is constructed mostly from spare parts to speed construction.[137] It was attached and connected to PMA-3 during a spacewalk on 21 August 2019. [138]
Unpressurised elements
ISS Truss Components breakdown showing Trusses and all ORUs in situ
The ISS has a large number of external components that do not require pressurisation. The largest of these is the Integrated Truss Structure (ITS), to which the station's main solar arrays and thermal radiators are mounted.[139] The ITS consists of ten separate segments forming a structure 108.5 m (356 ft) long.[3]
The station was intended to have several smaller external components, such as six robotic arms, three External Stowage Platforms (ESPs) and four ExPRESS Logistics Carriers (ELCs).[140][141] While these platforms allow experiments (including MISSE, the STP-H3 and the Robotic Refueling Mission) to be deployed and conducted in the vacuum of space by providing electricity and processing experimental data locally, their primary function is to store spare Orbital Replacement Units (ORUs). ORUs are parts that can be replaced when they fail or pass their design life, including pumps, storage tanks, antennas, and battery units. Such units are replaced either by astronauts during EVA or by robotic arms.[142] Several shuttle missions were dedicated to the delivery of ORUs, including STS-129,[143] STS-133[144] and STS-134.[145] As of January 2011, only one other mode of transportation of ORUs had been utilised – the Japanese cargo vessel HTV-2 – which delivered an FHRC and CTC-2 via its Exposed Pallet (EP).[146][needs update]
Construction of the Integrated Truss Structure over New Zealand.
There are also smaller exposure facilities mounted directly to laboratory modules; the Kibō Exposed Facility serves as an external 'porch' for the Kibō complex,[147] and a facility on the European Columbus laboratory provides power and data connections for experiments such as the European Technology Exposure Facility[148][149] and the Atomic Clock Ensemble in Space.[150] A remote sensing instrument, SAGE III-ISS, was delivered to the station in February 2017 aboard CRS-10,[151] and the NICER experiment was delivered aboard CRS-11 in June 2017.[152] The largest scientific payload externally mounted to the ISS is the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS), a particle physics experiment launched on STS-134 in May 2011, and mounted externally on the ITS. The AMS measures cosmic rays to look for evidence of dark matter and antimatter.[153][154]
The commercial Bartolomeo External Payload Hosting Platform, manufactured by Airbus, is due to launch in May 2019 aboard a commercial ISS resupply vehicle and be attached to the European Columbus module. It will provide a further 12 external payload slots, supplementing the eight on the ExPRESS Logistics Carriers, ten on Kibō, and four on Columbus. The system is designed to be robotically serviced and will require no astronaut intervention. It is named after Christopher Columbus's younger brother.[155][156][157]
Robotic arms and cargo cranes
Commander Volkov stands on Pirs with his back to the Soyuz whilst operating the manual Strela crane holding photographer Kononenko.
Dextre, like many of the station's experiments and robotic arms, can be operated from Earth and perform tasks while the crew sleeps.
The Integrated Truss Structure serves as a base for the station's primary remote manipulator system, called the Mobile Servicing System (MSS), which is composed of three main components. Canadarm2, the largest robotic arm on the ISS, has a mass of 1,800 kilograms (4,000 lb) and is used to dock and manipulate spacecraft and modules on the USOS, hold crew members and equipment in place during EVAs and move Dextre around to perform tasks.[158] Dextre is a 1,560 kg (3,440 lb) robotic manipulator with two arms, a rotating torso and has power tools, lights and video for replacing orbital replacement units (ORUs) and performing other tasks requiring fine control.[159] The Mobile Base System (MBS) is a platform which rides on rails along the length of the station's main truss. It serves as a mobile base for Canadarm2 and Dextre, allowing the robotic arms to reach all parts of the USOS.[160] To gain access to the Russian Segment a grapple fixture was added to Zarya on STS-134, so that Canadarm2 can inchworm itself onto the ROS.[161] Also installed during STS-134 was the 15 m (50 ft) Orbiter Boom Sensor System (OBSS), which had been used to inspect heat shield tiles on Space Shuttle missions and can be used on station to increase the reach of the MSS.[161] Staff on Earth or the station can operate the MSS components via remote control, performing work outside the station without space walks.
Japan's Remote Manipulator System, which services the Kibō Exposed Facility,[162] was launched on STS-124 and is attached to the Kibō Pressurised Module.[163] The arm is similar to the Space Shuttle arm as it is permanently attached at one end and has a latching end effector for standard grapple fixtures at the other.
The European Robotic Arm, which will service the Russian Orbital Segment, will be launched alongside the Multipurpose Laboratory Module in 2017.[164] The ROS does not require spacecraft or modules to be manipulated, as all spacecraft and modules dock automatically and may be discarded the same way. Crew use the two Strela (Russian: Стрела́; lit. Arrow) cargo cranes during EVAs for moving crew and equipment around the ROS. Each Strela crane has a mass of 45 kg (99 lb).
Planned componments
Nauka
Artist's rendering of the Nauka module docked to Zvezda.
Main article: Nauka (ISS module)
Nauka (Russian: Нау́ка; lit. Science), also known as the Multipurpose Laboratory Module (MLM), (Russian: Многофункциональный лабораторный модуль, or МЛМ), is a component of the ISS which has not yet been launched into space. The MLM is funded by the Roscosmos State Corporation. In the original ISS plans, Nauka was to use the location of the Docking and Stowage Module. Later, the DSM was replaced by the Rassvet module and it was moved to Zarya's nadir port. Planners anticipate Nauka will dock at Zvezda's nadir port, replacing Pirs.[165]
The launch of Nauka, initially planned for 2007, has been repeatedly delayed for various reasons. As of September 2019, the launch to the ISS is assigned to no earlier than December 2020.[166] After this date, the warranties of some of Nauka's systems will expire.
Prichal
Mockup of the Prichal module at the Yuri Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center
Main article: Prichal (ISS module)
Prichal, also known as Uzlovoy Module or UM (Russian: Узловой Модуль "Причал", Nodal Module Berth),[167] is a 4-tonne (8,800 lb)[168] ball-shaped module that will allow docking of two scientific and power modules during the final stage of the station assembly, and provide the Russian segment additional docking ports to receive Soyuz MS and Progress MS spacecraft. UM is due to be launched in 2022.[169] It will be integrated with a special version of the Progress cargo ship and launched by a standard Soyuz rocket, docking to the nadir port of the Nauka module. One port is equipped with an active hybrid docking port, which enables docking with the MLM module. The remaining five ports are passive hybrids, enabling docking of Soyuz and Progress vehicles, as well as heavier modules and future spacecraft with modified docking systems. The node module was intended to serve as the only permanent element of the cancelled OPSEK.[170][171]
Science Power Modules 1 and 2
Science Power Module 1 (SPM-1, also known as NEM-1) Science Power Module 2 (SPM-2, also known as NEM-2) are modules planned to arrive at the ISS in 2022.[169][172][173] It is going to dock to the Prichal module, which is planned to be attached to the Nauka module.[173] If Nauka is cancelled, then the Prichal, SPM-1, and SPM-2 would dock at the zenith port of Zvezda. SPM-1 and SPM-2 would also be required components for the OPSEK space station.[174]
Bishop Airlock Module
Main article: Bishop Airlock Module
The NanoRacks Bishop Airlock Module is a commercially-funded airlock module intended to be launched to the ISS on SpaceX CRS-21 in August 2020.[175][176] The module is being built by NanoRacks, Thales Alenia Space, and Boeing.[177] It will be used to deploy CubeSats, small satellites, and other external payloads for NASA, CASIS, and other commercial and governmental customers.[178]
Cancelled componments
The cancelled Habitation module under construction at Michoud in 1997
Several modules planned for the station were cancelled over the course of the ISS programme. Reasons include budgetary constraints, the modules becoming unnecessary, and station redesigns after the 2003 Columbia disaster. The US Centrifuge Accommodations Module would have hosted science experiments in varying levels of artificial gravity.[179] The US Habitation Module would have served as the station's living quarters. Instead, the sleep stations are now spread throughout the station.[180] The US Interim Control Module and ISS Propulsion Module would have replaced the functions of Zvezda in case of a launch failure.[181] Two Russian Research Modules were planned for scientific research.[182] They would have docked to a Russian Universal Docking Module.[183] The Russian Science Power Platform would have supplied power to the Russian Orbital Segment independent of the ITS solar arrays.
Systems
Life support
Main articles: ISS ECLSS and Chemical oxygen generator
The critical systems are the atmosphere control system, the water supply system, the food supply facilities, the sanitation and hygiene equipment, and fire detection and suppression equipment. The Russian Orbital Segment's life support systems are contained in the Zvezda service module. Some of these systems are supplemented by equipment in the USOS. The MLM Nauka laboratory has a complete set of life support systems.
Atmospheric control systems
A flowchart diagram showing the components of the ISS life support system.
The interactions between the components of the ISS Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS)
The atmosphere on board the ISS is similar to the Earth's.[184] Normal air pressure on the ISS is 101.3 kPa (14.69 psi);[185] the same as at sea level on Earth. An Earth-like atmosphere offers benefits for crew comfort, and is much safer than a pure oxygen atmosphere, because of the increased risk of a fire such as that responsible for the deaths of the Apollo 1 crew.[186] Earth-like atmospheric conditions have been maintained on all Russian and Soviet spacecraft.[187]
The Elektron system aboard Zvezda and a similar system in Destiny generate oxygen aboard the station.[188] The crew has a backup option in the form of bottled oxygen and Solid Fuel Oxygen Generation (SFOG) canisters, a chemical oxygen generator system.[189] Carbon dioxide is removed from the air by the Vozdukh system in Zvezda. Other by-products of human metabolism, such as methane from the intestines and ammonia from sweat, are removed by activated charcoal filters.[189]
Part of the ROS atmosphere control system is the oxygen supply. Triple-redundancy is provided by the Elektron unit, solid fuel generators, and stored oxygen. The primary supply of oxygen is the Elektron unit which produces O
2 and H
2 by electrolysis of water and vents H2 overboard. The 1 kW (1.3 hp) system uses approximately one litre of water per crew member per day. This water is either brought from Earth or recycled from other systems. Mir was the first spacecraft to use recycled water for oxygen production. The secondary oxygen supply is provided by burning O
2-producing Vika cartridges (see also ISS ECLSS). Each 'candle' takes 5–20 minutes to decompose at 450–500 °C (842–932 °F), producing 600 litres (130 imp gal; 160 US gal) of O
2. This unit is manually operated.[190]
The US Orbital Segment has redundant supplies of oxygen, from a pressurised storage tank on the Quest airlock module delivered in 2001, supplemented ten years later by ESA-built Advanced Closed-Loop System (ACLS) in the Tranquility module (Node 3), which produces O
2 by electrolysis.[191] Hydrogen produced is combined with carbon dioxide from the cabin atmosphere and converted to water and methane.
Power and thermal control
Main articles: Electrical system of the International Space Station and External Active Thermal Control System
Russian solar arrays, backlit by sunset
One of the eight truss mounted pairs of USOS solar arrays
Double-sided solar arrays provide electrical power to the ISS. These bifacial cells collect direct sunlight on one side and light reflected off from the Earth on the other, and are more efficient and operate at a lower temperature than single-sided cells commonly used on Earth.[192]
The Russian segment of the station, like most spacecraft, uses 28 volt low voltage DC from four rotating solar arrays mounted on Zarya and Zvezda. The USOS uses 130–180 V DC from the USOS PV array, power is stabilised and distributed at 160 V DC and converted to the user-required 124 V DC. The higher distribution voltage allows smaller, lighter conductors, at the expense of crew safety. The two station segments share power with converters.
The USOS solar arrays are arranged as four wing pairs, for a total production of 75 to 90 kilowatts.[193] These arrays normally track the sun to maximise power generation. Each array is about 375 m2 (4,036 sq ft) in area and 58 m (190 ft) long. In the complete configuration, the solar arrays track the sun by rotating the alpha gimbal once per orbit; the beta gimbal follows slower changes in the angle of the sun to the orbital plane. The Night Glider mode aligns the solar arrays parallel to the ground at night to reduce the significant aerodynamic drag at the station's relatively low orbital altitude.[194]
The station originally used rechargeable nickel–hydrogen batteries (NiH
2) for continuous power during the 35 minutes of every 90-minute orbit that it is eclipsed by the Earth. The batteries are recharged on the day side of the orbit. They had a 6.5-year lifetime (over 37,000 charge/discharge cycles) and were regularly replaced over the anticipated 20-year life of the station.[195] Starting in 2016, the nickel–hydrogen batteries were replaced by lithium-ion batteries, which are expected to last until the end of the ISS program.[196]
The station's large solar panels generate a high potential voltage difference between the station and the ionosphere. This could cause arcing through insulating surfaces and sputtering of conductive surfaces as ions are accelerated by the spacecraft plasma sheath. To mitigate this, plasma contactor units (PCU)s create current paths between the station and the ambient plasma field.[197]
ISS External Active Thermal Control System (EATCS) diagram
The station's systems and experiments consume a large amount of electrical power, almost all of which is converted to heat. To keep the internal temperature within workable limits, a passive thermal control system (PTCS) is made of external surface materials, insulation such as MLI, and heat pipes. If the PTCS cannot keep up with the heat load, an External Active Thermal Control System (EATCS) maintains the temperature. The EATCS consists of an internal, non-toxic, water coolant loop used to cool and dehumidify the atmosphere, which transfers collected heat into an external liquid ammonia loop. From the heat exchangers, ammonia is pumped into external radiators that emit heat as infrared radiation, then back to the station.[198] The EATCS provides cooling for all the US pressurised modules, including Kibō and Columbus, as well as the main power distribution electronics of the S0, S1 and P1 trusses. It can reject up to 70 kW. This is much more than the 14 kW of the Early External Active Thermal Control System (EEATCS) via the Early Ammonia Servicer (EAS), which was launched on STS-105 and installed onto the P6 Truss.[199]
Communications and computers
Main articles: Tracking and Data Relay Satellite and Luch (satellite)
See also: ThinkPad § Use in space
Diagram showing communications links between the ISS and other elements.
The communications systems used by the ISS
* Luch satellite and the Space Shuttle are not currently[when?] in use
Radio communications provide telemetry and scientific data links between the station and Mission Control Centres. Radio links are also used during rendezvous and docking procedures and for audio and video communication between crew members, flight controllers and family members. As a result, the ISS is equipped with internal and external communication systems used for different purposes.[200]
The Russian Orbital Segment communicates directly with the ground via the Lira antenna mounted to Zvezda.[6][201] The Lira antenna also has the capability to use the Luch data relay satellite system.[6] This system fell into disrepair during the 1990s, and so was not used during the early years of the ISS,[6][202][203] although two new Luch satellites—Luch-5A and Luch-5B—were launched in 2011 and 2012 respectively to restore the operational capability of the system.[204] Another Russian communications system is the Voskhod-M, which enables internal telephone communications between Zvezda, Zarya, Pirs, Poisk, and the USOS and provides a VHF radio link to ground control centres via antennas on Zvezda's exterior.[205]
The US Orbital Segment (USOS) makes use of two separate radio links mounted in the Z1 truss structure: the S band (audio) and Ku band (audio, video and data) systems. These transmissions are routed via the United States Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) in geostationary orbit, allowing for almost continuous real-time communications with NASA's Mission Control Center (MCC-H) in Houston.[22][6][200] Data channels for the Canadarm2, European Columbus laboratory and Japanese Kibō modules were originally also routed via the S band and Ku band systems, with the European Data Relay System and a similar Japanese system intended to eventually complement the TDRSS in this role.[22][206] Communications between modules are carried on an internal wireless network.[207]
An array of laptops in the US lab
Laptop computers surround the Canadarm2 console
UHF radio is used by astronauts and cosmonauts conducting EVAs and other spacecraft that dock to or undock from the station.[6] Automated spacecraft are fitted with their own communications equipment; the ATV uses a laser attached to the spacecraft and the Proximity Communications Equipment attached to Zvezda to accurately dock with the station.[208][209]
The ISS is equipped with about 100 IBM/Lenovo ThinkPad and HP ZBook 15 laptop computers. The laptops have run Windows 95, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows 7, Windows 10 and Linux operating systems.[210] Each computer is a commercial off-the-shelf purchase which is then modified for safety and operation including updates to connectors, cooling and power to accommodate the station's 28V DC power system and weightless environment. Heat generated by the laptops does not rise but stagnates around the laptop, so additional forced ventilation is required. Laptops aboard the ISS are connected to the station's wireless LAN via Wi-Fi, which connects to the ground via Ku band. This provides speeds of 10 Mbit/s download and 3 Mbit/s upload from the station, comparable to home DSL connection speeds.[211][212] Laptop hard drives occasionally fail and must be replaced.[213] Other computer hardware failures include instances in 2001, 2007 and 2017; some of these failures have required EVAs to replace computer modules in externally mounted devices.[214][215][216][217]
The operating system used for key station functions is the Debian Linux distribution.[218] The migration from Microsoft Windows was made in May 2013 for reasons of reliability, stability and flexibility.[219]
In 2017, an SG100 Cloud Computer was launched to the ISS as part of OA-7 mission.[220] It was manufactured by NCSIST and designed in collaboration with Academia Sinica, and National Central University under contract for NASA.[221]
Operations
Expeditions and private flights
See also the list of International Space Station expeditions (professional crew), space tourism (private travellers), and the list of human spaceflights to the ISS (both).
Zarya and Unity were entered for the first time on 10 December 1998.
Soyuz TM-31 being prepared to bring the first resident crew to the station in October 2000
ISS was slowly assembled over a decade of spaceflights and crews
Each permanent crew is given an expedition number. Expeditions run up to six months, from launch until undocking, an 'increment' covers the same time period, but includes cargo ships and all activities. Expeditions 1 to 6 consisted of 3 person crews, Expeditions 7 to 12 were reduced to the safe minimum of two following the destruction of the NASA Shuttle Columbia. From Expedition 13 the crew gradually increased to 6 around 2010.[222][223] With the arrival of the US Commercial Crew vehicles in the late 2010s, expedition size may be increased to seven crew members, the number ISS is designed for.[224][225]
Gennady Padalka, member of Expeditions 9, 19/20, 31/32, and 43/44, and Commander of Expedition 11, has spent more time in space than anyone else, a total of 878 days, 11 hours, and 29 minutes.[226] Peggy Whitson has spent the most time in space of any American, totalling 665 days, 22 hours, and 22 minutes during her time on Expeditions 5, 16, and 50/51/52.[227]
Travellers who pay for their own passage into space are termed spaceflight participants by Roscosmos and NASA, and are sometimes referred to as space tourists, a term they generally dislike.[note 1] All seven were transported to the ISS on Russian Soyuz spacecraft. When professional crews change over in numbers not divisible by the three seats in a Soyuz, and a short-stay crewmember is not sent, the spare seat is sold by MirCorp through Space Adventures. When the space shuttle retired in 2011, and the station's crew size was reduced to 6, space tourism was halted, as the partners relied on Russian transport seats for access to the station. Soyuz flight schedules increase after 2013, allowing 5 Soyuz flights (15 seats) with only two expeditions (12 seats) required.[233] The remaining seats are sold for around US$40 million to members of the public who can pass a medical exam. ESA and NASA criticised private spaceflight at the beginning of the ISS, and NASA initially resisted training Dennis Tito, the first person to pay for his own passage to the ISS.[note 2]
Anousheh Ansari became the first Iranian in space and the first self-funded woman to fly to the station. Officials reported that her education and experience make her much more than a tourist, and her performance in training had been "excellent."[234] Ansari herself dismisses the idea that she is a tourist. She did Russian and European studies involving medicine and microbiology during her 10-day stay. The documentary Space Tourists follows her journey to the station, where she fulfilled "an age-old dream of man: to leave our planet as a "normal person" and travel into outer space."[235]
In 2008, spaceflight participant Richard Garriott placed a geocache aboard the ISS during his flight.[236] This is currently the only non-terrestrial geocache in existence.[237] At the same time, the Immortality Drive, an electronic record of eight digitised human DNA sequences, was placed aboard the ISS.[238]
Orbit
Graph showing the changing altitude of the ISS from November 1998 until November 2018
Animation of ISS orbit from 14 September 2018 to 14 November 2018. Earth is not shown.
The ISS is maintained in a nearly circular orbit with a minimum mean altitude of 330 km (205 mi) and a maximum of 410 km (255 mi), in the centre of the thermosphere, at an inclination of 51.6 degrees to Earth's equator. This orbit was selected because it is the lowest inclination that can be directly reached by Russian Soyuz and Progress spacecraft launched from Baikonur Cosmodrome at 46° N latitude without overflying China or dropping spent rocket stages in inhabited areas.[239][240] It travels at an average speed of 27,724 kilometres per hour (17,227 mph), and completes 15.54 orbits per day (93 minutes per orbit).[2][14] The station's altitude was allowed to fall around the time of each NASA shuttle flight to permit heavier loads to be transferred to the station. After the retirement of the shuttle, the nominal orbit of the space station was raised in altitude.[241][242] Other, more frequent supply ships do not require this adjustment as they are substantially higher performance vehicles.[28][243]
Orbital boosting can be performed by the station's two main engines on the Zvezda service module, or Russian or European spacecraft docked to Zvezda's aft port. The ATV is constructed with the possibility of adding a second docking port to its aft end, allowing other craft to dock and boost the station. It takes approximately two orbits (three hours) for the boost to a higher altitude to be completed.[243] Maintaining ISS altitude uses about 7.5 tonnes of chemical fuel per annum[244] at an annual cost of about $210 million.[245]
Orbits of the ISS, shown in April 2013
The Russian Orbital Segment contains the Data Management System, which handles Guidance, Navigation and Control (ROS GNC) for the entire station.[246] Initially, Zarya, the first module of the station, controlled the station until a short time after the Russian service module Zvezda docked and was transferred control. Zvezda contains the ESA built DMS-R Data Management System.[247] Using two fault-tolerant computers (FTC), Zvezda computes the station's position and orbital trajectory using redundant Earth horizon sensors, Solar
Ludlow Castle
Heritage Category: Scheduled Monument
List Entry Number: 1004778
More information can be found on the link below:-
historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1004778
——————————————————————————————————-
Ludlow Castle, Castle Square, Ludlow, Shropshire
Ludlow Castle the standing structural remains
Heritage Category: Listed Building
Grade: I Listed
List Entry Number: 1291698
Summary
The standing structural remains of Ludlow Castle, an enclosure castle, begun in the late C11, and converted into a tower keep castle in the early C12.
Reasons for Designation
The standing structural remains of Ludlow Castle are listed at Grade I for the following principal reasons:
Historical: as one of England's finest castle sites, clearly showing its development from an enclosure castle into a tower keep castle in the C12; the castle played an important historical role particularly as seat of the President of the Council of the Marches; Architectural: the castle remains illustrate significant phases of development between the C11 and the C16; Survival: the buildings are in a ruinous condition, but nonetheless represent a remarkably complete multi-phase complex.
History
An enclosure castle is a defended residence or stronghold, built mainly of stone, in which the principal or sole defence comprises the walls and mural towers bounding the site. Enclosure castles, found in urban and in rural areas, were the strongly defended residence of the king or lord, sited for offensive or defensive operations, and often forming an administrative centre. Although such sites first appeared following the Norman Conquest, they really developed in the C12, incorporating defensive experience of the period, including that gained during the Crusades. Many enclosure castles were built in the C13, with a few dating from the C14, and Ludlow Castle is not alone in having begun as an enclosure castle and developed into a tower keep castle. At Ludlow, the large existing gate tower was converted into a tower keep in the early C12, providing more domestic accommodation, as well as defence.
Ludlow Castle occupies a commanding position at the steep-sided western end of a flat-topped ridge overlooking the valleys of the River Teme and the River Corve. The adjacent town of Ludlow, which was established by the mid-C12, lies to the south and east of the castle. The defences surrounding the medieval town are designated separately. The castle was probably founded by Walter de Lacy in about 1075 and served as the ‘caput' (the principal residence, military base and administrative centre) of the de Lacy estates in south Shropshire until the mid-C13. During the Anarchy of King Stephen's reign the castle was for Matilda until 1139, when it was besieged and captured by Stephen. The de Lacy family recovered the castle in the C12 and retained it, apart from occasional confiscations, until the death of Walter de Lacy in 1241. Ludlow Castle features in an ‘ancestral romance’ called ‘The Romance of Fulk FitzWarren', written in the late C13 about the adventures of a C13 knight. Other documentary sources indicate that when the castle was in royal control it was used for important meetings, such as that held in 1224 when Henry III made a treaty with the Welsh prince, Llewellyn. Following the death of Walter de Lacy in 1241 the castle came into the possession of the de Genevilles, and in the early C14, the castle passed through marriage to Roger Mortimer. Between 1327 and 1330 Roger Mortimer ruled England as Regent, with Edward II's widowed queen, Isabella. Mortimer had himself made Earl of March in 1328. In 1425 the Mortimer inheritance passed to Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York, who made Ludlow a favoured residence. His eldest son, who assumed the title of Earl of March, claimed the crown as Edward IV in 1461. Edward IV's son Edward was created Prince of Wales in 1471, and in 1473 was sent to Ludlow, where the administration of the principality known as the Council in the Marches was established. Both Edward and the Council remained at Ludlow until Edward IV's death in 1483. Ludlow Castle continued as an important royal residence and in 1493 the Council was re-established at Ludlow with Henry VII's son and heir, Prince Arthur as Prince of Wales. In 1501 Arthur was installed at Ludlow with his bride, Katherine of Aragon, and it was at Ludlow that Arthur died in 1502. In 1534 the Council in the Marches received statutory powers both to hear suits and to supervise and intervene in judicial proceedings in Wales and the Marches, and from that time until 1641, and again from 1660 to 1689, Ludlow's principal role was as the headquarters for the Council and, as such, the administrative capital of Wales and the border region. Milton’s mask, ‘Comus’, was first performed here in 1634 before John Egerton, 1st Earl of Bridgewater, in celebration of the earl’s new appointment as Lord President of Wales. On the dissolution of the Council the castle was abandoned and left to decay. Lead, window glass and panelling were soon removed for reuse in the town. In 1771, when the castle was leased to the Earl of Powis, many of the buildings were in ruins.
Since the late C18, the buildings have undergone repair and restoration at various times, as well as some further deterioration, with some rebuilding and replacement of stonework. Extensive archaeological excavations were undertaken by William St John Hope between 1903 and 1907. The castle is now open to the public.
Details
The standing structural remains of Ludlow Castle, an enclosure castle, begun in the late C11, and converted into a tower keep castle in the early C12.
MATERIALS: the castle is constructed of a variety of local stones; it appears that the greenish-grey flaggy calcerous siltstones that underlies the castle was used in its initial phase, with local sandstones being used thereafter.
PLAN: the castle consists of an elliptical INNER BAILEY, in the north-west corner of the site, representing the earliest area of development, with the OUTER BAILEY, created in the second half of the C12, to the south and east.
BUILDINGS:
The curtain wall of the inner bailey incorporates four mural towers and the former gatehouse, all thought to have been constructed by 1115. Three of the four towers are open at the back and would originally have contained wooden scaffolding supporting look-out and fighting platforms. The fourth tower, known as the POSTERN TOWER, on the western side of the enclosure, has small ground-floor postern doorways on its north and east sides. The former gatehouse, situated at the south-eastern part of the enclosure, is rectangular in plan and was originally three storeys in height. Remaining in the ground-floor of the building is part of a wall arcade, thought to be late-C11, with ornamented capitals. In the early C12 a fourth storey was added to provide more domestic accommodation, thus converting the gatehouse into a tower keep, known as the GREAT TOWER. In the later C12 the original gatehouse entrance passage was blocked (the location of the former arch remains visible on the south elevation) and an archway was cut through the adjacent part of the curtain wall to the north-east, reached by a stone bridge. This archway was partially infilled and a smaller arch constructed in the C14. Access to the upper floors of the tower is by a spiral stair to the east, reached by an ornamented doorcase, the Tudor arch having a trefoiled lintel flanked by cusped panelling and trefoiled lintel, which also gives access to rooms in the Judges’ Lodgings (see below). On the first floor is the hall, with a chamber and garderobe to the west. In the second half of the C15 the north wall of the Great Tower was rebuilt and internal floors added to create new rooms lit by enlarged windows. Adjoining the Great Tower, in the south-west section of the inner bailey, is the INMOST BAILEY, a walled enclosure constructed in the C12 and C13 to provide greater security and privacy to those living in the Great Tower. There is a well within this enclosure surrounded by a low stone wall.
Located in the north-eastern sector of the elliptical enclosure of the inner bailey are the remains of the CHAPEL OF ST MARY MAGDALENE. This was built in the first half of the C12, probably by Gilbert de Lacy, and was remodelled in the C16, probably in two phases. In the first phase, thought to have been undertaken circa 1502 for the installation of Arthur, Prince of Wales, a first floor was inserted in the circular nave, together with additional openings, including a first-floor doorway which gave access to a passage linking the chapel with the Great Chamber Block to the north. In the second phase, during the presidency of the Council in the Marches of Sir Henry Sidney (1560-86), the original presbytery and chancel were taken down and a new chancel, or chapel, built, stretching as far as the curtain wall. The crenellated circular nave, which measures 8.3m in diameter internally, survives to its full height as a roofless shell, and contains much original carving to the round-headed order arches of the door openings, with chevron and billet mouldings, and to the internal blind arcade with a variety of capitals and moulded arches.
Since the late C12, the castle site has been entered through the two-storeyed GATEHOUSE within the eastern part of the curtain wall of the outer bailey. The wall originally had two adjoining rectangular mural towers of which the one to the north of the gatehouse survives as a standing structure; this, together with the adjacent section of the curtain wall form part of the CASTLE HOUSE built in the C18 (listed separately at Grade I). Protruding from the curtain wall defining the western side of the outer bailey are the remains of a semi-circular tower known as MORTIMER'S TOWER, possibly built in the early C13; this originally consisted of a ground-floor entrance passage, with two floors above, and was used as the postern entrance to the outer bailey until the C15. In the south-west corner of the outer bailey are the remains of ST PETER’S CHAPEL, originally a free-standing rectangular structure, founded by Roger Mortimer to celebrate his escape from the Tower of London in 1324, following his rebellion against Edward II. The chapel served as the Court House and offices of the Council in the Marches, for which an adjacent building to the west was constructed. The south-east corner of the chapel is now attached to a wall which completes the enclosure of the outer bailey’s south-west corner. In the north wall of the chapel is a blocked two-light window, enlarged at the bottom when a floor was inserted for the court house; a second original window towards the eastern end now contains a first-floor blocked doorway.
At the end of the C13 or in the early C14 an extensive building programme was initiated, replacing existing structures within the inner bailey with a grand new range of domestic buildings, built along the inside of the north section of the Norman curtain wall. The construction of these new buildings indicates the changing role of Ludlow Castle from military stronghold to a more comfortable residence and a seat of political power, reflecting the more peaceful conditions in the region following the conquest of Wales by Edward I. The first buildings to be completed were the GREAT HALL and the adjoining SOLAR BLOCK (private apartments). The Great Hall, which was used for ceremonial and public occasions, consisted of a first floor over a large undercroft, reached through a moulded pointed arch in the south elevation. The Hall was lit on both south and north sides by three pointed-arched windows with sunk chamfers and ‘Y’ tracery formed of paired cusped trefoil-headed lights, under hoodmoulds; these originally had seats, now partially surviving. The central south window was converted to a fireplace, replacing the louver which formerly covered the open fire towards the east of the Hall, its position indicated by elaborate corbels. At the west end, a series of openings lead into the Solar Block, only one of these (that to the north) being of the primary phase. Within the Hall, at the western end, is a timber viewing platform, which is not of special interest.* The Solar Block is thought to have been begun as a two-storey building, and raised to three storeys shortly afterwards, at which time the adjacent NORTH-WEST TOWER was raised, with the new CLOSET TOWER being built in the angle between the two. Each of the three floors of the Solar Block extended into the North-West Tower, with each being linked to a room in the Closet Tower. All three floors of the Solar were heated, the ground floor having a fireplace which originally had a stone hood; the first-floor room has hooded fireplace, on nearly triangular-sectioned jambs; the room above has a plainer hooded fireplace. The windows include original openings with ‘Y’ tracery and trefoil-headed lights, similar to those in the Hall, and a ground-floor mullioned window probably dating from the late C16.
In the early C14 two additional buildings containing more private apartments were constructed by Richard Mortimer. The three-storeyed GREAT CHAMBER BLOCK was built in about 1320 next to the Great Hall to balance the Solar Block to the west of the Hall. The connecting four-storeyed GARDEROBE TOWER, which projects from the curtain wall of the inner bailey, was also probably built about the same time. As in the Hall and Solar blocks, the floors are now lost but features in the walls remain to indicate layout and function. The main entrance to this block is through a recessed doorway in the south-west corner, with a pointed two-light window above. The undercroft was heated, and is lit by two two-light windows with stone side seats in the south wall. The tracery of the eastern of these windows has been lost. The first-floor main room, or ‘Great Chamber’, contains a grand hooded fireplace carried on a fourfold series of corbels; to either side of the fireplace are large head corbels with leafwork. The Tudor transomed and mullioned window probably replaced an earlier window. The upper room also has a large hooded fireplace, and was lit principally by a large trefoil-headed window with head-stopped hoodmould in the southern wall.
Following the establishment of the headquarters for the Council in the Marches at Ludlow, new buildings were constructed and many existing buildings changed their use. Within the inner bailey the main room in the Great Chamber Block became the council chamber, with additional chambers above. A new adjoining residential block, now called the TUDOR LODGINGS, was built to the east, replacing earlier structures. The block consisted of two sets of lodgings both being of three storeys with attic rooms above. The south wall of this block cuts across openings in the east wall of the Great Chamber Block. Between the lodgings, projecting from the south wall, is a circular stair tower, entered through an ogee-headed arch. The windows in the south elevation are mullioned; several have been blocked. In the north wall of the western lodging, at ground-floor level, is an opening with double trefoil head, having a divided light above. Otherwise, the features of this range are plain, with pointed door openings, and straight lintels to fireplaces.
As the power of the Council grew, further domestic accommodation was needed. To the east of the entrance within the inner bailey, a three-storeyed range, known as the JUDGES LODGINGS, was completed in 1581. On the south side, this building extends the curtain wall upwards, with two gables, and piercing for fenestration, the earlier arched entrance to the inner bailey becoming visually part of the newer building, with rooms above; stone arms set immediately over the archway dated 1581 commemorate the Presidency of the Council of Sir Henry Sidney. Rooms set above the arch leave a gate-passage leading through a second archway to the inner bailey, and giving access to both the Great Keep and the Judges’ Lodgings. The rooms above the gate-passage appear to have been accessed by the embellished Tudor-arched doorway in the Keep at the north end of the passage. The north side of the Judges’ Lodgings, within the inner bailey, has a polygonal stair turret (which originally had a pyramidal roof), with mullioned and transomed eight-light windows set regularly to either side. Within, some indication is given of the arrangement and appearance of the rooms by the survival of numerous fireplaces of red sandstone backed by brick set in herringbone pattern. The adjoining building to the east, originally two-storeyed, is thought to date from the C17.
Other developments during the C16 included changes to the south-west corner tower, enclosed within the inmost bailey, with the installation of a large oven at ground-floor level, with residential rooms above; the tower became known as the OVEN TOWER. In 1522 the PORTER'S LODGE was built in the outer bailey to the south of the gatehouse. The shell of this building now contains the castle shop; the modern structure and fittings of the shop are not of special interest.* Also dating from 1522 is the PRISON, adjoining to the south, which retains square-headed windows with moulded frames and hoodmoulds, and the stable block, completed in 1597, with mullioned windows. Like the porter's lodge, these buildings remain as incomplete shells.
*Pursuant to s.1 (5A) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 ('the Act'), it is declared that these aforementioned features are not of special architectural or historic interest.
Sources
Books and journals
Cathcart-King, D J, Castellarium Anglicanum, (1983)
Goodall, J, The English Castle, 1066-1650, (2011)
H M Colvin, D R Ransome, The History of the KIng's Works, vol 3, (1975)
Kenyon, J, Castles in Wales and the Marches Essays in honour of DJ Cathcart King, (1987), 55-74
Pevsner, N, Newman, J, The Buildings of England: Shropshire, (2006)
R Allen Brown, H M Colvin, The History of the King's Works, vol 2, (1963)
Shoesmith, R, Johnson, A (eds), Ludlow Castle. Its History and Buildings, (2000)
'' in Archaeological Investigations Ltd, Hereford archaeology series, (1991)
W. H. St John Hope, , 'Archaeologia' in The Castle of Ludlow, (1908)
Other
Pastscape Monument No. 111057,
Shropshire HER 01176,
historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1291698
—————————————————————————————————
Ludlow Castle, Castle Square, Ludlow, Shropshire
Construction of Ludlow Castle began in the late 11th century by the de Lacy's and held by them until the 13th century. In the 14th century it was enlarged by the Mortimers. In the 15th century ownership transferred between the House of York and Lancashire during the War of the Roses. In Elizabethan times the castle was further extended by Sir Henry Sidney. After the civil war the castle declined. It is now owned by the Earl of Powys for the crown.
Grade I listed.
——————————————————————————————————
Welcome to Ludlow Castle, one of the finest medieval ruins in England. Set in the glorious Shropshire countryside at the heart of the superb, bustling black & white market town of Ludlow. Walk through the Castle grounds and see the ancient houses of kings, queens, princes, judges and the nobility – a glimpse into the lifestyle of medieval society
The Castle, firstly a Norman Fortress and extended over the centuries to become a fortified Royal Palace, has ensured Ludlow’s place in English history – originally built to hold back unconquered Welsh, passing through generations of the de Lacy and Mortimer families to Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York. It became Crown property in 1461 and remained a royal castle for the next 350 years, during which time the Council of the Marches was formed with responsibility for the Government of Wales and the border counties. Abandoned in 1689 the castle quickly fell into ruin, described as ‘the very perfection of decay’ by Daniel Defoe
Since 1811 the castle has been owned by the Earls of Powis, who have arrested further decline, and allowed this magnificent historical monument to be open to the public. Today the Castle is the home to Ludlow’s major festivals throughout the year and open for all to enjoy.
www.ludlowcastle.com/the-castle/
———————————————————————————————————
See also:-
www.britainirelandcastles.com/England/Shropshire/Ludlow-C...
I had about a half hour to kill before going to a show at Yoshi's in Oakland's Jack London Square last night (John Mayall), so how better to spend it than to take advantage of the low light.
Please don't use this image on websites, blogs or other media without my written permission. © Toni_V. All rights reserved.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
In the late 1970s the Mikoyan OKB began development of a hypersonic high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft. Designated "Izdeliye 301" (also known as 3.01), the machine had an unusual design, combining a tailless layout with variable geometry wings. The two engines fueled by kerosene were located side by side above the rear fuselage, with the single vertical fin raising above them, not unlike the Tu-22 “Blinder” bomber of that time, but also reminiscent of the US-American SR-71 Mach 3 reconnaissance aircraft.
Only few and rather corny information leaked into the West, and the 301 was believed not only to act as a reconnaissance plane , it was also believed to have (nuclear) bombing capabilities. Despite wind tunnel testing with models, no hardware of the 301 was ever produced - aven though the aircraft could have become a basis for a long-range interceptor that would replace by time the PVO's Tupolew Tu-28P (ASCC code "Fiddler"), a large aircraft armed solely with missiles.
Despite limitations, the Tu-28P served well in its role, but the concept of a very fast interceptor aircraft, lingered on, since the Soviet Union had large areas to defend against aerial intruders, esp. from the North and the East. High speed, coupled with long range and the ability to intercept an incoming target at long distances independently from ground guidance had high priority for the Soviet Air Defence Forces. Even though no official requirement was issued, the concept of Izdeliye 301 from the Seventies was eventually developed further into the fixed-wing "Izdeliye 701" ultra-long-range high-altitude interceptor in the 1980ies.
The impulse for this new approach came when Oleg S. Samoylovich joined the Mikoyan OKB after having worked at Suchoi OKB on the T-60S missile carrier project. Similar in overall design to the former 301, the 701 was primarily intended as a kind of successor for the MiG-31 Foxhound for the 21st century, which just had completed flight tests and was about to enter PVO's front line units.
Being based on a long range cruise missile carrier, the 701 would have been a huge plane, featuring a length of 30-31m, a wing span of 19m (featuring a highly swept double delta wing) and having a maximum TOW of 70 tons! Target performance figures included a top speed of 2.500km/h, a cruising speed of 2.100km/h at 17.000m and an effective range of 7.000km in supersonic or 11.000km in subsonic mode. Eventually, the 701 program was mothballed, too, being too ambitious and expensive for a specialized development that could also have been a fighter version of the Tu-22 bomber!
Anyway, while the MiG-31 was successfully introduced in 1979 and had evolved in into a capable long-range interceptor with a top speed of more than Mach 3 (limited to Mach 2.8 in order to protect the aircraft's structural integrity), MiG OKB decided in 1984 to take further action and to develop a next-generation technology demonstrator, knowing that even the formidable "Foxhound" was only an interim solution on the way to a true "Four plus" of even a 6th generation fighter. Other new threats like low-flying cruise missiles, the USAF's "Project Pluto" or the assumed SR-71 Mach 5 successor “Aurora” kept Soviet military officials on the edge of their seats, too.
Main objective was to expand the Foxhound's state-of the-art performance, and coiple it with modern features like aerodynamic instability, supercruise, stealth features and further development potential.
The aircraft's core mission objectives comprised:
- Provide strategic air defense and surveillance in areas not covered by ground-based air defense systems (incl. guidance of other aircraft with less sophisticated avionics)
- Top speed of Mach 3.2 or more in a dash and cruise at Mach 3.0 for prolonged periods
- Long range/high speed interception of airspace intruders of any kind, including low flying cruise missiles, UAVs and helicopters
- Intercept cruise missiles and their launch aircraft from sea level up to 30.000m altitude by reaching missile launch range in the lowest possible time after departing the loiter area
Because funding was scarce and no official GOR had been issued, the project was taken on as a private venture. The new project was internally known as "Izdeliye 710" or "71.0". It was based on both 301 and 701 layout ideas and the wind tunnel experiences with their unusual layouts, as well as Oleg Samoylovich's experience with the Suchoi T-4 Mach 3 bomber project and the T-60S.
"Izdeliye 710" was from the start intended only as a proof-of-concept prototype, yet fully functional. It would also incorporate new technologies like heat-resistant ceramics against kinetic heating at prolonged high speeds (the airframe had to resist temperatures of 300°C/570°F and more for considerable periods), but with potential for future development into a full-fledged interceptor, penetrator and reconnaissance aircraft.
Overall, “Izdeliye 710" looked like a shrinked version of a mix of both former MiG OKB 301 and 701 designs, limited to the MiG-31's weight class of about 40 tons TOW. Compared with the former designs, the airframe received an aerodynamically more refined, partly blended, slender fuselage that also incorporated mild stealth features like a “clean” underside, softened contours and partly shielded air intakes. Structurally, the airframe's speed limit was set at Mach 3.8.
From the earlier 301 design,the plane retained the variable geometry wing. Despite the system's complexity and weight, this solution was deemed to be the best approach for a combination of a high continuous top speed, extended loiter time in the mission’s patrol areas and good performance on improvised airfields. Minimum sweep was a mere 10°, while, fully swept at 68°, the wings blended into the LERXes. Additional lift was created through the fuselage shape itself, so that aerodynamic surfaces and therefore drag could be reduced.
Pilot and radar operator sat in tandem under a common canopy with rather limited sight. The cockpit was equipped with a modern glass cockpit with LCD screens. The aircraft’s two engines were, again, placed in a large, mutual nacelle on the upper rear fuselage, fed by large air intakes with two-dimensional vertical ramps and a carefully modulated airflow over the aircraft’s dorsal area.
Initially, the 71.0 was to be powered by a pair of Soloviev D-30F6 afterburning turbofans with a dry thrust of 93 kN (20,900 lbf) each, and with 152 kN (34,172 lbf) with full afterburner. These were the same engines that powered the MiG-31, but there were high hopes for the Kolesov NK-101 engine: a variable bypass engine with a maximum thrust in the 200kN range, at the time of the 71.0's design undergoing bench tests and originally developed for the advanced Suchoj T-4MS strike aircraft.
With the D-30F6, the 71.0 was expected to reach Mach 3.2 (making the aircraft capable of effectively intercepting the SR-71), but the NK-101 would offer in pure jet mode a top speed in excess of Mach 3.5 and also improve range and especially loiter time when running as a subsonic turbofan engine.
A single fin with an all-moving top and an additional deep rudder at its base was placed on top of the engine nacelle. Additional maneuverability at lower speed was achieved by retractable, all-moving foreplanes, stowed in narrow slits under the cockpit. Longitudinal stability at high speed was improved through deflectable stabilizers: these were kept horizontal for take-off and added to the overall lift, but they could be folded down by up to 60° in flight, acting additionally as stabilizer strakes.
Due to the aircraft’s slender shape and unique proportions, the 71.0 quickly received the unofficial nickname "жура́вль" (‘Zhurávl' = Crane). The aircaft’s stalky impression was emphasized even more through its unusual landing gear arrangement: Due to the limited internal space for the main landing gear wells between the weapons bay, the wing folding mechanisms and the engine nacelle, MiG OKB decided to incorporate a bicycle landing gear, normally a trademark of Yakovlew OKB designs, but a conventional landing gear could simply not be mounted, or its construction would have become much too heavy and complex.
In order to facilitate operations from improvised airfields and on snow the landing gear featured twin front wheels on a conventional strut and a single four wheel bogie as main wheels. Smaller, single stabilizer wheels were mounted on outriggers that retracted into slender fairings at the wings’ fixed section trailing edge, reminiscent of early Tupolev designs.
All standard air-to-air weaponry, as well as fuel, was to be carried internally. Main armament would be the K-100 missile (in service eventually designated R-100), stored in a large weapons bay behind the cockpit on a rotary mount. The K-100 had been under development at that time at NPO Novator, internally coded ‘Izdeliye 172’. The K-100 missile was an impressive weapon, and specifically designed to attack vital and heavily defended aerial targets like NATO’s AWACS aircraft at BVR distance.
Being 15’ (4.57 m) long and weighing 1.370 lb (620 kg), this huge ultra-long-range weapon had a maximum range of 250 mi (400 km) in a cruise/glide profile and attained a speed of Mach 6 with its solid rocket engine. This range could be boosted even further with a pair of jettisonable ramjets in tubular pods on the missile’s flanks for another 60 mi (100 km). The missile could attack targets ranging in altitude between 15 – 25,000 meters.
The weapon would initially be allocated to a specified target through the launch aircraft’s on-board radar and sent via inertial guidance into the target’s direction. Closing in, the K-100’s Agat 9B-1388 active seeker would identify the target, lock on, and independently attack it, also in coordination with other K-100’s shot at the same target, so that the attack would be coordinated in time and approach directions in order to overload defense and ensure a hit.
The 71.0’s internal mount could hold four of these large missiles, or, alternatively, the same number of the MiG-31’s R-33 AAMs. The mount also had a slot for the storage of additional mid- and short-range missiles for self-defense, e .g. three R-60 or two R-73 AAMs. An internal gun was not considered to be necessary, since the 71.0 or potential derivatives would fight their targets at very long distances and rather rely on a "hit-and-run" tactic, sacrificing dogfight capabilities for long loitering time in stand-by mode, high approach speed and outstanding acceleration and altitude performance.
Anyway, provisions were made to carry a Gsh-301-250 gun pod on a retractable hardpoint in the weapons bay instead of a K-100. Alternatively, such pods could be carried externally on four optional wing root pylons, which were primarily intended for PTB-1500 or PTB-3000 drop tanks, or further missiles - theoretically, a maximum of ten K-100 missiles could be carried, plus a pair of short-range AAMs.
Additionally, a "buddy-to-buffy" IFR set with a retractable drogue (probably the same system as used on the Su-24) was tested (71.2 was outfitted with a retractable refuelling probe in front of the cockpit), as well as the carriage of simple iron bombs or nuclear stores, to be delivered from very high altitudes. Several pallets with cameras and sensors (e .g. a high resolution SLAR) were also envisioned, which could easily replace the missile mounts and the folding weapon bay covers for recce missions.
Since there had been little official support for the project, work on the 710 up to the hardware stage made only little progress, since the MiG-31 already filled the long-range interceptor role in a sufficient fashion and offered further development potential.
A wooden mockup of the cockpit section was presented to PVO and VVS officials in 1989, and airframe work (including tests with composite materials on structural parts, including ceramic tiles for leading edges) were undertaken throughout 1990 and 1991, including test rigs for the engine nacelle and the swing wing mechanism.
Eventually, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 suddenly stopped most of the project work, after two prototype airframes had been completed. Their internal designations were Izdeliye 71.1 and 71.2, respectively. It took a while until the political situation as well as the ex-Soviet Air Force’s status were settled, and work on Izdeliye 710 resumed at a slow pace.
After taking two years to be completed, 71.1 eventually made its roll-out and maiden flight in summer 1994, just when MiG-31 production had ended. MiG OKB still had high hopes in this aircraft, since the MiG-31 would have to be replaced in the next couple of years and "Izdeliye 710" was just in time for the potential procurement process. The first prototype wore a striking all-white livery, with dark grey ceramic tiles on the wings’ leading edges standing out prominently – in this guise and with its futuristic lines the slender aircraft reminded a lot of the American Space Shuttle.
71.1 was primarily intended for engine and flight tests (esp. for the eagerly awaited NK-101 engines), as well as for the development of the envisioned ramjet propulsion system for full-scale production and further development of Izdeliye 710 into a Mach 3+ interceptor. No mission avionics were initially fitted to this plane, but it carried a comprehensive test equipment suite and ballast.
Its sister ship 71.2 flew for the first time in late 1994, wearing a more unpretentious grey/bare metal livery. This plane was earmarked for avionics development and weapons integration, especially as a test bed for the K-100 missile, which shared Izdeliye 710’s fate of being a leftover Soviet project with an uncertain future and an even more corny funding outlook.
Anyway, aircraft 71.2 was from the start equipped with a complete RP-31 ('Zaslon-M') weapon control system, which had been under development at that time as an upgrade for the Russian MiG-31 fleet being part of the radar’s development program secured financial support from the government and allowed the flight tests to continue. The RP-31 possessed a maximum detection range of 400 km (250 mi) against airliner-sized targets at high altitude or 200 km against fighter-sized targets; the typical width of detection along the front was given as 225 km. The system could track 24 airborne targets at one time at a range of 120 km, 6 of which could be simultaneously attacked with missiles.
With these capabilities the RP-31 suite could, coupled with an appropriate carrier airframe, fulfil the originally intended airspace control function and would render a dedicated and highly vulnerable airspace control aircraft (like the Beriev A-50 derivative of the Il-76 transport) more or less obsolete. A group of four aircraft equipped with the 'Zaslon-M' suite would be able to permanently control an area of airspace across a total length of 800–900 km, while having ultra-long range weapons at hand to counter any intrusion into airspace with a quicker reaction time than any ground-based fighter on QRA duty. The 71.0, outfitted with the RP-31/K-100 system, would have posed a serious threat to any aggressor.
In March 1995 both prototypes were eventually transferred to the Kerchenskaya Guards Air Base at Savasleyka in the Oblast Vladimir, 300 km east of Mocsow, where they received tactical codes of '11 Blue' and '12 Blue'. Besides the basic test program and the RP-31/K-100 system tests, both machines were directly evaluated against the MiG-31 and Su-27 fighters by the Air Force's 4th TsBPi PLS, based at the same site.
Both aircraft exceeded expectations, but also fell short in certain aspects. The 71.0’s calculated top speed of Mach 3.2 was achieved during the tests with a top speed of 3,394 km/h (2.108 mph) at 21,000 m (69.000 ft). Top speed at sea level was confirmed at 1.200 km/h (745 mph) indicated airspeed.
Combat radius with full weapon load and internal fuel only was limited to 1,450 km (900 mi) at Mach 0.8 and at an altitude of 10,000 m (33,000 ft), though, and it sank to a mere 720 km (450 mi) at Mach 2.35 and at an altitude of 18,000 m (59,000 ft). Combat range with 4x K-100 internally and 2 drop tanks was settled at 3,000 km (1,860 mi), rising to 5,400 km (3,360 mi) with one in-flight refueling, tested with the 71.2. Endurance at altitude was only slightly above 3 hours, though. Service ceiling was 22,800 m (74,680 ft), 2.000 m higher than the MiG-31.
While these figures were impressive, Soviet officials were not truly convinced: they did not show a significant improvement over the simpler MiG-31. MiG OKB tried to persuade the government into more flight tests and begged for access to the NK-101, but the Soviet Union's collapse halted this project, too, so that both Izdeliye 710 had to keep the Soloviev D-30F6.
Little is known about the Izdeliye 710 project’s progress or further developments. The initial tests lasted until at least 1997, and obviously the updated MiG-31M received official favor instead of a completely new aircraft. The K-100 was also dropped, since the R-33 missile and later its R-37 derivative sufficiently performed in the long-range aerial strike role.
Development on the aircraft as such seemed to have stopped with the advent of modernized Su-27 derivatives and the PAK FA project, resulting in the Suchoi T-50 prototype. Unconfirmed reports suggest that one of the prototypes (probably 71.1) was used in the development of the N014 Pulse-Doppler radar with a passive electronically scanned array antenna in the wake of the MFI program. The N014 was designed with a range of 420 km, detection target of 250km to 1m and able to track 40 targets while able to shoot against 20.
Most interestingly, Izdeliye 710 was never officially presented to the public, but NATO became aware of its development through satellite pictures in the early Nineties and the aircraft consequently received the ASCC reporting codename "Fastback".
Until today, only the two prototypes have been known to exist, and it is assumed – had the type entered service – that the long-range fighter had received the official designation "MiG-41".
General characteristics:
Crew: 2 (Pilot, weapon system officer)
Length (incl. pitot): 93 ft 10 in (28.66 m)
Wingspan:
- minimum 10° sweep: 69 ft 4 in (21.16 m)
- maximum 68° sweep: 48 ft 9 in (14,88 m)
Height: 23 ft 1 1/2 in (7,06 m )
Wing area: 1008.9 ft² (90.8 m²)
Weight: 88.151 lbs (39.986 kg)
Performance:
Maximum speed:
- Mach 3.2 (2.050 mph (3.300 km/h) at height
- 995 mph (1.600 km/h) supercruise speed at 36,000 ft (11,000 m)
- 915 mph (1.470 km/h) at sea level
Range: 3.705 miles (5.955 km) with internal fuel
Service ceiling: 75.000 ft (22.500 m)
Rate of climb: 31.000 ft/min (155 m/s)
Engine:
2x Soloviev D-30F6 afterburning turbofans with a dry thrust of 93 kN (20,900 lbf) each
and with 152 kN (34,172 lbf) with full afterburner.
Armament:
Internal weapons bay, main armament comprises a flexible missile load; basic ordnance of 4x K-100 ultra long range AAMs plus 2x R-73 short-range AAMs: other types like the R-27, R-33, R-60 and R-77 have been carried and tested, too, as well as podded guns on internal and external mounts. Alternatively, the weapon bay can hold various sensor pallets.
Four hardpoints under the wing roots, the outer pair “wet” for drop tanks of up to 3.000 l capacity, ECM pods or a buddy-buddy refueling drogue system. Maximum payload mass is 9000 kg.
The kit and its assembly
The second entry for the 2017 “Soviet” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com – a true Frankenstein creation, based on the scarce information about the real (but never realized) MiG 301 and 701 projects, the Suchoj T-60S, as well as some vague design sketches you can find online and in literature.
This one had been on my project list for years and I already had donor kits stashed away – but the sheer size (where will I leave it once done…?) and potential complexity kept me from tackling it.
The whole thing was an ambitious project and just the unique layout with a massive engine nacelle on top of the slender fuselage instead of an all-in-one design makes these aircraft an interesting topic to build. The GB was a good motivator.
“My” fictional interpretation of the MiG concepts is mainly based on a Dragon B-1B in 1:144 scale (fuselage, wings), a PM Model Su-15 two seater (donating the nose section and the cockpit, as well as wing parts for the fin) and a Kangnam MiG-31 (for the engine pod and some small parts). Another major ingredient is a pair of horizontal stabilizers from a 1:72 Hasegawa A-5 Vigilante.
Fitting the cockpit section took some major surgery and even more putty to blend the parts smoothly together. Another major surgical area was the tail; the "engine box" came to be rather straightforward, using the complete rear fuselage section from the MiG-31 and adding the intakes form the same kit, but mounted horizontally with a vertical splitter.
Blending the thing to the cut-away tail section of the B-1 was quite a task, though, since I not only wanted to add the element to the fuselage, but rather make it look a bit 'organic'. More than putty was necessary, I also had to made some cuts and transplantations. And after six PSR rounds I stopped counting…
The landing gear was built from scratch – the front wheel comes mostly from the MiG-31 kit. The central bogie and its massive leg come from a VEB Plasticart 1:100 Tu-20/95 bomber, plus some additional struts. The outriggers are leftover landing gear struts from a Hobby Boss Fw 190, mated with wheels which I believe come from a 1:200 VEB Plasticart kit, an An-24. Not certain, though. The fairings are slender MiG-21 drop tanks blended into the wing training edge. For the whole landing gear, the covers were improvised with styrene sheet, parts from a plastic straw(!) or leftover bits from the B-1B.
The main landing gear well was well as the weapons’ bay themselves were cut into the B-1B underside and an interior scratched from sheet and various leftover materials – I tried to maximize their space while still leaving enough room for the B-1B kit’s internal VG mechanism.
The large missiles (two were visible fitted and the rotary launcher just visibly hinted at) are, in fact, AGM-78 ‘Standard’ ARMs in a fantasy guise. They look pretty Soviet, though, like big brothers of the already not small R-33 missiles from the MiG-31.
While not in the focus of attention, the cockpit interior is completely new, too – OOB, the Su-15 cockpit only has a floor and rather stubby seats, under a massive single piece canopy. On top of the front wheel well (from a Hasegawa F-4) I added a new floor and added side consoles, scratched from styrene sheet. F-4 dashboards improve the decoration, and I added a pair of Soviet election seats from the scrap box – IIRC left over from two KP MiG-19 kits.
The canopy was taken OOB, I just cut it into five parts for open display. The material’s thickness does not look too bad on this aircraft – after all, it would need a rather sturdy construction when flying at Mach 3+ and withstanding the respective pressures and temperatures.
Painting
As a pure whif, I was free to use a weirdo design - but I rejected this idea quickly. I did not want a garish splinter scheme or a bright “Greenbottle Fly” Su-27 finish.
With the strange layout of the aircraft, the prototype idea was soon settled – and Soviet prototypes tend to look very utilitarian and lusterless, might even be left in grey. Consequently, I adapted a kind of bare look for this one, inspired by the rather shaggy Soviet Tu-22 “Blinder” bombers which carried a mix of bare metal and white and grey panels. With additional black leading edges on the aerodynamic surfaces, this would create a special/provisional but still purposeful look.
For the painting, I used a mix of several metallizer tones from ModelMaster and Humbrol (including Steel, Magnesium, Titanium, as well as matt and polished aluminum, and some Gun Metal and Exhaust around the engine nozzles, partly mixed with a bit of blue) and opaque tones (Humbrol 147 and 127). The “scheme” evolved panel-wise and step by step. The black leading edges were an interim addition, coming as things evolved, and they were painted first with black acrylic paint as a rough foundation and later trimmed with generic black decal stripes (from TL Modellbau). A very convenient and clean solution!
The radomes on nose and tail and other di-electric panels became dark grey (Humbrol 125). The cockpit tub was painted with Soviet Cockpit Teal (from ModelMaster), while the cockpit opening and canopy frames were kept in a more modest medium grey (Revell 57). On the outside of the cabin windows, a fat, deep yellow sealant frame (Humbrol 93, actually “Sand”) was added.
The weapon bay was painted in a yellow-ish primer tone (seen on pics of Tu-160 bombers) while the landing gear wells received a mix of gold and sand; the struts were painted in a mixed color, too, made of Humbrol 56 (Aluminum) and 34 (Flat White). The green wheel discs (Humbrol 131), a typical Soviet detail, stand out well from the rather subdued but not boring aircraft, and they make a nice contrast to the red Stars and the blue tactical code – the only major markings, besides a pair of MiG OKB logos under the cockpit.
Decals were puzzled together from various sheets, and I also added a lot of stencils for a more technical look. In order to enhance the prototype look further I added some photo calibration markings on the nose and the tail, made from scratch.
A massive kitbashing project that I had pushed away for years - but I am happy that I finally tackled it, and the result looks spectacular. The "Firefox" similarity was not intended, but this beast really looks like a movie prop - and who knwos if the Firefox was not inspired by the same projects (the MiG 301 and 701) as my kitbash model?
The background info is a bit lengthy, but there's some good background info concerning the aforementioned projects, and this aircraft - as a weapon system - would have played a very special and complex role, so a lot of explanations are worthwhile - also in order to emphasize that I di not simply try to glue some model parts together, but rather try to spin real world ideas further.
Mighty bird!
Structural Demonstration Model
Color coded demonstrator of the major structural systems used inside the model.
White - major exterior columns. However all the cross bracing is cosmetic and non-structural.
Grey - 3x3 technic central core. The core supports the 1x1 brick built central column. The technic axle corners of the core terminate at different levels depending on the module and connect to the yellow outriggers. Only the brick core rises the entire height of the tower.
Red- Shear walls connecting the four external columns to the central core column. As they carry up through the building they become trans-blue exterior walls.
Yellow - Outrigger facade supports. They provide attachment and support the trans blue facade behind each of the X's and help tie the shear walls together at select points.
Basically this is the underside view of the module shown previously in www.flickr.com/photos/51130204@N04/14691315157/
Badami formerly known as Vatapi, is a town and headquarters of a taluk by the same name, in the Bagalkot district of Karnataka, India. It was the regal capital of the Badami Chalukyas from 540 to 757 AD. It is famous for its rock cut structural temples. It is located in a ravine at the foot of a rugged, red sandstone outcrop that surrounds Agastya lake. Badami has been selected as one of the heritage cities for HRIDAY - Heritage City Development and Augmentation Yojana scheme of Government of India.
HISTORY
- Dravidian architecture - Badami Chalukyas
- Hindu temple architecture - Badami Chalukya architecture
- Political history of medieval Karnataka - Badami Chalukyas
- Architecture of Karnataka - Badami Chalukya architecture
- Chalukyas of Badami
PRE-HISTORIC
Badami is surrounded by many pre-historic places including Khyad area of Badami, Hiregudda, Sidlaphadi and Kutkankeri (Junjunpadi, Shigipadi and Anipadi), there we can see the rock shelters megalithic burial sites and paintings.
BADAMI CHALUKYAS AND OTHER DYNASTIES
MYTHOLOGY
The Puranic story says the wicked asura Vatapi was killed by sage Agastya (as per Agastya-Vatapi story), the area in which the incident happened so named as Vatapi. At Aihole there was a merchant guild known as Ayyavole Ainuravaru lived in the area have reformed. As per scholar Dr. D. P. Dikshit, the first Chalukya king was Jayasimha (a feudatory lord in the Kadamba dynasty), who in 500 AD established the Chalukya kingdom. His grandson Pulakeshin Ibuilt a fort at Vatapi.
BADAMI CHALUKYAS
It was founded in 540 AD by Pulakeshin I (535-566 AD), an early ruler of the Chalukyas. His sons Kirtivarma I (567-598 AD) and his brother Mangalesha (598-610 AD) constructed the cave temples.Kirtivarma I strengthened Vatapi and had three sons Pulakeshin II, Vishnuvardhana and Buddhavarasa, who at his death were minors, thus making them ineligible to rule, so Kirtivarma I's brother Mangalesha took the throne and tried to establish rule, only to be killed by Pulakeshin II who ruled between 610 A.D to 642 A.D. Vatapi was the capital of the Early Chalukyas, who ruled much of Karnataka, Maharashtra, Few parts of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh between the 6th and 8th centuries. The greatest among them was Pulakeshin II (610-642 AD) who defeated many kings including the Pallavas of Kanchipuram.
The rock-cut Badami Cave Temples were sculpted mostly between the 6th and 8th centuries. The four cave temples represent the secular nature of the rulers then, with tolerance and a religious following that inclines towards Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. cave 1 is devoted to Shiva, and Caves 2 and 3 are dedicated to Vishnu, whereas cave 4 displays reliefs of Jain Tirthankaras. Deep caverns with carved images of the various incarnations of Hindu gods are strewn across the area, under boulders and in the red sandstone. From an architectural and archaeological perspective, they provide critical evidence of the early styles and stages of the southern Indian architecture.
The Pallavas under the king Narasimhavarma I seized it in 642 AD & destroyed the vatapi. Pulakeshin II's son Vikramaditya I of Chalukyas drove back Pallavas in 654 AD and led a successful attack on Kanchipuram, the capital of Pallavas. Then Rashtrakutas came to power in Karnataka including Badami around 757 AD and the town lost its importance. Later it was ruled by the Hoysalas.
Then it passed on to Vijayanagara empire, The Adil Shahis, Mughal Empire, The Savanur Nawabs (They were vassals of Nizams and Marathas), The Maratha, Hyder Ali. The Britishers made it part of the Bombay Presidency.
INSCRIPTIONS
Badami has eighteen inscriptions, among them some inscriptions are important. The first Sanskrit inscription in old Kannada script, on a hillock dates back to 543 CE, from the period of Pulakeshin I (Vallabheswara), the second is the 578 CE cave inscription of Mangalesha in Kannada language and script and the third is the Kappe Arabhatta records, the earliest available Kannada poetry in tripadi (three line) metre. one inscription near the Bhuthanatha temple also has inscriptions dating back to the 12th century in Jain rock-cut temple dedicated to the Tirtankara Adinatha.
VATAPI GANAPATI
In the Carnatic music and Hamsadhwani raga the Vatapi Ganapatim Bhaje by the composer Muthuswami Dikshitar. The idol of Vatapi Ganapati brought from Badami by Pallavas, is now in the Uthrapathiswaraswamy Temple, near Thanjavur of Tamil Nadu.
In 7th century, Vatapi Ganapati idol was brought from Badami (Vatapi - Chalukya capital) by Pallava who defeated Chalukyas.
TOURISM
Landmarks in Badami include cave temples, gateways, forts, inscriptions and sculptures.
- A Buddhist cave in a natural setting that can be entered only by crawling on knees.
- The Bhuhtanatha temple, a small shrine, facing the lake, constructed in 5th century.
- Badami Fort situated on top of the hill.
- Many Shivalayas including the Malegatti Shivalaya with 7th century origins.
- The Dattatreya temple.
- The Mallikarjuna temple dating back to the 11th century, built on a star shaped plan.
- a Dargah, a dome of an Islamic place of worship on the south fort side.
- Vista points on top of the North Fort for the view of the ancient town below.
- Temple of Banashankari, a Kuladevata (family deity) for many families, is located near Badami.
- Archaeological museum, that has collection of sculptures from Badami, Aihole and Pattadakal.
BADAMI CAVE TEMPLES
The Badami cave temples are a complex of four cave temples located at Badami, a town in the Bagalkot district in the north part of Karnataka, India. They are considered an example of Indian rock-cut architecture, especially Badami Chalukya architecture initiated during the 6th century. Badami was previously known as Vataapi Badami, the capital of the early Chalukya dynasty, who ruled much of Karnataka from middle of the sixth until the middle of the eighth centuries. Badami is situated on the west bank of an artificial lake filled with greenish water dammed by an earthen wall faced with stone steps. Badami is surrounded in the north and south by forts built in later times from the ramparts that crown their summits.
The Badami cave temples represent some of the earliest known experimentation of Hindu temple prototypes for later temples in the Indian peninsula. Along with Aihole, states UNESCO, their pioneering designs transformed the Malaprabha river valley into a cradle of Temple Architecture, whose ideas defined the components of later Hindu Temples elsewhere. Caves 1 to 3 feature Hindu themes of Shiva and Vishnu, while Cave 4 features Jain icons. There is also a Buddhist Cave 5 which has been converted into a Hindu temple of Vishnu. Another cave identified in 2013 has a number of carvings of Vishnu and other Hindu deities, and water is seen gushing out through the cave all the time.
GEOGRAPHY
The Badami cave temples are located in the Badami town in the north central part of Karnataka, India. The temples are about 110 km northeast from Hubli-Dharwad, the second largest metropolitan area of the state. Malaprabha river is 4.8 km away. Badami, also referred to as Vatapi, Vatapipuri and Vatapinagari in historical texts, and the 6th-century capital of Chalukya dynasty, is at the exit point of the ravine between two steep mountain cliffs. Four cave temples have been excavated in the escarpment of the hill to the south-east of the town above the artificial lake called Agastya Lake created by an earthen dam faced with stone steps. To the west end of this cliff, at its lowest point, is the first cave temple dedicated to Shiva, followed by a cave north east to it dedicated to Vishnu but is at a much higher level. The largest is Cave 3, mostly a Vaishnava cave, is further to the east on the northern face of the hill. The first three caves are dedicated to Hindu gods and goddesses including Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. The fourth cave, dedicated to Jainism, is a short distance away.
HISTORY OF CAVE TEMPLES
The cave temples, numbered 1 to 4 in the order of their creation, identified in the town of Badami, the capital city of the Chalukya kingdom (also known as Early Chalukyas) are dated from the late 6th century onwards. The exact dating is known only for cave 3 which is a Brahmanical temple dedicated to Vishnu. An inscription found here records the creation of the shrine by Mangalesha in Saka 500 (lunar calendar, spanning 578 to 579 CE). These inscriptions are in Kannada language, and have been the source for dating these rock cave temples to the 6th-century. The Badami caves complex are part of the UNESCO inscribed World Heritage Site under the title "Evolution of Temple Architecture – Aihole-Badami-Pattadakal" in the Malaprabha river valley which is considered a cradle of Temple Architecture, which formed the template for later Hindu temples in the region. The art work in Cave 1 and Cave 2 exhibit the northern Deccan style of 6th- and 7th-century, while those in Cave 3 show a simultaneous co-exhibition of two different ancient Indian artistic traditions – the northern Nagara and the southern Dravida styles. The Cave 3 also shows icons and reliefs in the Vesara style – a creative fusion of ideas from the two styles, as well as some of the earliest surviving historical examples of yantra-chakra motifs and colored fresco paintings in Karnataka. The first three caves feature sculpture of Hindu icons and legends focusing on Shiva and Vishnu, while Cave 4 features Jain icons and themes.
TEMPLE CAVES
The Badami cave temples are composed of mainly four caves, all carved out of the soft Badami sandstone on a hill cliff, dated to the late 6th to 7th centuries. The planning of four caves (1 to 4) is simple. The entrance is a verandah (mukha mandapa) with stone columns and brackets, a distinctive feature of these caves, leading to a columned mandapa – main hall (also maha mandapa) and then to the small square shrine (sanctum sanctorum, garbhaghrha) cut deep into the cave. The cave temples are linked by stepped path with intermediate terraces looking over the town and lake. Cave temples are labelled 1–4 in their ascending series even though this numbering does not necessarily reflect the sequence of excavation.
The cave temples are dated to 6th to 8th century, with an inscription dated to 579 CE. The inscriptions are in old Kannada script. The architecture includes structures built in Nagara style and Dravidian style which is the first and most persistent architectural idiom to be adopted by the early chalukyas There is also the fifth natural cave temple in Badami – a Buddhist temple, a natural cave, which can be entered kneeling on all fours.
CAVE 1
The cave is just about 18 m above the street level on the northwest part of the hill. Access is through series of steps which depict carvings of dwarfish ganas (with "bovine and equine heads") in different postures. The verandah with 21 m length with a width of 20 m in the interior, has four columns all sculpted with reliefs of the god Shiva in different dancing positions and different incarnations. The guardian dwarapalas at the entrance to the cave stand to a height of 1.879 m.
The cave portrays the Tandava-dancing Shiva, as Nataraja. The image, (1.5 m tall, has 18 arms, in a form that express the dance positions arranged in a geometric pattern, which Alice Boner states, is a time division symbolizing the cosmic wheel. Some of the arms hold objects while most express mudras (symbolic hand postures). The objects include drums, trident and axe. Some arms also have serpents coiled around them. Shiva has his son Ganesha and the bull Nandi by his side. Adjoining to the Nataraja, a wall depicts the goddess Durga, depicted slaying the buffalo-demon Mahishasura. Elsewhere, the two sons of Shiva, Ganesha and Kartikkeya, the god of war and family deity of the Chalukya dynasty are seen in one of the carved sculptures on the walls of the cave with Kartikkeya riding a peacock.
The cave also has carved sculptures of the goddesses Lakshmi and Parvati flanking Harihara, a 2.36 m high sculpture of a fused image that is half Shiva and half Vishnu. To the right, Ardhanarishvara, a composite androgynous form of Shiva and his consort Parvati, is sculpted towards the end of the walls. All the carved sculptures show ornaments worn by them, as well as borders with reliefs of various animals and birds. Lotus design is a common theme. On the ceiling are images of the Vidyadhara couples. Through a cleavage in the back side of the cave is a square sanctuary with more images carved.
Other prominent images in the cave are Nandi, the bull, in the sculptural form of Dharmadeva, the god of justice, Bhringi, a devotee of Shiva, a female decorated goddess holding a flat object in her left hand, which are all part of Ardhanarishvara described earlier. The roof in the cave has five carved panels with the central panel depicting the serpent Shesha. The head and bust are well formed and project boldly from the centre of the coil. In another compartment a bass-relief of 0.76 m diameter has carvings of a male and female; the male is Yaksha carrying a sword and the female is Apsara with a flying veil. The succeeding panel has carvings of two small figures; and the panel at the end is carved with lotuses.
CAVE 2
Cave 2, facing north, to the west of Cave 3, created in late 6th century AD, is almost same as cave 1 in terms of its layout and dimensions but it is dedicated primarily to Vishnu. Cave is reached by climbing 64 steps from the first cave. The cave entrance is the verandah, divided by four square pillars, which has carvings from its middle section to the top where there are yali brackets with sculptures within them. The cave is adorned with reliefs of guardians. Like the Cave 1, the cave art carved is a pantheon of Hindu divinities.
The largest relief in Cave 2 shows Vishnu as Trivikrama – with one foot on Earth and another – directed to the north. Other representations of Vishnu in this cave include Varaha (boar) where he is shown rescuing Bhudevi (symbolism for earth) from the depths of ocean, and Krishna avatars – legends found in Hindu Puranas text such as the Bhagavata Purana. Like other major murti (forms) in this and other Badami caves, the Varaha sculpture is set in a circle, the panel is an upright rectangle, states Alice Boner, whose "height is equal to the octopartite directing circle and sides are aligned to essential geometric ratios, in this case to the second vertical chord of the circle". The doorway is framed by pilasters carrying an entablature with three blocks embellished with gavaksha ornament. The entrance of the cave also has two armed guardians holding flowers rather than weapons. The end walls of the outer verandah is occupied by sculpted panels, to the right, Trivikrama; to the left, Varaha rescuing Bhudevi, with a penitent multi-headed snake (Nag) below. The adjacent side walls and ceiling have traces of colored paintwork, suggesting that the cave used to have fresco paintings. The columns show gods and battle scenes, the churning of cosmic ocean (Samudra Manthan), Gajalakshmi and figures, Brahma, Vishnu asleep on Shesha, illustrations of the birth of Krishna, Krishna's youth, Krishna with gopis and cows.
The ceiling of Cave 2 shows a wheel with sixteen fish spokes in a square frame along with swastikas and flying couples. The end bays have a flying couple and Vishnu on Garuda.[8] The main hall in the cave is 10.16 m in width, 7.188 m deep and 3.45 m high and is supported by eight square pillars in two rows. The roof of this hall has panels which have carvings. At the upper end of the wall a frieze runs all along the wall with engravings of episodes from the Krishna or Vishnu legends.
The sculptures of Cave 2, like Cave 1, are of the northern Deccan style of 6th-and 7th-century similar to that found in Ellora caves.
CAVE 3
The Cave 3 is dedicated to Vishnu, and is the most intricately carved and the biggest. It has well carved giant figures of Trivikrama, Anantasayana, Paravasudeva, Bhuvaraha, Harihara and Narasimha. The theme on which the Cave 3 is carved is primarily Vaishnavite, however the cave also shows Harihara on its southern wall – half Vishnu and half Shiva shown fused as one, making the cave important to Shaivism studies as well. Cave 3, facing north, is 60 steps away from the Cave 2. This cave temple's veranda, 21 m in length with an interior width of 20 m, has been sculpted 15 m deep into the mountain, and an added square shrine at the end extends the cave some 3.7 m further inside. The verandah itself is 2.1 m wide and has four free standing carved pillars separating it from the hall. The cave is 4.6 m high, supported by six pillars each measuring 0.76 m square. Each column and pilaster is carved with wide and deep bases crowned by capitals which are camouflaged by brackets on three sides. Each bracket, except for one bracket, has carvings of standing human figures, under foliage in different postures, of a male and female mythological characters, along with attendant figure of a dwarf. A moulded cornice in the facia, with a dado of blocks below it (generally in 2.1 m lengths), have about thirty compartments carved with series of two fat dwarfs called ganas. The cave shows a Kama scene on one pillar, where a woman and man are in maithuna (erotic) embrace beneath a tree.
Cave 3 also shows fresco paintings on the ceiling, but some of these are faded, broken and unclear. These are among the earliest known and surviving evidence of fresco painting in Indian art.[14] The Hindu god Brahma is seen in one of the murals, while the wedding of Shiva and Parvati, attended by various Hindu deities, is the theme of another. There is a lotus medallion on the floor underneath the mural of four armed Brahma. The sculpture is well preserved, and a large number of Vishnu's reliefs including standing Vishnu with 8 arms, Vishnu seated on a hooded serpent called Sesha or Ananta on the eastern side of the verandha, Vishnu as Narasimha (half human – half lion), Varaha fully armed, a boar incarnation of Vishnu in the back wall of the cave, Harihara (a syncretic sculpture of Vishnu and Shiva), and Trivikrama avatars. The back wall also has carvings of Vidhyadaras holding offerings to Varaha, and adjoining this is an inscription dated 579 AD with the name Mangalis inscribed on it. At one end of the pilaster there is a sculpture of the fourth incarnation of Vishnu as Vamana shown with eight arms called Ashtabhuja decorated with various types of weapons. A crescent moon is crafted above his face, crown of Vishnu decorates his head and is flanked by Varaha and two other figures and below on his right is his attendant Garuda. The images in front of Vamana are three figures of Bali and his wife with Shukra, his councilor. Reliefs stand 4 metres tall. The culture and clothing embedded in the sixth century is visible in the art sculpted in this cave. The roof in the verandha has seven panels created by cross beams, each is painted in circular compartments with images of Shiva, Vishnu, Indra, Brahma, Kama and so forth with smaller images of Dikpalas (cardinal guardians) with geometric mosaics filling the gaps at the corners.
The front aisle's roof has panels with murals in the center of male and female figurines flying in the clouds; the male figure is yaksha holding a sword and a shield. Decoration of lotus blooms are also seen on the panels. The roof in the hall is divided into nine panels slightly above the level of the ceiling. The central panel here depicts a deva mounted on a ram – conjectured as Agni. Images of Brahma and Varuna are also painted in the central panels while the floating figures are seen in the balance panels.
CAVE 4
The Cave 4, to the east of Cave 3, excavated around 650 AD, is located higher than other caves. It is dedicated to revered figures of Jainism and was constructed last among all the caves. It also features detailed carvings and diverse range of motifs. The cave has five bayed entrance with four square columns with brackets and capitals, and to the back of this verandah is a hall with two standalone and two joined pillars. The first aisle is a verandah 9.4 m in length, 2.0 m wide and extends to 4.9 m deep. From the hall, steps lead to the sanctum sanctorum, which is 7.8 m wide extending to a depth of 1.8 m. On the back part of this, Mahavira is represented, sitting on lion throne, flanked by bas-reliefs of attendants with chauri (fans), sardulas and makara's heads. The end walls have Parshvanath (about 2.3 m tall) with his head decorated to represent protection and reverence by a multi-headed cobra, Indrabhuti Gautama covered by four snakes and Bahubali are seen; Bahubali is present to the left of Gautama shown with his lower legs surrounded by snakes along with his daughters Brahmi and Sundari. The sanctum, which is adorned by the image of Mahavira, has pedestal which contains an old Kannada inscription of the 12th century A.D. which registers the death of one Jakkave. Many Jaina Tirthankara images have been engraved in the inner pillars and walls. In addition, there are some idols of Yakshas, Yakshis, Padmavati and other Tirthankaras. Some scholars also assign the cave to the 8th century.
CAVE 5
It is a natural cave of small dimensions, undated, is approached by crawling as it has a narrow opening. Inside, there is a carved statue seated over a sculpted throne with reliefs showing people holding chauris (fans), tree, elephants and lions in an attacking mode. The face of this statue was reasonably intact till about 1995, and is now damaged and missing. There are several theories as to who the statue represents.
The first theory states that it is a Buddha relief, in a sitting posture. Those holding the chauris are Bodhisattvas flanking the Buddha, states this theory, and that the cave has been converted to a Hindu shrine of Vishnu, in later years, as seen from the white religious markings painted on the face of the Buddha as the 9th incarnation of Vishnu. Shetti suggests that the cave was not converted, but from the start represented a tribute to Mayamoha of the Hindu Puranas, or Buddhavatara Vishnu, its style suggesting it was likely carved in or before 8th century CE.
The second theory, found in colonial era texts such as one by John Murray, suggested that the main image carved in the smallest fifth cave is that of Jaina figure.
The third theory, by Henry Cousens as well as A. Sundara, and based by local legends, states that the statue is of an ancient king because the statue's photo, when its face was not damaged, lacked Ushnisha lump that typically goes with Buddha's image. Further, the statue has unusual non-Buddha ornaments such as rings for fingers, necklace and chest-band, it wears a Hindu Yajnopavita thread, and its head is stylistically closer to a Jina head than a Buddha head. These features suggest that the statue may be of a king represented with features of various traditions. The date and identity of the main statue in Cave 5, states Bolon, remains enigmatic.
OTHER CAVES
In 2013, Manjunath Sullolli reported the discovery of another cave with 27 rock carvings, about 500 metres from the four caves, from which water gushes year round. It depicts Vishnu and other Hindu deities, and features inscription in Devanagari script. The dating of these carvings is unknown.
OTHER TEMPLES AT BADAMI
On the north hill, there are three temples, of which Malegitti-Shivalaya is perhaps the oldest temple and also the finest in Badami, and has a Dravidian tower. Out of the two inscriptions found here, one states that Aryaminchi upadhyaya, as the sculptor who got this temple constructed and the other dated 1543 speaks of the erection of a bastion during the Vijayanagara rule. The lower Shivalaya has a Dravidian tower, and only the sanctum remains now.
Jambhulinga temple, situated in the town, is presumably the oldest known trikutachala temple in Karnataka. An inscription dated 699 ascribes construction of this temple to Vinayavathi mother of Emperor Vijayaditya.
The place also has Agasthya Tirtha, temples of Goddess Yellamma, Mallikarjuna, Datttreya and Virupaksha. Bhuthanatha group of temples are most important in Badami.
BADAMI FORT
Badami fort lies east of the Bhuthnatha temple, atop a cliff right opposite the Badami cave temples. The entrance to this temple is right through the Badami museum. It is a steep climb with many view points and dotted with little shrines. The path is laid with neatly cut stone, the same that adores all the architecture around.
ETYMOLOGY
The name Vatapi has origin in the Vatapi legend of Ramayana relating to Sage Agastya.There were two demon siblings Vatapi and Ilvala. They used to kill all mendicants by tricking them in a peculiar way. The elder Ilvala would turn Vatapi into a ram and would offer its meat to the guest. As soon as the person ate the meat, Ilvala would call out the name of Vatapi. As he had a boon that whomsoever Ilvala calls would return from even the netherland, Vatapi would emerge ripping through the body of the person, thus killing him. Their trick worked until Sage Agastya countered them by digesting Vatapi before Ilvala could call for him, thus ending the life of Vatapi at the hands of Ilvala. Two of the hills in Badami represent the demons Vatapi and Ilvala.
It is also believed that name Badami has come from colour of its stone (badam - Almond).
CULTURE
The main language is Kannada. The local population wears traditional Indian cotton wear.
GEOGRAPHY
Badami is located at 15.92°N 75.68°E. It has an average elevation of 586 metres. It is located at the mouth of a ravine between two rocky hills and surrounds Agastya tirtha water reservoir on the three other sides. The total area of the town is 10.3 square kilometers.
It is located 30 kilometers from Bagalkot, 128 kilometers from Bijapur, 132 kilometers from Hubli, 46 kilometers from Aihole, another ancient town, and 589 kilometers from Bangalore, the state capital.
WIKIPEDIA
Astrowsky-Alvarado Residence
Project type: 2 story residential addition and remodel
Status: complete
>View from entry to living room
Location: Silver Lake, CA
Jeremy Levine Design
Aviation Structural Mechanic 2nd Class Maurice Forbes, assigned to the "Ragin' Bulls" of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 37, removes corroded screws from the wing of an F/A-18 Hornet in order to access a malfunctioning collision light in hangar bay one aboard the Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75). Truman and embarked Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 3 are underway on a scheduled deployment in support of Operations Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom and maritime security operations. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Apprentice Matthew A. Lawson. www.navy.com