Talk:Pressurized Mating Adapter

Shape - why off-axis

Does anyone know the reasoning behind the unusual bent shape of the PMAs ? It seems like a curious choice at first sight (though i'm sure there is a reason) --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The shape seems indeed odd: conical, with the axis of the two ports not aligning.

I would speculate about two possible reasons:

1. To give the Space Shuttle more clearance in one direction when it was docked, possibly away from some other parts of the station?

2. Or it might have been historically designed in this way to connect a "Spacelab" type of module to the tunnel in the Space Shuttle?

Some factual information about the shape would be most welcome.

95.119.235.151 (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice if the article had a Design/History section that could explain this and other features. - Rod57 (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Addressed to a certain, limited, degree. Off-axis tunnels existed in NASA's docking design work. Experience with Shuttle-Mir project and availability of Russian hardware changed the docking requirements abruptly. Mingebinge2 (talk) 10:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

PMA-3 arrives in SSPF.jpg and PMA-3 art.png images

I dont still understand your refusal to allow the side view of PMA-3, its the third perspective missing from the SSPF images, and there is plenty of space for it. Also.. there are not enough schematics in Wiki and the SLP PMA-3 art is not present on the net anywhere. I wrote a book on shuttles and this art is not found anywhere and makes the article complete. Can I hear your arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leebrandoncremer (talk • contribs) 23:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

But there's already an image from with a side view. Also I'm trying to avoid images of the PMAs prior to launch because they don't always reflect the on-orbit configuration (I've been trying to replace the bottom two gallery images).

The reason why the illustration may not be suited for the article is because the subject of the top half of the image, covers what the PMA were mounted on when launched, which is too in-depth for the article in its current state. The bottom half of the image is a superb diagram of PMA-3 but only labels the umbilicals, but maybe instead should have more general labels. But there's also a problem with only including a diagram of PMA-3 because then the reader may incorrectly assume that all three are externally the same. I do know both PMA-2 and PMA-3's APAS mechanisms are passive but I don't know if Station-to-Shuttle Power Transfer System on PMA-2 is visible on the exterior. I also know that PMA-1's APAS mechanism is active and there isn't a grapple fixture on it. And that's why I was reverting.--Craigboy (talk) 11:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Clear pre-launch images are valuable in themselves, the photo gives scale and great detail.

The line art can be correctly labelled in its title, to be clear what it is.

Here is my main point, why do you and only you feel you can make the judgement they are not required. Let the reader decide for himself, they will zoom in on it if they wish.

I am returning both, this is not your page. Your arguments suit only your needs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leebrandoncremer (talk • contribs) 14:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

My needs are improving the article.

The line art as it is too specific (only covers PMA-3 and the only thing labeled is the umbilicals).

PMA-3_arrives_in_SSPF.jpg does not appear to give any detail not already given in Space Shuttle docked to station - cropped and rotated.jpg. Scale is already given by the Space Shuttle Orbiter.--Craigboy (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The orbiter doesnt give human scale, if you have ever stood next to it you would agree is massive. This pic shows otherwise and is far clearer in closeup than the one you have for overall detail. Why do you have an issue with thumbnail images, they do no detract from the article. They are added to boost the information and overall view.

Line art is sorely missing from Wiki. I can improve this art with labels or find better versions, it was placed to display the SLP primarily, as said to show its different mode of transport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leebrandoncremer (talk • contribs) 01:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I give in to your point that a person gives the reader a better sense of scale than the Orbiter (though it would be better if the people in the image were on the same plane as the PMA, rather than in front of it).

The image you posted for the PMAs' interior is actually the interior of the ODS, so I'm taking it out till we find a replacement. I think all current images of the the PMAs' interiors will showed them lined with bags which weren't present initially, I'm not sure which would be better to have in article.

I actually have a couple of ideas how we can represent all three PMAs for the line art, but it hinges on whether or not the PMAs are different on the exterior (excluding APAS).--Craigboy (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

PMA-2 and PMA-3 current have covers

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/08/astronaut-perform-first-post-shuttle-spacewalk-iss/ --Craigboy (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Artists Conception of Boeing Starliner OFT-2 in docking sequence to Harmony forward port where SpaceX Crew Dragon Crew-2 is relocated to Harmony Zenith port prior to starliner's docking.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)