Leaving MPLM's at Space Station

I was thinking earlier today. With the retirement of the Shuttle in
2010, has anyone looked at the possibility of leaving one or more of
the MPLM's (like Donetello) docked to the station after their final
flight. It's not like they are going to be of any use sitting on the
ground once the shuttle is retired. Be an easy way to add additional
volume and storage, even as a mini-hab module.

Thoughts?

Kelly McDonald

wrote:
I was thinking earlier today. With the retirement of the Shuttle in
2010, has anyone looked at the possibility of leaving one or more of
the MPLM's (like Donetello) docked to the station after their final
flight.

Yes.

It's not like they are going to be of any use sitting on the
ground once the shuttle is retired. Be an easy way to add additional
volume and storage, even as a mini-hab module.

Thoughts?

Not as easy as you think. MPLMs would need to be upgraded before they
could be attached permanently to ISS. They lack adequate MMOD shielding
and systems redundancy.

It could be done but without $$$ it will not happen, and right now there
are no $$$.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
news
wrote:
I was thinking earlier today. With the retirement of the Shuttle in
2010, has anyone looked at the possibility of leaving one or more of
the MPLM's (like Donetello) docked to the station after their final
flight.

Yes.

It's not like they are going to be of any use sitting on the
ground once the shuttle is retired. Be an easy way to add additional
volume and storage, even as a mini-hab module.

Thoughts?

Not as easy as you think. MPLMs would need to be upgraded before they
could be attached permanently to ISS. They lack adequate MMOD shielding
and systems redundancy.

It could be done but without $$$ it will not happen, and right now there
are no $$$.

I've thought about that, but what about the idea of emergency supplies or
non-critical stuff.

i.e. keep them closed off so you're still only relying on the normal "doors"
of the berthing mechanisms?

If you need stuff, you check the pressure on the other side, etc, open up,
get stuff, and seal it off. If it's breached due to MMOD, you simply lock
it off and never use it again.

Wonder if there's any value in that?





--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
...
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
news
wrote:
I was thinking earlier today. With the retirement of the Shuttle in
2010, has anyone looked at the possibility of leaving one or more of
the MPLM's (like Donetello) docked to the station after their final
flight.

Yes.

It's not like they are going to be of any use sitting on the
ground once the shuttle is retired. Be an easy way to add additional
volume and storage, even as a mini-hab module.

Thoughts?

Not as easy as you think. MPLMs would need to be upgraded before they
could be attached permanently to ISS. They lack adequate MMOD shielding
and systems redundancy.

It could be done but without $$$ it will not happen, and right now there
are no $$$.

I've thought about that, but what about the idea of emergency supplies or
non-critical stuff.

i.e. keep them closed off so you're still only relying on the normal
"doors" of the berthing mechanisms?

If you need stuff, you check the pressure on the other side, etc, open up,
get stuff, and seal it off. If it's breached due to MMOD, you simply lock
it off and never use it again.

Wonder if there's any value in that?





--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com
http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

Ronald Reagan mentioned an alien threat at Fallston High School in Fallston,
Maryland 11-4-1985
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KvC_NDlHoI


Don Ratsch

Hmm, these are a bit bare bones items, not really designed for long tirm
use. No systems much and it would be expensive to fit one out I fear.

I mean why not go the whole hog, make a dozen or so tanks and keep Endeavour
in a good config for a few years maybe one flight a year? Certainly be a way
to get those laarge items up and particularly back again. OK, I know the pad
won't be there etc, but to me, the partners in the iss seem to have painted
themselves into a corner here.

If as seems likely things like the Sarj are not as reliable as first
thought, how the heck can they get stuff up? Also, how could they get large
items back like cmgs to refurbish or find a cause?

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


wrote in message
...
I was thinking earlier today. With the retirement of the Shuttle in
2010, has anyone looked at the possibility of leaving one or more of
the MPLM's (like Donetello) docked to the station after their final
flight. It's not like they are going to be of any use sitting on the
ground once the shuttle is retired. Be an easy way to add additional
volume and storage, even as a mini-hab module.

Thoughts?

Kelly McDonald

On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 09:22:50 GMT, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Hmm, these are a bit bare bones items, not really designed for long tirm
use. No systems much and it would be expensive to fit one out I fear.

I mean why not go the whole hog, make a dozen or so tanks and keep Endeavour
in a good config for a few years maybe one flight a year?

Most of the Shuttle's costs are due to the infrastructure. That
doesn't get much cheaper by only flying once a year, as witness the
same high Shuttle budgets for 1987 and 2004, years with no Shuttle
flights. NASA needs to free up Shuttle's budget to pay for
Constellation. They won't get funding for both. So make your choice,
which do you want?

If as seems likely things like the Sarj are not as reliable as first
thought, how the heck can they get stuff up? Also, how could they get large
items back like cmgs to refurbish or find a cause?

They can't and won't. That's a capability gone for good with Shuttle.
In 20 years, usenet will be complaining about how stupid we were to
give up Shuttle capability with nothing similar to replace it, just
like giving up Saturn V, SR-71, and Concorde.

Brian

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 09:22:50 GMT, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Hmm, these are a bit bare bones items, not really designed for long tirm
use. No systems much and it would be expensive to fit one out I fear.

I mean why not go the whole hog, make a dozen or so tanks and keep
Endeavour
in a good config for a few years maybe one flight a year?

Most of the Shuttle's costs are due to the infrastructure. That
doesn't get much cheaper by only flying once a year, as witness the
same high Shuttle budgets for 1987 and 2004, years with no Shuttle
flights. NASA needs to free up Shuttle's budget to pay for
Constellation. They won't get funding for both. So make your choice,
which do you want?

Agreed. The budget, and ground infrastructure, wouldn't allow for shuttle,
Ares I, and Ares V all at the same time. Part of the problem is that the
Ares designs aren't similar enough to the shuttle. But even if there was a
lot of commonality, the shuttles are just too expensive to keep in flying
condition.

If as seems likely things like the Sarj are not as reliable as first
thought, how the heck can they get stuff up? Also, how could they get
large
items back like cmgs to refurbish or find a cause?

They can't and won't. That's a capability gone for good with Shuttle.
In 20 years, usenet will be complaining about how stupid we were to
give up Shuttle capability with nothing similar to replace it, just
like giving up Saturn V, SR-71, and Concorde.

This is not an opinion held by all. The ability to bring back large items
is largely unnecessary. I'll agree it's nice to do this, and when you have
a vehicle which can do this the capability is definitely used. However,
there isn't any law of physics which would stop NASA from building new SARJ
components and launching them in another way. Some of the commercial access
to ISS proposals do indeed provide accommodations for largish pieces of
equipment to be attached to the outside of their vehicles.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

On Feb 8, 8:47 pm, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
wrote:
I was thinking earlier today. With the retirement of the Shuttle in
2010, has anyone looked at the possibility of leaving one or more of
the MPLM's (like Donetello) docked to the station after their final
flight.

Yes.

It's not like they are going to be of any use sitting on the

ground once the shuttle is retired. Be an easy way to add additional
volume and storage, even as a mini-hab module.

Thoughts?

Not as easy as you think. MPLMs would need to be upgraded before they
could be attached permanently to ISS. They lack adequate MMOD shielding
and systems redundancy.

It could be done but without $$$ it will not happen, and right now there
are no $$$.

I can see the MMOD requirement, but one could make the argument that
since the modules would be non critical components one could accept
the risk of a minor strike knocking it out of commission. After all
anything large enough to cause a serious loss of pressure (rather than
a small leak) is going to be catastrophic with or without MMOD.

On a systems side, what redundancy would be needed?

Perhaps an opportunity for a private company to get involved.

Kelly McDonald

wrote in message
...
On Feb 8, 8:47 pm, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
Not as easy as you think. MPLMs would need to be upgraded before they
could be attached permanently to ISS. They lack adequate MMOD shielding
and systems redundancy.

It could be done but without $$$ it will not happen, and right now there
are no $$$.

I can see the MMOD requirement, but one could make the argument that
since the modules would be non critical components one could accept
the risk of a minor strike knocking it out of commission. After all
anything large enough to cause a serious loss of pressure (rather than
a small leak) is going to be catastrophic with or without MMOD.

On a systems side, what redundancy would be needed?

Perhaps an opportunity for a private company to get involved.

If you couldn't "trust" the module, then maybe it could be closed off most
of the time and periodically stuffed with of trash. I understand that trash
build up was one of the problems Mir faced.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein