A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

80's style Stations Modules...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old February 19th 08, 05:02 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default 80's style Stations Modules...


wrote in message
...
On Feb 16, 12:32 pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 09:39:48 -0600, "Joseph S. Powell, III"

wrote:
With all the excitement experienced during the past few days with the
attachment of the Columbus module to the ISS, I was reminded of the
types of
Space Station modules proposed back in the 1980's....
These tended to have a longer design, filling up the entire payload bay
of
the Shuttle.
Does anyone know why these longer modules were rejected in favor of the
shorter ones now used on the ISS?


The Kibo Lab is the same dimensions it has always been planned to be.

The U.S. modules shrank in a cost-cutting move during one of the
redesigns in the early 1990s (this happened before the Russians came
aboard and the inclination changed, so it wasn't because of that.)

Columbus uses the MPLM spaceframe, probably as another cost-saving
move. The MPLM was sized that way to leave room in the payload bay for
non-pressurized cargo, if necessary.

Brian


The first "M" in MPLM used to be for Mini. It was another cost saving
measure. The original PLM were bigger


Wikipedia doesn't agree (but it's obviously not the best source):

The MPLM was originally designed for Space Station Freedom. Initially,
it was to be built by Boeing, but in 1992, the Italians announced that
they would build a "Mini-Pressurized Logistics Module," able to carry
4500 kg of cargo. After the 1993 redesign, the length was doubled and
it was renamed the "Multi-Purpose Logistics Module." Each empty MPLM
is approximately 21 feet (6.4 m) long, 15 feet (4.6 m) in diameter,
weighs 4.5 tons, and can deliver up to 10 tons of cargo to the ISS.

Spaceref seems to agree with you:

Note: the acronym "MPLM" used to stand for "Mini-Pressurized Logistics
Module". During the various space station redesigns in 1992/1994 various
modules were reduced in size to save weight. The Space Station Freedom
program's larger PLM (Pressurized Logistics Module) was reduced in size
and dubbed the "mini" PLM. The acronym stuck, but as the program evolved,
the original name did not.

Astronautix.com (article by Marcus Lindroos) doesn't agree:

When the International Space Station (ISS) was redesigned again in 1993,
it was decided to expand the original Mini-Pressurized Logistics Module
design. The new Multi-Purpose Logistics Module was twice as long and
could carry 9000 kg of cargo to ISS.

It almost seems like there was a Pressurized Logistics Module which got
shortened to a Mini-Pressurized Logistics Module, but the Mini-Pressurized
Logistics Module was then doubled in size to the Multi-Pressurized Logistics
Module. If true, this begs the question, is the current MPLM bigger,
smaller, or the essentially the same size as the original PLM?

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




Ads
  #22  
Old February 19th 08, 05:58 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
John Doe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default 80's style Stations Modules...

Jeff Findley wrote:

From the "interactive" bit on the webpage, it looks like Destiny has room
for a total of 24 racks, so launching with only 5 racks installed is
launching the module mostly empty, at least in my book.



Destiny is the "brains" of the ISS. IT is the core for command and
control, communications, the US ECLSS etc. The "science" racks came
later, and remember that in the plans, the MPLMs would continually bring
new racks and return scientific racks that are no longer needed.

The priority was to outfit Destiny with the ISS core systems first.
Science came later.

And with the shuttle soon to be grounded, it is doubtful that Destiny
will ever be outfitted with 24 racks unless they decide to leave one or
more MPLMs at the station as storage bins, and those would be launched
with empty racks. They could then install empty racks in Destiny and
elsewhere, and later on use progress/atv to send components small enough
to fit through the small russian hatches to populate those empty racks.
  #23  
Old February 19th 08, 07:03 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default 80's style Stations Modules...


"John Doe" wrote in message
...
And with the shuttle soon to be grounded, it is doubtful that Destiny
will ever be outfitted with 24 racks unless they decide to leave one or
more MPLMs at the station as storage bins, and those would be launched
with empty racks. They could then install empty racks in Destiny and
elsewhere, and later on use progress/atv to send components small enough
to fit through the small russian hatches to populate those empty racks.


If the Japanese HTV flies, it has a CBM at one end and has room for 8 racks
inside its pressurized compartment. If the COTS program is successful, we
may very well see NASA launching racks to ISS using whatever vehicle wins.
ATV uses Russian docking hardware, so entire racks are too big to fit
through the hatch.

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


  #24  
Old February 20th 08, 02:28 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Brian Thorn[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,266
Default 80's style Stations Modules...

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 13:03:04 -0500, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:


If the Japanese HTV flies, it has a CBM at one end and has room for 8 racks
inside its pressurized compartment. If the COTS program is successful, we
may very well see NASA launching racks to ISS using whatever vehicle wins.



Such is the case with Orbital's Cygnus, which was awarded a NASA
contract today. It also will use the MPLM design.

Brian
  #25  
Old February 20th 08, 06:44 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default 80's style Stations Modules...


"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 13:03:04 -0500, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:


If the Japanese HTV flies, it has a CBM at one end and has room for 8
racks
inside its pressurized compartment. If the COTS program is successful, we
may very well see NASA launching racks to ISS using whatever vehicle wins.



Such is the case with Orbital's Cygnus, which was awarded a NASA
contract today. It also will use the MPLM design.


I've been sick with a nasty cold for more than a week, so I'm not as up to
date on these developments as I'd like to be. I'm going to have to play
catch up here...

http://www.orbital.com/AdvancedSpace/COTS/index.shtml

There isn't a whole lot of information here. In particular, is this system
entirely throw-away, or is there a reentry vehicle? If there is a reentry
vehicle, is any returned component reused?

From the "artist's rendering" this thing looks like it's completely
disposable. How disappointing.

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




  #26  
Old February 20th 08, 07:02 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default 80's style Stations Modules...


"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 13:03:04 -0500, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:


If the Japanese HTV flies, it has a CBM at one end and has room for 8
racks
inside its pressurized compartment. If the COTS program is successful,
we
may very well see NASA launching racks to ISS using whatever vehicle
wins.



Such is the case with Orbital's Cygnus, which was awarded a NASA
contract today. It also will use the MPLM design.


I've been sick with a nasty cold for more than a week, so I'm not as up to
date on these developments as I'd like to be. I'm going to have to play
catch up here...

http://www.orbital.com/AdvancedSpace/COTS/index.shtml

There isn't a whole lot of information here. In particular, is this
system entirely throw-away, or is there a reentry vehicle? If there is a
reentry vehicle, is any returned component reused?

From the "artist's rendering" this thing looks like it's completely
disposable. How disappointing.


Actually, an article at NASASpaceflight.com says that it "will be able to
return 1,200 kg of cargo from the ISS to Earth". That's encouraging, but it
doesn't sound like a whole lot of down mass per mission.

Personally I'd like to see SpaceX's Dragon pan out and start flying. The
"growth option" to a manned capsule is very appealing.

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


  #27  
Old February 20th 08, 07:26 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 587
Default 80's style Stations Modules...

On Feb 20, 1:02 pm, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message

...





"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 13:03:04 -0500, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:


If the Japanese HTV flies, it has a CBM at one end and has room for 8
racks
inside its pressurized compartment. If the COTS program is successful,
we
may very well see NASA launching racks to ISS using whatever vehicle
wins.


Such is the case with Orbital's Cygnus, which was awarded a NASA
contract today. It also will use the MPLM design.


I've been sick with a nasty cold for more than a week, so I'm not as up to
date on these developments as I'd like to be. I'm going to have to play
catch up here...


http://www.orbital.com/AdvancedSpace/COTS/index.shtml


There isn't a whole lot of information here. In particular, is this
system entirely throw-away, or is there a reentry vehicle? If there is a
reentry vehicle, is any returned component reused?


From the "artist's rendering" this thing looks like it's completely
disposable. How disappointing.


Actually, an article at NASASpaceflight.com says that it "will be able to
return 1,200 kg of cargo from the ISS to Earth". That's encouraging, but it
doesn't sound like a whole lot of down mass per mission.

Personally I'd like to see SpaceX's Dragon pan out and start flying. The
"growth option" to a manned capsule is very appealing.

Jeff
--


It isn't "per" mission. The return vehicle is different from the MPLM
carrier and has less up mass. Down mass is for experiment samples and
not ORU's/racks

  #28  
Old February 21st 08, 04:19 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Jim Kingdon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default 80's style Stations Modules...

Personally I'd like to see SpaceX's Dragon pan out and start flying. The
"growth option" to a manned capsule is very appealing.


Well, yeah, if they manage to achieve what they've been talking about,
yes it is more ambitious.

But I'm also glad to see Orbital's COTS contract. I thought maybe the
whole idea of having two vendors was going to fall to the wayside, and
it seemed to me like it would make the whole thing more vulnerable to
problems/overruns/etc. Of course, the program still may have other
problems (like whether the funding is sufficient, what will happen if
there turns out not to be a return on the private investment, etc),
but we'll see...
  #29  
Old February 21st 08, 02:05 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 587
Default 80's style Stations Modules...

On Feb 20, 10:19 pm, Jim Kingdon wrote:
Personally I'd like to see SpaceX's Dragon pan out and start flying. The
"growth option" to a manned capsule is very appealing.


Well, yeah, if they manage to achieve what they've been talking about,
yes it is more ambitious.

But I'm also glad to see Orbital's COTS contract. I thought maybe the
whole idea of having two vendors was going to fall to the wayside, and
it seemed to me like it would make the whole thing more vulnerable to
problems/overruns/etc. Of course, the program still may have other
problems (like whether the funding is sufficient, what will happen if
there turns out not to be a return on the private investment, etc),
but we'll see...


COTS I is not about ISS resupply, COTS II is.

COTS II will be competed soon (even before the demos fly) and any
contractor can go for it

  #30  
Old February 21st 08, 03:12 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default 80's style Stations Modules...


"Jim Kingdon" wrote in message
news
Personally I'd like to see SpaceX's Dragon pan out and start flying. The
"growth option" to a manned capsule is very appealing.


Well, yeah, if they manage to achieve what they've been talking about,
yes it is more ambitious.

But I'm also glad to see Orbital's COTS contract. I thought maybe the
whole idea of having two vendors was going to fall to the wayside, and
it seemed to me like it would make the whole thing more vulnerable to
problems/overruns/etc. Of course, the program still may have other
problems (like whether the funding is sufficient, what will happen if
there turns out not to be a return on the private investment, etc),
but we'll see...


Orbital certainly isn't in this to lose money. They've got a good track
record doing quite a few different things in the aerospace field, so I think
they're a pretty safe bet. Certainly there is development and funding risks
though, so nothing is 100%.

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


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
80's style Stations Modules... Joseph S. Powell, III Space Shuttle 28 February 21st 08 03:12 PM
Telesadists in the 80's and today gb6726 Astronomy Misc 3 June 20th 07 05:45 AM
How many more modules are to be added to ISS? bob haller Space Station 13 August 16th 04 04:48 AM
mid 80's White Custom built C8 francis_marion Amateur Astronomy 12 May 26th 04 03:57 AM
ISS Modules without Shuttle? Josh Gigantino Policy 10 November 27th 03 06:30 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.