Leave MPLM at station ?

I realise that the MPLM isn't "space rated" for long duration.

But with the grounding of the shuttle, possibly for very long (indefinitely
?), would they consider leaving Rafaello at the station during STS 114 so that
the crews would have sufficient stowage space and not fill the station living
quarters with tons of supplies and rubbish ?

I realise that the hatch would probably have to remain closed when crew aren't
moving stuff in /out of the MPLM due to lack of sufficient debris shielding,
but it would still be greatly useful to the crews for stowage.

Since the MPLMs become totally useless by 2010, would it be a great loss to
leave one at the station even if it needs to be ditched later on ?


And now that the shuttle is apparently grounded, would there be pressure on
the europeans to bring ATV in sooner rather than later ? What is preventing
them from launching now ?

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 20:30:41 -0400, john doe wrote:

But with the grounding of the shuttle, possibly for very long (indefinitely
?), would they consider leaving Rafaello at the station during STS 114 so that
the crews would have sufficient stowage space and not fill the station living
quarters with tons of supplies and rubbish ?

Raffaello is supposed to be brought home full of trash that's been
piling up in corners since STS-107 and broken parts for analysis, so
that wouldn't help much near term.

And now that the shuttle is apparently grounded, would there be pressure on
the europeans to bring ATV in sooner rather than later ? What is preventing
them from launching now ?

Jules Verne won't be ready until next spring. NASA doesn't own the
patent on busting launch schedules.

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:
Raffaello is supposed to be brought home full of trash that's been
piling up in corners since STS-107 and broken parts for analysis, so
that wouldn't help much near term.

Fair enough. Trash can be sent down on Progress. But result of experiments,
failed gizmos need to be returned. But of those, couldn't they strap them
inside the cabin of the shuttle ? (the failed CMG is returning in the cargo bay).

If they were allowed to leave the MPLM there, the next MPLM flight could
simply switch the modules. This would greatly simplify and speed up the work
since ISS crews could load the first MPLM with all the stuff to be returned
well befoe shuttle arrives, and could then offload the new stuff from the new
MPLM after shuttle has departed.

Jules Verne won't be ready until next spring. NASA doesn't own the
patent on busting launch schedules.

Does anyone have a story about what sort of problems were encountered causing
all the delays ? After Columbia, there was talk that ATV might fly in the fall
of 2003. Then it slipped slipped slipped, and the one destined for fall of
2004 was supposedly postponed because the shuttle was supposed to fly at that
time.

Was any delay caused by the schedule to install the docking "devices" on
Zvezda during recent EVAs ?

BTW, reading up the ESA web site, it seems that the ATV is similar to
Progress/Soyuz in that its propulsion and navigation portions are separate
from the cargo module. In fact, ATV's cargo module is loaded from the aft end
before it is mated to the propulsion module a few weeks before launch. Also,
the cargo section is built from MPLM segments (eg: same diameter).

I wonder if it might be easy to adapt it to launch ISS modules ?

How difficult would it be to adapt its guidance system to get to within
grappling distance from the ISS arm ?

In fact, they might be able to fit it with an MPLM with CBM allowing large
items to be sent up. (but burn up on re-entry).

john doe wrote:

BTW, reading up the ESA web site, it seems that the ATV is similar to
Progress/Soyuz in that its propulsion and navigation portions are separate
from the cargo module. In fact, ATV's cargo module is loaded from the aft end
before it is mated to the propulsion module a few weeks before launch. Also,
the cargo section is built from MPLM segments (eg: same diameter).

I wonder if it might be easy to adapt it to launch ISS modules ?

Essentially impossible (within a reasonable budget and timeframe).
ISS modules are too heavy, require extensive support services, and are
built to carry launch stresses through the trunions rather than their
bases.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

The ESA Columbus Module, can be launched by Ariane-5, with minor
changes....(So I think that Node 2 and 3 can also be launched by
Ariane-5...)

--
--------------

Jacques :-)

www.spacepatches.info

"Derek Lyons" schreef in bericht
...
john doe wrote:

BTW, reading up the ESA web site, it seems that the ATV is similar to
Progress/Soyuz in that its propulsion and navigation portions are
separate
from the cargo module. In fact, ATV's cargo module is loaded from the aft
end
before it is mated to the propulsion module a few weeks before launch.
Also,
the cargo section is built from MPLM segments (eg: same diameter).

I wonder if it might be easy to adapt it to launch ISS modules ?

Essentially impossible (within a reasonable budget and timeframe).
ISS modules are too heavy, require extensive support services, and are
built to carry launch stresses through the trunions rather than their
bases.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 05:55:32 GMT, (Derek Lyons)
wrote:

john doe wrote:

BTW, reading up the ESA web site, it seems that the ATV is similar to
Progress/Soyuz in that its propulsion and navigation portions are separate
from the cargo module. In fact, ATV's cargo module is loaded from the aft end
before it is mated to the propulsion module a few weeks before launch. Also,
the cargo section is built from MPLM segments (eg: same diameter).

I wonder if it might be easy to adapt it to launch ISS modules ?

Essentially impossible (within a reasonable budget and timeframe).
ISS modules are too heavy, require extensive support services, and are
built to carry launch stresses through the trunions rather than their
bases.

Yep, I think we're going to see Shuttle grounded permanently and
something like Shuttle-C fast-tracked. Since NASA wants SDLV anyway
for Constellation, fast-tracking Shuttle-C now could give NASA a
75-90,000 lbs. to ISS launcher with a 15x75 ft payload bay by around
2009.

That's enough for two or three ISS payloads going up in a single shot,
such as...

- a truss segment, an MPLM, and Cupola
- All three Kibo modules, fully loaded
- Columbus (fully loaded) and Node 2
- Centrifuge (fully loaded) and Node 3

No center-of-gravity issues (a landing problem) so things can really
be stacked up in that Shuttle-C payload bay. If they scavenge parts
from the Orbiters... such as the OMS pods, Shuttle-C might be ready
sooner (that wasn't an option in 1991.) It is entirely possible that
Station could be completely not too much later than currently planned,
given a four-per-year Shuttle-C launch rate each carrying three times
as much as the manned Shuttle beginning in 2009.

Brian

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
Yep, I think we're going to see Shuttle grounded permanently and
something like Shuttle-C fast-tracked.

I doubt it. The Shuttle-C option, at least the "classic" Shuttle-C, does
not eliminate the need for shuttle flights to gather up the modules and
deliver them to ISS. Shuttle-C, as originally envisioned, could not have
maneuvered and docked to ISS.

My guess is that the foam problem will be addressed, again, and we'll see
another flight next year. That would be far cheaper than "fast-tracking"
Shuttle-C and expanding its proposed capabilities to include docking with
ISS.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

In message
"Jeff Findley" wrote:


"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
Yep, I think we're going to see Shuttle grounded permanently and
something like Shuttle-C fast-tracked.

I doubt it. The Shuttle-C option, at least the "classic" Shuttle-C, does
not eliminate the need for shuttle flights to gather up the modules and
deliver them to ISS. Shuttle-C, as originally envisioned, could not have
maneuvered and docked to ISS.

My guess is that the foam problem will be addressed, again, and we'll see
another flight next year. That would be far cheaper than "fast-tracking"
Shuttle-C and expanding its proposed capabilities to include docking with
ISS.

Jeff
Then what we need is shuttle C plus auto-dock-ISS

--
J.P. Kerslake B.Sc., F.B.I.S. Dyslexia Rules KO. "phone"01248-353264.
e-mail ,(r emove NOSPAM)
RiscStation Lite+. Risc OS 4.03 boot 1.03. Messenger Pro.3.21

"John" wrote in message
. uk...
Then what we need is shuttle C plus auto-dock-ISS

Which is more time and money. It's faster and cheaper just to address the
shedding foam issue. Fixing problems like these sometimes takes an
iterative approach.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

The short answer is, where would NASA park the next MPLM that goes up on ULF1.1? Just keep in mind that NODE 1 only has one CBM available for docking the MPLMs.