Author Topic: STS-133 refined to a five crew, one EVA mission – will leave MPLM on ISS  (Read 46669 times)


Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2583
  • Boca Chica, Texas
  • Liked: 3148
  • Likes Given: 228
 Does the deletion of the SRB foam mean they'll be abandoned to sink?

Online Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22325
  • Liked: 603
  • Likes Given: 244
"STS-133 will also see a configuration change to its Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs). In order to eliminate as much weight as possible to maximize cargo upmass on this mission, the STS-133 SRBs will have their water impact structures and foam, cosmetic paint, water impact foam, and Reusable Solid Rocket Motor Nozzle Severance System removed."

Well looks like we will have ugly disposable boosters for this mission, in the vain interest of aesthetics I dope this is not the last to fly, would be terrible to have an ugly duckling for the last flight.....
"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." - Robert Goddard

Offline DMeader

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 953
  • Liked: 98
  • Likes Given: 47
Where would the PLM be berthed, and would tying up a CBM position be a problem?

Online Chris Bergin

Does the deletion of the SRB foam mean they'll be abandoned to sink?

I don't know about sink, but they'll be probably ruined.

Offline cd-slam

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 573
  • Singapore
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 16
Does the deletion of the SRB foam mean they'll be abandoned to sink?
It wasn't stated in the article, but in an earlier version it was stated that SRB parachutes and cameras would also be removed. In this case, the SRBs would be spinning and free falling all the way down. I doubt there will be anything left worth picking up once they hit the ocean.

Offline ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 2077
  • Likes Given: 339
Does the deletion of the SRB foam mean they'll be abandoned to sink?
It wasn't stated in the article, but in an earlier version it was stated that SRB parachutes and cameras would also be removed. In this case, the SRBs would be spinning and free falling all the way down. I doubt there will be anything left worth picking up once they hit the ocean.

That's Phase II of weight reduction options. These that they just incorporated on Phase I. Were not at the point of ditching the SRBs in the Atlantic just yet.  The way I read the presentations was that these are item on the SRBs that they can live without on the final mission -- which is why I including the thing about the extension at the end of the article.

Offline jgoldader

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 672
  • Liked: 224
  • Likes Given: 132
When CxP was thinking of ditching SRBs to avoid the weight of the recovery systems, I believe there was an article somewhere here on how many sets of SRM segments were available.  Does somebody remember the number?  I know this isn't likely important for SSP, but if a multi-mission extension should come and NASA gets into the habit of cutting corners on SRB recovery hardware, it could be important for any SDLVs.

You can PM me if it's L2, I subscribe.

Thanks!
Jeff
Recovering astronomer

Offline Alpha Control

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1169
  • Washington, DC
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 68
Where would the PLM be berthed, and would tying up a CBM position be a problem?

That continues to be an intriguing question. As far as I've read in recent times, the answers are still being worked as to the berthing location (caveat to my post: I've been away from NSF for a month - this issue may have been settled). 

I've previously posted the thought that Node-3 Forward, or Node-3 Zenith might be workable locations for the PLM (orientations based on Node-3's final attachment configuration to Node-1 Port, with the Cuppola then attached to Node-3 Nadir).

Other issues that have come up over the last year or so with the concept of a permanently attached MPLM are:

(1) Which MPLM to use? The three are not exact duplicates - one has more "system capability" than its two siblings (don't recall which one that is).
(2) What modifications are needed? (mmod protection, power, ventilation, etc.) The answer to #1 affects the amount of modifications needed for permanent use.
(3) Who will pay for the modifications?

As the plans for STS-133/ULF5 continue to move forward, I think the assumption has to be that all of these items are in the process of being addressed. Quite exciting, and I look forward to learning more about this mission!
Space launches attended:
Antares/Cygnus ORB-D1 Wallops Island, VA Sept 2013 | STS-123 KSC, FL March 2008 | SpaceShipOne Mojave, CA June 2004

Online Orbiter

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2185
  • Florida
  • Liked: 386
  • Likes Given: 911
I don't think they're going to put it on the nadir side of Harmony, that's where HTV and Dragon are going to go. I think they'll put it on the Zenith port of Harmony. Tranquility wont work, seeing as its going on the starboard side of Unity now so clearance will be an issue.
Attended space missions: STS-114, STS-124, STS-128, STS-135, Atlas V "Curiosity", Delta IV Heavy NROL-15, Atlas V MUOS-2, Delta IV Heavy NROL-37, SpaceX CRS-9, SpaceX JCSAT-16, Atlas V GOES-R, SpaceX SES-11.

Offline Alpha Control

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1169
  • Washington, DC
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 68
I wasn't suggesting any side of Node-2 (Harmony) as an attachment point for the PLM.  Rather, I think that an attachment to Node-3 zenith or forward would work, given the stated issues regarding clearance.
Space launches attended:
Antares/Cygnus ORB-D1 Wallops Island, VA Sept 2013 | STS-123 KSC, FL March 2008 | SpaceShipOne Mojave, CA June 2004

Online Orbiter

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2185
  • Florida
  • Liked: 386
  • Likes Given: 911
"STS-133 will also see a configuration change to its Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs). In order to eliminate as much weight as possible to maximize cargo upmass on this mission, the STS-133 SRBs will have their water impact structures and foam, cosmetic paint, water impact foam, and Reusable Solid Rocket Motor Nozzle Severance System removed."

Well looks like we will have ugly disposable boosters for this mission, in the vain interest of aesthetics I dope this is not the last to fly, would be terrible to have an ugly duckling for the last flight.....

We started with a strange looking stack (well, strange nowadays) we're going out with a strange looking stack!  ;)
« Last Edit: 08/05/2009 05:39 AM by Orbiter »
Attended space missions: STS-114, STS-124, STS-128, STS-135, Atlas V "Curiosity", Delta IV Heavy NROL-15, Atlas V MUOS-2, Delta IV Heavy NROL-37, SpaceX CRS-9, SpaceX JCSAT-16, Atlas V GOES-R, SpaceX SES-11.

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7442
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 162
We will be vic-toooooo-ri-ous!!!

Offline nathan.moeller

  • Astro95 Media
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4008
  • Houston, TX
    • Astro95 Media
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 0
What areas of the SRBs receive cosmetic paint, and what will they look like without it?
www.astro95media.com - Lead Video & Graphics

Offline Bubbinski

That's a real good question - would the "cosmetic paint" be the full white paint job or just certain parts on the SRB?  For example, the black stripe on the left SRB by the nosecone? 

And if shuttle extension is approved, would the PLM still be flown on STS-133 or would it be moved to the last new flight?
I'll even excitedly look forward to "flags and footprints" and suborbital missions. Just fly...somewhere.

Offline C5C6

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 264
  • Córdoba - Argentina
    • programaespacial.com
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
I'm kinda excited... my eyes got wet =P another ISS module!!

As to reduce weight, why don't they leave the OBSS in the station in STS-132 and do TPS inspections after undocking just as in STS-124??

This news just made my day!!

Offline simon-th

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 952
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I wasn't suggesting any side of Node-2 (Harmony) as an attachment point for the PLM.  Rather, I think that an attachment to Node-3 zenith or forward would work, given the stated issues regarding clearance.

If Node-3, as apparently planned right now, is located at starboard of Node-1, all 4 open docking ports of Node-3 will have clearing issues (truss, radiators etc.). Node-3 nadir is already occupied by Cupola. If you relocated cupola to another position (not sure if that's possible from a clearance issue), you might be able to get the PLM attached to Node-3 nadir.

In any event, I believe what was been talked about is Node 2 zenith or nadir (with nadir being a problem due to it being the HTV/COTS-vehicle docking port and Node 2 zenith being exposed the most to MMOD.

Offline Alpha Control

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1169
  • Washington, DC
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 68
I wasn't suggesting any side of Node-2 (Harmony) as an attachment point for the PLM.  Rather, I think that an attachment to Node-3 zenith or forward would work, given the stated issues regarding clearance.

If Node-3, as apparently planned right now, is located at starboard of Node-1, all 4 open docking ports of Node-3 will have clearing issues (truss, radiators etc.). Node-3 nadir is already occupied by Cupola. If you relocated cupola to another position (not sure if that's possible from a clearance issue), you might be able to get the PLM attached to Node-3 nadir.

In any event, I believe what was been talked about is Node 2 zenith or nadir (with nadir being a problem due to it being the HTV/COTS-vehicle docking port and Node 2 zenith being exposed the most to MMOD.

Isn't Quest currently at Node-1 starboard? Although it's probably the same clearance issue, in terms of distance from the radiators.
Space launches attended:
Antares/Cygnus ORB-D1 Wallops Island, VA Sept 2013 | STS-123 KSC, FL March 2008 | SpaceShipOne Mojave, CA June 2004

Offline Ben E

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 990
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
What about Node-1 nadir? It's not occupied and, as far as I'm aware, unobstructed.

Offline brahmanknight

  • I don't have all the right answers, but I do have all the right questions
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 686
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 94
What about Node-1 nadir? It's not occupied and, as far as I'm aware, unobstructed.

That will be used for HTV and Dragon. 

Zenith is open, however.

Tags: