Author Topic: STS-133 refined to a five crew, one EVA mission – will leave MPLM on ISS  (Read 44986 times)

Offline glanmor05

  • BWFC Fan
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
  • It's not all tea and medals!
  • Blackpool, England
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
This is my first post here in ages. I just wanted to say that I really hope they decide to refit Donatello, as otherwise that module will be a complete waste of money. Seeing as it's more advanced than the other two, and it hasn't been in space before, it makes sense that this should be part of the ISS.

Says in this article , Raffaello:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8226309.stm

Won't be the only wasted money though eh!
"Through struggles, to the stars."

Offline ShuttleDiscovery

  • NASA's first teenage astronaut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2141
  • UK
    • Shuttle Discovery's Space Page
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
This is my first post here in ages. I just wanted to say that I really hope they decide to refit Donatello, as otherwise that module will be a complete waste of money. Seeing as it's more advanced than the other two, and it hasn't been in space before, it makes sense that this should be part of the ISS.

Says in this article , Raffaello:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8226309.stm

Won't be the only wasted money though eh!

Yeah I suppose lol!

I remember discussing this possibility on NSF ages ago, and now it's becoming a reality, it's great. Hopefully the ISS will have much less clutter with Raffaello attached. :)

Offline Chris Bergin

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/10/nasa-evaluate-sts-335-sts-133-cross-country-farewell/

Update on 133, including a plan to bring her home via California for a farewell tour (as much as I hope that doesn't happen yet, and we have extension).

Offline FreeWillie

  • Member
  • Posts: 6
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I think there is some older info here, or folks are misreading what is put in the charts. 

ET-94 can never be used for shuttle again.  While it could be fixed up for flight as a tank at MAF, the programmatic cert costs for the orbiter and all its systems to fly an LWTank would be prohibitive.

Chris wrote:
Interestingly, the spare tank stock was not communicated to the Augustine Commission, who are under the impression there is no spare tank hardware at MAF past ET-122

The commission was shown a 2 flight extension option.  (which did not include ET-94)


Chris wrote:
One recent addition to the STS-335 plans is to include a MPLM to the flight, which would be the first time a rescue mission would carry an actual payload.

Every rescue mission currently being planned is carrying the actual payloads of the next flight.


Chris wrote:
However, this also allows for an opening cycle of evaluations aimed at turning STS-335 into STS-135. Adding another mission would only come via additional funding – most likely through approval to extend the shuttle manifest – though sources note at least one meeting has taken place, relating to STS-135 as an actual mission, within the past few weeks.


The last LON has always been funded.  When the MPLM was selected as the quickest and best way to rescue STS-133 there were some meetings to discuss what to call it.   NASA will not fly without LON capability.


There were some early discussions for weight saving mods to hardware, but the costs to recert the hardware were high.  None of those SRB mods are being implemented.

Offline Chris Bergin

I think there is some older info here, or folks are misreading what is put in the charts. 

ET-94 can never be used for shuttle again.  While it could be fixed up for flight as a tank at MAF, the programmatic cert costs for the orbiter and all its systems to fly an LWTank would be prohibitive.

Chris wrote:
Interestingly, the spare tank stock was not communicated to the Augustine Commission, who are under the impression there is no spare tank hardware at MAF past ET-122

The commission was shown a 2 flight extension option.  (which did not include ET-94)


Chris wrote:
One recent addition to the STS-335 plans is to include a MPLM to the flight, which would be the first time a rescue mission would carry an actual payload.

Every rescue mission currently being planned is carrying the actual payloads of the next flight.


Chris wrote:
However, this also allows for an opening cycle of evaluations aimed at turning STS-335 into STS-135. Adding another mission would only come via additional funding – most likely through approval to extend the shuttle manifest – though sources note at least one meeting has taken place, relating to STS-135 as an actual mission, within the past few weeks.


The last LON has always been funded.  When the MPLM was selected as the quickest and best way to rescue STS-133 there were some meetings to discuss what to call it.   NASA will not fly without LON capability.


There were some early discussions for weight saving mods to hardware, but the costs to recert the hardware were high.  None of those SRB mods are being implemented.


With respect, you've badly misread the article. There is no old or misleading information in the article, I know, as it was proof read by both SSP and SOMD manager. But let's explain....

1) I simply noted ET-94 is a spare tank. I said it would require extensive modifications for the reasons you noted and or a 7,000lb performance hit which makes it unviable anyway. I did NOT add it to an extension option (and even noted the next tanks would be ET-122, then the part built ET-139 and ET-140, I never said ET-94 in relation to extension, I was just mentioning hardware at MAF).

2) This is the only sole LON flight on the manifest. The rescue support for the missions up to STS-134 are next flight missions and thus have their primary payloads. They dropped the 3XX for that reason. STS-335 is not a mission flight, it's pure LON.

3) STS-135 is not funded, and is not a mission. You're saying I was apparently saying STS-335 was unfunded - which I never said. You claim LON would never be dropped, but there's not one mention of LON being dropped in the article.

Offline cd-slam

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 573
  • Singapore
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 16
Chris wrote:
Interestingly, the spare tank stock was not communicated to the Augustine Commission, who are under the impression there is no spare tank hardware at MAF past ET-122

The commission was shown a 2 flight extension option.  (which did not include ET-94)
If you'll read the article, the "spare tank stock" refers to ET-139 and ET-140. ET-139 was the tank shown for the 2nd flight on the 2 flight extension option shown to the committee by Sally Ride.

For some reason the 2 flight extension option was removed from the list of options in the Augustine Commission presentation, hence the tone of the last few paragraphs in Chris' article. I agree with Chris, I'd like to know why this happened too and why NASA management seems to be so hell-bent on destroying HSF.

Back to work...
« Last Edit: 10/13/2009 09:01 PM by cd-slam »

Offline Sesquipedalian

  • Whee!
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 626
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 474
Possibly off-topic, but -- why didn't they use ET-94 for STS-125?  (Assuming they could make the RTF modifications in time.)
« Last Edit: 10/14/2009 02:46 AM by Sesquipedalian »

Offline MBK004

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Possibly off-topic, but -- why didn't they use ET-94 for STS-125?  (Assuming they could make the RTF modifications in time.)
I'm guessing that the additional APM (Ascent Performance Margin) available with a SLWT versus a LWT was utilized to provide the capability to haul additional payload mass to Hubble.

Online ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5046
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 1538
  • Likes Given: 285
Possibly off-topic, but -- why didn't they use ET-94 for STS-125?  (Assuming they could make the RTF modifications in time.)
I'm guessing that the additional APM (Ascent Performance Margin) available with a SLWT versus a LWT was utilized to provide the capability to haul additional payload mass to Hubble.

Atlantis was packed to the max anyway for Hubble. Adding weight because of the ET would have severely cutback on the amount of payload Atlantis could have carried with her.

Offline C5C6

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 264
  • Córdoba - Argentina
    • programaespacial.com
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Hi, just wanted to ask, as SFN published an interesting article stating that Leonardo will be used as the PLM, it will be called Permanent Multipurpose Module (PMM) and that it would be berthed in Harmony zenith, and after that to Unity nadir...

Just wanted to ask if our experts here were aware of this...I'd understood that PMM on Node 2 zenith was too risky due to MMOD...and if it is berthed on Unity nadir, where would the PMA-3 go??

article: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0912/06pmm/
« Last Edit: 12/07/2009 11:27 AM by C5C6 »

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16846
  • Liked: 950
  • Likes Given: 378
Hi, just wanted to ask, as SFN published an interesting article stating that Leonardo will be used as the PLM, it will be called Permanent Multipurpose Module (PMM) and that it would be berthed in Harmony zenith, and after that to Unity nadir...

Just wanted to ask if our experts here were aware of this...I'd understood that PMM on Node 2 zenith was too risky due to MMOD...and if it is berthed on Unity nadir, where would the PMA-3 go??

article: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0912/06pmm/
Already known; discussed in this thread a while ago:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12262.0

(And probably others.)

Offline cd-slam

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 573
  • Singapore
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 16
There is full documentation on the Node 3, PMA3 and PMM locations included in the STS 130 update posted on L2 on October 15. If you're not on L2, ask yourself "why not?"
:)

Offline Aobrien

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1360
  • Tampa, Florida
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Hi, just wanted to ask, as SFN published an interesting article stating that Leonardo will be used as the PLM, it will be called Permanent Multipurpose Module (PMM) and that it would be berthed in Harmony zenith, and after that to Unity nadir...

Just wanted to ask if our experts here were aware of this...I'd understood that PMM on Node 2 zenith was too risky due to MMOD...and if it is berthed on Unity nadir, where would the PMA-3 go??

article: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0912/06pmm/
Node 3 Port
NSF L2=The Ultimate Space Passport

Offline C5C6

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 264
  • Córdoba - Argentina
    • programaespacial.com
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Hi, just wanted to ask, as SFN published an interesting article stating that Leonardo will be used as the PLM, it will be called Permanent Multipurpose Module (PMM) and that it would be berthed in Harmony zenith, and after that to Unity nadir...

Just wanted to ask if our experts here were aware of this...I'd understood that PMM on Node 2 zenith was too risky due to MMOD...and if it is berthed on Unity nadir, where would the PMA-3 go??

article: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0912/06pmm/
Node 3 Port
Is this officially confirmed?? If so, when would PMA-3 relocation take place??

Offline anik

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7401
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 284
Is this officially confirmed?? If so, when would PMA-3 relocation take place??

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61.msg513074#msg513074

Quote
2010
January 21 - PMA-3 relocation from left port of Unity module to zenith port of Harmony module with SSRMS help
February 15 - PMA-3 relocation from zenith port of Harmony module to left port of Tranquility module with SSRMS help

Offline Space Pete

NASA's STS-133 Image Gallery is now online!

Just an observation: This may be the last ever Space Shuttle Mission Image Gallery. :(

www.spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-133/ndxpage1.html
« Last Edit: 01/07/2010 08:01 PM by Space Pete »
Electronic Engineer by day, NASASpaceflight's ISS Editor by night | Read my NASASpaceflight articles here

Online jacqmans

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16552
  • Houten, The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2324
  • Likes Given: 144
RELEASE: 10-044

NASA AND ITALIAN SPACE AGENCY FIND NEW USE FOR MODULE

WASHINGTON -- NASA and the Italian Space Agency announced a new use
for an existing Multi Purpose Logistics Module (MPLM) known as
"Leonardo." It will be transformed into a Permanent Multipurpose
Module (PMM) for the International Space Station.

For nearly a decade, the Italian-built logistic modules have flown
inside the payload bays of NASA's shuttle fleet, successfully
delivering vital hardware and supplies to the station. The new use
for this proven carrier will enhance the use of the station.

Leonardo will undergo modifications to ensure safe, long-term
operation as the PMM, and to increase the amount of mass it can carry
to orbit. The supply-laden PMM will be flown aboard shuttle Discovery
during the STS-133 mission in September and attached to the station.
The added space within the PMM will enable efficient positioning of
experiments throughout the station complex. Inside the PMM,
experiments in fluid physics, materials science, biology,
biotechnology and other microgravity experiments may be conducted.

Offline ZachS09

When this announcement was made for STS-133 to carry a crew of five, which Mission Specialist would have been off the crew? I think Nicole Stott. What do you guys think?
"Liftoff of Falcon 9: the world's first reflight of an orbital-class rocket."

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31154
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9397
  • Likes Given: 297
There wasn't 5 announced.

Tags: