Author Topic: Return/Saving the Pirs Module  (Read 77092 times)

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Return of the Pirs Module
« Reply #20 on: 09/29/2009 01:31 am »
Where did the concept of putting Pirs into an empty payload bay transmogrify into somehow needing to fly an extra mission simply to return Pirs?

And why would it take 3 years to return Pirs????

Let's say that the current manifest is extended out until 2012 or so. Aren't there missions at the tail end of the manifest that will return with at least partially empty payload bays?

Online rdale

  • Assistant to the Chief Meteorologist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10390
  • Lansing MI
  • Liked: 1415
  • Likes Given: 171
Re: Return of the Pirs Module
« Reply #21 on: 09/29/2009 02:06 am »
If it's too large to fit in the payload bay, does it matter which missions have empty bays on the way home?

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3352
  • Liked: 553
  • Likes Given: 891
Re: Return of the Pirs Module
« Reply #22 on: 09/29/2009 02:08 am »
The numbers that I came up with also suggest that the Pirs compartment has too large a diameter to fit in the payload bay.
I don't see how. Aside from the Strela and a couple other removable appendages it's only slightly fatter than a Soyuz and Progress (<3 meter diameter) See http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/pirs/hires/jsc2001e26682.jpg

Anyway, even if you are right, that's doesn't mean it's impossible, you just convert one of the orbiters into a wide body special... STS Super Guppy ;D

^ approximately as realistic as the rest of the plan.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Return of the Pirs Module
« Reply #23 on: 09/29/2009 05:17 am »
If it's too large to fit in the payload bay, does it matter which missions have empty bays on the way home?

Pirs is tiny compared to, say, an MPLM. For a good comparison, look at the similarly sized Shuttle Mir Docking Module in the Shuttle payload bay (only the orange structure was the module, the rest of the stuff was additional cargo or trusses):

« Last Edit: 09/29/2009 05:22 am by Danderman »

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Return of the Pirs Module
« Reply #24 on: 09/29/2009 05:22 am »
The numbers that I came up with also suggest that the Pirs compartment has too large a diameter to fit in the payload bay.

You ARE kidding, aren't you? With the male docking adapter removed, Pirs could fit in the Shuttle payload bay sideways. Otherwise, the max diameter of Pirs is 2.55 meters, and with judicial placement, you could put two of them side by side in the payload bay.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Return of the Pirs Module
« Reply #25 on: 09/29/2009 05:25 am »

I don't see how. Aside from the Strela and a couple other removable appendages it's only slightly fatter than a Soyuz and Progress (<3 meter diameter) See http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/pirs/hires/jsc2001e26682.jpg

Note that the image in that links shows Pirs with the Progress-M service module still attached. That particular hardware was jettisoned in 2001.

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2631
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 940
  • Likes Given: 172
Re: Return of the Pirs Module
« Reply #26 on: 09/29/2009 09:41 am »
The Mir docking module was equipped for a mounting in the Shuttle cargo bay, Pirs is not - i.e. Pirs can not be put into an empty space, because it can not be fixated in the cargo bay.

It would require a mounting cradle, which would occupy space and mass on the way up, so it would be a very bad deal to sacrifice upmass to bring back an old module.

Offline Zipi

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 121
  • Imatra, Finland
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Return of the Pirs Module
« Reply #27 on: 09/29/2009 10:50 am »
Shuttle landing is pretty smooth, is it? At least I have heard that it is more or less comparable to normal commercial aircraft landing.

If we think that the return flight would be the last flight for that orbiter, then why not using some cargo bands to tie up the Pirs to the cargo bay? Of course it would move and shake more or (hopefully) less during the landing, but by this way it won't require that much upmass penalties... And of course this would be pretty ugly way to treat space hardware, but might do the trick.

This is my 10 cents worth for this discussion... I know NASA wouldn't return Pirs like this because of safety issues etc. but at least I have given my thoughts. :)
Broken man-made things can be fixed (if you find the pieces).

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Return of the Pirs Module
« Reply #28 on: 09/29/2009 11:00 am »

1.  And why would it take 3 years to return Pirs????

2.  Let's say that the current manifest is extended out until 2012 or so. Aren't there missions at the tail end of the manifest that will return with at least partially empty payload bays?


1.  to build the cradle

2.  No, because there are no more construction missions.  The remaining missions are resupply which bring up and down the same hardware. There is no empty payload bays.  Because the empty cradle going up will negate bringing up hardware like MPLM
« Last Edit: 09/29/2009 11:07 am by Jim »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Return of the Pirs Module
« Reply #29 on: 09/29/2009 11:03 am »

If we think that the return flight would be the last flight for that orbiter, then why not using some cargo bands to tie up the Pirs to the cargo bay?

The payload bay is not a container (it does not have rigid surfaces) , it is an enclosed mounting frame, and hence cargo can not rest on the bottom and be tied down

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Return of the Pirs Module
« Reply #30 on: 09/29/2009 11:05 am »

Pirs is tiny compared to, say, an MPLM. For a good comparison, look at the similarly sized Shuttle Mir Docking Module in the Shuttle payload bay (only the orange structure was the module, the rest of the stuff was additional cargo or trusses):


Here is a hint, what else was in the payload bay with it

Offline DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8526
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 1199
  • Likes Given: 65
Re: Return of the Pirs Module
« Reply #31 on: 09/29/2009 01:03 pm »

Pirs is tiny compared to, say, an MPLM. For a good comparison, look at the similarly sized Shuttle Mir Docking Module in the Shuttle payload bay (only the orange structure was the module, the rest of the stuff was additional cargo or trusses):


Here is a hint, what else was in the payload bay with it
A SpaceLAB module, along with the External Airlock/ODS. And let's not forget that Atlantis still had her original internal airlock as well at the time of the Shuttle/Mir missions. The first OV-104 mission to fly without the internal airlock was STS-101 in May 2000.
"For Sardines, space is no problem!"
-1996 Astronaut class slogan

"We're rolling in the wrong direction but for the right reasons"
-USA engineer about the rollback of Discovery prior to the STS-114 Return To Flight mission

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4046
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: Return of the Pirs Module
« Reply #32 on: 09/29/2009 01:27 pm »
Here is a hint, what else was in the payload bay with it
A SpaceLAB module, along with the External Airlock/ODS. And let's not forget that Atlantis still had her original internal airlock as well at the time of the Shuttle/Mir missions. The first OV-104 mission to fly without the internal airlock was STS-101 in May 2000.
No Spacelab or Spacehab on STS-74.  Besides the external airlock/ODS, the Docking Module flew in an otherwise empty payload bay.
« Last Edit: 09/29/2009 01:28 pm by psloss »

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Return of the Pirs Module
« Reply #33 on: 09/29/2009 03:01 pm »

If we think that the return flight would be the last flight for that orbiter, then why not using some cargo bands to tie up the Pirs to the cargo bay?

The payload bay is not a container (it does not have rigid surfaces) , it is an enclosed mounting frame, and hence cargo can not rest on the bottom and be tied down

The question is how to attach trunnion pins and a keel to Pirs.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Return of the Pirs Module
« Reply #34 on: 09/29/2009 03:02 pm »

Pirs is tiny compared to, say, an MPLM. For a good comparison, look at the similarly sized Shuttle Mir Docking Module in the Shuttle payload bay (only the orange structure was the module, the rest of the stuff was additional cargo or trusses):




Here is a hint, what else was in the payload bay with it

What else was in the payload bay with Shuttle Mir Docking Module?

 :o ???

Offline Chandonn

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1240
  • "Pudding!!! UNLIMITED Rice Pudding!!!"
  • Lexington, Ky
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Return of the Pirs Module
« Reply #35 on: 09/29/2009 03:03 pm »
If we think that the return flight would be the last flight for that orbiter, then why not using some cargo bands to tie up the Pirs to the cargo bay? Of course it would move and shake more or (hopefully) less during the landing, but by this way it won't require that much upmass penalties... And of course this would be pretty ugly way to treat space hardware, but might do the trick.

Surely you're not serious!  A module sliding all over the payload bay can do all kinds of damage to every single system needed for re-entry and landing!  You're talking about a sizeable piece of free-flying hardware that can detroy the APUs, or smash into the cabin from behind.  I don't think there would be enough lucky rabbits feet to keep that landing from being a bad day.
« Last Edit: 09/29/2009 04:12 pm by Chandonn »

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Return of the Pirs Module
« Reply #36 on: 09/29/2009 03:04 pm »
The Mir docking module was equipped for a mounting in the Shuttle cargo bay, Pirs is not - i.e. Pirs can not be put into an empty space, because it can not be fixated in the cargo bay.

It would require a mounting cradle, which would occupy space and mass on the way up, so it would be a very bad deal to sacrifice upmass to bring back an old module.

The alternative would be to affix trunnion pins and a keel to Pirs.


Offline bobthemonkey

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1056
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: Return of the Pirs Module
« Reply #37 on: 09/29/2009 03:09 pm »
And how exactly do you propose doing that? Where are the suitable attach points?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Return of the Pirs Module
« Reply #38 on: 09/29/2009 04:07 pm »
The Mir docking module was equipped for a mounting in the Shuttle cargo bay, Pirs is not - i.e. Pirs can not be put into an empty space, because it can not be fixated in the cargo bay.

It would require a mounting cradle, which would occupy space and mass on the way up, so it would be a very bad deal to sacrifice upmass to bring back an old module.

The alternative would be to affix trunnion pins and a keel to Pirs.



That is the way to affix trunnion pins and a keel to Pirs. Via a cradle.  Directly attaching anything to PIRS is not viable.


« Last Edit: 09/29/2009 04:11 pm by Jim »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Return of the Pirs Module
« Reply #39 on: 09/29/2009 04:08 pm »


What else was in the payload bay with Shuttle Mir Docking Module?

 :o ???

nothing.  That is my point

Tags: Pirs 
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1