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.
Quote from: ShuttleDiscovery on 08/29/2009 04:41 pmThis 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.stmWon't be the only wasted money though eh!
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.
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)
Possibly off-topic, but -- why didn't they use ET-94 for STS-125? (Assuming they could make the RTF modifications in time.)
Quote from: Sesquipedalian on 10/14/2009 02:46 amPossibly 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.
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/
Quote from: C5C6 on 12/07/2009 11:25 amHi, 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??
2010January 21 - PMA-3 relocation from left port of Unity module to zenith port of Harmony module with SSRMS helpFebruary 15 - PMA-3 relocation from zenith port of Harmony module to left port of Tranquility module with SSRMS help