-
Return/Saving the Pirs Module
by
Danderman
on 28 Sep, 2009 14:29
-
Rather than have Pirs disposed of by having a Progress dock with it, and then at end of mission, dump Pirs into a destructive de-orbit, why not return Pirs on the Shuttle? Clearly, it would be difficult to return Pirs on the shuttle under the current manifest, but if the Shuttle program were stretched out, or additional flights were authorized, one of those later missions could probably return Pirs to Earth.
The questions are: why return Pirs, and how to do it?
-
#1
by
rdale
on 28 Sep, 2009 14:35
-
Why would you want to return Pirs in the first place?
(PS Tags are for L2 posts)
-
#2
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 28 Sep, 2009 14:36
-
Let me ask a counter-question: Is there any reason why Pirs should be removed from the ISS prior to retirement in ~2020? AFAIK, none of the other Russian modules are going to get in its way.
If it isn't removed before 2020, then the shuttle isn't going to be able to recover it. Shuttle retirement is no later than 2015 and would more likely be 2011.
-
#3
by
Chandonn
on 28 Sep, 2009 14:48
-
Let me ask a counter-question: Is there any reason why Pirs should be removed from the ISS prior to retirement in ~2020? AFAIK, none of the other Russian modules are going to get in its way.
If it isn't removed before 2020, then the shuttle isn't going to be able to recover it. Shuttle retirement is no later than 2015 and would more likely be 2011.
Well, there IS a russian lab module (still on the manifest AFAIK) that is supposed to be docked where Pirs is right now, for starters. It cannot simply dock beneath Pirs because Pirs does not have the passive Hybrid Berthing interface it needs to dock to the SM.
-
#4
by
Danderman
on 28 Sep, 2009 15:22
-
Why would you want to return Pirs in the first place?
(PS Tags are for L2 posts)
A couple of reasons:
1) AFAIK, no space station module that has been in operation for 10+ years has even been examined on the ground. To do so with Pirs would help significantly in extending (or not) the certified life of the rest of the Russian segment.
2) The Shuttle often returns to earth with an empty cargo bay. To return with a cargo module filled with downmass would be a very good thing for a mission that would not otherwise return a module.
-
#5
by
Jim
on 28 Sep, 2009 15:46
-
2) The Shuttle often returns to earth with an empty cargo bay. To return with a cargo module filled with downmass would be a very good thing for a mission that would not otherwise return a module.
Other than the PLM, there are no other missions with an empty payload bay
-
#6
by
Jim
on 28 Sep, 2009 15:48
-
Since the PIRS was not designed for launch by the shuttle, it has none of the necessary attach hardware to fit in the payload bay. This will require a cradle to return the module which negate the use of the payload bay for an up payload. Hence returning PIRS is a bad idea.
-
#7
by
arkaska
on 28 Sep, 2009 16:28
-
2) The Shuttle often returns to earth with an empty cargo bay. To return with a cargo module filled with downmass would be a very good thing for a mission that would not otherwise return a module.
Other than the PLM, there are no other missions with an empty payload bay
And if they launch the PLM as planned on STS-133 even with a shuttle extension MLM will not have been launched get.
And where would they stove the Pirs in between MLM launch and Shuttle launch?
-
#8
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 28 Sep, 2009 16:40
-
2) The Shuttle often returns to earth with an empty cargo bay. To return with a cargo module filled with downmass would be a very good thing for a mission that would not otherwise return a module.
Other than the PLM, there are no other missions with an empty payload bay
And if they launch the PLM as planned on STS-133 even with a shuttle extension MLM will not have been launched get.
And where would they (store) the Pirs in between MLM launch and Shuttle launch?
Pirs will be undocked right before MLM is launched, the port will just not be used for a little while.
-
#9
by
arkaska
on 28 Sep, 2009 17:40
-
Pirs will be undocked right before MLM is launched, the port will just not be used for a little while.
Is was talking about if they would bring it down on a shuttle. How big is the chance that a shuttle will be at the station around the time of undocking of Pirs? They could of course bring it down earlier but don't they need that port as much as possible?
-
#10
by
MKremer
on 28 Sep, 2009 18:07
-
Is was talking about if they would bring it down on a shuttle.
a) How big is the chance that a shuttle will be at the station around the time of undocking of Pirs? b)They could of course bring it down earlier but don't they need that port as much as possible?
a) none - no docking/undocking allowed while the Shuttle is docked to ISS
b) The Progress docked to PIRS will be used to deorbit it - PIRS will be undocked from the ISS while still attached to the Progress. It has to be planned for a specific Progress flight to ensure the Progress has enough propellant remaining to deorbit both total masses.
-
#11
by
Jorge
on 28 Sep, 2009 18:50
-
Pirs will be undocked right before MLM is launched, the port will just not be used for a little while.
Is was talking about if they would bring it down on a shuttle. How big is the chance that a shuttle will be at the station around the time of undocking of Pirs? They could of course bring it down earlier but don't they need that port as much as possible?
Read what Jim wrote. Pirs cannot come back on a shuttle. It lacks the proper attach fittings.
-
#12
by
Danderman
on 28 Sep, 2009 23:26
-
First off, if the 9th floor decides to do something, the technical issues that previously could not be overcome suddenly become doable, if you have any doubts, please read the "Why can't an MPLM be left at ISS?" thread. I should therefore rephrase my question as "IF you were tasked with figuring out a way to return Pirs in the Shuttle, what would you recommend?". Pushing back on the requirement is NOT a legitimate response.
As for there being no missions apart from PLM that would return an empty payload bay, the original post here specified that either the shuttle manifest would have to be stretched out OR additional missions added for the Pirs return to be possible. Please, please, please read the question before answering!
-
#13
by
Danderman
on 28 Sep, 2009 23:29
-
Pirs will be undocked right before MLM is launched, the port will just not be used for a little while.
Is was talking about if they would bring it down on a shuttle. How big is the chance that a shuttle will be at the station around the time of undocking of Pirs? They could of course bring it down earlier but don't they need that port as much as possible?
You are assuming that there is a requirement for Pirs to be replaced by MLM immediately.
-
#14
by
Danderman
on 28 Sep, 2009 23:31
-
Since the PIRS was not designed for launch by the shuttle, it has none of the necessary attach hardware to fit in the payload bay. This will require a cradle to return the module which negate the use of the payload bay for an up payload. Hence returning PIRS is a bad idea.
Everything in your post was okay until you got to the point where you assuming that a cradle would take up the whole payload bay.
-
#15
by
Jorge
on 29 Sep, 2009 00:02
-
First off, if the 9th floor decides to do something, the technical issues that previously could not be overcome suddenly become doable, if you have any doubts, please read the "Why can't an MPLM be left at ISS?" thread. I should therefore rephrase my question as "IF you were tasked with figuring out a way to return Pirs in the Shuttle, what would you recommend?". Pushing back on the requirement is NOT a legitimate response.
OK, here's what I would recommend:
1) Shuttle program would have to be stretched at least three years.
2) The organization that wants Pirs returned pays for the mission, and at the annual program cost, not the marginal cost.
3) The Pirs PLB cradle will be provided by the Russians at the expense of the organization that wants Pirs returned.
-
#16
by
Orbiter
on 29 Sep, 2009 00:18
-
I personally think you have a better chance of another HST mission than a Pirs Return mission.
My recommendation, undock and deorbit it it or place it to the forward end of the MLM once it gets there.
Orbiter
-
#17
by
Jim
on 29 Sep, 2009 00:45
-
Everything in your post was okay until you got to the point where you assuming that a cradle would take up the whole payload bay.
It takes up enough of the bay to negate carrying an MPLM
-
#18
by
nooneofconsequence
on 29 Sep, 2009 00:54
-
The only reason for doing this would be to put it in a museum - like the thought of bringing the Hubble down to put in the Smithsonian / Air & Space Museum.
Why? The Russians surely aren't sentimental about a docking compartment. And certainly aren't going to go for $125M for it.
-
#19
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 29 Sep, 2009 01:31
-
Everything in your post was okay until you got to the point where you assuming that a cradle would take up the whole payload bay.
It takes up enough of the bay to negate carrying an MPLM
The numbers that I came up with also suggest that the Pirs compartment has too large a diameter to fit in the payload bay.
