-
Possibility of launching STS-135 with its MPLM converted to PLM-2?
by
PeterAlt
on 23 Jun, 2010 23:41
-
If STS-135 launches, the earliest would be June 2011. That's enough time for ESA/ISA to retrofit one of their MPLMs as a second PLM for expansion of habital volume onboard the ISS. Has this been discussed? Any technical herdles that would need to be addressed?
This, to me, is a 'no brainer' and a perfect opportunity to expand the volume of the space station at a minimum cost. I say let's float this idea to ESA and the Italians so that they can start the process of selling (lobbying) it to NASA!
-
#1
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 24 Jun, 2010 02:49
-
not a good idea, running out of CBM's as is, just launch as much cargo as you can.
-
#2
by
Jorge
on 24 Jun, 2010 04:20
-
not a good idea, running out of CBM's as is, just launch as much cargo as you can.
How many CBM's do you think they need?
Destiny nadir for HTV and others. Destiny zenith was going to be the centrifuge module, right? So stick PMM2 there.
Now that the US is going to rely more heavily on commercial cargo, a backup CBM is prudent.
And after shuttle, tell me again why we need PMA3? Frees up another.
No, it does not. There is inadequate clearance at the Node 3 port CBM for a PMM. Something small like a PMA is about all that will fit there.
-
#3
by
Jim
on 24 Jun, 2010 09:23
-
And after shuttle, tell me again why we need PMA3?
It is a storage closet.
-
#4
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 24 Jun, 2010 11:30
-
not a good idea, running out of CBM's as is, just launch as much cargo as you can.
How many CBM's do you think they need?
Destiny nadir for HTV and others. Destiny zenith was going to be the centrifuge module, right? So stick PMM2 there.
And after shuttle, tell me again why we need PMA3? Frees up another.
No way to get the PMA3 down at this time, was launched on a Spacelab pallet which would need to be launched empty, and since we only have a few shuttle missions left it wont be manifest.
Node 2 zenith is being used as a backup CBM port for HTV and Dragon, any of the CBM's on Node 3 have clearance issues at this time.
-
#5
by
nathan.moeller
on 24 Jun, 2010 14:42
-
How many CBM's do you think they need?
Destiny nadir for HTV and others. Destiny zenith was going to be the centrifuge module, right? So stick PMM2 there.
And after shuttle, tell me again why we need PMA3? Frees up another.
Destiny has no CBMs other than forward and aft, which attach her to Node 1 and Node 2. You're thinking of Node 2.
-
#6
by
PeterAlt
on 25 Jun, 2010 15:33
-
not a good idea, running out of CBM's as is, just launch as much cargo as you can.
How many CBM's do you think they need?
Destiny nadir for HTV and others. Destiny zenith was going to be the centrifuge module, right? So stick PMM2 there.
And after shuttle, tell me again why we need PMA3? Frees up another.
No way to get the PMA3 down at this time, was launched on a Spacelab pallet which would need to be launched empty, and since we only have a few shuttle missions left it wont be manifest.
Node 2 zenith is being used as a backup CBM port for HTV and Dragon, any of the CBM's on Node 3 have clearance issues at this time.
Someone tell me why Node 3 (Tranquility) is connected to Node 1 (Unity), rendering its available CBM's virtually useless? Would it not make more sense to move it to the end of the US-segment to the zenith port of Node 2 (Harmony)?
EDIT NOTE: Corrected the node numbers I originally meant and clarified it with their respective names.
-
#7
by
mmeijeri
on 25 Jun, 2010 15:35
-
Someone tell me why Node 3 is connected to Node 2, rendering its available CBM's virtually useless? Would it not make more sense to move it to the end of the US-segment to the zenith port of Node 3?
Warning, thunderclouds on the horizon!
-
#8
by
Jim
on 25 Jun, 2010 15:55
-
Someone tell me why Node 3 is connected to Node 2, rendering its available CBM's virtually useless? Would it not make more sense to move it to the end of the US-segment to the zenith port of Node 3?
Node 3 is connected to Node 1
-
#9
by
Chandonn
on 25 Jun, 2010 16:37
-
Someone tell me why Node 3 is connected to Node 2, rendering its available CBM's virtually useless? Would it not make more sense to move it to the end of the US-segment to the zenith port of Node 3?
Ahem! The Tranquility Node's (3) connected to the Unity Node (1). The Unity Node's connected to the Destiny Lab. The Destiny Lab's connected to the Harmony Node (2). Them nodes. Them nodes. Them dry nodes, now there's the working of the lord.
(apologies for my singing)
-
#10
by
PeterAlt
on 25 Jun, 2010 17:33
-
Someone tell me why Node 3 is connected to Node 2, rendering its available CBM's virtually useless? Would it not make more sense to move it to the end of the US-segment to the zenith port of Node 3?
Ahem! The Tranquility Node's (3) connected to the Unity Node (1). The Unity Node's connected to the Destiny Lab. The Destiny Lab's connected to the Harmony Node (2). Them nodes. Them nodes. Them dry nodes, now there's the working of the lord.
(apologies for my singing)
I mistyped. Reread it now. I corrected it with what I had intended to say.
-
#11
by
Jim
on 25 Jun, 2010 18:25
-
Someone tell me why Node 3 (Tranquility) is connected to Node 1 (Unity), rendering its available CBM's virtually useless? Would it not make more sense to move it to the end of the US-segment to the zenith port of Node 2 (Harmony)?
1. Putting Node 3 on the zenith port of Node 2 does not guaratee that all of Node 3's CBM's are available
2. Regardless of location, not all of Node 3's CBMs are useable
3. Node 3 was not intended to support other modules. It was for housing the ECLSS equipment that would have been in the Hab module. It just happens to have CBM's. It was cheaper for Alenia (or whatever the company is now) to provide the node structure.
4. I believe there were location reasons for Node 3 with regard to fluid and electrical connections and resources.
-
#12
by
Don Gordon
on 25 Jun, 2010 18:30
-
OK - how about swapping a PMM - 2 with the JLM on Kibo? Bring the JLM back on the smae flight?
-
#13
by
Jim
on 25 Jun, 2010 18:33
-
OK - how about swapping a PMM - 2 with the JLM on Kibo? Bring the JLM back on the smae flight?
Why? The JLM is part of the JEM complex. It also would be a small net gain. And the JEM might not be able to support an PMM>
-
#14
by
Don Gordon
on 25 Jun, 2010 18:37
-
JLM is just storage AFAIK, PMM would be larger storage, so does it make a differance what part of the ISS it is. Yes, we would need to ask Japan if they would agree to the swap. And I too would like to know from someone in the know if that berth could support a PMM.
-
#15
by
Jim
on 25 Jun, 2010 20:24
-
JLM is just storage AFAIK, PMM would be larger storage, so does it make a differance what part of the ISS it is. Yes, we would need to ask Japan if they would agree to the swap. And I too would like to know from someone in the know if that berth could support a PMM.
So put the PMM elsewhere and keep the JLM.
-
#16
by
Don Gordon
on 28 Jun, 2010 18:24
-
The issue in this thread was lack of places to berth a PMM 2 - this would remove a small storage moduel and replace it with a larger one - without using an added (possibly not useable) CBM.
-
#17
by
Jim
on 28 Jun, 2010 18:50
-
The issue in this thread was lack of places to berth a PMM 2 - this would remove a small storage moduel and replace it with a larger one - without using an added (possibly not useable) CBM.
The amount added is not worth the effort and cost.
