| Science Forum Index » Space - Station Forum » Permanently Berthing MPLM... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Space Balls... |
 Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 1:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Brian Gaff... |
| Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 4:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Time and experience I'd imagine, but I'd be rather worried about mmod damage
myself.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: briang1 at (no spam) blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Space Balls" <ldayberry at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote in message
news:YYQMl.3248$fy.36 at (no spam) nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
[quote:232c28b68e]I read on this newsgroup many moons ago that permanently berthing an MPLM
to the ISS was not an option due to the fact that it didn't have the
necessary avionics, plumbing, data, etc. What has changed?
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/05/iss-considering-permanent-attachment-mplm-advancement-sts-134/[/quote:232c28b68e] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jeff Findley... |
| Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 8:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Space Balls" <ldayberry at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote in message
news:YYQMl.3248$fy.36 at (no spam) nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
[quote:f9566233e1]I read on this newsgroup many moons ago that permanently berthing an MPLM
to the ISS was not an option due to the fact that it didn't have the
necessary avionics, plumbing, data, etc. What has changed?
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/05/iss-considering-permanent-attachment-mplm-advancement-sts-134/
[/quote:f9566233e1]
They're studying the possibility; it's not a done deal. My guess is they'll
look at how much it would cost to fix the deficiencies in the MPLM (MMOD
shielding, add redundant systems, and etc.) versus taking the risk of
leaving the MPLM "as-is". If it were me, I'd look at how much risk is added
by keeping the MPLM attached, but the hatch closed "most of the time". In
other words, use it only for storage.
Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Doe... |
| Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 2:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Space Balls wrote:
[quote:11639b1e78]I read on this newsgroup many moons ago that permanently berthing an MPLM to
the ISS was not an option due to the fact that it didn't have the necessary
avionics, plumbing, data, etc. What has changed?
[/quote:11639b1e78]
Where there is a will there is a way.
After Columbia, the so called experts said that it was absolutely
impossible to survey the suttle in space, that it was absolutely
impossible for the arm to reach under the shuttle etc etc.
MD Robotics came up with the boom for the canadarm equipped with all the
sensors~cameras needed to do the job, as well as ability to bring an EVA
crewmember to just about any tile location on the shuttle to effect
repairs.
I am sure that if they decide on a "can do" attitude, they will find a
way to get the MPLM to stay in space.
The MPLM does not need to be "living quarters", it can be limited to
storage, just like ATV or one of the PMAs which I believe is used for
storage.
As such, it may not require all of the redundancies and systems of a
full fledged living quarter. It may require that the hatch be kept
closed except when you need to go fetch or deposit something there.
Yes, they will need to add shielding to the MPLM. But They did that to
Node2 and Columbus which are made from the same core tin can. So they
should be able to do that to the MPLM. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Derek Lyons... |
| Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 5:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John Doe <jdoe at (no spam) doe.org> wrote:
[quote:137b5d8ecd]Space Balls wrote:
I read on this newsgroup many moons ago that permanently berthing an MPLM to
the ISS was not an option due to the fact that it didn't have the necessary
avionics, plumbing, data, etc. What has changed?
Where there is a will there is a way.
After Columbia, the so called experts said that it was absolutely
impossible to survey the suttle in space, that it was absolutely
impossible for the arm to reach under the shuttle etc etc.
[/quote:137b5d8ecd]
And the experts were and are right.
[quote:137b5d8ecd]MD Robotics came up with the boom for the canadarm equipped with all the
sensors~cameras needed to do the job, as well as ability to bring an EVA
crewmember to just about any tile location on the shuttle to effect
repairs.
[/quote:137b5d8ecd]
Here's a free clue for you - they had to develop the boom because the
arm couldn't and can't do the job.
[quote:137b5d8ecd]I am sure that if they decide on a "can do" attitude, they will find a
way to get the MPLM to stay in space.
[/quote:137b5d8ecd]
Oh, it's trivial to get the MPLM to stay in space, just don't unberth
it. The *hard* part is having stay part of the ISS and meet the
appropriate safety requirements.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Doe... |
| Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 7:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Derek Lyons wrote:
[quote:bdf0612b6e]And the experts were and are right.
[/quote:bdf0612b6e]
No. The experts said it was impossible to lenghten the arm, too may
oscillations etc etc (all the possible excuses soem expert who doesn't
want to do something would come up with). Nevertheless, it was done, and
shuttles flying today have capabilities that the so called exprts said
could never be done. (same with fixing tiles in space).
[quote:bdf0612b6e]Oh, it's trivial to get the MPLM to stay in space, just don't unberth
it. The *hard* part is having stay part of the ISS and meet the
appropriate safety requirements.
[/quote:bdf0612b6e]
Does PMA3 meet the same safety requirements as Destiny ?
It isn't very difficult to design safety requirements for a storage
module with appropriate operational constraints to ensure that module
isn't used as permanent living quarters.
aka: just develop a new storage class standard for storage modules. Used
only for storage. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Derek Lyons... |
| Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 8:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John Doe <jdoe at (no spam) doe.org> wrote:
[quote:0f2bb3806f]Derek Lyons wrote:
And the experts were and are right.
No. The experts said it was impossible to lenghten the arm,
[/quote:0f2bb3806f]
And the experts were and are right - because, they didn't lengthen the
arm did they?
[quote:0f2bb3806f]Oh, it's trivial to get the MPLM to stay in space, just don't unberth
it. The *hard* part is having stay part of the ISS and meet the
appropriate safety requirements.
Does PMA3 meet the same safety requirements as Destiny ?
[/quote:0f2bb3806f]
Who cares? PMA3 isn't a full module.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jeff Findley... |
| Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 7:07 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"John Doe" <jdoe at (no spam) doe.org> wrote in message
news:004d5f9e$0$14717$c3e8da3 at (no spam) news.astraweb.com...
[quote:d6c1b34ee4]Derek Lyons wrote:
And the experts were and are right.
No. The experts said it was impossible to lenghten the arm, too may
oscillations etc etc (all the possible excuses soem expert who doesn't
want to do something would come up with). Nevertheless, it was done, and
shuttles flying today have capabilities that the so called exprts said
could never be done. (same with fixing tiles in space).
[/quote:d6c1b34ee4]
I'm unaware of anyone saying it would be "impossible", but yes, the
flexibility and potential vibrations of the arm/boom combination absolutely
were a risk. That risk was mitigated.
[quote:d6c1b34ee4]Oh, it's trivial to get the MPLM to stay in space, just don't unberth
it. The *hard* part is having stay part of the ISS and meet the
appropriate safety requirements.
Does PMA3 meet the same safety requirements as Destiny ?
It isn't very difficult to design safety requirements for a storage
module with appropriate operational constraints to ensure that module
isn't used as permanent living quarters.
aka: just develop a new storage class standard for storage modules. Used
only for storage.
[/quote:d6c1b34ee4]
Possibly. NASA has a long history of writing waivers for their own rules.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if a waver is written for keeping an MPLM
permanently attached to ISS. But I also wouldn't be surprised if such a
waiver includes new rules like keeping the MPLM hatch sealed 99% of the
time.
Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Vincent D. DeSimone... |
| Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 11:07 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote:d068b716a6]aka: just develop a new storage class standard for storage modules. Used
only for storage.
Possibly. NASA has a long history of writing waivers for their own rules.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if a waver is written for keeping an MPLM
permanently attached to ISS. But I also wouldn't be surprised if such a
waiver includes new rules like keeping the MPLM hatch sealed 99% of the
time.
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if NASA designs aome add-on protective[/quote:d068b716a6]
outer blankets for the MPLM just like they have added to Zvezda over the
past couple of years. Those could eventually be brought up on one of the
extended shuttle missions, or a COTS mission. Maybe even on the flight when
the MPLM is brought up.
It wouldn't be a perfect solution, but it would help mitigate some of the
risk. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Doe... |
| Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 2:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Vincent D. DeSimone wrote:
[quote:0af9cccb1a]Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if NASA designs aome add-on protective
outer blankets for the MPLM just like they have added to Zvezda over the
past couple of years.
[/quote:0af9cccb1a]
Considering that MPLMs are of the same tin can design as Node2 and
Columbus, I would expect them to just remove the outer panels and add
the same type of insulation that they put in node2 and Columbus and then
add bad the outer panels. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Matthew B. Ota... |
| Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 4:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 8, 3:14 am, "Space Balls" <ldaybe... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
[quote:569d75940f]I read on this newsgroup many moons ago that permanently berthing an MPLM to
the ISS was not an option due to the fact that it didn't have the necessary
avionics, plumbing, data, etc. What has changed?
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/05/iss-considering-permanent-atta...
[/quote:569d75940f]
My take is that the $$$ is not budgeted for it. Just adding insulation
blankets would cost a lot... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
