Talk:Multi-Purpose Logistics Module

Future of Multi-Purpose Logistics Modules and ISS

With the retirement of the Space Shuttle fleet, the three Multi-Purpose Logistics Modules are also scheduled to be retired.

Has NASA ever considered leaving the MPLMs attached the station at the end of their last mission to provide additional storage and/or living space for the ISS?

It seems a waste to build and use the MPLMs just ten times, and with some of the grandiose plans for ISS modules (e.g. Transhab) shelved, could this not be a way for get more space a little cost?

The Donatello MPLM in particular would seem to be a good addition as it is capable of carrying powered payloads. That would imply it could be potentially used a module to hold powered science equipment.

Even the unpowered MPLMs could be some use in the future. I say leave them attached to the station and let future engineers figure out how to use them. Rillian 18:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Potential answer

Got a response via e-mail from Bill Harwood, space analyst for CBS News

From: "William Harwood" <bharwood@...>

Subject: Re: Future of Multi-Purpose Logistics Modules and ISS

Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 21:03:28 -0400

That's a good question. I'm not sure the MPLMs can stay attached for long periods, however; they don't have the power and other subsystems a permanent module would have. Also, all the available ports get used between now and assembly complete. If you stuck an MPLM on one, you'd have to move it at some point. But I'll ask someone just to make sure I understand the issues.

Rillian 13:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

They should create a fourth MPLM and name it Michelangelo. MrHudson

I agree with this sentiment. --152.7.49.159 14:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Donatello

• Indeed, Donatello will never fly. It is foreseen to "cannibalize" it and in particular use its PCBM for the Orion adapter. Hektor 12:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Both cited sources say Donatello will fly on 17A. In evaluating contradicting predictions about the future, it isn't really interesting to argue about which one is "right." Instead we need to report which reliable sources make each of the various claims. (sdsds - talk) 22:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to correct information, you are using outdated sources, the PCRB has baselined Leonardo as shown here STS-128 - Atlantis' 2009 mission baselined by PRCB. It has been known that Leonardo would fly on STS-128 since 2006. Hektor (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Spelling Raffaello

The Raffaello module's name is spelled with two 'f'-s on http://mplm.msfc.nasa.gov/. Is there any source that spells it differently? (sdsds - talk) 12:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

DIRECT and future use of the MPLM's

These plans are discussed in the official documentation at www.directlaunch.com. I don't know how to to give a proper reference to a specific page in a pdf document. Can anyone help?

personally, i don't see DIRECT as anything but speculation and brainstorming, and as such I don't really think it is relevant, esp. in relation to MPLMs (for Constellation, the topic is relevant of course). The proper place for this information might be DIRECT, but not MPLM. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

21 March 2001

If the launch was on March 8, I very much doubt that the picture was taken on March 21, given the Shuttle mission duration capabilities. Hektor (talk) 06:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do you doubt it? The shuttle spends about 3 days getting to ISS, in part to do inspections on the heat shield that were not done in 2001. Launching on March 8 puts it at ISS on March 10. That leaves 11 days to remove the MPLM from the Shuttle bay and install it onto the ISS, open it up, and begin unloading. March 8 is the date provided by NASA for when the picture is taken. Unless you can show an error in their cite? 128.157.160.13 (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Permanent logistics module?

is all this stuff about the PPLM real, looking on the official NASA website mentions nothing about this possibility, in fact it mentions that the last space station module will be the Russian module, I find it hard to believe that NASA would not mention such an important addition to the station,

check out the site: [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.221.68.155 (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The name of the thing changes almost every week, and it's certainly not 100% sure yet, but as you can see here, it is indeed currently scheduled for STS-133. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Alternative launch vehicles comment

Copied from User talk:sdsds

Sdsds, why do you feel mention of other launchers should not be made here? Otherwise the impression will be that future use of MPLMs will be ruled out once the Shuttle is retired, which is simply not true. Moving these remarks elsewhere seems difficult, what other page would be more appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.92.177.81 (talk) 08:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think your comment refers to this edit to the Multi-Purpose Logistics Module article. My edit summary was, "Removed discussion of non-shuttle vehicles transporting MPLMs. That material does not belong here."

My edit summary could have been a lot better; I apologize for any confusion it caused! There is nothing wrong with the MPLM article discussing transport of MPLMs using non-Shuttle vehicles. Please find reliable sources for these proposals and add them back to the article. I suggest, though, finding someplace other than the "Pressurized Multipurpose Module" section for this. Maybe create a new section? My understanding is that from the perspective of the ISS program there is to be one and only one PMM, and it is to be transported by Shuttle. That's what I meant by my too-brief edit summary. (sdsds - talk) 00:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

History

1. The History section has a note that a citation is needed that the MPLM heritage goes back to Spacelab. Cite 3 linked on the page has this statement:

"Columbus is a sophisticated laboratory and we've had a pretty clean run on the design and development, largely as a result of the heritage and experience of Spacelab," explained Alan Thirkettle, ESA's ISS programme manager.

Now it is vague exactly what "heritage" means, but that's the same word, so you can cite it.

2. I'm a bit concerned over the wording that the other ESA modules "trace their origins" to the MPLMs. "Trace their origins" suggests a level of design history that is just not true. The Nodes and Laboratory module in particular have been components of ISS from early in the modular design phase. The fact that ESA was chosen to build these modules at a later date, and based their detailed designs on their by then existing MPLM design, does not mean the "origins" were from ESA. I think it is a misrepresentation and that a clarification is in order. 128.157.160.13 (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

disposition of the remaining two modules?

So, now that the shuttles are retired, what happens to the remaining Rafaello, and unfinished Donatello? 70.24.247.54 (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

By 2018 Donatello has been repurposed by Lockheed-Martin. - Rod57 (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

References