This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Multi-Purpose Logistics Module article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
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)
They should create a fourth MPLM and name it Michelangelo.
MrHudson
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Multi-Purpose Logistics Module article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
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)
They should create a fourth MPLM and name it Michelangelo.
MrHudson
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)