Talk:Multi-Purpose Logistics Module

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Template:WPSpace

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?