Talk:Leonardo (ISS module)

Permanent vs. Pressurized

According to both NASA and builder Thales Alenia, the module is called the Permanent Multipurpose Module, not the Pressurized Multipurpose Module. If no one has any objections, I'll move the page to the accurate name in a day or so. Jesternaut (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• I don't object, you are right they are called Permanent and not pressurized. However I suggest a merge with the MPLM article. Put everything in this article under a heading/sub headings.--NavyBlue84 10:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • As I recall, the article was originally split off from a sub-section on the MPLM page. We can discuss a re-merge there, but for the moment I'll just make the move. Jesternaut (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion

• Copied from WT:SPACEFLIGHT.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached to Merge the articles. Colds7ream (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Hi folks, I'd like to suggest that we merge the Leonardo MPLM and Permanent Multipurpose Module into a new article, possibly called Leonardo (ISS module), and have the two existing pages redirect to it. What we have currently is an unsatisfactory situation where two articles discuss the same spacecraft, simply in different guises, and I feel that having 'MPLM' and 'PMM' sections in one overarching article would be a better solution. Any thoughts? Colds7ream (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I wasn't aware the Leonardo MPLM page had been changed from a redirect. There is no need for the two separate articles. As to the name of the final page, suggest we follow convention for other ISS modules. Rillian (talk) 11:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree, Seems a little redundant to have two pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navy blue84 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 26 February 2011

I have nothing in principle against merging the articles, however I did intend, at some point (by now most people have probably realised that I have a very long backlog of edits that I want to make), to expand the MPLM article with information about its flights and cargo. I am not sure how well this would fit into the PMM article, and it could result in size issues there. --GW… 20:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The main MPLM article is not very long. Why not add your "Leonardo as MPLM" content to that article? Rillian (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree The merge would give the reader one article for the full history of the module. LanceBarber (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been inactive for a while now and as it has no real opposes, I'm going to close it as a Merge. Colds7ream (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

When used as an MPLM, was it removed from the orbiter payload bay and berthed to the ISS

Since in the STS-102 image there is no pressurised tunnel I guess it was. Did it stay berthed after the delivering Orbiter left or did it always go back in the same orbiter ? - Rod57 (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)