Could a retired Space Shuttle be used as a module on the ISS

[spacestuff]

This may be a stupid question, but could one of the retiring space shuttles be permanently attached to the International Space Station and used as a science module?

sorry if this is in the wrong place, I am new here.

 

[MeteorWayne]

No it cannot. this has been answered at least 3 or 4 times. Look for threads in Space Business and Technology discussing the subject, there are several (That is the proper forum for the subject).

Welcome to Space.com.

Wayne

 

[kelvinzero]

No it cannot. this has been answered at least 3 or 4 times. Look for threads in Space Business and Technology discussing the subject, there are several (That is the proper forum for the subject).

Welcome to Space.com.

Wayne

I havent noticed this idea before. Plenty about using the external tank though. Can anyone find a link for it?

(and yes, it probably belongs in SB&T)

 

[EarthlingX]

No it cannot. this has been answered at least 3 or 4 times. Look for threads in Space Business and Technology discussing the subject, there are several (That is the proper forum for the subject).

Welcome to Space.com.

Wayne

I havent noticed this idea before. Plenty about using the external tank though. Can anyone find a link for it?

(and yes, it probably belongs in SB&T)

Enjoy :
List of Multiple Threads on the Same Topic

 

[dryson]

Meteor Wayne is correct hat the shuttle could be permantly docked to the I.S.S. as it would require to much fuel to constantly correct the attitude of the space station. Which gives me an idea on what the shuttle could be used for in a new and uprated design that could be docked at the space station.

 

[SpaceTas]

NO

The duration of shuttle missions is limited by several factors; but most severe is the power units. So after a couple of weeks these run down. With a lot of power savings it might last a month after that the shuttle becomes one very high tech dead-weight.

NASA did look to uprating the shuttle with a solar tower but that was never followed up especially since its main job became building the ISS.

Oh for maybe a $ 1 billion each the shuttles could be re-certified to fly, and for more money could be upgraded. They already cost 600 million per launch, and are still a risky (less now) ride into space. On the current launch to fail ratio the risks are 1 in 70 for death and total destruction.
Not very good (if you travel to/from work every and do 2 return trips on the weekend; on average you would last 5 weeks)

 

[job1207]

Like other ?s deemed stupid, I think that planning a decade ago could have made the STS a permanent part of the ISS.

I can remember how it was supposedly impossible to extend the life of the STS at the ISS beyond three weeks. They put in an attachment on the STS that allows it to plug into the ISS solar panels if needed. The power issue is non existent. There are more examples of this.

As long as it is not hit, the TPS would remain intact. I am sure that other issues could have been worked out.

No planning was done for continued use, and so they are going to museums. Spaxex, ORB, and the Russians are taking over. Furthermore, the ISS is large. Adding a room is not needed. Could you use it as an escape pod? Even with power, soon, the propellant would dissipate, and the TPS over time WOULD get hit by micrometeorites. It is really not a good idea to use the STS as a lifeboat.

The Shuttle was always an experimental craft, because until TOO many people died, they decided that they would NOT have enough money to solve all of the problems. Ironically, it seems that they have solved the problems related to the previous failures. It is a shame to have to retire them at this point. It is interesting to read about the STS problems and when they were finally fixed. ONLY After deaths. Still, an early launch failure is likely to result in death nowadays. ( There is no launch abort system )

Continuing to fly them at the present cost is not an option. They are too expensive to fly. There are other alternatives for LEO trips.

I would think that the current Ion propulsion engines are not big enough to power the STS for garbage duty. Even if there are such engines, they would need to be fitted to the STS. The STS is just a maneuverable missile once it hits space. All of the fuel is gone. The engines on the back are just good for launch. There are only SMALL jets that allow the STS to maneuver.

This was a GIANT make work program. The ENTIRE job of the STS could have been done by a few Saturn V's. AND the stated goal of the STS, the ISS did not start until 1998, many years after the STS began flying. More than likely, the Saturn V's that were fully built would have lifted all of the ISS. ( Or at the very least 75% of it ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V After the Skylab, TWO space ready rockets were built.

It would have been great to continue the Saturn program, or perfect the STS from the start. The Saturn would have been extended to a two stage rocket, more than likely. One and two F1 models could have been built, and so on. Using a Moon rocket to go to LEO is MUCH too expensive, unless you are taking up an ISS or some such payload. Taking up and returning payload for " re use " is also TOO expensive. That is mostly because of the manpower needed to process an STS. It takes 30000 hours of time to process the TPS alone, after one flight.

Politics plays too much of a role in the US space program. As a result, we have reinvented the wheel ( a basic rocket ) SO many times, it is pretty funny.

As it is the STS is one dimensional, and too expensive. No one would EVER think of building an STS if they were starting from scratch today. SSTO will ONLY be resurrected if you can rail launch an SSTO to orbit. If they figure out how to build a space elevator, you will essentially have SSTO by that route. Other propulsion dreams are just that, for now, so SSTO is dead.

SpaceX is proving that the Russians were always correct. ( or something like that ) Rocketry is STILL what it was in it's infancy because of the need to get a vehicle to orbital speed. You STILL need to burn a LOT of stuff to get to orbit. The Russians are still working off one basic model. It is less expensive and more reliable that way.

BHO should focus on Asteroid protection and LEO debris, and then trips to far off lands. It is my understanding that CURRENT technology will NOT allow a person to go to Mars and back due to radiation exposure. I would let SpaceX beat everyone back to the Moon, and go from there. They will get there before anyone else.

 

[duluthdave]

They put in an attachment on the STS that allows it to plug into the ISS solar panels if needed. The power issue is non existent.

You're thinking of the SSPTS, which allows the ISS to transfer up to 8kW of power to the shuttle. As I recall, normal power use by the shuttle is around 14kW. But if the shuttle were permanently docked at the ISS and used as a science module, many of it's systems would be unnecessary or redundant with those already on the ISS, and could be shut down to save power. If you could get it's power use down to 4-6kW, the power issue could be solved with the hardware already in place. There would be other problems with using the shuttle as an ISS module. But like you said, with enough advance planning those probably could have been overcome as well.

 

[job1207]

They put in an attachment on the STS that allows it to plug into the ISS solar panels if needed. The power issue is non existent.

You're thinking of the SSPTS, which allows the ISS to transfer up to 8kW of power to the shuttle. As I recall, normal power use by the shuttle is around 14kW. But if the shuttle were permanently docked at the ISS and used as a science module, many of it's systems would be unnecessary or redundant with those already on the ISS, and could be shut down to save power. If you could get it's power use down to 4-6kW, the power issue could be solved with the hardware already in place. There would be other problems with using the shuttle as an ISS module. But like you said, with enough advance planning those probably could have been overcome as well.

" But like you said, with enough advance planning those probably could have been overcome as well"

Right, and so that makes this move to THREE museums a waste. The BEST use would have been as a spacecraft of some sort. A DC 8 is a really large craft. The STS is the size of a DC 8.

 

[Valcan]

Why has the time of shuttle launches ended. Why do we need to try private companies launching.

From the WSJ article in support of private space flight.

"The challenge faced by all space-related ventures is the high cost of launching into orbit. When the U.S. space shuttle stands down later this year, NASA will need to send American astronauts to launch aboard the Russian Soyuz at a price of more than $50 million per person. The space shuttle, on the other hand, costs between $750 million to $2 billion per flight (for up to seven astronauts) depending on the number of launches each year. Most people don't realize that the major cost of a launch is labor. Fuel is less than 2%, while the standing army of people and infrastructure is well over 80%. The annual expense NASA bears for the shuttle is roughly $4 billion, whatever the number of launches"

Nough said. Why it has been run this long or even was built when it was seen to be that expensive is beyond me.

 

[SpaceTas]

On the latest "This Week in Space" the president of United Space Alliance proudly stated 20,000 people were involved in each shuttle flight.

 

[aaron38]

I didn't know until yesterday that NASA was leaving the Leonardo cargo module attached permanently to ISS after the last shuttle flight. It'll be loaded with spares, but that will add some extra volume to the ISS. One cool note, Node 1 (Unity) will then have a module docked to all 6 ports.

But rather than even thinking about how to attach a shuttle, we'd be a lot better off for NASA to follow up on the rumored plan to attach a Bigelow inflatable module. That's the future of the ISS if you ask me. A Bigelow module and the VASIMR drive for station keeping, and the ISS is fulfilling it's purpose as a test bed for new technologies.

 

[StarRider1701]

It doesn't seem like a bad idea...
Removing the re-entry tiles would allow for more cargo mass. A few solar panels could be included to fix the power problem. I know the wings and tail are useful upon re-entry, for flight back to a safe landing place once speed is down to where they can be effective. But, are they needed on take off? If not they too can be removed and more consumables or whatever can be sent up to the ISS on that final run. Especially if there are only one or two Astronauts. These would have to hitch a ride home with someone else...
Even if it ends up still being used as a spacecraft, capable of docking and undocking from ISS, I think an old Shuttle would be better used in space rather than wasted in a museum down here. It'd make a nice EVA craft, good for all sorts of missions rather than being permenantly docked. Might be a good place for any really dangerous experiments, too. Not that anything could possibly go wrong in space... :roll:

 

[MeteorWayne]

By the time you remove all that stuff, you have designed a new spacecraft.

 

[Polishguy]

By the time you remove all that stuff, you have designed a new spacecraft.

Not quite. There were proposals for an unmanned cargo launcher, the Shuttle-C, back in the 90s and 80s. If you were to remove from the Shuttle everything except the engines, Payload Bay, Crew Decks, and docking apparatus, you would have basically a Shuttle-C with crew decks still attached. In fact, you could remove a lot of the nose too. Landing gear, the nose RCS perhaps, could be chopped off and replaced with an aluminum aerodynamic cone. If you could just use the OMS to reach ISS, you have reduced weight even further.

The real problem here is attitude control and weight imbalance. ISS is still within earth's gravity well, and adding the weight of an orbiter (even with all the extras removed, around 35 tonnes, plus something in the Payload Bay) just sticking out of one side will move the ISS center of gravity to one side. Unless you were to dock, say, Discovery to Node 2 and Atlantis to Node 1, and Endeavour to the end of the Russian Orbital Segment (good luck with that) you're gonna have the ISS's orbit shot to hell.

 

[MeteorWayne]

If you all are seriously suggesting ripping the wings off the existing shuttles, you have completely missed my point. It would be far cheaper to design and build a new spacecraft than to modify the existing machine for a purpose that it wasn't designed structurally for.

 

[Polishguy]

If you all are seriously suggesting ripping the wings off the existing shuttles, you have completely missed my point. It would be far cheaper to design and build a new spacecraft than to modify the existing machine for a purpose that it wasn't designed structurally for.

Unfortunately, you're probably right. If you rip the wings off, you've got to go to the computers and check its aerodynamics now. Then you've got to see if the OMS still works with the new weight distribution. Then you've got to test it until its man-rated. The wings are also probably integral to the whole thing surviving the stresses of launch anyway, so you'll need to rebuild the whole skeleton of the Shuttle, and when you start ripping the Payload Bay out to get at the spars, forget it.

So, Shuttle can't be used as an ISS module. Maybe we could dig Spacelab out of storage and dock that, but I doubt it.

On another note, would it be possible to convert just the Shuttle Payload Bay into a Shuttle-C? Or would that be the same problem?

 

[MeteorWayne]

Without the shuttle around it, the cargo bay is just a big empty space

 

[StarRider1701]

If you all are seriously suggesting ripping the wings off the existing shuttles, you have completely missed my point. It would be far cheaper to design and build a new spacecraft than to modify the existing machine for a purpose that it wasn't designed structurally for.

Thats not what the thread is about and not what I was talking about. We were discussing the possibility of sending a shuttle up to ISS that would NOT be coming back down. No re-entry, hence my notion to remove the tiles since they would be wasted weight that could be used to send up more stuff, equipment, consumables, whatever on that final run.
Now whether that shuttle could be permenantly docked, to which MW says no, or used as a mobile EVA craft might still be a question that is open for discussion.
And if the wings are not necessary for take off, rather than "ripping them off" we might consider properly removing them and covering the places where they were to maintain the integrity of the ship. Again the purpose would be to allow more stuff to be sent up to ISS on that final blast up into space. Remember, this is an alternative to letting one shuttle rust away uselessly in some museum, not redesigning all space shuttles.

 

[spacestuff]

that is what I'm sprayin'.

 

[EarthlingX]

I guess you would need at least extra power generator. I'am not sure if Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator has TRL high enough to fly, but i know it's going to be financed, when budget passes.

Even solar takes time, or money.

Shuttle still have possible manifest, if i remember correctly, up to 2014, but no money for it, it would be around 3 G$/year. Could it be less with different contract ? I mean, no cost plus, and so on ?

I also don't know about availability of the launch pads and vehicle processing facilities ?

Money for refitting, optimistically 1 G$ ?

 

[StarRider1701]

Even solar takes time, or money.

Shuttle still have possible manifest, if i remember correctly, up to 2014, but no money for it, it would be around 3 G$/year. Could it be less with different contract ? I mean, no cost plus, and so on ?
Money for refitting, optimistically 1 G$ ?

What do you mean by "G$"? In American nomenclature (read slang) a G is 1,000 dollars. Obviously a mere thousand dollars or 3,000 bucks wouldn't pay to remove a pimple from the Shuttle's bay door! Much less last until 2014.

Should that perhaps be B$ or Billion? That would be more in keeping with current costs...

 

[EarthlingX]

Even solar takes time, or money.

Shuttle still have possible manifest, if i remember correctly, up to 2014, but no money for it, it would be around 3 G$/year. Could it be less with different contract ? I mean, no cost plus, and so on ?
Money for refitting, optimistically 1 G$ ?

What do you mean by "G$"? In American nomenclature (read slang) a G is 1,000 dollars. Obviously a mere thousand dollars or 3,000 bucks wouldn't pay to remove a pimple from the Shuttle's bay door! Much less last until 2014.

Should that perhaps be B$ or Billion? That would be more in keeping with current costs...

Giga- (symbol: G) is a prefix in the metric system indicating multiplication by 10^9 or 1 000 000 000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giga

Bilion can be at least two things:
Long and short scales
..

Unambiguous ways of identifying large numbers include:

..

SI prefixes, for example, giga for 10^9 and tera for 10^12. The International System of Units (SI) is independent of whichever scale is being used.

 

[StarRider1701]

What do you mean by "G$"? In American nomenclature (read slang) a G is 1,000 dollars. Obviously a mere thousand dollars or 3,000 bucks wouldn't pay to remove a pimple from the Shuttle's bay door! Much less last until 2014.

Should that perhaps be B$ or Billion? That would be more in keeping with current costs...

Giga- (symbol: G) is a prefix in the metric system indicating multiplication by 10^9 or 1 000 000 000.

OH, here we go again! Converting to the metric system... :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[EarthlingX]

OH, here we go again! Converting to the metric system... :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Not me, you do. I use foots and such rarely, they could be British or US, or some-one else's, when i do, it's just to assist people who have trouble multiplying by 10.
For me, the matter is solved, for a long time.

It is also off topic and perhaps more appropriate discussion for some other, already existing thread.

edit:
I tried deleting this, but is beyond my powers. In future i will do my best to refrain from reacting in non-topical matters, or at least wait a bit longer.