Could Endeavour be converted into an automated cargo lifter?

[llivinglarge]

She's still pretty young, why scrap her?

 

[j05h]

it's an interesting concept, especially in light of what Shuttle_guy posted about automated landings. The biggest problem that I see is getting the man-power into space to install/unpack that cargo - there is a reason that station assembly flights are always 7 astronauts. It's way to much work for 2 people only.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

The maintenance and launch costs would still probably be prohibitive--unless you just really let the tile maintenance go and hope for the best. Something I doubt NASA and United Space Alliance are willing to do.<br /><br /> The best idea i've heard so far for retiring a shuttle that is still in good shape is to either permanently dock it to the ISS or turn it into a independent space station either with or with out the ET attached. Better than becoming a lawn ornament, but I'm sure there are hundreds of problems with those ideas that would make it impractical. Maybe private company could study the pros and cons for a lot less than NASA could and propose something cost effective and politically viable? All you need is to do a lot of research and have some math skills.

 

[CalliArcale]

Yeah. Shuttle is beautiful, but it simply has a lot more mass than it really needs on-orbit. It was designed for going up and coming down repeatedly, and that pretty much rules out using it for most other tasks. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

"That would require massive solar panels to be added to the Orbiter otherwise the onboard systems would die with the fuel cells running out of reactants. The systems would then freeze and would be destroyed. That means the orbiter could not de-orbit itself to a landing or ditching in the sea. "<br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />Actually I was referring to a published idea that would make the ex-shuttle a PERMANENT part of the space station, or a independent station--it would never fly back. The flight and mid decks would become additional living and working space and the cargo bay would be used for mounting experiments, aditional solar panels and a Spacelab type module. In the plan I saw (I think it was proposed by Greg Zsisdin of the National Space Society) the shuttle would even be stripped of its landing gear and wings for its final flight. As I said I'm sure there are numerous problems with this proposal that would make it impractical.

 

[mikejz]

Awhile ago i made the proposal that after the shuttle's retirement, they are used to build a on-orbit supply depot (possibly at the ISS). The key would be that they would basically be turned around with minimal maintenance and continued to be used until they failed. I called the proposal "Shuttle Until Failure"<br /><br />It might work if you can find a new landing site that removes completely the risk to populated areas. Maybe at a base in the Pacific or even in Russia.

 

[mikejz]

In Space most of the shuttle is useless. Most of the mass is dedicated to getting the shuttle to/from space. The arm is nice, but a smaller satellite could easily be equipped with a similar arm, and for a cheaper cost. <br /><br />As far as i know, the payload bay cannot be pressurized (SG?) so repair is not a big selling point. <br /><br />As for Emergency, the Russians are happy to sell you there modestly priced ready-made solution.

 

[explorer11]

That acutally sounds like a good idea. Recycling the shuttles to become part of another space station or becoming a space station in themselves. But it would take a lot of energy and adjustment (adding solar panels etc.). But with the large cargo bay's on the SS, they would come with built in the outdoor/indoor porch, like on the ISS. It might be a good idea because if the shuttle is never expected to re-enter the earth's atmosphere, no need to waste money on it tiles.

 

[ldyaidan]

I think it's a good idea. Even if we need to put more solar panels on her for power. She could be used for a "tour ship" in orbit, once the Bigelow station is up, be rented for experiements in the cargo hold, transportation between the stations, and even for servicing satelites, the hubble, and so on. If she's already up there, it would be cheaper for companies to pay NASA to service their satelites than to have to launch a new one, or to send their own mission up to service it.<br /><br />Rae