Leave shuttle attached to ISS?

pberrett · Feb 11, 2008

Hi all I understand that there are no plans to leave the shuttle in space once the ISS is finished. However the shuttle is a large vehicle and would add a significant amount of extra space to the ISS if left docked there. What do readers think of the idea of launching the shuttle on its last mission with a minimal crew who can then return to earth on a separately launched Soyuz? The shuttle could then close its bay doors and somehow this could be sealed thus creating a large amount of extra space for use on the ISS. I do not know whether this would require welding or perhaps an inflatable type module to provide the necessary air seal. This would add a substantial amount of extra space to the ISS and would be considerably cheaper than building a new module for the space station. It might even be possible to leave two shuttle attached to the ISS for even more space. Even if the space was not used the shuttle has value as an airtight space vehicle. There would be merit in leaving the structure in space for some future use. Thoughts please cheers Peter

nibb31 · Feb 11, 2008

Oh no ! Not again ! The shuttle can only stay in space for 2 weeks. After that, the fuel cells run out of power and cannot be restarted on orbit. It can be plugged in to the ISS to extend its life for a couple of days, but that's it. After that, it's a huge cold dead weight attached to the ISS with no life support. Modifying the shuttle to be able to stay on orbit for an extended duration would be considerably more expensive that building a new module. The extra weight would increase propellant requirements for reboosting the station. It would also make docking of other spacecraft more difficult. It's a bad idea that has been discussed to death on this forum, but you're not the first to think about it <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

CalliArcale · Feb 11, 2008

The normal docked attitude of the Orbiter would also be very unhappy as far as drag goes. Docked to the forward port, it presents just about the biggest profile it possibly can. (There is a good reason for this, of course, but it would add a lot to drag.) All in all, the Orbiter is just too much dead weight, even if you could somehow get it to make full use of the power/cooling systems aboard the ISS. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "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." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

MeteorWayne · Feb 11, 2008

Perhaps this thread should be locked (since it is a duplicate subject) and the discussion referred to the active thread in Space B&T here ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

kyle_baron · Feb 11, 2008

To shuttle_guy: Hypothetically speaking, if the shuttle had an extra external fuel tank, could it's engines have enough thrust to push the ISS out of Earth orbit and towards the moon, after an 8 minute burn? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

turbopause · Feb 11, 2008

Personally I think the idea of leaving a shuttle in orbit is a bad idea simply because I'd much rather have it here on earth to show my kids.

qso1 · Feb 12, 2008

I would say very definitely. Another ET attached could send shuttle to the moon...but what for? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

qso1 · Feb 12, 2008

pberrett: The shuttle could then close its bay doors and somehow this could be sealed thus creating a large amount of extra space for use on the ISS. I do not know whether this would require welding or perhaps an inflatable type module to provide the necessary air seal. Me: Hypothetically speaking, all one would need to do is install a Spaceclab long module to have additional pressurized space which would not require doing anything special with the payload bay doors. However, if you notice, the PLB doors are almost always open while on orbit. This to shed heat that would build up in the PLB if the doors are left closed. Because of that, if one were to leave the shuttle at ISS, the PLB doors would need to remain open. Reality however, will probably dictate whats already planned. That is, retire shuttle and return to the moon with the lunar return plans iffy at best considering a new, especially Democratic Admin will probably cancel that at some point. What really should happen is that the public should be educated on putting the cost of human spaceflight in perspective. This way, if a new module is needed at ISS, build one and send it up. Private enterprise, particularly Bigelow may even be able to do something along those lines in the future provided he can get an LV for any module he might send up. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

rfoshaug · Feb 12, 2008

The day we are able to lift a fully loaded External Tank into low Earth orbit (>750 metric tonnes), we won't need the Space Shuttle anymore. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Of course there would be, as shuttle_guy said, many big problems. How do you start an SSME in space without lots and lots of support equipment? You would also have to save some of the propellants for the lunar orbit insertion burn (about 1,000 m/s) and also for the return-to-Earth burn (another 1,000 m/s). The orbital maneuvering system engines on the shuttle can only provide about 300 m/s if i remember correctly, so the external tank would have to stay attached during the trip to the moon and the stay there, with all sorts of problems with hydrogen boiloff, and how to dock a shuttle to a station in lunar orbit with its ET attached. Because you would need a space station in lunar orbit - why else would you want to go? And what's the point of building a lunar orbital space station? If you want to do "space station stuff" like microgravity research etc., you might as well park it in Earth orbit, and if you go to the moon, it is the surface that is interesting. Launching big rockets and landing manned and unmanned payloads on the surface is cheaper, simpler and more interesting than parking a Space Shuttle orbiter in lunar orbit, even if the external tank would provide enough delta-v to get there. And as I said, the day we're able to put 750 tonnes into Earth orbit, there are many things you can use that for that are much more exciting than placing a Shuttle orbiter in lunar orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----------------------------------My minds have many opinions </div>

kyle_baron · Feb 12, 2008

"Hypothetically speaking, if the shuttle had an extra external fuel tank, could it's engines have enough thrust to push the ISS out of Earth orbit and towards the moon, after an 8 minute burn? " Yes, but the are many very big problems with being able to do that. The Shuttle Orbiter would only need to add about 7,500 mph to a low Earth Orbiting Shuttle Orbiter to get it out of the Earth's gravity well and on a path to the Moon. The BIG question is why would you want to do that? I just wanted to get some idea of the thrust needed to move the ISS out of Earth's orbit to a lunar orbit. Just because we've gone to the moon several times, doesn't mean that there won't be catastrophic problems, that may require a safe-house, such as the ISS. In other words it's a lunar orbital back up plan. It could also serve as storage for food, water, oxygen, etc. You seem to think that an additional 7,500 mph isn't all that much to achieve when moving a 1,000,000 lb. mass (when completed). Obviously, the Shuttle would not be used. I understand that, more clearly now. Anyone know what sized rocket it would take, to do the job? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

qso1 · Feb 12, 2008

The Saturn-V S-IVB moved about a tenth of that mass to lunar orbit and much less came back to earth. That stage was powered by a 200,000 lb thrust J-2 engine and the payload itself was powered by its own engines (SM-SPS and LM ascent/descent engines). It appears that somewhere around 2 million lbs thrust would be required for whatever vehicle would be moving the ISS mass to lunar orbit. There are probably a lot of variables affecting this figure which could make it significantly less or more. One variable being whether the ISS is structurally able to actually be thrusted out at a rate comparable to what the SIVB did for the CSM/LM. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

kyle_baron · Feb 13, 2008

"One variable being whether the ISS is structurally able to actually be thrusted out at a rate comparable to what the SIVB did for the CSM/LM. " It is not ! I'm glad you're excited, even if it's in a negitive train of thought. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> How difficult would it be to uncouple the Unity, Zarya, and Zvezda modules: 25,600 lbs, 42,600 lbs, and 42,000 lbs, for a total mass of 110,200 lbs? Then the SIVB sized rocket could do the job-maybe. Are these 3 modules structurally capable? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Unity-Zarya-Zvezda_STS-106.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ISS_1E_Configuration.jpg <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kyle_baron · Feb 13, 2008

Then we could re-name the ISS, ISS Lite! Less filling, more tasteful. Ok, I'm getting silly. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kyle_baron · Feb 14, 2008

The truss and solar arrays and probably the Columbus and JAX modules could not take a large acceleration even if the truss was on the center line of the iSS. I don't see the Z-1 Truss, or S-1 Truss, in this photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Unity-Zarya-Zvezda_STS-106.jpg The Z-1 or S-1 truss, could be left on the ISS? The solar panels could either be: 1. Folded back up? 2. Removed, and replaced later? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

qso1 · Feb 14, 2008

shuttle_guy: It is not ! Me: I figured it probably wasn't which is why I mentioned it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

qso1 · Feb 14, 2008

kyle_baron: How difficult would it be to uncouple the Unity, Zarya, and Zvezda modules: 25,600 lbs, 42,600 lbs, and 42,000 lbs, for a total mass of 110,200 lbs? Then the SIVB sized rocket could do the job-maybe. Are these 3 modules structurally capable? Me: The Mir station consisted of the core module which went to orbit in February of 1986. Kvant 1 installed April 1987, Kvant 2 installed December 1989, Kristall installed in June 1990, Spectre installed June 1995 and Piroda installed in April 1996. It took nearly a decade for the Soviets to finish a station designed from the beginning to be modular. The ISS has taken a decade to do the same with much less modular design. So though it seemingly should not be difficult to uncouple them and set them up for boosts to the moon, the reality for two nations working space stations has been that even the smallest things end up being very difficult to do. The modules I believe would be capable of being boosted as individual units. The same may be accomplished by breaking down the truss segments into the individual segments that withstood shuttle launching. But the segments withstood shuttle launch largely because they were mounted via trunnion in the shuttle PLB. I'm not sure how the truss segments, even individually launched, would fare without the support provided by trunnions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

brandbll · Feb 15, 2008

"The BIG question is why would you want to do that?" A last ditch effort to prove the moon landing conspiracies wrong? On another note, one of these launches they should seriously consider fixing a cowboy hat on one of the astronaught's helmets during a launch and have them yell "Yeeeeeeehaaaaaww" multiple times during the trip. If they let Alan Shepard hit a golf ball one the moon i don't know why this couldn't be done. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard! </div>

kyle_baron · Feb 15, 2008

The ISS has taken a decade to do the same with much less modular design. So though it seemingly should not be difficult to uncouple them and set them up for boosts to the moon, the reality for two nations working space stations has been that even the smallest things end up being very difficult to do. Maybe NASA should tackle some of the smaller challenges, before tackling the larger ones (lunar base). <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Remember, NASA has at least a decade to think about, and act on it! Once the shuttles are gone, I wonder if the Robot Arm would be transferable to the inside of a rocket booster? I would think that the robot arm would be needed to de-couple these segments from the ISS. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

qso1 · Feb 15, 2008

I would think the only practical way would be to develop an SSME II so to speak, or simply develop a less Porsche like engine for the boosting job which would in turn, probably be a less expensive engine than modifications to an SSME. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

qso1 · Feb 15, 2008

I think when NASA gave up the pursuit of CATS, it resigned itself to the apparent fact that returning to the moon, especially with capsule tech...is eaisier than the challenge of low cost access to orbit, or something as equally challenging as propelling ISS to the moon. NASA also knows not much is going to change budget wise in the next decade if it hasn't changed in the previous three. And budget is what drove them away from CATS (Cheap Access To Space). I see no real reason why the robot arm couldn't be utilized as part of a servicing payload aboard an expendable. One simply has to design the payload around the arm more or less. I'm not certain if the arm is actually needed to decouple, but to maneuver the payloads to new locations/positions, it would seem useful. There was a less expensive way to develop space stations that NASA chose not to do and the config they ended up with IMO, is simply not well suited enough for lunar operations because of the expense of getting the components to the moon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

kyle_baron · Feb 15, 2008

There was a less expensive way to develop space stations that NASA chose not to do and the config they ended up with IMO, is simply not well suited enough for lunar operations because of the expense of getting the components to the moon. Thank you for all of your carefully worded insights. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> However, I find it discouraging that NASA would spend all this time, energy, resources, and money on ANOTHER disposable space station, that will end up at the bottom of the ocean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iss [edit] Criticism "NASA must complete the ISS so it can be dropped into the ocean on schedule in finished form." -Robert L. Park[42] <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

brandbll · Feb 15, 2008

I've heard before that it would be extremely difficult to keep something like the ISS in orbit around the moon. I was wondering would it be any easier to have a smaller module like Spacelab in orbit around the moon? I'm just speaking hypothetically, i don't know that there is really any use for something like this. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard! </div>

qso1 · Feb 15, 2008

I don't think the difficulty lies in getting ISS to orbit the moon. The moon has no atmosphere to drag it down and once properly placed in lunar orbit, the ISS would orbit for a very long time. The problem would be getting it there in the first place. I would say it would definitely be easier to leave a Spacelab like module with perhaps one or two pallets utilized for life support equipment such as O2 tanks etc in lunar orbit. At least then you could design it from the outset, for that purpose rather than send something huge and not designed for lunar boost without major rework. In addition, something smaller might be easier to define as to its purpose. At the moment, AFAIK nobody has been able to identify a reasonable purpose for a manned lunar orbiting lab. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

kyle_baron · Feb 16, 2008

I would say it would definitely be easier to leave a Spacelab like module with perhaps one or two pallets utilized for life support equipment such as O2 tanks etc in lunar orbit.In addition, something smaller might be easier to define as to its purpose. At the moment, AFAIK nobody has been able to identify a reasonable purpose for a manned lunar orbiting lab. The perfect candidate to boost to the moon, would be Zarya: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zarya Zarya, also known as the Functional Cargo Block or the FGB, was the first module of the International Space Station to be launched. The FGB provided electrical power, storage, propulsion, and guidance to the ISS during the initial stage of assembly. As other modules with more specialized functionality are constructed, the Zarya's role will primarily be storage, both inside the pressurized section and in the externally mounted fuel tanks.It is owned and paid for by the United States and was built from December 1994 to January 1998 in Russia in the Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center (KhSC) in Moscow. Zarya has 16 external fuel tanks that can hold over 6 metric tons of propellant, with 24 large steering jets, 12 small steering jets, and two large engines for reboost and major orbital changes.Although only designed to fly autonomously for six to eight months, Zarya was required to fly autonomously for almost two years due to delays to the Russian Service Module, Zvezda. Hmmmm..... A module that is no longer really needed, can hold emergency fuel, is pressurized, and can fly autonomously for up to 2 years? Sounds like the perfect candidate to me! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

qso1 · Feb 16, 2008

It certainly seems well equipped for lunar orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

Leave shuttle attached to ISS?

pberrett

Guest

nibb31

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

turbopause

Guest

qso1

Guest

qso1

Guest

rfoshaug

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

qso1

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

qso1

Guest

qso1

Guest

brandbll

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

qso1

Guest

qso1

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

brandbll

Guest

qso1

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

qso1

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page