My idea for Space Shuttle's Retirement

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

odysseus145

Guest
I don't know if this has been proposed before, but my idea is that once the shuttles reach the point of retirement, they could be launched one last time to become permanent "modules" on the ISS. I don't know how much living space is present on the shuttle, but I'm sure its more than enough to accomadate 7(?) astronauts. <br /><br />Any thoughts? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

scottb50

Guest
Nice view too!<br /><br />Maybe you could also turn them into rides; undock them, maneuver around for a while and redock. A low stress retirement job. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

SpaceKiwi

Guest
Interesting thought, but a couple of problems immediately come to mind.<br /><br />First, the Orbiters are not designed for prolonged exposure to space, and specifically micro-meteorite and debris hits. Other ISS modules are so strengthened (up to a point).<br /><br />Second, I seem to recall najaB saying that the Orbiters are on a different power system than the ISS. Assuming you find enough excess generation capacity at ISS (which is doubtful to begin with), you still can't simply plug the Orbiter in. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>
 
M

mikejz

Guest
In addition, the actual pressureized volume is not that great as compared to the total volume of the shuttle.
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
I hope they take at least one of them on a World tour - like they did with Enterprise.<br /><br />Pride of place as an Aerospace Exhibit so people can get close to them.<br /><br />Anything like that, but not to be auctioned off so some rich guy can have one in his back garden and not under any circumstance have them butchered into a Shuttle-C.
 
Q

quasar2

Guest
turn em into submarines <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
E

elguapoguano

Guest
Sorry using them as subs wouldn't work either. Not designed for that much pressure... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>
 
O

odysseus145

Guest
So I assume this isn't very practical. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

scottb50

Guest
I like a Viking funeral motif. Better to burn up than fade away. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
O

odysseus145

Guest
I'd like NASA to at least keep one, but I would hate to see them go the way of the Burans. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

SpaceKiwi

Guest
Dependent on the launch assets available to the US around the 2010-2012 timeframe, I'd like to see the Orbiters go exactly the way of Buran. That is to say, convert them into automated bulk payload carriers.<br /><br />But it all depends on the payload capabilities of the others launchers in service then and, of course, on what needs hoisting at that time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>
 
O

odysseus145

Guest
What I meant was that I didn;t want them sitting forgotten in hangers all over the country <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

SpaceKiwi

Guest
Yeah I figured that was what you meant, but I saw a chance to see if I could get a bite out of SRTF by advocating a modified Shuttle-C. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Actually, if only Buran's sister ships had all ended up in hangers. I think one suffered the ignominy of becoming a glorified 'jungle gym' in a Russian park, and another ended up on Ebay for sale. Not a glorious end for what could have been a handy compliment to Soyuz in the Russian program right about now. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>
 
N

najab

Guest
><i>I think one suffered the ignominy of becoming a glorified 'jungle gym' in a Russian park, and another ended up on Ebay for sale.</i><p>Common mis-conception. The "Buran" in Gorky Park was a structural test article, it was never intended to fly. The one on Ebay was, I <i>think</i>, one of the flight test articles used to verify the aerodynamics and landing capabilities: unlike the American Shuttle Orbiter, the Russians built a jet powered flyable prototype.<p>Sadly, <i>Buran</i> and her (unnamed?) sister ship <i>were</i> stored in a hangar, unfortunately the hangar was not well maintained and the roof collapsed, totally destroying them.</p></p>
 
N

nacnud

Guest
I think there might be some more partially constructed flight ‘Burans’ around as there were originally to be six of them, probably all found their way to the scrap yard by now though <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> <br /><br />Edit: There were only 5 Burans planned.<br /><br />Space Shuttle 1.01 = Buran (Snowstorm/Blizzard)<br />Space Shuttle 1.02 = Ptichka (Little Bird)<br />Space Shuttle 2.01 = unknown (possibly Baikal (Typhoon).<br />Space Shuttle 2.02 = unknown<br />Space Shuttle 2.03 = unknown<br /><br />And although 1.01 Buran was destroyed 1.02 is still somewhere at Baikonur and is now owned by Kazakhstan although it is no longer in a flight worthy condition.<br /><br />From Buran-Energia F.A.Q
 
D

drwayne

Guest
Some time ago ShuttleGuy posted a link to a good site that had history on all of the vehicles, I'll see if I can find it...<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
D

drwayne

Guest
Yes sir. <br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
B

bushuser

Guest
If you change the APU's out for a different power source [plus a hundred smaller details], then you have an excellent emergency crew return vehicle. You also have a backup toilet when the ISS toilet goes on the blink.
 
N

najab

Guest
><i>If you change the APU's out for a different power source...</i><p>The APU's provide hydraulic power to the Shuttle's aerosurfaces. Since they are hypergolically fueled, there's not really any reason to change them for a CRV role. Perhaps you are thinking of the fuel cells?</p>
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
>but I saw a chance to see if I could get a bite out of SRTF by advocating a modified Shuttle-C<<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Boo, Shuttle-C, boo!<br /><br />Rumour has it Buran faked its own death and will run away with Atlantis to Tazmania to have lots of baby Orbiters - only to find Space Kiwi round the corner with a rather large circular saw saying "Come here Atlantis, I'm gonna chop off your wings and crew module and make you into a tube to serve my purpose" <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />
 
S

SpaceKiwi

Guest
Au contraire, our fine Pommy friend! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />The wings can stay, it's just those 'pesky organics' that will be surplus to requirements! It would probably cost more to convert the Orbiters into fancy cylinders than to build new cylinders to begin with anyway.<br /><br />Not sure you have a huge future as a children's story writer but, IF you are going to send an Orbiter off to Tazzie, you know there is only one choice and it's NOT Atlantis! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>
 
S

SpaceKiwi

Guest
Someone give that man a chocolate fish! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>
 
S

scottb50

Guest
Put all of the engines and the wings on the first stage and fly it back. The second stage would be fuel tanks, re-usable, engines and attached payloads that could be anything you want.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

djd1

Guest
<font color="yellow">I hope they take at least one of them on a World tour - like they did with Enterprise<br /><font color="white">My sentiments also. They should surely be first transported to every major populace in North America and then around the world. I would have no problem paying lets say $50.00 just to have a couple of minutes in the **** pit. Great revenue earner for NASA.</font></font>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts