What to do about used shuttles

[frodo1008]

What can be done with shuttles for their retirement?<br /><br />I noticed a letter to the LA Times the other day in which somebody had what I thought was a very interesting idea. This particular idea stems from a problem that has been brought up about the ISS several times. The problem is that regardless of how much you isolate the doings of human beings on board the ISS it will have some affect on certain very delicate experiments. The growing of large crystals is one that comes to mind. Any movement of the microgravity environment at all and the very delicate, very large, crystals could be ruined.<br /><br />Some time ago (I believe it was the European Space Agency (ESA) had a plan to put a free flying type of large man-tended laboratory up into the ISS orbit near enough to the ISS to be serviced by the ISS crew. Most of the time the facility would have no human beings around it at all. But human beings with the help of very delicate handling robots could tend experiments on the flyer. I thought this to be an excellent idea.<br /><br />The overall plan was to eventually have the ISS become the nexus of a large space industrial park. An idea that I also think excellent as the knowledge to truly place humanity into space is going to be the knowledge of how to not only live in space, but just as importantly how to manufacture (from such raw materials as are available on the moon) large infrastructure cheaply and efficiently in the environment of space itself. This knowledge in itself will far more than pay for the entire ISS project!<br /><br />This letter writers idea in the LA Times was to actually retire all three operational shuttles into the immediate vicinity (I think that he also may have wanted to actually attach them to the ISS, but that would be impractical for a lot of reasons) of the ISS as free flying man-tended laboratories. I can't personally think of a better use for these magnificent machines upon their well deserved retirements! I don't know wh

 

[qso1]

Sounds good to me except I would hold one orbiter for the Smithsonian so people on Earth could see the real deal.<br /><br />Back when the station was a "Dual Keel" config (1986), the "Space industrial park" idea was sort of a part of the finished dual keel concept IIRC. By 1987, station was headed for political difficulties and a proposal called the "Industrial Space Facility" (ISF) was floating around. This was a man tended lab roughly the size of Spacelab but a free floater.<br /><br />A shuttle could serve that purpose, especially with a docking station in the bay and the module that could be kind of like an ISF. Soyuz/Progress/CEV could dock with the shuttle when crews and supplies need to be transferred. A universal docking adapter would be required to accomodate all vehicles.<br /><br />Not sure how long the shuttle can hold gravity gradient mode but this is where the thrusters would be required and servicing them as well. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>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.</em></p> </div>

 

[lampblack]

Well... how would they maintain orbit? The ISS is boosted every now and again. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[qso1]

The shuttle could be boosted just as the ISS is by having the payload bay docking fixture which would allow Progress vehicles to boost it periodically while transferring or offloading supplies. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>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.</em></p> </div>

 

[nibb31]

The orbiter is dead after 8 days in space because of the fuel cells. There is no way around it, except to completely redesign the power systems and rebuild the orbiter. No doubt that would cost more than the other options.<br /><br />If you want a free-flyer lab, you'd be better off using an ATV or even a CEV SM attached to a Columbus module. Maybe just a progress could do trick: fill it up with free-flying experiments before dumping it.<br /><br />Once again, moving around the huge mass of the shuttle in space just for a small payload area seems like a waste of fuel.

 

[qso1]

Nibb31:<br />The orbiter is dead after 8 days in space because of the fuel cells. There is no way around it, except to completely redesign the power systems and rebuild the orbiter. No doubt that would cost more than the other options.<br /><br />Me:<br />In that case, I'd go for the ATV option or better yet, just design a module that could be configured to the extent possible on orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>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.</em></p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

That is why I mentioned solar power generation for the shuttles themselves. Such arrays would not have to be anywhere near as large as the ones for the ISS itself<br /><br />The amount of money needed for starting such a structure from scratch is bound to be far more than the use of the shuttles themselves. <br /><br />Small payload area? The shuttle bays are a rough cylinder some 14 feet in diameter and 65 feet long! Two such shuttles would have at least a very large percent of the entire completed ISS in useable volume! . Besides if payload weight would be any criteria then the shuttles capacity for some 65,000 lbs to orbit is at this time the greatest of any launch system. Even reduced to some 45,000 lbs to the orbit of the ISS it is still why the shuttle must be the vehicle used for some of the heavier elements to be taken up to finish the station! The shuttle has its faults, but a small payload is NOT one of them!!<br /><br /><br />Besides anything designed from scratch still has to be gotten up to the ISS itself. The shuttles are designed to launch to the ISS! <br /><br />I have no doubt that if space processing becomes as large an operation as it eventually will have to be to enable humanity to truly exploit and use the materials and energies available in the solar system, that there will be even far larger facilities available. But that is quite a ways into the future. Perhaps the first shuttle retired (I think that it is supposed to happen in 2008) could indeed go to the Air and Space museum at the Smithsonian in Washington. But the other shuttles are going to be used right up until 2010. That is some four years from now at the earliest. Plenty enough of time to be able to do what redesigning would be needed for this operation. Heck, NASA could even open up such to pure private concerns. I am certain that they could find a way to do it much more cheaply!<br />

 

[nibb31]

The payload would be small if you had to bring up those new solar panels. <br /><br />Modifying the orbiter's power grid to use solar panels instead of fuel cells would be a major job. I imagine it would require a major overhaul of the whole orbiter. Just look at the work involved in changing a valve or a sensor. Shuttle overhaul periods are very long and cost a lot, that is why Endeavor will be retired first.<br /><br />Using a modified ATV, a Progress, or any other available space tug makes much more sense if you want a simple unmanned free-flying lab that can dock to the ISS.

 

[frodo1008]

It would only take one such orbiter to easily bring up enough solar panels for two shuttles as they are only going to be man-tended vehicles and not have human beings on board all the time. Also, at one time I believe there were possible plans to have the shuttles themselves stay in orbit for at least one month instead of the maximum of 15-17 days that are the current limitations! I know the costs of doing this were estimated to be far less than buying new shuttles.<br /><br />The main reason that it takes so much trouble to just change such things as sensors on the current shuttles is that they are man-rated vehicles. If you were going to take these vehicles up to the ISS and use them as just man-tended free flying laboratories these kinds of problems would be far less.<br /><br />Also. the progress and Soyuz type of vehicles are far too small for a man tended vehicle lab. <br /><br />Actually, I thank you for your comments, as the more I have to think about this the more the idea seems feasable. I do wish I could get the comments of such shuttle experts as shuttle_guy though! Remember, that this would not have to be done instantly, the shuttles are capable of station keeping at the ISS for some time. They could even be powered by the ISS itself if necessary until the shuttle solar panels themselves could be installed.<br /><br />With well over $4 billion invested in two shuttles, most any other kind of retirement does not make any sense to me at all! Heck, there was another thread where people were talking about continuing to use the shuttles outright! But I don't think that is feasable.<br /><br />I know that anything that bothers congress NASA should pay attention to, and from other threads I think the idea of our having to just depend of the Russians (as excellent as their program is) for a minimum of two years (if CEV can be acccelerated for first flight from 2014 to 2012) to a maximum of four years (first flight as now programmed for 2014) is not too palatabl

 

[spacefire]

I know this idea isn't going to fly well here, but I'd rather see 2 Shuttles loaded with ISS cargo or modules, sent up with reduced crew and parked by the ISS while the crew takes position in one Shuttle at a time to attach new modules or transfer cargo.<br />The crews return to Earth by Soyuz craft (or, maybe by that time, a commercially developed vehicle), and the Shuttles are sent unmanned to crash somewhere in the Pacific, rather than spending money to land them.<br />That way, you get one more use out of them, and avoid the most stringet problem of possible damages from foam to the heatshield. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

I don't quit understand, are you talking about now, or when the shuttles reach their currently programmed retirement?<br /><br />If now then I would have to agree that I think your plan is not only not going to work from a theoretical standpoint, but even more importantly it won't fly from a practical, or most importantly of all, political standpoint!<br /><br />This is for several reasons. Each individually important, but put together spell doom for all such very negative plans!<br /><br />Probably the most important is that there is already going to be a large gap in the capability of the US to place its own people into space on US vehicles. This gap will be anywhere from 2 to 4 years after the retirement of the shuttles in 2010. Congress already Is not too very happy with this, and is the basis on which some people are even proposing to keep the shuttles flying for the time of the gap itself. I am personally against this and fully support the shuttles retirement by the end of 2010. Well, OK I might be willing to see it extended for any vital work still to be done, but I think NASA should have not have problems with its current manifest. Providing that there are no further problems with the shuttles themselves, in which case, all bets are off the table! It is possibly true that money devoted to the shuttle for the next 4 years might just help the schedule for the CEV program some. But the gap if this is done say by the end of the year 2007 would still be at least 5 years! Not acceptable to either the American people, or their representatives!<br /><br />Next, what is to be done with all that tens of billions of dollars worth of ISS hardware that is sitting at the Cape awaiting delivery that can only done by the shuttles? It isn't going to get to the station at any kind of cost effectiveness on any other vehicles. It just is NOT! So the American taxpayer really did waste all that money? This would be even worse that all the other cancellations after billions of d

 

[frodo1008]

Well that would be just great! Instead of making reasonable use of the shuttles vast payload capability when compared to the other vehicles mentioned, we allow the same kind of steady degredation to take place that has happened to all that magnificent Apollo hardware? Oh, very good use for shuttle retirement!!!<br /><br />I don't quite understand here, the shuttle payload capability is truly VAST in comparison to any other vehicle currently capable of reaching the ISS, This is the very reason the shuttles have to be used to get the rest of the already completed ISS hardware up to the ISS! How come otherwise reasonable and intelligent people keep missing this obvious and important fact?

 

[spacefire]

what I was trying to say was that upon retirement of the Shuttles one last flight should be undertaken, then scuttle the Shuttles from orbit with the crews coming down by other means. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[georgeniebling]

SG,<br /><br />I've seen a bunch of number thrown about but I figure you're the one to set us straight ...<br /><br /># of days the Shuttle can "go it alone" without power from the ISS<br /><br /># of days the Shuttle can go if docked to the ISS<br /><br /># of days the Shuttle can go after it has undocked from the ISS<br /><br />and by "go" I mean have sufficient electrical power to operate.

 

[willpittenger]

You're thinking of Atlantis. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>the shuttle payload capability is truly VAST in comparison to any other vehicle currently capable of reaching the ISS<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Not quite true. The Russians have a booster that they used to launch their modules to ISS with. It is much stronger than what they use for Soyuz or Progress. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

Is that expected to change as ISS gets the rest of its solar panels? That would boost power output considerably. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

Well then why don't we do as some on these boards want and just give all the current hardware waiting at the cape to the Russians and let them get it up to the ISS?<br /><br />Then we can cancel the shuttles (again as some want on these boards, note I am not saying you are one) and turn the station over totally to the Russians! They could probably get funding from the EU and all future benefits of the station could go to them even though most of the station was paid for by the American taxpayer! Hooray for our side!<br /><br />Of course to any patriotic American such a solution would be an abomination!<br />

 

[frodo1008]

Good thought there, I hadn't have thought of that myself! The total power for the station is now at only about half of what it is supposed to be eventually (of course, with far more scientific modules and some six people on board the power requirements would also be far greater.<br /><br />My idea does include specific new power panels for the shuttles. Bu this would have to be for ANY man-tended free flyeing space laboratories anyway!

 

[halman]

Personally, I think that it would be wise to avoid making ANY plans for the shuttles until a heavy-lift launch vehicle has been flown successfully several times. Having seen this country go through a period of having no manned launch capabilty before, I am very leery of having the same thing happen again. The shuttles are obsolete the same way that the DC-3 is obsolete, it seems like to me. But there are many DC-3 still in service, with updated avionics, rebuilt engines, and carefully overhauled airframes. Why? Because they are still one of the best designs there is for short field operations, in places where speed and large capacity are not critical.<br /><br />The shuttles are far from a perfect vehicle, with many substantial drawbacks. But they work, as long as they are operated correctly. Certainly, they are expensive to operate, but there is nothing else in existance right now which can do the things that they do.<br /><br />Also, the shuttles represent an incredibly advanced engineering, a space vehicle which has flown repeatedly, is capable of landing on a runway, and is bigger than anything else which has ever gone through re-entry successfully. They deserve a place of honor in our most sacred halls of progress, not to be used as containers out of sight of anyone except a few astronauts. I believe that the space shuttle is a far more sophisticated accomplishment than the Apollo vehicles, the likes of which may not be seen for many years. They are a vision of the future, for someday, all spaceflight will be done in vehicles similiar to the shuttle. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[scottb50]

I think NASA should offer the remaining Shuttles to commercial operators and allow the option of building more if the market justifies it. It seems a waste to fly prototypes for twenty years and never come out with a production model.<br /><br />At the rate development of new vehicles has progressed there isn't even a guarantee CVS or any of the current ideas, that have banged around for years already will even come about. <br /><br />Prototypes are supposed to find the weaknesses in a design and allow the production model to be better, there are a lot of areas that could be simplified and improved on, less crew space and more cargo space being one of them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

The stuff at Kennedy was designed and built to be launched by the shuttle. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

How are you going to build more? They destroyed all the dies and equipment that was used. Endevour was built later alright -- using left over parts from what would have become the 5th flight-worthy vehicle. That was cancelled (and later revived as Endevour) when Rockwell could not control the cost of each orbiter. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[halman]

I was rather astonished when the Reagan administration turned down a consortium of private companies that wanted to pay for a shuttle to be used by the private sector. At the time, it would have been the eighth shuttle, so production costs might have been somewhat less than the 2.5 billion this group had in hand. For some reason, the government did not feel that private access to space was in the national interest. This group was willing to pay launch fees at Cape Kennedy, processing in the shuttle turnaround facilities, the whole shebang. No deal, the feds said.<br /><br />I have to wonder if the growth potential of private space exploitation was just too threatening to certain interests, such as the oil companies. But we will never know, because the oppurtunity is past. The amount of venture capital available for such a long-term project has dwindled to almost nothing. There is a lot of venture capital around, but it is all short-term, quick turnaround money. The 5 to 10 years needed to build a new oil refinery is almost more than can be handled right now, at least in the U.S. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[qso1]

Can you post a link to that information? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>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.</em></p> </div>