What to do about used shuttles

[willpittenger]

I have to believe that their excuse was security. You also did not mention crew. <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]

Hey, you probably already know this, but to me at least you are preaching to the choir here! I agree with you 100%, now if we could just get the shuttle negativists and congress to agree!<br /><br />However, barring that, what I propose is to see these magnificent machines at least get to do something useful in retirement! That is, instead of suffering the fate of the equally magnificent Saturn V's scattereed around the US! I did agree that Endeaver (evidently the first to face retirement in 2008) could be housed at the Air and Space Museum in Washington, and I would like to insist that they build an entire hall around it so that it would not only be protected, but celebrated by futture generations!<br /><br />I remember too well what also happened to the Russian's great machine, the Buran! Hopefully, we can get funding to do better than they did!

 

[vogelbek]

I'm picturing an exhibit with a shuttle attached to a ET, hanging from a high ceiling in the overhung orbiter position (top wing surfaces facing slightly down), with 2 SRBs hanging as if they had just seperated. The hall would be very tall, with balconys and walkways bringing tourists and their children close enough to almost touch it.<br /><br />I suspect that the actual exhibit will be an orbiter with its landing gear down, tires chocked (I cant spell that word...pr any word for that matter), flanked on both sides by an exhibit about the columbia disaster and the challenger disaster. So it goes, so it goes

 

[echo8]

I think the best would be to leave at least one of the shuttles permanently docked at the ISS. If power is a problem, could RTGs be used instead of solar panels? They are smaller and lighter than panels, and provide more power...<br /><br />The cargo bay could be converted into a crew recreation / habitation area, or maybe even a space hotel. And there's probably enough room in it for both.<br /><br />The shuttle could serve as an additional lifeboat, allowing a larger crew on the station.

 

[willpittenger]

I think it is Atlantis -- not Endevour -- being retired in 2008. <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]

1. There is limited docking space at ISS.<br /><br />2. RTGs have radition hazards that would have to be placed away from the crew on long booms. Even Galileo had its RTG on a boom -- and that was without any crew.<br /><br />3. RTGs would require the orbiters to be rewired. <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>

 

[erioladastra]

"I think the best would be to leave at least one of the shuttles permanently docked at the ISS. If power is a problem, could RTGs be used instead of solar panels? They are smaller and lighter than panels, and provide more power... <br /><br />The cargo bay could be converted into a crew recreation / habitation area, or maybe even a space hotel. And there's probably enough room in it for both. "<br /><br />The biggest problem is that 75% of the shuttle archectecture would be useless in that case. Much of the mass would be useless and a liability with little benefit. I think there are modules on the ground that would provide a more cost effective addition of space if they were finished and added.

 

[halman]

qso1,<br /><br />No, I don't have a link to that info. All that I can say is that it was a short article, about 5 or 6 column inches, originally reported by the New York Times, if I remember correctly, around about 1980. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[halman]

willpittenger,<br /><br />Considering that virtually all Top Secret weapons systems have been built by private sector companies, security would be an excuse, not a reason. As far as crew goes, the number of astronauts has always exceded the number of mission slots by a considerable margin. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[qso1]

I recall that NASA was not entirely receptive to private industry in space but I don't have any postable info either. I was mainly curious and trying to pin something tangible down. <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>

 

[halman]

frodo1008,<br /><br />Even though I have become extremely pessimistic about the American space program, I still want to believe that things may be turned around at some point. If that were to happen, I think that putting the shuttles back into service might be feasible. If nothing else, they should be available for study when the time comes to build modern space vehicles again.<br /><br />I know that I will catch a lot of flack for this viewpoint, but when one considers the amount of money being spent on the military, year after year, applying one quarter of that sum to space exploration would make almost anything possible. And we could hardly spend the money less effectively than the military has been.<br /><br />Without some kind of investment in new technology, to stimulate the American economy, Treasury bonds are likely to be rated as 'junk' in about 20 years. What kind of technology offers any substanial return on the investment? Nothing comes close to space for returns on dollars invested, according to numerous studies by reputable accounting firms. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[qso1]

Won't catch any flack from me. <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>

 

[willpittenger]

How do people get it wrong? <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>

 

[hansolo0]

What are the odds one or more of the orbiters could be sold to the private sector (and for how much??), and then that some private space industry / multi billionaire could actually use it effectively, maybe improving or rebuilding the shuttle to suit their needs?

 

[georgeniebling]

I'm kinda bumping this back into circulation simply because I haven't seen an answer .....<br /><br />I was hoping Shuttle_Guy might have the good data ...<br /><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.

 

[spacefire]

if the cargo hold is converted to a propellant tank and cheaper (hybrid) engines are used, could the Orbiter take off on suborbital rides? Most of the systems only need a dumb-down, which should see them require less maintenance, for instance the TPS can be exchanged, life support only needs to function for at most one hour at a time, fancy computers are not needed.<br />The (sub)orbiter can take off vertically by itself and then land horizontally with 2 pilots and 5 tourists, and finally be a comercially viable spacecraft. <br />It would be safe - structure designed for orbital flight and associated loads, historically significant - it used to be a NASA spacecraft, and it has a large cabin allowing for some neat zero G shennanigans. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>