What to do with the Shuttles (Post Retirement)

[Polishguy]

As you all know, the Shuttle orbiters are coming to the end of their operational lives, and NASA plans to put them in museums (Discovery has been offered to the National Air and Space Museum, for example). Thus, the billions of dollars spent building the damn things is gone, locked up in a museum exhibit. Does anyone else here think they can be better used? I, for one, suggest converting the orbiters into Shuttle-C cargo lifters, for either the lifting of heavy satellites, or for the support of Project Constellation (Maybe launch a few Moon Base modules). Any other ideas of what to do with them?

Come on, if you want a museum exhibit, build one yourselves.

 

[grnhornet]

Re: What to do with the Shuttle

why not take one strip it down and un man rate it.... Pack it full of sensors and batteries and launch it towards alpha centari or some other area of interest. Use it as a deep space probe.

why not strip it of crew quarters and stuff and use it for giant solar sail experment... or some other exotic experiment, if it fails no biggy we were dumping it anyways.... Just seems a waste to let it sit and rot.

it seems it would be of more use crashed into the moon than sitting in a museum doing nothing forever.

 

[ihwip]

What to do with the retired space shuttles

OK, we have these huge armor plated electronic gadgets that are intended for space flight and hauling a large amount of cargo. When we retire them, why do we necessarily need to retire them down here on Earth?

My suggest is to retire all the space shuttles in LEO outfitted as semi-autonomous space cleaning satellites. They already have robotic arms. They have plenty of storage space for large chunks and small chunks would get absorbed by the silicon hull.

Why not remove the passenger section and outfit them with specialized hardware for cleaning up LEO? It doesn't seem too difficult.

Another idea is to simply attach them to the ISS for extra space. Leaving them in museums just sounds too wasteful.

 

[michaelmozina]

Re: What to do with the retired space shuttles

OK, we have these huge armor plated electronic gadgets that are intended for space flight and hauling a large amount of cargo. When we retire them, why do we necessarily need to retire them down here on Earth?

Maybe because if we put them back up in space they would not be "retired" anymore, but rather they would still be "in service"?

My suggest is to retire all the space shuttles in LEO outfitted as semi-autonomous space cleaning satellites. They already have robotic arms. They have plenty of storage space for large chunks and small chunks would get absorbed by the silicon hull.

Since their hulls are not currently composed of such material, you're talking about a fairly expensive retrofit you know.

Why not remove the passenger section and outfit them with specialized hardware for cleaning up LEO? It doesn't seem too difficult.

Hmm, maybe not to you perhaps, but I think you might be underestimating the complexity of the problem just a bit. Cleaning up the LEO flotsum and jetsum is not an easy job and I doubt a space shuttle would be the "best" craft for the job frankly, even with robotic arms.

Another idea is to simply attach them to the ISS for extra space. Leaving them in museums just sounds too wasteful.

Well that plan sounds a bit more reasonable IMO, but it's actually very expensive to keep the shuttles in operational order. Due to that maintenance cost it's probably just as wasteful if not more so to keep them flying. NASA can simply "donate" them to a museum and there's no additional long term cost to NASA. I think that's the bottom line as far as NASA is concerned.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: What to do with the retired space shuttles

I am going to merge this into a discussion in Space Business and Technology.

 

[R1]

Re: What to do with the retired space shuttles

I like that idea of attaching them to the space station, or 'parking' them even higher, perhaps.
Couldn't we still learn more from them and about them by leaving them in orbit for a decade or two ?

How about bringing the Hubble back to earth to learn about it and rebuild it ?

 

[R1]

Re: What to do with the Shuttle

I agree. Maybe people here can think of better alternatives first and then write the U.S. government
to change their minds like they did about saving the Hubble years ago.

(There is another thread about this, but don't worry, they will merge them together.)

 

[pyoko]

Re: What to do with the retired space shuttles

My guess is that maintenance cost of keeping shuttles for extra space at the ISS would be more expensive, and more risky, than hauling something specifically designed for that purpose.

 

[Polishguy]

Re: What to do with the Shuttle

I agree. Maybe people here can think of better alternatives first and then write the U.S. government
to change their minds like they did about saving the Hubble years ago.

(There is another thread about this, but don't worry, they will merge them together.)

Yeah, I got a message about that other thread. I didn't even realize there was another thread until then.

Anyway, here's an idea I've been working on: Configure Enterprise, Pathfinder, Atlantis, and Discovery as Shuttle-C. Use them to send hydrogen/oxygen propellant into earth orbit. Then, take the old ISS Habitation Module (Still in a factory, being used for life support experiments) and launch it up there in Endeavour. Dock it to the fuel, and launch it off to Mars with a small crew. They will meet up on the Martian surface with about 60 tonnes of supplies, launched by Saturn V rockets (why not? While we're taking things out of storage...) and establish an outpost on the surface. Thing is, I'm not sure how much modification Endeavour would need to use the Martian atmosphere for landing.

Sure, it sounds crazy, but it's better than leaving them in a museum. Besides, this Mars program will likely be cheaper than developing a Project Constellation Mars Mission.

 

[Fallingstar1971]

Re: What to do with the retired space shuttles

Well, keeping one docked with ISS is not a bad idea. It would make a good escape ship with more options to save more things........



However.......

Are you going to train every astronaut on how to fly the shuttle when only ONE exists? Any one of them could be on ISS and any one of them may be called upon to fly. The exception would be to use the same user interface on Orion. If they refit one shuttle with Orions flight interface than they could make the two systems similar enough so that if you can fly one, you can fly both. You could also pre-program an auto re-entry route, but that would severely limit your options once disembarked from the station. (What if you have to dodge debri? Now you have to switch to manual. "Does anyone on board know how to fly a shuttle?")

The shuttle also uses ceramic tiles and carbon composites. Some areas of the shuttle are quite vulnerable, as history has taught us. And escape vehicle that blows apart during re-entry isnt a very good life saver.'

Star

 

[SpaceKiwi]

Re: What to do with the retired space shuttles

Well, keeping one docked with ISS is not a bad idea. It would make a good escape ship with more options to save more things........

Star

Actually, "flying" the Orbiter would be the least of your problems with this plan. The Orbiter is fully automated/remote-controllable currently and needs no on-board human intervention to land, save for the deploying the 'chute on touchdown. Were you to leave an Orbiter at the ISS, they could easily automate that function as well.

However, leaving an Orbiter at ISS is not an option for a number of reasons. For one, the vehicle is not sufficiently shielded for long-duration flight. The TPS would be particularly vunerable to debris strikes, though I'm sure there are numerous weak points around the vehicle. The longer you are parked at station, the greater your probability of a catastrophic strike.

Even more importantly is the state of your consumables to power the fuel cells and APU's. The Orbiter only has a finite supply of hydrogen/oxygen/hydrazine to generate electrical power and power hydraulics to keep the vehicle healthy. The Orbiter can be fitted with an Extended Duration Orbiter (EDO) pallet which contains extra hydrogen and oxygen but this only extends mission duration in the order of days, and certainly not the weeks/months/years you might desire. Once you can no longer power the vehicle, it succumbs to the harsh environment of space (heat/cold) and would then be nothing more than a fancy piece of space junk.



SK

 

[silylene]

Re: What to do with the retired space shuttles

Methinks there was a lot of rum in this year's batch of Christmas eggnog.

 

[Polishguy]

Re: What to do with the retired space shuttles

Methinks there was a lot of rum in this year's batch of Christmas eggnog.

How so? Do you think it's crazy to say that multi-billion dollar spacecraft should be used?

 

[EarthlingX]

Re: What to do with the Shuttle

I agree. Maybe people here can think of better alternatives first and then write the U.S. government
to change their minds like they did about saving the Hubble years ago.

(There is another thread about this, but don't worry, they will merge them together.)

Yeah, I got a message about that other thread. I didn't even realize there was another thread until then.

Anyway, here's an idea I've been working on: Configure Enterprise, Pathfinder, Atlantis, and Discovery as Shuttle-C. Use them to send hydrogen/oxygen propellant into earth orbit. Then, take the old ISS Habitation Module (Still in a factory, being used for life support experiments) and launch it up there in Endeavour. Dock it to the fuel, and launch it off to Mars with a small crew. They will meet up on the Martian surface with about 60 tonnes of supplies, launched by Saturn V rockets (why not? While we're taking things out of storage...) and establish an outpost on the surface. Thing is, I'm not sure how much modification Endeavour would need to use the Martian atmosphere for landing.

Sure, it sounds crazy, but it's better than leaving them in a museum. Besides, this Mars program will likely be cheaper than developing a Project Constellation Mars Mission.

You have some points, it just that shuttle, as it is, can't do that. It's batteries will not last, not enough radiation protection, and i would guess, too thin atmosphere on Mars to land.
You probably know, that many parts of the orbiter get changed after each flight, like engines, which i think go to refurbishing. Program has many such parts still on the stock and under one of proposed options, those might be used in a heavy launcher, so it is as close to what you say in the limits of possible.

Habitation module is not the only module planned for the ISS that is still on the ground with no schedule to launch, but you know the story about money ?

 

[neilsox]

Re: What to do with the retired space shuttles

I think I agree, the shuttle is not very suitable to collect space junk. Fastened to the ISS might be a better idea. I think the ISS needs all it's docking rings for use or emergency back up. Installing extra docking rings for space shuttles that may never leave the ISS would be more costly than we might suppose. I say never leave as the shuttles would be unsafe a few weeks after they docked at the ISS without the very costly maintenance that they get at Cape Canaveral. If we refueled the space shuttles while attached to the ISS, that would be a significant hazard to the ISS. Delivering the fuel would also be very costly. Also the crew of the ISS typically is not trained to operate the shuttle, but I suppose some of them could be trained to be operators in an emergency. I can imagine several emergencies which a refueled shuttle might handle at high risk to the pinch hit shuttle crew. Neil

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: What to do with the retired space shuttles

Sorry SpaceKiwi (great to see you back, BTW!), apparently nobody read your post.

 

[Polishguy]

Re: What to do with the Shuttle

I agree. Maybe people here can think of better alternatives first and then write the U.S. government
to change their minds like they did about saving the Hubble years ago.

(There is another thread about this, but don't worry, they will merge them together.)

Yeah, I got a message about that other thread. I didn't even realize there was another thread until then.

Anyway, here's an idea I've been working on: Configure Enterprise, Pathfinder, Atlantis, and Discovery as Shuttle-C. Use them to send hydrogen/oxygen propellant into earth orbit. Then, take the old ISS Habitation Module (Still in a factory, being used for life support experiments) and launch it up there in Endeavour. Dock it to the fuel, and launch it off to Mars with a small crew. They will meet up on the Martian surface with about 60 tonnes of supplies, launched by Saturn V rockets (why not? While we're taking things out of storage...) and establish an outpost on the surface. Thing is, I'm not sure how much modification Endeavour would need to use the Martian atmosphere for landing.

Sure, it sounds crazy, but it's better than leaving them in a museum. Besides, this Mars program will likely be cheaper than developing a Project Constellation Mars Mission.

You have some points, it just that shuttle, as it is, can't do that. It's batteries will not last, not enough radiation protection, and i would guess, too thin atmosphere on Mars to land.
You probably know, that many parts of the orbiter get changed after each flight, like engines, which i think go to refurbishing. Program has many such parts still on the stock and under one of proposed options, those might be used in a heavy launcher, so it is as close to what you say in the limits of possible.

Habitation module is not the only module planned for the ISS that is still on the ground with no schedule to launch, but you know the story about money ?

To this I respond, the shuttle can be converted. Batteries can be swapped out for a nuclear reactor (TOPAZ seems sufficient). The atmosphere problem rendering its aerodynamics useless, well, just cut the heavy wings and tail off, and place a folding aeroshell under it, a circular one. Then, land with parachutes. Radiation protection is one of the easier solutions. Cosmic rays are difficult to shield against anyway, but why not surround the Hab module with your consumables and water? Should do something. Solar flare protection can be provided by configuring the lower deck of the Orbiter into a storm shelter.

Sure, it's a challenge, but so was Apollo.

Anyway, the Shuttle-C is still the most plausible, I agree. And yes, I remember the other ISS modules. Centrifuge Accommodations Module is one of those that, in my opinion, should be sent up there.

 

[silylene]

Re: What to do with the retired space shuttles

Methinks there was a lot of rum in this year's batch of Christmas eggnog.

How so? Do you think it's crazy to say that multi-billion dollar spacecraft should be used?

Yes, absolutely nutty.

The space shuttle costs ~ $1.5B / launch. They are old, complex and at the end of their safe operational lifetimes. The launch system is unreliable. They are unstuited for cleaning space trash due to the high cost, the impracticality of meeting eace piece of orbital garbage would require too much fuel and unnecessarily risk the astronauts lives (about a 1/80 chance of shuttle loss per launch). They can't be 'parked' at the ISS, as their batteries are only good for about 3 weeks.

I think following completion of their planned missions, they would make great museum pieces, and perhaps better, at least one should be devoted to going on a traveling tour of US cities. As such, a well done traveling exhibit should educate and interest the next generation of children in the excitement and potential of space travel.

 

[Polishguy]

Re: What to do with the retired space shuttles

Methinks there was a lot of rum in this year's batch of Christmas eggnog.

How so? Do you think it's crazy to say that multi-billion dollar spacecraft should be used?

Yes, absolutely nutty.

The space shuttle costs ~ $1.5B / launch. They are old, complex and at the end of their safe operational lifetimes. The launch system is unreliable. They are unstuited for cleaning space trash due to the high cost, the impracticality of meeting eace piece of orbital garbage would require too much fuel and unnecessarily risk the astronauts lives (about a 1/80 chance of shuttle loss per launch). They can't be 'parked' at the ISS, as their batteries are only good for about 3 weeks.

I think following completion of their planned missions, they would make great museum pieces, and perhaps better, at least one should be devoted to going on a traveling tour of US cities. As such, a well done traveling exhibit should educate and interest the next generation of children in the excitement and potential of space travel.

Who's to say they have to remain with their batteries? A nuclear reactor (TOPAZ) can run for 5 years and provide 5 kilowatts of power.

And if you want a museum exhibit, build one out of wood and steel. Don't waste perfectly good high-grade aluminum.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: What to do with the Shuttle

That's the problem. It's not perfectly good anymore. Each craft has 1 or two missions left. That is it. After the 5 remaining missions are done, there are no more External Tanks, no more shuttle SRB's, no more personnel to refurbish the craft, no more funding for maintainence or launches, etc, etc, etc.

 

[SpaceForAReason]

Re: What to do with the Shuttle

I suggest doing exactly as they plan with one slight change. Keep one for engineers to tear apart and study to see if the design really held up as good as we think.

First, it does not make sense to keep them in service in any way. The just cost too darned much! We need cheaper vehicles. They have performed their service well and it is time to say good bye.

Second, a full autopsy of one of them would be valuable for future space craft designs.

We need to make a clean break to the next technology and not waste time or money on the old stuff.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: What to do with the Shuttle

That's a great idea. A post mortem would likely be extremely valuable for future designs.

 

[Polishguy]

Re: What to do with the Shuttle

That's a great idea. A post mortem would likely be extremely valuable for future designs.

I'm sorry, I can't tell whether that's sarcastic or not.

I stand by the view that the best use for the Orbiters would be to rip the wings and flight deck off, and use them as unmanned cargo launchers. You can put the elements you're not using (flight deck) on display, and perform a post mortem on the wings.

 

[EarthlingX]

Re: What to do with the Shuttle

There's a lot of older tech in Shuttle, some rather dated. With all of the changes you are talking about, it is not a Shuttle anymore, in the same way as Orion is not a Crew Return Vehicle.
During the Shuttle era, a lot has been learned and many things learned implemented in new designs, like RS-
68.
You are not the only one saddened with the parting of this wonder of era, but this old horse has to go to history and make room for new things. It's destiny was fixed when they stopped production of spare parts.
Keeping it would kill new programs, and that is not what we want, right ?
I just wish there was a Shuttle 2.0 on the drawing board, but maybe something even better will come out in a couple of years from some of the programs we discuss on this forum, either NASA, Air Force, or private.
Even ESA woke up a bit, not too impressive though, but at least something.

 

[rhapsodyinspace2]

Re: What to do with the Shuttle

Well if I had it my way we would take one shuttle and refurbish it using the remaining 2 shuttles and fly it once or twice a year or keep it in mothballs till it is needed again. But that is not practical with the way NASAs budget has been the last 10 years or so. I also think it would be a good idea to do as SpaceForAReason said and see how it held up and use that info for the next space vehicle down the road!

Maybe even sell the schematics to a private company and see what they could do with it?