What's the ultimate fate of the Orbiters and completed ISS?

[llivinglarge]

What is to become of them?

 

[nacnud]

Well the ISS will end up in the sea and the orbiters in museums.<br /><br />Though I hope the ISS won't need to get wet for a good long time yet.

 

[llivinglarge]

In one piece like MIR?

 

[nacnud]

I guess so, it'll sure make a big splash.

 

[jschaef5]

They could always Ebay it... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[baktothemoon]

Or they could canibalize it so that it would not be a complete waste of 100 billion. It's extremley wasteful and pointless to have everything just fall into the sea even if it was junk. That is the main reason why the iss is a pointless project. We invest over a decade in building it to operate it for several years and then let it burn up. I would rip off things like the solar panels and the experimental centerfuge exercise bike that is going up later to study microgravity and put them on a CEV going to mars or maybe send them to the moon or a commercial space station. As for the shuttle, it will end up being on display like Russia's Buran shuttle.

 

[willpittenger]

It would be better to put small explosives in key places. That would help it burn up. I would have them go off in the atmosphere when the modules are most likely to break up anyway. That minimizes the explosives that would have to be handled by astronauts. <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>

 

[llivinglarge]

What about the Shuttle Orbiters... What does NASA have planned for them once retired?

 

[jamie_young]

I hope they are giving pride of place and preserved for as long as possible. For all their faults, they are wonderful machines that have inspired millions to take an interest in space missions. They are true heros and as Robinson said after STS-114, as much as a man can love a machine, I love that bird.

 

[baktothemoon]

They sure inspired me, I obsess over nasa and the shuttle was a great thing and they undoubtably will be preserved just like Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo were. They were great machines but we pushed their life too far and I would have loved to see a descendant of them flying now, better than the first from having learned from the first what is good and what can be made better. I respect the shuttle for what it is and how it was the first of it's kind. Most of all, from the ashes of Columbia we have a new vision to go farther than ever before. That might be the good that came from Columbia: it gave us the motovation to go back to the moon. For all that the shuttle did, it should be remembered. <br /><br />"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." John F. Kennedy

 

[ace5]

shuttles should be put on museums and maybe one of them opened to public visitation, with all panels, floor and ceiling protected by glass sheets so the people could enter it or just see its interior.<br />Some security measures should be taken to prevent pieces of it from being taken by some "enthusiastic" visitors...

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand time, putting Orbiters in a museum is a huge waste of an increadible spacecraft. These things need to be put in deep preservation for use later on when their unique capability is needed because nothing else will possibly work. Sure it would take years to de-preserve them for flight, but it normally takes years to plan a flight, anyway. I can't imagine that the cost of preserving the orbiters would be all that expensive.<br /><br />But in reality, I bet politics is going to show it's ugly head, and they will really "kill" the Shuttle program, not just mothball it, just like the F-14 program got "killed" to ensure funding for the F-18E/F. The bottom line is that the F-18 E/F is a great airplane, but we gave up a lot of capability that the F-14 could uniquely do. The CEV is going to be a remarkable spacecraft, but it woun't be able do many of the things that the Orbiter can do.<br /><br />We are going to want to use them again. Both F-14's and Orbiters. Although I hope I'm wrong about the F-14's. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jschaef5]

Cost to keep preserved + cost to completely repair them + cost to bring them back + cost to maintain them after not having used them for decades =(greater than or less than)= cost to stick in muesum + rebuild a newer version that will fit our needs better (if need be)<br /><br /><br />I would guess greater than... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nacnud]

Apart from the long range, what is so great about the F-14? Is the range not re-aquireable through refueling the F-18s?<br /><br />I'd like to see the STS continuing as well, even if it was only one flight a year and then used to bring things back down to see why they broke. The ISS could really do with that capacity. I was hoping the ballute would come on line alowing for atleast some down mass.<br /><br />Still, it's the moon or the STS, I don't think the STS stood a chance.<br />

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

jsc-<br />I think that the cost to develop something "Orbiter like" would be huge based solely on how much I see everything else that in newly developed in the aerospace industry. I've got no real figures to back that up, just a gut feeling. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jschaef5]

With the current way NASA works and with the government and large companies I would agree with you but after seeing how inexpensive all these small private companys are making space travel, it seems like in maybe 15-20+ years we might be able to make something like the shuttle for cheaper.<br /><br />I guess we won't really know until we get to that point in time, and I am willing to bet the shuttle will be in a musuem then, and we may or may not need it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

nac-<br />Four Tomcats with a mix of AIM 54's and AIM 120's could repel nearly any conceivable air attack on the fleet from very far away without getting caught up in some kind of furball. The Hornets can't respond as quickly, nor do they have the ability to bring down the bad guys from far away. The "bad guys" being bombers, fighters, or cruise missiles. The Hornets would probably get wrapped up in a dog fight, and while they were engaged, some of the bad guys would slip past.<br /><br />I shouldn't have derail this thread, but I was just trying to make an example. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>Apart from the long range, what is so great about the F-14? Is the range not re-aquireable through refueling the F-18s?</i><br /><br />Well, the Tomcat is the only aircraft capable of using the Phoenix missile system. According to an F/A-18 pilot that I spoke to down in Lakehurst, NJ a couple of years ago, the AIM-54 is being phased out along with the F-14.<br /><br />As for the shuttle orbiters, I would certainly expect all of them to be put on display in museums protected from the elements. Also, while I love climbing into the Explorer mockup at KSC, I think the real orbiters might be too precious to subject to potential abuse from people walking all over them.<br /><br />Would the Smithsonian get one of them? Hard to say, since they already have Enterprise. Houston and KSC would be good bets. <br /><br />It seems that all the coolest pieces of technology are being retired with no replacement. It's depressing. The Concorde was inspiring. The 787 is boring. The shuttle is inspiring. The CEV capsule is anything but. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" />

 

[nacnud]

I thought that was what Aegis was for... and the AIM-54 was for the slow moving bear type bomber, I'm not sure how good it would be against smaller faster targets.<br /><br />Sorry for the off-topicness, Admin can we have an aviation forum please?

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

If we put it in a museum, it's pretty much a given that we will never "need" it again, and we will miss out because using it's unique capabilities won't be possible, so it won't be an option. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

nac-<br />That's the big argument, about Orbiters or Tomcats, we've supposedly got something cheaper that can be augmented by something else to get by without the more expensive/capible thing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

News-<br />Sure it would be expensive, but I think it would be cheaper than developing a whole new spacecraft with the Orbiter's capabilities. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[erioladastra]

"Or they could canibalize it so that it would not be a complete waste of 100 billion. "<br /><br />I am sure this will be done to the extent practical. Keep in mind, that bringing stuf done gets expensive quickly. But also keep in mind that stuff won't be as valuable as you think. Most hardware will have been specific for ISS or rather old by then. Some stuff will be beyond their life. Consumables and small items will probably be used or returned. After that it really isn't worth it. Stuff that can be refurbished - may or may not be worth it since things like EVAs, training etc add up quickly besides increasing risk.

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

News-<br />If we do develop something that has the Orbiters capability as an orbital workhorse, then I'm all for it. The three things that Orbiter does really well is lift big payloads, horse those payloads around, and bring those payloads back. There are better/cheaper ways to lift big payloads with the unmanned SSDV, which I'm a really big fan of. We could build a really powerful service module that has plenty of Delta V to change orbits when needed. About the only thing that the Orbiter is going to be real tough to replace doing is in it's return capability.<br /><br />*EDIT*<br />Edit for speeling <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nacnud]

If only someone would invest in the balute idea, imaging getting the SMs of Souys, Progress, CEV back each time, stuff from the ISS etc...