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

[josh_simonson]

What's so big and important that we need to spend billions keeping the shuttle on standby to return it from orbit?<br /><br />The engineers know what down-mass/volume capability they have and will design experiments appropriately so they can be returned. Pre-ISS there were some experiments where large sample racks were deployed and retrieved on a later flight, but now ISS has the ability to do the same job and return just the samples in a compact form while leaving all the structure, avionics, propulsion, communication and power systems in space.

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

Josh-<br /><font color="yellow">What's so big and important that we need to spend billions keeping the shuttle on standby to return it from orbit?</font><br /><br />First off, I didn't imply that the Orbiters would be kept on "stand-by", but in long term preservation. Maybe I wasn't clear.<br /><br />Secondly, if all our space program is going to do is run small experiments, then you are right, we don't need anything big, but I think that is very lame, but that seems to be the way of the world these days........Lameness, a lack of ambition, fear of risk, general wussiness. It sort of reminds me of <i>ATLAS SHRUGGED</i> by Ayn Rand.<br /><br />If we are never going to construct anything big in orbit, if we are never going to return anything bigger than a breadbasket, then we don't need anything Orbiter like.......and what a shamefull waste that the Human race would have de-evolved into. I'll be damned if I let that happen without a fight.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

>First off, I didn't imply that the Orbiters would be kept on "stand-by", but in long term preservation. Maybe I wasn't clear. <br /><br />SRBs can't be stored indefinitely, thiokal would have to retain the tooling to manufacture shuttle spec SRBs. Other parts also age (rubber due to oxidation, ect) so to maintain the orbiter in flight-worthy condition it would need regular maintenence. The pads and assembly buildings would be required to handle STS as well as Aries 1 and V. People would need to receive training so that they know how to service and launch the shuttle. There are a good many things that would be required to have the ability to put up a shuttle in a reasonable timeframe, and they will consume lots of funding every year. All this stuff would be 'stand-by' operations. You can't just put the shuttle in a hangar and stop making parts and training people and expect to be able to use the thing again.<br /><br /> />Secondly, if all our space program is going to do is run small experiments, then you are right, we don't need anything big, but I think that is very lame, but that seems to be the way of the world these days........Lameness, a lack of ambition, fear of risk, general wussiness. It sort of reminds me of ATLAS SHRUGGED by Ayn Rand. <br /><br />Limiting down-mass doesn't limit the experiments that can be done by much. The whole purpose of the ISS is that experiments can be done and analized in space, rather than ferrying stuff back and forth. You never answered the question of what would have to come down in the unpressurized STS cargo bay to justify the expense.

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

News,<br />So far I've been lucky, but at my last airline they had a 727 loaded completely the worst way, from heaviest forward to lightest aft and they were taking off somewhere in India, going to the UAE. The story I heard was that the new First Officer was doing the take-off and the Captain says "V1 rotate"....and the FO starts to rotate, and nothing happens except the end of the runway is getting closer and closer. The Captain says "My Plane", jams the power levers all the way forward and he sets the trim to max nose up.<br /><br />The bird made it off the runway just over the lights, and stayed in the air enough for them to land. You gotta love the three holer. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

Josh-<br /><br />The SRB's are going to be the easy part, the SSDV is going to keep using them.<br /><br />As far as a team of engineers in 20 years new to the Shuttle not being able to depreserve one and getting it spaceworthy again, I think you underestimate the skill and smarts of motivated people. Nothing about the Orbiters is magic. When a machine like that is put in long term preservation it's not just towed into a hanger, and the lights turned off. They are taken apart, and every piece bagged, tagged, and cataloged. It's as much as an administrative action as a mechanical one. I've heard stories that we couldn't start building Saturns again, not because the tooling was destryed, but because the "know-how" has been lost. I think that is a giant load of organic compost, there is no doubt in my mind that a decent team of engineers could get the Saturns back into production, with the same level of performance and reliablity that the Saturns had 40 years ago.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Limiting down-mass doesn't limit the experiments that can be done by much. The whole purpose of the ISS is that experiments can be done and analized in space, rather than ferrying stuff back and forth. You never answered the question of what would have to come down in the unpressurized STS cargo bay to justify the expense.</font><br /><br />My goal for the space program isn't limited to endless experimentation. I'm a space exploitation kind of guy. Right now our program is too wimpy to require a large payload bay, just like the airline passenger market to Des Moins, Iowa doesn't justify runing a 747 in there every hour. However, I refuse to believe that our Space Progam will always be to wimpy to require bringing back something bigger than a breadbox, and when that day comes, we are going to be thankfu that we kept the only hardware ever built that can do it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

>> "What's the ultimate fate of the Orbiters and completed ISS"<br /><br />Proton decay.

 

[CalliArcale]

I think the real sticking-point for reviving a cancelled launch vehicle program would be the startup cost balanced against how much you could spend to get a better vehicle, taking advantage of industry advances that have occured in the meantime. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Proton decay.</font>/i><br /><br />That is long-term thinking.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">First off, I didn't imply that the Orbiters would be kept on "stand-by", but in long term preservation.</font>/i><br /><br />Are you going to put all those trained personnel needed to launch a shuttle in long-term preservation too <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />. shuttle_guy, are you ready for your carbonite treatment?</i>

 

[edkyle98]

One of the orbiters will almost certainly end up at the new Smithsonian Air and Space exhibit at Dulles, next to (or in place of) Enterprise. I would suspect that the Smithsonian would want Discovery, the oldest remaining orbiter. There will probably be a call to keep one of the orbiters at KSC, to help prop up declining attendence at the Visitors Center. The remaining orbiter (assuming three survive) might end up in Huntsville or at the USAF Museum in Ohio (they have plenty of available interior display space) or in Houston. Since it will not be cheap to build a display building for a space shutte (they'll rapidly decay if displayed outdoors for any length of time), an orbiter could conceivably end up in China or Japan or Europe.<br /><br />ISS will have to be deorbited eventually, Mir-like.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

Calli-<br />I agree, about the money, but but also in speed. How many years do you think it would take to design, build, and launch a brand new Orbiter-like spacecraft? I'll bet dollars to pesos that it would take more than a decade. It wouldn't need to take a decade if there was enough will to make it a priority, we could probably do it in three years, and if that's the case, I'm all for "Shuttle II" or whatever it would be. I just don't think we'd have that much pulling power from congress, and because of that I bet that it's a better option to preserve what we actually have rather than wait and wish for a change of political climate.<br /><br />However, I bet a person like Sir Richard Branson could do it (Shuttle II), and make it work. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> I've got more faith in him, and people, like him than I do in any governement. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

Radar-<br />That's what the "book" is for. A whole new team would take about as much time to train as it would be to de-pres the vehicles, I'm sure a big part of it would be a learn as we go thing, but we'd have a much bigger and better knowledge base in 2021 about Shuttle operations than we did in 1981. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[danwoodard]

Considering how hard we tried to save Skylab, we'd be foolish to let ISS re-enter. If the US withdraws support I assume the International Partners would be free to take over. Russia can control and reboost the ISS without US help. Possibly China would join the program with additional funding. Considering the international agreements, the US could certainly not unilaterally order the ISS deorbited.

 

[edkyle98]

>>One of the orbiters will almost certainly end up at the new Smithsonian Air and Space exhibit at Dulles"<br /><br /> />I would think they woul reside at KSC, JSC and MSFC as the Saturn Fives do.<br /><br />That could happen, but the Smithsonian now has the Udvar-Hazy Center available, which it did not have when the Saturns were mothballed. (The Smithsonian is technically the "owner" of the Saturn 5 displays). <br />"http://www.nasm.si.edu/imagedetail.cfm?imageID=386"<br /><br />With their epoxy-mounted tiles, the orbiters are going to have to be stored inside somewhere. No more "lawn darts"!<br /><br />It will be interesting to see if the Smithsonian also wants to save an external tank and SRB set.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>With their epoxy-mounted tiles, the orbiters are going to have to be stored inside somewhere.</i><br /><br />It's been a few years since I've been to KSC, but I seem to remember the Explorer mockup outside the visitor's center having fairly realistic looking tiles. Explorer looks a lot more like one of the operational orbiters than Enterprise does, quite frankly!

 

[edkyle98]

>>With their epoxy-mounted tiles, the orbiters are going to have to be stored inside somewhere. No more "lawn darts"! "<br /><br /> />All 3 Saturn Fives are in buildings now.<br /><br />Thankfully most of them are now inside, or at least soon will be, but only after 20-30 years outside.<br /><br />The Huntsville Saturn V is still sitting outside, in the process of being repainted, but it will be heading into a temporary shelter soon. A fund raising effort is underway to build a permanent structure to house the rocket. <br /><br />The JSC Saturn V has recently been moved into a shedlike structure to protect it from the elements and is being restored. The KSC Saturn V went inside during the mid 1990s after more than 20 years outside in the salty Florida air. The Michoud S-IC stage still sits outside and reportedly suffered some damage from Katrina. <br /><br />Meanwhile, all of the remaining Saturn I/IB vehicles remain outdoors, rusting away. The state of the very first SA-T booster is a real shame. (See photos at "http://www.geocities.com/launchreport/sa-t.html")<br /><br /> />Shuttle tiles are held on with RTV not epoxy. <br /><br />Thanks for that correction. I was never good <br />with adhesives!<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[erioladastra]

"The JSC Saturn V has recently been moved into a shedlike structure to protect it from the elements and is being restored. "<br /><br />Actually, it is just a temporary structure for the refurb. When done it will be removed. Money is still being raised for a permanent structure.

 

[llivinglarge]

How many prototype test articles were created?

 

[willpittenger]

Actaully, put your faith in Scaled Composites and Burt Rutan. Branson just provides financing. <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]

Can Russia control non-Russian components? What happens in the station's RMS breaks down? <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]

Pathfinder was a boilerplate model. I assume that means the mass, distribution of that mass, and aerodynamics represented the real thing. Other than that, I would not expect anything to represent the real thing. <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]

Isn't that the fate of some Russian boosters? <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>It will be interesting to see if the Smithsonian also wants to save an external tank and SRB set.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />A display with the full stack? That would be interesting, but how would you get it to Washington?<br /><br />BTW: Shuttle_Guy, does Enterprise's cockpit still have the ejection seats? I assume it was so equipped since Columbia was as built. I think someone should allow tours of the inside of realistic shuttle interior -- no special entrances cut into the side. Let visitors see the entire system up close. <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]

Mount the Shuttles on the 3 Shuttle Carrer Aircraft and have an airshow...

 

[llivinglarge]

Enterprise shouldn't be gutted... It should be made into a cross-section.<br /><br />*Whips out plasma cutter*