"Rich Godwin" wrote:

:
:Chris Bennetts wrote:
: Rich Godwin wrote:
:
: Yeah I'm sure, but not that difficult.
:
: Things that immediately come to mind:
:
: - The shuttle cabin is pretty leaky. It's good enough for a few weeks,
: but you need something better for long duration mission. Yes, this alone
: would be "that difficult".
:
:Keep filling it whenever needed.

And where does the stuff to 'fill it whenever needed' come from? Magic
matter creators?

: - Refueling the OMS and RCS would be tricky: they run on MMH and N2O4,
: hardly the nicest substances to deal with. Fuelling via EVA or via fixed
: pipelines on the station each have their own problems.
:
:I know what hypergolics are like. What if we changed the systems to
:ambient compressed oxygen & Methane. the ISP is still reasonable and
:you could keep them charged more easily and with less degradation of
:the system. I realize that you have a criticality ignition failure, so
:compress the gases and blow them over an ignition "reed" so that they
:ignite on contact.

Gee, refueling hypergolics on orbit with systems not designed to be
refueled might be risky, so in addition to pasting on the refueling
capability let's change out the OMS while we're at it to use different
engines with different fuel.

Hey, I've got an idea. Now that we have new engines, let's throw the
rest of the vehicle away and put them in something useful!

: - You'd need a way to power the shuttle when it is not docked at the
: station. The fuel cells can't do this, so you probably need plenty of
: batteries.
:
:What about solar cells?

What about them? More redesign of both the Shuttle and the power
systems.

: - The shuttle's cooling system would need to be changed over to
: something better suited to long duration use.
:
: - Money.
:
:Look at how much money we are going to spend on far less capable
:machines in the future.

That's really quite funny. If you were making the decisions, airlines
would be buying a hundred Wright Flyers roped together to make one big
airplane in order to implement passenger service.

: Each of these is a showstopper. There are many others.
:
: I bet if you gave them to the Russians to fix up, it wouldn't take 6
: months. What's the big deal. Making the RCS refuellable? You telling
: me that's not possible without having to put in place a $3B paper
: exercise?
:
: Three billion is a low-end figure.
:
:Only if you go to BoeLockNor for the work.

You propose magic pixies, instead?

: We refuel aircraft in flight hundreds of times week, you telling me
: it's not possible in space?
:
: No. Hell, the space station gets refuelled from Progresses (and soon
: ATVs) several times a year. But the space shuttle wasn't designed for
: it, and adapting the shuttle for refuelling is a tricky problem that's
: just not worth the cost.
:
epends what you mean by what's worth it!

Cost vs benefits. This calculation isn't rocket science (which is a
good thing, because rocket science appears to be well beyond you).

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn