Brian Thorn wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 01:31:17 -0600, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

As long as we could refuel the RCS and OMS system regularly

The OMS and RCS cannot be refueled in orbit.

To be fair the idea is not ridiculous, with sufficient planning, if
you had a need for them in orbit. The OMS pods are removable, so it
shouldn't be that great a challenge to install modified versions that
could be refueled in orbit. A giant solar array was deployed from
Discovery 22 years ago, and the Shuttles are already being modfieid to
accept electrical power from ISS, so it shouldn't be an enormous chore
to add solar power to a permanently-in-orbit Shuttle.

we'd have not only a safe haven for ISS,

The cabin has too high a leak rate to be useful as a safe haven for ISS in
the long term.

The safe haven idea is silly, but the leak rate only hinders long-term
use of the Shuttle if it has no resupply capability. A resupply
capability could be added before launch.

Park it reasonably close to ISS

And keep it at that distance... how?

Keep it docked at ISS until needed. The extra mass actually improves
the ISS orbit decay rate, especially if we take the wings and tail off
the Orbiter before launch.

For power recharge the fuel cells OR place solar panels all over the
thing.

Laugh.

No need for solar cells all over the thing, STS-41D extended a 100 ft.
solar panel upward from the payload bay and STS-99 extended a mast 200
feet out one side of the payload bay, so a solar panel looks doable.
And the Shuttles could accept keep-alive power from ISS while not in
use, using the system already in development.

If NASA has to abandon Ares 1 and choose a DIRECT or Shuttle-C like
replacement, we'd be able to modify one of more of the Orbiters for
wingless, unmanned launch a few years after 2010, and the launch
facilities and team would still be available.

Brian

Now you're talking, a man who's glass is half full!