Retire Shuttle on orbit.

I get the impression that those in this group think Space Cowboys was a
documentry.

Du wrote:
I get the impression that those in this group think Space Cowboys was a
documentry.

Sounds more like 'Lifeforce' to me: let's stick an ion engine on the
shuttle and send it to Halley's Comet!

Mark

The one thing that's fortunate is that the people who run the space
program today are not the same people who ran it 40 years ago.
Otherwise we'd probably all be speaking Russian now.

T C MCKEAN wrote:
"Rich Godwin" wrote in message
ups.com...
I've had this nagging idea at the back of my head for some time. (no
it's not a tick)
When NASA is finally finished with the Shuttle fleet (if it ever is)
why is it not possible to retire the fleet ON ORBIT instead of in a
museum?
As long as we could refuel the RCS and OMS system regularly we'd have
not only a safe haven for ISS, but also three highly capable vehicles
that are not going to be matched in space in our lifetimes.
I realize that there are problems, not the least of which is NASA's
McDonalds style of business-throw it away after use.
Recharge the RCS & OMS on orbit when necessary
Park it reasonably close to ISS
For power recharge the fuel cells OR place solar panels all over the
thing.

They wouldn't have to come back again, so they'd be relatively safe and
then you'd have what it was always supposed to be...a space truck!

This sounds like a great idea. They could be used for emergency habitation,
emergency evacuation and landing, extra laboratory space, assembly area for
space based objects, storage of suplies, transfer stations for payloads
going further out in space, vehicle to use to supply any luner base, and a
miriad of other purposes including harvesting (stripping it) of the raw
materials for other purposes. Land them on the moon full of suplies for
future missions.
We spend Billions getting these things up and then send them into mothballs
or worse here on earth. Leave them in space so in the future we do not have
to spend billions more sending reasorces up.

Rich Godwin wrote:
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
"Rich Godwin" wrote in news:1163809200.091516.297270
@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:

I've had this nagging idea at the back of my head for some time. (no
it's not a tick)
When NASA is finally finished with the Shuttle fleet (if it ever is)
why is it not possible to retire the fleet ON ORBIT instead of in a
museum?
As long as we could refuel the RCS and OMS system regularly

The OMS and RCS cannot be refueled in orbit.
So make it so, how difficult can that be? We built the thing in the
first place.

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.
What about the short term?

I realize that there are problems, not the least of which is NASA's
McDonalds style of business-throw it away after use.

Horse****.
What do Horses have to do with it? Tell me one thing that NASA does
that is reusable? Please don't say the SRB's! The only reusable
hardware that NASA utilizes is astronauts.

And contractors.

Eric



Recharge the RCS & OMS on orbit when necessary

See above.

Park it reasonably close to ISS

And keep it at that distance... how?
With a rechargeable OMS (oh I forgot that's impossible for today's
engineers, Guess we need more Nazi's in the program;)

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

Laugh.
No wonder Rutan calls in NaySay
Roll on the day for private enterprise on orbit. Not too much longer I
hasten to guess.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

"Rich Godwin" wrote:

The one thing that's fortunate is that the people who run the space
program today are not the same people who ran it 40 years ago.
Otherwise we'd probably all be speaking Russian now.

The best thing about the "smart NASA then, dumb NASA now" theory is
that it forestalls any need to think about the real history and the
real differences between then and now.

The next best thing is that as the believer ages, it provides a smooth
transition from hard thinking about present and future space activity
to a comfy, geezerly focus on how great it was back in the day.

Monte Davis
http://montedavis.livejournal.com

Monte Davis wrote:
"Rich Godwin" wrote:

The one thing that's fortunate is that the people who run the space
program today are not the same people who ran it 40 years ago.
Otherwise we'd probably all be speaking Russian now.

The best thing about the "smart NASA then, dumb NASA now" theory is
that it forestalls any need to think about the real history and the
real differences between then and now.

The next best thing is that as the believer ages, it provides a smooth
transition from hard thinking about present and future space activity
to a comfy, geezerly focus on how great it was back in the day.



I hereby embrace the term "geezerly" and will add it to my spellcheck
dictionary forthwith.

--
It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

"Being an Auburn fan explains a lot about what is wrong with you,
Unclaimed ... You didn't chose to address any of my post except this
last little piece where I ridiculing you for being an idiot." - "Altie"
on rec.sport.football.college, 2006

Gunny Highway saves the world from an old Soviet FOBS system, with the help
of Jim Rockford

"Du" wrote in message news:2y_7h.1163$w37.42@trnddc08...
I get the impression that those in this group think Space Cowboys was a
documentry.

Joseph S. Powell, III wrote:

Gunny Highway saves the world from an old Soviet FOBS system, with the help
of Jim Rockford

Strange Soviet FOBs that is in a 1000 mile high orbit, yet is in danger
of decaying in a matter of days.
Solar activity must have _really_ been high that year.

Pat

Monte Davis wrote:
"Rich Godwin" wrote:

The one thing that's fortunate is that the people who run the space
program today are not the same people who ran it 40 years ago.
Otherwise we'd probably all be speaking Russian now.

The best thing about the "smart NASA then, dumb NASA now" theory is
that it forestalls any need to think about the real history and the
real differences between then and now.

The next best thing is that as the believer ages, it provides a smooth
transition from hard thinking about present and future space activity
to a comfy, geezerly focus on how great it was back in the day.

Monte Davis
http://montedavis.livejournal.com

I agree that it is a propensity of the older to look back in anguish
about how great things were when they were young. If you look at the
60's though you'll see that the US built three different manned space
craft systems, flew them, learned how to rendezvous and dock, how to
fly to the moon, navigate that trip, land on the moon, perform EVA,
develop the launch systems, computer systems etc etc to do all of that.
In 10 years we did all of that.
What have we done since?
OK we've learned how to assemble a station on orbit with a lot of help
from our Russian compatriots. I suppose the shuttle counts for
something, but I think that system was also designed by the old NASA
not the new NASA.

Rich Godwin wrote:
I've had this nagging idea at the back of my head for some time. (no
it's not a tick)
When NASA is finally finished with the Shuttle fleet (if it ever is)
why is it not possible to retire the fleet ON ORBIT instead of in a
museum?
As long as we could refuel the RCS and OMS system regularly we'd have
not only a safe haven for ISS, but also three highly capable vehicles
that are not going to be matched in space in our lifetimes.
I realize that there are problems, not the least of which is NASA's
McDonalds style of business-throw it away after use.
Recharge the RCS & OMS on orbit when necessary
Park it reasonably close to ISS
For power recharge the fuel cells OR place solar panels all over the
thing.

They wouldn't have to come back again, so they'd be relatively safe and
then you'd have what it was always supposed to be...a space truck!

How about selling them to the Chinese?

The Chines could cut the launch costs, and not worry too much about
safety. The remaining 3 orbiters could probably be used for another 100
flights unitl all thee have had accidents and blown up.