Leaving the shuttle in orbit

I was wondering if the shuttle could be left in orbit for an extended
period of time. Also, could the required American ISS modules be
launched by "alternative" (say commercial ... or just generally cheaper
than a shuttle launch) rockets or is the mass requirement too high?
(Maybe split what was a single launch into more than one, by removing
internal components that can be fitted at a later date.)

If yes, this would allow the commercial launch to put the ISS
components into orbits near the ISS and have the shuttle ferry them to
the ISS. This allows the ISS component to be launched by a system that
doesn't need to be capable of docking with the ISS (or doing precision
maneuvering). Obviously, some of those launches would need to carry
addition fuel for the shuttle, or water + a system for manufacturing
the rocket fuel. Basically, you get the maneuverability and overall
utility of the shuttle in orbit while at the same time getting the
launch costs of an alternative system.

There is also the fact that insurance companies are more likely to
insure a launch if it is only going to put a component within say 10km
of the ISS rather than having to do the docking and pay for any damage
caused.

wrote:
I was wondering if the shuttle could be left in orbit for an extended
period of time. Also, could the required American ISS modules be
launched by "alternative" (say commercial ... or just generally cheaper
than a shuttle launch) rockets or is the mass requirement too high?
(Maybe split what was a single launch into more than one, by removing
internal components that can be fitted at a later date.)



No, even with the extended package, its consumables would be expended
in less than a month.

The thing leaks like a sieve. Very high rate of atmosphere loss.

Nor are the ISS modules something that can be built out in orbit.
Most of the compenents designed are larger than any entry into ISS.

If yes, this would allow the commercial launch to put the ISS
components into orbits near the ISS and have the shuttle ferry them to
the ISS. This allows the ISS component to be launched by a system that
doesn't need to be capable of docking with the ISS (or doing precision
maneuvering). Obviously, some of those launches would need to carry
addition fuel for the shuttle, or water + a system for manufacturing
the rocket fuel. Basically, you get the maneuverability and overall
utility of the shuttle in orbit while at the same time getting the
launch costs of an alternative system.

The RCS system is not something that can be refilled in orbit.

It would be a lot more cost effective to design a small tug from
scratch.


There is also the fact that insurance companies are more likely to
insure a launch if it is only going to put a component within say 10km
of the ISS rather than having to do the docking and pay for any damage
caused.