|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Retire Shuttle on orbit.
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! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Retire Shuttle on orbit.
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! Wouldn't they still require a lot of maintenance to remain spaceworthy? What would be the structural effects on them remaining in space for a long time? -- 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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Retire Shuttle on orbit.
On 17 Nov 2006 16:20:00 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Rich Godwin"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: 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. Short answer, it wasn't designed to be refurbed on orbit. Modifying it to do so would probably cost much more than simply building new space stations. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Retire Shuttle on orbit.
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 00:35:12 GMT, in a place far, far away, Unclaimed
Mysteries the_letter_k_and_the_numeral_4_doh@unclaimedmyste ries.net made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: 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! Wouldn't they still require a lot of maintenance to remain spaceworthy? What would be the structural effects on them remaining in space for a long time? Structure is the least of the issues. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Retire Shuttle on orbit.
Rand Simberg wrote:
On 17 Nov 2006 16:20:00 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Rich Godwin" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: 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. Short answer, it wasn't designed to be refurbed on orbit. Modifying it to do so would probably cost much more than simply building new space stations. And even then, it's not clear to me what you'd do with them. Try to use them as space tugs? (penalized with the mass of now-useless wings) If you're not going to re-enter them, just what would they now be 'highly capable' of? (and why, then, are we calling it 'retirement?') If you want some sort of 'safe haven' for emergencies, I suspect Bigelow Aerospace has a few solutions to offer, based on technology that's gaining experience even as I write.... And I, for one, am perfectly okay with placing the surviving orbiters in aerospace museums. -- Frank You know what to remove to reply... Check out my web page: http://www.geocities.com/stardolphin1/link2.htm "To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." - Stephen Hawking |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Retire Shuttle on orbit.
Unclaimed Mysteries wrote: 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! Wouldn't they still require a lot of maintenance to remain spaceworthy? What would be the structural effects on them remaining in space for a long time? -- 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 Most of the stress that a space vehicle has is during launch and especially during reentry. Spacecraft stay in space in all sorst of nasty environments for decades. I'm not saying that it wouldn't need any maintenance, but bowhere near as much as one that continually goes between earth and LEO |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Retire Shuttle on orbit.
Rand Simberg wrote: On 17 Nov 2006 16:20:00 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Rich Godwin" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: 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. Short answer, it wasn't designed to be refurbed on orbit. Modifying it to do so would probably cost much more than simply building new space stations. Why is that? Making it refualable on orbit should not be a whole program. Just stick a filling nozzle on the side basically. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Retire Shuttle on orbit.
Frank Glover wrote:
Rand Simberg wrote: On 17 Nov 2006 16:20:00 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Rich Godwin" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: 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. Short answer, it wasn't designed to be refurbed on orbit. Modifying it to do so would probably cost much more than simply building new space stations. And even then, it's not clear to me what you'd do with them. Try to use them as space tugs? (penalized with the mass of now-useless wings) If you're not going to re-enter them, just what would they now be 'highly capable' of? (and why, then, are we calling it 'retirement?') If you want some sort of 'safe haven' for emergencies, I suspect Bigelow Aerospace has a few solutions to offer, based on technology that's gaining experience even as I write.... And I, for one, am perfectly okay with placing the surviving orbiters in aerospace museums. -- Frank You know what to remove to reply... Check out my web page: http://www.geocities.com/stardolphin1/link2.htm "To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." - Stephen Hawking OK, think of things outside of the usual throw away system. Imagine for a second that you placed a small Hall thruster on the bottom of Hubble and then moved it slowly to 51.6 degrees. Why all of a sudden it's within safe distance of ISS. ISS could actually service Hubble regularly with a shuttle. Only a few hundred metres per sec of dV needed to get up a couple hunderd miles. Not miles per second from where it is now. It would also be a safe haven. It could hold all sorts of lab equipment. Spares, it could do what it was originally planned for, like fix satellites, or place new ones in orbit. How about helping with station assembly? What about replacing old modules or nodes with new ones? What about on orbit assembly of satellites? It could be the launch vehicle for them. I could go on because I'm not stifled by being told what is not possible. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Retire Shuttle on orbit.
On 17 Nov 2006 19:03:06 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Rich Godwin"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: 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. Short answer, it wasn't designed to be refurbed on orbit. Modifying it to do so would probably cost much more than simply building new space stations. Why is that? Making it refualable on orbit should not be a whole program. Just stick a filling nozzle on the side basically. Sorry, Rich, but briefly, there's a lot more to it than that. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Retire Shuttle on orbit.
Rand Simberg wrote: On 17 Nov 2006 19:03:06 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Rich Godwin" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: 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. Short answer, it wasn't designed to be refurbed on orbit. Modifying it to do so would probably cost much more than simply building new space stations. Why is that? Making it refualable on orbit should not be a whole program. Just stick a filling nozzle on the side basically. Sorry, Rich, but briefly, there's a lot more to it than that. Yeah I'm sure, but not that difficult. 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? We refuel aircraft in flight hundreds of times week, you telling me it's not possible in space? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
It Seems Clear That The Shuttle Needs to Retire | John Horner | Space Shuttle | 15 | July 30th 05 12:59 AM |
A Shuttle to retire in 2007? | Pat Flannery | History | 4 | July 15th 05 04:20 PM |
A Shuttle to retire in 2007? | Pat Flannery | Policy | 2 | July 14th 05 06:14 PM |
NASA Starts Planning to Retire Space Shuttle | Scott M. Kozel | Policy | 66 | April 21st 05 10:05 PM |
NASA Starts Planning to Retire Space Shuttle | Scott M. Kozel | Space Shuttle | 58 | April 21st 05 10:05 PM |