A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Retire Shuttle on orbit.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old November 18th 06, 05:27 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Frank Glover[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 353
Default Retire Shuttle on orbit.

Rich Godwin wrote:

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


Rutan and the other people don't propose doing it by turning the
orbiters into something they're not, either.

--

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
  #22  
Old November 18th 06, 05:37 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Frank Glover[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 353
Default Retire Shuttle on orbit.

Rich Godwin wrote:


- 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.



Now you propose changing the OMS system completely?

What if we just design (and there are enough ideas out there, inside
and outside the Usual Suspect aerospace companies) something *meant* to
be a space tug?



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.


Depends what you mean by what's worth it!


Do you ever watch 'the Red Green Show?' Some of his ideas
technically do work, but they aren't worth the time and trouble to
produce what can't help but be a sub-optimal design, either...

Do you want something that will do the job well (and with fewer
'miles' on it), or do you want to just prove your MacGuyver-esq cleverness?

--

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
  #23  
Old November 18th 06, 06:28 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,089
Default Retire Shuttle on orbit.

"Rich Godwin" wrote in
ups.com:

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.


It's not a matter of whether it *can* be done, it's a matter of whether
it's worth the cost of doing so. It isn't.

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?


Irrelevant. You're talking about retiring them on-orbit; the long term is
the only term that matters.

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?


Their feces smell like your statement above.

Tell me one thing that NASA does
that is reusable? Please don't say the SRB's!


The SRBs. There, I said it anyway. LC-39. The orbiters.

Park it reasonably close to ISS


And keep it at that distance... how?

With a rechargeable OMS


And who's going to fly it, hotshot? You?

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


Laugh.

No wonder Rutan calls in NaySay


Ah, the old refuge of the armchair engineer who is emotionally invested
in a bad idea and won't let go. Rutan would be laughing at this idea as
well. It's about as smart as converting your old car into a boat instead
of going out and just buying a freaking boat for less money.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
  #24  
Old November 18th 06, 06:40 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Brian Thorn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 510
Default Retire Shuttle on orbit.

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
  #25  
Old November 18th 06, 07:50 PM posted to sci.space.policy
T C MCKEAN
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default Retire Shuttle on orbit.

"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.


  #26  
Old November 18th 06, 07:50 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,089
Default Retire Shuttle on orbit.

Brian Thorn wrote in
:

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.


It's ridiculous not because it's technically difficult or impossible, but
because the benefit is not warranted by the considerable expense and the
result will still be inferior to a purpose-build solution. Cheaper
alternatives will be available by the time this solution could be fielded,
or at worst shortly afterward.

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.


And so will Orion. The capabilities sought can be designed into Orion much
more cheaply than they can be retrofitted into a shuttle orbiter.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
  #27  
Old November 18th 06, 09:19 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,736
Default Retire Shuttle on orbit.

"Rich Godwin" wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: "Rich Godwin" wrote:
:
: :Yeah I'm sure, but not that difficult.
:
: Spoken like someone who's never had to design and build working
: hardware.
:
:Sounds like it's more of a management and empathy issue, not hardware
:design.

Spoken like someone who's never had to design and build working
hardware.

: :I bet if you gave them to the
: :Russians to fix up, it wouldn't take 6 months.
:
: No, the Russians would do what they did with THEIR 'Shuttleski'; stick
: it in a shed and forget about it.
:
:Not if you paid them!

Then you'd get something that works just as well as the Russian oxygen
generator. Hope you don't mind random explosions on orbit with SSI.

: :We refuel aircraft in flight hundreds of times week, you telling me
: :it's not possible in space?
:
: And we refuel millions of cars all the time. Gee, NOTHING must be
: hard!
:
idn't say it wouldn't be hard, you're telling me it's impossible.

No, I'm telling you that it's a hardware redesign of a magnitude that
renders it a waste of money. You can do anything if you throw enough
money at it, but that's often not the best approach to achieving a
capability.

:Guess we've got no chance of getting back to the moon!

I haven't been holding my breath on that one for a LONG time.

We CERTAINLY won't get back if we follow your sort of approaches of
trying to use hardware for things it isn't designed to be able to do.
That's the high cost, high risk path back.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
  #28  
Old November 18th 06, 09:21 PM posted to sci.space.policy
John Schilling
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 391
Default Retire Shuttle on orbit.

On 17 Nov 2006 19:09:02 -0800, "Rich Godwin" wrote:

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.


If by "all of a sudden" you mean, "after twenty-five years", yes.


ISS could actually service Hubble regularly with a shuttle.


Do you really expect ISS, Hubble, or the Shuttle to be operational
in 2031? Or is it just that you expect people's eyes will glaze
over when you wave the magic "Hall thruster" wand and they won't
actually do the math?


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
  #29  
Old November 18th 06, 09:25 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,736
Default Retire Shuttle on orbit.

"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
  #30  
Old November 19th 06, 01:24 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Rich Godwin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 52
Default Retire Shuttle on orbit.


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!

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.