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!

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?