# Re-use of the space shuttles



## ivanotter (Oct 15, 2011)

All, Maybe this is not the best forum. Please tel me then.

If we should get into real space travel, i believe that a low-orbit space station, like the ISS, is a great idea.

Now to get anywhere else, some sort of space vehicle is required.

It should be able to carry significant cargo, etc. 

Can the space shutles not be re-used for that, as a ferry to another space station, say, around Mars?

I am not good at this part, so please help me out. 

I am under the impression that the space shutttle are canned as too old for getting into space and especially re-entry. well, we could keep them in space instead. 

Am I off on a tangent here? I also posted this on alternatehistory although not a history question.

Ivan


----------



## evangilder (Oct 15, 2011)

Considering the age of the shuttle fleet, I don't think it would be wise to continue using them. While keeping them in space would avoid re-entry stresses, there are still a great deal of pressures and other things to deal with in the vacuum of space. The shuttle technology is 1970s era technology. With companies like Scaled Composites and others, there are probably alternatives that could be made cheaper and with much newer technology and material.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 15, 2011)

Consider that most of the structure of the shuttle is designed for aerodynamic forces as well as the high gee loads during launch. Thats a lot of wasted "mass" when it is in space not subject to those forces.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 15, 2011)

Also consider that the harsh environment of space takes it's toll on equipment over time.


----------



## mikewint (Oct 15, 2011)

Agreed, but WILL we replace them? With the economy S*it we'll probably abandon NASA and space like we did the moon


----------



## ivanotter (Oct 15, 2011)

Yes, well, Mike. that is another question altogether.


----------



## ivanotter (Oct 15, 2011)

But I do see the point in chucking the space shuttles. 

I presume there are countles studies in terms of how an inter-planetary vehicle should look and operate. I can see the cost of operating the shuttle in space could be higher than just building a new design. HOWEVER, with the way these projects are going, Mike is right. Will there ever be money for those things again?


----------



## BombTaxi (Oct 15, 2011)

Am I right in thinking that NASA has recently cut back it's rocket program too, just as it was getting close to viable moon/Mars launch platforms? There are several different proposals for a manned mission to Mars, but I can't see any of them being taken up in the current climate


----------



## A4K (Oct 15, 2011)

Is there even a point in it all? Read a report in the '90's of all the Shuttle flights to date, and their purposes. Hello, hello, more flights went up for the military than space research.


----------



## mikewint (Oct 15, 2011)

someone has to foot the bill


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 15, 2011)

I wonder what the general concensus was about exploring what lay beyond the horizon back in the 1400's.

They had, afterall, explored nearly every continent in thier world and "been there, done that"...so why head into the vast unkown?


----------



## woljags (Oct 15, 2011)

i think i would have docked 2 of the space shuttles to the space station for trips to the moon using solid rockets to get people to and from the space station to save costs,the shuttles could have been designed to have a landing craft in its cargo bay that could be reused[old lunar module design ?] ,if we are to survive we will have to explore space at some time to find somewhere else to live its no good waiting for a disaster to present its self before thinking about it we need to start looking in some way now before it is too late


----------



## Thorlifter (Oct 15, 2011)

Also, doesn't it take something like 9 months to get to Mars? That's a LONG trip.


----------



## ivanotter (Oct 16, 2011)

Woljags, It was something along those lines I also thought about. But maybe not as practible as it sounds. It is sort of saying, we have them anyway. They are paid for, why not use them a bit longer. After all, you don't ditch the car from last year, still in a mint condition, because you *plan *to buy a new one in five years time.

Maybe the additional cost of putting a better suited inter-planetary vehicle together is insignificant compared to the other things you will need. HOWEVER, NASA is not exactly known for cost optimisation.

Ivan


----------



## woljags (Oct 16, 2011)

to be honest as mere mortals we don't really know what they have in space or on the moon already as they wouldn't tell us


----------



## mikewint (Oct 16, 2011)

To be sure, governments are not the most honest and forthright with their citizens. Take this highly classified picture from the first lunar landing


----------



## Thorlifter (Oct 16, 2011)

ivanotter said:


> Woljags, It was something along those lines I also thought about. But maybe not as practible as it sounds. It is sort of saying, we have them anyway. They are paid for, why not use them a bit longer. After all, you don't ditch the car from last year, still in a mint condition, because you *plan *to buy a new one in five years time.
> 
> Maybe the additional cost of putting a better suited inter-planetary vehicle together is insignificant compared to the other things you will need. HOWEVER, NASA is not exactly known for cost optimisation.
> 
> Ivan



I get what your saying Ivan, but the shuttles are FAR from mint condition. They are 25 to 30 years old.


----------



## ivanotter (Oct 17, 2011)

Ok, I wil declare myself defeated, although I still have some questions on it, like:
even 25-35 years old, the engine life cannot have been exceeded 
The stress on the air frame in space cannot be huge
The flight instruments will not be used, so that should not matter

They may need an avionics upgrade (inter-planetary stuff), but chucking off to the moon should not be overly difficult (??)

But I get the drift, it is impractical. 

So, on to something completely different!

Ivan


----------



## ivanotter (Oct 17, 2011)

Good picture Mike. Do I spot a "lone Star" beer can to the left?


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 17, 2011)

ivanotter, to be honest, the shuttles are too small in payload and have almost nothing in the way of onboard fuel storage all for the sake of breaking free of earth's gravity. If they wanted to go anywhere, they'd need thier liquid fuel tank and boosters attached. And transporting that much liquid fuel into orbit would not only be extremely difficult logistically, but also incredibly dangerous both on the way up and also while attached to the shuttle (the fuel tank has no real "armor" to protect it from micro-meteor and space debris impacts).

The shuttles would be far better left in retirement (including the Soviet shuttle) and a new generation of space vehicles should succeed them (hopefully someday)...


----------



## mikewint (Oct 17, 2011)

Ya gotta stay hydrated


----------



## A4K (Oct 17, 2011)

mikewint said:


> To be sure, governments are not the most honest and forthright with their citizens. Take this highly classified picture from the first lunar landing


----------

