I just love it when you aerospace guys talk pounds, feet, yards, statute miles, nautical miles, imperial miles and god knows what other combinations. MCO, anyone?

Just the other day, while watching STS-115 launch replay, I realized that the miles up and downrange they were talking about weren't nautical but statute. I was under the impression nautical miles were widely used and assumed.

Last issue first: it need not be. There's, what, ~300 cubic metres of payload bay not including the docking adapter. I can't believe that a small hab module - not a working volume, just additional space for the crew and/or tourists - couldn't be built in the next four years, providing more much-needed room. Power - for lighting, ventilation and heating - needn't be a huge amount.


I'm reminded of military aircraft. They look ok in museums, but nothing is as inspirational as seeing them fly. Post 2010, to know there's a shuttle permanently berthed at the gleaming, magnitude minus whatever-it-is ISS, rather than slowly falling to pieces as a museum piece, would be a wonderful reminder to people around the planet regarding that "magnificent flying machine" - and maybe it could just spur peoples' memories to recall the second half of Tsiolkovsky's famous quote: "...man cannot stay in the cradle forever."

Andy

LEO is the cradle.

Then why take up the docking port with a Shuttle - just take this small hab module you propose and bolt it onto the end of Node 2 and put the last PMA on the end of it?

It's seems like you've thought of a solution for a problem that doesn't actually exist.

Doug

The US Hab is fully completed, but won't be launched due to the additional cost after the ISS redesign a few years back.

If someone could foot the bill for the launch and attachment, then that would be plenty of room and facilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitation_Module

Bah-humbug!

Ok, I can see that they're no takers for the Tsiolkovsky Orbital Museum. Indeed, there's a bit of hatred at the mere romanticism of it all. That, and the current 20M$ a ticket entrance fee.

Right - you asked for it. Here's the hard-engineering-headed side of me talking.

The orbiters have been operating as a fleet of space shuttles up until now. When the last two (Atlantis is to be a hangar queen, I think?) are on their last trip in one direction (given the crew can return in a safer capsule) and the vehicles are no-longer needing to shuttle anywhere, has anyone asked whether flying brakes, wheels, and TPS upstairs makes any sense at all? Think of the mass you could throw out of each orbiter, and the resultant payload you could get in...

Once you consider that, there's a <ahem> further option:

While the angle-grinders are out, if the wings and stabiliser were removed for two one-shot shuttle C-equivalents, NASA would be not be that far off getting a brace of orbital ETs as part of their future freelance LEO gas station. Or at least a bit of orbital real estate that Mr. Bigelow might fancy.

How's that for unromantic?

Andy

Not "fully completed". The shell was only completed. It was never outfitted. Also the shell is being used for other ground tests.

All these proposals, ignore the fact that disposing of dead orbiter art the completion of the ISS program is a problem, since it has TPS and aerosurfaces. It won't follow a typical ballistic entry

Who is going to fly it up. you made if go from a few abort options to none

And what payload are you intending to put in? The current last shuttle launch is volume packed with Node 3 and the Cupola.....

What you're talking about is all great for the pages of a Simon Baxter novel, but it has little relation to what is possible in reality.

You're making up a solution that isn't even slightly feasable for a problem that doesn't exist still.

Doug

What "much needed room"? They are adding at least 5 more modules.

Bring the $. The ISS and the shuttle are not Legos. PPT engineering is easy and cheap, real engineering isn't

Heating isn't required. Cooling is and the payload bay would be required to be open for the radiators. more things to break down

Lockheed/Bigelow

"Lockheed Martin and Bigelow Aerospace have entered into a deal to move towards the use of the Atlas V for private manned space flight..."

Does anyone have a good answer why NASA didn't look harder at the Atlas V or Delta IV for the Crew Launch Vehicle? Are they expecting the CLV to be cheaper/safer in the long run?

They say the CLV is safer. It definately won't be cheaper. Just the opposite. Read the ESAS

Bigelow suffers Genesis II delay

The launch of Bigelow Aerospace's Genesis II has suffered a delay of at least 60 days.
Extra time is required by the launch provider to complete a review of the Dnepr vehicle.