Re: Retire Shuttle on orbit.

Rich Godwin wrote:

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?


It's possible for aircraft *designed to be* refueled in flight.

Shuttles are designed around the idea that they'll fly to orbit, carry out a mission (that may include satellite deployment or repair) of generally less than two weeks, (and usually less than one, if that's all it takes), de-orbit and return, all done within the limits of the maneuvering fuel it normally carries. Only space tugs/reuseable orbital transfer vehicles and other reuseable deep space ships would have any need to be refueled in space.

Commercial aircraft normally have no provisions for aerial refueling because, the way they're normally used, it's unnecessary. They can expect to land at friendly airfields, and refuel there if needed. Military aircraft have a different set of support expectations, and range and endurance requirements.

Now, we *do* need to do more research and development on fuel transfer in free-fall (espically cryogenic propellants/oxidizers like liquid hydrogen):

http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.com/2006/10/apogee-tugs-and-cryo-transfer.html

...but it shouldn't be a suprise that something not requiring in-space refueling, doesn't have provisions for it, and that the engineering to add it is non-trivial.

And many of the upgrades the orbiters *have* had, takes them out of service for many months. There won't be much incentive to add a feature for which there's no clear need, to a system that's winding down to retirement, with a busy schedule (mostly completing ISS) before then.

And then there's the issue of *how* the shuttle refueling propellants are to be brought to ISS, even if the orbiter could accept it...

--

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
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Air Force Aerial Refueling Methods: Flying Boom versus Hose-and-Drogue
    ... > Many tanker aircraft that employ the hose-and-drogue system, ... > employ two such mechanisms - and, refuel two aircraft simultaneously. ... The same task could demand 12 of Super Hornets ...
    (rec.aviation.military.naval)
  • Re: wheelchair aviation
    ... someone who cannot refuel an aircraft him/herself be banned from flying altogether? ... the problem is so easily solved, for instance by finding another pilot -- or another competent person -- willing to help; I have found it actually quite easy so far; pilots tend to be nice folks willing to help and strike a conversation with fellow pilots, especially one who might look slightly unusual :-); are you saying that you never asked anyone for help to push/pull your aircraft? ...
    (rec.aviation.student)
  • Re: Libya - Cavalry on the way
    ... heading south. ... I saw on the news how the planes have to refuel a couple of times so they ... Like an aircraft carrier or something... ... The news said six refuels to get there and two refuels to get back. ...
    (uk.media.tv.misc)
  • Re: BA & Heathrow face prospect of all-out strike
    ... >> and load your own bags onto the aircraft? ... and clean the plane and ... >> refuel it? ...
    (rec.travel.europe)
  • Re: Air Force Aerial Refueling Methods: Flying Boom versus Hose-and-Drogue
    ... Which is why Singapore and Turkey both have boom ... can refuel one aircraft at a time with this mechanism. ...
    (rec.aviation.military)