.

NASA and ESA have abandoned all researches about a new Shuttle (X-33, Hermes, etc.) and, probably, also the Kliper will never born.

I think it's a bad idea and I suggest to use the retired Shuttles (from Atlantis) for researches about new thermal shields, guidance systems, materials, tanks, boosters, etc. and about automated and remote-controlled launch, flight, docking, assembly, reentry rescue, landing, etc.

The researches (inluding some automated test flights) may be used by NASA and other space agencies and privates (that cooperate with engineers and funds) to develop and build the future generations of safer and cheaper Shuttles for easier LEO flights.

Do you agree with me.. or not?

.

I imagine it will be more expensive to use the space shuttle than other methods of research. NASA already has lots of information about the normal condition of shuttle in flight, and they have more infomation than they want about what happens when things go wrong.

With the level of funding available I think research will be done on a piecemeal basis without a test vechile being put together for quite some time. One space shuttle launch cost a lot of money, even though an automated one where you don't really care about it blowing up would be cheaper because you can cut corners. On the other hand, an automated shuttle would be slightly safter than a crewed shuttle as automatic pilot can still function in situations where human pilots can't.

as I've explained in my visual Shuttle vs. Capsule comparison [ www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/008visual.html ] the CEV will be a giant REGRESS in the next 30 years for the very low number of flights and astronauts in space (about 1/10th of Shuttles in the same time)

also, the official [ http://www.technologyreview.com/read...&id=17049&pg=1 ] "price per seat" of an orbital-CEV flight is over $100M each (that is a very optimistic evaluation... I think the real "price per seat" will be over $300M each!) ...FIVE TIMES the ($20M) price of a "tourist-seat" on a Soyuz... that already is too much (and too risky) for a large access to space (also of tourists)

at this

if we want an easy and cheap access to LEO (that multiplies by 10 or 100 the number of astronauts and "passengers" in space!) the ONLY way is to build one or more little, safer and cheaper new-Shuttles

the development of a new Shuttle needs many researches and changes from to-day's Shuttles

that R&D goes through three maior steps:

1. lab research and design on materials, shapes, aerodynamic, etc.

2. tests with scale-models

3. tests of the new solutions in REAL flights

the first two steps don't need too much funds, but the last step needs a REAL Shuttle to test REAL flights

without the old Shuttles, when NASA, ESA and privates will decide to develop a new Shuttle, the must spend $3+ billion to build ONE test vehicle!

but, with the three retired Shuttles (a total value of $9+ billion of hardware!) they don't need to build a new Shuttle for research, with a GIANT saving of money

also, if they build a new test-vehicle and it will be destrojed in a test, they lose too much money, while, if they use an old Shuttle in a failed test-flight, the money lost is not so much, since the value of a retired Shuttle is near zero

.

It takes a standing army of over 10,000 people to prepare a Shuttle for a mission. If you try to keep the Shuttle for the occassional research flight, you'll inclur monstrous overhead costs. You'll also have to leave the launch pads for the Shuttle instead of converting them to the new vehicles.

If and when we decide to build another shuttle, then we can follow the time-proven X-plane approach to incrementally test the technology. The latest generation of X planes are unmanned and allow things like testing hypersonic scramjet engines for a fraction of the cost of performing the same test using the current Shuttles.

about "10,000 people"...

these are necessary for the manned Shuttles, payloads, training for ISS assembly, etc.

if the Shuttles will be used unmanned for experimental launches don't need so much people nor so much costs

the first step of that proposal is (simply) "don't send them to a museum!"

about "costs"...

keep the Shuttles ready for tests don't need the same costs of manned launches

about "launch pad"...

the launch pad don't need to be the same of to-day's launches nor as big as them since great part of the structure is used for manned launches, payload servicing, etc.

about "we can follow the time-proven X-plane"...

the problem is that X-planes have NEVER made an orbital flight with re-entry while the Shuttle have done 100+ times, this is a GIANT difference between "experimental" and "REAL"

about "hypersonic scramjet engines"...

this kind of vehicles are ONLY experimental, ONLY models and ONLY suborbital, since they need oxygen to work

in your opinion, you must not be influenced by your preference of a capsule for moon missions

just imagine that a new Shuttle is absolutely necessary, not for "tourism" or "science", but for USA/Europe/World's SECURITY REASONS

e.g. the orbital assembly of a vehicle able to kill an orbital nuclear weapon launched from an enemy country

or... to assemble a vehicle able to destroj a little asteroid approaching earth within a few years

use the "X-plane-models" (un)experience means 15+ years to build a new Shuttle, while, using the (REAL) Shuttles' experience and hardware, may need a few years

don't forget that, a good Shuttle (for emergencies) may be (simply) a MODIFIED Shuttle without its main to-day's problems

do you REALLY think that ALL problems and needs may happen in space in the next 50 years can be solved with a (very little!) 5 mt. capsule...?

.

You're simply wrong - it takes a lot of people ($$$) and resources to launch a Shuttle mission, even an unmanned one. Your handwaving of the launch pad issue alone suggest you don't understand what infrastructure it takes to launch a Shuttle mission. Simply put, you'd have to keep at least one of the VAB bays able to service Shuttles. You'd have to keep at least one launch pad (no other pad is suitable for Shuttle missions), the support staff, mission control teams, etc. all available to support an occassional flight. Based on current NASA numbers, I estimate it'd cost over a billion dollars a year to keep the minimal support needed to support the Shuttle. How often do you suppose they'd need to make a research flight? Once a year? Twice? Add the actual mission costs (e.g. the millions for an external tank, the money for propellant, etc.) to the minimal support and you end up with a very expensive per mission cost.

You miss the point about X planes completely. The very reason for those planes' existance is to serve as a relatively low cost test bed for new technology. It's true that none of them have flown into orbit because none were designed for that mission. However, any technology you would want to test could be tested on X planes cheaper than the per mission costs of keeping a Shuttle ready to go.

BTW: What's the deal with all of the colorful CAPITAL LETTERS, boldface, and the like? It really detracts from your posts. It's the internet equivalent of standing on a soapbox with a megaphone and screaming at passers by.

I think that the only (GIANT) "wrong thing" is to scrap $9+ billion of hardware that FLY to wait for something that (now) don't fly (simply because it don't exists) and may fly (IF it will fly...) only in september 2014 for the first time.

My proposal don't needs "lot of people ($$$) and resources" simply because I only suggest to save the Shuttle and don't send them to a museum or become scrap iron!

This is the FIRST and ONLY "step" I want... the next steps will be only those possible with the (public and privates) funds available...

the engineers don't need to be from NASA... engineers have a "common language" and the teams that do researches about new Shuttles may come from USA, Europe, Russia, China, India, etc.

China has 400,000 new engineers every year, India has 55,000,000 computer engineers (and many of them already work for NASA and international companies) so, I don't think will be a problem to build excellent teams without spend billions!

about "handwaving"... all the space-forums' users that suggest something different from the CEV or changes to the ESAS architectures and hardware or (simply) to save the (reusable) Shuttle or (worst!) to build another (reusable) vehicles, are (ALL!) "wrong", "stupid", "do handwaves", etc. etc. etc. ...it's very strange...

about the launch pad and the VAB... I've not an image (I search it again, but I'm sure you can do that by yourself) of the "chinese VAB"... it'is EXACTLY like the NASA VAB!

the launch pad and the VAB are not pyramids... they are like many other industrial buildings and can be built in another place or another country at reasonable costs... and, also the spaceports, may be in another place than KSC ...after all, the Shuttle can go everywere on the top of a 747...

again... a test flight of an unmanned Shuttle don't need the same mission control teams of a manned & ISS assembly mission, then, it don't costs one billion per year

about the number of flights... if the Shuttles are NOT scrapped or sent to a museum... the test flights may be possible when the engineers need them and when there are the (public or privates) funds to do that... don't forget that the "hardware" of one Shuttle launch costs only $120 million!

the mission control team for the test launches don't need to be the same number of to-day's manned missions, don't need to work 365 days per year and may (simply) work on other projects and move to a test launch only for the days necessary, also, many test launches don't need to be orbital... a new thermal shield may be tested with a simple "launch & reentry" flight

I only suggest to save the Shuttles and don't throw them in a trash can!

I know that the X-planes are all paper-planes or model-test-planes, but, you know, when we need to know if something really works for humans, we must build a REAL vehicles (the same rule is for spacecraft or cars!)

with the Shuttles, we don't need to build any FULL-SIZE vehicle nor spend the billions it will costs!

I think that, if NASA will scrap the retired Shuttles, they must soon admit that it "was" a big mistake (like scrap the last three SaturnV built...)

about capital-letter, boldface, etc... if you visit my website you can see that it is the way I write articles and texts... colors, bolds, etc. are used only to highlight the point sI think need that... it's only "my text formatting" and, after all, why don't use color and bolds if they are available in all forums' editors???

also, if forums don't like colors, etc. WHY no one of them disable that options?

.

I agree with you and think dropping the Shuttle Capability is a huge mistake. Your proposal is the first I have heard anywhere and beyond research I have to wonder about the cargo capabilities of the Shuttle both to and from space. I have read through some of the requirement documents for the CEV and cargo launch systems and I haven't seen any requirement for returning large equipment and cargo from space. Isn't it going to become an even more important capability to take stuff out of space in the future as putting stuff into space. Letting it burn up in the atmosphere isn't always possible and not necessarily a good idea if you can't control the re-entry. How will the Space Station dispose of obsolete or broken equipment or even the trash?

Beyond Low Earth Orbit, I think it is about time to find ways to retrieve satellites from Medium or even higher orbits as these bird reach the ends of their lives. For example with Geo-Sync orbit becoming so highly used by comm other satellites, simply placing them in super-sync will eventually no longer be an option.

What are we going to do? or Is my thinking a little flawed?

I am interested to hear some feedback to add to my learning.

you're right, after the Shuttle retirement, the cargo-return capability will be near ZERO

Progress, ATV and H-II are all send-only-cargos that, at the end of missions, burn in the atmosphere with the ISS' trash

the unpressurized cargo-CEV was deleted from ESAS plan in january, and the pressurized cargo-CEV (I think) will be NEVER used since it is (simply) a "CEV without astronauts" so, it's launch cost will be close to a manned CEV: $400M official price per launch ...but the REAL costs (at 2014 prices and with shared Ares/CEV R&D costs) may reach $1B per launch!

also, the 5mt. cargo-CEV can send only 3 mT to the ISS (20% more one Progress launch at 1/40th the price!) and the payload bring back to earth (probably less than 3 mT since it can't exceed the astronauts + life support weight) will cost from $300M to $500M PER mT!!!

last, a capsule is too little to send big ISS hardware and experiments that need to come back to earth

and we can't hope in the Kliper because... 1. it may never born, and... 2. it's max cargo-payload is planned around 0.5 mT (or, maybe, 2 mT without the astronauts)

with so many cargo and crew vehicles available in the next ten years, the ISS will be able to host up to six astronauts with all the foods, water and life support they need, but WITHOUT big experiments that needs the results to come back earth for research

the ONLY way to have an heavy cargo-return capability after 2010 (without risks for astronauts) is to modify the Shuttles to fly 100% CREWLESS [ http://www.gaetanomarano.it/spaceShu...ceshuttle.html ] with a mix of automated and remote controlled operations

WITHOUT THE (manned or unmanned) SHUTTLES THE $100B+ ISS WILL BE ONLY A VERY EXPENSIVE SPACE-HOTEL FOR A FEW PRIVILEGED NASA & ESA ASTRONAUTS + SOME SPACE-TOURISTS LAUNCHED BY "RUSSIA-SPACELINES"... NO "EXPERIMENTS"... NO "SCIENCE"

but I give you another (VERY GOOD) reason to save the Shuttle:

last month an orbital debris was very close (only 240 mt.) to hit the ISS

well, just imagine that, in future (2013, 2017, 2022) a big orbital debris will be in the same trajectory of the ISS...

WITH the (manned or remote-controlled) Shuttle (and its robotarm) will be possible to move the big debris to another orbit (or bring it back to earth) while, WITHOUT the Shuttle, the ISS' astronauts may come back to earth with a rescue-Soyuz or CEV but the $100+ BILLION ISS (the ONLY space station we have!) will be seriously damaged or completely destroyed!!!

with a few crewless Shuttles' missions will be possible to move ALL the dangerous debrises that runs too close to the ISS' min/max orbital range, so (both) the $100B ISS and the astronauts' life will be 100% SAFE without any "last-minute" astronauts' rescue!

about "satellite-retrieving" I think it's a very expensive job and may exceed the cost to (simply) send a new satellite

.

If they were disabled, how could we figure out which posters are easily attracted to bright, shiny things?

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

.

do you want another good reason to save the Shuttles?

well, the new (official) date for the first manned CEV flight is "september 2014" (and 2020 for the first moon mission)

that means the full Ares-I will be ready for unmanned test flights around 2012/2013

but the Ares-I design is completely different from all past rockets built for capsules

just imagine that the SRB give too much "G" to the astronauts or it need some changes to fly in the right trajectory or the J-2x don't works in a test or (simply) it needs more time and money to develop, build and test all the rockets' parts and the full vehicle (that's very common with all space projects...)

all problems that may be solved, but need 3/4+ years to do

after the Shuttle retirement in 2010 NASA and USA will remain without any launch indipendence in the next 5 years, but, if the "new vehicle" will have too much delays and problems, the gap may grow to 8+ years!

if (after 2010) the Shuttles will be used for tests, NASA can launch them unmanned with a redesigned ET, then, may use the Shuttles for (safer) manned launches (if necessary) or (simply) for crewless cargo-only missions to ISS

so far, the Shuttles are the only vehicles able to lift up to 28 mT to LEO and, without the crew, life-support, etc., the max payload may grow to 35+ mT ...compared with the 23 mT (only) of the (unexisting in the next 10-15 years) Ares-I

the Ares-V will be able to lift 130 mT ...but only in 2020 ...and only if NASA will have the funds to build it...

.

.

a further reason to save the Shuttle?

in the FIRST YEAR of the VSE era we have seen many changes in the ESAS hardware and a cost grow of +$2B for the Ares-I and +$10/15B for the CEV/SM (nasawatch news)

well, just imagine that the problems, the time and the costs of the ESAS hardware will grows too much and politics cut the VSE budget... NASA must stop to develop that hardware or double the time for the first new moon landing

but, if NASA save the "Shuttle system" (not only the Orbiters but the entire line of assembly, launch, etc.) may be very fast and easy to move the ESAS plan to a Shuttle-C like launcher, in a few years and at reasonable costs since the Shuttle-C can use the same SRB, ET, launch pad, SSME, etc. of the Shuttle

in the mean time, the three Orbiter can be modified to fly crewless (to be used as cargo) and to develop and test all the Shuttle-C technologies in LESS TIME

WITHOUT THE SHUTTLES, NASA MUST RESTART FROM ZERO

.

.

the best reason: money!

the Shuttles have burned tons of money in 25 years and, when they will be retired, the value of the three vehicles will falls from $9 billion to $0.oo

but, the same old hardware that have no interest for NASA (since its only target in the next 30 years will be the moon) may have a GREAT interest for other space agencies and privates

NASA can sell/rent the Shuttles' technology/knowlendge/experience/hardware/launches to all the privates and space agencies that want to develop a new Shuttle or (simply) to use its crewless version to launch satellites, probes, ISS' hardware, etc.

the 23 mT-payload Ares-I will be available only in 2014-2016 and a crewless Shuttle will be able to lift up to 35 mT

the 21 mT-payload Ariane5 is able to launch two satellites

the crewless Shuttle will be able to send in orbit 3, 4, 5 or more satellites with ONE launch

then, if one crewless Shuttle launch will cost (e.g.) $400M, the shared cost per satellite launched will be around $100-120M that is about 50-60% the price of a commercial (100% expendable) rocket!

the crewless Shuttle (with, both, the vehicle and the payload insured) may become a very good business in commercial and scientific launches!

if the crewless launches will be 2+ per year, NASA may earn PROFITS from Shuttles' launches (and that money will be invested in new research, new probes, more missions, etc.)

.

.

when the Shuttles will be retired and used only for unmanned research, the first step of that research must be a new ET

but the SECOND (and most important) step must be a FIXED thermal shield (like the image below) made of a few large parts and able to work for 20+ re-entries without any changes but only some electronic controls of the shield's structures

just imagine a Shuttle without the 34,000 different tiles to verify after each launch!

it's the main problem and cost of a Shuttle!

without it the Shuttle may reduce its maintenance time to 1/3th with $100+ million saved!

reducing the Shuttles' maintenance time and costs, the "price" of a Shuttle launch will get close to the simple "hardware" costs ($120M for two SRBs, one ET and fuel) and very competitive also in the commercial market since up to FOUR crewless Shuttles' launches per year may become POSSIBLE

.

heatshield.jpg

.

the most recent "good reason" to SAVE the Shuttles: Kliper is dead!

here the news' links:



http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/07/18/Navigation/200/207935/Farnborough+Russia's+Federal+Space+Agency+cancels+ manned+spacecraft.html

http://www.friends-partners.org/pipe...ly/020399.html

Now that also the last Shuttle-like project is dead, after Shuttle retirement we will NEVER see any winged spacecraft in the next 30+ years!

Another VERY GOOD REASON to save the FIRST AND ONLY SHUTTLES ever made!!!

.

.

good reason number "n"

All future vehicles (like the CEV) will be built with (both) manual or automatic/remote control and navigation systems

So far, only Russia has that technology and 40 years of experience (with its Soyuz and Progress) ...the same used for the Shenzhou and ATV

The technology developed for a crewless Space Shuttle may help NASA to design, test and build FASTER the CEV automatic/remore control launch/navigation/rendez-vous/docking/re-entry system without FAIL with the REAL vehicles!

Just imagine if... without sufficient experience... the first automatic/remote CEV test flights in 2015 will FAIL... and NASA will need to "investigate"... "study"... "discover"... "fix"... the origin of the problems ...then... modify, rebuild, test again, etc. etc. etc... maybe... WITHOUT SOLVE IT... (like with the Shuttle foam...)

also, since the full Ares-I will be ready for test launches only in 2014... the crewless Shuttle may help NASA to SAVE up to SEVEN YEARS (and MANY Billion$$$) testing the CEV remote control and navigation system NOW without wait for the Ares-I !!!

.

.

good reason number n+1: save the VSE plan!

new official date for the first CEV launch: september 2014

new official date for the first moon mission: 2020

new official evaluation of the VSE plan costs: $125 billion

but... you know the story of costs/delays Apollo, Shuttle, ISS... then, add 2+ years and $50+ billions...

the first Shuttle launch was planned for 1976 but the first REAL launch was in 1981

and don't forget the difference from evaluated vs. real costs of ALL space projects!

well... just imagine the VSE plan will become too expensive, needs too time and has too problems...

the crewless 35+ mT payload Shuttles may become a REAL alternative to perform a moon mission compared with... NOTHING

another alternative may be the Shuttle-C ...but it don't exists, needs time, money, etc. while the Shuttles EXIST and WORK

of course, if the Shuttles wìll become scrap iron... that alternative will be LOST forever!

(however, NASA may send some astronauts on the moon after 2024 as HOST of the announced moon missions of China...)

.

.

good reason number n+2: launch BIG interplanetary probes!

without any manned missions and a small space station 99.99% of the most important scientific results come from AUTOMATED probes!

and, also after 2020 when the moon missions will start, great part (99%+) of science will come from probes, rovers, telescopes, etc.

unfortunately, to-day's rockets can launch only SMALL and function limited probes like Spirit, etc.

well... just imagine how much results we can have with MORE and FOUR TIMES BIGGER rovers and probes!!!!!

without a (manned or automated) Shuttle we must wait 2015 to have a 23mT-payload launcher (Ares-I) and after 2020 to have the Ares-V !!!

with a crewless Shuttle we can launch up to 35 mT to send NOW many BIG rovers and probes to the Moon, Mars, etc.

think also that many BIG rovers and probes may give MORE and BETTER info about the surface of the Moon and Mars to optimize the future manned missions!!!

without the Shuttles we must send only SMALL and modest probes in the next 10-15 years!!!

.

They polled planetary scientists about what sort of missions they wanted, and most said they preferred a bunch of smaller missions to one big mission.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

with small rockets they can launch only small probes/rovers = only one choice

with big rockets they can launch small OR big OR many small probes/rovers at once = three choices

with to-day's compact and powerful electronics, an interplanetary probe may be small and give good results

but NOT to launch GOOD rovers for Mars and Jupiter/Saturn moons because they need the extra hardware and fuel to land, batteries and motors to move, tools to drill the surface, etc.

also, there are some missions (like the Mars-gliders or sample-returns) that need very heavy rockets to launch

with small rockets we can have only Spirit-like missions, with a big rocket (or a crewless Shuttle) we can have MUCH MORE !!!

however, we can wait 15+ years when the Ares-V will be (IF will be...) available...

.

.

good reason number n+3: ISS survival

when the ISS will be finished in 2010 its total cost will exceed the $125B of the VSE plan!

but, you know (and you can see with your eyes) that the ISS is Shuttle-dependent!

it can't be assembled, repaired, serviced and (in part) resupplied without the Shuttles!

no big experiments will be possible without the big cargo-return of the Shuttles

no repair on EARTH of ISS modules and big parts will be possible without the Shuttle

if a big solar panel will not work, it can't be sent with an ATV or a Progress!

and if one of the central modules will become unsafe, it can't be repaired in orbit nor a new module can be send without a Shuttle!

with the crewless Shuttle the $125B+ ISS can survive twice the time than alone, while, with only the little Progress and Soyuz, it will be only a very expensive space-hotel that may CLOSE when a problem that needs the Shuttle to solve will occur!

.

If it were so shuttle dependent, the astronauts onboard would have been stranded and would have died by now. The soyuz capsules, dumb simple capsules on a dumb simple robust launch vehicle, have managed to supply the station just fine. They can't expand on it, but you just need an HLV for that. There's nothing magical about the shuttle, except the consistency with which it has problems with it's heat shield/engine.

__________________
http://amssolarempire.blogspot.com

it's true for food, water, oxygen, little experiments, etc. in fact I think that an orbital-CEV is completely unnecessary (and will be used only for a few missions) since Soyuz, Progress and ATV can do that job 100%

but some little capsules can't assemble, modify, repair, bring back to earh nothing (or only little objects)

without the Shuttles the ISS will remain the same until its "death"

the difference is if we must consider the ISS an "HOTEL" or a "LAB"

as "HOTEL" the ISS can clearly survive only with "food & drink" re-supply

but not as "LAB" since the finished ISS will have more internal space and more energy... FOR NOTHING... because, after 2010, NASA and ESA will be not able to send to ISS (and bring back to earth) nothing of "big" about science, experiments, instruments or (simply) ISS' spare parts, like a new solar panel

without the Shuttles the ISS will be only a (very little and very expensive) space-hotel, with three-four "beds", the Soyuz used as "space-taxi" and the Progress used to send "food & beverage" (then, burn the "hotel's trash" in the atmosphere)

.

.

good reason number n+4: (really) finish the ISS

many dream of "new space stations" built with "a few Ares-V launches" etc. but the reality is that a new space station may cost another $100B and no single or multiple countries can spend that money!

the reality is that ISS is the ONLY space station we have and that will NOT change in the next 30+ years!

NASA claim is that with the next 16 Shuttles' flights they will "finish" the ISS, but (you know) this is not true

the ISS is around 50% the dimensions planned years ago and, after the 16 Shuttles' missions, it will be around 70% of the plan, NOT FINISHED

now there is no money to (really) FINISH the ISS as planned, but in future that money (about $20B) may be available, then, with the crewless Shuttle, it may be finished and upgraded, while, without the Shuttles, it will remain the same in the next 30+ years!

.

.

good reason number n+5: REPAIR the moon missions' hardware

then months ago I've evaluated the cost of each moon mission around $6/8 billion (and received lots of insults on a space-forum...)

now, the (official) evaluation of each mission is of $5B ...but (I think) the REAL price (when missions starts in 2020) will over $10B since NASA is a big agency that costs billions every year (also when they don't launch nothing!)

but, despite the high costs of the moon missions, they CAN'T BE repaired like the Hubble, so, if only a LITTLE part don't works, the entire $10B mission will fail!

a good idea may be to design the moon vehicles with some modular parts to be changed or repaired in orbit before TLI

unfortunately, it can't be repaired with another CEV... the ONLY vehicle able to repair it in orbit is the Shuttle thanks to its cargo-bay (for spare parts), the robot arm, up to eight astronauts, airlock, engines to move from orbit to orbit and maneuveur around the moon-hardware, etc.

a possible alternative is to build a small (2/3 modules) space station at 28.5 deg with the same Shuttles' abilities (airlock, spare parts, robotarm, etc.) but it MUST BE ready (and the repair-men trained in orbit) BEFORE the first moon mission... and the ONLY vehicle able to send in orbit, assemble and test a new space station is the Shuttle !!!

the ($500M per launch) Shuttle may save MANY ($10B per launch) moon missions!

.

I voted no for Shuttle to be used for research into RLVs but I feel that in order to safe guard the ISS it must be kept in an operational manner. To do this the partners I hope would be willing to help pay the cost of at least half the yearly budget.

the main point of my proposal is "SAVE the Shuttle" (and keep them operational) then, voting "no", you're for sending them to a museum

.

Exactly.

Why shouldn't they be sent to a museum? They're expensive relics that have poor performance for their cost, and never lived up to the design promises. Ditch them and get something new.

Not exactly, your choice for yes as a research vessel for testing RLV is not what retiring the shuttle can be altered for since the information from it is not going to yield any advances in technology to produce the next generation Reusuable Launch Vehicle.

As for the no vote once scrapped it can be purchased from salvage to do as you wish. Since this also means the asset can be sold to maybe a group wanting to keep it running. A retirement to a museum is great effort to garner hopefully interest in space a single unit can go for this.

Also the no vote one of which could lead to leaving one in an inactive standdown while the last one can be configured an hack at to create a mass passenger carrier. Getting rid of the large cargo bay and altering it to be safer for crew all at the same time.

(as written, posted and explained dozens times) in LEO operations (that don't ends in next years) "the relic" is able to send in orbit (in a SINGLE flight!) the SAME crew+cargo payload of TEN crew/(small)cargo Orions at (about) 1/10th the price ($600-1000M each Shuttle flight vs. $800-1200M each Orion flight) and performing operations (assembly, repair, etc.) a capsule NEVER can do! ...then... if the Shuttle is a "relic" ...the Orion will be: ______________

.