Mixing
How hard would it be to fly a Space Shuttle again?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Since in the wake of the failure of Soyuz MS-10 "humanity is effectively trapped on Earth" one might try to fly one the remaining Space Shuttle orbiters again. How hard would it be to get them into space and safely back again (assuming they don't have to be man-rated against current criteria)?
I see some problems:
- The orbiters are all in some kind of museum, but important parts (e.g. computers, engines) may have been removed or modified for display, so they might need replacement. And the orbiters probably need at least a C check.
- One would need a new external tank, since I don't think one is in storage. I somehow doubt that tools etc. needed where safely stored away.
- The boosters might be the easiest part since SLS uses improved versions.
- The infrastructure at the cape (Orbiter Processing Facility, Vehicle Assembly Building, Mobile Launcher Platform, Launch Pads, ...) would need to be adapted.
- The Shuttle Carriers have been retired; maybe N905NA could fly again.
- Astronauts and ground crews would need to be trained.
So how many years before e.g. Atlantis would fly again?
space-shuttle
edited 4 hours ago
Organic Marble
48.9k3124208
asked 4 hours ago
Martin Schröder
2621216
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Since in the wake of the failure of Soyuz MS-10 "humanity is effectively trapped on Earth" one might try to fly one the remaining Space Shuttle orbiters again. How hard would it be to get them into space and safely back again (assuming they don't have to be man-rated against current criteria)?
I see some problems:
- The orbiters are all in some kind of museum, but important parts (e.g. computers, engines) may have been removed or modified for display, so they might need replacement. And the orbiters probably need at least a C check.
- One would need a new external tank, since I don't think one is in storage. I somehow doubt that tools etc. needed where safely stored away.
- The boosters might be the easiest part since SLS uses improved versions.
- The infrastructure at the cape (Orbiter Processing Facility, Vehicle Assembly Building, Mobile Launcher Platform, Launch Pads, ...) would need to be adapted.
- The Shuttle Carriers have been retired; maybe N905NA could fly again.
- Astronauts and ground crews would need to be trained.
So how many years before e.g. Atlantis would fly again?
space-shuttle
edited 4 hours ago
Organic Marble
48.9k3124208
asked 4 hours ago
Martin Schröder
2621216
1
Several years. It would be cheaper to build a whole new shuttle orbiter than to restore an existing orbiter. It would also be MUCH cheaper to wait for SpaceX and Boeing to finish their man-rating certifications over the next year.
– Ghedipunk
4 hours ago
2
Even after today's incident, I'd feel substantially safer launching on a Soyuz than on STS, if for no other reason than there are viable abort modes throughout the ascent.
– Russell Borogove
4 hours ago
1
Come on, one failure in 40 years, and a non-fatal at that, is enough for you to start panicking and dig out retired spacecraft? Surely any such plan would be more costly and less safe than fixing whatever went wrong with Soyuz.
– IMil
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Since in the wake of the failure of Soyuz MS-10 "humanity is effectively trapped on Earth" one might try to fly one the remaining Space Shuttle orbiters again. How hard would it be to get them into space and safely back again (assuming they don't have to be man-rated against current criteria)?
I see some problems:
- The orbiters are all in some kind of museum, but important parts (e.g. computers, engines) may have been removed or modified for display, so they might need replacement. And the orbiters probably need at least a C check.
- One would need a new external tank, since I don't think one is in storage. I somehow doubt that tools etc. needed where safely stored away.
- The boosters might be the easiest part since SLS uses improved versions.
- The infrastructure at the cape (Orbiter Processing Facility, Vehicle Assembly Building, Mobile Launcher Platform, Launch Pads, ...) would need to be adapted.
- The Shuttle Carriers have been retired; maybe N905NA could fly again.
- Astronauts and ground crews would need to be trained.
So how many years before e.g. Atlantis would fly again?
space-shuttle
edited 4 hours ago
Organic Marble
48.9k3124208
asked 4 hours ago
Martin Schröder
2621216
Since in the wake of the failure of Soyuz MS-10 "humanity is effectively trapped on Earth" one might try to fly one the remaining Space Shuttle orbiters again. How hard would it be to get them into space and safely back again (assuming they don't have to be man-rated against current criteria)?
I see some problems:
- The orbiters are all in some kind of museum, but important parts (e.g. computers, engines) may have been removed or modified for display, so they might need replacement. And the orbiters probably need at least a C check.
- One would need a new external tank, since I don't think one is in storage. I somehow doubt that tools etc. needed where safely stored away.
- The boosters might be the easiest part since SLS uses improved versions.
- The infrastructure at the cape (Orbiter Processing Facility, Vehicle Assembly Building, Mobile Launcher Platform, Launch Pads, ...) would need to be adapted.
- The Shuttle Carriers have been retired; maybe N905NA could fly again.
- Astronauts and ground crews would need to be trained.
So how many years before e.g. Atlantis would fly again?
space-shuttle
space-shuttle
edited 4 hours ago
Organic Marble
48.9k3124208
asked 4 hours ago
Martin Schröder
2621216
edited 4 hours ago
Organic Marble
48.9k3124208
asked 4 hours ago
Martin Schröder
2621216
edited 4 hours ago
Organic Marble
48.9k3124208
edited 4 hours ago
Organic Marble
48.9k3124208
edited 4 hours ago
Organic Marble
48.9k3124208
48.9k3124208
asked 4 hours ago
Martin Schröder
2621216
asked 4 hours ago
Martin Schröder
2621216
asked 4 hours ago
Martin Schröder
2621216
2621216
1
Several years. It would be cheaper to build a whole new shuttle orbiter than to restore an existing orbiter. It would also be MUCH cheaper to wait for SpaceX and Boeing to finish their man-rating certifications over the next year.
– Ghedipunk
4 hours ago
2
Even after today's incident, I'd feel substantially safer launching on a Soyuz than on STS, if for no other reason than there are viable abort modes throughout the ascent.
– Russell Borogove
4 hours ago
1
Come on, one failure in 40 years, and a non-fatal at that, is enough for you to start panicking and dig out retired spacecraft? Surely any such plan would be more costly and less safe than fixing whatever went wrong with Soyuz.
– IMil
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
1
Several years. It would be cheaper to build a whole new shuttle orbiter than to restore an existing orbiter. It would also be MUCH cheaper to wait for SpaceX and Boeing to finish their man-rating certifications over the next year.
– Ghedipunk
4 hours ago
2
Even after today's incident, I'd feel substantially safer launching on a Soyuz than on STS, if for no other reason than there are viable abort modes throughout the ascent.
– Russell Borogove
4 hours ago
1
Come on, one failure in 40 years, and a non-fatal at that, is enough for you to start panicking and dig out retired spacecraft? Surely any such plan would be more costly and less safe than fixing whatever went wrong with Soyuz.
– IMil
3 hours ago
1
1
Several years. It would be cheaper to build a whole new shuttle orbiter than to restore an existing orbiter. It would also be MUCH cheaper to wait for SpaceX and Boeing to finish their man-rating certifications over the next year.
– Ghedipunk
4 hours ago
Several years. It would be cheaper to build a whole new shuttle orbiter than to restore an existing orbiter. It would also be MUCH cheaper to wait for SpaceX and Boeing to finish their man-rating certifications over the next year.
– Ghedipunk
4 hours ago
2
2
Even after today's incident, I'd feel substantially safer launching on a Soyuz than on STS, if for no other reason than there are viable abort modes throughout the ascent.
– Russell Borogove
4 hours ago
Even after today's incident, I'd feel substantially safer launching on a Soyuz than on STS, if for no other reason than there are viable abort modes throughout the ascent.
– Russell Borogove
4 hours ago
1
1
Come on, one failure in 40 years, and a non-fatal at that, is enough for you to start panicking and dig out retired spacecraft? Surely any such plan would be more costly and less safe than fixing whatever went wrong with Soyuz.
– IMil
3 hours ago
Come on, one failure in 40 years, and a non-fatal at that, is enough for you to start panicking and dig out retired spacecraft? Surely any such plan would be more costly and less safe than fixing whatever went wrong with Soyuz.
– IMil
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
The Space Shuttle (or any complicated system for that matter) is not just composed of the hardware itself. It is a system composed of all the infrastructure needed to get it to work. The hardware needed to manufacture and quality check the specific components, the hundreds or thousands of scientists, engineers, technicians and mechanics with specific domain knowledge who are now retired or in different jobs. Think of the shuttle itself as the capstone of a gigantic pyramid of social, scientific and commercial infrastructure.
The space shuttle is composed of thousands of subsystems that all (or almost all) have to work just right for the shuttle to even lift off. Without the army of people with intimate knowledge of the subsystems they are responsible for, the supply chain for the manufacture of the many and varied specialty parts, and the huge flow of cash to maintain the existence of both even during periods of no activity, you're not going to get a space shuttle to orbit.
answered 3 hours ago
Ingolifs
3888
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
In practical terms, it would be impossible.
The Orbiters were designed in the late 1970s and built with the technology of that time. Late in the program there were many logistics nightmares as parts became impossible to find as manufacturers went away or stopped unprofitable lines. In essence, a near-total redesign would be required.
Former flight director and Space Shuttle Program head Wayne Hale has an eloquent article about it here. Note that this was written in 2008 while shuttles were still flying but after the decision to terminate the program had been made.
To take one little example: if we started today to build another
external tank at MAF, there are probably enough parts on the shelf.
But very shortly we would exhaust supplies of some parts. Maybe on
the second tank — which we need to start in 3 months or so — would
have to get a new supply of specialty parts. Sometimes the old vendor
is still there and could be persuaded to make more of the old parts.
But in many cases, a new vendor would have to be found. Since the
production run would be small, a premium price would have to be paid;
and a certification effort requiring 6 to 12 months would start.
Initial production likely would have a number of rejects as the
workers learn the process. Hmm. In probably 15 to 18 months would
would have the parts to build that second tank — only a year or so
later than we needed them. So a new gap would form. Not between
shuttle and orion but between shuttle and shuttle.
The training simulators are gone, the shuttle Mission Control is gone, the operations contractor is out of business, the workforce is dispersed. Consummatum est.
answered 4 hours ago
Organic Marble
48.9k3124208
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
The Space Shuttle (or any complicated system for that matter) is not just composed of the hardware itself. It is a system composed of all the infrastructure needed to get it to work. The hardware needed to manufacture and quality check the specific components, the hundreds or thousands of scientists, engineers, technicians and mechanics with specific domain knowledge who are now retired or in different jobs. Think of the shuttle itself as the capstone of a gigantic pyramid of social, scientific and commercial infrastructure.
The space shuttle is composed of thousands of subsystems that all (or almost all) have to work just right for the shuttle to even lift off. Without the army of people with intimate knowledge of the subsystems they are responsible for, the supply chain for the manufacture of the many and varied specialty parts, and the huge flow of cash to maintain the existence of both even during periods of no activity, you're not going to get a space shuttle to orbit.
answered 3 hours ago
Ingolifs
3888
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
The Space Shuttle (or any complicated system for that matter) is not just composed of the hardware itself. It is a system composed of all the infrastructure needed to get it to work. The hardware needed to manufacture and quality check the specific components, the hundreds or thousands of scientists, engineers, technicians and mechanics with specific domain knowledge who are now retired or in different jobs. Think of the shuttle itself as the capstone of a gigantic pyramid of social, scientific and commercial infrastructure.
The space shuttle is composed of thousands of subsystems that all (or almost all) have to work just right for the shuttle to even lift off. Without the army of people with intimate knowledge of the subsystems they are responsible for, the supply chain for the manufacture of the many and varied specialty parts, and the huge flow of cash to maintain the existence of both even during periods of no activity, you're not going to get a space shuttle to orbit.
answered 3 hours ago
Ingolifs
3888
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
The Space Shuttle (or any complicated system for that matter) is not just composed of the hardware itself. It is a system composed of all the infrastructure needed to get it to work. The hardware needed to manufacture and quality check the specific components, the hundreds or thousands of scientists, engineers, technicians and mechanics with specific domain knowledge who are now retired or in different jobs. Think of the shuttle itself as the capstone of a gigantic pyramid of social, scientific and commercial infrastructure.
The space shuttle is composed of thousands of subsystems that all (or almost all) have to work just right for the shuttle to even lift off. Without the army of people with intimate knowledge of the subsystems they are responsible for, the supply chain for the manufacture of the many and varied specialty parts, and the huge flow of cash to maintain the existence of both even during periods of no activity, you're not going to get a space shuttle to orbit.
answered 3 hours ago
Ingolifs
3888
The Space Shuttle (or any complicated system for that matter) is not just composed of the hardware itself. It is a system composed of all the infrastructure needed to get it to work. The hardware needed to manufacture and quality check the specific components, the hundreds or thousands of scientists, engineers, technicians and mechanics with specific domain knowledge who are now retired or in different jobs. Think of the shuttle itself as the capstone of a gigantic pyramid of social, scientific and commercial infrastructure.
The space shuttle is composed of thousands of subsystems that all (or almost all) have to work just right for the shuttle to even lift off. Without the army of people with intimate knowledge of the subsystems they are responsible for, the supply chain for the manufacture of the many and varied specialty parts, and the huge flow of cash to maintain the existence of both even during periods of no activity, you're not going to get a space shuttle to orbit.
answered 3 hours ago
Ingolifs
3888
answered 3 hours ago
Ingolifs
3888
answered 3 hours ago
Ingolifs
3888
answered 3 hours ago
Ingolifs
3888
3888
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
In practical terms, it would be impossible.
The Orbiters were designed in the late 1970s and built with the technology of that time. Late in the program there were many logistics nightmares as parts became impossible to find as manufacturers went away or stopped unprofitable lines. In essence, a near-total redesign would be required.
Former flight director and Space Shuttle Program head Wayne Hale has an eloquent article about it here. Note that this was written in 2008 while shuttles were still flying but after the decision to terminate the program had been made.
To take one little example: if we started today to build another
external tank at MAF, there are probably enough parts on the shelf.
But very shortly we would exhaust supplies of some parts. Maybe on
the second tank — which we need to start in 3 months or so — would
have to get a new supply of specialty parts. Sometimes the old vendor
is still there and could be persuaded to make more of the old parts.
But in many cases, a new vendor would have to be found. Since the
production run would be small, a premium price would have to be paid;
and a certification effort requiring 6 to 12 months would start.
Initial production likely would have a number of rejects as the
workers learn the process. Hmm. In probably 15 to 18 months would
would have the parts to build that second tank — only a year or so
later than we needed them. So a new gap would form. Not between
shuttle and orion but between shuttle and shuttle.
The training simulators are gone, the shuttle Mission Control is gone, the operations contractor is out of business, the workforce is dispersed. Consummatum est.
answered 4 hours ago
Organic Marble
48.9k3124208
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
In practical terms, it would be impossible.
The Orbiters were designed in the late 1970s and built with the technology of that time. Late in the program there were many logistics nightmares as parts became impossible to find as manufacturers went away or stopped unprofitable lines. In essence, a near-total redesign would be required.
Former flight director and Space Shuttle Program head Wayne Hale has an eloquent article about it here. Note that this was written in 2008 while shuttles were still flying but after the decision to terminate the program had been made.
To take one little example: if we started today to build another
external tank at MAF, there are probably enough parts on the shelf.
But very shortly we would exhaust supplies of some parts. Maybe on
the second tank — which we need to start in 3 months or so — would
have to get a new supply of specialty parts. Sometimes the old vendor
is still there and could be persuaded to make more of the old parts.
But in many cases, a new vendor would have to be found. Since the
production run would be small, a premium price would have to be paid;
and a certification effort requiring 6 to 12 months would start.
Initial production likely would have a number of rejects as the
workers learn the process. Hmm. In probably 15 to 18 months would
would have the parts to build that second tank — only a year or so
later than we needed them. So a new gap would form. Not between
shuttle and orion but between shuttle and shuttle.
The training simulators are gone, the shuttle Mission Control is gone, the operations contractor is out of business, the workforce is dispersed. Consummatum est.
answered 4 hours ago
Organic Marble
48.9k3124208
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
In practical terms, it would be impossible.
The Orbiters were designed in the late 1970s and built with the technology of that time. Late in the program there were many logistics nightmares as parts became impossible to find as manufacturers went away or stopped unprofitable lines. In essence, a near-total redesign would be required.
Former flight director and Space Shuttle Program head Wayne Hale has an eloquent article about it here. Note that this was written in 2008 while shuttles were still flying but after the decision to terminate the program had been made.
To take one little example: if we started today to build another
external tank at MAF, there are probably enough parts on the shelf.
But very shortly we would exhaust supplies of some parts. Maybe on
the second tank — which we need to start in 3 months or so — would
have to get a new supply of specialty parts. Sometimes the old vendor
is still there and could be persuaded to make more of the old parts.
But in many cases, a new vendor would have to be found. Since the
production run would be small, a premium price would have to be paid;
and a certification effort requiring 6 to 12 months would start.
Initial production likely would have a number of rejects as the
workers learn the process. Hmm. In probably 15 to 18 months would
would have the parts to build that second tank — only a year or so
later than we needed them. So a new gap would form. Not between
shuttle and orion but between shuttle and shuttle.
The training simulators are gone, the shuttle Mission Control is gone, the operations contractor is out of business, the workforce is dispersed. Consummatum est.
answered 4 hours ago
Organic Marble
48.9k3124208
In practical terms, it would be impossible.
The Orbiters were designed in the late 1970s and built with the technology of that time. Late in the program there were many logistics nightmares as parts became impossible to find as manufacturers went away or stopped unprofitable lines. In essence, a near-total redesign would be required.
Former flight director and Space Shuttle Program head Wayne Hale has an eloquent article about it here. Note that this was written in 2008 while shuttles were still flying but after the decision to terminate the program had been made.
To take one little example: if we started today to build another
external tank at MAF, there are probably enough parts on the shelf.
But very shortly we would exhaust supplies of some parts. Maybe on
the second tank — which we need to start in 3 months or so — would
have to get a new supply of specialty parts. Sometimes the old vendor
is still there and could be persuaded to make more of the old parts.
But in many cases, a new vendor would have to be found. Since the
production run would be small, a premium price would have to be paid;
and a certification effort requiring 6 to 12 months would start.
Initial production likely would have a number of rejects as the
workers learn the process. Hmm. In probably 15 to 18 months would
would have the parts to build that second tank — only a year or so
later than we needed them. So a new gap would form. Not between
shuttle and orion but between shuttle and shuttle.
The training simulators are gone, the shuttle Mission Control is gone, the operations contractor is out of business, the workforce is dispersed. Consummatum est.
answered 4 hours ago
Organic Marble
48.9k3124208
edited 4 hours ago
answered 4 hours ago
Organic Marble
48.9k3124208
answered 4 hours ago
Organic Marble
48.9k3124208
answered 4 hours ago
Organic Marble
48.9k3124208
48.9k3124208
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f31281%2fhow-hard-would-it-be-to-fly-a-space-shuttle-again%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
Several years. It would be cheaper to build a whole new shuttle orbiter than to restore an existing orbiter. It would also be MUCH cheaper to wait for SpaceX and Boeing to finish their man-rating certifications over the next year.
– Ghedipunk
4 hours ago
2
Even after today's incident, I'd feel substantially safer launching on a Soyuz than on STS, if for no other reason than there are viable abort modes throughout the ascent.
– Russell Borogove
4 hours ago
1
Come on, one failure in 40 years, and a non-fatal at that, is enough for you to start panicking and dig out retired spacecraft? Surely any such plan would be more costly and less safe than fixing whatever went wrong with Soyuz.
– IMil
3 hours ago