> Dear SSI folks,
> I am a little surprised there have not been a whole group of
solutions to
> the recent Space Shuttle problem being posted to this group. But,
I have an
> idea I would like to try on you-all. Use the International Space
Station as
> a filling station in the sense that it would have the resources to
inspect
> and do minor repairs on the shuttle tiles so it could complete its
mission,
> in the same since that many filling stations on Earth can do minor
repair on
> autos so they can safely get back on the road. It may be this
would have
> avoided the Columbia disaster if it would have gone to the ISS
before trying
> re-entry. Now I know the Columbia could not get there from the
orbit that
> was chosen for it, and it did not have docking resources, but duh,
those
> were decisions someone made and so don't make those choices any
more. What
> do you think? Jay Huebner

My concern with your suggestion is the sheer immenisty of scale that
the tile operation involves and having to have the ability to fix a
tile in orbit. All of those NASA people who just glue tiles onto the
shuttle, and the incredible number of individually shaped tiles.

I would think that other options might solve the problem.

I would suggest that before a shuttle is launched a backup shuttle
is ready to go, or within a week of ready to go. Or even a Russian
Soyuz. Insread of having the missions spaced 3 months apart, twin
the missions and have a longer interval between twinned missions.

Also, a small robotic flyer that is carried on each shuttle. It is
released and does a fly-by inspection with its cameras and other
gear to detect for problems. Alternatively, the ISS has some
permanent sensors with which it can observe the Shuttle in whichever
orbit it happens to be.

Thus, if there is a problem detected, the stand-by shuttle is
launched with the necessary equipment to effect repairs, or bring
the crew back if necessary while leaving the shuttle in orbit to be
repaired or brought back at a future time.

TangoMan

It seems to me this proposal doubles the price of a Space Shuttle mission.
Jay Huebner

[mailto:victoriatangoman@...

> Dear SSI folks,
> I am a little surprised there have not been a whole group of
solutions to
> the recent Space Shuttle problem being posted to this group. But,
I have an
> idea I would like to try on you-all. Use the International Space
Station as
> a filling station in the sense that it would have the resources to
inspect
> and do minor repairs on the shuttle tiles so it could complete its
mission,
> in the same since that many filling stations on Earth can do minor
repair on
> autos so they can safely get back on the road. It may be this
would have
> avoided the Columbia disaster if it would have gone to the ISS
before trying
> re-entry. Now I know the Columbia could not get there from the
orbit that
> was chosen for it, and it did not have docking resources, but duh,
those
> were decisions someone made and so don't make those choices any
more. What
> do you think? Jay Huebner

My concern with your suggestion is the sheer immenisty of scale that
the tile operation involves and having to have the ability to fix a
tile in orbit. All of those NASA people who just glue tiles onto the
shuttle, and the incredible number of individually shaped tiles.

I would think that other options might solve the problem.

I would suggest that before a shuttle is launched a backup shuttle
is ready to go, or within a week of ready to go. Or even a Russian
Soyuz. Insread of having the missions spaced 3 months apart, twin
the missions and have a longer interval between twinned missions.

Also, a small robotic flyer that is carried on each shuttle. It is
released and does a fly-by inspection with its cameras and other
gear to detect for problems. Alternatively, the ISS has some
permanent sensors with which it can observe the Shuttle in whichever
orbit it happens to be.

Thus, if there is a problem detected, the stand-by shuttle is
launched with the necessary equipment to effect repairs, or bring
the crew back if necessary while leaving the shuttle in orbit to be
repaired or brought back at a future time.

TangoMan

Not at all. Each shuttle has its own mission but the launch windows
are twinned. They don't go up empty. Thus if trouble happens in
orbit, you have a rescue vehicle ready to go. Alternatively, have
the Russians reschedule their Soyuz production run, so that a Soyuz
is almost pad ready. If its needed, it's launched immediately at
sign of trouble, otherwise it is launched when needed for its
mission and another Soyuz takes its place as the rescue vehicle.

TangoMan

> It seems to me this proposal doubles the price of a Space Shuttle
mission.
> Jay Huebner
>
> [mailto:victoriatangoman@...
>
> --- In ssi_list@... "Huebner, Jay"
> > Dear SSI folks,
> > I am a little surprised there have not been a whole group of
> solutions to
> > the recent Space Shuttle problem being posted to this group.
But,
> I have an
> > idea I would like to try on you-all. Use the International
Space
> Station as
> > a filling station in the sense that it would have the resources
to
> inspect
> > and do minor repairs on the shuttle tiles so it could complete
its
> mission,
> > in the same since that many filling stations on Earth can do
minor
> repair on
> > autos so they can safely get back on the road. It may be this
> would have
> > avoided the Columbia disaster if it would have gone to the ISS
> before trying
> > re-entry. Now I know the Columbia could not get there from the
> orbit that
> > was chosen for it, and it did not have docking resources, but
duh,
> those
> > were decisions someone made and so don't make those choices any
> more. What
> > do you think? Jay Huebner
>
> My concern with your suggestion is the sheer immenisty of scale
that
> the tile operation involves and having to have the ability to fix
a
> tile in orbit. All of those NASA people who just glue tiles onto
the
> shuttle, and the incredible number of individually shaped tiles.
>
> I would think that other options might solve the problem.
>
> I would suggest that before a shuttle is launched a backup shuttle
> is ready to go, or within a week of ready to go. Or even a Russian
> Soyuz. Insread of having the missions spaced 3 months apart, twin
> the missions and have a longer interval between twinned missions.
>
> Also, a small robotic flyer that is carried on each shuttle. It is
> released and does a fly-by inspection with its cameras and other
> gear to detect for problems. Alternatively, the ISS has some
> permanent sensors with which it can observe the Shuttle in
whichever
> orbit it happens to be.
>
> Thus, if there is a problem detected, the stand-by shuttle is
> launched with the necessary equipment to effect repairs, or bring
> the crew back if necessary while leaving the shuttle in orbit to
be

Okay, I agree this plan does not double the launch cost, but it still raises
it. The Columbia crew did not know they needed help. How is that problem
solved with out taking a lot of extra equipment along? And could one
Shuttle take the passengers and equipment from another without the one
offloading having a lot of extra equipment already along? The need to carry
much equipment would raise the cost of each mission. Jay Huebner

[mailto:victoriatangoman@...

Not at all. Each shuttle has its own mission but the launch windows
are twinned. They don't go up empty. Thus if trouble happens in
orbit, you have a rescue vehicle ready to go. Alternatively, have
the Russians reschedule their Soyuz production run, so that a Soyuz
is almost pad ready. If its needed, it's launched immediately at
sign of trouble, otherwise it is launched when needed for its
mission and another Soyuz takes its place as the rescue vehicle.

TangoMan

> It seems to me this proposal doubles the price of a Space Shuttle
mission.
> Jay Huebner
>
> [mailto:victoriatangoman@...
>
> --- In ssi_list@... "Huebner, Jay"
> > Dear SSI folks,
> > I am a little surprised there have not been a whole group of
> solutions to
> > the recent Space Shuttle problem being posted to this group.
But,
> I have an
> > idea I would like to try on you-all. Use the International
Space
> Station as
> > a filling station in the sense that it would have the resources
to
> inspect
> > and do minor repairs on the shuttle tiles so it could complete
its
> mission,
> > in the same since that many filling stations on Earth can do
minor
> repair on
> > autos so they can safely get back on the road. It may be this
> would have
> > avoided the Columbia disaster if it would have gone to the ISS
> before trying
> > re-entry. Now I know the Columbia could not get there from the
> orbit that
> > was chosen for it, and it did not have docking resources, but
duh,
> those
> > were decisions someone made and so don't make those choices any
> more. What
> > do you think? Jay Huebner
>
> My concern with your suggestion is the sheer immenisty of scale
that
> the tile operation involves and having to have the ability to fix
a
> tile in orbit. All of those NASA people who just glue tiles onto
the
> shuttle, and the incredible number of individually shaped tiles.
>
> I would think that other options might solve the problem.
>
> I would suggest that before a shuttle is launched a backup shuttle
> is ready to go, or within a week of ready to go. Or even a Russian
> Soyuz. Insread of having the missions spaced 3 months apart, twin
> the missions and have a longer interval between twinned missions.
>
> Also, a small robotic flyer that is carried on each shuttle. It is
> released and does a fly-by inspection with its cameras and other
> gear to detect for problems. Alternatively, the ISS has some
> permanent sensors with which it can observe the Shuttle in
whichever
> orbit it happens to be.
>
> Thus, if there is a problem detected, the stand-by shuttle is
> launched with the necessary equipment to effect repairs, or bring
> the crew back if necessary while leaving the shuttle in orbit to
be

You posited having a repair station at the ISS. That, in my mind,
would require a whole assortment of equipment and supplies to fix
all sorts of problems that could creep up.

By twinning the launch windows, you could send up just the equipment
that was needed. If the repairs needed a whole lot of equipment, you
could just send up the shuttle to perform its already scheduled
mission and then to fetch the astronauts from the 1st shuttle and
return them all to earth while leaving the damaged shuttle in orbit,
controlled by mission control. Then with as much dispatch as
possible, send a dedicated mission to repair the damaged shuttle.

As for inspection, I would guess a small probe, maybe the size of a
beachball, with enough rocket fuel to power a recon mission around
the shuttle, could be standard equipment on every mission in order
to search for problems.

I just had another thought.

Perhaps the ISS has some open frame rocket sleds. Just an engine and
guidance equipment and seats. If there is immediate trouble on a
Shuttle, then they are dispatched. The astronauts don their suits,
buckle in to the sled, and go for a multi-hour ride as they change
orbits to arrive at the ISS.

My thinking is that the mass of this sled is reduced by making it
bare bones and this should allow orbital transfers in emergency
situations. Of course, we've never really had astronauts zipping
around in open sleds before, but maybe that's something to look at.
Definitely would use less fuel than moving a whole shuttle.

TangoMan

> Okay, I agree this plan does not double the launch cost, but it
still raises
> it. The Columbia crew did not know they needed help. How is that
problem
> solved with out taking a lot of extra equipment along? And could
one
> Shuttle take the passengers and equipment from another without the
one
> offloading having a lot of extra equipment already along? The
need to carry
> much equipment would raise the cost of each mission. Jay Huebner
>
> [mailto:victoriatangoman@...
>
> Not at all. Each shuttle has its own mission but the launch
windows
> are twinned. They don't go up empty. Thus if trouble happens in
> orbit, you have a rescue vehicle ready to go. Alternatively, have
> the Russians reschedule their Soyuz production run, so that a
Soyuz
> is almost pad ready. If its needed, it's launched immediately at
> sign of trouble, otherwise it is launched when needed for its
> mission and another Soyuz takes its place as the rescue vehicle.
>
> TangoMan
>
> --- In ssi_list@... "Huebner, Jay"
> > It seems to me this proposal doubles the price of a Space
Shuttle
> mission.
> > Jay Huebner
> >
> > [mailto:victoriatangoman@...
> >
> > --- In ssi_list@... "Huebner, Jay"
> > > Dear SSI folks,
> > > I am a little surprised there have not been a whole group
of
> > solutions to
> > > the recent Space Shuttle problem being posted to this group.
> But,
> > I have an
> > > idea I would like to try on you-all. Use the International
> Space
> > Station as
> > > a filling station in the sense that it would have the
resources
> to
> > inspect
> > > and do minor repairs on the shuttle tiles so it could complete
> its
> > mission,
> > > in the same since that many filling stations on Earth can do
> minor
> > repair on
> > > autos so they can safely get back on the road. It may be this
> > would have
> > > avoided the Columbia disaster if it would have gone to the ISS
> > before trying
> > > re-entry. Now I know the Columbia could not get there from
the
> > orbit that
> > > was chosen for it, and it did not have docking resources, but
> duh,
> > those
> > > were decisions someone made and so don't make those choices
any
> > more. What
> > > do you think? Jay Huebner
> >
> > My concern with your suggestion is the sheer immenisty of scale
> that
> > the tile operation involves and having to have the ability to
fix
> a
> > tile in orbit. All of those NASA people who just glue tiles onto
> the
> > shuttle, and the incredible number of individually shaped tiles.
> >
> > I would think that other options might solve the problem.
> >
> > I would suggest that before a shuttle is launched a backup
shuttle
> > is ready to go, or within a week of ready to go. Or even a
Russian
> > Soyuz. Insread of having the missions spaced 3 months apart,
twin
> > the missions and have a longer interval between twinned missions.
> >
> > Also, a small robotic flyer that is carried on each shuttle. It
is
> > released and does a fly-by inspection with its cameras and other
> > gear to detect for problems. Alternatively, the ISS has some
> > permanent sensors with which it can observe the Shuttle in
> whichever
> > orbit it happens to be.
> >
> > Thus, if there is a problem detected, the stand-by shuttle is
> > launched with the necessary equipment to effect repairs, or
bring

Yes, but. If one was sure they knew what to send up, the "fix it shuttle"
might be a reasonable way to go. But what if one out fitted a shuttle with
what one thought was needed and then when it was on orbit found more
"patches" were needed. A "fix it" shop on ISS might be better. And aren't
you up to two shuttle flights now, one to rescue the crew and one for the
orbiter?

I like the "beach ball robot space web cam", which could be used in lots of
scenarios, ISS, Shuttle, asteroids, etc.

I think the fuel to change an orbit from say equatorial to 56 degrees
inclined would be huge. That is why I suggest making all shuttle missions
to match the ISS. Let other rockets go to other orbits, even if that means
waiting for the next generation or shuttle replacement.
Got to go, sincerely, Jay Huebner

[mailto:victoriatangoman@...

You posited having a repair station at the ISS. That, in my mind,
would require a whole assortment of equipment and supplies to fix
all sorts of problems that could creep up.

By twinning the launch windows, you could send up just the equipment
that was needed. If the repairs needed a whole lot of equipment, you
could just send up the shuttle to perform its already scheduled
mission and then to fetch the astronauts from the 1st shuttle and
return them all to earth while leaving the damaged shuttle in orbit,
controlled by mission control. Then with as much dispatch as
possible, send a dedicated mission to repair the damaged shuttle.

As for inspection, I would guess a small probe, maybe the size of a
beachball, with enough rocket fuel to power a recon mission around
the shuttle, could be standard equipment on every mission in order
to search for problems.

I just had another thought.

Perhaps the ISS has some open frame rocket sleds. Just an engine and
guidance equipment and seats. If there is immediate trouble on a
Shuttle, then they are dispatched. The astronauts don their suits,
buckle in to the sled, and go for a multi-hour ride as they change
orbits to arrive at the ISS.

My thinking is that the mass of this sled is reduced by making it
bare bones and this should allow orbital transfers in emergency
situations. Of course, we've never really had astronauts zipping
around in open sleds before, but maybe that's something to look at.
Definitely would use less fuel than moving a whole shuttle.

TangoMan

> Okay, I agree this plan does not double the launch cost, but it
still raises
> it. The Columbia crew did not know they needed help. How is that
problem
> solved with out taking a lot of extra equipment along? And could
one
> Shuttle take the passengers and equipment from another without the
one
> offloading having a lot of extra equipment already along? The
need to carry
> much equipment would raise the cost of each mission. Jay Huebner
>
> [mailto:victoriatangoman@...
>
> Not at all. Each shuttle has its own mission but the launch
windows
> are twinned. They don't go up empty. Thus if trouble happens in
> orbit, you have a rescue vehicle ready to go. Alternatively, have
> the Russians reschedule their Soyuz production run, so that a
Soyuz
> is almost pad ready. If its needed, it's launched immediately at
> sign of trouble, otherwise it is launched when needed for its
> mission and another Soyuz takes its place as the rescue vehicle.
>
> TangoMan
>
> --- In ssi_list@... "Huebner, Jay"
> > It seems to me this proposal doubles the price of a Space
Shuttle
> mission.
> > Jay Huebner
> >
> > [mailto:victoriatangoman@...
> >
> > --- In ssi_list@... "Huebner, Jay"
> > > Dear SSI folks,
> > > I am a little surprised there have not been a whole group
of
> > solutions to
> > > the recent Space Shuttle problem being posted to this group.
> But,
> > I have an
> > > idea I would like to try on you-all. Use the International
> Space
> > Station as
> > > a filling station in the sense that it would have the
resources
> to
> > inspect
> > > and do minor repairs on the shuttle tiles so it could complete
> its
> > mission,
> > > in the same since that many filling stations on Earth can do
> minor
> > repair on
> > > autos so they can safely get back on the road. It may be this
> > would have
> > > avoided the Columbia disaster if it would have gone to the ISS
> > before trying
> > > re-entry. Now I know the Columbia could not get there from
the
> > orbit that
> > > was chosen for it, and it did not have docking resources, but
> duh,
> > those
> > > were decisions someone made and so don't make those choices
any
> > more. What
> > > do you think? Jay Huebner
> >
> > My concern with your suggestion is the sheer immenisty of scale
> that
> > the tile operation involves and having to have the ability to
fix
> a
> > tile in orbit. All of those NASA people who just glue tiles onto
> the
> > shuttle, and the incredible number of individually shaped tiles.
> >
> > I would think that other options might solve the problem.
> >
> > I would suggest that before a shuttle is launched a backup
shuttle
> > is ready to go, or within a week of ready to go. Or even a
Russian
> > Soyuz. Insread of having the missions spaced 3 months apart,
twin
> > the missions and have a longer interval between twinned missions.
> >
> > Also, a small robotic flyer that is carried on each shuttle. It
is
> > released and does a fly-by inspection with its cameras and other
> > gear to detect for problems. Alternatively, the ISS has some
> > permanent sensors with which it can observe the Shuttle in
> whichever
> > orbit it happens to be.
> >
> > Thus, if there is a problem detected, the stand-by shuttle is
> > launched with the necessary equipment to effect repairs, or
bring

> Yes, but. If one was sure they knew what to send up, the "fix it
shuttle"
> might be a reasonable way to go. But what if one out fitted a
shuttle with
> what one thought was needed and then when it was on orbit found
more
> "patches" were needed. A "fix it" shop on ISS might be better.
And aren't
> you up to two shuttle flights now, one to rescue the crew and one
for the
> orbiter?

My real concern iwth your proposal is that I look at all of the
infrastructure that is at the Cape for refurbishing the shuttle
between missions and thinking that you're going to duplicate that at
the ISS. I honestly don't see how.

Even if you could duplicate it up there, you would still need to
supply it with material for repairs, and using past incidences as a
benchmark, you would have used it twice per 116? missions to avert
disaster.

I would suggest that the repair shuttle not launch until the problem
is completely diagnosed in orbit.

As for the two shuttle flights, they don't need be dedicated
repair/rescue missions. Those can be piggy backed onto regular
missions.

If the damage is catastrophic and requires a dedicated mission then
you would surely have taxed the capacity of an ISS fix-it bay,
wouldn't you?

>
> I like the "beach ball robot space web cam", which could be used
in lots of
> scenarios, ISS, Shuttle, asteroids, etc.
>
> I think the fuel to change an orbit from say equatorial to 56
degrees
> inclined would be huge. That is why I suggest making all shuttle
missions
> to match the ISS. Let other rockets go to other orbits, even if
that means
> waiting for the next generation or shuttle replacement.

Well, that is an option. Why does mission control mandate certain
orbits for missions? Should missions really be aborted if they don't
go to ISS? That's certainly worth a debate.

TangoMan

> Got to go, sincerely, Jay Huebner
>
> [mailto:victoriatangoman@...
>
> You posited having a repair station at the ISS. That, in my mind,
> would require a whole assortment of equipment and supplies to fix
> all sorts of problems that could creep up.
>
> By twinning the launch windows, you could send up just the
equipment
> that was needed. If the repairs needed a whole lot of equipment,
you
> could just send up the shuttle to perform its already scheduled
> mission and then to fetch the astronauts from the 1st shuttle and
> return them all to earth while leaving the damaged shuttle in
orbit,
> controlled by mission control. Then with as much dispatch as
> possible, send a dedicated mission to repair the damaged shuttle.
>
> As for inspection, I would guess a small probe, maybe the size of
a
> beachball, with enough rocket fuel to power a recon mission around
> the shuttle, could be standard equipment on every mission in order
> to search for problems.
>
> I just had another thought.
>
> Perhaps the ISS has some open frame rocket sleds. Just an engine
and
> guidance equipment and seats. If there is immediate trouble on a
> Shuttle, then they are dispatched. The astronauts don their suits,
> buckle in to the sled, and go for a multi-hour ride as they change
> orbits to arrive at the ISS.
>
> My thinking is that the mass of this sled is reduced by making it
> bare bones and this should allow orbital transfers in emergency
> situations. Of course, we've never really had astronauts zipping
> around in open sleds before, but maybe that's something to look
at.
> Definitely would use less fuel than moving a whole shuttle.
>
> TangoMan
>
> --- In ssi_list@... "Huebner, Jay"
> > Okay, I agree this plan does not double the launch cost, but it
> still raises
> > it. The Columbia crew did not know they needed help. How is
that
> problem
> > solved with out taking a lot of extra equipment along? And
could
> one
> > Shuttle take the passengers and equipment from another without
the
> one
> > offloading having a lot of extra equipment already along? The
> need to carry
> > much equipment would raise the cost of each mission. Jay Huebner
> >
> > [mailto:victoriatangoman@...
> >
> > Not at all. Each shuttle has its own mission but the launch
> windows
> > are twinned. They don't go up empty. Thus if trouble happens in
> > orbit, you have a rescue vehicle ready to go. Alternatively,
have
> > the Russians reschedule their Soyuz production run, so that a
> Soyuz
> > is almost pad ready. If its needed, it's launched immediately at
> > sign of trouble, otherwise it is launched when needed for its
> > mission and another Soyuz takes its place as the rescue vehicle.
> >
> > TangoMan
> >
> > --- In ssi_list@... "Huebner, Jay"
> > > It seems to me this proposal doubles the price of a Space
> Shuttle
> > mission.
> > > Jay Huebner
> > >
> > > [mailto:victoriatangoman@...
> > >
> > > --- In ssi_list@... "Huebner, Jay"
> > > > Dear SSI folks,
> > > > I am a little surprised there have not been a whole group
> of
> > > solutions to
> > > > the recent Space Shuttle problem being posted to this
group.
> > But,
> > > I have an
> > > > idea I would like to try on you-all. Use the International
> > Space
> > > Station as
> > > > a filling station in the sense that it would have the
> resources
> > to
> > > inspect
> > > > and do minor repairs on the shuttle tiles so it could
complete
> > its
> > > mission,
> > > > in the same since that many filling stations on Earth can do
> > minor
> > > repair on
> > > > autos so they can safely get back on the road. It may be
this
> > > would have
> > > > avoided the Columbia disaster if it would have gone to the
ISS
> > > before trying
> > > > re-entry. Now I know the Columbia could not get there from
> the
> > > orbit that
> > > > was chosen for it, and it did not have docking resources,
but
> > duh,
> > > those
> > > > were decisions someone made and so don't make those choices
> any
> > > more. What
> > > > do you think? Jay Huebner
> > >
> > > My concern with your suggestion is the sheer immenisty of
scale
> > that
> > > the tile operation involves and having to have the ability to
> fix
> > a
> > > tile in orbit. All of those NASA people who just glue tiles
onto
> > the
> > > shuttle, and the incredible number of individually shaped
tiles.
> > >
> > > I would think that other options might solve the problem.
> > >
> > > I would suggest that before a shuttle is launched a backup
> shuttle
> > > is ready to go, or within a week of ready to go. Or even a
> Russian
> > > Soyuz. Insread of having the missions spaced 3 months apart,
> twin
> > > the missions and have a longer interval between twinned
missions.
> > >
> > > Also, a small robotic flyer that is carried on each shuttle.
It
> is
> > > released and does a fly-by inspection with its cameras and
other
> > > gear to detect for problems. Alternatively, the ISS has some
> > > permanent sensors with which it can observe the Shuttle in
> > whichever
> > > orbit it happens to be.
> > >
> > > Thus, if there is a problem detected, the stand-by shuttle is
> > > launched with the necessary equipment to effect repairs, or
> bring
> > > the crew back if necessary while leaving the shuttle in orbit
to

In light of topics discussed previously within this thread I offer
the following link:

Satellite views of shuttle declined

http://www.msnbc.com/news/872804.asp?0dm7JT

" DURING THREE of those passes the shuttle was within 100 miles
of the top-secret satellite-close enough, perhaps, to detect areas
of damage as small as two inches in diameter."

Perhaps standard operating procedure should involve an imaging run
on every mission.

TangoMan