Are there technical reasons that we can’t leave the Space Shuttle Atlantis docked at the ISS permanently (bringing the astronauts down by escape pod), making it part of the station, rather than bringing it down again only to never use it again? I would think that one could turn it into additional habitat or working space, and possibly use the shuttle thrusters to help stabilize the station.
What am I missing?
It’s designed to be serviced on earth.
It’s not purpose built for a space station, so would be a poor use of space (haha).
I’m sure there are dozens of other reasons, such as effects on the space station itself.
How many docks does the ISS have? Won’t they need to use the dock, or is the Shuttle’s dock used only for that?
The ISS uses a Soyuz capsule as an emergency lifeboat and it’s swapped out every six months. If the Soyuz capsule is used to return the shuttle’s crew to earth, then the shuttle is what’s left behind as the life boat. I don’t believe the space shuttle is designed to remain in orbit for months and months; example, it’s entirely likely that on-board batteries would be depleted over such a long period.
Would there be much of a guarantee that there would always be a pilot on the ISS? I’d imagine the escape pod is foolproof, but it would seem to need a capable pilot to do anything with the space shuttle, even just firing thrusters to alter the ISS orbit. Not just any oil rig roughneck can hop behind the wheel and blast off.
Asked and answered in a previous thread: [POST=12096820]**Leaving the last Space Shuttle in space. **[/POST]
For those who don’t want to be bothered to click on the link and read that thread, here is my response which is mostly applicable to the question of the o.p.:*First of all, the Orbiter has a maximum operational mission length of about 16 days with the Extended Duration Orbiter (EDO) modifications. If powered down and sealed off so that batteries, fuel cells, and CO2 converters aren’t being consumed it could no doubt last longer, but it isn’t designed to remain on station indefinitely. If astronauts are inhabiting the Orbiter, then you’re using those consumables.
Second, there would be little point in having the Orbiter around for “spare parts”; there is virtually nothing on it that would be useful in making repairs or maintenance to the ISS.
Third, as a “space tug” the Orbiter is an abysmal vehicle, even if there were a reason for using it. The massive dead weight of the wings and enclosed payload bay use ridiculous amounts of fuel for small orbital changes. Several studies were conducted during the early 'Nineties when NASA was looking for a mission to replace the then seemingly canceled Space Station Freedom, and all concluded that the Orbiter and STS system was ineffective and undesirable for missions above LEO. (One of its original intended roles, to recover and return with satellites for repair and refurbishment, ended up not being cost effective.) Again, the Orbiter is not designed to remain on-orbit for extended periods of time (more than a couple of weeks) and will not be operational after a long storage period.
As an emergency crew return vehicle, the Soyuz capsule actually makes a lot more sense; save for the limitation of a paltry crew complement of 3, it is capable of landing on land or sea, and the blunt-arsed return mode is highly robust even for undesirable return vectors, whereas the Orbiter can only land on a handful of airstrips and has very limited available return vectors.*
Stranger
Given the limited habitable space aboard an orbiter, the potential problems outweigh the potential benefits.
If you want the lights and air conditioning to work aboard the shuttle, you need electricity. The shuttle orbiters generate electricity using fuel cells, which are only good for a few weeks. In recent years a station-to-shuttle power transfer system was developed to allow the shuttle to receive power from the station’s solar panels, but as it happens Atlantis doesn’t have the module installed. (An ordinary garden extension cord wouldn’t cut it.)
The presence of an orbiter at the station probably increases the risk of accidents. For instance, the shuttle’s reaction control system (little maneuvering rocket engines) has a non-zero risk of firing on its own, and this could tear the orbiter away from the station while the hatches are open.
Any vehicle left on the premises longer than 3 days after completion of service will be charged a storage fee of $10.00 per day.
very recently, within the past week or so, I thought of this whole idea all by myself
then I was horrified when I realized that it’s far too late to do anything about it - there’s zero chance of them launching any of the shuttles ever again
but here I see that other people had similar ideas! - you guys are smart in here
how about if they outfitted one or two of the shuttles with major solar arrays and sensors, and hardened electronics and other components suitable for long term orbit use
then it was launched and was taken to the ISS and the crew got off and then remote piloted it into a long-term stable orbit and used it as a satellite or experiment station?
at least if they were left in a stable orbit they wouldn’t decay much at all for centuries, at which time we could either turn them into world heritage sites or orbiting museums or whatever
not leaving any of them up there seems disrespectful to me and somehow against their nature - they always seemed so peaceful once they were up there and cooled off from the ride
ideally, they would have docked two of them together through a large docking tunnel between both cargo bays and made one massive satellite out of them - keeping them up indefinitely and being as useful as possible, but forever unmanned
I’m also mad that they aren’t talking about doing this with Hubble - it seems a crime against humanity and science to let it de-orbit … working or not, I think we OWE it to future generations to protect these things and keep them safe for them instead of just leaving them stories, pictures and debris
The below thread was right under this one and sort of says much as to why.
Car won’t start after sitting for 3 months
so in the end, it’s money … there are ways of doing it, but it’s not as cost-effective as sending up new equipment
it shouldn’t be about the money with these though, it should be about preserving these vehicles as being an important part of human history - even if it costs much more than a typical shuttle launch
No, it’s NOT just about money. Read the links provided in the thread. The shuttle isn’t designed for it, and it would be massively inefficient for what we would want it to do in that case. As noted above, the existing Soyuz capsule is already a better platform for an escape shuttle idea.
It’s like using a wrench for a hammer. Sure, if you have nothing else available, you could probably make it work. But it’s a better idea to use a hammer.
A wrench makes a pretty decent hammer if you don’t have a real one. 
Why is leaving a space shuttle in space a better way of preserving these vehicles as a part of human history than putting it in a museum on earth?
because that way we will be driven to continue our technology so we can get to the point where we can preserve it for centuries, where on earth it will decay much faster because of our corrosive and thick atmosphere
OK. I don’t think I agree with you, but I can respect that point of view.
The Space Shuttle is mostly made of aluminum and covered by ceramic tiles. Those are fairly durable materials. One of the Saturn V rockets sat outdoors in Alabama for over 30 years and it doesn’t look too bad. (It’s now indoors.) And all surviving Space Shuttle orbiters are going to museums where they’ll be exhibited in air-conditioned buildings.
On the other hand, if it’s launched into a low-earth orbit, its orbit will decay over several years, or several decades at most. It will reenter the atmosphere at an uncontrolled angle and disintegrate like Columbia did. If it were launched into a much higher orbit, it could stay for much longer, but it will be continuously damaged by micrometeorites (and perhaps some not-so-micro meteorites).
Not sure about that, temperature differences, particles and radiation; do erode items, specially items in low orbit, in the long run.
It should be obvious that the lessons of that experiment were then applied to the materials used in the ISP, but the shuttle fleet was made before that experiment.
Exactly. It’s not as if the Orbiters are going to be parked outside, like Uncle Al’s old Chevy, and left to the elements. They’ll be well-maintained, will last far, far longer than they possibly could in orbit, and will be available to many, many more people to view and explore.
You guys are all seriously underestimating the destructive capabilities of bored fifth-graders who are on field trips that they never wanted to go on in the first place. Those orbiters are gonna look like a Lexus parked in Tijuana in no time flat.