Otdfbt

Are athlete's college degrees discounted by employers and graduate school admissions?

As easy as Three, Two, One... How fast can you go from Five to Four?

Why did the AvroCar fail to fly above 3 feet?

What publication claimed that Michael Jackson died in a nuclear holocaust?

Is it advisable to add a location heads-up when a scene changes in a novel?

Can you open the door or die? v2

How to deal with an excess of white-space in a CRM UI?

Print "N NE E SE S SW W NW"

What did the 8086 (and 8088) do upon encountering an illegal instruction?

Fully extended TQFT and lattice models

How to import .txt file with missing data?

What class is best to play when a level behind the rest of the party?

Realistic, logical way for men with medieval-era weaponry to compete with much larger and physically stronger foes

Purpose of cylindrical attachments on Power Transmission towers

What game uses six-sided dice with symbols as well as numbers on the 5 and 6 faces?

If absolute velocity does not exist, how can we say a rocket accelerates in empty space?

Is tuition reimbursement a good idea if you have to stay with the job

Is it a good security practice to force employees hide their employer to avoid being targeted?

Undocumented incompatibility between changes and siunitx?

How to remove the empty page that is placed after the ToC, List of figures and List of tables

Dedicated bike GPS computer over smartphone

Boss making me feel guilty for leaving the company at the end of my internship

Generate parentheses solution

What is Gilligan's full name?

Why use water tanks from a retired Space Shuttle?

What is the Process for Re-certifying Flight Hardware?Why is the Shuttle Landing Facility runway surrounded by water?Were Space Shuttle External Tanks recoverable and reusable?Did some of the Shuttle fuel tanks actually orbit?Reusing Tanks and Rocket Engines from just beyond Geosynchronus OrbitIsn't electrolysis of water less efficient for a space craft than pressurized oxygen tanks?Why did the design for Space Shuttle docking change?Why didn't the space shuttle SRBs have wings and tires?Why didn't the SRBs of the Space Shuttle use carbon instead of aluminium?Why didn't the space shuttle use non-foam-shedding external tanks?How hard would it be to fly a Space Shuttle again?

54

4

$begingroup$

In 2015, technicians entered the retired Space Shuttle Endeavour to remove the water tanks, with the goal of reusing these tanks on ISS.

The space shuttle Endeavour is retired and on display at the California Science Center, but it's still contributing to the space program.

NASA engineers are working this week to remove four tanks from the shuttle for use as potable water storage on the International Space Station.

Looks like a strange idea to reuse worn equipment as trivial as a water tank that is exhibited in a museum, when whole rockets are built brand new for a typical flight.

Are these tanks somehow special and unusually expensive to make to justify such an idea? If they are just metal cans as I envision, the only reason I could imagine would be a "symbolic meaning".

iss space-shuttle reuse

share|improve this question

edited May 30 at 18:15

Machavity

2,88611040

asked May 28 at 16:36

h22h22

636712

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  What an intriguing question! I'm sometimes really surprised by what is going on in the aerospace sector. This is such a nice bit of information. I hope you'll get a satisfactory answer.
  $endgroup$
  – Polygnome
  May 28 at 17:37
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  21
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  designing a water tank for use in free-fall and vacuum is non-trivial
  $endgroup$
  – JCRM
  May 29 at 8:00
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

54

4

$begingroup$

In 2015, technicians entered the retired Space Shuttle Endeavour to remove the water tanks, with the goal of reusing these tanks on ISS.

The space shuttle Endeavour is retired and on display at the California Science Center, but it's still contributing to the space program.

NASA engineers are working this week to remove four tanks from the shuttle for use as potable water storage on the International Space Station.

Looks like a strange idea to reuse worn equipment as trivial as a water tank that is exhibited in a museum, when whole rockets are built brand new for a typical flight.

Are these tanks somehow special and unusually expensive to make to justify such an idea? If they are just metal cans as I envision, the only reason I could imagine would be a "symbolic meaning".

iss space-shuttle reuse

share|improve this question

edited May 30 at 18:15

Machavity

2,88611040

asked May 28 at 16:36

h22h22

636712

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  What an intriguing question! I'm sometimes really surprised by what is going on in the aerospace sector. This is such a nice bit of information. I hope you'll get a satisfactory answer.
  $endgroup$
  – Polygnome
  May 28 at 17:37
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  21
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  designing a water tank for use in free-fall and vacuum is non-trivial
  $endgroup$
  – JCRM
  May 29 at 8:00
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

In 2015, technicians entered the retired Space Shuttle Endeavour to remove the water tanks, with the goal of reusing these tanks on ISS.

The space shuttle Endeavour is retired and on display at the California Science Center, but it's still contributing to the space program.

NASA engineers are working this week to remove four tanks from the shuttle for use as potable water storage on the International Space Station.

Looks like a strange idea to reuse worn equipment as trivial as a water tank that is exhibited in a museum, when whole rockets are built brand new for a typical flight.

Are these tanks somehow special and unusually expensive to make to justify such an idea? If they are just metal cans as I envision, the only reason I could imagine would be a "symbolic meaning".

iss space-shuttle reuse

share|improve this question

edited May 30 at 18:15

Machavity

2,88611040

asked May 28 at 16:36

h22h22

636712

$endgroup$

share|improve this question

edited May 30 at 18:15

Machavity

2,88611040

asked May 28 at 16:36

h22h22

636712

share|improve this question

edited May 30 at 18:15

Machavity

2,88611040

asked May 28 at 16:36

h22h22

636712

edited May 30 at 18:15

Machavity

2,88611040

edited May 30 at 18:15

Machavity

2,88611040

asked May 28 at 16:36

h22h22

636712

asked May 28 at 16:36

h22h22

636712

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

51

$begingroup$

They're already made, have plenty of usable life left, were stored in a way that facilitates reuse, and apparently cost less than building and certifying brand new ones.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/proposed-station-water-system-looks-to-retired-shuttles

In order to reduce the cost and complexity of the proposed system, NASA engineers looked at reusing the water tanks from shuttles Atlantis and Endeavour. The tanks meet the station’s stringent requirements for potable water quality, while preventing the accumulation of free gas. The shuttle water tanks were designed to support 100 missions each. Approximately 70 percent of design life remains in the Atlantis tanks based on 33 total missions flown, while Endeavour’s tanks were used on 25 missions, leaving an estimated 75 percent of design life.

Personnel at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida carefully preserved the water tanks from the retired shuttles with pressurized dry nitrogen to maintain cleanliness and minimize unintentional fatigue of moving parts. As a result, minimal preparation and processing activities would be required to ready the tanks for integration into the proposed storage system.

share|improve this answer

answered May 28 at 17:38

ceejayozceejayoz

9751010

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  38
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Never underestimate the cost of certification, especially for NASA program.
  $endgroup$
  – RocketDocRyan
  May 29 at 5:28
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  31
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  The key word here is indeed certification. This is more than just a rubber-stamp. It is a verified, audited history of the component that details the numerous quality assurance and reliability tests it has undergone. Specifically to do with reliability, this would include long-duration burn-in tests that are very expensive and time-consuming to repeat. I wouldn't be surprised if the cost profile of a NASA component is 1 part manufacture, 9 parts quality assurance.
  $endgroup$
  – Oscar Bravo
  May 29 at 7:43
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  If you include engineering in that 9 parts, you're not far off. NASA stuff is also more often than not a one off item, which is expensive. Especially since NASA is what we call a hands-on customer. They like to inspect and critique not just their subcontractor's facilities and procedures, but all of the sub's suppliers as well. It's understandable, given how expensive failure is for them. Congress is less than understanding of failure, but tolerant of budget overruns.
  $endgroup$
  – RocketDocRyan
  May 29 at 13:27
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  6
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  One would also have to assume, at first blush, that said tanks would last longer on the ISS than they would have lasted in the Shuttle, if said Shuttle was still flying. The fact that said tanks were designed to survive dozens of ascent/entry load cycles probably makes them a bit "over-designed" for ISS use...not necessarily a bad thing.
  $endgroup$
  – Digger
  May 29 at 16:03
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Not sure if this bolsters the argument about certification or weakens it but this seems relevant "19-year fraud scheme that included falsifying thousands of certifications"
  $endgroup$
  – JimmyJames
  May 29 at 17:23
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 3 more comments

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);

draft saved

draft discarded

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

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f36450%2fwhy-use-water-tanks-from-a-retired-space-shuttle%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

51

$begingroup$

They're already made, have plenty of usable life left, were stored in a way that facilitates reuse, and apparently cost less than building and certifying brand new ones.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/proposed-station-water-system-looks-to-retired-shuttles

In order to reduce the cost and complexity of the proposed system, NASA engineers looked at reusing the water tanks from shuttles Atlantis and Endeavour. The tanks meet the station’s stringent requirements for potable water quality, while preventing the accumulation of free gas. The shuttle water tanks were designed to support 100 missions each. Approximately 70 percent of design life remains in the Atlantis tanks based on 33 total missions flown, while Endeavour’s tanks were used on 25 missions, leaving an estimated 75 percent of design life.

Personnel at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida carefully preserved the water tanks from the retired shuttles with pressurized dry nitrogen to maintain cleanliness and minimize unintentional fatigue of moving parts. As a result, minimal preparation and processing activities would be required to ready the tanks for integration into the proposed storage system.

share|improve this answer

answered May 28 at 17:38

ceejayozceejayoz

9751010

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  38
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Never underestimate the cost of certification, especially for NASA program.
  $endgroup$
  – RocketDocRyan
  May 29 at 5:28
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  31
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  The key word here is indeed certification. This is more than just a rubber-stamp. It is a verified, audited history of the component that details the numerous quality assurance and reliability tests it has undergone. Specifically to do with reliability, this would include long-duration burn-in tests that are very expensive and time-consuming to repeat. I wouldn't be surprised if the cost profile of a NASA component is 1 part manufacture, 9 parts quality assurance.
  $endgroup$
  – Oscar Bravo
  May 29 at 7:43
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  If you include engineering in that 9 parts, you're not far off. NASA stuff is also more often than not a one off item, which is expensive. Especially since NASA is what we call a hands-on customer. They like to inspect and critique not just their subcontractor's facilities and procedures, but all of the sub's suppliers as well. It's understandable, given how expensive failure is for them. Congress is less than understanding of failure, but tolerant of budget overruns.
  $endgroup$
  – RocketDocRyan
  May 29 at 13:27
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  6
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  One would also have to assume, at first blush, that said tanks would last longer on the ISS than they would have lasted in the Shuttle, if said Shuttle was still flying. The fact that said tanks were designed to survive dozens of ascent/entry load cycles probably makes them a bit "over-designed" for ISS use...not necessarily a bad thing.
  $endgroup$
  – Digger
  May 29 at 16:03
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Not sure if this bolsters the argument about certification or weakens it but this seems relevant "19-year fraud scheme that included falsifying thousands of certifications"
  $endgroup$
  – JimmyJames
  May 29 at 17:23
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 3 more comments

51

$begingroup$

They're already made, have plenty of usable life left, were stored in a way that facilitates reuse, and apparently cost less than building and certifying brand new ones.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/proposed-station-water-system-looks-to-retired-shuttles

In order to reduce the cost and complexity of the proposed system, NASA engineers looked at reusing the water tanks from shuttles Atlantis and Endeavour. The tanks meet the station’s stringent requirements for potable water quality, while preventing the accumulation of free gas. The shuttle water tanks were designed to support 100 missions each. Approximately 70 percent of design life remains in the Atlantis tanks based on 33 total missions flown, while Endeavour’s tanks were used on 25 missions, leaving an estimated 75 percent of design life.

Personnel at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida carefully preserved the water tanks from the retired shuttles with pressurized dry nitrogen to maintain cleanliness and minimize unintentional fatigue of moving parts. As a result, minimal preparation and processing activities would be required to ready the tanks for integration into the proposed storage system.

share|improve this answer

answered May 28 at 17:38

ceejayozceejayoz

9751010

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  38
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Never underestimate the cost of certification, especially for NASA program.
  $endgroup$
  – RocketDocRyan
  May 29 at 5:28
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  31
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  The key word here is indeed certification. This is more than just a rubber-stamp. It is a verified, audited history of the component that details the numerous quality assurance and reliability tests it has undergone. Specifically to do with reliability, this would include long-duration burn-in tests that are very expensive and time-consuming to repeat. I wouldn't be surprised if the cost profile of a NASA component is 1 part manufacture, 9 parts quality assurance.
  $endgroup$
  – Oscar Bravo
  May 29 at 7:43
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  If you include engineering in that 9 parts, you're not far off. NASA stuff is also more often than not a one off item, which is expensive. Especially since NASA is what we call a hands-on customer. They like to inspect and critique not just their subcontractor's facilities and procedures, but all of the sub's suppliers as well. It's understandable, given how expensive failure is for them. Congress is less than understanding of failure, but tolerant of budget overruns.
  $endgroup$
  – RocketDocRyan
  May 29 at 13:27
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  6
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  One would also have to assume, at first blush, that said tanks would last longer on the ISS than they would have lasted in the Shuttle, if said Shuttle was still flying. The fact that said tanks were designed to survive dozens of ascent/entry load cycles probably makes them a bit "over-designed" for ISS use...not necessarily a bad thing.
  $endgroup$
  – Digger
  May 29 at 16:03
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Not sure if this bolsters the argument about certification or weakens it but this seems relevant "19-year fraud scheme that included falsifying thousands of certifications"
  $endgroup$
  – JimmyJames
  May 29 at 17:23
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 3 more comments

$begingroup$

They're already made, have plenty of usable life left, were stored in a way that facilitates reuse, and apparently cost less than building and certifying brand new ones.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/proposed-station-water-system-looks-to-retired-shuttles

In order to reduce the cost and complexity of the proposed system, NASA engineers looked at reusing the water tanks from shuttles Atlantis and Endeavour. The tanks meet the station’s stringent requirements for potable water quality, while preventing the accumulation of free gas. The shuttle water tanks were designed to support 100 missions each. Approximately 70 percent of design life remains in the Atlantis tanks based on 33 total missions flown, while Endeavour’s tanks were used on 25 missions, leaving an estimated 75 percent of design life.

Personnel at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida carefully preserved the water tanks from the retired shuttles with pressurized dry nitrogen to maintain cleanliness and minimize unintentional fatigue of moving parts. As a result, minimal preparation and processing activities would be required to ready the tanks for integration into the proposed storage system.

share|improve this answer

answered May 28 at 17:38

ceejayozceejayoz

9751010

$endgroup$

share|improve this answer

answered May 28 at 17:38

ceejayozceejayoz

9751010

answered May 28 at 17:38

ceejayozceejayoz

9751010

answered May 28 at 17:38

ceejayozceejayoz

9751010