SST-133

[Denholm]

That piece of foam came off much lower in the atmosphere and hit with a much great speed & force then the peices that came off today, those came off much higher in the atmosphere in a lower gravity environment, thats why it looked like they just kinda floated off, and not torn off at high speed like the Columbia foam.

Air density is more a factor than gravity.

[trax1]

Your right my wording should have been better, but I thought it was clear I was also talking about the air by saying atmosphere & not altitude, I was just mentioning the lower gravity because like I said it looked like the pieces floated off.

[moot]

they should leave it up there as part of the station and come down in a soyuz imo

Quoted post isn't totally serious, but that's not feasible.  IIRC ISS can't support Orbiter and Orbiter energy resources aren't capable of it.  No idea on feasibility of bootstrapping Orbiter for it, but I'll bet it's not worthwhile. 

[Strip]

The biggest problem is the corrosive nature of the fuel and oxidizer burned in the Reaction Control System.

Once the propellants are loaded into the tanks there is a period of guaranteed flight readiness. After a certain period of time (6-8 weeks I believe) the integrity of the system cannot be assured. The propellants in question are nitrogen tetraoxide and monomethyl hydrazine, both highly reactive to surrounding metals. In fact even compatible alloys must be passivated, in which a light layer of oxide is turned into a protective coating.

The energy resources are directly related to the propellant budget as the fuel cells are powered by hydrogen and oxygen.

The CO2 scrubbers are regenerative so carbon dioxide poisoning should be a none issue.

Strip

[moot]

So even if you loaded only enough RCS propellant to use it all up, there'd be some trouble from residuals?  And if it wasn't a problem, would the ISS be able to satisfy the orbiter's power requirements?  Otherwise it's just a dead shell.

[Strip]

The residuals would create a problem, but that would a be a moot (no pun intended) point anyway as NASA would never allow it. The OMS engines are strictly prohibited from being run dry, or even beyond about about 10% fuel remaining. The Orbital Maneuvering engines are also responsible for intercepting the ISS from a lower orbit. Combine that with the contingency requirements NASA will require a large quantity of reserve propellant. Once docked firing the OMS engines would be impossible as would dumping the remaining propellant overboard. I don't know enough about the ISS and Space Shuttles power capabilities to comment on the ability to transfer power.

Make no mistake, if NASA chose to do it they probably could figure out a way but its improbable for sure.

Strip

[moot]

Now that I think about it I definitely remember one of the insiders at NSF saying leaving an Orbiter docked at ISS was not feasible/not worthwhile.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=9018.msg165682#msg165682
Not that one but that's another idea of how useless it might be. Just dead weight.

[B4Buster]

Doh! you're right Trax...

Back from vacation   Weather was great, had a blast. Like I said, I'll post a few pictures of the launch I took.

Kennedy Space Center entrance



rockets



Myself in front of Explorer. You can get some idea of the size as I am 6'1". It is on concrete blocks, though.



This building here is where Shuttles are assembled and readied for missions, it's massive.



The Shuttle on the launch pad. This picture was taken Tuesday. You can see the orange fuel tank. It's the only part of the shuttle not recycled as it breaks up upon re-entering the atmosphere.



Launch

[Yossarian]

Just from another perspective: what would you gain from leaving the shuttle in orbit?

The answer is pretty much nothing.  You'd be occupying a valuable docking port on the ISS with a massive spacecraft that has room for a few beds (which you could stick pretty much anywhere on the ISS anyway) and little else.  The habitable area of the the Space Shuttle amounts to the flight deck (which does have a robotic arm - that could be useful, but you don't need an entire shuttle to mount it on) and the lower deck.  You could use the decks for storage, but you'd be better off just getting another module up there.  And as for storage in the cargo bay...why bother?

What the Space Shuttle excels at is getting into and out of orbit.  It has a large payload capacity, a large payload bay, it can take people with it, and it can take stuff back to Earth.  But there's no reason why you'd want to take up that port on the ISS.

[curry1]

Read up on your physics, a penny would reach terminal velocity well before that speed (50 mph).

-Penguin 

Terminal velocity perhaps at sea level