When the space shuttle program shuts down, the orbiters will be sent to museums. Would it be more cost-effective to recycle them as space stations? Bjorn Carey of Popular Science says no. First, shuttles only carry about 14 days worth of power. But a larger problem would be refitting them so that they'd be habitable on a long-term basis:
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-10/fyi-could-we-use-soon-be-retired-space-shuttles-space-stations | Photo: NASA
But what really makes a shuttle station a bad idea is the lack of amenities. The shuttles don’t have room for all the exercise equipment that astronauts need to stave off rapid bone and muscle loss. They don’t have individual bedroom compartments like the ISS does; to get some shuteye, astronauts instead zip themselves in sleeping bags and Velcro themselves to a wall. They don’t even have a garbage chute. “They’d have to figure out some way to bundle up waste—human waste included—and toss it out a hatch,” Curie says. “And because there isn’t a launcher to shoot the waste into the atmosphere to burn up, it would just float and collect around the outside of the station.”
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-10/fyi-could-we-use-soon-be-retired-space-shuttles-space-stations | Photo: NASA
Kinda like trying to re-outfit the QE2 oceanliner into a dirigible....
The original Skylab plan was to be a wet station as well, but they couldn't figure out how to get all the unused propellant out and fittings in once it got to orbit. When a spare Saturn V turned up, they had enough extra power to just launched a dry station and be done with it.