Could a shuttle go to the moon (and maybe Mars)?

[captainhomer]

Hi everyone. Long time reader, first time poster.<br /><br />The article saying how we are "losing the space race" made me think. It claimed we don't have any vehicles for taking men to the moon. However, despite the danger, we do have a vehicle--the space shuttle. <br /><br />Using current technologies such as the oxygen system on the ISS, ion engines/thrusters and a good ol fission reactor, would this not give a crew all they need to get to the moon using a shuttle?<br /><br />If you take the Endeavor (or I guess any of the shuttles), ground it, install new engines, and install an air system and a nuclear reactor in most of the available room in the cargo bay, we could certainly get to the moon before 2017, right? It wouldn't take 11 years to modify a shuttle.<br /><br />So how would there be room for the landing equipment, moon car, or anything else NASA wants to set up? There wouldn't be room in the shuttle... So just send it to the moon separately like a week or 2 in advance. Furthermore, I highly doubt this will reach the projected cost of the CEV materials. <br /><br />Thoughts? Is this reasonable/possible?

 

[tmccort]

<br />April Fool's ended for me 20 minutes ago.

 

[mattblack]

If your question is serious and not a hoax......<br /><br />I'm assuming from your handle that you've read Homer J. Hickham's "Return To The Moon" novel.<br /><br />Quick answer(s):<br /><br />1): NO.<br /><br />2): Shuttles are going to be retired by 2010. The decision is irreversible, so please understand that now.<br /><br />3): Shuttle Orbiters are just that: ORBITERS.<br /><br />4): To acclerate a 90+ton orbiter to escape velocity would require more than 200 tons of LOX/LH2 on a non-existent, high-ISP stage. And, about 50 tons(?) of the same to decelerate it into lunar orbit, 50-odd tons to leave lunar orbit, and about 200+plus tons to decelerate the orbiter back into low Earth orbit.<br /><br />5): Why bother doing that? Well, the Shuttle's big wings and thermal protection tiles, RCC panels etc are only designed to enter Earth's atmosphere at 17,400mph -- NOT the 25,000mph velocity of a ballistic return from the Moon. The stresses would tear those big delta wings off -- PRONTO.<br /><br />6): Even the most optimistic and conservative lifting body and spaceplane concepts for returning to Earth at 25,000mph look nothing like the Space Shuttle Orbiter.<br /><br />So no: despite what Bruce Willis movies might tell you this is a not-happening concept, no matter how romantic it might seem. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Its possible if you don't intend to land the shuttle but not practical. To modify it to land would be way to expensive and less practical to be worth it and then your still faced with getting it back into orbit and then escape from the moon for return to earth. Better to develop CEV. As for Mars, the shuttle to Mars faces the same problems but compounded by the distance to Mars.<br /><br />The only practical role for the shuttle in a lunar or mars effort is as the earth orbital truck to get boosters and vehicles to LEO for subsequent departure to the moon or mars. The shuttle is of course scheduled to retire by 2010 so that option is no longer on the table.<br /><br />We won the space and moon race pure and simple three plus decades ago. Our reasons to go back to the moon should be to rehearse a mars landing or base operation scenario. Not to enter a useless race against China.<br /><br />If we want to race China in something, lets race them in bringing back our workers and revitalizing our industries to the point companies no longer find it attractive to hire Chinese sub contractors to build half the stuff they now build at a third or less cost.<br /><br />How can we claim winning a moon race when our spacecraft will have numerous parts from China? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[jschaef5]

From what it sounds you want to actually land the shuttle on the moon. Let's just assume we could get the shuttle there which I highly doubt as stated above by others, but if we could get there, landing would be quite the trick. The shuttles wings need air to create lift, it also needs air to deccelerate. Since the moon has no air... the shuttle would basically be a brick with wheels headed straight at the moon with no means to slow down. The shuttle would need some sort of reverse thrusters to slow down. And even if you could slow it down, it would be very difficult to actually land with gravity being less and no actual air, plus moon dust could be a bit tricky to land on. You would most likely want to keep the orbiter orbiting the moon and drop in on a lunar lander like in the Apollo Ear. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

>...taking men to the moon. However, despite the danger, we do have a vehicle--the space shuttle. <br /><br />(bangs head repeatedly on wall) <br /><br />We go over this every couple of months: Using the Shuttle for lunar access is as unfeasable as using Shuttle for a submarine. It's like taking a bird and asking it to be a nuclear reactor technician. Or asking that giraffe how his salmon is feeling. It's all English, but it don't make any sense. <br /><br />Shuttle/STation is currently sucking space sciences dry. My prediction is that when it comes down to actual budgetting for 2008, the STS/ISS behemoth will also start feeding off whatever funds CEV had. It's a shell game for a dying infrastructure, and it could all be done cheaper and better. (or faster and better, ala Apollo)<br /><br />But, no, the Shuttle can't go to the moon, for all sorts of technical reasons.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

I agree, but I should not what it would take to get a shuttle-like orbiter onto the lunar surface. I thought about it a lot when I was much younger (high school). The Challenger accident had just happened and I was starting to dream up what became the Challenger Class Shuttle System.<br /><br />The concept was based around a very long ramp. One end was level. The other was at 45&deg;. The orbiter would plummet on a trajectory that just touched the high end of the ramp. The ramp then would help the orbiter slowly go from plummeting to moving very fast along the surface. Keeping the vehicle on the ramp was a problem. I added a special set of undercarriage wheels with magnetic rims. I had no idea how to accelerate or decelerate.<br /><br />My point is, in order to pull it off, I had to double the weight of the undercarriage and rely on infrastructure already on the Moon. You will note that I left all mention of such equipment out the other thread. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[spacefire]

the only way to do it is to land vertically tail first, using the SSMEs as reverse thrusters. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[baktothemoon]

Not really possible, unless you had gas-core engines, then you might have enough thrust to get there and MAYBE land, but 95% sure it can't be done. It would require way too much fuel for something as heavy as the shuttle and you would probably have to aerobrake for weeks to slow down enough to survive reentry.<br /><br />"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." John F. Kennedy

 

[baktothemoon]

You should ask shuttle_guy.<br /><br />

 

[kdavis007]

Ain't gonna happen...

 

[captainhomer]

Oy vey, I'm really sorry I confused everyone, I thought my post was clear after reading it over like 5 times.<br /><br />No, I never meant to land the shuttle itself. I know that's ridiculous.<br /><br />I meant to shoot all the landing stuff to the moon separately and using the shuttle to shuttle the astronauts back and forth. <br /><br />So the astronauts would arrive in a shuttle and enter orbit, with the landing pod (or whatever they will land in) in orbit as well. Then they would dock, the astronauts who would be landing would transfer to the landing pod, and the remaining 2 or so astronauts/pilots would monitor from the shuttle.<br /><br />After they're done on the moon, they would launch back up to orbit, transfer back to the shuttle, and come back home. <br /><br />Edit: Oh, by the way, I chose CaptainHomer as my name because in one episode Homer Simpson was a naval sub captain.

 

[drwayne]

Don't forget that the energies from returning from the moon are much higher than returning from orbit...<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[henryhallam]

Sorry, sending the Orbiter even to lunar orbit is really still ridiculous.

 

[jschaef5]

I think everyone would agree too. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tmccort]

<br />Wow... you completely missed the point.<br /><br />

 

[graviton]

sending astronauts to mars in a space shuttle? no, that's not going to happen. And you mention installing new stuff on the Endeavour? That's waay to pricy. NASA is better off just building a new vehicle.

 

[willpittenger]

The SSMEs could not power the orbiter in such a descent unless you could attach an eternal tank in orbit. Besides, I doubt they have the OMS/RCS fuel to reach the moon -- even if they went directly to the moon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[qso1]

Correct, the shuttle could not leave Earth orbit as presently equipped. A propellant tank assembly could be placed in the payload bay to allow longer OMS burn times but the more you put into the payload bay to get you to the moon...and back, the less payload you have to send to the surface.<br /><br />Bottom line, the shuttle is not a workable solution to this problem. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[captainhomer]

A nuclear reactor couldn't power a shuttle for the roundtrip?

 

[brandbll]

Would the space shuttle be able to protect the astronaughts from radiation though? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>

 

[captainhomer]

Does it protect them already? (I thought I read somewhere that it doesn't)

 

[brandbll]

I thought it was in low enough orbit that they don't need to worry about radiation that much. Going to the moon and especially mars is a whole other story though. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>

 

[captainhomer]

But why not? Any finances aside, it's not impossible, right?

 

[captainhomer]

What would the shuttle need to be radiation-proof? A new hull?