SHUTTLE TO THE MOON

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

slidelock

Guest
Yeah I know, this one has been done to death, but I'm curious. Assuming you could get unfired SRBs into orbit,<br />how many would it take to get the shuttle to the moon, how many to get back?<br />Related question, how much fuel is typically left in the drop tank(sorry the name escapes me at the moment) when its "dropped" during a typical mission? How difficult technically to use leftover fuel given a guidance system to put it into a parking orbit? I cant help but think they would make useful componets for the ISS.
 
S

slidelock

Guest
Okay clear enough on the shuttle, what about the ETs in a parking orbit? Usability as ISS componets?
 
S

slidelock

Guest
Sorry I tried to find the threads you referenced, no luck. Still curious.<br />
 
S

slidelock

Guest
I understand a little better now. Pity, if the foam problem could be dealt with, I would think ET retrofitting could be done after orbital insertion. As for loss of payload, considering the gain it seems worth it to me. Both in capability and experience. I'm thinking of things that they might be used for other than ISS. Why this wasn't actively considered more in all these years is beyond me.
 
H

haywood

Guest
"Why this wasn't actively considered more in all these years is beyond me. "<br /><br />Simple...wrong tool for the job.<br />
 
T

tomnackid

Guest
It WAS considered, right from the beginning of the shuttle program. In fact NASA offered to turn over an ET in orbit (it actually takes LESS propellant to put an ET into orbit than it does to put it into a safe disposal trajectory). The only proviso was that the interested party had to show that they could keep the ET in orbit or dispose of it safely if neccesary and that the tank would have to be standard unmodified ET. NASA hoped that this would stimulate comercial space development, but no one was able to meet NASA's criteria.
 
Q

qso1

Guest
The most practical way to use the shuttle to go to the moon is not to use it. There is no practical reason to send a winged vehicle designed to land on runways to the rough lunar surface.<br /><br />The shuttle on the lunar surface also becomes over 100 tons of mass that needs to be lifted back to lunar orbit before you can even think about going back to earth.<br /><br />The practical way:<br /><br />The shuttle can be utilized as a first stage to the moon by ferrying up lunar vehicles and propulsion stages to low earth orbit. The lunar vehicles dock in earth orbit and the propulsion stage provides the approximately 7,000 mph delta-V to get them on their way. When the return vehicle reaches earth from the moon, it either goes for the direct re-entry as Apollo did...or if there is room, a propulsion system would deorbit the return capsule which could be stowed in a shuttle payload bay for return to earths surface.<br /><br />Now for reality:<br />The shuttle is to be retired late in 2010 and NASA will return to the moon (Starting around 2018) assuming all goes well getting the VSE program through its various budget stages. Shuttle derived elements will be used as launch vehicles as part of that program. <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>
 
K

kelvinzero

Guest
Cool looking link Jammers.<br /><br />It is almost like getting single stage to orbit for free, just by redefining the tank as a useful payload.<br /><br />I can quite believe that a huge redesign of the ET might be required to actually implement the ideas, and that definitely isnt going to happen in the shuttle's lifetime, but still something to consider for future designs. <br /><br />Any possibility of future crafts tanks being made of materials that are more valuable as a payload than aluminium? Carbon is one of the elements that is very rare on the moon, for example.
 
N

no_way

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The shuttle can be utilized as a first stage to the moon by ferrying up lunar vehicles and propulsion stages to low earth orbit<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />This is far from practical too, considering the cost. Especially when you take the fact that roughly 3/4 or more of the lunar stack mass in LEO is going to be propellant, thats a terribly inefficient task for that vehicle. It makes sense to launch the propellant on way cheaper alternatives.
 
Q

qso1

Guest
I agree when way cheaper alternatives are actually available but there are no way cheaper alternatives available when other rockets are dedicated to other programs. What I'm looking at is an example of what it might have been like if a lunar program were developed that depended pretty much on shuttle because getting launcher alternatives such as Titan-IV or Delta heavys are dedicated to other payloads.<br /><br />One of the advantages of shuttle used in this way is that although expensive, it is reusable. <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>
 
N

no_way

Guest
im sorry, your last post did not make any sense to me at all. the global launch market is basically suffering from overcapacity, at established price points, i.e. not enough payloads to go around. For example, Boeing Decatur plant, IIRC is sized to produce north of 35 something cores per year, how much are they actually churning out, like 5 ?<br /><br />so what do you mean, "other vehicles dedicated to other payloads" ?<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>One of the advantages of shuttle used in this way is that although expensive, it is reusable.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />What does it matter how much you can reuse it, if its just not economical ? I mean, condoms and soda cans are thrown away, why would i buy a reuseable one if its ten times more expensive and actually dangerous to operate ? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts