"The Shuttle can't go to the Moon"

[mrmorris]

I looked up obstinate in the dictionary:<br /><br />ob·sti·nate <br />1. Stubbornly adhering to an attitude, opinion, or course of action; obdurate. <br /><br />2. Difficult to manage, control, or subdue; refractory. <br /><br />3. Difficult to alleviate or cure: an obstinate headache. <br />

 

[jatslo]

" If Shuttle is to be involved in a lunar mission, realistically you have to look at an Earth-orbit rendezvous style mission. That's where the Shuttle carries the people and the spacecraft components into Earth orbit over a series of several missions. The spacecraft is assembled, and the astronauts are put on board it. It leaves low Earth orbit to go to the Moon, then comes back to low Earth orbit to rendezvous with the Shuttle, which returns people and lunar samples or whatnot back to the Earth's surface. "<br /><br />This same concept should be used for Moon orbit rendezvous missions; however, your suggesting that we have to apply thrust each and every time. I am suggesting we do it once, because unless we are breaking for some reason, there is no reason why we should slow down our earth, moon shuttles. They just keep looping.<br /><br />We will need to shuttle from the earth and moon space stations, since there will most likely be a waiting period similar to waiting for a bus at a bus station.<br /><br />If we can rendezvous with a comet, we can catch a shuttle. Get my meaning?<br /><br />http://jatslo.com/ : Jatslo<br />

 

[jatslo]

"I looked up obstinate in the dictionary: <br /><br />ob·sti·nate <br />1. Stubbornly adhering to an attitude, opinion, or course of action; obdurate. <br /><br />2. Difficult to manage, control, or subdue; refractory. <br /><br />3. Difficult to alleviate or cure: an obstinate headache."<br /><br />Yeah, I'm kind of thinking that this thread is not specific enough for what I'm thinking... Since I don't know how to make a Earth, Moon, Mars thread, I'm using this one, because it is the next best one.<br /><br />As a show of solidarity for Topic: The Earth, The Moon, and then Mars I will be linking this thread...<br /><br />I only have about 250, 000+ monthly visitors though.<br /><br />Will any of you like to team up with me?<br /><br />http://jatslo.com/ : Jatslo

 

[scottb50]

So build a Shuttle without wings, vertical stabilizer or landing gear. Aren't the wings themselves separate assemblies? No need for the SSME's either so they could be removed in LEO and shipped back. <br /><br />The biggest problem I see is propellant for the OMS engines, look at what happened in Brazil. If aerobraking were not used on return to LEO you could do away with the TPS, saving that much more weight. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">So build a Shuttle without wings, vertical stabilizer or landing gear......</font><br /><br />Do you mean build an Orbiter without wings? I think that's what the CEV is......sort of. A lightweight spacecraft that is very good at going a long way from Earth, unlike an Orbiter, which is great at going from the surface of Earth to LEO, and where it really shines, coming back down with a good-sized payload. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jatslo]

The following is the slogan I'm using to market the thread; however, I really think this thread is not specific enough.<br /><br />" <font face="verdana" size="2"><br /><br /><br />" We are trying to mobilize a team of the willing. <b>Topic:</b> The Earth, The Moon, and Then Mars... Mission success in our lifetime is reachable only if we pull together, so show your solidarity by Posting and Reading Viewpoints today! " <font size="-2"><i>--- Powered by Space.com</i></font><br /><br /><br /><br />--- <i>http://jatslo.com/</i> : Jatslo<br /><br /><br /><br /></font> " <br /><br />As far as I can tell, we don't have a very large team yet.

 

[douglas_clark]

CalliArcale,<br /><br />I've just been reading this thread, and in particular your two posts. If I read you right, the shuttle was designed with the idea of fabricating a manned Moon mission i n LEO. So somewhere in the archives at NASA, they know how to do this? This would seem to jump start Lunar colonisation and the conquest of the galaxy <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Maybe there are a full set of plans....?<br /><br />Douglas

 

[scottb50]

I meant literally and yes I was refering to the Orbiter. <br /><br />Like you say that's where Shuttle works perfectly and that's all it needs to do. How much mass could you save by removing everything not needed for a two week flight? <br /><br />The Orbiter is built of a number of assemblies joined together, just leave a few of them off. I also don't think you would need too many of them, but being able to use the same launch stack would be an advantage. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

Well, it wasn't designed SPECIFICALLY for a lunar mission. It was really designed to service orbital stations, and the thinking behind those orbital stations was, in part, that they'd be waystations for trips to the Moon and to other planets. This was Von Braun's dream, really, and he imparted it to lots of NASA folks during his tenure.<br /><br />There's no full set of plans, but lots of ideas have been tossed around. Not much since Nixon, though, at least not at a high level where it stands a chance of getting funding. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

Yeah, Funding. That's where we come in ;o)<br /><br />I finished linking this thread via http://jatslo.com/ ...<br /><br />Topic: The Earth, The Moon, and Then Mars...<br /><br />I feel a need to do something to help move things along, with respect to space exploration.<br /><br />Space.com, sounds like a good place...<br />

 

[douglas_clark]

CalliArcale,<br /><br />Where can we see the ideas then? Is the ISS any good as a base for fabrication. Unless I've totally misunderstood, I thought GW Bush was pro manned space exploration?<br /><br />Douglas

 

[CalliArcale]

There are some interesting ideas in the archives of www.astronautix.com (the Encyclopedia Astronautica). Check it out sometime. It's cool.<br /><br />I don't know if any president has ever really been pro manned space exploration, to be honest. JFK himself was not a fan of manned spaceflight, but WAS in favor of showing up the Russians. It's always an ulterior motive that gets them behind it.<br /><br />Is the ISS good as a base for fabrication? I think so. The SSRMS would be fantastic for assembling bits. There were other ideas touted back during the Reagan administration (when Reagan was pushing the Freedom space station concept) which might have been superior for assembling lunar or planetary spacecraft, including ones with a sort of space hangar (spacedock?). But it would work. The main thing standing in the way is the simple fact that nobody's planning to build such a spacecraft anyway at the moment. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

Are you people space.com moderators?

 

[jatslo]

Actually, I guess CalliArcale is a moderator, because of the pink color and yellow "M" tag...<br /><br />

 

[douglas_clark]

CalliArcale,<br /><br />Thanks for the references. I'll read them up.<br /><br />Douglas

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

I'm guessing that the ISS orbit isn't the best place for the location of a Shuttle based "assembly station". The ISS orbit was a compromise for KSC, and Biakonur Kazahkstan. I'm pretty sure that a KSC launched Shuttle would be able to get more payload up to a "better" orbit for the same fuel. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jatslo]

"That scenario may very well happen after 2014 and the first CEV fights, until then other means have to be found to prepare for the manned flights."<br /><br />2014? Why does it take so long, to build a fleet of shuttles? Nobody will be landing anything until there is some sort of infrastructure to shuttle to a fro.<br /><br />Who's says they have to manned flights, I mean we can drop on the Moon now, and then send to construction crews in 2014, if it takes that long.<br /><br />Bush's plan, announced a year ago, envisages a permanent lunar base from which people can go out and explore the moon, and then go on to Mars.<br /><br />http://jatslo.com/ : Jatslo

 

[jatslo]

We should do another X-Prize contest.<br /><br />Only this time, the prize should be 100 million to the team that can shuttle cargo to and from the moon within 7-days.<br /><br />http://jatslo.com/ : Jatslo

 

[jatslo]

I found the following excerpt that sounds interesting:<br /><br />"The Committee shall draw on the expertise of its members and other sources to provide advice and recommendations to NASA on returning the Space Shuttle to flight, completing assembly of the International Space Station, and safely transitioning from the Space Shuttle to a new exploration transportation system. Recommendations, to be provided by the Committee, will help guide Agency program prioritization, budget formulation, facilities and human capital planning and technology investment. "<br /><br />I'm looking at the following mostly:<br /><br />"safely transitioning from the Space Shuttle to a new exploration transportation system"<br /><br />You know what, I bet there will still be a shuttle.<br /><br />http://jatslo.com/ : Jatslo<br />

 

[bobvanx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>a KSC launched Shuttle would be able to get more payload up to a "better" orbit <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />The relatively high inclination orbit of ISS makes it so you see more of Earth out the window, and it does cost some extra propellant to get there. But the real question, if you <i>are</i> assembling something at ISS, is what is it and where is it going?<br /><br />Because that orbit "points" different directions, sometimes the delta-V will be quite favorable to make a moon shot, or a Mars shot. You'll have a launch window on-orbit that comes back around every couple of weeks.<br /><br />Most of us know that an early version of the moon landing program didn't require Saturn-V. The pieces were going to go up on.. was it the 4-B? and get stacked in orbit.<br /><br />The ISS should be re-purposed to be a construction station for larger outbound vehicles.

 

[averygoodspirit]

Wouldn’t it be very difficult to dock with an Earth - Moon orbiting vehicle traveling at 25k mph? It’s not the same as docking with a vehicle in LEO. The difference is about 8k mph. You wouldn’t have time to transfer anything before you too were heading back to the moon. You would still have to have fuel to decelerate in order to get back to LEO. <br /><br />If you could dock at that velocity, for efficiencies sake, you could take the docking vehicle to the moon. <br /><br />You don’t want to use the shuttle for a moon shot. That’s like using a truck to do the job of an Indy race car. Like Shuttle_guy says, it’s not efficient.<br /><br />Am I missing something here? Why is there such an overwhelming risk in shuttling up liquid fuel into LEO to be mechanically clamped on and plugged into another vehicle that is already in LEO? Why can’t we simply lock down two different cylinder tanks, hydrogen and oxygen, in the shuttle’s cargo bay? Aren’t we taking oxygen tanks up to the ISS now? <br /><br />Why couldn’t a system like that be engineered in such a way that the assembly wouldn’t require an EVA, but could be done with a robot arm? <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

"Am I missing something here? Why is there such an overwhelming risk in shuttling up liquid fuel into LEO to be mechanically clamped on and plugged into another vehicle that is already in LEO? Why can’t we simply lock down two different cylinder tanks, hydrogen and oxygen, in the shuttle’s cargo bay? Aren’t we taking oxygen tanks up to the ISS now?"<br /><br /><br />Thats a very good question.<br />S_G or NajaB like to comment on is? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>Why can’t we simply lock down two different cylinder tanks, hydrogen and oxygen, in the shuttle’s cargo bay? Aren’t we taking oxygen tanks up to the ISS now?</i><p>There's a big difference between high-pressure gaseous oxygen and cryogenic liquid oxygen.</p>

 

[jatslo]

" Wouldn’t it be very difficult to dock with an Earth - Moon orbiting vehicle traveling at 25k mph? "<br /><br />It is difficult to dock with any moving Object.<br /><br />What I am saying is that you do not want to carry extra fuel for breaking Earth to Moon Shuttles.<br /><br />If we can dock with a comment traveling at an average Velocity of 50km per second, we can dock with Earth to Moon Shuttles.<br /><br />Why is 25K the speed limit? How about 299,792,458 meters per second? That sounds pretty fast!<br /><br />However, we would not be able to utilize gravitational pull of planetary bodies to help turn the shuttles. In fact, the Sun might not even help in this instance.<br /><br />What is the max speed that we can travel around the Moon and still be able to use its gravitational pull for turning back to the Earth?<br />

 

[averygoodspirit]

Who said anything about high pressure gaseous oxygen or hydrogen? We’re using a cryogenic, oxygen and hydrogen fuel mixture now, just as the Apollo program did, aren’t we? The breathing oxygen we’re taking up is liquid isn’t it? <br /><br />Pu-238 RTG’s are being used by NASA in satellites and space probes. If an RTG burns up in the atmosphere it could adversely affect millions. Inhaling one dust particle of Pu-238 will cause certain lung cancer and yet NASA is concerned about the safety of hauling liquid fuel into space. It sounds hypocritical to me. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>