"The Shuttle can't go to the Moon"

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rocketwatcher2001

Guest
In another thread, about the Chinese Space Port, WVB said the Shuttle can't go to the Moon, which is true, at face value, but.......<br /><br />Out of respect to Oak, I didn't want to highjack that thread, so I started this one.<br /><br />One of the things that bothers me about the Shuttle program is that it has so much potential that isn't used. The overall configuration of STS hasn't changed. There have been some upgrades, but those are small potato items, a new field joint in the SRB, a lighter ET, new avionics, etc.....<br /><br />I see no reason why we can't come up with huge configurations, using the Orbiter, a much bigger ET complete with payload fairing, and 4 liquid boosters. It doesn't have to be exactly like I've described, it might be completely different, but I know we can do better.<br /><br />I know that it's all about the money, because I'm sure that Shuttle_Guy, Pad Rat, Propforce, and all the rest could come up with something awesome, far better than myself. <br /><br />The current STS can't go to the Moon, but with a more ambitious program, the Shuttle could be a very big part of a semi-self sustaining Lunar Base, partly out of spent ET's. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
L

Leovinus

Guest
If we could get the shuttle to the Moon, how would we get it back? Putting those wings through 25K mph re-entry sounds suicidal. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
R

rocketwatcher2001

Guest
The Orbiter itself would never leave LEO, but it could easily service a tranfer vehicle. The "Shuttle" is system, currently a group of 2 SRB's, an ET, and an Orbiter. Why not add a few pieces, like a tug, and a lander.....and whatever else is needed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
L

Leovinus

Guest
The entire CSM/LM stack would fit neatly in the cargo bay. Amazing how far we have come from 1969 to 1981. Amazing how little we have gone from 1981 to 2005. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
V

vogon13

Guest
A rail gun derived 'flinger' to toss loaded fuel tanks into LEO has been discussed. We must get $/Lb./orbit equation right to open up solar system. Most likely with new technology, don't see rocketry $ coming down much even with commercial participation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
 
R

rocketwatcher2001

Guest
Leo-<br />I couldn't agree more. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
R

rocketwatcher2001

Guest
We'd probably need to build another pad to handle a different, bigger, configuration, maybe. 39A&B did launch Saturn V's, though. I remember being told that for many years there were signs for 39C, which was never built, but could have been. There is plenty of room for more launch pads North of 39B. I saw old drawings where the Nova pads would go. They would have been cool. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
R

rogers_buck

Guest
I think you would like the Shuttle Sandwich. Take 2 ETs with SRBs and bolt them back to back, shuttle side in. Tuck a pod with two sets of shuttle engines under the ET in a reentry capsule. Normally, there would be a framework between the ETs with a platform on top for a ferring and a payload. But what if you only wanted to orbit one of the ETs partly full of fuel?<br /><br />In orbit sepearte the two ETs and mate the one with fuel in it with a orbiting Shuttle. There would have to be enough fuel to get the shuttle+cargo to the moon and the empty shuttle back and slowed down enough to reenter. There couldn't be so much fuel that the stack couldn't orbit it, but enough fly the mission...<br /><br />Shouldn't the shuttle be able to aerobrake by staying in the upper atmosphere longer? It might well be nose down belly on to avoid skipping off the atmosphere, but heating and loading should be controllable, right?<br />
 
R

rocketwatcher2001

Guest
Sounds interesting, but I'm thinking that you wouldn't need to move all of that mass of the Orbiter to speed it out of LEO, then slow it down to Lunar orbit, then speed it up again, than slow it down again. That's a lot of fuel to move that heavy machine around, wouldn't a lighter, space only, tug be better, kind of like a big Lunar Module?<br /><br />I know that NASA had a lot of safety issues with Shuttle which limited it's missions, like no liquid fueled payloads, but who says this needs to be a NASA operation? I say make it a military mission, and if they don't want it, tell them "tough, you don't have a choice, now go build us a moon base" Get the Army Corps of Engineers up there, along with the SeaBees, they'll get it done. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
R

rogers_buck

Guest
Sure, no reason for wings and wheels going to the moon. But if you can aerobrake the shuttle in the atmosphere without destroying it, then the fuel cost of dragging thos appendages along might still be a better proposiition than slowing down to leo and then looking for wings and wheels. It's a trade-off, no idea where reality enters the picture.
 
R

rocketwatcher2001

Guest
Buck-<br />(sighs deeply) Unfortunatly, where reality enters the picture, it that this whole thread is nothing more than just a drawing in the sand. We won't do this with Shuttle, even though we could. I've been saying for a long time that I fear we might be slipping into another "Dark Age" I was 2 weeks old when Jim Lovell and crew became the fasted people alive, and that was almost 35 years ago. We seem to have traded our pioneering spirit in for a spirit of who can I sue/blame, and I think it's growing worse every day. <br /><br />I gotta sign off for a while, pack up and go flying. <br /><br />Take care. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
Loving the mental images created in here <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> The entire CSM/LM stack would fit neatly in the cargo bay.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Don't forget, you need more than just the CSM/LM Apollo complex to get from LEO to the Moon. You *also* need a booster. The translunar injection was performed by the S-IVB. I don't think there's enough room to fit one of those in the payload bay as well as the CSM/LM, so you're looking at a minimum of two flights to assemble the lunar vehicle (if you go with an Apollo design; I'm certainly not about to rule out inventing a new design <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> ). <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>
 
J

jatslo

Guest
We are going to be shuttling equipment to and from the moon. Why not use the shuttle? It doesn't have to land, it just needs to dock with something else that transports equipment to and from the surface.<br /><br />Now are we were talking about bull dozers and moles, or components that get assembled on the surface.<br /><br />If we are talking of building the machinery on the moon, then a fleet of shuttles should be able move the parts back and forth without too much trouble.<br /><br />http://jatslo.com/ : Jatslo
 
J

jatslo

Guest
We are going to need a network of early warning systems, similar to the tidal wave warning system we installed in the pacific, only these sensors will detech leathal doses of radiation.<br /><br />The early warning system will alert any construction workers working on the surface of the moon...<br /><br />I'm thinking that any base that we build on the moon, must also have a shaft that is 3 - 4 miles deep, so that our moon workers can escape the radiation flare up.<br /><br />http://jatslo.com/ : Jatslo
 
L

Leovinus

Guest
Ah, but you don't need the whole S-IVB to get to the Moon from orbit. Recall that the TLI was the stage's 2nd burn. You only need enough fuel to get the CSM/LM and the reduced booster and its fuel to get to the Moon. As I recall from my model-building days, there was room in the cargo bay for the CSM/LM with plenty of room to spare for a booster. But I have a feeling you wouldn't want to carry up a ton of extra fuel in the cargo bay for safety's sake, so you run up the TLI booster on an unmanned dumb booster anyway. The tricky bit is that the LM as it was in 69 was a very fragile beast and I wouldn't want to go mating that into a booster in orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
T

the_ten

Guest
<font color="yellow">"The entire CSM/LM stack would fit neatly in the cargo bay. Amazing how far we have come from 1969 to 1981. Amazing how little we have gone from 1981 to 2005."</font><br />=====<br />Ain't that the truth!<br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">"If we are talking of building the machinery on the moon, then a fleet of shuttles should be able move the parts back and forth without too much trouble."</font><br />=====<br />That's cool and all but we don't really have a fleet of shuttles we could use for that. And building new ones would be a little on the spendy side.
 
F

fear

Guest
"And building new ones would be a little on the spendy side."<br /><br />It annoys me how we always have money to waste on stupid things but never any for something interesting. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
E

elguapoguano

Guest
Agreed, another 80 Billion for Iraq is fine, but 80 Billion for a Space Station is assumed "stupid"... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>
 
J

jatslo

Guest
The problem with NASA is that it is always re-inventing, and NASA almost never releases what works to a production line. This is an engineering mentality.<br /><br />We need a fleet of shuttles transiting Earth, Moon, and Mars. Shuttles are precisely what they are, they shuttle cargo manpower to and fro. Shuttles never land, and they are scraped/upgraded in space. Shuttles utilize the gravitational pull of the planetary bodies to maintain/increase their momentum, continuously looping and transiting over, and over, and over.<br /><br />To service the shuttles, etc. we will need space stations, (service stations), orbiting the earth, the moon, and mars. In effect, the stations will act as storage for parts, etc.<br /><br />Once the infrastructure is in place, all we need to do is launch inexpensive recyclable rockets in to orbit, similar to the technology we use to launch satellites.<br /><br />Can you see a chain of shuttles, 100 shuttles, looping back and forth from the earth and the moon, docking with stations, and transferring cargo and crew from station to station?<br /><br />Get the shuttles on the production line! Get one looping the earth and moon!<br /><br />Come on people, let’s find a way to get it together right here, right now! There are billions of people that will fund a program like this!<br /><br />THE FIRST STEP: If each of us donated $25 dollars a month, 1-billion of us doing the same could raise $25,000,000,000 per month. Think of how many jobs it would create!<br /><br />http://jatslo.com/ : Jatslo<br />
 
J

jatslo

Guest
Was it not JFK, who said something like, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”?<br /><br />Is it not the responsibility of the willing to fund a program like this?<br /><br />“THE WILLING” <br /><br />How many of us are there?<br /><br />http://jatslo.com/ : Jatslo<br />
 
J

jatslo

Guest
The satellite mapping recognizance crafts that NASA is talking about sending into orbit around the moon are a waste of taxpayer money in my opinion.<br /><br />Since the shuttles will be looping the planetary bodies anyway, why not install surveillance technology on the bottom of the shuttles.<br /><br />The shuttles can also drop inexpensive rovers on the moon. The rovers that bounce on airbags, and run on solar energy seem to work.<br /><br />What we need is large bodies of water ice on the moon that we can convert to hydrogen, water, electricity, etc.<br /><br />http://jatslo.com/ : Jatslo<br /><br /><br /> <br />
 
J

jatslo

Guest
“because of the wast. Consider flying the Shuttle orbiter with it's wings landing gear etc to the moon and back; what a waste of capability.”<br /><br />You are both right and wrong. We must utilize the existing technology that works. The shuttle works. Would you be willing to compromise, if we change the configuration of the shuttle?<br /><br />http://jatslo.com/ : Jatslo<br />
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
Well, the Shuttle *works* for orbiting the Earth. It doesn't work for orbiting the Moon. So having it deploy spacecraft in lunar orbit or do lunar photoreconnaissance isn't merely exploiting existing resources. There is a great deal of hardware on board Shuttle that has no value for a lunar mission, but which adds a considerable amount of mass. That mass needs to be accelerated a great deal in order to get it to the Moon. We're talking a lot of thrust -- more than any spacecraft to date. It's just not efficient. That's what shuttle_guy means when he says it would be a waste -- you'd be wasting propellant, basically, to take stuff to the Moon that you don't need at the Moon.<br /><br />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 />That was part of the original concept for Shuttle, actually, which explains a great deal about its final design. <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>
 
J

jatslo

Guest
I looked up shuttle in the dictionary:<br /><br />1. A shuttle is a form of transport travelling frequently between places.<br /><br />2. A shuttle is a device carring the weft thread in weaving.<br /><br />3. v. move, travel, or send to and fro.<br /><br />http://jatslo.com/ : Jatslo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts