Using the ISS/Shuttle to go to both the Moon/Mars

[blackknight36]

thats a very good idea but i think it would be a lot easier and cheaper to carry a lunar lander in the shuttles payload bay fly the shuttle to the moon using the robotic arm to launch the lander and using the robotic arm to recaptue the lander in lunar orbit .that would save billions of dollars. it would be a big waste to retire the shuttles . i think the shuttles can be modified to make that possable. i wrote to nasa about that idea but soo far got no response. lol

 

[nibb31]

The shuttle orbiters cannot go to the moon. Please read the beginning of the thread.

 

[marcel_leonard]

Be careful when you state as fact what can, and cannot be done w/ the shuttle. They main argument that the nay-sayers have with using the shuttle/ISS is that they are too expensive, and that the shuttle will be retiring soon. If you are trying to tell me that shuttle/ISS is too expensive you are preaching to the choir. I for one have been an advocate for replacing the shuttle with a better designed RLV since the early eighties. <br /><br />The bottom-line is this we as a nation have had several chances to improve our shuttle program, but for whatever reason refused to do so. Now some people are excited about the current administrations attempt to resurrect the Saturn V/Apollo space mission back to the moon in the form of a Delta V/CEV program. I have no problem with this however building a lunar stack back to the moon will remove that fact that until we develop a better RLV, and make better use of our current projects we will continue literally to be burning stacks of enough tax-payer dollars on the Cape's launch pad to reach Alpha Centuri.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[scottb50]

Be careful when you state as fact what can, and cannot be done w/ the shuttle.... <br /><br />I agree, the Shuttles could be used for a long time with a new Launchers. Remove the engines and add water ballast, along with turbo-jets to allow a little less spectacular landing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

Turbojets were deleted from the original design due to weight problems. Then they could not even have detachable engines (for self-ferry purposes). That was when the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (SCA) was created.<br /><br />Also, reengineering the shuttle as you suggest would probably cost enough money to make you wish we had bought a few VentureStars. Aging airframes do not help. <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]

marcel_leonard:<br />Now that I have seen for myself how many consider pure speculation as fact when it comes to utilizing the shuttle/ISS...<br /><br />Me:<br />Hopefully Nibb31 has answered your questions on why its not necessary to have a way station on the way to the moon and why its not practical to use the shuttle to ferry an LM to the moon. Apollo required no way stations.<br /><br />However, I noticed what you mentioned above about speculation. Are you saying its speculation when the need for a translunar booster is mentioned to get ISS or shuttle to the moon? Is the additional propellant required to accomplish this task speculation? Is it speculation when someone points out that the ISS can not handle accelleration loads greater than .5 G I believe it was due to its mass and relatively delicate layout of trusses, SPAs, etc?<br /><br />If all of the above is just speculation on the people here who know something about this subject (Myself not included). You should bring more detailed plans on how utilizing ISS and shuttle for moon and mars is not only technically doable...but cost effective. I suspect once you begin to think this through, you will begin to see that those on this board who have pointed out why this is not a practical idea...do so from more than just idle speculation. <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>

 

[qso1]

marcel_leonard:<br />If you are trying to tell me that shuttle/ISS is too expensive you are preaching to the choir.<br /><br />Me:<br />Why did you propose to continue the use of shuttle and ISS for getting to the moon in the first place?<br /><br />marcel_leonard:<br />I have no problem with this however building a lunar stack back to the moon will remove that fact that until we develop a better RLV, and make better use of our current projects we will continue literally to be burning stacks of enough tax-payer dollars on the Cape's launch pad to reach Alpha Centuri. <br /><br />Me:<br />Exactly. Problem is, NASA and its contractors has for now IMO shown that they are not up to the job of building a cost effective RLV presumably without additional funds. Private enterprise may or may not be able to do this either. If it turns out they cannot do it as well, then it may well be a technical/economical challenge that remains still beyond us and any other country in the world since nobody else has come as far as we have towards solving 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>

 

[barrykirk]

Here we go again with the old RLV argument. The <br />shuttle is not a true RLV in that parts of it, notably the<br />external fuel tank are thrown away.<br /><br />That in and of itself isn't a big problem, their are aircraft<br />that have drop tanks.<br /><br />The biggest problem with throwing away the external<br />tank is that it is soo expensive.<br /><br />Now, let's look at the new CaLV. The SRB boosters on<br />the side are supposed to be re-usable, at least to some<br />standards. ( Very high cost of re-use )<br /><br />As I've said before on this board, the easiest part of a<br />rocket to re-use is the first stage. That is also the most<br />expensive part. Make that part cheap to re-use and<br />you've conquered most of the cost problem.<br />

 

[marcel_leonard]

I agree hundred and ten percent with your assessment of the first stage. My point is that I don’t think with nearly forty years of avionics research that Boeing, Lockheed, and Martin haven’t already figured out a solution to the RLV problem. Just as first year Civil/ Mechanical Engineering student at some engineering colleges won’t be able to find solution manuals to their text, or old exams to study from in their freshmen, and sophomore years. As the engineering junior and senior starts to thin out as more and more students drop out and change their majors due to the stiff competition at the college of engineering suddenly upper classmen who have managed to stay the course suddenly find themselves having access to old exams and solution manuals. <br /><br />I seriously think at the Boeing and Lockheed/Martin levels this same weeding out process is taking place. When you look at the aerospace industry as a whole Boeing, Lockheed/Martin, and Arianespace control nearly 95% of every satellite, spacecraft, rocket, plane, identified, and unidentified flying object over our heads. The way I look at it if I had that type of monopoly on the skies why would I won’t to share that power w/ the masses by making LEO, MEO, and GEO more accessible to the general public by creating good RLV technology? <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[qso1]

marcel_leonard:<br />The why I look at it if I had that type of monopoly on the skies why would I won’t to share that power w/ the masses by making LEO, MEO, and GEO more accessible to the general public by creating good RLV technology?<br /><br />Me:<br />While its possible the big companies are doing what you mention, at the same time it seems like corporate suicide to me. The reason you want to make this RLV technology available to the general public is the potential for profit beyond anything currently possible by witholding it even with competition and especially if one gets the tech out there first.<br /><br />marcel_leonard:<br />I agree hundred and ten percent with your assessment of the first stage. My point is that I don’t think with nearly forty years of avionics research that Boeing, Lockheed, and Martin haven’t already figured out a solution to the RLV problem.<br /><br />Me:<br />Someone mentioned the solutions have been available and are in old tech manuals etc. That seems more an indication that we have been able to figure out everything from an engineering standpoint. I noticed no mention of cost however. Cost is what killed RLV research. Even with the original shuttle program. The phase "A" study had a reusable flyback booster. They went to the current design because as they put it, the current design had lower development costs but higher operating costs. The original FBB design was the opposite. Too much money to get it to the operational phase. The President Nixon also put a 5.5B dollar budget cap on the program in its initial stages. <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>

 

[qso1]

BarryKirk:<br />Here we go again with the old RLV argument. The <br />shuttle is not a true RLV in that parts of it, notably the <br />external fuel tank are thrown away.<br /><br />Me:<br />A lot of concepts in aerospace are seemingly old now because they have been around a long time but never tried. A true RLV being one of them. RLVs have not yet been able to be made operational because of the costs of developing them.<br /><br />BarryKirk:<br />That in and of itself isn't a big problem, their are aircraft <br />that have drop tanks.<br /><br />Me:<br />Correct, especially for this particular design. It would be more expensive to try and recover the ET after each shuttle mission.<br /><br />BarryKirk:<br />Now, let's look at the new CaLV. The SRB boosters on <br />the side are supposed to be re-usable, at least to some <br />standards. ( Very high cost of re-use )<br /><br />Me:<br />Correct, and it is also an indication that using traditional methods and arrangements in the current political environment, this is now the only possibility. A compromise in reusability that is at an even lower standard than when the shuttle compromise design came about.<br /><br />BarryKirk:<br />Make that part cheap to re-use and <br />you've conquered most of the cost problem.<br /><br />Me:<br />That is certainly true although I'm not so sure its the easiest part to reuse. Its that stage of flight that is the most difficult. Getting out of Earths gravity well and atmosphere is the biggest challenge to RLV design. Followed by getting the RLV back. <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>

 

[scottb50]

If the Government could use them another twenty years it would be well worth it to launch the Shuttle Vehicle from a fly-back Booster and a relightable upper stage.<br /><br />Strip out all the lockers and such and they could be freighters or passenger transports, with a Payload Bay passenger Module. A Shuttle Vehicle could be a payload for a new Launcher family and Upper Stage. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Apollo required no way stations.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I should point out at this point that Apollo used something called "Lunar Orbit Rendezvous". However, the current plans are for an option that was rejected for Apollo: "Earth Orbit Rendezvous". The lander and transit vehicle are to be launched separately. It is not quite what Marcel wanted, but some orbital "construction" would happen. Not much, but oh well. <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]

willpittenger:<br />I should point out at this point that Apollo used something called "Lunar Orbit Rendezvous"....<br /><br />Me:<br />And that method proved way stations are not needed. Nice to have but not required. Even EOR would not require separate LEO stations. People often think it would be because they see it as being required for fueling at the very least. Much as gas stations on the ground for cars going long distances. But if an EOR system is designed to maximize efficiency, the required propellant will already be aboard the vehicles.<br /><br />Eventually orbital construction would be required for large scale support of larger LEO operations and or lunar operations. At some point orbital construction economics will be more practical than trying to get large masses off the ground. By large mass, I'm referring to masses well beyond Saturn-V capability. <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>

 

[barrykirk]

When I said it's an old argument, I should have been<br />more specific. It's been floating around this board<br />for a while.<br /><br />When I say that the first stage is the easiest to re-use<br />I'm saying it for the following reason.<br /><br />You can only re-use a stage if you can bring it back to<br />a re-use point on the ground intact and undamaged.<br />If as an example, your engines are desgined for 100<br />uses, but they burn up on re-entry before reaching the<br />ground, they still can only be re-used once.<br /><br />A first stage has a much lower velocity and altitude then<br />all of the other stages. In fact, most first stages burn<br />out at about 120 seconds into flight. The heat shields<br />needed to protect a first stage at that velocity are <br />relatively modest. In fact it's practical to also recover<br />the fuel tank cheaply. The first stage is also the most<br />expensive stage, so it's the one you want to recover the<br />most. As an example, for a Falcon 9 rocket, the first<br />stage contains 9 Merlin engines, whereas the second<br />stage contains 1 Merlin engine. All other things being<br />rougly proportional, the first stage is at least 80% of the<br />total launch vehicle cost and maybe a bit more.<br /><br />That's why a fully recoverable first stage is a good first<br />step towards a "practicle" RLV. The shuttle uses a <br />stage and half design and tries to re-use the orbitor.<br />It is also incredibly expensive to refurbish for the next <br />flight.<br /><br />I'd rather have a two stage instead of a stage and half<br />but stage one is easy and inexpensive to re-use, but<br />stage 2 is non re-usable. I would imagine that total<br />cost of re-use would be considerably less expensive for<br />the two stage design and turn around time could <br />possibly be faster for a two stage design.

 

[marcel_leonard]

When I said that Lockheed/Martin and Boeing were holding up new technology; this is no different from when IBM during the 70s was one of the worlds largest manufacturer of mainframes saw no need to invest any interest in a new operating system developed by Xerox called a Graphic User Interface or GUI as we know it today. They even said it would be the year 2010 before a market would develop for personal computers. When Steve Wasniack and Steve Jobs founders of Apple Computer developed the first market for PCs using the Xerox Parc GUI renaming it Macintosh in 1984 they silenced all the nay-sayers.<br /><br />The same thing will happen in the aerospace industry. Eventually some clever young engineers will develop a ScramJet/Aerospike powered plane that can take off from any tarmac in the United States and in about 15 minutes establish GEO, then 15 minutes later land at Tokyo International Airport a half an hour flight.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[nibb31]

That is a bad analogy. Personal computers had been a reality for years before IBM decided to invest in that market. They did not uphold technology. The technology had been available for several years. They just weren't interested in pursuing that market. As you said, there was a void in the market, so others did.<br /><br />There is currently no existing technology that allows what you suggest. If there were, others would try to fill the void.<br /><br /><br />

 

[willpittenger]

The concept of orbital assembly works at better the farther you go and the longer you want to sustain operations. For instance, only Apollo style missions (send 3-4 people to collect a few rocks, make footprints, and leave after a few days) could make round trips to Mars with a single launch (and, even then, only barely). If you want a sustained mission with larger crew and more science, build a bigger ship. (You need the shielding anyway.)<br /><br />Even some unmanned missions might require orbital assembly. JIMO looked to be big enough to require help. It stood little to no chance of fitting into either the shuttle bay or a shroud for an expandable launcher. Something going to the stars would be even bigger -- even unmanned.<br /><br />There is one other factor: Where you make the parts. If you use lunar ore, why ship it to Earth's surface to make into spacecraft? Just a thought. <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>

 

[willpittenger]

I hate to tell you this, but I doubt the first vehicles will be able to reach orbit just 15 minutes after takeoff. They will be VERY heavy. In 15 minutes? They would be doing well to reach Mach 1 by then. Jet engines are not as responsive as rockets. Scramjets do better, but are useless below about Mach 4. In face, you need a bridge between the regular jets and the scramjets. By the time you could start the scramjets, the jets you took off with would be approaching the temperature limits their fan and compressor blades can handle. This is why for my Challenger Class orbiter concept, I included ramjets around the "Take Off Jets" (or TOJs). As you speed up, you bypass air around the compressors (which start to be unneeded) and the turbines (which no longer have anything to power). Once all the compressor and turbine stages are bypassed, you switch to a second combustion chamber. You now have the ramjet part of the TOJ. <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]

willpittenger:<br />For instance, only Apollo style missions (send 3-4 people to collect a few rocks, make footprints, and leave after a few days) could make round trips to Mars...<br /><br />Me:<br />For Mars, as your pointing out, it will take several launches to get the mars craft to low orbit. The craft would have to be large enough to sustain a few people for the transit to and from.<br /><br />willpittenger:<br />There is one other factor: Where you make the parts. If you use lunar ore, why ship it to Earth's surface to make into spacecraft? Just a thought.<br /><br />Me:<br />Thats correct, in all the space industrialization scenarios I've considered, the whole point of lunar mining is to be able to build spacecraft in lunar orbit which depart for destinations beyond or a few may go to earth orbit but the raw materials never have to go to the earths surface. <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>

 

[marcel_leonard]

Look anything is possible and as far as I’m concerned a fifthteen minute flight approaching LEO, MEO, and GEO is possible. I understand the basics of jet propulsion and they are basically elaborate propellers. Since there is no air once you leave the atmosphere; therefore you have no propellant, which is why a combination of ScramJet/Aerospike engine just might work. Think of a cross between the X-33 and X-43B. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[j05h]

> Look anything is possible and as far as I’m concerned a fifthteen minute flight approaching LEO, MEO, and GEO is possible. <br /><br />"Anything" is decidedly NOT possible. The universe follows certain rules, don't argue with gravity. Soyuz takes under 10 minute to reach LEO, however. GEO in 15 minutes? Maybe with Orion or something.<br /><br />josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[qso1]

marcel_leonard: <br />Look anything is possible and as far as I’m concerned a fifthteen minute flight approaching LEO, MEO, and GEO is possible. <br /><br />Me: <br />I'm listing the acronyms for orbits as I recall them and to ensure we are on the same page as to orbits. <br /><br />LEO = Low Earth Orbit <br />The most common description acronym of orbits ranging from 150 to 300 or so miles above Earth. <br /><br />MEO = Medium Earth Orbit, rarely have I ever heard this term used but nonetheless, its between LEO and GEO. <br /><br />GEO = GEosynchronous Orbit <br />An orbit in which spacecraft are at an altitude of 22,300 miles and their orbital velocity matches whatever Earth position they may be above so as to make it appear they are stationary. <br /><br />15 minutes to GEO is not possible with todays technology if you intend to put something in orbit there. If your simply rocketing past GEO, that will require nearly an hour at 24,500 mph and you would have to be going that fast to escape Earths gravity. <br /><br />Going to GEO involves a burn at LEO to in effect, allow you to assume a transfer orbit thats high end intersects GEO. <br /><br />Now, LEO is accessible within 15 minutes for shuttle and other spacecraft lofted to that orbit. The key requirement is achieving a velocity of around 17,500 mph. This however does not mean your 15 minutes from a destination at LEO such as ISS. Shuttle and Soyuz generally take two days to rendezveous with ISS, this due to the limitations of chemical propulsion systems and the laws of physics governing spacecraft in orbit. GEO altitude is too far for any craft to reach in 15 minutes, this also due to orbital mechanics/laws of physics as mentioned above. <br /><br />marcel_leonard: <br />Since there is no air once you leave the atmosphere; therefore you have no propellant. <br /><br />Me: <br />There is no oxidizer in the form of atmospheric oxygen. Jets and scramjets require atmospheric oxygen to operate. An aerospike engine is normally associated w <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>

 

[qso1]

willpittenger:<br />I hate to tell you this, but I doubt the first vehicles will be able to reach orbit just 15 minutes after takeoff.<br /><br />Me:<br />Not only that, but assuming its horizontal takeoff, the most likely trajectory will be a shallow one. Especially for carrying passengers. The shallow trajectory allows for getting into LEO at the right angle. But this lengthens the trajectory somewhat. <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>

 

[marcel_leonard]

<i><font color="yellow">qso1-<br />"And while it is true that a combination of engines might work, it proved to expensive and technically challenging at this time to do. Think X-30 (NASP) in this case. That craft was some combination of the propulsion systems you mentioned and the concept was being proposed back in the late 1980s. It was reduced to a technology research effort by the early 1990s...meaning the program was allowed to die. NASP was to have been capable of horizontal take off with jet engines, then switch to scramjets until sufficient altitude and velocity was reached to allow rockets to take it the rest of the way to orbit. X-33 (Venture star) was to have taken off like a rocket and IIRC had no jet propulsion. This design utilized the aerospike engine design. <br />"</font>/i><br /><br />First of all it’s not how much time that lapses to achieve LEO, MEO, and GEO but rather the amount trajectory. It takes a lot of arch to hit a three point shot from the top of the key. Second of all so far some of you seem to need some remedial physics and study a little Newton and Kepler’s notes on orbital mechanics. Third since 99% of the universe is still unknown and even the most learned physicist has yet to really figure out what causes Gravitational and Electromagnetic forces and how they are related [Fe = K(Qq /r^2); Fg = G(Mm/r^2)] you should be careful before get on your 15 minute orbit lecture circuit.<br /><br />The current Delta V CEV lunar mission is actually a step backwards in fact it will take two separate launches to do what we were able to do forty years in one. I keep hearing about the AeroSpike not being able or capable to deliver however all the test of the engine at the Marshall Space Center in Huntsville AL show 75% submittal.<br /><br />My point being I keep hear</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>