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

[nibb31]

Marcel, converting the Shuttle or the ISS to go to the moon is like converting a the Queen Mary II into a submarine. Sure, it could probably be done, but is it worth it?<br /><br />Now, after everyone has explained to you why it is a bad idea, it would be great if you could enlighten us, with all that technical knowledge you have, how YOU think it could work and what benefits there might be?<br /><br />

 

[brandbll]

"In the case of both the shuttle and the international space station unlike the proposed CEV have the added advantage of already being fully operational. I think to simply say it is impossible and therefore can’t be done because someone with no credentials said so is completely asinine. "<br /><br />I see what your saying, and i think to some degree you are definetely right. The ISS is a floating piece of space junk that is a lemon for all of NASAs funding. In my opinion you cut your losses and dump that humk of expensive scrap metal back into the ocean. It has no useful purpose for getting to Mars or the Moon, and to be quite honest i have no idea what use it really has besides a floating habbital bubble in space. I don't see much you can do in terms of construction(especially with limited capability in space) to make it useful for lunar purposes. <br /><br />However, the shuttle is a horse of a different color. Personally i think you are right about retiring the shuttle. It seems like a waste. I would think they could think of some useful purpose for it instead of just turning it into a tourist attraction at KSC. They can do all the modifications and changes they need to perform here on the ground to make it useful for soemthing. I defintely don't see it being useful for landing on the moon, but i would think there could be other useful purposes for it. Especially if we construct a moon base, after all it is called a SHUTTLE. Shuttling numerous people(more than 3) back and forth to the moon might be a start for some extra use. Not to mention it could carry parts for the new moon base into Lunar orbit. But these are just thoughts off the top of my head. I really have no idea whether or not they would be at all feasible even with adjustments. I just don't like seeing an extremely expensive spacecraft that my tax dollars paid for just being laid to rest when it is still perfectly capable of flying. <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>

 

[brellis]

Can one affix to the ISS a Solar Electric Primary Propulsion engine like the one used to gradually push ESA's SMART-1 into Lunar orbit? Even if it took years to adjust the orbit, there would be a chance to make this hugely expensive station useful in the manner you intend.<br /><br />I definitely don't have any math to back this up -- I'm just a musician with an open mind <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />It would seem that the cost of launching some kind of unmanned craft to throw the thing in the ocean wouldn't be that much less than launching a craft with S.E.P.P. that could attach itself to the ISS and draw energy from its solar panels. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[brandbll]

This was already talked about in this thread or another. I think they said Lunar orbit is too unstable to try and keep the ISS there. <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>

 

[brellis]

I wonder in general how feasible it is to affix some kind of ion propulsion engine to something like the ISS to at the very least keep it where it is in perpetuity? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

You could, but you'd need to deliver Xenon every now and again. An electrodynamic tether might be an even better idea as that needs no propellant.

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The ISS is a floating piece of space junk that is a lemon for all of NASAs funding. In my opinion you cut your losses and dump that humk of expensive scrap metal back into the ocean. It has no useful purpose for getting to Mars or the Moon<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Actually, it is helping us get there right now. It helping us learn how to survive in space for long periods. <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]

If you reread my post, you will find I was encouraging you to prove what you wrote. We are skeptical, but with that flight sim, you could prove us wrong. Good luck. <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>

 

[brandbll]

Ever heard of learning on the fly? <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>

 

[marcel_leonard]

If you would like to provide a link to this simulater I'd be more than happy to test it out...<br /><br />On a another note here is an interesting article I came across...<br /><br />In an ideal world we would have developed by now an SSTO that could in fact shuttle men/materials to and from the ISS. If I had some of that Brandon/Rutan/Allen money I would be putting everything I had into redeveloping the Venture Star, or at least reviewing a set of blueprints from the guys down at Skunk Works Labs. I find it sad that a bunch of young republicans have convinced the general public at large to waste even more tax-payer dollars on something as unimaginative as the CEV. I am all for going back to the Moon with new and improved 2006 model, not the same old rehashed 1969 version of the original Armstrong foot steps. I think it is a critical step towards setting up a base of operations on Mars, but we must learn to do so cost effectively.<br /><br />A good analogy would be grown adult men/women who still live at home with their parents. At some point these parents will no longer be able to support these grown children; so it is in the best interest for these men/women to grow up a little more to the point that they can live independent of their parents. The same thing is true of mankind’s survival off the planet earth. The earth is a small crib which mankind like any growing child will one day out grow. With the earth's population estimated at 6 billion plus people [my guess is that it’s closer to 8 billion], that day may be coming sooner than we think. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[webtaz99]

Even <b>IF</b> we could get the shuttle and/or the ISS to Lunar orbit, neither is capable of withstanding the radiation in Lunar orbit. <br /><br />The bottom line is, if you want a Lunar space station, build one. If you want a Lunar orbiter/lander, build one. Don't try to make a bathtub fly. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The earth is a small crib which mankind like any growing child will one day out grow.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />You sound like you have been listening to Steven Hawking's recent speech. In it, he urged us to go to the stars rather than risk being wiped out here. <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]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Ever heard of learning on the fly? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />You would gamble with the lives of astronauts and cosmonauts? <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>

 

[marcel_leonard]

After doing a research paper on VSAT technology I noticed quite a few agencies internationally are involved in SSTO development. I think we all agree that surface to orbit is the greatest cost factor in space exploration, and that anything that can reduce this factor of cost would be a welcomed thing. <br /><br />Under the Space Launch Initiative SLI, NASA is assessing options to ensure safe, affordable and timely future space transportation. The original program goal when SLI was announced was to begin full-scale development of a reusable launch system in 2006 with flight operations anticipated in the 2012 timeframe. Not only would a well developed SSTO make a Mars/Moon mission more cost effective it would also make the ISS more feasible as a staging station during Martian, or Lunar missions.<br /><br />When the X-37 was under NASA’s wing in the late 1990s, it was to be the first of a planned series of flight demonstrators dubbed Future X. The Boeing-built X-37 was billed at the time as an unpiloted, autonomously operated vehicle designed to conduct on-orbit operations and collect test data in the Mach 25 (reentry) region of flight. Those early plans for the X-37 called for it to be ferried to orbit by the space shuttle or an expendable launch vehicle where it would be deployed in Earth orbit. The vehicle would then remain in space for up to 21 days and perform a variety of experiments before reentering the atmosphere and landing on a conventional runway. But those plans were scrapped, with NASA transferring its X-37 technology demonstration program to DARPA in late 2004.<br /><br />The robot <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[nibb31]

X-37, just like X-38 are purely re-entry vehicles. They have NOTHING to do with SSTO.

 

[marcel_leonard]

What are you talking about if it was not part of the NASA SLI/SSTO what was the point of using it for re-entry testing? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[nibb31]

Marcel, I've already asked you, but what is the point of illustrating words of your post with those irrelevant links? Why does "talking" link to a pic of the ISS, and "SLI/SSTO" link to a pic of some sci-fi space ship from ESA ?<br /><br />X37 and X38 were not even closely related to an SSTO project. They were designed only as re-entry vehicles. X-37 was an orbital automated lab that would bring back samples. X-38 was the ISS lifeboat project. Neither had any means of reaching orbit, or even manoeuvering. All they had were deorbit engines.<br /><br />

 

[marcel_leonard]

Now that I understand your meaning of SSTO I should have used the Space Launch Initiative or SLI to explain the potential for the X-37. SLI should cover all of your definitions for RVLs and SSTOs in development. As for why I use hot links for one reason they say a picture is worth a thousand words. Second because I can.<br /><br />The other thing to look at is that if you had the ISS as a staging area you could make multiple trips back to the moon instead of only one expendable mission. If you could design/build a reusable lunar lander and dock it at the ISS; then transfer lunar materials [ie. rock samples or soil borings] on to the station then later on to the space shuttle or whatever SLI/ RVL we’ve developed by then we could actually have a cost effective program which could also be copied for future missions to Mars. <br /><br />The other thing to look at is that if you had the ISS as a staging area you could make multiple trips back to the moon instead of only one expendable mission. If you could design/build a reusable lunar lander and dock it at the ISS; then transfer lunar materials [ie. rock samples or soil borings] on to the station then later on to the space shuttle or whatever SLI/ RVL we’ve developed by then we could <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[nibb31]

I'm afraid you are really mixed up.<br /><br />This is my last reply to this thread, because it get very tiresome to tell you the same things over and over again.<br /><br />If you had a reusable lunar lander and shuttle, you would not NEED to dock to the ISS. You could simply dock with your shuttle and skip the ISS part. That would save a lot of complication and fuel in plane changes to reach the ISS.<br /><br />The shuttle is going away. Designing a replacement RLV would take another decade at least. RLV designs have already absorbed billions of US$ with no result. Therefore, you have to come up with a design that works and can be operational with a short design period.<br /><br />The problem with a reusable lunar lander is FUEL. If you use a rocket to brake into LEO instead of going for a direct reentry, that means you have to bring 2.5 times more fuel to the moon with you. In other words, you would need an EDS stage of 250 tons instead of 100 tons. There is no feasible way to launch anything that big with current technology.<br /><br />You don't seem to have any idea of the quantity of propellant that is required to leave LEO, to brake into LLO, then to leave LLO and to brake again into LEO. It is huge!<br /><br />And, regarding your comments on X37 and GEO, let me say it again: the X37 does not have any engines. It cannot go anywhere on it own, not even LEO, let alone GEO. Why you would want it to go to GEO is beyond me.<br /><br />SSTO is not possible with current technology because you need to carry so much propellant that you would only have a payload of 0.5% the total mass of the vehicle.

 

[josh_simonson]

Indeed, a re-useable craft that can go from LEO to the moon, land and return would require a greater fuel fraction than a SSTO. Re-useable landers will have to wait for ISRU propellant to be economical, and they'll spend most of their lives on a moonbase, going to LLO to pick up a crew and return - not to LEO.

 

[willpittenger]

I agree with you on the LEO vs LLO part. However, a reusable lander becomes more feasible if you can make fuel for on the Moon and do so in a decent amount of time per lander. Such a system would have the lander sitting on the Moon at the fuel factory. When its tanks have enough fuel for it to return to orbit and land again, it would tell Houston, Moscow, or whoever. That is when you send the crew in the CEV. Once the CEV reaches lunar orbit, it calls the lander and says "Come Up Here." That would cause the lander to launch itself and dock automatically with the CEV. You might want to keep a fueled lander on site in case the crew has to leave quick (as in before the lander they came down in has refueled) due to an emergency. <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>

 

[nibb31]

Of course, all that would be very nice, but at the moment, we don't even know if ISRU is possible. We haven't tested the idea. We cannot base the new moon architecture on ISRU just yet.<br /><br />We have to return to the moon, set up an outpost, and experiment with making propellant on the moon. Only then can we think about developing a reusable lander that uses ISRU.

 

[willpittenger]

Do the experiment with a robot. Lot cheaper and they would be handling most of the manufacturing anyway. <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>

 

[nibb31]

A robot can do a limited number of experiments. If they don't work, you have to send another robot. If they do work, you need to send a new robot to refine the experiment and confirm the results on a larger scale. This takes a lot of time.<br /><br />Experiments are only a small part of the entire development process that needs to take place. You need human interaction and creativity to develop processes.

 

[marcel_leonard]

<i><font color="yellow">"You don't seem to have any idea of the quantity of propellant that is required to leave LEO, to brake into LLO, then to leave LLO and to brake again into LEO. It is huge! <br />"</font>/i><br /><br />You keep talking about braking as if it was the only factor in orbital mechanics. If I recall correctly from physics the escape velocity to break away from the earth’s gravitational pull is about 17,500 mph which is about how fast all satellites including the ISS are traveling around the earth. Whenever we send something to the moon or to Mars we use the earths gravity to sling shot towards its final destination with either the Moon/Mars. <br /><br />Although it is true you need added propellant to break from an orbit it is also possible to slow down and speed up using orbital breaking. A good example of this are the Galileo/Voyager probes sent out to explore the gas giants. I don’t have the exact figures but it is possible for the CEV to rendezvous with the ISS and continue on to the moon without much more additional fuel using Kepler’s laws.<br /><br />I suggest you read up on your orbital mechanics before you start telling people what is, and what is not possible. <br /></i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>