Shuttle to the moon
Discussion
Ok, heres a question which has been bugging me for a while.
We hear about the billions of dollars NASA puts latest venue to the moon. Why not use the shuttle or maybe a modified version? The technology is there, the shuttles's weakest element is takeoff/re-entry which wouldn't be any more of an issue on a lunar mission.
You could convert the cargo bay to support a crew of 3 or 4 and maybe a small lander (although theres no reason why the shuttle couldn't land itself) or perhaps attach external fuel tanks while in orbit?
Theres been a huge amount of criticism of the shuttle program over the years, albeit justified. Wouldn't this be a great value adder to te whole thing? Even a close orbit of the moon if a landing was impractical, that would still be
What do PH think?
We hear about the billions of dollars NASA puts latest venue to the moon. Why not use the shuttle or maybe a modified version? The technology is there, the shuttles's weakest element is takeoff/re-entry which wouldn't be any more of an issue on a lunar mission.
You could convert the cargo bay to support a crew of 3 or 4 and maybe a small lander (although theres no reason why the shuttle couldn't land itself) or perhaps attach external fuel tanks while in orbit?
Theres been a huge amount of criticism of the shuttle program over the years, albeit justified. Wouldn't this be a great value adder to te whole thing? Even a close orbit of the moon if a landing was impractical, that would still be
What do PH think?
The shuttle can't land on the moon as it does glide approaches using aerodynamics that exist on earth to long runways. The lack of atmosphere on the moon would make this impossible. There are also no runways on the moon.
There wouldn't be enough fuel normally to get to the moon. Why use the shuttle boosters to get a shuttle with a small payload in the cargo bay just to the earths orbit when you can get a larger load on a dedicated launch system all the way to lunar orbit? Look at all the effort required to mate the boosters to the shuttle on earth, imagine the problems associated with resupplying it with fuel in orbit.
The shuttles main engines are also not able to restart in orbit.
There wouldn't be enough fuel normally to get to the moon. Why use the shuttle boosters to get a shuttle with a small payload in the cargo bay just to the earths orbit when you can get a larger load on a dedicated launch system all the way to lunar orbit? Look at all the effort required to mate the boosters to the shuttle on earth, imagine the problems associated with resupplying it with fuel in orbit.
The shuttles main engines are also not able to restart in orbit.
Edited by el stovey on Wednesday 10th June 20:55
el stovey said:
The shuttle can't land on the moon as it does glide approaches using aerodynamics that exist on earth to long runways. The lack of atmosphere on the moon would make this impossible. There are also no runways on the moon.
Why use the shuttle boosters to get a shuttle with a small payload in the cargo bay to the moon's orbit when you can get a larger load on a dedicated launch system?
Yeah I guess I didn't think about the thin atmosphere on the moon. I had just considered the way the shuttle behaves in space i.e. completely maneuverable and therefore could land vertically on the moon surface. This would negate the need for a runway as long as there was somewhere flat enough and free of boulders. The Apollo lunar lander wasn't 'aerodynamic' nor did it need a runway.Why use the shuttle boosters to get a shuttle with a small payload in the cargo bay to the moon's orbit when you can get a larger load on a dedicated launch system?
There is also the 1/3 gravity to consider.
Do we need a huge payload to go to the moon? Will the new mission take anymore than 6 men? The current proposal still needs several rocket launches to get the hardware assembled. The shuttle still seems viable to me considering cost Vs achievement...
MiniMan64 said:
The right tool for the right job and landing on the Moon is not the Shuttles job and butchering it up to try and make it so would be a bit rubbish I think.
Has someone been watching Armageddeon too much?
Has someone been watching Armageddeon too much?
I just want a 'proper' spaceship you know? Like I used to make out of lego when I was a kid. A sort of mad space plane thing with lasers and whatnot.
Can't they just make one for a laugh? We could all take turns to have go and 'hoooooon around the univeeeerse'!
tom77 said:
Do we need a huge payload to go to the moon? Will the new mission take anymore than 6 men? The current proposal still needs several rocket launches to get the hardware assembled. The shuttle still seems viable to me considering cost Vs achievement...
You need to get the fuel on to get to the moon which the shuttle doesn't have anywhere near. You also need a much larger launch payload capability to build any future 'moon base' there.el stovey said:
tom77 said:
Do we need a huge payload to go to the moon? Will the new mission take anymore than 6 men? The current proposal still needs several rocket launches to get the hardware assembled. The shuttle still seems viable to me considering cost Vs achievement...
You need to get the fuel on to get to the moon which the shuttle doesn't have anywhere near. You also need a much larger launch payload capability to build any future 'moon base' there.The Apollo spacecraft didn't drag massive tanks of fuel with it. Once you're in space a little fuel goes along way.
As regards the shuttle idea, fill the cargo bay with extended living quarters and either extra fuel or lander. Then send a second rocket with more fuel and/or lander, and they dock in orbit.
Bingo! The same number of rockets needed to instigate the mission and same objectives achieved.
Just to add, I once had a conversation with a guy who worked for NASA and also the Large Hardon Collider
. I asked him the same question, he echoed what has been said here that it's just not the right tool for the job but wasn't specific. I want more details!The Shuttle is too big and heavy - the Orbiter weighs 100 tonnes. The engine thrust and fuel required to send 100 tonnes all the way to the moon would be well beyond the largest launcher ever envisaged.
Back in the early days of Apollo (1961/62) it was envisaged that the 30 ton Command and Service module would make the actual landing on the lunar surface. This method was refeerred to as the "Direct Ascent" method and would have involved a hypothetical launcher referred to as Nova. Nova would have developed over 13 million pounds of thrust at launch. The Saturn V developed 7.5 million pounds of thrust and the Shuttle Orbiter/Solid Rocket Booster combination develops just over 6 million pounds of thrust.
Because Kennedy had placed a nine year time limit on Apollo achieving its goal, it was felt that pushing ahead with a booster larger than the Saturn would leave no time margin (work on the various Saturns had actually started in 1959, two years before the Presidential decision to go to the moon).
The Shuttle needs to be retired. It is not versatile enough for anything beyond low earth orbit missions and has done more to stifle the manned exploration of teh Solar System than to assist it.
Back in the early days of Apollo (1961/62) it was envisaged that the 30 ton Command and Service module would make the actual landing on the lunar surface. This method was refeerred to as the "Direct Ascent" method and would have involved a hypothetical launcher referred to as Nova. Nova would have developed over 13 million pounds of thrust at launch. The Saturn V developed 7.5 million pounds of thrust and the Shuttle Orbiter/Solid Rocket Booster combination develops just over 6 million pounds of thrust.
Because Kennedy had placed a nine year time limit on Apollo achieving its goal, it was felt that pushing ahead with a booster larger than the Saturn would leave no time margin (work on the various Saturns had actually started in 1959, two years before the Presidential decision to go to the moon).
The Shuttle needs to be retired. It is not versatile enough for anything beyond low earth orbit missions and has done more to stifle the manned exploration of teh Solar System than to assist it.
An Apollo-era spaceship would squeeze in the cargo bay of the Shuttle. You could send a shuttle up with a luna vehicle in the boot. Take it into orbit, it could then launch from there and visit the Moon. When it returns it could re-dock with the Shuttle and be brought back down. The spaceship wouldn't need any heatshields or the ability to return to Earth on it's own thus improving the scope for optimising it for Luna exploration.
A cool but expensive way to do it though.
A cool but expensive way to do it though.
As Eric says, the reason the shuttle is the wrong tool for the job is its mass. Travelling to the moon from Earth orbit requires that you accelerate, then slow down at the moon, then accelerate back to earth. Every time you accelerate or slow down, you need fuel, and the more mass you carry, the more fuel you need (and the more mass you carry again...)
Much of the mass of the shuttle (wings, heat sheilding, etc) would be of no value to a moon trip. There is no point talking all that redundant mass with you.
You could however use the shuttle to build and supply a moon-capable space craft in low earth orbit, so that it would use less fuel to get to the moon....however, the shuttle is not even the most efficient way of doing this - more conventional rockets are far more efficient.
Cheers,
FT.
Much of the mass of the shuttle (wings, heat sheilding, etc) would be of no value to a moon trip. There is no point talking all that redundant mass with you.
You could however use the shuttle to build and supply a moon-capable space craft in low earth orbit, so that it would use less fuel to get to the moon....however, the shuttle is not even the most efficient way of doing this - more conventional rockets are far more efficient.
Cheers,
FT.
qube_TA said:
An Apollo-era spaceship would squeeze in the cargo bay of the Shuttle. You could send a shuttle up with a luna vehicle in the boot. Take it into orbit, it could then launch from there and visit the Moon. When it returns it could re-dock with the Shuttle and be brought back down. The spaceship wouldn't need any heatshields or the ability to return to Earth on it's own thus improving the scope for optimising it for Luna exploration.
A cool but expensive way to do it though.
There was no actual "luna vehcile" as such. The Apollo spacecraft consisted of three distinct modules, the Command Module, The Service Module and the Lunar Module. All three modules combined would be too large and builky to fit in the Space Shuttle's cargo bay. Even if they could, that would still not be good enough.A cool but expensive way to do it though.
Assuming that the Shuttle could lift a modified version of the Apollo modules into low earth orbit, the modules would need another rocket stage to accelerate all three modules to the escape velocity required to break out of earth's gravitational pull and to head off towards the moon. The engine at the back of the service module (the Service Propulsion System or SPS) is far too weedy to do this.
The Apollo modules were actually boosted out of earth orbit by firing the engine of the upper stage of the Saturn V moon rocket, to which they were still attached. That is WAY too big to be lifted in a Shuttle.
Oh well, maybe not such a brainwave then!
Cheers for the replies, I'll stop working on the 5000 word essay I was going to send to NASA
I still think they should develop a high performance space plane though, just for s
ts and giggles.
Maybe Branson will turn his attention to that once his finished ferrying folk in low orbit and making pickle.
Cheers for the replies, I'll stop working on the 5000 word essay I was going to send to NASA
I still think they should develop a high performance space plane though, just for s
ts and giggles.Maybe Branson will turn his attention to that once his finished ferrying folk in low orbit and making pickle.
Spaceplanes are nice, in theory, but they do f'-all for space exploration - which is where the action should be for the next 100 years.
We need lots of big, dumb boosters that can lift heavy stuff of all shapes and sizes into earth orbit. Once the "stuff" is up there, it can be sent on its way to wherever it needs to go.
Adding wings, heatshields, landing gear, aerodynamic limitations (unecessary for REAL spacecraft) all compromises the craft so much that it limits what it can do once it gets into space.
Withe the hindsight of 30 plus years of the Shuttle programme, it is now clear that it was a disastrous dead end for manned spaceflight.
We need lots of big, dumb boosters that can lift heavy stuff of all shapes and sizes into earth orbit. Once the "stuff" is up there, it can be sent on its way to wherever it needs to go.
Adding wings, heatshields, landing gear, aerodynamic limitations (unecessary for REAL spacecraft) all compromises the craft so much that it limits what it can do once it gets into space.
Withe the hindsight of 30 plus years of the Shuttle programme, it is now clear that it was a disastrous dead end for manned spaceflight.
Edited by Eric Mc on Thursday 11th June 09:10
Have a look for Stephen Baxters novel Titan. It's about a cash strapped NASA sending astronauts to Titan using an improvised spacecraft cobbled together from Shuttle/Saturn type hardware. Including using 'Shuttle C' (Shuttles with the wings chopped off) as one way launch vehicles to build a spacecraft in orbit.
Dr Jekyll said:
Have a look for Stephen Baxters novel Titan. It's about a cash strapped NASA sending astronauts to Titan using an improvised spacecraft cobbled together from Shuttle/Saturn type hardware. Including using 'Shuttle C' (Shuttles with the wings chopped off) as one way launch vehicles to build a spacecraft in orbit.
Baxter uses this concept in a couple of his novels.In some ways, that is what NASA is doing with its Ares/Constellation programme. It's proving rather more problematic than Baxter (and NASA) might have imagined.
Reality is usually more complicated than fiction.
Edited by Eric Mc on Thursday 11th June 09:35
Dr Jekyll said:
Have a look for Stephen Baxters novel Titan. It's about a cash strapped NASA sending astronauts to Titan using an improvised spacecraft cobbled together from Shuttle/Saturn type hardware. Including using 'Shuttle C' (Shuttles with the wings chopped off) as one way launch vehicles to build a spacecraft in orbit.
A great book. That series of books really makes you feel like this stuff is possible. And perhaps it is! Although the squid taking over... maybe a bit far....Cheers,
FT.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff