Shuttle to the Moon?

[uri_ba]

Actually the shuttle did have quite substantial amount of Dv in the OMS system, however it would have consumed all it's mono propellant just to get most of the TLI, not all of it.

In theory, it would have been possible to add mono-prop plant tanks in the cargo bay. It is nasty hypogolics, but it's easier to handle then LH/LOX.

In the bay you would also be able to carry the LM. However, you would be required to carry the entire airframe there and back.

Ironically, the Russian Buran is better suited to this crazy thing, as it didn't have real engines and plumbing as the SSMEs are. All of the power needed for the launch came from its launcher (energia).

Putting the Space shuttle crew compartment into capsule form would have made more sense for exploration. But that exactly the Orion CEV. same space per person as the space shuttle. And no Apollo-style "surprise bags×´.

[Godot]

20/20 hindsight and all that. The shuttle was intended to make spaceflight very cheap by reusing the orbiter and boosters, instead of building a giant expensive rocket that's only good for 1 launch. Sadly, it didn't work out. Partly due to optimistic estimates in launch frequency, partly because of scope creep.

It didn´t work out?

Would we have been able to do as much orbital research (and manned missions) during those 2 decades with a purely rocket driven space program?

[RabidMonkey]

It didn´t work out?

Would we have been able to do as much orbital research (and manned missions) during those 2 decades with a purely rocket driven space program?

No, but that's not to say that it lived up to the original purpose for the design: An orbital "truck" where each individual shuttle would be capable of up to 50 launches per year with minimal time between missions.

[uri_ba]

No, but that's not to say that it lived up to the original purpose for the design: An orbital "truck" where each individual shuttle would be capable of up to 50 launches per year with minimal time between missions.

They Actually build and designed the shuttle to do that. with some systems have quad redundancy, providing fail-GO-fail-Go-fail-safe capability.

There is an MIT open-courseware series about the Space shuttle (and other aspects of space flight engineering).

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-885j-aircraft-systems-engineering-fall-2005/

[Nibb31]

The Shuttle was a delivery van for routine flights to LEO and back. Apollo or Orion are like Land Rovers, built for exploration and a tough environments. A Land Rover is not the best vehicle for daily deliveries around the corner, and to convert a delivery van into something capable of crossing the desert or jungle is simply not worth it.

The shuttle could bring its own external fuel tank to orbit. It was dumping it at 98% orbital velocity with fuel still in it for health & safety reasons or something.

The foam wasn't space-rated. The thermal conditions, UV and radiation, would make it crumble and fall off, which would create debris and be a hazard for Shuttle operations.

I mean that the shuttle itself shouldn't land. I mean that the shuttle and a stage attached to it would fly to the moon, and a lander would be stored in the cargo bay (If there is enough place.). If putting in a lander is impossible, then a low-altitude Flyby would be good.

There is still no point in hauling a 70-ton Orbiter all the way to lunar orbit, just to land a 10-ton LM on the Moon with a 2-ton payload. If you had a freaking huge rocket that was capable of pushing 100-tons to the Moon, then it would be better to just build a 100-ton lander with its own Moon base than to try to convert a truck into fighter jet.

Besides, the Orbiter would burn up on re-entry because the tiles aren't rated for lunar re-entry speeds. And what purpose would a manned flyby serve exactly?

It didn´t work out?

Would we have been able to do as much orbital research (and manned missions) during those 2 decades with a purely rocket driven space program?

The Shuttle was a rocket.

Shuttle launches didn't end up any cheaper than Saturn V launches. So yes, NASA could have built something the size of the ISS with 3 Saturn V launches and done crew rotations and cargo runs on Saturn 1B, all while keeping the capability for exploration missions and reducing cost by series production. An updated Apollo CM, with a redesigned SM for LEO missions could have fulfilled most of the roles of the Shuttle, including carrying payloads, station modules, or experiment packages where the LM was stowed.

You can rewrite history though. The cost of Apollo hardware was known, and everybody thought that the Shuttle would be cheaper than it was. There were reasons things went the way they went.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Nibb31

[Mr Shifty]

The shuttle couldn't get anywhere *near* the Moon. It already struggled getting to Hubble. The moon is 1000 times farther away at least.

It's true that the shuttle couldn't get anywhere close to the moon, but it didn't "struggle" to get to Hubble. STS-31R (Hubble launch mission) was the highest ever shuttle flight at about 380 miles, but it was well within the shuttle's operational altitude limit of 600 miles. Hubble, with its inclination of about 25° was easier to get to than the ISS at 51°.

Actually the shuttle did have quite substantial amount of Dv in the OMS system, however it would have consumed all it's mono propellant just to get most of the TLI, not all of it.

The OMS had a total of about 300 m/s. TLI requires over 3000 m/s. In some ways, KSP gives you false intuition about the actual vast amount of velocity needed to travel between real-life objects in space. You can get anywhere in the KSP system for less velocity change than it takes to get from LEO to Luna.

[Kerbart]

I mean that the shuttle itself shouldn't land. I mean that the shuttle and a stage attached to it would fly to the moon, and a lander would be stored in the cargo bay (If there is enough place.). If putting in a lander is impossible, then a low-altitude Flyby would be good.

Once you've made the decision to have a specialized landing vehicle, why drag all that shuttle mass to the moon and back?

[jwenting]

Well, while the shuttle COULD probably enter a somewhat cislunar trajectory, it's heat shields cannot stand reentry on earth over speeds above that from LEO/MEO.

so you'd need even more fuel to first establish LEO on the way back, then deorbit...

[Vaebn]

Once you've made the decision to have a specialized landing vehicle, why drag all that shuttle mass to the moon and back?

Because... YOLO!

>_>

*makes his way out of the thread*

[Nibb31]

so you'd need even more fuel to first establish LEO on the way back, then deorbit...

Or you'd have to replace the tiles with a beefier and probably ablative TPS that would add tons to the mass of the Orbiter and cost a fortune to refurbish.

[Ralathon]

Or you'd have to replace the tiles with a beefier and probably ablative TPS that would add tons to the mass of the Orbiter and cost a fortune to refurbish.

Or just do a skip reentry to allow the tiles to cool a bit. When you're trying to do lunar flights with a shuttle the problem is the dV, not the reentry. Do NOT underestimate how much dV you need to get anywhere in real life, getting to the moon takes about 1/3th of getting into orbit (3km/s vs 9.5km/s) The shuttle simply doesn't have the juice to do it, even if you fill up the payload bay with fuel.

[Mr Shifty]

Or just do a skip reentry to allow the tiles to cool a bit. When you're trying to do lunar flights with a shuttle the problem is the dV, not the reentry.

Shuttle tiles weren't designed to radiate heat. You'd just make the tiles hotter and hotter with each skip until they failed. The shuttle TPS was designed with a total heat load for re-entry below about 8000 m/s. It wouldn't survive lunar return.

[Vaebn]

Everything radiates heat, even if slowly.

[Mr Shifty]

Everything radiates heat, even if slowly.

Yes, and I also absorb a minuscule amount of oxygen through my skin, but it's certainly not enough to keep my cells alive. Shuttle tiles were designed as super-insulators. They had very low thermal conductivity, which means they were able to maintain the huge thermal gradient between their surface and the aluminum body of the orbiter. But it took hours after landing for the tiles to cool down.

[SargeRho]

Eh, as far as I know the tiles cool down so fast, that you could pick them up with your hands by the edges by the time the shuttle touches down.

[Mr Shifty]

Eh, as far as I know the tiles cool down so fast, that you could pick them up with your hands by the edges by the time the shuttle touches down.

The surface cooled down this quickly because the conduction from the core was so slow. You could hold them while the core was still visibly red-hot. It doesn't mean they weren't hot; it simply means they could maintain a 2000°F thermal gradient across an inch or so.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Mr Shifty

[Moar Boosters]

It would probably have been possible to do a manned lunar flyby if the shuttle/centaur project wasn't cancelled.

The centaur has enough power to put interplanetary probes on escape velocity. If you can build a tin-can with a life support system light enough, the shuttle could carry the centaur into LEO, and then that could perform the TLI using a free return trajectory..... whizz round the far side of the moon and then rendezvous with the shuttle again to bring the astronaut home.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centaur_(rocket_stage)

[Kryten]

Eh, as far as I know the tiles cool down so fast, that you could pick them up with your hands by the edges by the time the shuttle touches down.

That's because the thermal conductivity is so low-it works precisely because it doesn't cool down quickly, i.e. transfer heat to the environment.

[jwenting]

Or just do a skip reentry to allow the tiles to cool a bit. When you're trying to do lunar flights with a shuttle the problem is the dV, not the reentry. Do NOT underestimate how much dV you need to get anywhere in real life, getting to the moon takes about 1/3th of getting into orbit (3km/s vs 9.5km/s) The shuttle simply doesn't have the juice to do it, even if you fill up the payload bay with fuel.

that wouldn't work. The tiles would transmit energy far more efficiently into the interior of the orbiter than radiating it out into deep space, causing the crew and everything else to fry (and causing the adhesive keeping the tiles in place to fail, it's not designed to handle such termal stresses).

[magnemoe]

But of course, to the asteroids if necessary! Haven't you seen the documentary Armageddon?

On a more serious note, it would make more sense to have specialized vehicles for each task (earth surface -- orbit, earth orbit -- moon orbit, moon surface -- orbit) as different design elements are needed for each phase. The earth shuttle can use an atmospheric landing, but those wings are just dead weight for a moon landing (and transfer), where the landing thrusters for the moon vehicle would be a liability during earth reentry, etc.

In fact, as a veteran KSP player you have learned that it works much better to have specialized craft than a one-size-fits-all approach. One of the more interesting concepts in real life is a Mars-Earth shuttle (needing heavy shielding from radiation for the trip) which would be sped up once, would have a highly elliptical orbit around the sun so it would pass close by earth and mars on a regular basis. It would only have to be accelerated to it's orbit once, and from there shuttle craft would speed up to pick up and drop off the payload (passengers, goods) without having to speed up and slow down all the heavy shielding. I'm not sure if an approach like that would be efficient in KSP.

Shielding and also living quarters with spin.

You can stand cramped conditions in the short burn out to the ship so you only has to accelerate an pod for the crew, you could probably aerobrake for landing too so you save a lot.