Shuttle to the Moon?

[MedwedianPresident]

Would it be theoretically possible for a shuttle or any other spaceplane (think Dyna Soar) to fly to the moon if it would be properly refitted (Maybe fuel tank instead of cargo bay)? Not necessarily a landing, but maybe a low-altitude flyby?

[Tex_NL]

The NASA orbiter was pushing the limit when visiting the Hubble telescope. Without extra fuel there is no chance it could reach the moon. But sure, with enough fuel you can reach anything. Though it will be pretty inefficient, you'll be hauling a lot of weight you don't need.

[MedwedianPresident]

As i said before, a landing is not necessary. Maybe parts of the cargo bay could be filled with fuel, as i also said before?

And also, i do not mean only the shuttle. A smaller spaceplane such as the Dyna Soar could have performed an appolo-style mission. Or maybe the Soviets could have developed the Spiral to be combined with LK?

[Charzy]

It *might* be possible, but why would they bother?

[Mr Shifty]

Stephen Baxter's novel, Titan has a Shuttle orbiter used as the core of a Titan-bound vessel.

[Ralathon]

Well, if you look at the shuttle for example:

The space shuttle had a maximum payload to LEO of about 24 tons and has an empty weight of 68.5 tons. The shuttle engines have a vacuum ISP of 450s (Which is surprisingly efficient, color me impressed).

Dumping this into Tsiolkovsky's rocket equation this gives us a dV of:

dV = Isp * 9.81 * ln ((Mfuel + Mdry)/Mdry) ~ 4415*ln(92.5/68.5) = 1326 m/s of dV. Getting from LEO to a lunar free return trajectory costs in the order of 4km/s of dV. So no, even if you completely filled up the payload bay on a shuttle it won't get you to the moon. Infact, it won't even get you to geostationary (3.8km/s)

[JakeGrey]

I could see it being somewhat useful if we had a permanent manned outpost up there, but if and when we ever achieve proper spaceplanes with a useful freight or passenger capacity then there isn't really much to stop us bypassing the Moon altogether and heading straight for Mars and the asteroid belt.

[Camelotking524]

I remember reading something about the Dyna-Soar moon landing somewhere. I cant seem to find it on google. So maybe I am imagining things.

[Aladran]

Can I do the grocery with a Ferrari?

Yes, but put your hand in your pocket.

There are lot of more efficient ways

[Kryten]

I remember reading something about the Dyna-Soar moon landing somewhere. I cant seem to find it on google. So maybe I am imagining things.

Dyna-Soar was a purely military project. I don't really see why the military would make moon landing plans.

[NASAFanboy]

Dyna-Soar was a purely military project. I don't really see why the military would make moon landing plans.

It was concieved at around the same time as "Project Horizon", a military moonbase plan.

[Kerbart]

Would it be theoretically possible for a shuttle or any other spaceplane (think Dyna Soar) to fly to the moon if it would be properly refitted (Maybe fuel tank instead of cargo bay)? Not necessarily a landing, but maybe a low-altitude flyby?

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.

[Camelotking524]

It was concieved at around the same time as "Project Horizon", a military moonbase plan.

Yeah and the Dynasoar was suppose to be the transport for personal to the base, if I remember correctly. Glad I wasn't imagining things.

[SargeRho]

It makes very little sense to send a space plane to the Moon. Spaceflight requires a totally different design than commuting between Earth's surface and LEO. You'd be better off having a ship that refuels in lunar orbit, and flies between LEO and LMO.

[Nuke]

if you retrofit it with a nuclear reactor (not an rtg, vasimr needs more power than that) and some vasimr thrusters. you would also need a small amount of conventional fuel to speed you through the radiation belts. the only question is why? idk. id rather just have a space only reusable transfer vehicle with similar hardware, minus all the atmospherics and dead weight engines.

[hugix]

the only benefit of a moon shuttle is the re usability that it might bring. But as the Space shuttle program showed that is very hard to achieve when calculating the economics of such an endeavour.

[Nibb31]

Why would you want to haul 50 tons of wheels, wings, hydraulics and generally useless hardware to the Moon and back, especially when all that junk is really only useful for the last 15 minutes of your mission?

To send a shuttle into a lunar trajectory, you would first need to get the Shuttle with a fully fueled external tank into LEO. A fueled ET weighs 760 tons. Therefore you would need a rocket capable of launching 830 tons into LEO, which is the equivalent of 8 Saturn V rockets.

Of course, you can't glide on the Moon, so you would have to modify your Orbiter to VTOL, incluing new engines and landing gear, which would make it a whole different spacecraft. You would also have to replace the TPS with something else. The tiles were made for reentry from LEO, not for lunar reentry. And don't forget about comms, supplies, avionics, etc... None of that was capable of going beyond LEO. It's just a totally stupid idea.

However, NASA did have plans to use the Shuttle to return to the Moon. It would have basically carried a LM and an EDS in two flights, docked them in orbit, and let the LM fly to the Moon and back. Another Shuttle would have retrieved the LM and the crew and brought them back to the ground.

Edited October 21, 2013 by Nibb31

[nettcod]

Yeah and the Dynasoar was suppose to be the transport for personal to the base, if I remember correctly. Glad I wasn't imagining things.

I think you're thinking of the Lunex proposal.

[Vaebn]

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.

By keeping the tank attached, you'd then have a nice "spaceship" in orbit, with toilets, and microwave ovens and everything, with a big honking gas tank attached to it.

The tricky part, would be refuelling the external shuttle tank. It holds 733 tons of fuel. So that would be... ahem, 34 Ariane 5 launches.

This might get you some places, even with partially fuelling it.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Vaebn

[Vonar]

In my honest opinion the Shuttle was a major step back from what we had then (the Saturn V). Why bother wasting time and money attempting to repurpose a overcomplicated and very expensive piece of hardware for missions beyond its intended operational parameters when you can have a heavy lift rocket launch the same amount of hardware into orbit as 6 or so Shuttle missions in a single launch?

[MedwedianPresident]

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.

[Ralathon]

In my honest opinion the Shuttle was a major step back from what we had then (the Saturn V). Why bother wasting time and money attempting to repurpose a overcomplicated and very expensive piece of hardware for missions beyond its intended operational parameters when you can have a heavy lift rocket launch the same amount of hardware into orbit as 6 or so Shuttle missions in a single launch?

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.

[MedwedianPresident]

Maybe a LK/Appolo-style mission, in which a spaceplane is launched docked to a lander and with an additional stage used for transfer to the moon, and after the mission the lander would be left behind in lunar/munar orbit and the Spaceplane would return to earth/kerbin?

[NASAFanboy]

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.

[SargeRho]

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