Space shuttle to Luna

[TeeGee]

I understand that the craft did not carry enough delta v after reaching LEO to go to the moon, but if we were to supply extra fuel for the craft, say put an extra tank in the cargo bay and refuel the vessel in ORBIT... would it be able to make an LEO to Lunar orbit and back again?

If so, why then did we not launch a shuttle mission with an extra fuel tank, and a Lunar Lander in the cargo hold for a Lunar excursion? Is it because NASA did not think it worthwhile to go back?

Wasn't the whole point of building the ISS so that we could refuel spacecraft in LEO before travelling to further planetary bodies in our solar system?

And yes I know that reentry would have been a problem for the shuttle as well, BUT if we aerobrake at higher altitudes and take multiple passes through atmosphere to slow the craft down to rational reentry velocities, I don't see why the shuttle could not have made the trip home safely even with its current thermal protection system.

[Skyrunner27]

1. Because it would be useless not to mention dangerous to bring the shuttle into lunar orbit. The wings of the shuttle would basically dead mass so it would be better to build a purpose built craft to reach the moon. Also, the shuttle wasn't designed to survive the extreme heat of rentry meaning it would break apart upon entering the atmosphere, but as you mentioned if we went up higher and took more passses we could decrease the heat, but this would take precious time away from the lunar excursion. The shuttle only flew for 17 days at most, and Apollo took plenty of time on the surface. The better thing to do here is to design another craft capable of going to the moon and then you have Orion/SLS.

2. No, the ISS was meant to test the human body it long periods of microgravity. It was also meant to be a test of international cooperation. You may be getting this confused with the US's ambitious plan of Space Station Freedom.

[Tex_NL]

I'm pretty sure this has been discussed at length here on the forum already. If I remember correctly the answer to your question was pretty simple. Sending a shuttle to the moon is a waste of resources. You'll be wasting an enormous amount of fuel moving a lot of weight you don't need. All you need to land on the moon is the lander itself, the orbiter itself is completely useless.

Edit: Ninja'd

Edit2: Found the original thread from October last year: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/54492-Shuttle-to-the-Moon

Edited March 30, 2014 by Tex_NL

[TeeGee]

I'm pretty sure this has been discussed at length here on the forum already. If I remember correctly the answer to your question was pretty simple. Sending a shuttle to the moon is a waste of resources. You'll be wasting an enormous amount of fuel moving a lot of weight you don't need. All you need to land on the moon is the lander itself, the orbiter itself is completely useless.

Edit: Ninja'd

Edit2: Found the original thread from October last year: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/54492-Shuttle-to-the-Moon

Sorry! I didn't find a thread that discussed this. Could you direct me to it?

[jwenting]

you could get there, but

1) why would you want to? It's overly expensive compared to other means, and you'd have no useful cargo space

2) how'd you get that multi billion dollar shuttle back?

3) when you get back, you'd still have to get it down. That'd mean orbiting high, refueling for the burn to lower your orbit. Lowering orbit, then deorbiting (possibly lowering that orbit in multiple stages, refueling as you go).

IOW theoretically possible but not at all practical.

[ScallopPotato]

Could the shuttle carry a small moon craft in the cargo bay and release it in LEO to reach the moon? I'm thinking of what Scott Manley did in Interstellar quest.

[Tex_NL]

Could the shuttle carry a small moon craft in the cargo bay and release it in LEO to reach the moon? I'm thinking of what Scott Manley did in Interstellar quest.

Of course it can. As long as it fits inside and and isn't too heavy anything could be launched inside the shuttle.

Question is: Why? Modern rockets are cheaper, more efficient and also largely reusable.

[Ralathon]

Could the shuttle carry a small moon craft in the cargo bay and release it in LEO to reach the moon? I'm thinking of what Scott Manley did in Interstellar quest.

Sure it could. The shuttle could drag about 24 tons to LEO, so if you manage to build something with the required 4km/s of dV you can launch a moon orbiter with a shuttle.

Going to be hard to design anything manned though. 24 tons isn't that much if you need to drag heatshields and return fuel around. But an unmanned probe wouldn't be a problem.

[CaptainKipard]

Space Station Freedom.

LMAO at that name.

Freedom fries....Freedom Tower...*sigh*

Americans can be really funny sometimes.

[jwenting]

LMAO at that name.

Freedom fries....Freedom Tower...*sigh*

Americans can be really funny sometimes.

Well, everyone is always lyrical about "Mir", which is literally the same thing. Though in the Soviet dictionary "freedom" of course means something completely different, namely "Communist world domination".

[CaptainKipard]

Well, everyone is always lyrical about "Mir", which is literally the same thing. Though in the Soviet dictionary "freedom" of course means something completely different, namely "Communist world domination".

Mir (Russian: Ãœøр, IPA: [ˈmʲir]; lit. Peace or World)

[TeeGee]

Well how about this... Shuttle takes up the LEM and lander module in the cargo bay and launches it in LEO. Release the capsule in LEO and send it to Luna to perform a normal mission akin to Apollo. Since we have the ISS, the CM and lunar lander can rendezvous with it on the return trip and refuel to go again.

I don't understand why we need to retire the shuttle if it is considered a heavy lift system that can do this. I think of the shuttle as a reusable LEO delivery system that can be used to launch ANYTHING that can fit in its cargo bay. All we needed to do was update the technology and get rid of those stupid SRBs and replace them with liquid engines.

And if we wanted full reusablity, shield the external fuel tank and fit it with parachutes for recovery. I don't understand why the shuttle program was used in such a limited way.

[TeeGee]

Shuttle Maximum payload: 55,250 lb (25,060 kg)

LEM: Mass, gross: 10,300 lb (4,700 kg)

CM: Mass: 12,250 lb (5,560 kg)

... I don't get it.

Here's what I would have done.

1) Advance the thermal tile protection system to use larger sheets, which would make it far easier to maintain.

2) Obviously overhaul the CPU to meet modern standards

3) Make the craft far more modular

4) Contract the part development to private suppliers, make them compete for the contracts and offer incentives for improvements.

5) Add a damn crew ejection system!! Ex: Abort = shuttle flight deck separation from the rest of the craft and land in water with parachutes.

Edited March 30, 2014 by TeeGee

[Tex_NL]

Well how about this... Shuttle takes up the LEM and lander module in the cargo bay and launches it in LEO. Release the capsule in LEO and send it to Luna to perform a normal mission akin to Apollo. Since we have the ISS, the CM and lunar lander can rendezvous with it on the return trip and refuel to go again.

Rendezvous after returning from the moon would require a lot of fuel to reduce velocity.

I don't understand why we need to retire the shuttle if it is considered a heavy lift system that can do this. I think of the shuttle as a reusable LEO delivery system that can be used to launch ANYTHING that can fit in its cargo bay. All we needed to do was update the technology and get rid of those stupid SRBs and replace them with liquid engines.

And if we wanted full reusablity, shield the external fuel tank and fit it with parachutes for recovery. I don't understand why the shuttle program was used in such a limited way.

The shuttle is in fact pretty inefficient. The wings, the landing gear, the life support, the crew itself. It's all excess weight you don't really need. The SpaceX Falcon Heavy for example is similar in size but can lift double the weight .

[TeeGee]

Rendezvous after returning from the moon would require a lot of fuel to reduce velocity.

The shuttle is in fact pretty inefficient. The wings, the landing gear, the life support, the crew itself. It's all excess weight you don't really need. The SpaceX Falcon Heavy for example is similar in size but can lift double the weight .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy

"Although not a part of the initial Falcon Heavy design, SpaceX is doing parallel development on a reusable rocket launching system that is intended to be extensible to the Falcon Heavy, first to the booster stage and ultimately to the second stage as well.

Early on, SpaceX had expressed hopes that both rocket stages would eventually be reusable.[42] More recently, in 2011, SpaceX announced a funded development program to build and fly a reusable launch system that will ultimately bring a first stage back to the launch site in minutes  and a second stage back to the launch pad, following orbital realignment with the launch site and atmospheric reentry, in up to 24 hours  with both stages designed to be available for reuse within "single-digit hours" after return.[43] As of February 2012, design is complete on the system for "bringing the rocket back to launchpad using only thrusters."[43]

The reusable launch system technology is under consideration for both the Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy. It is particularly well suited to the Falcon Heavy where the two outer cores separate from the rocket much earlier in the flight profile, and are therefore both moving at a slower velocity at the initial separation event.[43]

As of March 2013, the publicly announced aspects of the SpaceX reusable rocket technology development effort include an active test campaign of the low-altitude, low-speed Grasshopper vertical takeoff, vertical landing (VTVL) technology demonstrator rocket,[44][45] and a high-altitude, high-speed Falcon 9 post-mission booster-return test campaign whereâ€â€beginning in late-2013, with the sixth overall flight of Falcon 9â€â€every Falcon 9 first stage which was instrumented and equipped as a controlled descent test vehicle to accomplish propulsive-return over-water tests.[41]

SpaceX has indicated that the Falcon Heavy payload performance to Geosynchronous transfer orbit (GTO) will be reduced by addition of the reusable technology, but would fly at much lower launch price. With full reusability on all three booster cores, GTO payload will be 7,000 kg (15,000 lb). If only the two outside cores fly as reusable cores while the center core is expendable, GTO payload would be approximately 14,000 kg (31,000 lb).[46] Falcon 9 will do satellites up to roughly 3.5 tonnes, with full reusability of the boost stage, and Falcon Heavy will do satellites up to 7 tonnes with full reusability of the all three boost stages," [Musk] said, referring to the three Falcon 9 booster cores that will comprise the Falcon Heavy's first stage. He also said Falcon Heavy could double its payload performance to GTO "if, for example, we went expendable on the center core."

If the entire craft becomes reusable, then I would bow down to the falcon heavy as far superior to the space shuttle.

Edited March 30, 2014 by TeeGee

[Nibb31]

To send a LM to the moon, the Space Shuttle would still have needed a Saturn-IVB and a CSM, in addition to the LM. The S-IVB weighed 115 tons, so you would need at least 4 launches to get an equivalent vehicle to orbit, another launch for the CSM and another for the LM. So you might be able build an STS-based Moon mission in 6 launches.

Of course, this all requires a very fast turnover between launches, because LH2 boils off in space. Hydrogen molecules are small, so it's realy hard to build a durable container for the stuff. If you leave your EDS in LEO for a month, it'll be empty by the time you're ready to use it. So basically, it really wouldn't have been practical at all.

Edited March 30, 2014 by Nibb31

[TeeGee]

To send a LM to the moon, the Space Shuttle would still have needed a Saturn-IVB and a CSM, in addition to the LM. The S-IVB weighed 115 tons, so you would need at least 4 launches to get an equivalent vehicle to orbit, another launch for the CSM and another for the LM. So you might be able build an STS-based Moon mission in 6 launches.

Of course, this all requires a very fast turnover between launches, because LH2 boils off in space. If you leave your EDS in LEO for a month, it'll be empty by the time you're ready to use it. So basically, it really wouldn't have been practical at all.

??? Why would the shuttle need a S-IVB when its payload weight = 55, 000 lbs? That's well over the weight of the sum of both the LEM and the CM+SM together.

[Ralathon]

??? Why would the shuttle need a S-IVB when its payload weight = 55, 000 lbs? That's well over the weight of the sum of both the LEM and the CM+SM together.

The LEM and the CM+SM got put on a moon free return trajectory by the S-IVB stage. If you simply load up the LEM, CM and SM you're stuck in LEO without the dV to go to the moon.

[shynung]

??? Why would the shuttle need a S-IVB when its payload weight = 55, 000 lbs? That's well over the weight of the sum of both the LEM and the CM+SM together.

The S-IVB is needed for the trans-Lunar injection burn. The shuttle itself doesn't have enough ÃŽâ€v for such a maneuver. Even if it does, its heat shields isn't designed for reentry from a Lunar return trajectory.

EDIT: Ninja'd.

Edited March 30, 2014 by shynung

[Nibb31]

Shuttle Maximum payload: 55,250 lb (25,060 kg)

LEM: Mass, gross: 10,300 lb (4,700 kg)

CM: Mass: 12,250 lb (5,560 kg)

The LM was 15 tons. The CSM was 30 tons. To get all that mass to Moon, the stack needed a S-IVB that was 115 tons.

1) Advance the thermal tile protection system to use larger sheets, which would make it far easier to maintain.

2) Obviously overhaul the CPU to meet modern standards

3) Make the craft far more modular

4) Contract the part development to private suppliers, make them compete for the contracts and offer incentives for improvements.

5) Add a damn crew ejection system!! Ex: Abort = shuttle flight deck separation from the rest of the craft and land in water with parachutes.

1) Sounds easy on paper. In reality, the tiles had to expand and retract as they heated and cooled. The space between the tiles was necessary. Larger tiles means they would have cracked.

2) That was done multiple times. The late glass cockpit was state of the art.

3) To make things modular, you need more interfaces, more connectors, and much more extensive testing for each use case. Modularity = mass.

4) Well yeah. I'm not sure how that would have fit in the Shuttle program. Competition has its negative factors too and doesn't always reduce costs.

5) A detachable cabin like the F-111 would have had a huge mass penalty. Say goodbye to any meaningful payload. These things also killed pilots as much as they saved them (See the XB-70).

[TeeGee]

The S-IVB is needed for the trans-Lunar injection burn. The shuttle itself doesn't have enough ÃŽâ€v for such a maneuver. Even if it does, its heat shields isn't designed for reentry from a Lunar return trajectory.

EDIT: Ninja'd.

.....Oh yeah. My bad I forgot about that. What if the shuttle gave it a translunar nudge and the CM burned the rest of the way?

And didn't the S-IVB help circularize the craft during staging? Take away that fuel and see what's left (mass wise).

Edited March 30, 2014 by TeeGee

[TeeGee]

In case anyone was wondering..

S-IVB = 119,900 kg

That mass alone = waaay beyond the payload capacity for the shuttle.

BUT Empty weight was 9,559 kg

So assemble the S-IVB, CM and LEM together in the shuttle and refuel it in space.

Edited March 30, 2014 by TeeGee

[deadshot462]

Like others said, it would take a huge amount of fuel to move it to the Moon. Still, I think the idea of having a space shuttle flying around the Moon to be pretty cool.

Maybe the dream chaser could be used instead?

[Temstar]

So assemble the S-IVB, CM and LEM together in the shuttle and refuel it in space.

Well... for one, a S-IVB won't fit in the shuttle cargo bay, not by a long shot. The shuttle cargo bay is long enough for S-IVB but the shuttle bay is 4.6m in diameter and S-IVB is 6.6m in diameter. Remember a S-IVB is big enough to build an entire one piece space station out of it.

Then, even if you somehow got an empty set of S-IVB, CSM and LEM in space, that still leaves the problem of carrying 90 tons of fuel up to them to refuel. And let's not forget that S-IVB runs on LOX and LH2 while CSM and LEM run on UDMH and N2O4. Plus CSM can't be launched manned but unfuelled since the service module may be required for launch abort after LES tower jettison.

[shynung]

.....Oh yeah. My bad I forgot about that. What if the shuttle gave it a translunar nudge and the CM burned the rest of the way?

And didn't the S-IVB help circularize the craft during staging? Take away that fuel and see what's left (mass wise).

The CSM did not carry enough ∆v for a trans-Lunar injection. Even if it did, such a maneuver would leave both the Shuttle and CSM+LM spacecraft completely drained, effectively turning a Lunar landing mission into a Lunar flyby mission, losing an entire STS orbiter in the process.

In case anyone was wondering..

S-IVB = 119,900 kg

That mass alone = waaay beyond the payload capacity for the shuttle.

BUT Empty weight was 9,559 kg

So assemble the S-IVB, CM and LEM together in the shuttle and refuel it in space.

This could work, given that the S-IVB is to be assembled without the fuel. Hydrogen boils off out of the tank it's in, given the particles' size. The CSM and LM uses Aerozine-50 and N₂O₄ as fuel, which is relatively stable, so it can be lifted fully-fueled. The S-IVB could be lifted partially-fueled to maximize the Shuttle's payload capacity. After 2 or 3 more fuel-ferrying Shuttle launches, the resulting stack would be enough for a Lunar landing mission.

However, this approach stretches a single-launch mission into at least a 5-launch mission, which is not only complicated and inefficient, but also risky. Also, an S-IVB do not fit into the Shuttle's cargo bay, though this could be worked around by designing a new Lunar Transfer Vehicle that fits into the cargo bay, at least in parts, to be assembled in orbit.

Edited March 30, 2014 by shynung