Shuttle flight round the moon ?
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: www.karenphillips.co.uk
Posts: 3,154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why hasn't there been a shuttle flight around the moon?
The shuttle is a pretty good space vehicle after all, has much more room available inside if required than any of the Apollo missions, etc. There are plenty of opportunities for a decent few orbits to capture valuble scientific data, too.
It's one of those flights that SHOULD be done to show it CAN be done...Or maybe that it HAD been done
NASA bods are afraid people are no longer interested in their projects. Why not pique peoples interest by giving them something to think about again, and watch "live".
Would prove useful in creating procedures, and other information for a possible future mission to Mars.
Debate/Discuss!
The shuttle is a pretty good space vehicle after all, has much more room available inside if required than any of the Apollo missions, etc. There are plenty of opportunities for a decent few orbits to capture valuble scientific data, too.
It's one of those flights that SHOULD be done to show it CAN be done...Or maybe that it HAD been done
NASA bods are afraid people are no longer interested in their projects. Why not pique peoples interest by giving them something to think about again, and watch "live".
Would prove useful in creating procedures, and other information for a possible future mission to Mars.
Debate/Discuss!
#2
There are lots of reasons.. a couple of the more obvious ones are...
a)Seeing as you couldn't land, a robot probe would do just as well and be a lot cheaper for exploration. There have been loads sent already.
b) There isn't a suitable booster stack to move the shuttle from low Earth orbit into a lunar tranfer trajectory, brake into lunar orbit, or return to earth.
c) The shuttle's air and power reserves are not sufficient for the required mission duration.
Anyway... sod the moon, how do we get to Mars?
a)Seeing as you couldn't land, a robot probe would do just as well and be a lot cheaper for exploration. There have been loads sent already.
b) There isn't a suitable booster stack to move the shuttle from low Earth orbit into a lunar tranfer trajectory, brake into lunar orbit, or return to earth.
c) The shuttle's air and power reserves are not sufficient for the required mission duration.
Anyway... sod the moon, how do we get to Mars?
#4
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: www.karenphillips.co.uk
Posts: 3,154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cool - Ok good answers(ish).
I wasn't in any way inferring a moon LANDING, just a few orbits. All this talk of escape velocity and fuel loads, etc is intriuging. For how long did the Apollo missions have their rockets firing to achive the required velocity to reach the moon?
Surely the Apollo lander and orbiting unit, even when combined were smaller than the shuttle. Couldn't the shuttle bay have a modified section to provide enough space for supplies or fuel required for a burn to break moon orbit? (If the main rocket could be re-ignited).
Haven't there been shuttle missions carrying 5+ astronauts that have lasted longer than original Gemini/Apollo missions??
I wasn't in any way inferring a moon LANDING, just a few orbits. All this talk of escape velocity and fuel loads, etc is intriuging. For how long did the Apollo missions have their rockets firing to achive the required velocity to reach the moon?
Surely the Apollo lander and orbiting unit, even when combined were smaller than the shuttle. Couldn't the shuttle bay have a modified section to provide enough space for supplies or fuel required for a burn to break moon orbit? (If the main rocket could be re-ignited).
Haven't there been shuttle missions carrying 5+ astronauts that have lasted longer than original Gemini/Apollo missions??
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Bushey
Posts: 2,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boring for some I know, but the engines at launch on the 1st stage of the Saturn V used 13.8 tonnes of fuel per second.............
That is not a mis-type either but the actual figure.
That is not a mis-type either but the actual figure.
#6
#7
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: www.karenphillips.co.uk
Posts: 3,154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Would it help if I pushed?"
Those facts tell the full story, and explain why it's never been mooted at all.
Next question: Do we anticipate another Space-Race emerging, as the Chinese have plans to land on the moon??
Those facts tell the full story, and explain why it's never been mooted at all.
Next question: Do we anticipate another Space-Race emerging, as the Chinese have plans to land on the moon??
Trending Topics
#8
The Chinese can't even get a commercially-viable expendable launch vehicle going. There was a time when they were on the verge of being uninsurable as they had no more than a 75% success rate for their Long March 3 launchers. That coupled with their downrange arrangements (downrange from Kennedy is just swamp and ocean, downrange from the Long March launch site was a few housing estates ) and the fact that some of their launchers came down in populated areas makes me think that it's unlikely. Depends how many people they're prepared to lose in the attempt, I guess
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The dark side of the Sun and owner of 2 fairy tokens
Posts: 5,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Chinese have been launching rockets all year. From the reports I've seen, they are testing life support systems etc. The fourth one went up in the last couple of weeks, and had a fully functioning manned capsule as the payload (without crew). They're gearing up for launching a manned orbital flight later this year. Think they've stated that they want to put a man back on the Moon by 2010.
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: In a house
Posts: 5,153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couldn't the shuttle bay have a modified section to provide enough space for supplies or fuel required for a burn to break moon orbit? (If the main rocket could be re-ignited).
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The dark side of the Sun and owner of 2 fairy tokens
Posts: 5,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sad fact: The shuttle payload capacity was actually increased because some bright spark suggested not painting the main fuel tank. Seems the mass of paint used was actually quite significant. That's why the earlier flights had a white (painted) fuel tank, and all the ones you see now have a red (unpainted) one.
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Lurkin Somewhere
Posts: 7,951
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shuttle has no Propulsion system, thats 99% the problem its only has alittle to make it back to the earth.
Be interesting to see what they use to Mars
Si
Be interesting to see what they use to Mars
Si
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: In a house
Posts: 5,153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lol carl!
It does. 3 main thrusters and a few Orbital Manouvering Thrusters. This is one of my favourite subject bar cars and women..
Shuttle has no Propulsion system, thats 99% the problem its only has alittle to make it back to the earth
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: In a house
Posts: 5,153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lol yeah that too, but you really want to be picky? They can also eject waste water (made from cumbustion and other things which they do) and probably could use it for thrust.
#20
Scooby Regular
If you put something in "geostationary"(sp?) orbit (i.e. it stays above the same point over the planet, could you not run a big **** off long pipe or crane between the two points and pump fuel etc?
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Lurkin Somewhere
Posts: 7,951
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats impossible. hence the ISS has to be monitored all the time i can change alltitudes(sp) all the time, also if it was stationsary in the same orbit, sooner or later it would get wiped out.
Also i dont think fluid would go own the pipe in 0 g's
Si
Also i dont think fluid would go own the pipe in 0 g's
Si
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The dark side of the Sun and owner of 2 fairy tokens
Posts: 5,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geostationary orbit is pretty stable - where else do you think all those comsats are that let you watch the cricket live from Austraila? It's about 22500 miles above the Earth. The ISS is a lot lower (250 miles?).
Funny yu should mention the 'crane' - it's already been looked into. What you need to do is pick a place above the Equator, then start building the structure from geostationary orbit. Problem is, you have to build both down and up simultaneously to keep the centre of mass in geostationary orbit. You end up with a structure some 45000 miles in length, but you end up with a really cheap way of getting stuff up into orbit. All you need is a strong enough material.
Funny yu should mention the 'crane' - it's already been looked into. What you need to do is pick a place above the Equator, then start building the structure from geostationary orbit. Problem is, you have to build both down and up simultaneously to keep the centre of mass in geostationary orbit. You end up with a structure some 45000 miles in length, but you end up with a really cheap way of getting stuff up into orbit. All you need is a strong enough material.
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: In a house
Posts: 5,153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/~martins/orbit/orbit.html
Click on the link above guys. You won't regret it if you're into space exploration.
Click on the link above guys. You won't regret it if you're into space exploration.
#24
Which is the Star Trek TNG film where they crash the Enterprise, and the saucer section enters a planet's atmosphere with the leading edge glowing?
When I saw that, I thought "Jeez, if they'd kept the nose up they could have spread the aerodynamic heating across the entire surface and scrubbed off more speed" I reckon I could have landed that if I'd been flying it instead of Data
When I saw that, I thought "Jeez, if they'd kept the nose up they could have spread the aerodynamic heating across the entire surface and scrubbed off more speed" I reckon I could have landed that if I'd been flying it instead of Data
#29
Haven't downloaded it yet (probably needs to wait until the weekend). But I'd like to warn people not to print the JPL Spaceflight Handbook (there's a link from that site) as it's huge
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: In a house
Posts: 5,153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lol! Yeah but you sorta need it. Space travel ain't easy hence why I've got tonnes of respect for the rocket scientists that managed to get on the moon. Even in my "modded " Delta Glider, I found it difficult to land on the moon, let alone a proper lunar capsule.