Space Shuttle to the Moon

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by thecollage, Nov 21, 2007.

  1. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    Shuttle can't land on a moon...it can crash thou. Or maybe we can land it vertically...hehehe...
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xevious Truth Beyond Logic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    964
    The Space Shuttle also does not have the radiation shielding to leave the Van Allen radiation belts, which protect us from things like solar flairs and other things that could turn your crew into BBQ. However, NASA at one time did have a plan on the table for launching lunar-bound landers from the orbiter's payload bay. Truth be told, a return to the moon has always been within our grasp with the shuttle, it just hasn't been done.

    If you DID want to take a shuttle and send it to lunar orbit, you're going to have to strip the skin off of it, add a larger fuel capacity (and loose cargo space in the process), and uprate it's OMS engines. The only orbiter vehicle which it would be pratical to convert in such a mannor is Enterprise, which is half incomplete anyway and therefore would be easier to work with. But then again, the Shuttle is retiring in 3 years. Why go through all that effort?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    Xevious...about radiation shielding...having Plasma created around spacecraft should help deter the radiation
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,231
    They have pretty awesome nuclear-thermal rocket engines now that have an Isp of around 980 and can produce 20kN of thrust in a package that only weighs around 100 kg. I wonder if you could fit a single-stage lunar vehicle powered by something like that into the shuttle's cargo bay?

    You would need something like 11 km/sec delta-v to get from LEO to the moon's surface and back, but with that kind of Isp you would only need a mass ratio of about 3.2. If you have the shuttle's 24 ton cargo capacity to work with, that would get you about 7.5 tons of spaceship and 16.5 tons of fuel. The engines are so light that three of them would probably only mass a few hundred kg together, but call it 1 ton to include the mass of all the turbopumps etc. You will also need around 2.5 tons of storage tank to hold your 16.5 tons of fuel. That still leaves you with about 3.5 tons of mass for the rest of the ship and crew. The engines have to added bonus of being able to produce electricity with radio-thermal generators even when they’re not running, so you don’t even need to bring along batteries.

    The thing could just ride up in the shuttle (or on a delta-4, or whatever), go to the moon, land, and come back to LEO. The crew would need to hitch a ride back down in something else, but it would be reusable; just haul up another 16.5 tons of fuel, gas it up, and you can make another trip.
     
  8. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    lol...rofl...that seriously made me laugh...thanks :roflmao:
     
  9. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    Ah, now how much did the Apollo LEM weigh, ... quick bit of Google, ... oh,
    14,696 Kg. Hmm, rather blows the 3.5 ton budget. The ascent module alone weighed 4,547 so you'd really have to come up with a far, far lighter design than previously used.

    Inflatable structures are being experimented with now, .... that might work within your weight budget?
     
  10. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,231
    That's the mass including fuel. You'll note there was already 16.5 tons allocated for fuel in the craft I described.

    Edit: I googled around, and according to NASA (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/masterCatalog.do?sc=1970-029C) the Apollo LEM itself was only about 4.5 tons without fuel. And a significant fraction of that was mass of the engines and fuel tanks, which were already subtracted out before the 3.5 ton figure that I gave. The actual empty mass of the ship would be about 7.5 tons, so it's actually quite a bit heavier than the LEM.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2007
  11. superluminal I am MalcomR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,876
    Why? What's funny about that???

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. thecollage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    431
    what about a hot air balloon to the moon? could be done with the right tools.
     
  13. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    the hitch a ride part ...
     
  14. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342

    You sound like a right tool.
     

Share This Page