Squizz

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!

AlexM

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?

AlexM

bugger... Carl beat me to it

Squizz

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??

Reffro

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.

carl

http://users.commkey.net/Braeunig/space/specs.htm seems to be a useful site.

Squizz

"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??

carl

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

TonyG

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.

Katana

Then you have the weight issue. How light do you think the cargos in the shuttles are? Now think of the weight of the fuel. Remember, almost 80% of the weight in the Appolo rocket is made up primarily of fuel. Fuel, especially hydrogen is damn heavy not because of the weight of the gas, but its containment unit.

carl

...and you certainly don't want to start losing containment in your warp core.

TonyG

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.

carl

This is true. But they've actually got a yellow one now, which is even lighter.

dsmith

I heard they wanted DBM....but it chipped too easily ;-)

Deano

super_si

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

Katana

lol carl!

It does. 3 main thrusters and a few Orbital Manouvering Thrusters. This is one of my favourite subject bar cars and women..

super_si

Yeah this is mine aswell, your probably find it has nearly 12 little boasts to rotate x,y,z axis :P

Katana

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.

super_si

hmmmmmmmm Now your just being silly

^Qwerty^

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?

super_si

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

TonyG

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.

Katana

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.

carl

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

super_si

Katana

It was Troi who crashed it. I think it was her first time commanding it..

carl

See what happens when you let the woman drive?

Actually, I think you'll find it was Troi commanding but Data was at the helm and hence flying it

Katana

See what happens when you got a woman back seat driver? Anyway, tell me what you guys think of that site.

carl

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

Katana

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.