posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 09:57 PM
"The Apollo mission used a five stage rocket, not a one stage dingy. The shuttle currently only has enough fuel to reach an altitude capble of earth
orbit and the return mission..." (Frosty)
I understand what you're saying, sir; but I believe Apollo 11 completed two orbits in low earth orbit before it made trans-lunar injection...now
you've got me wondering just how large a one-shot orbitally-attached fuel/supply package the Shuttle would require to make the trip...but I am
ill-equipped to research this.
"I think the only way to do it is to redecorate the Shuttle, any way it would be more exciting to see the shuttle land on the moon rather then
have a thin foil aluminium craft land there..." (Pepsi78)
Kind of my thought, too; if the Shuttle could GET there, it could be horsed down to a soft landing, even if by way of the maneuvering thrusters.
"Hey Dyno if you want to know more about the space shuttle's potential here is a great site." (danwild6)
Excellent links, danwild6! I'm still absorbing their implications.
"Apollo, at least the Command Module, was constructed primarily from beryllium, if memory serves; a light-weight, EXPENSIVE! metal with very good
radiation absorbing properties." (Bhadhidar)
Bhadhidar, OK; we're down to retrofitting beryllium shielding to the Shuttle, designing and building a fuel/supply pod to mate up with the Shuttle
in orbit, a connection protocol for the orbital attachment, and one single launch of the fuel/supply package. Would this still not be more inexpensive
than designing and building a whole new vehicle for our return-to-the-Moon?
"And by "massive" I don't mean big, I mean that its Mass far excedes what would be practical to push to the Moon and back." (Bhadhidar)
Sir, lox and hydrogen are cheap. Imagine the Shuttle in orbit with a fully-fueled External Fuel Tank. That bad boy is HUGE.
Quote, originally posted by Dyno25000:
And I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone, especially not junglejake with his somewhat dirigible sense of opprobrium.
"I had to look up both of those words! If a guided sense of indignation involves laughing hysterically while typing the response, count me
LOL junglejake, you're a good sport, and I like your posts. I never met a professional skeptic before...please tell me what it pays
"You want to put a module up into space that can store and transfer fuel to the current shuttle without modifying the shuttle in any way. At the
same time, it will have to be able to transfer food and supplies while also allowing waste to be removed. Without modifying the shuttle. I'm assuming
that, if this is a space walk type transfer, you're proposing changing the current space suit design to account for the higher radiation. Might cost
a few bucks, though. Then there's the design of this module. Safety systems being checked out and designed. Training for the astronauts. Building the
module and testing it so it doesn't fail half way to the moon for some reason. Protecting the massive amount of fuel needed since there won't be 5
stage rockets involved in the shuttle's launch (no modification, right?) thereby increasing the amount of time the shuttle would have to burn on its
path (NASA doesn't like things causing rocket fuel to explode mid-flight), creating a lunar lander that can sit in the shuttle bay without modifying
the existing shuttle, testing, training, and safety checks of the new lander, contingency plans in the event that something does fail, testing those
contingency plans, and justifying to congress such a limited project for such a high budget." (junglejake)
junglejake, you got it! You finally got it! MUCH cheaper than designing a whole new system.
Enkidu, you are totally hip. I am running down that Analog issue now...Pepsi78, you see the possibilities...
"The Apollo launch path was similar, except that, rather than settle into an Earth orbit before going to the moon, used the Earth's gravity to
sling shot and add even more velocity to the space craft, sending it bam, zoom, off to the moon..." (junglejake)
Sir, I believe the Apollo spacecraft completed two low earth orbital passes before firing their engines for trans-lunar insertion...I guess this
would have been the vehicle with third-stage still attached.
"There have been theoretical plans to actually construct a ship or send a ship into low Earth orbit then modify it there with boosters and fuel to
get it to Mars in a more cost efficient manner, but our current shuttle design would have to be modified significantly to make this happen."
junglejake. Not Mars. The Moon. Who said anything about Mars. That's a whole 'nother can of beans. And what modifications do you refer to? And
yes, in this scenario it'd take a spacewalk to access the supplies in the fuel/supply pod...but then again; one could pack the Shuttle full of
supplies, and attach the LEM to the orbitally-attached fuel source...no spacewalks meeded, until lunar orbit were achieved whereupon the only
spacewalk needed would be to board the LEM. The top part of the LEM, which leaves the bottom part on the Moon, could be retrieved in the cargo bay of
Cmdrkeenkid, I understand and will comply.
[edit on 6-3-2006 by Dyno25000]