Feasibility Analysis of Cislunar Flight Using the Shuttle Orbiter

Over the years, this topic has come up many times in this newsgroup. The
obvious answer is that you'd be stupid to use the shuttle as your
transportation method for lunar flights.

This paper goes into the gory details of why it's stupid from the point of
view of orbital mechanics and the rocket equation. In other words, how much
fuel would be needed. Also included are some rather vague ideas of how to
get that much fuel into orbit and use it.

Feasibility Analysis of Cislunar Flight Using the Shuttle Orbiter
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1991014907.pdf

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

"Jeff Findley" wrote in
:

Over the years, this topic has come up many times in this newsgroup.
The obvious answer is that you'd be stupid to use the shuttle as your
transportation method for lunar flights.

This paper goes into the gory details of why it's stupid from the
point of view of orbital mechanics and the rocket equation. In other
words, how much fuel would be needed. Also included are some rather
vague ideas of how to get that much fuel into orbit and use it.

The people who usually propose this idea seldom understand the
rocket equation, or much of anything else, and seem remarkably
resistant to changing their viewpoint once it's solidly entrenched
in their imaginations.

You just can't fight stupid with facts.

--Damon

"Damon Hill" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Findley" wrote in
:

Over the years, this topic has come up many times in this newsgroup.
The obvious answer is that you'd be stupid to use the shuttle as your
transportation method for lunar flights.

This paper goes into the gory details of why it's stupid from the
point of view of orbital mechanics and the rocket equation. In other
words, how much fuel would be needed. Also included are some rather
vague ideas of how to get that much fuel into orbit and use it.

The people who usually propose this idea seldom understand the
rocket equation, or much of anything else, and seem remarkably
resistant to changing their viewpoint once it's solidly entrenched
in their imaginations.

You just can't fight stupid with facts.

Since this was "officially" looked into and a paper published, I wonder
which pointy haired NASA manager thought it was a good idea. ;-)

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

"Jeff Findley" writes:

Over the years, this topic has come up many times in this newsgroup. The
obvious answer is that you'd be stupid to use the shuttle as your
transportation method for lunar flights.

Guilty as charged, but only from the point of view that if we're retiring
the shuttles anyway it seemed a waste to plant them in museums.

Then I got the opportunity to read that paper.

Thanks for that link.

Dave

On Feb 19, 8:54�pm, David Spain wrote:
"Jeff Findley" writes:
Over the years, this topic has come up many times in this newsgroup. �The
obvious answer is that you'd be stupid to use the shuttle as your
transportation method for lunar flights.

Guilty as charged, but only from the point of view that if we're retiring
the shuttles anyway it seemed a waste to plant them in museums.

Then I got the opportunity to read that paper.

Thanks for that link.

Dave

You DONT want the remaing historic orbiters to be in museums? How
wierd.

Although I hope they get treated better than the leftover apollo
hardware which was basically left outdoors to rot

"David Spain" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Findley" writes:

Over the years, this topic has come up many times in this newsgroup. The
obvious answer is that you'd be stupid to use the shuttle as your
transportation method for lunar flights.

Guilty as charged, but only from the point of view that if we're retiring
the shuttles anyway it seemed a waste to plant them in museums.

Then I got the opportunity to read that paper.

Thanks for that link.

Orbital mechanics is a p.i.t.a. That's why it took a launch vehicle as big
as the Saturn V to send the Apollo CSM and LM to the moon, and we only got
the CM back through a fiery, fairly high G, re-entry.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

bob haller safety advocate writes:

You DONT want the remaing historic orbiters to be in museums? How
wierd.

Not if I had a good alternative use for them in space, no I wouldn't.

Dave

On Mar 9, 9:32�pm, David Spain wrote:
bob haller safety advocate writes:

You DONT want the remaing historic orbiters to be in museums? How
wierd.

Not if I had a good alternative use for them in space, no I wouldn't.

Dave


typical nasa type position, use something dont realize its historic
value, let it sit out in open and rot away, then scrap out when it
collapses.

nasa as a government funded agency should have a couple historians /
archealogists mandated on staff, reporting to congress on what to
preserve for history.

"David Spain" wrote in message
...
bob haller safety advocate writes:

You DONT want the remaing historic orbiters to be in museums? How
wierd.

Not if I had a good alternative use for them in space, no I wouldn't.

There is no "good" alternative use for them in space. They were never
designed for long missions (where long is greater than a couple of weeks).
Among the many problems you would face is the fact that the crew compartment
leaks. Since the mission duration was relatively small, there wasn't the
sort of attention paid to leaks that there was on the ISS modules.
Specifically, there are many holes in the pressure vessel for things like
cables, pipes, and etc. and those sorts of things tend to leak.

So, even if you wanted to use a shuttle in space as nothing more than
storage, you'd have to deal with the leaky crew compartment. The shuttle
electronics need air for cooling. You can't do without it.

Then there is the orbital decay problem which would require the ability to
refuel the shuttle in orbit, something else that was never intended...

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

"Jeff Findley" writes:
"David Spain" wrote in message
...
bob haller safety advocate writes:

You DONT want the remaing historic orbiters to be in museums? How
wierd.

Not if I had a good alternative use for them in space, no I wouldn't.

There is no "good" alternative use for them in space. They were never
designed for long missions (where long is greater than a couple of weeks).

Note the operative word "if".

Regrettably, I have to agree, I don't see a good alternative use.
When you factor in the NRE, these are very expensive museum pieces.
I hope our space program in the future can do better....

Dave