Could the Space Shuttle go to the Moon?

[Tristan]

@vetbridge

But what would you do with a weed wacker in space?

Same thing you do here on earth… let it be a home for spiders, and pay someone else to do the work.

Heheheh…

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@Philster

Same thing you’d do with a weedwacker on earth: Spend many orbits winding and rewinding the trimmer string. Except upon throwing it, you’d have a hard time getting it back.

Just wait…it’ll come back around.

Stranger

[Philster]

Would it come around?

To throw it, the thrower would need to be anchored somehow (I guess against the Space Shuttle/shed). But if someone did hurl a weedwacker in orbit next to the Shuttle…what exactly would happen?

[mbh]

Conservation of Momentum.

I have significantly more mass than my weedwhacker. The weedwacker would move at a high speed in one direction. I would move at a slow speed in the opposite direction. If I am anchored to the Shuttle or the Space Station, the change in my speed would probably not be noticable.

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@douglips

Note that it was not the Service Module that was used for trans-lunar injection, but the third stage of the Saturn V. The Service Module was only good for lunar orbit insertion and trans-earth injection, much lesser tasks. The rest of your sentence confuses me…

I stand corrected on the S-IVB (third stage). I actually should have said that the CSM enters a free-return trajectory (in other words, if the CSM doesn’t fire a retrothrust while swinging around the Moon it’ll return to Earth on a ballistic trajectory, just as seen in the film Apollo 13 and exactly for that reason) which starts as an elongated ellipse but ends up in a figure-8 path as the vessel comes into the Moon’s gravitational influence.

@Philster

Would it come around?

To throw it, the thrower would need to be anchored somehow (I guess against the Space Shuttle/shed). But if someone did hurl a weedwacker in orbit next to the Shuttle…what exactly would happen?

Well, I was being facetious. Actually, it depends on which direction you through it. If you throw it in front if you, it goes into a higher, slower orbit. If you toss it behind you, it goes faster and lower. If you pitch it to either side it takes on an inclined orbit that’ll intersect the original one but not necessarialy at the same time you pass by.

Stranger

[mks57]

It can’t be done.

The Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs) can’t be restarted after launch.

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@mks57

It can’t be done.

The Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs) can’t be restarted after launch.

I beg to differ:

The engine assembly is run for several minutes, and engine restart is demonstrated.

See Space Shuttle: The History of the National Space Transportation System : The First 100 Missions for more detail.

Stranger

[mks57]

@Stranger On A Train

I beg to differ: See Space Shuttle: The History of the National Space Transportation System : The First 100 Missions for more detail.

Stranger

See http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/engines/ssme_specs.shtml and http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19910014907_1991014907.pdf (Page 19).

Test stand restart is not the same thing as in-service restart or restart in a vacuum with zero-g.

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@mks57

See http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/engines/ssme_specs.shtml and http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19910014907_1991014907.pdf (Page 19).

Test stand restart is not the same thing as in-service restart or restart in a vacuum with zero-g.

Well, I can’t disagree with that. One of the original parameters for the Shuttle was an in-flight restart, but I guess that was set aside. The second link offers a pretty comprehensive list of reasons why a Shuttle-based Lunar mission is inadvisable, pretty much reiterating all the objection listed above.

Stranger

[rbroome]

@Padeye

rbroome, the heat shielding is 80% air and 20% silica so the tiles are rather light.

I am aware of that. Still there are a rather lot of them. It is an amazing vehicle. But it can only do what it is designed to do.

It would be far cheaper/easier/safer/quicker to build a whole new vehicle.

Hijack:
Did you see that the conceptual designs for the CEV include a vehicle mounted on the side of an external fuel tank like the shuttle? Turns out the inline designs are too tall for the existing support equipment and it would be a lot less expensive to reuse the old ground equipment than build all new stuff. Of course it is just one design, and after the last launch it probably will lose a lot of support. But it is interesting /hijack.

[hammos1]

See also the previous thread What keeps the space shuttle from going to the moon?

[Common_Tater]

@Gaius.Cornelius

Before the space shuttle is retired, as eventually it must be, could it be used for a manned mission to the Moon.

I envisage a plan something like this:

One shuttle launch carries an extra fuel tank into Earth orbit. It is something like the external fuel tank used on all shuttle flights, only small enough to fit into the shuttle’s bay.

A second shuttle is launched at a later date. It docks with the small fuel tank. Maybe a space walk will be required to make the necessary fuel pipe connections for which the shuttle was not originally designed, I guess all that can be worked out.

All fueled up, the shuttle heads for the Moon. When it get there, two or three of the crew transfer to a landing module stored in the shuttles cargo bay - much like that used on the Apollo missions. The crew land on the Moon, have a bit of look round, play some golf etc. and then return to Lunar orbit. They dock with or space walk to the shuttle.

Shuttle returns to Earth, jettisons its external fuel tank and lands as per usual.

Even if a mission like this is not possible, could the shuttles usefully be retired in orbit to be used as workhorses of some sort. Given that a shuttle replacement is likely to be rather smaller than the shuttle, they may be able to do some jobs that could not economically be done any other way. Of course, a shuttle cannot be serviced while it is in orbit, but the stresses of manouevering in space are slight compared to those of blasting off from the Earth’s surface - so one might expect a resonably long useful life. Any thoughts?

No, the “space” shuttle is poorly named from one standpoint - it is inherently incapable of a true orbit as such - even satellites are launched from the shuttle bay to a much higher orbit, which the shuttle can never reach. It is extremely heavy, and as such could not carry enough fuel to leave the ground, much less earth orbit. Think of the relative size of Saturn V - three stages, starting with 5 (five) F-1 liquid hydrogen/oxygen engines - all to send three guys in a tin-can out of earth’s gravity, probably less than 2% of the total mass tonnage of the whole thing. No way, jose.