Community
On Orbit => Real NASA Space Shuttle Missions => Topic started by: Spaceguy5 on April 14, 2011, 05:13:36 AM
-
While I do understand they were built there, and *sometimes* land there, KSC, JSC, and NASM should have gotten the three flight Shuttles and sent Enterprise over to Dryden, to me that would have made the most sense. I bet you could ask 65% of LA as to if they even know what a Space Shuttle is and their response would be something like "A what? Shuttle? Oh, yeah I heard about it on the news... Don't know anything about it though".
Oh well, now I'm ranting. Sorry Admin. ;)
Shuttle? Of course I know what those are! We go to the moon with them, right?
-
While I do understand they were built there, and *sometimes* land there, KSC, JSC, and NASM should have gotten the three flight Shuttles and sent Enterprise over to Dryden, to me that would have made the most sense. I bet you could ask 65% of LA as to if they even know what a Space Shuttle is and their response would be something like "A what? Shuttle? Oh, yeah I heard about it on the news... Don't know anything about it though".
Oh well, now I'm ranting. Sorry Admin. ;)
Shuttle? Of course I know what those are! We go to the moon with them, right?
Sadly many many many MANY people believe that :(
-
Theoretically this is possible, and we have a NASA doc to prove that.
Actually "vinny" here has been trying to TLO for some time... I wonder how his OMS fuel is doing ;)
/Admin
-
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) is also demanding an investigation. Ohio voted for Obama by the way.
Yes but during the last round of elections they elected all Republicans to congress and the senator makes no secret of his dislike for the obuma administration.
regardless it was flawed why have 2 shuttles about 3 hours apart?
jsc and pattAFB make sense just by location alone.
-
"3 hours apart" being NASM and KSC? That's a plane trip away, or about 8-10 hours of driving. Very sensible to have Discovery and Atlantis where they are.
Wayne Hale wrote a nice blog on why Houston did not get a Shuttle... and I find he makes very valid points, especially after working in the area for so long.
http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2011/04/14/why-houston-did-not-get-a-shuttle/
Now, do I agree with him? In a few ways, but I still think that JSC deserved more than two seats from a Shuttle. From what I hear, though, JSC is "kid-oriented"... which is neat in some aspects, but for the hardcore Space enthusiast, you have to wade through that which can be annoying, and could have played a role in why they didn't get one, but we'll NEVER know that answer. Politics? Maybe, but again, we'll never know the truth.
-
There is no reason, whatsoever in my mind that will ever, justify, JSC Not getting a shuttle. JSC has been the heartbeat of American Manned Space missions for decades. Surely and positively for the entire STS program life. This is just another fine example of greedy bureaucratic palm greasing. Plain and simple.
-
I hope I can finish my college (late late life) credentialing in histrionics. to assist in the impaling that Obama will deserve. Trust me though, Reid, Pelosi and crew won't lack from annotation if I have anything to do with it.
-
There is no reason, whatsoever in my mind that will ever, justify, JSC Not getting a shuttle. JSC has been the heartbeat of American Manned Space missions for decades. Surely and positively for the entire STS program life. This is just another fine example of greedy bureaucratic palm greasing. Plain and simple.
I was also shocked about JSC not getting a shuttle, however I learned a few details that were not evident at the beginning.
JSC didn't get a shuttle mainly because the JSC and the Texas politicians didn't FIGHT or it. They simply ASSUMED that they'd get a shuttle and did nothing beyond a writing a few letters.
While they were waiting, cozy in their misplaced, lazy arrogance, other, less "natural" contenders grabbed the shuttles from under their noses, after heavy lobbying at all levels, public and political pressure and lots and lots of NOISE.
So basically most of the blame lies with JSC and the Texas politicians, not with those who reached the decision on the final resting place of the shuttles.
Read this for more:
http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2011/04/14/why-houston-did-not-get-a-shuttle/
If you want to get something, you have to fight for it until victory is assured, not assumed.
You know the saying about the Fat Lady.
/Admin
-
Theoretically this is possible, and we have a NASA doc to prove that.
Would be very interesting to know in which way it would be possible theoretically.
The Kennedy Space Center FAQ answers to the question "Can the Space Shuttle fly to the Moon?" with: No, the Shuttle is designed to travel to low-Earth orbit (within a few hundred miles of the Earth's surface). It does not carry enough propellant to leave Earth orbit and travel to the Moon.
-
Theoretically this is possible, and we have a NASA doc to prove that.
Would be very interesting to know in which way it would be possible theoretically.
The Kennedy Space Center FAQ answers to the question "Can the Space Shuttle fly to the Moon?" with: No, the Shuttle is designed to travel to low-Earth orbit (within a few hundred miles of the Earth's surface). It does not carry enough propellant to leave Earth orbit and travel to the Moon.
If you read my post carefully, you'd see the difference between "practically" and "theoretically". I also wondered what vinny's fuel gauge shows.
The answer NASA gave, was to "practically". The internal document we have details the maneuvers to bring the shuttle to the moon and back, provided that part of the PLB volume is replaced with fuel and life support, and a crew of two. THATs "theoretically".
/Admin
-
The internal document we have details the maneuvers to bring the shuttle to the moon and back, provided that part of the PLB volume is replaced with fuel and life support, and a crew of two. THATs "theoretically".
That's what I asked for ("Would be very interesting to know in which way it would be possible theoretically").
Theoretically, one can even make the Shuttle fly to Mars, or make it take off and land like an airplane as it was the case for Buran ;D
(http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/buran/ok-gli2.jpg)
A lot of people think that the Shuttle practically flies to the Moon since they have seen Hollywood movies only without having a clue of real world manned space flight. I think that's what spaceboy7441 meant :)
PS: I think the OMS does not have enough delta v, or in other words the payload bay certainly does not fit enough fuel for bringing an 80 tons vehicle to the Moon and back. At least not with a direct insertion.
-
OMS has enough power to adjust the orbit multiple times to go into a TLO. It does not need to aim for escape velocity. It's only a matter of fuel and life support.
And yes, the amount of misconceptions about the Shuttle, many of them comical, is not surprising considering how many times a Shuttle changes configuration during a mission.
But anyway, now it's a non-issue, since the STS program is winding down.
/Admin
-
OMS has enough power to adjust the orbit multiple times to go into a TLO. It does not need to aim for escape velocity. It's only a matter of fuel and life support.
But you won't "fly to the Moon" that way. You just raise the earth orbit or its apogee. The Shuttle will no way orbit the moon using the OMS engines only. It is not capable to perform a lunar orbit insertion and a trans earth injection back. Also, you would need to decelerate the Shuttle before entry because it is designed to enter the earths atmosphere with 7km/s and a maximum g-factor of 3.
What's that misterious document you are referring to? :)
It can't be NASAs Feasibility Analysis of Cislunar Flight Using the Space Shuttle from 1991 since it is based on using the SSME's.
-
To end this discussion we would need:
The weight of the or-biter with e.g. a full tank in the payload bay.
(Or how many fuel the SRB's plus SSME with full external tank can lift into orbit.)
The orbital speed of the shuttle (8000 m/s)
The necessary speed for TLI.
The thrust of the OMS.
(Then we can calculate how long the OMS must fire.)
How much fuel per second the OMS burns.
(Then we can calculate weight and remaining fuel after TLI.)
The orbital speed of the lunar orbit.
(Then we can calculate weight and remaining fuel in lunar orbit.)
The necessary speed for TEI.
(Then we can calculate weight and remaining fuel after TEI.)
Finally we can calculate how much fuel it would take to reduce speed before reentry.
Should we have still fuel in the tanks after this calculation we can use this weight for a useful payload in lunar orbit.
Should this weight be only the mass of a camera to take pictures, the whole thing would be more theoretical than practical. ;)
Should this weight be negative we could avoid lunar orbit and do an Apollo 13 style flight. This should need less fuel.
Should the weight of the remaining fuel after an Apollo 13 style flight be still negative we could take one of the "Shuttle" retiring places from the list (theoretical). ;)
/Armin
I did not calculate this, but when I compare the weight of the empty or-biter with the weight of an Apollo capsule and the Saturn V liftoff weight I guess it is not possible.
-
1. Who decided that if you don't reach the moon with a direct insertion trajectory, then the "flight" does not qualify? This sounds to me more like a remark for the sake of the argument, not really a constructive approach to the subject. Who claimed that the Shuttle can reach the moon via direct insertion? AFAIR, not me.
2. Who claimed that the mission has any other purpose but reaching the moon and returning safely? Not me! I didn't say "to land" or "to photograph" or "launch a scientific payload"? Not me!
3. Next you will claim that the Shuttle cannot land and take off the moon. In order to prevent that from hapening, I am reminding everybody that the scope of the discussion is Shuttle REACHING the moon and returning safely . No mention of landing, no mention of direct insertion, no mention of useful payload apart from a crew of two.
Instead of splitting hair about semantics, and juggling with convoluted logic, I invite both of you to firing your Mathlabs and starting playing with the numbers. At least you know that a solution exists, so it's not a waste of time.
Saying "it's impossible" or "I don't think it's possible", or "doesn't qualify because it's not a direct insertion flight" doesn't count as a scientific argument or adult attitude.
I have the luxury of not needing to play with the numbers because I have the paper which already gives me the proof. If you are inquisitive, curious or plain argumentative, go ahead - convince yourselves, not me.
Have fun with the numbers.
/Admin
I'm splitting this from the main thread now, since in the best "tradition" of some posters, the posts are not relevant to the thread subject anymore.
-
I have the paper which already gives me the proof.
Which paper you are referring to?
If you are referring to the Feasibility Analysis of Cislunar Flight Using the Shuttle O rbiter from 1991:
it does not propose going to the moon by using the OMS. It is based on using the main engines and an external tank which would be fueled on orbit by Shuttle-C tankers at the space station Freedom.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19910014907_1991014907.pdf
-
I'm splitting this from the main thread now, since in the best "tradition" of some posters, the posts are not relevant to the thread subject anymore.
Sorry Admin, that I feel you are pointing at me here.
(At least you commented one other post of me today regarding relevancy.)
Sometimes threads evolve in being off subject.
In this case here spacewalker made a funny remark:
Shuttle? Of course I know what those are! We go to the moon with them, right?
And you (or someone using the Admin-account) answered with:
Theoretically this is possible, and we have a NASA doc to prove that.
Actually "vinny" here has been trying to TLO for some time... I wonder how his OMS fuel is doing ;)
Which in my eyes started this interesting discussion which you moved correctly in this new thread.
So please don't blame others for your own posts.
/Armin
-
No Pocci, not only to you but to Moonwalker and myself too... although my post wasn't intended to stir an argument ;)
/Admin
-
I have the paper which already gives me the proof.
Which paper you are referring to?
If you are referring to the Feasibility Analysis of Cislunar Flight Using the Shuttle O rbiter from 1991:
it does not propose going to the moon by using the OMS. It is based on using the main engines and an external tank which would be fueled on orbit by Shuttle-C tankers at the space station Freedom.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19910014907_1991014907.pdf
Obviously not, since the paper I am talking about is NOT online, and since I mentioned that it uses the OMS.
It's not even the same author, and it's much more recent than '91.
/Admin
-
1. Who decided that if you don't reach the moon with a direct insertion trajectory, then the "flight" does not qualify? This sounds to me more like a remark for the sake of the argument, not really a constructive approach to the subject. Who claimed that the Shuttle can reach the moon via direct insertion? AFAIR, not me.
Sorry, I was not speaking about direct insertion.
I did not disqualify any approach.
I used the Apollo approach because that is what I "know", at least is something which I can handle in my small brain.
In your first question you seem to prefer a direct insertion.
In your second question you seem not to prefer a direct insertion.
I am no rocket scientist, I can't say if a direct insertion is better then a parking orbit. But this is an interesting approach I did not thought of.
2. Who claimed that the mission has any other purpose but reaching the moon and returning safely? Not me! I didn't say "to land" or "to photograph" or "launch a scientific payload"? Not me!
Do you feel beeing attacked? This is not my intention.
I don't know what is in that paper because I don't have it, but I already wrote, that probably only reaching and returning would be possible:
Should this weight be negative we could avoid lunar orbit and do an Apollo 13 style flight. This should need less fuel.
3. Next you will claim that the Shuttle cannot land and take off the moon. In order to prevent that from hapening, I am reminding everybody that the scope of the discussion is Shuttle REACHING the moon and returning safely . No mention of landing, no mention of direct insertion, no mention of useful payload apart from a crew of two.
Hey, I didn't mention landing with a single word. We all know, that the or-biter can not land on the moon.
Instead of splitting hair about semantics, and juggling with convoluted logic.
Didn't you see the smiley's after my remarks of theoretical and practical.
I invite both of you to firing your Mathlabs and starting playing with the numbers. At least you know that a solution exists, so it's not a waste of time.
Saying "it's impossible" or "I don't think it's possible", or "doesn't qualify because it's not a direct insertion flight" doesn't count as a scientific argument or adult attitude.
Come on, why do you heat up the discussion telling us not having adult attitude?
Every scientific question starts with an hypothesis which you discuss with an experiment, a study or some calculations.
My hypothesis is: "To reach the moon and return safely it would need more fuel than you can lift with a shuttle in the payload bay."
My "calculations" I already posted, I am just missing some information (e.g. speeds and OMS performance).
Speaking of OMS performance, I am sure they are better than the SSME because they are designed for space and the SSME are designed for the upper atmosphere.
(Is that correct?)
Anyhow, I would use the engine which gives me more delta-V out of a kilogram of fuel.
I have the luxury of not needing to play with the numbers because I have the paper which already gives me the proof.
OK, I don't want to stir an argument as well, so I deleted my comment here ;)
If you are inquisitive, curious or plain argumentative, go ahead - convince yourselves, not me.
Have fun with the numbers.
If someone can point me to the numbers I asked for I probably start my "Mathlab", but to be honest, the whole thing is l'art pour l'art.
One direct question, Admin. You mentioned Vinny's experiment with SSM. Do you think it is the right model to experiment with? Are the orbital mechanics outside the Hubble orbit simulated realistically?
I don't want to offend you or SSM here. I know that SSM's purpose is to show as realistically as possible with a 50$ simulator the missions of the Space Shuttle.
The question is, how far does it make sense to experiment with SSM or should we better stay in the mathlab here for this question?
/Armin
PS: Is the mentioned paper public? Can you give us a link?
Is it possible that we can read the mentioned paper as well?
I seems to be a really interesting paper and when it can save me from calculating I would prefer reading. :)
-
Pocci, I already mentioned in the past that the paper is an internal NASA paper and treated as confidential. I already talked about it on other threads in the past, I think when vinny was shooting for extreme apogee, but for some reason it didn't get the "attention" it got now. By the way, I don't thinkk I have to prove anything to anybody. If you don't believe it, just do the calculations and prove the paper wrong. Show numbers, not words.
And of course not all the remarks were directed at you, so no need to feel "attacked" on subjects which you obviously did not raise :)
I am not going to add fuel and answer, or argue with you or anybody on this issue which has taken too much of my time already.
Incidentally, in case anybody wonders, Moonwalker's post was removed after effectively caling the Admin a liar. Sorry, this is not allowed without proof and it applies to anybody, not only to the active Admin.
/Admin
-
Why is a paper, that proofs that the Space Shuttle can fly to the Moon and back, confidential? Or, why is the Feasibility Analysis of Cislunar Flight Using the Shuttle O rbiter not confidential, and the paper which you claim you have confidential?
-
Why is a paper, that proofs that the Space Shuttle can fly to the Moon and back, confidential? Or, why is the Feasibility Analysis of Cislunar Flight Using the Shuttle O rbiter not confidential, and the paper which you claim you have confidential?
Because the owner has asked it to be confidential, and he/she has a good reason for that. Can you understand that some people can respect and honor that agreement? This is not open for negotiation with you or anybody, unless he/she releases us of the NDA.
Our complete trust and relationship with our friends at NASA are more important than your evident curiosity and burning desire to argue.
/Admin
-
I have the desire to know how the Shuttle can fly to the Moon and back using the OMS ;)
-
If you read my post carefully, you'd see the difference between "practically" and "theoretically". I also wondered what vinny's fuel gauge shows.
The answer NASA gave, was to "practically". The internal document we have details the maneuvers to bring the shuttle to the moon and back, provided that part of the PLB volume is replaced with fuel and life support, and a crew of two. THATs "theoretically".
/Admin
Filling the payload bay with extra propellant was the only way I could imagine it. I remember there was a mod for Shuttle that did something similar. As long as the shuttle could have the extra propellant, I don't see why a shuttle couldn't go to the moon. But of course, the crew would have to worry about radiation and life support. Perhaps extra fuel or life support could be launched seperately
-
As long as the shuttle could have the extra propellant, I don't see why a shuttle couldn't go to the moon.
It depends on what one means by "go to the Moon". A Space Shuttle would never orbit the Moon solely by using its OMS since it has not enough delta v to perform a lunar orbit insertion.
-
I remember there was a mod for Shuttle that did something similar.
As far as I know are we here not allowed to discuss that other software.
The name is not to speak or write. If you do it, the word "Voldemort" will be exchanged automagically with the word "Shuttle" by the forum software.
Did I say "Voldemort"? Oops. ;)
As long as the shuttle could have the extra propellant, I don't see why a shuttle couldn't go to the moon.
Would I start hair splitting (what I never do ;)) I would point to the definition of "Shuttle" by NASA itself NASA - What is the Space Shuttle? (http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/stories/what-is-the-space-shuttle-k4.html) and say as long as SRB and external tank are dropped into the ocean, a shuttle will never reach the moon.
But OK, "Shuttle" is used for OV widely and the current subject of this thread sounds better than: "Can the OV reach the Moon?"
But of course, the crew would have to worry about radiation and life support.
Maybe not. Biggest problem would be the Van Allen belt and that would be probably crossed as fast as by Apollo.
Perhaps extra fuel or life support could be launched seperately
Hmm, this probably leaves the plan of the secret document.
This would be the begin of planning a real mission to the moon and for that, I think, we are all together seeing that it does not make sense to send such a big mass to the moon.
/Armin
-
It depends on what one means by "go to the Moon". A Space Shuttle would never orbit the Moon solely by using its OMS since it has not enough delta v to perform a lunar orbit insertion.
I think the problem is not the OMS. If the necessary amount of fuel in the payload bay could be lifted by the shuttle, I am sure the OMS can do it.
Maybe it would take too much time, or the speed through the Van Allen belt would be too slow, but I am sure the OMS can push the or-biter to the Moon.
Look at SMART-1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART-1). The mass of 367 kg was pushed by a thrust of 68 mN (that could only lift a sheet of paper on earth) to the moon. OK, it needed 5000 h, more than 200 days, but it worked.
I do not know the numbers, but I think the thrust/weight ratio of the OMS pushing the OV is better than the SMART-1 engine.
/Armin
-
It depends on what one means by "go to the Moon". A Space Shuttle would never orbit the Moon solely by using its OMS since it has not enough delta v to perform a lunar orbit insertion.
I think the problem is not the OMS. If the necessary amount of fuel in the payload bay could be lifted by the shuttle, I am sure the OMS can do it.
Maybe it would take too much time, or the speed through the Van Allen belt would be too slow, but I am sure the OMS can push the or-biter to the Moon.
Look at SMART-1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART-1). The mass of 367 kg was pushed by a thrust of 68 mN (that could only lift a sheet of paper on earth) to the moon. OK, it needed 5000 h, more than 200 days, but it worked.
I do not know the numbers, but I think the thrust/weight ratio of the OMS pushing the OV is better than the SMART-1 engine.
/Armin
Interesting point.
But SMART-1 was very light and the specific impulse of its engine was more than three times the maximum for chemical engines. 5000 hours was the burn time, but it took thirteen months before it entered lunar orbit!
I don't have numbers yet. But remember that the payload bay is used for OMS fuel and life support. The specific impulse of the OMS is lower than for the SMART-1 engine in relation I think. How long would it take to get the Shuttle to the Moon the same way? Does the payload bay hold enough OMS fuel for doing so, and more important, does it also hold enough life support for a trip that lasts for years? Remember: after more than one year you only reached the Moon. But you have to return safely, as the claim states ;) The mission probably would last for years... ;D
-
It's a matter of pushing the apogee at the right time(s) on shuttle's orbit, and relative to the moon's orbit, so that the two intercept, taking into account moon's increased grav influence. And yes, it's "only" a matter of time and fuel. It's also correct that if a crew is involved, radiation is a factor that needs to be addressed.
That's why life support and fuel are an issue.
[edit] it doesn't last "for years". Much more than 3-4 days, and more than a "standard" STS mission, but definitely not years. Numbers don't lie.
/Admin
-
And if we reach the Moon we can return without fuel (see Apollo 13 or Cassini).
OK, after returning we want to reenter, that means to use some fuel again for braking, probably less than for accelerating because we are lighter now.
If it needs several accelerating orbits, it will need several breaking orbits and almost the same time as well.
/Armin
-
Apollo 13 did not return home without fuel. If the descent engine of the lunar module did not fire for the PC+2 burn, Apollo 13 would have ended up in deep space after a lunar flyby. In order to return home, 3 burns had to be performed all in all if I remember correctly. And these spacecraft had rather powerful engines ;)
-
As far as I know were all Apollo missions planned with a post-TLI-trajectory that in case of an engine faliure they would end near earth after passing the moon.
(Like Cassini passing Saturn and Titan on each orbit.)
/Armin
-
As far as I know were all Apollo missions planned with a post-TLI-trajectory that in case of an engine faliure they would end near earth after passing the moon.
(Like Cassini passing Saturn and Titan on each orbit.)
/Armin
Apollo 12 to 17 left the free return trajectory after system checks and midcourse correction to aim for the landing sites. That's why the first burn after the Apollo 13 accident was required to return to a free return trajectory.
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/launchwindow/figs/Fig%205.png
But there is another issue: how do you decelerate the Shuttle without fuel once it gets back to earth? ;D Remember: it's 3g maximum and if the thermal protection system would survive an entry with about 25000 mph is unknown.
I doubt it is a good idea to fly to the Moon with no fuel left in any case. For sure it doesn't work for a proper return with a Shuttle due to its limitations.
-
What kind of modification we need to allow the Shuttle to go to the moon ? We can imagine a LEM on the Payload Bay and with extra OMS tank fuel too for the trip :)
-
What kind of modification we need to allow the Shuttle to go to the moon ? We can imagine a LEM on the Payload Bay and with extra OMS tank fuel too for the trip :)
The only modification we need is LOTS OF MONEY! :)
/Admin
-
More than the Constellation program ?
-
More than the Constellation program ?
No, of course not, but if we were to chose, my vote would go for a new, manned Space Exploration program (Moonbase, Mars) instead of modifying STS for pointless Moon voyages.
LEO transportation, taxi jobs, can be handled by private companies in the future, after they pass safety rules. NASA already set aside +$275M for this purpose, and shared this budget among its commercial partners, SpaceX among them. They have to be "human flight worthy" by 2013, otherwise they lose their funding.
What's funny is that Jeff Bezos (Amazon) also got a share of the budget. Next we'll have a "Kindle In Space" program - LOL!
/Admin
-
Thanks Admin for details :)
-
Check out the book "Back to the Moon" by Homer H Hickham. Its about taking the shuttle to the moon and back. It is very factual since Hickham worked at NASA for so long, but also quite the fictional story. It is dated, and for reasons I will not tell in hope of not spoiling the story for anyone, but it is quite entertaining.
-
Yes, thanks, I'll read it ! I just finished Titan from Stephen Baxter...
Ok, they go on Titan (A moon of Saturn) with Discovery ! Amazing :) So why not the Moon ? ;D
-
Its a fun book, you should enjoy it.
And I will certainly pick up "Titan".
-
HH is cool.
/Admin
-
I believe that the early Russian moon probes used direct insertion trajectories while I think all the US moon probes (at least the early ones) and apollo used an initial parking orbit. So I always wondered why the difference and if one way is more energy efficient than the other, which would be relavent to this discussion? Does anyone know?
How about for the return to save on fuel utilize aerobraking. Drop down into the atmosphere low enough to bleed off some energy, but not deep enough for reentry. Then go back out into orbit. Could do that multiple times if necessary, although the extra time to perform this would require additional life support.
-
What kind of modification we need to allow the Shuttle to go to the moon ? We can imagine a LEM on the Payload Bay and with extra OMS tank fuel too for the trip :)
Here you go for the NASA analysis, but it is not based on any OMS usage but SSME usage (the OMS simply is not powerful enough and the payload bay would not offer any space for additionals payloads other than fuel anyway):
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19910014907_1991014907.pdf
-
What kind of modification we need to allow the Shuttle to go to the moon ? We can imagine a LEM on the Payload Bay and with extra OMS tank fuel too for the trip :)
Here you go for the NASA analysis, but it is not based on any OMS usage but SSME usage (the OMS simply is not powerful enough and the payload bay would not offer any space for additionals payloads other than fuel anyway):
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19910014907_1991014907.pdf
According to another - currently unpublished - document, the OMS need not to be "powerful enough". They only need enough fuel for a TLO. PLB enough for that.
/Admin
-
Well, finally I got some time to validate the claim that the Space Shuttle could go to the moon solely based on using the OMS.
I did it by using another simulation which is based on accurate physics and numbers, in cunjunction with a corresponding accurate Space Shuttle addon. The starting situation was: payload bay empty and full OMS propellant available of course. I did increase the apogee every time I passed the perigee, by a 30 seconds OMS burn. I did this down to the last drop of OMS propellant.
And this is what I got: an apogee of 9550 kilometers, or in other words an altitude of about 3600 kilometers above earth surface. Taking into account that the mean distance between earth and moon is 384400 kilometers: with the entire OMS propellant available and an empty payload bay the Space Shuttle does not even travel 1% of the distance to the moon!
Now, the claim states that the payload bay is used for OMS propellant supply to reach the moon. Let's take a look at it: the Space Shuttle can carry a maximum of 24400 kilograms to low earth orbit, which is not even twice the mass of propellant the OMS fuel tanks can hold (13500 kilograms). And we don't take the weight of the additionl OMS fuel tanks into account here, less than ever any capability for additional life support. This way, the Shuttle would not even carry twice as much OMS propellant as usual. And with the usual amount of OMS propellant the shuttle only manages to travel about 1% of the dictance to the moon by raising the apogee with an empty payload bay.
Well, I don't think we need any further calculation or speculation to realise that the OMS has not the capability, not even in case the entire payload bay is used for additional OMS propellant supply, to travel anywhere in vicinity of the moon.
Supplementary
Doing it via direct insertion or by increasing the apogee every orbit gives the same result by the way: an altitude of about 3600 kilometers. Only the required time is different: 13 minutes for direct insertion and 3 days via adjusting the orbit to get the same apogee. The required delta v to reach the moon does not change no matter how you do it. And the OMS simply does not provide that delta v. Not even if the "little" (in that relation) payload capability is used for OMS propellant supply.
Also, it took 3 days to get a "max OMS propellant apogee" which is 1% of the distance we would need to reach the moon. This way it would take about 10 month to reach the Moon. And again, no life support is considered here, which would reduce the available capability of OMS propellant support.
So, no way would the Space Shuttle fly to the moon solely based on using the OMS, or in other words reach an apogee of 390k kilometers solely based on using the OMS. Not even theoretical.
-
I am happy you are playing :) Keep at it.
But make sure that before any claim, just say "according to my calculations...", like you did now, so that we know the context and have the freedom to decide what to believe.
/Admin
-
make sure that before any claim, just say "according to my calculations...",
Not based on my calculations. Based on an newtonian accurate simulation ;)
-
make sure that before any claim, just say "according to my calculations...",
Not based on my calculations. Based on an newtonian accurate simulation ;)
OK, whatever. Blame it on Newton, the simulation and the data that was fed into the sim ;)
/Admin
-
make sure that before any claim, just say "according to my calculations...",
Not based on my calculations. Based on an newtonian accurate simulation ;)
OK, whatever. Blame it on Newton, the simulation and the data that was fed into the sim ;)
Yes :) Especially the data which was the correct OMS delta v and masses for the OMS propellant and Shuttle.
But never mind. It was fun and an interesting sight how the earth looks like once the OMS propellant is fully burned. I wouldn't like to be aboard of such a mission although the sight was awesome ;D
-
As I said, whatever.
/Admin
-
Guys i hate ty that going to the moon with the shuttles in this game is a big "NO!" :'( :( :( but if NASA can some how make a moon landing for the Space Shuttle To land they'll have to find a away to make the shuttle land two times and we'll have to go back to Apollo Space Suits Or Make new suits. And have for it to launch like an airplane so we it won't be stuck there or put alot of OMS Fuel for lift off and all astronaughntst and the shuttle will only way 33,000 lbs on the moon at least.
-
You are spot on Alexander
It would be a rought landing that is for sure. Not sure is rolling on the rocky regolith of the moon is good for the tires.
The OMS engines are some very very weak sauce and have zero chance of getting the Shuttle from the 25k feet per second required for LEO to the 35k feet per second required to get the apoapsis out to the moon.
And the Shuttle is (or was :( ) freakin' huge, and a massive space craft. There is no soft landing and nice take off from the lunar surface with a DC9 sized space plane.
And again great point in that the suits, the equipment all needs to be re-engineered for lunar transfer. Though it would have been one heck of a sight to see the Shuttle in a barbeque roll on the way to the moon.
I recommend to anyone feeling the itch to land a space plane on the moon, try the XR-2
If you are interested in building the ISS, servicing the HST, SSMS is as epic as it comes to Space Shuttle sims.