Space Shuttle flying to the moon?

[John Jones]

I read this on a conspiracy site: The US Space shuttle could and did fly to the moon and back via refueling at the ISS.

I know it's nonsense, but I'd like to hear why from people more knowledgeable than me.

Thanks.

[slang]

It's got to be true, because that is exactly what happened in the documentary Armageddon. You must ignore the "The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's cooperation and assistance does not reflect an endorsement of the contents of the film or the treatment of the characters depicted therein." in the credits... they're only kidding of course.

[JustAFriend]

You didn't hear about it because NASA was too busy announcing Apollo 20 finding aliens there....

;-)

[slang]

Seriously, there have been several discussions here about the shuttle's (in)ability to go beyond LEO, or to the moon. Searching for shuttle and moon should get you several threads.

[ravens_cry]

Well, refuelling in orbit might allow it to do to higher orbits, but I don't think it would be enough to take it to the moon, and that is ignoring a thousand and one impracticalities of doing so; not to mention the suicidal risk of re-entry from escape velocity with the shuttles tile system.

[publiusr]

This fiction is as close as it will ever get
http://www.homerhickam.com/books/moon.shtml

Some more:
http://www.asi.org/adb/02/07/ssto-business-plan.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11539123
http://braun.gatech.edu/publications/
http://keeptheshuttleflyingc.blogspo...we-put-in.html

I do seem to remember a shuttle flyby mentioned in the Journal Of Spacecraft and rockets many years ago that I can't find on the web--but it would take a great deal of doing. A single SLS will take the smaller Orion on a lunar flyby just fine using a D-IV second stage.

[Glom]

I read this on a conspiracy site: The US Space shuttle could and did fly to the moon and back via refueling at the ISS.

I know it's nonsense, but I'd like to hear why from people more knowledgeable than me.

Thanks.

Refuelling what? Do they specify what propulsion system was used? I have a suspicion that they're imagining the main engines, which is ridiculous as after MECO the main engines can't be restarted

[Van Rijn]

I read this on a conspiracy site: The US Space shuttle could and did fly to the moon and back via refueling at the ISS.

I know it's nonsense, but I'd like to hear why from people more knowledgeable than me.

Thanks.

An earlier post I wrote on this, with a link to a NASA PDF where they looked at what it would actually take to get the Shuttle to the Moon. It would take A LOT. There would be no hiding it, and it would be stupid:

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...90#post1681290

Two big issues: The shuttle was massive, and its TPS wasn't designed to handle the extra velocity, so you'd need a lot to get it to the moon, and you 'd need to slow it down again when it came back.

[geonuc]

Refuelling what? Do they specify what propulsion system was used? I have a suspicion that they're imagining the main engines, which is ridiculous as after MECO the main engines can't be restarted

Why not? Or, more specifically, why is it ridiculous that the shuttle main engines could not be modified to allow re-start? Serious question.

[Jason Thompson]

I think it's not so much that it's ridiculous that the SSMEs could be modified to allow restart capability, but that it could be done so without making the look obviously different from the SSMEs that we know could not be restarted. The plumbing systems required to do it would not be small inconspicuous add-ons hidden inside.

This question about sending the shuttle to the Moon comes up quite often, and boils down mostly to fuel requirements. It takes the entire contents of the external tank plus two solid rocket boosters plus a little kick from the OMS engines to get the shuttle orbiter up to the 17,500 mph needed to stay in LEO. That's still about 7,500 mph too slow to get to the Moon, so there's a load more fuel needed for that. Then there's the fuel you would also need to brake into and break out of lunar orbit. And then you'd have to slow down again before re-entry as the shuttle is neither thermally nor structurally capable of withstanding re-entry at translunar speed. So could more fuel be sent up? Well, in theory on-orbit refuelling is possible, but the problems with it include the shuttle orbiter not being designed for orbital mating with a fuel tank, the SSMEs not having restart capability, and the fact that sending that much fuel up would in itself be a very conspicuous launch. Could you put an extra fuel tank in the payload bay of the shuttle? Maybe, but since the requirements would probably fill the entire available volume of the payload bay that would leave no room for anything that would be of use once the shuttle actually reached the Moon. If conspiracy theorists also suggest that the shuttle landed on the Moon then they have even more ridiculous ideas, since there is even less way the shuttle is capable of that.

[Glom]

I think it's not so much that it's ridiculous that the SSMEs could be modified to allow restart capability, but that it could be done so without making the look obviously different from the SSMEs that we know could not be restarted. The plumbing systems required to do it would not be small inconspicuous add-ons hidden inside.

Bottles of helium are a dead giveaway.

This question about sending the shuttle to the Moon comes up quite often, and boils down mostly to fuel requirements. It takes the entire contents of the external tank plus two solid rocket boosters plus a little kick from the OMS engines to get the shuttle orbiter up to the 17,500 mph needed to stay in LEO. That's still about 7,500 mph too slow to get to the Moon, so there's a load more fuel needed for that. Then there's the fuel you would also need to brake into and break out of lunar orbit. And then you'd have to slow down again before re-entry as the shuttle is neither thermally nor structurally capable of withstanding re-entry at translunar speed. So could more fuel be sent up? Well, in theory on-orbit refuelling is possible, but the problems with it include the shuttle orbiter not being designed for orbital mating with a fuel tank, the SSMEs not having restart capability, and the fact that sending that much fuel up would in itself be a very conspicuous launch. Could you put an extra fuel tank in the payload bay of the shuttle? Maybe, but since the requirements would probably fill the entire available volume of the payload bay that would leave no room for anything that would be of use once the shuttle actually reached the Moon. If conspiracy theorists also suggest that the shuttle landed on the Moon then they have even more ridiculous ideas, since there is even less way the shuttle is capable of that.

It would surely have landed on the Moon like an aeroplane.

[Jason Thompson]

Yes. Only one or two slight issues with that idea....

[ppk]

With the Apollo moon landings at least there was a possible motive to fake them, but here not only would it be utterly impossible to modify the shuttle and take it to the moon without anyone noticing, I can't think of any reason why they would even want to keep it secret

People will believe just about anything...

[John Mendenhall]

Bottles of helium are a dead giveaway.



It would surely have landed on the Moon like an aeroplane.

Yes. But first the Moon had to be modified to have an atmosphere. THAT was the tough part.

[John Mendenhall]

The SS was originally designed, IIRC, to have restartable and throttle able main engines. The idea was that a returning shuttle could go around once, if needed, at the landing site. During design testing at Huntsville two engines were spectacularly blown up. In each case the remaining bits and pieces were so small that the engines could not be reconstructed to find out what failed. So much for flying like an aeroplane. Dead stick it in, boys. Had I been in charge of the SS program, it would have ended right there. I have never liked the SS program, I think it was a huge waste of time and money and lives. I don't see that the SS program did anything that couldn't have been done better by big dumb boosters. Proof? Well, SS is over, and now we've got big dumb boosters. That work. And are cheap. And haven't killed anybody (yet).

Ok, starry-eyed SS lovers, wade in. I certainly won't deny that the SS was beautiful. Practicality, though, big issues.

Regards, John M.

[Swift]

Ok, starry-eyed SS lovers, wade in. I certainly won't deny that the SS was beautiful. Practicality, though, big issues.

May I suggest, if anyone wants to have a debate over the Space Shuttle versus Big Dumb Boosters, that you start a new thread about it (or dig up an old one), and that we not derail this thread with such a discussion.

Thanks,

[geonuc]

Bottles of helium are a dead giveaway.

I know very little about the shuttle's engines, so I was hoping for a more complete answer. But I'll take what I can get.

[primummobile]

The SS was originally designed, IIRC, to have restartable and throttle able main engines. The idea was that a returning shuttle could go around once, if needed, at the landing site. During design testing at Huntsville two engines were spectacularly blown up. In each case the remaining bits and pieces were so small that the engines could not be reconstructed to find out what failed. So much for flying like an aeroplane. Dead stick it in, boys. Had I been in charge of the SS program, it would have ended right there. I have never liked the SS program, I think it was a huge waste of time and money and lives. I don't see that the SS program did anything that couldn't have been done better by big dumb boosters. Proof? Well, SS is over, and now we've got big dumb boosters. That work. And are cheap. And haven't killed anybody (yet).

Ok, starry-eyed SS lovers, wade in. I certainly won't deny that the SS was beautiful. Practicality, though, big issues.

Regards, John M.

I wouldn't deny that we didn't learn a lot from the Space Shuttle program. But it never even came close to what NASA originally envisioned for it. NASA originally said they were going to be able to launch fifty times per year and transport cargo to LEO for around $120 per pound. They never even came close to either one. In my opinion, it was just an overly complicated system for doing something that we already knew how to do with much less effort.

EDIT: Sorry, Swift must have posted about starting a new thread as I was writing this

[cjameshuff]

The SS was originally designed, IIRC, to have restartable and throttle able main engines. The idea was that a returning shuttle could go around once, if needed, at the landing site.

This doesn't make sense, unless it was intended for a very different vehicle than what the Shuttle ended up being. The Shuttle orbiter doesn't have an on-board fuel supply for those engines. Could you be thinking of the OMS engines?

[Van Rijn]

Why not? Or, more specifically, why is it ridiculous that the shuttle main engines could not be modified to allow re-start? Serious question.

It probably could be modified, but it would be a serious issue. In the NASA paper I linked

(again, linked from http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...90#post1681290)

"SSME restart in vacuum" was one of a list of items they noted would have to be addressed. It probably could be done, but it would need R&D. Another issue they mentioned was that they would need to about double the run time of the SSME between maintenance checks. There are quite a few items they would need to address. I suspect the paper was written so they could point to it when somebody brought up the idea in NASA, so they could see it had been considered, and why it would be impractical.

[geonuc]

It probably could be modified, but it would be a serious issue.

Thanks. I don't understand the helium aspect to potentially modifying the engines for restart, but at least I now know it isn't something easily done.

[Glom]

Thanks. I don't understand the helium aspect to potentially modifying the engines for restart, but at least I now know it isn't something easily done.

What I was on about was that had they modified the SSMEs (pronounced sesame) one of the more obvious signs would be the helium tanks added used to provide pressurisation for restart. The lack of them suggests the engines weren't modified for that.

I supposed they could have hidden them in the payload bay though.

[Jens]

Yes. But first the Moon had to be modified to have an atmosphere. THAT was the tough part.

Not so hard, really. They modified Cassini to take some of Jupiter's atmosphere and bring it to the moon. Which of course required reprogramming New Horizons to cool Jupiter's atmosphere by stealing some from Pluto. A fairly big operation, actually. But those NASA people, tricky, tricky.

[Luckmeister]

What I was on about was that had they modified the SSMEs (pronounced sesame) one of the more obvious signs would be the helium tanks added used to provide pressurisation for restart. The lack of them suggests the engines weren't modified for that.

I supposed they could have hidden them in the payload bay though.

You're wrong about the purpose of the helium. The payload bay was filled with it to provide bouyancy to help get into orbit and lighten the craft for Earth landing. To restart the engines, they just used the robotic arm to light a match behind them.

[ToSeek]

Should I move this to Fun & Games?

[Luckmeister]

Should I move this to Fun & Games?

No, I'll shut up.

[ugordan]

During design testing at Huntsville two engines were spectacularly blown up.

I really don't see your point here. Bias maybe, but point - no. The good ole F-1 engine was known to execute an occasional rapid unscheduled disassembly back in the days before combustion instability problems were solved, so what? That's what engineers do, they solve problems.

SSME may be complex and expensive, but it still is one of the highest performance engines ever flown. And it never, ever blew up during an actual flight.

[ravens_cry]

"Rapid unscheduled disassembly"
You got to love engineers and their euphemisms.

[ToSeek]

"Rapid unscheduled disassembly"
You got to love engineers and their euphemisms.

"Controlled flight into terrain", also "lithobraking."

[ravens_cry]

"Controlled flight into terrain", also "lithobraking."

'Lithobraking' is another favourite. ;D