/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12583610
>Could a manned space shuttle mission to the moon be possible?
It would be a major engineering challenge, but probably

>Could the shuttle take off from the lunar surface and escape its gravitational pull with its integrated boosters alone?
If you threw a fucking baseball it would escape the moon's gravity. Yes.

>Could the shuttle stop on a lunar runway without atmospheric brake chutes?
Okay this would be a real challenge, we'd probably need to put an assload of new thrusters on the Shuttle's nose.

>>12583625
I wonder if it would be easier to get the shuttle into a lunar synchronous orbit and then send up a tug to bring it down

why don't they do shuttle missions to the moon then?

/x/

>>12583648
seethe more you pathetic tranny

>>12583610
Some autist could do the math and figure it all out for certain but off the top of my head...

You would have to fill the payload bay with a fuel tank. You would probably still need a bigger launch vehicle to fling it to the moon in the first place too, or at least orbital refueling in LEO as well as on the moon.
Simplest way to land it on the moon would be to add some landing engines that point down from it's belly. Not much sense in trying to land it on a runway with no atmosphere.
It would also need an upgraded thermal protection system and maybe replace the aluminum airframe with titanium or steel to handle the heat better. It will get a lot hotter on a lunar return re-entry than it will on a LEO re-entry.

>>12583720
Yeah but If you could refuel on the moon you wouldn’t really need a massive on board energy payload to get there.

>>12583759
You need fuel to get into a parking orbit and then to land. A shuttle with fully loaded OMS tanks and no payload might be able to get from translunar injection into a parking orbit, but even if you refueled in low lunar orbit the tanks are too small to support a landing.

>>12583640
The shuttles have all been decommissioned and sent off to museums.

>>12583610
No. The shuttle had no fuel for translunar injection and back. It barely could certain low Earth orbits.
If you added an extra tank inside the bay, then the thing wont take off.
You would need more boosters, which implies a vehicle redesigh, or refuel in LEO, which implies another launch with the extra fuel. It would be a very inefficient vessel, because it carries huge nozzles not needed for coasting.
Once there, there is no way for that thing to land in the Moon vertically. The engines are not aligned for that, and I doubt it had the required TWR with the extra fuel in the bay.

>>12583610
The shuttle's total onboard fuel is sufficient for very minor orbital maneuvers related to docking and reentry from LEO.

It cannot under any circumstance go further out because it lacks
>long term power generation
>reentry capability from orbits beyond leo (GTO is rumored but never attempted... due to risk)
And above all else the lack of propulsion already mentioned.

In other words what you are looking at is a totally new and different vehicle from the ground up ie not shuttle.

>>12584020
>fully loaded and OMS and no payload

No. You really don't understand how mass fractions work.
10 tons of payload (theorized to GTO orbit but never done) of mmh/n2o4 fuel will give about 300 m/s delta v, coupled with all of the onboard 350 m/s it will still be grossly insufficient to enter TLI let alone circularize in orbit.

There's no going back alive after entering that kind of elliptic orbit though.

Anything short of somehow refueling an external tank and the main engine redesign so they can restart in space will not let it even approach the Moon for free return. Ironically, getting to and even on the surface of Mars will be easier if you had that... it's just that the orbiter itself and the crew will be dead long before they get the chance to enter the martian atmosphere.

>>12583610
>shuttle
hahahahahaha

No, not even with extensive effort and modifications

>>12583610
Trying to actually land on the moon, refit, and safely take off from the moon is a completely psychotic undertaking with anything like current technology.

>>12583610
Shuttle is a classic hallmark of American retard design.

>HI I'M THE BOSS OF THIS TEAM. PUT WINGS ON IT!
>But sir, aerodynamic flight surfaces are useless in space
>Aero-what? ARE YOU DISOBEYING MY ORDERS! YOU WILL BE COURT MARSHALLED FOR TREASON.
>Oh sir no of course not, I was just asking how long should the wings be?
>I LOVE MY PRIVATE JET, MAKE IT LOOK THE SAME
>... ok

>>12584423
>rocket goes down
>rocket goes up
Easier to do it on the moon than on the earth, and spacex are already doing it on the earth.

>>12584439
Tell us about spacex having to fix those raptors AGAIN after firing close to the ground.

>>12584439
Space plane goes up. Space plane lands on fucking runway. Space plane is refitted for takeoff on fucking moon. Space plane blasts back off, we hope everything went okay despite refitting on fucking moon, and manages to re-enter without once again proving that NASA stands for “need another seven astronauts”.

It’s hard.

>>12584462
The diversity hires at NASA can't design an unmanned rocket anymore, what makes you think they'd try manned launches?

They'll simply buy a manned launch off the free market. Then a manned lunar base off the free market. Then research access to the independent planet Mars off the free market.
Then their funding dries up and they change name to NASHA.
North American Space History Archive.

>>12584435
They lift the Shuttle during the glide phase after reentry. The shuttle sucked for many reasons but your understanding of it is poor and meme based only.

>>12584462
Maybe, when NASA was paying billions to refit their shuttles between the missions, they would like, make sure that there won't be any shit falling off, that would damage the orbiter. That the ceramic tiles won't be glued to the orbiter by paper glue. And when engineers tells them that something needs to get checked or fixed, it would be so. Maybe then we wouldn't have lost a single one.

>>12584493
>The diversity hires at NASA can't design an unmanned rocket anymore, what makes you think they'd try manned launches

>>12583610
You could with unlimited time, budget and a loose definition of "space shuttle" but it would be easier to turn a Datsun 120Y into a lunar lander.

>could the shuttle stop on a lunar runway without atmospheric brake chutes
Use the carrier cable method of catching planes.

>>12584620
>engineers
>management
>randoms from the tens of thousands on employees
If you had photos of every companies engineers they would all look like the spaceX group.
Not that I'm a fan of oldspace, just stating facts.

>>12584494
The purpose of the wings was crossrange because retarded requirements.

The idea was a single orbit around earth and landing back on the runway - that had moved away during that orbit.

They decided it will be the easiest with big clunky wings to fulfill that requirement from the general that really, really, liked planes.

Not bad, mind you, some wanted tanks in space.

>>12584350
Who said anything about it landing vertically lmao. Did you even read the OP?

no there is not enough poo poo or pee pee in the 3rd stage of the shuttle to lift itself off the moon into orbit u stupid nigger but if someone shidded in orbit facing away from the moon the projectile shit would eventually pull the man to the moon and his cock would get crushed with a rock. if we found a way to have multiple last stage rockets in the payload of one rocket we could carry that to a orbiting station and have multiple objects that could carry people across our system so we can go poo poo on other planets and whip out penis and piss on the ice

>>12583625
>moonmen will never be able to enjoy baseball

>>12583610
Yes.

>>12584632
You would still need down facing engines to keep it the vertical velocity from getting too high. Trying to skim the surface at a shallow enough angle to land in a runway with no descent engines you'd still be moving at something like mach 3 or higher.

>>12584620
SpaceX is literally led by an ethnic(go google it) woman

>>12586186
>ethnic woman
???

>>12583625
>Okay this would be a real challenge, we'd probably need to put an assload of new thrusters on the Shuttle's nose
Just get it to stop moving on orbit having placed thrusters atop of it and it'll just come falling down gently, and when it's near the ground just ignite a couple boosters below
Simple as

>>12586192
a nigger you nigger