Why design new vehicle to go to the moon? Why not use the shuttle?

Question

Why wouldn’t this work???
Design fuel storage tanks that fit in cargo area of space shuttle. Launch extra fuel in unmanned rockets to space station.
Have space shuttle launch and dock at space station… fullup extra fuel tanks. Then use shuttle to fly back to moon? With much lower gravity, shouldn’t the shuttle be able to break gravitational pull of moon and return to Earth?
Wouldn’t this be both cost effective and much faster than 10 years to design a vehicle to go back to the moon? (On a slightly different note… why did it take 7 years to get there the first time, but 10 years after 30 years of technological advances?)
BTW, please don’t respond with “Makes too much since… so they would never do it!” :)

Answer 1

The space shuttle itself does not have enough power on it's own to accomplish such a feat. Even if it did, the space shuttle would not leave the gravitational field of the Earth. Earth's gravitational field is weaker around the moon, but not non-existent. At the point which is the moon, the gravity exerted by the moon is greater than the Earth which would allow a lunar orbit. If it were possible to travel such a distance in the shuttle and there was a runway suitable for the shuttle to land, you would have to answer the question of slowing the shuttle down for landing. The shuttle uses friction from the Earth's atmosphere to slow down for a safe landing. On the moon there is no atmosphere. To slow down the shuttle for an appropriate landing you would need slow the shuttle considerably with reverse thrusters similar to the apollo landings. which would in turn create more of a weight burden for the shuttle for fuel storage in addition to what would be needed to get to the moon in the first place. So, it would not be anymore cost effective to adapt the shuttle to such a mission as it would be to use similar rockets as they did back during the apollo missions.

Answer 2

The shuttle is simply too large and was not designed for lunar flight.

The fuel requirements would be too high. Not only would you have to fuel it enough to get out of Earth orbit and into a translunar trajectory, but it would need enough fuel to slow into lunar orbit and break out again. Then you have the problem of landing on the Moon. The shuttle is designed to use friction with the air to slow down, and then come to a landing like an aeroplane. It is not designed to land on an airless body like the Moon, so you'd have to redesign its landing systems entirely since it has no way to stop itself falling onto the Moon if its landing gear is facing down (no downward-pointing rocket engine). Then it would have to take off again, and it can't do that without more fuel. Then it has to get out of lunar orbit, again requiring more fuel.

Then when it gets back to Earth it has another problem. Returning from the Moon it will arrive at Earth travelling at around 25,000mph, compared to the 17,500mph it orbits Earth at normally. The thermal tiles are not designed to withstand the heat of re-entry at that speed, and the structure of the shuttle is not designed to withstand the forces that hitting the air at that speed will impart. The shuttle would disintegrate. That requires, therefore, a complete redesign of the shuttle structure and thermal protection system, or else providing even more fuel (the same amount, more or less, as was required to break it out of Earth orbit in the first place.

So, it is a lot simpler to design a vehicle specifically for lunar )or interplanetary) flight than to try to modify a craft designed solely for low Earth orbit. It's like the difference between building a boat or trying to make your car capable of crossing the Atlantic.

As to the second question, the Apollo project was given huge national importance and huge amounts of money, with huge numbers of people working on it. We may have had thirty years of technological advance, but NASA isn't being given the money or the manpower to go to the Moon now that it was forty years ago, so it is bound to take longer this time.

Answer 3

The shuttle if FAR to heavy for that. It would take more fuel than could fit in the cargo bay to do it. The Shuttle tiles could not stand the heat of a 25,000 MPH reentry when returning from the Moon. The design and construction of a fuel tank to go in the cargo bay combined with connections into the fuel system of the OMS engines, and the tanker rocket to deliver the fuel, would be much harder and more expensive that I suspect you believe.

Answer 4

The shuttle is not designed to be re-fueled in orbit. I like the basic idea of launching fuel and docking with it to re-fuel, but there are not re-fueling ports in the shutttle. That said, it *will* be capable of using the ISS electric power in the near future -- but not take on more fuel.

The shuttle is designed to carry 5 or 6 astronauts, plus cargo, for less than 2 weeks. Even if, somehow, they were to only carry 4 astronauts to the moon, it would still be limited for the amount of time spent at the moon -- perhaps outside of some safety margins.

.

Answer 5

It could be done if an airfield was constructed on the surface of the moom.However why should we ruin the Surface of such a nice mirror?
Buiding an airfield on the moom would be very expensive . To come with that kind of money the Government could raise taxes on the poor and destitute.

This would leave two choices for the project; Spend the money to Build an airfield on the moon to land the space shuttle and let the poor and destitutes dry up starved on the vine,or abort the project and feed the poor and destitute instead.

Note the project should be called lunafield since there is no air on the moon.

Answer 6

The apollo launch motor vehicle replaced into designed to enhance the apollo pill to the moon. this is, it replaced into designed to have adequate velocity to get to the moon. Apollo launch automobiles have been incredibly in basic terms used to bypass to the moon. different missions used Saturn V boosters (to bypass to the different planets) and that i'm unsure what they used to get to low earth orbit (i anticipate the gemini launch motor vehicle). the area return and forth replaced into designed to bypass into low earth orbit. nonetheless it could launch satelites right into an more desirable orbit. all of the area return and forth could desire to get to the moon is greater skill. this would come from added gas. it might additionally launch a motor vehicle that should bypass to the moon. incredibly the main concern isn't getting there (as some human beings think of) however the time it may take. Many launches now plan nicely previous to the project and use gravity sling photos to take unmanned probes out to the planets. This makes use of much less gas. quite the long and wanting this is that if we needed to return to the moon we'd desire to construct a clean and greater suited launch motor vehicle with lots of communicate approximately assembling it in area, particularly than launching it from earth.

Answer 7

the shuttle as it is... couldnt fly to the moon as it is only designed to fly to low earth orbit... to add extra fuel tanks to it would increase the weight of the shuttle and make it use extra power to escape the earth's and moon's gravitational pull.

Answer 8

Your idea sounds interesting, but it couldn't land on the moon. The moon relies on air to land. Without air to slow it down, the space shuttle would smash into the moon at very high speed and disintergrate.