Time to return to the Moon?

[rickod]

do babys go from cradle to 10k marathon in one setp ???

neither should we with our space program we need a permanent base in orbit of earth first then a moon base

[Pongo]

My premise I guess was that the expense to go again would be substancialy less then the apollo version. There is nothing stopping a orbitaly refueled shuttle from making the trip right? There is no reason why the bay couldnt carry a lander of some kind right?
The expense is much less. And dreams are not a bad thing.

Miko..I guess you are right..the real limit on hubble is the size we can get to orbit..not the size of the end product..

[Sabre]

Originally posted by Pongo
Why doesn’t NASA take a shuttle to the moon?
Friend and I were talking about the moon shots and I started to wonder why the US hasn’t just re visited it in a shuttle? Certainly with some smaller solid fuels pre stocked in orbit a shuttle could launch with some kind of disassembled Lander in the bay and transit to the moon, assemble and drop a Lander, recover the crew like the Apollo missions did after the visit and return…
Imagine the size of a space telescope they could mount on the moon…
I know there is no great reason to return to the moon.but why not do it just to make sure the old plaques are clean…For moral..Seems it would be easy to do relative to Apollo….

Since I'm in the space business, I'll give you the short answer: The shuttle is undermodeled to travel to the moon.  Waaaayyyy undermodeled.  It would take too much time and space to give all the reasons why, but if you make it to the con this year, I'll be happy to discuss the particulars over a brewski.

[AKSWulfe]

"Why do we need a space station on the moon"

Same reason we need one in orbit in space. Refuel/resupply for shuttles- plus the moon has 1/6th(is that right?) gravity than earth... that's a LOTTA rocket fuel you won't burn up trying to simply get into space.

Basically a moon station, or large enough space station, would make space travel feasible. Only problem is that it would have to be self sufficient for long periods of time without resupply- especially on the moon.

The first step would be space station (permanent one, easily repairable, easily resuppliable, large enough to act as a space harbor for shuttles), then build a moon base (orbit will never decay, it will have access to it's own minerals, possibly water too, and have to be able to make it's own oxygen and have a fairly large colony to operate it)...

So basically, if you wanna go any further out than the moon with manned missions... then we NEED a moon base.
-SW

[Steven]

Sabre,

I'd be interested in hearing.  Isn't the Shuttle only allowed in low earth orbit?  It can't even reach some of the higher satellites orbiting earth, right?

[AKSWulfe]

I don't think the shuttle is only LEO...

The Hubble wasn't a LEO as far as I know, but a shuttle serviced it?
-SW

[Ripsnort]

Vortican, FYI: War and Space exploration has brought you all the convieniences you use today via R@D.

[Sancho]

the shuttle would most likely consume all its fuel before attaining escape velocity.  It barely has enough fuel to get to LEO and back safely.

You would need extra boosters or one of those big orange tanks fully fueled already in space for the shuttle to get out to the moon.  Then what are you going to do when you get there?  There's no runway on the moon to land on and the shuttle's maneuvering thrusters couldn't do a vertical landing like the original lunar landers.

It seems you would need a specialized vehicle to get to the moon.  Not the shuttle.

[AKSWulfe]

Yeah, you'd be surprised what the space program did for your computer your using right now.

Or a notebook computer. Hell a Palm pilot. Everything had to become smaller, lighter, less electronically demanding while at the same time more powerful.

Then lets not forget teflon, and other everyday things we use that have become possible from the space program.

It'd boggle your mind if you knew what space exploration did for us.
-SW

[majic]

"Then what are you going to do when you get there? There's no runway on the moon to land on and the shuttle's maneuvering thrusters couldn't do a vertical landing like the original lunar landers. "


Umm...carry a lander and extra fuel in the cargo bay.

Or refuel at the space station and carry a bigger lander.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Yeah, you'd be surprised what the space program did for your computer your using right now.

Or a notebook computer. Hell a Palm pilot. Everything had to become smaller, lighter, less electronically demanding while at the same time more powerful.

Then lets not forget teflon, and other everyday things we use that have become possible from the space program.

It'd boggle your mind if you knew what space exploration did for us.
-SW

I thought teflon was created during the A-bomb R@D for hold the core? (Shrugs) Plastics (which damn near everything is made from) was created in WW2 by DuPont for wartime use.

[Pongo]

Originally posted by Sancho
the shuttle would most likely consume all its fuel before attaining escape velocity.  It barely has enough fuel to get to LEO and back safely.

You would need extra boosters for the shuttle to get out to the moon.  Then what are you going to do when you get there?  There's no runway on the moon to land on and the shuttle's maneuvering thrusters couldn't do a vertical landing like the original lunar landers.

It seems you would need a specialized vehicle to get to the moon.  Not the shuttle.

Baring Sabres discussion I will miss at the con..
I proposed the shuttle reconecting some fuel in orbit and transporting some kind of landing vehicle in its bay.
Knowing absolutly nothing about it......I just wondered why. I had assumed that reaching orbit was more difficult then leaving it. Maybe that is incorrect.

[AKSWulfe]

Teflon has that non-stick surface for cooking, doesn't it? Or am I thinking of something else?
-SW

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Teflon has that non-stick surface for cooking, doesn't it? Or am I thinking of something else?
-SW

Yeah, thats the stuff...I thought it was developed for for A-bomb core. Either way, R@D is a GOOD thing!

[AKSWulfe]

Hmmm, I dunno.. I heard it was developed during the space program...

Maybe it was just made more economically feasible by the space program?

Dunno.
-SW