The Shuttle to the moon.

[ryan]

The great Galileo probe was released by shuttle, and it made to Jupiter, eventually.
If a LRO type probe was fitted with newley designed rockets, could it get to the moon, or is it even feasable, and would this save money?
Thanks.
Ryan.

 

[insanity]

on edit: I should have read the question before I gave an answer. my bad.

 

[PriestLizard]

I think he's not talking about the Space Shuttle going to the moon but rather using the shuttle to launch/release the actual lunar vessel. I don't know why this was actually never done - probably because the lunar vessel would have to match the cargo bay dimensions of the shuttle so design and constructions are limited right from the start. Furthermore AFAIK the shuttle was supposed to end its service arround 2010 so some advanced planning with lunar missions never took place.

Oh... and of course the VAN ALLEN BELT!!!!! *conspiracy*

 

[ryan]

As far as I know the Orbiter's engines couldn't make it close to the moon, or if they could, not in a realistic time-scale.

You only read the thread title though, i didnt mean the shuttle to go to the moon i ment for a LRO type probe to be release from the payload bay and it gets shot to the moon with an attach rocket, like Galilieo was.

 

[the.punk]

I think he's not talking about the Space Shuttle going to the moon but rather using the shuttle to launch/release the actual lunar vessel. I don't know why this was actually never done - probably because the lunar vessel would have to match the cargo bay dimensions of the shuttle so design and constructions are limited right from the start. Furthermore AFAIK the shuttle was supposed to end its service arround 2010 so some advanced planning with lunar missions never took place.

Yes. It is depending on the dimensions. And maybe the shuttle can't bring this lunar vessel into orbit, because it's maybe to heavy.

 

[tblaxland]

If a LRO type probe was fitted with newley designed rockets, could it get to the moon, or is it even feasable, and would this save money?

Do you mean: could you launch a probe to the Moon from a Shuttle in LEO?

1. Yes, LRO was actually sent to the Moon using a Centaur upper stage very similar to the one used for Galileo. The only thing is that after the Columbia disaster, flying Centaurs in the Shuttle was judged too risky so they decided not to do it any more.

2. No, launching a Centaur on an Atlas V would be cheaper.

 

[the.punk]

Do you mean: could you launch a probe to the Moon from a Shuttle in LEO?

1. Yes, LRO was actually sent to the Moon using a Centaur upper stage very similar to the one used for Galileo. The only thing is that after the Columbia disaster, flying Centaurs in the Shuttle was judged too risky so they decided not to do it any more.

2. No, launching a Centaur on an Atlas V would be cheaper.

That sound logical.

For 2.:
We could make a dual mission im one.
Flying the shuttle in orbit, launching the probe. And the flying the shuttle to ISS with crew on board.

 

[DaveS]

You only read the thread title though, i didnt mean the shuttle to go to the moon i ment for a LRO type probe to be release from the payload bay and it gets shot to the moon with an attach rocket, like Galilieo was.

Galileo was originally planned to be launched using a huge upper stage called Centaur G PRIME. It was basically an Atlas Centaur with an scaled up LH2 tank matching the diameter of the orbiter payload bay.

Was cancelled though after the STS-51L accident as it was deemed too dangerous to fly on a manned vehicle such as the space shuttle.

So instead Galileo had to make due with a weaker IUS/PAM upper stage which lead to the VEEGA trajectory instead of the direct trajectory.

 

[ijuin]

Actually I think flying hydrogen/oxygen fueled stages in the Shuttle payload bay was discarded after Challenger. Galileo for example was launched using only solid and hypergolic fueled boosters.

While technically possible, launching more lunar/interplanetary probes via Shuttle after the loss of Columbia would have been ruled out because other than the one service mission to the Hubble telescope, it was decided that all remaining Shuttle missions would be used for ISS construction and support.

 

[the.punk]

Actually I think flying hydrogen/oxygen fueled stages in the Shuttle payload bay was discarded after Challenger. Galileo for example was launched using only solid and hypergolic fueled boosters.

While technically possible, launching more lunar/interplanetary probes via Shuttle after the loss of Columbia would have been ruled out because other than the one service mission to the Hubble telescope, it was decided that all remaining Shuttle missions would be used for ISS construction and support.

Yes.
And it is cheaper as tblaxland said.

 

[insanity]

You only read the thread title though, i didnt mean the shuttle to go to the moon i ment for a LRO type probe to be release from the payload bay and it gets shot to the moon with an attach rocket, like Galilieo was.

guilty.

 

[garyw]

That sound logical.

For 2.:
We could make a dual mission im one.
Flying the shuttle in orbit, launching the probe. And the flying the shuttle to ISS with crew on board.

2 isn't feasible for the following reasons:

1. Your payload weight is all for LRO.
2. A year training for the crew to do what? What can they do on the ISS?
3. Two missions in one presents a lot more risk than a single mission
4. Risk adversity says you don't want upper stages in your cargo bay
5. Cargo bay won't support upper stages anyway
6. Cost
7. LRO would need more delta-V to get to the moon if launched to 51.6degrees.

 

[tblaxland]

Actually I think flying hydrogen/oxygen fueled stages in the Shuttle payload bay was discarded after Challenger. Galileo for example was launched using only solid and hypergolic fueled boosters.

Right you are. My bad.

 

[ryan]

But it would of been a good idea if Columbia and Challenger never happened, using the last days of shuttle to help with the lunar base, luanching Stuff that would wait until Orion to get fully active, they can land a man on the moon and bring him home, but NASAs not very imaginative

---------- Post added at 10:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:13 AM ----------

2 isn't feasible for the following reasons:

1. Your payload weight is all for LRO.
2. A year training for the crew to do what? What can they do on the ISS?
3. Two missions in one presents a lot more risk than a single mission
4. Risk adversity says you don't want upper stages in your cargo bay
5. Cargo bay won't support upper stages anyway
6. Cost
7. LRO would need more delta-V to get to the moon if launched to 51.6degrees.

I want to point out a LRO like, not LRO necessarily but something like it to get to the moon.

 

[the.punk]

2 isn't feasible for the following reasons:

1. Your payload weight is all for LRO.
2. A year training for the crew to do what? What can they do on the ISS?
3. Two missions in one presents a lot more risk than a single mission
4. Risk adversity says you don't want upper stages in your cargo bay
5. Cargo bay won't support upper stages anyway
6. Cost
7. LRO would need more delta-V to get to the moon if launched to 51.6degrees.

Yes. That sound plausible.

 

[simonpro]

and would this save money?

The concept of saving money goes out the window as soon as the shuttle hoves into view.
Cost effectiveness is a reality alien to the world of the space shuttle.

 

[garyw]

But it would of been a good idea if Columbia and Challenger never happened

Nope it would not have. Challenger and Columbia happened because people took their eye off the ball. If they had NOT happened then EITHER something else would have happened to a different flight OR the mission would happen but it still would not be a good idea.

 

[DaveS]

4. Risk adversity says you don't want upper stages in your cargo bay
5. Cargo bay won't support upper stages anyway
.

4: Incorrect. Risk was all on Centaur's side. It used and still does use balloon prop tanks, not rigid prop tanks like every other rocket in history bar the Atlases(except for for Atlas V) and Centaur. The concern was that the damn thing would suffer a catastrophic leak and depressurize in the payload bay.

5: It does. Each upper stage used it's own specially designed Airborne Support Equipment(ASE), essentially a cradle that held it in the bay.

 

[garyw]

4: Incorrect. Risk was all on Centaur's side. It used and still does use balloon prop tanks, not rigid prop tanks like every other rocket in history bar the Atlases(except for for Atlas V) and Centaur. The concern was that the damn thing would suffer a catastrophic leak and depressurize in the payload bay.

Incorrect. Risk tables showed that running fuel lines through the cargo bay to keep Centaur pressurised increased risk to vehicle in the event of a launch problem.

---------- Post added at 16:59 ---------- Previous post was at 16:57 ----------

5: It does. Each upper stage used it's own specially designed Airborne Support Equipment(ASE), essentially a cradle that held it in the bay.

For solids, sure. Not for Centaurs as they never added the plumbing.

 

[Tommy]

We could make a dual mission im one.
Flying the shuttle in orbit, launching the probe. And the flying the shuttle to ISS with crew on board.

If you launch into a good plane for a lunar transfer you'll never be able to make the plane change to rendevous with the ISS. If you launch into the ISS's plane you are in a horribly inefficient plane for a lunar transfer. The shuttle simply doesn't have the Delta-V required for multi-purpose misssions of this nature.