Xref: utzoo sci.space:25862 sci.space.shuttle:6710 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!linac!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!ucsd!sdcc6!beowulf!stramm From: stramm@beowulf.ucsd.edu (Bernd Stramm) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle Subject: Re: Translunar/interplanetary shuttle? Message-ID: Date: 29 Nov 90 10:04:46 GMT References: <90332.182944AEGQC@CUNYVM.BITNET> Sender: news@sdcc6.ucsd.edu Followup-To: sci.space Lines: 34 Nntp-Posting-Host: beowulf.ucsd.edu AEGQC@CUNYVM (Audra G.) writes: >The latest issue of _Analog_ has an article describing how the shuttle >could be adapted as a moon ship. Apparently if the ship either carried >two extra boosters or was refueled in orbit, it would be able to reach >and return from lunar orbit, using a LEM-like craft carried in the cargo >bay to get people to the surface of the Moon and back. Some of the "science fact" in Analog is just a tad speculative IMHO, and some engineering solutions a touch kludgy. (Not everybody with a PhD knows what they are doing.) In this particular case, refuelling would only help if the main engines were restartable, and I don't think they are (not even close, considering the considerable effort in refurbishing them for the next flight). And then you would be lugging all this mass (wings and such) out to the moon where it's not really useful. If you're going to use the shuttle at all, should it not be easier to just fuel up the 'LEM-like' craft in LEO and send it on? >If this is indeed >doable (and the article had a lot of mathematics), I would like to ask if, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Don't let that impress you, really. If basic assumptions don't hold, the prettiest math does no good. >if still more tanks were added in orbit, the shuttle could be used to reach >further celestial bodies as well. Any thoughts? --Shangti Problems with extended stay, which it's not designed for I guess, and reentry velocity when you come back. Cheers, Bernd.