Xref: utzoo sci.space:25961 sci.space.shuttle:6749
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!edsews!teemc!fmeed1!cage
From: cage@fmeed1.UUCP (Russ Cage)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Translunar/interplanetary shuttle?
Message-ID: <8907@fmeed1.UUCP>
Date: 29 Nov 90 18:12:00 GMT
References: <90332.182944AEGQC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Reply-To: russ@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us (Russ Cage)
Followup-To: sci.space
Organization: Ford Motor Co., Electronics Div., Dearborn, MI
Lines: 24

In article <90332.182944AEGQC@CUNYVM.BITNET> AEGQC@CUNYVM (Audra G.) writes:
>The latest issue of _Analog_ has an article describing how the shuttle
>could be adapted as a moon ship.

Yes, you can make a garbage truck do 120 MPH too, but WHY?

I calculated the amount of fuel required to send a Shuttle to the
moon.  It amounts to many Shuttle payloads worth.  It is very
inefficient to send along 69,000 lbs of external tank and 140,000
lbs of superfluous airframe, engines and thermal protection on a
moon trip to carry a 48,000 lb payload.

And that's just for starters.  Combine this with the Orbiter's
limited in-space endurance, the non-restartability of the SSME's
(how do you do your lunar-orbit injection and return to earth?),
and a host of other factors, it makes no sense whatsoever to even
think about sending a Shuttle orbiter to the moon.  By the time
you spent the money to do it, you could have been there already
using something else.
-- 
Russ Cage	Ford Powertrain Engineering Development Department
Work:  itivax.iti.org!cfctech!fmeed1!cage   (CHATTY MAIL NOT ANSWERED HERE)
Home:  russ@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us  (All non-business mail)
Member:  HASA, "S" division.


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com