|
Posted by John Doe on May 6, 2007, 12:53 am
Please log in for more thread options
In terms of total energy requiremenent, does the ability to get to LEO
represent a large proportion of the energy required to get to the moon
? half ? 25% ? 10% ? 1% ?
In a theoretical scenario where new SRBs and a ET refueling station were
in LEO, could refueling of the ET in LEO allow the Shuttle to then get
to the moon and slingshot back to earth ?
What if the shuttle were to get both new SRBs and a refueled ET in LEO,
would this get it anywhere near the moon and back ?
Would it be correct to state that its tile system would not survive an
earth re-entry from the moon ?
How complex would it be to give the shuttle ( or any vehicle) the
ability to light its own SSMEs in space ?
In the case of the apollo missions, did they just use a spark generator
to light each stage ? Or was it a more complex system ?
|
|
Posted by Damon Hill on May 6, 2007, 3:08 am
Please log in for more thread options
@TEKSAVVY.COM:
This topic comes up at least once a year.
The short answer to the majority of your questions is that it's
totally impractical, and mostly impossible, to send the Shuttle to
the Moon. It weighs too much. Besides, there's no practical way
to get SRBs or fully fueled ETs into orbit. Each weighs more than
the Shuttle. It's not going to happen. Ever.
show/hide quoted text
>
> In the case of the apollo missions, did they just use a spark generator
> to light each stage ? Or was it a more complex system ?
I seem to recall that the J-2s had a spark igniter in each turbopump gas
generator; I think the F-1s used a hypergolic igniter.
--Damon
|
|
Posted by Brian Gaff on May 6, 2007, 5:21 am
Please log in for more thread options What would be the point of taking a Shuttle to the moon? I could envisage a
moon craft maybe in the payload bay, but it would be mega inefficient way to
do it.
Besides, you would not need srbs on the moon, Where is the runway?
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
show/hide quoted text
> @TEKSAVVY.COM:
> This topic comes up at least once a year.
> The short answer to the majority of your questions is that it's
> totally impractical, and mostly impossible, to send the Shuttle to
> the Moon. It weighs too much. Besides, there's no practical way
> to get SRBs or fully fueled ETs into orbit. Each weighs more than
> the Shuttle. It's not going to happen. Ever.
>> In the case of the apollo missions, did they just use a spark generator
>> to light each stage ? Or was it a more complex system ?
> I seem to recall that the J-2s had a spark igniter in each turbopump gas
> generator; I think the F-1s used a hypergolic igniter.
> --Damon
>
|
|
Posted by John Doe on May 6, 2007, 6:14 pm
Please log in for more thread options Brian Gaff wrote:
show/hide quoted text
> What would be the point of taking a Shuttle to the moon?
I just wanted some "order of magnitude" idea of the energy required
compared to what SRBs and ET/SSME can provide. I never mentioned landing
shuttle on moon, I think I had mentioned a slingshot around moon and
return to earth.
|
|
Posted by johnny@. on May 6, 2007, 8:42 pm
Please log in for more thread options John Doe wrote:
show/hide quoted text
> Brian Gaff wrote:
>> What would be the point of taking a Shuttle to the moon?
>
> I just wanted some "order of magnitude" idea of the energy required
> compared to what SRBs and ET/SSME can provide. I never mentioned landing
> shuttle on moon, I think I had mentioned a slingshot around moon and
> return to earth.
I always thought the moon was going to be the stepping stone to the
planets. We have wasted about forty years, and we should have a colony
on the moon, instead we have a useless space station.
I'm really disappointed, and I believe most of the American people are too.
--
Tom Tancredo for President in 2008
For a Secure America
http://www.teamtancredo.org/
http://tancredo.house.gov/
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Re: United Nations 1979 Moon Treaty -- Prohitbiting the militarization of the Moon, Mars and asteroids. | July 31, 2008, 4:34 pm |
| Question for Jim O. | August 9, 2005, 11:42 am |
| Question about CEV and CLV | October 3, 2005, 11:40 pm |
| Another "what if" question... | August 24, 2006, 6:54 pm |
| ISS question | October 18, 2007, 5:53 pm |
| Question about the SAC | September 24, 2009, 6:12 am |
| OMS Assist question | July 17, 2005, 12:24 am |
| ET image question | July 27, 2005, 3:28 pm |
| Question about the astronauts | July 29, 2005, 10:54 pm |
| Insulation question... | July 30, 2005, 5:13 am |
|
XML Sitemap
> In the case of the apollo missions, did they just use a spark generator
> to light each stage ? Or was it a more complex system ?