To The Moon with .... the Space Shuttle ?!

[Michel Van]

sounds insane, more like cheap "Sci-Fi" TV Movies of Germans Networks

but like History shows, some one proposed that To NASA !

Cislunar Application of the Space Shuttle Orbiter
Project V1086, J. E. Blahnik; undated (post-July 1971)
attachment to memorandum from Director, Science and Applications,
to Manager, Space Shuttle Program, NASA Johnson Space Center, December 14, 1971.

Idea: refuel the Orbiter in space launch it to Moon Orbit, in cargobay a Lunar lander.

Mission
-Orbiter launch in 100-mile Earth polar orbit.
-10 to 12 shuttle flights refuel the orbiter with 444,000 pounds of propellant
(don't ask me about boil off by Fuel )
-last shuttle flights brings the lunar lander and 3-person lunar crew
Total weight is up to 1.6 million pounds at departure from Earth orbit.
-TLI of Orbiter with 72-hour coast to the moon.
-LOI into Lunar polar orbit
-the manned Lunar Lander is deployed from Cargo bay and lands on Moon
the 3 person make a 3-to-4-week exploration in same Time the Orbiter crew scan the lunar surface
-Lander ascent stage returns to orbiter (with 500 pounds of lunar samples. this stage is returned to Earth and reused.)
-EOI of Orbiter to leave Moon
-Halfway the orbiter makes a braking burn to reduce atmosphere entry velocity
-Orbiter makes aerobraking maneuver in Earth's atmosphere to further reduce entry velocity
-then from a 100-mile Earth orbit a save return.

 

[Skybolt]

Yep, the idea resurfaced from time to time. It must be noted that the "shuttle" used in the mid-1971 memo wasn't the "shuttle" as we know it: first and foremost, it had internal tanks. Another study using the real shuttle plus space station Freedom plus Shuttle-C was done in 1991. The shuttle would have carried in orbit the empty external tank (the ASRMs were deemed necessary for this) , docked to space station and wait there a (series of) Shuttle-Cs. The tank would have been refuelled, and the combined Shuttle-ET would start the lunar run. On arrival, the combined vehicle would have propulsively braken and enter a low lunar orbit, deploy cargo (whatever it was), and then burn again to return to Earth. On arrival, another burn to enter orbit (no possibility for direct entry, temperature too high), jettison, at last, the ET and re-enter normally. It sounded feasible but: a low-altitude circular lunar orbit (Apollo style) would have permit a payload of only 3.2 metric tons; a different, highly elliptical, lunar orbit would have permitted a payload much higher, but the maximum payload could not exceed the maximum permissible one of 17 metric tons (not accounting for restrains, bays, etc) for Shuttle; the refuel of the ET would have required at least 11 (eleven) Shuttle-C missions... To put it short: feasible, but there are much more efficient ways to do the same, not accounting for risks and unknowns (refuelling of cryogenics in orbit, for example). If interested, entire report here:
http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19910014907 , it was done during the Scape Exploration Initiative effort.

 

[Skybolt]

Previously, in 1969, Bellcomm did a couple of brief studies on the possibility of using the Shuttle to supplement the proposed Nuclear Shuttle for Lunar Logistics. Bellcom studied first the use of one-stage and a half concepts (early Phase A), and then the fully reusable concept (some late Phase A) using the MFC baseline as exploratory configuration. The result were discouraging in both cases: the idea was in theory feasible but, assuming a 50.000 lbs payload, the number of Shuttle flight necessary to carry in orbit the vehicle and refuel it were: 31 for the stage and one half concept and 29 for the fully reusable one. By comparison, using the Shuttle to launch the nuclear shuttle and the payload destined to the Moon required only seven shuttle's fligths.

 

[Michel Van]

the preferred Shuttle for "Cislunar Application of the Space Shuttle Orbiter"
was The McDonnell Douglas Model-176 developments

more here

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,8543.0.html

 

[publiusr]

And now we call it Starship and talk about how brilliant it is.

 

[Byeman]

And now we call it Starship and talk about how brilliant it is.

not remotely the same

 

[Archibald]

Seriously ? now we are bringing back 15 years old threads, just for THAT ?

 

[Michel Van]

One of my first post in this forum got answer after 15 years ?

How ever i forgot put info about second attempt in 1990s

Feasibility Analysis of Cislunar flight using the Shuttle Orbiter
by Davy A. Haynes of Langley Research Center 1991

He proposed that Orbiter+ET refueled with 713 metric ton hydrolox near Space station Freedom
using 5-day Hohmann transfers orbiter could arrive in 100 km lunar orbit with 3.2 metric ton of payload.
if Orbiter get more fuel it could bring more payload to Moon orbit.
He point out issue like SSME restart or ET propellant handling and Increase in OMS propellant capacity

Feasibility analysis of cislunar flight using the Shuttle Orbiter - NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

A first order orbital mechanics analysis was conducted to examine the possibility of utilizing the Space Shuttle Orbiter to perform payload delivery missions to lunar orbit. In the analysis, the earth orbit of departure was constrained to be that of Space Station Freedom. Furthermore, no...

ntrs.nasa.gov

 

[uk 75]

This wonderfully silly film from 1985 has an adapted US Shuttle with joint UK/US crew called Churchill visiting Halley's Comet.

Lifeforce (1985) ⭐ 6.1 | Action, Horror, Mystery

1h 41m | R

m.imdb.com

 

[publiusr]

Jay Chladek did a replica of Churchill, the filming model here:

https://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/lifeforce-hms-churchill-space-shuttle-filming-min-1286-c-06a4d5a881

Wasn’t Lockheed’s larger OSP entry looked at for lunar missions?

Ah, here

Crew Exploration Vehicle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

NASA receives proposal for next spaceship

Space.com: The future of human space transportation gets a kick-start as NASA receives contractor proposals for the Crew Exploration Vehicle.

www.nbcnews.com

Orion CEV

Orion CEV

www.astronautix.com

It reminded me a bit of Hermes—the art that is.

 

[uk 75]

Auction site photos have a bad habit of disappearing so have attached a copy

 

[uk 75]

More Churchill here

JBOT Decals - LIFEFORCE Space Shuttle

 

[blackstar]

Seriously ? now we are bring back 15 years old threads, just for THAT ?

Every post teaches you something about the person who posts it. Even the dumb ones. Especially the dumb ones.

 

[Dilandu]

And now we call it Starship and talk about how brilliant it is.

Starship is two generations ahead of 1970s Shuttle.

 

[publiusr]

Electronics wise I don't doubt it.
But is the Starship method really any different?

Shuttle would have remained attached to the ET--which needed no tiles.

FOR ALL MANKIND just had the orbiter alone---a Buran type Shuttle-2 could have a payload bay tank )like in Wild Horses from Cowboy Bebop)---but would come back too hot--unless it had Starship tiles.

Having an ET means you fuel that up which gets your orbiter to the Moon and back to standard orbital speed.

The orbiter could then have a reusable lander in the payload bay.
Perhaps propellant could be transfered to the ET/modified SLS core to the lander and piped to OMS engines in place of heavy SSMEs, and the orbiter can come back hot with a newer TPS and leave the empty tankage at the Moon for wet workshops--as some suggest with lunar Starship.

Both paths call for lots of refills, but here, the tankage is not part of a manned airframe.

 

[Michel Van]

FOR ALL MANKIND just had the orbiter alone

Davy A. Haynes study say clearly, you need the amount of fuel of ET to get shuttle from LEO to Moon and back !

 

[publiusr]

Round trip, certainly.

I did see a video (I know, don't trust you tube) where a tank put in an orbiter could allow escape --but that was a full Columbia style with weighty SSMEs.

What I have always liked about the concept of parallel mount, Stage-and-a-half to orbit schemes is that tankage is free and clear.

We saw that with the -176 above, with tanks in a plus sign configuration, also serving as shielding.

Having a craft that can go both to orbit and the Moon might be handy.

Yes, Starship, having tankage, is fluffier--I liked Big Onion better.

In terms of something that is winged, the LKS like Ranger helmed by Gil Girard's Buck Rogers looked rather more doable than what we saw in Armageddon or Deep Impact---I can imagine some kind of drop tank shed off screen.

SPECTRE's Bird One, though smaller than Starship, might also work--but it would have to disgorge an internal tank off screen so that it could "eat" small capsules.

When fuel tanks are not part of an airframe--it gives you options.

 

[Byeman]

Electronics wise I don't doubt it.
But is the Starship method really any different?

The orbiter had no propellant; the vehicle was a stage and a half; and used parallel staging.

 

[martinbayer]

Electronics wise I don't doubt it.
But is the Starship method really any different?

Shuttle would have remained attached to the ET--which needed no tiles.

FOR ALL MANKIND just had the orbiter alone---a Buran type Shuttle-2 could have a payload bay tank )like in Wild Horses from Cowboy Bebop)---but would come back too hot--unless it had Starship tiles.

Having an ET means you fuel that up which gets your orbiter to the Moon and back to standard orbital speed.

The orbiter could then have a reusable lander in the payload bay.
Perhaps propellant could be transfered to the ET/modified SLS core to the lander and piped to OMS engines in place of heavy SSMEs, and the orbiter can come back hot with a newer TPS and leave the empty tankage at the Moon for wet workshops--as some suggest with lunar Starship.

Both paths call for lots of refills, but here, the tankage is not part of a manned airframe.

Do the math (i.e. by using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation) and report back on your quantitative findings.

 

[martinbayer]

The orbiter had no propellant

Ahem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Maneuvering_System. And I won't even start nitpicking on the RCS...

 

[Byeman]

When fuel tanks are not part of an airframe--it gives you options.

How many times do I to repeat this. It is non starter to have anything expendable. Starship isn't going to work because it is large, it is going to work because it is100% reusable. No external tanks.
Building a heavy launch vehicle isn't a challenge. Large for the sake of large no longer works. Saturn Vs and SLS are no longer viable unless propped up by gov't subsides. Vehicles are no longer ranked by mass to orbit but cost per Ib.

 

[Byeman]

Ahem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Maneuvering_System. And I won't even start nitpicking on the RCS...

still nitpicking. I meant for the main engines and to get to orbit. OMS (maneuvering) doesn't count for this discussion.

 

[Rhinocrates]

To go to another moon... Stephen Baxter's Titan has a trip to the moon of Saturn. It's... not as good as Voyage. Last chapter's interesting though.

Anyway, in his scenario, NASA cobbles together a lot of existing and restored hardware and Atlantis provides the core structure and hab once assembled in orbit.

Because the ship is an assemblage of parts that happened to be lying around, it isn't particularly elegant in its design.

Basically, shuttle with trimmed wings for hab en voyage and once landed on Titan, with an ESA spacehab (I think) in the payload bay for extra space, a pod on a rotating arm for exercise under artificial gravity, a Topaz or two reactors for power, two large external tanks 'underneath' and for some reason, a pair of old Apollo capsules for the crew to descend to Titan separately from the shuttle hulk.

Titan (Baxter novel) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

https://www.orbiter-forum.com/threads/spacecraft-of-stephen-baxters-titan.39609/

 

[martinbayer]

still nitpicking. I meant for the main engines and to get to orbit. OMS (maneuvering) doesn't count for this discussion.

The OMS was *EXACTLY* there to get to orbit - it served as the equivalent of an orbital injection/insertion stage. Remind me of your professional background again, please?

 

[publiusr]

Ahem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Maneuvering_System. And I won't even start nitpicking on the RCS...

The propellant tanks on Columbia-type orbiters were, what? About beach-ball size?

Buran could have additional tanks in the aft of its payload bay--with pass-thrus---so if you MUST have a shuttle-type orbiter for a scenario like Homer Hickam's BACK TO THE MOON, Buran is what you want.

In that novel, his protagonist chunked the SSMEs while in orbit to save mass, as I recall.

Now, I don't know how far I'd rank that novel on the hardness scale.

The lander was an inflatable as I recall. And the protagonist flew back up atop a LM stump, so...

 

[Byeman]

The OMS was *EXACTLY* there to get to orbit - it served as the equivalent of an orbital injection/insertion stage.

No, that was design change so the ET did not have to deorbit itself. Originally, OMS was designed just for maneuvering and deorbit.

Remind me of your professional background again, please?

An expert on shuttle design and operations. And you?

 

[Byeman]

The propellant tanks on Columbia-type orbiters were, what? About beach-ball size?

No, the OMS propellant load was just under 25klb

Buran could have additional tanks in the aft of its payload bay--with pass-thrus---so if you MUST have a shuttle-type orbiter for a scenario like Homer Hickam's BACK TO THE MOON, Buran is what you want.

Wrong. Again, the Russian bias. There were to be up to 3 OMS kits that were to be built for the Shuttle program to reach higher orbits such as the one for Hubble. The orbiters were scarred for them, ut a better method was found - Direct Insertion. This eliminated the OMS-1 burn and used the higher efficiency of the SSME's to put the vehicle in a higher orbit.

 

[martinbayer]

Over 39 years working in the international aerospace industry, with the first two decades spent in the field of aerospace systems and architecture engineering and analysis as well as associated programmatic activities, both in Europe and in the USA. From the beginning of my career I worked for over ten years in the German aerospace industry, where I performed and managed numerous assessments and analyses for various launch vehicles and space transportation concepts, mainly for German government customers like the then German space agency DARA as well as the European Space Agency ESA, e.g. as a member of the FESTIP study team in charge of the rocket propelled near-Bimese FSSC-16 VTHL-TSTO. After being hired by Boeing from Germany, I continued working for another decade in the same general area of expertise, but now with a broader scope that also included space exploration and utilization, for customers like NASA and the NRO. Apart from overall launch vehicle system related aspects, I am also familiar with current and prospective future space markets, applications and existing as well as potential customer groups and associated opportunities. Besides classical systems engineering oriented tasks, I have also repeatedly been engaged in aerospace related policy issues like the formulation of technology programs. I have frequently prepared and held briefings and presentations for various customers and audiences, such as European and US government entities as well as international conferences, and performed customer and subcontractor negotiations. A more detailed CV is available upon request.

 

[Byeman]

Over 39 years working in the international aerospace industry, with the first two decades spent in the field of aerospace systems and architecture engineering and analysis as well as associated programmatic activities, both in Europe and in the USA. From the beginning of my career I worked for over ten years in the German aerospace industry, where I performed and managed numerous assessments and analyses for various launch vehicles and space transportation concepts, mainly for German government customers as well as the European Space Agency (ESA), e.g. as a member of the FESTIP study team in charge of the rocket propelled near-Bimese FSSC-16 VTHL-TSTO. After joining Boeing, I continued working for another decade in the same general area of expertise, but now with a broader scope that also included space exploration and utilization, for customers like NASA and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). Apart from overall launch vehicle system related aspects, I am also familiar with current and prospective future space markets, applications and existing as well as potential customer groups and associated opportunities. Besides classical systems engineering oriented tasks, I have also repeatedly been engaged in aerospace related policy issues like the formulation of technology programs. I have frequently prepared and held briefings and presentations for various customers and audiences, such as European and US government entities as well as international conferences, and performed customer and subcontractor negotiations. A more detailed CV is available upon request.

but no shuttle experience.

 

[publiusr]

Ouch.

At any rate, Hickam did have Columbia jettison the SSMEs.

A Buran type allowed for ease of further propellant loading.

Nice to know that some expansion was being looked at.

Now, would Starship tiles be enough to have a Columbia or Buran return from the Moon, especially the lighter of the two orbiters.

 

[martinbayer]

but no shuttle experience.

Absolutely correct, my kind sir, and mighty proud of it too! Our European FESTIP focus at the time was coming up with better *true* RLV alternatives instead of a wretched half-assed deathtrap contraption using solid boosters and an expendable tank that killed 14 astronauts in its operational lifetime. As an aerospace engineer, I would actually be ashamed to have my name associated with the socalled "Space Shuttle" abomination, but I realize that your "experience" may vary...

 

[Byeman]

Absolutely correct, my kind sir, and mighty proud of it too! Our European FESTIP focus at the time was coming up with better *true* RLV alternatives instead of a wretched half-assed deathtrap contraption using solid boosters and an expendable tank that killed 14 astronauts in its operational lifetime. As an aerospace engineer, I would actually be ashamed to have my name associated with the socalled "Space Shuttle" abomination, but I realize that your "experience" may vary...

And you used the argument typical of the uninformed (killed 14 astronauts). It was only two incidents. Soyuz also had two fatal incidents in 135 missions. Making a big deal of the “14” number is just like saying the 747 is more dangerous than a Cessna 150/172 because more people die in an accident. When using fatalities per crew flown shuttle and Soyuz come out nearly equal.

And I guarantee you did not have those views from 1977 to 1985. I challenge you to produce documentation that says otherwise.

And Europe was not going to go through with any of those studies. So your time was just wasted.

 

[RanulfC]

How many times do I to repeat this. It is non starter to have anything expendable. Starship isn't going to work because it is large, it is going to work because it is100% reusable. No external tanks.
Building a heavy launch vehicle isn't a challenge. Large for the sake of large no longer works. Saturn Vs and SLS are no longer viable unless propped up by gov't subsides. Vehicles are no longer ranked by mass to orbit but cost per Ib.

Repeat it all you want but the evidence isn't there to support any of these assertions, yet. Starship has to expend the staging connector because it's weight throws off the booster during flight, Starship doesn't WORK though and won't until it has some major upgrades in design, and that's before they even have an actual working design. Starship is at this point an essentially empty tube with no internal workings that can even CARRY a payload which makes any attempt at cost per lb useless,

It's also been shown to be NON-reusable in the current state with very part having major damage even if they DO manage to "soft land".

Randy

 

[Byeman]

Repeat it all you want but the evidence isn't there to support any of these assertions, yet. Starship has to expend the staging connector because it's weight throws off the booster during flight, Starship doesn't WORK though and won't until it has some major upgrades in design, and that's before they even have an actual working design. Starship is at this point an essentially empty tube with no internal workings that can even CARRY a payload which makes any attempt at cost per lb useless,

It's also been shown to be NON-reusable in the current state with very part having major damage even if they DO manage to "soft land".

Randy

NASA built 4 test units for each Saturn V stage and flew two test flights.
Starship is on the 5th test flight.
It is still cheaper than exist heavy lift vehicles without being reusable. Simple payload accommodations for satellites can be an easy addition if they wanted to go that way.

It is not close to the goal now but it will get there.

 

[publiusr]

Starship (tankage with TPS) and wet workshops (tankage with foam covering) can both be made to work—it is just that one has more money being thrown at it than the other.

Bullet Starship (tanker) will by definition be a hollow, wet stage—just no workshop.

The simplest build.

There was a lifting body considered for a lunar mission—LockMart’s CEV.

That was as close to a lunar shuttle as we ever got.

 

[Rhinocrates]

There was a lifting body considered for a lunar mission—LockMart’s CEV.

That was as close to a lunar shuttle as we ever got.

I managed to dig up these.

This is the simplest one.

 

[Rhinocrates]

This is a later, more complex, perhaps overcomplex one. The nose of the crew module can break off from the rear in an emergency. The join's at the red tunnel in the cross section.

 

[Byeman]

Starship (tankage with TPS) and wet workshops (tankage with foam covering) can both be made to work—it is just that one has more money being thrown at it than the other.

Bullet Starship (tanker) will by definition be a hollow, wet stage—just no workshop.

The simplest build.

Wrong. There is no point to throw money away at wet workshops.
a. There is no point to a wet workshop. There are not going to be large expended tanks available to be converted into a wet workshop.
b. We do not have infrastructure place to convert a wet workshop. The 1960's concept the flight crew doing the conversions is unworkable. A space station with appropriate resources will be required.
c. To scar the vehicle to make it useable as wet workshop would detract too much from a tanker. Just launch a dry workshop and launch another tanker.
d. Dry workshop is cheaper.

Answer this question. What vehicle is going to be the basis of a wet workshop? it is not SLS Starship.

There was a lifting body considered for a lunar mission—LockMart’s CEV.

That was as close to a lunar shuttle as we ever got.

A lifting body doesn't make it "shuttle". The Space Shuttle was a launch vehicle, that was to "shuttle" back and forth to space. That is not what the CEV was much less LM's design.