brwk@doc.ic.ac.uk (Bevis King) (01/16/89)
I assume by now that most people realise that sending the Shuttle itself
to the Moon is largely pointless. Instead, the more sensible approach is
to use an OTV (Orbital Transfer Vehicle) with attached lunar lander
craft brought up in the shuttle payload bay.
This debate brought me to wondering if even that apparently straight
forward method would in fact not be possible with the US Shuttle as it
stands. From what I remember of the Apollo shots, the round trip took between
two and three weeks. This I believe is about twice as long as a shuttle
can stay up (being some 7 or 8 days). Hence if they went, they couldn't
get back because the Shuttle would have had to return to Earth because
of shortage of power and other supplies. NASA are also nowhere near
up to the turn-around required to launch a second shuttle in time to
pick up the returning crew.
The possibility of deactivating the shuttle in orbit (unmanned of course)
occured to me; the idea being that the crew would "park" the shuttle for
their own return. However, the more I thought about it the less feasable
it appeared, since the US shuttle remote control doesn't appear to be up
to the required abilities (to correct orbits, etc).
The ultimate answer appeared to be that without a permanent space station
or a shuttle with a better duration in space; a return to the moon by the
US could not be undertaken using any part of the much vaunted 'STS' space
shuttle. The US could therefore only return to the moon if they could
"drop in" on the Russians in MIR, and hitch a lift home on a Soyuz!
What a sad day for American space travel.
What a great opportunity for international co-operation.
Regards, Bevis
Bevis King, Systems Programmer | Email: brwk@doc.ic.ac.uk
Dept of Computing, Imperial College | UUCP : ..!mcvax!ukc!icdoc!brwk
180 Queens Gate, London, SW7 2BZ, UK. | Voice: +44 1 589 5111 x 5085
"Never argue with a computer" ... Avon (Blake's 7)tif@cpe.UUCP (01/19/89)
Written 9:49 am Jan 16, 1989 by doc.ic.ac.uk!brwk in cpe:sci.space.shuttle >NASA are also nowhere near >up to the turn-around required to launch a second shuttle in time to >pick up the returning crew. But is the problem "turn-around time" or "time between launches"? In other words if we waited an extra month to allow two orbiters to be immediately behind each other in terms of the road to readiness, how long would they have to wait between launches (readying the launchpad, rolling out the second shuttle, doing whatever HAS to be done on the launchpad, anything else I'm too naive to know about). Or does "turn-around time" refer to the launch system rather than the orbiter? Paul Chamberlain Computer Product Engineering, Tandy Corp. {killer | texbell}!cpe!tif
fisher@decwin.dec.com (VMS DECwindows Engineering) (01/20/89)
>stands. From what I remember of the Apollo shots, the round trip took between >two and three weeks. This I believe is about twice as long as a shuttle >can stay up (being some 7 or 8 days). Hence if they went, they couldn't >get back because the Shuttle would have had to return to Earth because >of shortage of power and other supplies. NASA are also nowhere near >up to the turn-around required to launch a second shuttle in time to >pick up the returning crew. >Bevis King, Systems Programmer | Email: brwk@doc.ic.ac.uk It's more like 3 days each way. Plus as long as we are speculating anyway, additional power/consumable modules are under discussion/development to extend the shuttle's stay in orbit. > I realize there is only one active launch pad (?), one VAB, etc., but which > of these causes the longest delay ? If NASA was going to build A new > building, which would most significantly reduce the turnaround time ? Actually, both 39A and B have been used. STS-1 through 24 used 39A. STS-25 (yeah, yeah, I know, it was 51L) was the first to use pad 39B. It was seldom mentioned; I'm surprised that the media did not try to make the new pad the cause of the accident. STS-26 and 27 both used 39B. I saw something in AWST about A not being used for the time being, but I don't think it is permanent. And BTW, the VAB has several bays for processing shuttles. I don't think that is the turnaround time problem. Especially since the shuttle only stays in the VAB for a couple weeks. I think it is on the pad longer than it is in the VAB (depending on whether you count the ET/SRB stack before the orbiter is mated). I suspect the real problems involved with quick turnaround is PERSON POWER. (If you really want international cooperation, let them be launched by the US Shuttle, and picked up by Buran. (Reminds me of the "trust" games that get played at outward bound etc) Burns (fisher@decwin.DEC.COM)