I have a NASA Feasibility question I would like to ask.

[Hartzilla2007]

Now I don't know if this is possible so I wanted to ask people who would be more knowledgeable about this stuff than I am.

I was wondering if it would be possible to basically stick a Lunar lander in the cargo area of a space shuttle and just fly that to the Moon and use the lander to land on it.

So is this something that sounds feasible to anyone?

 

[UssGlenn]

The Shuttle's engines don't have enough fuel for that. If you modified the shuttle with more fuel tanks, I have no idea.

 

[Alpha Romeo]

The Space shuttle engines have not nearly enough thrust to get the LM out of earth orbit and into a trans-lunar trajectory. What you would need is something along the lines of the Saturn V booster or something similar in order to make that happen.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Now I don't know if this is possible so I wanted to ask people who would be more knowledgeable about this stuff than I am.

I was wondering if it would be possible to basically stick a Lunar lander in the cargo area of a space shuttle and just fly that to the Moon and use the lander to land on it.

So is this something that sounds feasible to anyone?

Possibly. Theoretically you could launch a shuttle with a lunar lander, a Centaur upper stage and an Apollo CSM in the cargo bay. Dock all the components together using the arm, fire up the Centaur to the moon and then use the CSM's main engine to get home. That's an awful lot of weight, though, so you might want to think about sending the Centaur on a separate launch and docking them in orbit.

But, yeah, on some level it IS feasible. It's just not very clever or efficient.

 

[sojourner]

It would take more fuel than the entire volume of the cargo bay to get just the shuttle by itself out of low earth orbit. Nevermind a lander and return capsule (which you would need because the shuttle could not withstand the stresses of earth return from lunar returns speeds).

Craft with wings are not efficient for anything more than transition from low orbit to earth landing.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

The LM just barely had the duration for the Apollo 13 stunt. Making it the primary life support system for an out and back trip would be really stretching things in the LM/Centaur config mentioned previously.

I don't think you're gonna find a crew willing to poop and pee in diapers for a week, 'cuz that's what they did in the LM. There wasn't enough budget in the weight for a sanitation system.

If the OP was talking about replacing the CSM from an Apollo stack with a Shuttle and doing the Apollo mission profile of LOR, then there's no way to sling a Shuttle that far. The most mighty rocket to date could only sling an Apollo CSM and LM there, and a shuttle orbiter has many times more mass than that.

Sojourner makes a good point also, the thermal protection system on the Shuttle is made for a 17,500 mph reentry, free fall from the moon puts the craft at about 25,000 mph.

 

[Lindley]

Is there any way for something returning from the moon to fall into Earth orbit rather than all the way down to Earth? Enough to slow it down a bit, anyway?

 

[sojourner]

^ you could aerobrake, but that takes better tps than the shuttle has. Otherwise, you could use engine braking - more fuel, which means more fuel needed for the outbound trip.

 

[Shawnster]

Would the LEM even fit in the Shuttle payload bay (and would the payload doors still be able to close)?

Of course this question could possibly be moot. We have no LEMs available to use and none could be ready anytime soon. The US (and every other nation) lacks the necessary equipment to return to the moon. We'd have to retool and manufacture all the necessary components.

And, if you're going to do that then simply design a LEM to fit in the Shuttle. Of course, as already discussed, the Shuttle itself can never make it to the moon and back.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

We have no LEMs available to use and none could be ready anytime soon.

LM 13 and 14 (slated for Apollo 18 and 19) were partially completed. LM 15 was scrapped.

13 is on display at The Cradle of Aviation Museum in New York. While nicely preserved, I strongly doubt it would be a piece of spaceworthy hardware now.

At a bit over 22 feet tall and 31 feet wide (legs deployed... I don't have a good figure on leg clearance dimensions when retracted... the descent stage was 14 feet in diameter itself and the legs pbviously protrude more than 6 inches on either side when stowed.), the LM would not fit in the shuttle payload bay, which is 60 by 15 feet.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

We have no LEMs available to use and none could be ready anytime soon.

LM 13 and 14 (slated for Apollo 18 and 19) were partially completed. LM 15 was scrapped.

13 is on display at The Cradle of Aviation Museum in New York. While nicely preserved, I strongly doubt it would be a piece of spaceworthy hardware now.

At a bit over 22 feet tall and 31 feet wide (legs deployed... I don't have a good figure on leg clearance dimensions when retracted... the descent stage was 14 feet in diameter itself and the legs pbviously protrude more than 6 inches on either side when stowed.), the LM would not fit in the shuttle payload bay, which is 60 by 15 feet.

Actually, I think that fourteen feet includes the landing legs, so it probably would fit. Even if it doesn't, a new descent stage could be designed with a slightly different profile to be accomodated.

And since apparently nobody saw it, I'll again reiterate that this type of mission IS feasible if one is talking about using the shuttle to lift a LM, CSM and TLI booster into Earth orbit to make the rest of the trip themselves. It would be very inefficient, though, because a shuttle launch is a lot more expensive than a Saturn-V launch and it would probably be cheaper to boost the whole package on a Proton or something.

 

[Shawnster]

Gotta design a way to get IN the LM also. I guess you could enter through the forward hatch. This would require suiting up and doing an EVA of sorts to get in the module, or designing some type of tunnel to connect the shuttle hatch to the LM.

Yes, using the Shuttle to transport a CSM and LM to orbit does sound like it would work but I think it defeats the OP idea. You're not using the Shuttle to get to the moon, you're using the Shuttle to get something else to the moon.

Not to mention, as you said, the incredible inefficiency of it all. The Shuttle is already a 3 stage vehicle (Shuttle + ET + SRBs). Adding a CSM to the mix only ads one more stage than the original Apollo rockets had.

 

[The Comedian]

The LM just barely had the duration for the Apollo 13 stunt. Making it the primary life support system for an out and back trip would be really stretching things in the LM/Centaur config mentioned previously.

I don't think you're gonna find a crew willing to poop and pee in diapers for a week, 'cuz that's what they did in the LM. There wasn't enough budget in the weight for a sanitation system.

If the OP was talking about replacing the CSM from an Apollo stack with a Shuttle and doing the Apollo mission profile of LOR, then there's no way to sling a Shuttle that far. The most mighty rocket to date could only sling an Apollo CSM and LM there, and a shuttle orbiter has many times more mass than that.

Sojourner makes a good point also, the thermal protection system on the Shuttle is made for a 17,500 mph reentry, free fall from the moon puts the craft at about 25,000 mph.

Seems I read somewhere that later Apollo missions would have had month long stays on the moon, and I don't think they would have used anything other than the good ol' LM for it.

These days I'm sure a bigger and better LM could be build for the same weight as the old LM.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

The LM as flown wouldn't have the duration for a long stay.

However, there were LM taxis and LM habitats slated as part of the Apollo Extension program. The habitat/ lab didn't have a ascent module per se, but a box with life support for a longer duration. The taxi was designed for brief up and down jaunts to lunar orbit, but with a dormant stage in between as the astronauts would be living in the habitat/lab.

Behold!

Another issue with gettign the CSM/LM stack moonward from a shuttle orbiter would be the development of something to replace the S IVb upper stage. It did the TLI burn. It's 22 feet in diameter and liquid fuelled, both being good reasons that an orbiter cargo bay would be a no-no.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Another issue with gettign the CSM/LM stack moonward from a shuttle orbiter.would be the development of something to replace the S IVb upper stage. It did the TLI burn. It's 22 feet in diameter and liquid fuelled, bith being good reasons that an orbiter gargo bay would be a no-no.

Once again: the Centaur upper stage has enough power for that, and NASA actually developed one specifically to be used in a space shuttle's cargo bay (never flown, though, because of all the handwringing post-Challenger).

 

[tharpdevenport]

How about a preposterously silly idea?

A long, long, super long rope fixed ot the shuttle, that won't burn from the ingine fire from take off. When the shuttle reaches an angle, the rope will be out of harm's way. At the other end is the lunar lander. The rop comes taugh just a minute after entering a more weightless area and thus doesn't need the fuel. Then it's reeled in once in space.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

Once again: the Centaur upper stage has enough power for that, and NASA actually developed one specifically to be used in a space shuttle's cargo bay (never flown, though, because of all the handwringing post-Challenger).

All the data over at astronautix.com on the various Centaur configs show them to have about 10% of the thrust of the S IVb, give or take.

 

[Lindley]

How about a preposterously silly idea?

A long, long, super long rope fixed ot the shuttle, that won't burn from the ingine fire from take off. When the shuttle reaches an angle, the rope will be out of harm's way. At the other end is the lunar lander. The rop comes taugh just a minute after entering a more weightless area and thus doesn't need the fuel. Then it's reeled in once in space.

Great idea except
1) That's got to be one seriously heavy rope. I mean, have you ever tried carrying a long rope around? The things weigh. Now imagine one several miles long.

2) There is no magical point at which you're suddenly weightless. The appearance of weightlessness occurs because you're falling constantly. However, if your horizontal momentum is great enough, you just keep on constantly missing hitting the planet in your plunge. Trying to "reel something in" from such a position would simply bend your course inwards towards the big blob of rock you're trying to avoid, unless countered by an engine burn or other outward force.

 

[sojourner]

Once again: the Centaur upper stage has enough power for that, and NASA actually developed one specifically to be used in a space shuttle's cargo bay (never flown, though, because of all the handwringing post-Challenger).

All the data over at astronautix.com on the various Centaur configs show them to have about 10% of the thrust of the S IVb, give or take.

Yep, Centaur doesn't have the power for TLI of a LEM, capsule and service module.

 

[diankra]

Not to mention, as you said, the incredible inefficiency of it all. The Shuttle is already a 3 stage vehicle (Shuttle + ET + SRBs). Adding a CSM to the mix only ads one more stage than the original Apollo rockets had.

Shuttle is two stage really (and often described as one-and-a-half, as they fire in parallel, with one cutting off earlier than the other). The ET feeds the orbiter engines, it doesn't provide any thrust of its own (and conversely, once the ET's gone, the Shuttle engines shut down).