Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

No more blah, blah, blah! -- Kirk, "Miri", stardate 2713.6


tech / sci.space.policy / Re: Shuttle to the moon

SubjectAuthor
* Shuttle to the moonJF Mezei
+* Re: Shuttle to the moonSylvia Else
|+* Re: Shuttle to the moonAlain Fournier
||`* Re: Shuttle to the moonSylvia Else
|| `* Re: Shuttle to the moonAlain Fournier
||  `* Re: Shuttle to the moonDavid Spain
||   `* Re: Shuttle to the moonJF Mezei
||    `- Re: Shuttle to the moonDavid Spain
|+- Re: Shuttle to the moonScott Kozel
|`* Re: Shuttle to the moonJF Mezei
| `* Re: Shuttle to the moonSylvia Else
|  +- Re: Shuttle to the moonJF Mezei
|  `- Re: Shuttle to the moonSylvia Else
+* Re: Shuttle to the moonSnidely
|`- Re: Shuttle to the moonJF Mezei
`* Re: Shuttle to the moonSnidely
 `* Re: Shuttle to the moonJF Mezei
  +- Re: Shuttle to the moonSnidely
  `- Re: Shuttle to the moonNiklas Holsti

1
Shuttle to the moon

<rf0cL.14481$%VI9.11814@fx34.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3711&group=sci.space.policy#3711

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx34.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
X-Mozilla-News-Host: news://pbdl.astraweb.com:119
From: jfmezei....@vaxination.ca (JF Mezei)
Subject: Shuttle to the moon
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <rf0cL.14481$%VI9.11814@fx34.iad>
X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2022 06:36:07 UTC
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2022 01:36:06 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 1939
 by: JF Mezei - Sun, 13 Nov 2022 06:36 UTC

Catching up on "For all Mankind" (season 2, I am very late).

They depict the shuttle as going to/from the moon. Forgetting
landing/taking off on moon (and reality):

If the payload pay had been filled with hydrazine tanks, could the OMSs
have gotten the shuttle to a moon orbit and back?

Easy with plenty of space left in payload bay?
Close but no cigar?
Not even close?

Any issue with the OMS engines running long enought for TLI delta-V (and
leaving moon orbit?) Or can all hydrazene engines run for short or long
period?

Would fuel needed to go from LEO to moon and back have exceeded the
roughlty 15 tonnes payload max for takeoff?

From a re-entry point of view at much higher speed, could tweating the
insulation (tiles, RCC) make this possible (thicker tiles and
carbon-carbon surfaces), or is this a "not even close" situation?

And generic question: say payload bay has plenty of fuel: coming back to
Earth, would retrograde firing of OMS to put Shuttle into speed its
tiles could support end up costing roughly the same amount of fuel as
the TLI to get to moon? much less? more ?

If this is within realm of "possible", would it have costed less than
SLS to go around the moon? (and perhaps of there is space in payload
bay, drop off a LEM and bring it back).

Re: Shuttle to the moon

<jtblcjF79ujU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3712&group=sci.space.policy#3712

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: syl...@email.invalid (Sylvia Else)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: Shuttle to the moon
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2022 18:41:07 +1100
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <jtblcjF79ujU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <rf0cL.14481$%VI9.11814@fx34.iad>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net xPBARIRpesBA4P8U73q2eQzNYSawGPY+HW/s15yeb2CosLpuKC
Cancel-Lock: sha1:K/bTjFaA+olGJ8a6Qdf5TCqAPPk=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.4.2
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <rf0cL.14481$%VI9.11814@fx34.iad>
 by: Sylvia Else - Sun, 13 Nov 2022 07:41 UTC

On 13/11/2022 5:36 pm, JF Mezei wrote:
> Catching up on "For all Mankind" (season 2, I am very late).
>
> They depict the shuttle as going to/from the moon. Forgetting
> landing/taking off on moon (and reality):
>
> If the payload pay had been filled with hydrazine tanks, could the OMSs
> have gotten the shuttle to a moon orbit and back?
>
> Easy with plenty of space left in payload bay?
> Close but no cigar?
> Not even close?
>
> Any issue with the OMS engines running long enought for TLI delta-V (and
> leaving moon orbit?) Or can all hydrazene engines run for short or long
> period?
>
> Would fuel needed to go from LEO to moon and back have exceeded the
> roughlty 15 tonnes payload max for takeoff?
>
>
> From a re-entry point of view at much higher speed, could tweating the
> insulation (tiles, RCC) make this possible (thicker tiles and
> carbon-carbon surfaces), or is this a "not even close" situation?
>
> And generic question: say payload bay has plenty of fuel: coming back to
> Earth, would retrograde firing of OMS to put Shuttle into speed its
> tiles could support end up costing roughly the same amount of fuel as
> the TLI to get to moon? much less? more ?
>
>
> If this is within realm of "possible", would it have costed less than
> SLS to go around the moon? (and perhaps of there is space in payload
> bay, drop off a LEM and bring it back).

I'm pretty sure the shuttle orbiter could not survive a direct entry
into the atmosphere from the moon. Not only would the thermal
environment be too severe, but the mechanical stresses would likely
exceed the limits of the structure. The Apollo missions pulled some
serious gs on reentry, and the shuttle was never designed for that.

The Wikipedia article for the Apollo missions indicate that the
translunar injection required a delta-v of somewhat over 3km/s. If we
assume that the shuttle were put onto a free return trajectory, and that
on the return it needed to shed the same 3km/s of delta-v, then it would
need 6km/s of delta-v.

The Wikipedia article for the Shuttle's OMS system indicates that it
used about 10 tonnes of propellant to achieve a 300m/s delta-v, for a 29
tonne payload. We're talking about 20 times the delta-v, which even
ignoring the propellant required to accelerate the propellant, is 200
tonnes, or way above anything plausible. And note that this just takes
you around the moon and back - you don't even get into lunar orbit.

So, unless some gravity assist method can be found to get to the moon,
the shuttle is not going there, and it's definitely not coming back intact.

Sylvia.

Re: Shuttle to the moon

<tkqqa8$1f3h5$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3713&group=sci.space.policy#3713

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: alain...@videotron.ca (Alain Fournier)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: Shuttle to the moon
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:09:28 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <tkqqa8$1f3h5$1@dont-email.me>
References: <rf0cL.14481$%VI9.11814@fx34.iad>
<jtblcjF79ujU1@mid.individual.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2022 13:09:28 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="500c9d8370552202e97c281f2ac2dfd0";
logging-data="1543717"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+t+8JWquTXAJ5u5dcsBisX"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:102.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.4.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:36Op4EQhE2ysK2LDxQ3Vr847CRs=
Content-Language: fr, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <jtblcjF79ujU1@mid.individual.net>
 by: Alain Fournier - Sun, 13 Nov 2022 13:09 UTC

On Nov/13/2022 at 02:41, Sylvia Else wrote :
> On 13/11/2022 5:36 pm, JF Mezei wrote:
>> Catching up on "For all Mankind" (season 2, I am very late).
>>
>> They depict the shuttle as going to/from the moon.  Forgetting
>> landing/taking off on moon (and reality):
>>
>> If the payload pay had been filled with hydrazine tanks, could the OMSs
>> have gotten the shuttle to a moon orbit and back?
>>
>> Easy with plenty of space left in payload bay?
>> Close but no cigar?
>> Not even close?
>>
>> Any issue with the OMS engines running long enought for TLI delta-V (and
>> leaving moon orbit?) Or can all hydrazene engines run for short or long
>> period?
>>
>> Would fuel needed to go from LEO to moon and back have exceeded the
>> roughlty 15 tonnes payload max for takeoff?
>>
>>
>>  From a re-entry point of view at much higher speed, could tweating the
>> insulation (tiles, RCC) make this possible (thicker tiles and
>> carbon-carbon surfaces), or is this a "not even close" situation?
>>
>> And generic question: say payload bay has plenty of fuel: coming back to
>> Earth, would retrograde firing of OMS to put Shuttle into speed its
>> tiles could support end up costing roughly the same amount of fuel as
>> the TLI to get to moon? much less? more ?
>>
>>
>> If this is within realm of "possible", would it have costed less than
>> SLS to go around the moon? (and perhaps of there is space in payload
>> bay, drop off a LEM and bring it back).
>
> I'm pretty sure the shuttle orbiter could not survive a direct entry
> into the atmosphere from the moon. Not only would the thermal
> environment be too severe, but the mechanical stresses would likely
> exceed the limits of the structure. The Apollo missions pulled some
> serious gs on reentry, and the shuttle was never designed for that.
>
> The Wikipedia article for the Apollo missions indicate that the
> translunar injection required a delta-v of somewhat over 3km/s. If we
> assume that the shuttle were put onto a free return trajectory, and that
> on the return it needed to shed the same 3km/s of delta-v, then it would
> need 6km/s of delta-v.
>
> The Wikipedia article for the Shuttle's OMS system indicates that it
> used about 10 tonnes of propellant to achieve a 300m/s delta-v, for a 29
> tonne payload. We're talking about 20 times the delta-v, which even
> ignoring the propellant required to accelerate the propellant, is 200
> tonnes, or way above anything plausible. And note that this just takes
> you around the moon and back - you don't even get into lunar orbit.
>
> So, unless some gravity assist method can be found to get to the moon,
> the shuttle is not going there, and it's definitely not coming back intact.
>
> Sylvia.

You wouldn't need to shed the 3 km/s of delta-v on the way back. You use
aero-breaking, making multiple passes. So instead of having zero
probability to make it to the Moon and back as Sylvia was saying your
probability of doing it is double that ;-)

Alain Fournier

Re: Shuttle to the moon

<jtd5vlFgb09U1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3714&group=sci.space.policy#3714

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.mixmin.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.karotte.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: syl...@email.invalid (Sylvia Else)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: Shuttle to the moon
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2022 08:30:28 +1100
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <jtd5vlFgb09U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <rf0cL.14481$%VI9.11814@fx34.iad>
<jtblcjF79ujU1@mid.individual.net> <tkqqa8$1f3h5$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net f9ZZ2nePmYrIck2Jx7JlIQg1Fl3QOobe+ARIPYTx5d7DF37qv6
Cancel-Lock: sha1:cS24yTR+POxLEr//VTj1K30rI1M=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.4.2
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <tkqqa8$1f3h5$1@dont-email.me>
 by: Sylvia Else - Sun, 13 Nov 2022 21:30 UTC

On 14/11/2022 12:09 am, Alain Fournier wrote:
> On Nov/13/2022 at 02:41, Sylvia Else wrote :
>> On 13/11/2022 5:36 pm, JF Mezei wrote:
>>> Catching up on "For all Mankind" (season 2, I am very late).
>>>
>>> They depict the shuttle as going to/from the moon.  Forgetting
>>> landing/taking off on moon (and reality):
>>>
>>> If the payload pay had been filled with hydrazine tanks, could the OMSs
>>> have gotten the shuttle to a moon orbit and back?
>>>
>>> Easy with plenty of space left in payload bay?
>>> Close but no cigar?
>>> Not even close?
>>>
>>> Any issue with the OMS engines running long enought for TLI delta-V (and
>>> leaving moon orbit?) Or can all hydrazene engines run for short or long
>>> period?
>>>
>>> Would fuel needed to go from LEO to moon and back have exceeded the
>>> roughlty 15 tonnes payload max for takeoff?
>>>
>>>
>>>  From a re-entry point of view at much higher speed, could tweating the
>>> insulation (tiles, RCC) make this possible (thicker tiles and
>>> carbon-carbon surfaces), or is this a "not even close" situation?
>>>
>>> And generic question: say payload bay has plenty of fuel: coming back to
>>> Earth, would retrograde firing of OMS to put Shuttle into speed its
>>> tiles could support end up costing roughly the same amount of fuel as
>>> the TLI to get to moon? much less? more ?
>>>
>>>
>>> If this is within realm of "possible", would it have costed less than
>>> SLS to go around the moon? (and perhaps of there is space in payload
>>> bay, drop off a LEM and bring it back).
>>
>> I'm pretty sure the shuttle orbiter could not survive a direct entry
>> into the atmosphere from the moon. Not only would the thermal
>> environment be too severe, but the mechanical stresses would likely
>> exceed the limits of the structure. The Apollo missions pulled some
>> serious gs on reentry, and the shuttle was never designed for that.
>>
>> The Wikipedia article for the Apollo missions indicate that the
>> translunar injection required a delta-v of somewhat over 3km/s. If we
>> assume that the shuttle were put onto a free return trajectory, and
>> that on the return it needed to shed the same 3km/s of delta-v, then
>> it would need 6km/s of delta-v.
>>
>> The Wikipedia article for the Shuttle's OMS system indicates that it
>> used about 10 tonnes of propellant to achieve a 300m/s delta-v, for a
>> 29 tonne payload. We're talking about 20 times the delta-v, which even
>> ignoring the propellant required to accelerate the propellant, is 200
>> tonnes, or way above anything plausible. And note that this just takes
>> you around the moon and back - you don't even get into lunar orbit.
>>
>> So, unless some gravity assist method can be found to get to the moon,
>> the shuttle is not going there, and it's definitely not coming back
>> intact.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> You wouldn't need to shed the 3 km/s of delta-v on the way back. You use
> aero-breaking, making multiple passes. So instead of having zero
> probability to make it to the Moon and back as Sylvia was saying your
> probability of doing it is double that ;-)
>
>
> Alain Fournier
>

I think the problem with aerobraking is that there's a limit on how much
energy it can shed on the first pass. So the question then, is where
will it go? I suppose it won't leave the Earth-Moon system - probably.
But it could then be in a highly elliptical orbit taking days for each
pass. Perhaps with no limits on time in space it would be doable, but
the shuttle did have such limits.

So we're still on zero ;)

Sylvia.

Re: Shuttle to the moon

<tks6k8$1imas$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3715&group=sci.space.policy#3715

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: alain...@videotron.ca (Alain Fournier)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: Shuttle to the moon
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2022 20:45:44 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <tks6k8$1imas$1@dont-email.me>
References: <rf0cL.14481$%VI9.11814@fx34.iad>
<jtblcjF79ujU1@mid.individual.net> <tkqqa8$1f3h5$1@dont-email.me>
<jtd5vlFgb09U1@mid.individual.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2022 01:45:45 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="710bd7531784776d30be7f9ce4f7e342";
logging-data="1661276"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+kjBYEzalp3eypJxc1k/0p"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:102.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.4.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WCxzuvDVe+dk3Kckn3K8hb+qhms=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <jtd5vlFgb09U1@mid.individual.net>
 by: Alain Fournier - Mon, 14 Nov 2022 01:45 UTC

On Nov/13/2022 at 16:30, Sylvia Else wrote :
> On 14/11/2022 12:09 am, Alain Fournier wrote:

>> You wouldn't need to shed the 3 km/s of delta-v on the way back. You
>> use aero-breaking, making multiple passes. So instead of having zero
>> probability to make it to the Moon and back as Sylvia was saying your
>> probability of doing it is double that ;-)
>>
>>
>> Alain Fournier
>>
>
> I think the problem with aerobraking is that there's a limit on how much
> energy it can shed on the first pass. So the question then, is where
> will it go? I suppose it won't leave the Earth-Moon system - probably.
> But it could then be in a highly elliptical orbit taking days for each
> pass. Perhaps with no limits on time in space it would be doable, but
> the shuttle did have such limits.
>
> So we're still on zero ;)
>
> Sylvia.

The Shuttle could stay in orbit for more than 2 weeks (the record is 17
days for Columbia in 1996). Apollo 8 had a total mission time of 6 days
and 3 hours, which included 10 lunar orbits totalling 20 h hours. So you
have nearly 12 days for aerobraking. I don't see why you couldn't shed
1.5 km/s per pass, so two passes before de-orbit should be enough. But
admittedly, a more careful analysis should be done to evaluate how much
delta-v can be loss on each pass. You might want to have a little extra
time to fully cool down the Shuttle between your last aerobraking pass
and your de-orbit. Still a few days between first touching the
atmosphere and landing should be enough. You have plenty of time.

There might be some other constraints. I don't know for sure that the
Shuttle could open and close the Shuttle bay doors repeatedly on the
same flight. I see no reason why it couldn't be done, but as far as I
know, it was never done.

So I maintain the probability of success of such a mission is a at least
a full two times zero.

Alain Fournier

Re: Shuttle to the moon

<1ce8ba88-fe55-4c5c-8d80-7389c9e68998n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3716&group=sci.space.policy#3716

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:5e92:b0:4ad:6b7f:3567 with SMTP id mm18-20020a0562145e9200b004ad6b7f3567mr11417176qvb.44.1668399541514;
Sun, 13 Nov 2022 20:19:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:a37:702:0:b0:6fa:588b:add0 with SMTP id
2-20020a370702000000b006fa588badd0mr10020803qkh.758.1668399541362; Sun, 13
Nov 2022 20:19:01 -0800 (PST)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2022 20:19:01 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <jtblcjF79ujU1@mid.individual.net>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2601:5c3:c200:37c0:54c5:58e6:822:fb40;
posting-account=TtAEGwoAAAA1DkG7GaGquExn0PxLRgre
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2601:5c3:c200:37c0:54c5:58e6:822:fb40
References: <rf0cL.14481$%VI9.11814@fx34.iad> <jtblcjF79ujU1@mid.individual.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <1ce8ba88-fe55-4c5c-8d80-7389c9e68998n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Shuttle to the moon
From: koze...@yahoo.com (Scott Kozel)
Injection-Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2022 04:19:01 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 1493
 by: Scott Kozel - Mon, 14 Nov 2022 04:19 UTC

On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 2:41:10 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> So, unless some gravity assist method can be found to get to the moon,
> the shuttle is not going there, and it's definitely not coming back intact.

Unless it carried some kind of supplementary rocket that could do a TLI
and also a EOI on return to Earth.

Re: Shuttle to the moon

<FhkcL.36836$I1C9.11882@fx42.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3717&group=sci.space.policy#3717

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx42.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: Shuttle to the moon
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
References: <rf0cL.14481$%VI9.11814@fx34.iad>
<jtblcjF79ujU1@mid.individual.net>
From: jfmezei....@vaxination.ca (JF Mezei)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <jtblcjF79ujU1@mid.individual.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <FhkcL.36836$I1C9.11882@fx42.iad>
X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2022 05:23:49 UTC
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2022 00:23:49 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 2459
 by: JF Mezei - Mon, 14 Nov 2022 05:23 UTC

On 2022-11-13 02:41, Sylvia Else wrote:

> I'm pretty sure the shuttle orbiter could not survive a direct entry
> into the atmosphere from the moon.

I think this is a stated fact. It wasn't designed for that. The question
is how close to it would it be if work was done to eother research
re-entry protocol or beef up the tiles and RCC). This ia a problem Musk
will gaev to deal with for his Starship shoudl it even become
interplanetary.

Again, consider how much was spent on SLS which might fly one day.

> The Wikipedia article for the Shuttle's OMS system indicates that it
> used about 10 tonnes of propellant to achieve a 300m/s delta-v, for a 29
> tonne payload.

But if that 29 tonnes of payload is fuel, this is different from a 29
tonne static payload since you burn fuel and your acceleration at the
end is far greater.

Curious to see if NASA ever considered this when it was tasked to gosub
the moon. Shuttle gets into lunar orbit, drops off or docks with LEM
which then lands on moon and Shuttle then returns to earth.

When you consider the inefficiencies of SLS AND Starship (huge chunk of
steel to land a couple person on moon for weekend camping trip), it
makes me wonder if Shuttle couldn't have been in the competition with
some upgrades (consider that SSMEs got performance upgrades as part of
conversion to RS25, so this could have been applied to the orbiters).

They had a working vehicle with known eprformance and known
components/engines, it sees to me it should have been faster and cheaper
to upgrade it compared to building that SLS boondgle to nowhere. And as
shuttles got upgraded (or new one built,) they could have been tested to
ISS to continue to service it).

Re: Shuttle to the moon

<jte7m3Fl20lU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3718&group=sci.space.policy#3718

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!news.szaf.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: syl...@email.invalid (Sylvia Else)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: Shuttle to the moon
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2022 18:05:38 +1100
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <jte7m3Fl20lU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <rf0cL.14481$%VI9.11814@fx34.iad>
<jtblcjF79ujU1@mid.individual.net> <FhkcL.36836$I1C9.11882@fx42.iad>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net LPQE9wlDPj/DC1nv2tifJAAF9qTxR4UFhPM8dLxHswLNgY7MW6
Cancel-Lock: sha1:HAa2wFSgRNvrzm936rKCGk1co3I=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.4.2
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <FhkcL.36836$I1C9.11882@fx42.iad>
 by: Sylvia Else - Mon, 14 Nov 2022 07:05 UTC

On 14/11/2022 4:23 pm, JF Mezei wrote:

> They had a working vehicle with known eprformance and known
> components/engines, it sees to me it should have been faster and cheaper
> to upgrade it compared to building that SLS boondgle to nowhere. And as
> shuttles got upgraded (or new one built,) they could have been tested to
> ISS to continue to service it).

I think what they'd realised about the shuttle was that it was hideously
dangerous, and an absolute money pit. After Columbia had again shown
that NASA management have no understanding of risk, I'm surprised anyone
was willing to fly in it.

As for the SLS, it might fly, but then so might pigs. I'm not holding my
breath.

Sylvia.

Re: Shuttle to the moon

<4yocL.69893$s2l3.56270@fx10.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3719&group=sci.space.policy#3719

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx10.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: Shuttle to the moon
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
References: <rf0cL.14481$%VI9.11814@fx34.iad>
<jtblcjF79ujU1@mid.individual.net> <FhkcL.36836$I1C9.11882@fx42.iad>
<jte7m3Fl20lU1@mid.individual.net>
From: jfmezei....@vaxination.ca (JF Mezei)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <jte7m3Fl20lU1@mid.individual.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <4yocL.69893$s2l3.56270@fx10.iad>
X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2022 10:14:24 UTC
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2022 05:14:24 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 1695
 by: JF Mezei - Mon, 14 Nov 2022 10:14 UTC

On 2022-11-14 02:05, Sylvia Else wrote:

> I think what they'd realised about the shuttle was that it was hideously
> dangerous, and an absolute money pit.

One needs to put political PR out of the equation when making real
decisions. From an ISS point of view, Shuttle was killed without a
viable replacement in line. Yes, it turned out that Falcon9/Dragon and
Antares provide more efficient space truck/bus service to/from ISS but
those came later.

Consider the risk factor here since Boeing's Starliner hasn't exactly
delivered on time.

From the other missions, originally to Mars and now just camping trips
to the moon, hindsight shows that trying to build a new rocket from the
same ingredients ends up more complicated thought.

Once the mission is reduced to bringing stuff to lunar orbit, this is
why I wonder if it might have been simpler and faster to upgrade the
shuttle.

Re: Shuttle to the moon

<tkthc8$pikl$2@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3720&group=sci.space.policy#3720

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nos...@127.0.0.1 (David Spain)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: Shuttle to the moon
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2022 08:55:19 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <tkthc8$pikl$2@dont-email.me>
References: <rf0cL.14481$%VI9.11814@fx34.iad>
<jtblcjF79ujU1@mid.individual.net> <tkqqa8$1f3h5$1@dont-email.me>
<jtd5vlFgb09U1@mid.individual.net> <tks6k8$1imas$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2022 13:55:20 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="c46346ee46c3222e7f1e196d5b55aaa6";
logging-data="838293"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+l7n+xvEw0/otVRtsgKPNBPCznixbWsks="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.4.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ue+q+A5PXCfE5OIu12bZrNSK8kM=
In-Reply-To: <tks6k8$1imas$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: David Spain - Mon, 14 Nov 2022 13:55 UTC

I'd love to see them shoehorn in the flight software for a pointless
trip to the moon. Pointless because, 1) It ain't landing on the moon,
and 2) it probably ain't carrying much cargo in lieu of fuel.

Shuttle was purpose built for LEO operation only. In fact, as originally
intended for military payloads, it acted primary as a reusable 2nd stage
for the Centaur upper-stage. Which post-Challenger accident, never flew
on Shuttle, but was adapted to the Titan IV.

Waving the re-usability flag means little when the cost to refurbish per
flight isn't better than or worse than an ELV. SpaceX got us off that
curve thank goodness.

Dave

Re: Shuttle to the moon

<mn.788e7e6b378e0af7.127094@snitoo>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3721&group=sci.space.policy#3721

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: snidely....@gmail.com (Snidely)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: Shuttle to the moon
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2022 02:22:02 -0800
Organization: Dis One
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <mn.788e7e6b378e0af7.127094@snitoo>
References: <rf0cL.14481$%VI9.11814@fx34.iad>
Reply-To: snidely.too@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="3033b54fa57d356dc00f60d8547fc301";
logging-data="2155633"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+UsSCKEPwCaZHg90RFJawDEi/UWjogfpU="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QDqHaWeo6CQD0RgRXdf5x1NAMNM=
X-Newsreader: MesNews/1.08.06.00-gb
X-ICQ: 543516788
 by: Snidely - Tue, 15 Nov 2022 10:22 UTC

Lo, on the 11/12/2022, JF Mezei did proclaim ...

> And generic question: say payload bay has plenty of fuel: coming back to
> Earth, would retrograde firing of OMS to put Shuttle into speed its
> tiles could support end up costing roughly the same amount of fuel as
> the TLI to get to moon? much less? more ?

First cut: the speed the shuttle's tile could support is orbital speed
(17K etc). The TLI converts chemical energy into to kinetic energy
which is then converted to potential energy by the path to the moon.
Returning from the moon (free return, frex) converts that potential to
kinetic energy; to return to orbital speed, you need the same delta-v
as the TLI.

/dps

--
You could try being nicer and politer
> instead, and see how that works out.
-- Katy Jennison

Re: Shuttle to the moon

<mn.78917e6bb0fa3d98.127094@snitoo>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3722&group=sci.space.policy#3722

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: snidely....@gmail.com (Snidely)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: Shuttle to the moon
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2022 02:25:15 -0800
Organization: Dis One
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <mn.78917e6bb0fa3d98.127094@snitoo>
References: <rf0cL.14481$%VI9.11814@fx34.iad>
Reply-To: snidely.too@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="3033b54fa57d356dc00f60d8547fc301";
logging-data="2156141"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19LUi3CANO2rsjAFtDVYOqAgs3cNE2AeMc="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0k+WG6ZxI9N6EjvrO9Aew4WrQQ0=
X-ICQ: 543516788
X-Newsreader: MesNews/1.08.06.00-gb
 by: Snidely - Tue, 15 Nov 2022 10:25 UTC

Just this Saturday, JF Mezei explained that ...
> Catching up on "For all Mankind" (season 2, I am very late).
>
> They depict the shuttle as going to/from the moon. Forgetting
> landing/taking off on moon (and reality):

[..]
> If this is within realm of "possible", would it have costed less than
> SLS to go around the moon? (and perhaps of there is space in payload
> bay, drop off a LEM and bring it back).

The changes you describe would require about as much redesign work as
SLS; you'd essentially have a whole new shuttle except for the RS25s
and the fragile tiles, and the shuttle would still be exposed to ice
debris.

/dps

--
I have always been glad we weren't killed that night. I do not know
any particular reason, but I have always been glad.
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain

Re: Shuttle to the moon

<Hs0dL.104612$TUR8.9733@fx17.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3724&group=sci.space.policy#3724

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx17.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: Shuttle to the moon
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
References: <rf0cL.14481$%VI9.11814@fx34.iad>
<jtblcjF79ujU1@mid.individual.net> <tkqqa8$1f3h5$1@dont-email.me>
<jtd5vlFgb09U1@mid.individual.net> <tks6k8$1imas$1@dont-email.me>
<tkthc8$pikl$2@dont-email.me>
From: jfmezei....@vaxination.ca (JF Mezei)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <tkthc8$pikl$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <Hs0dL.104612$TUR8.9733@fx17.iad>
X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 07:39:19 UTC
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 02:39:19 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 3213
 by: JF Mezei - Wed, 16 Nov 2022 07:39 UTC

On 2022-11-14 08:55, David Spain wrote:
> I'd love to see them shoehorn in the flight software for a pointless
> trip to the moon. Pointless because, 1) It ain't landing on the moon,
> and 2) it probably ain't carrying much cargo in lieu of fuel.

SLS is also pointless saince they will need to launch a big heavy
Starship to land on moon.

> Shuttle was purpose built for LEO operation only.

Ny curiosity pertains to converting the Shuttle to act as a shuttle
between earth and moon orbit. And only after seeing the massive
costs/boondoggle of Constellation/SLS.

> Waving the re-usability flag means little when the cost to refurbish per
> flight isn't better than or worse than an ELV.

But one isn't comparing against private enterprise, one is comparing
against SLS where costs are far greater per flight. And the disposable
SSMEs/RS25 won't be cheap.

> SpaceX got us off that
> curve thank goodness.

SpaceX was not a player at the time decisions for SLS were made. And it
still isn't. As I post this, all Musk has achieved is 1 successful hop
of something in the shape of starship. (and earlier, succesful hop of
something unlike Starship).

Considering the way he is managing Twitter, I have concerns that the
whole starship project may be a Spruce Goose. once FAA told Musk that
he can't keep exploding rockets over Texas willy-nilly, that whole
iterative testing thing went out. Once Musk realised the cost of
building the launch tower, he realised that he can't afford to blow up
rockets at the pad anymore. And it remains to be seen if the
revolutioanry approach to landing will work again, consider the cost of
the tower should a landing fail.

While it looked lie Starship would fly well before SLS, tonight, that
didn't happen and it remains to be seen when it will fly. I know people
say first starship orbital flight is imminent. But it has been imminent
for how many years now?

For a lunar lander sharship to work, it will need to be refueled in
lunar orbit. That means a Starship shuttle that bring in fuel and
returns to Earth, so Musk has to deal/develop a proper heat shield for
re-entry from moon.

Has Musk given details of habitable volume on the lunar lander version
of Starship? ECLSS that works in 0G as well as lunar gravity? toilets
that work in 0-g as well as lunar gravity?

Re: Shuttle to the moon

<7x0dL.74873$dJd3.13010@fx11.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3725&group=sci.space.policy#3725

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx11.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: Shuttle to the moon
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
References: <rf0cL.14481$%VI9.11814@fx34.iad>
<mn.788e7e6b378e0af7.127094@snitoo>
From: jfmezei....@vaxination.ca (JF Mezei)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <mn.788e7e6b378e0af7.127094@snitoo>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <7x0dL.74873$dJd3.13010@fx11.iad>
X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 07:44:03 UTC
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 02:44:03 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 1223
 by: JF Mezei - Wed, 16 Nov 2022 07:44 UTC

On 2022-11-15 05:22, Snidely wrote:

> Returning from the moon (free return, frex) converts that potential to
> kinetic energy; to return to orbital speed, you need the same delta-v
> as the TLI.

Thanks.

Shuttle's max tested altitude in orbit was Hubble, right? Was this
above the maximum designed specs for the tile system requiring greater
OMS de-orbit burn to bring the shuttle in line with design capability of
tiles? or was Shuttle designed to be able to re-enter from higher orbit ?

Re: Shuttle to the moon

<SG0dL.7398$RdO9.1501@fx38.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3726&group=sci.space.policy#3726

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx38.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: Shuttle to the moon
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
References: <rf0cL.14481$%VI9.11814@fx34.iad>
<mn.78917e6bb0fa3d98.127094@snitoo>
From: jfmezei....@vaxination.ca (JF Mezei)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <mn.78917e6bb0fa3d98.127094@snitoo>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <SG0dL.7398$RdO9.1501@fx38.iad>
X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 07:54:26 UTC
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 02:54:25 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 1684
 by: JF Mezei - Wed, 16 Nov 2022 07:54 UTC

On 2022-11-15 05:25, Snidely wrote:

> The changes you describe would require about as much redesign work as
> SLS; you'd essentially have a whole new shuttle except for the RS25s
> and the fragile tiles, and the shuttle would still be exposed to ice
> debris.

both Boeing and Airbus make iterative improvements to their aircraft
(called derivatives). (the MAX fiasco was due to regulatory issues that
pushed Boeing to keep the new 737 cockpit behaving as the original 1967
one to keep commonality and hence not add new warnings, buttons etc).

NASA aklready had the plans to go with electric APU instead of hydrazine
APUs. Had already converted cockpit to glass cockpit. And early on made
major modifications to heat shield system by using blakets for top
portion. The Shuttle wasn't as static as it seemed.

So a modified Shuttle woudln't need a total redesign as happened with
SLS for 12st stage, 2nd stage and service module and Orion.

Re: Shuttle to the moon

<mn.80367e6b669eca64.127094@snitoo>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3727&group=sci.space.policy#3727

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: snidely....@gmail.com (Snidely)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: Shuttle to the moon
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 00:54:51 -0800
Organization: Dis One
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <mn.80367e6b669eca64.127094@snitoo>
References: <rf0cL.14481$%VI9.11814@fx34.iad> <mn.78917e6bb0fa3d98.127094@snitoo> <SG0dL.7398$RdO9.1501@fx38.iad>
Reply-To: snidely.too@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="5b99df9b8c86b90c30154c5f28a77849";
logging-data="2448798"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+4pBKr916lOZxZkS4g8yySIEHU5Wm7LT0="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tBgIVY+D/zQTQ47qG+6OtiWX4VE=
X-Newsreader: MesNews/1.08.06.00-gb
X-ICQ: 543516788
 by: Snidely - Wed, 16 Nov 2022 08:54 UTC

JF Mezei formulated the question :
> On 2022-11-15 05:25, Snidely wrote:
>
>> The changes you describe would require about as much redesign work as
>> SLS; you'd essentially have a whole new shuttle except for the RS25s
>> and the fragile tiles, and the shuttle would still be exposed to ice
>> debris.
>
>
> both Boeing and Airbus make iterative improvements to their aircraft
> (called derivatives). (the MAX fiasco was due to regulatory issues that
> pushed Boeing to keep the new 737 cockpit behaving as the original 1967
> one to keep commonality and hence not add new warnings, buttons etc).
>
> NASA aklready had the plans to go with electric APU instead of hydrazine
> APUs. Had already converted cockpit to glass cockpit. And early on made
> major modifications to heat shield system by using blakets for top
> portion. The Shuttle wasn't as static as it seemed.
>
>
> So a modified Shuttle woudln't need a total redesign as happened with
> SLS for 12st stage, 2nd stage and service module and Orion.

Those changes were peanuts compared to what you've suggested be done to
reach lunar orbit.

/dps

--
Yes, I have had a cucumber soda. Why do you ask?

Re: Shuttle to the moon

<jtjtgnFg8i8U1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3728&group=sci.space.policy#3728

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: niklas.h...@tidorum.invalid (Niklas Holsti)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: Shuttle to the moon
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 12:48:55 +0200
Organization: Tidorum Ltd
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <jtjtgnFg8i8U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <rf0cL.14481$%VI9.11814@fx34.iad>
<mn.78917e6bb0fa3d98.127094@snitoo> <SG0dL.7398$RdO9.1501@fx38.iad>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net 6CQBS7zJws/zoD4Vcrz3lgC/7qvloaZAcODEf6BTqU3l2GMAqj
Cancel-Lock: sha1:l1AR9D0H7ajp8hQKhmPO9E4+uyk=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:102.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.4.1
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <SG0dL.7398$RdO9.1501@fx38.iad>
 by: Niklas Holsti - Wed, 16 Nov 2022 10:48 UTC

On 2022-11-16 9:54, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2022-11-15 05:25, Snidely wrote:
>
>> The changes you describe would require about as much redesign work as
>> SLS; you'd essentially have a whole new shuttle except for the RS25s
>> and the fragile tiles, and the shuttle would still be exposed to ice
>> debris.
>
>
> both Boeing and Airbus make iterative improvements to their aircraft
> (called derivatives). (the MAX fiasco was due to regulatory issues that
> pushed Boeing to keep the new 737 cockpit behaving as the original 1967
> one to keep commonality and hence not add new warnings, buttons etc).

Off topic, but that is IMO a mis-characterization of the causes for the
Boeing 737 MAX failures, almost clearing Boeing of wrong-doing.

AIUI, the root cause was Boeing's marketing promise to prospective
customers that 737 pilots would not need much retraining to fly 737 MAX.
That led Boeing to hide the existence of the MCAS SW in the flight
manuals. Reneging on that promise would have cost Boeing money. But that
does not make Boeing blameless for hiding the true nature and
criticality of the MCAS SW from the FAA, nor for implementing such
failure-prone life-critical SW. Those are symbols of the corruption and
decay of the safety practices at Boeing.

In fact, the MCAS SW was needed only to compensate for the flight
problems caused by the "incremental improvements" (larger engines) in
the 737 MAX. (You can argue that those flight problems were trivial and
only violated some nit-picking FAA regulations, but them's the rules.) A
larger redesign would have obviated the need for MCAS, but would have
been more expensive and taken longer, reducing Boeing's revenues, as
well as making it impossible for Boeing to keep its marketing promise.

Re: Shuttle to the moon

<tl5d1m$pikm$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3732&group=sci.space.policy#3732

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nos...@127.0.0.1 (David Spain)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: Shuttle to the moon
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2022 08:30:27 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 108
Message-ID: <tl5d1m$pikm$1@dont-email.me>
References: <rf0cL.14481$%VI9.11814@fx34.iad>
<jtblcjF79ujU1@mid.individual.net> <tkqqa8$1f3h5$1@dont-email.me>
<jtd5vlFgb09U1@mid.individual.net> <tks6k8$1imas$1@dont-email.me>
<tkthc8$pikl$2@dont-email.me> <Hs0dL.104612$TUR8.9733@fx17.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2022 13:30:30 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="c14626635398f3dd72a7cc52a72af764";
logging-data="838294"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18l4aZ4LscIq2VFwg5IJDklWsGCkO6KefU="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.4.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ntI5dPcyQKk8DSZ9TH8AQehypgk=
In-Reply-To: <Hs0dL.104612$TUR8.9733@fx17.iad>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: David Spain - Thu, 17 Nov 2022 13:30 UTC

On 2022-11-16 2:39 AM, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2022-11-14 08:55, David Spain wrote:
>> I'd love to see them shoehorn in the flight software for a pointless
>> trip to the moon. Pointless because, 1) It ain't landing on the moon,
>> and 2) it probably ain't carrying much cargo in lieu of fuel.
>
> SLS is also pointless saince they will need to launch a big heavy
> Starship to land on moon.
>
>
>> Shuttle was purpose built for LEO operation only.
>
> Ny curiosity pertains to converting the Shuttle to act as a shuttle
> between earth and moon orbit. And only after seeing the massive
> costs/boondoggle of Constellation/SLS.
> SLS/Orion *is* primarily that conversion. Not happy with that?

>> Waving the re-usability flag means little when the cost to refurbish per
>> flight isn't better than or worse than an ELV.
>
> But one isn't comparing against private enterprise, one is comparing
> against SLS where costs are far greater per flight. And the disposable
> SSMEs/RS25 won't be cheap.
>
Your point?
>
>> SpaceX got us off that
>> curve thank goodness.
>
> SpaceX was not a player at the time decisions for SLS were made. And it
> still isn't. As I post this, all Musk has achieved is 1 successful hop
> of something in the shape of starship. (and earlier, succesful hop of
> something unlike Starship).
>

And it still isn't? Seriously? The points you miss by this statement are
too numerous to bother rebutting. Suggest you read up a bit on what
SpaceX is actually doing in Boca Chica.

> Considering the way he is managing Twitter, I have concerns that the
> whole starship project may be a Spruce Goose. once FAA told Musk that
> he can't keep exploding rockets over Texas willy-nilly, that whole
> iterative testing thing went out. Once Musk realised the cost of
> building the launch tower, he realised that he can't afford to blow up
> rockets at the pad anymore. And it remains to be seen if the
> revolutioanry approach to landing will work again, consider the cost of
> the tower should a landing fail.
>
You are joking right? Am I supposed to take you seriously? You do know
he is building another one at the Cape as I write this? It's steel. It's
known how to do. Take a look at the NYC skyline sometime.

> While it looked lie Starship would fly well before SLS, tonight, that
> didn't happen and it remains to be seen when it will fly. I know people
> say first starship orbital flight is imminent. But it has been imminent
> for how many years now?
>
Only imminent next year or possibly end of this year. But I think most
people accept that it might be early next year. Testing proceeds apace.
SpaceX successfully completed a full thrust test on 14 engines just last
week. 19 to go. Sounds iterative to me.

> For a lunar lander sharship to work, it will need to be refueled in
> lunar orbit. That means a Starship shuttle that bring in fuel and
> returns to Earth, so Musk has to deal/develop a proper heat shield for
> re-entry from moon.
>
No it doesn't. To me, the most non-nonsensical proposal as I understand
it is to place tankers at both LEO and LLO (Low Lunar Orbit). The LLO
one is basically a holding tank. Artemis Starship would deliver its TEI
fuel to it so it does not have to land and lift that mass on/from the
lunar surface. The LEO tanker to be refueled from tanker Starships
designed for fuel transfer that do have heat shields for return to Earth
from LEO only.

The current proposal is for Starship to ferry between the lunar surface
and the toll-both in NRHO, acting as both the tanker and docking port
with arrival and return from the toll-booth on the SLS/Orion capsule.

But an alternate proposal has the Artemis Starship as a ferry going
directly between LEO and the Lunar Surface. It does not return to
Earth's surface. Did you ever see the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey?

The alternative proposal would eliminate SLS/Orion all together and
launch crew into LEO on Falcon-9/Crew-Dragon for transfer to the
Starship derivative Artemis lander in LEO at the LEO tanker for TLI.
Followed by TEI fuel dump to the LLO tanker, then a descent and landing
on the moon. Return to LLO, refuel at the tanker with the TEI fuel and
return to LEO tanker for refueling and crew transfer back to the Crew
Dragon for return to Earth.

> Has Musk given details of habitable volume on the lunar lander version
> of Starship? ECLSS that works in 0G as well as lunar gravity? toilets
> that work in 0-g as well as lunar gravity?

No, but Artemis is very early in the design cycle. How about this
concept; place Dragon Crew Capsule inside the Starship pretty much as is
minus the unneeded trunk? You could even keep the heat shield on the
Dragon if the Artemis is able to slow into LEO first as an emergency
escape plan.

There is a lot of work to be done. What we have now is an expensive
non-reusable rocket that can launch once a year at best. And that's all
we have. NASA is *depending* upon SpaceX to deliver a lunar lander. We
don't even have a working lunar spacesuit.

Dave

Re: Shuttle to the moon

<jtnvguF62k1U1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=3735&group=sci.space.policy#3735

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: syl...@email.invalid (Sylvia Else)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: Shuttle to the moon
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2022 10:47:39 +1100
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <jtnvguF62k1U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <rf0cL.14481$%VI9.11814@fx34.iad>
<jtblcjF79ujU1@mid.individual.net> <FhkcL.36836$I1C9.11882@fx42.iad>
<jte7m3Fl20lU1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net A/fs4JU/pch5hEDiNxcX9gm4JEYDvjx8hbepbvvojhy36XQSLg
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LD47gc9xio32sZNKHLe8DWjJMN0=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.4.2
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <jte7m3Fl20lU1@mid.individual.net>
 by: Sylvia Else - Thu, 17 Nov 2022 23:47 UTC

On 14/11/2022 6:05 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:

> As for the SLS, it might fly, but then so might pigs. I'm not holding my
> breath.

So they launch it successfully the next day. NASA should admit it - they
just did it to spite me.

Sylvia.

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor