From: paul@i2.to
Date: Wed Jul 21 1999 - 12:52:11 MDT
On Wed, 21 July 1999, mark@unicorn.com wrote:
> paul@i2.to wrote:
> >Completely unnecessary. With the right booster, the shuttle without *any*
> >modifications could easily reach lunar orbit.
>
> With the right booster, my car could easily reach lunar orbit. Would that
> make it "an ideal vehicle for shipping hardware to the Moon"? No.
No offense, but that's quite a bit of an exagerrated comparison.
>
> >If we cut the crew down
> >to 5, the shuttle could stay in orbit for over a month.
>
> No it couldn't, unless they've improved it significantly lately. The fuel
> cells are the main limitation, not crew size; most of the shuttle's power
> consumption is independent of crew size.
Adding some additonal fuel cells as a small payload package
would be a relatively minor retro-fitting. Besides 19 days
is already plenty of time for the shuttle to get to lunar
orbit and back. So it already has the power capacity to
sustain itself on a short (3-5 day) lunar orbit mission.
> And it would be absurdly inefficient and far more expensive than building
> a real lunar vehicle from scratch. Why bother?
I think that is open to more rigorous analysis. But I
suspect you're right if we want to make lunar travel
*routine*. I was simply arguing that it wouldn't be nearly
as difficult as most beleive to turn the shuttle into a
lunar transfer vehical.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:32 MST