It was designed only to reach Earth’s orbit. They are working on a new rocket though that adds engines to the bottom of that orange fuel tank and has the final stage / moon capsule on top instead of the big shuttle riding piggyback.
IIRC it had to do with fuel and the mass of the thing. There wasnt enough fuel to break earth's gravity to get to the moon and also slow back down on the return trip. The lunar lander and command module weigh a fraction of what the shuttle weighs (CSM + lander were 100k kg loaded, while shuttle was 2m kg dry), and most of the CSM's weight (over half) at launch was fuel.
Getting a shuttle to the moon and back would essentially require another big orange tank waiting for it in space after launch. It could be done but it would be prohibitively expensive.
did you see the size of the cargo hold? they could of converted if for longer flight, by there physics, they only need too do a burn to escape earths gravity, sling shot round the moon lmfao, and use the burners once more to escape the moons pull..
I think the main limitation has always been getting humans past the highly radioactive and deadly van Allen radiation belts that surround the earth. Would require some type of active magnetic shield that uses a very large amount of energy.
Ok, mass then. Plus since you can't use the wings the landing gear is useless. Then you have the mass of the insulating tiles that's useless. By the time you as it all up the shuttle is mostly useless when it comes to landing on the moon, which is why it never went there.
you use the wings and landing gear to land back on earth, and mass wouldnt really effect you in space, they didnt even orbit, forget landing, this would of been possible, considering the tech they had when they had apparently landed on the moon.. so it just comes down to fuel, an your only using the fuel to escape earths gravity then its a free ride to the moon, with a burn they to escape moon orbit..clearly it cant be done, we cant leave low earth orbit, no real evidence to suggest otherwise..unless you believe in the mars rover https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWP095B0W9w have a watch, your lacking intelligence if you believe anything nasa says
were talking things that are similar in size give or take a few metres..im sure an asteroid would be harder to move than a baseball. straw man argument.
why wouldn't they of done an orbit of the moon, at the very least providing us with some high res pictures of this ''dark side''
It was designed only to reach Earth’s orbit. They are working on a new rocket though that adds engines to the bottom of that orange fuel tank and has the final stage / moon capsule on top instead of the big shuttle riding piggyback.
They have probably been using drones like the X-37 since the 1990's.
Possibly, if they had a way to refuel them in earth’s orbit before going on to the moon.
Would a bomb work in a vacuum and cause pieces of the bomb to fly? You don’t understand inertia / expanding gas / rocket thrust.
IIRC it had to do with fuel and the mass of the thing. There wasnt enough fuel to break earth's gravity to get to the moon and also slow back down on the return trip. The lunar lander and command module weigh a fraction of what the shuttle weighs (CSM + lander were 100k kg loaded, while shuttle was 2m kg dry), and most of the CSM's weight (over half) at launch was fuel.
Getting a shuttle to the moon and back would essentially require another big orange tank waiting for it in space after launch. It could be done but it would be prohibitively expensive.
did you see the size of the cargo hold? they could of converted if for longer flight, by there physics, they only need too do a burn to escape earths gravity, sling shot round the moon lmfao, and use the burners once more to escape the moons pull..
I think the main limitation has always been getting humans past the highly radioactive and deadly van Allen radiation belts that surround the earth. Would require some type of active magnetic shield that uses a very large amount of energy.
The wings would have been real handy when landing in the moon -- smh.
I think the wings are for landing on earth lmfao
Yeah, so it would be really fucked up to carry them all the way to the moon and back. A lot of weight that adds nothing to the mission.
Weight in space lmfao back to bed you clown
Ok, mass then. Plus since you can't use the wings the landing gear is useless. Then you have the mass of the insulating tiles that's useless. By the time you as it all up the shuttle is mostly useless when it comes to landing on the moon, which is why it never went there.
you use the wings and landing gear to land back on earth, and mass wouldnt really effect you in space, they didnt even orbit, forget landing, this would of been possible, considering the tech they had when they had apparently landed on the moon.. so it just comes down to fuel, an your only using the fuel to escape earths gravity then its a free ride to the moon, with a burn they to escape moon orbit..clearly it cant be done, we cant leave low earth orbit, no real evidence to suggest otherwise..unless you believe in the mars rover https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWP095B0W9w have a watch, your lacking intelligence if you believe anything nasa says
So if mass doesn't matter in space you're saying you could speed up an asteroid as easily as you could a baseball. Good luck.
were talking things that are similar in size give or take a few metres..im sure an asteroid would be harder to move than a baseball. straw man argument.
You obviously don’t understand inertia, expanding gas, rocket thrust, etc.
which is why they didnt take a trip there in one of the many shuttles..