>the space shuttle cant go to the moon.Its 100% possible if you put it on top of the saturn 5 rocket with the F1B engines.>How will you land on the moonI just put the LSAM on the cargo bay. Also this configuration is arguably safer.
>>17006755The Saturn V can go to the moon by itself, why bother putting the space shuttle on top?Carting the wings and other useless components to lunar orbit and back is a waste of fuel.The space shuttle is not designed to survive reentry from the high speed resulting from a trans-lunar orbit.>Also this configuration is arguably safer.The space shuttle was extremely unsafe compared to Apollo, there was no recourse if anything serious went wrong during launch, even just the trajectory being off. Meanwhile Apollo had the launch escape system and could rescue the astronauts if the entire rocket was exploding. Challenger would have been non-fatal with a conventional capsule. See that Soyuz mission from a few years ago for an example. There is no way that slapping a space shuttle on the side of any rocket would make it safer. Apollo was safer during both launch and reentry.>but I want more space inside!Then just make the capsule bigger.
>>17006755The Space Shuttle has been retired so far all practical purposes, it no longer exists as a space craft.
why not fire OP at the moon? he can use his legs to land
>>17006759>if the entire rocket was explodingDumb question but what magnitude of failure would it take to actually see this?We saw in the shittle engines failing don't fail explosively they just turn off.We never saw catastrophic cracked turbine they were warned about? Would you have to get the whole fuel tank igniting? Challenger was ripped apart by aerodynamic loads again, not an explosion
