why can't a space shuttle be used for trips outside of earth orbit?
105320
It takes a lot of energy to break out of Earth orbit, and thus takes a lot of fuel.  Just to get to the moon, it took a giant, 3 stage, Saturn V rocket.\n\nThe space shuttle was specifically designed to be used in Earth orbit and thus could not carry near enough fuel to escape Earth's gravitational pull.
72063
They already do. Do you mean, inter-planetary flights? And if so, how far away? Pluto? Nuh-uh. Mars? Not necessarily a bad idea. It all depends on how far away the mission crew is to be sent, and how long the duration of the journey is to be. If the crew were to find themselves in an emergency, they would of course have to be more resilient and capable of quick thinking because Houston would not be of any help to them.
269851
Which launch centers?  For their nuclear weapons?  Because the country they would have been most likey to attack in that way isn't near the equator, and the shortest route is over the arctic.  For their space program?  Because it doesn't really matter where you launch from since the atmosphere is basically isometric from the surface of the Earth to the start of outer space.  If the vacuum of space were a hundred miles closer at the equator then you would benefit from launching there, but otherwise there is no substantial difference between launching from one place or another.
1145075
In order to send a satellite around the moon it would take a lot stronger rockets than currently used to bring them into orbit. Geostationary orbit is at a mere 36000km altitude, 1/11 of the distance to the moon. Satellites brought into geostationary don't have to overcome the escape velocity of earth.\n\nAny launch anomaly that could send a satellite around the moon has sufficient fuel and power left to send it into the wanted orbit.
79516
engines for space craft don't need to constantly exert forward thrust to keep going, like airplanes. They need to to escape the earth's gravity, but once cleared, they can keep going on forward momentum, using brief propulsion to correct the course of the space craft. \n\nMars and the moon cannot use gasoline based craft, there's no oxygen to burn, so they likely need electric motors, maybe solar powered. Not exactly sure on this but I would say an electric motor of sorts.
508347
It needs air to fly.  However, it can use very thin air.  One idea for using the space plane is to fly it out of the atmosphere, where its engine will cease to function.  The plane then glides as far as it can outside the atmosphere.  As it begins loosing altitude (because it is on a suborbital trajectory) it reenters the atmosphere and the SCRAM jet engine will work again.  It keeps skipping across the top of the atmosphere this way until it reaches its destination.\n\nThis trick saves a lot of fuel because aerodynamic drag is minimal while the plane is outside the atmosphere.
781590
The shuttle's navigation computers and life support systems could support a mission to the moon easily.   With the Extended Duration Orbiter (EDO) pad in the cargo bay, there would be enough supplies for a 16-day mission.\n\nHowever, as you point out, the ET (external tank) is discarded on the way to orbit.   If you could some how dock with a fuel tank, the shuttle could easily travel to the moon and back.   4.5 million pounds of thrust is plenty for TLI and to reenter Earth orbit on the way back.\n\n(The shuttle would have to reenter Earth orbit before landing.  The thermal protection systems are designed for a reentry from LEO at 17,500 mph -- not a direct return from the moon at 25,000 mph.)\n\nAnother problem you'd have is landing on the moon.  The shuttle is not equipped for that sort of landing.  So, you'd have to carry a small lander in the cargo bay.\n\nIt's a fun idea, but it isn't really practical.  It would be a lot easier to launch a proper moon mission using 3 or 4 shuttle missions to carry the pieces of the spacecraft to orbit and then dock them together.\n\nBy the way, if you would like to read about a shuttle mission to the moon, read Homer Hickham's book "Back to the Moon".  He is a former shuttle mission planner and trainer.  He wrote "Back to the Moon" about just such a mission.  It's a fun read.  Don't take it seriously.   Hickham also wrote "Rocket Boys" an autobiographical story about his life and how he became a NASA engineer.  It was turned into the movie "October Sky".  (Note that "October Sky" is an anagram of "Rocket Boys".)
1061904
You have confused.space air will not touch the earth.
59906
because we have the technology to do it, so why wouldnt't we do it? i am myself a physics major and i know for a fact that it is possible. it is not really as hard as you think. you just design a rocket(which isnt much harder than designing a plane) and it just needs a lot of fuel and energy to surpass the escape velocity put forth by the earth's gravitational field, and it just has to be made of a sturdy material with a high melting point so it doesn't melt. once you're in outer space, it does not require much fuel to navigate, and all you have to do is get it to the moon and land... and as far as people being inside, yeah, just add oxygen and reserves of compressed oxygen to make those levels stable(just like they do in airplanes).\n\nalso, i know plenty of engineering majors. NASA offers internships, NASA recruits a hell of a lot of engineers and rocket designers and has way too many rocket designs for none of them to work... also, you can go to a rocket launching and see any of the rockets take off...\n\nbesides from being a physics major and thus knowing that we are actually capable of the technology- also, what reason would they have for making it up? there is really no benefit to it.. just to say "haha, look, we did it"... obviously we are using too many billions of dollars and such on space equipment and programs and rockets(which anyone can go see on tours at NASA). we wouldnt spend that much money on what? to have a nice big laugh at NASA? "haha, we fooled everyone!" come on now...
1159810
1) Practice.  If we are to go anywhere else, we need to learn how to handle the unfriendly environment.\n\n2) Unknown intangibles.  The original space program needed small, lightweight computers to take with them in space.  Now everyone reading this is using a small, lightweight computer, rather than using a terminal to tie into a large mainframe.\n\nA return to space, for long-duration missions, could (repeat, COULD) yield new recycling methods, or improved energy-efficiency, or localized energy production.\n\nOr it may produce nothing.  It's a gamble.  But compared to other gambles that we routinely make (research into more effective weapons, that may never be needed to be used, for example), it's a comparatively inexpensive one.
68910
Yes, in the shuttle. But out in space, I believe the vacuum of space would suck the fart out before they got a chance to even think about expelling it. Plus I would think if they were trying to fart in open space, they would have other things to worry about...
682053
That makes no sense. It doesn't exist. Sorry, not applicable. Space shuttle year. What is that? Maybe try: http://www.nasa.gov
307630
its to far away. would take 100 years to get there w/ the current space fleet we have there. now if we had nuke space ships that could go 100X's faster and recycle the air then it could be done in 5 years or so. but food and water would be the problem.
121066
kfawl has the most accurate answer... that although we can realistically simulate zero gravity, and the only real way to do that is to use the aforementioned Vomit Comit - I mean we can't realistically put someone at the center of the earth, and sure, if you put someone in an elevator and cut the cords, for some time, the person will experience weightlessness - not that they'll notice since they'll be thinking of their impending death.\n\nAnd you can even go in orbit and although it will feel like you're in a zero G environment, logically thinking - the earth is gigantc and you've not travelled very far from it - how can there suddenly be no gravity? Because the shuttle is actually falling, but travelling sideways so fast that it keeps "missing the earth". This also applies to sattelites or anything orbit. The only reason Earth doesn't fall into the sun is because it is rotating so fast, it "keeps missing the sun."\n\nAnd although its been said that it is impossible to really be in a zero g environment, I believe if you go out far enough, the pull of the planets or stars will be so negligable, that for all intents and purposes, you'll be in a zero-g environment,
461940
Yes. They could fly inside a space shuttle. Birds would have a hard time adjusting to the lack of gravity though, and would look funny trying to fly. Assuming there would be the normal amount of air inside the shuttle, the wings would be effective as they would push some air around.
1123256
That would be really cool, and they have been trying for years, but so far no success. Rocket planes, like the X-15 and Burt Rutan's Space Ship one, have flown outside the atmosphere, but only at speeds less than 5,000 miles per hour (less than Mach 7). Since orbital speed is 17,500 miles per hour (Mach 25), both these rocket planes immediately start falling back down to the atmosphere as soon as the rocket propellant runs out, which it does in just a few minutes.\n\nA jet powered craft could possibly achieve higher speeds, but unlike rockets, jets need to use air from the atmosphere to keep burning their fuel. While new experiments like the x-43 are testing very high speed jet engines, the problem of friction with the air remains. If you want to make it to orbit you need to get the full 17,500 miles per hour orbital speed, and at that speed the plane would melt from the same heating that the shuttle experiences during reentry. So the only way we know to get to space is to get above the atmosphere before the speed gets too fast, and no atmosphere means you need rockets that carry their own oxygen with them in huge tanks. It is very inefficient, but still the only way known to get to space.
126845
Space craft [usually] rely on rockets in space.  Rockets burn some fuel with some Oxidizer to produce lots of hot expanding gasses which are pushed out of the nozzle of the rocket.  When these gasses are pushed out the back of the rocket, they cause a change in momentum which accelerates the rocket forward.\n\nNewton’s 3rd law states, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.\nSo if the action is that the rocket exhaust is pushed out the back of the space craft, then the equal and opposite reaction would be for the space craft to be pushed forward.\n\nThe law of conservation of momentum tells us that momentum is always conserved.  If a spacecraft is moving with some initial velocity (could be zero) that space craft has some momentum associated with it.  At any point in time later on, the momentum of all the parts to that space craft needs to equal up to that original value.  So if part of the craft (the burning fuel) is pushed out one direction, in order to conserve momentum, the other part of the craft needs to be pushed the other direction [otherwise it is breaking the law].\n\nIt is somewhat of a difficult concept to understand, I hoped I explained it well.\n\nRockets do not just work in space.  Obviously you can still use a rocket down here on Earth and it works for the same reasons it work in space.  The principle of how the rocket works is not just exclusive to rockets.  For example, if you sat on one of those chairs with wheels holding a heavy bag of sand, then you pushed/threw the bag away from you, you and the chair would start to move in the other direction.