Hacker News Reader

Comment by spamizbad | Hacker News Reader

My understanding is the space shuttle was originally slated to have less cargo space but the airforce demanded more cargo space for reasons they never fully elaborated on. It was speculated they might’ve wanted their own vehicle to capture satellites or launch a space weapon. So the Soviet Union’s paranoia did have some justification. With that said, at least as far as we know, the space shuttle was never used for such things.

View on HN

It's kind of an open secret that the space shuttle payload bay dimensions were specified to fit the satellites the NRO used[1]. Similarly, the Hubble Space Telescope is widely acknowledged to be based on the KH-11 Kennen, and the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope is unused NRO hardware from the Future Imagery Architecture[2]

1 https://mashable.com/article/nasa-space-shuttle-secret-spy-s...

2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Grace_Roman_Space_Telesc...

> With that said, at least as far as we know, the space shuttle was never used for such things.

There were a number of classified space shuttle activities.

For example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-51-C

The actual weapon issue came from the wings. They were far too big. They were designed for a massive cross-range, such as a single surprise overflight then return to the launch center rather than risk overflying the target twice. That looked very much like a weapons delivery profile.

The cargo retrieval potential was also suspect. Nukes are the one thing that could never be de-orbited into the atmosphere. Shuttle looked like something that could enable nuke weaponry in orbit.

In particular, the Space Shuttle looked like it could nuke Moscow from the south where there weren't any early warning radars pointed.

I mean isn't the B in ICBM for ballistic reentry, that's probably about as fast a deorbit from the height of the space station as you would get?

A nuke warhead can certainly be made to survive reentry, but that isn't the same as safely bringing one back for maintenance.

Actually, intercontinental suborbital trajectories get even higher than the space station. The space station is only 400 km up.

Newer ICBMs are actually orbital, so they don't have to go so high and thus be visible over the horizon to radar. But they obviously deorbit after less than half an orbit. It also enables them to get to the target in much, much less time.

The cross range capability was supposedly also intended for military reconnaissance missions. Back then film cameras were still used. So they wanted to be able to launch from California into a polar orbit, make a single pass over the USSR, and land back at the launch site for immediate film processing. Of course they never actually flew such a mission.

It's almost certain the secret mission was to capture a satellite in a single orbit, that's the only reason for the wings to be so big, in addition to the cargo space. If you're in space for a long time, you can time your deorbit so that you're landing close to KSC, but in a single orbit Earth's rotation gets you about 20 degrees away, so you need good gliding and steering to get back. Scott Manley has a good video about this.

> the airforce demanded more cargo space for reasons they never fully elaborated on

I have read in several places that one of the USAF's requests, re the dimensions of the Shuttle's Cargo Bay, was that it be big enough to hold a Delta upper stage (I think technically called an Altair) and payload.

The idea was that the Shuttle would take the upper stage and payload to LEO, and then the Altair would boost it into GEO (or trans-lunar) orbit. No need to jettison a payload fairing.

Supposedly NASA eventually won and quashed the idea, since it involved putting a non-man-rated upper stage into the cargo bay of a manned craft. And as far as I know, nothing more powerful than some maneuvering rockets was ever carried in in the Cargo Bay.

in the 1980s Reagan's defense department executed a series of (still classified) missions using an all-military crew taking the shuttle to the moon known as Project Athena.

Gonna have to ask for a source on that one.

I think this was the crew with Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck.

Dude, the Space Shuttle totally had enough delta v to get to the moon. If you don't believe me, why don't you ask Louie Armstrong yourself? /s (I know the xkcd I'm ripping of says Lance Armstrong, but I like the idea of a jazz musician on the moon better than the idea of a troubled athlete.)

That may be the case, but still keen for a source referencing that particular usage…

I think you missed the "/s". There's no way the Space Shuttle Launch System has enough delta v to reach the moon. For one, the need the IUS or another booster on satellites released by the Space Shuttle that need to make it to geosynchronous orbit, which is still significantly less delta v than a translunar orbit.

they rendezvoused with a separately launched fuel supply while in earth orbit

Did they visit the secret Nazi base on the Far Side of the Moon? /s

Reply on news.ycombinator.com