It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Your Home Planet, as Seen From Mars

page: 5
41
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 02:39 PM
link   
I don't think it's even possible for any Human to pass through the radiation belt.




posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zarniwoop
a reply to: 23432

Ah... I see.

So you don't think we made it to the moon, eh?

Do you think these photos indicate that we never made it to Mars as well?

ETA: to Mars with toys, that is





I always wondered as to why the shuttle never takes a short-ish trip to moon ?

In fact I always wondered about the 400 miles altitude which shuttle seems to rather comfortable with ?

It's been almost 50 years and no one has been back to Moon.

Statistically speaking that is a one big anamoly indeed ; i wonder why that is the case ?

a-) we never went to moon , it was a hoax.
b-) we went and found something that stops us going back to this day.
c-) we can go back but it's not worth it.

What do you think ?



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: PillarOfFire
I don't think it's even possible for any Human to pass through the radiation belt.




most people have never heard of Van Halen .



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: 23432

True enough.

Some info on it
www.liveleak.com...



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: 23432


I always wondered as to why the shuttle never takes a short-ish trip to moon ?


That's like asking why not ride your skateboard from LA to NY? Because it wasn't designed for that.

All that information is easily located on the Internet if you choose to research.

As for why we never went back (yet)... cost and benefit



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: PillarOfFire

Some actual info , Astronauts left mirrors on the Moon that are still being used today by scientists.



edit on 12-1-2017 by gortex because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zarniwoop
a reply to: 23432


I always wondered as to why the shuttle never takes a short-ish trip to moon ?


That's like asking why not ride your skateboard from LA to NY? Because it wasn't designed for that.

All that information is easily located on the Internet if you choose to research.

As for why we never went back (yet)... cost and benefit


Apollo vs Shuttle ?

I should admit that i know a few things about design issues and imho if Apollo made it to moon and back , Shuttle could also do it too.

As for the cost vs benefit explanation ; i could tell you that the benefits of space tourism far outweighs the cost , never mind about the benefits to science .

My opinion is that not everything is as explained by NASA .
edit on 12-1-2017 by 23432 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: 23432


I should admit that i know a few things about design issues and imho if Apollo made it to moon and back , Shuttle could also do it too.


Feel free to show examples



i could tell you that the benefits of space tourism far outweighs the cost , never mind about the benefits to science


NASA isn't in the business of space tourism. Other companies are working on that.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zarniwoop
a reply to: 23432


I should admit that i know a few things about design issues and imho if Apollo made it to moon and back , Shuttle could also do it too.


Feel free to show examples


NASA unveils plan to send manned craft to the moon Originally published September 19, 2005 at 12:00 am Updated September 19, 2005 at 7:57 pm NASA unveiled a 13-year, $104 billion blueprint today for sending humans back to the moon as early as 2018, using modified space shuttle rockets to loft an Apollo-like capsule into space.

Modified Space Shuttle to go to Moon

I would not land on Moon , just an orbital trip so my modification would be less complicated.

Granted that this is not the best way to do it but nevertheless it is doable.


The largest factor leading to the conclusion that the shuttle orbiter would be grossly inefficient as a LTS is the initial mass in LEO (IMLEO) requirements of such a system.
While the STS can place the orbiter, its payload, and probably its ET into orbit, the then empty ET must be refueled with over 712 mt of LOX and LH2 propellants. This yields a total IMLEO of 846 mt. Therefore, the ratio of IMLEO to payload delivered to LLO is about 50. (Assuming a "full" STS payload of 17 mt and a 100 x 214 km LLO.)
Obviously, from an economic standpoint such a large IMLEO to payload ratio makes the orbiter very unattractive as a LTS.

Feasibility Analysis of Cislunar Flight Using the Shuttle Orbiter


i could tell you that the benefits of space tourism far outweighs the cost , never mind about the benefits to science


NASA isn't in the business of space tourism. Other companies are working on that.


Space Science could be advanced by million miles so to speak ; isn't that a good reason to go back at all in your opinion either ?
edit on 12-1-2017 by 23432 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: 23432

Sorry, I thought you meant why didn't the shuttle, as it was designed and built, to take lunar side trips, rather than modifying the design and build new ones to make lunar orbits... I don't think the benefit outweighs the cost for that, no.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zarniwoop
a reply to: 23432

Sorry, I thought you meant why didn't the shuttle, as it was designed and built, to take lunar side trips, rather than modifying the design and build new ones to make lunar orbits... I don't think the benefit outweighs the cost for that, no.



no worries mate .





new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join