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.

 

ISS on the moon.

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 10:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wreckclues
a reply to: ni91ck

Why not just scrap the whole idea and use native materials and an Inflatable habitat, similar to Submersible Portable Inflatable Dwellings used in Oceanic research.

patents.google.com...


Your on the right track but unfortunately I think a guy that has been in the “ether” of quite a few current threads around here may have beat you to it.

bigelowaerospace.com...




posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: ni91ck
Will it be more feasible if we just make ISS orbit the moon as a temporary station and not land it as a moonbase?



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 01:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva
a reply to: ni91ck
Will it be more feasible if we just make ISS orbit the moon as a temporary station and not land it as a moonbase?



Maybe not the whole ISS but one of the modules could be transported into a moon orbit, or as an experiment into a mars orbit. Now that would be a cool idea imho.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 03:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

Like this?


Well that's just a bit silly. He should have used a hoover, there is no grass in the air.

Mowing clouds, insanity.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 03:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wreckclues
a reply to: ni91ck

Why not just scrap the whole idea and use native materials and an Inflatable habitat, similar to Submersible Portable Inflatable Dwellings used in Oceanic research.

patents.google.com...


NO one has thought of the most obvious solution to this problem. Fire a giant rope around the moon, and slowly pull the ISS there. No need to reach any velocity, just really big biceps.

Or use an elephant.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 03:05 AM
link   
Well I know my next Kerbal Space Program mission.

To the Mun!!.




Anyone else play this?.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 03:05 AM
link   
a reply to: badw0lf

A space elevator!.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 03:46 AM
link   
The ISS doesnt havethr landing capiblity like apollos. It would be a disaster. No rotational or back orbit thruster. It would literally fall to the surface at a horrifuc rate and be a tomb on the moon if the ISS.

The only way, is if they held a few launches getting the equipmemt up there and let people work on it. However the time and money would be exceptional without knowing if ut would even work. Juat to much uncertainty and unknown. NASA wont bite.

God i miss the shuttle launches i used to watch every single one and listen to the flight crews live broadcast. Love everything about it ☺



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 05:17 AM
link   
I see people thinking here. That's good. Iss around the moon is a good idea. Around mars would be such a operation. It will come there. But what about keeping the crew alive. So many rockets for food and stuff. And yeah. Better would be the shuttle back but bigger. Landing platforms on the moon and Mars.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: ni91ck
Say half a ton of supplies catapulted from the earth's orbit with minimal propulsion system then maneuvered by the guys in ISS remotely to dock at the station... If it's up to us, what supplies do we send the lunar crew of ISS?

1. 250 kilos of instant noodles
2. 1,000 pairs of chopsticks
3. 2 hard drives of all the porn ever made on earth- to keep the crews entertained and make sure the blood keeps flowing at the right places. The other copy will be send to the moon's surface as a permanent testament to humankind's decadence and warning to all the aliens to not mess with us.
4. Lawn mower

Your turn...


edit on 09 11 2015 by MaxTamesSiva because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 09:38 AM
link   
You could probably very gently accelerate the ISS towards the Moon (and then very gently decelerating it) to put it in orbit around the Moon, but definitely not land it there. It's just too big and too fragile for such a thing.

It would take a lot, really lot of fuel.

It's gonna be much simpler and cheaper to build and send colony components.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: MaxTamesSiva

I would say. Send ugly Betty to keep the aliens away. Kfc, mac donalds, Burgerking for fast food on Mars. I think the real junkies wil love it. And Trump for entertainment. All of ATS would move to Mars.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: badw0lf

A space elevator!.



I've got my toolbox, and some nanocarbon.

Who's with me !!!!1



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 11:45 AM
link   
jesus...
i am an space nut, and your idea is wrong in many ways:
1: ISS is heavy
2: ISS is made for space microgravity, we would need to adapt to moon's higher gravity
3:this idea sucks



posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ni91ck

No, that is not the only problem.

There is also the problem of accelerating the station from 17,000 mph to 25,000 mph in order to leave Earth orbit, while keeping it in one piece.

Oh, also slowing it down once it gets to the Moon.

It's probably theoretically possible to add thrusters that accelerate it at a slow enough rate to not cause structural damage, and then decelerate in at a slow enough rate to slow down enough at the moon to then land it -- and then gently land it, which would take more powerful thrusters.

Of course, the trip to the moon would take a very long time under that gentle thrust, and probably take an engine that really does not yet exist (some sort of ion engine or other type of plasma/electric propulsion engine, but better than the ion/electric/plasma thrusters we currently have).

And then the landing thrusters would need to probably be chemical rockets to be able to create a slow enough descent to the surface against the gravity of the Moon (which while only 1/6 Earth, it's still significant enough that the ISS would crash at high speed if just dropped from orbit, even if its initial velocity before being dropped was zero).

...and Chemical rocket thrusters capable of doing that would need to burn for a long time and take a lot of fuel -- much more fuel than what would be needed for all of this to be considered to be a reasonable endeavor.

And then even if the landing could be pulled off, once on the surface there would be the problem of providing power to the ISS. Electrical power to the ISS is currently provided by solar panels that charge batteries. Most parts of the Moon experiences 14 straight Earth days of darkness, and I doubt the batteries on the ISS are designed to store enough power for 14 continuous days of darkness (i.e., without the possibility of being recharged). And then I wonder if the structural connections between the modules are strong enough to withstand the gravity of the Moon.


But the bottom line is that even if all of that (and many other issues I didn't mention) could be done, it would all make for a pretty crappy Moon base.

It would probably be much much easier to just launch new modules that were designed specifically for the purpose of being a Moon base.



edit on 25/2/2018 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 05:38 AM
link   
Aside from all of the other problems mentioned, there is the fact that the ISS was designed for use in free-fall, which means that the modules stick-out at 90° angles to each other, and thus would become inaccessible or awkwardly angled if under gravity. From module to module there isn't a consistent floor or ceiling, since in free-fall any surface can have equipment or terminals mounted on it.




new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join