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.

 

Manned Space Exploration...Why?

page: 7
18
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Another assumption: a landing must be via air resistance.

Not all that long ago, two robot drones landed on Mars. They were encased in a multifaceted box which was designed so that when it opened, it automatically uprighted itself. The surfaces were designed to inflate on entry, similar to how an airbag inflates, so the delicate machinery inside would not be damaged. It had never been tested.

But it worked.

The air resistance on Mars is indeed minimal compared to Earth, but that means the heating from the air resistance is minimal as well. An object will not 'burn up' nearly as easily in the thin Martian atmosphere. That means less heat shielding and therefore less weight. We have the capability to use rockets to allow touchdown to be slow enough to be survivable, and less weight of the craft means less fuel required.

That's two possibilities; there are several more being explored.

Yes, I happen to be very familiar with the research being done. A few of those 'other ideas' being explored seem actually incredible at first sight, but the math seems to hold out.

TheRedneck




posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Right, the "beach ball" concept. It has indeed been successful (a couple of times, well, one anyway).

It's still a very "HARD" landing for the human form...like 10+ g's.

ETA...Ironically, the Russian Soyuz technology actually holds some of the most promise for successful landings on Mars, but it would require some perfection to get it right. (Space X is now using similar technology to land the boosters).
edit on 4/21/2018 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Keep in mind that just a few decades ago, trains or flight was revolutionary, and many people believed it was impossible or would result in some harm to humans. When Gagarin went to space, it was a completely unknown territory, and there were doubts whether he would survive. Same goes for the first spacewalk by Leonov.

And now, we have a space station where people live and work, furthering our quest to explore space.

Just because you don't understand the value and validity of it, doesn't mean it has no value or validity.

Personally, I want to set my foot on Mars, or to see Saturn and Jupiter upclose with my own eyes. That will obviously never happen for me, but it's kinda cool to know that, one day, our kids or grandkids will do so.



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Don't forget, some of the highest reentry temperatures happen higher in the atmosphere where the atmosphere is thinner, principally because the craft is traveling much faster. Once it slows down in the denser atmosphere it cools off to significantly lower temps just prior to landing. Mars doesn't have this advantage (i.e. the velocities are much higher closer to the surface).



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Your argument for the most part is the same sort of crap that was said before the wright brothers flew.
If you look at the advances we have made since sputnik took orbit its actually quite amazing. Since this is a conspiracy forum I'll throw this in there. What makes you think mankind hasn't gone past the moon?



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

They need really snazzy parachutes.

A hang gliding acquaintance from long ago, who became an aeronautical engineer, was involved with some of the design work. We had a reunion of sorts a few years ago and I cornered him into a bourbon fueled discussion about it.

I remember some of it.



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

Why does everyone keep talking about MY understanding of things?

Isn't that kind of an arrogant way to view things? Is YOUR understanding more profound, or better in some way? (not directed at you personally, just a general question).

And then you go right on to say what I've been illustrating for (7) pages on this thread..."Personally, I want to set my foot on Mars, ...""

What you "want" is fine and perfectly acceptable, but it is NOT an absolute need of humanity.



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk


What you "want" is fine and perfectly acceptable, but it is NOT an absolute need of humanity.

You are welcome to your opinion. But, alas, I am too old in any case.



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: w810i

C'mon, don't be obtuse. Define "mankind"...are you referring to a human being, or a device made by man???

Of course mankind has gone beyond the moon...in the context of machines which were built by Earthlings to explore space. My OP lists one of many, Voyager (1 & 2).

BTW...the Wright Brothers flew on Earth, not in space. Different paradigm (for the 47th time).




edit on 4/21/2018 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yeah, some really BIG ones!





posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Takes more than big.

As I recall though, the discussion was more about testing. Simulating Mars' atmosphere by doing very high altitude deployments. Something like that. I'm fuzzy on the detail. But I was very involved. I remember that part.



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yes, like getting the parachute (or drogue, or whatever) to even deploy properly (without entanglement) is a challenge. It's actually a huge challenge.

I honestly don't think many understand just how hard it is. I think they believe it's like going to the Moon, but it really isn't.

I've only read about some of it. I'm sure your friend could add quite a bit of insight.



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Yeah. Back in the day he had designed a kite that got named Dragonfly. It was quite revolutionary. Then he got a PhD and stuff.


edit on 4/21/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

There is your answer, then. You just pointed out one technology that shows promise in your opinion.

And as for the velocity... F=ma. Not F=ma on Earth. Not F=ma on Mars. Not F=ma at x altitude. F=ma.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

It would be interesting to hear the details... I'll buy the bourbon if it'll jog your memory. I have heard some work was being done with parachutes, but I don't have any details on that. Most of what I have heard was controlling trajectory and angle of attack using air braking mechanisms and rocket assist.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Well, yeah, but it shows promise more in what you were talking about earlier (orbiting habitats, space stations, etc.), not going to Mars (or another planet) so much.

ETA...and yeah, I get the whole F=ma thing.




edit on 4/21/2018 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk


I get the whole F=ma thing.

Good! Then you 'get' that the trick is for vertical acceleration to drop to zero (as close as possible) as the lander reaches the surface. During the trip down, it will be acted upon by a gravitational force and a negative frictional (air resistance) force from the atmosphere. We can add forces to the lander using any number of methods, including allowing some of that acceleration to be transferred to dimensions other than vertical. The possibilities are only limited by the imagination.

My last Optimal Control class actually used a planetary lander as one example of how the equations work.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

The problem with rocket assist is more mass to de-orbit.

All that aside...

I'm reasonably convinced that someday man will figure out how to go to Mars successfully (much to my chagrin). I use Mars as a placeholder to make a point, not to pick on Mars in particular. As planets go, Mars is probably relatively easy (not as easy as the Moon, but still). I'm sure we'll get there someday. I don't think it's realistic to think the whole planet, or even a representative sample of the planet Earth will get there, but mankind will get there sooner or later. Of that I have no doubt (possibly surprisingly enough, after this thread).

And when man finally does set foot on Mars he can make some eloquent statement like "One (more) small step for man...", or "Because it was there... (like Everest), or "To boldly go where no man has gone...", but deep in my heart and mind I don't think he will be making the statement "And now, because of this, the human race can live on into eternity..."

Just my opinion.



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

The parachutes are for "mid" level acceleration (I try to avoid the term deceleration on purpose, just to be pedantic) and we were talking more about simulation in Earth's atmosphere rather than design.

I'm racking my brain but honestly can't recall a single detail. But it was a deep discussion. Really it was.



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Thanks all for the great comments and discussion.

I believe now I am going to have to go put on my UnderRoos pajamas and go snuggle with my 'bankee'. Hopefully I can find my 'binkee' before I fall out.

Take care! Until tomorrow! (which won't be that far off, as the cows get up pretty early).

G'nite.




top topics



 
18
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join