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.

 

Shuttle-to-Moon Conspiracy

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Here's what'cha do: Loft a Shuttle into orbit with a LEM in the cargo bay. Rig the SSMEs to air-start like NASA said they could do. Then, separately, put up a fuel/supply pod of the approximate same weight as the Shuttle, with SSMEs to boost it, on top of the SRB/External Fuel Tank package, into orbit. The only problem would be:
Making a design to mate the Shuttle to the fuel/supply pod in orbit. This could be done easily, I'd think.
Then the Shuttle would be mated to a fuel/supply pod with more than enough oomph to propel it to the Moon, deploy the lander, and make it back. Huh? What am I missing here?




posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 06:52 PM
link   
And if anyone's wondering, the "conspiracy" part comes in whereas NASA's gonna soak us for billions for the new Moon project, and retire this fine Shuttle 'way before it's time. I REFUSE to believe the Shuttle fleet is obsolete. I remember when the Shuttle was the star of America's space program...please tell me these beautiful machines are not wore-out already.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 09:03 PM
link   
I thought the Shuttle was designed for operating in orbit, certainly not interplanetary travel?



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Well, gee, uh, sorry there, Illuminati Agent SteveR...you got to remember, not all of us gots ancestral recall...sorry I wasted your time, sir.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   
I believe that the shuttle will be around for a long time, but I do not believe that the shuttle will be used for "long distance" runs (e.g. to the Moon). In the 60's (I think) is when we went to the moon, on a small cap module off of the Saturn IV rocket. There are many opinions on if we REALLY did go to the moon or not. Personally, I think yes, but in the same perspective I think.."no". My reasoning for "yes" is that the documentary we have. Pictures, audio, and video.

But, some of the "no" things would have to be some of the obvious features that were seemingly artificial. Notice the flag, even if the moon has 1/6'th of the Earths gravatational force, a flag would not just "float" and sway like that. The moon rover also caught my attention. If they just "left" it there, why havent we recorded its location and used the Hubble or some other powerful telescope to possibly find this sort of proof. And the American Flag, why havent we taken pictures of it yet?

I would just have to assume that this is possible. if we can pinpoint one star out of a billion+, then why would we not be able to find the flag, the footprints, or the moon rover?

I am not doubting that we went to the moon, I am just still questioned on whether it was a way to say to Russia, "hey we won the Space Race, we made it to the moon and you didnt". Cover up, or not?



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Please. Someone address why we can't fit a fuel pod to the Shuttle in orbit and power it to the Moon and back. A LEM would easily fit in the cargo bay, not to mention modular units for permanent housing, or tunnel-boring machines for solar-ray-proof habitats...I mean, I love the new plan NASA's got; but we have a tried and true space workhorse already in place.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dyno25000
I remember when the Shuttle was the star of America's space program..


I remember when 8-Tracks were amazing, you could take music with you into your car!


Illuminati Agent SteveR is right, though. The current shuttle is classified as a winged shuttle orbiter, and they were designed for 100 launches or 10 years of operation. The shuttle's original purpose was to help build and maintain Space Station Freedom, which was scaled way back and turned into the ISS.

So the shuttle was designed to service orbital platforms around Earth. As our eyes move forward to the future of space exploration, so must our technology and our means by which to get there. The shuttle outlasted its expected lifetime, and will continue to service the ISS until something better is designed and in production. A strong contender would be a scram jet type of platform, saving massive costs to service high and low Earth orbit platforms.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Dyno25000, something similar was considered, but the risks outweighed the nostalgia. Also, it's not just fuel concerns that prevent long voyages. There has to be enough space for food, air, excrement, and entertainment for a long journey. The shuttle was designed for short journeys, its longest being a trip taken by Columbia that lasted for 17 and a third days.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 12:24 AM
link   
junglejake, apologies; you are obviously more erudite than I, and this one has a thick head. Please try one more time to get it through to me.
"There has to be enough space for food, air, excrement, and entertainment for a long journey..." (jj)
If a fuel/supply pod was lofted to mate up with the Shuttle in orbit, it'd obviously have more capacity than the Shuttle itself, not needing a return-to-earth airframe; this would leave latitude for all the excrement the astronauts could poop out, plus food and video games.
"The shuttle was designed for short journeys, its longest being a trip taken by Columbia that lasted for 17 and a third days...." (jj)
If I'm not mistaken, the Apollo 11 mission lasted 195 hours, 18 minutes, and 35 seconds, which is less than half the duration of the Columbia mission you mentioned.
You may also for your own efficacy not refer me to the goofy Wikipedia articles on the Shuttle and Space Station. I express thanks.

[edit on 3-3-2006 by Dyno25000]

[edit on 3-3-2006 by Dyno25000]



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Wikipedia is a phenomenal launching pad (sorry, pun intended
) for doing deeper research into an area you'd like to study. If you feel it's goofy or not, wiki articles do a great job of exposing surface level stuff on subjects that equips you with enough knowledge to begin to search for in depth information.

How would having additional fuel attaching to the craft after it left Earth allow more latitude in storage space for the space craft? You're not proposing a...redesign, are you?

You're probably right about the Apollo mission, by I was looking in a more Martian direction than Lunar. That would be a significantly longer trip.

Why the attachment to this craft? What's wrong with designing an interplanetary space shuttle instead of hacking one designed for Earth orbit to travel to the other planets?



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Thanks for the reply.
"How would having additional fuel attaching to the craft after it left Earth allow more latitude in storage space for the space craft? You're not proposing a...redesign, are you?" (jj)
Um, I'd think that fuel/supply pod attached to the Shuttle in orbit would accommodate both fuel and supplies.
"You're probably right about the Apollo mission, by I was looking in a more Martian direction than Lunar. That would be a significantly longer trip." (jj)
Please re-check the title of this thread.
"Why the attachment to this craft? What's wrong with designing an interplanetary space shuttle instead of hacking one designed for Earth orbit to travel to the other planets?"
Answer: Billions of dollars, and years of design and manufacturing time. And I guess the Moon can be called a planet, but it's not like I'm proposing to take the Shuttle to Saturn.

[edit on 3-3-2006 by Dyno25000]

[edit on 3-3-2006 by Dyno25000]

[edit on 3-3-2006 by Dyno25000]



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Maybe not to Saturn, but there is a proposal to be going to Mars, as well.

I have actually experienced both of these scenarios in business. A lot of newer, smaller companies look at the initial cost of a rewrite or starting from scratch, to a degree, and choose to save money by modifying the existing product to do something it originally was not intended to do. This is appealing because starting costs are so much smaller than creating a new product designed for the purpose needed.

I have yet to work on a project where this was done and the final costs were not far larger than originally anticipated, not filled with complications due to forcing a square peg into a round hole. and not significantly delayed. In one case, a company I worked for had invested over $1.5M into a project attempting to do this, spending 2 and a half years of development and testing, only to scrap the whole thing as impossible. The projected goal was about $300,000 and a year between initialization and release. That had seemed far more appealing than taking 2 years and double the original figure to redo the project from close to scratch to make it fit our needs.

A new shuttle will be designed. The question is, do we want to spend tons of cash revamping the current system, forcing the square peg into the round hole, for one purpose, to go to the Moon, only to have to spend the money on a new shuttle anyway?



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dyno25000


Just not feasible ($), the amount of fuel you need is enormous considering that this is not a multistage rocket and the number of operations to fit the shuttle, launch it an appropriate number of times to place all the fuel and equipment in space, etc.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   
I think the lem thing would be a bad idea.
We are in 2006 why dont we land a real space ship on the moon shutle looking.
The thin aluminum foil device should be put to rest, let a real shutle land there.
Since the moon ahs no atmosfere and low gravity it should be easyer to land a shutle on the moon.
But it will have to be modified.
Strong Boosters below the space shuttle like the harier has.
If a airoplane can land on the earth like a helicopter it would be much easyer
to pull it on the moon where the gravity is lower.
It would be much easyer to enter the moon with out any atmosferic caracteristics.




[edit on 3-3-2006 by pepsi78]


jra

posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 07:05 PM
link   
I could be wrong, but I think the Shuttle is also shielded enough for low Earth Orbit and not for trips to the Moon. It would really just be better to use something new to go to the moon and probably cheaper in the long run. The shuttles are old. They need lots of maintenance as is. Modifying it and using it for something other than what it's ment for just seems way to risky and will most definately end up costing more then expected.

Personally I wouldn't want to go to the moon in a vehicle that is, 1) not designed for it and 2) nearly 25 years old.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Would somebody. Anybody. PLEASE. Address my question; why can't we rig a fuel/supply pod in orbit to the Shuttle and fly it to the Moon, deploy and retrieve a lander, and fly it back?
I am so disappointed. On other threads, knowledgeable guys post good hard info. Instead, what I've got here is, "Duh huh huh, I don't think that'd be a good idea!" and "Huh huh, where's there gonna be fuel and supplies from?" I posted the FIRST TIME. Mate up a FUEL/SUPPLY POD to the Shuttle in orbit. FUEL. And SUPPLIES. I posted this in MY FIRST POST. jj, please get a clue.
"The shuttles are old. They need lots of maintenance as is. Modifying it and using it for something other than what it's ment for just seems way to risky and will most definately end up costing more then expected." (jra)
jra, listen up; re-read the thread. I don't suggest MODIFYING the Shuttle, jra. I suggest LOFTING A FUEL/SUPPLY pod to mate up with the Shuttle in orbit. Will you guys PLEASE address my question, instead of, "Duh huh huh, the Shuttle's wore out".
The Shuttle is not wore out.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 01:09 AM
link   
My friend, I don't recommend insulting other members. You probably have a reprieve today because you're relatively new and the law ain't in town, but the staff here generally looks down on it.

You had asked if it was feasible? I had believed to have answered your question, but if you meant if it was technologically possible, then yes, technologically speaking, it is. Congrats, you win. You have shown us all to be fools not worthy to breathe the same air as a genius of your caliber. We...Sorry, had to pick my nose, and then I forgot how the keyboard worked; think I got it down now, not sure though. We have been shown your shear genius based on your cogent arguments, your knowledgeable replies, and your reinforced points, from the "goofy" wikipedia statement to the "duh duh duh" statement, you have shown us that we are completely wrong. Yes, Dyno25000, you are correct. It is technologically possible to do as you have suggested.

Practically, however, no one in their right mind would spend billions revamping the shuttle only to design another. NASA isn't filled with idiots, and it's not filled with nostalgic fools who think they could spend billions more on a worthless project and maintain their funding because they think the current shuttle is pretty. Yeah, the 8-track could have been revamped and forced into the next technological generation, but the people who developed it knew better, and instead the cassette tape was developed. Then the CD. There are still people who prefer the horrible sound quality, susceptibility to damage from playing and the inconvenient size of albums over CDs, but even Pearl Jam learned after Vitology there was no point catering to that market.

duh duh duh.

EDIT: Actually, that should have been "fuh fuh fuh", as I was making a Dilbert reference, and upon further review, it looks like the original intent was to make a Bevis and Butthead reference.

[edit on 3/4/06/04 by junglejake]


jra

posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dyno25000
Would somebody. Anybody. PLEASE. Address my question; why can't we rig a fuel/supply pod in orbit to the Shuttle and fly it to the Moon, deploy and retrieve a lander, and fly it back?


Rigging/mating/modifying, what ever the hell you want to call it. It's just not a good idea.


jra, listen up; re-read the thread. I don't suggest MODIFYING the Shuttle, jra. I suggest LOFTING A FUEL/SUPPLY pod to mate up with the Shuttle in orbit.


Where would this fuel/supply pod attach exactly? The LEM is taking up space in the cargo bay in your idea right? So one would have to make some sort of special attachment somewhere on the shuttle. So one would need to modify the shuttle to do this.

Would Rigging/mating/modifying the shuttle, and launching an extra rocket with its fuel/supply pod, be more efficient then just redesigning something that could do it all in one launch? I kind of doubt it.


Will you guys PLEASE address my question, instead of, "Duh huh huh, the Shuttle's wore out".
The Shuttle is not wore out.


The question has been addressed by everyone. Yes, I guess NASA could do this, but why would they? It's not a good idea. And the shuttle is "wore out". As some one said already. It was ment to be used for 100 launches or 10 years. I believe the 10 years are up.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   
The shuttle is 1960's technology... Built by the Nazi scientists.... It is decades out of date and should have been replaced years ago... Why has that not happened??? Because there is more money in one time use launch systems. As far as sending them to the moon... send them unmaned and crash them into the surface!!!



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   
"I could be wrong, but I think the Shuttle is also shielded enough for low Earth Orbit." (jra)

jra, I daresay the Shuttle is shielded from solar radiation an order of magnitude superior to that of the Apollo tin-cans.

"My friend, I don't recommend insulting other members." (junglejake)

jj, my attitude is insulting; my posts are not. Your insistence on comparing the Shuttle to an eight-track tape is rather disingenuous. No Shuttle has flown 100 missions yet.

"Practically, however, no one in their right mind would spend billions revamping the shuttle..." (jj)

jake, you insist upon intentionally misunderstanding me. No revamping of the Shuttle is necessary. Simply mate it up to a fuel/supply pod in orbit. I addressed this in my first (and last) post.

"NASA isn't filled with idiots, and it's not filled with nostalgic fools who think they could spend billions more on a worthless project..." (jj)

This would not cost billions, inasmuch as no modifications to the Shuttle would be necessary. As I wrote in my very first post, the only technological question would be the mating up of the fuel/supply pod in orbit with the Shuttle. This fuel/supply pod launch would by no means cost billions. And I have no idea what a Dilbert is.

"Where would this fuel/supply pod attach exactly?" (jra)

jra, it'd attach exactly where the External Tank attaches to the Shuttle before launch; but in orbit. This is the only tricky part...to design a fuel/supply package able to be mated up with the Shuttle in orbit. Like I said in my first post.

"So one would have to make some sort of special attachment somewhere on the shuttle. So one would need to modify the shuttle to do this." (jra)

Yes, one would have to design a special fuel/supply pod to mate up with the Shuttle in orbit. I done said that. No, it would not necessarily require any modification to the Shuttle at all.

"Yes, I guess NASA could do this, but why would they?" (jra)

jra, why would NASA want to return to the Moon to start with?

"It's not a good idea. And the shuttle is "wore out". (jra)

It's an idea worth considering, and the Shuttle is not wore out. They were designed for 100 missions, and no shuttle has performed 100 missions. NASA is a money-hog trying to soak us for billions to feed the greedy aerospace companies, and they're focusing on little remote-control cars on Mars and YET ANOTHER "Moon mapping" series of satellites, whereas we've already mapped the dadgum Moon perfectly well.
P.S. "It's just not a good idea" somehow doesn't satisfy me.

[edit on 4-3-2006 by Dyno25000]

[edit on 4-3-2006 by Dyno25000]

[edit on 4-3-2006 by Dyno25000]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join