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: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:
jra

posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dyno25000
jra, I daresay the Shuttle is shielded from solar radiation an order of magnitude superior to that of the Apollo tin-cans.


Well I don't know for sure. I'm researching it at the moment. The shuttle flies within LEO, so it doesn't have to deal with as much radiation as the Apollo capsules, from my understanding.


You insist upon intentionally misinterpreting me. No revamping of the Shuttle is necessary. Simply mate it up to a fuel/supply pod in orbit. I addressed this in my last post.



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.



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, but how will it attach? It isn't just some clamp or docking latch that lets go of the external tank when the shuttle is in orbit. Explosive bolts are used to disconnect it. I don't think it's possible to attach in orbit. It's not like docking to the ISS. There are three points where the external tank attaches to the shuttle. I think it would be a major challenge to line up all three points in orbit.

You would have to change the way the shuttle attaches to the tank, so that it could do it in space by itself. And it would be more then just designing a new external tank.


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.


For the thrid time in this thread, it's 100 missions OR 10 YEARS. The newest shuttle is the Endeavour and it's 14 years old. When the shuttle was conceived, it was believed that the shuttle would be cheaper to launch and would have been able to launch more regularly, but things didn't turn out that way. Thus the reason none have reached that 100 mission mark. But they are all over 10 years old and need to be retired.

Also, please learn to use the quote feature. It would make your posts much easier to read.

And Dilbert is a comic strip.

[edit on 4-3-2006 by jra]




posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 10:49 PM
link   
What you all supose thjey do?
Take off to the moon in a aluminum foil lem looking type?
it's a joke.

There are 2 roads, 1 modyfy the shutle 2 build a new shuttle for the moon.
Personaly I would build A new one just for the moon and design it for it, but I dont think they got the funds, so what can be done is modify the ones they got.
For landing, add boosters, and add some legs to it so it can land liike a hellicopter.
The shuttle is big enough to hold experiments on what they colect and cary eqiptment in it like aditional light source and diferent containers, it would be the best choice.
The lem the space is restricted you cant really cary anithing with it.
If they manage to build a new one I congratulate them, but build something big.
Remember for things to be colected and for space to cary extra eqiptment you have to have a cargo bay.
On rentry a para drop would not sustain a biger object it can sustain a capsule but not a big hunk of metteal.
So the only way to make it work is the shutle way, glide on rentry and land.


[edit on 4-3-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 03:42 AM
link   
Yup 10 years, the shuttle should have been replaced years ago. I remember after the very first mission being horrified that some of the heat-resistant tiles had fallen off. And even more horrified when they said that was how it was designed to work. OK OK so that was the best they could do with the technology available at the time.... but cool it's not.

I know it's horrendously complex and expensive to replace the shuttle, but I really hope the next shuttle does not have bits falling off all the time.

Unless of course the REAL reason why 'Shuttle 2' hasn't come along already is because no-one wanted to spend the money when (according to some conspiracies) the black-ops guys already have a proper 'space plane' up and running?



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Yes, but how will it attach? It isn't just some clamp or docking latch that lets go of the external tank when the shuttle is in orbit. Explosive bolts are used to disconnect it. I don't think it's possible to attach in orbit. It's not like docking to the ISS. There are three points where the external tank attaches to the shuttle. I think it would be a major challenge to line up all three points in orbit.


[edit on 4-3-2006 by jra]



Not only would this be very difficult to do at 10's of thousands of miles per hour, chances are it would cause damage to the protective tiles.

I would have to agree with the consensus that it is not a good idea.

On paper and first glances I thought it was a great idea and glad to see some one come up with an idea like this.

After running through the different scenarios, it seems more dangerous then what it would be worth it.

OK Dyno, now that someone else disagrees with you I am guessing you will have some other flames to add to the thread. Not to mention repeating your ideas from the opening thread, and speaking to us like we are idiots that just doesn't understand your genius.

I guess its tough being good.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   
"OK Dyno, now that someone else disagrees with you I am guessing you will have some other flames to add to the thread.." (bpletcj)

bpletcj, not at all. A few incisive posts by yourself, jra, Pepsi78, and Moley were what I wanted, which was for someone to take the idea seriously and tell me WHY it's a bad idea. The upshot is not that the Shuttle is old and worn out (it's not), or that it's not adequately shielded (it is); the upshot is that it'd simply be too difficult to mate a fuel/supply package to the Shuttle while in orbit (if that's true).

Which question I mentioned in my first post.

And I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone, especially not junglejake with his somewhat dirigible sense of opprobrium.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dyno25000
"OK Dyno, now that someone else disagrees with you I am guessing you will have some other flames to add to the thread.." (bpletcj)

bpletcj, not at all. A few incisive posts by yourself, jra, Pepsi78, and Moley were what I wanted, which was for someone to take the idea seriously and tell me WHY it's a bad idea. The upshot is not that the Shuttle is old and worn out (it's not), or that it's not adequately shielded (it is); the upshot is that it'd simply be too difficult to mate a fuel/supply package to the Shuttle while in orbit (if that's true).

Which question I mentioned in my first post.

And I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone, especially not junglejake with his somewhat dirigible sense of opprobrium.

I think that is not a problem, they can always cary first in orbit fuel and then dock from there and refuel.
It's not the first time a space shuttle docks.

A way to cary fuel up there would not be that dificult.Think about the so caled apolo mision "let devil speak"
supose it made it what quantity of fuel did they need?
If they managed to make it back just with the lem and with the capsule atached to it than I dont see what's the fuss with the fuel, and i'm sure there
could be a way to cary fuel in orbit even if it's little by little.

Remember the space station?
It was created the same way , from the tanks out of the space shutle.
I'm sure they can cary each time a little tank that would not be used maybe atach it to the big one in the midlle.



[edit on 5-3-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dyno25000
is old and worn out (it's not), or that it's not adequately shielded (it is); the upshot is that it'd simply be too difficult to mate a fuel/supply package to the Shuttle while in orbit (if that's true).


NO, the most challenging aspect is the dozens of (potential and mostly assured) launches it will take to put into oribt the fuel necessary for a round trip.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Hmm. The answer is to build a reusable spacecraft that can travel the distance to the moon an back. It should also be able to be used for other functions too, ie cargo, laboratory etc. i always did love the desgin of the Eagles in Space 1999. Sturdy but practical.
Hands up anyone who wants to be Alan Carter and fly an Eagle !!



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   
"NO, the most challenging aspect is the dozens of (potential and mostly assured) launches it will take to put into oribt the fuel necessary for a round trip." (Frosty)

Frosty, flash back to the small Command/Service Module which stored fuel to power the Apollo missions to the Moon and back; then flash forward to the Shuttle, and imagine a fuel/supply package the same size as the Shuttle. One launch, of an orbitally-attachable fuel/supply package. Just one.

Pepsi78, I think you have more insight than a lot of people...you talk about how it could be done, instead of why it couldn't be done.

"Hmm. The answer is to build a reusable spacecraft that can travel the distance to the moon an back." (Wirral Bagpuss)

WirralB, billions of dollars. Years of research and development. We already have a proven space workhorse.

[edit on 5-3-2006 by Dyno25000]



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dyno25000
Frosty, flash back to the small Command/Service Module which stored fuel to power the Apollo missions to the Moon and back; then flash forward to the Shuttle, and imagine a fuel/supply package the same size as the Shuttle. One launch, of an orbitally-attachable fuel/supply package. Just one.


NO!

The Apollo mission used a five stage rocket, not a one stage dingy. The shuttle currently only has enough fuel to reach an altitude capble of earth orbit and the return mission.
I say: do the research yourself. Much of the information is available. You should be able to find out how much fuel is needed and how many launches it will take to put into orbit the total amount of fuel.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 09:21 PM
link   


NO!

The Apollo mission used a five stage rocket, not a one stage dingy. The shuttle currently only has enough fuel to reach an altitude capble of earth orbit and the return mission.
I say: do the research yourself. Much of the information is available. You should be able to find out how much fuel is needed and how many launches it will take to put into orbit the total amount of fuel.


I think it's irelevant simply because any way what ever go's there on the moon will need to dock before it departs, so fuel is going to be caried any way in to orbit, or do you want the lem to go again?A tiny craft that we dont even know if it made it for sure.
It's 2006 it's time for something biger to go there, nasa does not got the funds to build a super space ship, what they got is the shuttle.
People are going there to build something maybe a base, how do you plan on doing that with the lem?or do you think their going to play golf again.
How do you want to cary equiptment in a capsule?or in a lem looking device.
With greedy bush I dont see where the funds would come from since he is puting it all in the weapons industry.
I think the only way to do it is to redecorate the shutlle, any way it would be more exciteing to see the shuttle land on the moon rather then have a thin foil aluminium craft land there.
And with the fuel in orbit thing anithing that go's there will need fuel in orbit that's if they dont decide to send another apoplo crapy mision and set us back in the 60's.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   
You wouldn't have to carry the fuel with you. What you should do is launch a module capable of electrolysis(i.e splitting water into liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen. You know rocket fuel). Then bam send the shuttle up dock it with the fuel depot refuel then on your way.

Orbital fuel depot



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Some excellent ideas coming forward now. Some real knowledge, and some real cogitation. This is what I'd hoped for. This is the best website on the 'Net.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Hey Dyno if you want to know more about the space shuttle's potential here is a great site.

Space Island Group



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dyno25000

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?


The Space Shuttle was designed for operation in Low Earth Orbit (LEO); as such it relies upon the shielding effect of the Van Allen radiation belts and the Earth's magnetic fields, which shape and contain those belts for protection from much of the hard cosmic radiation present in space. Built of aluminum alloys, carbon/carbon, and ceramics, the STS is actually very lightly shielded against hard cosmic radiation.

Apollo, at least the Command Module, was constructed primarily from beryllium, if memory serves; a light-weight, EXPENSIVE! metal with very good radiation absorbing properties.

Aside from the new technology re-fitment of the STS would require for a trip to the Moon there is also the a very simple practical consideration: the Shuttle is just too dang Massive for such a trip!

And by "massive" I don't mean big, I mean that its Mass far excedes what would be practical to push to the Moon and back.

And please, remember your physics; "Weightless" does NOT mean "Massless".

Weight and Mass are not the same things!



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 03:40 AM
link   
www.msnbc.msn.com...

www.aviationnow.com.../030606p1.xml


well it might be that they used black space planes.
read the links above found them on the internet
and look at the date Updated: 2:38 a.m. ET March 6, 2006
well a mag. claims substancial evidence of a space plane
developed by the pentagon in the early 90's



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 07:45 AM
link   
I have to agree with Frosty, The shuttles rockets are designed to get the shuttle into low earth orbit. Remeber it took a Saturn V to get Apollo to the moon and I believe it was much lighter than the shuttle.

So it's not so much a matter of having fuel for the trip to the Moon, but getting into the higher orbit necessary to go there.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dyno25000
And I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone, especially not junglejake with his somewhat dirigible sense of opprobrium.


I had to look up both of those words! If a guided sense of indignation involves laughing hysterically while typing the response, count me guilty


On any conspiracy site, you're going to have skeptics, people who question the validity of an idea instead of accepting it and running with it. Considering that's my job professionally, it's probably what I'm going to do while playing on a conspiracy site, too
I wasn't insulted or anything, though. Members are encouraged not to call one another ignorant or other names if they don't agree.

So, getting back to my skeptical self...

You want to put a module up into space that can store and transfer fuel to the current shuttle without modifying the shuttle in any way. At the same time, it will have to be able to transfer food and supplies while also allowing waste to be removed. Without modifying the shuttle. I'm assuming that, if this is a space walk type transfer, you're proposing changing the current space suit design to account for the higher radiation. Might cost a few bucks, though. Then there's the design of this module. Safety systems being checked out and designed. Training for the astronauts. Building the module and testing it so it doesn't fail half way to the moon for some reason. Protecting the massive amount of fuel needed since there won't be 5 stage rockets involved in the shuttle's launch (no modification, right?) thereby increasing the amount of time the shuttle would have to burn on its path (NASA doesn't like things causing rocket fuel to explode mid-flight), creating a lunar lander that can sit in the shuttle bay without modifying the existing shuttle, testing, training, and safety checks of the new lander, contingency plans in the event that something does fail, testing those contingency plans, and justifying to congress such a limited project for such a high budget.

Or we can go through the same process, and a little more, for a new shuttle design that is capable of more than just a moon operation.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   
I remember reading a very excellent non-fiction article in Analog magazine sometime in the late 1980's that went into great detail about how the Shuttle could fairly easily be used as a platform to mount a moonshot. It described the refueling you'd have to do, how the Shuttle would function as the lunar orbiter, what kind of lander would fit in the cargo bay, the whole deal.

The article is probably still around somewhere, maybe in an Analog archive. It was an interesting exercise in "what ifs."

(after a bit of research)
P.S. - It was "Taking the Shuttle to the Moon," written by Chris Vuille, Ph.D., and it was publish in mid-December 1990.

[edit on 6-3-2006 by Enkidu]



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Isnt there any way the shutle can brake away from lower orbit?
I mean is it that hard to brake from orbit, cant it be done with something atached to the shuttle


After it refuels in lower orbit(safer) brake away for the moon.
Why does it have to be above orbit for it to refuel?your all talking like once u'r in orbit you cant go up.
I'm sure there can be a way to modify the shutle after being in orbit to go higher.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join