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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
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.


There is, but you would have to use a lot more fuel. The shuttle arcs into Earth orbit instead of using it's full speed from launch to breaking the Earth's pull on its initial blast. The Apollo launch path was similar, except that, rather than settle into an Earth orbit before going to the moon, used the Earth's gravity to sling shot and add even more velocity to the space craft, sending it bam, zoom, off to the moon. The current shuttle's velocity stabilizes when it reaches low Earth orbit. Some system would have to be developed where, as the shuttle continues to accelerate, it manages to dock with the external fuel pod/supply pod and continue to accelerate to save the most fuel. If, instead, the shuttle would have to go into a stable LEO, mount with the pod, then leave LEO and head off to the moon, the fuel use would be higher.

There have been theoretical plans to actually construct a ship or send a ship into low Earth orbit then modify it there with boosters and fuel to get it to Mars in a more cost efficient manner, but our current shuttle design would have to be modified significantly to make this happen. Scram jet technology integrated into a space faring craft would be more cost effective, as it would take off in a standard manner (rather than using the boosters that are currently used) and achieve low Earth orbit in that manner, using far less fuel and wasting far fewer materials. Then it would dock with boosters, possibly mounted on the ISS, and essentially "launch" from there to its destination.




posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Dyno25000, may I suggest reading this: ABOUT ATS: Warnings for excessive quoting, and how to quote.

That being said, please calm down when others express feelings aside from yours. Just because you think your idea is great doesn't mean others will. So lighten up, mmmkay?

Besides, those who do not agree with you may bring forth ideas that you never considered, just as you may shed light upon something they do not fully understand.

Thanks!



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 09:57 PM
link   
"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..." (Frosty)

I understand what you're saying, sir; but I believe Apollo 11 completed two orbits in low earth orbit before it made trans-lunar injection...now you've got me wondering just how large a one-shot orbitally-attached fuel/supply package the Shuttle would require to make the trip...but I am ill-equipped to research this.

"I think the only way to do it is to redecorate the Shuttle, any way it would be more exciting to see the shuttle land on the moon rather then have a thin foil aluminium craft land there..." (Pepsi78)

Kind of my thought, too; if the Shuttle could GET there, it could be horsed down to a soft landing, even if by way of the maneuvering thrusters.

"Hey Dyno if you want to know more about the space shuttle's potential here is a great site." (danwild6)

Excellent links, danwild6! I'm still absorbing their implications.

"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." (Bhadhidar)

Bhadhidar, OK; we're down to retrofitting beryllium shielding to the Shuttle, designing and building a fuel/supply pod to mate up with the Shuttle in orbit, a connection protocol for the orbital attachment, and one single launch of the fuel/supply package. Would this still not be more inexpensive than designing and building a whole new vehicle for our return-to-the-Moon?

"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." (Bhadhidar)

Sir, lox and hydrogen are cheap. Imagine the Shuttle in orbit with a fully-fueled External Fuel Tank. That bad boy is HUGE.

Quote, 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." (junglejake)

LOL junglejake, you're a good sport, and I like your posts. I never met a professional skeptic before...please tell me what it pays salary-wise.

"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." (junglejake)

junglejake, you got it! You finally got it! MUCH cheaper than designing a whole new system.

Enkidu, you are totally hip. I am running down that Analog issue now...Pepsi78, you see the possibilities...

"The Apollo launch path was similar, except that, rather than settle into an Earth orbit before going to the moon, used the Earth's gravity to sling shot and add even more velocity to the space craft, sending it bam, zoom, off to the moon..." (junglejake)

Sir, I believe the Apollo spacecraft completed two low earth orbital passes before firing their engines for trans-lunar insertion...I guess this would have been the vehicle with third-stage still attached.

"There have been theoretical plans to actually construct a ship or send a ship into low Earth orbit then modify it there with boosters and fuel to get it to Mars in a more cost efficient manner, but our current shuttle design would have to be modified significantly to make this happen." (junglejake)

junglejake. Not Mars. The Moon. Who said anything about Mars. That's a whole 'nother can of beans. And what modifications do you refer to? And yes, in this scenario it'd take a spacewalk to access the supplies in the fuel/supply pod...but then again; one could pack the Shuttle full of supplies, and attach the LEM to the orbitally-attached fuel source...no spacewalks meeded, until lunar orbit were achieved whereupon the only spacewalk needed would be to board the LEM. The top part of the LEM, which leaves the bottom part on the Moon, could be retrieved in the cargo bay of the Shuttle.

Cmdrkeenkid, I understand and will comply.



[edit on 6-3-2006 by Dyno25000]



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   
I get mars because, after the moon, hopefully we'll be able to use the new ship for other uses, instead of doing what we did with the Apollo missions. Thinking future costs here, not immediate


EDIT: Oh, and no, I don't think it would be. I've been involved in far too many development lifecycles to think that that whole process would be much cheaper (short run) or any cheaper at all (long run) than starting anew with a different space craft. The immediate costs may seem to be less, but, as you said, who said anything about Mars?

[edit on 3/6/06/06 by junglejake]



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 10:44 PM
link   
junglejake, amen. Agreed in full. We are GO for ignition.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dyno25000
junglejake, amen. Agreed in full. We are GO for ignition.


I really hope not...It would cost billions more, because a mission to Mars will happen. I'd rather not have NASA force the current shuttle into a ramshackle craft to try to get to the moon only to have more efficient and capable planetary craft (like the Apollo) created to go beyond the moon. Do you have any idea how much fuel those piddly-wink rockets on the shuttle would need to use to exit LEO and get the astronauts to the moon in less than several months? There was quite a bit more power on the Saturn rockets than there is in that little 5 rocket booster attached to the shuttle...



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   
I tried hard to agree with you. But you aren't having none of it.

"I'd rather not have NASA force the current shuttle into a ramshackle craft to try to get to the moon only to have more efficient and capable planetary craft (like the Apollo) created to go beyond the moon." (junglejake)

The Shuttle is not a ramshackle Model-T, nor is it an 8-track tape. The Moon is only two hundred and fifty thousand miles away. I do not propose "going beyoned the Moon"; you insist upon misunderstanding me. Get it for the last time, and get it good; any new spacecraft such as you propose would cost BILLIONS in dollars, and YEARS' worth of research, development, and manufacture. That's what this whole thread was ALL ABOUT. Using our current space workhorse to accomplish our short-term goal of returning to the Moon.

"Do you have any idea how much fuel those piddly-wink rockets on the shuttle would need to use to exit LEO and get the astronauts to the moon in less than several months?" (junglejake)

Once again. Lox and liquid hydrogen are cheap.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Thanks for trying to agree with me, but you agreed with something I did not say.

I'm looking to tomorrow. George Bush, in his wisdom (and in this case, I mean it) has put NASA's sights on Mars, with the moon as a stepping stone. Though I disagree with the moon being a stepping stone (people focus on the moon and what is needed to get there, instead of the overall picture), we are going to Mars. It makes no sense to develop one technology to get to the stepping stone, when we will have to develop a whole new technology to get to Mars.

Picture this analogy:

There's a stone in a river, just out of jumping distance. Some tribal leader says, "You know what we're going to do? We're going to reach that stone, but what's more, we're going to get to the other side!" The tribe works furiously, thinking, planning, trying to figure out a way to reach that stone.

They know they can jump, but that stone is just out of reach. They spend months, and develop...The Pogo Stick! They get to the stone! The guy who rides the pogo stick calls out to the leader and says, "Hey, look what we can do!" as he bounces back and forth, laboriously, from the stone back to the shore. The leader looks at him, looks at the 100 feet from one bank to the other, with only one stone in between, and asks how that's going to get them to the other side. Ashamed over his previous pride, the pogoman gets canned, and someone who can see the future builds a bridge that goes over the stone and gets to the other side. Now they can do both, get to the stone and to the other side.

Why bother with a pogo stick when you can build a bridge?



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 11:35 PM
link   
JungleJake talking about going to Mars shouldn't be a problem, the entire purpose of going to the Moon is as a stepping stone for the Red Planet. So it's only natural that he would come to such a conclusion.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Because; our goal is not to get to Mars, pick up a few rocks, and return; our goal is to establish a permanent, self-sufficient, self-powered colony anywhere offlplanet so as to guarantee the survival of the human genome. Since the mid-'60's the human race has had the ability to eradicate all higher life forms on this orbital sphere. That's why I'm so against all the money put up for orbitally-mapping the goofy Moon and the goofy Mars..NASA is totally delinquent. NASA's thrust should be single-mindedly for making a self-supporting lunar colony, or terraforming Mars.. In space, power is free.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 11:47 PM
link   
I really think you need to define goofy, because I'm starting to suspect we have different definitions. So far, wiki's goofy, the moon is goofy and Mars is goofy (or at least knowing what they look like geographically is goofy). I think we have totally different definitions...

So our goal should be a lunar colony? Why? I pointed out what the president, the commander in chief, the guy who tells NASA to jump, said. Yeah, a lunar colony would be nifty, but I don't believe we have the technology to establish a lunar colony quite yet. As to terraformming Mars, very dubious as well. I don't think we have the tech. If anything, our best bet would be Europa, where an under sea colony could be established using current technology so far as oxygen generation, if we could get under the ice and are right about Europa's core. However, how are we going to get to Europa if we focus on our moon instead of Saturn's? If colonization's what you want, then Bush's plan is the best one presented so far. Go outward; don't be stagnant, and don't look inward.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dyno25000
Tehat's why I'm so against all the money put up for orbitally-mapping the goofy Moon and the goofy Mars..NASA is totally delinquent.


Would you go spelunking without a lightsource?



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 11:50 PM
link   
And there are WHOLE PLANETS who's atmosphere is made up of rocket fuel. There is a huge conspiracy to keep us all down.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dyno25000
And there are WHOLE PLANETS who's atmosphere is made up of rocket fuel. There is a huge conspiracy to keep us all down.


Wait, don't you remember? We're focused on the moon, not anything else!

How could we tap that fuel source if we are only going to the moon? If Mars is as out there as the moon was when Kennedy said we were going? Who cares what's out there, it's inaccessible.

Oh, and conspiracy? What?



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Alright. It was a stupid idea, and I am a stupid individual. Moderator, please delete this thread.

[edit on 7-3-2006 by Dyno25000]



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dyno25000
Alright. It was a stupid idea, and I am a stupd individual. Moderator, please delete this thread.
Come on now, Keen's not going to delete this, and I think there's potential to your idea. I'm challenging you on flaws to your concept. Defend them; that's what we do here! I'm a consummate skeptic. A professional skeptic. As I eluded to, I'm a QA guy, which means I am paid to find the flaws in theories. NASA has them, too. People who question every element of someone's theory or idea. The purpose isn't to stagnate ideas, it's to develop them. If you really think it's a bad idea, what would you do differently? If you think it's a good idea that we're not seeing, how would you account for what has been brought up?

Don't get discouraged. Build on your idea, or remedy it. This is a board where you can disagree with the mods, whole heartedly, and still be accepted, even respected. Just because you have a couple of people telling you your idea isn't practical doesn't mean it's not. Defend it. Revise it. To quote Mr. Springsteen, no retreat, no surrender. Keep going with it if you think it holds water as being practical in the long run. Explain why you have decided it's a bad idea if you don't.

I know I may sound harsh in some of my rebuttals of your ideas; I come from a family of lawyers. My debate skills come from the courtroom where folks prefer surrender. However, my lust for knowledge hates it. You, obviously, think otherwise than I do. Why? Why do you think it would save money to go to the moon with a modified shuttle? Why do you think there is a conspiracy in not using extraterrestrial fuel? Expand. This isn't your average conspiracy site; there are a lot of members with real world experience that may see things you do not in plans, but at the same time, you may see things they do not.

[edit on 3/7/06/07 by junglejake]



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dyno25000
And there are WHOLE PLANETS who's atmosphere is made up of rocket fuel. There is a huge conspiracy to keep us all down.


What?

WHy does that matter? In order to just send the shuttle to the moon you will need to make tens of billions of dollars in modifications to the shuttle, tens of billions of dollars to build these LEMs and fuel pods, tens of billions to also make the rockets necessary to put fuel into orbit.

You're talking about an effort that could cost hundreds of billions of dollars more than would cost to build a larger saturn v.


I will stronlgy suggest that you learn some of the calculus and classical mechanics in order to better research what it is you are suggesting. Ten minutes of web-browsing and many of your questions could have been answered.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   
junglejake, you are most concerned with your status before these people as a thread-destroyer. A pity your brain, such as it is, will not be geared toward advocacy, no matter what the concept, rather than condemnation. I notice you yourself never advance any concepts...your purpose here is to tear others' down.
I am in communication with Dr. Chris Vuille, author of the excellent article Enkidu mentioned, and he is preparing a post. Moderator, you may credit me for enticing this eminent one's joining our august assembly.
Also, junglejake, I hope someday you might find something to believe in. Disbelief is no belief at all.

[edit on 7-3-2006 by Dyno25000]

[edit on 7-3-2006 by Dyno25000]



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dyno25000
junglejake, you are most concerned with your status before these people as a thread-destroyer. A pity your brain, such as it is, will not be geared toward advocacy, no matter what the concept, rather than condemnation. I notice you yourself never advance any concepts...your purpose here is to tear others' down.


ok.

EDIT: Hope you learned something reading through my posts


[edit on 3/7/06/07 by junglejake]



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   
I learned nothing, because I already knew that skepticism never got anyone anywhere.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join