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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   




posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Alright you two...

CLICK HERE NOW BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!!


Woohoo! I think I made it! Now what?




MOD EDIT: No stealing that link's glory now.


[edit on 3/7/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   




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.

well in order to evolve yes you must spend we are in 2006 and any way modifying the one you got will be much cheaper than bulding a new one.
Do you expect in 3000 do go in a saturn rocket also?
In stead of evolving it would be a regresion to send a saturn rocket there.
And remeber the alfa base moon project, how are you gioig to go do it with a saturn roket?
A saturn roket would not be a good idea simply because you cant cary a large pay load of eqiptment with it.
Back when apolo misions use to be they could not even cary aditional light source.
You need space for the things you want to get there.
You need a biger thing, and you know that a biger thing can not be droped on rentry by a parashoot, so a biger capsule is worthless the small one had 3 big shoots, are you going to make the next one an inch biger?
The only way for something to come back on rentry safe is for something to glide(a shutle)You simply cant cary all that stuff in a capsule, also if you want to camp out on the moon it would not be a good idea to do it in a capsule, it's just not a good idea.


[edit on 7-3-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Apologies to everyone. This is my first time posting to a forum, and the first thread I've ever posted. Mostly been a lurker, in admiration of the smart ones. I look at some of my posts and feel like they were of a bad attitude.


"Dear Dr. Vuille,
I am acquainted with your excellent article in Analog concerning
outfitting the Space Shuttle for a trip to the Moon.

Lately I have been engaged in a discussion concerning this on a website
forum, (www.abovetopsecret.com...).

Several people there have mentioned your article, but the concensus seems to be that's it's impractical...except in the opinions of myself and a few others.

Dr. Vuille, if you'd do me a favor, please read the posts on this thread
and give some input. New technologies, and new hindrances, have come forward; if you'd read this short thread I am certain you can shed some light on this important subject.

I advocate inexpensively retrofitting this proven space-workhorse
for our return-to-Moon mission, but I am being overridden by ones who have more ego than inspiration. Please visit this thread and add a comment or two:

Most sincerely yours, and thanks.
Julius Cage

Dynokrom Aerospace Group

Hi, Julius,

Just got your email, thanks very much. That article was written some years ago, and such a retrofit would probably work, but I'm not so crazy about the shuttle anymore--not since the early nineties! It's old hardware--badly in need of replacement. I recently published an op-ed article in the local newspaper to that effect.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'll try to look at the string of comments over the next couple days and let you know what I think, maybe post something. The neglect of NASA and the space program over the last thirty years needs to be reversed, and I'm hoping that Griffin, who seems to be a very cool dude, can pull it off.

Thanks again for writing, I'll try to get back to you.

Chris Vuille, Ph.D.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dyno25000
Dynokrom Aerospace Group


I don't mean to nitpick, but that perked my interest and so I wanted to see just what they did. Despite my best efforts though, I cannot find anything about the group. Can you help me out, please?



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   
cmdrkeenkid, that's Dyno25000@aol.com.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78well in order to evolve yes you must spend we are in 2006 and any way modifying the one you got will be much cheaper than bulding a new one.
Do you expect in 3000 do go in a saturn rocket also?
In stead of evolving it would be a regresion to send a saturn rocket there.
And remeber the alfa base moon project, how are you gioig to go do it with a saturn roket?
A saturn roket would not be a good idea simply because you cant cary a large pay load of eqiptment with it.
Back when apolo misions use to be they could not even cary aditional light source.
You need space for the things you want to get there.
You need a biger thing, and you know that a biger thing can not be droped on rentry by a parashoot, so a biger capsule is worthless the small one had 3 big shoots, are you going to make the next one an inch biger?
The only way for something to come back on rentry safe is for something to glide(a shutle)You simply cant cary all that stuff in a capsule, also if you want to camp out on the moon it would not be a good idea to do it in a capsule, it's just not a good idea.


[edit on 7-3-2006 by pepsi78]


I can't find anything coherent about your first few lines, so, for the rest....
As far as Apollo went, it had a huge payload capacity and carried 3 astronausts, NASA newest developments for manned-moon exploration envolve a bigger aperatus than the saturn v which may carry up to 6 astronauts, but more likely just 4.
We've never had a Mercury, Apollo, or Gemini rocket lost in reentry, but we have had a space shuttle lost in reeentry. Shuttles are no more safer than what came before it.

For the most part it seems like you are talking about some arbitrary aestehtically outer looking exterior to replace the 'boring' capsule. There was enough space inside the Apollo capsule for 3 men, the newest may hold 4. Plus the idea of a mission to the moon is not to orbit the moon whether it be in a shuttle or a capsule, but to land on the moon.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Gee, duh! Four men rather than three! That is totally intellectually exciting!
Frosty, you know what I like about people like you that crack on forward-looking people like Pepsi78?
I forgot.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dyno25000
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.


are you kidding? do you even comprehend the stresses a shuttle endures going and returning from space? it could withstand it a few times but nothing can repeatedly take that kind of bombardment by solar rays, intense heat, radiation, intense cold, spacee debris... it would be like driving your car cross country back and forth... you could only do it so many times....

[edit on 8-3-2006 by mrmakeout]



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dyno25000
Gee, duh! Four men rather than three! That is totally intellectually exciting!
Frosty, you know what I like about people like you that crack on forward-looking people like Pepsi78?
I forgot.


YOur whole process has been rather bizarre. You stated a question with regards to a very generic outline and whined about the facts. If you want to roll around in fanatical day dreams about modifying the shuttle for the price of an oil change with the simplicity of of typing in your username, go ahead and do so. But stop treating people with such child like antics when you are finally grounded back to reality with the facts of the matter.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 11:13 AM
link   
"YOur (sic) whole process has been rather bizarre. You stated a question with regards to a very generic outline...but stop treating people with such child like (sic) antics." (Frosty)

Wow, gee, Frosty...I just really don't understand where such fanatical knee-jerk antipathy comes from, when all I did was to suggest retrofitting the Shuttle for a Moon trip...you must really dislike the whole Shuttle concept, huh? Listen; when I find myself in a mood like yours, I sing to myself: "Skippy, Skippy, la la la de-dah, de dah..." It really helps!

"...fanatical day dreams about modifying the shuttle for the price of an oil change..." (Frosty)

Oh! My bad! I guess I didn't make myself clear...no modifications necessary.



[edit on 8-3-2006 by Dyno25000]



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Do not ask questions to which you do not want to hear the answer. In this community, you will hear the answer.


Originally posted by Dyno25000
What am I missing here?


People have replied, and you have insulted them. People have explained further, and you have accused them of not being innovative. People continued, and your posts began to read like a Bevis and Butthead script.

When you throw out an idea and ask what you're missing, people will tell you exactly that. If you keep on insulting people, I'm sure more will unsubscribe from this thread as I have (came to see if the rumor was true that someone removed Skippy from my post!
), and you'll be able to reply to yourself telling yourself your idea is great.

I wonder, did you reply to Dr. Vuille the same way when he told you it was a bad idea?

[edit on 3/8/06/08 by junglejake]



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   
"I wonder, did you reply to Dr. Vuille the same way when he told you it was a bad idea?" (junglejake)

"Hi Julius...such a retrofit would probably work..."
Chris Vuille, PhD

junglejake. Please get a grip on yourself. Your desire to enhance your ego, to appear intelligent before these ATS members, has rendered you unable to read the words plainly scripted before your very eyes.


[edit on 8-3-2006 by Dyno25000]



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dyno25000
"Hi Julius...such a retrofit would probably work..."
Chris Vuille, PhD


Your forgot the rest of that statement where Dr. Vuille stated, "... but I'm not so crazy about the shuttle anymore--not since the early nineties! It's old hardware--badly in need of replacement. I recently published an op-ed article in the local newspaper to that effect."




posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dyno25000
Please. Someone address why we can't fit a fuel pod to the Shuttle in orbit and power it to the Moon and back.



1) Because there is insufficient room within the cargo bay for enough LOX/LH2 to allow the Shuttle to perform a trans-lunar injection burn, much less perform a trans-lunar injection burn and a lunar orbit injection burn, much less perform a trans-lunar injection burn and a lunar orbit injection burn and a trans-Earth injection burn.

2) Because the Shuttle is just capable of re-entry from low Earth orbit, and is wholly incapable of re-entry at cisluner entry speeds

3) Because the Shuttles *are* old and wore out

4) Because dragging the mass of the Shuttles wings, landing gear, vertical stabilizer, un-needed SSME's, thermal protection systems, hydraulic syustems and other structure to the moon is an entirely pointless venture.

Because even if you could send a Shuttle to the moon, there'd be precisely no point in doing so. The Shuttle would add *nothing* to the mission except the crew space, and that can be had for a hell of a lot cheaper.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 12:15 PM
link   
1) Orionblamblam, may one ask why it would be necessary to put LOX/LH2 in the cargo bay of the Shuttle after it's already been mated to an external fuel/supply pod in orbit? Sir, did you even read the quote of mine that you quoted? Also, the Shuttle is not equipped to use fuel from a source in the cargo bay...this would require an unnecessary modification.

2) And would this fuel/supply pod not carry enough fuel to allow the Shuttle to achieve LEO on the return leg of the mission before making re-entry?

3) And are the Shuttles not considered to be fit for duty through 2010?

4) And isn't LOX/LH2 pretty cheap, compared to designing and building a whole new spacecraft, so cheap in fact that the inefficiency of taking the whole mass of the Shuttle to the Moon and back is totally overcome by its sheer cost-effectiveness? And wouldn't the SSMEs in fact be needed...TO POWER THE SHUTTLE TO THE MOON AND BACK?

And wouldn't the ability of the Shuttle to carry a cargo-bay-sized lander or science package to the Moon and back render your last point pretty well totally incorrect, and show an unfamiliarity with previous posts on this thread? "A hell of a lot cheaper" than what? An orbitally-attached fuel/supply package? I beg to differ. A new spacecraft will cost much more, and take years to design, manufacture, and test, than fitting the Shuttle with a fuel/supply package in orbit.



[edit on 18-3-2006 by Dyno25000]


jra

posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dyno25000
1) Orionblamblam, may one ask why it would be necessary to put LOX/LH2 in the cargo bay of the Shuttle after it's already been mated to an external fuel/supply pod in orbit?... Also, the Shuttle is not equipped to use fuel from a source in the cargo bay ... this would require an unnecessary modification.


But even to have the shuttle attach to an external fuel/supply pod would require lots modification.


2) And would this fuel/supply pod not carry enough fuel to allow the Shuttle to achieve LEO on the return leg of the mission before making re-entry?


Hard to say. How big is your fuel/supply pod? How much fuel would it take to get the shuttle out of LEO and get to the moon, get into lunar orbit, then leave lunar orbit, then to get back into LEO?


3) And are the Shuttles not considered to be fit for duty through 2010?


NASA plans to retire the shuttles by then. Atlantis being the first to go around 2008 because it's older. Then Discovery and Endeavour to go in 2010.


4) And isn't LOX/LH2 pretty cheap, compared to designing and building a whole new spacecraft, so cheap in fact that the inefficiency of taking the whole mass of the Shuttle to the Moon and back is totally overcome by its sheer cost-effectiveness? And wouldn't the SSMEs in fact be needed...TO POWER THE SHUTTLE TO THE MOON AND BACK?

And wouldn't the ability of the Shuttle to carry a cargo-bay-sized lander or science package to the Moon and back render your last point pretty well totally incorrect, and show an unfamiliarity with previous posts on this thread? "A hell of a lot cheaper" than what? An orbitally-attached fuel/supply package? I beg to differ. A new spacecraft will cost much more, and take years to design, manufacture, and test, than fitting the Shuttle with a fuel/supply package in orbit.


Why are you compairring the cost of rocket fuel to the cost of developing a whole new space craft? Your idea requires more then just the cost of fuel. There's the cost of modifying the shuttle to be able to re-attach itself to the fuel supply pod in orbit. And then there is also the cost of designing and building your cargobay sized lander. Which is basicly just building a whole new spacecraft anyway. That there just increased your costs.

Why not just build a lander and a capsule to get there and back? It would be a lot lighter, and use a lot less fuel then your shuttle idea. It would just be a lot more efficient. Who knows what unforeseen complications will arise when trying to modify the shuttle, so that it can re-attach to a fuel/supply pod. It sounds like it could become over complicated. And thus, not cost effective.

EDIT: to add more...

Other complications and costs added to your idea. Just how are you going to launch your fuel/supply pod? You'd have to design a new launch system to get that into orbit as well. How big of a rocket would one need to lift a big heavy pod of fuel into orbit?

[edit on 18-3-2006 by jra]



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dyno25000
1) Orionblamblam, may one ask why it would be necessary to put LOX/LH2 in the cargo bay of the Shuttle ...


Apparently a misunderstanding. You wrote: "Someone address why we can't fit a fuel pod to the Shuttle in orbit and power it to the Moon and back." Seemed to be indicating cargo-bay fuel. My mistake.

[edit on 18-3-2006 by Dyno25000]

Originally posted by Dyno250002) And would this fuel/supply pod not carry enough fuel to allow the Shuttle to achieve LEO on the return leg of the mission before making re-entry?


Depends on how much propellant you had. While propulsive braking into Earth orbit is obviosuly possible, it is *very* propellant intensive. Easier to simply do a direct entry with a ballistic capsule or a basic lifting body.

[edit on 18-3-2006 by Dyno25000]

Originally posted by Dyno250003) And are the Shuttles not considered to be fit for duty through 2010?


Barely. They are not in as good shape as they should be.

[edit on 18-3-2006 by Dyno25000]

Originally posted by Dyno250004) And isn't LOX/LH2 pretty cheap, compared to designing and building a whole new spacecraft


Nope. LOX/LH2 on the *ground* is cheap. Vast amounts of in *in* *space* are not.

[edit on 18-3-2006 by Dyno25000]

Originally posted by Dyno25000 And wouldn't the SSMEs in fact be needed...TO POWER THE SHUTTLE TO THE MOON AND BACK?


Nope. You'd need less than 1 SSME to do that with a vehicle of the size you're discussing. Thrust is not nearly so important in-space as it is for launch systems,

[edit on 18-3-2006 by Dyno25000]

Originally posted by Dyno25000And wouldn't the ability of the Shuttle to carry a cargo-bay-sized lander or science package to the Moon and back render your last point pretty well totally incorrect


Nope. You don't need the Shuttle to carry a large lander. you don't need the Shuttle *cargo* *bay*. You don't need to carry the lander *in* anything. The Shuttle provides no advantage here.

[edit on 18-3-2006 by Dyno25000]

Originally posted by Dyno25000 A new spacecraft will cost much more, and take years to design, manufacture, and test, than fitting the Shuttle with a fuel/supply package in orbit.


Wrong. What you require to do your mission would need substantially *more*development than a straightforward lander mission would, and would provide far lower rate of return.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 09:33 PM
link   
In the latest go-'round...first NASA said they were going to design the new Crew Exploration vehicle in-house, using Shuttle SMEs for the CEV boost section; then they did a preliminary design study accordingly; then they said, "No! We're going to let a Request For Proposal and let industry do it!", which necessarily negated the use of SSME technology. They CEV they'd designed would fit on a rocket using SSMEs...why'd they change it all of a sudden?

Now we're getting a newly and privately-designed CEV that's just a WEE bit too big to fit atop the standard SRBs which'd power the SSME-driven second stage to orbit...

And hey, to boot...we're not just going to the Moon...NASA says now we've got to go to the DARK side of the Moon! Which'll require a more capable system! Yeah! Mo' money! Mo' money! I swear to goodness, if I were President, I would kick some tail in NASA and ORDER them to give us the safest, most efficient return-to-Moon plan possible, forget the "darkside" stuff, forget moving SIX people to the Moon just so they can turn around and come back, I would ORDER NASA to plan us the quickest and best way they could introduce human beings onto the Moon in a permanent, self-sustaining way. THIS is the vision.

The difference between this type of enterprise and what we have going on the International Space Station is, the Space Station has no raw materials to work with. They're just sitting around in a tin can. ISS has plenty of power, just nothing to do with it. On the Moon, there'd be plenty do do with the power (such as generating oxygen to pressurize the subsurface living area they're constantly expanding, et cetera).

Once the initial cost were paid, no matter what it is, Americans would live permanently on the Moon. Who wouldn't go? I would.

[edit on 5-4-2006 by Dyno25000]

[edit on 5-4-2006 by Dyno25000]


jra

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dyno25000
NASA says now we've got to go to the DARK side of the Moon


Just a nit-pick, but it's the far side, not dark side. It gets as much light as the side that faces us. I haven't read anything lately on NASA's plans, but i'm guessing they want to go to that side because it has a lot more impact craters, thus could make for some interesting geology I would assume.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join