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.

 

Why are we still using rockets?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2006 @ 10:57 AM
link   
I'm sorry but i just have to ask because it doesn't make sense to me

We've been in space now for almost half a century and yet we are still using rockets WTF, when airplanes were invented they evolved overnight.
How is it possible that we are still using this flash gordon bs tech what is holding us back from using faster propulsion methods.
I was so blown away by the new space initiative, and i mean this in the negative sense that i totally lost confidence in NASA. we need a vehicle that will take off without using rockets or jets of any kind into space be able to make a mars trip in 1 month at most and then land there with no runway and then come back with some midget martians so we can start a rent-a-alien midget service.

Seriously i'm tired of rockets why can you do something new and cheaper that gas NASA

MOD EDIT: All caps title...

[edit on 5/30/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]




posted on May, 30 2006 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Basically, it's that we don't have anything to get into space aside from rockets right now.

The technology is just lacking. It's not ready for a space elevator, and even if it were I doubt there would be the money for one. Ion engines don't produce enough to break through the Earth's atmosphere, much less lift off much of anything the ground. As for nuclear propulsion, it has the word "nuclear" in it so people would be up in arms about its use. Also, the tech for that is pretty lacking as well.

[edit on 5/30/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   
What would you suggest we use for propulsion? Warp drive?

I’m sorry, Scotty, but we seem to be a bit short of dilithium crystals right now.

A related question is why did they use space ships on Star Trek, Why didn’t they just “beam” themselves from point to point?



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
A related question is why did they use space ships on Star Trek, Why didn’t they just “beam” themselves from point to point?


Distance limitations on the transporters. I was reading about the making of the original Star Trek and this was addressed. They wrote in restrictions on the transporters such as range or sheilds in order to have an excuse for putting the crew in trouble.



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
A related question is why did they use space ships on Star Trek, Why didn’t they just “beam” themselves from point to point?


That can be answered through the use of Wikipedia...



en.wikipedia.org...

Limitations include range up to 40,000 kilometers from the TOS-era onward (although transporters based on subspace radio do not have this limitation, as of the TNG era they are experimental and cause brain damage in higher lifeforms) and the inability to transport through shields...



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Of course.

back to the subject.

Solar sail research is ongoing. but rockets are more reliable.



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Yeah, but sadly, both attempts to launch a solar sail craft have failed. On top of that, we still need chemical rockets to get such a craft into orbit!



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Yeah I wouldn't be surprised if the govt already developed different propulsion methods and has simply kept it out of public eye for obvious reasons



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   
We already have a energy source that is millions of times more powerful then chemical reactions for space travel. Its nuclear energy and it works but as cmdrkeenkid pointed out it has that dirty word "nuclear" So enviromentalist have pretty much neutered that technology for space travel.



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
My knowledge on this subject is limited but why can't a space ship take off like a airplane and at hight switch to a space worthy type of engine?
It's my understanding that some planes reach the edge of space so why can't we take them beyond that? Just asking.



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   
That is possible, yes... But for a large payload, like supplies, people, or an interstellar probe, it would be just too costly to do. Firstly, you would need to develop a launching platform with the capabilities to launch the rocket, then you would need to develop the rocket itself. Right now you just need to develop the rocket. Which would be easier?



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   
That's pretty much what Spaceship one did to reach sub orbit. Though it hitched a ride on a conventional plane up to a certain height and then switched over to rocket engines, Same basic concept though.

I don't know of any conventional plane that can reach the edge of space with air breathing engines. The SR-71 was the highest I know of and you are talking 100,000 plus feet. Spaceship one had to reach over 3 times that height to be technically in space.



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
We already have a energy source that is millions of times more powerful then chemical reactions for space travel. Its nuclear energy and it works but as cmdrkeenkid pointed out it has that dirty word "nuclear" So enviromentalist have pretty much neutered that technology for space travel.



Let's dust off Project Orion.

Project Orion

We can use some of those mini nukes that they supposedly blew up the World Trade Center with. There's supposed to be no fallout from them.



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 03:23 PM
link   
I heard of this idea before even with anti-matter charges in place of nuclear ones. Anti-matter is really a pipe dream for know until we can make more of it. Years to make picograms isnt cutting it.

Im sure the concept would work with nuclear charges but Im more of a fan of the nuclear rocket drives like those in the N.E.R.V.A project. Though hopefully a little cleaner or only starting up when they get far enough from earth. Or even better a nuclear thermal rocket like the one NASAs "Prometheus" probe is going to use.



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Well we could order a couple of Super-Mega-Jumbo rubber bands from Acme. Get a big winch, an axe and a couple of mountains. Hook the rubber bands around the mountains and use the winch to pull them back........................



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by HowardRoark
A related question is why did they use space ships on Star Trek, Why didn’t they just “beam” themselves from point to point?


Distance limitations on the transporters. I was reading about the making of the original Star Trek and this was addressed. They wrote in restrictions on the transporters such as range or sheilds in order to have an excuse for putting the crew in trouble.


And then it would be called "Stargate SG-1."



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Well we could order a couple of Super-Mega-Jumbo rubber bands from Acme. Get a big winch, an axe and a couple of mountains. Hook the rubber bands around the mountains and use the winch to pull them back........................


I like that, very inventive. You should enter it into the contest. Though, I admit, I'm still partial to the universe's largest trebuchet as a launch device.



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   
The main reason we still use rockets is cuz we ain't got anything else what works!


Ion engines are still in infancy stages
Solar sail idea crashed with Cosmos 1
Nuclear power supplies are only on unmanned probes
Space elevator doesn't exist yet
Haven't got a base on the moon
Haven't got an orbiting launch platform

Did I miss anything? Oh yeah-Scotty can't beam us up.



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0
Nuclear power supplies are only on unmanned probes


And those are only RTGs in replace of solar panels. They're not used for propulsion in any way. No craft that has had Earthly origins has had any sort of nuclear propulsion system on board.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   
we dont have the technology?

this sounds like the same BS that has kept us on the same internal combustion engine blueprint Henrey Ford put in his first Model T.

100 years and no-one could figure out how to make an better engine. i dont think so. we figured out how to get the power of an entire building full of computers down to one 1" x 1" processor in 25 yrs, but oil could not be outpowered by anything we could come up with?. hmmm, guess maybe they are having brain-farts when ever they think obout it. Supply and demand is exactly why houses will always be framed from flamible wood instead of fire retarded steel, the only excuse they can come up with is that steel is too expensive to vapor barrier.

Like everything else in the world that should be done to make life on earth better, It is not cost effective, and the rich could lose there hard earned investments if we try to change anything.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join