NASA need 1960's saturns to inspire them..

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   


Also, what does a "few days" consist of?

it sure does not mean a week


It could be three. It could be a dozen. Do you know? Of course the longer that the crew is in space or on the Lunar surface they'll be exposed to more radiation. Will it be enough to harm or kill them? No, because the amounts will still be minimal.

No, what I said is that they are more safer in space than on the surface of the moon, so while they are resting they should do it in orbit.
You're not realistic about this, read what is poste on the site, it states clear what the problems are.
I guess your even contradict what nasa is saying now




Why? So it can just add to the plethora of crap that is out there? So it can take up space that an actual satellite with a purpose could be using? So it could pose a threat to damaging other satellites already up or to go up?

1 single container would do the job, it's not like you got a junk yard filed with all sort of scrap parts, their not even scrap parts, it's just equiptment valuing milions of dolars.



And they get thier fuel for all of these excursions from...?

About geting off the moon several times it's not a big deal.
Can you remember the thrust needed for nasa to get off the moon?
It berly uses any power, acording to specialists, it could be done easy.

I can see it, insisting on the same things if there was to be a mission to mars.
capsule mission to mars




posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
it sure does not mean a week


My point was, you don't know. He was obviously speaking off the cuff, and didn't expect to have his words taken out of context.



No, what I said is that they are more safer in space than on the surface of the moon, so while they are resting they should do it in orbit.


And why are they safer? I think that the radiation is going to be just about the same.




You're not realistic about this, read what is poste on the site, it states clear what the problems are. I guess your even contradict what nasa is saying now


How am I being unrealistic? How am I contradicting NASA? I wonder if the other educated minds here on ATS would agree with you on that...



1 single container would do the job, it's not like you got a junk yard filed with all sort of scrap parts, their not even scrap parts, it's just equiptment valuing milions of dolars.


Before it was two. Now it's one. Is that because you realised the immense technical difficulties your plan would have orginally created? Even still, they're still there - you just got rid of the problem of joining the two in space.

Also, judging by your comments that it's not a junk yard out there and that it's valuable equipment, you obviously have no idea just how much junk is truely in orbit.


About geting off the moon several times it's not a big deal.
Can you remember the thrust needed for nasa to get off the moon?
It berly uses any power, acording to specialists, it could be done easy.




Well, the thrust is going to be directly proportional to the mass of the craft as well as the gravity it overcomes. Sure, getting off the Moon may be easy, but landing sure is not. That uses quite a bit of fuel. Fuel that they would need to refill after every return to the orbiting craft. Where is that going to come from?



I can see it, insisting on the same things if there was to be a mission to mars.
capsule mission to mars


Well, the CEV is what is going to be used to get mankind to Mars, so I fail to see what is so laughable...



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   


My point was, you don't know. He was obviously speaking off the cuff, and didn't expect to have his words taken out of context.

So he was just talking for the fun of it
why dont you take a look at the whole site, nice tactics avoid everything, but hey it's black on white.



And why are they safer? I think that the radiation is going to be just about the same.


again you just dismiss facts.

from the same source


Furthermore, when cosmic rays hit the ground, they produce a dangerous spray of secondary particles right at your feet. All this radiation penetrating human flesh can damage DNA, boosting the risk of cancer and other maladies.

I guess that is just speaking out of contex

It would be safer in orbit no matter how you put it.



How am I being unrealistic? How am I contradicting NASA? I wonder if the other educated minds here on ATS would agree with you on that...

You are totaly unrealistic about this subject, you just ignore everything.



Before it was two. Now it's one. Is that because you realised the immense technical difficulties your plan would have orginally created? Even still, they're still there - you just got rid of the problem of joining the two in space.

I was not talking about 2 separete containers, I was talking about 2 in one, 2 containers being glued as one, this is more than posible, it has been done numeros times in space, the space station stands as an example.


Sure, getting off the Moon may be easy, but landing sure is not. That uses quite a bit of fuel.

other things can be developed similar to the way the rovers from mars did it, fuel can be stored on the station also, it can be resuplied once it decides to go down on the moon again.

I'm going to quote you on this again.


Sure, getting off the Moon may be easy, but landing sure is not. That uses quite a bit of fuel.

Just how much?



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   
I agree wit dark knight. Progress at nasa is glacial at best. Using 60 year old components? Ludacris. The airforce has made emenous progress over the last 40 years. The airforce should take over NASA.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Ummm....

What it boils down to is this....

You try to go to the moon in a completely new vehicle with untested parts and performance or....

You try to go to the moon with the proven technology, that worked on numerous occasions.

You see, what some of you are forgetting is that the people at the sharp end running this programme have probably never, ever, put a person on the moon, because the last time that happened was in 1972. For perspective on that let me explain that I'm 36 now and was 2 years old when that happened.

So while its probably uber cool to knock the idea of looking back, in this case it isn't, because the moon programme STOPPED in 1972. No further development, no other missions. Cold dead stop.

They aren't looking back at all. They're developing from the last effective tech that performed the mission. If you think thats a crap way of doing it, I suggest you read up on the Lockheed Skunk Works and how they carried out a huge amount of their R&D.


jra

posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
And sleep where? in the capsule? for how long? they can berly move in it, it's just not viable.


Yes it's viable. They can and did sleep in the capsule and lunar module. Why do you think it's not viable? People can and have slept in worse places then that. What about homeless people that sleep in a dirty box in some dirty alley somewhere in the freezing cold for example?



Beyond that it's not posible, it would become a hazard to astrounaunts.

If you remember the thread on the moon hoax I think we all agree that you can not sped more than a few days on the moon, lunar orbit is diferent and beeing on the surface of the moon is another thing, the moon is radioactive it's self, the surface, I'm not talking about space, so you cant really stay on the moon for long periods of time


Lunar orbit is not that different that being on the lunar surface. The moon is not radioactive in the way you claim. We've been over this before (several times if I recall). You just never give up do you.


Yes there is secondary radiation coming off the surface, but how much radiation you fail to say.




With lighter, stronger materials, as well as faster and smaller computers, it opens up more space for the crew. The new LM can also be made to be larger as well.

That would be how much? would it be even an meeter?


Huh?

Anyway. You have a lot to learn, especially about radiation. I remember your arguments from the other thread and also from apollohoax.net. You were shown by professional engineers, some of whom have worked on commercial satellites, that you were in error, but you stubbornly refuse to listen. Here you are making the exact same arguments again.


Originally posted by Brownpower
I agree wit dark knight. Progress at nasa is glacial at best. Using 60 year old components? Ludacris. The airforce has made emenous progress over the last 40 years. The airforce should take over NASA.


But NASA isn't using 60 old components. Also the military has way better funding than NASA, so also keep that in mind.

[edit on 18-8-2006 by jra]



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
NASA is a joke. It's a smoke screen, to hide the new stuff we can't unclassify yet.


Thats what I said..



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   
You can expect nasa to go on a saturn model, based on a capsule design for 100 years more
, I guess we waited for a freaking war to find out something, if world war 2 didint hapen who knows maybe we would not even have rocket tecnology, this is just lame, we are in a new milenium and we still send people in a roach box.
This just shows regresion, regresion from the space shutle, a step back in to stone age.



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Haha Pepsi you are right. I want to see Saucers


apc

posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
This just shows regresion, regresion from the space shutle, a step back in to stone age.


hahahahahahaha do you think you can use the Space Shuttle to get to the Moon?

Do you think you can come up with something better to replace the shuttle in as much time as is available with what limited budget is available and get it off the ground by early next decade? Do YOU think you can do it? You must because your arrogance shows how little you think of NASA engineers... and they're the ones with little pieces of paper hanging on their walls that say they know what they're doing. You can't even spell.

Pop your head out from its deep dark chasm and actually educate yourself on what is being told to you in this thread. Your rhetoric, while admittedly humorous, is quite tiring.



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 05:03 PM
link   



hahahahahahaha do you think you can use the Space Shuttle to get to the Moon?

I didint say that, I only said it's a regresion on tecnology, the space shutle is something newer wouldnt you say?
So as time go's nasa seems to go backwards, it does not matter if the space shutle cant go to the moon, it matters that nasa went way back before the space shutle even existed.
It's like you see new cars on the road, and then you go back in time and you see ww2 planes flying around you, I was making a point of tecnology in general, it's like going back in time, I guess nasa invented the time machine
in this case.
Droping people out of space in a capsule down to earth is like a cave man taking his first step, while the space shutle can cary people down to earth with out having to drop them in a capsule, hey I would not be surprised if they added wings to the capsule, the circus is in town


of course nasa does not have founds, for heaps this is a job for the international space agency, more money, more posibities, what is needed is a new craft design being able to pull off trips to the moon and to land back to earth, now when the hell are we going to have a real space craft.






[edit on 20-8-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   
I stick with what i posted earlier. I cannot and will not ever be convinved that a 1960's design is the best and only way to get man back to the moon.

Yes I agree funding for apollo stopped, but funding for nasa per se did not. can you honestly say that for the last 40 years nasa has sat there and done NOTHING??? what about all those freaking Biliions a year it gets??

North American Space administration. SPACE. Rockets / craft / missions - Tax payers BILLIONS..... if not space, what the freaking hell have they been spending all that money on??

Oh and i concur with the poster that it may actualy be a smoke screen for classified projects.

Hyper x and Lo- Flyte spring to mind. Oh and the orient express space access program, and the venture star..... list is long - it almost seems like nasa doesn't want man to go into space... Robots? yes. man ? seems like a big fat no way to me. Too many videos of too many strange things for a mision to go ahead. Because who knows, a live feed might just show us some truths about our solar system.


apc

posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
of course nasa does not have founds, for heaps this is a job for the international space agency, more money, more posibities, what is needed is a new craft design being able to pull off trips to the moon and to land back to earth, now when the hell are we going to have a real space craft.

What is... founds?

Heaps?

... Are you aware that the Space Shuttle design is about 10 years younger than the Saturn rocket designs?

... Are you aware that we need something to replace the Space Shuttle and get to the Moon very soon (have you still not figured this out yet)?

... Are you aware that we don't know of any other craft design that can get the job done better than a good ol' pod strapped to explosives? Why not? Because all progress on manned Moon mission technology stopped with the end of Apollo.

It is one thing to have your panties in a bunch over the fact that we don't have some cool new Star Trekky antigravity way of getting into orbit. It's another thing entirely to not understand the fact that we can't make leaps and bounds forward in our fundamental understanding of transit theory without actually knowing what we're doing.

Like I said... if you think you can do better with the limited time and budget as the very well educated NASA engineers, why don't you do it? That's what the private industry is out there for. Taking on those insanely huge risks with unproven designs and ideas. So put up or shut up.

[errata]


[edit on 20-8-2006 by apc]



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
I didint say that, I only said it's a regresion on tecnology, the space shutle is something newer wouldnt you say?


Do you know when the Space Shuttle was designed? Oh, right, in the late 1960s. Hmmm...



of course nasa does not have founds, for heaps this is a job for the international space agency, more money, more posibities, what is needed is a new craft design being able to pull off trips to the moon and to land back to earth, now when the hell are we going to have a real space craft.


Well, again, the CEV is going to be reusable. Now, if you want a plane shape, like the Shuttles, that's just dumb. Why? Do you need wings in space? Do you need wings on the Moon? No, and no. So the mass of the wings would be entirely unnecessary, which means less space for crew, supplies, experiments, etc.

Despite your ignorance on this topic, the CEV is really the way to go.


Originally posted by D4rk Kn1ght
I stick with what i posted earlier. I cannot and will not ever be convinved that a 1960's design is the best and only way to get man back to the moon.


So much for that whole "Denying Ignorance" thing, eh?



North American Space administration.







if not space, what the freaking hell have they been spending all that money on??


The Shuttle and the ISS get the most money. Then the MERs. Then some of the other missions. Here's the budget so you can see for yourself.



Robots? yes. man ? seems like a big fat no way to me.


Or, you know, with that tiny budget that NASA gets it just may be cheaper that way...



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 08:36 PM
link   



Well, again, the CEV is going to be reusable. Now, if you want a plane shape, like the Shuttles, that's just dumb. Why? Do you need wings in space? Do you need wings on the Moon? No, and no. So the mass of the wings would be entirely unnecessary, which means less space for crew, supplies, experiments, etc.

So what, for the next 200 years you want capsule pods that will parachute down to earth?
This is stone age, stone age....!!!!!!!!!!!
Why did they even build the shutle??? when in your opinion it's just better to drop down to earth in a capsule.

Here let's see some questions.
Why didint nasa use the capsule based sistem and used the shutle in their previos missions , because it's better, because astronauts have more space?, because astronauts would not have to be picked out of the ocean every time? because the space shutle can cary more equiptment than any other capsule out there?
So I would not mind to design something else, if nasa constructed how many shuttles? they can sure design something better than a 2 meter capsule.

Why I would not chose a capsule tipe sistem.
1Room restrictions
2No cargo bay(just a tiny compartiment for taking rocks)
3No medical station (in case something go's wrong they dont have a chance)
4Once the lunar lander lands and it opens up the dor there is no way to stay inside with out your helmet( not in the case of other space missions where there are 2 dors , even if some one go's in to space on a moon walk the others stay inside with out any helmets.

All this things are pointing out to regresion, all the things were present on other previos space missions, but they will not be present on the moon mission which is in fact another space mission.
Regresion!!!!

If I scrach my head I will find another things that were present in space missions but that will not be present on the moon and which are pointing to regresion.



[edit on 20-8-2006 by pepsi78]


apc

posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 08:49 PM
link   
First you committed us to this design for 100 years and now it's 200?

............. wow.



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
So what, for the next 200 years you want capsule pods that will parachute down to earth?


Or until we invent better technologies, whichever comes first.


This is stone age, stone age....!!!!!!!!!!!


Only to those who don't live within the confines of reality.



Why did they even build the shutle???


To service/build a space station. Also, as a heavy launch vehicle. The final reason would be to compete with the then USSR.



when in your opinion it's just better to drop down to earth in a capsule.


Well, it's had a 100% success ratio so far (as far as American missions go) and has been done far more times than the Shuttle reentering.



Why didint nasa use the capsule based sistem and used the shutle in their previos missions , because it's better,


Not neccessarily better, but it did fit the demands of the space program at the time of its development.


because astronauts have more space?


Not really. If you knew anything about manned space exploration then you'd know crew space is near the bottom of the list. They're going on a scientific mission, not spring break vacation.


because astronauts would not have to be picked out of the ocean every time?


I suppose that you could be correct in that aspect, but it's proven that the capsules could get built to land on solid ground.


because the space shutle can cary more equiptment than any other capsule out there?


Hence why the equipment, majority of supplies, and experiments will not be going up in the CEV, but in the CaLV.



they can sure design something better than a 2 meter capsule.


Well, feel free to send them your ideas. I'm sure they'll just love them there!



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   


Or until we invent better technologies, whichever comes first.

There are better solutions out there already, it just takes a little bit of time, asebling something in orbit is not that hard.




Well, it's had a 100% success ratio so far (as far as American missions go) and has been done far more times than the Shuttle reentering.

how many times combined did the space shuttles take off, and how many times did capsule based sistems go out in to space whith man in it?
from the 80's until now it's only been shuttle based flights with a few exeptions from the russians and from the international space asociation, the rest were shuttle based missions.
So how can you compare the 2 sistems when there are not as many flights on the 2 sides.
I am talking about maned missions.



Not neccessarily better, but it did fit the demands of the space program at the time of its development.

Aha you can do more you can cary more ...., I see.


Not really. If you knew anything about manned space exploration then you'd know crew space is near the bottom of the list.

Well it does not matter if it's not on the list, the fact is that they did have more space.


They're going on a scientific mission, not spring break vacation.

So what if your going on a scientific mission would you stay in a trunk of a car

let's say your going in to the jungle, would you prefere to stay in a trunk or in the car?




[edit on 20-8-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
There are better solutions out there already, it just takes a little bit of time, asebling something in orbit is not that hard.


This is the better solution. And assembling things in orbit is incredibly hard. The fact that you think it isn't just goes to show you truely have no concept or grasp on the difficulties of manned space flight.



So how can you compare the 2 sistems when there are not as many flights on the 2 sides.


My point was that in the hundreds of capsule based missions how many have burned up on reentry? The Shuttle has had fewer missions and has had one accident upon reentry. The capsules therefore have a higher success rating as far as reentry goes.



Aha you can do more you can cary more ...., I see.


No, I didn't say that at all, but if you want to further your ignorance on this topic and take my words out of context, so be it.



Well it does not matter if it's not on the list, the fact is that they did have more space.


Have you seen the inside of the Shuttle? The ISS? Any of the previous craft? The have simply the amount of space they need. Sending up empty space is wasting money - something NASA doesn't have much of.


jra

posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by D4rk Kn1ght
I stick with what i posted earlier. I cannot and will not ever be convinved that a 1960's design is the best and only way to get man back to the moon.


It's a very efficient design. Just because it was used in the 60's doesn't make primitive now. To go to the moon with the current form of fuel and propulsion we commonly use. You need to have a design that has as little mass as possible. The lower the mass of the craft, they less fuel you need to move and stop it. That's a good thing. A design like the shuttle is bad if you want to go to the moon. The tail, wings, 3 rocket engines, landing gear... It's all extra weight that's not needed.

Building something in orbit isn't cheap nor easy. Unlike like Pepsi here keeps saying. NASA would need to build some heavy launch rockets to build it anyway, because the Shuttle will be retired soon. But it's cheaper for now just to make the Ares. Not until something like a space elevator gets built, will it become more affordable to build a ship in orbit.


Yes I agree funding for apollo stopped, but funding for nasa per se did not. can you honestly say that for the last 40 years nasa has sat there and done NOTHING??? what about all those freaking Biliions a year it gets??


They only get 16 billion per year. That's not even half of what they got back in the 60's. That 16 billion that NASA gets is spread around for everything going on, it doesn't take long for that money to dry up. en.wikipedia.org...


Originally posted by Pepsi78
Droping people out of space in a capsule down to earth is like a cave man taking his first step


That's rediculous. There is nothing wrong with a capsule. Why do you see it as being more primative? There is no reason to think of it as so. So the shuttle can glide down to Earth, so what? That some how makes it better?


Why didint nasa use the capsule based sistem and used the shutle in their previos missions , because it's better, because astronauts have more space?, because astronauts would not have to be picked out of the ocean every time? because the space shutle can cary more equiptment than any other capsule out there?


Wow you really need to read up on the history or NASA and the Space Shuttle and the reasons for why they went with the Shuttle. So many of your misconceptions would be gone if you actually read more about it.

Capsules don't have to land in water. The Russians can land on land and are fully reusable. The Shuttle can carry 25,061 kg to LEO, where as the Apollo capsule may not be able to carry large amounts of cargo itself, but the Saturn rocket can lift 118,000kg into LEO (47,000kg into Lunar orbit) and the Ares is supposed to be able to carry 130,181 kg into LEO and 64,863 kg to the Moon. So there's a gain in payload with the Ares over the Shuttle and the Saturn.


Why I would not chose a capsule tipe sistem.
1Room restrictions


The shuttle has room restrictions too, so does every other vehicle. It just depends on the size and design of the capsule.


2No cargo bay(just a tiny compartiment for taking rocks)


The spacecraft itself might not have a cargo bay, but the Ares V can carry more then the shuttle, as already writen above.


3No medical station (in case something go's wrong they dont have a chance)


They can still carry all needed medical eqipment...



4Once the lunar lander lands and it opens up the dor there is no way to stay inside with out your helmet( not in the case of other space missions where there are 2 dors , even if some one go's in to space on a moon walk the others stay inside with out any helmets.


Wow you really really need to learn more about the LM. After each EVA, the astronauts would return to the LM and take off there suits. They would eat and sleep in the LM without there helmets on.


All this things are pointing out to regresion


No, it just shows you are very uninformed on this topic.





new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join