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.
Also, what does a "few days" consist of?
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.
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?
And they get thier fuel for all of these excursions from...?
Originally posted by pepsi78
it sure does not mean a week
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
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.
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
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.
And why are they safer? I think that the radiation is going to be just about the same.
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.
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...
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.
Sure, getting off the Moon may be easy, but landing sure is not. That uses quite a bit of fuel.
Sure, getting off the Moon may be easy, but landing sure is not. That uses quite a bit of fuel.
Originally posted by pepsi78
And sleep where? in the capsule? for how long? they can berly move in it, it's just not viable.
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
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?
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.
Originally posted by LAES YVAN
NASA is a joke. It's a smoke screen, to hide the new stuff we can't unclassify yet.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
North American Space administration.
if not space, what the freaking hell have they been spending all that money on??
Robots? yes. man ? seems like a big fat no way to me.
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.
Originally posted by pepsi78
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.
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?
they can sure design something better than a 2 meter capsule.
Or until we invent better technologies, whichever comes first.
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.
Not neccessarily better, but it did fit the demands of the space program at the time of its development.
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.
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.
So how can you compare the 2 sistems when there are not as many flights on the 2 sides.
Aha you can do more you can cary more ...., I see.
Well it does not matter if it's not on the list, the fact is that they did have more space.
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.
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??
Originally posted by Pepsi78
Droping people out of space in a capsule down to earth is like a cave man taking his first step
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?
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