Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

NASA need 1960's saturns to inspire them..

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   


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.

Not that hard, space stations, like the international space station , like mir have all been asebled in orbit.



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.

okay, how many maned capsule misions have there been?, and how many shuttle missions have been there?
I tend to think that there were alot more shutle missions than capsule based ones.
And as for capsules beeing safe there have been a dedly incident with out even taking off, just because they entered it they burned in it till they died, right before the moon mission.


Have you seen the inside of the Shuttle?

Yes of course I did , and I can tell you it has more space than a capsule would ever have.
It has a cargo bay, people can stay in the shuttle with out any helmets even if the bay dors open and with out any space suits on them.
Open the dor to the capsule and show me how can you stay with out any protection in it.
if nasa does not have money maybe they should do something united with other countrys, with the russians, with the international space agency, ways can be found, if it's a problem regarding the budget then why not unite with others, just like the international space station, when people unite the results are biger, that is if nasa does not act like a red neck.




posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
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.


They ate and slept on the moon?



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
And as for capsules beeing safe there have been a dedly incident with out even taking off, just because they entered it they burned in it till they died, right before the moon mission.


That was because they used pure oxygen in the capsule unlike the soviets who used a mixture of nitrogen and oxygen. That was a misstake and that does not prove the space capsule is not safe. And like cmdrkeenkid said:


Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
The Shuttle [...] has had one accident upon reentry. The capsules therefore have a higher success rating as far as reentry goes.


He was talking about reentry



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by jra
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.


They ate and slept on the moon?


This is from wikipedia:
EVAs
Cernan and Schmitt - EVA 1
EVA 1 Start: December 11, 1972, 23:54:49 UTC
EVA 1 End: December 12 07:06:42 UTC
Duration: 7 hours, 11 minutes, 53 seconds
Cernan and Schmitt - EVA 2
EVA 2 Start: December 12, 1972, 23:28:06 UTC
EVA 2 End: December 13 07:05:02 UTC
Duration: 7 hours, 36 minutes, 56 seconds
Cernan and Schmitt - EVA 3
EVA 3 Start: December 13, 1972, 22:25:48 UTC
EVA 3 End: December 14 05:40:56 UTC
Duration: 7 hours, 15 minutes, 08 seconds

So they spent 3 days on the moon surface... can you resist that long without food and sleep and still be able to do all that stuff they did in the EVAs?



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 03:08 PM
link   
I see. Did they not leave the moon between EVAs?

From what I see of the LM diagrams there is nowhere to rest.

[edit on 21/8/06 by SteveR]



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   
No, they didn't. It's far more risky to make 3 moon landings in one mission than just to remain on the moon's surface. And they would have need large amounts of fuel to take off and then land again the next day, for 3 day in a row.



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Ok, thanks for that info. I never knew. Must of been cool waking up on the moon


What kind of radiation can one expect from a 3 day stay?



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Apass
No, they didn't. It's far more risky to make 3 moon landings in one mission than just to remain on the moon's surface.

And that is based on what , on the apollo capsule, I see, so how about if the astronauts want to go to another location? let's say they want to go to the other side of the moon, they just walk huh



And they would have need large amounts of fuel to take off and then land again the next day, for 3 day in a row.

you are geting it right, with no cargo bay and with out any consistant fuel tank to store fuel I would say the same, it's just the limitations of the design

That's just the capsule based sistem, it's not worth it.




[edit on 21-8-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Not that hard, space stations, like the international space station , like mir have all been asebled in orbit.


Did I say impossible?




Yes of course I did , and I can tell you it has more space than a capsule would ever have. It has a cargo bay, people can stay in the shuttle with out any helmets even if the bay dors open and with out any space suits on them.


The cargo bay, oddly enough, is for cargo... So how does that help the crew with thier needs for space?



Open the dor to the capsule and show me how can you stay with out any protection in it.


CEV is going to have an airlock.



if nasa does not have money maybe they should do something united with other countrys, with the russians, with the international space agency, ways can be found, if it's a problem regarding the budget then why not unite with others, just like the international space station, when people unite the results are biger,


Yeah, an international coalition to support space exploration! What a novel idea. After all, look at how well the ISS is doing! Great idea!!



that is if nasa does not act like a red neck.


My emphasis. No comment.



And that is based on what , on the apollo capsule, I see, so how about if the astronauts want to go to another location? let's say they want to go to the other side of the moon, they just walk huh


The Apollos couldn't land on the other side of the Moon due to communications and safety issues. The landing sites of Apollo were scouted out months in advance to make sure that they would be safe for a landing. The far side of the Moon was less observed at the time, making it less safe to land on.

In modern times, the lander portion of the CEV should be able to land on the Moon. Hopefully they'll set up relays though, so as to avoid communications issues.

As for landing and taking off repeatedly, that has been explained to you how it just is not feasible to do. If you choose not to believe what our educated minds are telling you, so be it.



That's just the capsule based sistem, it's not worth it.


Maybe in the universe you live in, but here in the real world it's actually quite a great design.


jra

posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
And that is based on what , on the apollo capsule, I see, so how about if the astronauts want to go to another location? let's say they want to go to the other side of the moon, they just walk huh


Actually we're talking about the Lunar Module, not the Apollo capsule. They are seperate things. And the astronauts don't decide where to go. As it has already been said. The missions are planned far in advance. The astronauts can't just go land where ever. They got to follow the mission plan.


you are geting it right, with no cargo bay and with out any consistant fuel tank to store fuel I would say the same, it's just the limitations of the design

That's just the capsule based sistem, it's not worth it.


How would a cargo bay help the LM or the Apollo CSM? It didn't need one. You do know that the Shuttle pretty much runs out of fuel by the time it gets into orbit don't you? It just has thrusters to manuver once in space. It too, like everything in the world, has design limitations. What's a consistant fuel tank anyway?



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 06:04 PM
link   


The cargo bay, oddly enough, is for cargo... So how does that help the crew with thier needs for space?

it's funny that you ask, it's for eqiptment, hmmm let's see what nasa could take along.





The Apollos couldn't land on the other side of the Moon due to communications and safety issues.

Yes they can
, what is a cargo bay for? of course it's for geting eqiptment on the moon such as relay antenas , extra radio eqiptment, the space shutle caryed numeros times satelites in orbit so this can be done , no questions asked, but hey you need a cargo bay for that, of course a big antena would not fit in a capsule based sistem.


The landing sites of Apollo were scouted out months in advance to make sure that they would be safe for a landing.

What do you mean by that, can you elaborate more please?
Telemetry can be obdained also from the moon orbit by scaning the lunar surface, but with no fuel , because of the little fuel suply tank that is ineficent, due to the design of the ship, if you can call it a ship at all.


The far side of the Moon was less observed at the time, making it less safe to land on.

yep faliure to acive goals, due to implementation of the 60's tecnology.
1 Unable to land to a site and then take of to another.
2 Unable to cary extra equiptment such as big radio antenas for relay transmison.




In modern times, the lander portion of the CEV should be able to land on the Moon. Hopefully they'll set up relays though, so as to avoid communications issues.

Your killing me
with what eqiptment.
1 this can be acived by huge radio antenas which are very big in size, for 30 kilometers range , note just 30 kilometers range you would need a 60 feet telescopic antena, I would like to see them cary that with what they intend to go on the moon with.
2 Another way would be thru satelite comuniactionm with geo stational satelites , with no satelites in orbit of the moon to relay the signal, satelite comunication with the other part of the moon is imposible with what nasa is going on the moon.
The only way to pull this off, is for nasa to cary the satelite to the moon for a relay, the way the shuttle does it when it takes in space satelites, this would reqire for a larger cargo bay or for nasa to take with them telescopic antenas to set up relay stations.



Maybe in the universe you live in, but here in the real world it's actually quite a great design.

No, I'm sure of it, it's good that you bing stuff up, I will only tell you the flaws that come to light.
flaws after flaws.
Not being able to pull a mission to the other part of the moon is unaceptable, the dark part of the moon must be explored, it's simply unacetable.
this misson should be called , "MISSION TO THE HALF SIDE OF THE MOON" and not just "mission to the moon"



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 06:25 PM
link   


Actually we're talking about the Lunar Module, not the Apollo capsule. They are seperate things. And the astronauts don't decide where to go. As it has already been said. The missions are planned far in advance. The astronauts can't just go land where ever. They got to follow the mission plan.

1 even if it was planed in advance they would not be able to target 2 sites with a resonable distance betwen them , that is due to short suply of fuel, due to the design implementation.
2 They cant even plan for targeting just one site but on the other side of the moon.
For this you need size, to cary all you need.
If we are ever going to get to the other part of the moon this should be done sooner or later.
Are we ever going to see the other side? and how we will do this?
how are you going to do it if you cant take with you what you need.




How would a cargo bay help the LM or the Apollo CSM? It didn't need one. You do know that the Shuttle pretty much runs out of fuel by the time it gets into orbit don't you?

I'm well aware that the shutle is not a solution for the moon, I'm making points regarding the shutle because it's design.
It's a cargo bay, and size that is a major problem.



It just has thrusters to manuver once in space. It too, like everything in the world, has design limitations.

then simply design something with a larger fuel tank, with what nasa aims to go on the moon with is just not viable.


What's a consistant fuel tank anyway?

something larger, that is for sure.
The problem is that it cant be implemented on the saturn based sistem.


apc

posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Your posts are full of flaw after flaw. And I am having a very difficult time following them. You could of course help clear things up if you would answer two simple questions:

Where are you getting your information?
Does your teacher still grade you on your handwriting?

So far all you've done is ignore what proves that you know zilch of what you argue, and ramble nonsensical jibberish that in itself proves that you dont know zilch of what you argue. Are you intentionally encouraging others to waste keystrokes trying to show you how wrong you are. That's the only unoffensive conclusion I can come to... that this is a charade.



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
it's funny that you ask, it's for eqiptment, hmmm let's see what nasa could take along.


I meant needs for physical living space, since that was the context you were speaking in...



Yes they can


No, they couldn't due to the safety issues...



but hey you need a cargo bay for that, of course a big antena would not fit in a capsule based sistem.


I understand that this truely is a hard concept for you to grasp... The cargo will be sent up in an Ares V launcher. No crew. Just cargo.



What do you mean by that, can you elaborate more please?


I mean that they spent months observing the Moon and doing experiments to the best of thier technological capabilities in order to pick the best and safest landing sites.



Telemetry can be obdained also from the moon orbit by scaning the lunar surface, but with no fuel , because of the little fuel suply tank that is ineficent, due to the design of the ship, if you can call it a ship at all.


Run-on and nonsensical sentences are quite hard for those who do not speak "pepsiish" to understand.



yep faliure to acive goals, due to implementation of the 60's tecnology.
1 Unable to land to a site and then take of to another.
2 Unable to cary extra equiptment such as big radio antenas for relay transmison.


Except those were not any of Apollo's goals... So no, it didn't fail to achieve any goals.




1 this can be acived by huge radio antenas which are very big in size, for 30 kilometers range , note just 30 kilometers range you would need a 60 feet telescopic antena, I would like to see them cary that with what they intend to go on the moon with.
2 Another way would be thru satelite comuniactionm with geo stational satelites , with no satelites in orbit of the moon to relay the signal, satelite comunication with the other part of the moon is imposible with what nasa is going on the moon.
The only way to pull this off, is for nasa to cary the satelite to the moon for a relay, the way the shuttle does it when it takes in space satelites, this would reqire for a larger cargo bay or for nasa to take with them telescopic antenas to set up relay stations.


Your lack of knowledge on the workings of radio transmissions is amusing to me.



Not being able to pull a mission to the other part of the moon is unaceptable, the dark part of the moon must be explored, it's simply unacetable.


I'm sure you can do all the exploring of the Dark Side of the Moon at your local record shop for under twenty dollars.


I propose to change the title of this thread to "America - Proof of the Failings of the Public Education System."



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   


Where are you getting your information?

My information comes from google my friend
and from the things that I know, such as comunication eqiptment, i worked in the army at the transmision and logistics departament(not in the US army)


Does your teacher still grade you on your handwriting?

Sorry mate, english is not my first languege.



So far all you've done is ignore what proves that you know zilch of what you argue, and ramble nonsensical jibberish that in itself proves that you dont know zilch of what you argue. Are you intentionally encouraging others to waste keystrokes trying to show you how wrong you are. That's the only unoffensive conclusion I can come to... that this is a charade.

I know for what I'm arguing, have you ever been face to face with a relay antena, have you ever set one up? (not a satelite antena)
I know a bit about compartimets also , and I know how equiptment fits , and how eqiptment and size has to do with all of this.
Now doing a military stage in a country that has nato membership, you would have the latest transmision eqiptment, you have no idea about the mass of the objects.

problems I have with this project.
1 fuel tanks.
2 cargo bay.
The 2 of them are related to the same problem, and that is size.
with no cargo bays , and no biger fuel tanks this mission is going to be a failure, this mission will just repeat what apolo has done.

I will take a look at your beloved module and determine just how much space does it have, or maybe you would like to hit me with the details?
Let's just see how big is this thing.



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
with no cargo bays , and no biger fuel tanks this mission is going to be a failure, this mission will just repeat what apolo has done.


Do you need fuel to get to the Moon? No. You coast there, preferably via a Hohmann transfer orbit. Also, for like the eightyth time, cargo is going to be sent up in the CaLV.

:bnghd:



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 07:19 PM
link   


Do you need fuel to get to the Moon? No. You coast there, preferably via a Hohmann transfer orbit
What are you refering to, a stationary orbit?

Orbit? what are you talking about? nasa has never made a complete orbit of the moon with people on board, due to transmision limitations, the moon would block the transmision, there are no ways to relay the signal.


. Also, for like the eightyth time, cargo is going to be sent up in the CaLV.

Do you got specifications on that? like details, width, and height.




[edit on 21-8-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Orbit? what are you talking about? nasa has never made a complete orbit of the moon with people on board, due to transmision limitations, the moon would block the transmision, there are no ways to relay the signal.


I still do hope you're enjoying your fantasy world.



Do you got specifications on that? like details, width, and height.


Ares V at Wikipedia
Ares I NASA Fact Sheet
Ares V NASA Fact Sheet
NASA CEV and CaLV Descriptions

I'll let you find the rest of the information of your own. You said previously that all of it comes from Google, well guess what I used.



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Alright since this not really being explained to you (some people here are getting a tad arrogant) what the cmdr is saying is that once you leave Earth orbit and head to the moon, you do not need to use fuel constantly. One thrust to acheive velocity and you will drift all the way to your destination with no resistance.

Personally I think your english is fabulous for a second language. On a regular basis I see much worse.

[edit on 21/8/06 by SteveR]



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 08:32 PM
link   
www.nasa.gov...


The Ares V can lift more than 286,000 pounds to low Earth orbit and stands approximately 360 feet tall. This versatile system will be used to carry cargo and the components into orbit needed to go to the moon and later to Mars.

while I do admit it's a good perspective from nasa to cary eqiptment in to the orbit of earth so they will have it there once they decide to go to the moon.
it's a good call , just like I said, if you want it something just prepare it in orbit.
Some how you would go up in orbit and dock there with the cargo on top of the container, and then just take off to the moon.
I was not aware of this, when I spoke of this, some of the posters here said it's not even a good idea to have containers in earth's orbit?
I belive it was cmdrkeenkid him self.
He quoted.


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.

Some people would just go to prove you wrong and then use the same argument vice versa against you, and then they would quote you as"you're dreaming"

I still think this is a bad call.
There are limitations with such a design.

1 How are you going to deploy cargo on diferent locations in one mission?
2 How can you go to the dark side of the moon if you cant deploy equiptment on the 2 sides for relaying the transmisions.
3 The desing is one time usable, you land and that is it, you cant go anywhere else on the moon with it, it's a one time shoot.

Personaly I am amesed on how much nasa can cary in orbit, if they can cary that much material in to orbit just with one launch it's a shame not to start building something.
On how this can be done, gluing parts in space some say it's hard, not if it's done smart with docking sistems for the parts, no need for astronauts to glue the parts, they would just dock them, and then if they wanted they can work on the inside to fortify the parts, that should make it easyer, no space walk , nothing like that.
I still insist that this project has it's limitations, to be able to cary 287,000 pounds in to orbit and to not take advantage of it, it's ashame.
I would build something like in space odesy, but a smaller version, primitive but eficient , you can go with it any where you like iin the solar sistem.
All the tecnology is present for such a ship, and especialy now that nasa can cary huge payloads in to orbit it makes it even easyer.
I simply dont understand why people insist on a little coocon flying in space with astrounauts.
When we can build something really nice, it would take the power of the international solidarity but it can be pulled off.
If nasa can cary that much stuff in orbit they sure can cary ship plating , havy shilding against radiation.
Just imagine something like in the space odesy, still it would have to be a smaller version, but it would have everything, science labs, work stations, you could take scientists, you could take a whole lot of people with you, but in stead we insist on something that is just compared to my bathroom, I think it's smaller than my bafroom, I can not imagine living in my bathroom for a month, I am not refering to the container, I am refering to where the astronauts will live , eat, and sleep.
I can not imagine a trip to mars in one of those things, the astronauts would just go crazy, to stay how much? months in a place big as half of my bathroom, because I hear this would be used in future mars missions.






[edit on 21-8-2006 by pepsi78]





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join