NASA need 1960's saturns to inspire them..

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
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.
[edit on 21/8/06 by SteveR]

I undestand that, I undetstand that you dont need much fuel to get to the moon, but you need alot once you get there.
What he does not understand is that misson will probaly be the only mission to the moon and then we will have to wait alot of time for the next one.
To go to the moon and not to see the other part of the moon is just like not going to the moon.

What he fails to understand is that this mission would be a faliure on several aspects.
And they are all linked
1 Nasa will fail to deploy cargo on multiple targets of the moon
2 Nasa will fail to asemble a relay sistem for wide comunication propose on the moon( a retransmision from the dark side of the moon to earth) because of point number1
3 Nasa will fail to go to the other part of the moon simply because see number 2
4 Nasa will fail to go to multiple targets on the moon because once the module has landed with the cargo it's dead in the water, it will not be able to visit multiple distant sites on the moon.

All of this because of the design, the desing will not alow nasa to reach the goals above.
If those are not major issues , if those are not limitations then I dont know what is.


[edit on 21-8-2006 by pepsi78]



apc

posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 09:44 PM
link   
[double post]

[edit on 21-8-2006 by apc]


apc

posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 09:44 PM
link   
You still just seem stuck on this childish "now is forever" belief.

We have to get there first before we can start building "Moon Hoppers"... seeing as we don't have adequate knowledge to properly design and build them.

Why the obsession over communicating with the far side?

And you keep talking about building craft in orbit... how do you intend on getting the parts into orbit in the first place? The shuttle is going bye bye. Why do you keep ignoring these points? Payload is not an issue. Fuel is not an issue. Size is not an issue. Time IS an issue. Money IS an issue.



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 10:14 PM
link   


Why the obsession over communicating with the far side?

Because if anything bad would hapen the astronauts would not be able to contact mission control.
That's why no missions were programed to the far side of the moon because comunication is imposible with out a relay sistem



And you keep talking about building craft in orbit... how do you intend on getting the parts into orbit in the first place? The shuttle is going bye bye.

I would get them in space with what they are designing.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


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

3 or 4 trips in to orbit and you got your stuff all that you need.
While doing trips in to orbit you could recover parts and reuse them, like the container it's self, just unload the material in orbit and recover the rest by parachuting it down to earth.
ares V would have to be desing with shielding like the space shutle has on the back of it to be able to make it back on earth.


Why do you keep ignoring these points? Payload is not an issue. Fuel is not an issue. Size is not an issue. Time IS an issue. Money IS an issue.

But the way the cargo is being used is.
Fuel is an usue once you get there, that is if you want more out of this mission
I dont find time a problem, better a few years later than faster with out goals.
They united before, the international space station stands as an example, why not do it again, this in for international itrest, we all want to go to the moon.

You have to uderstand that this will be one single mission, because the costs are very big.
The only thing that nasa will recover is the capsule after the mission is over, that is going to leave nasa broke for a while because the costs are huge, and you wont see another mission to the moon for a long time.
The main problem with this mission will be that nasa wont be able to vizit multiple sites on the moon that have biger distances betwen them.
Personaly I am upset because nasa wont be going to the other side of the moon, we dont even know what's there, there are no orbiting satelites in orbit to the moon.
You have to understand that this mission will have huge limitations regarding this aspect and that nasa is only going to do it once.


[edit on 21-8-2006 by pepsi78]


apc

posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Why would they be on the far side anyway? Like I said... why the obsession over it? Do you think these first few missions would put exploring the far side as a priority? Why? Is there some mission plan I am unaware of?

And yes obviously getting cargo into space is not a problem. We're talking about people though. A craft can't build itself you know. With the shuttle gone, the CEV would be needed to fulfill your aspirations. But at that point, why bother when it is fully capable of going right on to the Moon for far less cost.


You have to uderstand that this will be one single mission, because the costs are very big.
The only thing that nasa will recover is the capsule after the mission is over, that is going to leave nasa broke for a while because the costs are huge, and you wont see another mission to the moon for a long time.

................ think about that very very hard. ... or not...

Who cares if they can't bounce from one place to another in these early years? WHY?! The sats in orbit know what's there... there's no reason to walk on every square inch of lunar soil. We go where the interesting stuff is. And those missions can be planned well ahead of time, as they were originally.

Really... why do you put so much concern into the far side? We most certainly do know what's over there... rocks and craters... it doesn't look that much different than the near side as far as moons go.



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
To go to the moon and not to see the other part of the moon is just like not going to the moon.


I agree with you there. I thought the very same thing about Mars and the rovers. Mars is much more diverse than we think. I bet everyone thinks it looks like a barren orange wasteland all over.

As for the far side of the moon, it has a different topography. All you need to do is look at it to see the differences. Besides, who knows what it's really like? There is much mystery surrounding it.

I say we go and explore the artifacts there such as the Shard and such
Unfortunately, you'd need a craft that can actually ROAM.

[edit on 21/8/06 by SteveR]



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
Why would they be on the far side anyway? Like I said... why the obsession over it? Do you think these first few missions would put exploring the far side as a priority? Why? Is there some mission plan I am unaware of?

1 to go to a diferent place on the moon where man has not been before.
2 to study the other side of the moon, the part that is still less known is the dark side.



And yes obviously getting cargo into space is not a problem. We're talking about people though.
A craft can't build itself you know. With the shuttle gone, the CEV would be needed to fulfill your aspirations. But at that point, why bother when it is fully capable of going right on to the Moon for far less cost.

For a simple reason, future maned moon exploration.
If you want to go to the moon at least twice you got to reinvent things.
The curent project is usable once.



................ think about that very very hard. ... or not...

Okay , maybe I'm wrong about this, what else is going to be saved?


Who cares if they can't bounce from one place to another in these early years?

Would you like to see more than one moon mission in your life?


WHY?! The sats in orbit know what's there... there's no reason to walk on every square inch of lunar soil.

What satelites, there are no satelites in orbit to the moon, hey the moon hoax would of been solved a long time ago if there were satelites in orbit to the moon, I can asure you there are none.


We go where the interesting stuff is. And those missions can be planned well ahead of time, as they were originally.

What missions, there will be only one mission.



Really... why do you put so much concern into the far side?

Because it's the only side that we know very little about, previos satelites acived very poor results, that is because it's hard to acive perfect orbit around the moon with a unmaned craft, most of the satelites sent by nasa resulted in faliure , most of them crashed, some of them acived orbit and then crashed landed on the moon.
At the curent time there is no present satelites in orbit to the moon, simply because none of the satelites were able to acive orbit and stay there.



We most certainly do know what's over there... rocks and craters... it doesn't look that much different than the near side as far as moons go.


No we only got a few pics before satelites crashed or flew by failing orbit.

the purpose of designing something new in orbit would be for reusing that craft, for it to be able to make numeros moon missions and why not go to mars after that, so nasa wont have to spend each time money.
This way money can be saved, and the only costs would be geting in orbit.
The craft could be resuplied with fuel by ares V in orbit and nasa would be able to use it each time it wants to go to the moon in stead of spending bilions and bilions of dolars each time , that way we can get to see more space missions at least to the moon.




[edit on 21-8-2006 by pepsi78]

[edit on 21-8-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Pepsi78 - Not sure what ur talkin about...ESA currently has a satellite orbiting the moon, called SMART-1, its being doing so for around 1 1/2 years...Its virually out of fuel, and they are planning for it to crash onto the moons surface.



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
Pepsi78 - Not sure what ur talkin about...ESA currently has a satellite orbiting the moon, called SMART-1, its being doing so for around 1 1/2 years...Its virually out of fuel, and they are planning for it to crash onto the moons surface.

I'm not denying it, but hey what tipe of a satelite is it? is it a geo stational satelite on a stationary orbit, or is it a satelite that rotates around the moon, that is highly unlikely, because the moon has a weak magnetic field so if it would rotate around the moon it would just jump off orbit, gravity is a factor also , it cant keep it in orbit if it's rotating around the moon, the moon has no force to to keep it in orbit rotating, the body of the moon would have to keep it rotating , and that is just not posible.
It's probaly geo stationary which means it didint see the other face of the moon, all geo stationary satelites would be directly launched to the moon and stop in front of the moon because they had a direct trajectory, making a rocket circle around the moon and then deploy a satelite is very dificult, that's why if there are any satelites near the moon they are geo stational and they are on the visible side of the moon.

The only satelites that saw the other side of the moon are the ones that flew by the moon, I was not aware there was a satelite near the moon, even a geo stationary one, because I knew nasa made faliure after faliure trying this.

I will correct my statement a bit
there is no functional satelite at the curent time on orbit with the moon, I'm sure of that

[edit on 22-8-2006 by pepsi78]
My mistake, I see that it did circle the moon, because it had a ion drive prototipe engine permiting it to just function out of solar power, it's aproach to the moon was slow, and it's solar based power sistem permited it to circle the moon, from what I read it is the only satelite that had success, the only one that made it and did the job.
Still it did not acive much, the dark side of the moon is not visible from satelite view

www.esa.int...




[edit on 22-8-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 12:32 AM
link   
What are you talking about...magnetic poles have NOTHING to do with this.

And hate to say it, but Smart-1 is a functional sat.

And Smart-1 does orbit the moon...as have virtually every satellite launched to the moon.

You need to go re-learn everything you "think" you know.



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 12:41 AM
link   
It did achieve something. It found calcium on the moon.

Organic ions.. hmmm



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
What are you talking about...magnetic poles have NOTHING to do with this.

It does, for a fact , smaller rocks are bounced off in to space on earth because we got a strong magnetic field, on the moon the magnetic flux is weak , there for what ever comes in go's down, gravity is an important role also, the moon does not got a strong gravity field so the atraction in orbit of objects is weaker, but I see smart one had an engine, now that is something diferent, satelites that stay in orbit do not have means to power them selfs, smart 1 did something else, in was not really on orbit, the moon didint keep it in orbit, it pulled that by it's self, it started to circle the moon way before it got in orbit to the moon, it was able to do so because it was powerd by a ION drive, regular satelites would not be able to do that on jet propulsion, regular satelites sent to the moon do not have viable propulsion sistems
to keep at it in circles, in fact smart one is the only one that pulled it off i think from what I see.



And hate to say it, but Smart-1 is a functional sat.

it will crash within a week , it will crash like all of them did, the only diference is it reached it's goal, and I can not remember any other satelite pulling it off, this one did because it had a propulsion sistem , and it started to circle the moon way before orbiting it, if it were to go to direct orbit it would just crash or fly by like the other ones did.


And Smart-1 does orbit the moon...as have virtually every satellite launched to the moon.

I dont agree here, and it wasent really a stable orbit, it's going in a spiral down, it's not meintaining it's self, in orbit, the scientists are not crashing it , it's just the way it operates.
As it went circleling the moon from far away and entered orbit it nevered acived stable orbit, it staied longer because it had a good propulsion sistem which no other satelite had, and to say more , that was never planed, because it's not posible to acive orbit by rotating around the moon, not on the moon's orbit any way.
No other previos satelite started to circle the moon from far away, because there was no such propulsion sistem, satelites were launched directly at the moon, this was able to preform a trick do to it's engines.
But too bad, where are my dark side of the moon pictures, the satelite can only show picture covered in darknes, I guess the only way to explore the moon on that side is to go there with astronauts.





[edit on 22-8-2006 by pepsi78]

[edit on 22-8-2006 by pepsi78]


apc

posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Lunar Orbiter 4 mapped 95% of the far side.

here... learn something.

The current projects involve high resolution mapping of the entire surface... you think it will fail? Because all these highly educated well paid engineers disagree.

And where do you get this "only one mission" jibba jabba from? Do you think Apollo was only one mission?

And you are still stuck on this "now is forever" kiddie rant. Like a little school girl who thinks she's going to marry the little boy she plays with at recess.

This is just the beginning. And just like last time, government involvement will be politically motivated, not scientific. The science will be left to the private sector, where it belongs.



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 07:28 AM
link   
pepsi...sorry I ask...but how old are you
? What is your background
? Do you have any ideea at all of what gravity, magnetic field, space, satellites and space travel mean
? Have you even bothered to read what the ESA says about SMART-1 and its ion engine and the lunar orbit? Do you know what "to orbit" means?
If you don't understand this basic facts about space exploration how can you make assumptions on what design is good or not
?
I saw that you said 3 or 4 launches will be enough to build a bigger ship...maybe you're wright on that (though you didn't understand that the Ares launcher doesn't exist yet, that actualy the Ares launcer will be used to make the moon missions possible). But don't you think that with that 3 or 4 launces you could go to the moon 3 or 4 times with the same money needed to build that spacecraft of yours in earth orbit? Wouldn't that be more efficent?



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 07:32 AM
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.


Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, MIKE COLLINS

While Neil and Buzz went down in the LEM, Mike Collins stayed onboard the main craft and orbited the moon.

Sheesh. Do you not know history?

I suggest, Pepsi, that you actually go and research this stuff before you spout rubbish, it will save you getting ripped to shreds.

How can anybody take you seriously when you type crap like that?



[edit on 22-8-2006 by neformore]



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by apc
Lunar Orbiter 4 mapped 95% of the far side.

here... learn something.

The current projects involve high resolution mapping of the entire surface... you think it will fail? Because all these highly educated well paid engineers disagree.

I have searched for pictures of the far side of the moon, yet I just found a few blury ones, where are the pcitures?
Maping like what, like computer maping?
I was not aware of smart 1 , but I still do sustain that besides that satelite there is no other one in orbit there.

what I've said


most of the satelites sent by nasa resulted in faliure , most of them crashed, some of them acived orbit and then crashed landed on the moon.

didint the lunar orbiter 4 crash on the moon?




And where do you get this "only one mission" jibba jabba from? Do you think Apollo was only one mission?


Just look at the costs, this will be one single mission, nasa does not have cash to do it again.



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Apass
pepsi...sorry I ask...but how old are you
? What is your background
? Do you have any ideea at all of what gravity, magnetic field, space, satellites and space travel mean
? Have you even bothered to read what the ESA says about SMART-1 and its ion engine and the lunar orbit? Do you know what "to orbit" means?

yes yes yes, magnetic fields do act and have efects on satelites
www.satobs.org...


---- 6.2.2.2 What Causes The Rotation Period To Increase?
Rocket stages, usually hollow metal cylinders, tumble through
the Earth's magnetic field. This induces eddy currents in the
skin of the structure. The Earth's magnetic field acts upon
these currents, which creates a torque. This torque acts on
the tumbling rocket. Due to this torque, the rate of rotation
will slowly decrease (equivalent to rotation period increase).
This torque will also change the mode of rotation from spinning
(rotation about the longitudinal axis) to end-over-end tumbling
(rotation about a transverse principal axis). A rough analogy
is a toy top which starts out upright, spinning rapidly about
its long axis, but then, due to friction, it begins to spin more
slowly and to wobble, tracing out an increasingly large circular
path closer to the floor.

It's about acceleration, the moon does not have a strong magnetic flux, so it's harder to make satelites orbit around the moon.

Magnetic fields can be used to maintain decline or raise orbit
www.itsf.org...


LEO independent station is descending into a to low orbit. By running current in an wire suspended perpendicular to the magnetic field of Earth, the station is raised into a higher orbit without using external propultion.


I belive this is what I've said.


on the moon the magnetic flux is weak , there for what ever comes in go's down, gravity is an important role also




If you don't understand this basic facts about space exploration how can you make assumptions on what design is good or not
?

I can understand them better than you any way




I saw that you said 3 or 4 launches will be enough to build a bigger ship...maybe you're wright on that (though you didn't understand that the Ares launcher doesn't exist yet, that actualy the Ares launcer will be used to make the moon missions possible). But don't you think that with that 3 or 4 launces you could go to the moon 3 or 4 times with the same money needed to build that spacecraft of yours
in earth orbit? Wouldn't that be more efficent?

No Because:
1 The design that will go to the moon will only be able to deploy in one place.
2 Because the design is not reusable.



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   



I suggest, Pepsi, that you actually go and research this stuff before you spout rubbish, it will save you getting ripped to shreds.

How can anybody take you seriously when you type crap like that?

What crap?


apc

posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Everything


www.windows.ucar.edu...


All five missions were successful. The first three Lunar Orbiters were mostly dedicated to obtaining detailed, high-resolution photographs of 20 areas on the Moon's nearside, preselected as possible future landing sites. Lunar Orbiters 4 and 5 concentrated on more general mapping, covering 99% of the lunar surface including most of the farside. Also, much was learned about the Moon's gravitational field.

After orbiting the Moon and returning hundreds of photographs, each Lunar Orbiter spacecraft was commanded to crash into the surface, destroying itself.


They didn't just fall out of the "sky".

There are so many images of the far side that if you can't find them you clearly aren't looking.



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   


All five missions were successful. The first three Lunar Orbiters were mostly dedicated to obtaining detailed, high-resolution photographs of 20 areas on the Moon's nearside


20 areas is hardly the whole far side of the moon.
how manyu pictures exactly, from what I read I understand that there were about 20 pictures
plus where are the pictures?



preselected as possible future landing sites. Lunar Orbiters 4 and 5 concentrated on more general mapping, covering 99% of the lunar surface including most of the farside.


maping is one thing, and taking pictures is another



After orbiting the Moon and returning hundreds of photographs, each Lunar Orbiter spacecraft was commanded to crash into the surface, destroying itself.


But how many pictures of the far side.


They didn't just fall out of the "sky".

okay maybe they acived orbit, and they maintained it thru thrusters.


There are so many images of the far side that if you can't find them you clearly aren't looking.

How many, I dont see any numbers , it only states that it took pictures of the moon , and that it maped the moon which is diferent from taking pictures.


[edit on 22-8-2006 by pepsi78]

[edit on 22-8-2006 by pepsi78]





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join