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.
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]
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
................ 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.
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.
Originally posted by Murcielago
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.
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.
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.
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.
And where do you get this "only one mission" jibba jabba from? Do you think Apollo was only one mission?
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?
---- 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.
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.
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 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?
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?
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.
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.
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.