NASA need 1960's saturns to inspire them.., page 6


Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7    8    9  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times


reply posted on 22-8-2006 @ 11:39 AM by pepsi78
If I'm speaking crap let's look at the rate of success.
let's see how hard was to acive orbit on the moon
www.unb.ca...

10/1958 Luna1958B Launch failure Impactor to impact the lunar surface

11/1958 Pioneer2 Failed to achieve lunar trajectory Orbiter to obtain lunar orbit

12/1958 Luna1958C Launch failure Impactor to impact the lunar surface

12/1958 Pioneer3 Launch failure Probe to flyby the moon

01/1959 Luna1 Flyby Impactor -radio equipment
-tracking transmitter
-telemetering system
-magnetometer
-geiger counter
-scintillation counter
- micrometeorite detector
to impact the lunar surface (failed)
achieved first lunar flyby

03/1959 Pioneer4 Flyby Probe to flyby the moon
passed within 60,000 kilometers (37,300 miles) of the Moon, returned data on lunar radiation levels, then entered a solar orbit

06/1959 Luna1959A Failed to reach earth orbit Impactor to impact the lunar surface

08/1961 Ranger1 Engine failure in Earth orbit Probe -two channels
-channel 1 - 2 full scan cameras (1 wide angle camera, 1 narrow angle camera)
-channel 2 - 4 partial scan cameras (2 wide angle cameras, 2 narrow angle cameras)
to test the feasibility of going into a parking orbit around Earth before heading out to the Moon. A parking orbit would give engineers time to calculate a much more accurate trajectory for the spacecraft to follow to the Moon.
Ranger 1 made it into low Earth orbit. Its engines failed and it re-entered Earth's atmosphere
01/1962 Ranger3 Failure Lander as for Ranger1
Ranger 3 missed the Moon and ended up in a solar orbit
04/1962 Ranger4 Computer failure Lander as for Ranger1
to take close-up images of the Moon before impacting with its surface
after computer failure, crashed on the farside of the moon
10/1962 Ranger5 Failure Lander as for Ranger1
to take close-up images of the Moon before impacting with its surface
solar cell failed shortly after launch and the spacecraft missed the moon by 720 kilometers (450 miles)

01/1964 Ranger6 Failure Impactor as for Ranger1
to take a series of images on approach to the Moon, up to the point of impact
spacecraft's cameras failed and no pictures were returned. Ranger 6 crash-landed in the Sea of

Your right , with so many failiures, I thought that not 1 made it.
Still only a few clear pics i've managed to find of the far side of the moon.


reply posted on 22-8-2006 @ 12:56 PM by Apass
Originally posted by pepsi78
yes yes yes, magnetic fields do act and have efects on satelites
www.satobs.org...


from the same link above: " ---- 6.2 "Flashing" Satellites" - you just prove why we see satellites flashing in the night sky, because they spin around thier axis. And the magnetic field as described in that link is responsible for this spin motion, not for the revolution around the earth.


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.



And this guy Jens Stürup is....?
Can you provide anything else about the subject? Some results from NASA or ESA or JAXA or whatever do they call the russian and chinees space agencies?



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.


No...1) there will be 3 or 4 places since there are 3 or 4 missions for the same amount of money;
2) Neither your design is reusable since it calls for 3 or 4 launches with a rocket that isn't reusable - remember, the space shutle will be retired.


reply posted on 23-8-2006 @ 08:41 AM by pepsi78
Originally posted by neformore
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.


Pepsi.

This quote - from one of your earlier posts in this thread - is total and utter crap.

You are wrong with what you said here. Please admit it.

The Apollo programme is basic science history. You can read about it here;

Apollo Programme

First of all can you please post the source and the content from the source.
Staing in orbit and adopting a geo stational position of the moon does not mean what you think, they deploied from the moon's orbit to moon surface, staing in orbit does not mean nescesarly that you are doing a 100% moon orbit.
I dont even know to what frase from your source you are refering.
Just post it here.




[edit on 23-8-2006 by pepsi78]


reply posted on 23-8-2006 @ 10:25 AM by Apass
You should do a better search and try to understand what to orbit means

A geosynchronous orbit is a geocentric orbit that has the same orbital period as the sidereal rotation period of the Earth. It has a semi-major axis of 42,164 km (26,200 miles). In the special case of the geostationary orbit, an observer on the ground would not perceive the satellite as moving and would see it as a fixed point in the sky. Such orbits are useful for telecommunications relays. In the more general case, when the orbit has some inclination and/or eccentricity, the satellite would appear to describe a more or less distorted figure-eight in the sky, and would rest above the same spots of the Earth's surface once per sidereal day.
wikipedia

(my emphesis)

And also Celestial mechanics and Astrodynamics


Astrodynamics is the study of the motion of rockets, missiles, and space vehicles, as determined from Sir Isaac Newton's laws of motion and his law of universal gravitation. It is a specific and distinct branch of celestial mechanics, which focuses more broadly on Newtonian gravitation and includes the orbital motions of artificial and natural astronomical bodies such as planets, moons, and comets. Astrodynamics is principally concerned with spacecraft trajectories, from launch to atmospheric re-entry, including all orbital maneuvers, orbit plane changes, and interplanetary transfers


where's the magnetic field in this?


Circular orbits
Although most orbits are elliptical in nature, a special case is the circular orbit, which is an ellipse of zero eccentricity. The formula for the velocity of a body in a circular orbit at distance r from the center of gravity of mass M is:

v= sqrt(G*M/r)

where G is the gravitational constant, equal to 6.672 598 × 10−11 m3/(kg·s2)

form Space mathematics

So this means that if you inject an object around a planet at a distance r and with a velocity v so as to verify the above eq you'll get an artificial satellite of that planet (or moon) in a circular orbit. And since G and M are constants and assuming circular orbit than r is also constant this means that the velocity remains constant so...why do you need an engine just to remain in orbit around the moon?
If you think of elliptic orbits than it can be proved that also you don't need an engine to remain in orbit. And as far as I know, there is no engine here on Earth that keeps our planet around the Sun. Neither on the moon to keep it around our planet. And if you need magnetic field to be able to remain in orbit how can you explain an asteroid with a satellite?

They had permanent contact with the astronauts when they were on the moon because they were on the near side of the moon. The TV transmission we all saw was from the moon, not from the orbiter!



reply posted on 23-8-2006 @ 03:28 PM by Apass
Originally posted by pepsi78
Dude wtf? what I insisted on is that the majority of the apollo missions were geostational before entering the moon, or cant you understand that geostatioal and low orbit are 2 diferent things , bolth can be called orbiting, plus why explain to me how geocentric orbiting works, I already know that.
You felt you had to explain, didint you?

Sorry..but you still don't seem to undestand what to orbit means. None of the apollo missions where "geostational". "Geostational" means GEO-synchronous, that is synchronous with the Earth's period.
You said on a previous post:

they dont circle the planet, you can stay in orbit with out circleling the earth

that's not true. For you to stay in orbit it's necessary to go around the Earth. If it happens that the Earth rotates with the same period then you will have a geosynchronous orbit, but you will still be revolving around the earth.
And another post:

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

again, that's not true. As you can find out by studying some celestial mechanics you'll find out that whatever the mass of the object you would like to orbit you will be able to orbit around it. Oh...and in celestial mechanics you don't need magnetic field. In Newton's time I don't believe it existed a coherent theory of electromagnetic filed but still he was able to calculate the orbits of the planets.

and again

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

I said in an earlier post. You don't need an engine to stay in orbit.


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

again...you don't need magnetic field.

And now you say

plus why explain to me how geocentric orbiting works, I already know that.
You felt you had to explain, didint you?

Well...I think I proved that you are indeed wright...or maybe not!

What I've said but it seems you cant understand is that there are 2 main ways of orbiting.
1 orbiting and moving with the body of the planet at the same time.
2 orbiting and moving around the planet, not at the same time with the planet.
Most of the apollo missions aplyed number 1, simply because there was no need to circle the moon, the landing site was in front of them on the visible part of the moon.

No, they didn't use no 1. Give some links to prove that they did.
And they did circle the moon and not on a synchronous orbit. If they didn't how could they have taken pictures of the moon's surface from other areas than where the lander was?


Going around the moon and transmiting is not posible , because there is no relay sistem to do that.

You're wright on that. But since they were ON the moon, they could talk with Houston. That was the case for the lunar lander. The lunar orbiter, however, it hadn't contact all the time with Houston.
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7    8    9  >>    ^^TOP^^



Hubble\'s Hidden Treasures - Incredible views of the Universe
  Posted 17 days ago with 40 member flags
Mars curiosity Sol2 Anomalies
  Posted 11 days ago with 22 member flags
Curiosity Just Went Through Mud?
  Posted 0 days ago with 22 member flags
Mars: Fears Curiosity Will Contaminate Planet
  Posted 1 days ago with 21 member flags
Milky Way in detail.
  Posted 14 days ago with 13 member flags
Went to the moon, we never went, was scared off, still going!?
  Posted 15 days ago with 11 member flags