NASA need 1960's saturns to inspire them..

page: 6
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   
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.




posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted 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


So out of all the missions to Luna, you find 11 failures (one you posted wasn't in fact a failure), and all of those were from the very early stages of man's exploration of the Solar System when we were all just figuring it out. Yeah, very convincing...




Still only a few clear pics i've managed to find of the far side of the moon.


You must not be as proficient at Google as you think, as I just found hundreds on my first search...



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   
To be honest. I've seen the pictures it took and they're very low quality. The resolution (size) isn't big enough to get a good look at the surface of the far side.


apc

posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Is this dancing around the idea that there is some secret alien/military base on the far side? Or a civilization that predates ours? Or some of this other conspiratorial stuffiness?

I ask again... why the obsession over the far side?



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   

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.



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   
I see nothing wrong with this either. The Space Shuttles only utilize 1960s/70s technology themselves, are very expensive to launch, relatively fragile and highly complicated, and have never met the overly ambitious launch schedule NASA promised in the first place. Now Congress wants a safer, cheaper, simpler replacement vehicle with comparable functions, yet one is still nowhere near completion. Instead of going back to square one, why not use proven technology from NASA's golden age when it last faced these specific design challenges?

Also, the engineers who designed and built the Apollos are gone, and their knowledge went with them. Merely redesigning the same exact vehicles with today's engineers would be astronomically expensive and wasteful. As another poster mentioned, all scientific and technological endeavors are cumulative, so whether directly or indirectly, we are always building on past successes and learning from past mistakes.

It's not ideal, I'll grant you that. Interested parties have known for years the Shuttles needed replacing, yet it took another fiery public disaster to spur real urgency. But that's politics, economics, and bureaucracy for you.



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   

pepsi78
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

Honestly...You really need to stop thinking your the smartest person on ATS, and that everybody will just accept what you say as fact.

k, how is Smart-1 having an engine different then other sats??? NEARLY ALL HAVE ENGINES, the only ones that dont need them are in GEO...and that refers to the moon and earth. How do you think all the satellites have being staying above you circling the earth??? They have fuel on board, and a small engine &/or thrusters, with almost no gravity, you dont need much power to keep on circling the earth (or moon)...This includes the ISS.

And what are you talking about with the words "Jet Propulsion"...Please explain to me exactly how an air breathing engine works in space.


I'll say this again...PLEASE go re-learn everything you think you know. in other words, just read my signature.

[edit on 22-8-2006 by Murcielago]



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 02:42 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.


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



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 08:41 AM
link   

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]



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 08:52 AM
link   
pepsi define "to orbit"!
Or mayby take a look at this
dictionary.reference.com...



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Look there are 2 ways of orbiting, geo stational orbit and orbit around a planet .
Like some comercial satelites that are in orbit with earth, they dont circle the planet, you can stay in orbit with out circleling the earth, the satelites that are in a geo stational position move how the earth moves, they are fixed on a geographic position , they are in motion with earth.
Geo Stational means that they rotate with the earth , and not around the earth.
The only thing I said is that I reserve my doubts regarding if nasa did a 100% orbit around the moon with the apolo missions(not geo stational)

From what I know , radio contact was always present, just from what I know, this would be imposible once you are on the far side of the moon.



[edit on 23-8-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 10:25 AM
link   
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!



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 11:05 AM
link   
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?
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.



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!

I am talking about radio contact with huston, not the tv transmision, the only time that I know of when they lost radio contact was at the re-entry on earth.


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

About the TV transmision, I have my doubds but this in not up for discusion here in this thread, we can talk about it in the moon hoax thread , because I think man never made it to the moon, it's just my opinion.


apc

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 11:23 AM
link   
I knew it!

Everything becomes clear...


jra

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 03:07 PM
link   
The CSM orbited around the moon. The two astronauts on the surface never lost contact with Huston because they were on the surface, always in line of site with Earth. None of the CSM's nor any other satellite sent to the moon was ever in a geo sync orbit.

Apollo 11 did 30 orbits for example. The rest orbited even more.

With your lack of knowledge and understanding of this subject. I'm not surprised you don't think we went to the moon.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   

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.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Hi guys.

Isn't it sad when someone who is obviously so misinformed on a subject that is established fact, would rather spend time arguing with the numerous people trying to correct, educate and inform them, than actually read up about the subject at hand?

Anyone got a wall for me to smash my head against?



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Hi guys.

Isn't it sad when someone who is obviously so misinformed on a subject that is established fact, would rather spend time arguing with the numerous people trying to correct, educate and inform them, than actually read up about the subject at hand?

Anyone got a wall for me to smash my head against?


Unforunetley I don't have a wall for you to smash


But I realized a few minutes ago (while I was in the bathroom, prepairing for the night
) that it will be a big blow for the moon hoax belivers if NASA is using/inspireing from the old designs...because if they get to the moon in the near future with basicaly the same technology as 40 years ago...then this would mean that they could have gone to the moon 40 years ago



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   
A bit offtopic here, but is it even possible to go into synchronous orbit around the moon? It seems that with its slow rotation, low mass and proximity to the Earth, such an orbit would fall outside of its Hill sphere. I guess I could do/find some calculations, but I'm too lazy for that.

edit: pepsi78, please don't reply to this. Thank you.

[edit on 23-8-2006 by cdrn]



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 07:30 PM
link   
The SMART-1 was not in orbit. It was decaying from the start. So it had a very limited lifespan. I think what Pepsi feels is that an orbitting probe would be much more valuable, and I think so too. Something that could stay there for a long while.. (if it's possible?)





new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join