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.

 

only takes 1 week to the moon and back in a lunar lander module craft

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 06:05 AM
link   
only takes 1 week to the moon and back in a lunar lander module craft, would we be able to get there faster nowdays in a space shuttle maybe carrying some sort of lunar lander module to go to moon surface?

WHY have we not been back to moon more often then if its a 1 week trip there and back?

moon rocks would surely pay some cost of trips.

[Edited on 3-1-2004 by blobby]




posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by blobby
only takes 1 week to the moon and back in a lunar lander module craft, would we be ablt to get there faster nowdays in a space shuttle maybe carrying some sort of lunar lander module to go to moon surface?

WHY have we not been back to moon more often then if its a 1 week trip there and back?

moon rocks would surely pay some cost of trips.


Challanger and Columbia didn't even deal with the added risk of orbiting the moon or landing there.

Thats why. Space travel is a dangerous thing. Landing on the moon is not like landing on earth. you have no runway, no atmosphere to use wings to guide the shuttle.

In addition the moon is a big ball of nothing, mostly metal oxide dust.

Also, unless we were going to establish a base there for longterm scientific work, what would be the point?

[Edited on 3-1-2004 by ScienceGuyQ]



posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 06:43 AM
link   
i said the space shuttle would take a lunner lander type craft (surely we can make better landers nowdays than ones in 70's) in its cargo bay and when in orbit around moon it would delpoy lunar lander craft that would goto moon surface, also it could drop payloads of down to moon that lander wouldnt be able to carry.

As to the theres nothing on the Moon, have you not heard of Hydrogen 3 i think thats the name of it, its only found on the Moon and can power our cities for centurys on end just a small amount of it to, its also possible to power new space craft with it too.



posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 06:49 AM
link   
I've been looking for info on this Hydrogen 3 you've mentioned, but can't find anything specific. Do you have any links you can provide?

The only specific mention of Hydrogen 3 I can find is in relation to a new fuel cell vehicle in Japan, actually called "HydroGen 3" which is powered by hydrogen.



posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 06:56 AM
link   
This is what I have found so far

A hydrogen isotope of atomic weight 3; weakly radioactive, emitting beta particles to become the stable helium-3; half-life, 12.32 years.

Synonym: tritium.
www.books.md...


This may not be the same thing though since it only has a half life of 12.32 years



posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Thanks - yeah, I'd just found similar a minute ago, but wasn't sure if it was the same thing.

It's all a bit over my head though, I'm no physicist! (I failed Higher physics!)
One thing I did notice though, was that Hydrogen 3 isn't just found on the moon. We're already using it. I wonder if you're thinking of Helium 3? It's mentioned on the link below as being an extremely potent 'perfect' fuel source, of which 'hardly any' is found on Earth.

Click for info



posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 07:24 AM
link   
news.bbc.co.uk...

shows places where the element helium-3 can be found in the lunar dirt. Helium-3 is rare on Earth, but more common on the Moon.

Its importance lies in the fact that it could be an efficient fuel for nuclear fusion reactors.

Fusion reactors are still under development and it will be many decades, if ever, before they provide power commercially.

But they have many advantages over conventional nuclear reactors in that they produce far more power and produce much less radioactive waste.

Today's design of fusion reactor uses tritium as a fuel, an isotope of hydrogen extracted from sea water. But Helium-3 would be even more efficient and produce even less radioactive waste.



posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Wouldn't it take a large-scale operation to extract any decent amount of He-3?

The shuttle cannot go to the moon. It can only reach relatively low orbits. I'm sure it would be possible to design far better lunar landers, and translunar transport vessels today, but being possible doesn't make it cheap. For any future venture to the moon to be worthwhile, it would have to be large scale and long term. The expense to design and build a whole new generation of Lunar vehicles and then to support a long term mission is massively prohibitive at the moment. Even the cost of designing and operating new vehicles for lunar exploration missions is rather extreme unless theres a pretty bloody good reason to go. (ie profit, or to beat someone else there)



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join