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.

 

Heavy Boosters

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 04:09 PM
link   
I seriously doubt we would take rockets as a way to the moon. Something lighter and faster, more shuttlelike would do the trick.




posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 04:30 PM
link   


saturnes 5 boosters where used for the apollo project. but the rusian energia boosters are powerfull as well


well the Energia is the most powerfull booster built and it has a modular construction which means that with current Energia components larger or smaller boosters can be built

www.astronautix.com...
The Vulkan launch vehicle practically solves the problem with a trip to mars


Zion Mainframe, Air-Attack.com is your site, isn't it?
I think the aircraft on top of the MiG-29 page is not a Mig
at all but one from the Su-27 family most probably Su-30

www.air-attack.com...

sorry for the little of topic here

[Edited on 13-1-2004 by vorazechul]



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 08:40 PM
link   
I think from what I've read on the post links here it would be a great idea if we teamed up with the Russians, they have the booster and tooling, we have the funds and electronics to make it happen.

Sure would be nice to see an international paticipation in this endeavor.



posted on Jan, 14 2004 @ 05:49 AM
link   
it's allways better to unite and some times I get really pissed of because we could have been on mars for a long time ago if Russia and USA were together from the begining of the space era



posted on Jan, 14 2004 @ 05:54 AM
link   
As the Mars mission is some years ahead and it is likely that any base on ther moon will already be established by then, isn't it possible that any Mars spacecraft will be launched from outside of Earth's atmosphere?
This would negate the need for huge boosters.

I doubt that a Mars spacecraft wouold be wholly manufactured in space but it is possible that it might be assembled there just as the ISS was.



posted on Jan, 14 2004 @ 05:59 AM
link   
I agree, the USA Needs A heavy booster. I think that we will need to develope a new booster if we plan to launch a new moon Mission (or possibly a future Mars mission). All current Heavy Boosters I know of, including the Russian Engaria where design for putting payloads in orbit, not deep space.

Also, on a side note, If any of these long range/deep space mission are going to be manned in the future, we will also need a new spacecraft, because current ones lack the life support systems for such a long trip.

B.T.W.: In one of my old books on the history of space flight it talks about a concept for a superbooster called Nova that was developed during the early days of the Apollo Program. From what I've read, it was only a paper concept. But if the paper studies still exist in NASA's files, the idea could be revived and built.

Tim

[Edited on 14-1-2004 by ghost]



posted on Jan, 14 2004 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by vorazechul
Zion Mainframe, Air-Attack.com is your site, isn't it?
I think the aircraft on top of the MiG-29 page is not a Mig
at all but one from the Su-27 family most probably Su-30

www.air-attack.com...

sorry for the little of topic here

[Edited on 13-1-2004 by vorazechul]

It isn't?? Oops...


hehe, I'm not really into russian aircraft, you it's quite likely you're right

I'll replace that pic asap


...
...
...


actually I got that pic from FAS.org. I took it from their Mig-29 page...
www.fas.org...

Now I'm really confused




[Edited on 14-1-2004 by Zion Mainframe]



posted on Jan, 14 2004 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by vorazechul

Zion Mainframe, Air-Attack.com is your site, isn't it?
I think the aircraft on top of the MiG-29 page is not a Mig
at all but one from the Su-27 family most probably Su-30

www.air-attack.com...


oops sorry my mistake

no need to take it off

[Edited on 14-1-2004 by vorazechul]



posted on Jan, 14 2004 @ 07:23 AM
link   
best way is the space elevator and build a craft in earth orbit and then go to the moon. first build automated spacetrucks which will be loaded at the top of the elevator and then bring the load to the moon
by dropping it on the moon
and go back to the elevator.it doesn;t have to be launch with rockets and the space plane can be flown by computers.



posted on Jan, 14 2004 @ 12:37 PM
link   



actually I got that pic from FAS.org. I took it from their Mig-29 page...
www.fas.org...

Now I'm really confused






well, they really did it


no MiG-29 here no MiGs at all that other plane is the Su-15(i think ) and the one that is suposed to be the 29 is for 100% a Su-27...for 100%, This time I am sure



posted on Jan, 14 2004 @ 01:10 PM
link   
o and that last idea isn't so smart


1)you will need a superstrong material

2) you will need large quantities from it (not less than allthe metal on earth

3) you will need the best boosters we can built to transport the material and if you have such why the big deal with the "cable things"

here are some more ideas and also an explanation of the not so good ones
www.islandone.org...



posted on Jan, 14 2004 @ 01:38 PM
link   
not anymore ... look here. carbon nanotubes.
www.isr.us...



posted on Jan, 14 2004 @ 02:26 PM
link   
wow ...
lasers powercells electromotrors 15 years

I say start building


good find really nice

[Edited on 14-1-2004 by vorazechul]



posted on Jan, 15 2004 @ 09:03 AM
link   
There's no way chemical boosters are going to found or sustain a lunar colony. Maybe ORION, eh? Nuclear powered madness to land thousands of tonnes on the moon! I'm just waiting for antigrav. (Cue X-Files theme music)



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lampyridae
There's no way chemical boosters are going to found or sustain a lunar colony.


Why not ?
This project is going to push the tech one more step ahead and even the old chemical rocket engines have potential for development

1. As far as i know the most efficien LOX/kerosin engines are those constructed for the N-1 russian lunar rocket.
They were closed cycle engins and I don't hear of any closed cycle engines today...how about making some for the lunar base.
2. Puls detonation rocket engins are also an option - they promise to be eficieter than every other chemical rocket engines we have now. Developing those sure is gonna make a lots of noise (not only on the test stand).
3. And some combination engines like:
- Ramrocket www.islandone.org...
- Turboramjet
- Turborocketwww.islandone.org...

Lets do it simple ...why ride a nuclear bomb



[Edited on 18-1-2004 by vorazechul]

[Edited on 18-1-2004 by vorazechul]




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join