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.

 

Did the Space Shuttle Atlantis Cancel Because of the Scrutiny Generated on ATS?

page: 7
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Z,

Wait a minute!!

That 'artist's rendering' of a very cool-looking flying machine still shows two vertical fins...but seems the claim is that no moving surfaces are necessary?

Sorry, I am confused, please elaborate.

adding...'Plasma Actuators'...ok, I can swallow that...but the fins still bother me. Oh, and...what does this artist's rendering have to do with LTO ops? I mean, are we to conclude that this craft can reach LEO, and then re-enter and land?

In other words...what, exactly, is this craft capable of?

Thanks, looking forward to your reply.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by weedwhacker]




posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
In other words...what, exactly, is this craft capable of?


No idea what it is capable of... however it was in answer to a direct question with something that IS being worked on...

I suggest you write AFRL and see what its capable of. As to whether or not they have craft that can make LEO... I KNOW they do... and at least one person here works on them



Now back to the Shuttle... I hear they plan to carry extra fuel on this mission in case they need to stay longer...

Maybe you could look up for me just exactly how much extra they can carry (considering they could lighten the cargo payload...) and just how much fuel they need to make an orbital change...

Seems NASA is not easily forth coming with that data. I am sure I can count on a few here to help me with this yes?




posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
I suggest you write AFRL and see what its capable of. As to whether or not they have craft that can make LEO... I KNOW they do... and at least one person here works on them


Should I even bother to ask for proof of that? Or are you just going to accuse me of being too lazy to do my own research?



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
It may have used a form of "Plasma Actuators" AFRL has been very successfull with that


But that's not possible! Ths study of plasma flow was based on what you like to call "mainstream physics", and according to you and John such physics is crap. Unfortunately, if I believe you guys, I need to write-off these "actuators" as a gimmick of greedy amd mendacious "mainstream scientists". No plasma for you today.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 08:19 PM
link   



Originally posted by weedwhacker

Z,

Wait a minute!!

That 'artist's rendering' of a very cool-looking flying machine still shows two vertical fins...but seems the claim is that no moving surfaces are necessary?

Sorry, I am confused, please elaborate.

adding...'Plasma Actuators'...ok, I can swallow that...but the fins still bother me.


Would not a horizontal actuator rotated 90 degrees become a rudder?



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Your humor is so dry it sucked all the moisture out of me instantly and I turned to a pile of dust while sitting here at my computer.

pippadee-having some problems with the quote button, but you are right, actuators will produce flow in the direction they are positioned.

edit to add for pippadee



[edit on 1/17/2008 by Matyas]



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matyas
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Your humor is so dry it sucked all the moisture out of me instantly and I turned to a pile of dust while sitting here at my computer.


I hope somebody got a vaccum in your house.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Z,

You hear they plan to carry extra fuel on Atlantis? Just how much extra?

Guess I'll have to go look it up myself...which leads me to wonder about the Shuttle propulsion system anyway...

The three Main Engines are, as I understand, H2 and O2 fueled, much like the Saturn V. Now, those liquid fuels are contained in the big orange tank, with the pesky foam. Once the External Tank is jettisoned, fuel is bye-bye!

So, those three big nozzles, the ones that are designed to funnel liquid H and liquid O have lost their fuel source...

Now, there is little doubt the Shuttles can de-orbit...do they use the RCS thrusters for that? My point is, gravity only works down...when on orbit, too much thrust will, simply, put into a higher orbit. Conversely, if you thrust opposite to your direction of motion, it will tend to lower the orbit...thus, re-entry. Simple, no?



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Now, there is little doubt the Shuttles can de-orbit...do they use the RCS thrusters for that? My point is, gravity only works down...when on orbit, too much thrust will, simply, put into a higher orbit. Conversely, if you thrust opposite to your direction of motion, it will tend to lower the orbit...thus, re-entry. Simple, no?


They use the OMS engines for it. I am sure that wikipedia or NASA can do a much better job describing how they work than I have time to give right now.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by COOL HAND
 


You're right, COOL HAND.

As I said, the SSMEs are only available for launch, when the Tank is attached. The OMS (two) are hypergolic-based thrusters, along with the RCS.

The OMS provides the de-orbit thrust...so I doubt they're gonna waste it maneuvering all over the place while on orbit...unless that want to stay there until the consumables run out.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Should I even bother to ask for proof of that? Or are you just going to accuse me of being too lazy to do my own research?


If you are asking for proof of the one being worked on... no do not bother to ask... If I had the proof available I would post it... and currently I am bound not to reveal who.. However I am getting close to a second source and then I will be more than happy to share....

It is also possible it will be public before I get those details...

Right now I have only limited time so am working on shuttle issues
I promise though I will have more soon

[edit on 17-1-2008 by zorgon]



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
But that's not possible! Ths study of plasma flow was based on what you like to call "mainstream physics", and according to you and John such physics is crap.


Impossible? Ummm in case you didn't notice that was not from John or myself, but from the AFRL (Air Force Research Lab) who have been working on this for some time...

Trust you to mix apples and oranges... I have always maintained that NASA withholds stuff... but if you have paid ANY attention to what I have said I say NASA is NOT the main concern

And despite what you say about 'mainstream physics" I hardly doubt that 'mainstream' much less the public is aware that this tech even exists... and like the bit about the MYSTY... I did not see YOU or any of the other skeptics bring this forward... even though you 'claim' its so easy to find

I even had one of you skeptics write me and admit he had forgotten about MISTY but added he would NOT have presented it... And this is what ATS is al l about to show others what is going on out there...

I realize that you and others prefer to simply deny and debunk everything... but then when I show something you scream its irrelevant and everyone knows about it....

Seems a bit childish to me....

:shk:

The simple fact that these plasma actuators exist and are now public knowledge opens a whole new area of possibilities where UFO's and "Flying Triangles" are concerned

[edit on 17-1-2008 by zorgon]



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Z,
You hear they plan to carry extra fuel on Atlantis? Just how much extra?
Guess I'll have to go look it up myself...


Precisely that was my point... I have the data on "extra fuel" now... but I would suggest you DO look it up...

If the tank is dropped then how do you account for the comments on "having extra fuel for a possible extend stay" ?
Where do you suppose they store it? and how is it fed to the engines when needed?

LOL I like COOL HAND'S answer "go look it up in wikipedia" Yup real good source there for truth


You guys can't find the answer I bet


And I am surprized at you about the H and O comment on the fuel

:shk:

I though everyone knew that while in space the OMS engines use monomethyl hydrazine as the fuel and nitrogen tetroxide as the oxidizer

Now if you can't answer the questions of extra fuel please stop wasting time with BS ideas




posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Hey, Z...

Read it again...I DID point out that the OMS engines are hypergolic. The three 'Main' engines are useless once the fuel Tank is disconnected.

Sorry if you misunderstood what I wrote.

Thanks for your post.

edit to add...the hydrazine fuels are, I am told, similar to water, although of course with a different specific gravity...but nevertheless, how much is needed, in other words, how large are the tanks that are needed to provide the two substances? NOW, having asked that, it would follow that Atlantis was retro-fitted since her last flight, with larger tanks for these substances. Is that the case? I mean, it IS possible to imagine....

second edit...Z, my friend...you seem to have mentioned the 'H and O' part of my post...again, read my point: the LH and LO are in the big orange tank. N'est pas? The SRBs augment the thrust from the SSMEs during launch, right? My point is, the three SSMEs have no fuel, and do not work anymore, once on orbit. That is why the OMS engines are there...


[edit on 17-1-2008 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 17-1-2008 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Originally posted by zorgon


As to whether or not they have craft that can make LEO... I KNOW they do...


I have absolutely no doubt that our government has at least an experimental craft that can achieve LEO using a single stage method.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
I have absolutely no doubt that our government has at least an experimental craft that can achieve LEO using a single stage method.



Good to have you back.

What makes you so sure re: the craft?



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I wish I could say what makes me so sure, but anything I can share is far enough from a smoking gun that my input being considered for factual observation is useless.


But I want to make it clear, I do not believe anything related to a single stage LEO achieving craft lends any credence to a secret space station or anything.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Just occured to me that "single stage to orbit" is not the same as "reusable". I supposed you can have one stage in a rocket and still launch it (aren't most modern ICBMs this way?).



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Now, there is little doubt the Shuttles can de-orbit...do they use the RCS thrusters for that? My point is, gravity only works down...when on orbit, too much thrust will, simply, put into a higher orbit. Conversely, if you thrust opposite to your direction of motion, it will tend to lower the orbit...thus, re-entry. Simple, no?


To get the shuttle up to 17,500 mph in the first place, required all the fuel in that big orange tank, plus those solid rocket boosters, plus a little of the on board fuel as well. To slow down to a speed where the descent through the atmosphere would not produce so much friction and heat would require almost that amount of fuel again.

Thus, the problem is in the enormous amount of fuel required to decelerate from 17,500 mph to close to zero. So you do it just enough with the available fuel on board and the rest is taken care of by the atmosphere.

Cheers!



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


Thanks, mikesingh, I pretty well understand the physics of a de-orbit burn. Yup! The three SSMEs have no fuel once the external tank is gone. I think I mentioned, after I researched it, the two OMS thrusters aft, used in conjuction with the RCS thrusters while on orbit, and for de-orbit burn and subsequent orientation for re-entry...where all of that kinetic energy, all 17,500mph, give or take a few, has to be dissipated.

Sorry if it seemed lilke I didn't understand, perhaps due to poor writing on my part, but thanks for your post in response.

I will stand my, however, my assertion that once the LH/LOX tank is jettisoned, and allowing for whatever resulting momentum may exist, the vehicle will be 'established' in an orbit planned out by the length of the burn and the established trajectory. Guess that means, also, that it must be aimed at the proper ecliptic to coincide with the ISS.

With all of that kinetic energy, the hypergolic OMS and RCS thrusters will not likely have enough fuel to increase deltaV to raise the vehicle to a greatly higher orbit, nor to effect an ecliptic plane orbital change of any great degree...I mean, if you want to be sure to have enough propellants for your de-orbit and orientation maneuver...Guess they could install really large tanks, but then no room for the ESA module?

I obviously have never flown the Shuttle (except a really cool 'sim' at the KSC Visitor's Center...it handled a little bit like a DC-10...) that tries to recreate the last five minutes or so, follow the HUD in the turn to Final and down the GlideSlope. Fun stuff, that!



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join