Why can't "We" go, page

We can go.
We can be free.
Anyplace you can dream of,
We can be.

Provided, of course, we have the cash and follow (if we are in the US):
PUBLIC LAW 108-492

[edit on 20-10-2008 by Phage]

reply to post by Benarius

---

I don't believe launching an ICBM is quite the same thing as sending a rocket into space, but I know where you are going with this. The whole"just go ahead and do it" thing is how it may happen...once. I would like to see, if it were possible to get the funding, something that could be done many times over. This would be the only way to keep NASA, the Chinese Space Administration, the Soviets, etc. honest.

Phage, thanks for the link. I am not as brushed up on legalese as maybe I should be. What is the verdict? Can "We" go?

Thanks for the input so far folks...Looking forward to more.

Originally posted by daddymax
I would like to see, if it were possible to get the funding, something that could be done many times over. This would be the only way to keep NASA, the Chinese Space Administration, the Soviets, etc. honest.

They keep each other plenty honesty, as do amateurs who double check their work. If you want to send up your own satellite, buy a ticket. For about $10,000/kg payload you can hitch your probe a ride on a Falcon 1 flight, a privately funded venture.
www.spacex.com...
In the end, the only things stopping anyone from launching their own satellite are expertise and cash.

[edit on 20-10-2008 by ngchunter]

reply to post by ngchunter

---

I have seen some information on this...but I am not as interested in putting up another satellite per se, unless the body of orbit would be the moon. I just tend to believe that if you and I started on a path that would be able to produce a space bearing craft, that this would cause these groups that are keeping eachother honest to have to be honest with all of us. I am not saying forcing disclosure, but a group of non-biased, non-government, non-affiliated going to the moon and making a statement either way would be the purest way to obtain un-molested, un-deniable proof. One way or the other...maybe.

I may send something roughly drafted to people like T.Boone Pickens, Dr. Michio Kaku, Dr. Neil Tyson, etc. Just to see what kind of response I get. Who knows...wouldn't it be cool if someone nibbles?

Oh, I have never seen the Astronaut Farmer...is it worth watching?

reply to post by daddymax

---

how hard would it be to start pitching to a large enough group of corporate mothers to plan, produce, and perform a launch, and either a landing or close enough pass of the moon to verify one way or another Yes/No.

About as hard as it would be to persuade them there was a profit to be made from it.

Booster rockets don't go on trees, you know.

Virgin Galactic is not really a space ship, it's just a pressurised aeroplane with a rocket on the back. It goes up, vertical, into space, then falls back down again - which is why participants experiance zero gravity. It shall be noted this is relatively easy, and is the reason it doesn't burn up. Proper, space programme rockets have to put satellites in orbit, which means attaining an orbital speed of perhaps, 28,000km/h, a few hundred kilometres high - so that basically the centrefugal force is balanced with gravity, so your pretty much falling around the Earth in zero G. Obviously, to attain this speed, much of it has to come from when inside the outskirts of the atmosphere, which is hugely stressful and energy intensive - this is the reason why we don't have civilian space programmes with people into space. It would cost a heap of money, particularly developing everything from scratch.

To get to the moon? The most efficient way to get to the moon is lunar transfer orbit. You acheive low earth orbit around the earth, then, align orbital planes so that your space crafts ground track matches the orbit of the moon (You could eliminate this step with a well picked launched point.) Obviously if you're going 28,000km/h, it's going to need a HUGE amount of energy to even change your course a single degree. Next, you need the highest point of your orbit to be the same as the moon, at minimum, 363 104 km from Earth, by comparison, low earth orbit is a minimum of 140km. That too, is going to require a HUGE amount of energy. Due to various reasons you're going to need further burns to acheive lunar orbit, but it would take too long and beat a dead horse.

There are a couple civlian companies that shoot satalites into space, but these are mostly relatively small rockets, not much more capable than putting a few hundred kilograms into orbit - the Saturn V, moon rocket, could put 118,000 k to LEO, and 47,000 kg to 'Lunar Vicinity'. That was a big rocket, and a very expensive programme ,$32-45 billion in 2007USD. Even countries that the Chinese haven't (yet) accomplished.

In short, the only reason we haven't gotten civilians on the moon, or even a civilian satellite close, is because of the technical difficulties and the massive cost. We need return on investment, and if it's a rocket that just goes to moon for some pictures, then it will be likely very hard to justify the price of it. Don't get me wrong, it IS possible, and WILL happen, the question is when, and at what cost. IF you can get past the technical difficulties, I doubt the government could really do anything about you, as there are many civlian rockets out there.

Hope this helps.

[edit on 21/10/2008 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by daddymax
reply to post by ngchunter

---

I have seen some information on this...but I am not as interested in putting up another satellite per se, unless the body of orbit would be the moon.

Low earth orbit is the starting place for any interplanetary mission, including lunar missions. Put an engine on your satellite, give it proper guidance and voila, you can launch it to the moon. The first lunar flybys and impactors used rockets far less capable payload-wise than the Falcon 1, so there's literally no reason a private individual couldn't do the same thing. The earliest american lunar probes were just 20cm tall spin-stabilized cones with radiation sensors, that was basically it. With today's technology you could put a lightweight CCD in place of a radiation sensor and even save weight. The key is light weight - obviously the engine for the trans-lunar injection burn will be heavy, but the payload itself, the probe, needs to be as light as possible. The first probes were about 6kg in mass, which makes it MUCH easier to get enough delta-V to reach the moon. You could probably reduce that mass even further with modern lightweight batteries or solar cells.

I just tend to believe that if you and I started on a path that would be able to produce a space bearing craft, that this would cause these groups that are keeping eachother honest to have to be honest with all of us.

What are you suggesting that they've been dishonest about and what proof do you have of their collective dishonesty? Why would they all agree to tell the exact same story from the get-go? Why wouldn't a competing space program from an unfriendly nation disclose what everyone else was lying about? It would be a huge political victory.

I am not saying forcing disclosure,

Disclosure of what? I'm sorry, I'm just really not following you, what are you implying is being hidden?

Oh, I have never seen the Astronaut Farmer...is it worth watching?

Only if you can give yourself a HUGE suspension of disbelief. A few scenes near the climax of the film are chock full of scientific and physical errors.

[edit on 21-10-2008 by ngchunter]

I think the company developing this one might be looking for volunteers in the near future.

How desperate are you to fly into space? Copenhagen Suborbitals has a crazy plan to cram you into the nosecone of this minuscule missile, blasting you into space and returning you safely to Earth, all by your lonesome self. That standing-up position doesn't look too comfortable, but claustrophobic daredevils can rest easy because the entire tip of the nosecone is transparent, showing the rider a magnificent view of the rapidly approaching cosmos.

Micro Spacecraft

So, yes you can go. :p

reply to post by toreishi

---

WOW!!! What a cool find...do you think it will accommodate a 6'8" 360 lb. country boy?

Old_One...MagLev rail huh? {pause for thought} Not a bad idea! This could be a good addition to a currently kicked around proposal I am working on with a group of like minded individuals. ..hmm. Yes indeed. Thank you for a unique opportunity to take a direction not formerly considered...

Thanks to all of you, and your information. Quite interested in any further information you think may help...

Max

NIBIRU AT LAST?? Brazilian Astronomer claims have found rogue planet hidden behind Neptune.
  Posted 12 days ago with 49 member flags

BREAKING: Sphere Deflects Solar Eruption! May 25, 2012 - SunsFlare
  Posted 1 days ago with 42 member flags

New object near the sun. Video is up. It\'s coming out of the sun. Zoomed in better.
  Posted 13 days ago with 27 member flags

Is an unseen planet skirting edge of our solar system?
  Posted 4 days ago with 27 member flags

ISS call to NASA Reveals \'ENTITY Growing in Size\'; 2 Bright Beams Energy/Light directed AT our Sun
  Posted 16 days ago with 26 member flags

33 Amazing pictures of planet earth taken by Astronaut Andre Kuipers from space
  Posted 8 days ago with 26 member flags

Planet hiding behind Neptune
  Posted 12 days ago with 24 member flags

SOMETHING MASSIVE ON THE SUN!!! Yep sunspot AR1476...An Amateur photo (That’s me!)
  Posted 13 days ago with 23 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: