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.
NASA does not " lack the technology " to go to the moon - it lacks the hardware and most critically - FUNDING , who is going to pay for it any why ???????????
But the Space Shuttle only produces a total of about 7.8 million pounds of thrust, compared to the Saturn V's 8.7 million pounds. So there's no way to send a vehicle that's 287% the weight of Apollo with 90% of the force. From just a design standpoint, it's also highly inefficient to send something like the Shuttle to the moon. You have to carry things like the landing gear and wings, only useful during landing, all the way to the moon and back and pay a big fuel penalty for it.
Originally posted by manmental
I wouldn't suggest landing the shuttle on the moon as I don't think NASA has built a runway there yet, but to use it for moon reconnaisance, take hi-res photos... get past those pesky Van Allen belts... you know... the stuff they did easily 30 years ago.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by backinblack
On the contrary.
Though it wasn't the point of my post, I said they can be used because they correlate with the traverse maps and photographs taken from the surface. I said that without that corroboration they could not be used.
edit on 5/18/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by manmental
Hi Nat. Okay, so you're saying it couldn't get to the moon... from your calculations could it have got say, halfway to the moon? Two thirds of the way?
Yeah, the Shuttle couldn't land on the moon even if there was a runway, as it depends on the atmosphere for control, just like an airplane, and uses the atmosphere to slow down.
Originally posted by manmental
I wouldn't suggest landing the shuttle on the moon as I don't think NASA has built a runway there yet, but to use it for moon reconnaisance, take hi-res photos... get past those pesky Van Allen belts... you know... the stuff they did easily 30 years ago.
Right. My point was, if you're designing a craft to go to the moon, you want it to weigh as little as possible. It doesn't make sense to take along big, heavy components that are only useful in the atmosphere, in which the craft will only spend a tiny fraction of the total journey.
Originally posted by manmental
Edit: Hmmm... I read your post mentioning the shuttle having to carry 'wings and landing gear' and presumed you meant to land on the moon. Now I read it again and think that you are saying the shuttle has wings and landing gear. Yes, it does. Its the space shuttle.
Assuming no outside forces, sure. Fire some thrust and you'll keep moving in a straight line. The problem here is that the Earth generates a huge outside force, in the form of gravity. Here on Earth's surface, if you throw a rock towards the moon, it'll head that direction for a little ways, but eventually get slowed down and falls back to Earth. Same thing applies in space. Just a tiny bit of thrust will send you towards the moon, but eventually the Earth's gravity will slow you down and pull you back to Earth. You have to "throw" hard enough to overcome that gravity.
Originally posted by manmental
I was under the impression that once in the vacuum of space if forward momentum is achieved through an initial burts of 'thrust' then the body will continue moving without resistance. So I thought it shouldn't take too much fuel for a jaunt out past the belts and closer to the moon.
Once out of Earth's orbit couldn't one just point the shuttle at the moon, apply a short burst of thrust, then just sit back and enjoy the ride? (If I'm being super dumb here please don't be too cruel... just asking.)
It's putting man on the moon that is being questioned..
Enhanced pics are just that, enhanced to show detail that isn't actually there..
Fine. LOOK, again, at the landing sites.....and show an example from the USSR programs where they (Soviets) were able to "soft" land a space craft, and then place various items of equipment in a slew of locations, and add in the footpath soil disturbance evidence, and all the other sundry clues of the reality of a Human presence on the surface of the Moon.
Why would anyone want to send a space shuttle to the moon just to take pictures? Isn't it much more efficient to send an unmanned satellite instead. For example satellites like this one or this one?
And if they can get to the moon with a computer smaller than the processor in my mobile phone then I would have thought it was be relatively easy to send at least an unmanned hi-res Hasselblad camera with minimal sheilding back to the moon to snap some lovely pics for us at ATS to discuss.
Assuming no outside forces, sure. Fire some thrust and you'll keep moving in a straight line. The problem here is that the Earth generates a huge outside force, in the form of gravity. Here on Earth's surface, if you throw a rock towards the moon, it'll head that direction for a little ways, but eventually get slowed down and falls back to Earth. Same thing applies in space. Just a tiny bit of thrust will send you towards the moon, but eventually the Earth's gravity will slow you down and pull you back to Earth. You have to "throw" hard enough to overcome that gravity.
Those traverse map records ALL perfectly match the satellite images from LROC.
Argument to Ignorance.
Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Phage
My apologies..
In this thread I'm use to posters like Weedwhacker using those pics and the heavily enhanced ones as 100% proof of the landings..
Obviously they are proof of nothing as you state we can't even properly distinguish what the items are..
Jarrah's argued that it was impossible because of radiation in the Van Allen belt.
Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Phage
Firstly that's still NASA using NASA information to prove NASA went to the moon..
Secondly, it really only shows NASA got equipment to the moon..
I don't think anyone has argued that point is possible..