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 reveals design for deep space vehicle

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Negative. Im not talking about an abort. Im talking about a return trip and the ability for space craft to manuever under its own power and change direction. Not a sling shot into space.



Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by princeofpeace
I guess im thinking more interms of maneuvering. On long missions the guys might want to come back and not stay in space forever. Having the ability to turn around (not abort) would be useful.

A "turn around" and return to earth is called a direct abort.



edit on 25-5-2011 by princeofpeace because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 25 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Do we have any spacecraft that can "turn around" in space or does everything rely on a one-way trajectory altered by the gravitational pull of other bodies to "steer" them?



In my opinion, it is all one-way trajectory, because of the vaccum of space...not to mention that the entire galaxy (that you are in) is moving forward)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Kinda like when you commute to work in the morning and evening. Its all just one way because the galaxy is moving forward.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Negative. Im not talking about an abort. Im talking about a return trip and the ability for space craft to manuever under its own power and change direction. Not a sling shot into space.

As I said before, a direct abort IS a return trip. An immediate turn around of the spacecraft under its own power. I guess you don't like the terminology, but that IS what it means. I suggest you study up more on the basics of orbital mechanics and astrodynamics.
www.amazon.com...



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 



with 316 cubic feet of habitable space.


You know that's a tiny space for 4 astronauts..
Give a height of 6' 6" and width of 7' X 7'...
I hope they don't plan on moving about much.

edit on 25-5-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Maxmars
 



with 316 cubic feet of habitable space.


You know that's a tiny space for 4 astronauts..
Give a height of 6' 6" and width of 7' X 7'...
I hope they don't plan on moving about much.

edit on 25-5-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)

It's slightly more spacious than a command module on a per man basis. 79 cubic feet per person instead of 73. That's not alot, but it's way more than what they had to put up with in Gemini (40 cubic feet per person). Imagine being stuck in the same seat for as much as 2 weeks.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Negative. Im not talking about an abort. Im talking about a return trip and the ability for space craft to manuever under its own power and change direction. Not a sling shot into space.



Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by princeofpeace
I guess im thinking more interms of maneuvering. On long missions the guys might want to come back and not stay in space forever. Having the ability to turn around (not abort) would be useful.

A "turn around" and return to earth is called a direct abort.



edit on 25-5-2011 by princeofpeace because: (no reason given)



Then, by the way you define it, the answer is No. Newtonian physics still apply.

In Apollo's Trans Lunar Injection (TLI) --from LOE to the moon-- the vehicle was propelled by the CM engine, with short burns used for mid-course correction. That meant they had the ability to point the nose in the direction needed for any burn-- any reigniting of the main engine-- say for about a second of duration.

They could have pointed the nose back toward Earth and performed a very long burn to slow, then stop and then speed the "fall" back to earth. Most likely, they would have waited until they were at the slowest point in the travel-- just where the pull of the Earth stops slowing them after the initial burn toward the moon, and the Moon's gravity begins to pull them faster.

If they had the fuel, they would do it as soon as possible in an emergency; otherwise, the slowest point on the trajectory is the point at which it is most efficient to slow, stop and reverse course-- but still, gravity is used for the trajectory-- you aim at where the Earth will be, and take into account not only your engine thrust, but the force of the pull and the center of the pull of the Earth's gravity.

It in no ways is like flying a plane-- which I think is what you are asking. X-Wing Fighter's defy physics. The Battle Star Galactica style fighters are fairly close to behaving accurately, but we do not have the kind of thrust necessary to do what you see in that recent TV series.
edit on 4-7-2011 by Frira because: fix position of end quote



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
I am very disappointed in the lack of information from NASA so far.

If Deep Space is intended to be within the capability of the vehicle, then I want to hear about shielding.

I assume that a mission beyond the 21 day would include a separate boost of a larger habitat as well as a separate command module (without crew capsule).

Also, can the vehicle and its command module also share a launch booster with something the size and mass of, say, a shuttle payload? I think not. So, two launches would be required. But I don't know, as l and cannot find the expectations of the SLS in that regard. 70-100 tons, and then maybe up to or exceeding 130 tons. Someone translate that into something useful?

Then, I have yet to find any realistic mission scenarios. Once we have this vehicle and its launch system, what do we intend to do with it? Build a super-sized space station? Ferry components for a moon base and fire those from LOE to the moon? CNN ran a report last night concerning the possibility of vehicle making contact with an asteroid. Fine. Not exciting, but fine-- but that cannot be a goal in and of itself.

It seems to me the ISS was a great proof of concept, but leaves us with the certainty that we need bigger and we need gravity (centrifugal force) no matter how much we hoped we could get by without it. Which leads me to...

As for Mars, am I mistaken about this?...

We have the technology to go to Mars, but we do not have the physical human ability to go to Mars, return and survive a return to full Earth gravity. Primarily the limiting factor is how weak the heart becomes when pumping only in zero-G. After a time, the astronaut's heart becomes so weak, that surviving re-entry and functioning back on Earth becomes very questionable. Until we work that out, we can't go-- and we suspected that in the 1950's and have proven it since. Von Braun, Clarke and Kubrick showed us what they though the answer would be (2001: A Space Odyssey)-- and that answer alone seems viable.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Watts
 


Exactly! Why the heck is NASA trying to send humans into deep space within the confines of a bathroom? Personally, I think its time we use the ISS as a stepping stone to build an orbital ship yard to build us a proper deep space vehicle that will provide humans with some symbolency of comfort on those long journeys. I'm well aware that we won't be building the starship Enterprise any time soon but by God we can do better than this! NASA is becoming the biggest laughing stock among the worlds space agencies...



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join