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.

 

Would Moon Launches Increase Interstellar probe speeds significantly?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
From what I have read , one of the greatest limiting factors to space exploration is speed.
The speed generated by rockets launched on Earth is too little ?
So therefore with less gravity and little atmosphere on the moon would the same sized rockets double or treble the speed of probes slung out into space?...if launched on the moon

Surely a moon base would be the logical launch site for future exploration of the universe?
edit on 3-9-2011 by Dr Expired because: spacing added words




posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
The main problem are our current propulsion systems, based upon combustion of fossil fuel, not so much the place of the launch.

So to answer your question: Launching rockets or vehicles from the moon, or even better, earth orbit, would eliminate the amount of fuel needed to escape the gravitational field of the earth, and it might allow to reach other solar planets faster.

However this will not be enough to reach other star systems within the lifespan of a human being.

What we need is some more sophisticated form of propulsion, something tells me anti-gravity or something like this is the way you should do it.
edit on 3-9-2011 by H1ght3chHippie because: typo



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
If there was fuel there, otherwise everything you would need on the moon would already need to be hauled from earth, so logicly no.

Whatever you needed to get the fuel up there for that launch, you could just build an extra stage on your probe rocket instead.

I expect theres some MAJOR maths involved in answering that question properly.

But if we could gain ANYTHING fuel wise from the moon, then technicly yes, since its already there to use, thus less to move from earth.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by H1ght3chHippie
 


"Imagine that, It never occured to me to think that it was space was moving."

We need to look at the various theories, and be willing to put humans at risk, before we ever will achieve FTL. Or anything close to it.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
It just seems logical , the friction of the earths atmosphere decreases the rockets potential speed, therefore the moons reduced atmosphere should increase the rocket speed by a great factor?
Therefore the space ship or probe will travel faster?
As a side note would remote control mini probes work? for travelling to the planets?
Based on the same technology as remote controlled hobby and toy planes?
The same book also discussed "worm holes" but where are these worm holes?
Solar sails also was discussed.
Just pondered that moon rocket launching would be a major factor in determining initial speed?



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
The Solar system is already at our beck and call. The technology to fly manned missions throughout our solar system is symply awaiting install on a space craft.Why our government is meandering around chasing 1960's technologies is a known unknown. They need a 20 something year old to Run NASA (I am 43 by the way) instead of decaying old men who only see what their life experience has shown them.

Our political system needs to look beyond its own needs and work torward actually improving humanity.

Ad Astra

I leave you with this web site that has proven technology just awaiting someone to fly it.

X



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
That is an interesting idea. I still don't understand why we haven't traveled to the moon more than we have. I'm sure they didn't get all the data they needed with one trip. Or maybe they did see all they needed to see there. I'd hope once the private sector starts in on the space race that they make it a point to go back again.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrStyx
That is an interesting idea. I still don't understand why we haven't traveled to the moon more than we have. I'm sure they didn't get all the data they needed with one trip. Or maybe they did see all they needed to see there. I'd hope once the private sector starts in on the space race that they make it a point to go back again.


They will be for sure.

The reason why not now, is no one cant really afford it, theres masisve ecomonic disruptence, no real need to kiss goodby to a few more billion for yet another reason to say "we went and put another flag in the moon again".

Establishing a moon base would be cool for a short stay, im sure the novelty would ware off after a few luna buggy joy rides and some hopping about. Though the view of earth would take a while to ware off. That would be worth some peoples entire fortune, to them.

Not much will change till stratospheric planes can fire relitivly "light" cargo missiles on their journey from LEO to outta space.

Filling the rockets tanks costs nothing compared to paying everyone else to make sure it doesnt blow up. NASA is very well aware of this.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
You have to get the mass to the moon first so now isn't that a waste of used energy to get away?

Theoretically yes you can get faster escape velocity from the moon due to its gravity and atmospheric drag, but really, you have to get there first, slow down and land, and then take off again. See what I mean?



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Most if not all escape velocity capable booster rockets are not reusable like they were on the Space Shuttle, they are disengaged and burn up upon reentry with it's fuel tank into earth atmosphere.

If they loaded the Shuttle bay with fuel, they could have flown it to the moon. But that would surly expire it's fuel. 60' by 15' fuel tank in the bay could reach earth escape velocity but I doubt nothing else. Smaller space probe fuel tanks took the Galileo space probe, for instance, to Jupiter in the mid 90's, launched from the Shuttle bay, but of course, it had much less mass to push.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
I don't think launching from the Moon would give you a higher top speed. Once a vehicle is launched from Earth and obtains escape velocity, it orbits the planet once or twice and then uses the Earth's gravity to slingshot out into space. While the Moon would require a lower escape velocity and less fuel to achieve orbit, the Moon would have less gravity to slingshot a craft out into space.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


I guess the effort would be worth the while, if it halved the time to Mars?
The probe could also gain extra speed by being slung at a greater speed using the Earth?
Its mass would give a greater sling speed than the moons?



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Expired
reply to post by Illustronic
 


I guess the effort would be worth the while, if it halved the time to Mars?
The probe could also gain extra speed by being slung at a greater speed using the Earth?
Its mass would give a greater sling speed than the moons?




Why not sling off every planet, using an ion drive to maintain constant propulsion.

Ion drives work while solar panels collect enough energy, and mini reactors can supply a low but stead supply for many many years (like voyager).

Speed actually isnt the problem, its accelleration thats the kicker

rockets only go so far with the fuel they have, and none will get anywjhere close to "very fast" compared to now because the more thrust your rockets produce, for longer, makes for HUGLY increased fuel costs, its carrying the fuel which makes everything so hard, more fuel you got more thrust you need, more thrust more fuel.....

EDIT-> id wavger all the resources on earth for rocket fuel on a massive rocket, would even be able to get to the cloest star, given infinate years to accellerate to a meaningful speed (and or stop)
edit on 3-9-2011 by Biigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by VictorVonDoom
 


Launching from sea level uses over 90% of it's stored fuel capacity, you know, to defeat the gravity and atmospheric drag. So I believe you should reconsider your theory, we do have to take off from near sea level and closer to the equator you launch from opposite the rotation of the earth the more speed you get for free from said rotational velocity, in all, about an extra 1,000 mph.

An F-16 can travel 920 mph at sea level, at altitude, it can travel nearly twice the speed of sound. (one of the fastest jets at sea level due largely to it's small profile and wings, even though it is a single engine craft).

If you launch a spacecraft from near equatorial sea level to the west, you will have to reach 19,500 mph instead of 17,500 mph to reach a stable earth orbit.
edit on 3-9-2011 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Biigs
Why not sling off every planet,


Actually, they do. When an interplanetary probe is sent out, its course is planned out to go near planets and moons. The gravity from the large bodies pulls the craft in, then manuevering rockets are fired off to change course to miss the object and carry the craft to its next destination with an extra speed boost. It requires a lot of precise calculations, it's almost like rocket science.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
The biggest problem in getting into (and staying) in space, is the cost of sending anything “up” into low orbit. Massive controlled explosions (common name-rockets) are ruinously expensive, we leave junk up there with every launch (this is becoming such a problem technology developed for SDI, rumor has it, is being looked at for perhaps cleaning up the gazillion hyper-speed projectiles whizzing around Earth)! Vaporize it? Bottom line: The need for new fuels, assuming non-reaction drive technology doesn’t exist, or the people with such technology wont share... Will comment on that later. Once we get into space and specifically back to the moon (which now appears to have water ? ! ) we can indulge ourselves with some very interesting interplanetary propulsion technology. One, called a VASIMER drive (check Space Daily.com, or the NASA web site for details, also the AIAA [American Institute Of Aeronautics and Astronautics, a professional organization, I also use as a space groupie support group...) employs a radio frequency or magneto-hydro-electro-dynamic accelerated plasma, and could get us to Mars in 39 days. No joke. Beats the hell out of 6 months.

There are some interesting areas to look at to get us beyond “glorified V2’s”. I had a crying fit when Obama cancelled the Orion moon mission until I saw the open source speculation on the specs, with the cost over runs, and the likelihood as with the space shuttle (which was supposed to be entirely reusable, as envisioned in the 1970s, but then we wound up cutting funds for this and that. Dreadfully complex and more expensive then just doing it right THE FIRST time...) this may or may not be true, but these days it looks like private launch companies can get us back up there a lot faster, and cheaper. I am very pleased the President is pushing so hard for private space launch companies to design and build the next generation of manned launch vehicles. Not including whats going on with our military space programs, which started with the first satellite launch (if you think “Discovery” was a civilian deal, search “Project Corona," our first spy sat... Ike pushed hard for a military space black group after Powers was taken out over the USSR in 1960. Hopefully some additional technology will “leak” into the civilian space programs, public and private. According to the late Ben Rich, former director Lockheed Skunk works, we have some very neat stuff in this area, but I can’t find out squat, no one returns my calls these days...

By the way check out the 4-6 person Apollo-on-steroids look alike capsule being built by Space-X corp. very cool. This and several other companies are moving with speed and purpose that makes me proud to be a capitalist. You get a solid technology company that smells $$ and prestige, add people doing things with a near-pathological passion, (stir) and interesting stuff happens. I hope so. China, the EU, Russia, and possibly Japan and Brazil are planning to all get into to space with the intent on getting to the moon. Like any race, the guys who gets their, well second in this case, but stays this time gets the prize. And I want it! I have confidence we will hall ass at least in my lifetime around the solar system, at least to the asteroid belt past Mars, (for manned craft) when we can get to space cheaply. That is the most immediate issue. And our most expensive, for the near term stumbling block.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   
New Horizons space probe launched by NASA in 2006 to Pluto, left earth orbit at over 38,000 mph, the fastest man made earth escape velocity reached, in 2007 it came to within ~2,500,000 miles from Jupiter to get a gravity assist to increase its speed to about 51,000 mph. I may be off by a few because I wanted to post this fast, without checking the data I posted in another thread. It may get an additional slingshot from Neptune, but I haven't checked.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by VictorVonDoom
 





it's almost like rocket science.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Im certian we will see new crazy ways to combat the inital gravity of earth.

Gliding super high tearthers, with glider parachutes with cargo attached to wizz up on the natural spin of the earth and the natural winds at low levels.

We really need to get smarter about avoiding escape velocity with techquies and technologys that are not all about brute force.

I think untill we save ALOT of time and money on getting cargo to LEO, we are farily stuck with our slow space exploration.

Imagine if we could find a way to make fuel 50% lighter, its not even much to ask compared to crazy advanced techologys, yet if we could we would be able to go SO SO MUCH FUTHER.

Buzz sed "one small step for man, one giant leap for man kind". techincly not true
he meant "One small step for man, one small step for mankind"

What have we really done since?.......



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by VictorVonDoom
 


Launching from sea level uses over 90% of it's stored fuel capacity, you know, to defeat the gravity and atmospheric drag. So I believe you should reconsider your theory, we do have to take off from near sea level and closer to the equator you launch from opposite the rotation of the earth the more speed you get for free from said rotational velocity, in all, about an extra 1,000 mph.

An F-16 can travel 920 mph at sea level, at altitude, it can travel nearly twice the speed of sound. (one of the fastest jets at sea level due largely to it's small profile and wings, even though it is a single engine craft).

If you launch a spacecraft from near equatorial sea level to the west, you will have to reach 19,500 mph instead of 17,500 mph to reach a stable earth orbit.
edit on 3-9-2011 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)


What you say is true, except perhaps for the part about going against the Earth's rotation. If you launch straight up, you have the Earth's rotation working with you instead of fighting against it.

But like you said, you use most of your fuel just to get to orbital altitudes. That doesn't leave you a lot for generating velocity. It's more practical to use Earth's gravity to generate speed once you're up there, and save your fuel for maneuvering. Even if you launched from the Moon, I think it would still be more efficient to make a pass or even and orbit around the Earth to pick up speed.

But then, I'm no rocket surgeon.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join