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.

 

Timelines of the probes launch do not coinside with the Apollo missions.

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
"A question that is bugging me is if it only took 4 days to goto the moon with Apollo 11 and now it takes 3 1/2 months to enter the lunar orbit? "
Apollo 11 Mission
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mission Overview
The mission plan of Apollo 11 was to land two men on the lunar surface and return them safely to Earth. The launch took place at Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39A on July 16, 1969, at 08:32 a.m. EST. The spaccraft carried a crew of three: Mission Commander Neil Armstrong, Command Module Pilot Michael Collins, and Lunar Module Pilot Edwin E. Aldrin Jr. The mission evaluation concluded that all mission tasks were completed satisfactorily.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Landing Site
The first manned spacecraft landing on the Moon was at 3:17 p.m. EST on July 20, 1969, when the Apollo 11 Lunar Module, the Eagle, landed in Mare Tranquillitatis, located at 0°4'5"N latitude, 23°42'28"E longitude. The Eagle landed approximately 50 kilometers from the closest highland material and approximately 400 meters west of a sharp-rimmed blocky crater about 180 meters in diameter.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surface Operations
The Apollo 11 astronauts had several tasks to accomplish during extravehicular activity (EVA) operations while on the surface. Time permitting, the astronauts planned to collect lunar samples, deploy several experiments, and examine and photograph the lunar surface. The following map of the landing area shows where these activities took place. The EVA lasted approximately 2.5 hours. All scientific activities were completed satisfactorily, all instruments were deployed, and samples were collected.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mission Photography
Apollo 11 represented the first opportunity to observe scientific phenomena on the lunar surface. Both the surface and orbital photography of the mission served not only to document the first lunar landing and the extravehicular activities of the astronauts, but also to identify areas and experiments for study in future missions.

_________________________________________________________________________________________


Fire and smoke light up a blue sky as a United Launch Alliance Delta 2 Heavy rocket propels NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory (GRAIL) mission into space. Liftoff from Space Launch Complex 17B on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida was at 9:08:52 EDT Sept.10, 2011
CREDIT: NASA/Darrell McCall

View full size image
NASA successfully launched a set of twin spacecraft into orbit today (Sept. 10) to study the moon's gravity, but the new mission isn't the first — or the last — robotic planetary expedition for the space agency year.

The two Grail spacecraft launched toward the moon from Florida's Cape Canaveral Air Force Station to begin a 3 1/2-month trip to lunar orbit. The liftoff came just one month after another NASA observatory launched toward Jupiter to study the gas giant's composition and atmosphere. That flight, the Juno mission to Jupiter, is also expected to beam back the best photos yet of the solar system's largest planet.

"Today we had the second of NASA's planetary science launches in what we've been calling the 'Year of the Solar System,'" Jim Adams, deputy director of the planetary science division at NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C., told reporters in a post-launch news briefing. "Just over a month ago, Juno was thrust on its way off to Jupiter, and today we sent a set of twin spacecraft off to the moon." [Photos: NASA Launches Grail Probes to the Moon]
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Are they using engines from a Prius? If the Appollo 11 took only 4 days to land on the moon and walk around, this question keeps going over and over in my head when I heard on the radio that Nasa launched these 2 probes is why are they not going to be there until the first of the year? Read carefully 3 1/2 month trip to Lunar orbit. Not 4 days.....hmmmmmm the plot thickens.
Any thoughts??


www.livescience.com...

www.lpi.usra.edu...




posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Find the travel speed for both the Apollo mission and the probes and you might have an answer. I don't care enough to actually look.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by hanyak69
 


There will be a site shill along in a few moments to explain it all to you. Countdown to appearance of site shill 8-7-6-5---

--------------------------



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Maybe if you just thought about it, you wouldn't need to ask us to do your research that isn't necessary for this matter anyway (Human cargo versus machines).



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by hanyak69
 

Good work hanyak, makes you wonder why NASA is sending unmanned probes when they apparently landed man already, seems like a step backwards to me.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
The reason? The probes are much smaller and carry much less fuel.

The manned missions had 1300 pounds of fuel for the actual trip if I remember right. Every pound had to be accounted for and it was something like 9 or 11 pounds left at full rest in the landing. They almost blew it on the way down.

You can search the figures, and that will make sense when you find the total fuel allotment for each type of craft and the escape velocities of each one.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   
eureka ! the hoax has been blown wide open !!!


I'll let you dig around a little more before answering as I feel it is better to let someone figure it out rather than just tell them



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by hanyak69
 


Does it have to do with the moons orbit and where it was at the time of launch? I would assume this coupled with the speed of travel could equal the difference?

maybe when the moon was at its apogee



I dont have any software to check but it would be interesting to know where the moon was at each of the dates in its orbit?

Oh found a site, the slowest mission to the moon took a year to get there.

how long does it take to get to the moon
edit on 13-9-2011 by benrl because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadowalker
 


So you are saying that smaller and lighter craft is going to be 3 months slower that ones carrying humans??
Hmmm now it makes sense.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


That is my point how could the Apollo mission have made it and landed in 4 days when by Nasa's much smaller, lighter, no wasted electronics to keep humans alive is over three months slower just to reach the lunar orbit.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


If the distance from that is that big during certain times then why not hold the mission until we are in the 4 day distant instead of 3.5 months. It really does not make sense. I think they went with Hundai engines... instead of rockets. lol



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by hanyak69
"A question that is bugging me is if it only took 4 days to goto the moon with Apollo 11 and now it takes 3 1/2 months to enter the lunar orbit? "



You pretty much answered your own question I honestly cant believe some of the responses in this thread thus far.

The unmanned probe doesn't need to be there any time soon. It has no problem with a limited supply of food and other consumables etc The longer travel time is a much lower fuel consumption route. The Apollo astronauts could have taken that much slower route and timescale but would have died from lack of food. You really need to look a little deeper into the mission requirements of both.

You'll quickly realize just how much space and weight food alone takes up and just how quickly a "Living Astronaut" consumes it. They basically blasted their way there in the shortest amount of time allowable. To maximize consumables and time allotted on the lunar surface.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Aliensun
 


Wouldn't one think that human cargo would be slower than hauling machines? Less weight, electronics,etc....
I do my research and Have not uncovered the why? Just more questions. I might have overlooked something and wanted to get other views, or privy info. so there



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Is not outspace weightless? what would be the reason to go slower? To save fuel?? 3 months of extra flying saves fuel? again creates more questions than answers.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by hanyak69
 


The only info released on the probes is the press release so it is impossible to direct compare the two as far as fuel supply, velocity, course, etc.... I do think there is more than meets the eye here, and so many are quick to just throw it to the side. Lets look at this together and find answers.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by hanyak69
 


there was one craft that made it in 8 hours, although it wasn't slowing down to enter orbit just passing by.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by hanyak69
 


You still have to get the fuel in orbit, the more fuel, the larger the rocket, the larger the rocket the more chance something will go wrong.

They have to do it the most economically feasible way, with astronauts they spared no expense and got them there quick



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by hanyak69
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Is not outspace weightless? what would be the reason to go slower? To save fuel?? 3 months of extra flying saves fuel? again creates more questions than answers.


Fuel at lift off. Once in space it's weightless but remember also it was carrying supplies for a return journey not just getting there. But again you've conveniently overlooked the finite amount of consumables The mission time was factored in for each long before their respective launches.

There is no smoking gun [Well maybe for those who don't care to either research anymore than they want to or simply want to over look and ignore other factors there is ]






edit on 13-9-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Arrrrgh.
Compare rocket sizes, payloads and burn times.
Ill bet they just shot the probes to the moon with a quick burn to get out of the gravity well of earth and some extra to get up to coasting speed to luna.
Thre astronaughts had a faster ride ill bet because of slayers already reiterated reasons +.
I doubt if the rockets were even close to same parameters....regards s



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Grail is taking the scenic route. The spacecraft will be going to the moon via the L1 point some 1.5 million kilometers from the Earth toward the Sun. They'll drift out there, whip around it (mostly a free ride), and head on back toward the Moon. The reason(s), to save fuel and to allow the spacecraft to adapt to the space environment. It also makes for a slower approach to the Moon allowing less maneuvering to enter lunar orbit.




The TLC (Trans-Lunar Cruise) phase consists of a 4 month low-energy transfer via the Sun-Earth Lagrange point 1 (L1). Compared to a direct trajectory, this low-energy transfer was chosen to reduce the spacecraft fuel requirements (by ~130 m/s), to allow more time for spacecraft check-out and out-gassing, and to increase the number of days available in the launch period each month (Figure 7).

events.eoportal.org...

edit on 9/14/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join