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 has just announced the shuttles successor and the possibility of manned deep space missions

page: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   
I refuse to pay one penny on that 30-story-tall pile of crap technology. If NASA/Congress does not want to build field-propelled antigravity ships, then they can just get out of the human space flight.


edit on 9/15/2011 by Larryman because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by MastaShake
would someone care to tell me why nasa wants to keep using rockets to get into space? wouldn't it be cheaper to do what virgin galactic is doing? obviously their craft is too small for carrying a good ammount of cargo into space at once but the flights can be done over and over with ALOT less fuel used up in the process


Sure, I'll give it a try.

The main rocket is not only for Low Earth Orbit. It is expected to be capable-- by specific design-- to launch boosters, even crew, capable of trans-lunar, trans-asteroid and trans-martian injection. It will also be used for bigger stuff than we can launch now.

The idea is modular. Only going to orbit with this big what-ever? Stack two. Going to the moon? Stack three. Mars? Stack three and strap two to the side. I haven't heard of a finalized design-- thought maybe that was the announcement.

It will not be a supply ship or even a crew-change vehicle to the ISS. The Russians get to continue that work. It will be able to send the Orion craft to dock with the ISS in emergency, but no such work will be planned for the manned launches.

The US already has dependable means of launching small stuff into orbit and beyond, and does it so often it isn't on the news-- have been doing that a very long time. Virgin Galactic has no ability to achieve orbit.

In the case of this new announcement (although I have yet to notice anything "new" about it that was not known and announced months ago) is a chance for us to "think big."

Once the booster design is finalized, all sorts of payload designs and manned missions will begin to compete for launch opportunities. Not just back to the moon, but build a base there? We can do it. Not just add pieces to the ISS, but begin von Braun's/Kubric's-2001 space wheel station. Not just probes to Mars, but men going there, and back again. A bigger, better Hubble? No problem.

I thought the Shuttle was great, but so danged limited-- a failed attempt to bring costs down. And not for lack of trying, but because the technology was so good, the Apollo booster and manned-vehicle concept is hard to beat-- except for internal components (and those will be state-of-the-art).



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
Way to go NASA.

We will have a new launch system ready for test flights in SIX YEARS. To replace the already retired space shuttle.

We have to give them kudos for thinking so far ahead, I suppose.



Yeah, I thought that was kind of odd that they would retire the shuttles with out a ready replacement.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 11:35 PM
link   


... and be capable of launching humans beyond low Earth orbit


which proves that they have NEVER been beyond Low Earth Orbit! So, no moon landings finally admitted! But they think their new tin can will get to the moon - hahahahahaha. They will need to carry 130 tonnes because 100 tonnes will be lead lined walls to protect the pilots from space radiation!



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by WorldObserver
 


Good one! Are you saying that the Moon is not part of the lower orbit and it is beyond? If this is true you have cracked it.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   
So in other words Nasa is back in action and the chance at disclosure has just been jetted back til at the very least 2017? since the fact that unless it randomly comes out beforehand, Nasa still plans to pursue the false allegations that they are delivering us the top of the line technology news for space travel. I laugh at this posting.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by WorldObserver
 

Because the SLS will have the capacity to help lift men beyond low Earth orbit means that man has never left low Earth orbit? Brilliant! You've proven the Apollo landings were a hoax!

That must mean that because jet aircraft can cross the Atlantic, Charles Lindberg didn't do it! Wow. Two hoaxes!


edit on 9/16/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by WorldObserver



... and be capable of launching humans beyond low Earth orbit


which proves that they have NEVER been beyond Low Earth Orbit! So, no moon landings finally admitted! But they think their new tin can will get to the moon - hahahahahaha. They will need to carry 130 tonnes because 100 tonnes will be lead lined walls to protect the pilots from space radiation!


Don't be silly.

How many rems would a man receive, on average, passing through the weakest portion of the Van Allen Belt at at the fastest obtainable speed on the way to the moon and back?

I know that answer (I think I have it right off the top of my head, but I can double-check).

So go look it up from a scientific source-- not a blog-- URL's do not count as source data. I want data, not what some guy named Steve at the pub told you, or what you heard on an unsourced you-tube video.

There is your homework, and off you go.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:49 AM
link   
If shuttles are retired it means they have other craft options already!!!!! Otherwise they would not retire/decom them.
It takes 10 to 15 years to develop a next/advanced tech level spaceship. And they say they will be ready in 2017.

Do the maths and what you come up with is strange shaped and moving UFO's which have been encountered for the last 10 years or more.

And if the intention is deep space then its probably entirely different/new tech propulsion and energy source.

Remember the stealth bomber and how long they had that before it became public!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Blah blah blah, load of BS, allot of us know NASA is full of it and their not even the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the truth on space exploration, its just their way of keeping people some what interested, and the fact they have far much more advanced techknowledgy and are up to far more then they tell us and the black budget industry tells us just makes me beyond angry, i have probebly 0.2% of a belife let alone interest for NASA and their press releases, .01 of it is the fact i get to see their lies put to the public and the other 0.1 is the stuff like pictures of the univerese and thats about it, the rest is either doctored photos or more lies.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Great.

Just bloody great.

We take this little round sphere called 'Earth' and treat it collectively worse than a pay toilet in the Delhi slums, where clearly we haven't mastered how to keep our own little planet in order yet we're finding ways to shoot ourselves away from it for the purpose of what?

Uh-huh . . .

To completely mess up anything beyond our atmosphere. Take a look at the news over the past week. We've got a scene from Sanford and Son circling our planet to the point it isn't even safe up there anymore. What the HELL

As caretakers of this little orbiting blob of cosmic snot, we should really spend a few bucks finding the necessary ways to get it right here before trying to get it right somewhere else.

And if it's aliens you're after, just go watch Rosie, or Rosanne or The View or Fox News or something . .. that oughta sate your need for the time being.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frira

Originally posted by WorldObserver



... and be capable of launching humans beyond low Earth orbit


which proves that they have NEVER been beyond Low Earth Orbit! So, no moon landings finally admitted! But they think their new tin can will get to the moon - hahahahahaha. They will need to carry 130 tonnes because 100 tonnes will be lead lined walls to protect the pilots from space radiation!


Don't be silly.

How many rems would a man receive, on average, passing through the weakest portion of the Van Allen Belt at at the fastest obtainable speed on the way to the moon and back?

I know that answer (I think I have it right off the top of my head, but I can double-check).

So go look it up from a scientific source-- not a blog-- URL's do not count as source data. I want data, not what some guy named Steve at the pub told you, or what you heard on an unsourced you-tube video.

There is your homework, and off you go.


Howabout you do a little homework, especially if you are ignorant of space and orbital dynamics?

Straight from Wikipedia, after about 10 seconds of searching, your radiation question explained.


Missions beyond low earth orbit leave the protection of the geomagnetic field, and transit the Van Allen belts. Thus they may need to be shielded against exposure to cosmic rays, Van Allen radiation, or solar flares. The region between two to four earth radii lies between the two radiation belts and is sometimes referred to as the "safe zone".[14][15] Solar cells, integrated circuits, and sensors can be damaged by radiation. Geomagnetic storms occasionally damage electronic components on spacecraft. Miniaturization and digitization of electronics and logic circuits have made satellites more vulnerable to radiation, as incoming ions may be as large as the circuit's charge. Electronics on satellites must be hardened against radiation to operate reliably. The Hubble Space Telescope, among other satellites, often has its sensors turned off when passing through regions of intense radiation.[16] A satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium in an elliptic orbit (200 by 20,000 miles) passing through the radiation belts will receive about 2,500 rem (25 Sv) per year. Almost all radiation will be received while passing the inner belt.[17] The Apollo astronauts traveled through the Van Allen radiation belts on the way to the moon; however, exposure was minimized by following a trajectory along the edge of the belts that avoided the strongest areas of radiation.[18] The total radiation exposure to astronauts was estimated to be much less than the five (5) rem set by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity.[19]


Van Allen Radiation Belt



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by bentai22

Originally posted by Frira

Originally posted by WorldObserver



... and be capable of launching humans beyond low Earth orbit


which proves that they have NEVER been beyond Low Earth Orbit! So, no moon landings finally admitted! But they think their new tin can will get to the moon - hahahahahaha. They will need to carry 130 tonnes because 100 tonnes will be lead lined walls to protect the pilots from space radiation!


Don't be silly.

How many rems would a man receive, on average, passing through the weakest portion of the Van Allen Belt at at the fastest obtainable speed on the way to the moon and back?

I know that answer (I think I have it right off the top of my head, but I can double-check).

So go look it up from a scientific source-- not a blog-- URL's do not count as source data. I want data, not what some guy named Steve at the pub told you, or what you heard on an unsourced you-tube video.

There is your homework, and off you go.


Howabout you do a little homework, especially if you are ignorant of space and orbital dynamics?

Straight from Wikipedia, after about 10 seconds of searching, your radiation question explained.


Missions beyond low earth orbit ...


Van Allen Radiation Belt


I'm sorry, were the words I used too big?

My question was, and remains:

How many rems would a man receive, on average, passing through the weakest portion of the Van Allen Belt at at the fastest obtainable speed on the way to the moon and back?

I don't need a wiki article-- I already know what the VAB is. I also know the answer to the question I asked you.

How many rems?

I checked to make sure you can find it from online. But you probably have to know enough about the subject to know what search criteria to use.

That'll be a problem, won't it?

How many rems?

PS: Hint: If it was a snake, it would have bit you.



edit on 16-9-2011 by Frira because: PS



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   
This isn't the successor, I personally think it will be the DreamChaser from SpaceX.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Frira
 


Is that really a relevant question? Does it really matter how much exposure there would be, seeing that it has already been determined in the 1960's that it can safely be done, with less than 5 rems per day?

The specific answer to your question directed at me is , DILLIGAF.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by bentai22
reply to post by Frira
 


Is that really a relevant question? Does it really matter how much exposure there would be, seeing that it has already been determined in the 1960's that it can safely be done, with less than 5 rems per day?

The specific answer to your question directed at me is , DILLIGAF.


Yes. You do look like that (DILLIGAF?). Yet, after you yanked my chain with the words:

Howabout you do a little homework, especially if you are ignorant of space and orbital dynamics?
and after I responded, you suddenly become coy. Isn't that special?

Your correct response, was not that you did not care-- but that you were uninformed and embarrassed.

Any CT blogger could do what I do, below-- but what I do takes work. Here is what work looks like when done:


The average cumulative dosage, in rads, by the nine Apollo missions which traversed the Van Allen Belts (twice each), was .46 rad per man.

The estimated radiation dosage for biological material (a man’s skin) uses an estimated Q factor of 2.5 (confirmed as conservatively high by Russian Mir Space Station, passing through South Atlantic Anomaly*), thus produces the average of rem of 1.15 rem per man.

TLI Mission, rad, rem (Q=2.5)
Apollo 8, 0.16, 0.4
Apollo 10**, 0.48, 1.2
Apollo 11, 0.18, 0.45
Apollo 12, 0.58, 1.45
Apollo 13, 0.24, 0.6
Apollo 14, 1.14, 2.85
Apollo 15, 0.3, 0.75
Apollo 16, 0.51, 1.275
Apollo 17, 0.55, 1.375
Total rem of 10.35 / 9 = 1.15 average.***

Notes:
* Barratt, Michael and Pool, Sam L., Principles of Clinical Medicine for Space Flight, New York, Springer, 2008, p. 510.

**Apollo 7 and Apollo 9 were LOE missions.

*** Adapted from: Johnston, Richard S.; Dietlein, Lawrence F.; Berry, Charles A., Biomedical Results of Apollo; Section II, Chapter 3; “Radiation Protection and Instrumentation,” Table 2, 1975, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center. (www.hq.nasa.gov... )

A good primar is here:
Space Radiation - Frequently Asked Questions


And there is the answer to the question I asked the CT's to go find-- but who could not, or would not. Lazy.

The average cumulative dosage of an Apollo astronaut traversing the VAB was approximately 1.15 rem.





edit on 17-9-2011 by Frira because: font



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   
It might be possible to avoid the radiation exposure problem, by entering hyperspace flight - using Extended Heim Theory physics. I'm uncertain if radiation can effect matter which has no mass. At least, f-t-l travel would shorten the exposure time.

But a (public) National Hyperspace Agency for manned space flight is needed, to replace the (rockets only) NASA.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by MastaShake
would someone care to tell me why nasa wants to keep using rockets to get into space? wouldn't it be cheaper to do what virgin galactic is doing? obviously their craft is too small for carrying a good ammount of cargo into space at once but the flights can be done over and over with ALOT less fuel used up in the process


Actually, Virgin Galactic isn't putting anything into orbit. They're doing sub-orbital flights that top out on a ballistic trajectory a bit more than 50 miles above sea level. Yes, that is 'in space' by the legal and technical definition, but it's not 'in orbit' by a long push.

It's true that they could build a bigger vehicle and reach orbit...but a bigger vehicle would require a bigger carrier aircraft, and White Knight 2 is already the size of a World War II / Korean War vintage B-29. Scaling up to a size that would support a full-out orbital launch with the same payload would require a carrier bigger than a C-5.

In short, they're still using chemical rockets because (at least for now), they do the job better, cheaper, and quicker.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chance321
Yeah, I thought that was kind of odd that they would retire the shuttles with out a ready replacement.

The problem with keeping the Shuttle around was largely psychological. It was a badly conceived and wasteful launch system that probably should have never been built in the first place. But since we had it we were stuck with it because so long as you have such an expensive system in place (that sort of works), why design and build a new one? It would have been nice to have a new one ready to go, built and tested the moment the Shuttle was ended, but NASA can't get the funding for what it wants to do as it is. Funding two launch systems at the same time is just not going to happen in this day and age unfortunately. So, it's better to just put the Shuttle program out of its misery and that will force us to get on with the next (hopefully).

Remember, there was almost an 7 1/2 year gap between Apollo 17 and STS-1, so it's not the first time we've been in this position of not having a manned launch system in place. We're looking at a gap that hopefully won't be quite as long, but it's quite possible that it's simply the way it goes with these things. At least this new launch system is a smarter design than the Shuttle, at least in concept.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Frira
 


Ha ha ha, now from the outside everyone is thinking I'm insane for laughing but would I be out of line to assume your estimation is one way ? So would that mean that the estimated exposure to radiation through the VAB both ways would total approximately 3 ? Or maybe even 3.141 ? or perhaps Pi ... ha ha. I kid, but if that is so, neat. Especially considering my off the cuff guess to your original how many Rems question was 3, and so I read on.

Now, don't take me wrong here, this is obviously passing through the safest or in other words the thinnest point of the VAB ? Now, most Diagrams of the VAB show that it's Earth's Magnetosphere that has " Trapped " Gamma, solar, and other galactic radiation correct ? Not the entire magnetosphere but it seems to play a very significant role in it's mean. Okay, so here's my question, wouldn't this put the safest trajectory either straight out Earth's magnetic poles, or very near to them ? Wouldn't this in fact be the least favourable path to the moon ? Again, I'm stating my question based on what I already know, as well with out looking up significant information in regards to shuttle launch positions, or the lunar position at the time of the launch as well as the calculated point of interception. Now I would imagine the ideal trajectory would be planned to minimize radiation exposure, limit the use of fuel to get to the moon, and match it's speed to then enter it's orbit. So the rest of the mission can be carried out.

So if this is the case the moon would have to be in a position to provide sufficient time to navigate the VAB safely, then either slow down to match the lunar orbit, or accelerate to " Catch Up " to the moon as it makes it's pass. Either way, this would obviously require extensive calculations and simulations that would probably involve a very specific trajectory and approach as not to over shoot the moon, be overtaken by the moon and potentially waste fuel chasing it. As well, I would imagine if the wrong approach was taken, the lunar orbiter could skip off of the lunar Orbit/gravity, or achieve a sort of sling shot effect sending the orbiter and crew into deep space or on a collision course with Earth. Now, again this would be getting off topic, but this would be awful as the orbiter would probably only have enough fuel to enter lunar orbit, and slow itself so the lander/return vehicle could be launched.

Just a question I've always wondered. Basically the Apollo Rockets were built in a way that each progressive step, or vehicle was disposable right ? Now as far as the orbiter goes, as well as the lander and return vehicles, based on the limitations of the time, weight was a very considerable obstacle. Everything had to be measured to precision, the crews weight, instrumentation, all stages of the rocket and vehicles, now the important factor is fuel. They state they basically only had enough to go to the moon and return to a point the pod ( Return vehicle ? ) could re-enter Earth's Atmosphere. I don't want to look up details as this was meant to be quick but I'm getting way into this. If they got off course, wouldn't they have to take the quickest path home ? Especially considering the return vehicle has detached from the original Rocket, and the Orbiter, it would have started with considerably less fuel, as well at the time only so much was known, and many factors were guesses based on Estimations at best.

How could a Lunar return vehicle exit lunar orbit safely, at a point that would provide the best trajectory towards one of the poles ? Or at the very least near one of the poles as the VAB appears to " Thicken " Quite quickly, assuming the equator would be the thickest, as well there would be two fields with in the VAB they would have to pass. Where as near the poles it's basically one smaller field. Leaving the moon It would either need to overcome immense speeds, to get ahead of the moons orbit and then slow down, or if it left the moon going away from it's orbit slow down as it would still be near lunar orbital speeds. as well it would have to break from the moons gravitational influence so as not to be towed around it's orbit... I would assume this would involve a very large amount of energy, and was the return vehicle capable of such a task ? How much fuel could it really contain being it's the last step, in the progressive vehicle or rocket ? I don't expect you to know, but if you do can you help me out here ? This is all an amazing feet of science, that obviously took countless hours of planning and many trials and failures to achieve. A lot of these areas confuse me, as well leave me reeling and open for plenty of dis-info to be implanted. I don't often get a chance to talk to people of a caliber suited for these questions. If I need to I will state the sources that lead to my questions, how ever they are typically wiki lol




top topics



 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join