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 Unveils their new rocket that is capable of bringing humans... To Mars?

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
The NEWS Story right here

NASA revealed its new design for its next-generation heavy-lift rocket today (Sept. 14), unveiling a giant booster that will eventually carry astronauts on future deep space missions. The new rocket, called the Space Launch System (SLS), will include hardware and technology that are legacies from the space shuttle and now-defunct Constellation programs. The $10 billion booster will use liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen fuel, and will have solid rocket boosters for initial tests flights, agency officials said.

So this could be the start to something very interesting. We bring humans to mars to investigate. We are already in the know of many mysterious things about Mars. Will this just be another step in the process of disclosing alien life?




That's one small step for man, one giant leap for one eyed green slobbering aliens.
edit on 15-9-2011 by Soulece because: fix spelling error

edit on 15-9-2011 by Soulece because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   


Human guinea pigs. Why don't they just come out and say it?



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   
When we go to Mars i dont think it will be with rocket propulsion atleast not conventional rockets. Could do it with an Ion engine/drive.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by andy06shake
 


Well if it doesn't use that conventional method we will have wasted billions of dollars during that test flight.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by andy06shake
 


Ion engines haven't been scaled up due to the amount of electricity it needs scaled up has to come from a nuclear reactor. They are slow reactive prolusion motors and can't create a G force, so a theoretical Ion thruster will spend half of it's time to Mars speeding up, and therefore half of it's time slowing down. That may be OK for unmanned deep space probes that are tiny comparatively, don't need to generate life support, and also don't need to return safely back to earth. I'd like to see one function with over a 100,000 lb payload before I hold any hopes of them being used for manned space flight. So far they are a one way trip for tiny probes.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Getting there is one thing keeping the radiation out is another issue . Wonder how they solved that problem ?



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Max_TO
 


Sunglasses shield me from dangerous UV radiation. Radiation is largely misunderstood and used by moon hoax people as their bread and butter reply to something they don't know anything about. There are lots of different kinds of 'radiation' it is not one thing in the same, but is does have that scary mystical moniker.

If radiation out there is so bad how are those bodies in space still there after billions of years?



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Got one for you,if you are willing to go through it all.


www.grc.nasa.gov...

Enjoy!
We have everything for the ion drive to putting man on Mars in 9 years.

One example.


The NASA Glenn Research Center is responsible for conducting programs utilizing various on-board propulsion technologies for a number of applications. These technologies include gridded ion thrusters, which offer performance benefits over other advanced chemical and electric propulsion systems for certain high energy earth orbital and deep space missions. Propulsion systems utilizing ion thrusters need to be brought to a high level of development to enable these missions. This requires both theoretical and experimental evaluation of long-life/high performance ion thrusters and ion thruster systems. Contractor personnel have been working in the area of electric propulsion research at GRC,and are well suited to support future activities of this type.

edit on 15-9-2011 by kdog1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
"Well if it doesn't use that conventional method we will have wasted billions of dollars during that test flight.
" NASA has done this before on Orion i think.

Could use water for radiation shielding, need to take that anyways! Build a ship(crew compartment) around a water tank.
edit on 15-9-2011 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   
I have an earlier post today about this PR stunt in the aliens and UFO forum.

I like to think that it gives a more correct picture of what is going on rather than this babbling about ion engines being up to the taks of hauling crew to Mars or not,.

I will just say here that the simple idea that this rocket and any capsule it could carry could make the two-year trip to mars--and back, for the capsule--is a worse blunder than the air force's explanation of the Roswell crash incident being explained by some of their crash dummies.

Please remove yourselves from accepting what NASA feeds you!



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aliensun
I have an earlier post today about this PR stunt in the aliens and UFO forum.

I like to think that it gives a more correct picture of what is going on rather than this babbling about ion engines being up to the taks of hauling crew to Mars or not,.

I will just say here that the simple idea that this rocket and any capsule it could carry could make the two-year trip to mars--and back, for the capsule--is a worse blunder than the air force's explanation of the Roswell crash incident being explained by some of their crash dummies.

Please remove yourselves from accepting what NASA feeds you!


Just think of all the money we would save if NASA would stop all this tom-foolery and just use the real tech that is available.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Thats good news.

Untile the next president cancels it



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


Friend , the earths magnetic feild protects us from radiation , not your shades



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
Sunglasses shield me from dangerous UV radiation. Radiation is largely misunderstood and used by moon hoax people as their bread and butter reply to something they don't know anything about. There are lots of different kinds of 'radiation' it is not one thing in the same, but is does have that scary mystical moniker.

If radiation out there is so bad how are those bodies in space still there after billions of years?
Wow Illustronic, I thought you were much better informed about this stuff. A rock can survive radiation just fine. It's living organisms that have problems when it gets excessive.

This is a direct quote from a NASA article:
science.nasa.gov...

Protecting astronauts from deep-space radiation is a major unsolved problem. Consider a manned mission to Mars: The round-trip could last as long as 30 months, and would require leaving the protective bubble of Earth's magnetic field. Some scientists believe that materials such as aluminum, which provide adequate shielding in Earth orbit or for short trips to the Moon, would be inadequate for the trip to Mars. Barghouty is one of the skeptics: "Going to Mars now with an aluminum spaceship is undoable," he believes.

It's a MAJOR UNSOLVED PROBLEM! Got it?

Specifically the coronal mass ejection problem is a major issue for a Mars mission. It was a calculated risk for a moon mission because they are infrequent and the moon mission was short. But if a Mars mission is much longer, the probability of the mission being impacted by a CME gets much higher and closer to certainty, so instead of a gamble where the odds are mostly in our favor like they were for the moon mission, we would find the odds would be mostly against us on a Mars mission. And it takes substantial shielding to protect against a CME.

All you really need for a shield is a lot of water but launching enough water doesn't seem economically feasible at this point, with the exception of project Orion and that will probably never be allowed to launch because of fears of Earth based radiation similar to what happened during the 1950s and 1960s. That link is talking about plastic spaceships but I'll believe that when I see it. Most plastics don't hold up too well to UV exposure though there are stabilizers available. However the stabilizers will never make plastic as stable as aluminum when exposed to UV.


Originally posted by Max_TO
Getting there is one thing keeping the radiation out is another issue . Wonder how they solved that problem ?
As my NASA link suggests, it's still an unsolved problem. That article talks about plastic spaceships as a possible solution. At least they are thinking outside the box, but I hope they find a better solution than that.
edit on 16-9-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:13 AM
link   
humans have already been to mars, and most like are there now as we speak



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

CMEs, not so much. Solar proton events are more serious.

But the real problem with a trip to Mars (and back) is cosmic radiation. It's extremely high energy stuff, hard to stop, and constant. In the short term not bad but over the space of years it's another matter.
science.nasa.gov...



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

CMEs, not so much. Solar proton events are more serious.
Do CMEs not result in proton events? I got the impression from this article they are related but maybe I'm missing something.

science.nasa.gov...

This whole story is ironic because flares and CMEs are themselves sources of deadly radiation. CMEs, in particular, cause "proton storms." En route to Earth, CMEs race through the sun's outer atmosphere, plowing through the hot gas at speeds exceeding a million miles per hour. Protons caught in the path of a CME can be accelerated to dangerous energies.

No astronaut wants to encounter a swarm of high-energy solar protons.
But that article confirms the cosmic rays are the most dangerous as you said, because the standard NASA-type spaceship won't protect the astronauts from those.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   
hooray!!!
nasa built another overly expensive bottle rocket!!



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


OK so pardon I didn't use the official sarcafont when I typed that or provide clearer reference that I was employing a bit of CT logic.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:53 AM
link   
Well one thing’s for sure, unless they plan to use that to take components into orbit to assemble a real rocket to go to Mars, we ain’t going. This new rocket only carries ten tons more then the original Saturn V rockets, and the crew would go stir crazy in that capsule during the flight.

The bigger problem is Mars has a substantial atmosphere and real gravity, which means you need almost as powerful of a rocket to get back off the surface as you need here on Earth. You are certainly not going to cram all of that into almost the same amount of payload that the old Saturn V could carry.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join