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.

 

Shuttle Is Dead : What Have We Got To Deal With Emergencies?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePeopleWillRise
And on topic, I believe that the new breed of "shuttle" had already been developed before the current model had been retired. I mean, a lot of the advanced technology is suppressed from the mainstream, or at least that is what I believe.


the new breed of "shuttle" is named x-37 and it can't be kept more secret than it it is, because some people can make the difference between a rocket launch and an UFO.
the program exists, the military has its lifting capability using it, but its unable to fly manned and also unable to travel beyond geostationary orbit.

A lot of the advanced technology, if not the majority of advanced technolgy is available for the public, and i'm afraid its a matter of looking in the right place for it. Sooo the information is there, just the ability of people to read it is missing.
Its available because those people involved in such technologies need input, and tend to exchange information on the subject. Also they often discuss this sort of stuff in the public for the same reason you guys pimp your car. think about

There are just a few projects being kept a secret and even for those you can find hints in the right spot.

Unfortunatly conspiracies are easier to dig, since the internet is FLOODED with doubtful stuff, making it hard to decide which source to trust.
But if you start examining what the government is publishing .. and yes they MUST publish almost everything for the sake of telling you where your taxdollars went .. you will find what you are looking for.




posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   
I don't think that huge secret technologies need be used to launch a large-scale mission...imagine a bunch of down and dirty cylinders connected to a spaceframe, using Orion-style nuclear pushplate propulsion. ..

I could even envision in an invasion scenario a fleet of space 'dog fighters' built out of Soyuz style capsules fitted with projectile weapons (something the Soviets tested in the 70s). We wouldn't need warp drive and cloaking devices if we fought with pure numbers.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wirral Bagpuss
I am just watching Bruce Willis in Armageddon. And it got me thinking. What if out of the blue we spotted a killer asteroid or something of that ilk .ing our way and we had say a month to deal with the problem. What would we do? Offically we have no shuttles left as they are in retirement. Has the military of the US Govt or even the UK or other space faring nation got one under wraps ie Shuttle 2.0 ?

Any thoughts on this?


why not use a 747 instead to get into orbit?.


simply fit onboard oxygen tanks to feed the jet engines turning them into rocket engines when the air gets too thin as the aircraft reaches the edge of the atmosphere.


i don't understand why NASA can't come up simple solutions instead of the space shuttle brick which was a hugh failure.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by nobodysavedme
 


The antiquated 747 doesn't have the lift to reach high altitude, it will break apart at MACH 2+, and don't you think all of the ramjet experiments in the 80's and 90's demonstrated insufficient fuel capacity for trans-atmospheric flights?

Leave the aerotech R&D to the qualified. The Space Shuttle reenters the atmosphere at MACH 25, I think it did pretty well considering, it also had to generate that same thrust to reach orbit.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by nobodysavedme
 


The antiquated 747 doesn't have the lift to reach high altitude, it will break apart at MACH 2+, and don't you think all of the ramjet experiments in the 80's and 90's demonstrated insufficient fuel capacity for trans-atmospheric flights?

Leave the aerotech R&D to the qualified. The Space Shuttle reenters the atmosphere at MACH 25, I think it did pretty well considering, it also had to generate that same thrust to reach orbit.


it is a fallacy you need to go to mach 2 OR MACH 20 to go into orbit.

look at atmospheric study balloons reaching very high earth altitude by just FLOATING UP.....SLOWLY.


they don't go by going to mach ANYTHING do they?

A 747 can go up slowly as explained above at slow speed.. SLOWLY LIKE 500 MPH.

it cames back slowing to 500 mpg etc USING the ENGINES.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by nobodysavedme
 


Specially designed for altitude U2 flew at about 80,000 feet. Balloons make it to about 110,000 ft max, specially designed ones, you need at least 6 times that altitude to reach a temporary unstable orbit, the ISS is 1,161,600 ft up on average.

Please discontinue this conversation until you study a bit of launch trajectories and aircraft design, nothing gets to orbit going up, to get up in thin to micro atmosphere you need speed, your wings don't provide lift anymore, only speed can get you to orbit.

For the SR-71 Blackbird to fly up to 85,000 ft it needed to withstand the stress and heat of going MACH 3.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Wirral Bagpuss
 


I think it would become a SPACE NAVY issue and their high techs..



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by nobodysavedme
 


Specially designed for altitude U2 flew at about 80,000 feet. Balloons make it to about 110,000 ft max, specially designed ones, you need at least 6 times that altitude to reach a temporary unstable orbit, the ISS is 1,161,600 ft up on average.

Please discontinue this conversation until you study a bit of launch trajectories and aircraft design, nothing gets to orbit going up, to get up in thin to micro atmosphere you need speed, your wings don't provide lift anymore, only speed can get you to orbit.

For the SR-71 Blackbird to fly up to 85,000 ft it needed to withstand the stress and heat of going MACH 3.


"only speed can get you to orbit."


really.

so if the atmosphere say for example extended 1/2 way up to the moon this FLOATING BALLOON at 110000 ft

is suddenly going to stop.


that is absurd.

the fact of the matter is your understanding of simple physics is woefully flawed and is you who needs a refresher course.

you can go into space at any speed as long as upward acceleration exceeds the downward force g.

I DO KNOW MY PHYSICS.

7KM /SEC FOR ORBIT.......11.2KM /SEX TO ESCAPE.

this can mean as much 11200 metres per second or 1 metre per second or 0.1 metre second.


in the latter it is going obviously going to take longer.

acceleration upward A must exceed exceed G.

that is all.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by nobodysavedme
 


If you think atmosphere extends half the way to the moon tell your third grade science teacher that and see if you make it to 4th grade.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by tw0330
They wouldn't end the shuttle program unless they had some kind of backup.

Think about it. Even if they ended the use of the shuttle, wouldn't it make since to keep at least one on hand in case of "emergency". Of course they would. That is why I am led to believe that they have "other means" now but not ready to inform us as to what those "means" are.


Why, they did not have any backup between Apollo and Shuttle programs either. In fact, not only will current gap be shorter, but the US does have multiple rockets (Atlas and Delta), just no spaceships to launch on them.

As for emergency shuttle, keeping one would not make sense, because shuttle program had very large fixed cost that had to be paid whether it flies or not, and whether there are five or one, just to pay for the standing army of qualified engineers and maintenance.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by nobodysavedme
 





I DO KNOW MY PHYSICS.


I doubt it.




look at atmospheric study balloons reaching very high earth altitude by just FLOATING UP.....SLOWLY. they don't go by going to mach ANYTHING do they?


Orbital speed is what you need to got to orbit, not just altitude. If you dont have the speed relative to Earth, you fall right back down.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by nobodysavedme
 





why not use a 747 instead to get into orbit?. simply fit onboard oxygen tanks to feed the jet engines turning them into rocket engines when the air gets too thin as the aircraft reaches the edge of the atmosphere.


Not possible, 747 thrust to weight ratio is well below 1. If not for wings providing lift, it would fall down.
edit on 29/12/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by nobodysavedme
 


If you think atmosphere extends half the way to the moon tell your third grade science teacher that and see if you make it to 4th grade.


learn to read...

so if the atmosphere say for example extended 1/2 way up to the moon this FLOATING BALLOON at 110000 ft



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by nobodysavedme
 


Look, here's the deal, if you want to expend all the fuel it will take you to slowly gain altitude straight up, (I have no idea what kind of propulsion system does that), eventually you will find less gravitational resistance from earth, (from the surface you need 25,000 mph, from 100 miles up you need 24,660 mph, see you didn't get that far from the center of gravity yet, you ran out of air), after somehow carrying all the fuel that would take, but lets say you don't need fuel in some alternate reality. You will actually be going reverse the rotation of the earth, but even besides that, if you got far enough away from the earth to escape it's gravitational pull, (which extends forever, until a grater gravity cancels it out, or far enough your own mass does), you will then be pulled to the sun in a collision course directly towards it because you have no orbital momentum.

Of course we know the earth rotates and it orbits the sun at a speed, so you can't just pick which part of physics apply to your craft.

The sun is bringing bodies back to it from a near light year away, like a comet like Elenin with a 13,000 year orbital period, near the Oort cloud, far beyond the Kuiper belt comets.

An orbit is falling towards a body with enough orbital momentum to keep missing the body, an unpowered orbit is a free fall. An unpowered orbit going with enough speed, keeps missing the edge, eventually losing its speed, altitude, and reaches atmospheric drag that burns it up sort of with friction. If you break from the earth's gravitational pull the sun will getcha! Unless you have speed.

Speed equals orbit, without it you fall back.

This is how spacecraft escape earth escape velocity going less than 25,100 mph, because they have an upper stage rocket to increase their speed to near 25,00 mph, but not by a whole lot, I believe GRAIL left earth escape velocity at just under 24,000 mph, but it was in a high elliptical orbit at the time, and picked it's spot to fire it's last stage rocket.


jra

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by nobodysavedme
it is a fallacy you need to go to mach 2 OR MACH 20 to go into orbit.

look at atmospheric study balloons reaching very high earth altitude by just FLOATING UP.....SLOWLY.


You are confusing the ability to reach the "edge of space", with achieving orbital velocities. The two are not the same thing.

High altitude balloons can reach usually about 35km (give or take), they do not achieve orbit. Nor do they really reach the edge of space, since space technically starts at 100km. In order to get into orbit, you have to be traveling at high speeds so that you don't come crashing back to Earth.

If your 747 idea had any merit, don't you think it would have been done by now? No offense is meant by this, but perhaps you should leave the rocket science to the rocket scientists.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by nobodysavedme
it is a fallacy you need to go to mach 2 OR MACH 20 to go into orbit.

look at atmospheric study balloons reaching very high earth altitude by just FLOATING UP.....SLOWLY.


You are confusing the ability to reach the "edge of space", with achieving orbital velocities. The two are not the same thing.

High altitude balloons can reach usually about 35km (give or take), they do not achieve orbit. Nor do they really reach the edge of space, since space technically starts at 100km. In order to get into orbit, you have to be traveling at high speeds so that you don't come crashing back to Earth.

If your 747 idea had any merit, don't you think it would have been done by now? No offense is meant by this, but perhaps you should leave the rocket science to the rocket scientists.



you are wrong again.

you are confusing minimum energy ballistic rocket throw hare run effect into orbit with compared to a slow sustained thrust compared to a tortoise.



v=at

d=1/2at

right?

a =acceleration t= time d= distance traveled v=velocity.

the thing is if a i have acceleration greater than g, i can achieve ANY velocity including 11.2 km/sex which is the escape velocity.

so a 747 does not need to travel at 11/2 km/sec initially or within 5 minutes.it has fuel endurance unlike a rocket which blows it all within 5 minutes and has very low exhaust velocity.

a 747 accelerates upwards SLOWLY until it reaches 11.2km/sec.

so we install 4 engines in a 747 which give it a total thrust to weight ration of slightly greater than 1 and let accelerate it upwards SLOWLY to the magic speed of 11.2 km/sec.

now do you understand?



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by nobodysavedme
 


I see what you mean, but as I said, it is still impossible, for following reasons:




so a 747 does not need to travel at 11/2 km/sec initially or within 5 minutes.it has fuel endurance unlike a rocket which blows it all within 5 minutes and has very low exhaust velocity.

a 747 accelerates upwards SLOWLY until it reaches 11.2km/sec.


The longer it takes, the more fuel is needed. Fast acceleration is efficient acceleration, because v=gt (where g is gravitational acceleration) works against you all the time.

Higher exhaust velocity means lower thrust.




so we install 4 engines in a 747 which give it a total thrust to weight ration of slightly greater than 1 and let accelerate it upwards SLOWLY to the magic speed of 11.2 km/sec.


Nope, even with 4 engines thrust to weight ratio is well below 1. Also, you cannot accelerate slowly because then you run out of fuel before reaching orbital speed.
edit on 30/12/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 30/12/11 by Maslo because: typo



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by nobodysavedme
 


You are trying to solve a theoretical equation with just math, but in reality what is suggested here fails. First and foremost a 747 cannot maintain greater than 1G acceleration, period. It's pressurization can't function at 50,000 ft., it's aluminum shell would warp and fracture, it's airframe would buckle, electronic flight stabilization would be useless at 50,000 ft. Where did you hear a rocket acceleration is weaker than a jet? Rockets maintain a 4G acceleration at 109%.

If you are suggesting a rocket piggyback to maximum service ceiling on a 747 wow, you saved less than 50,000 ft.

If you are suggesting one craft using special (scramjet) engines, maybe look up the Rockwell X-30.

There is a functional orbital launch vehicle that uses a piggyback ride to 40,000 ft on a B-52, the Pegasus Rocket.

As mentioned, slowly escaping earth's gravitational pull is poor economic use of fuel, if you could carry enough fuel for the task, mentioned in my earlier response, (alternate universe, hypothetical propulsion system). It's also inefficient use of thrust.
edit on 30-12-2011 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
As to the idea of keeping one shuttle as a spare:

They don't store very well. They are not like a hammer you can put on the shelf until you need it. Parts like rubber age. If you were to set one aside for a year I doubt even the electronics would work properly.

As to secret replacements:
We have nothing. Only plans.

As to asteroids:
We have nothing. Only ideas, not even plans. We are dead.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by nobodysavedme
 


Hey nobodysavedme,

Interestingly, some people had similar ideas to you...they did some calculations, strapped some hardware together, decided it didn't need wings and called it a ROCKET.

Some other folks strapped some of these ROCKETS to a plane and called it THE SPACE SHUTTLE.

Someone suggested using a 747 and the reply was..."um, it's a passenger airliner."

Hopefully this page will scare you away from propulsion physics: en.wikipedia.org...



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join