Is it even possible to go to the Moon?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by chr0naut
Isn't/wasn't MIR outside the radiation belts.

Some cosmonauts stayed up there for months at a time (of course they didn't last too long when the got back, but you can't have everything).

I would think that would prove the survivability of a few weeks in space.

In the interest of precision, I need to point out that there was no exceptionally high death rate among the cosmonauts who clocked a lot of time up there on Mir. You can look it up on Wikipedia.

... in Russia, no Cosmonaut ever die, ever!

now, pass the vodka while I drink to loss of unmanned spacecraft.

reply to post by DJW001


if you ask if it is possible, you ask if we did.


Apollo was the near perfection of a goal in space. It provides all the ways and means to do an operation and see if it is possible.


Your question was asked in the 60s, and answered. So why ask it again?

Here's a little something to watch.....complete with groovy music!

reply to post by CaptainBeno

Here's a little something to watch.....complete with groovy music!

YouTube videos are not a substitute for thought. Before I retire for the evening, I would like to submit this for your reading pleasure. In keeping with the spirit of the thread, please ignore any references to Apollo:

w3.tue.nl...

(Those of you who know me know I've been waiting all day to drop this one!)

reply to post by DJW001




Cheers!! That's bigger than a dose from the VAB's.........it may take me some time, but thanks.

reply to post by CaptainBeno


Videos uploaded by that particular YouTuber are generally geared towards the ridiculous "Apollo hoax" nonsense, and should be judged accordingly.

Another clue is when a YouTube upload video has "Comments Disabled" on it....never a good sign.

The video in question can be debunked easily, and has been before. But, that is the aspect of it that's pertinent to this particular thread......the facts of the true science of the "radiation", and that for short exposures such as round trips to the Moon, it is NOT an issue at all. This also was shown and proven in a previous post that referenced the Rem exposures that have been calculated.......we have a LOT of data collected by many satellites that are able to measure these things.....

reply to post by DJW001


Just before you count sheep.

Just one question: why in your humble opinion, have we not returned to the moon lately.

Yeah yeah, I know the money argument, but with your average cruise missile costing well into the 6 figures each does that really stand up when we have radomely thrown them at women and children with gay abandon?

Technology? With more technology in you average Mercedes nowadays why havent they built a more compact type ship able to scream to the moon and back..............after all it's been a few years 1969-1972???

WHY WHY WHY?

I'm just interested to hear your opinion .......(not a swipe at ya?)

reply to post by CaptainBeno

Just one question: why in your humble opinion, have we not returned to the moon lately.

Because the Moon is like a bad restaurant... no atmosphere.

reply to post by DJW001




Goodnight.......

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
reply to post by DJW001

 

Just before you count sheep.

Just one question: why in your humble opinion, have we not returned to the moon lately.

Yeah yeah, I know the money argument, but with your average cruise missile costing well into the 6 figures each does that really stand up when we have radomely thrown them at women and children with gay abandon?

Technology? With more technology in you average Mercedes nowadays why havent they built a more compact type ship able to scream to the moon and back..............after all it's been a few years 1969-1972???

WHY WHY WHY?

If you look at the progression of flight from 1903 to present day we see a trend that stops in the early 70's with sr71 Blackbird a 1950 design craft built in the 60's that still holds the record for speed. If you take the technological progression of aircraft beyond 1970 you come to the conclusion that current aircraft must be capable of flying at speeds of between 12000 and 20000 mph absolute minimum (probably much higher for space flight) and be totally hidden. This means the military are indeed already on the moon and have been for quite a while now. I would not be surprised if some of the trips were caught by cameras on the space shuttle and/or space station which we interpret as UFO's !

Second thing to think about. With the shuttle grounded the first time and now retired permanently do you think the military were/are happy to hitch a ride with the russians and chinese in order to get into space whilst the russians and Chinese come and go regularily and all that military hardware is floating around in space........no chance in hell.

So it is my belief that we are capable, the US military is doing it right now and have been doing so for a couple of decades. The two reasons are technology and military paranoia.

This has no bearing on whether we went in the first place or not.

reply to post by malcr


Yep, kinda agree with you. I understand progression of flight etc. But, and it's a big BUT, in order to punch through into space, don't we need a sh6t load of thrust? As you are aware I'm sure, the traditional rockets are of a size that matches the amount of fuel required? I'm thinking someone may notice this rocketing through the sky? Or are you on about "new" technology that we bottom feeders are not aware of yet? Secret, silent........faster?

In response to the OP, yes, I think it's entirely possible with current public knowledge off-the-shelf technology.

I'm a little surprised Branson hasn't already tried it with personal and private funding.

As to the VAB, on a manned moon shot, I don't think it would be a problem other than technical, and timing.
Timing, I think, would be relatively important for minimum exposure in consideration that the Earth's magnetic field is closer to it sun-side, than on the shadow side where the magnetic field balloons, or stretches out several times further than on the sun-side. You'd want to remain in the solar shadow to exploit maximized use of Earth's magnetic field as long as possible, I'd think.

Thus, not only would you have to (I would think) plan for hitting a moving target (the moon) two weeks away, but, also doing so in the Earth's magnetic field shadow for as long as possible for maximized safety in addition to any shielding built into the craft.

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by chr0naut
Isn't/wasn't MIR outside the radiation belts.

Some cosmonauts stayed up there for months at a time (of course they didn't last too long when the got back, but you can't have everything).

I would think that would prove the survivability of a few weeks in space.

In the interest of precision, I need to point out that there was no exceptionally high death rate among the cosmonauts who clocked a lot of time up there on Mir. You can look it up on Wikipedia.

... in Russia, no Cosmonaut ever die, ever!

now, pass the vodka while I drink to loss of unmanned spacecraft.

I could use a drink... but what the heck were you saying?

Originally posted by nineix
I'm a little surprised Branson hasn't already tried it with personal and private funding.

Even with pockets as deep as Branson's, it's not trivial to fund such a major R&D. Look, the "Virgin Galactic" project doesn't even have the orbital capabilities within its reach, and will market sub-orbital jumps for what seems to be foreseeable future. I mean it will happen eventually, but... There is one order of magnitude difference between challenges of suborbital flight and orbital flight, and yet another order of magnitude when it comes to escaping the Earth's gravity well. Keep in mind that the current setup involves a high-altitude lift (the mothership plane), and still that would only provide a tiny fraction of the energy needed to go beyond 60 miles up.

reply to post by buddhasystem


I think it was more Russian Denial



A bit like the iraqi information minister............"no no no, they are not in the city, nothing to see here, all is ok, and we will crush them."

Have many Cosmonaut's become sick........Mmmmm? who knows?

DJ, don't forget the anti-US bias

if the soviets did this, there would be no debate

Not even with today's tech we cannot land on the moon. We haven't even went there in my lifetime, and why do you think only the USA (master of deception) is the only country to have went to the moon....what 40 years ago? Yeah right get real I don't have to be a genius to figure it out. It's right there in front of your face just like the brainwashing about the middle east.

The distance to the moon is only 238.000 miles (384.000km) which is like 46x the distance flying from Germany to Seattle.

This is a ridiculous small number on a "space scale". I don't see any problems to get there once we left Orbit with some craft. There is no reason for a conspiracy theory since this is not some incredible journey to another star system or maybe another planet, it's just the boring moon and it's not even far away.

why in your humble opinion, have we not returned to the moon lately.

Because the US is broke so is the EU...why would there be a need to go there over and over?

Of course it's possible. We are very very very much ahead in technology. We even sent people up to that space station for years and it only takes I believe 3 or 7 days to get to the moon.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Glargod

 

The whole thing is plausible at best but IMO still remains the better part of a Jules Vern story. .

Plausible works. The point to this thread is not whether or not "NASA faked the Moon landings." The question is: is sending people to the Moon even possible? I say it is.

I agree. Furthermore, I would like to say: "Anything is possible"