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.

 

Russia proposes international Moon base-- again!

page: 3
20
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


The reactor designs have been completed , all they Lack is a Fuel Source , Helium 3 . The Russians have truely embraced Capitalism for they know the First Nation to establish a perminate Base there more than likey will Reap the Rewards .




posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
Exactly what is your point?

My point is that when you posted:

Powered landings is the ultimate #1 reason the Russians didn't send men to the moon after Apollo, they barely got a robot to land safely without crashing
it looked like the Russians (or, more correctly, the Soviet Union) had only landed safely one robot, when in fact they landed seven, some of those, I think, with powered landings.

That's all.

Is it that hard to understand?



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Illustronic
Exactly what is your point?

My point is that when you posted:

Powered landings is the ultimate #1 reason the Russians didn't send men to the moon after Apollo, they barely got a robot to land safely without crashing
it looked like the Russians (or, more correctly, the Soviet Union) had only landed safely one robot, when in fact they landed seven, some of those, I think, with powered landings.

That's all.

Is it that hard to understand?


I think the term being sought is "rover."

Soft Landings (as opposed to impacts) and rovers:

Russian soft landings

Moon: Seven landings (but Luna 23, almost)
Luna 9, 13, 16, 17, 20, 21, 24

Venus (Venus loves Russians) -
Ten landings (Venera and Vega)
Venera 7 (sort of-- it fell over), 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
Vega 1, 2 (Vega 1 landed, but instruments on board failed prior to landing)

Mars (hates Russians)
zip.

Successful Rovers:
Lunokhod 1 (Moon, Russian)
Lunokhod 2 (Moon, Russian)
Sojourner (Mars, USA)
Spirit (Mars, USA)
Opportunity (Mars, USA)

So far, so good... Curiosity (en route to Mars, USA)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by DJW001
 


The reactor designs have been completed , all they Lack is a Fuel Source , Helium 3 .


I don't think so. Heium-3 is for Fusion reaction, not Fission. At this point, fusion reactors are a concept.

Also at this point and time, Helium-3 is easier (not easy at all) to produce on Earth than it would be even if we had a base on the moon.


The Russians have truely embraced Capitalism for they know the First Nation to establish a perminate Base there more than likey will Reap the Rewards .


The rewards seem to be of the altruistic type: knowledge, understanding, human experience...

But, while such rewards are good enough for me, they are not economic rewards-- but instead subject to economic restraints.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Frira
 


Ok , I stand corrected , but there are plans to Build a Fusion Reactor possiblly using helium 3 as a Fuel . It might take 20 years to make it happen , but an International effort is being made right now to eventually get one Online .......

www.iter.org...



ITER (originally an acronym of International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) is an international nuclear fusion research and engineering project, which is currently building the world's largest and most advanced experimental tokamak nuclear fusion reactor at Cadarache in the south of France.[1] The ITER project aims to make the long-awaited transition from experimental studies of plasma physics to full-scale electricity-producing fusion power plants. The project is funded and run by seven member entities - the European Union (EU), India, Japan, the People's Republic of China, Russia, South Korea and the United States. The EU, as host party for the ITER complex, is contributing 45% of the cost, with the other six parties contributing 9% each.[2][3][4]

The ITER fusion reactor itself has been designed to produce 500 megawatts of output power for 50 megawatts of input power, or ten times the amount of energy put in.[5] The machine is expected to demonstrate the principle of getting more energy out of the fusion process than is used to initiate it, something that has not been achieved with previous fusion reactors. Construction of the facility began in 2007, and the first plasma is expected in 2019.[6] When ITER becomes operational, it will become the largest magnetic confinement plasma physics experiment in use, surpassing the Joint European Torus. The first commercial demonstration fusion power plant, named DEMO, is proposed to follow on from the ITER project to bring fusion energy to the commercial market.[7]



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Frira
 




Here is another Link to a Breakthrough in Fusion Reactor Research that might interest you .






www.physorg.com...



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   
What would be the advantages of an orbiting station versus a station on the surface? It seems to me that a station in orbit would be more expensive unless the astronauts are only rarely going to visit the surface.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join