Let's get live video footage from the moon - on the moon

page: 2
41
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by absente
 


Their mission is to land an object and move it 500 feet while capturing HD image footage - nothing more.
That is what it takes to win the prize, to do that first. There is little doubt the rovers would be more capable than that.



I am not motivated by money either, it's my pure fascination for space and science that keeps me going with that project.
Good luck with that. The government is the only entity which could accomplish such a project without a profit motive but the companies they contract with to build the systems are in it "for the money". I don't think you really understand what is involved.




posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by mikemck1976
 


I think you are misunderstanding what "orbit" is, it isn't a height, it is a speed. One must get going a speed that makes gravity irrelavent, as you are still falling, but doing so over the horizon. Approx:17,000 mph just for leo. Gravity will not accelerate you but one direction, the oposite of the one you desire to get to the moon.

Unless your talking about an oblong trajectory, which would only waste fuel to get you going out in the first place, just to regain all the energy you spent to achieve it on the return.

The only real option, is a stable leo, with an escape trajectory that will put you on a lunaf intercept course, making several adjustments along the way to keep you course, and then, allow the moon to pull you in, slow down your decent and land.

Another more likely achievement might be to put a couple of cameras at lagrange points, and monitor the moon from afar. www.google.com... HomgqgGBiIDgAw#i=8



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ObjectZero
reply to post by mikemck1976
 


Still have to figure out a way to control the landing (or crash) location on the moon. I'm sure NASA would be really pissed if you parked next to one of their landing sites.



You wouldn't need to control the landing or crash the lander. Airbags work just fine, just bounce to a stop. As for landing next to one of NASA's landing sites (if there is any), so what. Their not using them, and the way I see it, that would prove once and for all if they went to the Moon in the first place. Or is that what they are afraid of?



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Good idea .

Perhaps using a supergun type of launch is the solution .

Why 82 kg ?

I bet the weight can be reduced under 10 kgs in total .

s&f

Good thread.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by mikemck1976
 


Or is that what they are afraid of?
There is an Xprize bonus for photographing an Apollo landing site.
But the concern is that the sites may be disturbed. There are recommended guidelines for avoiding that.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
That is what it takes to win the prize, to do that first. There is little doubt the rovers would be more capable than that.


I agree.


Originally posted by Phage
Good luck with that. The government is the only entity which could accomplish such a project without a profit motive but the companies they contract with to build the systems are in it "for the money". I don't think you really understand what is involved.


Really? Since when did science became only profit motivated?

As for my understanding of things, I know that this is a multi-million dollar project and I saved up some lunch-money. The only difference is that my fundings, and those of the people involved are pure science motivated, because we all had that or similar dreams when we were young. We are all successful enough in our regular jobs.

Private funding by a couple of individuals will not endager the mission. Any involvement of agencies, sponsors could lead to censorship and a failure of the main goal. I am strict on that one, and that's why I never considered sponsors, donations or any other kind of external funding.

As for monetizing it after success I could leave some doors open, yet again, only for scientific non-governmental purposes.

edit on 19/10/12 by absente because: (no reason given)
edit on 19/10/12 by absente because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by mikemck1976
 


Ok, now I know you don't understand the physics involved.

Gravity pulls at at an ever increasing rate, if you launched the landing module with exactly enough force to get 1 foot beyond earths pull and the start of the moons pull, you would hit at tens of thousands of miles an hour.

You have to slow your decent to a more survivable speed, which is why you need motors to slow you down, it must be controlled, balloons are only good for the last 60 or so meters of decent.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by mikemck1976
 


Or is that what they are afraid of?
There is an Xprize bonus for photographing an Apollo landing site.
But the concern is that the sites may be disturbed. There are recommended guidelines for avoiding that.


I think with current HD cameras you could get a good shot with out getting near the site. Sure it would be far away, but they said only a shot of the site not how close too.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
How come they just don't do a "manned mission"? After all, we were there once
, why can't we and haven't we gone back??? Also, if NASA was able to send something to Mars....why they can't send something to the moon. All this technology, and we've gone NO WHERE. But hey, Felix Baumgartner's jump was pretty cool.


BTW....the flag they placed on the moon, is it still there??? Or was that just a photo op?



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by absente
 


I have been flying lunar insertions and planetary missions since the early 2000s with this program, it is very good, and is all open source, with tens of thousand of plugins, and vehicles etc..

I have learned through practice, it is very hard to acbieve orbit even with the right equipment.

The space shuttle for instance has basically exactly as much fuel as needed to achieve LEO. And even a small mistake will show you the reentry abilities of the shuttle pretty fast.

Even a sturn 5 has its limits ( if you can immagine limits to such an amazing super heavy lift vehicle) and can fail to achieve orbit if your not careful. The apollo missions are a seperate plug in if I remember correctly, been on mine for so long I can't remember.

But pretty amazing stuff really. I even ran a real time launch of the atlantis once, mimicking their mission as they were flying it. They did a lot better than I did, but I still got the job done. It was quite fun to watch it live, and try to accomplish the same mission at the same time they were doing it. Kinda awesome for a space nut really.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


Amazing, I can't test it now because I am on a mac, but I'll find a way tomorrow. In the meantime, do you mind if I add you to my friend list and eventually contact you if I need some help with this program?

Good night for now from me, it's almost 2AM in China now.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
@absente


8 cameras

I'm wondering what kind of cameras you would use, lens details, any filters? The lighting conditions on the Moon made it very difficult for NASA to get any good B&W footage, never mind color images. If you think you can just send up a few ruggedised, consumer type cameras, you might be very disappointed in the results. NASA never got any decent video on the Moon, even using the SEC tube, which was super light sensitive. Personally, I don't think you would be allowed to send such a unit to the Moon, it would reveal the true nature of the lighting conditions up there, and they are nothing like we are lead to believe.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by SpittinTruth
 


How come they just don't do a "manned mission"?
Why?


why they can't send something to the moon.
Why?


All this technology, and we've gone NO WHERE.
Except to have a permanent space station. Except Mars. Except Saturn. Except...
www.nasa.gov...



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by GaryN
 


"I'm wondering what kind of cameras you would use, lens details, any filters? The lighting conditions on the Moon made it very difficult for NASA to get any good B&W footage"

You mean the lighting condition next to the Area 51 , where the Nasa Footage made was difficult ?
)



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Would it not be possible to launch a small rocket from a balloon like mr baumgartner. Surely once you are up there it would take less power to achieve orbit. Once in orbit unfurl a solar sail or fire some kind of thruster travel at low speed thus avoiding the need for large amounts of fuel to slow down or hit at speed and use balloons to soften the impact. If it was an unmanned craft I think the secret to succes would be to keep things small and light -



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by druid1
 


Surely once you are up there it would take less power to achieve orbit.
Not a whole lot less power. You need to get to 17,000 mph to get into orbit, it doesn't matter where you start. That takes a lot of fuel no matter how you look at it.


Once in orbit unfurl a solar sail or fire some kind of thruster travel at low speed thus avoiding the need for large amounts of fuel to slow down or hit at speed and use balloons to soften the impact.
You need to get to 25,200 mph to get out of Earth orbit. A solar sail won't provide much thrust (and only works in one direction) and that "thruster" needs fuel.
edit on 10/19/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Well you could land anywhere you like on the moon, it's not as if anyone own's the moon. You could land rite on an Apollo landing site if you wished, but I suppose that would boil down to common courtesy.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by absente
 


How about this...A pay service in which we the average citizen are entitled to monitor a live feed......Ofcourse we would want Zero delay- no safety cushion. If it occurs live we see it as it happens.Ofcourse that is if this is even possible.
SnF
Tom



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
What about one of those flying objects that propel themselves by turning inside out using trace heating to keep the helium at the correct temperature and pressure.

m.youtube.com...

edit on 19/10/2012 by druid1 because: Incorrect URL



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Why not try and send a device with recording gear on it first, to witness the conditions of space and what it would take to get there, like a practice run, yes i know some gear and cameras would be lost (or not, depending if it is still recording and transmitting images of space around it through out the trip and after). Basically what i am saying is, you would probably need to build a few rockets or other devices, to first see the REAL conditions of space and not what we are told, it could be a great start and might see something





new topics
top topics
 
41
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join