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.
Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
ive told you many times already, if you want to track something you need to have constant updates on its position. you cant track an object with absolutely precise accuracy.. ICBM's constantly update their position and corrects itself.. tracking of asteroids require thousands of observations in order to accurately plot its trajectory, and even then it still has a large margin of error talking about several hundred kilometres here.
you cant track an object with absolutely precise accuracy..
No, you are wrong choos.
He doesnt understand how satellites are tracked and doesnt understand hard enough to track something in earths orbit but then add the distance to the moon and wow. The reason they lost the craftt is simple they were not telling us where they were at and no visual observation made like they will do from the international space station for example. Hey look at the window do you see something yeah its crossing about a half mile above us ok thanks.Not to mention oblect picked up by observatories as they cross while there observing stars for example. We dont have any on the moon yet but that would be cool.
Are you talking about tracking an object passively (such as the observation of an asteroid), OR are you talking about receiving and reading the active telemetry from a spacecraft?
If you are talking about tracking a spacecraft from a signal being sent by that craft, then tracking very very precise, but if you are talking about tracking an object that is not sending a signal, then the tracking has a large margin of error.
Originally posted by choos
you say it like i believe it?? i already told you i dont believe the KGB done it.. im pointing out the fact that you do not know who was really behind it.. you only believe its the US Gov.. im just pointing out that the KGB is also a possibility.
Originally posted by choos
wow... if we dont have newer technology we use existing ones??? just wow...
have you even heard of the term research and development???? are you even aware of how newer technology comes about??
p.s. it most definitey does matter what technology we us to achieve the goal.. look at the guidance computer inside the apollo craft.. and tell me you want to use that over something more modern.. look at how the apollo crew used the toilets and tell me that you dont want to use something more modern.
i mean heck why did they even bothering developing space suits to what they are today?? why didnt they just use the gemini suits. according to you theres no reason to develop the spacesuits anymore than the gemini suits.edit on 25-8-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)edit on 25-8-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by choos
Wow you guys strayed way off course. Let me see if i can help as technology advances by its ver nature its incorporated in are designs. Example If they were going to try to rebuild the lunar lander today by specs they would need vacuum tubes. But vacuum tubes are no longer made anywhere they are simply out dated. So obviously when building the lander they would use microprocessors correct everyone agree? So then they have to program them and then they realize darn we cant get it to talk to the engine we might as well so astronauts dont have to look out the window to see if it fired.So they redesign the engine. Heres another example suppose we were wanting a TV again we could build one like the original but it would cost far more because again we would have to make vacuum tubes.Then we would have to create a plant to build cathode ray tubes again even though cheaper and better tech is out there.
So when you say something like why dont we use technology we all ready had used to go to the moon is stupid. It would cost us more to reproduce that technology then just redesigning it now So in short saying why dont we go back to the moon using the technology we had in the 60s is all most laughable we have had 50 years of advancement since then i have a cell phone my galaxy cell phone has more computing power then Houston had on hand during the apollo missions. My god they would have killed to be able to do scientific calculations on my cell phone instead of a slide rule and a couple of hours. So since are technology has increased and we can do things faster and cheaper we have to have people redesign the the vehicles to todays standards. And if your going to spend the money to do that your going to do research to make sure the vehicle you build is safer because we have the technology to do it!!!!!!!!!
Originally posted by turbonium1
Don't you get it? By speculating about JFK, you've made my point about Apollo!
Arguing about the USSR being whistleblowers for an Apollo hoax is simply speculation, as well.
Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by turbonium1
Im not sure where your going with this given enough money we could be there in about 18 months if our lives depended on around 9. We have the technology to get there just not the funds and money makes the world go around. Or at the very least needed to leave it. Let me ask you why you believe we dont have the technology thats kinda weird look at deep space 1 and smart 1 using ion drives.They are starting testing on positron drive basically anti matter. We have some really cool tech we just dont have the funds to put it all together.
.
Originally posted by turbonium1
Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by turbonium1
Im not sure where your going with this given enough money we could be there in about 18 months if our lives depended on around 9. We have the technology to get there just not the funds and money makes the world go around. Or at the very least needed to leave it. Let me ask you why you believe we dont have the technology thats kinda weird look at deep space 1 and smart 1 using ion drives.They are starting testing on positron drive basically anti matter. We have some really cool tech we just dont have the funds to put it all together.
.
Just like my 'Time Machine' would've been built, if I was only "given enough money" !!.
Money can be the basic excuse for almost anything, as shown in my example above.
It may be true, or it may be a lame excuse.
So what about the 'return' to the moon? Is it all about getting 'enough money'?
It is not all about money, not a chance.
I posted a report which states it is a severe lack of required technologies. Not a lack of money.
Read the report if you doubt me, though/
And then you'll know it's not all about money,
Originally posted by turbonium1
Don't you get it? By speculating about JFK, you've made my point about Apollo!
Arguing about the USSR being whistleblowers for an Apollo hoax is simply speculation, as well.
You're missing the point here.
It isn't about wanting better, newer technology. We'd all prefer that to be the case, obviously.
And it isn't about trying to develop better, newer technology, which is (as noted) what we all want, and prefer to have.
Why? Because it doesn't exist (not yet anyway).
And so, that's where Apollo comes in.
You claim the required technology existed over 40 years ago.
We can use it again, yes?
Of course, we'd prefer to use newer technologies.
But nothing else exists yet, right?
As if....
Originally posted by onebigmonkey
Originally posted by turbonium1
Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by turbonium1
Im not sure where your going with this given enough money we could be there in about 18 months if our lives depended on around 9. We have the technology to get there just not the funds and money makes the world go around. Or at the very least needed to leave it. Let me ask you why you believe we dont have the technology thats kinda weird look at deep space 1 and smart 1 using ion drives.They are starting testing on positron drive basically anti matter. We have some really cool tech we just dont have the funds to put it all together.
.
Just like my 'Time Machine' would've been built, if I was only "given enough money" !!.
Money can be the basic excuse for almost anything, as shown in my example above.
It may be true, or it may be a lame excuse.
So what about the 'return' to the moon? Is it all about getting 'enough money'?
It is not all about money, not a chance.
I posted a report which states it is a severe lack of required technologies. Not a lack of money.
Read the report if you doubt me, though/
And then you'll know it's not all about money,
Could you repost the link to this report - I can't find it?
In the mean time it is about the money, The money and the political will to supply that money. The political will to supply that money existed in the 1960s because of the particular circumstances of the time. At the moment a government sponsored effort to return does not have any money. This does not mean that the technology to get to the moon does not exist, The huge number of objects on and orbiting the moon proves that the technology exists for things to get there, and it takes very little extra effort for some of those things to be people.
Your time machine will never be built because it is impossible. Launching things into space is not impossible.edit on 31-8-2013 by onebigmonkey because: ...and another thing...
Originally posted by turbonium1
A technology is used for 'X' period of time, until something better comes along, which then replaces it. And so it goes, on and on..
Originally posted by turbonium1
Just like my 'Time Machine' would've been built, if I was only "given enough money" !!.
Money can be the basic excuse for almost anything, as shown in my example above.
It may be true, or it may be a lame excuse.
So what about the 'return' to the moon? Is it all about getting 'enough money'?
It is not all about money, not a chance.
I posted a report which states it is a severe lack of required technologies. Not a lack of money.
Read the report if you doubt me, though/
And then you'll know it's not all about money,
Originally posted by hellobruce
Originally posted by turbonium1
A technology is used for 'X' period of time, until something better comes along, which then replaces it. And so it goes, on and on..
So what has replaced Concorde?
See how silly your claim is now?
Originally posted by turbonium1
As for technology...
It is vastly different now than it was in the 1960's.
It is better today, of course.
So, whatever we could do in the 1960's, we can generally do it better today.
At least we can do it as good, but probably do it better..
For example, we'd like to build an airplane that can fly from NYC to Paris. That is our goal. So we try and build that plane. We finally do.
About 40 years later, we want to do it again - to fly from NYC to Paris. For some reason, we' didn't go during those 40 years, but anyhoo...
The technologies are better than 40 years ago, right?
But you have the same goal as before - which is, to build a plane that can fly from NYC to Paris - right?
Why would you lack the required technology? You wouldn't.
Why do you need so much money to develop it? You wouldn't
Originally posted by turbonium1
Originally posted by hellobruce
Originally posted by turbonium1
A technology is used for 'X' period of time, until something better comes along, which then replaces it. And so it goes, on and on..
So what has replaced Concorde?
See how silly your claim is now?
The Concorde's technologies have been replaced or refined over the years, no?
Do you know why the Concorde itself was permanently grounded? Hint: for the same reason it hasn't been replaced.
Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by turbonium1
Actually this report your posting doesnt say we dont have the technology. Its problems with the design such as thrust vectoring in fact i just read an article on that the other day. There testing a new design for the thrusters this is nothing new apollo had the same problems and just like apollo engineers will fix it. Most of this article is yelling at NASA for funding all these companies that come up with ideas and there afraid there wont be a return on investment. And i agree actually may sound good on paper but you need to look at it more like a business is it worth trying to incorporate this technology or go with something we know.
Originally posted by turbonium1
As for technology...
It is vastly different now than it was in the 1960's.
It is better today, of course.
So, whatever we could do in the 1960's, we can generally do it better today.
At least we can do it as good, but probably do it better..
For example, we'd like to build an airplane that can fly from NYC to Paris. That is our goal. So we try and build that plane. We finally do.
About 40 years later, we want to do it again - to fly from NYC to Paris. For some reason, we' didn't go during those 40 years, but anyhoo...
The technologies are better than 40 years ago, right?
But you have the same goal as before - which is, to build a plane that can fly from NYC to Paris - right?
Why would you lack the required technology? You wouldn't.
Why do you need so much money to develop it? You wouldn't
Originally posted by onebigmonkey
In that case maybe you'd like to look at the R&D budgets of the major aircraft manufacturers and see how much they are spending to build new planes to do old jobs. Why should they do that when the old technology worked just fine? Why did we bother developing the jet engine when propellers were just as good? The answer is because it allows us to do the same job faster, or better, or at a bigger scale, or more safely
Thank you for posting the link, I've now had a quick look and what's interesting is that before it even gets to the engineering problems of the space vehicles under discussion it mentions money. In fact most of the report concerns money. It mentions the 'business case' and 'sufficient funding'. it doesn't say " we can't do it" or "it's impossible" it's saying " this is costing a lot of money". It talks about the need for adequate funds, correct phasing of funding and making sure it gets spent on the right stuff. it discusses this more than it does any technical challenges.
What it also doesn't say is "we can't get to the moon" or "it is not possible to get to the moon". It is discussing the current engineering issues related to this specific craft, which has different design and mission aims compared with its Apollo predecessor. Those are the engineering and technological problems to solve. I could build a rocket in my back garden, but if it failed it doesn't mean that all other rockets will fail.
Nowhere in that report does it say "Apollo didn't go to the moon" or "rockets can't get into orbit and beyond", because that is not true. In fact that report mentions Apollo several times as an important contributor to the Constellation program in terms of the experience it gave NASA and the heritage technology' it provides.
As I said earlier, we (as a species) have the capability to put objects on the moon and have done it time and time again. Why is it such a stretch to add people?