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.

 

why were missions to moon stopped?

page: 6
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 07:29 AM
link   
So why the fuss about fuel? Once out of earths gravity all you need is enough fuel to land on another planet and off again in between those two points you don't need fuel.




posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpaceSaviour
So why the fuss about fuel? Once out of earths gravity all you need is enough fuel to land on another planet and off again in between those two points you don't need fuel.


There are any number of introductory books and videos about the fundamentals of spaceflight. Please avail yourself of one of them before making a fool of yourself again and again with your naive nescience.

It's not a matter of one or two facts, that generous colleagues here can straighten you out on. EVERYTHINMG you seem to think you know, so far, is wrong.

It's worth the effort, and the discussion needs worthy contributions. Please prepare yourself to be useful to it.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Remember you are talking about space traveling, not just an Afghanistan tour. there is no need for any conspiracy theory.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpaceSaviour
So why the fuss about fuel? Once out of earths gravity all you need is enough fuel to land on another planet and off again in between those two points you don't need fuel.


It depends on where you want to go. If you want to get to the moon, escaping Earth's gravity is essential.

But if you want to go to Mars, you'll have to do more than just escape Earth's gravity, you'll need to accelerate enough to get to Mars, and not end up in a orbit around the sun at the same distance as Earth. So you have to overcome some of the sun's gravity.

Same for all the other planets out past Earth. In many cases of our probes we used planets for gravity assists to get there, but those assists make for very long journeys.

Getting to Venus and Mercury is even harder, as again, you have to escape the Earth's gravity, but then you're going towards the sun. Arriving at Venus, you have to slow down to get into orbit around it, and that's a lot easier said than done. Just read up on any of the missions to Venus to see how it's done.

You need fuel to escape Earth's gravity. Fuel for course corrections. Fuel to slow down, and a LOT of fuel if you intend to land and take off again.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by sparky31
 


Hmm. I don't think that there is really enough technology to establish a colony on the Moon. While the technology may be there for human flight/transit, that doesn't mean that we have terra-forming(wow can't believe I know that term) tech yet. I think we should give it some years and just follow the current and future Mars missions.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Or NASA could stoped useing there dumb ass Chem rockets and use the orion engine:

en.wikipedia.org...


Build the thing in orbit in stages useing chem rockets just to get the stuff up there and you got a very fast ship that can be large enough to hold a good number or crew and supplies and NASA could be really clever and build it witha rotating module so you get "artificial gravity".


But hey why do that when they cans spend th billions of dollers space pens and Zero G toliets , not to mentin cancelled projects and a big useless bunch of tin cans called a intenational space station.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by crazyewok
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Or NASA could stoped useing there dumb ass Chem rockets and use the orion engine:

en.wikipedia.org...


Build the thing in orbit in stages useing chem rockets just to get the stuff up there and you got a very fast ship that can be large enough to hold a good number or crew and supplies and NASA could be really clever and build it witha rotating module so you get "artificial gravity".


But hey why do that when they cans spend th billions of dollers space pens and Zero G toliets , not to mentin cancelled projects and a big useless bunch of tin cans called a intenational space station.


It's a common misconception out there that NASA are the only people involved in, and paying for, space exploration, and that somehow as a result they control all space based science information and research. This couldn't be further from the truth, The International bit of the ISS namedoesn't just refer to the crew, Canada, Japan, Russia and Europe also contribute.

The number of cancelled NASA projects is, if anything, an indication of the budget constraints that they are under, particularly in the current economic climate - exactly the same budget constraints that cancelled Apollo. Space exploration just isn't seen as important enough, and the focus seems more on things that will produce an economic return like satellite launches

Oh, and the space pen thing, it's a myth.
Snopes

and personally, if I was in in space, I'd be quite keen on a functioning toilet instead of using plastic bags as they did in Apollo.

At the moment I think the only hope for lunar surface exploration, with people or otherwise, is privately funded. China has ambitions, but they are still a long way off. I sincerely hope it's in my lifetime and I sincerely hope it's close to the Apollo hardware that I know is there.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   
They never went to the moon, they just pocketed the money.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by onebigmonkey
...At the moment I think the only hope for lunar surface exploration, with people or otherwise, is privately funded. China has ambitions, but they are still a long way off. I sincerely hope it's in my lifetime and I sincerely hope it's close to the Apollo hardware that I know is there.


I have come to much the same view. And we need to pay more attention to lunar surface access from low lunar orbit via rotating skyhooks, but that's another thread. And maybe it's time for another article....



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by onebigmonkey

At the moment I think the only hope for lunar surface exploration, with people or otherwise, is privately funded.


Funny you should say that. Only today two private companies announced their plans to land a telescope on the moon by 2016.



They say it will cost $100 million, which isn't very much when compared to some multi-billion dollar NASA projects.

www.theverge.com...

Another private company, SpaceX, has already developed and used a low earth orbit cargo vehicle for the ISS.


edit on 19-7-2013 by ionwind because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by onebigmonkey
 


Then why start a program if chances are its to be scraped?


Better to pick 1 or 2 programs and do them well.


And its the fact they seem to used old tec and never seem to try anything "new".

As I said look at nuclear pulse propulsion.

And why are they weightless on the ISS? They are risking the health of the men up there when they could have gone for a rotating design.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ionwind
 


Yup the private sector is the way too go.

But I think they will be held back some more.

NASA and in some ways the ESA ect are only there in my opinion to hold the world back and get in the way.
edit on 19-7-2013 by crazyewok because: Stupid predictive text



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by SpaceSaviour
So why the fuss about fuel? Once out of earths gravity all you need is enough fuel to land on another planet and off again in between those two points you don't need fuel.


There are any number of introductory books and videos about the fundamentals of spaceflight. Please avail yourself of one of them before making a fool of yourself again and again with your naive nescience.

It's not a matter of one or two facts, that generous colleagues here can straighten you out on. EVERYTHINMG you seem to think you know, so far, is wrong.

It's worth the effort, and the discussion needs worthy contributAnyways . Please prepare yourself to be useful to it.


Oh my, what a friendly welcome you give to this forum

Anyways, back on topic, I also find it strange Russia gave up, apparently they had plans to try themselves. Surely they would have tried, establishing a moon base before the US would be a big statement from them to the west. Lets see what China do...ownership of the moon and its resources could get very very political



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


NASA did help fund SpaceX with their development of the Dragon capsule ($440 million). Maybe that's what they intend to do: outsource the development and just oversee the projects.

en.wikipedia.org...

I agree that for long term human space missions, a rotating design to produce artificial gravity is necessary. Humans aren't adapted for a weightless environment, and suffer health effects even after returning to Earth.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ionwind
 


Least thats something usefull they are doing then.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rainbowresidue
I'm surprised how no one has mentioned Ingo Swann on this thread yet ( One of the best remote viewers of all time.), and his book called 'Penetration: The Question of Extraterrestrial and Human Telepathy', where he in detail describes what he found/ saw when he was asked to remote view the dark side of the moon. Also why we aren't allowed to go there anymore.

The book is available free and online to read , just google the title. Sorry, I don't have the link at the moment.





edit on 18-7-2013 by Rainbowresidue because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-7-2013 by Rainbowresidue because: (no reason given)


Thank you for the heads up!
You got me searching and I read the pre pub. pdf this afternoon.

A great read that is still very relevant !

Ed: We need to see the high res. pics. They exist, paid for by Joe Public ...

edit on 19-7-2013 by Timely because: AS IF !!



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by doorhandle

I also find it strange Russia gave up, apparently they had plans to try themselves.


Russia launched two giant N1 rockets in the 1969, similar to the Saturn V, and prepared them for a moon launch. One launch was just two weeks before Apollo 11 and it exploded. The other launch vehicle also exploded.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Russians have never said if there were any cosmonauts or lunar landers on board.

They did land a couple of rovers on the moon in the early 1970s.




edit on 19-7-2013 by ionwind because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by doorhandle
...
Oh my, what a friendly welcome you give to this forum

Sweet-talkers are not always -- in fact, are RARELY -- your friends.

Plenty of folks hereabouts with rocket science questions and confusion, but with their hearts in the right place, get plenty of help around here -- there's an awesome cloud of insight and experience among us -- but toddlers need to be told to take a few steps on their own. It's the kindest advice the real world can afford. It's the advice I got.

Rocket science isn't a HS debate club or university faculty tea party, where any and all claims get faux-respect and equality. In this field, wrong answers KILL. Dabblers should be aware of that. Serious discussants earn their own respect, and i've met legions of them -- who have helped me figure better ways to make complex explanations clear, and to fill in the shadows of overlooked assumptions.

I did note the sarcasm on/off flag!!




posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ionwind

Originally posted by doorhandle

I also find it strange Russia gave up, apparently they had plans to try themselves.


Russia launched two giant N1 rockets in the 1969, similar to the Saturn V, and prepared them for a moon launch. One launch was just two weeks before Apollo 11 and it exploded. The other launch vehicle also exploded.



Ionwind is right on course. I've got a hand-sized fragment of that second launch, melted and impacted and scoured in mid-flight. on my desk right here in front of me. No, I won't explain how I got it, not today.

The USSR was in the man to the moon race to win, but when they lost, they lied about it -- and fooled a lot of people, mainly university intellectuals and news media stars like Walter Cronkite. It was the theme of my first book, 'Red Star in Orbit'. There should be other threads hereabouts on that theme.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by ionwind

Originally posted by doorhandle

I also find it strange Russia gave up, apparently they had plans to try themselves.


Russia launched two giant N1 rockets in the 1969, similar to the Saturn V, and prepared them for a moon launch. One launch was just two weeks before Apollo 11 and it exploded. The other launch vehicle also exploded.



Ionwind is right on course. I've got a hand-sized fragment of that second launch, melted and impacted and scoured in mid-flight. on my desk right here in front of me. No, I won't explain how I got it, not today.

The USSR was in the man to the moon race to win, but when they lost, they lied about it -- and fooled a lot of people, mainly university intellectuals and news media stars like Walter Cronkite. It was the theme of my first book, 'Red Star in Orbit'. There should be other threads hereabouts on that theme.


Very cool! So, were there cosmonauts and a lunar lander on board?

Did they almost beat Apollo 11 by only days?




edit on 19-7-2013 by ionwind because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join