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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by onebigmonkey
At the moment I think the only hope for lunar surface exploration, with people or otherwise, is privately funded.
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.
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)
Originally posted by doorhandle
I also find it strange Russia gave up, apparently they had plans to try themselves.
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!!
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.
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.