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: 7
12
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Originally posted by wildespace
And it has been answered many times. The Hubble has nowhere near enough angular resolution to see the Apollo landers or rovers. An object on the Moon would have to be about the size of a football stadium to occupy a single pixel in Hubble images. hubblesite.org...

...


Exactly. Another limiting factor is angular rate, which is why you can tell that astronaut Gordon Cooper was making stuff up on late-night radio and at UFO conventions when he claimed he had taken photos of car license plates, with a hand-held camera out the window of Gemini-5, and that LBJ had personally ordered them be confiscated. Considering he was moving at 25,000 ft/sec, a camera with a shuttler speed of say 1/200 sec -- no matter HOW good its lenses were -- is going to smear over more than 100 feet on the ground. Robot spysats did better, using precise 'image motion compensdtion', but hand-held cameras -- never possibnle.

Most of the stories Cooper told in later years were just an old pilot's bragging to the last audiences who wanted to listen. Sad story -- leaving the astronaut corps in disgrace, offending his remaining friends and admirers with cockamamie investment schemes that went bankrupt [costing millions of dollars of other people's money], but still wanting an adoring audience. The UFO world was his last hurrah.
edit on 19-7-2013 by JimOberg because: typos




posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   
The day I see an image from the Moon showing the Milky way, I'll eat my shorts.
The SpaceX capsule had a porthole which NASA made them cover up before it went to the ISS. Why?


Originally posted by ionwind

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 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by GaryN
The day I see an image from the Moon showing the Milky way, I'll eat my shorts.
The SpaceX capsule had a porthole which NASA made them cover up before it went to the ISS. Why?


Really thats odd.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ionwind
Did they almost beat Apollo 11 by only days?


No, a manned flight was still more than a year off -- but their analysts had assured them in mid-1968 that troubles with the US Saturn-V second stage, and the Lunar Module, would take at least two, perhaps as much as four, more years to fix. They were flabbergasted [and a lot of us here were, too] that suddenly everything began falling into place for Apollo. And falling apart, for them -- something it took us a long time to realize, and even longer to persuade even part of the 'conventional wisdom' in the US media/academia complex that the USSR had been 'too wise' to waste money or useless human space missions.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Being a expert on the matter you got any essential reading?

Plus im facinated with the old orion project ( if you cant guess) know of any good reading?



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by ionwind
Did they almost beat Apollo 11 by only days?


No, a manned flight was still more than a year off -- but their analysts had assured them in mid-1968 that troubles with the US Saturn-V second stage, and the Lunar Module, would take at least two, perhaps as much as four, more years to fix. They were flabbergasted [and a lot of us here were, too] that suddenly everything began falling into place for Apollo. And falling apart, for them -- something it took us a long time to realize, and even longer to persuade even part of the 'conventional wisdom' in the US media/academia complex that the USSR had been 'too wise' to waste money or useless human space missions.


Thanks, I was starting to feel bad for another lost space crew...

Congress did ask for up to Apollo 20 missions, so they were probably expecting some loses. I had no doubt's about Neil Armstrong. Right man for the job. He manually took over didn't he, because the computer was going to crash them? Ha, he hardly made it exciting, he still 30 seconds of fuel left.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by crazyewok
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Being a expert on the matter you got any essential reading?

Plus im facinated with the old orion project ( if you cant guess) know of any good reading?


Good questions -- I think Dyson himself discussed it in his memoris, and it was in that bio, the 'Starship and the Canoe'.

Getting a leg up into 'practical astronautics' isn't easy, maybe I should develop a reading list, good point. Thanks!



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Thank you!

I will have to get hold of his memoirs.

I just think if humans have any chance of practical and usefull space fligh rather than just floating around in tin cans we need to bite the bullet and go down that route.

The UK Skylon engine seems promiseing too. Couple those together you could get something good going.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by GaryN
The SpaceX capsule had a porthole which NASA made them cover up before it went to the ISS.


1. Got a source for that?
2. Both missions have been unmanned, to deliver cargo, so I'm not sure what the conspiracy is here.
Are you saying they didnt want the cargo looking out of the window?



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Well that was very informative. I appreciate you taking the time to explain it all. ~$heopleNation



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
How sharp do you think satellites can see Earth's surface? There's a lot of folklore and Hollywoodizing going on about this subject, i'm curious what you've come to believe, and why.


Mostly hear say. Kind of like how they supposedly can zoom right down and see a bug, but I don't believe any of that nonsense. I never said that I believed anything other than that I lean more towards Man landing on the moon as being the truth. ~$heopleNation
edit on 19-7-2013 by SheopleNation because: TypO



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1
You will end up with the same answer as everyone else: there is no telescope big enough.


I think that has been made perfectly clear already. Thank you for your 2 cents though.
~$heopleNation



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildespace
Eriktheawful gave a very good and informative reply


He did, and yes it was.


I hope you will be satisfied with his answer.


No need to hope any longer my friend, Cause I am. ~$heopleNation



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 11:44 AM
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.

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)



Soviet manned lunar landing program would've been high priority target for sabotage by the US at the time. Impossible to prove, as the Soviets would never have admitted (whether or not) their program failed due to US sabotage. It's the perfect conspiracy theory.


edit on 20-7-2013 by PINGi14 because: clarity



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


You were so helpful in saying NOTHING!!!



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by GaryN
The SpaceX capsule had a porthole which NASA made them cover up before it went to the ISS.


1. Got a source for that?
2. Both missions have been unmanned, to deliver cargo, so I'm not sure what the conspiracy is here.
Are you saying they didnt want the cargo looking out of the window?


More Images, Details on SpaceX’s Dragon Flight
www.universetoday.com...

From a forum discussion that mentions the portholes: (forum.nasaspacelight.com)

"They all have windows.

More acurate to say they all have a sealed portholes, some covered in metal, some covered in glass. All CRS flight from what I remember are going to be metal.

Is this an attempt to maintain commonality with a future manned variant?
Or a future Dragonlab (windows could be needed for some payloads). I actually think it's just that they already did the analysis and testing and the manufacturing jig for a design which includes windows but that there's extra risk (MMOD, etc) such that the customer (NASA) doesn't see any reason to have windows."

The windows were installed I think as the design was meant to include use for manned flights, up to 6 astronauts. NASA didn't see any need for windows, but were they concerned a camera in there might see (or not see) something they didn't want it to?



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Someone up there told us not to return. The secrect nasa channels say it all.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by GaryN

Originally posted by alfa1
1. Got a source for that?

From a forum discussion that mentions the portholes: (forum.nasaspacelight.com)



Oh.
Kind of dissapointed.
I was hoping it was going to be more than some guy on a message forum who's just giving his personal opinion, and starts off the sentence with "I actually think it's just that..."

And the conspiracy theory falls apart when you visit its facebook page and see that the module was taking images from cameras anyway.

edit on 20-7-2013 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by crazyewok
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.


They don't know it's going to be scrapped. Someone comes along later and decides it either isn't working, is just too expensive (like Apollo) is politically problematic (like Apollo) or isn't producing results fast enough and cuts funding. That's how R&D works in any field.

One such casualty of that was nuclear pulse propulsion, which made many great strides on the drawing board but for a variety of reasons got pulled. It might indeed be a good way to get between planets, but transporting all that nuclear material on rockets that do occasionally explode? Or exploding all those bombs in the atmosphere to get to orbit? Never going to be a vote winner.

Rotating space ships? Go find out how big one needs to be to get the effect and how fast it needs to rotate and just how much money and engineering that would take to build.

Old tech is used for the simple reason that it works, and until the theoretical alternatives have been tried and tested you have to stick with what you know works.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by onebigmonkey
 


Actually from the research done I beleive they go the nukes in a the nuclear propulsion engine down to a pretty "clean" level. Unless you launching thousands of them every year next to populated cities it would,nt be a issue.

It held back due to a badly worded treaty and a bunch of badly educated tree hugging hippies.
The former should be reworded and the latter ignored.


As for the rotating garvity?

Yeah you need a 0.5 Km radius minimum I beleive to work. But if you combined it to the idea above then its not a problem. Plus it doesnt have to be a complete circule going round you could just have a module rotating round a engine module.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join