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: Zaphod58
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
Flight testing isn't that easy. I have seen several aircraft that everything looked great in the models and on paper, and when it flew it barely flew and wound up being canceled. Or it was terrible on paper and flew great in real life.
Here's one story about it, from 1989:
I've asked you of sources for your claims that the Orion must take a trajectory that takes the spaceship through a more dangerous part of the Vann Allen Belts than Apollo
It is you that is not listening; in this thread I've asked here, here, here, here, and here what is so "magical" about the Orion spacecraft computers that requires it to have new "challenges" that "must be solved" before sending people through the Vann Allen Belts, and so far none has come up with a likely answer, instead deniers keep bringing up the Apollo spacecraft computers as a qualified method of comparison - which it is not; rather the Orion's challenges should be compared with recent Moon missions - of which there are several.
On a deeper, longer mission, there are more chances for things to go wrong, more exposure to radiation and micrometeorites. Says Hopkins, “People on the ground, or astronauts on the space station, are protected from solar storms or galactic cosmic rays to some extent by the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field.” If a spacecraft is to push beyond that field, it will need more protection. This entails everything from better data (from high-powered computing) on where cosmic rays are penetrating a spacecraft to better sensors monitoring the radiation environment. “If it gets bad,” Hopkins says, “the astronauts can move some of the cargo around inside the spacecraft to create a ‘storm shelter’ in the spacecraft, a little bit like kids building a fort out of couch cushions.
It’s not just astronauts that need shielding: Modern avionics, says Hopkins, have smaller circuits and are thus more vulnerable to radiation. “In modern electronics, as everything has gotten smaller and everything is closer together, there’s a smaller amount of electric current required to flip the switches in the circuit. It used to be that getting hit with a stray particle of radiation wouldn’t have had enough energy to damage big wires and vacuum tubes,” he says. “As things get smaller, it’s easier to flip a bit from a zero to a one or to damage the electrical circuitry. That’s one reason that spacecraft might not use the latest and greatest computer chips like your iPad might use.” So shielding and redundancy have been added.
A space station is much better than landing on the moon
There isn't really an economic reason to go to the moon other than tourism and we aren't at that stage.
originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
originally posted by: choos
originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
Is NASA backpedaling now that we're onto them? That article you are linking was written after this post was made on ATS, are they trying to clean up their previous mess now, or?
-MM
no.. it goes hand in hand with saying protecting the delicate electronics aboard the Orion is a challenge since they are much more sensitive to radiation than the Apollo computers..
these electronics need a guarantee of not failing when in an area of elevated radiation, these electronics are supporting life.
people have been saying this from the start, you just never thought of it.
It is you that is not listening; in this thread I've asked here, here, here, here, and here what is so "magical" about the Orion spacecraft computers that requires it to have new "challenges" that "must be solved" before sending people through the Vann Allen Belts, and so far none has come up with a likely answer, instead deniers keep bringing up the Apollo spacecraft computers as a qualified method of comparison - which it is not; rather the Orion's challenges should be compared with recent Moon missions - of which there are several. I highly doubt that the Orion Missions computer is so much more advanced than the 4M's launced this year (or any of the other six Moon missions launched in the last four years) that it is a "challenge" to shield the Orion spacecraft from radiation that the other Moon missions the last few years did not have to solve.
-MM
originally posted by: cheery1
a reply to: dragonridr
A space station is much better than landing on the moon
What makes you say that?
There isn't really an economic reason to go to the moon other than tourism and we aren't at that stage.
Why do you say this..?
Please explain..
Simple space station saves fuel nI gravity to fight takes fuel to land and takeoff from the moon. Meaning launching from orbit is cheaper.
As for the moon itself again easier to mine asteroids than mine the moon. There isn't really an economic reason to go to the moon other than tourism and we aren't at that stage.
originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
Because again, there is no set trajectory! It won't be set until much closer to launch time. It MAY have to, it may not. It depends on the day, the month, even the YEAR they will launch.
If there is no set trajectory, then why must - as you claim - the Orion spacecraft be additionally shielded than other Moon missions in the later years (or even the Apollo Programs spacecrafts)? What is so "magical" about Orions computers to require extra Vann Allan Belts radiation shielding? If Orion needs more sheilding because it is a multipurpose spacecraft that might go to Mars at a later stage (Yeah, right...Like that is ever going to happen...), then don't you think they will change the shielding according to the requirements of the purposed mission, anything else would be crazy considering the cost per pound when venturing to space using the current public domain rocket technology.
-MM
Computer Function – Orion’s computer is the first of its kind to be flown in space. It can process 480 million instructions per second. That’s 25 times faster than the International Space Station’s computers, 400 times faster than the space shuttle’s computers and 4,000 times faster than Apollo’s. But to operate in space, it has to be able to handle extreme heat and cold, heavy radiation and the intense vibrations of launches, aborts and landings. And it has to operate through all of that without a single mistake. Just restarting the computer would take 15 seconds; and while that might sound lightning fast compared to your PC, you can cover a lot of ground in 15 seconds when you’re strapped to a rocket.
originally posted by: cheery1
a reply to: Zaphod58
Triangulation gives a more accurate position though.
Picking up a signal from the moon is not evidence of a living person being on the moon.
as
A signal eminating from the moon could easily be bounced off or reflected off the moon.
C/O:
GOY
originally posted by: cheery1
Come to think of it...
Who and in what..
Are taking supplies to the space station now that the shuttle isn't shuttling..?
Anyone know?
curious.
Yes it is and no it couldn't.You can't just bounce a radio signal off a round but slightly irregular lump of rock a quarter of a million miles away and return it to earth