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: turbonium1
Here's one source which mentions it...
It mentions Apollo and Shuttle technologies as being 'heritage technology'..
This was required technology, and would guarantee they'd succeed, just like Apollo (supposedly) did it over 40 years earlier!!
It failed miserably, however.
Why?
They had all the required technology at hand, after 40 years later, it fails.
It had complications - fit/ form, lousy contractors, etc..
This is pure bs, of course..
Every contractor is approved beforehand, and replaced if needed (delays, etc)
Now, who develops technology for a manned moon landing, drops it, to develop a 'far more advanced' technology, which can't even send humans beyond LEO.
A manned moon landing will not go backwards, it will only lead us to many more moon landings, longer stays, and moon bases...this is how exploration ACTUALLY works..
originally posted by: turbonium1
Nobody in the Apollo-era knew that aluminum made radiation worse than before, within deep space.
Worse means no aluminum craft will ever fly humans into deep space. None. Ever. Period.
The analysis provides
enabling technology for protecting astronauts and missions
for long duration and deep space missions. Current
technology is adequate for a single lunar mission for casual
astronauts. Revolutionary technology needs to be developed
for human space missions to Mars for NASA’s vision.
originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1
So the extensive timeline of LM development freely available with a simple google search never happened right?
The people who worked on, and built, the LM, and did all the testing of on the ground (recorded in these in house journals) never happened?
www.jsc.nasa.gov...
So the footage of the LM in Earth orbit from Apollo 9, that didn't happen right?
The footage of the LM broadcast on live TV being extracted after TLI didn't happen right?
The LM impact ascent module impact sites on the moon aren't there right?
Any proof you can provide that would prove the LM was not capable of landing on the moon would be just peachy.
originally posted by: choos
originally posted by: turbonium1
Nobody in the Apollo-era knew that aluminum made radiation worse than before, within deep space.
Worse means no aluminum craft will ever fly humans into deep space. None. Ever. Period.
worse doesnt mean impossible..
oh and heres a quote from one of your articles
The analysis provides
enabling technology for protecting astronauts and missions
for long duration and deep space missions. Current
technology is adequate for a single lunar mission for casual
astronauts. Revolutionary technology needs to be developed
for human space missions to Mars for NASA’s vision.
www.minimagnetosphere.rl.ac.uk...
originally posted by: turbonium1
The LM was never tested as a finished product - that's the whole problem. A component will work, this is not proof the LM works.
originally posted by: turbonium1
Current technology is adequate for a single lunar mission.
What is current technology?
Current technology is NOT old, Apollo-era technology, right?
Current technology is adequate. Apollo technology is not adequate, therefore.
Thanks for supporting my point.
So when they said aluminum craft will not go into deep space with humans, while knowing full well Apollo was aluminum, and claimed to have gone into deep space, with humans....they made no exceptions for it.
originally posted by: choos
originally posted by: turbonium1
Current technology is adequate for a single lunar mission.
What is current technology?
Current technology is NOT old, Apollo-era technology, right?
Current technology is adequate. Apollo technology is not adequate, therefore.
Thanks for supporting my point.
originally posted by: choos
ohh it supports your point you think???
I know it does.
originally posted by: choos
so please explain exactly what is so different between Apollo shielding and todays shielding technology?? please explain??
You want me to explain your own source, in other words?
The main problem is that you've tried to cherry-pick a comment out of the document, because you thought it would support your argument. I simply pointed out that because it refers to "current technology", we can rule out old, Apollo technology.
What is so different about shielding technology today, compared to the Apollo-era?
Take a look through these same documents, which discuss the issue. Shielding technology is ever-changing, and will keep changing, and evolving, for years to come.
I don't know how many times I have to tell you about the problems with aluminum shielding in deep space. I've cited the documents repeatedly, and quoted the documents over and over. This alone is one of the differences in shielding between the Apollo-era and today.
originally posted by: choos
also if current technology is sufficient for a single lunar mission why did they, according to you, cancel constellation??
Let's look at the specific quote you cited...
"The analysis provides enabling technology for protecting astronauts and missions for long duration and deep space missions. Current technology is adequate for a single lunar mission for casual astronauts. Revolutionary technology needs to be developed for human space missions to Mars for NASA’s vision."
www.minimagnetosphere.rl.ac.uk...
This quote is at the very end of the document. The rest of the document needs to be looked at, so we know what they mean by "enabling technology", "current technology", and "revolutionary technology".
In fact, the document never explains what "current technology" means, or what "adequate" means in relation to it.
The paper doesn't discuss it at all.
We have gone back and forth over the issue of short-term and long-term missions, in deep space.
I've found a quote in the same document, in fact, from the abstract on page one, which confirms what I've told you...
"Exposure from the hazards of severe space radiation in deep space and/or long duration missions is a critical design constraint and a potential ‘show stopper.’ Thus, protection from the hazards of severe space radiation is of paramount importance to the agency’s vision."
..deep space missions, and/or long duration missions..
Which means ANY and ALL deep space missions, short or long duration. As well as ANY and ALL long duration missions, whether in deep space, or not.
Do you understand this, finally?
originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: turbonium1
So when they said aluminum craft will not go into deep space with humans, while knowing full well Apollo was aluminum, and claimed to have gone into deep space, with humans....they made no exceptions for it.
It didn't exactly go into deep space since the moon is less than 300,000 miles away...a drop in the bucket in terms of distance needed to travel to anywhere other than the moon in space.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
Prove that moon missions are deep space. You should be able to cite a source for that.