ATS Members send Probe to the Moon

Gonna start work on a probe design.
Will try and get payload weights worked out etc..
Any help would be appreciated.

Originally posted by enthuziazm

It cost about $10,000 per pound to launch something into space.

how do you know that? That seems fairly reasonable.

Thats the average cost but it varies. It cost more then buying a pound of gold Last time I checked it was about $7,300 for a pound of gold. Thats darn expensive

www.space.com...

www.911-strike.com...

library.thinkquest.org...

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer
While what you said above is a brilliant idea (currently under discussion elsewhere), and while I fully support it, it will cost vastly more than getting to the moon would, and have vastly more repurcusions and effects around the world. In short, it's kind of stupid to do something really really really hard in order to do something really hard.

Grassroots works for some things. Disclosure, maybe. Conspiracy, maybe. Getting leaving the planet and landing elsewhere not so much.

Amorymeltzer,

You are correct - I am sure this would cost too much.

I thought about doing it at a very small scale - much smaller than your typical space elevator design -but logistically it does not pan out.

This AIRCRAFT-BASED SATELLITE LAUNCHING (ABSL) SYSTEM seems interesting tho:

www.google.com...

So clearly - lower cost launch systems are easily on the near horizon.

In fact I have always suspected that the current systems employed by many nations was actually a mix of bureaucratic corruption an intentional obstruction.

Where there is a will we will definately pave a way!

They better figure out better ways of launching, with the world shortage of oil slowly coming into play, we may have to launch without the use of your typical idea of a combustion engine

down with fossil fuels,
up with renewables

Originally posted by enthuziazm
They better figure out better ways of launching, with the world shortage of oil slowly coming into play, we may have to launch without the use of your typical idea of a combustion engine

down with fossil fuels,

up with renewables

Give us some suggestions. what type of fuel do you have access to?

haha, you got me there. I'm just stating that pretty soon it's going to be imparative thaty we find a new form of thrust, other than burning fuel. Be it your anti-gravity, or using the space elevator, or maybe even natural forces.
Do you think it's possible to use nuclear power in any way to produce thrust?

Originally posted by enthuziazm
haha, you got me there. I'm just stating that pretty soon it's going to be imparative thaty we find a new form of thrust, other than burning fuel. Be it your anti-gravity, or using the space elevator, or maybe even natural forces.
Do you think it's possible to use nuclear power in any way to produce thrust?

I'm sure there is.
I don't pretend to understand the mechanics of such a thing. But it is my belief that it has to be possible to harness that energy without producing the nasty by products that it does.
Afterall what is the Sun if not a continuous nuclear explosion. It does seem to me to be a natural energy source.
I'm no scientist but I can't help but think that maybe in some way, our direction of thinking about nuclear energy is skued. Please don't ask me to explain what I just said. I can't. It was just one of my wanderings.

You will not also seek to rally the membership of these domains for any cause without prior written permission from the site owner.

Originally posted by enthuziazm
haha, you got me there. I'm just stating that pretty soon it's going to be imparative thaty we find a new form of thrust, other than burning fuel. Be it your anti-gravity, or using the space elevator, or maybe even natural forces.

Being an armchair physicist, and a professional theatrical electrician, I've been working on following a few of Tesla's theories on anti-gravity and electromagnetic propulsion, and yes, I DO think there is a means to curcumvent the usage of burning fuels to take a craft to space. Electromagnetic propulsion (or repelling against the Earth's own magnetic field) is quite possible, though it has never been taken to the extent that would carry a craft from earth (at least not in known theory - some of Tesla's un-reapeatable theories claimed to have achieved it). However, given a good enough power source (and voltage is the key, not amperage or wattage), theoretically, a magnet could be produced that could pheasibly provide escape velocity, simply by repelling the Earth's own magnetic pull. Factor into this the anti-inertia theories recently developed by French scientists, and you could theoretically power a craft that would be able to easilly leave Earth's atmosphere and gravity pull, with no ill effects on the passengers due to G-force.

The power source is the problem. That said, I am currently working on a form of the Tesla Coil (which could potentially provide the power) that is operated from a 12 volt motorcycle battery, and outputs roughly 500,000 volts and about 50 amps worth of power. If my experiments are successful, they would provide enough power to easilly run an electromagnet that would be able to provide escape velocity, as well as enough power to fire electrically based ion engines to steer outside of earth's gravitational pull, possibly guiding a craft to the moon or beyond.

I think Tesla really had it right. The problem is piecing together his theories with all of the known holes provided by his missing reseach notes.

...but I notice the thread was not locked, so shall I assume that we may continue the discussion provided we're not actively attempting to rally support?

And for future reference, would "Hey...I think it would be cool to send a probe to the moon. If you were going to do that, how would you do it?" have been a more proper way to have started this thread? No implication of affiliation with ATS?

>Gonna start work on a probe design.
>Any help would be appreciated.

Shall we first inquire to see if it has already been done?

Quick answer: Partially, yes.

www.civilianspace.com...

Now, I realize that they only made it "into space." But, I think that's an excellent start. In fact, you might consider simply asking them for technical specifications on their craft. If you sound enthusiastic enough, they might simply give them to you.

>probably a double (maybe triple stage) rocket

May I make a suggestion? Don't start the trip from zero elevation. Don't even start from the ground:

www.anders.com...

why not use one or more atmospheric balloons to transport the rocket into the upper atmosphere. It is not unusual to attain altitudes of 100,000 feet with an atmospheric balloon.

Sounds like a good idea to me. And, eliminating the 19 most fuel intensive miles of the trip would be a big help.

>liquid fuel ignition system

Please remember to carry oxygen for igniting any fuel you would like to use outside of atmosphere. We still need to be able to manouver once we're into space.

I don't think the initial exit will be terribly difficult. Aiming might be. Once you're in space, you still have to find the moon, and you still have to reach it. It is anywhere between 221,000 and 252,000 miles from the Earth to the moon. Remember...it moves.

Once you're there, you still have to get to the dark side. Do you automate the flight path? That's an interesting ballistics problem. If you don't automate it, how do you communicate with your probe with the moon in the way?

Don't get me wrong. I completely believe it can be done. And I believe it can be done by hobbyists without a tremendous sum of money.

But this is not a trivial task we're discussing.

>Electromagnetic propulsion (or repelling against the Earth's
>own magnetic field) is quite possible,

i assume you have in mind using this soley for the initial exit? So far as I am aware, there is no terrestrial form electric, or electromagnetic propulsion that will work outside of an atmosphere other than, as you suggest, simply "repelling against the Earth."

>theoretically, a magnet could be produced that could
>pheasibly provide escape velocity

Acheiving escape velocity is unneccesary. Provided you don't run out of fuel, there is no reason to stop applying thrust. One mile per hour, up, is sufficient velocity to leave the atmosphere.

>The power source is the problem.

Perhaps you don't need to bring it with you? Why not run a wire? According to the wiki, carbon nanotubes are excellent conductors, presumably would be strong enough, given the plans to use them for a space elevator, and there is allegedly a Japanese company with plans to sell them as cheaply as 100 Yen per gram. I think that's about a dollar.

EDIT:
Here is a list of over 1000 suppliers for nanomaterials. So far though, it's not looking good. Most suppliers only sell individual microscopic fibers, and even for that the cheapest price I've seen is $375/gram.

EDIT AGAIN:

This is the best I see. $237 for a 500 meter strand. Assuming one strand width would be enough...that it wouldn't collapse on its own weight and that you could attach them in chains with no loss of length or extra cost...that works out to...umm...$19 million dollars to geosyncronous orbit. But maybe they'll give you a quantity discount?

(Ok...so much for that idea.)



[edit on 23-9-2005 by LordBucket]

May I make a suggestion? Don't start the trip from zero elevation. Don't even start from the ground:

www.anders.com...

why not use one or more atmospheric balloons to transport the rocket into the upper atmosphere. It is not unusual to attain altitudes of 100,000 feet with an atmospheric balloon.

Sounds like a good idea to me. And, eliminating the 19 most fuel intensive miles of the trip would be a big help.

Don't get me wrong. I completely believe it can be done. And I believe it can be done by hobbyists without a tremendous sum of money.

But this is not a trivial task we're discussing.

Aye, it is not a trivial task, but I too, believe it can be done.

In fact, I had the privillage of being on one the amature/hobbyist teams that attempted at least the first leg of the trip: From Earth to the Edge of Space.

JP Aerospace, borrowing from the space-pioneering work of Dr. George(?) Van Allen (Yes, the Van Allen for whom the Van Allen radiation belts are named), developed a "Rockoon", a rocket/balloon launch system, which we had intended to use to become the first non-governmental/non-commercial organization to reach Space.

Only last minute red tape difficulties through the AST (the division of the FAA charged with oversight of US private and commercial space launches/operations) prevented our launch in the National Space Foundation's CATS (Cheap Access To Space) Prize in 2000.

Theoretically, with a large enough rocket on board, a rockoon could get you into Earth orbital altitude. But that's where the difficult part starts. Even though various designs for lunar probes exist, most are decades old, using now-antiquated technologies.

Time to hit Radio Shack!

Orbital mechanics is a well developed science (since Sir Isaac Newton) and readily available from on-line sources, I'm sure. developing the flight plan and necessary control software should be challenging, but do-able.

IMO, the most difficult part would be to design a reliable LEO insertion/extraction stage to get you first into LEO and then out of LEO into trans-Lunar space.

Originally posted by enthuziazm
They better figure out better ways of launching, with the world shortage of oil slowly coming into play, we may have to launch without the use of your typical idea of a combustion engine

down with fossil fuels,

up with renewables

Oil supply is little concern when most rockets used by the US and Europe (like the Shuttle & Ariane rockets) are fueled with Liquid Hydrogen , Liquid oxygen.

Some 70% percent of our planet is covered in the stuff in the form of H20

Better forms of propulstion would be great but I doubt they are going to be influenced by oil supply. Oil supply might get us some new Hydrogen powered cars though.

Good idea. Can it be done? Very doubtful. Your missing several important elements. How do you plan on figuring the trajectory of the probe, telemetrics, guidance? Not only that but to get it in orbit around the far side of the moon it has to be guided which means course corrections at set times to correct the trajectory of the probe so it doesnt just skip off into space. How are you gonna accomplish this with a small rocket as is being proposed? Not too mention you have to have enough fuel to get there. You cant just launch it and hope it breaks earth orbit and by some chance makes it way to the moon and attains lunar orbit. I think you better hit the books a little more and look at all the other problems you have missed in the equation.

Originally posted by Whompa1
Good idea. Can it be done? Very doubtful. Your missing several important elements. How do you plan on figuring the trajectory of the probe, telemetrics, guidance? Not only that but to get it in orbit around the far side of the moon it has to be guided which means course corrections at set times to correct the trajectory of the probe so it doesnt just skip off into space. How are you gonna accomplish this with a small rocket as is being proposed? Not too mention you have to have enough fuel to get there. You cant just launch it and hope it breaks earth orbit and by some chance makes it way to the moon and attains lunar orbit. I think you better hit the books a little more and look at all the other problems you have missed in the equation.

Whompa, please review the thread and read my first post in it. I address many of the questions you have asked in that post.

It IS possible, it CAN be lightweight, and it CAN be done. A good team working on the project will make it happen. Frankly, this prospect is just interesting enough, that I think just such a team could be assembled.

My apologies as I see you did cover several of the questions in my post. This is still a huge undertaking and I have my doubts that a "model rocket" or anything of the like could even attain earth orbit let alone break gravity and attain lunar orbit.

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer

You will not also seek to rally the membership of these domains for any cause without prior written permission from the site owner.

Amorymeltzer,

This "rule" has always bothered me about ATS.

For one it is highly ambiguous and not universally enforced on ATS.

Secondly, I can think of no greater obstacle to the truth than enforcing this kind of heavy handed by-law.

I mean having a rule like this really limits many of the highly effective things that could be accomplished by the members here through collective action.

Shouldn't this rule really be:

"You will not also seek to rally the membership of these domains for any potentially illegal action without prior written permission from the site owner. "

Anyways I am confident my argument will go unoticed - but if you think about it maybe you will mention it to the mods when you meet.

This site could be so much more than a simple meeting place for the like minded - it could actually be an instrument for real change.

I hope one day this site - or another like it - will live up to its full potential and deliver on this very real promise.