NASA's 'CEV' and 'Return to Moon vision'
POSTED BY: Calhoun
UPDATED: Friday, January 13, 2006 02:01
VIEWED: 2735
PAGE 2 of 2
It hasn't, it's more to do with what you intend to do on the moon when you get there.
Apollo wasn't the only way to go to the moon, way back in the 50's Von Braun published an archetecture for a moon mission in Colliers magazine. The problem was that it needed two things, assembly of craft in Earth orbit and very large rockets to launch all the pieces. What you got for your trouble though was an orbital shipyard around the Earth and a moonbase that was sustainable in the long term.
Problem was that by 1963 NASA had a 7 year deadline to do the moon thing. They had to go with a design that the Saturn V could lift. The result was a "flags" mission where they just went, poked about a couple of days and then came home. The only useful piece of Apollo hardware that continued to operate long term was the lazer range finding mirror.
The point isn't just to go back, ---North American and Gruman still have the plans for Apollo we could just pay them to build more--- it's to go back and do something significantly different from last time like.... I dunno build a moonbase.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Right, and it's a simple matter of building an orbiting spacecraft factory. Tell the International Spacestation people, they'll tell you how easy that is 
.
We're going to have to start at where we left off in order to start the moon base off. We can't just throw together some parts and fly off to the moon, it's not the simple.
There's no point in just building more Apollos though. They're old tech, and using an updated design would be safer easier and ultimatly cheaper.
We don't currently have the technology to build and sustain a moon base, and we're not going to get it without knowing what our technology can do in respect to the moon, and the logical step would be to send a few craft similar to the original landers, in order to gain the experties we've essentially lost.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Gunrunner,
My point was that you can't build a runway on mars before you get there. current vtol tech may not be up to snuff, but it's something that needs to be worked on.
On Earth, regular takeoff and landing are an unnecessary risk anyway, as they are the cause of the majority of all accidents (90%). On this one I'm with Glenn Curtis, the best venue for aircraft take off and landing is the sea.
But there's no sea on mars, and no runway, so the craft has to be capable of handling that situation because ploughing into mars with a tangetial velocity of 300mph is not going to be pretty.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Jaytee,
This is not just a ploy to entertain the people. Neocons mean to turn it into a weapon immediately. With base on the moon and a series of flights, space stations, etc. they can put combat vessels into orbit and have the jump on regular air combat. Lasers and accellerator propelled projectiles can we sent from ships in orbit, while the ships themselves would be more or less unassailable. This replaces the unworkable star wars, SDI, which is unworkable because it relies on a signal which could be intercepted, blocked and possible mimicked by a sophisticated opponent, such as China (not Iran.)
Bush's Mars mission is insincere. If you heard his speech his just dangled that, and then launched right in to an 'intermediate step.' Really the intermediate step is an intermediate step, but not towards a mars mission.
For us Firefly fans, the opening here is for a real final frontier.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen,
It's just not practical. A battle fleet would need to constantly be changing personel, and possibly weapons. Even a real Mars mission would ultimately aim to do routing travel.
Finally, I'm sure the oil companies are loving that kind of fuel consumption.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm really not sure what your point is.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Mars is one big runway; there is just a bunch of rocks on it. We just need to bring the outer space equivalent of a C-130 Hercules. Landing conventionally in a short space is feasible (the Herc could land on a Carrier Deck unarrested); equipment can be brought in to clear an adequate runway for launch.
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Gunrunner,
My point was that you can't build a runway on mars before you get there. current vtol tech may not be up to snuff, but it's something that needs to be worked on.
On Earth, regular takeoff and landing are an unnecessary risk anyway, as they are the cause of the majority of all accidents (90%). On this one I'm with Glenn Curtis, the best venue for aircraft take off and landing is the sea.
But there's no sea on mars, and no runway, so the craft has to be capable of handling that situation because ploughing into mars with a tangetial velocity of 300mph is not going to be pretty.
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Jaytee,
This is not just a ploy to entertain the people. Neocons mean to turn it into a weapon immediately. With base on the moon and a series of flights, space stations, etc. they can put combat vessels into orbit and have the jump on regular air combat. Lasers and accellerator propelled projectiles can we sent from ships in orbit, while the ships themselves would be more or less unassailable. This replaces the unworkable star wars, SDI, which is unworkable because it relies on a signal which could be intercepted, blocked and possible mimicked by a sophisticated opponent, such as China (not Iran.)
WTF do they need all that to launch weapons in to orbit? The Russians deployed a working a working orbital weapons platform (called Almaz) with nothing but a Proton Rocket and a Soyuz spacecraft W/Rocket for the crew. Ever heard the joke that NASA spent millions making a pen that could write in Zero Gravity and the Russians used a Pencil?
EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen,
we hadn't docked two spacecraft in orbit before Mercury either. If we want to be able to work in space, then we have to learn how to work in space.
Yes Von Braun may have underestimated the difficulties, he had a tendency to do that, but the truth is that you don't know how hard it is until you try it, you never get better at something until you practice.
Personally I want a moonbase rather that an "flags" mission to Mars. I want space hotels and orbital factories, because when people start working up there we will develop the skills and technologies we need for a true space faring civilization.
If capsules of the Mercury era are the Wright Flyers of spacecraft and Apollo is the Spirit of St. Louis, then what we have right now is a 1930's biplane. If civil aviation had moved along as quickly then people would still be taking 20 hours to fly the Atlantic in Empire flying boats and most people would still travel by ship.
The only way to make progress is to take risks and do things, and that means pushing the envelope a little further each time.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Except we haven't done that. You can't just catch up on 40-50 years of missed research; you have to start where you left off. If everyone had stopped building airplanes after the Spirit of St. Louis then we'd have to build a spirit of St. Louis mark 2 with current technology before we could start building jet airliners.
And the Spirit of St. Louis was a mono plane .
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME