| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
captain kirk
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sojourner1
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Location: Where meggi swim and 2 wheeled tractors go sput put chug alugg pug pug
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 2:06 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Wow, it's larger than the space shuttle.
Why not have a ship that is like a jet plane, but just keeps going up to get to space? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
captain kirk
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 5:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sojourner1 wrote: |
Why not have a ship that is like a jet plane, but just keeps going up to get to space? |
I dunno, I'm not a rocket scientist. I'm just an English Teacher. But on my Summer vacation I might be able to do some research with firecrackers. Might not be up to NASA standards though.
The article says that they'll put a base at the lunar southern pole to get at hydrogen in the ice. And there's a lot of sun there. Perfect for retirement.
The missions use the space shuttle tested type boosters. Which are modified. And will be modifed again for a Mars mission.
Why did NASA wait so long to get back to the moon? Since this upcoming moon jaunt is billed as 'on the way to Mars'?
But about a spaceplane type design. I think they need landers to put down on the moon and mars. And those critters pop out of a tube rocket body section. Also the moon has no atmosphere to make wings applicable, or airports/landing strips. There are no fast food restaurants there, either. Which makes one wonder why Americans would want to go there. These astronauts are averse to hamburgers? Seems dodgy.
The spacecraft is re-usable twenty times and lands, on hard ground, supported by parachutes. Not in my backyard! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 5:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
What I'm looking forward to is the first manned asteroid mission:
http://www.space.com/news/061116_asteroid_nasa.html
It's actually quite easy to get back from an asteroid considering the almost complete lack of gravity. For an asteroid 1 km in diameter for example you need to go at about the speed of the average girl on the street on heels (about 2.5 km/h) to escape its gravity. With the Moon you need quite a bit of fuel to take off again for the trip back.
A binary asteroid just passed by the Earth on the 14th (3 days ago). The larger one was 600 metres in diameter, its moon 200 metres. It was 6 times farther away than the Moon which was very close, and was only discovered in January this year. Canada's putting up a small space telescope in 2010 made specifically to detect telescopes which might help out in detecting another one of these further ahead of time.
http://www.ucalgary.ca/news/june2008/NEOSSat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A2Steve
Joined: 10 Nov 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 5:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
NASA has a computer animation of the launch of both the rockets, and their journey to the Moon. Pretty impressive. It's one of the links on the left.
You'd think they would go with something a bit more subtle than ARES, the god of war, as the lift rocket's name. Like the US needs any more bad publicity. You'd think ATHENA, the goddess of wisdom, would be the name, but remember, it was designed in the GWB administration. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
captain kirk
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JustJohn
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Location: Your computer screen
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| *coughmarsdirectcough* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
captain kirk
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JustJohn wrote: |
| *coughmarsdirectcough* |
By 'on the way to Mars' the Nasa article meant technology, systems, skills from the new moon missions would apply to/precede a Mars Mission. And the Mars trip would, of course, be direct. Earth orbit to Mars. No stop-over at the moon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sojourner1 wrote: |
Wow, it's larger than the space shuttle.
Why not have a ship that is like a jet plane, but just keeps going up to get to space? |
Jets don't work in a vacuum and rockets aren't efficient in atmosphere. Multiple engines take up valuble weight. Basically it's all a energy/mass ratio thing. Chemical fuels are just so marginal for spaceflight.
With a SciFi powersource your idea would be doable and we'd be able to reenter without the heatshield to boot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
