Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Oh, I think that it should happen, I'm just not optimistic about it. I think humankind is far too occupied making each other miserable to strive for its only salvation, which lies in the stars.You voted not going to happen
If a SpaceX mission is successful then it will be to a great extent because they have utilised NASA experience. But so also it will be because the ITS concept is far bolder than the SLS one and SpaceX are not bound by the risk adverse culture, limited budget and lack of political focus that has crippled NASA since Apollo.
If the ship is larger, the payload larger, if there are more than one ship, if the ship is faster, then the opportunities for extra radiation shielding, extra redundancy in equipment and addition of more technologies to utilise Martian materials is all possible.
NASA could still win if the ITS never gets off the ground and there is a bolder vision from the Whitehouse. Trump is better than Obama on this but not yet a Kennedy!
According to Elon Musk, sending 12 people to Mars will cost around $10 Billion per person.
Those are some expensive tickets.
SpaceX would go broke on a one way unmanned mission, never mind a manned mission. As for "martian materials" so suddenly, these hypothetical crews are going to be doing mining or who knows what else along side scientific research? Specially when it's a civilian concern? Please.
Also Trump's been in office 8 months and hasn't done a thing about either NASA or any space program. Give me a break.
Read the full article and especially the SpaceX explanatory document. $10bn is the current price with existing tech. The aim is to get the costs down to $100,000 per person. Reusability, the ITS design, fuel depots on Mars etc all being factors for bringing costs down
But the actual Mars colony is a different project with a different management team.
You mean that building, maintaining, and supplying the colony is not factored into Musk's costs?
It is my hope the Elan Musk basically shames the worlds' governments into paving the way to Mars. As RDKirk says, we need a permanent launch station in orbit. In addition, a boatload of equipment needs to be sent ahead of the mission.
It was designed to do that. Also, it had attitude thrusters.
There was a special ablative heat shield. Back in the 60s there was a great publicity shot of a kitten sitting over a roaring bunsen burner, with only a thin heat shield in between. The kitten felt no heat at all.
Enough for the job. And the computer wasn't crippled by running Windows.
And yes, they were brilliant. NASA recruited some of the best people in the country.
The ascent stage of the lunar module had its own rocket engine, of course.
Kinetic energy is ½ m v^2. In this case, mass was 1/640 of the Saturn V, and escape velocity was 0.213 times Earth, meaning energy needed was 1/14,000 as much as for the Saturn V.
Actually, 360 kg -- a bit more than a third of a metric tonne. But they were very high-energy silver-zinc batteries -- basically giant version of watch batteries.
Or, so they say. Given the above smoke and mirrors, I would say it was taken in a basement.That was taken by the third astronaut from the CSM, which was in orbit around the moon.
I thought you said you had "investigated" this? Not very well, obviously.
I am one of the most ardent proponents of the human race getting to Mars...
And I'm a huge Elan Musk fanboy and I wish him all the best...
But the reality is, It will take a governmental agency to lay the ground work to provide the "initial" trip to Mars. Reason being, the initial infrastructure required to support a trip and risks are just too high for a commercial entity to absorb into their Return on Investment calculations. One could quite literally burn through a tens of billions of dollars and a dozen human lives prior to getting a successful Mars mission. And then, once we get a successful Mars mission, turning an actual profit is going to take some time as well.
It is my hope the Elan Musk basically shames the worlds' governments into paving the way to Mars. As RDKirk says, we need a permanent launch station in orbit. In addition, a boatload of equipment needs to be sent ahead of the mission.
Actually, that $100,000 number is the cost per person if more than a million people go. But those kind of numbers won't sign up unless a small-scale colony has been going for some years.
It's kind of ironic.
There is an old SF movie "Destination Moon" released in 1950, written by one of the old SF greats Robert Heinlein. The movie is rather dull, but very much like "2001: A Space Odyssey" in its detailed depiction of what they critically thought space travel would entail at the time.
The first part of the movie involved an Elan Musk-type character putting the mission together as a commercial venture--explicitly because a moon landing would be too large, expensive, and take too much manpower and brainpower for any government to entertain.
That was a revelation of actual pre-military-industrial complex thinking in the era before the Cold War took over. That was back when the US government scaled up for war, then scaled way, way, way back after the war concluded.
But back then, we did have the gigantic Howard Hughes figures, and perhaps Elan Musk is one like that.
Of course! That's it! What was I thinking? It fell, perfectly aligned so that the heat shield took the friction....due to their "designing it that way".......that rules out any possible reasons for it being total nonsense.....
Sheesh, they could tell you anything was "designed that way" and you would believer it? This is where believing anything without investigating it's truth...........it dangerous.
As for "attitude Thrusters"........again....where was the fuel for such devices? They would have had to be very powerful to combat the incredible wind shear of their thrust and there is no way that the computer technology at that time could compensate for the intricate adjustments that would have been necessary.
People believe this because they watched all the space fiction at the time and you can do anything in fiction... applications to real life are impossible.
Nice! They use a big word like "ablative" and everyone swallows it.
ab·la·tive
ˈablədiv/
adjective
adjective: ablative
noun
- 1.
Grammar
relating to or denoting a case (especially in Latin) of nouns and pronouns (and words in grammatical agreement with them) indicating separation or an agent, instrument, or location.- 2.
(of surgical treatment) involving ablation.- 3.
relating to or subject to ablation through melting or evaporation.
"the spacecraft's ablative heat shield"
Grammar
noun: ablative; plural noun: ablatives
1.
a word in the ablative case.
Whoa........ now that explains it..... well not really.... well not at all.....
So, this Bunsen burner was able to heat this "ablative" heat shield to temperatures equal to those that would have been experienced on the underside of the capsule? That would be 2706 degrees Celsius to 5000 degrees Celsius or higher at mach 20 to 50...
The hottest part of the Bunsen flame, which is found just above the tip of the primary flame, reaches about 1,500 °C (2,700 °F). With too little air, the gas mixture will not burn completely and will form tiny carbon particles that are heated to glowing, making the flame luminous.
From:Bunsen burner.
Anyone for fired kitty?
Yet, there are still brilliant people at NASA that cannot go to the moon today due to this "lost" technology and computers that are billions of times faster and DO NOT have to run windows to operate.
Any computer can run without being hobbled by Windows. Windows is just an interface between user and other computer languages. It is not mandatory and my kids graphing calculator has more power than the Apollo computers and does not operate on Windows.
Can you please post a picture of this "ascent stage" showing where it hid these "rocket engines"?
There is absolutely no place or room for these supposed engine on the portion that took them from the moon to the command module. This is the engine that was supposed to get them off the moon. What a joke.
Nice math. However, the mass of the Saturn V was all FUEL. Fuel needed to get the small tiny payload out of earths gravitational pull.
So, showing math is a brilliant smoke screen but still does not negate the fact that you would need significantly more rocket fuel than is in the tiny little compartment above the impressive but useless nozzel shown in the fake ascent vehicle.
The moon is not zero gravity... it still has 1/6 of the earths gravity... but when someone asks a tough question...... hit them with "MATH". I don't fall for that nonsense.
This could be. I have to head out the door so cannot investigate right now.
Or, so they say. Given the above smoke and mirrors, I would say it was taken in a basement.
I read through your reply and even watched the video of the astronaut "supposedly" saying we don't have the technology "anymore" to go to the moon.
I would like to clarify what he said.
He said we destroyed the technology we used to get to the moon. This could be an absolutely true statement. We've only been to the moon a handful of times way way way back in late 60s and 70s. The technology used to get to the moon back then would be so obsolete now that maintaining it would make zero economic sense especially since technology has evolved.
You are focusing on the wrong thing. Not having the technological gadgets of yesteryear is "different" than not having the technological means to recreate or even improve upon the gadgets of yesteryear.
Do you understand the difference?
THere are tons of things in which we "no longer have the technology". There are thousands of widgets and gadgets of the 18th and 19th and even 20th century that have become obsolete and/or not maintained. However, that is "different" than technological means. For the most part, we still have the "Technological means" to recreate that lost technology or a better modern analogue....
one of the rare instances I will disagree with you.Here is something I know we can't do: We cannot build another SR-71 reconnaissance plane.
In fact, we couldn't build another even in the late 80s. The tooling had already been destroyed by Congressional order, and the few times we tried to get replacement parts built, the efforts failed horribly.
We got a new set of U-2 aircraft in the early 80s that were supposed to be plug-in capable clones of the original U-2 aircraft...but they weren't. The new fleet was rather like getting a Windows update...some old applications worked, some didn't. Technicians had to do a whole lot of runway modifications.
Hard to imagine, but US manufacturing capability of the 60s was already crumbling by the late 80s.
Supposedly Lockheed-Martin has plans to build a true hyper-MACH followon to the SR-71, and I don't doubt they have the technology to do so (although I doubt there is the political will to do so, and I don't think there is an operational need for it). But they don't have the ability to build another SR-71.
one of the rare instances I will disagree with you.
but...
Depends by what you mean by build "another" SR-71.
If you mean build an exact SR-71 then I can agree with you. I've done R&D and I can tell you from first hand experience that there is a little bit of "art" that goes into building a technological wonder and if you destroy the tooling then yeah, getting an exact SR-71 will be impossible.
however, building something "equivalent or better" to the SR-71 is something that we can do if we are willing to spend the money, time, and resources to do so.
So could we build an exact replica of the original moon missiles, rockets, and ships. No. No we cannot. However, we can build something better.
Supposedly Lockheed-Martin has plans to build a true hyper-MACH followon to the SR-71, and I don't doubt they have the technology to do so
Do you understand the difference?
THere are tons of things in which we "no longer have the technology". There are thousands of widgets and gadgets of the 18th and 19th and even 20th century that have become obsolete and/or not maintained. However, that is "different" than technological means. For the most part, we still have the "Technological means" to recreate that lost technology or a better modern analogue...
reading through your reply, you are hell bent on believing the moon landing was fake.
Can I ask you a serious question? Was launching of Sputnik fake?
Don't know.What about Voyager?
Fake fake fakeWhat about the Mars lander?
Fake fake fake... all the images are nothing but CGI. Want to prove me wrong? Have them zoom in on Pluto or Jupiter or any other object in our solar system instead of looking light years out into our galaxy... show us a good clear in focus shot.... nothing is anything but CGI.What about Hubble Telescope
Seriously? Have you not researched this at all. They are making all kinds of mistakes....The videos of the women with rigid hair sprayed hair is hilarious. Then there are the ones where the guys have pulls in their shirts where their harnesses are attached. It's just an insult to our intelligence to believe that they are up there with the pathetic videos they use to try to show us where they are.and the Space Station?
The reason I ask is that it is all along the same "level of technology".
in effect, lets say that I am putting forth the argument that Blue Ray DVD's are fake and an impossible technology. I claim that it is "impossible" to put a movie on a DVD.
Now, someone hands me a CD. A CD is a very similar technology to a DVD, it uses lasers to read the information, it digitizes the information into 1s and 0s just like a DVD. If CDs exist and CDs are the same technological principles and level as a DVD, then why would I find it so hard to believe that BLue Ray DVD's exist. But for some reason I do.
Then, you bring me a normal DVD that uses the red laser, so not blue ray, but still, pretty darn close. Works on the exact same principle as Blue Ray DVDs just uses a different laser and has lessor capabilities but fundamentally is very similar. Would it make sense for me to still maintain that Blue Rays are just "impossible".
The moon landing and going to the moon is in the same "level" of technology as launching Sputnik, sending probes to Mars and Jupiter and beyond, building the International Space Station, putting satellites into orbit, etc etc.
See, you believe that the technology exists. You believe it because the ones that are perpetrating the lie are the same ones telling you that the technology exists.It is cognitive dissonance of a very high order to still maintain something is "fake" when equivalent technology and actions are readily available and all over the place.
Thus, the only logical way you can believe the moon landing was fake is if you likewise believe a lot of other stuff is fake too.,
I don't think it is impossible to make an object orbit the earth.... But... humans, to the moon... nope.That is the only way to be logically consistent. If you believe the moon landing was fake then you should also believe that satellites are fake,
probes launched to Mars and Jupiter etc are fake, that the hubble telescope is fake, and that the International Space Station is fake.
Don't know
Don't know.
Fake fake fake Fake fake fake... all the images are nothing but CGI. Want to prove me wrong? Have them zoom in on Pluto or Jupiter or any other object in our solar system instead of looking light years out into our galaxy... show us a good clear in focus shot.... nothing is anything but CGI.
Seriously? Have you not researched this at all. They are making all kinds of mistakes....The videos of the women with rigid hair sprayed hair is hilarious. Then there are the ones where the guys have pulls in their shirts where their harnesses are attached. It's just an insult to our intelligence to believe that they are up there with the pathetic videos they use to try to show us where they are.
Going to the moon with three live humans.... landing, walking around, driving a buggy, picking up rocks, blasting off again and coming back to earth is far far more difficult than an orbiting mail box.
I don't see how this argument is even close to being a parallel. Nothing has been proven by anything or anyone... It's all presented by NASA with a large enough budget to fake it all and make really good movies.
Not even close... or... they would not be stumped by a simple thing like protecting the astronauts from the radiation of the Van Allen Belts ... Which posed no problem or adverse health affects 48 years ago.
See, you believe that the technology exists. You believe it because the ones that are perpetrating the lie are the same ones telling you that the technology exists.
We do not have the technology... never had it.
We do, however, have the ability, technology and they have the $$$ to make really good movies that show fictional things taking place while telling everyone they are real events. Compare the movie "Gravity" with the space walks of today.
Like what?
I don't think it is impossible to make an object orbit the earth.... But... humans, to the moon... nope.
The ISS is underwater, the astronauts are on green screen, the vomit comet, and hung by slings in a studio. The girls hair is ridiculous.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?