Possible Return of Apollo

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by wdlove, Sep 16, 2003.

  1. wdlove macrumors P6

    wdlove

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    #1
  2. Doctor Q Administrator

    Doctor Q

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #2
    Capsules are easier to launch, which may be a safety advantage. If we have any plans to return to the moon (maybe to pick up our garbage?), a capsule can be used where a shuttle could not because it can make a make a higher speed return to Earth from outside the Earth's atmosphere. I assume that capsules would limit the crew size, as in the Apollo threesomes, and that would limit the versatility of the crew since you'd depend on pilots at the expense of researchers, teachers, tourists, etc.
     
  3. tpjunkie macrumors 65816

    tpjunkie

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2002
    Location:
    NYC
    #3
    NASA needs to stop dwelling on its past acheivements and move forward with new innovations....it could learn something from apple in that department.
     
  4. Stelliform macrumors 68000

    Stelliform

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    #4
    I just wish we would return to the moon before monkeys evolve enough to beat us back....
     
  5. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #5
    Who says that the dinosaurs weren't already there? ;)
     
  6. Stelliform macrumors 68000

    Stelliform

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    #6
    Could be, and they were just a bit more tidy than we are. ;) :D
     
  7. patrick0brien macrumors 68040

    patrick0brien

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    The West Loop
    #7
    Speaking of future innovation:

    What happened to the magrail?!? There was an excellent way to get to orbit.
     
  8. Doctor Q Administrator

    Doctor Q

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #8
    I watched a bit of "Escape from the Planet of the Apes" last night. Sounds like you did too!
     
  9. Stelliform macrumors 68000

    Stelliform

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    #9
    Well I was originally going to say Chinese, but then I thought Monkeys sounded funnier, but now I am thinking I am being an arrogant american by thinking we are the only space program... :rolleyes: Ugh it is hard to be politically correct to the whole world. :D

    By the way the Chinese look like they are on their way!
     
  10. patrick0brien macrumors 68040

    patrick0brien

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    The West Loop
    #10
    -Stelliform

    Let's hope they make it. NASA could use the competitive spirit again.
     
  11. wdlove thread starter macrumors P6

    wdlove

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    #11
    Beside the update computers they plan for crew space of 6 - 7. Some in NASA want to return to the moon, only the capsule allows that. They may consider flying the shuttle unmanned for taking large items to the space station. It's not likely that Congress will allow another 10 years for the shuttle, due to busget restraints!


    Shuttle Advantages
    Heavier payload
    Can travel farther

    Capsule Advantages
    Proven design
    Fits 6 astronauts

    Shuttle Disadvantages
    Safety record
    Fragile heat tiles

    Capsule Disadvantages
    Limited quarters
    Smaller payload

    Needed to readjust chart!
     
  12. stoid macrumors 601

    stoid

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2002
    Location:
    So long, and thanks for all the fish!
    #12
    Here's a cute little NASA story

    Thought this made a lot of sense!! (Horse sense, that is!)


    How Specifications Live Forever (a story of great engineering)!
    ============================================

    When you see a space shuttle sitting on the launch pad, there are two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are the solid rocket boosters, or SRBs.

    The SRBs are made by Morton Thiokol at a factory in Utah.

    Originally, the engineers who designed the SRBs wanted to make them much fatter than they are. Unfortunately, the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch site in Florida and the railroad line runs through a tunnel in the mountains. The SRBs had to be made to fit through that tunnel.

    Now, the width of that tunnel is just a little wider than the U.S. Standard Railroad Gauge (distance between the rails) of 4 feet, 8.5 inches.

    That's an exceedingly odd number. Did you ever wonder why that gauge was used? Because US railroads were designed and built by English expatriates, and that's the way they built them in England.

    Okay, then why did the English engineers build them like that?

    Because the first rail lines of the 19th century were built by the same craftsmen who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used.

    I'll bite, why did those craftsmen choose that gauge? Because they used the same jigs and tools that were previously used for building wagons, and you guessed it, the wagons used that wheel spacing.

    Now I feel like a fish on a hook! Why did the wagons use that odd wheel spacing?

    Well, if the wagon makers and wheelwrights of the time tried to use any other spacing, the wheel ruts on some of the old, long distance roads would break the wagon axles. As a result, the wheel spacing of the wagons had to match the spacing of the wheel ruts worn into those ancient European roads.

    So who built those ancient roads?

    The first long distance roads in Europe were built by Imperial Rome for the benefit of their legions. The roads have been used ever since.

    And the ruts?

    The initial ruts, which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their wagons, were first made by Roman war chariots.

    And since the chariots were made by Imperial Roman chariot makers, they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing.

    Well, here we are. We now have the answer to the original question. The United States standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches derives from the original specification for an Imperial Roman army war chariot.

    Specs and bureaucracies live forever.

    That's nice to know, but it still doesn't answer why the Imperial Roman war chariot designers chose to spec the chariot's wheel spacing at exactly 4 feet, 8.5 inches.

    Are you ready?

    Because that was the width needed to accommodate the rear ends of two Imperial Roman war horses!!!

    Well, now you have it. The railroad tunnel through which the late 20th century space shuttle SRBs must pass was excavated slightly wider than two 1st century horses' butts.

    Consequently, a major design feature of what is arguably the world's most advanced transportation system was spec'd by the width of a horse's behind!

    So, the next time you are handed a specification and wonder what horses' rear end came up with it, you may be exactly right. Now you know what is "behind" it all.

    -Unknown Author
     
  13. dotcomlarry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Akron, PA
    #13
    Except, the SRBs are 12 feet wide. :-/
     
  14. patrick0brien macrumors 68040

    patrick0brien

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    The West Loop
    #14
    -stoid

    I just distributed that to my law frim :D

    -dotcomlarry

    True, however, it's conceivable that the pieces, need to conform.
     
  15. dotcomlarry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Akron, PA
    #15
    Well, since there are only four pieces to each 149' long booster, each piece would be roughly 12'x37'... but, eh, I'm not a rocket scientist.
     
  16. patrick0brien macrumors 68040

    patrick0brien

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    The West Loop
    #16
    -dotcomlarry

    Are those sections single-part? Or made of smaller components?
     
  17. dotcomlarry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Akron, PA
    #17
    I would imagine, since the booster is all solid propellant, that it's just 4 sections and not a bunch of smaller ones.
     
  18. patrick0brien macrumors 68040

    patrick0brien

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    The West Loop
    #18
    -dotcomlarry

    Ok then! I suppose it blows that story then!
     
  19. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #19
    just saw this thread, listen capsules are 60's technology . we dont need to be going backward though Nasa is doing a good job at it. we need a spaceplane that can be launched anywhere and landed anywhere. this makes for versatility, while a capsule is like nasa giving up and using what grandpa was using.
     
  20. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #20
    sorry for the double but nasa has lost its vision with to many failed projects,billions of dollars down the drain, 2 shuttles and crews lost, X-33??? etc. what they need are less politicians,beuracrats,& govt and more of what scaled composits are doing.
     

    Attached Files:

  21. ColoJohnBoy macrumors 65816

    ColoJohnBoy

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2003
    Location:
    Denver, Colorado
    #21
    Re: Possible Return of Apollo

    Yes, the disaster free space program that caused the deaths of three men inside an Apollo space capsule in 1967! No problems at all!

    I apologize for the sarcasm, but there's always going to be risk no matter the equipment or skill of its handlers. Stuff happens, and our job is to learn from past mistakes and press on in spite of them.
     
  22. hvfsl macrumors 68000

    hvfsl

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2001
    Location:
    London, UK
    #22
    We need a space plane, that is bigger and faster than the shuttle. Maybe NASA can use the anti-gravity drive they are working on (if they can get it to work). The craft has to be something that can take off and land under its own power. A sphere or saurcer shape craft would probably be a better than the bird shape craft they use at the moment.

    I have found two good designs for a (bird like) space plane.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  23. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #23
    this is what nasa needs or something close. we can move the big stuff many ways but we need to move people from anywhere and land them anywhere. now space will be opened.
     

    Attached Files:

  24. patrick0brien macrumors 68040

    patrick0brien

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    The West Loop
    #24
    -Dont Hurt Me

    'Big' is right - but I'm referring to the graphic.
     
  25. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #25
    wish i could resize , iam so sorry for using up such space and making it hard to look at. please forgive. but we do need a dependable people mover to & from orbit, then we need to build a science spaceship that is used over & over.
     

Share This Page