Darn right those Eagles could get the job done, maybe NASA should look at a lil Space 1999 to give them some inspiration. Apollo 2.0 is kind of boring.( in reference to dont panics post)
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New Manned Mission To the Moon in 2015
- Thread starter Mr. Anderson
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think that show is way too old for many members to remember. But I had a Centuri model rocket that had a nose shaped like an Eagle... I loved that show!Don't panic said:and then we can go a-exploring!
jayscheuerle
macrumors 68020
Lord Blackadder said:
The main problem with Mars has nothing to do with rockets. It has to do with habitats, sustaining life and the psychological stress. The rockets are the easy part.
What's equally important as getting people TO mars is getting them BACK. Ideally we'd have astronauts that are willing to die there.
More than we could ever hope to do. Orbital mechanics are pretty stable. Unless we started shooting vast portions of the moon off in some constant stream, nothing measurable would change. Seriously... it would take an unimaginable amount of mass transfer outside the Earth-Moon system.2jaded2care said:
Unless, of course, as Don't panic showed, the Moon is hurled out of Earth orbit by a massive explosion in Nuclear Waste Disposal Area 2, where nuclear waste from Earth has been dumped and stored on the dark side of the Moon.
I still have the first editions of the books from Space 1999 first season. 
Nasa needs to build a real spaceship and not more apollo stuff. They need a low orbit vehicle and they need a real spaceship to explore the inner Solar system. Not Apollo 2.0. They just cant seem to let go of that darn pork barrel pig shuttle program can they...
Nasa needs to build a real spaceship and not more apollo stuff. They need a low orbit vehicle and they need a real spaceship to explore the inner Solar system. Not Apollo 2.0. They just cant seem to let go of that darn pork barrel pig shuttle program can they...
In a sense, it has a lot to do with the propulsion systems - if we could get people and cargo there and back faster, then the other issues would be significantly reduced.jayscheuerle said:
Mr. Anderson said:
I agree with that; I support space exploration generally, but I think that this concept has very little scientific reason to exist.
Don't Hurt Me said:
Building NASA spacecraft isn't like building Honda Civics. It isn't even like building F-22 Raptors, Nimitz-class supercarriers or Seawolf-class hunter-killer subs.
NASA spacecraft are beyond the state of the art, handbuilt scientific instruments/vehicles that go into the most hostile environment that exists, and yet must function flawlessly every time (yes, I know they don't, but they are very reliable for their complexity and bespoke nature).
One of the main reasons for the extended timeframes are that the current proposed program is under much more financial restriciton than cold-war era programs. Also, the proposed budget is probably significantly larger than what NASA expects to get, since they doubtless anticipate a fight in congress for the $$$. They know the program will be trimmed so they make a wish list of everything they want to do, make a cost estimate and then allow the extra bits to get trimmed, leaving the core items funded.
There are issues with aspects of NASA's contracts for hardware and other financial woes but it is very difficult to show the direct fiscal benefit of any research program to the bean counters; I should know since I work in a research lab - research has lots of benefits but they are very hard to quantify (especially before the fact) since research by it's very nature has an unpredictable outcome. NASA does not make money, but it provides us with a great deal of valuable research that can be very profitable
jayscheuerle said:
I disagree; I think that getting there and back is paramount. Once we have a reliable means of transportation we will be able to learn how to become successful space travelers and alien residents. We need data on Mars that can only come from manned missions if we want to attempt some kind of long-term visit - and we need to get there to get that data.
Perhaps but they aint showing much vision with Apollo 2.0. for the most part its still more shuttle minus the plane. They need to be working on that Nuclear Ion drive and a ship to house it. Not Apollo 2.0 again. We need low earth orbit and we need a "real spaceship" not an apollo redo. Shuttle will have us floundering around in low earth orbit for yet another 10-20 years it looks like and then we get Apollo 2.0 after waiting a decade?
My two main criticisms of the plan are:
1. I'm not sure that lunar exploration will greatly facilitate "further space exploration" if the target is Mars. They present different challenges that aren't necessarily compatible.
2. The spacecraft is dependent on shuttle technology which is currently under scrutiny for being sub-standard. The capabilities are good, but there are questions as to the safety and economy. It sounds like they are just trying to keep contracters in business. If they do use shuttle engines (reliable) that implies use of the troubled main fuel tank (foam disintigration issues). These problems can be dealt with; hopefully they will.
I wonder if NASA is planning on replacing the shuttles entirely with capsules that use shuttle propulsive technology (i.e. the proposed lunar craft).
1. I'm not sure that lunar exploration will greatly facilitate "further space exploration" if the target is Mars. They present different challenges that aren't necessarily compatible.
2. The spacecraft is dependent on shuttle technology which is currently under scrutiny for being sub-standard. The capabilities are good, but there are questions as to the safety and economy. It sounds like they are just trying to keep contracters in business. If they do use shuttle engines (reliable) that implies use of the troubled main fuel tank (foam disintigration issues). These problems can be dealt with; hopefully they will.
I wonder if NASA is planning on replacing the shuttles entirely with capsules that use shuttle propulsive technology (i.e. the proposed lunar craft).
jayscheuerle
macrumors 68020
jayscheuerle
macrumors 68020
jsw said:
Sure, but why not just BEAM them there instead?
The idea of a Mars trip has more in common with life in a submarine than the Apollo missions.
Though technology exists for propulsion that EVENTUALLY reaches a higher speed, 1930s rocket technology is what we will continue to use for the foreseeable future as it has rapid acceleration.
jayscheuerle
macrumors 68020
Lord Blackadder said:
Reliability is key, but what we need is a revolutionary jump in propulsion systems. We really can't go much of ANYWHERE with our current technology and approach. What takes us fragile creatures on trips that don't require many months or years has yet to be invented.
That is the holy grail of space travel. Its what Nasa should be focusing on along with a easy fast and safe way to low orbit. We aint making Mars if it takes humans a year or more to get there and a year or more coming back. We can make Mars if we can do it in a month or two.jayscheuerle said:
jayscheuerle
macrumors 68020
Dont Hurt Me said:
Right. And Mars is celestially close. Venus is closest, but its rather inhospitable. Jupiter is almost 7 times further away than Mars. Saturn almost 15 times further! Unless we can get off on exploring the vacuum of space, we've got NOWHERE to go if we're stuck using rockets as our primary method of acceleration.
Of course, there's always the anti-Earth, orbiting exactly opposite from us on the other side of the sun, where we each have a mirror-image twin, writing is from right to left and screws tighten counterclockwise..
Journey to the Far Side of the Sun
jayscheuerle said:
I just don't think robots can tell us everything we want to know about humans in a Martian environment.
For example, the effects of weightlessness on the human body were poorly understood for years after space travel became relatively routine. It took years of research with astronauts in space to understand how best to cope with a zero-g environment.
jayscheuerle
macrumors 68020
Lord Blackadder said:
Sure, there's no better way to tell if humans can exist on Mars than to put us there, but surely there is a whole lot more to learn about Mars that doesn't require us to be guinea pigs or even worse, sacrificial lambs.
I'd say that to send humans there with as little as we know at this point is pretty reckless. There's plenty of time for good science to be done and knowledge to be gained before we go gunnin' for something that brings back more drama than any practical information. The rush to send people to Mars at a time when we're still not very good at sending ANYTHING there (Mars=bad track record) is nothing but political posturing akin to the Apollo Moon landings. Flags will be waved, trumpets will be blown, yet very little will be learned about the body we land on.
What's the rush? Mars isn't going anywhere... Better to do it right than to do it rushed.
New Lunar Order
THE NEW LUNAR ORDER
ALL YOU CAN EAT SUSHI AND RULE ON THE MOON
Six billion and counting.
Scientists suggest that the planet can't sustain our growth for much longer. Soon we'll have to go someplace else. Anyplace else. And the European Space Agency believes that the first moon colony may be only 20 years away.
But then what? What happens when everyone arrives? Who's in charge of collecting taxes, fixing potholes and taking out the trash?
David Beers is an editior and journalist and the author of Blue Sky Dream, an autobiography about growing up in an aerospace family. Ken Green is the chief scientist and director of the Environment & Risk program at the Fraser Institute, a pubic policy thinktank.
Footing the bill for an all-you-can-eat sushi dinner, we asked these two thinkers one question: What should the first lunar government look like? ....
From the CBC Radio 3 / 2.3 / September 19 - 25, 2003:broken_keyboard said:
THE NEW LUNAR ORDER
ALL YOU CAN EAT SUSHI AND RULE ON THE MOON
Six billion and counting.
Scientists suggest that the planet can't sustain our growth for much longer. Soon we'll have to go someplace else. Anyplace else. And the European Space Agency believes that the first moon colony may be only 20 years away.
But then what? What happens when everyone arrives? Who's in charge of collecting taxes, fixing potholes and taking out the trash?
David Beers is an editior and journalist and the author of Blue Sky Dream, an autobiography about growing up in an aerospace family. Ken Green is the chief scientist and director of the Environment & Risk program at the Fraser Institute, a pubic policy thinktank.
Footing the bill for an all-you-can-eat sushi dinner, we asked these two thinkers one question: What should the first lunar government look like? ....
Attachments
jayscheuerle said:
What you say rings true from a politcal standpoint but I don't think that NASA will be going there until they feel the time is ripe for a manned mission. Anyway it's a moot point as we are decades, possibly even a lifetime, away from actually making the attempt. And by then we will have a lot more data from robots (heck, at the rate Spirit and Opportunity are going they'll still be driving around when we get there).
Personally I don't belive that space exploration driven by politics will happen; cooler heads will prevail, and if that doesn't work a divided congress will sit on the funding.
The big hurdle at the moment seems to be Earth Orbit. America is so locked into shuttle it cant make orbit today or tomorrow? Even this new program is still shuttle and old apollo.
I think a better way is to concentrate on cheap safe Earth orbit and concentrate on a vehicle that we can use for pure space travel that wont be thrown away at every launch. Apollo 2.0 throws most of the stuff away and still requires 2 launches and tons of fuel every time to break Earth's gravity. Example is with only 1/7 the gravity of Earth we could have a spaceship that can go to lunar orbit and lob down lil landers,supplies etc. The Lets shoot everything directly from the earth to the moon is just waste. Do it from the ISS aboard the new real spaceship that is space rated and can go back and forth from the moon to the ISS or even Mars later. Nuclear is still the way for space travel not chemicals. Apollo 2.0 is going to kill off another 2 decades of exploration while feeding the pork barrel pig known as Shuttle only without the shuttle. In the end in the year 2020 we will be little ahead of where we are today or where we were in the 60s.
I think a better way is to concentrate on cheap safe Earth orbit and concentrate on a vehicle that we can use for pure space travel that wont be thrown away at every launch. Apollo 2.0 throws most of the stuff away and still requires 2 launches and tons of fuel every time to break Earth's gravity. Example is with only 1/7 the gravity of Earth we could have a spaceship that can go to lunar orbit and lob down lil landers,supplies etc. The Lets shoot everything directly from the earth to the moon is just waste. Do it from the ISS aboard the new real spaceship that is space rated and can go back and forth from the moon to the ISS or even Mars later. Nuclear is still the way for space travel not chemicals. Apollo 2.0 is going to kill off another 2 decades of exploration while feeding the pork barrel pig known as Shuttle only without the shuttle. In the end in the year 2020 we will be little ahead of where we are today or where we were in the 60s.
jayscheuerle
macrumors 68020
Maybe instead of new propulsion systems, we need to invent is a pill that squelches the desire to personally travel to other cosmic bodies. It's a bit crazy. A series of robots can do 99% of what humans can do, but we just have an urge to go there. Never mind that just a few people have actually gone to the Moon. We ALL feel like we have, like we checked it off a list. I imagine it's incredibly frustrating for us as a species that has explored our home planet so thoroughly (above water!), to be stuck with the reality that space is mostly empty and that there are limits to what we are able to visit out there. Outside of our fantastic dreams (and we DO want them so to be true!), the depressing reality is that we're pretty much confined to our home planet for the foreseeable future.
All I want is a darn flying car!
Hmm... smoking pot kills motivation if memory serves me right (another thing it kills), so maybe we should just get the current administration high (too late!)...
All I want is a darn flying car!
Hmm... smoking pot kills motivation if memory serves me right (another thing it kills), so maybe we should just get the current administration high (too late!)...
It kills motivation but it expands innovation Nasa needs to dream a little harder and a lil weed may just be the ticket.
Nasa needs to dream a little harder and a lil weed may just be the ticket.
MSNBC is reporting that the shuttle like it has done for years is sucking all those $$$ down the beauracratic drain while sitting in a garage, 1.5 billion for foam that still cracks and now Nasa crying about shuttle its using up so much money it wont get Apollo 2.0 off the ground. Our Space Program is a gigantic mess i will concede, grounded going nowhere and yet they continue to want to hold onto the PIG known as Shuttle. Beam me up Scotty this planet doesnt want to explore space, just the appearance of a space program. We need a new non political space agency who has a goal of exploring space instead of Pork. Happy thanksgiving you pork explorers.