Sidebar Sidebar
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

jane doe said:
Water is a good idea, I've heard others mention that before. I would ask a metallurgist if there was not a option with less mass. When you are talking about translunar flights, every gram counts ;)
Click to expand...


once you get it going between the earth and moon on a loop, just using adjustments to keep the it on track, you wouldn't need to have any major burns since you're not landing or slowing down to stay in a static orbit.

The same approach can be used for Mars shuttles.

D
 
jayscheuerle said:
People are more disposable in their culture. This is about their nation, not about their astronauts.
Click to expand...
I think you meant people are more "disposable in thier government" right?
 
Mr. Anderson said:
once you get it going between the earth and moon on a loop, just using adjustments to keep the it on track, you wouldn't need to have any major burns since you're not landing or slowing down to stay in a static orbit.

The same approach can be used for Mars shuttles.

D
Click to expand...

Now I can almost see the Earth and the Moon being a static orbit, but the Earth and Mars? They vary quite a bit in distance apart AND you're going to need to fly by the Sun when they're on opposite sides of it and I'd assume THAT would impart a bit of a velocity change, no?
 
jayscheuerle said:
No. Their culture. Their government as well, but let's just say that you wouldn't like to try your odds as a girl baby.
Click to expand...
I don't wanna get off topic, but its kind of not nice to say that, maybe in china its more conservative than it is in america but china also has many different cultures there not just the one that many see from the outside...
 
Fukui said:
I don't wanna get off topic, but its kind of not nice to say that, maybe in china its more conservative than it is in america but china also has many different cultures there not just the one that many see from the outside...
Click to expand...


Well my biggest question is how are the chinese astronauts going to eat in zero g with chop sticks?

I find it hard enough to chase down a damn noodle sitting here on earth in my office. don't even get me started on won ton soup. :)
 
Fukui said:
I don't wanna get off topic, but its kind of not nice to say that, maybe in china its more conservative than it is in america but china also has many different cultures there not just the one that many see from the outside...
Click to expand...

True enough, but "nice" shouldn't be a concern. I'll cop to a sweeping generalization that obviously can't apply to everyone, but perhaps we can agree that China has a PR problem as far as human rights are concerned?

Believe me, I've got plenty of "not nice" things I could say about my own country and often do.

In this case though, I was thinking that the attributes that make up China today are going to be the ones that make it a true modern superpower much faster than anyone believes. Modern in ways that the U.S. cannot be in a timely fashion because we have infrastructure and aged political ties that hinder our progress on many directions. China just does it while we bicker about whether it's a good idea or not. They're already practicing their wave into the rear-view mirror as we struggle to know what hit us.
 
jayscheuerle said:
In this case though, I was thinking that the attributes that make up China today are going to be the ones that make it a true modern superpower much faster than anyone believes. Modern in ways that the U.S. cannot be in a timely fashion because we have infrastructure and aged political ties that hinder our progress on many directions. China just does it while we bicker about whether it's a good idea or not. They're already practicing their wave into the rear-view mirror as we struggle to know what hit us.
Click to expand...
Thats for sure. Outside of a major disaster, china will be THE PLACE to be if you want to do business. It is scary thier government is not really caring about human rights, but I'm sure from thier perspective thats just unnecessary red-tape, and they know this.

If I could crawl into the head of the chinese leadership I think what they plan is to put china's economy into orbit so-to-speak and build thier cities and value up, then maybe some day they can have time for things like elections and human rights...

You can bet Japan's govt. is scared real bad about china which is about the only reason they support the U.S right now...

The trully sad thing is that china's second "great leap forward" continues to destroy what remains left of thier culture from the first time... thats a real casualty for sure.
 
Why not have Apple take over the moon and mars missions? iShuttle, PowerShuttle? ShuttleMini? ShuttleShuffle? Good design, good quality, AppleCare in case we get more Challengers and Columbias.

But seriously, we'll never get to Mars using neolithic chemical engines. What the hell is up with this outdated technology? Black ops military is 30-50 years ahead of mainstream technology and operates on billions of dollars worth of black funding every year. If they shared their toys instead of amassing yet more power through secrecy, within five years we could have an antigravity fleet taking all of NASA to Mars in less time than a 747 flight from New York to Paris. NASA is a joke, they should focus on sailing west to see if the earth is round.
 
jane doe said:
This is urban legend... NASA sent out a RFP (request for proposal) and a company called Fisher answered with a pen that used compressed nitrogen to ensure ink flow.
Click to expand...
You peaked my interest, so I did a little research! :D

Fisher did develop the space pen on their own for it's commercial market potential.

NASA did not send out an RFP as per the usual method it seems. Rather Fisher offered the pen to NASA after it was developed in 1965. However, because of the mechanical pen issue (see below) NASA was hesitant to order the pens at that time and waited until 1967 after the pen had been rigorously tested.

Cost to NASA was either $6 per NASA page or $2.95 per other pages.

All accounts that I found said that the order was for 400 pens.

Development cost was between 1 million and 2 million in 60s dollars depending on the source. Adjusting to today's dollars, using 3.5% per year inflation rate, the development cost is easily millions in today's dollars. In this case the company bore the full development cost vice the government (NASA).

Apparently the Soviet Union also purchased 100 Fisher Space Pens to use in their program.

On a side note, the Fisher Space Pen was not the first writing instrument developed for space. Apparently there was a mechanical pencil developed for NASA in 1965 by Tycam Engineering Manufacturing, Inc., in Houston. The cost for 34 units was $128.89 per pen or $4,382.50 for the lot of 34. Adjusted for inflation, the cost per mechanical pencil would be $521.61!

The outlandish cost of this mechanical pencil contributed to the delay in purchasing the Fisher Space Pen it seems.

Anyhow, just some interesting history tidbits.

I really recommend "Skunk Works" by Ben Rich for those interested in the high tech aerospace industry. You can even see how Kotex® (yes, the feminine care product) was used to solve a critical problem with the U2.

...isn't history fun! ;) :D

Sushi
 
jayscheuerle said:
The same tech that has a FAR better track record than the Space Shuttle.
Click to expand...
You make an interesting point.

Having used/fired a variety of Soviet made weapons, I can tell you first hand that their devices work. They may not be the best, nor the most complex, but they do work and work well.

No matter how good the technology is, if it doesn't work when you need it, then it is worthless.

When you are taking a shot at Mars or farther out, if it breaks you are dead in the water unless you have the capability to self-repair. On a long trip you can only repair so much so things need to be as reliable as possible. Our unmanned space exploration has shown us this fact.

The extremes of space are hard to deal with. One of the huge design challenges of the Space Shuttle was the doors due to the temperature extremes. The doors need to be able to be opened or closed at all times. This required extensive testing and redesign to ensure that they would function either way at any time.

To me, space exploration is a great way to develop and improve technology. While we are doing this, it would be nice to see underwater/ocean exploration improve as well. I think we need to go both ways.

Sushi
 
montom said:
Black ops military is 30-50 years ahead of mainstream technology and operates on billions of dollars worth of black funding every year. If they shared their toys instead of amassing yet more power through secrecy, within five years we could have an antigravity fleet taking all of NASA to Mars in less time than a 747 flight from New York to Paris. NASA is a joke, they should focus on sailing west to see if the earth is round.
Click to expand...
Me thinks that you've been reading too much science fiction! ;)

Sushi
 
montom said:
Why not have Apple take over the moon and mars missions? iShuttle, PowerShuttle? ShuttleMini? ShuttleShuffle? Good design, good quality, AppleCare in case we get more Challengers and Columbias.

But seriously, we'll never get to Mars using neolithic chemical engines. What the hell is up with this outdated technology? Black ops military is 30-50 years ahead of mainstream technology and operates on billions of dollars worth of black funding every year. If they shared their toys instead of amassing yet more power through secrecy, within five years we could have an antigravity fleet taking all of NASA to Mars in less time than a 747 flight from New York to Paris. NASA is a joke, they should focus on sailing west to see if the earth is round.
Click to expand...
LOL......and Bingo. We have tech sittting in Groom Lake that could help NASA iam sure. I find it pretty peculiar that with all those Billions, all those mega Military Corps like Lockheed or Boeing Nasa cant put a man into low orbit??????????Has to buy Russian rockets to get us to Space? NASA is a bloated beauracratic nightmare that cant fly. We should just demand those billions be given to companies who want to take the U.S. to space .........................I wonder what it costs this nation to have shuttles collecting dust everyday? NASA has become just another bloated agency filled with politics and ran behind closed doors by the old rocket making companies. We need new bold thinking..........................drop Apollo 2.0 and lets start planning for the next Asteroid.
 
Classic Catch 22

Private companies want to make a profit.

Profit from a brand-new type of high-powered thruster for taking people to Mars is easily 25 years away and most companies don't even last that long. Unfortunately, the demand for such devices is specific and low. That's why governments are a good idea for supplying a constant trickle of funding over a long term. But if an administration changes or an idea appears to be going nowhere to the layman, then funding is cut. NASA is full of stops and starts. There's also nobody working there anymore that's ever sent a person to the Moon, much less to Mars.

The minds that made the Gemini and Apollo space programs work are no longer available. Sure, fresh ideas and approaches are nice, but only with the insight to have learned from past mistakes. Unfortunately, as a species, we seem to need to learn from our OWN mistakes, not taking very much from the lessons of generations before us.

For those of us here who are picking on the fact that the rocket technology we use is antiquated, remember that it's also proven and reliable in spite of its age, not unlike the UNIX underpinnings of OSX. And just like OSX, it's had its share of constant updates and is constantly getting better. ;)
 
jayscheuerle said:
Private companies want to make a profit.

Profit from a brand-new type of high-powered thruster for taking people to Mars is easily 25 years away and most companies don't even last that long. Unfortunately, the demand for such devices is specific and low. That's why governments are a good idea for supplying a constant trickle of funding over a long term. But if an administration changes or an idea appears to be going nowhere to the layman, then funding is cut. NASA is full of stops and starts. There's also nobody working there anymore that's ever sent a person to the Moon, much less to Mars.

The minds that made the Gemini and Apollo space programs work are no longer available. Sure, fresh ideas and approaches are nice, but only with the insight to have learned from past mistakes. Unfortunately, as a species, we seem to need to learn from our OWN mistakes, not taking very much from the lessons of generations before us.

For those of us here who are picking on the fact that the rocket technology we use is antiquated, remember that it's also proven and reliable in spite of its age, not unlike the UNIX underpinnings of OSX. And just like OSX, it's had its share of constant updates and is constantly getting better. ;)
Click to expand...
Agree.

Back in the early days of the aerospace community a typical engineer might work on 20-30 aircraft. Now days, they are lucky to work on more than 1.

Reliability is key for the space program.

Unfortunately NASA, like many governmental agencies, change their directions with the change in administrations. Unfortunately, that makes it hard for them to focus long term. Combine that with budget cuts an other typical governmental bureaucracy and how can NASA succeed? Very difficult at best.

I mean, I saw the plans and worked on some blueprints for the third version of the Space Shuttle back in the late 70s. And almost 25-30 years later, we still have version 1, and it doesn't work too well.

Sushi
 
sushi said:
You peaked my interest, so I did a little research! :D

Fisher did develop the space pen on their own for it's commercial market potential.

NASA did not send out an RFP as per the usual method it seems. Rather Fisher offered the pen to NASA after it was developed in 1965. However, because of the mechanical pen issue (see below) NASA was hesitant to order the pens at that time and waited until 1967 after the pen had been rigorously tested.

Sushi
Click to expand...

Correct, sort of... NASA was looking for a better way to write in space, they did not send out a written RFP, they did make it known that they needed something better then a pencil.

Why? Because there was great concern about debris floating around the cabin from pencil shavings. Their original solution was to carry several dull pencils but this two has the potential to create problems.

But all and all we're both on the same page. I didn't know that about the mechanical pencil.
 
jane doe said:
I didn't know that about the mechanical pencil.
Click to expand...
You might this story interesting:

"If it hadn`t been for the Fisher Space Pen, the astronauts might still be up there on the moon. A life support back pack bumped against an arming switch which was to have activated the jet engines to take them up to the Apollo above. Ground control knew that the astronauts had dispensed with their tools earlier, to save on weight, so they instructed Aldrin to retract the nib of his Fisher Space Pen and use the hollow end to flip the broken switch. The engines ignited and allowed them a safe return to the Apollo and on back home to earth."

We all are familiar with Apollo 13 because of the movie. But if you look back through history of the entire NASA space flight program there are many critical issues came up during the flights of the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs.

Even with all the technology, there will still be unexpected issues/problems that crop up. That is what makes space exploration such a challenge.

Sushi
 
jane doe said:
Correct. This seems to be a limit due to power source, For missions of any great distance (interchange for time) 1g would be optimal since you could accelerate at 1g half way there, then turn the vehicle around and decelerate at 1g. Building with this type of flight profile in mine one could solve the long term zero g exposure.
..................
Click to expand...

there is no way that you can sustain an acceleration of 1g for more than a few hours. then you run out of fuel. so most of the flight time you will be at zero G anyway.
 
andiwm2003 said:
there is no way that you can sustain an acceleration of 1g for more than a few hours. then you run out of fuel. so most of the flight time you will be at zero G anyway.
Click to expand...

How can a continuous 1-G thrust get you to Alpha Centauri without exceeding the speed of light half way there?

A simple but incorrect calculation would predict the following velocity at the turn-around point:

distance = 1/2 acceleration x time^2 and since a = 980 cm/sec/sec and 4.2 light years/2 = 2 x 10^18 centimeters, you get time = 64 million seconds. Then, from v = acceleration x time = 980 x 64 million = 6.3 x 10^10 cm/sec which is 2.1 times the speed of light. So, if you accelerated at 1-G for 64 million seconds, and then decelerated at 1-G for 64 million seconds, you would arrive at Alpha Centauri in 128 million seconds or 4.1 years. The problem is that at your half-way point, you would have reached twice the speed of light which is an impossibility.

What has not been included is the correct dynamics of the process according to special relativity. We have neglected the fact that 1-G of thrust acting on a body whose mass is steadily increasing by

M =m(rest)/( 1 - (V/c)^2 )^2 1/2

results in less and less velocity change as the acceleration continues. By the time the acceleration has gotten you to 0.8c, the effective mass your motors are pushing against has grown to 1.7 times the rocket's rest mass, and the gain in velocity is only about 1/2 as much per unit time. The best you can hope for is to get to the turn around point at about 0.5 c which means that the trip would take a bit more than 4.2 x /0.5 = 8.4 years when the time to accelerate to 0.5c is included properly.

Glad that's figured out... :eek:
 
andiwm2003 said:
there is no way that you can sustain an acceleration of 1g for more than a few hours. then you run out of fuel. so most of the flight time you will be at zero G anyway.
Click to expand...


This statement is assuming two things:

1) you are planning a flight of very great distance, maybe beyond the solar system

2) the flight is using chemical propulsion or non renewable fuel.

Neither of these two things are assumed in my statement.
 
jayscheuerle said:
How can a continuous 1-G thrust get you to Alpha Centauri without exceeding the speed of light half way there?

A simple but incorrect calculation would predict the following velocity at the turn-around point:

distance = 1/2 acceleration x time^2 and since a = 980 cm/sec/sec and 4.2 light years/2 = 2 x 10^18 centimeters, you get time = 64 million seconds. Then, from v = acceleration x time = 980 x 64 million = 6.3 x 10^10 cm/sec which is 2.1 times the speed of light. So, if you accelerated at 1-G for 64 million seconds, and then decelerated at 1-G for 64 million seconds, you would arrive at Alpha Centauri in 128 million seconds or 4.1 years. The problem is that at your half-way point, you would have reached twice the speed of light which is an impossibility.

What has not been included is the correct dynamics of the process according to special relativity. We have neglected the fact that 1-G of thrust acting on a body whose mass is steadily increasing by

M =m(rest)/( 1 - (V/c)^2 )^2 1/2

results in less and less velocity change as the acceleration continues. By the time the acceleration has gotten you to 0.8c, the effective mass your motors are pushing against has grown to 1.7 times the rocket's rest mass, and the gain in velocity is only about 1/2 as much per unit time. The best you can hope for is to get to the turn around point at about 0.5 c which means that the trip would take a bit more than 4.2 x /0.5 = 8.4 years when the time to accelerate to 0.5c is included properly.

Glad that's figured out... :eek:
Click to expand...


was just about to calculate that myself. seems there a faster geeks around than me:D .

jane doe said:
This statement is assuming two things:

1) you are planning a flight of very great distance, maybe beyond the solar system

2) the flight is using chemical propulsion or non renewable fuel.

Neither of these two things are assumed in my statement
Click to expand...


you are right there.

but i can't imagine any kind of propulsion engine that could sustain 1g even for the time needed for a "short" trip to jupiter or mars. you would need too much mass to take it with you to create the impulse. and solar sails don't give you enough acceleration to reach 1g.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back