The REAL reason why they haven't been back to the Moon

Eliot said:
if there is life which I don't doubt it is very far away on a planet like ours and maybe either like ours with advanced life or like a prehistoric earth
futhermore there could be more advanced beings than us however they haven't been here yet as what reason would they have to visit us I it wasn't because they needed a new planet after drying there's up
Click to expand...

people often forget it's not just distance, there is also time scale in two parts
A) the universe is billions of years old, the chances of two advanced civilisations existing within a "close" proximity at the same point of time is slow, which leads on to point
B) we have only been broadcasting radio waves for a few decades, even are planet is fairly new and the presence of it has not travelled that far. Even are suns light can't be seen thy far out. Then you have universe horizon. Where you simply can't see anything past a certain distance as light hasn't arrived here yet. And any information you gleam is hundreads or millions of years out of date. So the chances of being found are slashed again.
 
MameFX said:
Faking a vacuum,why is the flag blowing around then if there is a vacuum?
Click to expand...

It's not and if you had done any reaserched at all you would know this. The flag is held up on a bouncy allimunum frame. The astronughts stuck the poll in the floor with a twisting motion. There is no air resistence to dampen the waving.
Go watch the mythbusters video. Where they put a flag in a vacume.
 
MameFX said:
What about the shadows also in this vid?There all mathematically out
Click to expand...

Good god, you have no clue do you. They are not wrong. When you are out tomorrow, look at any shadow going over a change of terrain. A kern is a good example. Look how it appears to change direction.
 
Mame I'm certain there's a site dedicated to explaining this stuff and tbh I think it would be good if someone just found it for you so you can read it because your arguements are so 1990
 
One of the main reason the N1 rocket was unsuccessful was not due to the rocket engines themselves but the way they were used. The Americans preferred a lower number of more powerful engines whereas the Russians used a larger number of smaller engines clustered together which lead to issues with balancing the thrust properly in such a large rocket.

However this worked fine on smaller rockets such as Soyuz which is the most reliable launch system yet created.

The NK33 and NK43 rocket engines were among the most advanced rocket engines created at the time and stockpiled engines from the 1960s and 1970s have been used in the Orbital Sciences Taurus II and the Japanese J1 and J2 rockets. They were unique as they were oxygen rich engines and had an extremely high thrust to weight ratio for the time.

The RD180 is a descendent of this engine and is used in the American Atlas V rocket and its predecessor the Atlas III.

People who say that the Russians were not technologically advanced in certain aspects of rocketry should actually look at the history of rocketry in Russia in the last 100 years.
Scientists like Konstantin Tsiolkovsky were important figures in the history of astronautics and IIRC he was the first person to theorise about multi stage rockets.
 
Last edited:
To expand on sniffys point I've been to Cyprus it's crap I'm not going back

America went to rock at cost of millions nothing was there
don't wanna go back rockets are expensive

if they ever go back it will be to install some form of base In The year 2345 when you can take a bus to the moon and have your photo taken for souveniors etc
 
The fact is that robotic missions to the moon can do most of what a manned mission would do cheaper and more safely.

TBH,I would rather the money be spend on new generation propulsions systems and improved energy generation systems in space.

These would make travel to the Moon or even Mars much quicker as opposed to using tarted up 1950s and 1960s technology.

It sad that projects like Venturestar and HOTOL were cancelled IMHO.
 
Last edited:
Agreed we need to find a way of
moving a lot faster through space before even bothering with another land on a planet/ moon mission
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
These would make travel to the Moon or even Mars much quicker as opposed to using tarted up 1950s and 1960s technology.
Click to expand...

A huge chemical rocket will get you most places faster tbh, but the more modern drives (ion etc) take longer but are far more efficient and have higher max speeds (but take a very long time to get to them)
 
Like I said before we don't even have a cheap SSTO re-useable launch system. Current systems are wasteful.

I would rather the funds be directed towards improving the current technology we have and developing new ones.

If the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter had not been cancelled a lot of new technologies would have been trialled.

TBH, it is important private companies do actively take part too as it seems the government funded emphasise predictability in most cases over innovation.

Tefal said:
A huge chemical rocket will get you most places faster tbh, but the more modern drives (ion etc) take longer but are far more efficient and have higher max speeds (but take a very long time to get to them)
Click to expand...

The problem with chemical rockets is the fact that you have to carry a huge amount of propellant IIRC.

OTH, technologies like VASIMIR do look quite interesting.
 
Last edited:
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Like I said before we don't even have a cheap SSTO re-useable launch system. Current systems are wasteful.

I would rather the funds be directed towards improving the current technology we have and developing new ones.

If the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter had not been cancelled a lot of new technologies would have been trialled.

TBH, it is important private companies do actively take part too as it seems the government funded efforts emphasise predictability over innovation.
Click to expand...

thing is though wasteful, high acceleration + speed and very high throw weight = good for manned missions.


Highly efficient, very high max speed but low acceleration and low throw weight = not every good for manned missions in the solar system.


Probes sure they're great for those, but it's very unlikely we'll find anything that can best chemical rockets for getting things up and moving them the short distances to the moon etc in the foreseeable future (assuming the nuclear test ban stays in place that is)


The problem with chemical rockets is the fact that you have to carry a huge amount of propellant IIRC.
Click to expand...

Yep that's the big problem but they're the only thing that can provide enough thrust to get people in their heavy spaceship where they need to be in a reasonable amount of time. (aside from nuclear stuff like the old Orion works but they have legal issues with the test ban)

although the research into using magnetic fields to replace the very heavy radiation shielding needed for an interplanetary flight would help massively if it works. (and assuming it works so well you can do without any solid shielding redundancy)
 
Last edited:
Tefal said:
thing is though wasteful, high acceleration + speed and very high throw weight = good for manned missions.


Highly efficient, very high max speed but low acceleration and low throw weight = not every good for manned missions in the solar system.


Probes sure they're great for those, but it's very unlikely we'll find anything that can best chemical rockets for getting things up and moving them the short distances to the moon etc in the foreseeable future (assuming the nuclear test ban stays in place that is)
Click to expand...

Like I said VASIMIR does look a very interesting technology. For a mission to Mars it could potentially speed up the trip significantly.

The main issues are probably down to the amount of power space based power sources can provide and the materials which are used in the drives.
 
yeah it does look good but i don't think there's anything currently in the works to replace chemical rockets for actual launch is there?

Although i think for a mars trip (regardless of engine type) you're probably going to need to have a nuclear reactor* on board for power, which means it will run into horrible resistance when it comes to launch time :(

And you know a politician will jump on the chance to be the eco champion by shutting it down :(



*i mean like the thermal types on the old voyager probes as i'm not entierly sure you could use a conventional/liquid metal type one in space due to having to dissipate the heat.

Although i suppose you could use some of the waste heat from either to help with the life support.
 
Last edited:
Tefal said:
yeah it does look good but i don't think there's anything currently in the works to replace chemical rockets for actual launch is there?
Click to expand...

No, but a re-usable SSTO would be good for transportation of people and smaller loads into space IMHO. It looks like expendable boosters will be the norm for quite a while! :(

OTH, I suspect for the really heavy stuff a traditional booster would be needed as a space plane would not be large enough.

Tefal said:
Although i think for a mars trip (regardless of engine type) you're probably going to need to have a nuclear reactor* on board for power, which means it will run into horrible resistance when it comes to launch time :(

And you know a politician will jump on the chance to be the eco champion by shutting it down :(



*i mean like the thermal types on the old voyager probes as i'm not entierly sure you could use a conventional/liquid metal type one in space due to having to dissipate the heat.

Although i suppose you could use some of the waste heat from either to help with the life support.
Click to expand...

True! :(

Having said that the Russians had the Topaz series of liquid cooled space reactors.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom