Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Side Pub
BUZZ ALDRIN - WE DIDN'T GO TO MOON
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="L8APEX" data-source="post: 16511686" data-attributes="member: 51947"><p>We specifically went through a section of the Van allen belts quicker inorder to lessen the exposure. The trouble is more once you are outside the belts you have to deal with all the radiation from the sun and other cosmic rays. Thats why the missions were short. But if there were a solar flare or another burst of radiation toward the astronauts while outside of them it would have been radiation sickness and death or cancer if they made it longer. </p><p></p><p>Plans for landing on the moon had been devised decades before we even had jets. A Russian scientist actually came up with the idea of using 2 craft to travel to with one that could land on the moon as the other orbited and ultimately returned to Earth. Landing on a body with no atmosphere and minimal gravity all you need is enough delta V and understand the timing (Hohmann transfer orbit/orbital mechanics) to get into orbit of the moon, capture burn, undock land, takeoff, re-dock, transfer crew and jettison the asssent stage, and then return to earth. Just a matter of timing power and fuel. Saturn 5 was basically like a big block car of the time. Big ass engine(s) strapped to a fuel tank(s). The 2nd stage was basically a modified Saturn 1 that had been flying 10 years. Simple proven tech, lightweight chasis.</p><p></p><p>The STS program was like a mid to late 2000s car, or a 3 valve 5.4. that while the navigation system was awesome back then, nowadays its damn near useless, maps are outdated, it breaks easily and takes several systems with it, like your climate control. And costs a ton to keep working or to rip out and replace. We should have lost 3 orbiters, Atlantis was nearly lost on STS-27 with severe damage to 700 tiles, most at nasa knew it was only a matter of "when", not "if" it happened. They had to go to old computer swapmeets to get parts for the orbiters. Ambitious but the tech ultimately wasn't there.</p><p></p><p>SpaceX is basically a restomod. Older designs with modern power/electronics. Thats why it's working. Keeping it simple, and applying impreasive new technology to areas where they can and using tried and true elsewhere. </p><p></p><p>Now Mars is going to be a bitch. Most unmanned missions don't make it. We only have a 40% success rate overall with all Mars missions, Including just entering into orbit. And the 2 launch windows we get only occur every 1.6 years due to orbital periods being longer on Mars and you need to launch at a certain time to use the least amount of time and delta V to make the Hohmann transfer orbit, and capture burn. Then with a crew you have radiation, isolation, and long coms times of 3 to 22 mins each way. Depending on the position of Earth and Mars. That’s not even counting the atmosphere and increased gravity of Mars to attempt a landing. Even one way would be crazy, and probably end with dying of cancer on Mars. </p><p></p><p>We made it to the Moon, and back. I've seen the Apollo 13 Command module "oddesy" several times. The problem was once we got there the race was over. The Russians gave up and we were trying to get over Nam. If the Russians made a landing, then there would have been a race to establish a base as it moon is essentially the high ground if it ever came to war with Russia. Sputnik freaked us out... Imagine looking at the moon and thinking there are Russian nukes pointed at you sitting there. </p><p></p><p>Sent from my Note9 using Tapatalk</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="L8APEX, post: 16511686, member: 51947"] We specifically went through a section of the Van allen belts quicker inorder to lessen the exposure. The trouble is more once you are outside the belts you have to deal with all the radiation from the sun and other cosmic rays. Thats why the missions were short. But if there were a solar flare or another burst of radiation toward the astronauts while outside of them it would have been radiation sickness and death or cancer if they made it longer. Plans for landing on the moon had been devised decades before we even had jets. A Russian scientist actually came up with the idea of using 2 craft to travel to with one that could land on the moon as the other orbited and ultimately returned to Earth. Landing on a body with no atmosphere and minimal gravity all you need is enough delta V and understand the timing (Hohmann transfer orbit/orbital mechanics) to get into orbit of the moon, capture burn, undock land, takeoff, re-dock, transfer crew and jettison the asssent stage, and then return to earth. Just a matter of timing power and fuel. Saturn 5 was basically like a big block car of the time. Big ass engine(s) strapped to a fuel tank(s). The 2nd stage was basically a modified Saturn 1 that had been flying 10 years. Simple proven tech, lightweight chasis. The STS program was like a mid to late 2000s car, or a 3 valve 5.4. that while the navigation system was awesome back then, nowadays its damn near useless, maps are outdated, it breaks easily and takes several systems with it, like your climate control. And costs a ton to keep working or to rip out and replace. We should have lost 3 orbiters, Atlantis was nearly lost on STS-27 with severe damage to 700 tiles, most at nasa knew it was only a matter of "when", not "if" it happened. They had to go to old computer swapmeets to get parts for the orbiters. Ambitious but the tech ultimately wasn't there. SpaceX is basically a restomod. Older designs with modern power/electronics. Thats why it's working. Keeping it simple, and applying impreasive new technology to areas where they can and using tried and true elsewhere. Now Mars is going to be a bitch. Most unmanned missions don't make it. We only have a 40% success rate overall with all Mars missions, Including just entering into orbit. And the 2 launch windows we get only occur every 1.6 years due to orbital periods being longer on Mars and you need to launch at a certain time to use the least amount of time and delta V to make the Hohmann transfer orbit, and capture burn. Then with a crew you have radiation, isolation, and long coms times of 3 to 22 mins each way. Depending on the position of Earth and Mars. That’s not even counting the atmosphere and increased gravity of Mars to attempt a landing. Even one way would be crazy, and probably end with dying of cancer on Mars. We made it to the Moon, and back. I've seen the Apollo 13 Command module "oddesy" several times. The problem was once we got there the race was over. The Russians gave up and we were trying to get over Nam. If the Russians made a landing, then there would have been a race to establish a base as it moon is essentially the high ground if it ever came to war with Russia. Sputnik freaked us out... Imagine looking at the moon and thinking there are Russian nukes pointed at you sitting there. Sent from my Note9 using Tapatalk [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Side Pub
BUZZ ALDRIN - WE DIDN'T GO TO MOON
Top