Return to the moon
Discussion
This has just been brought to my attention...
https://www.apolloremastered.com/the-book
"Apollo Remastered, the book, features over 400 full-page photographs taken during the Apollo missions to the Moon. For the first time, every image has been digitally remastered from the original flight film, or HD transfers of the 16mm ‘movie’ film, to produce the highest quality Apollo photographs, and the most complete photographic record of these historic missions ever published."
It will be a very sad day when the human species stops exploring.
https://www.apolloremastered.com/the-book
"Apollo Remastered, the book, features over 400 full-page photographs taken during the Apollo missions to the Moon. For the first time, every image has been digitally remastered from the original flight film, or HD transfers of the 16mm ‘movie’ film, to produce the highest quality Apollo photographs, and the most complete photographic record of these historic missions ever published."
It will be a very sad day when the human species stops exploring.
Fundoreen said:
I was really looking forward to it as well but you understand the stress they are under for it not to fail before the mid term elections.
How they managed this feat over 50 years ago is a puzzle really.
Everything is more complicated now. They call it 'progress'. Often it means you take a really good design that works, and improve it until it doesn't.How they managed this feat over 50 years ago is a puzzle really.
I think there was a plan to get to Mars using two Saturn Vs, or was it three?
If the amount of time H. sapiens has spent fking around on smartphones had been usefully spent, we'd probably be on Pluto by now
Edited by Simpo Two on Thursday 6th October 22:22
Eric Mc said:
We wouldn't have smart phones - and other related technology - without the impetus of Apollo and other space related projects.
Both our statements may be right!In a decade or two we will - well not me 'cos I don't have one - have evolved into H. smartphonius, a species unable to speak or look up, but with a strong forehead for protection against lamp posts...
We may never return to the moon, simply because 'it's been done'. Mars? Nobody interested for long enough. But I'd like to be proved wrong.
I watched a great video on Youtube, NASA has turned itself into a multi technology project company as having a single mission as it was in the 60's as directed by the President leaves them open to having their funding pulled. Going all out to Mars would put them back in a precarious funding space.
Simpo Two said:
Everything is more complicated now. They call it 'progress'. Often it means you take a really good design that works, and improve it until it doesn't.
I think there was a plan to get to Mars using two Saturn Vs, or was it three?
If the amount of time H. sapiens has spent fking around on smartphones had been usefully spent, we'd probably be on Pluto by now
It does seem inherently difficult to scale up spacecraft, Someone can build a rocket that appears to prove the concept, then find it impossible to build a larger version with a decent payload. Look at the trouble Virgin Galactic have had.I think there was a plan to get to Mars using two Saturn Vs, or was it three?
If the amount of time H. sapiens has spent fking around on smartphones had been usefully spent, we'd probably be on Pluto by now
Early on they thought they might have to use two Saturn V launches to get to the Moon. They’d dock in Earth orbit and then head on their way. They practiced orbital docking with the Gemini program for this. Its also one of the reasons why they built two launchpads (more were planned) and the VAB could handle 4 rockets at a time.
Future Mars missions would have been a single Saturn V, but with a nuclear powered upper stage. There were all sorts of permutations they went over before it all got cancelled by the Nixon administration. A 6x F1 engined Saturn VI rocket would have been cool.
Future Mars missions would have been a single Saturn V, but with a nuclear powered upper stage. There were all sorts of permutations they went over before it all got cancelled by the Nixon administration. A 6x F1 engined Saturn VI rocket would have been cool.
Lost ranger said:
It does seem inherently difficult to scale up spacecraft, Someone can build a rocket that appears to prove the concept, then find it impossible to build a larger version with a decent payload. Look at the trouble Virgin Galactic have had.
It's not a new phenomenon, it's physics and material science.It's all a function of kinetic energy,
Rocket engines use a variety of techniques to try and stay in one piece at ridiculous pressures and temperatures that will literally either melt them or explode them.
The larger the payload or target velocity, the rocket needs to be exponentially larger.
For LEO the payload is 5-7% the mass of the rocket, to go to the moon or further, it's more like 2%
Unless you can refuel on orbit.
annodomini2 said:
Lost ranger said:
It does seem inherently difficult to scale up spacecraft, Someone can build a rocket that appears to prove the concept, then find it impossible to build a larger version with a decent payload. Look at the trouble Virgin Galactic have had.
It's not a new phenomenon, it's physics and material science.It's all a function of kinetic energy,
Rocket engines use a variety of techniques to try and stay in one piece at ridiculous pressures and temperatures that will literally either melt them or explode them.
Beati Dogu said:
Future Mars missions would have been a single Saturn V, but with a nuclear powered upper stage.
How do you get a nuclear reactor to produce thrust in space?Simpo Two said:
Beati Dogu said:
Future Mars missions would have been a single Saturn V, but with a nuclear powered upper stage.
How do you get a nuclear reactor to produce thrust in space?Basically either chucking bombs out the back or superheating propellant (heating water basically)
ETA: There's also nuclear fusion based proposals, but nothing has been demonstrated yet.
The nuclear powered rockets developed under the Rover and NERVA projects in the 1960s & early 70s heated and expelled hydrogen out of the nozzle. There was no need for an oxidiser. They're very efficient compared to chemical rockets and can burn a lot longer. They would cut the journey time to Mars in half - down to ~4 months. I'm sure we'll see there use in future; Probably on Starship.
https://apollo11space.com/the-nuclear-powered-satu...
A primer video on nuclear rockets:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAHmTQWsxeM
https://apollo11space.com/the-nuclear-powered-satu...
A primer video on nuclear rockets:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAHmTQWsxeM
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff