Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hindu)   Not news: US proposes no-fly zones. Fark: On the moon   (thehindu.com) divider line 124
    More: Strange, scientific journal, X Prize, Lunar X Prize, Apollo program  
•       •       •

9316 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Sep 2011 at 5:21 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



124 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-09-08 12:35:30 AM  

Nem Wan: fusillade762: They're just worried someone will find Apollo 18.

It's at the Cradle of Aviation Museum in Garden City, Long Island, NY.


I meant the *real* one.


Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: fusillade762: sno man: The Icelander: Like nobody's going to find a giant Nazi moon base...

hope not, but it looks like a fun movie: Link (new window)

Heard about that one. Could be good. As long as they address the problems they would have invading Earth after living for generations at 16.7% gravity.

Build all their living quarters on giant cone-shaped centrifuges?


Or use some kind of powered armor or exoskeleton.

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2011-09-08 12:35:40 AM  
The National Air and Space Museum already has dibs on one of those astronaut turds.
 
2011-09-08 12:42:23 AM  
lol

they know it won't be long now.

the truth is on it's way.
 
2011-09-08 01:06:29 AM  
Veni, vidi, feces.
 
2011-09-08 01:33:16 AM  

Calmamity: unyon: artifacts

I think you mean "artefacts".


While I'm a Canadian that generally favours the British spelling, that's one spelling that got left with the bilge water when crossing the Atlantic.
 
2011-09-08 01:42:46 AM  
Funny thing about that old Any Griffith "Salvage 1" show was that it was kind of prophetic for the 21st Century, with the push for private space travel.

Also, Andy Griffith started out as a standup comic. (new window)
 
2011-09-08 02:18:09 AM  
Oh a moon thread. Let's see, Futurama reference? Check. South Park? Check. The movies 2001 and Moon? Check. The Hooneymooners? Check.

All right guys, everything and everyone worth mentioning has been said. I said no one of importance left to mention...


ponibooru.413chan.net
 
2011-09-08 02:48:09 AM  

ChrisDe: Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: ChrisDe: If anybody were to get too close to the "landing sites", they might find there's nothing there. Best to keep them away.

I know you're just snarking, but the restriction is like 200 meters. That's plenty close to see a plastic flag and a LEM stage lying around.

/although not close enough to see that they're fakes! *x-files music*

In low gravity, that doesn't seem like much of a buffer zone. I'm sure there's some science behind that measurement, but landing a lunar lander on Earth's sandy soil might easily blow dust/debris for 100 feet. Wouldn't it blow six times as far on the moon?


TFA says the restriction zone is for ground travel. No mention of how far away they'll ban landers. I imagine they can't be that worked up about a little rocket exhaust, though, given all the random space crap that's bound to have settled on the sites over time. It's not exactly a sterile environment. My guess is they're more concerned about the blast pressure from the rockets destroying historic footprints, etc.

Then again depending on the design of the rocket and the exhaust velocity that blast pressure might carry over a few miles.
 
2011-09-08 04:05:38 AM  
So, why can't we slowly get into space? Assuming we could make an engine or rocket work in space and the upper atmosphere, why can't a plane climb slowly until it leaves the planet? The Force of gravity it proportional to the distance between two objects, right? As the plane gets farther from earth, shouldn't the force from gravity lessen? Why do we need rockets to reach an escape velocity?
 
2011-09-08 04:28:44 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: As the plane gets farther from earth, shouldn't the force from gravity lessen? Why do we need rockets to reach an escape velocity?



Because the baseball cards in the spokes cause too much wind resistance.
 
2011-09-08 05:05:45 AM  
Now that we've shown pictures of the landings sites that we've taken, no one else is allowed to orbit over the same area ok? We are worried about dust, even though an orbiter would not turn up dust and a sub-orbiter would not either because there is no atmosphere... ok? Makes sense to everyone right?
 
2011-09-08 05:28:42 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: So, why can't we slowly get into space? Assuming we could make an engine or rocket work in space and the upper atmosphere, why can't a plane climb slowly until it leaves the planet? The Force of gravity it proportional to the distance between two objects, right? As the plane gets farther from earth, shouldn't the force from gravity lessen? Why do we need rockets to reach an escape velocity?


You're a Berkeley alumnus? But not in space sciences, so I'll forgive you this time.

You absolutely can get pretty darn high in the atmosphere, slowly. A propeller plane (admittedly a solar-powered, remotely-piloted NASA one) has come close to 100,000 feet, and the record for a jet fighter is over 120,000. Manned balloons have gone over 110,000 and unmanned ones over 170,000.

All well and good, right? But "space" starts - depending who's counting - somewhere around 300,000 feet. And the lowest stable orbit around Earth - never mind actually heading away from Earth - is beyond 500,000 feet.

The difficulty with your idea is that beyond about 100,000 feet, the atmosphere isn't dense enough for aerodynamics to have much effect. And beyond maybe 200,000 feet, the atmosphere isn't dense enough that a balloon filled with a less dense gas will float on it. So you run out of lift, or of buoyancy, and have to compensate for the lack of those with an overabundance of thrust.

...which is where the rockets come in.

The idea that using rockets to get from the ground to 100,000 feet is a waste of good rocket fuel... has some merits. The Bell X-1 was dropped from a B-29 at 23,000 feet, the X-15 was dropped from a B-52 at 45,000 feet, SpaceShipOne was dropped from White Knight at between 40,000 and 45,000 feet, and SpaceShipTwo will do something similar. And there are others who want to use balloons to lift rockets into the upper atmosphere - Romanians or something, if I recall.

But if you have to time things precisely (which NASA often does), or you're trying to get a whole bunch of weight off the ground... rockets are handy.

/Part-time SSL/LBL grunt
 
2011-09-08 06:29:03 AM  
Gotcha, it all falls into place now. We can't avoid rockets because it's the only feasible means of thrust. I should have been able to figure that out =/, I considered the thinness of the atmosphere but only with relation to the capacity for combustion (the need for O2 an all that jazz) in an engine. Thanks, and now I am dissapoint in me. But I can quit wondering about this so that's nice.
 
2011-09-08 07:03:23 AM  

dbirchall: The idea that using rockets to get from the ground to 100,000 feet is a waste of good rocket fuel... has some merits. The Bell X-1 was dropped from a B-29 at 23,000 feet, the X-15 was dropped from a B-52 at 45,000 feet, SpaceShipOne was dropped from White Knight at between 40,000 and 45,000 feet, and SpaceShipTwo will do something similar. And there are others who want to use balloons to lift rockets into the upper atmosphere - Romanians or something, if I recall.


Air launch is more efficient, the problem is you still have to get your rocket up there.

To which if your trying to launch 100 tons of equipment plus booster, you don't have a carrier aircraft powerful enough to get it started. So you can consider that mighty first stage of F-1 engines on the Saturn V to be taking the place of the giant mothership NASA could never afford to make.

For spacecraft launching less than five tons its doable, and its what the shuttle was intended to be, but then politics got involved...
 
2011-09-08 07:15:36 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: So, why can't we slowly get into space? Assuming we could make an engine or rocket work in space and the upper atmosphere, why can't a plane climb slowly until it leaves the planet? The Force of gravity it proportional to the distance between two objects, right? As the plane gets farther from earth, shouldn't the force from gravity lessen? Why do we need rockets to reach an escape velocity?


Basically the speed you have to fly in order to maintain altitude increases as you go higher, because the air is less dense. At the official boundary of space (around 328,000 feet ASL), the minimum flying speed is so fast that it's actually equal to orbital velocity for that altitude. You can't go any slower without building a balloon, and obviously a balloon can't use a lifting gas that has a density lower than vacuum, that's impossible.

What you suggest might actually be possible on Venus, because its atmosphere is so dense, and extends almost twice as far into space as Earth's. It would still require building a VERY fast aircraft though.
 
2011-09-08 10:11:57 AM  

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: . You can't go any slower without building a balloon, and obviously a balloon can't use a lifting gas that has a density lower than vacuum, that's impossible.

.


So obviously the answer is to take a balloon, suck out all the air until it contains a total vacuum, then it will be neutrally buoyant, and just float evenly once it hits the vaccum. Why do I have to do all the hard science for everyone?
 
2011-09-08 10:14:39 AM  
Now I am sorely tempted to go to the moon, and just wipe my balls on the rover, then hold up a big sign that can be seen by telescope that says "What are you gonna do about it?"

The hard part will be getting to the moon to do that. And I suppose exposing my nuts to hard vaccum without causing lasting damage to the boys.
 
2011-09-08 10:38:17 AM  

miss diminutive: BS. They're just trying to monopolize the lucrative rental fees from people who get stuck on the Moon on their way to Jupiter.

[board-games.findthebest.com image 400x278]


Damn...I loved that game...
 
2011-09-08 11:30:13 AM  
It's just because the U.S. is afraid China, India, and Brazil will make it there before we can go back.
 
2011-09-08 11:43:11 AM  
dbirchall, 2011-09-07 06:03:10 PM: [quoting whidbey: "Why is 'The Hindu' reporting this?"] Got me - maybe the Moonies don't have their own newspaper.

They do; it's called the Washington Times.

No, seriously -- check out the masthead.
 
2011-09-08 12:09:58 PM  
What about Hoagland's 6 mile high glass towers?
 
2011-09-08 06:58:12 PM  
If we can't do it, then nobody can!
 
2011-09-08 08:31:38 PM  
Wait, if the moon belongs to no one and is international... just like international waters, wouldn't anything left there be the same as anything abandoned in the ocean? Subject to salvage rights? Didn't they essentially give up ownership rights to anything left behind? (subject of course to anything actually being there).
 
2011-09-08 08:46:49 PM  
InfamousBLT 2011-09-07 05:50:59 PM
Where the fark is QA?

I came into this thread hoping to hear some hilarious "finally they are saying
we should never go to the moon again" stuff from him but was let down.

Where are you buddy?




I EATED HIM.
 
Displayed 24 of 124 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report