Neil Armstrong has died (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message


Hertston -> Neil Armstrong has died (8/25/2012 9:01:46 PM)

Don't really know what to say about this. 'RIP' sounds so inadequate, somehow. [:(]




OldSarge -> RE: Neil Armstrong has died (8/25/2012 9:19:16 PM)

I just got the word! That is so sad!

I've always admired him. Everything that I've ever read about him has been nothing short of admirable. His calm under stress, like during the Gemini 8 mission that almost ended in disaster. Even during the lunar landing he kept it together and got the Eagle down.

RIP Neil!!

BTW, this is a request from his family on how to celebrate his memory:
quote:


"Honor his example of service, accomplishment and modesty, and the next time you walk outside on a clear night and see the moon smiling down at you, think of Neil Armstrong and give him a wink."




uncc -> RE: Neil Armstrong has died (8/25/2012 9:43:30 PM)

"That's One Small Step For Man, One Giant Leap for Mankind."
Neil Armstrong July 21 at 02:56 UTC, 1969


Now he's taken the ultimate step into the uknown. May he rest in peace.




Jevhaddah -> RE: Neil Armstrong has died (8/25/2012 11:20:20 PM)

I was 10 when He walked on the moon and boy did that event inspire me and set me on my course through life...

Thanks Neil

Rest in Peace

Cheers

Gary




Titanwarrior89 -> RE: Neil Armstrong has died (8/25/2012 11:27:48 PM)

I remember where I was and what I was doing when they landed on the moon(Japan).  Couldn't believe it.  I had all this Japanese around me watching it on tv.....I was so Proud to be an American.  He will be missed.[:(]




cmurphy625 -> RE: Neil Armstrong has died (8/25/2012 11:41:31 PM)

A big part of our History.. one would've thought that we would've landed on Mars by now..




Joe 98 -> RE: Neil Armstrong has died (8/26/2012 1:06:06 AM)

My class watched it on black & white TV as it all unfolded.

Neil Armstrong's name will be in the history books for ever more.

Lance Armstrong will be forgotton because sport is not important.




ehsumrell1 -> RE: Neil Armstrong has died (8/26/2012 1:15:49 AM)

Rest well Neil....you are now truly with the stars. I will think of you whenever
I look at the moon.




ilovestrategy -> RE: Neil Armstrong has died (8/26/2012 4:02:12 AM)

He isn't dead because legends never die. If anyone qualifies it's him. [&o]




invernomuto -> RE: Neil Armstrong has died (8/26/2012 8:15:27 AM)

Goodbye Neil, you will be missed.




bigbaba -> RE: Neil Armstrong has died (8/26/2012 8:47:53 AM)

RIP the real man in the moon[&o][:(]

this men had guts and were heroes of mankind




warspite1 -> RE: Neil Armstrong has died (8/26/2012 12:14:44 PM)

RIP Neil Armstrong [&o]




Jim D Burns -> RE: Neil Armstrong has died (8/26/2012 1:34:57 PM)

A true hero has left us, rest in peace Mr. Armstrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cmurphy625

A big part of our History.. one would've thought that we would've landed on Mars by now..


Landing on Mars today would be relatively easy Compared to how hard and dangerous landing on the moon was in 1969. But taking off again is still just about impossible even with today’s tech.

The cost of shipping and landing enough fuel for a takeoff from Mars would probably bankrupt half the countries on the planet today, so until we can find a way to make the fuel for the return trip on Mars itself, or a new type of interplanetary propulsion is invented, Mars is probably going to be out of the grasp of human footsteps for a long time to come.

Jim




blastpop -> RE: Neil Armstrong has died (8/26/2012 1:57:13 PM)

RIP Eagle Scout Neil Armstrong.




mikkey -> RE: Neil Armstrong has died (8/26/2012 9:11:29 PM)

RIP Neil Armstrong




Josh -> RE: Neil Armstrong has died (8/26/2012 10:05:40 PM)

A hero of all time.




danlongman -> RE: Neil Armstrong has died (8/27/2012 1:05:37 AM)

I'd like to think his spirit is free amongst the stars.




nicwb -> RE: Neil Armstrong has died (8/27/2012 9:11:26 AM)

Areal loss.

I remember at age 8 sitting in a school room and watching the moon landing live in grainy black and white. It was the coolest thing I had ever seen - it still is.

One thing that really impresses me is that in this age of "celebrities" - Armstrong who achieved so much more than any of them was so modest.




Neilster -> RE: Neil Armstrong has died (8/29/2012 1:33:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

A true hero has left us, rest in peace Mr. Armstrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cmurphy625

A big part of our History.. one would've thought that we would've landed on Mars by now..


Landing on Mars today would be relatively easy Compared to how hard and dangerous landing on the moon was in 1969. But taking off again is still just about impossible even with today’s tech.

The cost of shipping and landing enough fuel for a takeoff from Mars would probably bankrupt half the countries on the planet today, so until we can find a way to make the fuel for the return trip on Mars itself, or a new type of interplanetary propulsion is invented, Mars is probably going to be out of the grasp of human footsteps for a long time to come.

Jim



No. A manned mission to Mars would be an extremely difficult and dangerous mission. The actual landing might be relatively easy but everything else is very hard.

1. The Moon is 4 days away, and as Apollo 13 showed, if something bad goes wrong, that's close enough to have a chance. Mars is a very long way away, even at closest approach to the Earth.

2. Using Hohmann transfer orbits (conventional orbital mechanics), Mars missions are essentially at least a year in length. If you want to spend any real time on the surface, which you would probably want to do after spending zillions of bucks to get there, you're looking at three.

There are numerous obvious problems with several people cooped up in a small space for such lengths of time but they have been mostly dealt with in the past, although only when in near instantaneous contact with Earth; not a luxury you have on a Mars mission.

The real deal-breaker is radiation. You might be able to protect the crew to a reasonable extent on the way to Mars with propellant tanks etc, but on the way back those will mostly be gone. As a result, sober planners now admit that much faster transit times will be necessary.

3. This means new propulsion technologies, and several have been shown to work, but developing them in the scale required and man-rating them will cost time and lots of money. There is also the risk that they won't start/restart after a very long period with no maintenance, dooming your crew.

4. Making chemical propellants to get off the surface of Mars using In Situ Resource Utilisation (electrolysis of water ice to form hydrogen and oxygen or generating methane and oxygen from carried hydrogen and Martian carbon dioxide) would probably be one of the easier parts of the engineering. Alternatively you can use nuclear thermal propulsion, possibly with Martian CO2 as the propellant to get back into orbit. Other options won't work. You need lots of thrust to get off a planetary surface and that means chemical of nuclear thermal rockets.

Cheers, Neilster




vonRocko -> RE: Neil Armstrong has died (8/29/2012 1:37:48 PM)

There is nothing a manned mission to Mars can accomplish, that robotic probes can't do. There is no reason to spend the money just to have an astronaut land and raise a flag.




Neilster -> RE: Neil Armstrong has died (8/29/2012 2:02:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vonRocko

There is nothing a manned mission to Mars can accomplish, that robotic probes can't do. There is no reason to spend the money just to have an astronaut land and raise a flag.


There is an argument that a human can accomplish so much more than robots in the same time, but essentially I agree with you. IMHO Mars can wait until we become a truly space-faring civilisation. I'd rather see us develop the tech required for that in orbit and on the Moon.

The Moon is about as hostile as anywhere, offers resources and is a brilliant place to do science but it's close enough for hope of rescue in an emergency.

NASA's proposed heavy lift booster and long duration missions to asteroids etc are cool and all but if you look at the value for money compared to say SpaceX, it's terrible. There's not a lot of money for space (despite what people think), so we should be trying to wring every drop of value out of it. SpaceX reckon they can produce a heavy lift booster faster and WAY cheaper and given their track record, I'd put money on it.

The U.S. has a fantastic legacy and current expertise in unmanned spacecraft. I just wish more money would be put into them. The public loves stuff like the new Mars rover too but powerful political forces are at play here.

Cheers, Neilster




Lieste -> RE: Neil Armstrong has died (8/29/2012 2:47:12 PM)

Well... you can halve the mission duration (or better) and eliminate the return fuel penalty if you accept the certain loss of the Martian landers... Not possibly an acceptable one, but it is a possible pragmatic solution to a difficult engineering problem.
In the spirit of the early Space flights too ~ success was uncertain, and several 'occupied' but non-manned capsules were abandoned in space/decayed orbits because the problem of safe-return was at that time unsolved.




Neilster -> RE: Neil Armstrong has died (8/29/2012 3:24:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lieste

Well... you can halve the mission duration (or better) and eliminate the return fuel penalty if you accept the certain loss of the Martian landers... Not possibly an acceptable one, but it is a possible pragmatic solution to a difficult engineering problem.
In the spirit of the early Space flights too ~ success was uncertain, and several 'occupied' but non-manned capsules were abandoned in space/decayed orbits because the problem of safe-return was at that time unsolved.

Oh yeah. There are plenty of advocates for the one-way mission with colonisation beginning immediately. After all, settlers to new places on Earth often just arrived and carved out an existence with similar trip times. Mars is a very tough place though. You need a spacesuit to go outside and the dust destroys everything eventually because it is so fine. It's an interesting idea though.

Cheers, Neilster




Lieste -> RE: Neil Armstrong has died (8/29/2012 6:41:34 PM)

Oh, I hadn't got as ambitious as colonisation... I was thinking more a one-way trip like Laika.




Neilster -> RE: Neil Armstrong has died (8/29/2012 6:50:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lieste

Oh, I hadn't got as ambitious as colonisation... I was thinking more a one-way trip like Laika.

Ahh...well there's the odd person who wouldn't care about coming back but can you imagine trying to sell the spending of hundreds of billions of dollars on a kamikaze mission? I don't think that's going to happen.

Cheers, Neilster




Lieste -> RE: Neil Armstrong has died (8/29/2012 7:40:09 PM)

I dunno, it brings the technology required to only *a bit more* than the currently achieved for unmanned landers... you'd need to do a whole lot better to get a crew there, get them back and have them remotely healthy after ~12 months (minimum) in space... Plus novel technology to even escape from the surface of Mars on the way back.

As for Billions of dollars on a Kamikaze mission ~ this is exactly what the rovers are ~ and they are considered good value... and any travel into the space at 'orbital' + velocities is potentially one-way in a not insignificant proportion of cases... Merely suggesting a "low" cost alternative which is only a deliberate acceptance of an already present risk into a certainty.

Probably the only realistic chance for a round trip would be a revisiting of the Project Orion concepts... though I have reservations about how that would fare against environmental concerns with deliberately operating for a sustained period and through the height of the atmosphere/ionosphere/magnetosphere.
The payload capability of the design principle would make adequate shielding possible for long voyaging, would permit a relatively large crew capable of actually performing many tasks simultaneously and covering more ground than a single rover/3 man capsule could attain.




Neilster -> RE: Neil Armstrong has died (8/29/2012 8:06:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lieste

I dunno, it brings the technology required to only *a bit more* than the currently achieved for unmanned landers... you'd need to do a whole lot better to get a crew there, get them back and have them remotely healthy after ~12 months (minimum) in space... Plus novel technology to even escape from the surface of Mars on the way back.

As for Billions of dollars on a Kamikaze mission ~ this is exactly what the rovers are ~ and they are considered good value... and any travel into the space at 'orbital' + velocities is potentially one-way in a not insignificant proportion of cases... Merely suggesting a "low" cost alternative which is only a deliberate acceptance of an already present risk into a certainty.

Probably the only realistic chance for a round trip would be a revisiting of the Project Orion concepts... though I have reservations about how that would fare against environmental concerns with deliberately operating for a sustained period and through the height of the atmosphere/ionosphere/magnetosphere.
The payload capability of the design principle would make adequate shielding possible for long voyaging, would permit a relatively large crew capable of actually performing many tasks simultaneously and covering more ground than a single rover/3 man capsule could attain.


Supporting humans for long periods in space requires VASTLY more complication and mass than a robotic mission. You have to man-rate everything, you need food, life-support, medical, entertainment...it goes on and on. Even a one way trip is a massive undertaking and as I've described above, if it is a kamikaze mission no-one will fund it and if it's a colonisation mission it becomes even more complicated again.

No-one cares about robots not coming back but they very much care about humans not coming back. Not sure what you mean by "and any travel into the space at 'orbital' + velocities is potentially one-way in a not insignificant proportion of cases" but the whole idea of manned spaceflight is that the crew survives. It's one of the reasons it's so complicated and expensive. Again, no-one is going to fund a mission that is certain death for the crew.

After Apollo, NASA was planning a Mars mission for 1981. It was going to use nuclear thermal propulsion, which has been extensively tested ages ago and works. No vast Project Orion type ship detonating nukes behind it is required, just lots of detailed engineering and testing. Likewise, no novel tech is required to get off the surface of Mars. Chemical rockets will do fine.

To summarise. A one-way, no colonisation mission isn't much cheaper than a return trip and no-one will fund it anyway. A return mission is complicated and expensive but definitely do-able with current tech.

Cheers, Neilster




OldSarge -> RE: Neil Armstrong has died (8/30/2012 2:57:09 AM)

Mars is a tantalizing world! It sits at the edge of our knowledge and just within fingertip grasp of our technology. We will go there one day! However, for now, we’re going to have to settle exploring Mars via our robotic probes.

quote:

I do favor going to Mars but I believe it is both too difficult and too expensive with the technology we have available at the current time -- Neil Armstrong


Neil Armstrong was an advocate that NASA should focus on a return to the Moon, with a view toward a permanent base, as its next big project. For many of the reasons the Neilster has already mentioned. The Moon is an excellent training ground for any venture further into deep space. We still have much to learn about...well…everything.

When we’ve become the Masters of the Moon and/or the twin Lagrange points L4 & L5, then, we’ll be ready for Mars and the worlds beyond.

Small steps, Ellie! Small steps! [;)]




LitFuel -> RE: Neil Armstrong has died (8/30/2012 4:16:55 AM)

I haven't posted on here in a long time but this topic is one that eats at me almost every month at some point. Some say to send a man to Mars isn't worth the effort or the money...well I beleive it is if not for any other reason than to bring the world together on something...to make us all look at the screen in amazement as we did in 69. The fact we couldn't land a man on the moon and back now to save our lives over 40 years later is depressing. What have we done since...it's sad. We used to be explorers...seekers of the unknown, but now we just sit on our hands and bicker with each other on who's religion is right and who has the better economy...bah, if Aliens came down and offered a ride I would gladly take it to get off this tired old rock. If not to take chances and strive to seek the unknown why bother existing. Whatever power or country that takes the lead in space will own this planet in time...maybe not right away but down the line. That hot ball of rock we call the sun won't be stable forever and even more short term one of these days a meteor will hit and we will be cursing the sky wondering why we never developed anything to get off it.

Maybe I'm a dreamer but it would be nice for the world to come together on something to take our minds off the hatred we seem to have for each other.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.734375E-02