Dumb question

oslojohn · Dec 2, 2004

I'm new here, and I have a dumb question. There's a lot of junk orbiting Earth that's useless. I'd like to see some "junk" brought up to be useful. This is something that's been in the back of my mind for years. I've read some pros and cons about going back to the moon. I'm one who likes the idea of the return. Assuming that happens, with plans for establishing a 'permanent' base, what materials/objects will be used to house those who will be stationed on the moon? The 'dumb' idea I had involves the main booster rocket. When we launch the shuttle, the two auxilliary booster rockets are salvaged, but the main booster is not. When the shuttle separates, the main booster burns up in its return to earth. Would it be freasible to have seperation at a higher altitude, and have an auxilliary devise to push the booster into low orbit, where it can be retrieved to a higher orbit for salvage, before its orbit degrades and is returned to Earth. The booster could provide needed raw materials in the construction of a base on the moon or retrofitted for housing. The accumulation of these boosters would then have to be towed to the moon (in groups?), and somehow, be brought to the surface. If a base is to be established on the moon, a lot of resources will have to be brought, one way or another. What would it cost to salvage a resource that would otherwise be trashed? Like I said, I have a dumb question.

najab · Dec 2, 2004

Making use of the Shuttle ET (it is a tank, not a booster) on-orbit is an idea that has been brought up from time to time. As you no doubt know, the ET is a 60,000lb, precision engineered structure which is taken all the way to orbit and then deliberately allowed to re-enter. So many people have come up with plans to use them that it would be impossible to list them all.One interesting fact that most people don't realise is that President Regan signed an Executive Order which requires NASA to make available, at no cost, no less than 5 on-orbit ETs. The only requirement is that the person/entity taking 'delivery' must be able to guarantee that the tanks will not be a threat to navigation or population - in short they have to be able to control the tanks. This isn't a minor consideration since the tanks are low density and will suffer considerable thick-layer-of-gas-surrounding-the-Earth-ic drag.

drwayne · Dec 2, 2004

Interesting Skylab tangent: The process of turning a spent tank into a station is called the "wet lab" approach, and as newartist pointed out, for a long time, the front runner for Skylab was a wet lab approach. It lost out in the end to using a lab prefabricated into the body of an SIVB (Saturn 3rd stage). Now, as it turns out, they could have left the much larger second state attached to the third stage. With a little more effort, they could have had both a dry lab and a wet lab. Instead, the seconds stage was detached and dropped quickly out of orbit. Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

drwayne · Dec 2, 2004

Here is a good link of interesting skylab info: http://yarchive.net/space/spacecraft/skylab.html Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

drwayne · Dec 2, 2004

Good link to links of Shuttle ET stuff: http://www.space-techlist.com/Top_Science_Technology_Space_Space_Shuttle_External_Tank.html Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

najab · Dec 2, 2004

>You need to seperate it at a higher SPEED to assure orbit, not a higher altitude. With the direct ascent trajectory that the Shuttle uses now, the ET already has orbital velocity when it is jettisoned, but the orbit is so low that thick-layer-of-gas-surrounding-the-Earth-ic drag brings it back down before it completes one orbit.

drwayne · Dec 2, 2004

As I recall, the shuttle trajectory is shaped in order to "drop it" towards a specific area, if left to its own devices, it would stay in orbit for a while. (I'm probably just copying what you said, saying it a different way, sorry) Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

najab · Dec 2, 2004

Not just the trajectory, but there are vents on the oxygen (I think) tank which are opened to cause the tank to tumble - thereby increasing the rate of orbital decay.

drwayne · Dec 2, 2004

Wow *claps hands*, I didn't know that! Cool! Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

najab · Dec 2, 2004

To quote the Shuttle Refence Manual: <blockquote>"The liquid oxygen tank contains a separate, pyrotechnically operated, propulsive tumble vent valve at its forward end. At separation, the liquid oxygen tumble vent valve is opened, providing impulse to assist in the separation maneuver and more positive control of the entry aerodynamics of the ET."</blockquote>

crix · Dec 2, 2004

"thick-layer-of-gas-surrounding-the-Earth-ic" What do you mean by the "ic" at the end?

najab · Dec 2, 2004

Well some people have a problem with the usage of the word 'atmosphere' so I can't say atmospheric?

drwayne · Dec 3, 2004

Thanks, I learned something today, which sorta offset the 5 I forgot... <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

halman · Dec 3, 2004

oslojohn, There is no such thing as a 'dumb question' if it is asked seriously out of a desire to gain knowledge. Never be afraid to ask, because asking is the first step in learning. The space shuttle external tank could be lifted to a high enough orbit to stay there for several years. All it would require is that the space shuttle delay releasing the tank until after the shuttle and the tank have entered a circular orbit about 300 kilometers above the Earth's surface. However, this would mean that the tank would be part of the 'payload' that the shuttle is carrying into space. Usually, the tank is released as soon as the main engines shut down, as it is not needed anymore, and it would decrease the altitiude the shuttle could reach, or the amount of mass that the shuttle could carry to the desired altitude. Because the 'payload' is usually something which is very heavy, there is no extra fuel to haul the external tank up into circular orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

oslojohn · Dec 3, 2004

I finally had a chance to look at all the responses to my "dumb question". I am impressed by all of you and appreciate all your responses. Now I need to digest all this stuff. I'll be back Thanks

eldensmith · Dec 3, 2004

"The space shuttle external tank could be lifted to a high enough orbit to stay there for several years. All it would require is that the space shuttle delay releasing the tank until after the shuttle and the tank have entered a circular orbit about 300 kilometers above the Earth's surface. However, this would mean that the tank would be part of the 'payload' that the shuttle is carrying into space. Usually, the tank is released as soon as the main engines shut down, as it is not needed anymore, and it would decrease the altitiude the shuttle could reach, or the amount of mass that the shuttle could carry to the desired altitude. Because the 'payload' is usually something which is very heavy, there is no extra fuel to haul the external tank up into circular orbit. " The ET is practically all payload because it is dropped at 99.992 percent of the initial orbital velocity. If this was not done the point of orbital decay for the ET would not be predictable. As it is the MECO velocity vector targets the South Pacific as the drop zone. The OMS engines add about 200 ft/sec. to the approx. 25,000 ft/sec. of the vehicle velocity at MECO (Main Engine CutOff). To get to their initial orbit. = = = My fantasy is to build a space hotel having the same size and mass of a shuttle C payload module and attach it firmly to the ET - - NO explosive bolts to allow the ET to be jettisoned - - use strong bolts to make sure it stays attached in orbit. Then line the inside of the ET with fabric like that used to make TransHab and play zero-gee sports inside a giant open air arena, with the hotel firmly attached right next door. Have ESPN & Marriott pay for it. ;-)

najab · Dec 3, 2004

Good question. I'd say it is still as useful now as it ever was since, despite the mods, it still performs the same function and has to be as strong as it ever was.

halman · Dec 3, 2004

shuttle_guy, So, what would be the penalty in terms of payload or altitude if the external tank were carried through the Orbital Maneuvering System burn? How much would it change things if it were decided to store all ET's in orbit? P.S. Welcome back from wherever you have been. Did the trip to Houston end early? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

pizzaguy · Dec 3, 2004

I finally had a chance to look at all the responses to my "dumb question". I am impressed by all of you and appreciate all your responses. Now I need to digest all this stuff. I'll be back My first 'dumb question' here was about the moon landing hoax nonsense! I really started something then, too. That was in the spring of 2002. It's surprising what kind of conversations can be started by a 'dumb question' around here, isn't it? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Note to Dr. Henry: The testosterone shots are working! </div>

rodrunner79 · Sep 12, 2005

Okay, hello everyone, I'm new here and I'm pretty much just getting into astronomy. I''m particularly highly interested in blackholes. I've read many articles pertaining to blackholes from various sites. I'm also interested in the beginning of the cosmos. I just have this question I wanted to asked. They say that we can never see the most distant object farther than the universe is old (did I say that right?). They also say that from where we are (Earth), the farthest object ever spotted was 10-15 billions light years away (i forget which figure, cause' of different stories I've read) in all direction. My question is, if our current position were 8 billion light years on the left/right of earth, wouldn't that make the most distant object 18-23 billions light-years away?

kmarinas86 · Sep 12, 2005

I just have this question I wanted to asked. They say that we can never see the most distant object farther than the universe is old (did I say that right?). Yes. They also say that from where we are (Earth), the farthest object ever spotted was 10-15 billions light years away (i forget which figure, cause' of different stories I've read) in all direction. My question is, if our current position were 8 billion light years on the left/right of earth, wouldn't that make the most distant object 18-23 billions light-years away? Away from earth, yes. <----14 bil LY----Earth----14 bil LY---- /> --8 bil LY--<----14 bil LY----Other Planet----14 bil LY---- /> The images are billions of years old while the galaxies that we see that far probably by this time are located somewhere else other than their current longitude and latitude on the night sky, and of course, having different structure too because galaxies would have gone through many galaxial revolutions and collisions.

vogon13 · Sep 12, 2005

As you move around the universe, 'your' observable universe remains centered on you. Also, not that this is relevant, but if you are outdoors watching a rainbow with a friend, unless the shadows of your heads are merged, you are each seeing a different rainbow. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

rickychuck · Sep 14, 2005

Greetings, Also my first post, and this thread's question was similar to mine...actually one that came about as a result of talking with my 11 year old son about old light coming from this latest burst detected this week. I found myself unable to answer his questions with regard to the following "conundrum" in his head, and mine now <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />... If light that was generated travels faster than the matter which was ejected outward from the moment when the Big Bang occurred, and if light is what we are trying to see to tell us more about what happened shortly after the BB, then how could "we" see any of this light, since it began its journey well before the matter that makes up our galaxy made it to our present location as it travels outward, and probably didn't last long enough to shine for billions of years? I tried to explain that the light we see now from way back then is just light catching up to us now, and we happen to be able to see it, but as for the light that traveled past all the matter in the universe as it began its outward journey, we could never see it. This is where I broke down, feeling that I was missing plenty about this scenario (scratching head). On a flat timeline, it appears wrong when I try to map out where the light from the initial BB is located right now with respect to us...it appears logical to think it has gone "past" us, and we cannot see light that is going away because it is not registering on our retinas/equipment...thud. Run out of gas here, and I'm presently looking for "The Idiot's Guide To the Big Bang" <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />. Thanks for having this resource, I think we will both learn much from it as we inch toward deciding to get into astronomical hobbies.

Saiph · Sep 14, 2005

I think one major thing to remember here, is time dilation. The event is so heavily slowed relative to us, that it took a long, long time to finish (we may even be able to consider it still happening, it's time is so much slower than ours). But don't be to worried about being confused, you're actually correct. If the event had been a quick, instantaneous one (from our point of view, not its) then we'd have a single chance to catch it. If the light from that event got here when we weren't paying attention, then we'd be out of luck. If the event has a duration, you can catch it during the event, and watch it change from then on. Good questions, made me scratch my head for a bit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

nexium · Sep 14, 2005

Your questions are so good, they make our best answers seem doubtful. Perhaps we need some new theories to explain what we think we are observing. Neil

Dumb question

oslojohn

Guest

najab

Guest

drwayne

Guest

drwayne

Guest

drwayne

Guest

najab

Guest

drwayne

Guest

najab

Guest

drwayne

Guest

najab

Guest

crix

Guest

najab

Guest

drwayne

Guest

halman

Guest

oslojohn

Guest

eldensmith

Guest

najab

Guest

halman

Guest

pizzaguy

Guest

rodrunner79

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

vogon13

Guest

rickychuck

Guest

Saiph

Guest

nexium

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page