"The Shuttle can't go to the Moon"

[najab]

><i>The breathing oxygen we’re taking up is liquid isn’t it? </i><p>Nope. The oxygen that's taken up to the station is high-pressure gaseous.</p>

 

[jatslo]

I thought liquid hydrogen, although proven, is still under development?<br /><br />I wrote a paper on hydrogen, in which I touched upon cyogenics. At the time, I thought that liquid hydrogen was still under development.<br /><br />I t is also true that if you apply pressure to liquid hydrogen, it will become solid.<br /><br />This solidified form can be used in semi-conductors, (Super, Super, semi-conductors).<br /><br />The same goes for helium, however, you would need liquid hydrogen to make liquid helium.<br /><br />http://jatslo.com/ : Jatslo

 

[najab]

><i>I thought liquid hydrogen, although proven, is still under development?</i><p>Under development for what? There have been LOX/LH2 engines in use for decades now - the S-IV-B stage of the Apollo rockets used the J2 engine, for example.</p>

 

[jatslo]

Liquid hydrogen is very hard to make and even harder to contain.<br /><br />I would have to see evidence, before I can concede to your facts.<br /><br />I think they used solid boosters.<br /><br />Liquid hydrogen is currently being used in quantum physics when spitting atoms, not in rocket engines.<br /><br />http://jatslo.com/ : Jatslo<br />

 

[averygoodspirit]

Jatslo:<br /><br />I don’t think it’s a matter of whether we can dock at those velocities; it’s a matter of efficiency. Lack of efficiency equates to real dollars lost. 25k mph is minimum escape velocity. It’s all we need to get to the moon. Any more velocity is a waste of energy. Any less velocity could mean a waste of life, a loss of equipment, and therefore the mission. <br /><br />Can’t we always use aero breaking to slow down? What is the maximum velocity a spacecraft can have before aero breaking in the earth’s atmosphere is not an option? We have always used a one break reentry. How fast can a spacecraft be moving if we bounce off the atmosphere a few times? <br /><br /><font color="yellow"> What is the max speed that we can travel around the Moon and still be able to use its gravitational pull for turning back to the Earth?<br /><br /><font color="white"> That’s a good question. If I’m not mistaken, Apollo 13 holds the record, but they had to do some controlled burns to readjust their flight path. <br /><br />Wouldn’t the minimum lunar orbital velocity be about 2,900 mph?<br /></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jatslo]

" That’s a good question. If I’m not mistaken, Apollo 13 holds the record, but they had to do some controlled burns to readjust their flight path. "<br /><br />I would rather see Houston executing controlled burns in unmanned shuttles first.<br /><br />http://jatslo.com/ Jatslo

 

[najab]

Here are just three of the many LH2/LOX engines out there.<p>Space Shuttle Main Engine<br />Apollo J2<br />RS-68 (Delta 4)</p>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Liquid hydrogen is very hard to make and even harder to contain. <br />I would have to see evidence, before I can concede to your facts. </font><br /><br />Jatslo -- go to www.google.com. Enter "Liquid Hydrogen" as a search term. Hit the Search button. Do a little light reading.<br /><br />I can't even imagine what you're thinking about. My best bet is that you're confusing liquid hydrogen with metallic hydrogen. MH has been only theoretical until very recently and my be why you're making patently stupid statements about liquid hydrogen. LH has been used as a rocket fuel for decades.

 

[averygoodspirit]

Jatslo:<br /><br />I’m certain they used liquid fuel and not solid boosters. You don’t have any throttle control with solid boosters. <br /><br />Can’t you use hydrogen peroxide too? What is the other liquid fuel that is combined with it, where if they touch, you get a reactive fuel. The Germans used it in WW2 in their rockets and the first jet. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[averygoodspirit]

Najab:<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Nope. The oxygen that's taken up to the station is high-pressure gaseous.<br /><br /><font color="white"> Why aren’t they using liquid O2? Although cryogenic, wouldn’t it be safer than high-pressure containment? <br /></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jatslo]

" making patently stupid statements about liquid hydrogen "<br /><br />Okay, I concede!<br /><br />Now that we are talking about propulsion, wouldn’t it be theoretically possible to go to the North or South Pole, generate a negative/positive magnetic field, and float up, riding earths magnetic field.<br /><br />That sounds a heck of a lot cheaper.<br /><br />http://jatslo.com/ : Jatslo<br />

 

[najab]

><i>Although cryogenic, wouldn’t it be safer than high-pressure containment?</i><p>Nope. High pressure gasses aren't really that had to work with. Cryogenic oxygen on the other hand is <b>really</b> nasty stuff if it leaks. It reacts <b>explosively</b> with a suprisingly wide range of materials.</p>

 

[averygoodspirit]

Jatslo:<br /><br />Now you’re talking about reversing the polarity of gravity. You need to keep quiet about that until all of my international patents are pending. lol.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"...and float up, riding earths magnetic field. "</font><br /><br />You should hook up with marcel leonard. You two'd get along great. We had a great discussion a few months back about levitating frogs to orbit. I refuse to tell you the name of the thread -- it's since died a well-deserved death.<br /><br />Suffice to say, the answer is a resounding 'NO'.

 

[averygoodspirit]

Najab:<br /><br />My mother was on oxygen before she passed away. I’m pretty sure they brought it to her in LOX tanks. It didn’t seem that dangerous to me.<br /><br />I still don’t see the overwhelming safety concern of transporting extra fuel to LEO. RTGs seem much more dangerous.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jatslo]

" Lack of efficiency equates to real dollars lost. 25k mph is minimum escape velocity. "<br /><br />What if we had a chain of shuttles incrementally moving at different velocities, then we could use the earth aero-break one break maneuver, thus continuing the loop?<br /><br />Each shuttle would carry enough fuel to refuel the next, so that it could reach the next, and so on. The last one, which is now empty of fuel will break, then refuel.<br /><br />Something like that?<br /><br />http://jatslo.com/ : Jatslo<br />

 

[najab]

><i>I’m pretty sure they brought it to her in LOX tanks.</i><p>Nope. They didn't. They used high-pressure oxgen.</p>

 

[jatslo]

" Now you’re talking about reversing the polarity of gravity. "<br /><br />No, I am talking about electromagnetism, which is different than gravity, i.e. gravitation or levitation.<br /><br />http://jatslo.com/ : Jatslo<br /><br /><br />

 

[jatslo]

" Suffice to say, the answer is a resounding 'NO'. "<br /><br />What, you won't even concede to the possibility?<br /><br />There are currently discussions going on about deflecting lethal particles with EMI, in which it shields astronauts from harmful radiation.<br /><br />We can deflect a particle, why not a charged cargo container?<br /><br />http://jatslo.com/ Jatslo<br />

 

[najab]

><i>We can deflect a particle, why not a charged cargo container?</i><p>A proton weighs about 0.000000000000000000000000001672 kg. A magnetic field that can deflect a proton by 1 metre would have to be 100000000000000000000000000 times stronger to move a 1kg mass through the same metre.</p>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"What, you won't even concede to the possibility? "</font><br /><br />No, I won't.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"We can deflect a particle, why not a charged cargo container? "</font><br /><br />Q: I can lift a five pound weight with one hand -- why can't I lift a 500,000 pound weight.<br />A: Because there's a heck of a difference between five pounds and 500,000 pounds.

 

[najab]

><i>Q: I can lift a five pound weight with one hand -- why can't I lift a 500,000 pound weight. </i><p>Actually, it's more like a 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000lb weight.</p>

 

[averygoodspirit]

Najab:<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Nope. They didn't. They used high-pressure oxgen.<br /><br /><font color="white">I just telephoned the health care provider that supplied the oxygen and they told me that they carried both liquid and high pressure oxygen. They said that what they supplied my mother was liquid oxygen. <br /><br />They said both forms of containment are dangerous if not handled properly, but liquid O2 evaporates and pressurized O2 doesn’t. <br /><br />I think LOX requires less space too.<br /></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jatslo]

" "What, you won't even concede to the possibility? " <br /><br />No, I won't. "<br /><br />Then how about a 20 mile long charged rail gun that lobs charged containers into orbit, where a shuttle tugboat then deals with it.<br /><br />If your house is on fire, and there is only one water source, 100 buckets, and 100 people standing around, do you have everyone filling and pouring their own buckets, or do you build four 25-people chains?<br /><br />http://jatslo.com/ : Jatslo<br /><br />

 

[jatslo]

Maybe we should keep the payload to about 2000lbs until we get good at it.