https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMtUQLPcDK4 Pretty cool little video of the automated lander Morpheus! Nice to see them still creating things Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Reminds me allot of the Luner Lander which was made way back in the 1960's. Seems they spent allot of time and money on something that has already been built. I wonder why they just didn't use the blueprint of this instead of testing something like theirs until they made it right????????? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBMtNCSS_gk
Nice! I believe it looks more stable than the older version posted by cosmic traveler. Hopefully much improved. It doesn't say where it's for (Mars, Moon). but obviously it can work under Earth gravity. I suppose just boost the fuel tanks if it was designed for the moon, to adapt to mars. GOOD JOB NASA!!
are you kidding me? the 1960s Apollo program was a huge waste of money. Morpheus and the likes are the down to Earth company engineering projects.
You don't think the government should invest in anything unless it falls within certain boundaries, or was there something about Apollo that you don't like?
No problems, youreyes is KNOWN for not comprehending science at all. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! In fact, he/she has no idea what the state of technology was in 1969 when we first landed on the Moon.
Dearest Read-Only, The technology of 1960s used for Apollo in todays advancements in computer processing speed, computer storage, Power of processing vs mass, as well as advancements in rocket engines, communication subsystems, and etc...if all of that was utilized today as the same technology level as 1960s it would be a total waste of money. Based on countless programs in space industry it could be easily seen that private companies can achieve the same level of contingency of operations vs the government, for many times less expenditure. The Dragon spacecraft by Space X has a 1 billion$ development cost vs NASA government Orion MPCV pricetag of 38 billion$ development cost... http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/0...lsmpcv-cost-at-up-to-38-billion-through-2021/
please see my above reply to this. I see Apollo as a great program but with obvious political budget overspending at the time. My statement was geared towards an absurd idea that we should use the 1960s technology for the current program such as Orion.
Once again you are running your mouth without using you brain. NO ONE has suggested using 1960s technology! And NASA is concerned with *much* more than just getting into space.
1) I was not replying to you, but to cosmictraveler's comment, which is this: 2) your old grumpling accusations are getting quite irritating. You better give some sort of facts about the Apollo 1960's technology and relevance of it as a blueprint for today's moon exploration technology, otherwise GTFO. 3) I have relevant information to this topic which is the project name of commerical space based project and government space based project and the associated development costs. I supported my claim that Apollo was a waste of money because the government is more likely to overspend money rather than if it was trusted to commercial hands. What have you to say? same old crap. nothing new. And to add to the topic and to get rid of the old vibe of nonsense you are bringing here. I will discuss the blueprint of the Apollo lander in 1960s, it is being outlined here in this pdf: http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/library/LB2-114-LanderConceptualDesign.pdf Notice power expenditures per mass of all subsystems listed and tell me that by today's standards the entire design will not change...it will obviously. This NASA study is why I am claiming that Apollo would have been much less financially straining had it been handled by a company like Raytheon: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/586023main_8-3-11_NAFCOM.pdf Yes I know, anything or anyone who squicks anything bad about Apollo, echoes in your heart as a stab in heart of America. Well get this...eons have passed since Apollo and it set a paradigm in space culture that getting to the moon is too expensive for budget to handle. Now I say that had Apollo been handled by a more financially manageable non-government team, it would have allowed for perhaps more missions to the moon to proceed, thus paving way to moon exploration as a whole for decades to come.
Not a single one of your posts EVER add anything useful to any topic. He (Cosmic) simply commented that the current design REMINDED him of the lander developed for use in 1969. And I'm FAR more familiar with the design of the original lander than YOU because I have a personal friend who actually designed and built a part of it (specifically, the hydraulics) and integrated them with the other systems. Certainly the design will change (after nearly 50 YEARS!!) and yes, it will cost more than if done by NASA rather than private companies. As I indicated above, your input here isn't wanted OR needed. Feel free to leave this site at any time.
I guess you don't read very well and as Readonly has pointed out it is you that has the problem and I'd support his POV of asking YOU to leave if you can't understand what others write about.
Alright guys, I know youreyes posts can be a bit... infuriating... at times. However, don't succumb to scurrility or vituperation in defense of your beliefs Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yeah, I guess 'infuriating' could be one word... 'nonsense' would be another. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But we were not talking about beliefs in this case - rather about facts. And he/she is ALWAYS very, VERY loose with both facts AND reading comprehension.
