PDA

View Full Version : NASA going back to the moon animation



cresshead
09-19-2005, 03:34 PM
nice animation...not too 'hollywood', clean and informative showing the the new rocket designs and lander for the moon/mars

25mb mov file here:
http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/cev/CEVedit2.mov


story is on their main page here:-
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/cev.html

:thumbsup:

gjjackson
09-19-2005, 07:45 PM
It's about time. I thought they should've planned a Mars mission 20 years ago. By now we'd been there and going for the next step. This is money well spent.

KillMe
09-19-2005, 09:50 PM
seems to me like tech is going backwards - what happened to the venture star as the new laucnh vehiel =/

Gui Lo
09-20-2005, 09:32 AM
Of course NASA is much smarter than me, but didn't they go there, walk around and come back before?

Why land on the moon again?
Why not setup a livable orbiting platform first around the moon. A reusable landing craft can be used each time they want to land. well the cockpit would be reusable and the astronauts can bring there own landing gear and fuel to the party.

This one off business seems very old fashioned.

cresshead
09-20-2005, 12:48 PM
hi

being over forty i can remember the landings on the moon back in 1969 upto
1972 vividly...they were truly great times...then we had skylab and the
missions to mars and beyond...then came the 80's with mostly subdued low
earth orbit sateleite driven mission and only the hubble space telescope and
some robotic missions to mars and titan of great note from late 70's to
2005....some 25 years of lack lustre manned exploration......thogh you
remember the long endurance tests of the russians in their soyuz based space
station..all part of the learning curve to long haul space filght.......

for those who say why go back to the moon?.......read on!...nasa needs to
learn and develop ways to sustain life on another near earth planet before
they can with some degree of certaintly launch a manned mission to mars
that's why they are going back to the moon the learn their trade of living
on another planet and creating fuel and supplies from what's available on
the moon...which is just 3 days traveltime away rather than 8 months each
way for our nearest planet mars....

they are also going to use meathane as the fuel for the lander on the moon
as when the goto mars that's what they'll need to get from mars to create
their fuel needs and also use/mine water ice that's on mars and ALSO on the
moon in the south pole of the moon in permenant show of some craters on the
moon.

why use rockets?
because they work and are 10times less likeley to blow up than a
shuttle...which is not designed for anything other than low earth
orbit....remember that the shuttle max's as 17,500mph whereas a moon mission
will exceed 25,000 mph which is well out of the design curve of a shuttle...

also a rocket has the advantage of an escape mechanism...designed back in
the 60's and it still works just as well today......

also there's the proven good side of the shuttle program...the soild rocket
boosters are now very reliable and the fuel main engins of the shuttle is
also quite reliable..that's why they are to be used in these rockets..this
also lowers the design time of the rockets as they use PROVEN systems.

for those who say what a waste of money..what did we get out of the space
race in the 60's and the forst men on the moon?

what are you looking at?...........oh a pc!...a 'personal computer'...whay's
that then...???

read the nxt reply.......

gjjackson
09-20-2005, 12:55 PM
Well put, Cresshead

JML
09-20-2005, 01:18 PM
I think the US and other countries (that have the technology) should put more money into space programs. it's weird that so little money is put
into this field..

archiea
09-20-2005, 07:41 PM
personally, I;m looking for better velcro to come out of this new space program... one that doesn't get contaminated with dustballs!!!!!

Gui Lo
09-20-2005, 07:48 PM
Space exploration has not been so expensive. It cost about $1.5 per day per American per day.

I just question why they need to land first time?
Surely it would be better to make an abservation platform from which they can survey and have a reusable lander.

In the 60's and 70's the USA spent all its money on going to the Moon when most scientists(including Neil Armstrong) thought it better to make a sustainable Earth spacestation. It looks like the same is happining now. I can't see any reason for landing on the first trip.

RedBull
09-20-2005, 10:41 PM
Was the Animation LW? They usually are Dan's and JPL which use LW and RM.
However i'm D/L now, but the news footage i saw was fairly average... :(
In comparison to the previous Mars lander animations..

Offtopic:

Why are we going back to the Moon?

One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind!.....
If it was such an important leap, why take 30 years to go back?
And how can it now be far more expensive than it was then?

And if a 486 PC has way more computing power than the Shuttle did....
And around the same CPU grunt as my washing machine,
why can't my washing machine take me to the moon, on the cheap?
Where are these peoples priorities i wonder..... The cold war is over?

fyrissian
09-20-2005, 11:52 PM
Among the new improvements *I* expect out of the new push to the Moon are...
better Space Food Sticks
better-tasting Tang

Lude
09-21-2005, 02:24 AM
"In 2018, humans will return to the moon"

Umm, that's just over 12 years and a few months to go back to where they've been!

Gui Lo
09-21-2005, 02:27 AM
When Neil Armstrong said "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" he regretted that the meaning was flipped over. He was strongly against going to the Moon and wanted people to see it in context as very small compared to the rest of the solar system.
Perhaps he wishes he said - one small step for man, one giant leap for one of mankind.

cresshead
09-21-2005, 03:13 AM
i'm truly amazed at the negativity of the comments posted here for human exploriation of our solar system..also surpised not to have seen the ususal rant of what about the starving millions in [name your fav 3rd world country].


maybe forums are just a collection of opposite thoughts....

shame on you for wanting to go back to a 'square wheel'...after all it won't roll away on a hill eh?
:confused:

Lude
09-21-2005, 03:43 AM
No problem with going back to the moon, Iíve thought they should do that for years and forget about mars till they can walk. I would rather they had don this than the international space station.

It's just the time scales are always so long and in this instance to do something the human race has done before.

But by all means Iím behind it.

And donít even get me started on the starving people crap. Thatís got nothing to do with the funds for space exploration, if the money wasnít spent on space thereís no way in **** it would ever be used to feed people it would just go into something else, maybe a new way to kill us all!

Feeding the starving could be done AS WELL itís just a mater of political movements and getting a level of world stability.

Gui Lo
09-21-2005, 04:29 AM
Hi Cresshead,
Apart from somnambulance comments most seem to be 'is that it?'. I think people want more positive action rather than re-doing what has alreay been done for a lot of money.

Nothing is setup and we will still have to blast off from Earth all the time which is most of the expense. What happened to the perminent Moonbase?

Valan

riki
09-21-2005, 05:48 AM
I think they need to go back, but 2018, sounds more like they're leaving to the next generation. Get the lead out guys. :p It's like saying we're going to Juipiter in 2080. Of course we are it's the bleedin future isn't. They have spaceships in the future, as we all know, which of course will make the trip flippin easier :)

Lude
09-21-2005, 04:19 PM
Got some more inside info Ė diagrams of there planned trajectory.

cresshead
09-21-2005, 04:34 PM
:D

button moon!

any clangers?

Ade
09-21-2005, 10:33 PM
Following the progress of the space age, it seems space travel hasnt progressed at all.
No "REAL" progression was made over 40 years.....

We only have the Germans to thank for as far as we have got with rocket and jet technology we take for granted today.


Im not impressed by the 2020 wait...
I bet China or Europe will get there and discover no american flag on the moon and it was a who cold war hoax.
We all expect HIGH RES images this time if they goto the moon......


.....If they can ever get there...............................

colkai
09-22-2005, 06:05 AM
I'm waitin' for Richard Bransons Space Planes myself. ;)
Last I heard, his time schedule for space tourism was more optimisitc than Nasa, maybe we should get Rick over to the USA to give them some help. :p ROTFL

BeeVee
09-22-2005, 06:12 AM
Hehe, well let's not forget than it was Bert Rutan who came up with the rocket - who is Merkan! :D

Two things that came out of the Space Race for me (out of many) -

The Fisher Space Pen
I really liked holding it my hand a piece of technology that had cost NASA $15,000,000 to develop, and the fact that it was a conversation starter since you could hold forth on its origins: "NASA spent $15m making a ballpoint pen that would work without the gravity needed by the usual capillary designs. The Russians, faced with the same problem, gave their cosmonauts pencils..."

Google.Earth
Okay, it's at a slight tangent, but the fact remains that I wouldn't be able to get within 400ft of my house vertically, unless I constructed some weird kind of Heath Robinson kind of contraption. The fact that GIS, GPS and Google Earth exist at all is thanks to the many thousands of satellites sending back images to earth...

If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend going to earth.google.com and getting it. It needs a broadband connection really, but statistically over half the people reading this thread should have one... ;)

B

colkai
09-22-2005, 07:54 AM
Well,
All this talk of moon missions and I haven't yet seen any animations of them. It may be my crusty ole memory, but I'm sure there used to be some anims of the moon rover car and Lunar module landing / takeoff many moons ago (ouch ..pun.. sorry :p).

Has anyone tackled anything lately which is more grounded in real space rather than the much loved SF craft / anims? (Oh gawd - there's a condtradiction in terms, grounded in space ;) ).

starbase1
09-22-2005, 08:01 AM
:agree: Very good point - after all, from the Lagrange point between Earth and Moon you can get to anywhere in the solar system for an almost arbitrarily small shove, if you are prepared to take your time getting there. For planetary science this is a massive asset.

The only main plus the moon has is as a source of raw materials, i.e. maybe they don't have to send everything up from Earth.

But a Progress automatic frieghter on a Soyuz launcher seems a pretty cheap and reliable system anyway. I think it could be seriously interesting to see what the USA does with the Soviet technology - could we for once REALLY get the best of both approaches?


My main disappointment with the ISS and the new moon landings is that it would be of more sustainable use (IMO) to have built the Space Station at the Lagrange point. After all, the cost of escaping the Earth's gravity well is probably the biggest expense in any space mission, and making a sizeable station at the L5-point would obviate the need to start all exploration of our solar system or beyond from Earth itself.
B

BeeVee
09-22-2005, 08:21 AM
In the short term, yes the moon has advantages, but that infinitesimally small shove you mention could be used to impel iron ore-rich asteroids towards a space station like barges through space. It would open up a new gold rush of prospectors in the asteroid belt! :D

B

BeeVee
09-22-2005, 08:22 AM
...oh yeah, not to mention the sheer amount of crap in LEO that could happily be recycled rather than having it fall to earth... ;)

B

starbase1
09-22-2005, 08:27 AM
Well,
Has anyone tackled anything lately which is more grounded in real space rather than the much loved SF craft / anims? (Oh gawd - there's a condtradiction in terms, grounded in space ;) ).

Well, here's a Soyuz TM I did a while back - must get around to adding the extra levels of detail sometime soon... I've got some better reference info since I did this one...

colkai
09-22-2005, 09:01 AM
Nice, must admit, the metal front around the 'nose' seems to fit more than the rest of the ship, it looks so clean and bright. I doubt there is such a thing whe nit comes to the Soyuz. :p
Sorta like the Skodas of the rocket world, everyone jokes about 'em - but they keep on working. ;)

Karmacop
09-22-2005, 09:41 AM
I really liked holding it my hand a piece of technology that had cost NASA $15,000,000 to develop, and the fact that it was a conversation starter since you could hold forth on its origins: "NASA spent $15m making a ballpoint pen that would work without the gravity needed by the usual capillary designs. The Russians, faced with the same problem, gave their cosmonauts pencils..."


Those crazy Americans, always solving problems that aren't there :p

EDIT: Although on the other hand I bet pencil shavings in space must be really annoying :p

BeeVee
09-22-2005, 09:47 AM
It tickled me pink when I learned the story... :D I guess the Russkis must have invented the "plastic bag" to hold the shavings... ;)

B

Chuck
09-22-2005, 10:05 AM
We've split the thread - carry on, on topic, please!

3dworks
09-22-2005, 10:42 AM
...would be interesting to see what software was used for this animation? any clues anyone?

markus

cresshead
09-22-2005, 01:02 PM
the animation has a rather colored saturated look to is which is a 'fingerprint' of 3dsmax scanline renderer...also the mo blur looks rather like 3dsmax at work...of course i maybe wrong!...as i don't have much experience in the render look of maya's software renderer or cineam4d too...

although it's not as you'd expect of hollywood it's quite a nice production and is edited together well.