It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why wouldnt we have a base for scientific testing on the moon?

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Under what jurisdiction would it be under if we built a testing facility on the moon?

Doesn't it make sense to test energy devices, and other biological testing and terrforming on the moon already?

I have this funny feeling like Apollo just went dark and we've been there for decades already. I'm pretty sure something along those lines was already happening and thats why Bush sent that rocket.

Do you have any feelings about this topic, if so please share.




posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   


thats why Bush sent that rocket.

Which one?
Do you mean the one that 'bombed' the moon?



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Yes exactly.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   
We hitch a ride with the Russians to a low orbit space station.
Doubt we could even get back to the moon.
edit on 1-8-2014 by Hoosierdaddy71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

I'm guessing that humanity doesn't have a moon base, or the US doesn't have a legitimate space program anymore, is because funding wars is more important than funding knowledge.

If as much effort was put into the world's space programs as is put into war, humans would be out of the solar system by now.
edit on 8/1/2014 by EternalSolace because: Clarity



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Its my opinion that a moon base would need a steady stream of supply. This involves multiple large rocket launches that would have been noticed by many people.

The reason there is no interest in the moon is because there is no reason to go back, at this time. Considering the expense of setting up a long term operation it isn't practical unless the military industrial complex sees a reason for a base. The base would need to provide an enhancement to the military infrastructure. Science comes second.
edit on 1-8-2014 by eManym because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

Thats such a true and seriously depressing perspective.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

1 wouldn't doubt LUNAR base(s) exist, questions is who allows permissions if so onequestion?



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   
The moon is owned by the elite. IMO they'd be foolish not to have somewhere to run if things got out of hand down here on earth.
People say that we spend all our money on weapons of war, well ok, but someone is receiving that money, and they've been receiving trillions per year for many many decades.
What do they do with ALL THAT MONEY?
They build themselves very nice cities, completely self sufficient, on the other side of the moon. All paid for by the foolish slaves who think they're free.

Prove me wrong



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Because based on current technology, it's absolutely impossible to get there and there are millions of engineers and physicists that know this but don't say anything because how could we?
Nobody will believe us and, we will never get a good job after we ruin that one.

The average person doesn't actually know why the world turns, why it has a magnetosphere, ionosphere etc. because if they did, they would know there's no way man passed through the thickest lines of magnetomotive flux in the rockets or shuttles they show you.
People who then say I am nuts?
For one, I am an electronic/electrical engineering student.
For two, look up various papers published by engineers and physicists with Phd's about:
Modulation of the Earth's magnetic flux
Modulation of the Earth's magnetomotive force
Modulation of the van allen belts
et cetera

You'll find papers written for the last 60 years regarding celestial radiation and other celestial forms of energy modulating the flux lines of the earth and the gamma that then rides this DC.
I can give a highly detailed, accurate explanation as to what is going on but it comes down to this.
If I'm wrong, these computers do not work, the earth does not have diamagnetic reactance, it does not rotate, there is no atmosphere and we are not alive.
The foundation of all physical existence and life as we know it on earth as explained by physics and chemistry proves it's absolutely impossible for man to pass through the gamma of the van allen belts.

Yes, people will argue and say "the level of gamma is nowhere near blah blah blah" yes well they're LYING about the magnitude of the gamma in the documents released to the public.
It's impossible.
Not only is the flux modulating but the magnitudes of celestial radiation are strong enough to pass directly through the magnetosphere which is why too much time in the sun will kill you. The radiation causes a myriad of genetic diseases from damaging DNA not just cancer. This is because the power sources causing the earth's diagmagnetic response is THE POWER SOURCE. You do not get more power out of a device than you do from the power supply energizing it.
You can not have a source of gamma, such as the sun, or pulsars TRILLIONS of times(and this is documented by NASA) the magnitude of the earth's flux modulating it's DC and that gamma not be so hot and toxic that humans can pass right through it.
NASA actually provides all the numerical data, accept when it comes to the rads of the belts, so you can mathematically prove there's no way on earth any living organism passed through those modulated lines of flux since it's in the gamma spectrum and beyond.

If pressed, I can give a more detailed explanation and no, it won't be the laymen's propaganda you get from science books using what sounds like science but isn't science.
When I reviewed the moon hoax theories after putting in about 15 months into my degree and maintaining a 4.0 gpa it was truly a slap in the face. It's one thing to be open minded and believe they could be right.
It's another to have enough education and gained mental capacities and abilities to look at the empirical data and know for fact it's a lie.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: eManym
Its my opinion that a moon base would need a steady stream of supply. This involves multiple large rocket launches that would have been noticed by many people.

The reason there is no interest in the moon is because there is no reason to go back, at this time. Considering the expense of setting up a long term operation it isn't practical unless the military industrial complex sees a reason for a base. The base would need to provide an enhancement to the military infrastructure. Science comes second.


Supplies are dependent upon the ability to transport them. If you can't look beyond "multiple large rocket launches" as the tool for moving that stuff, you would be right. however, allow the existence of the hundreds and hundreds triangle reports as evidence of a far more efficient type of craft and you would want to rethink your opinion as what is possible in space.

You couldn't be more wrong with "no interest in the Moon." The US military--a far different outfit that NASA--has always had an intense interest in taking command of the Moon (and L4 and L5). That real estate would give the US Space Force control of the space within and beyond that area. Strategically, There is little doubt but that the Moon is a full-blown military base and was desired from the very beginning for that first-line purpose. The Apollo missions were sightseers, not serious-business people. The military came later.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Because they would have no reason to hide it unless its for weaponry and weapons of that much a danger obviously pose a risk of throwing the moon off orbit. the risk of being pummeled by meteors is too great since the atmosphere doesnt protect it. The entire structure would have to be bulletproof. Its not impossible but its impracticle even if possible. They seem to prefer space stations.

a reply to: JonnyDeath

Yeah they just risk hunreds of austronaughts lives over the years all for show and had deaths from it all for show and all footage and feeds from space is fake.


Signed: the queen of england.


Seriously though even water, iodine on skin, and a thin lead casing can sheild you from radiation and the radiation is not evenly dispursed there are pockets of lower radiation. Is that too high tech for you?
edit on 1-8-2014 by Aural because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 04:35 PM
link   
I think there is no reason we wouldn't have a base there. In fact? I think we may already have one up there. They just aren't saying.....



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Thought we would be mining helium-3 by now



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: JonnyDeath

What about the guys on the ISS? Did they have to pass through the radiation, or would you say they are not there at all? Oh and I think humans probably did not set foot on the moon in 1969. I wouldn't personally encourage a moon base, I want to curb all this outrageous and reckless government spending - including the total cessation of the murder of brown peoples abroad who have never wronged me or seriously threatened my "freedom" that I don't have because our government is pissing on our most precious governing documents.



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Because we went, did all the tests we could ever think of doing 40 years ago before we even had ZX-Machines and have nothing else to learn.

I don't know the answer but i do know that something does not add up here .



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
Under what jurisdiction would it be under if we built a testing facility on the moon?

Doesn't it make sense to test energy devices, and other biological testing and terrforming on the moon already?

I have this funny feeling like Apollo just went dark and we've been there for decades already. I'm pretty sure something along those lines was already happening and thats why Bush sent that rocket.

Do you have any feelings about this topic, if so please share.


Long before we first went to the moon there were BIG plans. In fact even before the Beatles landed in America there was talk of a lunar base, landings on Mars and manned exploration of the Solar System. This was all conceived to happen long before the 20th century was out.



Source : Popular Science December 1963 edition

Five years before that the same publication revealed plans for a lunar base.



Back in that time though the emphasis was very much on military applications for such a base.



The following year Project Horizon began with a hint that it should be kept as secret as the Manhattan Project. Preparation for a “War on Terra” perhaps?





There is a requirement for a manned military outpost on the moon. The lunar outpost is required to develop and protect potential United States interests on the moon; to develop techniques in moon-based surveillance of the earth and space, in communications relay, and in operations on the surface of the moon; to serve as a base for exploration of the moon, for further exploration into space and for military operations on the moon if required; and to support scientific investigations on the moon. “….The establishment of the outpost should be a special project having authority and priority similar to the Manhattan Project in World War II”

Source: Project Horizon



Things changed after the Apollo missions. The public was bored of moon shots by the time Apollo 17 returned home, the Vietnam war had drained US resources and the world was waking up from the hangover of the 1960s, realising that the planets resources were strictly limited and the damage we were causing to our environment.

The Space Shuttle program was great for zero gravity experiments and satellite operations but effectively meant manned operations would be limited to near earth orbit and robots would be sent out to explore the solar system. The costs of which, compared to a manned expedition, are much cheaper and could be sustained for longer. The risks are also significantly less when humans are not exposed to the dangers of outer space.

So it seems that everything was re-evaluated during the early 1970s and nothing has changed that view since. Unless of course Gary McKinnon really was onto something





posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman
I don't see why humans don't have a moon base for scientific research. Even though there were issues with funding and even other concerns as the environment, a research base on the moon could have been the foundation for industrialization of the moon and we could've even found new elements and new resources that could even help by being a cleaner alternative to mainstream resources. You wouldn't even need to risk human lives because you can send robots there to do most of the work. There's probably some reason, or something that is preventing humans from colonizing beyond our planet. Though I think the latter wouldn't belong in this discussion. I bet if we had an interplanetary rest area on the moon we could've gone to mars already and be constructing a station there. A moon base is essential for scientific progress.



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 02:53 AM
link   
a reply to: JonnyDeath

I'll press you. Put up your numbers and show us exactly how the radiation would kill humans but doesn't kill satellites. What level of flux are we talking about in your view? And why don't satellite measurements show those levels?



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Rob48

Every one knows of vans belts
Missions beyond low Earth orbit leave the protection of the geomagnetic field, and transit the Van Allen belts. Thus they may need to be shielded against exposure to cosmic rays, Van Allen radiation, or solar flares. The region between two to four Earth radii lies between the two radiation belts and is sometimes referred to as the "safe zone".

Solar cells, integrated circuits, and sensors can be damaged by radiation. Geomagnetic storms occasionally damage electronic components on spacecraft. Miniaturization and digitization of electronics and logic circuits have made satellites more vulnerable to radiation, as the total electric charge in these circuits is now small enough so as to be comparable with the charge of incoming ions. Electronics on satellites must be hardened against radiation to operate reliably. The Hubble Space Telescope, among other satellites, often has its sensors turned off when passing through regions of intense radiation. A satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium in an elliptic orbit (200 by 20,000 miles (320 by 32,190 km)) passing the radiation belts will receive about 2,500 rem (25 Sv) per year. Almost all radiation will be received while passing the inner belt.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join