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.

 

probe to the moon........why?

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: steaming

To fly a ship through the Van Allen Belt, with three foot walls of lead would kill the astronauts before they got out of it. Lead is the worst possible shielding for space flight.




posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: ShadowChatter

for what purpose, why waste money on it
To pretty them up. ASU is rescanning the images. University students don't cost money.


what do you have against the French
Not a thing. They make cognac. I like cognac. A lot.


edit on 11/18/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

That's what I was - trying to say - take some energy to launch that lot. Even old Chinese pencils are ruddy dangerous......



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
Now there's a scary thought.



The first human colony on the moon built and owned by the Federal Reserve...


sounds like they plan to back the currency with moon rocks since they're more valuable than gold



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: steaming

Radiation in space is vastly different than on earth, due to the energy involved. On earth, lead will stop radiation, with little side effect, because the radiation is low energy. In space, you have secondary radiation from the particles hitting your shielding. The denser your shielding, the worse it is. Lead is extremely dense, which means that you are going to have a LOT of secondary radiation from lead shielding. Materials like aluminum work for short term trips, such as Apollo, but again, wouldn't work well for long term stays. New materials are going to have to be developed that work well for long term stays in space, that aren't very dense, that stop radiation better than current materials.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Water would work really well. Trouble is, it's heavy and bulky.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

"Thank You", never been 'Deep' into radiation, but thank's for the knowledge, though the said idea for such a Large Lead contraption, arose as I listened to a BBC.Co.UK chat about such among, believe it or not, several Scientists., Bye for now, ATS is great...



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Water would work great, except for that minor detail. Some composites that they're looking into are showing promise.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 04:30 AM
link   
a reply to: sparky31

Why not going to the moon? I hope you can give someone with another opinion a chance.

www.evawaseerst.be...



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 04:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: sparky31

Finding landing areas, high resolution mapping, long term radiation readings, and a lot of other data that is better to know BEFORE you land there planning to stay for months at a time. Data that Apollo didn't need, and wasn't able to collect.


Dammit you beat me too it



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 04:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: sparky31

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: sparky31

And again, yes you learn more by being there. But a probe that monitors radiation around the moon for months is going to do a lot more than any manned mission lasting days is going to do. The same with landing areas, and ice sources, and a lot of other really important details vital to a long term stay. Probes are vital to developing the technology that is needed to stay there, as well as finding where they're going to stay.
surely they know all that already,its been over 30 years since man stepped on the moon so i,m guessing they already figured most of that out even years before they sent anyone up there or it was sending their people up on a suicide mission.


No because the challenges of sending people there for a couple of days compared to long term stay that we are looking at now is VASTLY different.

Listen to Zaphod and eriktheawful.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 04:50 AM
link   
a reply to: sparky31

talking about landing on comets and the like why didnt we land on
3753 Cruithne. it would have been easier i would of thought

anyway back on topic i thought they knew what the moon consisted of.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 04:51 AM
link   
a reply to: sparky31

I'm still agog as to how they managed to get to the moon in the 1960's with such little technology yet whilst today we have technology yet no trips to the moon.

Also and I wonder if anyone can put me right I thought I read that scientists had fired a nuclear bomb at the moon for some reason and that surprised me because I can't see why?

I do have the book Who built the moon which raises a lot of questions but as its too far to reach and have a really good look at - unless one uses the NASA pictures which my 'conspiratorial' mind says are they authentic- I am left in the dark about the moon.

I do know when I hear people talking about other worlds we could go and live on that, without a similar moon - they are talking out of their hats because we need the moon to stop stagnation and the poisoning of this planet.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 04:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: sparky31

I'm still agog as to how they managed to get to the moon in the 1960's with such little technology yet whilst today we have technology yet no trips to the moon.


Simply but money....lots and lots and lots of money......and luck.


The budget NASA has now would not likely cover a 5th of the Apollo budget. Even if NASA/ESA and Russia agency combined they would not likely have the budget.

Plus the safety margins of the Apollo would never be approved today. They really were flying on dumb luck and betting on huge risks.

NASA decided to run a marathon back then before they could even crawl, they got lucky, really lucky that it worked and paid off. It could have easily gone the same way the Russians moon attempts did.
edit on 19-11-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 06:30 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Thanks for that but do you know anything about the firing of a bomb onto the moon or the reason why?

What got me was who authorises such huge actions that could have disasterous affects on everyone in ways we don't yet understand? Bombing another planet is a step too far at this stage in our technological innovation.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 07:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Shiloh7

Well its the quickest way to see whats under the surface.

Sending up complex drilling equipment would cost more and have more chance to go wrong.

A big dumb bomb pretty simple and cheap.

Plus the mass of the moon is huge, even if we launched a dozen tsar bombs at it, it wont be affected.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 07:14 AM
link   
Could I perhaps see some sources that show NASA detonating a nuclear bomb on the moon?

Thanks ahead of time.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 07:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: eriktheawful
Could I perhaps see some sources that show NASA detonating a nuclear bomb on the moon?

Thanks ahead of time.


Well i wasnt aware they had. I know USAF talked about doing it in the cold war for #s and giggles but never went ahead with it,

But didnt nasa do something with conventional explosives a couple of years back to test for water?



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Not that I know of.

The only thing they've done is slam probes at the end of their lives into craters that never see sun light to see if any water was in the ejecta.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 07:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: crazyewok

Not that I know of.

The only thing they've done is slam probes at the end of their lives into craters that never see sun light to see if any water was in the ejecta.



Thats probably what im thinking of.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join