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.

 

Were we kicked off the moon?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 08:20 PM
link   
no I dont think its a mismatched picture its obvious !
you didnt go and look yourself I bet.

And i said alot more than just sending a link.

mature "apartment comment" too.

[edit on 26-1-2005 by lizzardsamok]




posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
lizard, here's a quote from the Clementine site:

Or are you going to build the "Lizardsamok Large Apartment Project Theory" based on a single picture you can't explain?

Either way, it ought to be good for a couple of laughs, right?


Storage would give better returns .



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 09:24 PM
link   
as far as the theory that "we haven't been back, and there is no good reason other than we were kicked off" goes, I'd present the argument that we went simply to prove we could do it, and do it before the ruskies right ? I mean we weren't looking for minerals, resources, habitat, etc as far as I know.

How many mountain climbers go back to everest once they get to the summit ? (rhetorical, no lists please
)

we proved we could do it, we beat the ruskies.

why should we go back ? to get the flag ?



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by radagast


we proved we could do it, we beat the ruskies.

why should we go back ? to get the flag ?


You know you are right, lets just sit on this rock and watch the cosmos go by!!!

Why??? Read above posts for starters, then think about the limitless possibilities for advancement in metals, materials, knowledge, outpost for other missions, test bed for advanced concepts.... the list could go on.

Anyone see a problem with going back?



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   


For whatever reason I couldn't put this image at the bottom of my text, it erased everything I had written when I put it in, luckally I copy and pasted it. This image as far as I know has yet to be proved as fake, as far as anyone can tell or experts can tell it is a large dirigible object certainly between the satelite and the moon. Distance was determined so therefore they determined it's size as literary over a mile in length.

Well I've heard of a NASA transmisson that was not aired on television. It's Armstrong relaying a message saying that he sees 2 'huge' metallic saucers on the edge of a crater, or on the inside of the crater. I forget, but I'll post a link to it. Theres no way really to determine if it's true or made up, other then to ask Armstrong in an interview.

www.ufoarea.com...

archive.anomalies.net...

I like how this site has it set up, summerizes the jist of it. The first quote is the transmission from Mission Control to Armstrong and Armstrong replying.

The second is an inteview by a supposed Professor who remains anonomous. I don't think the professor keeping himself anonomous adds any credibility, it takes away from it then add any. If it was a credible professor with a degree instead of nobody then people follow up on the interview.

Apparently the beloved HAM radios could pick up transmissions. I don't know about this, it requires some research to determine if HAM radios actually could back then.

I doubt the second interview with the professor is Armstrong's words, thats just my initial imression to stay skeptical. Neil unfortunately doesn't do many interviews anymore so I don't know his real opinion of alien interaction in the Apollo era. The best way to get it from him is a credible published interview, not hearsay.

I'm sure if Armstrong did have visual interaction between UFOs and Alien controlled craft, hes probably confided in his close friends and relatives. I'm not sure if the Document of NASA confidentiality still stands with him being retired for so long.

My opinion is still in the air, so to speak, but I favor the possibility. It all lies on the credibility of the transmission and Armstrong's word or opinion on whether there was Santa Claus or not.


[edit on 26-1-2005 by lord finesse420]

[edit on 26-1-2005 by lord finesse420]



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by one_small_step

Originally posted by radagast


we proved we could do it, we beat the ruskies.

why should we go back ? to get the flag ?


You know you are right, lets just sit on this rock and watch the cosmos go by!!!

Why??? Read above posts for starters, then think about the limitless possibilities for advancement in metals, materials, knowledge, outpost for other missions, test bed for advanced concepts.... the list could go on.

Anyone see a problem with going back?




my point was the mission didn't intend to do any of what you listed, not that there isn't any value in doing it.
It was much more a political mission than scientific, wouldn't you agree ?
I would point out my observatiuons might be a little more realistic than we were warned by little green men. I mean, for starters, did they warn us in English ?



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 10:22 PM
link   
yeh I agree, it was to be there first. the why go back comment was a little interesting



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by one_small_step
yeh I agree, it was to be there first. the why go back comment was a little interesting



you're right, I re-read it, it does beg a resonse, doesn't it !

if only science was in control and not the politicians......



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by radagast

if only science was in control and not the politicians......



Agreed - If only


But hey we are going back....... someday........



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Well, we couldn't maintain a Space Program, subsidize LBJ's Great Society and War of Poverty, and fight a major land war in Southeast Asia all at the same time -- although we tried, didn't we?

And of course, we dropped the only one which was working and didn't turn into embarrasing defeats



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by one_small_step
But hey we are going back....... someday........


Yes someday. Apperently Nasa wants to do some unmanned missions to the moon in order to prepare for a permanent manned base.
It looks like these are all steps towards making a good go to be on Mars.
www.freerepublic.com...
www.space.com...
www.msnbc.msn.com...

Hopes of the base will be up by 2015-2020



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vertu
I heard about alien bases (large cities) on the dark side of the Moon. However, it is a fact that the Human community keeps away from further Moon landing. For what reason?


I don't know, but I actually did email NASA about this, about a year ago, I didn't get a response though.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Interesting tidbit...that I wasn't aware of. In 1996, the Pentagon announced officially that there is ice on the moon's south pole. This is even on the official military website, regarding Clementine's images. Searched for it this morning, so didn't save the URL, but easy enough to google.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by diana
I don't know, but I actually did email NASA about this, about a year ago, I didn't get a response though.


I admire the fact that you actually emailed NASA this question, and I'm really not surprised that they didn't email you back.
I have a long list of questions that I'd like to ask NASA myself.

Peace


[edit on 27-1-2005 by Dr Love]



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 11:27 AM
link   
IMHO the reason why we have never gone back to the moon is that we never went there in the first place, and all the talk of Neil Armstrong reporting that he saw UFO's on the moon could have been arranged and 'leaked' to make it much more reasonable and believeable that we did land on the moon - reinforcing the idea that we did land.

[edit on 27-1-2005 by spacemunkey]



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 11:34 AM
link   


You know you are right, let’s just sit on this rock and watch the cosmos go by!!!

Why??? Read above posts for starters, then think about the limitless possibilities for advancement in metals, materials, knowledge, outpost for other missions, test bed for advanced concepts.... the list could go on.

Anyone see a problem with going back?



There is no problem with going back; it just got to the point where it was expensive and pointless. No one here seemed to much care about doing it; many thought it was a phenomenal waste of money that could be better spent here.

Let’s say that they did want to put a base there?
Back then with the limited abilities of our rockets, how would you keep that base supplied?
How would you move the base pieces there and have the equipment to construct this base?
Without constant support from earth how would you provide air, water, and food to the people manning this base?
What would you hope to accomplish with it?

Mining?
How where they going to retrieve the minerals from the surface of the moon and deliver them back to earth in any viable quantities?

Science?
What is there really to do there, it’s a dead world, you can only study so much about the rocks there, and we brought enough of those home to do the research. We can achieve better low gravity studies in orbit then on the moon.

Put a telescope there?
Again you have to be able to get it there and land it. The Hubble was a more viable option.

So what would have been the viable returns to such and expensive layout of money back then?

Enlighten me, because I just don’t see them…
No conspiracy, just plain old bottomline…



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally From www.asi.org...
D. The Apollo Spacecraft:
Work began on the Apollo CSM in November 1961, when NASA selected North American as main contractor. Two 'boilerplates' were launched in 1964. Two Block-I CSM prototypes were launched on ballistic test flights in 1966; two more unmanned Block-Is flew on Saturn Vs in 1967/68. Fifteen manned Block-II (lunar orbit) spacecraft were launched in 1968-75, including three Skylab and one Apollo-Soyuz Test Project.

TOTAL COST: $17.5 billion.
PEAK FUNDING: $2.6 billion in 1966.
COST PER SPACECRAFT: $220 million.
The Apollo LM was conceived in June 1962 when NASA decided to use the lunar orbit rendezvous technique rather than land the CSM on the Moon. Grumman won the contract in September 1962. The first unmanned tests took place in Earth orbit in 1968 (Apollo 5, 6). Nine manned LMs were launched in 1969-72.

ESTIMATED COST: $2-3 billion.
TOTAL COST: $11 billion.
PEAK FUNDING: $2 billion in 1967.
COST PER SPACECRAFT: $170 million.
Although not part of the lunar program, the Skylab space station was nevertheless based on surplus Apollo hardware. The Skylab 1 laboratory cost about $7 billion, while the total cost of the three Apollo/Saturn IB flights to the station probably cost approx. $2 billion. Although NASA constructed two Skylabs, it could afford to launch only one of them. Launching the second would have cost only $1.1 billion, plus $1.3 billion for two 2-month Apollo missions in 1974-76.
Total Costs:

TOTAL COST PER APOLLO MISSION:
-----------------------------

Year ($M) (94$M)
Apollo 7 1968 $145 $575
Apollo 8 1968 $310 $1 230
Apollo 9 1969 $340 $1 303
Apollo 10 1969 $350 $1 341
Apollo 11 1969 $355 $1 360
Apollo 12 1970 $375 $1 389
Apollo 13 1970 $375 $1 389
Apollo 14 1971 $400 $1 421
Apollo 15 1971 $445 $1 581
Apollo 16 1972 $445 $1 519
Apollo 17 1972 $450 $1 536
---------------------------------
$3,990 $14,644


NASA'S ANNUAL BUDGET and APOLLO:
-----------------------------

Fiscal Apollo Total %
Year (94$B) (94$B)
1962 $0.78 $5.89 13.31%
1963 $2.91 $10.52 27.66%
1964 $10.33 $20.62 50.08%
1965 $11.47 $28.20 40.67%
1966 $12.57 $28.20 44.58%
1967 $11.95 $27.15 44.04%
1968 $10.14 $24.41 41.55%
1969 $7.76 $21.04 36.87%
1970 $6.24 $17.26 36.19%
1971 $3.25 $15.36 21.14%
1972 $2.05 $11.99 17.10%
1973 $0.25 $11.99 2.05%
-----------------------------------
Total $79.7 $222.6 35.80%


Now I would like to hear from someone with an engineering background what it would have cost to have a 2 man base established on the moon. Lets just for fun say that we could strip the area from the bottom lunar Lander bay forward, and did not have to worry about a Lander big enough to get this payload down to the moons surface.

How much tonnage could this area hold, if unmanned, and with that volume of space, how much just water, air, and food could be landed, and how long would that supply last before having to be resupplied. This does not include other consumables, or power cells, etc.

Off_The_Street, you’re an airspace engineer, is there any chance you could figure this one out.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 04:54 PM
link   
The Moon is an ancient space ship. C’mon, you guys didn’t know that? Geez..



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   
I just want to remind you guys that we, Americans, never even made it to the moon. It was government propaganda to end the cold war.

If the moon landing was true then why havent we replicated the feat?



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Kicked off the moon by aliens???? My, this site is rather fun. Would anyone happen to have a link to any proof or pictures of these bases of aliens that live on a dead rock???? I am sorry to those that believe in aliens but this whole moon thing is way out there. Did you ever think that we have not been back to the moon for two reasons.........money and there is nothing there.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join