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.

 

Learning to walk (to the Moon) all over again.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Why do they need until 2015 if they've already "been" to the moon?

edition.cnn.com...

"After the Apollo program ended, the equipment, tools and plans for building the rocket were lost" (2nd paragraph) REALLY? AND HOW DO YOU LOSE SOMETHING LIKE THAT?

edition.cnn.com...


*Mod Edit: All-Caps title*

[edit on 2-2-2005 by alien]




posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by sumsingwong

"After the Apollo program ended, the equipment, tools and plans for building the rocket were lost" REALLY? AND HOW DO YOU LOSE SOMETHING LIKE THAT?

edition.cnn.com...


How about you quote the article accurately, the second line of which was:

"The rockets, equipment and engineers that put American footprints on lunar soil have long been lost, junked or retired."

Is it that hard to think that someone who was at the height of their career 45 years ago have retired? Or that equipment that was very large, but also very expensive and in-efficient (not to mention had no real use) would be scrapped and the factories would switch to something else?



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 06:39 PM
link   
I don't think we have landed on the moon, for my own personal reasons after research, but even if we had been I think they would want to upgrade the stuff they used to make it safer and faster.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   
They're not going to rebuild 1960s technology like the Saturn V rocket to go to the moon...it would pointless since that was designed just to get the men there and back with a minimal amount of equipment for scientific research. If we want to establish any type of base or permanent presence on the moon, an entire new system will have to be developed.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
They're not going to rebuild 1960s technology like the Saturn V rocket to go to the moon...it would pointless since that was designed just to get the men there and back with a minimal amount of equipment for scientific research. If we want to establish any type of base or permanent presence on the moon, an entire new system will have to be developed.


The Saturn V plans are not lost. This is a famous urban legend made popular by those wanting to be paid to reinvent the wheel. Using Saturn technology would not be 'pointless' as the Saturn V was specifically designed to loft nuclear upper stages and to form the basis for non-minimal colony construction on both the Moon and Mars. The system is developed and tested and could be put back on line in a minimum time scenario. Go down to the airport and look at the Cessnas. The older ones look pretty much like the newer ones. The laws of physics do not change. The avionics (electronics) get updated, but hey that's just pull the junk from the slots and slide the new ones in. Saturn V had/has capability the general public did not and does not fathom. I suggest you visit Encyclopedia Astronautica and cruise for Project Lunex, Saturn V and Lunar Gemini. The real question is why did Nixon take the space program black- and how far has it gotten using unacknowledged Titan launches with Geminis under the aeroshell...

By the way, how many of you have ever heard of The Aerospace Corporation (AERO)? Try a web search sometime. Interesting place.

[edit on 1-2-2005 by Chakotay]



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Huria86
I don't think we have landed on the moon, for my own personal reasons..


No doubt this has been done to death at ATS. However, I'd be curious to know what those reasons are, and how you discount data like this, from multiple observatories;

Apollo 11 Laser Ranging



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 09:59 PM
link   
I didn't say the plans were lost, I'm saying the Saturn V isn't capable of doing what we want to do in the future on the moon.



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Besides colonising the moon for scientific/economical reasons has taken a backseat for all the nearspace millitary / dual use projects, for the time being, the Pentagon call the shots at NASA.

Moon colonisation would now be approached with a "lets build a big magrail up there, so we can bomb the enemy with moonrocks" , naturally the millitary use will trickle over to civilian application, but in the short term it seems near space missile shields have the highest priority and Hubble can just forget about being saved.



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   

By the way, how many of you have ever heard of The Aerospace Corporation (AERO)? Try a web search sometime. Interesting place.


Hehe...my Grandfather and uncles worked for them a long time ago in Lake City. Pretty sure my father did at one point too (long before he hooked up with mom). He and one of my uncles now work for Lockheed.


The real question is why did Nixon take the space program black- and how far has it gotten using unacknowledged Titan launches with Geminis under the aeroshell...


Yep, that is the big one, isn't it...? Perhaps it has something to do with the other traffic we might have found up there?



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 12:30 AM
link   
R U sure U.S. went to the moon www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...


jra

posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
R U sure U.S. went to the moon www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...


Yes. www.clavius.org...



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 01:05 AM
link   
The moon landing conspiracy theory is one of the most stupid ideas I've ever heard.

Of course we landed on the moon!



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 01:29 AM
link   
Can You please explain why the flag is lying down and not up starit as in the other pictures of the apolow missions? www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...

[edit on 4-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]


jra

posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
Can You please explain why the flag is lying down and not up starit as in the other pictures of the apolow missions? www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...

[edit on 4-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]


I forget which Apollo mission it was, but I believe it was caused by the LM (lunar Modual) when it left. The flag was rather close to it and it got knocked over by the initial blast of the thruster. That's what I recall anyway. Please do read that link I posted before. It can answer a lot of your questions.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 03:10 AM
link   
You don't understand what I'm saying read carefully "Why is the flag resting just like here on earth look at the picture of the flag scroll down to the part that says "Austrailian Viewers See Something That Proves Apollo 11 Was Fake" Look in the backround at the flag notice the L.M. still there www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...

[edit on 4-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]


jra

posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 03:42 AM
link   
You mean why is it standing at an angle? Maybe it wasn't put in perfectly stright? There still is a bit of gravity on the Moon too, 1/6th of Earth's I believe.

The whole thing about the Australian broadcast seems really stupid though. A coke bottle getting kicked into the frame? Give me a break. The whole thing doesn't make any sence at all.

IF one were to fake something as big as doing a Moon landing. You're not going to do it live, and if for some crazy reason you do. Your not going to have some jackass standing around that accedently knocks a coke bottle into the picture. If the Moon landings were faked, why would Australia get some extra footage? It makes no sence. I'm guessing those people just saw something they didn't understand (If there claims are true at all)



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 03:46 AM
link   
Wow, just wow. www.clavius.org... really convinced me that we DID land on the moon
ATS comes through again woo!



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 04:06 AM
link   
NO NO NO NO!!!! I don't care about the Austrailian thing what I'm saying is LOOK at the flag not the pole but the flag it is hanging just like what it would do if it we're on EARTH, remember the Austronuts on Apollo 11 put a small metal pipe threw the top of the flag to keep it straight, now it's lying down just like on earth, the moon has 1/6th earth's gravity it would NOT be lying like that on the moon EVEN with 1/6th Gravity pulling it down, here's a little experiment imagine a flag outside your home on the moon the flag will be lying down only 1/6 of the way it would on earth.

[edit on 4-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 4-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]


jra

posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 04:56 AM
link   
Well firstly here's a bigger version of the image. www.hq.nasa.gov... (I hope that's the one you were talking about)

I still have no idea what you mean by the flag laying down though. It doesn't appear to be "laying down" or hanging down or anything at all? it's just at a bit of an angle and a little wrinkly.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 06:05 AM
link   
NO I'm talking about the one that is abouve The Words "Austrailian Viewer see something"




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join