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.

 

Trump wants you to go back to the Moon, America.

page: 3
23
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: intrptr Wow I feel stupid. I read that and thought what on earth does Arma3 have to do with any of this. Then I sipped some coffee and figured I would google this. But man do I feel dumb.


Less dumb now.

Big difference between dumb and stupid, ignorance and denial.

You are none of those. Asking questions shows that.




posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
H3 mining and the futurea reply to: intrptr What if they created a engine that used helium 3? Then the issue becomes getting the tools to the moon and remotely mining H3 to bring back to the ISS for future endeavors. Just a thought.




You say 'tools' , thats a whole factory: including crew habitat, motor pool, space port, and mining and processing facility.

Further: If we consider prepositioning 'modules' , the problem becomes again, how to get them there from the earths surface and how to land them near enough to each other without crashing into each other on the moon (or Mars)

Sci Fi movies always presume huge space ports , like busy airports on earth now. Except they haven't worked out the propulsion systems yet like the presume in sci fi.

In sci fi, they skip over that part. Just assuming some form of accident free, clean, unlimited power from fusion or anti matter source...
edit on 11-12-2017 by intrptr because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 12:31 PM
link   
im thinking this is code for operation "weaponize space"



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr Hmmm didn't really think about it like that. That all sounds very exhausting. And does not seem feasible right now. I would presume that if a world power where to try that they may bankrupt themselves.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: intrptr Hmmm didn't really think about it like that. That all sounds very exhausting. And does not seem feasible right now. I would presume that if a world power where to try that they may bankrupt themselves.


Not only the first time a crew died, like in Challenger, the whole program would be put on hold. Or the public loses interest, like during the Apollo moon missions.

I lived thru both space race eras, seen it to believe it.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz
im thinking this is code for operation "weaponize space"


Kind of like "drill baby drill" presaged the deep horizon well disaster and all the fracking going on, currently.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Trueman
a reply to: Revolution9

I feel like he's been reading ATS.

originally posted by: Trueman
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I find no justification for not having a base in the moon after all these years of space exploration. I'm not asking something too big, maybe and remote controlled observatory. There has to be an intentional delay. I'd say Moon first, then Mars.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In response to your question in that other thread, the logistics of going direct to Mars from earth surface, ostensibly to establish colonies, is gynormous.

All the fuel, oxygen, water and food required for the transit , de-orbiting, landing and return have to be brought along. At ten thousand dollars a pound to earth orbit, do the math.

Likewise, the construction of a moon base to manufacture the fuel to go to mars requires even more expensive and complex logistics . A lunar orbiting station must first be constructed to ferry crews between ISS and Lunar ISS , before even beginning to establish a moon colony before even considering building a factory to make fuel, grow food, etc, etc.

The film 2001 was nice fantasy and all...

A moon observatory station is doable if they use robots and remote controlled devices.
(Read me Donald)

edit on 11-12-2017 by Trueman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 01:09 PM
link   
This idea of Trump is definitely nuts. I see some reason-ability in the Republican Ideas, but this...not so much.

I haven't seen much reasonability in the Left and Democratic partly, they are over-reacting to everything.

Lots of Trumps Ideas were good, probably because they were Republican ideas. This must be his own idea.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Trueman

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Trueman
a reply to: Revolution9

I feel like he's been reading ATS.

originally posted by: Trueman
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I find no justification for not having a base in the moon after all these years of space exploration. I'm not asking something too big, maybe and remote controlled observatory. There has to be an intentional delay. I'd say Moon first, then Mars.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In response to your question in that other thread, the logistics of going direct to Mars from earth surface, ostensibly to establish colonies, is gynormous.

All the fuel, oxygen, water and food required for the transit , de-orbiting, landing and return have to be brought along. At ten thousand dollars a pound to earth orbit, do the math.

Likewise, the construction of a moon base to manufacture the fuel to go to mars requires even more expensive and complex logistics . A lunar orbiting station must first be constructed to ferry crews between ISS and Lunar ISS , before even beginning to establish a moon colony before even considering building a factory to make fuel, grow food, etc, etc.

The film 2001 was nice fantasy and all...

A moon observatory station is doable if they use robots and remote controlled devices.

An observatory isn't the same as a factory to make fuel, water, grow food, etc. Those "devices" have to be protected from moon grit, radiation, heat, etc.

If probes is all we're discussing, then we are good at that. Voyagers and Mars Rovers, case in point.
They don't really need to 'colonize' , living on the moon or mars.

Its just too damn far, too hostile and expensive to maintain human habitats.

Two sided nature to the 'space' program.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Having read the article the following can be stated:

We should only believe it when we see the budget, and see how much more money NASA is going to get to accomplish this. Going to the moon, or even space is a costly venture, and it is not as simple as many would think. Even putting a base on the moon is going to cost money and resources, and may not pay off for a few years if not generation.
Consider this, in 1973 the entire program to send a man to the moon cost 25.4 billion dollars, and in 2005 it would cost 170 billion dollars. That was for the equipment, logistics, resources and people to do this. And when Nasa had its budget cuts, many of the people who worked on those programs were either reassigned or pretty much retired, taking many of the ideas and knowledge with them.

So here is what all would be required: They will need engineers, of various fields, doctors, biologists, and other scientists of various fields. They will also need to have qualified pilots and other person to man the machines, and do the work. Weight will be an issue, especially water, and air.

This is not like going on a simple car ride, but in short, people are sitting on top of a bomb that they are hoping that will not explode. And once they are in space, it is only the start, as they have to then go on a long journey where if anything goes wrong, like a person getting sick or an injury, it could be life threatening, in short it could be a one way trip. And that is just the trip from Earth to the moon.

Once there then there is the matter of getting structures up, and that will require more people and supplies, and will take several years until it is self-sustaining, and we start seeing the results from the efforts of our being there. And ultimately it would require that supplies from Earth on a regular basis. And the first priority would have to be, water. Those on the moon or even Mars, would require water for the survival of those that are there.

So before we get excited about going back to the moon, let us see the corresponding budget that would reflect such first.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Sincerely hoping this comes true. And it should be interesting to see how SLS and BFR compete for the mission. If SpaceX actually succeeds in developing BFR on a reasonable time schedule and for a reasonable price, it could put SLS out of business.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Did anyone catch the President's speech on his mandate to go back to the moon?

Several things caught my ear and what I can say is that he did lie outright to the public. And the other thing, should make us wonder if he is going to try to pull the USA out of another treaty that was signed in good faith.

The first is that the USA is the leader in space area, however that is a partial truth. In some aspects the USA is number one, however, when it comes to sending people into space, the USA is far behind, as the USA no longer sends its own people into space, rather we hire Russia to do such, at a great cost.

The other is that the President did mention about the militarization of space, and that is what is worrying as this would be a violation of various space treaties, and to do such would violate said treaty that the US not only signed but ratified.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Odds are if we get the delivery system built in a reasonable time with a reasonable budget, modules and base building will be done with some sort of international effort that the US will maintain overall control of.

Least that seems the most likely ending to me, we can foot the bill for the means of getting there but I do not see how we can alone foot the bill for building a base on the moon.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: snowspirit

Imagine how far this world could get with space research/travel, if the world didn't spend the money on wars and weapons.



Even better, imagine the advancements we could make in Space Exploration, Science and, as someone mentioned earlier, mapping every inch of our home planet if money didn't exist, we really have hurt our race by making money so important...



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

You hit the nail on the head. Over the last 3-4 decades I have heard this talk by so many presidents that it doesn't even raise my pulse - just my blood pressure. Show me the money or shut up.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 03:53 PM
link   
While I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon, the USA does need to start committing to space operations. You know Russia, China, EU etc. are trying to figure out how to take advantage of space, how to militarize space, how to mine the moon etc. I know the anti-Americans will spin this against the USA, but it's something we must pursue if we want to keep pace with other world powers.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

The president said this morning that the moon will fit into our Strategic Defense initiative.

How?



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Doesn't Trump know the aliens told the US to keep their behinds off the moon?

That's why they never have gone back



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 04:42 PM
link   
By the time the DC bureaucrats ok the money for the new space/moon initiative, the Chinese will have their moon base established.
Still I hope this project will go better than the Challenger and Columbia events.
edit on 11-12-2017 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Revolution9



Space X, Boing, now NASA? let the race begin, We got to go



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join