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.

 

President Trump signs directive ordering NASA to return to the moon and beyond

page: 2
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
The Moon is interesting... but Mars is a over the top crapshoot waste of time (super duper far away + antibacterial soil chemistry + complete lack of electromagneto shield).


Your name checks out.

Actually Mars' atmosphere is well protected from the solar wind so your electromagneto shield is now proven invalid.

You've just proven why we go to the unknown and thats to disprove or prove our theories. Being ignorant is not bliss but idiotic.



Despite the absence of a global Earth-like magnetic dipole, the Martian atmosphere is well protected from the effects of the solar wind on ion escape from the planet. 


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




posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

I've never been in one or actually even seen one in person.

That's why I am excited for the Lunar location.


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



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 07:18 PM
link   
First step will be to reverse-engineer the few F1 engines still laying around.
Second step will be to figure out how to start them.

Than you Mr. Trump for the initiative, BUT... such a tragic amount of knowledge was lost after we wrapped up Apollo. We have our work cut out.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Go to the moon makes the geek in me warm and fuzzy, but that same geek has to look at the reality. It is too damn expensive with current technology.

I really believe we need a moon base, but before that, we need new materials that can build a space elevator. Until such materials can be produced such an endeavor is wasting money and resources. Instead of spending 2 billion on a moon rocket they should spend it on RND of materials like graphene.


its not to expensive. we have all the technology from decades ago that we could rebuild today for cheaper then it cost back then. we could literally just rebuild saturn V's



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   
great, MUGA!!

''MAKE the UNIVERSE GREAT AGAIN!''

Jim Lovell:

Imagine if Christopher Columbus had come back from the New World and no one returned in his footsteps.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Go to the moon makes the geek in me warm and fuzzy, but that same geek has to look at the reality. It is too damn expensive with current technology.

I really believe we need a moon base, but before that, we need new materials that can build a space elevator. Until such materials can be produced such an endeavor is wasting money and resources. Instead of spending 2 billion on a moon rocket they should spend it on RND of materials like graphene.


its not to expensive. we have all the technology from decades ago that we could rebuild today for cheaper then it cost back then. we could literally just rebuild saturn V's


It costs more than $10,000 to put 1 pound in space a lot more to get it to the moon.

The Saturn V rocket's first stage carried 203,400 gallons (770,000 liters) of kerosene fuel and 318,000 gallons (1.2 million liters) of liquid oxygen needed for combustion.

It is very expensive. Until we have a much cheaper option such as a space elevator space exploration and colonization will remain a distant dream.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 08:18 PM
link   
he needs place to run off to after the jurusalem fiasco .



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi




It costs more than $10,000 to put 1 pound in space

That was the cost using the shuttle. It's about $2000-3000 via space x, and Musk estimates it will drop to around $1000 a pound when they launch falcon heavy. Not cheap by any means, but a lot less than $10k.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Lowering cost to get into orbit is great, but as I said it costs a lot more to get to the moon. Currently, their limit is about 500 pounds per launch for LEO low earth orbit.

They currently do not have the ability for them to put a functioning ship into space along with supplies and fuel to make a lunar trip. Don't think it will be cheap like LEO missions.
edit on 11-12-2017 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Imhere

I don't care which president says it...we should always reach for the stars. One day soon this planet will not be able to sustain all of us humans...and by nature we are explorers, we are adventurers and we are challengers.

The moon, Mars,then off to points unknown.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi



but as I said it costs a lot more to get to the moon

Actually, the expensive part is getting off earth



Currently, their limit is about 500 pounds per launch for LEO low earth orbit.

Way off



They currently do not have the ability for them to put a functioning ship into space along with supplies and fuel to make a lunar trip.

They only need to worry about supplies. NASA can come up with a new ship for lunar travel, and it can even be assembled in space if too large for a single launch.



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

Yeah he did it just wasnt exploring space.

The head of the Nasa has said Barack Obama told him to make "reaching out to the Muslim world" one of the space agency's top priorities.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99




Actually, the expensive part is getting off earth

It is all expensive.



Way off


If it is way off then please point that out to Elon Musk and spacex because the 500 pound figure is their quote.



They only need to worry about supplies. NASA can come up with a new ship for lunar travel, and it can even be assembled in space if too large for a single launch.


I wonder if you are not understanding that it doesn't matter if it is nasa or space x they both will be expensive to launch into LEO and even more expensive to send stuff to the moon.

Costing thousands of dollars per pound to just reach LEO we are a long way from having a moon base.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 10:44 PM
link   
I bet a future President scraps this before it ever has a chance.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Echo007

Without funding, it is all talk.

NASA estimates $104 billion for return to moon



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Not gonna happen...Its all talk and lies from
both sides...

What we need in the world today are
another Gorbatjov and Kennedy....



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Go to the moon makes the geek in me warm and fuzzy, but that same geek has to look at the reality. It is too damn expensive with current technology.

I really believe we need a moon base, but before that, we need new materials that can build a space elevator. Until such materials can be produced such an endeavor is wasting money and resources. Instead of spending 2 billion on a moon rocket they should spend it on RND of materials like graphene.


its not to expensive. we have all the technology from decades ago that we could rebuild today for cheaper then it cost back then. we could literally just rebuild saturn V's


We'll get 4K hi-resolution broadcasts too. If the adventure takes place on a "sound stage" again, we'll be able to spot the seams in the walls.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi




If it is way off then please point that out to Elon Musk and spacex because the 500 pound figure is their quote.

From where? I'll provide you a source showing you otherwise if you show me a source for that quote.



I wonder if you are not understanding that it doesn't matter if it is nasa or space x they both will be expensive to launch into LEO and even more expensive to send stuff to the moon.

I think you are the one not understanding, the expensive part is leaving earth and entering LEO. The amount of fuel you need from that point on towards the moon is exponentially lower. In space you don't need a constant supply of fuel to keep going forward. A ship can be assembled and supplied in LEO, then using earths gravity and a little fuel to completely break it's bonds, you can then travel to the moon relatively fuel free.



Costing thousands of dollars per pound to just reach LEO we are a long way from having a moon base.

A moon BASE? Yea, you are correct. Going to the moon? Not so much.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

There not doing anything in low earth orbit. The orion spacecraft is scheduled for its first manned test launch next year.

www.nasa.gov...


edit on 12/12/17 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Yea, but that is meant to go past the moon, and being designed specifically for that purpose. That said, I can't wait for the test launch!

I do think in regards to moon travel, space x is the way to go for now as far as LEO/GTO orbit. Once the materials/supplies/people are in space, it becomes a lot easier to trek further out without all that pesky gravity.




top topics



 
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join