The Secret Military Moon Base Probably Actually Exists

a reply to: muzzleflash

Then if it’s on the near side of the moon, how are rocket launches not detected.

So detectable rocket launches and detectable transmissions?

Next you have the issue who is building, fueling, and launching a 6 million pound rocket to get the equivalent wieght of only three busses to the moon?

Name a facility that has the capability to build a 6 million pound rocket? Then get that rocket to a sea platform.

So, how big is the base and how many people populate the base?

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: RoScoLaz5

Not when the "high ground" is a quarter of a million miles away and always moving position, making your targeting that much more complex, and easy to detect on it's way.

There really is no tactical advantage there.

If it was so easy for all of you to spot, it would have been child's play for other countries: who would have screamed their heads off to the world about it because of several treaties that the US signed with other nations.

It doesn't have to be a military advantage in terms of fighting a war with other humans on Earth.

It could merely be about developing technology and experience towards mankind in space in general and that is a massive survival advantage for the human race in the long term. It has to be started sometime and the sooner the better.

That is actually the most important issue of all - the survival of the species.

a reply to: muzzleflash

en.m.wikipedia.org...

ELENE photographs Edit
In 2008, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe obtained several photographs showing evidence of Moon landings.[1] On the left are two photos taken on the lunar surface by the Apollo 15 astronauts August 2, 1971 during EVA 3 at station 9A near Hadley Rille. On the right is a 2008 reconstruction from images taken by the SELENE terrain camera and 3D projected to the same vantage point as the surface photos. The terrain is a close match within the SELENE camera resolution of 10 metres.

Secret underwater bases makes much more sense.

Think about it:

1) Be a lot easier to build, man and maintain as there are plenty of ships and subs already in the ocean.

2) No one is watching the oceans like they do the Moon and Earth orbit.

3) BIG tactical advantage - Able to launch weapons with a much shorter flight time / distance, makes for much slower reaction time by the target(s)

4) US Navy already keeps just about everything with the sub navy secret as it is.

5) Would literally cost billions LESS than trying to maintain a base on the Moon.

6) Can be kept very secret since the base would not be visible at all, and 139 MILLION square miles to hide bases.

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: RoScoLaz5

Not when the "high ground" is a quarter of a million miles away and always moving position, making your targeting that much more complex, and easy to detect on it's way.

There really is no tactical advantage there.

If it was so easy for all of you to spot, it would have been child's play for other countries: who would have screamed their heads off to the world about it because of several treaties that the US signed with other nations.

It doesn't have to be a military advantage in terms of fighting a war with other humans on Earth.

It could merely be about developing technology and experience towards mankind in space in general and that is a massive survival advantage for the human race in the long term. It has to be started sometime and the sooner the better.

That is actually the most important issue of all - the survival of the species.

Don’t they do that in the international space station?

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: RoScoLaz5

Not when the "high ground" is a quarter of a million miles away and always moving position, making your targeting that much more complex, and easy to detect on it's way.

There really is no tactical advantage there.

If it was so easy for all of you to spot, it would have been child's play for other countries: who would have screamed their heads off to the world about it because of several treaties that the US signed with other nations.

It doesn't have to be a military advantage in terms of fighting a war with other humans on Earth.

It could merely be about developing technology and experience towards mankind in space in general and that is a massive survival advantage for the human race in the long term. It has to be started sometime and the sooner the better.

That is actually the most important issue of all - the survival of the species.

Then there is absolutely NO reason to keep it secret.

Seriously.

a reply to: muzzleflash

There is no evidence or activity that indicates a manned moon base.

They do publicly launch automated probes and tests to the moon to push human knowledge for a whole magnitude cheaper than what a manned mission would cost.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: muzzleflash

Then if it’s on the near side of the moon, how are rocket launches not detected.

So detectable rocket launches and detectable transmissions?

Next you have the issue who is building, fueling, and launching a 6 million pound rocket to get the equivalent wieght of only three busses to the moon?

Name a facility that has the capability to build a 6 million pound rocket? Then get that rocket to a sea platform.

So, how big is the base and how many people populate the base?

The other posters pointed out that tons of stuff is posted on the net all the time about people recording alleged activity on the moon being detected. It's amateur though obviously because the 'establishment' would theoretically be under a gag order.

The transmissions could be AEHF (Advanced Extremely High Frequency) or similar and are likely encrypted etc. It's unlikely anyone could make anything rational of them. Also FHSS-

Frequency-hopping spread spectrum (FHSS) is a method of transmitting radio signals by rapidly switching a carrier among many frequency channels, using a pseudorandom sequence known to both transmitter and receiver.

Spread-spectrum signals are difficult to intercept. A spread-spectrum signal may simply appear as an increase in the background noise to a narrowband receiver. An eavesdropper may have difficulty intercepting a transmission in real time if the pseudorandom sequence is not known.

Spread-spectrum transmissions can share a frequency band with many types of conventional transmissions with minimal interference. The spread-spectrum signals add minimal noise to the narrow-frequency communications, and vice versa.

Military radios use cryptographic techniques to generate the channel sequence under the control of a secret Transmission Security Key (TRANSEC) that the sender and receiver share in advance.

About your rocket production issue, they could be piggybacking materials on publicly acknowledge rockets and then constructing the delivery vessels in space - and then sending them off with far less effort. You don't need secret rocket production necessarily, and even if they did secretly produce rockets we wouldn't know about where or when they did that unless they declassify the information, now would we?

Why do I need to know how many people populate the base and how big it is? What kind of strange question is that? I'm just a guy who wrote a thread on ATS, I'm not secretly the general at space or strategic command.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: muzzleflash

There is no evidence or activity that indicates a manned moon base.

They do publicly launch automated probes and tests to the moon to push human knowledge for a whole magnitude cheaper than what a manned mission would cost.

There is evidence that indicates there might be a manned moon base, though it is mostly circumstantial and conjectural. If there were theoretically such a base, we have plenty of clues that align with it and make it appear feasible. The declassified documents showing the plans for the bases from around 70 years ago is an excellent clue.

The purpose of manned missions to the moon or mars is about human exploration and survival of the species. The cost of not doing it far outweighs any cost of doing it.

originally posted by: eriktheawful

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: RoScoLaz5

Not when the "high ground" is a quarter of a million miles away and always moving position, making your targeting that much more complex, and easy to detect on it's way.

There really is no tactical advantage there.

If it was so easy for all of you to spot, it would have been child's play for other countries: who would have screamed their heads off to the world about it because of several treaties that the US signed with other nations.

It doesn't have to be a military advantage in terms of fighting a war with other humans on Earth.

It could merely be about developing technology and experience towards mankind in space in general and that is a massive survival advantage for the human race in the long term. It has to be started sometime and the sooner the better.

That is actually the most important issue of all - the survival of the species.

Then there is absolutely NO reason to keep it secret.

Seriously.

I already explained why it's a great idea to keep it secret.

Because if Congress got any say so, they might say NO. We can't have them shutting this program down, it's too important for the advancement of the human race into space.

It's definitely a better decision to keep it secret so as to ensure it will always maintain it's funding.

Also if they have weapons up there for whatever reason they can't let anyone know because it would become an outrage and create some very bad publicity and repercussions here back at home.

It doesn't make any sense to make it public knowledge.

a reply to: muzzleflash

About your rocket production issue, they could be piggybacking materials on publicly acknowledge rockets and then constructing the delivery vessels in space - and then sending them off with far less effort.

Uh, no.

Do you know how much delta V you need to leave Earth orbit and make a Lunar Injection Orbit?

A LOT. and you have to burn quite a bit of fuel to do that......then, you have to burn again when you get to the Moon to slow down and enter it's orbit....and then, burn again to slow down and land.

How you getting anyone back (or are people maintaining such a base there for life?)? Going to need the fuel to launch, because you still need to achieve lunar escape velocity....then break lunar orbit to reach Earth (all of which would be highly visible to other countries paying attention), then of course you have to enter Earth orbit and burn to de-orbit and enter Earth's atmosphere.

All of that, even if it was to just build the base and send people up there to die up there and never return, would have been noticed, especially by other countries.

You're not going to keep something like that secret.

Now, if the Apollo program had never ended and we kept sending manned flights to the Moon through the 70's......you might have been on to something.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: RoScoLaz5

Not when the "high ground" is a quarter of a million miles away and always moving position, making your targeting that much more complex, and easy to detect on it's way.

There really is no tactical advantage there.

If it was so easy for all of you to spot, it would have been child's play for other countries: who would have screamed their heads off to the world about it because of several treaties that the US signed with other nations.

It doesn't have to be a military advantage in terms of fighting a war with other humans on Earth.

It could merely be about developing technology and experience towards mankind in space in general and that is a massive survival advantage for the human race in the long term. It has to be started sometime and the sooner the better.

That is actually the most important issue of all - the survival of the species.

Don’t they do that in the international space station?

We will need to do this on many planets and moons in our solar system and then eventually in deep space and around other star systems. The sooner we get on the ball the better.

There are many dangers out there, from wandering asteroids to the sun going nova.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
Secret underwater bases makes much more sense.

Think about it:

1) Be a lot easier to build, man and maintain as there are plenty of ships and subs already in the ocean.

2) No one is watching the oceans like they do the Moon and Earth orbit.

3) BIG tactical advantage - Able to launch weapons with a much shorter flight time / distance, makes for much slower reaction time by the target(s)

4) US Navy already keeps just about everything with the sub navy secret as it is.

5) Would literally cost billions LESS than trying to maintain a base on the Moon.

6) Can be kept very secret since the base would not be visible at all, and 139 MILLION square miles to hide bases.

You should make the thread about how we probably actually have secret underwater bases.
There's actually a lot of evidence that could easily make that conclusion look very plausible!
I like threads on topics like that.

originally posted by: eriktheawful

Now, if the Apollo program had never ended and we kept sending manned flights to the Moon through the 70's......you might have been on to something.

It's not necessary that Apollo never ended. In fact the Apollo program could have never happened and there could still be an Army and an Air Force base on the moon. All sorts of possibilities exist and they don't have to be mutually exclusive.

a reply to: muzzleflash

Nah....I'll let other's make a thread like that.

After my time in the US Navy.....that document I had to sign saying I'd let them lock me up in a dark hole in the ground for the next 50 years after I got out (still have about 28 years to go on that).....I try to avoid making threads like that.

a reply to: muzzleflash

You would still know a man made encrypted signal was broadcasting from the moon giving up the bases existence. Encrypted does not mean undetectable, or not a able to home in on location.

a reply to: muzzleflash

So you have gotten over your i dont know man, ufo sighting.
Anyway moonbase seems to be all woo

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: muzzleflash

You would still know a man made encrypted signal was broadcasting from the moon giving up the bases existence. Encrypted does not mean undetectable, or not a able to home in on location.

Incorrect, it says explicitly that a spectrum spread signal may never even be noticed by anyone else aside the intended recipient.

a reply to: muzzleflash

How can energy be broadcasted and not detectable?

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: muzzleflash

Nah....I'll let other's make a thread like that.

After my time in the US Navy.....that document I had to sign saying I'd let them lock me up in a dark hole in the ground for the next 50 years after I got out (still have about 28 years to go on that).....I try to avoid making threads like that.

Ohhh you could get in trouble!

But you won't get in trouble for admitting to things that don't exist. Cmon now