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.

 

NASA Cancels Moon Mission Despite Trump's Space Policy Directive 1

page: 2
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2018 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: skunkape23

A barren rock in space that has resources, could provide an ideal place to put a huge observatory, which could run much more easily in the airless conditions on the Moon, than it could here on Earth, and be easier to maintain than an orbital one, giving us ever better looks into the cosmos, and add to the number of observatories tracking asteroids and suchlike, which threaten life on Earth.

It could also be a jumping off point to the rest of the solar system, again, a place rich in hydrocarbon resources, which, if you take the science deniers view of things at all, will still, for some reason, be important to energy production in the next hundred years (although if that is the case, it will be the fault of ignorant, greedy people, and ignorant, fearful voters keeping them in work).




posted on May, 1 2018 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit


How would a lunar observatory be easier to maintain than a (much closer) orbital one? Which will also have airless conditions.



posted on May, 1 2018 @ 10:43 AM
link   
So this story is running around the internet and apparently the title is changing.


It's not exactly true.


The original stated that they were canceling the rover. That's where it started.

The fact is... It's being moved into a bigger project. That's ALL that is happening. The Dept that was working on the rover is no longer doing so because the rover aspect was pushed into another project that WILL work on the rover.


Fake News... Misleading title all the way around.

Even the story linked in the OP says NOTHING about NASA canceling the mission. It only talks about the rover.

*Facepalm*

edit on 1-5-2018 by StallionDuck because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2018 @ 10:47 AM
link   
A rover on the moon is useless, we had manned rovers there already and brought back moon rocks, mapped the surface in detail since.

Manned missions are the only thing that will bring prestige, and it would have to be more than a short drive in a buggy and a few photos, maybe stay a few days, set up a permanent module for return trips.

It's probably too dangerous though, DNC operatives would sabotage the mission with a few miscalculations just to get at Trump. There are groups of wealthy people proven to be throwing money at embarrassing Trump we just learned from the Congressional report on continued funding of the dirty dossier with the ominous side note in stories that "one person already died because of it".



posted on May, 1 2018 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: skunkape23

NASA explores space not this planet.



posted on May, 1 2018 @ 11:20 AM
link   
It's an expansion, not a cancellation.

A little research found a presolicitation from the FBO for NASA. It includes this little snippet:

The contractors shall provide all activities necessary to safely intergrate, accomodate, transport, and operate NASA Payloads using contractor provide assets, including launch vehicles, lunar lander

Judging from this, NASA is moving from being the sole scientific research mechanism to being the hub of a network of scientific research mechanisms. That actually makes a lot of sense when the recent achievements of SpaceX are considered. Private industry can respond to changing conditions much more rapidly and efficiently than NASA, but NASA can better lead the missions since they have the power of government behind them.

This will also stimulate the economy, as it will involve more private engineers and scientists.

I have actually had a NASA physicist tell me, "NASA's job is to spend money." That's essentially true, because NASA works on projects that have academic value rather than financial value. Private industry requires profit in order to function, while NASA does not. Thus, it makes sense to allow NASA to act as the profit provider to increase the number of people working on the missions, especially since the budget has been raised.

I'm pretty sure we're not talking about laying off NASA scientists; they will still be needed to review and independently verify the efficacy of proposals, not to mention research into various new concepts like they have always done. We're talking instead about adding to the team without direct government hiring. Right now, Elon Musk is doing a happy dance and Boeing is having a party.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 1 2018 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Typical. The Moon and Mars are great topics for politicians. They can literally promise the Moon, and then when they get in office they can just shrug it off and blame it on the system. Happens every time. It gives them a good JFK moment.

When I hear a candidate or even the President talking about big ambitious space programs, my cynical heart always replies, "Yeah, right."



posted on May, 1 2018 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: skunkape23
What have we gotten from Moon missions?
A few rocks and Tang?
There are more pressing issues and more interesting places to explore on this planet.

The U.S. educational system's and industrial focus on math and science and the resulting explosive growth of technology from the late 1960s and into the 21st century was fueled in no small part by the mandate of getting to the Moon.

At the height of the lead-up to the Moon missions, the Apollo Program served to mobilize a large chunk of the United State's national efforts and human resources towards the Moon effort. That mobilization and nation-wide emphasis on the sciences trickled down to become many of the world's technological advances of today.

Think of it as being a stimulus package similar to FDRs "New Deal" programs --- but for science and technology.


edit on 1/5/2018 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2018 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
Think of it as being a stimulus package similar to FDRs "New Deal" programs --- but for science and technology.

Pretty much. A large public works program like the pyramids in Egypt. A lot of the space program is there to give many of the overeducated engineers in the country a good, steady paycheck so they don't take their expertise to other countries.



posted on May, 1 2018 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: skunkape23

A lot of tech we use today came out of the moon missions.

Just google it.



posted on May, 1 2018 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: oldcarpy

The moon has some gravity so that would make it a better place for an observatory than earth orbit.

Plus if it's in orbit it has to use fuel constantly to stay balanced. Sitting on the moon surface would not have that issue.

Plus we could use it as a base when we mine the moon.



posted on May, 1 2018 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Will they be using GPS? In case we forgot how
to get there?



posted on May, 1 2018 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
A lot of tech we use today came out of the moon missions.

That's setting up a false dichotomy. Yeah, some stuff was developed due to the space program, but there's no way to tell if it wouldn't have developed anyway without the space program. We don't have alternate histories, just the one.



posted on May, 1 2018 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
Will they be using GPS? In case we forgot how to get there?

I watched a moon mission documentary a while back and was amused to see that they navigated through space to get to the Moon in the exact same way boats navigated on the water. Look out the window, pick a known star, use a sextant, make adjustments accordingly.



posted on May, 1 2018 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: skunkape23

Nonsense, the first missions to the Moon taught us a great deal about rockets and forced us to push our tech to the limits, much of that knowledge leaked through into the public sector and we would not be where we are now without those early missions. As for why we should go back, it's very important to constantly push the limits of our ability to explore space so that one day we can leave this planet. And science doesn't always have a clear benefit, some times we just like to research things for the sake of knowledge, and then years later we may find out that seemingly useless science actually has a very useful purpose, I've seen it happen many times. This is about advancement of the human species, getting us to the next level of space exploration, regardless of those who wish to see that never happen.


Dont believe the hype. The information shared about moon missions is a far cry from whats really going on. NASA in HEBREW means "To Deceive." ...



posted on May, 1 2018 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift




We don't have alternate histories, just the one.


Your right only one reality. And in this reality it was in fact the moon missions that lead to those tech.
So since the reality is that this happened I see know reason to suspect that it wouldn't be the same again.

What makes you think new tech wouldn't come from this?



posted on May, 1 2018 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

You gotta be kidding me ?
LMAO

Rand McNally never lets me down in my
truck.

edit on Rpm50118v01201800000005 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2018 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Mouthpiece. That's all Trump is.



posted on May, 2 2018 @ 06:00 AM
link   
a reply to: oldcarpy

An orbital observatory is a spacecraft, meaning that it must have some sort of propulsion capability, control systems attending to the necessity for adjusting its position in its orbit, and for changing the characteristics of its orbit. This means money being spent on a system which is not actually necessarily anything to do with actually getting images from deep space, but instead about making the observatory move about in space.

With a Moon based observatory, there is no need for any of that, meaning that more resources can be dedicated to making the primary function of the observatory (that being the making of observations), happen perfectly or as near to as possible, than would otherwise be the case. It also means that the observatory would use less power for things other than making observations. Satellite observatories use a certain amount of power moving around in their orbits, little adjustments here and there. But with a Moon based observatory, there would be no need for that use of power either. So, with no necessity for adjustments in orbit, the system, the power and the staff required to run that propulsion, movement capability, are totally removed from the equation.

Furthermore, a Moon based observatory could be made bigger over time, added to, rather than just scrapped when it became old and dysfunctional, unlike most of the orbital observatories, which are left rather to ruin more often than not. Long term investment, the beginnings of a base there... thats something to look into more seriously.



posted on May, 2 2018 @ 06:55 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit


I don't think that there are any power issues arising from an orbital observatory as moving it uses propellant which has nothing to do with operating the equipment.

Resupplying a Moon based one would prove expensive.

But yes, I would like to see a Moon based habitat - perhaps a bit like Moonbase Alpha?



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join