Nasa administrator announces plans to ‘go to the moon and stay’

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: turbonium1

The Apollo program ended in the 1970's for one reason

MONEY

After we beat the godless commies to the moon public support for the program waned

After all how many times can you watch bunch of guys picking up rocks on the moon

The cost of the Vietnam war escalating . With lack of public support NASA budget was slashed and last 3 moon missions cut

Nasa was told to concentrate on something closer to earth (and less expensive) The SATURN V rocket which was specific
to the Apollo program was retired, Just as the Space Shuttle was retired few years back when became too expensive
to operate

The technology is still there - in fact in last few years interest been revived in redesigning the F1 engine of Saturn V
as base for heavy lift boosters

They sure had all the money to spend on Shuttles orbiting Earth over and over, during the next 40 years - I suppose NASA must have really wanted to 'explore' space, in reverse!!

Imagine they had sailed across the Atlantic Ocean, for the first time. They sail across the Atlantic five more times, within the next 3 years. And then, they say 'we've already sailed across the Atlantic 6 times, but it's too expensive to keep doing it, anymore' They just sail a few miles out, as before, for the next 40 years, which costs 3 times more money than it did to sail across the Atlantic 6 times.

After 40 years of puddling around the shoreline, they say it's time to sail across the Atlantic once more. But soon afterwards, they claim they cannot do it, because they haven't figured out how to build ships which hold more people than the earlier ships did. They must design ships that are capable of holding more people than before, when crossing the Atlantic once more. That takes a lot of money, and since they've failed so far, with even more money, it's time to give up.

And we have never again sailed across the Atlantic, to this very day!


How would it look if airplanes flew across the Atlantic, for the first time, and never did it again, once, in the next 50 years, and when they say it's time to fly across the Atlantic again, it must be with new airplanes, using better technology than before. Unfortunately, we don't have that technology yet, or know what it will be, or when it will exist.

And we have no airplanes that can fly over the Atlantic, to this very day!

Only if it was faked, would that happen. Ships and planes are not faking it, they did it the first time, and kept on doing it, since then. Only with better ships and planes.

When they have to make up all sorts of ridiculous excuses for not doing something they claim to have already done 6 times, already, 50 years ago, that's only because it was never done in the first place.

Haven't USA go back to moon like 3 times already in the past decade? All I remember were few scrapped programs. That's some very nice budget management.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: turbonium1

The Apollo program ended in the 1970's for one reason

MONEY

After we beat the godless commies to the moon public support for the program waned

After all how many times can you watch bunch of guys picking up rocks on the moon

The cost of the Vietnam war escalating . With lack of public support NASA budget was slashed and last 3 moon missions cut

Nasa was told to concentrate on something closer to earth (and less expensive) The SATURN V rocket which was specific
to the Apollo program was retired, Just as the Space Shuttle was retired few years back when became too expensive
to operate

The technology is still there - in fact in last few years interest been revived in redesigning the F1 engine of Saturn V
as base for heavy lift boosters

They sure had all the money to spend on Shuttles orbiting Earth over and over, during the next 40 years - I suppose NASA must have really wanted to 'explore' space, in reverse!!

Imagine they had sailed across the Atlantic Ocean, for the first time. They sail across the Atlantic five more times, within the next 3 years. And then, they say 'we've already sailed across the Atlantic 6 times, but it's too expensive to keep doing it, anymore' They just sail a few miles out, as before, for the next 40 years, which costs 3 times more money than it did to sail across the Atlantic 6 times.

After 40 years of puddling around the shoreline, they say it's time to sail across the Atlantic once more. But soon afterwards, they claim they cannot do it, because they haven't figured out how to build ships which hold more people than the earlier ships did. They must design ships that are capable of holding more people than before, when crossing the Atlantic once more. That takes a lot of money, and since they've failed so far, with even more money, it's time to give up.

And we have never again sailed across the Atlantic, to this very day!


How would it look if airplanes flew across the Atlantic, for the first time, and never did it again, once, in the next 50 years, and when they say it's time to fly across the Atlantic again, it must be with new airplanes, using better technology than before. Unfortunately, we don't have that technology yet, or know what it will be, or when it will exist.

And we have no airplanes that can fly over the Atlantic, to this very day!

Only if it was faked, would that happen. Ships and planes are not faking it, they did it the first time, and kept on doing it, since then. Only with better ships and planes.

When they have to make up all sorts of ridiculous excuses for not doing something they claim to have already done 6 times, already, 50 years ago, that's only because it was never done in the first place.

But there are plenty of good commercial reasons to fly or sail across the Atlantic, going to the Moon, not so much. Apples and oranges.

We used to have a supersonic passenger jet - the Concord. We don't have one today. By your warped "logic" - does that make Concord fake?

I am shocked that we are not already doing this. I mean we have had the tech for about eighty years.

originally posted by: just2cents
I am shocked that we are not already doing this. I mean we have had the tech for about eighty years.

More like 50 years if we want to count having the actual heavy-lift technology in hand, that heavy-lift technology being the Saturn V.

Sure, maybe if the U.S. committed the billions of dollars and the almost-singular concentration by the U.S. space efforts to build the Saturn V, say 10 years earlier, than the might have had the Saturn V earlier. But without that ability to lift heavy payloads into orbit, and to eventually insert those payloads into a lunar trajectory, Nobody would be putting permanent bases on the Moon.

There are two upcoming heavy lift vehicles being developed right now - NASA SLS and SpaceX's BFR - that will be required to get the heavy payloads to the Moon needed for long duration missions. Even the Saturn V likely would not have been up to the task (at least not efficiently)

A second huge roadblock is the radiation exposure for long duration missions. One of the reasons the Apollo missions were limited to 2 weeks (along with limitations due to the consumables they could carry) due to the amount of radiation exposure the astronauts would receive.

The Moon, being outside of Earth's magnetic field, is susceptible to cosmic particle radiation and solar flare radiation. Shielding is heavy, and Apollo only had minimal shielding, mostly in the fibrous insulation in the skin of the CM and the space suits. With that minimum shielding, it was determined that about 2 weeks of exposure would fall within the acceptable risk limits to the astronauts. They were still exposed to more than normal, but the risk was deemed acceptable.

But a long-duration mission for the crew who may spend months at a time on or near the Moon will require better shielding. Better in this case might mean it needs to be lighter so more can be used. Polyethylene plastics seem to be a generally good solution, but still not a great one.

A third issue that needs to be dealt with would be power. Every point on the Moon goes through at least 2 weeks of continuous darkness during the lunar night. Solar power generated during the 2-week lunar daytime and possibly power stored by batteries would account for some of the power needs, but I think other sources might be required -- such as RTG (Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator), which rely on the heat from radioactive materials to generate electricity. Our deep-space probes (the ones too far from the Sun, such as Cassini and New Horizons) use these, as does the Curiosity Rover and the next "Mars 2020 Rover".

Put all of that together, and I don't even think we had the technology to be able to "stay on the Moon for long periods" during the Apollo era. A lot more research and many more $billions would have been required.

a reply to: Box of Rain

I stand corrected. Thank you. I suppose I was considering some of the facts that went into the research behind the fictional film series Ascension which implied we had interstellar tech under JFK. That was however greatly exaggerated I suppose.

originally posted by: oldcarpy

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: turbonium1

The Apollo program ended in the 1970's for one reason

MONEY

After we beat the godless commies to the moon public support for the program waned

After all how many times can you watch bunch of guys picking up rocks on the moon

The cost of the Vietnam war escalating . With lack of public support NASA budget was slashed and last 3 moon missions cut

Nasa was told to concentrate on something closer to earth (and less expensive) The SATURN V rocket which was specific
to the Apollo program was retired, Just as the Space Shuttle was retired few years back when became too expensive
to operate

The technology is still there - in fact in last few years interest been revived in redesigning the F1 engine of Saturn V
as base for heavy lift boosters

They sure had all the money to spend on Shuttles orbiting Earth over and over, during the next 40 years - I suppose NASA must have really wanted to 'explore' space, in reverse!!

Imagine they had sailed across the Atlantic Ocean, for the first time. They sail across the Atlantic five more times, within the next 3 years. And then, they say 'we've already sailed across the Atlantic 6 times, but it's too expensive to keep doing it, anymore' They just sail a few miles out, as before, for the next 40 years, which costs 3 times more money than it did to sail across the Atlantic 6 times.

After 40 years of puddling around the shoreline, they say it's time to sail across the Atlantic once more. But soon afterwards, they claim they cannot do it, because they haven't figured out how to build ships which hold more people than the earlier ships did. They must design ships that are capable of holding more people than before, when crossing the Atlantic once more. That takes a lot of money, and since they've failed so far, with even more money, it's time to give up.

And we have never again sailed across the Atlantic, to this very day!


How would it look if airplanes flew across the Atlantic, for the first time, and never did it again, once, in the next 50 years, and when they say it's time to fly across the Atlantic again, it must be with new airplanes, using better technology than before. Unfortunately, we don't have that technology yet, or know what it will be, or when it will exist.

And we have no airplanes that can fly over the Atlantic, to this very day!

Only if it was faked, would that happen. Ships and planes are not faking it, they did it the first time, and kept on doing it, since then. Only with better ships and planes.

When they have to make up all sorts of ridiculous excuses for not doing something they claim to have already done 6 times, already, 50 years ago, that's only because it was never done in the first place.

But there are plenty of good commercial reasons to fly or sail across the Atlantic, going to the Moon, not so much. Apples and oranges.

We used to have a supersonic passenger jet - the Concord. We don't have one today. By your warped "logic" - does that make Concord fake?

Don't you mean if we never once again flew across the Atlantic, it would be the same as not going to the moon, ever again?

It isn't that we haven't ever flown across the Atlantic since the Concorde flew across the Atlantic, it's only that specific type of airplanes, with supersonic speed, have not continued to fly across the Atlantic.

You see the problem here?

Money, or commercial reasons, don't wash.

If the technology worked, it would still work, it would be advanced over 50 years time, and nothing will excuse stopping all of it, no way.

Excuses don't work here. No matter how you try to believe in fantasy-land

The USA creating a permanent 'Colony' on Luna, is wise... as the Moon Colony increases the survival factor of Humans by 200% in that the Earth Faces the Sun in different real-time segments that a Colony on the Moon --->

in fact the USA should build one Colony on the Forever Facing Earth Side and another Moon Colony on the BackSide of the Moon to try to escape the expected Solar repeating Micro-Nova between tomorrow and 2050, where a Solar Shell is made by fusing all the Solar-Dust in a tremendous explosion that periodically does tremendous ELE catastrophies to the planets in the solar system...


NASA found out all about the fused glass shards & glass sphereoids from earlier Solar explosions & quit their investigations about the Moon & Sun & Earth Catastrophies at regular intervals in time



Permanent Colony personnel would never have to return to Earth... future Earth men might call them Lunatics

originally posted by: turbonium1
Money, or commercial reasons, don't wash.

If the technology worked, it would still work, it would be advanced over 50 years time, and nothing will excuse stopping all of it, no way.

Excuses don't work here. No matter how you try to believe in fantasy-land

Hey Turbo - remember back in the 1920's and 30's... anybody, any civilian with money could buy a cutting edge airplane and make an attempt to break an aviation record... male, female, speed, altitude, distance, etc, didn't matter. Many of them died trying to make new records. Some of them made headlines for other reasons...

Wrong Way Corrigan.
en.wikipedia.org...

Then something happened with space in the 50's. Space was locked off by the gate keepers. Only nation states were allowed to gain altitude and gain accolades. NASA has been gatekeeping for 50 years now. You're right. Excuses don't work here.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: turbonium1
Money, or commercial reasons, don't wash.

If the technology worked, it would still work, it would be advanced over 50 years time, and nothing will excuse stopping all of it, no way.

Excuses don't work here. No matter how you try to believe in fantasy-land

Hey Turbo - remember back in the 1920's and 30's... anybody, any civilian with money could buy a cutting edge airplane and make an attempt to break an aviation record... male, female, speed, altitude, distance, etc, didn't matter. Many of them died trying to make new records. Some of them made headlines for other reasons...

Wrong Way Corrigan.
en.wikipedia.org...

Then something happened with space in the 50's. Space was locked off by the gate keepers. Only nation states were allowed to gain altitude and gain accolades. NASA has been gatekeeping for 50 years now. You're right. Excuses don't work here.

You can't be serious here, right?

We fly in airplanes, across the Atlantic, right? Nobody has to make those airplanes, in order to fly across the Atlantic, no matter who, or what 'nation state', built those planes, yes?

Anyone rich enough to build his own plane, can build a plane, and has done so, before...right?

It's obvious that most people cannot, will not, or need not, build their own airplane to fly across the Atlantic. And even those who have build their own plane, it is not nearly as advanced as planes of 'nation states', who have money, and resources, far beyond those in the private sector.


This has not prevented us from building planes capable of flying across the Atlantic, which has already been done, and can be done at any time, in future.

It has never needed an excuse, since it is real. It is not about creating a fake 'plane', which 'flies' on a fake 'flight', across the fake 'Atlantic' Ocean, which can only be confirmed from them saying it is true, which you believe is true, forever after they say so.


Unlike airplanes, or ships, which we've built for centuries, to cross the oceans, which we've built ourselves, as well, and nobody has to make an excuse for. Unlike when we first sailed across the Atlantic ocean in our ships, we still have ships sail across the Atlantic. Unlike when we first flew an airplane across the Atlantic ocean, we still have planes fly across the Atlantic.

These ships sailed without your greatest excuse - not enough money, there was nothing to profit them, in another sailing across the Atlantic, or little profit, anyway. It was also too dangerous, as savages lived there, and it was a barren, crude land, etc.

They made no excuses. We've sailed across the Atlantic, over and over, to this very day. Same as our planes fly across the Atlantic, etc.

It's pretty desperate when you try to compare supersonic planes, no doubt.

Any of our real achievements, real voyages, have one distinct difference from all the faked achievements, faked voyages.......


The fakes stop, for no reason, and are never done again.

The real ones continue on, over and over again.


How many more decades will it take before you realize they faked it?

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
Then something happened with space in the 50's. Space was locked off by the gate keepers. Only nation states were allowed to gain altitude and gain accolades. NASA has been gatekeeping for 50 years now. You're right. Excuses don't work here.

It's called rocket science,and for a reason. Even USA and Russia had numerous (and very expensive) failures. Going into orbit is not easy. Going beyond is even harder.

Impossible, actually.

How all of those rockets shoot up, and veer off laterally, over the ocean, flying out of sight....

If rockets went into space, why are they veering off laterally?

They claim the rockets veer off laterally to gain speed, which allows the rocket to 'break away' from the Earth's orbit.

But the rockets veer off well below Earth's orbit, which would waste a lot of their precious fuel, which makes no sense. Because if the rockets were really going up, into Earth's orbit, to gain enough speed in orbit, to break away from orbit, then all the rockets would fly straight up, until they reach orbit, or near to orbit, and THEN veer off in an orbital path.

Look at their altitude when they veer off laterally...planes fly at the same altitudes, for Pete's sake!

Nowhere close to orbit, that's for sure.


What is painfully obvious to see is that these rockets are not flying into space, or into Earth orbit. Not when we see them veer off to altitudes of airplanes, not a chance in hell. It makes no sense to even DO such a thing, if it was going into Earth orbit, anyhow.


That's why rockets fly over the ocean, out of sight. They never fly above airplane altitudes, they just drop into the ocean, far out of view. It is purely an illusion, and nothing more.

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: eriktheawful
Personally, I'd like to see a international effort of having people on the Moon as an actual colony, or at the least a scientific research base (like the ones in Antarctica) where they could rotate out personnel.

I think there may be some collaboration between China, Russia, and Europe. ESA is definitely planning to get people to the Moon and start setting up a base, Russia has such plans also.

Yep, and I believe that their high interest is what is sparking our interest now. USA does NOT want to be bested in these kinds of endeavors. I have been thrilled over the last couple of years at public announced interest by private individuals and other countries in further moon exploration. First the moon then Mars. Its all a progression that for too long has stalled.

Impossible, actually.

How all of those rockets shoot up, and veer off laterally, over the ocean, flying out of sight....

If rockets went into space, why are they veering off laterally?

They claim the rockets veer off laterally to gain speed, which allows the rocket to 'break away' from the Earth's orbit.

But the rockets veer off well below Earth's orbit, which would waste a lot of their precious fuel, which makes no sense. Because if the rockets were really going up, into Earth's orbit, to gain enough speed in orbit, to break away from orbit, then all the rockets would fly straight up, until they reach orbit, or near to orbit, and THEN veer off in an orbital path.

Look at their altitude when they veer off laterally...planes fly at the same altitudes, for Pete's sake!

a reply to: turbonium1

Because Flat Earther clown for an object to enter orbit must be parallel to the earth's surface

The object is literally falling around the earth

It takes off vertical to clear the densest part of the atmosphere before pitching over to parallel the earth surface

If listen closely to the audio of the launch will hear them call out MAX Q, which is area where rocket is accelerating
through densest part of the atmosphere at MACH speed - rocket will throttle down the engines until pass this point

Listen to the audio will hear them call out PITCH OVER as rocket begins to turn itself parallel to earth

Duplicate

originally posted by: firerescue

Impossible, actually.

How all of those rockets shoot up, and veer off laterally, over the ocean, flying out of sight....

If rockets went into space, why are they veering off laterally?

They claim the rockets veer off laterally to gain speed, which allows the rocket to 'break away' from the Earth's orbit.

But the rockets veer off well below Earth's orbit, which would waste a lot of their precious fuel, which makes no sense. Because if the rockets were really going up, into Earth's orbit, to gain enough speed in orbit, to break away from orbit, then all the rockets would fly straight up, until they reach orbit, or near to orbit, and THEN veer off in an orbital path.

Look at their altitude when they veer off laterally...planes fly at the same altitudes, for Pete's sake!

a reply to: turbonium1

Because Flat Earther clown for an object to enter orbit must be parallel to the earth's surface

The object is literally falling around the earth

It takes off vertical to clear the densest part of the atmosphere before pitching over to parallel the earth surface

If listen closely to the audio of the launch will hear them call out MAX Q, which is area where rocket is accelerating
through densest part of the atmosphere at MACH speed - rocket will throttle down the engines until pass this point

Listen to the audio will hear them call out PITCH OVER as rocket begins to turn itself parallel to earth

Anyone can say 'pitch over', and you may believe it's true, but I prefer valid evidence.


What is the evidence of rockets going into orbit? Absolutely none.


Rockets are seen lifting off Earth, straight upward, but they veer off laterally soon afterwards.

The problem with that is obvious to see - they veer off, and never fly any higher, than commercial airplanes at cruising altitudes, when they go out over the ocean, out of sight - which is the only possible reason they always fly rockets over an ocean. Sure, they claim rockets always fly over oceans, because if they flew over land, they could fail, and crash on people. Somehow, millions of airplanes have flown over land without a problem, but nobody does that with far more advanced rockets!! As if.

So rockets fly over oceans, because NASA is concerned about our safety. Good one.

Anyway, these people-safe rockets fly out over the ocean, no higher than cruising altitudes of airplanes, which is about 8-9 miles above Earth.

The atmosphere is said to reach about 10-11 miles above Earth, only a few miles up from the rockets.

But nobody sees them go any higher than an airplane, that's the problem. Nobody CAN see them, but that's just because NASA is so concerned for our safety, they fly them over oceans, where no people are, to be crushed by their fine rockets!


Rockets fly in the Earth's atmosphere, which offers resistance, and wastes fuel needlessly, unlike space, which offers no resistance, and far less fuel needed to fly in space, where the rockets are supposed to be going in the first place.

Either rockets fly in atmosphere for no reason, because they would not fly in atmosphere if they were going into orbit, or rockets fly in atmosphere because they never go any higher than that, so they fly over oceans, where nobody can see them, and drop into the ocean, with nobody the wiser!


NASA could prove rockets fly into orbit, or at least up beyond the atmosphere, by having a rocket fly over America. Where we could actually see it for once, and see what happens to rockets, in reality.

That's never going to happen, of course. For our 'safety'!

a reply to: turbonium1

Rockets fly into space all the time.

They routinely carry cameras and film the ascent looking down.

Google the results of that filming - I see no point in posting thousands of images and videos to prove you pointless, incorrect and ill-informed your post is.

What makes you think that rockets get into orbit by going straight up and hanging a left at a set altitude? It's just too dumb for words.

The fake footage doesn't work, sorry.

Seeing a rocket fly beyond the atmosphere - directly above us, not over the frickin' ocean - should have been done already, at least once, so until that happens (which it never will), you have nothing at all but fake footage, and fake audio of a 'crew' flying into space!

Do you really believe they would fly all rockets out of sight, for our 'safety'? Come on, get serious. Planes fly over people all the time, and they say rockets can't do one flight over land? Are you kidding me? That's a joke, and you know it.

Illusions do this all the time - a magician only shows what they want you to see, but never anything else.

A black curtain is behind the illusionist. He makes a woman levitate in air, and you are amazed. It seems true, from where you see it. However, you are not allowed to see behind the black curtain, for 'safety reasons'.

The rocket flies behind a black curtain, too - it is called the Atlantic Ocean.


Get the idea, now?

originally posted by: just2cents
I am shocked that we are not already doing this. I mean we have had the tech for about eighty years.

according to NASA they destroyed the technology and it doesn't exist anymore