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.

 

Sweet Jesus...we're going back to the moon!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 03:07 AM
link   
www.cnn.com...

but apparently so are the Chinese and Japanese!
Haha...interestingly the ad on this page is for the moonhoax movie.
But we all know the "moonhoax theory" is a hoax...of course we went to the moon.


Anyone going to the Nellis Air Show this year?


[edit on 16-9-2005 by hotsheets]




posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 03:47 AM
link   
Nice article. Funny how the ad shows up... $100 billion is a lot, doesn't seem like they can get anything out of it in the long run either. We have plenty of space on Earth, why waste billions of taxpayers dollars [even though I'm not American] if they can use the money for something else.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 11:11 AM
link   
$100 billion? Where have i seen that number before? Isn't that the number everyone is throwing around as the estimated cost of Katrina?

(A Google Search for "100 billion Katrina" returns over three million hits.)

I wonder if they're announcing this moon plan solely so they can cancel it.

[edit on 16-9-2005 by LordBucket]



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Spent $100 billion dollars and 12 years just to get back the capability that we had 35 years ago. There is about the best example of waste that you could ask for. We build a technology platform, destroy it and then have to rebuild it. I am 100% in favor of both the Moon and Mars missions, what I am against is how this capability was allowed to lapse in the first place. You can say all you want about how that $100 billion could be spent on other things, but remember the companies who are going to build these spacecraft pay taxes and employ people who pay taxes so alot of that money is going to get spread around. This may actually jump start an interest in technology in the schools again.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   
I completely agree with JIMC on this one. The money will get spread around, and if it's played out correctly, it can even generate more money if there's people running it with a lot more creativity than I have (and I'm sure there are.)

The fact that we haven't done anything like this before, and the fact that it would cost so much money period, is what astounds me. We have desktop computers that rival--if not surpass--mainframes from the 60's. We have an extra 30-40 years of trial and error in engineering, as well as 30-40 years developing more efficient methods of manufacturing and planning. If nothing else, we've got computer games and simulations designed by hobbyist/amatuer programmers that model most of the necessary physics required for this stuff, let alone what true research scientists could/have come up with.

Even if it's looked back on 50 years after the fact, I think $100B spent on space travel is still a lot more reasonable than companies who spend millions (or even billions) on advertising a soft drink, or the sums of money thrown into (purely) cosmetic surgery--sorry, but in my opinion the though of expanding humanity's knowledge and horizons is more important than fuller lips and larger breasts.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 01:27 PM
link   
There is a very simple explanation as to why we are going back to the moon. That reason being that other countries have stated they plan on going to the moon. In other words, it’s yet another short-term goal and despite what you may be reading, we aren’t going there to “prepare” for a trip to Mars. That’s just an explanation that makes the public feel good about the cost.

Even when we do get to the moon expect the program budget to get slashed before we get to Mars. In fact, the only way it won’t get cut is if another country starts planning for a Mars mission.

As for the cost, just because we have more advanced systems doesn’t mean the cost will be any lower. The original missions cost 103.5 billion in today’s dollars and I guarantee you that we’ll end up spending more than the planned $100 billion on the project.

When you get a moment, go read Moonseed by Stephen Baxter. In there you’ll see a plan to get back to the moon for $2 billion dollars (in a matter of months, not years) that is technically sound and uses existing components. It would work, but it would require that the people involved accept the risks of such a venture.

There is one line from the book that I love. I’m going to paraphrase it because I don’t have the book in front of me, nor do I remember the page number.

“If we had been adult about the risks back then we would be orbiting #ing Jupiter by now.”

This statement is very true. We were orbiting the moon by 1968 and we landed on the moon in 1969. Six missions in total (Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17) landed on the moon. Apollo 8 and 10 orbited the moon. Apollo 13 would have landed on the moon if not for a malfunction.

We stopped going to the moon due to the cancellation of funding, but if we as a society had more foresight we would have continued going to the moon and expanded our operations to include testing for resources necessary to reduce the cost of establishing a lunar base.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   
The U.S. is headed for an economic problem. Actually we are already in it but it is going to get worse. This may never happen.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt
The U.S. is headed for an economic problem. Actually we are already in it but it is going to get worse. This may never happen.


No we aren't.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by boredom

Originally posted by dbrandt
The U.S. is headed for an economic problem. Actually we are already in it but it is going to get worse. This may never happen.


No we aren't.


That would be great if we weren't but look around and you will see it coming. I mean really look around and see what's happening. If you do you will see we are.


[edit on 16-9-2005 by dbrandt]


apc

posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 04:52 PM
link   
OOOOOOK. *looks around... really hard* Wait... crap... I'm 150feet below ground.

Anyway, all I have to say is YAAAAAAY! Space Race! Space Race! Bout friggin' time!



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Thats Awesome, although the US might only be in it to help the counties that have never really been in space before. I think we should mine the moon because i have read some books saying that the moon could be rich in iron etc



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt

Originally posted by boredom

Originally posted by dbrandt
The U.S. is headed for an economic problem. Actually we are already in it but it is going to get worse. This may never happen.


No we aren't.


That would be great if we weren't but look around and you will see it coming. I mean really look around and see what's happening. If you do you will see we are.


[edit on 16-9-2005 by dbrandt]


I'm looking around, but I'm not seeing it.

Are you referring to the fact that the market is currently growing?

NASDAQ: 2160.35 UP 14.20
DJIA: 10641.94 UP 83.19
S&P 500: 1237.91 UP 10.18
NASDAQ-100: 1599.44 UP 10.89
NASDAQ-100 PMI: 1591.55 UP 3.00
NASDAQ-100 AHI: 1599.89 UP 0.45
Russel 1000: 672.35 UP 5.10
Russel 2000: 671.98 UP 6.56

Over the past year the NASDAQ has increased from just over 1,900 to 2,160.35 and since a large dip in April and has regained the points lost while maintaining an upward trend.

Over the past year the DJIA has also been increasing from the large dip in April and while it hasn't yet regained the points it lost, it has been on an upward trend.

Perhaps you are referring to the unemployment rate which was 4.9% in August 2005 and *DECREASED* BY 106,000 people in August. Further, 373,000 people became employed in August (which means some turned 16 and got jobs, some were unemployed in August and got jobs, and some were unemployed before August and got jobs).

Continuing, the number of people who got jobs this year has increased every month in 2005 except for February.

Change in Employment Level
Jan: 85,000
Feb: -97,000
Mar: 357,000
Apr: 598,000
May: 376,000
Jun: 163,000
Jul: 438,000
Aug: 373,000

Unemployment Rate
Jan: 5.2
Feb: 5.4
Mar: 5.2
Apr: 5.2
May: 5.1
Jun: 5.0
Jul: 5.0
Aug: 4.9

It appears to me that more people are getting jobs which is a sign of a healthy economy. If these "signs" to which you are referring were so obvious, we wouldn't be seeing a decrease in unemployment and the market would not be growing.

[edit on 17-9-2005 by boredom]



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 12:04 PM
link   
You guys ever think that the government creates these high budget projects so as to finance black projects that siphon funds discreetly?



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Yeahaw, maybe we can send Bush there. But seriously I am thrilled with this



NASA's plan envisions being able to land four-person human crews anywhere on the Moon's surface and to eventually use the system to transport crew members to and from a lunar outpost that it would consider building on the lunar south pole, according to the charts, because of the regions elevated quantities of hydrogen and possibly water ice.

One of NASA's reasons for going back to the Moon is to demonstrate that astronauts can essentially "live off the land" by using lunar resources to produce potable water, fuel and other valuable commodities.

Such capabilities are considered extremely important to human expeditions to Mars which, because of the distances involved, would be much longer missions entailing a minimum of 500 days spent on the planet's surface.


Imagine what we could do with 500 days on the moon or mars. I think the first time they only spent 21½ hours on the moon.

[edit on 17-9-2005 by ikillspys]



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 08:32 PM
link   
The whole "this is a waste of money" thing is stupid. You cannot put a price on revolutionary progress.



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by boredom
There is a very simple explanation as to why we are going back to the moon. That reason being that other countries have stated they plan on going to the moon. In other words, it’s yet another short-term goal and despite what you may be reading, we aren’t going there to “prepare” for a trip to Mars. That’s just an explanation that makes the public feel good about the cost.

Even when we do get to the moon expect the program budget to get slashed before we get to Mars. In fact, the only way it won’t get cut is if another country starts planning for a Mars mission.

As for the cost, just because we have more advanced systems doesn’t mean the cost will be any lower. The original missions cost 103.5 billion in today’s dollars and I guarantee you that we’ll end up spending more than the planned $100 billion on the project.

When you get a moment, go read Moonseed by Stephen Baxter. In there you’ll see a plan to get back to the moon for $2 billion dollars (in a matter of months, not years) that is technically sound and uses existing components. It would work, but it would require that the people involved accept the risks of such a venture.

There is one line from the book that I love. I’m going to paraphrase it because I don’t have the book in front of me, nor do I remember the page number.

“If we had been adult about the risks back then we would be orbiting #ing Jupiter by now.”

This statement is very true. We were orbiting the moon by 1968 and we landed on the moon in 1969. Six missions in total (Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17) landed on the moon. Apollo 8 and 10 orbited the moon. Apollo 13 would have landed on the moon if not for a malfunction.

We stopped going to the moon due to the cancellation of funding, but if we as a society had more foresight we would have continued going to the moon and expanded our operations to include testing for resources necessary to reduce the cost of establishing a lunar base.


You got my "Way Above" vote.
Great post

I'm also glad to see Nasa putting money towards the moon, and as Boredom has posted, It will go far above 100 billion, thats just how Nasa is though.

I think its funny how T/Space has much of the same plans as Nasa.
If you dont know about them...I suggest you learn, and if ya hate to read a bunch then at least watch there video on there site.

Transformational Space
T/Space's Video site

I love how much enthusiasm is being put at space, I like to learn about the big budget Nasa projects, as well as the smaller budget public space flight.



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 04:26 AM
link   
I heard about this on the news today (which means I have been in a cave). Can anyone tell me what the purpose is to go back to the moon? Is there some mission objective that the US is trying to accomplish? So far, the news says we are going back with the same technology (Saturn rockets) as before. The cost should be less, as we could just rebuild all the hardware we once had, but now as another poster stated- it costs a little bit more in inflated dollars to go back now than it did in 69. WTF??

It usually costs me less the second time a do something extraordinary after I get the process down, but NASA can't? What are we going to do on the moon this time; build a golf course?



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Childs play. Mankind should have exceeded that by now. If money hadn't been invested in war on other countries and working togethor with other countries and peace had been developed between nations.

Other moons and planets within the solar system would have already been colonized as research would have been developed to maintain bone and muscle structure in space.

Mankind went to the moon in the 60's-rehashing an old story; except in colour.

What do they hope to achieve that they could not have achieved in the 60's?

What is it? Another Space Race? The technology to get there hasn't changed, which surprises me. Still having to use booster rockets and fly vertically and not horizontally, which applies for gravitational pull and strain upon the body.

It should be exciting to say the least to watch history repeat itself.



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 11:24 AM
link   
boredom the stock market and the unemployment rate(which isn't the true number of unemployed people anyway) are not a good marker for what direction your economy is going.

Let's paint a picture. The USA and other Western countries do not graduate nearly as much PhD's as they used too same with Engineers. Trade gap is widening as is the Budget Defecit and the Debt, China owns quite a bit of US Debt right now, if they decide to cash out the USA would feel it very quickly by the inflationary pressures it will cause. I could go on and on but I'm lazy right now.

Going back to the moon eh? 100 billion you say? If 50 Billion of that is earmarked for a Base on the moon then yay! But if NASA is just planning on rehashing the Apallo missions then
been there done that. This mission has to set out to do something we haven't done before and colonization seems like a good idea to me. We don't have the technology yet, but if we set out to do it we will develop the technology that is missing for such a colony to be possible.



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by rachel07
Childs play. Mankind should have exceeded that by now. If money hadn't been invested in war on other countries and working togethor with other countries and peace had been developed between nations.

Other moons and planets within the solar system would have already been colonized as research would have been developed to maintain bone and muscle structure in space.

Mankind went to the moon in the 60's-rehashing an old story; except in colour.

What do they hope to achieve that they could not have achieved in the 60's?

What is it? Another Space Race? The technology to get there hasn't changed, which surprises me. Still having to use booster rockets and fly vertically and not horizontally, which applies for gravitational pull and strain upon the body.

It should be exciting to say the least to watch history repeat itself.


I believe they plan on setting up a base, and being there for over 500 days...I dont see why we dont be there permenantly.

You cant say things like "If they wouldn't of spent all that money on war then we would be all over the solar system"...cause thats just foolish. the same could be said about anything.


Theres more of a private public commercial space race going on now, versus a big one like Nasa Vs. Some other big player like Russia or China...there not really in a race.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join