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.

 

Return To The Moon 2020

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 05:07 PM
link   
So George Bush has announced 4 astronauts are going on a flying trip to the moon. How nice. It will be the first time since 1972 since Man took a stroll on the Moon and had a game of golf !!!
Given some of the Moon conspiracy theories, ie a base exists on the moon, ailens have told us to keep off the Moon and so on, what do users think of this announcement in the context of the ailen/UFO cover up? Also is this another stepping stone in a maybe revived Cosmic Journey Project that Timothy Good once first suggested (a gradual release and disclousre of the existence of UFO's) And once our 4 hero's land on the Moon, what are they going to do once they are there?


All thoughts welcomed !!!




posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Isn't it 2018, not 2020?
It'll be like $104 billion, wow. What's there to do up there? I thought they already got all they wanted.
America was asking for donations for New Orleans but now they can have 104 billion to go back up to the moon.



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 08:09 PM
link   
I think it's sad we've waited this long to go back. Space exploration is a must. We know so little about the Universe. Maybe something like .0000001%

Spending money on human exploration is fine with me. The government wastes money on worse....




posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nventual

It'll be like $104 billion, wow. What's there to do up there? I thought they already got all they wanted.
.


Since the moon landing its been discovered that the moon has a rather large supply of Helium 3 which is quite rare on earth.

Helium-3 is the perfect fuel for nuclear fusion. Its expected to be the cleanest fuel for 21st century fusion reactors.

About 25 tonnes of He3 would power the United States for 1 year at our current rate of energy consumption.



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Helium-3 is a pipe dream. This a publicity stunt pure and simple.



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 09:57 PM
link   
What evidence do you have to support such a claim? You dont happen to be a physicists? I can find a whole lot of physicists that disagree with you claim.

Its also a interesting statement from a person that a few minutes ago in the thread "NEWS: NASA's New Moon Plans: 'Apollo on Steroids'" didnt seem to even know alot about He3

quote from Frosty-

"What's all this helium-3 talk? Is this the 'only' potential source for fusion power? Whatever happened to hydrogen? ''

"Could someone please provide links to current He-3 fusion reactor reasearch?"


[edit on 19-9-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Well, to address your question, the decision to return to the moon and establish a human presence there can mean one of two things. Either it means that the reports of aliens warning us away from the moon during early missions there were false, or it means that the aliens no longer pose a threat to human visitation, and possibly habitation, of the moon. I believe that the former is far more likely to be accurate, although it would be fun to speculate on the reasons for the latter. So I will.


If we accept (I do not but I realise that there are people that do) the premise that early astronauts encountered an alien presence on the moon that warned humanity against further expeditions there, this new mission to the moon takes on an altogether different light. Whilst such a theory would explain why there were no manned missions to the moon following Apollo 17, it also raises a number of questions as Mankind prepares to land on the moon once more. Specifically, the question must be asked "What has changed?" If aliens warned us off the moon once, why would they now be comfortable with us returning there after 23 years?

The obvious answers are that the aliens have either come to an arrangement with the United States government to allow Humanity to return to the moon or, alternatively, the government has otherwise eliminated the threat posed by the aliens. This seems unlikely, given the level of technology that would presumably be required to serve as a meaningful deterrant against an alien civilisation and the comparatively primitive technology to be employed in actually reaching the moon. As a result, we must assume, in this hypothetical scenario, that an agreement has been struck between the US government and aliens to permit new human expeditions to the moon. Not that I believe the stories of aliens warning us away but, as I said, it is fun to speculate.

As for a return to the moon revealing any presence of bases or civilisations or an alien presence, if the government were aware of such things, there is little chance that they would choose to reveal such things to a worldwide audience. Let us not forget that the moon is approximately the same diameter as the continent of Australia. There are plenty of potential landing places and nothing will be revealed that the government does not wish to be revealed.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 12:15 AM
link   
Please, NASA is not going to the moon to collect Helium-3 when we have tritium, hydrogen and other fusion fuels here on earth. It is going to cost $100+ billion to go to the moon in one trip. How much will it cost to comeback with Helium-3? Another $100 billion? How much to build reactors that currently don't exist? Man them with scientist and engineers which don't exist?

[edit on 20-9-2005 by Frosty]



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 12:15 AM
link   
Just when I thought we were gonna go to mars!?

Anyone have the Mars link? Wasn't there some plan at one point for one date?



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 12:44 AM
link   
You may find this Constellation Project interesting.
BIG DOWNLOAD


According to what I've read (from AFP, but in French, so it's a bit pointless to quote here), the budget for this mission-to-be is expected to be no more than 55% what the latest Appollo mission was.

Anyway, if 2012 is to be the end of the world
then what harm can it do to plan going back to the moon in 2018 ?



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Could somebody in the know please answer or point to the answers to these questions:

1. $104 billion sounds like a lot of wonga even in modern day terms. How much did the original landing cost? Could it be that the original visits were carried out with much more technical risks than would be acceptable today?

2. If it's 2020, why so long considering that it took a much shorter period last time from when the decision was made to the actual event?

I am just uneasy about why it seems to have been all so "straightforward" back then, and now it's something of a monumental task.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
Please, NASA is not going to the moon to collect Helium-3 when we have tritium, hydrogen and other fusion fuels here on earth. It is going to cost $100+ billion to go to the moon in one trip. How much will it cost to comeback with Helium-3? Another $100 billion? How much to build reactors that currently don't exist? Man them with scientist and engineers which don't exist?

[edit on 20-9-2005 by Frosty]


They have already built fusion reactors




Heres a pic of the Tokamak Fusion Reactor and it was manned by quite real scientist and engineers. They existed and everything. In 1994, TFTR produced a world-record 10.7 million watts of controlled fusion power, enough to meet the needs of more than 3,000 homes

He3/deuterium mixture is far better then 50/50 deuterium/tritium fuel mixtures.




The deuterium and helium-3 atoms come together to give off a proton and helium-4. The products weigh less than the initial components; the missing mass is converted to energy. 1 kg of helium-3 burned with 0.67 kg of deuterium gives us about 19 megawatt-years of energy output.

1 million metric tonnes of He3, reacted with deuterium, would generate about 20,000 terrawatt-years of thermal energy. That's about 10 times the energy we could get from mining all the fossil fuels on Earth, (without the smog and acid rain)

As for your 200 billion projected price tag for the mission if they brought back 100 tones of He3 the mission would see a net gain of 100 billion. Since the estimated price of 100 tons of He3 is 300 billion



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 07:13 AM
link   
$104 odd Billion.

At these times, where there is constant war on terror, HUGE domestic problems, poverty, famine, disease, the government extremly pointlessly (in the 60s, there was the space race) decides to spend 100 BILLION USD, just to send a man to the moon....AGAIN?

Now I don't know if it's just pure stupidity, or if their real agenda, is getting to know whats on the moon.

The pyramids, the secret bases, the aliens - whatever.

Also, I assume NASA is coming up with ways of hiding anything... "odd" which the spacecraft will meet along the way, which it most certainly will.

[edit on 20-9-2005 by Manincloak]



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by Frosty
Please, NASA is not going to the moon to collect Helium-3 when we have tritium, hydrogen and other fusion fuels here on earth. It is going to cost $100+ billion to go to the moon in one trip. How much will it cost to comeback with Helium-3? Another $100 billion? How much to build reactors that currently don't exist? Man them with scientist and engineers which don't exist?

[edit on 20-9-2005 by Frosty]


They have already built fusion reactors




Heres a pic of the Tokamak Fusion Reactor and it was manned by quite real scientist and engineers. They existed and everything. In 1994, TFTR produced a world-record 10.7 million watts of controlled fusion power, enough to meet the needs of more than 3,000 homes

He3/deuterium mixture is far better then 50/50 deuterium/tritium fuel mixtures.




The deuterium and helium-3 atoms come together to give off a proton and helium-4. The products weigh less than the initial components; the missing mass is converted to energy. 1 kg of helium-3 burned with 0.67 kg of deuterium gives us about 19 megawatt-years of energy output.

1 million metric tonnes of He3, reacted with deuterium, would generate about 20,000 terrawatt-years of thermal energy. That's about 10 times the energy we could get from mining all the fossil fuels on Earth, (without the smog and acid rain)

As for your 200 billion projected price tag for the mission if they brought back 100 tones of He3 the mission would see a net gain of 100 billion. Since the estimated price of 100 tons of He3 is 300 billion



And this runs of helium-3 and the power generated from it actually reaches those 3k homes?



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   
I personally believe that we were subtly warned away from the moon. I have found nothing to convince me that the rumors of spaceships seen on the crater rim by the Apollo crew were false.

And given the written record on Colonel Corso, who basically stated the US government was building weapons to defend against the aliens, who were harrassing both cosmonauts and astronauts, and preventing us from really establishing a presence on the moon, my guess is the reason we are returning after so long is that its quite possible we succeeded in some form of effective ET deterrant, and now we no longer have to worry about our astronauts being harrased and deterred from exploring the moon anymore.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I personally believe that we were subtly warned away from the moon. I have found nothing to convince me that the rumors of spaceships seen on the crater rim by the Apollo crew were false.


Would you mind linking to some stuff you feel convinces you this is true?



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 01:07 PM
link   
I think it's obvious to everyone that for some reason they don't want to apply the newer/better/more advanced technology and use a propulsion system 10X better than the one they want to make. It's just bigger and more powerful, but uses the same out-dated form of energy...



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   
But a lot of you need to get back on topic. There are dozens of threads about Space Exploration, inclduing but not limited to the Moon in the Space Exploration forum. Talk about money, He3, Fusion, and all that jazz there, not here. The question is what this means in terms of the alien presence, disclosure, and predictions made.

Now back to your original programming.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Anymore takers on the alledged ailen prescene on the moon?



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   
"Since the moon landing its been discovered that the moon has a rather large supply of Helium 3 which is quite rare on earth.

Helium-3 is the perfect fuel for nuclear fusion. Its expected to be the cleanest fuel for 21st century fusion reactors.

About 25 tonnes of He3 would power the United States for 1 year at our current rate of energy consumption. "

I think a great point. Helium 3 on/beneath the moon has been going around talk channels and I think a revelent interest of EBEs dealing with part of their craft propulsion system..

Dallas




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join