Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

2018 Moon Launch? 104 Billion. Wow!!

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 12:52 PM
link   


If somebody said there's WMD's on the moon...We'd be back there by Christmas.


Funny, but the sad truth is that this project could have been easily paid for with what we've spent in Iraq. Nearly twice over, in fact.



[edit on 9/27/05 by xmotex]




posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex


If somebody said there's WMD's on the moon...We'd be back there by Christmas.


Funny, but the sad truth is that this project could have been easily paid for with what we've spent in Iraq. Nearly twice over, in fact.
[edit on 9/27/05 by xmotex]


blah blah blah


Its easy to view the past from the present and point out pointless things.

Example:
Were going to have to spend over a hundred billion to fix New Orleans, which we should have just gathered up several billions a few years ago and made super strong levees, that could easily handle a Category 5.


Get my point.



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by timski
...an ISS-2 would also give us the opportunity to test fusion-reactor theory and technology in an environment where, if it all goes horribly wrong, you dont risk vapourizing a large chunk of mother earth...
I see the logic here. But if we vaporized a large chunk of the moon, I think it would have negative effects on earth tilt, which sucks for obvious reasons.



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago

Originally posted by xmotex


If somebody said there's WMD's on the moon...We'd be back there by Christmas.


Funny, but the sad truth is that this project could have been easily paid for with what we've spent in Iraq. Nearly twice over, in fact.
[edit on 9/27/05 by xmotex]


blah blah blah


Its easy to view the past from the present and point out pointless things.

Example:
Were going to have to spend over a hundred billion to fix New Orleans, which we should have just gathered up several billions a few years ago and made super strong levees, that could easily handle a Category 5.


Get my point.


This is completely offtopic but one thing cannot compare to the other. A Human Made disaster is an Apple and a Natural Disaster is an Orange. One was cause by Human self-determination the other by pressure systems and season and stuff like that. His comment is very legitimate and if you wanna argue it why not make a thread about it in Slug Fest?

This is directed to both parties btw and it's just a suggestion.

[edit on 27-9-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 06:12 AM
link   
I digressed for a minute with the WMD on the moon but it was good for a laugh. Lets not get lost in people slamming others and what have you.
Lets try and stay directed on topic.

Moon Base
Space Elevator
Space Rail Cannon

All interesting topics. Lets expand upon
them. No one liner posts. Lets put some thought into it...My final commnet on war....There is some truth about the money spent on war and defense, in that man has spent much more money on the develeopment or war mechanisms and how to kill people then in exloring the vast unknowns. Seems kind of out of balance if you ask me.

My original topic, to reiteratem, was that it seemed an excessive amount of time to put a man back on the moon for an excessive amount of money. Thats all. We know what were dealing with, almost 40 years later, and it seems we are going back to the drawing board.

Thats how industry makes money. Its takes the cookie cutting out of the picture and goes back to an original design concept to be profitable and to generate jobs....after all, we desiging something totally new..therefore its expensive.

I dont think, that this is the case in the current proposal for the moon shot.
But in my opinion, if were not talking moon base, or building a moon launch pad, then why waste the engineering effort as there is a finite amount of resource in that profession. Lets shoot for mars I say. Can the 108 Billion.
Let the rovers on mars tell us what we need to know, stretch out our engineering capabilities, and truly make one small step for man, One giant leap for mankind.

Peace

[edit on 28-9-2005 by HIFIGUY]

[edit on 28-9-2005 by HIFIGUY]



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty

Originally posted by timski
Why does payload destined for a lunar outpost have to be launched on the back of a rocket/shuttle? The cost per launch using the currently avalable delivery-systems make the scenario economically unviable.

A cheaper method would be to fire unmanned guided-payload-projectiles at the lunar surface by basically firing a cargo-pod from a large enough cannon...electo-magnetic propulsion could accelerate the pod to 1000mph plus, and have a small SRB to boost into orbit...a desert site would be ideal for launch control as the elec to power the launch could easily be gathered by a huge solar-array...
we could send all the materials ready for assembly a short while ahead of the manned mission to begin assembly...it would be a matter of a few weeks to build a habitable base-camp.

As for why go there in the first place....the lunar surface would offer great technological advantages....no atmosphere, so can experiment creating new metal alloy hybrids that need a de-oxygenated environment to be forged...the same for the reduction in gravity...larger structures could be build such as a roof span over a crater...although the 'Eden Project' didn't quite work to sustain human life independantlyy, as long as there are scheduled cargo-drops, a small colony could survive until they became self-sustaining...and when that is achieved, we'll head for Mars......as Armstrong said "..a small step for man, and a giant leap for mankind.."


You are thinking like Jules Verne. You cannot simply shoot something from a cannon and expect it to reach space.

The force that needs to be created to lift this object into space will be immense in that split second reaction and will more than likely take more weight/cost in explosives than fuel for a rocket. Chances are it will lose velocity and fall back down to earth, that is if the air resistance hasn't burnt and destroyed the projectile before it leaves the barrel.

1000mph is nothing. Most rockets travel at about 5mps or 18 times what you stated. And rail guns are pretty much categorized with cold fusion as fantasy



Eh u can shoot something in to space..
nasa had/has a program with laser propulsion shooting at a disk and they have / had plans for a maglevlaunch system.

shooting the space craft to space with the help of electro magnetism.

www.nps.navy.mil...

open this link its pdf when open windows ctrl + f4 (search)
search railgun



and a link for more info on Railgun Pulsed Power Program

Electric Gun Integrated Launch Package

www.utexas.edu...

[edit on 28-9-2005 by MarkLuitzen]



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Is it breaking the rules here to put in a disagreement with the thread? ATS features Bart Slibel's movie, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon, and I clicked on it when I first came to this site and was roaming around seeing what you guys had here of interest -- besides ValHal's thread that I found on Google. You guys need to search it out and click on it. He's got four videos and each one of them has excerpts you can play right on your computer screen. The introduction is really good too.

It's not the expense that's kept anybody from going to the moon. If it were possible to go, we'd have gone.

I'm positive we never went to the moon.

[edit on 28-9-2005 by resistance]



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   


Is it breaking the rules here to put in a disagreement with the thread?


Not at all but I have to warn you, there are a great many on ATS that will rip to shreads any supposed "proof" that we never went to the moon. It's been done to death and it will annoy people if you start a new thread or derail this thread with that "theory" use the search function and contribute to one of the hundreds of threads we have already about the "Moon Hoax" (Use that search term after you hit
< --- this button)

I hope you enjoy your stay here
Please keep on topic this thread is having a hard time of that as it is...

[edit on 28-9-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Thanks, Sardion. How kind of you. This is only my second post, so I guess I need to explore a bit more. Thanks for the tip on searching.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 03:31 AM
link   
on this thread.


The object that perked Bush;s interest in outerspace is the Idea that the Moon could be transformed into a energy producing megalith by robots.

enough energy could be produced off 1% of it's surface to equal the entire output from coal, oil , natural gas, and renewables for the whole world.

Exotic elements could be gotten from asteroids rather than shipped from Earth. The space endeavor would be self sufficient in 100 years providing $trillons to the US and the world.

Shortsighted.

Shoot your own foot if they let ya.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Sorry to be back so soon.


I noticed NASA had this to say about its plans to send a lunar reconnaissance orbiter to the moon in 2008. NASA says: "It will sample the Moon's radiation environment, search for patches of frozen water, make laser maps of lunar terrain and, using LROC, photograph the Moon's entire surface. By the time astronauts return, they'll know the best places to land and much of what awaits them." The main reason for their mission of course is to take pictures of the gear left behind by the Apollo missions. (pulled from link www.defensetech.org...


Questions to NASA on "sampling the Moon's radiation enviornment":

1. You mean you don't already KNOW THIS STUFF? So how were you able to send men to the moon 40 years ago? And since we're told that you did, you must know something about the radiation environment since these guys were IN IT for over 100 man hours. I mean, if you didn't know this stuff back then don't you think it was kind of risky to send men up there? And how come you don't know about it now?

2. As to the "radiation envioronment" I'd also like to know if you're tentatively planning after your moon mission in 15 years to build an outpost/settlement on the north pole of the Moon so as to capitalize on almost continuous sunlight how you intend to stay cool? My flagstones heat up hotter than a pistol in the summertime, and they're only out in the sun for maybe 10 hours, and that's sunlight filtered through the earth's atmosphere. Since the moon has little to no atmosphere, how is this heat going to be dissipated as these rocks are inundated by this incredible heat continuously? And if the moon is half a million miles closer to the sun than the earth is -- well, I just think it's going to be too darned hot there for anybody to go there.
And that's why I don't really think NASA went there in the first place.

3. Bart Slibel shows the astronauts going berserk in his video Astronauts Gone Wild and shows an excerpt from the one and only press conference they had where they were squirming, gulping, and twitching -- I mean they looked really GUILTY. (I'd be guilty too at facing the American people as "heros" and knowing I'd pulled a big fast one on everybody.) You can check it out at www.moonmovie.com.





1.





check this link www.defensetech.org...



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Resistance ,

Why are you resisting a fact. They went to the Moon. They landed. They have not just one movie, but thousands of feet of other film rarely viewed because people are so sure they went it has no interest. Get w/ the 21st century. I know you'd like to see all of us using Horses and carriages, hand pumping water out of the ground, and using outhouses, but it ain't gonna happen.

It's so amasing to you that we went to the Moon , you can't believe it, but you've never seen a nuke blast and you believe that. You've never been in a mine and you believe there are mines. You've never been to the South Pole research facility , but youbelieve people are there. Think, I just ask people to think.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Dear Bodebliss -- All I'm doing is posing some obvious questions. How come we have to do our homework NOW after 40 years, and AFTER we do our homework, THEN MAYBE in 15 MORE years we'll be ready to actually GO TO THE MOON?

Those questions about the "radiation" on the moon are the same exact questions I've been asking. How does the heat dissipate from rocks that are baking under 250 degrees continously with no let up, with no atmosphere to either shield the sun or to suck up the heat from the surface (the moon is a vacuum).

So I'm told radiation is the way the moon gives off its heat. Well, it must be a heck of a lot of radiation. So I want to know, how come we're just now getting around to doing the homework on this radiation? Don't you think It's a little late to be doing it NOW?



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Resistance,
I am going to try to answer your questions one by one. They are valid to a point but you are missing a couple of key points.




"Sampling the Moon's radiation environment":
1. You mean you don't already KNOW THIS STUFF? So how were you able to send men to the moon 40 years ago? And since we're told that you did, you must know something about the radiation environment since these guys were IN IT for over 100 man hours. I mean, if you didn't know this stuff back then don't you think it was kind of risky to send men up there? And how come you don't know about it now?


Yes, the moon does receive a great deal of radiation from numerous sources, such as cosmic radiation. NASA and the astronauts were well aware of this radiation. The thing is that except for the couple of brief (relatively speaking) our forays into space have been close to the EARTH so our people were protected by the Earth’s Magnetic field. The time that the astronauts spent on the moon’s surface only was for a couple of days at a time. The reason that the scientists want to sample the moon’s radiation environment is to get a better understanding of the possible effects on the human body after lengthy exposure. The best way to explain this would be comparing this to X-rays. X-rays are extremely deadly and yet we use them daily in hospitals to diagnosis patients. The thing is the strength and length of exposure to the X-rays. The short time and the level used in the X-ray rooms are within safe limits.




By placing the radiation detectors in CRaTER behind various thicknesses of a special plastic that has similar density and composition to human tissue, Spence and his colleagues will provide much-needed data: Except for quick trips to the Moon during the Apollo program, most human spaceflight has occurred near Earth where our planet's magnetic field provides a natural shield. In low-Earth orbit, the most dangerous forms of space radiation are relatively rare. That's good for astronauts, but it leaves researchers with many unanswered questions about what radiation does to human tissue. CRaTER will help fill in the gaps.
Out in deep space, radiation comes from all directions. On the Moon, you might expect the ground, at least, to provide some relief, with the solid body of the Moon blocking radiation from below. Not so.
When galactic cosmic rays collide with particles in the lunar surface, they trigger little nuclear reactions that release yet more radiation in the form of neutrons. The lunar surface itself is radioactive!
So which is worse for astronauts: cosmic rays from above or neutrons from below? Igor Mitrofanov, a scientist at the Institute for Space Research and the Russian Federal Space Agency, Moscow, offers a grim answer: "Both are worse."
Mitrofanov is Principle Investigator for the other radiation-sensing instrument on LRO, the Lunar Exploration Neutron Detector (LEND), which is partially funded by the Russian Federal Space Agency. By using an isotope of helium that's missing one neutron, LEND will be able to detect neutron radiation emanating from the lunar surface and measure how energetic those neutrons are.
The first global mapping of neutron radiation from the Moon was performed by NASA's Lunar Prospector probe in 1998-99. LEND will improve on the Lunar Prospector data by profiling the energies of these neutrons, showing what fraction are of high energy (i.e., the most damaging to people) and what fraction are of lower energies.
With such knowledge in hand, scientists can begin designing spacesuits, lunar habitats, Moon vehicles, and other equipment for NASA's return to the Moon knowing exactly how much radiation shielding this equipment must have to keep humans safe.


Radiation on the Moon




2. As to the "radiation environment" I'd also like to know if you're tentatively planning after your moon mission in 15 years to build an outpost/settlement on the north pole of the Moon so as to capitalize on almost continuous sunlight how you intend to stay cool? My flagstones heat up hotter than a pistol in the summertime, and they're only out in the sun for maybe 10 hours, and that's sunlight filtered through the earth's atmosphere. Since the moon has little to no atmosphere, how is this heat going to be dissipated as these rocks are inundated by this incredible heat continuously? And if the moon is half a million miles closer to the sun than the earth is -- well, I just think it's going to be too darned hot there for anybody to go there.



Remember no atmosphere, no “blanket” to retain the heat. Before you bring it up, the moon does have a rotation and thus the same “face” does NOT always face the Sun. The rotation of the moon is slow enough that as it circles the Earth, one face is pointing towards the Earth.




The temperature on the moon varies from -387 Fahrenheit (-233 Celsius), at night, to 253 Fahrenheit (123 Celsius) during the day. Because the moon has no atmosphere to block some of the sun's rays or to help trap heat at night, its temperature varies greatly between day and night.


What is the temperature on the moon?




3. Bart Slibel shows the astronauts going berserk in his video Astronauts Gone Wild and shows an excerpt from the one and only press conference they had where they were squirming, gulping, and twitching -- I mean they looked really GUILTY. (I'd be guilty too at facing the American people as "heros" and knowing I'd pulled a big fast one on everybody.) You can check it out at www.moonmovie.com.


Well this has been thoroughly discussed here on ATS and has been pretty much been put to rest

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Hope this helps to clear up your questions



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 05:08 PM
link   
This is the why of that.

When we went to the Moon scientists were sure that the radiation outside of the Earths atmosphere and Magnetosphere was greater than close to the Earth. If you listen to the old tapes some of the equipment they were using were gieger counters to check the radiation levels. What they need now is know allot more about the spectrum and exposure times and what particles in particular the astronauts will face so they can make new equipment for the Moon terraformers.

When we went to the Moon the first time they thought 'well they're only gonna be outside the Earth's protective cover for two weeks max'. they've said as much in historic documentaries. Some of the Moon astronauts have had bouts of cancer. It's making everyone wonder.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 05:31 PM
link   
"THEN MAYBE in 15 MORE years we'll be ready to actually GO TO THE MOON? "

Oh , I think we're not just going to the Moon anymore we're going to get something out of it this time.

Think of a endless supply of pollution free energy coming from solar stations on the Moon. Enough energy to make 50 times what we use on Earth today and the half of the Moon facing Earth just covered w/ solarcells. All done by autonomous robots.

I seen where that reporter baited Aldrin into hitting him. What a waste of human flesh that reporter is.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Dear Kenshiro: I think you might have misunderstood a couple of my points here. You said the atmosphere blankets the earth and keeps it warm and the moon has no atmosphere so the heat escapes? Not so. A vacuum is a perfect insulator. I was discussing this with someone else and they seemed to know a lot about the physics of heat, claimed the heat on the moon was dissipated by radiation. Okay? See where I'm coming from? I'm not talking abouat radiation coming IN to the moon. I'm talking about radiation EMITTING FROM the moon as it tries to dissipate it's great heat.

Frankly I think the moon is too hot and too radioactive for any man to venture one foot, or one moon buggy or one flag or anything else on to it. You put a fflag on the moon it's going to BURN UP!

I'm aware that the moon's day is equal to 28 of ours, and that the dark side of the moon gets to face the sun an equal amount of time as the side we see all the time.

[



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 08:33 PM
link   
The suits the astronauts wear are really special they cool on one side and heat on the other automatically as they move and are totally adjustable to the astronauts desired temp. They have two shades and clear (I think Gold ,the metal, film is one of them).



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Resistance - You do realize that space is a cold cold place...dont you?



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
Resistance - You do realize that space is a cold cold place...dont you?


Murcielago -- Space is neither hot nor cold. Space is a vacuum. It just is. Heat happens only when it is able to strike something and start the molecules vibrating. A vacuum works as an insulator -- which is why they use a termos to keep their coffee hot or cold.

Therefore, when the sun is hitting the surface of the moon, the surface will absorb the heat and keep it in because the atmosphere will prevent any dissipation of the heat. Likewise when the sun is not shining on the moon the molecules will cease to vibrate and deep-freeze, and there will be no atmosphere to warm it. Take any part of the moon at any one moment and it will be in either complete sun or complete darkness for minimum two weeks, especially at the equator. NASA is saying they can get almost continuous sunlight near the north pole of the moon. I don't know why they think that's a good thing.

Therefore the conditions on the moon are extremely, extremely harsh. I just don't see how those hokey spacesuits protected the astroNOTs and I htink that silly flag we keep discussing would have just burned up. Somebody on one of these threads said he thought the temperature got up into the thousands of degrees on the moon. You can't go bopping around the moon digging rocks and all that stuff, focusing Haselblads and shooting a myriad of pictures in that kind of heat.

A 2018 moon launch? Never happen. The preparatory missions will go on, and I believe falsified pictures will be produced to "prove" the Apollo landings were not fake, and they will attempt to convince everyone they've succeeded in taking photos of the abandoned space equipment. But it won't convince any skeptics because if they can fake one bunch of pics they can fake some more. But all this will keep the public believing in NASA, in the possiblity of space travel, and undergirdl the Illuminati's deceitful hoax they're going to try to pull on the people of the world, spring some "aliens" on us, tell us they've travelled light years to visit us to bring us peace. I think the secret military is practicing Satanic witchcraft and manifesting demons are being bred with humans, producing offspring which will be brought forth at the proper moment to deceive the world.

Meantime, a lot of people get to play with their big rockets, zoom around the atmosphere, get paid a lot of money. It's a complete and total waste of money -- or worse.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join