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.

 

2018 Moon Launch? 104 Billion. Wow!!

page: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 03:05 PM
link   

wetwarez
Welcome to the New Dark Ages...

You've got to be kidding me.


The Dark Ages was a time when there was no advances at all. How is that even remotely comparable to todays world...When you can go out and buy something and its out-dated in a couple months. We are technologicaly advancing now faster then we have ever before...and theres no end in sight.




posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
You've got to be kidding me.


The Dark Ages was a time when there was no advances at all. How is that even remotely comparable to todays world...When you can go out and buy something and its out-dated in a couple months. We are technologicaly advancing now faster then we have ever before...and theres no end in sight.


Actually, I was reffering to the space program run by NASA. Though I don't personally hold the belief that we are entering a new dark age of exploration, I believe we are already there....

Dark Age?
New Dark Age
Living in the New Dark Age

Though advancements in society may have improved we are virtually no where when it comes to space exploration. Would you disagree or do you believe that NASA's still the best organization to get the job done?



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   
jra you said

They were sent in a time of low solar activity.


Actually, I've read differently, that the time of the Apollo missions were a time of especially active solar flares.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago

Originally posted by resistance
Once again I'll make the point that if the Hubbel isn't big enough to get a clear shot of the moon, how is it supposed to be taking pics of stars 800 light years away or more like it claims it does? Could it be that the Hubbel is as big a fraud as the Apollo moon landings were?

Because there huge, all the galaxies and nebuas and whatnot that the Hubble has took dont need a mega telescope to see. Of course it can take pictures of a Galaxy...But it cant take pictures of planets inside that galaxy.


Murcielago -- Your logic isn't making it. The galaxies may be huge, but they are far, far away. The moon is the closest thing to us in space, a piddly 250,000 miles away, and even to the naked eye looks pretty big. We can look at it through binoculars and see craters and stuff. So my point is, if this contraption they've got up in space known as the Hubble telescope can't even get a good pic of the moon, why should I believe them when they produce these things that look like ink blots and claim these are "new stars forming, or "old stars dying" or whatever other nonsense they claim. Fact is, they can't see much of anything out there that we can't see in our own back yard with a telescope. And also fact is, they have an agenda -- which is to prove to and convince everyone there is no God and that the universe is teeming with intelligent life that evolved on an infinite number of planets "out there."

These people are LIARS. They are deceitful. They want MONEY. They want to pull the wool over our eyes, create a NWO, and this Captain Kirk stuff is all part of the deceptive charade they're playing. Anybody who's willing to open their eyes and look can figure this out just as well as I can.

Not only that, but they are destroying the atmosphere and ruining the entire planet roaring around in the atmosphere with these stupid rockets and shuttles. They are working in conjunction with the military and doing all kinds of other ungodly and arrogant experiments on the atmosphere, human breeding experiments, mind control etcetera. They need to be shut down and shut down NOW while we still have a planet left to save.

What do you expect from Freemasons and Illuminati? They want to own the world and they don't mind if they destroy it to own it.


jra

posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
jra you said

They were sent in a time of low solar activity.


Actually, I've read differently, that the time of the Apollo missions were a time of especially active solar flares.


There was a total of about 1400 detectable solar events, but no major solar events that posed a risk to the astronauts.


What do you expect from Freemasons and Illuminati? They want to own the world and they don't mind if they destroy it to own it.


I know nothing about Freemansons or any of that stuff, but if (and that's a big 'if') that were true, then they would have to be the stupidest people alive. Destroy the Earth to own it? If it's destroyed, then there is nothing/no one left to own it.

You make a lot of wild assumtions about NASA and everyone associated with it. Yet you obviously understand little of how it works. Especially when it comes to Hubble. It's been explained many times that it can't take pics of the Moon. It's not ment to take pics of the Moon, so get over it. It's ment to look into deep space for galaxies and what not. If you want detailed images of the surface. You put a satillite that orbits the planet/moon and takes pics of it. Just like terrain mapping and spy satillites do on Earth. For example, I don't think a spy satillite could take photos of galaxies like Hubble does. It's not designed to do that.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 06:56 PM
link   
jra -- I realize that all these things were designed to do what they do. I know the Hubble is not a telescope so much as it is a big computer, and it spits out images bsaed on the input that it receives, so it tells us what we WOULD see if we COULD see based on what it's told is "out there." And my point about it not being powerful enough to see the surface of the moon with any clarity still has absolute validity when it comes to questioning what it can and can't see in outer space hundreds of light years beyond. The Hubble IMO is almost as big a fraud as the Apollo moon landings and pictures produced fro Hubble are literally virtual reality. Most of the space pics on NASA's websites are composites put together by an artist named Calvin Hamilton, a layman and a Mormon space junkie.



[edit on 12-10-2005 by resistance]



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance

Originally posted by Murcielago

Originally posted by resistance
Once again I'll make the point that if the Hubbel isn't big enough to get a clear shot of the moon, how is it supposed to be taking pics of stars 800 light years away or more like it claims it does? Could it be that the Hubbel is as big a fraud as the Apollo moon landings were?

Because there huge, all the galaxies and nebuas and whatnot that the Hubble has took dont need a mega telescope to see. Of course it can take pictures of a Galaxy...But it cant take pictures of planets inside that galaxy.


Murcielago -- Your logic isn't making it. The galaxies may be huge, but they are far, far away. The moon is the closest thing to us in space, a piddly 250,000 miles away, and even to the naked eye looks pretty big. We can look at it through binoculars and see craters and stuff. So my point is, if this contraption they've got up in space known as the Hubble telescope can't even get a good pic of the moon, why should I believe them when they produce these things that look like ink blots and claim these are "new stars forming, or "old stars dying" or whatever other nonsense they claim. Fact is, they can't see much of anything out there that we can't see in our own back yard with a telescope. And also fact is, they have an agenda -- which is to prove to and convince everyone there is no God and that the universe is teeming with intelligent life that evolved on an infinite number of planets "out there."

These people are LIARS. They are deceitful. They want MONEY. They want to pull the wool over our eyes, create a NWO, and this Captain Kirk stuff is all part of the deceptive charade they're playing. Anybody who's willing to open their eyes and look can figure this out just as well as I can.

Not only that, but they are destroying the atmosphere and ruining the entire planet roaring around in the atmosphere with these stupid rockets and shuttles. They need to be shut down and shut down NOW while we still have a planet left to save.

What do you expect from Freemasons and Illuminati? They want to own the world and they don't mind if they destroy it to own it.


Wow...With a post like that I just dont know where to start.

and my logic, is making sense.

What dont you understand here.....This is as simple as I can put it.....It can take pictures of the moon but its resolution isn't crisp enough for you to see small craters and Nasa gear left behind, It can see Galaxies, but its resolution isn't crisp enough to see the planets inside the galaxy.

You seem to think Nasa is lying....WAKE UP, there are dozens of big telescopes out there that can see amazing detail of our universe, owned by numerous countries and some privately owned. Its not made up
.

It has absolutely nothing to do with god.....at all.

You sound like a Conspiracy tree-huggin nutcase.

The planet is big, we have absolutely ZERO proof that us (humans) being here has has anything at all to do with climate changes and natural disasters. You are clearly out of your damn mind.


resistance
They are working in conjunction with the military and doing all kinds of other ungodly and arrogant experiments on the atmosphere, human breeding experiments, mind control etcetera.

What the hell are you talking about???
ungodly experiments?
human breeding programs?
mind control?

I would ask you to explain all of those...But its obvious that you have spent far to much time in looking up conspiracies on the net, and here at ATS, the problem I have is that You believe every damn conspiracy out there, regardless of how completely stupid it is.

[edit on 12-10-2005 by Murcielago]



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 11:02 PM
link   
CEV Update:

Northrop Grumman / Boeing team have unvieled there plans for the CEV, a craft that will go to the ISS by 2012, and the moon by 2018.

Northrop Grumman-Boeing Team Unveils Plans for Space Shuttle Successor

Hi-Res


Hi-Res



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Murcieligo -- Yes, I certainly do think NASA is lying.

And I'll share some tips I've learned on how to make points and win a debate:

Number one -- get on the right side. (it really helps)

Number two -- don't name-call. It adds nothing and just makes you look like you don't have any arguments and you're so frustrated you have to name-call.

Number three -- don't wrestle with an aligator. Their teeth are bigger than yours and you might get hurt.


[edit on 12-10-2005 by resistance]



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
Murcieligo -- Yes, I certainly do think NASA is lying.

What specifically do you think Nasa is lying about?


resistance
And I'll share some tips I've learned on how to make points and win a debate:

winning??? All you've done is told us how you believe every conspiracy out there.


resistance
Number one -- get on the right side. (it really helps)

gee, let me guess...would that be your side?



resistance
Number two -- don't name-call. It adds nothing and just makes you look like you don't have any arguments and you're so frustrated you have to name-call.

I didn't call you any names.
Your right about frusterated, its like talking to a wall.



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by resistance
Murcielago -- Your logic isn't making it. The galaxies may be huge, but they are far, far away. The moon is the closest thing to us in space, a piddly 250,000 miles away, and even to the naked eye looks pretty big. We can look at it through binoculars and see craters and stuff. So my point is, if this contraption they've got up in space known as the Hubble telescope can't even get a good pic of the moon, why should I believe them when they produce these things that look like ink blots and claim these are "new stars forming, or "old stars dying" or whatever other nonsense they claim.


resistance, have you ever known anyone with glasses? Hubble was designed to look at "DEEP" space objects, not close objects and as you said, the moon is a "piddly 250k away". Hubble was never designed to look at earth or the moon. In fact NASA has even explained why here and here .


originally posted by resistance
These people are LIARS. They are deceitful. They want MONEY. They want to pull the wool over our eyes, create a NWO, and this Captain Kirk stuff is all part of the deceptive charade they're playing. Anybody who's willing to open their eyes and look can figure this out just as well as I can.


Trust me resistence, Scotty can beam me up any time... your statements prove there is NO intelligent life down here...


originally posted by resistance
Not only that, but they are destroying the atmosphere and ruining the entire planet roaring around in the atmosphere with these stupid rockets and shuttles. They are working in conjunction with the military and doing all kinds of other ungodly and arrogant experiments on the atmosphere, human breeding experiments, mind control etcetera. They need to be shut down and shut down NOW while we still have a planet left to save.


Ok... whatever you've been smoking, I want some... As far as the Rocket pollution you're so worried about, do a little research and you might just find that cars do more harm than all the lauches that have "EVER" taken place. And as far as "save the planet" it's been here 4.5 BILLION years, I don't think it needs saving. Though after hearing you, we really might want to consider selective breeding programs.


originally posted by resistance
What do you expect from Freemasons and Illuminati? They want to own the world and they don't mind if they destroy it to own it.


Personally, I expect them to wear funny beanies and ride around in little cars at the head of the parade.... just an idea though...



[edit on 10-13-2005 by wetwarez]



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Dear Wet --

You said:


resistance, have you ever known anyone with glasses? Hubble was designed to look at "DEEP" space objects, not close objects and as you said, the moon is a "piddly 250k away". Hubble was never designed to look at earth or the moon.



Well, I clicked on your links and they said:

Can Hubble see the Apollo landing sites on the Moon?

No, Hubble cannot take photos of the Apollo landing sites.

An object on the Moon 4 meters (4.37 yards) across, viewed from HST, would be about 0.002 arcsec in size. The highest resolution instrument currently on HST is the Advanced Camera for Surveys at 0.03 arcsec. So anything we left on the Moon cannot be resolved in any HST image. It would just appear as a dot.



This plainly tells me that the Hubble is not powerful enough to see the moon. Not that it's TOO powerful. So maybe you need to reread this and think about it?


[edit on 13-10-2005 by resistance]



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Resistance
This plainly tells me that the Hubble is not powerful enough to see the moon. Not that it's TOO powerful. So maybe you need to reread this and think about it?

Do you not know what the word RESOLUTION is?
Thats what it all comes down to.
I will give you the best example i can think of.

Example:
Take one of the first digital camers made (a couple decades ago), and go up a tall building like the sears tower or Empire State or something, and take a picture of the cars on the streets below. Then you put those images on your computer at home and zoom in to identify the make & model of the cars...you cant, because they will only be a couple pixels (aka: dots), So you couldn't tell the difference between a ford truck and a lamborghini. Now repeat that example, only this time grab a new expensive 50 megapixel camera, and go home and put the pics on your pc, and zoom and and you will easily be able to identify a ferrari from a lamborghini.

It all about resolution.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Take one of the first digital camers made (a couple decades ago), and go up a tall building like the sears tower or Empire State or something, and take a flying leap off the top and on the way down snap pictures and shout we never landed on the Moon and NASA is Illuminatti liars.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Realist05
...give me 5 Billion instead of 104 over the same period and here's what I'd do:
1. Contract for 10 Zenit/Sea Launch flights.
2. Build remotely operated rovers. Sort of "Spirit and Opportunity on steroids."
3. Fly them to the moon and let 4000 researchers explore instead of 4.

Don't say it's not as good as a human being there, because with machines we could use multispectral and sensor capabilities beyond the senses of astronauts.


Yeah. This is what my astronomy prof. at Iowa, Dr. James VanAllen, preached. He thought sending humans into space was a waste of resources. I was a huge sci fi reader in the 60's and 70's and I disagreed with him because I experienced the excitement of the Apollo shots (and the great fiction) and thought we should be there. Maybe so. But let's do the exploration with the robotics until we can do the travel more cost effectively with better propulsion. I agree with the naysayers on these plans. We've got too many problems here on earth that need the cash to send up people.

www.hq.nasa.gov...



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago

Resistance
This plainly tells me that the Hubble is not powerful enough to see the moon. Not that it's TOO powerful. So maybe you need to reread this and think about it?

Do you not know what the word RESOLUTION is?
Thats what it all comes down to.
I will give you the best example i can think of.

It all about resolution.


Sorry I chose the wrong word. Resolution will do just fine. The Hubble doesn't have enough resolution. Not TOO MUCH. It has NOT ENOUGH. Get it now?

So if it doesn't have enough RESOLUTION to get a decent pic of the moon, how the heck can it get any pics of stars 800 light years off in space?

NOW does what I say make sense to you? Somehow we don't need resolution to see 800 light years off in space? If we don't need resolution, what DO we need? You tell ME!

Also, Bode, I think you should stick to the discussion here. Name-calling and jeering is not the answer. You don't believe there's an Illuminati or that these people are ever going to influence your life in any way? You're wrong. You're just plain wrong. But that's okay.

Neil Armstrong has a picture of himself hanging in the Masonic Temple of him in his hokey spacesuit, supposedly on the moon, wearing his Masonic Apron.
You admitted yourself these people are devil worshippers. So if you know this, why are you jeering?



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 04:01 AM
link   
Well Resistance you certainly adopted an appropriate name for yourself. You have resisted every attempt by everyone who has bothered to try to enlighten you. The way you write tells me you aren't totally stupid and enough information has been presented that you can't possibly be ignorant either; therefore, you are being obstinate because it pleases you in some warped, illogical fashion that can't stand up to even a cursory glance by someone else. Why are you doing this? What motivates you to remain obdurate and, and pig-headed?



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by seattlelaw
I agree with the naysayers on these plans. We've got too many problems here on earth that need the cash to send up people.

*Sigh* You DO relize that innovations in living up there is directly applicable to living down here?
Solar Cells wouldn't be anywhere near efficient as they are today without the demand NASA has for them, without Space Science Solar Cell technology would most likely have been completely abandoned in the 70s-80s. Fuel Cells ... similiar story there as well. LEDs which promise to cut electricity consumption by 15 % if all households had them in N. America(It can happen in 10-15 years now thanks to all the people and orginizations that funded it's development .... including NASA, they are now working on an ultra high efficient LED grow lamp capable of growing food on the cheap(power wise) they want to have it up in the ISS eventually to grow plants for a modest power hit)

You CANNOT do any of these things with just robotic missions. NASA isn't funding enough. Triple it's budget I say. And Start taking tourist up there. Make a CEV who's sole purpose is to give Rich Businessmen for a ride of their lifetime(and maybe get them interesting in spending more money on Private Space Ventures)

Learning to live in extreme environments proves usefull to even Urban dwellers eventually...

[edit on 14-10-2005 by sardion2000]


jra

posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
Sorry I chose the wrong word. Resolution will do just fine. The Hubble doesn't have enough resolution. Not TOO MUCH. It has NOT ENOUGH. Get it now?

So if it doesn't have enough RESOLUTION to get a decent pic of the moon, how the heck can it get any pics of stars 800 light years off in space?

NOW does what I say make sense to you? Somehow we don't need resolution to see 800 light years off in space? If we don't need resolution, what DO we need? You tell ME!


I think you fail to understand the astronomical size of things in the universe that the Hubble (and many other telescopes around the world) view. For example, the Andromeda galaxy is 2.9 million light years away and it has a diameter of over 250,000 light years. It can be seen with the naked eye (assuming ones in an area with little light polution). Home telescopes can see other nebula around in our galaxy. So are all astronomers, amature astronomers and regular people who have a decent little telescope in there backyard all liers? Or are they just seeing things? a $500 telescope definately doesn't have the ability to see the landing sites on the moon, yet they can see things further out in space.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 05:07 AM
link   
jra -- I'm not saying telescopes don't work. I'm saying they work almost as well as the Hubble, maybe better, based on the moon pics we're getting from the Hubble.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join