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.

 

Russia Plans Mine On The Moon By 2020

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murmur
I dont think the russians are 'made of gold" but its pretty obvious
that a mission to set up a mine on the moon is no going to cost trillions (much less if liftport can get their elevator working) of dollars.



Space elevators are in the distant future, not 2015-20. It will cost trillions of dollars. NASA put its cost estimates of running a manned mission at a minimum of about $120 billion, why on earth would you think a moonbase would cost only 4 or 5 times this amount?



Also the money thats spent on the space program dosnt just vanish it gos to companies and contractors (who get taxed) then to employees (who get taxed) then eventualy back to the government (you should be able to see the loop here).


Yes it does vanish. This is a private company in Russia, not the Russian government. They do not have the power to collect taxes.




the rocket fuel comment theres nothing stopping them useing it instead of xenon in a conventional fission or solar powered ion engine craft.


So why aren't they using it?




posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus

Originally posted by Frosty
Who has a trillion dollars to mine a non-existant energy source?


What do you mean non-existant? It's very present!


Ok, how about: Who has a trillion dollars to mine an existant non-energy source?

[edit on 27-1-2006 by Frosty]


How is this a non-energy source? In the future he-3 will be needed for fusion, they can sell it for a lot of cash.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 02:21 AM
link   
I get a 404 on that article.

Anyone help me?

btw. Doesn't it seem strange, both USA announced they would go back to the moon by 2020, and now this....

Call me crazy, but I think they are getting ready to fight some war with the aliens on the moon or something.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by porky1981

Originally posted by Frosty

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus

Originally posted by Frosty
Who has a trillion dollars to mine a non-existant energy source?


What do you mean non-existant? It's very present!


Ok, how about: Who has a trillion dollars to mine an existant non-energy source?

[edit on 27-1-2006 by Frosty]


How is this a non-energy source? In the future he-3 will be needed for fusion, they can sell it for a lot of cash.


One word:
risk

Progress is being made in the science of nuclear fusion, but there is no gaurantee it will be availble by 2050 or ever. Nuclear fusion was "20 years away" in 1950, "20 years away" in 1970 and "20 years away" in 1990.

Difficulties involved with using He3 over tritium and deuterium (about which I discussed earlier) compounds this issue.

[edit on 29-1-2006 by SkyBlueTwo]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 08:08 AM
link   
two words to refute every other statement of skepticism..... HIGH GROUND. perhaps the most basic and ancient of military axioms but he who holds the high ground wins.

Now factoring this into the current technological morass which is confused at best and a living embodiment of chaos breeding order at worst. Consider some well known and easy to back up press releases about future warfare. first off we have "rods from god" aka kinetic energy weapons, you fling a rock from orbit aimed at someone's capital it'll make a nuke look small potatoes. Next we have the US admitting openly to having at least a few sat's with defensive armament. Next we have the impending, and yes I know it's been impending for 30 years but this time they ar serious, deployment of directed energy weapons in an inherently mobile package.

Combine these 3 factors and you have a very solid reason for another space race even discounting He3.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 03:07 PM
link   
What is the real agenda for the US to plan new missions for the moon. Science
.
No it is for the same reason; he3.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 04:40 AM
link   
it is a proud country with millions of very clever people and will achieve it's goals. cash is largely an illusion. perhaps their timetable will make good ol' george pull his finger out and get the red,white and blue army their first. After all the ummarrikan flag flies on the moon(in the lunar wind), how can you let it be mined by the soviets?



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
Who has a trillion dollars to mine a non-existant energy source?


I know these articles offer no estimated price but a Trillion where did you get that figure? I have never seen any estimated price for a mining mission let alone a Russian one.

I have seen both a Moon base and a human mission to Mars with a estimated combined cost of less then 1 trillion more around the 400-600 billion range for multiply missions spanning 3 decades.

www.thespacereview.com...

[edit on 30-1-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
How is this legal?

Space is global property, you can't put weaponize it, you can't own it, and you can't mine and sell it. Just like antarctica.

who cares. like someone else said, space is the new frontier. there is a limited amount of resources on Earth. mining from space is the logical way to expand the human race.

and there are plenty of planets/asteroids to go around.



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Manincloak
Call me crazy, but I think they are getting ready to fight some war with the aliens on the moon or something.


Maybe that explains all the black budget tech. I've heard that the CIA and KGB have worked closely before on UFO matters. But it's probably some 'net rumor.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join