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.

 

U.S. Moon base approved 2008

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   

HOUSTON, Texas (CNN) -- NASA's plans for returning people to the moon -- an objective called for by President Bush in 2004 -- includes establishing a permanent outpost that would be used to prepare for a manned trip to Mars.

The moon base would be at either the north or south pole of the moon, NASA Deputy Administrator Shana Dale said during a news conference Monday at the Johnson Space Center in Houston.

Increased sunlight at the poles would allow better use of solar energy to power the outpost, she said.

NASA's lunar architecture team decided it would be better to establish a base than to conduct individual missions to the moon, as in the Apollo program of the 1960s and 1970s, she said.

Team scientists believe astronauts could use the moon's natural resources to maintain the outpost, and could use the base to prepare for the trip to Mars, an objective also set forth by Bush.

Sorties to other locations on the moon could also be carried out from the outpost, Dale said.

Deputy Associate Administrator Doug Cooke said one promising location is the Shackleton Crater at the south pole.

In addition to having an area that is almost permanently sunlit, it is adjacent to a permanently dark area that might yield water ice.

NASA Associate Administrator Scott Horowitz said the goal is to conduct the first manned missions to the moon by 2020, starting with short stays by four-person crews that would establish the outpost.

He estimated that perhaps by 2024 there might be a continual presence on the surface, with crews rotating in and out, as is done with the international space station.

Before the manned missions, NASA plans a series of robotic missions. The first of these, using the lunar reconnaissance orbiter, is scheduled for 2008.

The orbiter is designed to create high-resolution maps, look for good landing sites and search for water ice and other resources.


I for one belive we actually did land on the moon, that it was not staged in a studio. Having said that my question is what purpose would this moonbase truly serve, would it be a US military installation to give us a "one up" on other nations or a valid reasearch station promoting scientific investigation of our solar system ?

In any case it will be interesting to see this develop. I'm sure if there is international interest we could see other bases underway (China?) Nobody lays claim or rights to ownership on the moon, I could see a lunar war transpiring fifty years from now in the interest of real estate.




posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   
good find, I havent seen this yet. I guess if this comes to pass then we will all know if the moon landing was a hoax.... although militarizing space is pretty effing scary.

I'm gonna google this to see what other articles there are on this.

Peace.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   
To me this is just more proof that the governments of the world are aware of a pending disaster from an asteroid or comet around 2030 give or take a few years. Intercepting a comet with a collision was one of the first times I started to believe such a conspiracy is under way. We have proven our ability to guide weapons to a comet should the need arise.

I believe all the large Nations rush to the moon and mars over the next 20 years is ample proof that a threat is known to some governments.

Russia, China and even now India are joining the US and Europe in making programs to go to the moon and beyond.

Governments like the US do not energize like this without external motivation or public support. I am a space buff, but even I can see that the US has a lack luster public support for space exploration which really surprises me but is true none the less.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Too bad there is already a permant base there case in point the whole john lear post we have been there for awile now



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Or, they've all begun to realize the strategic and economic benefits of owning space. There are so many raw materials out there it's mind boggling. On top of that, I stand by the idea that the nation that controls space will control the world.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   
So this either to claim the moon for the US or to establish a military presence in space.

There can be no scientific reasons for this IMO.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 08:06 PM
link   
first of all, you should always provide a source for your story. one of the main reasons being that not posting the whole story leads members, like a few here on this thread, to believe that things appear different than they actually are. for example:


NASA's vision for the moon is more than just American astronauts _ it includes space travelers from other countries and even commercial interests, if possible.


Having other countries sign onto the project would save NASA money, although the United States will design the moon vehicles, NASA Deputy Administrator Shana Dale said. And while NASA welcomed its current partners on the international space station _ Russia, Europe and Japan.


which is a helluva lot different that the US militarizing the moon. had you provided a source through which everyone could read the whole story and not just the part you saw fit to post, older members who should have known better would not have been jumping to conclusions.

good find though.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Moon base assembly will begin 2020.

Nice article though!



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Militarizing Space may be scary but it is an essential U.S. stradegy, lets face it the U.S. has billions of dollars in assets in space and in about 50 years i'm going to guess that we will have quite a bit of industry in space as well. Therefore it is only natural that the Government should not only protect our assets but our strategic interests as well. Besides we need to get up there and start exploiting it before our economy takes a hit.

It may be an international effort to help save costs but believe you me there will probably be a major U.S. military presence on the moon by that time if not in the same base then in another. Besides most of the other International astronaughts aloud to go up there will probably only be close allies like Japan, Italy, Great Brition and probably Russia just for good will purposes.

[edit on 12/4/2006 by JackJuice]



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfi221
Too bad there is already a permant base there case in point the whole john lear post we have been there for awile now


I agree. I guess the US government is now using this as the excuse to hurry up and say we will be there. Too many eyes in the skies these days and with new technology being able to read a book on the moon surface from earth, things might start being discovered. China and Russia in the race to get to the moon as well, better start making themselves known.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 09:59 PM
link   
What exactly is the militaristic advantage to owning a base on the Moon? It is not as if it's a small island somewhere near an enemie's shipping routes or center of government that will allow you to strike him down at a moment's notice should trouble arise. It's the Moon, it's farther away than any location Earth. Think about that. What would a military base on the Moon be used for, what weapons would it possess? ...what would they be fired against, and why?

The scientific benefits however are obvious:

A better place to construct observatories from which to learn about the cosmos.

A testbed for aerospace engineers to develope and perfect the many technologies we will need to survive elsewhere.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Langolier
What exactly is the militaristic advantage to owning a base on the Moon? It is not as if it's a small island somewhere near an enemie's shipping routes or center of government that will allow you to strike him down at a moment's notice should trouble arise. It's the Moon, it's farther away than any location Earth. Think about that. What would a military base on the Moon be used for, what weapons would it possess? ...what would they be fired against, and why?

The scientific benefits however are obvious:

A better place to construct observatories from which to learn about the cosmos.

A testbed for aerospace engineers to develope and perfect the many technologies we will need to survive elsewhere.


As we move out and start gathering resources from asteroids and doing low gravity construction on the moon than it would be obvious that we would want a military base on the moon to protect those assets. At the moment a military research base on the moon might be so remote that it would be easy to keep secrets there, plus you could put it on the dark side so no one can see what your up to.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   
I think we already have some sort of miltary base on the moon already, just based on the type of info the general public recieves regarding technology! Remember the sr71 blackbird! We are there now in some capacity. Now its just a matter of "breaking" it to the public in a timely manner as to not reveal what we already have too early. Just my opinion.



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 12:09 PM
link   
I think it is worth putting large scale weapons on the moon - if an asteroid is coming for the earth, where is the best place to launch the intercept from?

Yeap - you've guessed it - the place with least gravity




Its also a great jump off point for missions into near space (like mars etc), it will also give vital knowledge in building bases in an environment where meteorite impacts can occur, which can lead to mars colonies.


Heck, there may be minerals on the moon that we are totally ignorant of, they may have properties vital to deep space exploration.



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   
hmmm , hold on a second.

We are still arguing about the moon landing are you guys gonna actualy believe they are gonna realize this in 14 years? I saw that on my opening page and was like whaaat!!!1.

Its just my opinion but i'm pretty sure i will never see a moon mission(from the USA), and im not that old. I realy dont trust what NASA says. I mean they have trouble every missions, its always a gamble and havent complete the intl. space station yet.( i know partly cause of russia). They need to establish a new fleet of space shuttles and i just dont know how many mssions per year it will take, how many billion. Not so sure the ppl gonna eat this when 2020 arrive.

Anyway i dont think its possible in 14 years to built this over with almost no back up or experience. I believe its more like a political punchline.


jra

posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite8
Too many eyes in the skies these days and with new technology being able to read a book on the moon surface from earth, things might start being discovered.


What? There are no telescopes on Earth that can resolve anything the size of a house, let alone a book on the Moon's surface. Nor could it be done from the Moon to view the Earth in that kind of detail. If you want to get high detailed images of a place. You have to have a satellite in orbit of that place. And I highly doubt even the best US spy satellites could read a book from orbit. Maybe they could see a book (as in it being several pixels in size) but not able to read it.


Originally posted by Flyer
There can be no scientific reasons for this IMO.


Why is it that you think there can be no scientific reasons for this? Establishing a base to learn how to live on the Moon, learning about the Lunar environment and all that. It sounds like it would be pretty scientific to me...



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Looks like the UK is getting in on the act:

Minister in Moon talks with NASA




Britain could become involved in Nasa plans to send astronauts back to the Moon by 2020, science minister Malcolm Wicks has said.
He met Nasa chief Dr Michael Griffin at the Cabinet War Rooms to discuss the plans for future Moon landings.

It could be the world's biggest science programme and UK businesses and scientists must benefit, said Mr Wicks.

The UK was a world leader in "small affordable satellites" and already had strong links with the US, he said.

The minister, who replaced Lord Sainsbury earlier this month, said it was exciting to discuss how the UK could get involved with lunar exploration.



jra

posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   
I looks like Canada wants to get in on it as well.


The Globe and Mail

The U.S. space agency NASA plans to build a solar-powered lunar base where residents can live as they prepare for manned flights to Mars.

The base will likely be built at one of the lunar poles and is scheduled to be ready by 2024. The Canadian Space Agency hopes to participate, although no specific role has been determined.

"This is the next step forward in terms of exploring and understanding the universe," explained Hugues Gilbert, the director-general of policy, planning and external relations at the CSA. "We feel that it is very important for Canada to be part of that international effort."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


[edit on 5-12-2006 by jra]



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   
If there was a base on the moon and they look back on earth, would there not be a time difference when you look back at the earth, the further you get away from earth the difference it has on time ? like the wat we look at stars, they are quite far away and we look at them from the past, would that have the same effect on moononians looking back at earth ?


jra

posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scaart
If there was a base on the moon and they look back on earth, would there not be a time difference when you look back at the earth, the further you get away from earth the difference it has on time ?


No there would be no difference. The Moon isn't that far away. I think the time it takes for light from the Earth to get to the Moon and vice versa is about 2 seconds or so.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join