It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Nasa unveils New settlement planned at south pole — of the moon

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 07:23 AM
No matter how much is spent on 'improvised nations' and the whatnots to fund whatever 'noble' causes on Earth, it will never be enough. We had been doing that for years and what was the results? More funds is needed. It never seems to be enough. Poverty, low education levels, corruption, dictatorships, terrorism is still with us.

I am not a pessimist and say poverty or whatever issues of Earth will never be solved, but mankind must think far and set aside funds for the preparation of scientific knowledge as well as colonisation of the planets, as our population growth explodes and life expectancies extended thru better health knowledge and programmes.

Moonbase is only a low cost stepping stone to other hopefully productive worlds. The potential returns may be huge if one is an economist based on the high probabilities of other resource rich worlds such as Earth.

posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 07:24 AM
I was listening to NPR yesterday, Tues., Dec. 5, (National Public Radio) and a gentleman from a center for Mars exploration gave a very persuasive argument as to why we should be reaching for (although, we already have) Mars, instead of wasting our time with a dead planet that we landed on almost half a century ago and have several times since.

The moon does not support life. We can build a base there, but it stalls the real research we need to be doing, which is to discover if life can be sustained on other planets; if life has evolved on other planets. Mars is a perfect example of a planet that could potentially support life. It seems to have once and may still have water; the photos show what appears to be vegetation, and when the color isn't tampered with it even looks like Mars has an atmosphere not dissimilar from Earth's.

So why aren't we traveling to Mars? When we decided to go to the moon it only took us ten years to perform that magnificent feat. Do you think after almost 50 years we might have the capability to sent a manned ship to Mars? If you don't, then go back to sleep. A base on the moon will answer your question about life on other planets, namely that there is none - but there are a lot of rocks. Why would we waste time and money to set up an apartment building on the moon? It's dead. We fully have the ability to make it to Mars.

It just feels like the moon is a weak diversion. I suggest that the project to put a base on the moon is more a diversion, it doesn't really advance and extend our search to the next level, but merely doddles on a dead planet. Are we going to get more rock samples? Our grandparents have already "been there, done that". It's a shame. To me, a base on the moon is an effete waste, and a sad attempt to breathe life into a program that many have lost faith in, and further, a program that people believe is keeping information from the public.

If anyone can give a case for building a base on the moon, and not to reach further to a planet that many believe can and actually IS supporting life I'd like to hear it. My personal opinion is that the moon is a diversion. It's a way to rejuvenate a sadly neglected and underfunded program that has languished over the last 30 years repairing satellites. NASA has basically become a garage for space mechanics.

NASA may be trying to rejuvenate their image, but sadly I think it's too little, too late. Many people will feel this is progress, but it's only the perception of progress that NASA wants to acheive. They stopped reaching for the stars long ago...

posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 08:52 AM
well by 2020 most of the current workers in NASA will be either dead or retired so we can all get jobs and then we will NOT airbrush those photos muahahahahaha

posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 09:40 AM
The truth of biological or bacteria life on Mars is still out there....

While some may feel an urgent need to get to Mars, we need to be aware that Economics, like Science, rules in the Universe.

Earth's current cutting edge's techological capability to travel to Mars alone is still largely based on costly chemical rockets to get off the planet. Construction material and food for crew alone would greatly increase the chemicals cost and size of the rocket just for a crew of 4.

Furthermore, there is no guarantee that with all eggs in one basket, the rocket will lift off successfully and reach Mars in one piece.

Therefore, to travel to Mars, our less than perfect capability would be to build a series of low cost 'way stations' from the moon to Mars. Several rocket trips carrying construction material would be sent to space and moon to be assembled in zero gravity. Robot manned 'way stations' would contain re-supplies as well as grow food source to sustain the astronauts along the journey to and from Mars. All these will be done before the actual launch of an manned mission to Mars. Such project costs will be significantly lowered and chances of success more higher.

A moonbase on Mars would generate revenue for the Martian project as well as fund research for better non-chemical rocket engines.

Economics, like Science, is based on facts. Remember the millions of dollars earned from well paying 'space tourist'? How much money can be generated from a 'Moon Hotel'?

Just calculate the number of fortune500 members, hollywood stars, China's novea riche, etc with the amount they pay to buy a luxury car. You only need 1 car per head to find out the figures. By the way, such rich folks dont own just one car for a lifetime, they change it every year, so they jolly well can afford a moon trip if marketed right and still have change to buy another car or house next year.

And thats only the rich...we have not touch the middle class market yet...

[edit on 6-12-2006 by SeekerofTruth102]

posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 02:41 PM
I used to say the same thing about "why don't we just go to Mars instead?"

I think cosmic radiation is the biggest problem. Even a moon base will have to be a short stay until we have some new shielding tech or dig a base underground.

A trip to the moon may not pose insurmountable radiation hazards, Rapp found, but Mars is a different story. Radiation during the transfer to and from the planet could far exceed annual limits now imposed on exposure in low earth orbit.

The highest risk of a 6-month mission on the moon would arise from solar particle events. Although this exposure could be reduced by using regolith (lunar soil) for habitat shielding, Rapp questions whether regolith can literally be piled up for shielding on current habitat design concepts.

Mars would be much tougher, Rapp found, using data from NASA's proposed "reference mission" to Mars, which is used as a guideline for mission development. During a 560-day sojourn on the Martian surface, shielding by the planet and its atmosphere would reduce the GCR effects to marginally tolerable level, Rapp estimated. During each leg of a 400-day round trip to Mars in a crew capsule, astronauts would get about double the allowable annual dose of global cosmic radiation.


I believe there is some work on a plasma field being used to surround a space craft to stop/reduce the radiation, but it is in its infancy.

Also like I said in my first post, I think they may be after the helium-3 on the moon to run future fusion power plants.

"Helium 3 could be the cash crop for the moon," said Kulcinski, a longtime advocate and leading pioneer in the field, who envisions the moon becoming "the Hudson Bay Store of Earth. "Today helium 3 would have a cash value of $4 billion a ton in terms of its energy equivalent in oil, he estimates. "When the moon becomes an independent country, it will have something to trade."

Scientists estimate there are about 1 million tons of helium 3 on the moon, enough to power the world for thousands of years. The equivalent of a single space shuttle load or roughly 25 tons could supply the entire United States' energy needs for a year, accordingto Apollo17 astronaut and FTI researcher Harrison Schmitt.

Helium 3 fusion is also ideal for powering spacecraft and interstellar travel. While offering the high performance power of fusion -- "a classic Buck Rogers propulsion system" -- helium3 rockets would require less radioactive shielding, lightening the load, said Robert Frisbee, an advanced propulsion engineer at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena California


Helium-3 is no sure thing if you read the article, but it explains why the Moon is so attractive compared to Mars. Mars may support human beings easier than the Moon, but the $$$$ is on the Moon. There's New World gold on the silvery moon if you can get to it and mine it.

posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 02:50 PM
Anyone think this news is disinfo? probably to stear us away from recent disclosure of the moon structures, etc.

Secondly, the way the U.S economy is at the moment and the budget cuts at NASA before the war on Iraq, 13 years is not that far away..

posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 03:00 PM

Originally posted by HaveSeen4Myself
You must not be very old. The US and Russia have had bases on the moon since the late 1950's. The aliens were there long before us. The colonization of Mars started in the early 60's. The last discovery NASA made was when Major Nelson found I Dream of Jeanie on Cocoa Beach. Seek the truth and deny ignorance. Here's some truth to get you started:


posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 04:48 PM
I think privatization = bad. At least complete privatization. I'm sure there are pros and cons, but privatizing the space program is not a financial panacea. It seems it would invite further problems, potentially, than it might be able to solve.

A mix of privatization and a public program could help address the funding problem, but it would't address the unimaginative direction the program has taken. I personally think funding is only half the problem.

NASA really doesn't seem to have a direction. What are they doing?!

Seeing millionaire shuttle pony rides as a potential source of revenue just seems short-sighted. I'm not saying I disagree, just that putting public programs in private hands can often be a double-edged sword, where some issues are addressed while others grow out of control and cause further damage, usually at the expense of the consumer. Enron...

On a side note, I read something recently about the fact that NASA was using all of this aging hardware, because there was soon going to be a release of technology into the public sector that would change space travel as we know it...NASA didn't want to throw any money after dated technology, because of this revelation...Anyone else heard of this, or think there's anything to it...?

This is a prime example. I just found a recent water on Mars thread on ATS that links to an announcement from NASA that they've discovered water on Mars (link to thread) - gosh, is this really a revelation to anyone reading this?! Can you believe that?! Here's the CNN article (link).

So NASA cleverly coordinates an announcement to build a base on the moon at the same time they announce WATER ON THE SURFACE OF MARS! "Hey, there's life on that planet! Let's spend 50 years building a base and manning it on this dead planet right next to ours!"

It seems to me, and I'm a paranoid, delusional conspiracy theorist, but it seems that NASA cleverly released information, and then distracted from it with a fairly equally profound revelation. So NASA shows us, essentially, life on the planet Mars, then tells us they're spending every last cent and the next half a century building and manning a base on our dead moon.

I hope everyone is very, very patient...and plans to live at least another 50 years, because even if the moon thing gets off the ground, we get to sit around and watch news stories about another two-by-four going up, and what the astronauts had for lunch - on the moon - for the next 50 years.

Would I like to see more from our space program? Well, I'm glad you asked. My answer is yes...

[edit on 6-12-2006 by OnTheDeck]

[edit on 6-12-2006 by OnTheDeck]

[edit on 6-12-2006 by OnTheDeck]

[edit on 6-12-2006 by OnTheDeck]

posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 05:32 PM
If you watch the video from my previous post and do some research, the truth is there. What you do with that knowledge is your choice. Providing hard proof of anything is an act of futility. Asking for proof that we're not already on Mars or the moon would my retort, if I needed anyone to prove anything to me. Fortunately, I'm comfortable with the methods by which I've reached my conclusions.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in