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.

 

Why not Nuke Mars?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Finally someone talking logic about the subject... I agree Dreamland.

We may have been talking about it... but as they say talk is cheap. Expecially with the government.




posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 08:40 PM
link   
like i said, we personally wont see it happen but its a possibility for future generations



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Htown: We are able to use Ballistic missiles on Earth and send missles out of the Earths Atmosphere, and back into the atmosphere of the Earth onto another country and then nuke them with the war head that's inside. I think we are able to send a nuke out of the Earths atmosphere, make it travel to Mars, and detonate on the polar ice caps. Let alone even contemplating using advanced technology to take a nuke to mars and then drop it off.



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaRAGE
I think we are able to send a nuke out of the Earths atmosphere, make it travel to Mars, and detonate on the polar ice caps. Let alone even contemplating using advanced technology to take a nuke to mars and then drop it off.


Yes we can if NASA puts its all its energy and resources into it. But the chances of the mission being a failure is really high.

The nuke can explode in take off or in the atmosphere or in mid orbit or just before it reaches Mars. It is way too dangerous to be tried out.

[Edited on 18-1-2004 by surfup]



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 08:51 PM
link   
When did we do the Rage? Because, I sure never heard of that.

Plus, for the last time, think how long it would take. How much money it would cost? Guess? I have a relitave answer.



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 08:53 PM
link   
WE DIDN'T INVENT UFO'S! The discs that were made ALL FAILED. READ ABOUT IT SOMETIME ON A STIE THAT IS UPDATED, your sources are very poor otherwise.



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by surfup

Originally posted by DaRAGE
I think we are able to send a nuke out of the Earths atmosphere, make it travel to Mars, and detonate on the polar ice caps. Let alone even contemplating using advanced technology to take a nuke to mars and then drop it off.


Yes we can if NASA puts its all its energy and resources into it. But the chances of the mission being a failure is really high.

The nuke can explode in take off or in the atmosphere or in mid orbit or just before it reaches Mars. It is way too dangerous to be tried out.

[Edited on 18-1-2004 by surfup]



Yet the US/russia have thousands of warheads on missiles capable of flight....
They can explode during take off, mid air, in the atmosphere, too,. Dont u know they did alot of atmospheric test on earth Even in space?



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 08:58 PM
link   
And they all have regular engines, that will probably fail somewhere around the moon.



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 08:59 PM
link   


Yet the US/russia have thousands of warheads on missiles capable of flight....
They can explode during take off, mid air, in the atmosphere, too,. Dont u know they did alot of atmospheric test on earth Even in space?


Yes, but those missiles were meant to attack targets on earth not a planet millions of miles away.

To get to mars you need a lot of fuel with translates into a lot of weight.



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by htown
When did we do the Rage? Because, I sure never heard of that.

Plus, for the last time, think how long it would take. How much money it would cost? Guess? I have a relitave answer.


building a nuke like the Tzar bomb, Putting it on a rocket with boosters, and sending it to mars, to plummet down on the Ice caps would cost just as much to send up a probe to mars. maybe a little but more, but it wouldn't be much more. It's just to do with the weight of the nuke. But i still think it wouldn't be much more.





Originally posted by htown
WE DIDN'T INVENT UFO'S! The discs that were made ALL FAILED. READ ABOUT IT SOMETIME ON A STIE THAT IS UPDATED, your sources are very poor otherwise.


It's called black ops. Secret stuff ur not meant to know about. U really think the most advanced thing is an Aurora, or something that uses rockets as engines? gimme a break.



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 09:01 PM
link   
But, we don't even know everything about our own planet... let alone know much about Mars. Do we need this?



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 09:06 PM
link   
no-one mentioned needing it... its just a possibility... theres alot of things we do that we dont need to do... but we do just to prove we can...



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 09:07 PM
link   
That's true... and it's completely stupid. But, true. But, is there a significant reason to? And exactly why do we need to prove that we can?



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 09:08 PM
link   
It's something the human race can aspire to. Enkoy. Make the scientific minds of the world think, employ better technology.

It's not a question of do we need this. Of course we dont NEED it. In fact it would be great to spend heaps of money and ideas into making this world a better, safer, greener place.

Nasa gets what? 12 billion a year?

Howmuch did the Iraq war cost? something like 700 billion so far?
How much is spent on the environment? exploring the Earth? Making the Earth better?

Making you're own country better.
Better living for the people of Earth?

Adding 5 billion dollars to do something sucha s nuke the polar ice caps of mars to make mars mroe habitable for the future, and getting the greenhouse gases going, for maybe future generations to use mars, and colonize it, wont be taking much away from the rest of the world, as the rest of the worl jsut throws their money down the drain.

[Edited on 18-1-2004 by DaRAGE]



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 09:12 PM
link   
I can't believe this... You specifically said flying discs
anyway. The fuel, the engines, all of that maybe the same... you can never really tell... but I'm guess about a quarter of the price for a probe launch.

And you give me a break... I know Aurora isn't the most advanced... I toy with everyone on advanced technology, it's fun
and if you know whats most advanced you'd know about Operation: Sky Blue.

You know your stuff, I'm sure.



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by htown

And you give me a break... I know Aurora isn't the most advanced... I toy with everyone on advanced technology, it's fun
and if you know whats most advanced you'd know about Operation: Sky Blue.

You know your stuff, I'm sure.


So, since you're now the resident expert, why don't you tell us all about operation "Sky Blue"?




posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by htown
I can't believe this... You specifically said flying discs
anyway. The fuel, the engines, all of that maybe the same... you can never really tell... but I'm guess about a quarter of the price for a probe launch.

And you give me a break... I know Aurora isn't the most advanced... I toy with everyone on advanced technology, it's fun
and if you know whats most advanced you'd know about Operation: Sky Blue.

You know your stuff, I'm sure.



ACtually I cant remember that operation off the top of my head.

But still Flying saucers would be possible using technology from all over the world. I guarantee it. t might be a little expensive, or mightn't be, BUT the fact remains, that once built it would be worth it.



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Let's see what he says DaRage.



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Why would it be worth it? What do we get out of?



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 09:21 PM
link   
htown

are you ignoring my request for more information on Sky Blue?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join