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.

 

NASA Forgot How To Go To The Moon!!!

page: 4
44
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 03:06 AM
link   
This is all a cover to explain why they have to (re-)investigate how to land and take-off from the moon. They haven't lost the blueprints since no working vehicles ever existed.

Stand by for some bull# explanation with respect to radiation protection that is necessary once you are outside the Van Allen belts. That will be an interesting one since Apollo didn't apparantly need any.




posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by BadgerJoe
I really don't have a problem with the concept of NASA back engineering this equipment. If there weren't any plans or notes or engineering samples to learn from, why do all the research over again.


Exactly! Even if somehow the schematics and design drawings for all this ancient space hardware has been lost, at some point technologically it doesn't matter whether or not they even existed since anything we would possibly design would be so much more technologically advanced than what we had before. But that is also making one important assumption (a controversial assumption, but one nonetheless).. which is that we were even on the moon at all.

I am unecided on that aspect. For the larger part of my life I always believed that it was all real. I grew up reading books by Carl Sagan and Steven Hawking and took it all in because I loved it. I ate popcorn and sat through the movie "Apollo 13" even though I had to use the bathroom through the whole thing.. The point is that we assume it all really happend and that we simply put men on the moon because we are taught the same since grade school and NEVER taught to question what was being presented.

Sure, much of the supposed "evidence" of a moon conspiracy is simply laughable. But that doesn't mean you can write it off altogether. There is some pretty remarkable evidence, that is genuine, which should make us question what really happened regardless of how hoaky it sounds.

Sorry for another blabber about skepticism ( I do this alot..) but..
Being skeptical isn't about fear of other people trying to change your mind. At the most basic, fundamental level, skepticism is simply willing to set aside your judgement, set aside everything you've always assumed, and simply explore the possibilities to their fullest extent considering all the evidence being presented and all valid arguments being made in an effort to uncover the truth.

-ChriS


sty

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 03:42 AM
link   
back to the 40s with our technology level? Saturn 5 was a moddiffied V2 bomb, are we that dumb that we would not be able to have something better after all this time? Anyway , my opinion is that the moon landing was faked, or at least partly faked. They do not hide ETs on the moon , just hiding the big lie that they went to the moon when they said they did.



[edit on 4-6-2008 by sty]


sty

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by shearder
 


haha! they could tell you "hm.. we did this in the 60s "
I guess you should patent ideeas first, so even if this is already working somewhere @ NASA you would still get some money from the private industry !



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by sty
 


Very true hey. If i patent something, do i need a working model? Would be VERY expensive for ME to build LOL... When i say expensive, let's say it is relatively cheap but if one has reason to build it for one's self it could be expensive.

But i get your point fully!


sty

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by shearder
 


You do not need to have a working model. Just google it like this:

google patent


sty

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by shearder
 



It should not be that expensive to produce a scalled aircraft , just for the purpose of showing it does work . This would help a lot to sell your ideea.Are you talking about EV or Coanda Effect? I guess some smart people can make loads of money by patenting already existing ideas across the Internet.



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Couldn't they take a picture of the moon buggy with a high powered telescope or something? It should be sitting right where they left it. Maybe point huble there for a few seconds, it would be cool to see and lay some of this to rest.



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


With today's movie technology, could you imagine how much cooler a moon landing and moon walk would look?




just kidding. I think a trip to the moon would be a complete waste of time. We've already been there....there's nothing there. Personally - i think if they're going to recieve money for the moon trip, they should just apply it the mars project. Im much more interested in Mars



And i could be wrong...but i think patents don't apply to outer space


[edit on 4-6-2008 by QBert]



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   
There are a lot of thoughts going around my mind about this very funny thing...

They are already on the moon. They have already crafts to go there...
But to show the public not to much progress they have to do it the old way?

But they forgot how its done... its silly



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raistlyyn
Dumbest thing i have ever herd. You honestly think they just forgot how do this stuff?


Umm in case you didn't NOTICE I didn't create the report... those are NASA engineers talking to the Public Broadcasting System

DOH!!!

But yeah I believe it



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by sty

It should not be that expensive to produce a scalled aircraft , just for the purpose of showing it does work . This would help a lot to sell your ideea.Are you talking about EV or Coanda Effect? I guess some smart people can make loads of money by patenting already existing ideas across the Internet.


That is true, however, it isn't an aircraft I have in mind but an "engine" that can be used in space. But hey, for all i know it has been tried. But they say nothing ventured nothing gained. It runs of energy freely available and produces "propellant" that can be stored.

Cryptic? Yes LOL...



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by Lannock
...What do you need to get to the moon?
1. Leave the Earth's gravity.
Been doing that for 50 years....


For the record, an astronaut has not left (most of) Earth's gravity since Apollo 17. The astronauts on orbit in the Space Station, Space Shuttle, and Soyuz are still subjected to 99% of the Earth's gravity. In fact gravity is NEEDED to achieve an orbit. Gravity is what defines an orbit -- not the lack of gravity.

The Astronauts in orbit experience "zero g's" because they and their spacecraft are both FALLING at the same rate (falling due to Earth's gravity pulling on them).

Back on topic -- Apollo was all about getting to the Moon and getting back -- that's all. This new Constellation program is about getting to the Moon and living there...of course this program will be more complicated that Apollo, which means more time and money (although in Apollo's case, it was very expensive because of their compressed 9-year shedule to get to the Moon.)


You're joking right? If that is the case then why can I walk around in a plane? If things orbiting Earth are falling they would all be down here already.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by QBert....there's nothing there. Personally - i think if they're going to recieve money for the moon trip, they should just apply it the mars project. Im much more interested in Mars


HA! Shows what YOU know


Moon has Helium 3 Mars does not

TONS of HE3 MILLIONS of TONS 25 tons can power the US for 1 year
100 tons the entire planet with minimal waste
There is an estimated 10 thousand year supply
1 ton at current oil prices is worth about 153 BILLION per ton
1 shuttle bay can hold 25 tons

OR

If you start with a Moon Base and use the HE3 as fusion fuel to get to Mars

hehehe but then as you say "there is nothing there..."



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by shearder
Cryptic? Yes LOL...


Well lets do lunch


Pegasus is working on a ship... we could use an engine
I have connections at Timet for titanium for the hull



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by shearder
Cryptic? Yes LOL...


Well lets do lunch


Pegasus is working on a ship... we could use an engine
I have connections at Timet for titanium for the hull


You need a tradesman? I need a challenge.

I got a few on my wall

Electrical, fridge, gas, etc etc.

Good to see ya Zorgon

Mungo



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by mungodave
You need a tradesman? I need a challenge.


A challenge? Ever try to cut titanium?



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Well lets do lunch


Pegasus is working on a ship... we could use an engine
I have connections at Timet for titanium for the hull


hehehe sounds like a damn fine plan. If only i was in the US now lol it would be a very drunk lunch!! Keep in mind, it would never get anything off the ground!! But it's not on the ground that matters! And i am in no way a mad scientist - just a simple idea i have that may be the biggest load of BS this side of the galaxy OR it may be a damn good idea
- possibly already tried and laying on a "junk heap" already



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 06:18 AM
link   
OK i was looking at my idea and I am not sure it will work - all things considered. It uses no combustible fuel. But, hmmmm... the design needs a little more thought to be honest.

So, feeling a little foolish but not beaten, i will retreat with my tail between my legs until i have an answer!



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Couldn't they take a picture of the moon buggy with a high powered telescope or something? It should be sitting right where they left it. Maybe point huble there for a few seconds, it would be cool to see and lay some of this to rest.


Agreed. I would rather have all of Tesla's equipment and documents
from the Los Alamos vault.
Thats 50 years and libel to be unreadable.
Just per chance that a few non radioactive atomic generators are
lying around.
To hide UFO technology, everything else is being hid.
80 trunks of documents and Tesla got killed in the process.
Thanks a heap Illuminati.

But since that won't happen I must irritate the Illuminati on
their failings of the occult, er hiding things from us.
Such as not seeing the Lunar Landing sites.
Or German markings on Atomic bombs and other such trivia.

Here is another:
Well Truman was surrounded by 24 neutron warhead missile launching
Nazi subs so getting two atomic bombs wasn't such a bad deal.
But keeping Tesla locked up, thats bad man.
Let the free energy go.




top topics



 
44
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join