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 has NASA never gone back to the moon?

page: 15
32
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Anyway, ever hear about the Restaurant on the Moon that didn't get much business??? Food was good, but there wasn't enough atmosphere....


Actually I heard that they were selling Alien jerky and it didn't go over so well with their customers... so the outfit moved back to Nevada...



You see? You are just not up to date with the latest news



Did I tell you about the Lunar Hilton?




posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhackerbut, you see, the 'beeps' are what happens when two try to transmit at the same time. When you hear REAL audio from NASA missions, what you are hearing is the short 'beep' of VHF interference, as two try to talk at once, but they have this time delay due to the distance.


Actually the 'beeps' are ROGER beeps... they put those in so they wouldn't have to say 'roger' or 'over' after every line it was automatic... I had a similar 'ping' on my CB set years ago... it was a feature of the D104 Lollipop mike... when you released the button it sent a trademark ping so the other guy knew you were done... The roger beep


But it is useful in looking for 'missing' or cut audio


Roger beep




Apollo was very real....the speculation is it was a 'cover' for some other secret stuff.


Keep repeating that... you will eventually believe it




[edit on 5-7-2008 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Kubrick had the idea, on the LEO station....was it a Hilton?

Anyway, you think airfares are high now, try to imagine a trip to the Moon!!!

Remember the joke, from "2001: A Space Odyssey" when the scientist calls his daughter, from orbit (using AT&T...at least they got THAT part right!) and the total for the call was, ummmmm....$2.70.....???? Audiences in the late 1960s thought that was outrageous, for a phone call...'course, gasoline was like....23 cents a gallon back then...and a payphone cost a nickle....those WERE the good ole' days!!!!!



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


OK....but, Z....you know that the speed of light, in VHF transmissons, is resolute? AND, the 'beeps' are likely the interferrence, based on the roughly one and a half-second time delay? Or, am I completely wrong?

I mean, am I assuming someting based on my experiece with aviation VHF???

Oh....nevermind....a 'roger' beep??? We used to to that, with a double-click of the PTT...but it isn't good radio-telephony technique, really....



[edit on 7/5/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Anyway, you think airfares are high now, try to imagine a trip to the Moon!!!


Well they will use hydrogen not gasoline


I still have my ticket from PanAm to bad they went out of business.. so now its only pretty wall paper


And I was hoping Bigelow would build that space pad in Vegas... looks like he went to Russia instead...




[edit on 5-7-2008 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


But you see, Zorgon....please do not 'fuel' the conspiracy, so to speak...you know as well as I do, that commercial jets do not use 'gasoline'.

It is kerosene, of course.

However, the price of a barrel of crude affects us all, whether it's you gasoline for your car, or the kerosene for your jet....and that is my point. We keep relying on this out-dated source of energy....(oil)...and in the meantime there is something freely available, but the PTB won't let you know.

The NASTY SOBs want you to continue to think that OIL is the only way....

...because they are rich, and getting richer, based on this belief. They are sorry-assed prostitutes, and YOU are the 'Johns'. Understand yet????



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by MrPenny
 


Well if you want to go that route, Santa Clause, delivers gifts the night before christmas, not on christmas day.
So that would make no sense.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


There's this British Lass, a Comedian. Her stage name is 'Pam Ann'....

Brilliantly funny, she tends to work cruise ships. I'm sailing from Copenhagen on 12 July. 'Pam Ann' is booked as one of the entertainers for this cruise. I only raise her name, since it's a great play on words, of "Pan Am"....which you said you booked on....too bad, so sorry, they went bankrupt!!

Since the demise of Pan Am.....I'm betting on Sir Richard Branson, from now on. If there will EVER be commercial Space Exploration, it wil be funded by him, and maybe Bill Gates......



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 03:07 AM
link   



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Cool video I just love enigma's secret space and cant wait for the 3rd installment



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
But you see, Zorgon....please do not 'fuel' the conspiracy, so to speak...you know as well as I do, that commercial jets do not use 'gasoline'.


Avgas is a high-octane fuel used for aircraft and racing cars. The term Avgas is a portmanteau for aviation gasoline, as distinguished from mogas (motor gasoline), which is the everyday petroleum spirit used in cars.

Jet fuel is a clear to straw colored fuel, based on either an unleaded paraffin oil (Jet A-1), or a naphtha-kerosene blend (Jet B). It is similar to diesel fuel, and can be used in either compression ignition engines or turbine engines.

Naptha added to car fuel really packs a punch... just stuff some moth balls in your gas tank


Gasoline or 'Gas' is a common term meaning Fuel

You say Fuel, I say Gas, the Brits say Petrol...

Now stop playing word games to derail the thread and stick to the topic




...because they are rich, and getting richer, based on this belief. They are sorry-assed prostitutes, and YOU are the 'Johns'. Understand yet????


Yup loud and clear Your jealous that 'they' are getting rich off your pocket change but you won't park the car and take a bicycle to work




[edit on 6-8-2008 by zorgon]



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Z, I know what Avgas is. Comes in three flavors, 80, 100LL and 130

Red, Blue and Green dyes added, respectively. (Now remember, I've been flying round kerosene-burning engines for a long time, and my reciprocating airplane engines with propellors are a long way behind me, so my memory may be slightly faulty).

Nitro methane is, I believe, used in race cars (and model airplane engines)

But, of course, this is way off-topic.

Z, you have a lot of info....I know this. I'd really like to hear what you have to say about the REAL reasons for Apollo 18, 19 and 20 being cancelled. My understanding is, the hardware was built....some are in museums, heck we have a LM in the NASM here in DC....I think it was supposed to fly, but of course didn't. Otherwise, we wouldn't have it here to look at, on Earth.

I have my theories, but they may be based on dis-info.....Thanks



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Everyone iv spoke to believes that nasa has not been back to the moon since the last moon landing??? The truth of the matter is, is that NASA has been back to the moon, and quite a few times to, with out public knolage as well. More or less everyone knows that you dont need to launch the orbiter from the ground for it to get into space, it can piggyback on a 747 bult for that very job. The truth is, is that NASA did find things up there, and have also brought things back. Here is a question, ever wondered why the space shuttle was designed the way it was??? when you brush away the crap that NASA has fed to the world and take into account what i said at the begining then you will understand. Now you may say that what iv said is unfounded and complete rubbish, but i can assure you that this is FACT ladys and gentleman, even thou officially this will never see the light of day. The orbiter(At First) was designed to be nothing more that a salvage ship to ferry things back from the moon, it has become multi tasking over the years yes but the fact still remains, and thats another fact that will never see the light of day. I will say this much, someday soon, something has gotta give, i say enough of all this red tape crap and tell the world the truth for once, stop lying to the people, we are not as stupid as you think we are, i cant wait for the day.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 02:22 AM
link   
Its NOT THEIR CURRENT PREROGATIVE.

End of story.

We went.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 03:51 AM
link   
Here's more gen if you're interested...

One of the reasons why we haven't gone back could be:

Were We Warned Off The Moon By Aliens?

The bottom line is, if we had the technology to do so in the 60s why is NASA now saying that it would take at least a decade of research to get their act together for a Moon shot? Smells fishy to say the least. Here is the second reason:

Lack of funding. Probably, but the funds could have been diverted to a secret military Moon program, as they may have severed their links with NASA after the Apollo 17 mission. More of this in the link below. NASA now have the onerous task of almost starting from scratch! And that's why it's going to take a decade more.

The Top Secret US Military Space Program. Is The Future Already Here?

Cheers!



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


Sorry, Anon....since you wish to remain Anon, we can either let your mistatements go....or challenge them, lest we allow some Internet Viral Urban Legend....(The I.V.U.L.) to fester and spread.

The STS cannot 'launch' into orbit from the specially-adapted B747. Not unless it has some top-secret alien-engineered ZPE propulsion system....and, if equipped with such a device, it WOULD NOT need the B747!!!

The original prototype Space Shuttle (Enterprise) was a proof-of-concept simply to show it was aerodynamically capable of gliding to a landing. The B747 that 'piggy-backed' it merely carried it aloft, for the landing tests. Enterprise never went into orbit.

(Sidebar: There was a HUGE letter write-in campaign by Star Trek fans to name this prototype 'Enterprise'....good PR for NASA, especially inviting Gene Roddenberry to the naming ceremony).

The other reason for the B747 is because the Shuttle cannot always land in Florida, at the end of a mission....because weather conditions cannot be controlled at the whim of NASA. SO, Edwards AFB in California is the alternate landing site (not preferred, of course).

Also, it's never happened, but during the launch sequence, there are numerous emergency landing sites around the world, in case something goes wrong, and achieving orbit is deemed impossible. So, in any case, the vehicle cannot take-off on its own, and it needs to be ferried back to the KSC if it allights on Earth at the wrong place.

So, Anon....I've been easy on you, only addressing the worst glaring error in your post. There are others, but my time is too valuable.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


mike, I think both of those ATS links you referenced are possible.

But, whadda I know??

I like to think about the possible reality of a secret program, powered by back-engineered or gifted ET technology. But then, I shake my head at the 'Challenger' and 'Columbia' tragedies. Why 'stage' these events? They were PR disasters for NASA, it would seem.

The Chinese just recently are mirroring the NASA Moon missions of the 1960s....starting with manned orbital missions, their first EVA on orbit, etc, etc. Next, they will have to learn how to rendezvous two spacecraft....assuming they are using the same rocket and spacecraft technology based on human engineering and the associated hardware, and propulsion science.

My impression of the 1960s is: Kennedy issued a challenge, he was murdered, and many, many people wanted to carry his water after he was killed, as it came to landing humans on the Moon.

But, there was this side issue called 'IndoChina' (commonly referred to as Vietnam)....Space exploration was no longer a priority. The Public got bored, and politically it was a hot potato.

The cost of attempting to establish a permanent Moon base is incredibly large. There was also the potential for deaths....'Apollo 1' was very embarrassing.

I think the Apollo program, notwithstanding the tragedy of Apollo 1, was a resounding success. It accomplished most of the science it was designed to do, and all of that knowledge WILL pave the way to a permanent off-planet base for humanity.

What I see now, is a long-term strategy because of a limited budget....so, it isn't that NASA 'forgot' how to get to the Moon, they merely want to take the 'tortoise' approach....slow, steady and safe.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
What I see now, is a long-term strategy because of a limited budget....so, it isn't that NASA 'forgot' how to get to the Moon, they merely want to take the 'tortoise' approach....slow, steady and safe.


WW, why the 'tortise approach' now? It would be a paradigm shift from their haste in the 60s to outrace the then Soviet Union to the Moon, WHATEVER THE COST. I mean how can the US of A allow any nation to get ahead of them? It's a blow to their pride!

Now consider China which is planning to land an astronaut on the Moon by 2018. That's more than two years before the U.S! And India would join the party on Luna by 2020 or thereabouts! Wonder how America can allow third world countries to beat them to the Moon now? What's changed?

Now that would be a big blow to their pride, what?


Cheers!


[edit on 29-9-2008 by mikesingh]



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


Actually, mike....it is compelling, is it not?

In the 1960s, huge 'Cold War'.....lots of PR edges expected....especially after the USSR jumping the gun, and succesfully orbiting the first artificial satellite....and after MULTIPLE failures by the USA to even achieve a sub-orbital launch....even WITH Robert Goddard and thyat NAZI.....what's his name?? Oh, yeah.....Colonel Klink....no, that wasn't it....sheesh! Hermann Goeirng?? NO....what WAS his name.....former NAZI.....it's on the tip of my tongue....of course, 'Operation Paperclip' brought a LOT of former german NAZIs to the US of A, post WWII.

Except, the PTB, at that time, also knew that the USSR had their own share of former NAZIs, at their disposal.

Robert Goddard, and his expertise in rocketry, didn't exactly win the 'propoganda' war, back in the 1960s.

The USSR, with help from the former NAZIs that they had obtained, post WWII....beat the USA...at first.

History shows the actual result of this so-called 'space-race'.

What is sad, is the deaths that resulted from this so-called 'race-to-space'.

We know, already of the three from 'Apollo 1'....but Russian nationals died, as well.

The Chinese are NOW....this month, trying to accelerate a space program....to 'trump' NASA....and I seriously doubt we will hear of any of their spectacular failures, along their path.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by mikesingh
 

Actually, mike....it is compelling, is it not?
...even WITH Robert Goddard and thyat NAZI.....what's his name?? Oh, yeah.....Colonel Klink....no, that wasn't it....sheesh! Hermann Goeirng?? NO....what WAS his name.....former NAZI.....it's on the tip of my tongue....of course, 'Operation Paperclip' brought a LOT of former german NAZIs to the US of A, post WWII.


Who's got Alzheimer's here?


OK. There was not just one, but 118 of them! Yep, Operation Paperclip. Here they are...


Courtesy: US Army Aviation and
Missile Command.


...And that guy you were referring to was Wernher Von Braun?


Von Braun

Jeez! Looks like yer getting old! Now if ya can't remember this fella's name, how the dickens are you gonna remember the names of your air hostesses? Sheesh! Now that doesn't look good, does it?


Cheers!




top topics



 
32
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join