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: 16
32
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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.


They staged the disasters? What are you talking about?

As far as I know NASA is subject to national security concerns because it is more a defense agency than a public agency. And yes many people do not know this but it speciffically mentions it. That means if "sensitive data" is discovered such as the monuments in cydonia and glass structures on the moon then the staff is obligated to keep quiet while the debunkers go online and refute any leaks.

First time you hear this?



Originally posted by weedwhacker
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.


I hope they give us more than NASA and ESA. I am not holding my breath though!


Originally posted by weedwhacker
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 public got bored because they were told that the moon was an arid wasteland much like the sahara desert. Little did the public know that in fact the opposite is true. And yes the cold war did in fact distract "us" from space exploration.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
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.


Probably not as expensive as you may think although I wouldn't count on the local inhabitants giving us a warm welcome. In fact some experts said that they warned us off.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
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.


The public branch of nasa runs on a limited budget because all they do is orbit the earth and do medical experiments. Why would they need more money?

On the other hand, the "private nasa" funded through the pentagon black budget gets more than it needs; billions, if not trillions! Remember Mr. Rumsfeld stating back in 2001 that 3.5 trillion dollars were totally unaccounted for? Apparently this amount wasn't okayed by anyone, not even on a superficial level as is usually the case. Normally they get a brief/vague summary of expenses and with no questions asked they sign the bottom line. So much for congressional oversight....what a joke!

Also do you know america has accumulated over 9 trillion dollars in deficit? Where do you think the vast majority of the funds are going?! Hmmmmmm....come on people wake up!


[edit on 1-10-2008 by EarthCitizen07]




posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 02:10 AM
link   



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 08:41 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by xweaponx
Did something they aren't telling us actually go down on the moon? Where we warned to never return to the moon again?


These are very interesting questions to ask our self.



Tell me what you think.



and another



2mins 10 seconds. Otto Binder former NASA employee says they went to a secret channel to communicate. Used code words regarding certain things and entities.




Otto Binder, a former NASA employee, claimed it was overheard by amateur radio enthusiasts who could access a confidential channel. Neil Armstrong - the first man to set foot on the Moon - denies it. At approximately 6-30 a.m. on 17th March 1990, a radio ham from Baltimore, Donald Ratsch, was listening to transmissions from Discovery when he heard the following:"Houston, this is Discovery, we have a problem. We have a fire". Shortly after Ratsch claims he heard "Houston this is Discovery, we still have the Alien spacecraft under observance".A former mission specialist with NASA , Bob Oeschler conducted an intense investigation into these events and concluded that the message had in fact been broadcast from the vicinity of Fort Meade in Maryland, an area where the US National Security Agency had it's base. The NSA has long been interested in UFOs and Oeschler was of the opinion that the transmission was a deliberately set-up hoax for some intelligence purpose.


And if you really do think about it. NASA hasn't been back to the moon since. They always send people to the space station but to The Moon again. They've never been back. I'm not saying there are aliens or being on The Moon but I'm just exposing the fact that NASA isn't telling us the true story of what really happening on the moon and why NASA hasn't been back since.

I know someone asked NASA why haven't they been back. And to this day NASA has NEVER answered our question.....

[edit on 25-6-2008 by xweaponx]



Some would argue it's because they never went in the first place. I tend to think it's because we don't own this universe, so we can't just go traipsing around, thinking every moon and planet is uninhabited and thus, ours. So, maybe they got to the moon, saw that it belonged to someone else, and backed the hell out of there.

Or, maybe they just didn't feel like paying all that damn money to go back to something they considered old news.

I have no idea.


~*~



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 09:12 PM
link   
nasa have never told the truth about what really happened up there on the moon they always keep things quiet if they think no one can understand it

aliens are on the moon and have been there for longer thqan we have been oin earth there is no doubt about this and evidence is being held by the government because it would scare people

in australia i heard that there is a base in canberra that holds computers and files all about ufos the base also has giant radars and aerials to track the ufos and to contact them but no one can get in there ot see for sure they are connected to nasa somehow but the government wont tell us why

that is why nasa have never gone to the moon again and also why the russians havent because the americans told them not to because they knew what was there china also hasny gone there so you can see its obvious that tyhe americans saw something there that was very important and then told other countries just in case something bad happened

i saw one one day and it was real



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Probably the better question is why so many nations are now rushing to goto the Moon.

I wouldnt claim to know the answer but as I see it theres only a few logical answers:

i) The NASA landings were genuinely a HOAX and now that sufficient time has passed NASA has decided to do the real deal.

ii) NASA found something on the moon and is now trying to get back before anyone else.

iii) NASA hoaxed the moon landing and is now going back to hoax the "evidence" of their previous landing before Russia and China and Europe go up there and ask questions about it.


All said and done we have at this time Russia, China, Europe, UK, USA all in a mad race to send a manned mission to the moon.

According to previous information theres no interest in the moon, it has no valuable minerals, no potential for bacterial life, and really i struggle to find a single logical reason for the interest in going back there by any nation never mind the man irrational rush to send everyone there. It does make you wonder what the truth is.

We all know that Mars is the intresting world, possiblities of bacterial life, rare minerals, ice, fossil data, it has everything that SHOULD be of interest to science. So why all attention to the moon now thats the real question everyone should be asking.

We have some key respected players in NASAs former stable coming out making various claims about what NASA found on the moon. This could very easily be disinformation designed to spur up interest in the new Moon missions, cover for the questions asked about previous moon missions or an outside chance in hell it might actually be true.

Personally I wouldnt care to try speculate. I do admit to being very fascinated by the current interest in the Moon though. Theres no sensible reason I can think of for all the current money being spent on manned Moon missions, unless someone can tell me why they think this should suddenly be a huge priority given wht we know about Mars and the Moon.

If they were all racing to get to Mars i could understand it, but the Moon just makes me suspicious as hell. Nasa in particular has no reason at all for going back there.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Nobody interested in this discusion anymore?



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by silver6ix
 


silver, I would like to point out something from your post. You say that Mars is the more interesting world...well, OK, won't quibble (though there are many, many interesting worlds in our Solar System...some just much farther away). However, using current propulsion technologies, the Moon is a great place to be a staging point for any future manned missions to other planets.

Also, it seems increasingly evident that the Moon is rich in certain natural resources....Helium 3 and possibly even H2O, very valuable commodities for potential future space exploration endeavors.

Of course, there is always the rampant speculation that our alien overseers ALSO see the usefulness of having a base on the Moon, and that their presence is the reason NASA didn't go back...but it is quite possibly a more simple reason: Funding, and the fact that robots are cheaper (and safer) than manned missions.

I am personally terribly disappointed that the 'reality' of the movie "2001: A Space Odyssey" did not come to pass. And, I doubt my lifetime will see any real progress for Humanity in space...because it is imperative that we expand because our little 'lifeboat' of a planet may be too fragile to completely protect our species.

Edit to add: In my rush to finish this post, I forgot to mention that the Russians don't get enough credit nor press coverage for their efforts as regards the ISS. NASA and the STS are flawed, yet Russian unmanned rockets routinely help supply the ISS. And, of course, scroll up and notice that China is an active player in space....the EU? And the UK? Mostly into the business of satellites, or in the 'contract' business of launching for their customers.

[edit on 10/15/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Well I suppose thats interesting, but is that really enough motivation for everyone to be sending manned missions to the moon right now?

I agree on the robot aspect, wouldnt it be easier and quicker to send robotic missions to the moon also though? Id have thought at this point in time the quickest and easiest way would be to send robots to gather further samples before sending more people and yet all the nations are trying to send more people there.

I do accept that is a good reason I suppose just doesnt seem to me to be a good investment of limited funding especially when NASA are struggling to build their next shuttle for getting back and forth from Miir.

Theres very little said about why they are all going to the moon which is frustrating, id really like to know the motivations behind the projects and why they feel its a good investment at this point in time.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by silver6ix
 


silver, there HAVE been robotic missions since Apollo 17 in 1972. Apollo was about, firstly...getting there. Proof of concept, if you will. Secondly, it was scientific in nature...what was the 'geology' of the Moon? (I guess the proper word might be 'seneology'...) How did it form? And, is there anything there that would be useful, despite the cost of extracting it?

I'm troubled by another thought....I hate to bring up the Military aspect of this, because I'd hope that maybe SOMEDAY we'd realize we are all Humans...but the ability for one Nation-State to have some sort of weapon on the Moon, that could target others with near impunity....THIS idea hasn't been discussed much, at least I've not seen it, on ATS.

Thoughts????



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   
forgive me if this was already posted, but i am agreeing and i will post a link to a youtube video that I believe backs up my belief that nasa does cover up its findings. i dont exactly believe that it is the moon...


YOUTUBE VIDEO
start the video at 3:45


nice post, and thanks for sharing.

[edit on 10/15/2008 by lushyslushy]



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Thats an idea Id give plenty stock. If there is any force in this world which would release funding for such missions then Military potential is certainly a good contender for it.

Its a disturbing thought and it would certainly explain why USA became so keen on this after realising that Russia and China for example were planning on going there.

If humans can be relied on for anything then its turning exploration into the potential for war, that much history alone tells us. Its a scary thought.

What is of greater concern in the future is who "lays claim" to Moon territory. Lets assume all the nations currently going there have some form of military agenda running alongside the mission, how does that work in terms of who gets what up there?

I mean do Russia roll up, mark off a twenty mile expanse and call it "russian soil", likewise for the rest? Territorial ownership is going to become an issue in the future for humans on the Moon and later on Mars and given our history on resolving these matters its none too comforting imagining how countries might settle these new border disputes.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Just something to add to the thread, a bit off-topic.

I think there could very easily be some kind of military or other U.S. presence on the moon. Let's think about that recent asteroid impact. We knew almost 12 hours ahead of time EXACTLY where it was going to be impacting ... and yet no one saw it because it happened over a sparsely populated area.

People tend to think well a) there's a lot of people where I live that would notice a mission and b) everyone would notice because their heads are always pointed to the sky and c) all other areas must have a lot of people with their heads pointed to the sky when in reality that's not the case.

If I remember correctly one of those articles about that asteroid was saying there are no more than 100 or so telescopes that are even scanning the atmosphere for near-earth encounters. Not enough to even remotely cover the globe (most telescopes are trained deep into space).

Now a lot of people follow the ISS and the like and it might make it a bit more difficult right now ... but I'm sure there are ways around that.

Back OT, I think most people hit the reasons for a lack of public misisons - budget and lack of interest. However getting people to agree that something is not worth it when there really IS something up there is the PERFECT cover for covert operations. No one questions something that they don't care about.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   
The definitive answer to the OP's question might be found in a NOVA documentary I Tivo'd last night. It is episode 565, titled 'Space Shuttle Disaster'. It is basically about Columbia, in 2003.

But the early narration seems to show a strong reason for the abrupt cancellation of Apollo 18, 19 and 20...and subsequent re-direction of NASA's space strategy, a focus on LEO....and it can be summed up in one word...NIXON!!!



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Theres something else which fascinates me on thsi subject. The issue of space live feeds and camera footage.

Back in the early days we were given live feeds of missions, spacewalks, orbiters ect. I cant remeber the exact launch but in one of those films there was a big news story when a "ufo" was see shooting up from the earth behind the launching shuttle.

Since that time despite massive evolution of film and satellite capabilities we have virtually been cut off.

You would think at this point in time with the tech we have you would be able to watch independant footage from space and from satellites showing the view around Earth and the orbit and yet theres virtually nothing. Everything we get to see is controlled, and handed out like dried candies.

In that case I think NASA and the governments are more damned by their actions than anything else. Its frsutrating that first hand footage from around Earth is like gold dust when in this day and age you would think it would be readily available.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Could it be because there's no money in it, or advantage to be gained from going to the Moon until now?

The race for the moon was about displays of power as well as exploration in the 60's, and it is happening again now for the same reason. There were only two in the race then, now there are more participants. Nations or commercial enterprise, competition always spurs advancement.

Private ventures are likely to reach the moon soon. The Ansari X Prize and Virgin Galactic are the beginning of a new age in commercial and private space travel. Indeed, I think the Moon will be used more as a luxury retreat than anything else initially.

Unless of course it's covered in bases and alien structures.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by silver6ix
Probably the better question is why so many nations are now rushing to goto the Moon.

I wouldnt claim to know the answer but as I see it theres only a few logical answers:

i) The NASA landings were genuinely a HOAX and now that sufficient time has passed NASA has decided to do the real deal.

ii) NASA found something on the moon and is now trying to get back before anyone else.

iii) NASA hoaxed the moon landing and is now going back to hoax the "evidence" of their previous landing before Russia and China and Europe go up there and ask questions about it.


Russia, China and ESA don't wish to expose NASA because at the top level of "international cooperation" aka UN everyone is in the same boat. There most definetly is something going on and everyone is trying to conceal the evidence; for better or worse...I don't know.


Originally posted by silver6ix
All said and done we have at this time Russia, China, Europe, UK, USA all in a mad race to send a manned mission to the moon.

According to previous information theres no interest in the moon, it has no valuable minerals, no potential for bacterial life, and really i struggle to find a single logical reason for the interest in going back there by any nation never mind the man irrational rush to send everyone there. It does make you wonder what the truth is.


This proves my initial assessment. If there is nothing to see or do at the moon then why approve more manned missions? Very absurd unless of course the objective is to further confuse everyone.


Originally posted by silver6ix
We all know that Mars is the intresting world, possiblities of bacterial life, rare minerals, ice, fossil data, it has everything that SHOULD be of interest to science. So why all attention to the moon now thats the real question everyone should be asking.


Mars is further away and thus more expensive.


Originally posted by silver6ix
We have some key respected players in NASAs former stable coming out making various claims about what NASA found on the moon. This could very easily be disinformation designed to spur up interest in the new Moon missions, cover for the questions asked about previous moon missions or an outside chance in hell it might actually be true.

Personally I wouldnt care to try speculate. I do admit to being very fascinated by the current interest in the Moon though. Theres no sensible reason I can think of for all the current money being spent on manned Moon missions, unless someone can tell me why they think this should suddenly be a huge priority given wht we know about Mars and the Moon.

If they were all racing to get to Mars i could understand it, but the Moon just makes me suspicious as hell. Nasa in particular has no reason at all for going back there.


I think they(every major power) is trying to prove that hostile aliens are not in control of our solar system. What better way to prove this then fake more lunar landings. I am convinced that all(or almost all) of the previous landings were faked but in all likelyhood they have managed to snap lots of great footage which of course we the laymen never get to see.


There is also another possibility that is worth mentioning. If the government(s) have made pacts with certain alien species, as many are saying, then perhaps we have now been given clearance to visit. The speculation is that the greys and reptilians are sharing with us outdated technology in exchange for "human resources" and natural resources found on earth, the moon and our solar system in general.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
I would like to make a statement that affects the thinking in regards to the moon. Everyone assumes that the moon truly has 1/6 of earth's gravity. This is based on an equation by Sir Isaac Newton some 250 years ago that assumes that the earth is solid, and calculates gravity accordingly. This is a giant assumption with no actual proof. We do NOT know for a fact that there is a molten core to the earth. If the gravity equation is flawed, then so are our assumptions on the moon.
At some point, science went from the concept of open-minded discovery, to reductionist explanations that were put forth as an indisputable answer. This tells me that they know the truth and it is unpalatable for mass consumption. I put forth that gravity is mostly similar to surface tension, and that it is possible that the pull of gravity caps out at a certain mass weight. At very deep levels in the earth, a plumb line does not hang the same way. So the earth could be hollow and still have gravity. What this would mean is that the moon could be the same.
Besides the concept of being warned by aliens that we couldn't go back to the moon(which I do not doubt)*, what of the simple explanation that we discovered gravity was NOT 1/6 of earth. A simple way to know, would be to discover the "neutral point" in space where the two gravity wells cancel each other out. Initially it was assumed that it was around 20,000 miles from the moon, but during the apollo missions, it was stated to be at 40,000 miles. This points to a gravity that is around 65% of earth's, maybe more.
If gravity is higher on the moon, then WE DON'T HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY TO LAND SOFTLY, AND STILL GET HOME. To say nothing of the compete incapability of the lunar lander to lift off.
At that point of understanding, it would make sense if there was then a rush to make a fake moon landing video, because it was still about beating the soviets in a public venue. (There is a ton of inconsistencies with the lunar landing video, not least of which the fact that the film is at 50% speed)
If the gravity of the moon was truly 1/6th of earths, the lunar lander would have needed a wheel base that was much larger than it was, or it would tip over going up a crater.
An intriguing thought : In space there is a vacuum. This means that you cannot see stars in space, because there is no atmosphere for the light to break into visible waves in. So from space, does earth really have blue seas? Or does it perhaps look just like the moon does? It is possible that in traditional American fashion, we tried to lay claim on an already inhabited planet because it is in our sky, and thus belongs to earth. What species wouldn't be pissed off? Especially if they were approached by low tech killer monkeys with no sense of galactic responsibility.(see nuclear testing and its effect on the fabric of space/time/"prana")

*I presume the e.t.s said something more along the lines of, "A small minority that is invisible to the general populace is supposedly in control of the planet, using deception. We will not deal with you as long as you lie to your people, promote global warfare, and disguise free energy technology to keep it out of the hands of the masses. Until you "come clean", we cannot trust you" - it makes more sense. I also think a government is "talked to" when they begin nuclear testing. Another reason America is so adamant on keeping nuclear research out of most people's hands. It's the only way to keep the lid on the alien secret.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by godzai
 


Hate to be the one to point out that your first post here on ATS is rife with errors....


Everyone assumes that the moon truly has 1/6 of earth's gravity.


No, it isn't "assumed", it has been measured. The rest of your speculation about "whether" the Earth has a molten core is hogwash...our magnetic field is generated because of the rotating molten metal core.

Oh, and we know precisely the Moon's mass and density (and therefore its acceleration due to gravity)...this is obvisous. Else, NONE of the spacecraft ever sent there would have made it. You MUST know these things, for the orbital mechanics calculations. AKA "rocket science".



I put forth that gravity is mostly similar to surface tension....


NO, not correct in the slightest. Not even a little bit. Not even as an hypothesis.



Besides the concept of being warned by aliens that we couldn't go back to the moon....


Untrue, just another of those Urban Legends. We HAVE gone back multiple times. NASA, the JAXA and even the nation of India. Oh, and these "aliens"?? They allowed EIGHT manned moon landing misisons to procede?? How does that figure in with that silly "theory" that people keep spreading?? (Yes, seven....Apollo 13 intended to land, just as the other six did. Oh, and the Apollo 8...not a landing mission, but manned nonetheless).



...."neutral point" in space where the two gravity wells cancel each other out. Initially it was assumed that it was around 20,000 miles from the moon, but during the apollo missions, it was stated to be at 40,000 miles. This points to a gravity that is around 65% of earth's, maybe more.


Pseudo-scientific claptrap. You got that from John Lear, didn't you? Fess up, it's OK.....



(There is a ton of inconsistencies with the lunar landing video, not least of which the fact that the film is at 50% speed)


NO, there aren't and NO, it isn't "50% speed". That rubbish comes from the "hoax" proponents, and is utter tripe.



If the gravity of the moon was truly 1/6th of earths, the lunar lander would have needed a wheel base that was much larger than it was, or it would tip over going up a crater.


This isn't even logical!!!


Now, the mistakes above are understandable, in a way, seeing how so much DIS-information is spread out, especially now on the Internets...combined with the appalling lack of proper science educations, it seems, nowadays in schools...but this next bit is really taking the cake!:


In space there is a vacuum. This means that you cannot see stars in space, because there is no atmosphere for the light to break into visible waves in.


WHERE, OH WHERE do you get that bit of baloney from??? Can you think on it for a bit, and then realize just why it is nonsense.

As to the rest, about "America keeping nuclear knowledge" out of other's hands...ummmm....have you Googled that lately??? A LOT of countries have nukes.....



edit on 22 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Do you have a monopoly on the truth?

How would you know what is true and what is false?

Why did you join a conspiracy site such as ats if you can't find a conspiracy in ANYTHING after YEARS of participation?

And to top it all of your rude!

PS: I am putting you on ignore and foe list!!!
edit on 23-1-2011 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
32
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join