Why has NASA never gone back to the moon?

page: 4
32
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by LordThumbs
my guess is that after the moon, they have been preparing for a trip to mars. even though it would take while...

of course i only say this because i have no idea WHY we havent truely been back, but i have seen the vids about "why we havent gone back to the moon"

I'm sorry, but this theory just doesn't work. Considering the almost complete absence of gravity on the moon, it would be far more practical to launch a mission to mars from the moon.


Going to the Moon is very, very expensive for just a few rocks.

You might be right, it might just be rocks, but have we really spent enough time there to know? I'm not saying I'm for mining on the moon (although rare elements could greatly advance our scientific understanding), but pretty much every mining quarry in the world looks like 'just rocks'.

I might be channelling a geology fanatic, but I honestly believe there's no such thing as 'just rocks'. Not on this scale.




posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Cool videos! there is a 3rd part to to this if anyones interested



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   
I always assumed the reason we never went back was simply because we had no competition to go there as we had before



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by xweaponx
 


From a purely scientific standpoint it does seem really strange that NASA has not been back to the moon. In one trip they determined that there is not anything of scientific value to research. It would be like investigating the oceans of earth once and then deciding that there isnt any more value to more extensive research. It just doesnt add up. We sent some guys up there to collect a few rocks from the surface, hit some golf balls and plant a flag. No further geological research. No drilling, etc...

Why would NASA invest so much money into a space station that orbits the earth when they could have assembled it on the moon and had a base of operations to launch other crafts and research the sub-surface. Why not drill for water or other valuable minerals? How much area of the moon did they actually cover/explore while there, maybe a couple square miles at most. According to their story, they basically got out, looked around and said nope nothing here lets go home. Seems to me that with one side of the moon constantly doused in sunlight, it would be a perfect place for a solar panel field. Certainty enough energy to power any moon base or launch point for other space craft.

Does anyone know how many unmanned missions we have sent to the moon? Did we send any rovers or any other scientific equipment for research?

Also its seems strange that no other countries have made attempts to go to the moon. I remember hearing that China has a manned mission planned in a few years. But in 40 years not the US or any other country has had any desire to go back.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Whoever holds the far side of the moon, controls complete access to the moon and it's resources. It requires three orbits of the moon before you can land.

A minimal missile outpost on the far side would result in complete control. The missiles could be tiny, because of the low gravity.

In the event of a war where satellites are all taken out in the first round, whoever holds the far side, has the ability to deploy any imaginable systems from space even if it is impossible from the earth at the time.

If the US does not hold the far side of the moon, then our generals are incompetent.

I think this thread asks the wrong question. Why has man not left the protection of the earths magnetosphere since the Apollo missions?

I propose the answer is that we never did, because we do not have the technology to protect from solar radiation and the effects of particle bombardment cascading from the required shielding.

If you doubt me, then please explain how NASA shields astronauts from radiation. Remember that on earth it takes from 6 to 12 feet of earth to protect from nuclear radiation. The last time I looked, radiation was radiation, and the sun was a great nuclear furnace.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup
Putting several huge radio telescopes in craters on lunar farside, shielded from most of the radio noise of Earth, would probably allow us to find any alien signals that might be floating around out there.

Why bother wasting time with SETI, when there is overwhelming evidence that aliens are already visiting Earth?

Seriously, money spent on SETI is such a waste of time, when it could be spent investigating real, verifiable cases today!



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Disclosure can never be made. If we know and have the factual data - all of it - we will die. How long have we asked for the truth? How many have demanded the truth?

Why?

You are right, they were asked never to return

Do you hear of shadows?

Luminous, out of reach and beyond spectrum and time

Sometimes physical but rare unless obligated and unobtrusive

Have you heard of soul collectors surely you all must know of other dimensions and states of being. A strange curiosity the energy of the human soul and its life termed experiences.

What do you think would happen if a race of intelligent beings that have existed longer than the Earth was in its current solid state would do if disturbed and revealed?

What if the revelation of their existence was in fact the end of an experiment and the end of us? What if that time has come anyhow, what if the experiment has failed? What if the experiment was complete and our existence was no longer needed?

Have you heard of the castle tower and the shard referred to as an energy collector or soul collector?

Do you think it would be wise to disturb this process? You have already answered your own question.

"Why have NASA never returned to the Moon"?

It has been a waiting game ever since.....for what is the question.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 10:49 PM
link   
I read most threads but if this did get touched on, deduct some points for lack of attention to detail...with that said:

I do remeber reading an article in regards to one of the trips in the 60's, in which the astronaut afterwards told that they were warned not to land on the surface by aliens. If this were true, and I am sure it is (or at least want it to be
), I would find this rather interesting considering there is quite a bit of discussion out there (by both forum users and credible witnesses/scientists) stating that several different races of aliens have been in contact with us.

And what I mean is, if there really is different races and we have been in contact and even come to some type of mutual arrangement, why would they have been waved off; unless there are competing (or warring - choose your poison...) races of aliens.

Another possible answer is that contact had been made by both parties, but no real interaction; maybe they felt we were not ready for contact in the sixites - and considering the hair styles back then, I wouldn't doubt it.


Or - the astronauts misinterpreted the actions of the aliens, when they were really trying to relay something else...I'm sure this would not be the case though, as astronauts have a kick-a$$ eeducational pedigree and I'm sure aliens are rather bright themselves...

But if the "waving off" story is true, then I'm sure that there is something there that we are not supposed to see; hence - we haven't gone back. Which brings a whole other topic to mind. Are aliens getting ready for something..?

Thanks for the thread.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TheStev
 


Considering the almost complete absence of gravity on the moon, it would be far more practical to launch a mission to mars from the moon.

I don't think this is really practical given the current state of technology. One of the major problems being fuel. The amount of rocket fuel we could generate from natural resources on the Moon currently is neglegable. You would still have to ship the fuel up from Earth, store it on the Moon, and then still use a portion of that fuel to lift off. It's incredibly wasteful.

We currently have the technology to collect rocket fuel from the Martian atmosphere in sufficient amounts to make the trip viable - however we would first have to send those automated generators to Mars first so that they could create the fuel for the return trip while the spacecraft is in transit. This would still have to be done if launching from the Moon - so all we're doing is cutting out the wastefulness of taking the detour (not to mention setting up the infrastructure to provide that detour) to the moon.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by chapter29
 


chapter, I believe I've posted on this thread before, hence it popped up.

(when you spend more time on ATS, you will know what I mean)

Others have addressed this concept. I am not qualified to know, I only have guesses and opinions.

When it comes to Aliens on the Moon....my opinion is, it makes sense.

Imagine, we are a very advanced space-faring race.....and we discover a planet wth a natural satellite that happens to rotate in such a manner that only one hemisphere is seen by the inhabitants of the 'Mother' planet.

Wouldn't that 'Moon' be ripe for exploitation??? As a perfect base of operations, if you wished to observe without the natives knowing they were being observed???

Again, we are imagining a Solar System that we discover, that happens to have this wonderful satellite (what we call the Moon) ready-made for observation. BECAUSE, it is tidally locked, because of its near orbit....and there is hemisphere that is permanantly hidden from view, from Earth's surface??

There is discussion as to whether EVERY planet that propogates intelligent life must have a large satellite, such as the Moon....but that argument doesn't belong here.

Has NASA been to the Moon? YES!!!

WHY NOT go back?? Well, it's been pointed out, that it's expensive. Others have mentioned that aliens wewre seen. and they advised us not to come back.

Knowing humans.....I tend to think, even if 'warned off', they would go anyway. Just my guess....



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 11:32 PM
link   
We are going back. (Have been?)
Helium 3 is an enticement and will offset costs.
Also, many of the previous points are valid. Manufacturing, construction, and certain synthetic processes will be much cheaper with a moon base.

We're just now getting to the point where the technology exists to make it feasible. Not to mention that we've been hashing out the "how" of it for about 50 years. Cold War, Star Wars, Stations, satellites, etc.

I wouldn't want the US to spend billions of dollars on a base only to have some 100 million dollar balistic screw it all up!


added: I also highly suspect that our moon (actually a planet?) is much more than it seems. Engineered perhaps?

[edit on 25-6-2008 by djerwulfe]



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 12:04 AM
link   



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 12:08 AM
link   

I don't think this is really practical given the current state of technology. One of the major problems being fuel. The amount of rocket fuel we could generate from natural resources on the Moon currently is neglegable. You would still have to ship the fuel up from Earth, store it on the Moon, and then still use a portion of that fuel to lift off. It's incredibly wasteful.

Fair point. It's certainly a tricky equation, although I still believe that launching from the moon would be more efficient. I'm basically guessing, but I would imagine with 1/6th of the Earth's gravity, 1/6th of the fuel would be required to launch from the moon (and that's not even taking into account breaking through the atmosphere).

Perhaps, if considering the comparison between a single launch from the Earth to Mars to a single launch from the moon to Mars, then it is impractical, but if we're looking at sending regular missions to Mars then a small moon launch base would have to be more practical. One load of fuel shipped from the Earth to the moon could supply several missions to Mars (theoretically).

But I really don't know enough about the science to calculate the fuel necessary to ship fuel to the moon as compared to the fuel savings by launching from the moon.

Admittedly, though, all of this is me playing devil's advocate. I whole-heartedly believe that space exploration beyond the moon is flat-out impossible without some form of breakthrough propulsion.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by djerwulfe
 


djerwulfe....

You have brought up a lot of questions.

I await to see the many responses.....

For me....I'm escaping to a Baltic Cruise, in July. Perhaps there will be a country to come back to. OR, I will just stay in Scandanavia. If they will have me.....



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 12:11 AM
link   
All of these questions are answerable in one line:

Why?

Because of this: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

NASA went to the moon with manned spacecraft because there was a national commitment and money to do so. Much of it was motivated with competition with the USSR. It was a way to display technological achievement without having a war.

if you can put a space capsule in exactly the right place at exactly the right time it means you can put a warhead over Missile Base, USSR to within 100 meters.

Much of the technology necessary for that manned space program is very similar to military capabilities: guidance, communication, computation, and high-tech manufacturing.

Once they did achieved the goal, the amount of money allocated to space went from $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
to $$ to 0.02c.


[edit on 26-6-2008 by mbkennel]

[edit on 26-6-2008 by mbkennel]



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


Brilliantly written, kennel....star for you!!!!



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 12:35 AM
link   
yep their already up there, i mean if thats the real transcript,and ive seen videos that support it then they must think were stupid, are we?



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by iamcamouflage
 





It would be like investigating the oceans of earth once and then deciding that there isnt any more value to more extensive research.


No actually it's not. You're comparing apples to oranges.




Why would NASA invest so much money into a space station that orbits the earth when they could have assembled it on the moon


A) It's the logical first step.
B) It's much cheaper.
C) Going to the moon takes days. Going to orbit takes hours.
D) It was more of a pride thing to put a man on the moon before the Soviets (since they beat us in putting a man into space).




Does anyone know how many unmanned missions we have sent to the moon? Did we send any rovers or any other scientific equipment for research?


Rangers 1-9
Surveyor 1-7
Lunar Orbiter 1-5
Clemintine Probe 1
Lunar Prospector 1
Total = 23

Next Mission: The Moon Mineralogy Mapper will involve contributing some important equipment to India's first lunar attempt.




Also its seems strange that no other countries have made attempts to go to the moon.


I disagree. Going into space isn't an easy feat! Look at India. They went nuclear in the 1970s but are just getting into space exploration now.




posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Scramjet76
 


Scramjet....that is scary!!!

Indians in Space??

OK....it is sarcasm.....

I'll forgo the obvious jokes, about tech services......

LOL!! Notice I eschewed the ATS funnies....at least, I hope I did!



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by xweaponx
Astronaunt Scott Carpenter Reported "Critters" to Mission Control


Yup he said it CRITTERS not UFO's but people will accept critters less than UFO's





new topics
top topics
 
32
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join