Why has NASA never gone back to the moon?

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:22 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Indians in Space??

Yes their first satellite was shaped like a Teepee!

Ok all joking aside... NASA's budget is like 17 billion / yr. India's is less than a billion.

How does the saying go... money talks..

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:27 AM

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

Care to explain how? Sure, it's not spot on, but no comparison ever is. Surely both are about exploring unexplored territory? Just seems like you're being a bit reactionary there. At least explain why the comparison is invalid, because it seems pretty valid to me. Except that it's more like taking a flight over the ocean once and going 'well, there's nothing but water there, no point going back'.

The ocean being 'nothing but water' and the moon being 'nothing but rocks' seems like a pretty valid comparison to me.

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:40 AM
Well be fore they can go 'back there' they will have to remember how they did it the first time...

So they are looking in junque yards to reverse engineer the stuff

NASA Forgot How To Go To The Moon!!!www.abovetopsecret.com...

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 02:12 AM
reply to post by TheStev

Care to explain how?

Yes economically speaking.

But exploring an underwater area well away from shore that's only reachable with remote-operated vehicles is very expensive, with research expeditions costing as much as $30,000 a day.

30,000 x 365 = 10.95 million
NASA budget = 17.6 billion

Since our deepest subs only venture 1000-1300 meters I would say there is room for improvement (considering the depths of the ocean). On the other hand, I'm sure we could inflate NASAs budget a few hundred billion and start drilling into the moon. In short, they are two different technologies. Apples to oranges..

But I agree we should return to the moon and explore the oceans more. The spirit of exploration is strong in both fields no doubt.

[edit on 26-6-2008 by Scramjet76]

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 02:40 AM
reply to post by xweaponx

To my knowledge the fact is that nasa now has a DOD encrypted radio communications channel. The big question is whether or not it is used for discussing UFO's. On at least one or two occurences NASA astronauts have referred to objects in orbit as "Unidentified Flying Oject" and "Alien spacecraft".

We also have nasa-recorded footage of worm-like objects tumbling through space (which are identical to many UFO videos of worm-like objects, shot from the ground, somehow tumbling and flying in our atmosphere). Not to mention unknown crafts materializing and dematerializing in non-visible ultraviolet light wavelengths. NASA has documented and recorded some of the most substantial evidence out there for a UFO reality while, at the same time, constantly insisting UFO's are not real. Then why are astronauts being recorded telling houston they are seeing UFO's on live TV broadcasts? LOL!


[edit on 26-6-2008 by BlasteR]

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 02:44 AM
I personally don't believe they went. The photographic evidence is clearly false, so many discrepencies! The numbers don't add up either, time taken, number of photos etc etc.

The Apollo program started at the height of the cold war. The ruskies were in cuba with missiles, they had launched vehicles into space. Having started a mission to go to the moon the US absolutely could not ever ever under any circumstances....fail.

The US never went back because it was never there in the first place. It was all a cold war con. One of the best I have to admit, certainly beats the soviet con of having one missile going round and round in circles in the red square parades fooling the US into thinking they had thousands of such missiles !!!!!!

Now I am quite willing to be proved wrong so plese show me a photograph of the Apollo 11 landing site taken recently. Even when ESA had a moon probe with the ability to photo the sites not one photo emereged...why? I mean come on, you have a camera with the ability to photograph the most momentous event in human history and you don't bother?

Where are the photos taken by telescopes that can be sold as souvenirs? I mean there is even money to made in such photos but there's nothing.

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 02:46 AM
I see your point, although given the massive size difference between the earth and the moon, and the fact that the earth is 60% water, surely we can add a factor onto the oceanic exploration?

I dunno, I guess it's a pet hate of mine when people use the differences in a comparison to invalidate the comparison. If there weren't differences then it wouldn't be a comparison, it would be an equation.

And on that, why do we use 'apples and oranges' to describe things that are completely different? They're both fruit! They can be compared. I think we should be saying 'apples and sega dreamcast controllers' or 'supercolliders and oranges'.

I'll stop ranting now - you are of course right, but I don't think that means there are no ground for comparison between the two.

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 02:51 AM
In the past I would call such evidence of a moon conspiracy simply laughable. IMO, Most of what people call solid evidence is not so solid. Ted Tweitmeyer's supposed evidence on rense is a good example.. We've already discussed this stuff in great detail before and I really don't know if we need to do so again.. But just making a point.

That being said though, there are some inconsistencies and oddities in the photos and videos that really don't make sense.. For example.. This frame of a video taken on Apollo 16 shortly before the module blasted off.

And this one from a different video on a completely different apollo moon mission (not sure exactly which one) showing the exact same hills..

Some of us have discussed these previously also but it just seems wierd.


[edit on 26-6-2008 by BlasteR]

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 02:57 AM

Originally posted by Truther
I would bet my life that we're being observed from the moon by beings of extratrestial origin.

As would I.

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 03:04 AM

Originally posted by TheStev

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

Care to explain how? Sure, it's not spot on, but no comparison ever is. Surely both are about exploring unexplored territory? Just seems like you're being a bit reactionary there. At least explain why the comparison is invalid, because it seems pretty valid to me. Except that it's more like taking a flight over the ocean once and going 'well, there's nothing but water there, no point going back'.

The ocean being 'nothing but water' and the moon being 'nothing but rocks' seems like a pretty valid comparison to me.

Comparing the ocean to the moon... hmm. The ocean is "nothing but water?" I guess you didn't know this but people had already known about the ocean, it's on Earth and it actively provided MANY resources... the moon did not. And, we didn't just fly over the ocean one day and decide whether or not to explore it. It had been explored for hundreds of years and there were still many, many mysteries to it. Again, it's not like a few days before someone wanted to do extensive deep sea exploration someone went "hey... what is this wet stuff and what's in it??".

Now the moon. It's a lot farther away than the ocean and LESS EXPENSIVE. That's key there, MONEY. Also, there has been 23 missions to the moon and they have yet to find anything, which is another reason we don't go back. Didn't find anything 'extra' useful after the first few times so it was decided (I'm guessing, obviously) that there wasn't much reason to go back. Again, that reason is also backed by the fact that it was costing a great deal of money and the public had lost interest in the moon. These are reasons why Mars is big... finding resources (is/was their life on mars?) and public interest. People are very interested on what things there are on Mars (more so than compared to the Moon which has been explored 20+ times). After numerous adventures to Mars and once we've found everything and nobody cares... they'll move on.

Again though, for reminders I'll summarize the 'comparison' for you and why they're really not comparable.

The Ocean:
On Earth - easier to get to (less expensive)
Visible - we could actually see things living/growing in it
Resources - provided food, water (sorta), money (selling colorful shells/other items) and other... well resources

The Moon:
In Outer Space - harder to get to (more expensive)
Non Visible - we couldn't see anything so it ='d just rocks
No Resources - we weren't getting anything from it at the time, no reason to investigate really... still doesn't give resources

Now, really these aren't just opinions and pretty much facts. Last time I checked the ocean is on Earth, the moon isn't... we can see fish in the ocean, we can't see anything other than rocks on the moon... and we harvest from the ocean and not from the moon. So, that's my factual information of how the 2 things are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT thus not subject to comparison. The ONLY thing the same between the two is that they were both unexplored at one point. But... so is my colon... that's no reason to compare it to the Moon.

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 03:10 AM
Now to be on topic about why we don't go back. Again, we've been 20+ times (something that I learned from this thread at the OP probably has as well). Seems like after 23 missions we haven't found out anything extra than what we did the first time and we haven't gotten anything back from it... thus no reason to go back. And from that you get that there's no money in it and people just aren't interested anymore. Since we've been back that many times you'd think that if we were "warned off" that they things that "warned" us off the first time would do something about it... but they didn't.

Does that mean that we made a deal with the 'things' so that we could return there? Maybe... but why... since none of those times did we learn anything significant. It just seems like risking going back to these possibly dangerous creatures to not find anything new doesn't make sense... so in my mind that theory doesn't make sense.

It is strange about the song they sang at one time there. Though he obviously wasn't sure of all the words so the speaking of the 'bony eyes' thing was him not knowing for sure what the words were for the song and he paused because he was trying to think of them.

Personally I don't think there's anything alien (as in creatures) is on the Moon... though it would be interesting to see what the dark side of the moon is like exactly... to see if it differs any from the 'bright side of the moon'.

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 03:10 AM
reply to post by Scramjet76

I'm not trying to argue the case for alien life on the moon. I'm merely questioning, why we havent returned. I understand that space travel and landing on the moon is difficult but i'm confused by the technology gap. In 1969 computers and electronics were quite primitive by todays standards and much much larger. Yet even with primitive computer equipment they were able to accomplish this task(albeit, a very difficult task) but in todays day and age with all the advancements in computer tech, the task of space travel is still so vastly limited.

It just seems like as another poster pointed out(and i'm not advocating this) there would be a huge strategic advantage(militarily or otherwise) to developing a base/missile defense/solar collector/etc... on the moon. I understand that these task would be difficult but the advantages from a strategic standpoint are huge.

It just seems that manifest destiny would have produced a base on the moon by now. Not that i'm advocating any of this because i'm sure human will just f-up the moon as bad as here but i just have to question.

Thanks for the lunar rover info.

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 03:23 AM
reply to post by Lasheic

If we can get fuel from Mars, then you send a drone to Mars to get the fuel, drone it back to Earth Orbit, Fuel the Mars rocket in orbit, and start a new economy at the same time.

This reduces your overall cost, since you do not have to launch the fuel from Earth. You only need to use enough fuel to launch the empty tanks into space. And the fuel for the outbound first trip. As long as each trip results in about two times the required fuel for a round trip, you have a constantly doubling growth curve, barring mishap.

100 pounds on Earth is 37.7 pounds on Mars. You not only get the fuel for the cost of launching the vehicles, you get to reuse the vehicles, and provide the fuel for all future trips both ways. And launch more than 3 times as much cargo fuel capacity per load as the engines could lift on earth.

Once we are getting resources from space, space exploration becomes commercial. You build an excess of resource acquiring drones and you sell them to venture capitolists who fund profittering ventures in space.

You supply materials in space for cheaper than the cost of launching from the earth. The same goes for mining nickel iron from asteroids, water from asteroids and fuels from planetary satellites which have methane atmospheres. And Methane ice asteroids. You name it and it is out there, except for nitrogen, which is apparently rare in space, and which could be produced in space farms if need be.

The beauty is that there is no need to send humans for this project. All sorts of materials can be brought back to orbit. Where we can commercialize the processing and manufacturing of further generations of space exploration. Once this is kick started it becomes a profit center not an expense. Finished product starts to be dropped back to earth, for sale and use. The cost of launching from earth is reduced, since the fuel is gotten from space, and space opens up to humanity.

[edit on 26-6-2008 by Cyberbian]

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 03:45 AM
reply to post by ericds

Wow. I don't mean to be rude, but you might spend some time honing your 'tone detection' skills. A lot of what I've said in jest you've taken as genuine.

Of course the ocean is more than 'just water', I said this in jest as it's the same close-minded attitude that leads to the conclusion that the moon is 'just rocks'.

Of course we didn't just fly over the ocean and decide not to explore it. But if you compare the amount of time we've been able to traverse the oceans, and the amount of time we've been able to travel to space, we have essentially just flown over the moon and decided not to investigate any further.

Thanks for your friendly little summary, but I've got an even easier one for you.

What am I talking about, the ocean or the moon?

Man is capable of travelling to it, man has travelled to it, man has explored part of it, much of it is left to be explored.

I guess when you consider it that way, the ocean and the moon are exactly the same

Just to clarify, as you've missed some of my tones before, that was sarcasm. The moon and the ocean are not exactly the same, nor are they completely different.

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 04:46 AM
reply to post by TheStev

Well, not really. Remember that the VAST majority of the total weight in a rocket is the fuel itself. Every bit of weight increase forces an increase in the amount of fuel needed to provide greater lift and carry that load into orbit. This is evident when looking at the difference between our current shuttle program and the old Apollo rockets which first carried us to the Moon. The Space Shuttle is much much larger than the Lunar capsules and their equipment which carried the Astronauts to the moon. And what do we see? Much much larger fuel tanks are needed to carry it up. This is why weight and space on the shuttle is so precious and expensive.

So yes, while we could technically carry rocket fuel to the moon by the proverbial bucket at a time, it would take several missions to provide all the fuel needed for a trip to Mars. And many many many more times that if you plan to carry the fuel for the return trip along with you. And again, this isn't counting the missions necessary to set up an infrastructure capable of storing that fuel, readying the rocket, and overseeing it's launch. Plus the supplies and provisions needed to maintain that base that would ultimately detract from the amount of fuel you could bring up.

The solution of launching from the Moon (or better, from space) will eventually become a viable one. However it requires a few enabling technologies to be developed first. The most important one being, imo, the Space Elevator. This would negate the problem of having to burn fuel to lift fuel into orbit.

For now I still believe it's better to simply shoot straight for Mars. Such plans have been proposed, and even fall within NASA's current budget. This means that projects such as the ISS and return trips to the Moon actually put us further and further away from Mars missions.

[edit on 26-6-2008 by Lasheic]

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 05:05 AM
reply to post by Cyberbian

If we can get fuel from Mars, then you send a drone to Mars to get the fuel, drone it back to Earth Orbit, Fuel the Mars rocket in orbit, and start a new economy at the same time.

I think that's a bit of over-reaching. What you're talking about may one day be viable, not just for fuel but other resources as well, but what I'm getting at is JUST the manned mission to Mars. That's all. Go there, plant a flag, do some research, and come home. There's no need to drone fuel from Mars back to Earth, as we're perfectly capable of fueling a 1-Way trip to Mars as it is. The fuel waiting on Mars will serve to get the Astronauts back home. Further those initial fuel generators we send out continue operating - providing return fuel for any future missions.

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 05:18 AM
reply to post by malcr

The photographic evidence is clearly false, so many discrepencies!

Is it really so easy to spot a fake?

Hmm... Take a look at these two photos. Only one of them is a staged event. Can you guess which one? Just by looking mind you, no external resources.

Find the fake.

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 05:31 AM

Originally posted by smason202
I dont know what to believe when it comes to the moon landing. So much is said on it being a hoax. But then I like the idea that they went and something was already there. So I am on the fence on this one. The ufos by the moon are very convincing. Either all Alien life lives on the crafts just cruising through the galaxy or theres a home somewhere near for them or at least a pit stop..Maybe

Sorry confused myself there
Although we cant deny life on the moon is a possibility when you see the Alien bases. Which is shown in this video Great thread. flagged and favored

[edit on 25-6-2008 by smason202]

[edit on 25-6-2008 by smason202]

Trust me on this when I say everything related to the moon landing hoax has been completely debunked. We really landed on the moon more then once.

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 05:51 AM
i will start saying. first i though that we had gone too the moon and bla bla bla Neil Armstorng. but after seeing stuff and other thing like the wire and the flag when there is no wind. i don't know.... maybe or maybe not..

but then i saw this movie ( or liveshow ) "Behold a Pale Horse"
by Milton ( Bill )William Cooper. RIP.
i think what if all the apollo mission are just a show and that about that it is Human who are in the UFO.

what if there is a NWO ( not saying there is ), and we have been on the moon other then NASA and maybe MARS.

or that NASA works with the NWO and set up a scram so we think there are E.T on the Moon, but it is US and then we became together to Figth E.T under False Flag.

AND if there is E.T why haven thay just come forward and said "hey Folks we are REAL" and if all ppl get Mad. thay just SAY " BYE BYE and FLY ALL MILLIONS OFF MILLS AWAY, AND thinking " hehe stupic humans, we got all this stuff thay cut use too fly better in space and life in PEACE" ?????

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 05:57 AM
This has already been discussed in the thread here…


However, here’s a gist from that thread:

Consider this:

NASA abruptly stopped the Moon program, though:
The equipment was in place.
The mission was paid for.
The Astronauts were trained and ready.

So why did NASA suddenly terminate the Moon program?

That leads to speculation that we were warned to keep off the Moon by extraterrestrials who either have:
Bases on its surface.
Or inside the Moon which some contend is a huge spaceship in itself!

Check out this image taken by Clementine….

Lat 0 deg, Long 120 deg
Res 1 pixel = 1 km

Notice any strange ‘structures’ on the surface? And what looks like image smudging by NASA!

Though these conjectures (that the Moon is probably a hollowed out space ship, or that alien bases exist on the surface), are rather far fetched, could there probably be an element of truth in all this? Otherwise why would NASA call off a perfectly successful program? Was it financial constraints? Technical difficulties? Unlikely.

And now with all the latest technology at our disposal, in contrast to what was available in the late 60s, NASA says it would be ready for the next Moon shot only by 2020!! Why the delay? Are we stonewalling the issue and trying to delay it as long as possible because of the alien 'threat'?

OR has it been deliberately planned after ‘disclosure’?

Now here’s another angle to it that Rik posted:

Originally posted by Rik Riley
Probably we humans were already there on secret bases along with aliens way before the Apollo program. In some circles we have been lead to believe the aliens waved us off and not to come back. In my opinion it was not necessarily the aliens that waved us off, but the secret black ops that were already there from Earth. They did not want their cover blown which hid the mining operations, craft and technologies discovered by even halting the Apollo program.

I believe and agree the Apollo program was a diversion to what actually is there and taking place on the Moon.

I tend to agree with Rik in that the Apollo program was probably a cover for the secret space program concerning the Moon and Mars. Why would the Black Ops projects, supposedly already operating on the Moon, expose themselves? They would've kept it secret even from NASA's astronauts. You can read more about it here..The top Secret US Military Space Program. Is The Future Already Here?

Some have mentioned that we didn’t go back to the Moon because of funding constraints. The U.S. government has spent in excess of a two trillion dollars for disasters like Iraq, Afghanistan and so on, but didn't have funds for the exploration of space? The Apollo program cost just over a hundred billion dollars (present dollar conversion) over 5 years and that’s just 5% of the ongoing budget for ushering in western style democracy in the Middle East and Afghanistan!

And then, it’s more than likely that the funding which was slashed for NASA went instead to fund the Black Ops projects on the Moon, etc? Though it’s speculation, it is a possibility. Who knows for sure? Things are happening out there that will boggle the mind!

Check out my signature below. And that’s from a former astronaut!


new topics
top topics
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


ATS Live Radio Presents - Bushcraft On Fire Radio ***On The AIR !!! ***
read more: Bushcraft On Fire Radio : 04/17/2014: Basic Packs, More on Police Encounters and PLANTS!!!!