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.

 

Giant Leap Delusion

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   
I have answered many moon conspiracy threads and started a few. I really think this article has a lot of content that certainly is good ammo for hoaxers. Of course it's just facts, or not? Put this on your tool bar for future reference. At least this should demonstrate how NASA hsa bent the tax payer over instead of getting on with space travel.

"Snips from an article in Space Daily 2003

We had of course all seen the 1968 Kubrick/Clarke movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, and the facilities depicted there seemed entirely reasonable. In our lifetimes, we expected to see hotels in orbit, translunar shuttles operated by commercial airlines, and settlements on the Moon. Only the alien monolith was questionable.

None of this has happened.

Despite cutbacks, NASA has spent a total of $450 billion since Apollo 11 (adjusted for inflation to 2003 dollars). That very large sum was more than enough to fund the developments that Wernher von Braun predicted for the end of the 20th Century, but we have not even started on any of them.

If it had been spent wisely, as seed money to stimulate commercial development, we could have established a growing, self-sustaining extraterrestrial enterprise, offering opportunities for thousands of people to live and work off Earth - but the sad truth is that we have less capability in human spaceflight now than in 1970.

In 1969, we landed on the Moon, but now we cannot leave low Earth orbit (LEO). NASA claimed that the shuttle would be fifteen times cheaper to fly (per pound of payload) than the Saturn vehicles used in Apollo, but it is actually three times more expensive.

The average cost of each flight is a staggering $760 million. After a mission, the time required to prepare a shuttle for the next flight was supposed to be less than two weeks, but in practice tens of thousands of technicians spend three to six months rebuilding each "reusable" shuttle after every flight. Worst of all, the shuttle is a needlessly complex, fragile and dangerous vehicle, which has killed fourteen astronauts so far.

In 1973, we had a space station called Skylab, with berths for three astronauts. NASA let it reenter and break up over Western Australia. A second Skylab was built, which could have become the Earth terminal of a lunar transportation system.

It is now a tourist attraction at the Air and Space Museum in Washington, and the Saturn V to launch it is nothing more than a monstrous lawn ornament, moldering on its side at Johnson Space Center (JSC).



They are surprised and disappointed that the public are unimpressed by the shuttle and ISS, despite their technical virtuosity. The Giant Leap delusion persists today, in the form of proposals for a flags-and-footprints mission to Mars.



In reality, of course, Apollo existed because Jack Kennedy and Nikita Khruschev chose to make space a principal arena for competition between the superpowers. The purposes of the program were to overcome the perceived Soviet lead in space, and to foreclose the possibility that the USSR would reach the Moon first and claim it as Soviet territory. No Congress was willing to spend more than the minimum needed to achieve those objectives.

The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 relieved concerns about Soviet hegemony by banning weapons and territorial claims on the Moon. This allowed Congress to respond to Lyndon Johnson's simultaneous expansion of social programs and the war in VietNam by slashing funding for NASA. As shown in Figure 1, the budget peaked in 1966, and then fell precipitously.

Despite these obvious trends, NASA developed grandiose visions of the post-Apollo program, which culminated in the Space Task Group Report of 1969. (3)

The STG proposed three options. The most ambitious called for


a reusable Earth-to-orbit shuttle and a small space station by 1975;
a reusable orbit-to-orbit tug and a lunar orbit station in 1976;
a nuclear-powered tug and a lunar surface base in 1978;
a 50-man space base in Earth orbit in 1980;
a manned Mars mission in 1981;
and expansion of the Earth orbit space base to 100 people by 1985.
The other options retained all these objectives, but reduced the cash flow by delaying some of them for up to five years.

Figure 1 also shows the funding profiles required by the STG proposals (in 2003 dollars). Richard Nixon responded immediately, making it perfectly clear that the whole STG Report was sheer fantasy, and that NASA should expect less money, not more. "

I will see what more I can find.


 
Please refrain from capitalizing unnecessarily in Thread Titles .
It tends to confuse the Site format.

Mod Note: All Caps – Please Review This Link.




[edit on Tue Apr 7 2009 by Jbird]




posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


I do accept that we have restricted ourselves to LEO since apollo and have not sent man back to the moon yet.


In 1969, we landed on the Moon, but now we cannot leave low Earth orbit (LEO)


Not necessarily.

We have the capability of leaving the earth orbit.

The reason why we are carefully treading one step at a time now is because, we done want a Apollo 1 occur.

And also, we should not risk the astronauts life once again as in Apollo 13.

We were able to save the astronauts in apollo 13 just because they were near earth. Just imagine what will the astronauts do in case this happens halfway to mars? Can we risk it? The answer is no. We must safeguard ourselves first. For that we need experience, and for that we need long term stay in space like that in the ISS. Hope my point is clear.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by peacejet
 


I respect your attempt to defend the Program.
What about Apollo 14,15,16.17?



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by peacejet
 


I respect your attempt to defend the Program.
What about Apollo 14,15,16.17?


All those missions were successful. What is the doubt in that?


What I asked is whether you want an apollo 13 situation to occur to astronauts when the astronauts are half way to mars and they cannot return safely back to earth and they are killed. You will blame NASA for lack of safety measures. And this LEO missions are mainly for analyzing long term effects on astronauts health and machinery in microgravity.

So, in both cases, you will blame them?



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by peacejet
 


OK
Answer to Apollo 13 question---
Heck yes. Beats LEO crap all to heck if it is true.( Apollo 13 that is.)
So what I am hearing from you is this---
It is better to destroy a minimum of 14 beautiful spirited, intelligent, over trained AMERICAN FOLKS and their lab animals, in low earth orbit than venture back to the moon. Which in your own words confirm them as SUCCESSFUL missions.
A LEO so low that the other American folks can see their tin cans disintegrate before their eyes at the beginning of a attempted LEO and one on the return of a LEO.
You see this tallies poorly.
I don't want anyone Killed. I don't Blame .
I attempt to reach the essence of common sense and the documented past.

[edit on 2-4-2009 by Donny 4 million]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


What I said is that new technology for astronaut safety is being currently tested in the ISS and long term effects of microgravity on the human body analyzed. That doesnt mean that the astronauts dont have safety now.

I didnt say, it is better to kill astronauts. In case of any emergency the astronauts always have a soyuz docked in the earth facing port of zveda module or at the aft end of the station.


[edit on April 2nd, 2009 by peacejet]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by peacejet
 


Ok I get it now! Thanks for straightening me out.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by peacejet
 


Ok I get it now! Thanks for straightening me out.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   
I just have a question for the OP. Why do you use a mix of upper and lower case in all the thread titles you start? It gives me a headache trying to read it.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by sensfan
 


Sens
I do that because it is original.
Take two and call me in the morning.
Your vivatar is a recent memory.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Its not original, people have been doing that trying to look cool for years. It didn't work for them, perhaps learn from their mistake.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 
You can improve the look of your threads by using the toolbar above the text box when posting. When you're using a text extract from elsewhere, click the 'EX' and paste in your text. Now copy the link and click on the Earth symbol. Type in 'Source' or what you want to call your link. Hit OK and then paste in the link. For quotes from other members use the yellow speech bubble and paste in the quote. The little 'color monitor' is for external images.
If you follow these steps you end up with something like this...


India has successfully launched its first mission to the Moon. The unmanned Chandrayaan 1 spacecraft blasted off smoothly from a launch pad in southern Andhra Pradesh to embark on a two-year mission of exploration. The robotic probe will orbit the Moon, compiling a 3-D atlas of the lunar surface and mapping the distribution of elements and minerals. The launch is regarded as a major step for India as it seeks to keep pace with other space-faring nations in Asia.
BBC Source




I have answered many moon conspiracy threads and started a few. I really think this article has a lot of content that certainly is good ammo for hoaxers. Of course it's just facts, or not?





I disagree with your thread's assertion. We went to the moon SIX times. Men walked on there . Nevertheless, if you use the toolbar you can make your threads and posts more attractive. A well laid out post will be read by more people. Good luck



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Here is a tip for you. Get a readable background on your vivatar.
Cool link you posted.
You see who ate who there don't ya! LoL

I hope I can get all that upside down and backwards advice you gave me.
easy for you --difficult for me.
thanks



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by zombiemann
 


A tad off topic but Oh! I'm new. thanks



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Here is a tip for you. Get a readable background on your vivatar.
Cool link you posted.
You see who ate who there don't ya! LoL

I hope I can get all that upside down and backwards advice you gave me.
easy for you --difficult for me.
thanks

You cheeky wee beggar
I couldn't figure how to get rid of the background, messed about for a couple of days. I must have just changed it before your advice. Take it easy



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   
A discussion unrelated to this one provided me the answer to your question. I am boiling it down to: How to fix the space program.

Answer:

Easy. Restrict regulations preventing companies from doing it. (X Project for example). They accomplished more with significantly less. The problem is the government is a bit caught up in red tape and beauracacy preventing us from pushing the envelope. Let companies (private and public) be allowed to spend on this program. Share data with them. Encourage innovation. When they start competiting with each other, you will see results fast.

When NASA was at its best, what was going on? We were competing against the USSR. Eliminate the competition, and what incentive does NASA have to push the envelope with limited funds?



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by TLomon
 

I tried to post you 5 thumbs up. But I am just to Duh.
I hope we hear more conversation like yours.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


I just got the wee beggar! That is so complimentry. I love that guy.
How many objects does Scotland have up there?
In space I mean.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Thank you for the compliment. I have been in pretty much browse mode as of late, but this thread caught my attention (mostly because you asked some legitimate questions instead of just yelling hoax hoax hoax and us not doing it is proof.

(Oh, and don't forget, starring a post is just as nice as five thumbs up - actually, its even nicer).



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by TLomon
 


Yeah I lost interest in another thread I started. Thought it died.
I had to search it out. Found out the dudes were having a heck of a time while I was checking out BTS.
BTS is like talking to your neighbors you like.
It's all good.
The abuse the goverment has put NASA through is about to come to an end.
Obama is as transparent as a Lilly in a chop- shop.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join