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.

 

If NASA landed on the moon then, why not now?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2009 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by GateCrasher
 


GC...I know, I know.....

The whole thing is, IF there were some HE3 mining going on, then where is the benefit? IS it filtering down into our society in any way?

Nada.

It boggles the mind, sometimes. The claims of a top-secret "Super Secret Space Program" that already exists, and has existed since the 1950s (or 1960s, depending on the source) that have already travelled not only to the Moon and to Mars, but everywhere in the Solar System, compared to the 'others' who claim that 'THEY' won't let us leave our own planet.

So, since this IS the "Military and Government Projects" Forum, let's lay it all out there for discussion.

We hear so many stories. Bases on the Moon: 'might' be ET, 'might' be Human. Bases on Mars? Same questions.

Theory:

The Space Shuttle is a 'front' to hide the super-secret Astronaut Corps that is using reverse-engineered technology. Or, as a former 'Conspiracy Master', Capt. John Lear, here at ATS used to espouse, despite all of this top-secret technology, the STS missions had to 'detour' on their way to the 'real' ISS, in order to rendezvous with the 'secret space stations'...


Alternate view:

Forget about the realities of celestial orbital mechanics, and how it takes a short time to reach orbit, but a longer time to play 'catch-up' with the ISS...too much thrust, and your Delta V will increase your orbital height, because it increases your velocity...thus missing the intended rendezvous.

Phhhfft!! Old arguement, long forgotten. Either we HAVE this high-tech secret stuff, in which case we don't need the very Public STS missions, or we have it and the very Public STS missions are purely cover...but, don't assume that they necessarily interact.


Theory:

The highly advanced technology allows non-linear motion capability of the spacecraft.

EDIT = and that would entail some sort of inertial dampening to mitigate the G-forces of acceleration. SO, itis a high order of technology required.


Alternate view:

Well, then again. IF this is established and utilized by Humans, then the rest of what NASA does is just a PR Blitz! Which means, that all of those hundreds of thousands of dedicated professionals are being 'punked'!!

AND, the deaths of the Challenger and Columbia Astronauts were unnecessary, and avoidable.

Is THIS the legacy we are to be proud of?

EITHER the Space Program is REAL, or it is a sham, a cover...and many brave Astronauts have died as a result. I do not wish to see this as a legacy......












[edit on 5/2/0909 by weedwhacker]




posted on May, 2 2009 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


EITHER the Space Program is REAL, or it is a sham, a cover...and many brave Astronauts have died as a result. I do not wish to see this as a legacy....


Nor do I of course. But we cannot allow our emotions to dictate what reality/the-truth really may be. Look, I don't know what to believe when it comes to this particular subject of "Secret Space Corp" etc... However I don't see it as implausible and unlikely as many others do.

Assuming that there are actually bases on the Moon for example, would the purpose necessarily even be for Helium 3 excavation or similar mining operations?...Perhaps not.

We also cannot discount that the "Extraterrestrials on the Moon theory" could be a major factor in all this. Now do I believe that we are locked and inhibited in some "prison planet" in some "forbidden" solar system? Of course not, but what IF there were/are ETs(or some civilization) on the Moon?

And I've always got the feeling that there is something very hush-hush about the Moon, I don't know what exactly, but I feel that there is definitely something there.

BTW, I found this to be of some interest right here on ATS:
FOIA: Lunar Space Station
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 2-5-2009 by GateCrasher]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by GateCrasher
 


GC...interesting.

It is also evident that 'zorgon' was last to post on that thread, although only about six months ago.

I didn't read all of the UVA thesis. Still, seems like a nice Student Project. Did it get any serious attention at NASA, besides possibly being included on one of their websites?

As I've pointed out, earlier (elsewhere) and not sure it was addressed in the UVA thesis...would seem logical, to me, for a permanent Lunar Base to be located very near one of the poles. This, to mitigate the wild temperature variations as the body rotates. Simpler to build for mostly cold, and not have to deal with the heating up every two weeks, eh? PLUS, better Solar radiation protection. AND, better location for possible H2O.

Well, just brainstorming. Now, we just need financing, and we're off!!!



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by OhRico
 
I think this extract answers several aspects of your question...


NASA's current plan for manned space exploration focuses on establishing a base on the moon, as a vital stepping stone for a visit to Mars. The initiative has been trumpeted by the Bush administration, which wants the first mission to launch by 2020. But trouble is brewing as a growing group of former mission managers, planetary scientists and astronauts argues against any manned moon mission at all. One alternative, they say: Send astronauts to an asteroid as a better preparation for a Martian landing.
Dissent Grows as Scientists Oppose NASA’s New Moon Mission

We haven't gone back since the 70s because of money, political necessity, political expediency and disagreement between various Government Departments and NASA. The implications of cost means that the next time we land, it's going to be for reasons that add to previous gains in knowledge. Exploration seems to come some way down the list of priorities and with a recession and excessive debts building, isn't changing soon...



But we have unlimited funds and resources to send the space shuttle up to study -ant farms, lichens, sex, etc.....

Sorry but the money, resources, purpose story just won't float here.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by OhRico
I am a firm believer that we have never reached the moon, but I have this question that has been bugging me for years. You see, if NASA really did reach the moon, why don't we hear projects from them about going back there doing research and stuff? I mean, if they were capable then, why not now? Thanks for the replies.


Well...I would assume they are thinking what is the point of going back when it will cost so much more money? Or that the ET's who have bases on the moon may not like it too much if we decided to "drop" in on them again without clearing it first. If it took a couple of billion $ to climb to the top of MT Everest..and once you got there you documented and photoed everything possible around you...would you really want to spend the money to do it again if there was no gain? I don't think NASA would either.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stumpy1


Well...I would assume they are thinking what is the point of going back when it will cost so much more money? Or that the ET's who have bases on the moon may not like it too much if we decided to "drop" in on them again without clearing it first. If it took a couple of billion $ to climb to the top of MT Everest..and once you got there you documented and photoed everything possible around you...would you really want to spend the money to do it again if there was no gain? I don't think NASA would either.


If you could save trillions, maybe even quadrillions of dollars and countless human lives by launching your next expedition from the top of Mt. Everest, would you try to establish a base there? Even NASA has stated that they need to go back for that very reason.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 03:07 AM
link   
Money is artificial, and not the reason.

I believe the real reason is that we can't and didn't.

It was a hoax, to get a jump start on the space race and get a lot of satellites up first for intel.

If we really went to the moon you would have observatories charge $5 to look through the telescope at the landing spot and the debris.
But there is none.
And the people with access to telescopes powerful enough to see this stuff keep it quiet.
If there were photos of this stuff taken from Earth then you would see them all over the internet.

We could not do it then and we still can't do it. There is chatter of a Moon mission now, with the advancements in robot technology such as the walking Honda robots, and the Media will make excuses for not sending humans... like too risky, too expensive, etc.

It is all hoax and bluff.

The UFO thing is all hoax and bluff. Creatures from space... hoax and bluff. Magic.... hoax and bluff.

There is only 1) the unknown, 2) science, and 3) man's tricknology.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by THX-1138
 


THX....there is no telescope designed to focus to the resolution needed to see, from Earth, things small enough to shut up the Moon Hoax Believers.

Why not BUILD one, and charge people? Look into it for yourself. Surely you'd make a fortune.

Oh, wait. MAYBE the problem is, there is NO PROFIT in such an endeavor.

Telescopes are designed to see very far away. AND, since the rest of the World already knows that Apollo was real, there is no need to waste money on a telescope to try to prove the fact to the few Internet 'experts' who are convinced they know better than anyone else.

But, still....go for your idea, build a telescope and charge $5 a view. Good Luck!!!!


edit = the largest man-made objects left on the Moon are the LEM descent stages. They are about 14 feet wide.

So, good luck. Do some real research. Learn how you need to use a telescope from 250,000 miles away to see something 14 feet wide. (Hint: that is, 250,000 miles equals 1,320,000,000 feet). Do the math, and figure out the power of the 'telescope' required to acheive such a feat. Too bad, you probably don't reallize the problem. Well, school would be a great thing to revisit.

[edit on 5/2/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 03:23 AM
link   
OK. I walked down the hall to get a glass of water and I remembered that you think I am arrogant, or glib, or rude, or whatever, so I am back to explain.

Humans did not develop in space. They developed here on Earth. The Earth's gravity has a major effect on our cellular structure and brain function.

If we developed on Mars we would have a different structure, etc.

If we travel too far away from Mother Earth we begin to drift mentally. You might be able to strap yourself into a rocket and blast off to the Moon. You might even be able to survive the solar radiation beyond Earth's protective atmosphere. But when the rocket landed on the Moon you would be a drooling idiot, a space case, a psychedelic astronut.

Remember we wouldn't be here in our current form without Earth's protective atmosphere. [Without the current atmosphere, life would exist in the depths of the waters, not on land. Slowly, things that could survive crawled onto land. Those things were dark skinned.]

Black females were the first. At least first after the translucent creatures of the deep waters.

The "space" photos you see of men flying around the Earth are being taken about two or three hundred miles above the surface. Far enough up to see a black background that Media can call outer space. Big wow. There is a HUGE difference between 200 miles straight up and 200,000 miles straight up.

Smoke. Mirrors. Hoax. Bluff. Tricknology.



[edit on 2-5-2009 by THX-1138]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker


Telescopes are designed to see very far away. AND, since the rest of the World already knows that Apollo was real, there is no need to waste money on a telescope to try to prove the fact to the few Internet 'experts' who are convinced they know better than anyone else.

But, still....go for your idea, build a telescope and charge $5 a view. Good Luck!!!!


You must be a young'un. I have a COLLECTION of documentaries debunking our trips to the moon that dates back to 1981. Exactly which "internet 'experts' were openly discussing this in 1981?



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by THX-1138
 


OK....you are a lost cause. I am so sorry you are ignorant. You are on the wrong website. We 'deny ignorance' here. We use knowledge.

'black females'....oh, no....you are too far gone.

I tried, but if you aren't serious, then there is no point.

Bye-Bye!!!!



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   
we went to the moon to beat the soviets to the moon. can't have a godless commie get there first.

we went there for politics, not science. politics all gone. no need to go now.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Telescopes are designed to see very far away. AND, since the rest of the World already knows that Apollo was real, there is no need to waste money on a telescope to try to prove the fact to the few Internet 'experts' who are convinced they know better than anyone else.


That is a very good and sound argument, at least from a more skeptical perspective.

However I find it very interesting that here:
www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil...
Clementine Lunar Image Browser 1.5


NRL was responsible for the design, manufacture, integration, and mission execution of the Clementine spacecraft for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. During its two-month orbit of the Moon in 1994, Clementine captured 1.8 million images of the Moon's surface. The Laboratory provides the Clementine Lunar Image Browser as a courtesy to scientific researchers, as well as the general public, and you are welcome to browse the over 170,000 images that are available.


Only 170,000 out of 1.8 million available? Why is that?

That's about 3 quarters (or more) of these ultra high resolution pristine images aren't available.

[edit on 2-5-2009 by GateCrasher]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by GateCrasher
 

There is nothing "ultra high resolution" about the Clementine photographs. The HIRES camera obtained a resolution of about 30 meters (at best). Here is an article about using the Clementine images to verify the Apollo 15 LZ.
www.space.com...

BTW, the Clementine Lunar Image Browser 1.5 is dismal. You should be using this:
www.nrl.navy.mil...

The raw image dataset, some 400,000 images from the UVVIS camera and a lot from the HIRES camera is available here:
pds-imaging.jpl.nasa.gov...

More sources:
astrogeology.usgs.gov...
pdsmaps.wr.usgs.gov...


[edit on 5/2/2009 by Phage]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
There is nothing "ultra high resolution" about the Clementine photographs.


As far as I know, millions of dollars were "supposed" to be spent for the best possible imaging technology, one would expect that to especially apply to Clementine. The ones we got, in all honesty, are not that good in my opinion. This was in the 90's mind you. I personally find the old pre-70's LO images of far more quality. Only difference is that it's black and white, but the depth and texture (not sure those are the right words) are far superior, and till now, I haven't spotted any "data loss" small boxes covering any area, or mysterious smudges in those LO images - as opposed to those Navy.mil images. Perhaps only a tiny bit of a few scratches in the negatives, and yes.. Those are sometimes mistaken for anomalies.

Thanks for the links, I will definitely check them out, and BTW I've already seen the newer image browser, but just to express my point with the older one about the number of images actually available. Although you seem to have updated that figure, it still remains significantly-limited compared to the actual amount.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by GateCrasher
 

The Lunar Orbiter photographs are of higher resolution than those of Clementine in a lot of cases. The reason being there were entirely different mission objectives.

The primary purpose of the Lunar Orbiters was to gather visual data and to scout landing sites for the Apollo missions.

Clementine was not really about visual data. There were a number of instruments on board.

These observations were for the purposes of obtaining multi-spectral imaging the entire lunar surface, assessing the surface mineralogy of the Moon and obtaining altimetry from 60N to 60S latitude and gravity data for the near side. nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...


BTW, Clementine did not provide "color" images. The high resolution camera provided wide band grayscaled images. The UVVIS camera provided grayscaled images in various wavelengths (for the mineralogical studies). The "color" images are completely false color composites. Many, if not most, of the images taken would have been of the same terrain but in different wavelengths making the publication of all of the images quite redundant.

[edit on 5/2/2009 by Phage]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
The "color" images are completely false color composites. Many, if not most, of the images taken would have been of the same terrain but in different wavelengths making the publication of all of the images quite redundant.

I'm well aware that the Clementine images aren't true color. I never made such a claim.

But I do find it strange that the best images I've found are all pre-70's LO. Old-is-Gold I suppose.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by GateCrasher
 


Sorry, I guess I misunderstood your statement about the LO photos; "Only difference is that it's black and white".

In any case the LRO should be providing some "ultra high resolution" images later this year.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by OhRico
 


Its called
Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
and the fact that in a few years these programs will consume all of the federal budget ,
All federal spending should all be eliminated on everything but the space program so we can get the space program up and running again and so we can get the heck off this planet and find one that is not run by a bunch of emotional and pshicological mental midgets . the scientific advances that would come from a new space program would far outweigh any losses to the current programs .



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


incarnate, THAT's the problem!!

A couple of whackjob documentaries from the 1908s, maybe a few books. Nobody pays attention, because they're made and written by idiots.

NOW, we have the viral and immediate nature of the InterWebs. AND a new generation of kids who were born in 1980!!! They are only fed the nonsense of the 'Hoaxers'...so, we're off to the races!!

Submitted for your approval (cue spooky 'Twilight Zone' music) two goofballs who pollute utube with their uneducated dreck: 'greenmagoos' and 'WhiteJarrah'. A Brit and an Aussie, both in their twenties.

OH! The humanity!!!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join