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.

 

NASA is planning to bomb the Moon

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by peacejet
These are all amazing wonders of our technological capability. It is only that we fail to appreciate these wonders.


I'd say its the most primitive of our techincal ability to go into space. Just we don't get to see any good stuff.

Supposedly I'm to believe that we only have cars, rockets and planes for around a century of development, multiple wars and 'tech breakthroughs'.... yeah right.

[edit on 18/6/09 by GhostR1der]




posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by GhostR1der
I'd say its the most primitive of our techincal ability to go into space. Just we don't get to see any good stuff.


So going into space shows that we are primitivie? Well the fact is compared to the aliens we are primitive. There is not questioning that.


Supposedly I'm to believe that we only have cars, rockets and planes for around a century of development, multiple wars and 'tech breakthroughs'.... yeah right.


Have you ever seen how planes evolved from piston engine to jet engines and cars from bulky noisy ones to sleek silent ones and space craft with mechanical systems to computerised systems. If you fail to note it, dont blame it.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 03:06 AM
link   
So NASA knows for sure, absolute sure, there are no artefacts or other unknown objects on the moon ? To me this experiment is like blowing up the Giza plateau to search for water reservoirs, in the name of science of course.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by iwannaseethisshipgodown
its not my moon its not your moon its not our moon. how do you know nothing bad happened up there.

It's been 40 years and we've seen no evidence of ill effect.


japan isn't one the countries i was refering to and i think you know that.

You said far east. Japan is far east. Informed intelligent people would be no more bothered by any other country doing it than they were by Japan... though some here were bothered by Japan doing it.


so it is contaminating then?

Nice quote mining. It's not contaminating at all because everything about the impactor is vaporized on impact. It doesn't get more sterile than that.


i never said it was fake i said. how am i ignorant? i always want to know more.

You implied it was possible, I didn't accuse you of saying it was faked.


once again i never stated it didn't happen, remember i never come to conclusions.

That's just it, you should come to a conclusion based on the evidence. If you can't then perhaps you just haven't been adequately informed.

call me whatever you want and come to a conclusion on someone you never meet.

I didn't call you anything, nor will I.


you didn't even answer all my questions but you know what i dont think i care.

What is it you think I didn't cover?


p.s every now and then you might want to pull your head out of your arse for air, if its not stuck there.

I see, you can't argue with the evidence nor the math so you resort to insults? Well in that case I'm glad you won't be replying.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by reugen
So NASA knows for sure, absolute sure, there are no artefacts or other unknown objects on the moon ? To me this experiment is like blowing up the Giza plateau to search for water reservoirs, in the name of science of course.

Like me, NASA believes there's no reason to believe there are any artifacts on the moon. There's no evidence of life nor civilization to anyone objectively looking at the telescopic or orbital imagery. To someone looking for life, they'll see what they want to see, especially if they're unfamiliar with lunar terrain. The odds of them accidentally hitting an "artifact" on the airless mostly-dead moon is about the same as the odds that the earth will explode when I click "reply." The inside of a crater lacking line of sight to earth, the sun, or any other planetary body in the solar system save for the moon is about the safest place one could hit with an impactor as far as a SETA individual should be concerned.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Amazing footage of lunar probe's final moments before it crashes into Moon...

Check out this just published story (June 29, 2009) about lunar probes sending videos of the moon before the land....

www.dailymail.co.uk...



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   
yea. there is a good reason to "bomb" the moon. I thought that they were looking for base locations and minerals.

see the link for more

Uranium exists on the moon, according to new data from a Japanese spacecraft.

www.space.com...



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Isn't there an underground base on the Moon?
I'm not sure if it's under our governments' control,
or the Grays' control, but I'm pretty sure there's a
base somewhere on the "Dark Side Of The Moon",
and also one somewhere on Mars.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by peacejet
So going into space shows that we are primitivie?


Yeah pretty much... with the old rust buckets they show us. It's a 'miracle' if they ever landed that clunky lander on the moon





Well the fact is compared to the aliens we are primitive. There is not questioning that.


Which particular Alien race would that be that shows we are primitive, seeing as your not questioning that, perhaps you have insight to share?

The Big Kaboom with no Kaboom...

Coming soon to a Moon near you

October... wait for it




posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Yeah pretty much... with the old rust buckets they show us. It's a 'miracle' if they ever landed that clunky lander on the moon


Since the moon has no atmosphere, it doesn't matter how "clunky" the LEM looks. It was the world's first true dedicated spaceship. It wasn't a miracle that we landed on it at all, but it was somewhat of a miracle that we didn't have to abort any of the landings (not counting A13).



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
Since the moon has no atmosphere,


Of course it does silly. NASA says so... the only disagreement is how much




It was the world's first true dedicated spaceship.


Well sure that has been the party line all these years. I will wait till LRO shows me your right. Call me when they do



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Of course it does silly. NASA says so... the only disagreement is how much


Ever hear of the word "negligible"? Any "atmosphere" present is so rarefied that it's below the level of detection using powerful telescopes on earth. Since it requires constant replinishment from lunar outgassing, I'd say that disqualifies it from the term "atmosphere." It could be more accurately described as a few atoms temporarily orbiting the lunar surface.


Well sure that has been the party line all these years. I will wait till LRO shows me your right. Call me when they do

Selene already did that, as if the evidence from apollo itself wasn't enough.

[edit on 12-7-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   
I don't believe that a bomb is necessary to achieve the results that NASA needs for their Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite LACROSS. NASA intends to use two heavy impactors, what exactly these impactors are is not clearly defined, perhaps it will be the upper stages of the Atlas 5 rockets. NASA previously impacted a total of nine LMs and SIVBs on the Lunar surface between November 1969 and December of 1972 in order to record the seismic impacts with the Apollo Passive Seismic Experiment (APS), which deployed four seismometers to monitor the seismic activities of the moon. In 1969 NASA even requested to test a nuclear device on the Moon in order to do what is known as a core shot. Ofcourse, this wasn't done for several very good reasons.

NASA intends to deploy a massive new array of seismometers and sensors on the surface of the moon beginning around 2018. This is known as the International Lunar Network (ILN). When this array becomes operational we should expect many more heavy impacts by Atlas 5 upper-stages in order to test the ILN. It is by far cheaper to use these upper-stages as impactors than it would be to haul 5000 lbs bombs all the way to the moon. If a larger yield would be needed to do a core shot, I would imagine that NASA would want to use something in the order of the BLU-116 Advanced Unitary Penetrator armed with something like the B-61 mod10/11 tactical nuclear warhead and housed in a Pershing II re-entry vehicle. The B-61 mod11 also has "Dial-a-yield" technology where the explosive force of the warhead can be set between 4 and 365 kilotons. That would indeed make a beautiful core shot.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   
All I can say to all that is..

I hope NASA doesn't find any inhabited worlds any time soon



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 02:10 AM
link   
They should use a gigantic wadcutter and punch a nice clean hole for a swimming pool.

Or would all the water leak down onto Earth?



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rotwang
I don't believe that a bomb is necessary to achieve the results that NASA needs for their Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite LACROSS. NASA intends to use two heavy impactors, what exactly these impactors are is not clearly defined, perhaps it will be the upper stages of the Atlas 5 rockets.

Indeed, it's a centaur stage and the LCROSS satellite itself seconds later; the latter is just a necessary consequence of getting that close to observe the first impact.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
What if this is actually a counter attack...



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Lets all point out telescopes on the Moon.
Touching the Moon again has to be exciting.
If they allowed remote sensing we would know already.
How about electricity, any voltages or static found anywhere.




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join