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.

 

Buzz Aldrin: NASA on Wrong Track With Moon-Mission Reruns

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Buzz Aldrin: NASA on Wrong Track With Moon-Mission Reruns


www.foxnews.com

Aldrin thinks NASA can do better. His plan: Scrap Ares I, stretch out the remaining six shuttle flights and fast-track the Orion to fly on a Delta IV or Atlas V. Then set our sites on colonizing Mars.

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:29 AM
link   
Buzz has a point!
The phrase "Been There......Done That" rings a bell.

Is Buzz correct? Should we skip the Moon and go straight to Mars?

Perhaps there is more to the story than NASA is admitting regarding going back to the Moon. With all the interest in the Moon lately from other countries and now NASA wanting to go back there, perhaps something is up.

What could it be? Could it be about energy, ie Helium 3?

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:35 AM
link   
The interest in the moon is to turn it into a fueling station. A giant gas station for space craft. If there are water sources there and not just remnants of comets it would be possible to utilize that for the use by astronauts living there, working at the gas station producing fuel for everyone in space.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:41 AM
link   
Isnt it so that there is no need to 'start' colonizing Mars, isnt there colonies there? The Trilateral Russia,Usa and E.t.


Or is that a pack of lies too ? goddamn, no one has the capability to speak the truth...



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:45 AM
link   
Buzz makes a good arguement.

He also makes a good rap album. I'm not joking, he is making it with Snoop Dog!



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:47 AM
link   
Both good points, guys.

I think NASA really can do better, and we should work on colonizing Mars. If for no other reason, to focus the public's mind on working together towards a common goal bigger than any one man. Like a team building exercise.

It might also get kids excited about science


Sending a man to Mars would make me feel proud of this country again -- and I wouldn't mind paying for it, either. Although, I think it would be preferable to cut some of the more frivolous expenses out of the bloated annual trillion dollar defense budget to pay for it instead



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kaytagg
Although, I think it would be preferable to cut some of the more frivolous expenses out of the bloated annual trillion dollar defense budget to pay for it instead

Leave the defense budget alone. I have a better idea.
How about removing all the frivolous spending and expenses out of Obama's bloated MULTI-TRILLION dollar bailouts/government takeovers/liberal policies?



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:58 AM
link   
You need energy to get there and no wondering eye's to inform the public on what is going on.


the U.S. space agency has neither announced nor denied any desire to mine helium-3, it has nevertheless placed advocates of mining He3 in influential positions. For its part, Russia claims that the aim of any lunar program of its own--for what it's worth, the rocket corporation Energia recently started blustering, Soviet-style, that it will build a permanent moon base by 2015-2020--will be extracting He3.

The Chinese, too, apparently believe that helium-3 from the moon can enable fusion plants on Earth. This fall, the People's Republic expects to orbit a satellite around the moon and then land an unmanned vehicle there in 2011.

www.technologyreview.com...

It has already been decided.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 06:09 AM
link   
Personally I think we need to go to the moon and set up a permanent base there and use this as a stepping stone to Mars and beyond, the way we are slowly destroying our planet means that we will need to find a new home sooner than many think and this will ultimately only happen by going out into deep space. For this to happen we really need to start investing in new forms of propulsion as well as ways to protects craft from small debris that flies through space as well?



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by Kaytagg
Although, I think it would be preferable to cut some of the more frivolous expenses out of the bloated annual trillion dollar defense budget to pay for it instead

Leave the defense budget alone. I have a better idea.
How about removing all the frivolous spending and expenses out of Obama's bloated MULTI-TRILLION dollar bailouts/government takeovers/liberal policies?


It would be nice if Obama were a liberal. Pure fantasy, though.
There is no "government takeover" going on. That's basically a delusion:



The government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) are a group of financial services corporations created by the United States Congress. Their function is to enhance the flow of credit to targeted sectors of the economy and to make those segments of the capital market more efficient and transparent. The desired effect of the GSEs is to enhance the availability and reduce the cost of credit to the targeted borrowing sectors: agriculture, home finance and education. Congress created the first GSE in 1916 with the creation of the Farm Credit System; it initiated GSEs in the home finance segment of the economy with the creation of the Federal Home Loan Banks in 1932; and it targeted education when it chartered Sallie Mae in 1972 (although Congress allowed Sallie Mae to relinquish its government sponsorship and become a fully private institution via legislation in 1995). The residential mortgage borrowing segment is by far the largest of the borrowing segments in which the GSEs operate. Together, the three mortgage finance GSEs (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the 12 Federal Home Loan Banks) have several trillion dollars of on-balance sheet assets. The federal government possesses warrants which, if exercised, would allow them to take a 79.9% ownership share in the companies. The federal government has not currently exercised these warrants.

Other corporations owned by the federal government include the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (which does business as Amtrak), the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, American International Group (AIG), General Motors, and the United States Postal Service. Many states have government owned businesses for operations as well (e.g. North Dakota Mill and Elevator or South Dakota Public Broadcasting). Generally speaking, a statute passed by a legislature specifically sets up a government owned company in order to undertake a specific public purpose with public funds or public property.


en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
fas.org...

Most of these corporations have a history of socializing losses while privatizing profits, even before the Mortgage meltdown, such as Amtrak.

as discussed here

We have virtually no government involvement in private enterprise, and when it is, it's almost always there to simply soak up the losses using tax payer funds, while allowing the "captains of the ship" to walk away with their exorbitant profits.

I realize GM is literally the only thing you see in the news these days, but it's a minuscule part of American industry, and doesn't constitute a "takeover," despite what trusty reliable Rush Limbaugh might tell you.

Furthermore, GM went bankrupt due to bad business decisions coupled with a world financial crises. The government stepped in and bought a majority of stock that nobody else on the planet earth wanted, and as such I would expect for the government to have a say in what the company they own does.
It is going to be handed over to private hands soon enough.




In regards to the defense budget that you want "left alone," perhaps you should consider costs compared to other countries:

China’s military spending 2009 (up 14% from last year): $70.3 billion source
Russia's military spending 2009 (up 25% from last year): $50 billion source
United States military spending 2009: $651.2 billion source

The 2005 U.S. military budget is almost as much as the rest of the world's defense spending combined source
US spends 1 trillion dollars on fighter jets (even though the US has no enemies with an air force) source
Military discretionary spending accounts for more than half of the U.S. federal discretionary spending, which is all of the U.S. federal government budget that is not appropriated for mandatory spending. (Budget)

Still think we should "leave it alone?"

[edit on 25-6-2009 by Kaytagg]



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory


Buzz has a point!
The phrase "Been There......Done That" rings a bell.

Is Buzz correct? Should we skip the Moon and go straight to Mars?

Perhaps there is more to the story than NASA is admitting regarding going back to the Moon. With all the interest in the Moon lately from other countries and now NASA wanting to go back there, perhaps something is up.

What could it be? Could it be about energy, ie Helium 3?

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


I'm confused as to why Buzz Aldrin, who is obviously familiar with the woes of the space program, would suggest this?

A Moon base would not only reduce the cost, but also the times of our space missions, construction and deployment of craft from the moon would help us greatly, all round.

Same for Mars really, only it's much further away, anyone who's played an RTS knows to keep your important structures close to home!


This is ignoring the abundance of a more efficient fuel source on the moon.

EMM


CX

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 07:09 AM
link   
Maybe he saw something whilst he was up there that makes him think it would be wise to aviod it and move onto Mars?


CX.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 07:13 AM
link   
Could it be that dear old Buzz doesn't want the truth revealed that NASA has been lieing to us, along with the compliance of those astronauts who continue to tell us that they discovered nothing of great importance?
Buzz doesn't want us going there and NASA wants to start bombing it! I think us conspiracy theorists can be forgiven for smelling a rather large rat. . ?



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by solidshot
Personally I think we need to go to the moon and set up a permanent base there and use this as a stepping stone to Mars and beyond, the way we are slowly destroying our planet means that we will need to find a new home sooner than many think and this will ultimately only happen by going out into deep space. For this to happen we really need to start investing in new forms of propulsion as well as ways to protects craft from small debris that flies through space as well?


I agree. A moon base is the first step in expanded exploration of our solar system and beyond. I imagine anti-matter will be the first fuel used for deep space exploration and quite frankly the idea of storeing large amounts of it on earth is frightning. The moon is a logical place to set up a logistical support base.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kaytagg
It would be nice if Obama were a liberal. Pure fantasy, though.
There is no "government takeover" going on. That's basically a delusion

Wow!
You cannot be serious!
Yeah, you are right, Obama is a extreme liberal.
If you don't see this fact then you are beyond help and nothing I say will change your mind so what is the point in trying. Sad, just sad.

I don't know how you describe "government takover" but recently, the government HAS been taking over large businesses. Let's see....we have the banks, insurance companies, Chrysler & GM just to name a few. Now back to reality unlike that long winded bloated copy/pasted dribble you posted. Earth to Kaytagg: The government is currently taking over corporations. Are you living under a rock?



Still think we should "leave it alone?"

Umm....Yes and in fact, we should increase the defense budget.
You must stop comparing the U.S. to other countries. It's irrelevant what other countries spend on defense. It's a moot point.

Look, this is NOT the thread to discuss this topic which is why I was brief. Let's stick to the topic here before the thread totally gets derailed.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Mintwithahole.
 





Could it be that dear old Buzz doesn't want the truth revealed that NASA has been lieing to us, along with the compliance of those astronauts who continue to tell us that they discovered nothing of great importance?

You are barking up the wrong tree. Buzz Aldrin is one of the few astronauts who BELIEVE that UFO's are real, and has hinted at NASA hiding that fact.

All of this talk about Mars may be a moot point. Barney Frank, on Bill O'Reilly last night, said that he is pushing to cancel Mars missions to pay for Obama's health care program.

Maybe if Barney stopped buying so many cheeseburgers and blintzes, and charging the budget office, we'd have enough money for both.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Congratulations WhatTheory.

Under the guise of a NASA thread, you were able to redirect into your typical Bash Obama vitriol in only 3 posts.
Nice work.

On Topic:

Buzz is a NASA loyalist. He keeps their secrets and they return the favor. I doubt there is much legitimacy in the dust up.

Regards...KK



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Congratulations WhatTheory.

Under the guise of a NASA thread, you were able to redirect into your typical Bash Obama vitriol in only 3 posts.

And as usual, we have your typical knee-jerk vitriol response.

I guess you just happened to overlook the fact that I was responding to a poster or as usual you intentionally are disengenuous.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Congratulations WhatTheory.

Under the guise of a NASA thread, you were able to redirect into your typical Bash Obama vitriol in only 3 posts.

... I guess you just happened to overlook the fact that I was responding to a poster or as usual you intentionally are disengenuous.


The poster's response was non-partisan. It was YOU who took the low blow.

Re-read your own thread. Your hypocrisy is documented and genuine.

You were saying?



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   
BOTH OF YOU STOP IT>

ON TOPIC NOW



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join