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.

 

When are we going back to the moon?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
A few years back NASA said they want a man on the moon by 2018. Is all of that still planned? I also heard that China wants someone on the moon by 2017.




posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Americans have bases there already. And they have been there for quite some time. They just don't want us to know about it...



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   
i love the two thoughts on the whole moon this .
100% survayed 17.031 % say we never went another 12.098% say we not only went but used the star ship enterprize to go and now have motropolis there .
o brouther. well chian and america aside i can goto the moon any time i want and get there in underr 20 minits to boot .
man that restrount is a hopping place .



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by teklordz
Americans have bases there already. And they have been there for quite some time. They just don't want us to know about it...



Yes but i think we will go there in mass at around 2015.
Tourism and mining Helium-3
All nations we be welcome.
A medium sized spacestation will be in orbit over the moon
for support.
My guess is by 2025 there will be over 1 million people living
on the moon.


- Time will tell. -



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
As soon as the people who live there give us the green light
.

They are a bit pissed right now we keep plunging stuff into their little "resort" and taking substandard pictures.

They feel that NASA is neglecting them...

So..another twenty years or so.

~Keeper



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   
I thought that we were told not to come back to the moon.

I do find some of the things about the moon/Luna curious .

Is our moon the only one that has a perfect sync orbit that has the same side facing the planet constantly.

Just in the right position to cause a mild tide.

A large magnetic field could actually move a planet from what I understand.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 03:17 AM
link   
when nasa remembers how they went there in the first place.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:05 AM
link   
According to the rcently released Augustine commision that Obama put together, we won't go back to the Moon, or anywhere else, for the next 25 to 30 years... and that's if NASA gets another 3 billion a year in funding.




posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by fieryjaguarpaw
 


That sounds about right and my guess is that what it would take to change that, is if we actually had a breakthrough in fusion technology such that we could really use the He3 on the moon, then we'd have a strong incentive to go get some. But currently, the only fusion reactors have more power input than power output, so nobody is scrambling to build those and hence we have no immediate need for He3!!



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by teklordz
 

Oh, how very true!



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Well as the story goes may be we already have? or have been for many years!




posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 05:12 AM
link   
As for a moon i prefer if they decide to go to Europa instead



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Grayelf2009
 


Sorry but I do have to invoke the deny ignorance and correct you on something here, the Moon is not the unique one!

Every moon in the solar system except for Hyperion a moon of saturn, which is an irregular shape, orbits with the same side facing their planet just like the moon.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



Actaully I have been invited to go and look around the JET and MAST fusion facility next year, and while you are correct about JET (currently the largest fusion reactor in the wolrd) which produces 16MW but takes 20MW to generate, the new MAST reactor should produce 500MW for much less than 500MW..this is due to the increase in linear size between the two reactors.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by freakyclown
reply to post by Grayelf2009
 


Sorry but I do have to invoke the deny ignorance and correct you on something here, the Moon is not the unique one!

Every moon in the solar system except for Hyperion a moon of saturn, which is an irregular shape, orbits with the same side facing their planet just like the moon.





so quick to ignorantly deny ignorance... the guy never said our moon was the only one to synchronously orbit its parent planet.


Originally posted by Grayelf2009

I do find some of the things about the moon/Luna curious .

Is our moon the only one that has a perfect sync orbit that has the same side facing the planet constantly


-- anyways back to topic....

ask ourselves, what is keeping a millionaire from building a -relatively low cost by now [compared to how much it cost back in the 60s]- rocket and if not land just orbit the moon for a few days... ?

the Chandrayaan-1 cost roughly $83Million USD, that is the cost of a very low budget movie these days... makes you think doesnt it...

space is no one's property. anyone can go in space and see for themselves if there are bases on the moon or not. and when was the American government ever part of a "We" 'body' as the OP ask when "We" are going back to the moon....

if there were moon bases, moon mining, moon colonization, moon precious metal, or moon modern-warfare advantages, dont you think 99% of the world powers would be after them some odd 40 years ago? [ world power is not just the US, UK, and Russia to all the sand-grain brains E-denying ignorance daily on ATS]


DO you think other world leaders arent asking why hasnt the US or any other nations set foot on the moon since [and then later hoaxed] , we're not the only geniuses on ATS to ever ask such 'amazing' and eyebrow raising questions.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by freakyclown
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

the new MAST reactor should produce 500MW for much less than 500MW..this is due to the increase in linear size between the two reactors.


That will be an exciting advance in fusion technology if we get more power out than we put in! And it's great you're going to see the reactor! I wish I could see it too! But that reactor will use the deuterium-tritium fuel technology, right?

In order to get us motivated to go to the moon to get He3, we'll need to demonstrate a fusion reactor that can use the He3 with Deuterium as fuel to produce more power out than we put in. And according to the Wiki article on He3, reactors using the Deuterium-Tritium fuel are not expected for commercial power generation until 2050, and they don't even list a date when He3 reactors might go commercial, possibly because they might take even larger, more expensive reactors than the Deuterium-Tritium fueled reactors.

So it doesn't appear that there are any commercially feasible Deuterium-He3 reactors on the horizon. With MAST and ITER reactors at least we're getting closer to possible commercial applications, but they don't use the right type of fuel to motivate us to go to the moon for mining He3.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   

When are we going back to the moon?


Probably when nasa has had the time to plant a whole bunch of lunar landers to make us think they got there the first time round



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
According to the rcently released Augustine commision that Obama put together, we won't go back to the Moon, or anywhere else, for the next 25 to 30 years... and that's if NASA gets another 3 billion a year in funding.



Obama will be thrown out of Washington D.C. soon.
Ignore all Obama commissions. We will get a fresh start January 2013.
The Obama Flu will pass.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join