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.

 

Why NASA won't return to the Moon

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by tom goose
The reason that they will not go "back" to the moon is that they were never there in the first place. If they went now they would have to explain why it is completely different than when they went during apollo.

When they landed the mars rover they basically dropped the darn thing and let it bounce till it came to a stop. are they going to do that to astronauts? how could they possibly test a rocket system designed to perform in an environment that is unlike anything found where it was built? how did they astronauts practice to the point they were confident they could succeed in the mission?



Maybe they were winging it? Or perhaps the did some black ops testing before the public mission. Perhaps they sent men out before in previous test and it failed massively and we will never hear bout the missions where men died during testing. Or perhaps if you believe that we captured ships or are interacting with et's before the moon landing that we included tech from et craft and perhaps were even instructed in how to go about doing out business.

I mean if you believe that we haven't been to the moon because of the K-belt theory you must ask yourself how do you really know conditions in that area are really like they are described to you... too hostile for humans to survive past it. You really don't know unless you have been there.




posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelknives52
 


but isnt the moon supposed to be hollow?
just a thought



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzle flash
 


The thickness of dense materials that would be required to shield an astronaut from ionizing radiation would be prohibitive . You could not send that weight into space as it would require iteratively more fuel , bigger heavier fuel tanks , heavier structure to support the greater weight again more fuel burn and it never stops . Then you would have more retro rocket requirements .



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by SimonPeter
 


Care to back that up with some calculations and corroborating information?

Or is this just your opinion?

I apologize for scoffing at such a suggestion, but I cannot help it. When people say something is impossible technologically I laugh at them.

Remember what people told the Wright Brothers? Making a big machine fly is impossible!
But who was proven correct?



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by NWOnoworldorder
 


How would this be determined? When did nasa send a terraforming machine to mine down to its core? My comments concerning it being a hollowed out space station for a class 5 space faring civilization or humans is just speculation. I have to do some research into theories but I would believe that the moon has a core comprised of something magnetic or something since it has an effect on water on the planet earth amongst other things.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   
maybe you should ask a rocket scientist who actually works for nasa if it's possible to get thru the van allen belt instead of relying on wikipedia.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   
I hope I am not stirring the pot ..but ?Kinda seems odd but informative to the topic.What do you think !

edit on 13-3-2011 by gringoboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Don't suppose any of this has to do with the upcoming film 'Apollo 18' who's tagline line is something like 'there's a reason we never went back to the moon'.
Just a thought.

trailers.apple.com...



edit on 13-3-2011 by pazcat because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   
In the same way that the US takes land from foreign countries in exchange for weapons technology, an international body could have given land resources on the moon in exchange for advanced technology. I don't know if it is true or not but it is interesting to think of a first world nation getting treated by an advanced nation the way they treat the third world nations. It's a cycle, like Humans, to animals, to plants, if you throw advanced species in there, the humans become animals compared to the genetically higher species.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Here is some thing from my old NASA books: The problem of protecting astronauts against the radiation found within the Van Allen belts was recognized before the advent of manned space flight. These two bands of trapped radiation, discovered during the Explorer I flight in 1958, consist principally of protons and high-energy electrons, a significant part of which were, at that time, debris from high-altitude tests of nuclear weapons. The simple solution to protection is to remain under the belts [below an altitude of approximately 556 km ( 300 nautical miles) when in Earth orbit, and to traverse the belts rapidly on the way to outer space.

Here is thre internet article, I found it for you: lsda.jsc.nasa.gov...
BIOMEDICAL RESULTS OF APOLLO , RADIATION PROTECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION.

It's really a very interesting read and goes into detail on the Van Allen Belts.
In terms of hazard to crewmen in the heavy, well shielded Command Module, even one of the largest solar-particle event series on record (August 4-9, 1972) would not have caused any impairment of crewmember functions or ability of the crewmen to complete their mission safely.
It is estimated that within the Command Module during this event the crewmen would have received a dose of 360 rads to their skin and 35 rads to their blood-forming organs (bone and spleen). Radiation doses to crewmen while inside the thinly shielded Lunar Module or during an extravehicular activity (EVA) would be extremely serious for such a particle event.


edit on 13-3-2011 by guohua because: Spelling

edit on 13-3-2011 by guohua because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-3-2011 by guohua because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by pazcat
 


wow actually I never heard of this movie good post. I am definitely going to go see this.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   
the moon story,....
some rambling, so bare with me,...
you could take a look on earth,... and you can go thousand years back, or maybe in the future.
as for what I've seen, any new territory , and there is non on earth,...
where a Flag has been placed, is usually , occupied and defended by military force.
look around,... try to visit a piece of the south-pole, sure you'd need clearance .
even every piece if ice . ---
Now it is true, the Van Allen Belt, has some serious power, but lets boil it down a little on humans.
Humans born on earth, made from earth, let's say, we do have a soul,... ok
well it would make sense to me, that leaving earth, would rip us apart, aka soul ripped from body.
what would mean, with conventional technology, it is not possible to go to space.
As such , the Space station, or space shuttle, do not qualify,.. it's like trowing a rock across the water.
---
ok , since 1968, it's been a long time, generations of computers electronic, etc,...
take a side the human factor, lets even say, we could do some decent low density redundant circuits,
that can pass trough the Van Allen belt, be functional enough,... oh, did we have functional satellites going to mars, or was that another good rendering ?..
well, the point be, in that case, sending robots to do some work, would be perfectly fine , would it.
But since we don't have any offical robots , in that area, that would bring it back to the first point.
The only reason we are not occupying the moon, is , because somebody else is.
And the cost, to establish a presence , would be higher than the profit.
As such, these mining grounds for minerals are off-limits.
it's just some rambling, if you want the truth, you will find it , in a syndicated and sponsored government media .
some mumbling, looking at the stars, is there any intelligent life out there, is there ?
well, everyplace outside of the darn planet, has intelligent life , except here on earth !



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelknives52
 


Same I really want to see it too.
It may not be related to the topic but it does sound familiar. Who knows, lost footage, viral marketing I guess anything is possible.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by pazcat
 


as long as it isn't a flop like Battle: Los Angeles. I was really hyped by the trailers waiting for an alien to interact with a marine in their auto tune voice we just want you to die. They really needed to cut out the marine corp. hooah commando bull shyt and include some gory scenes like a captured marine being examined on a probing table, perhaps grays behind the invasion plot with the bio mechanical drones or hell I would take the grays getting involved in fighting back the invaders. Perhaps the mech-aliens were a rival race and those saucers come into play.

I mean Battle: LA was a badly executed ID4 minus will smith and an actual story line. What was the point of even having the viral marketing there were sightings around the world for decades. It seemed like these aliens half assed it... decades worth of planning for water failed by a earth based drone command module being destroyed by a normal missile.

Really if the aliens were smart and if they just wanted water they could have done some of the following suggestions.

A) Launch water collectors in the bottom of ocean trenchs and suck up the water to their hearts content.

B) Establish a forward moon base and place orbital command satellites. If they did their homework they would know that our race is in the infancy of space travel etc. When the SGT. asked his grunt where he would place a important command module so that it would be safe... the grunt said under ground and I screamed no!!!!!! in space where the humans can easily kill it with a laser guided missile for christ sake.

C) Orbital bombardment... why send in infantry when you can zap major population centers from space. Occupation seemed a little bit silly because the only needed to stay on the planet until they collected all of the water they needed. Hell all they would have to do is bow up major oil supply lines and cut off the vital blood need to pilot our military and economy.

D) Eco-Friendly genocide - Why send infantry to an alien planet... too messy. Don't want to nuke a planet and ruin the precious water? Well why not create several seismic events across the planet to create massive tidal waves, earth quakes, and what not to cleanse the landscape of pesky humans. Then for shyts and giggles send the drones and grunts down for a human hunt.


Logistically the aliens in this movies plans were space cow shyt and pretty dumb. I guess they just felt like engaging the less advance species man to man for a resource gathering.

Many have stated perhaps earth was one front on an intergalactic war? well it would have been nice if this was the case in the movie and a UFO battle took place over los angeles humans vs. bio-roids vs. whatever else. If the human leadership was approached by a third party species that wanted to help us fight them then yes this would be acceptable.

NO i didn't want to see the same movie marine characters that fight honorably for their country... I went to see the imagined alien species and their agenda etc. The aliens barely got any screen time and they always clustered together. I kept screaming in my head NOOB TUBE THEM YOU RETARDS (video game talk for fire grenade launchers at them but the marines just kept dying.

This movie was a waste of money but let me stop ranting. I bet if we started a thread about writing a screen play for a perfect genre defining UFO/alien invasion movie on ATS it would be gold and we would win many rewards. It seems like the director googled some aspects of UFO lore etc, rented ID4, black hawkdown, and terminator on netflix and then said hey I got an great idea for a movie. We can cash in on nerds going to see it because of the cool ass trailer. Seriously why no auto-tuned alien voice or transmission in the flick. Even scenes from the aliens perspective with subtitles could have replaced the BS overly dramatic scenes. I don't even remember the names of the characters.

Hopefully this movie APOLLO 18 gets an r rating... the aliens/virus are cool... it seems like they are going to set it up like cloverfield. Should be neat. This won't be genre defining but hopefully it will play out better as an DEAD SPACE type horror film... It seems like it is going to have elements like the movie SPHERE.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   
I'll be talking soon with the REAL designated commander of Apollo-18 before it was cancelled -- astronaut Dick Gordon -- and would appreciate any suggestions for questions for the interview.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 05:28 AM
link   
I think the comments re Battle: LA were a little harsh, it's not a film looking to win awards or be a scientifically solid movie, its a good old Black Hawk Down meets ID4, great eye candy, good fun, silly script but a fun watch.

But back on track, the point regarding the Van Allen belt isn't about the tech we have achieved since we started going into space but the point that when the Apollo missions were doing it they didn't have that tech as far as I can find out, they were shielded by mm's of metal that would have had no shielding effect. The claims that it was calculated to go through the belt at it's thinnest point seem odd to me, I had been lead to believe at any point it would have been too much.

Did it all happen?

I don't know, I wasn't there, I certainly would like to believe it happened just for the point of man making a huge achievement but it's also possible it didn't happen I guess although it's a staggeringly huge feat of lies to make it have fooled so many and kept so many astronauts quiet for so long.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 05:39 AM
link   
Just a couple of points.
1/ There was an Apollo 18 wasn't there? It docked with Soyuz 19 over the south coast of England in the Apollo Soyuz Test Project! I think this relates to the as yet unconfirmed tales of an Apollo 20 and the crashed craft on the far side of the moon.
2/ Nobody has mentioned Richard Hoaglands theories that we have in the past colonised the moon and its full of ancient lunar ruins that are millenia old...



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 06:37 AM
link   
With the Russians, Brits, and Australians tracking the moon missions, surely some one would have said it was all a hoax? there was even a school in England that tracked some of the missions, cannot remember which school.(long time ago)



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 07:33 AM
link   
Personally, i think it is a case of can't not won't return to the moon.
Certainly with regards to manned landings
NASA, spent too long and too much funding on the space shuttle instead of improving thier lunar landing capability.
Now they are not capable of a manned landing in the forseeable future.
Certainly the next manned moon landing, that takes place will either be Chinese or Indian.
Both countries are certainly working in that direction, so i would say that, within the next 10 years, another country's flag, will keep the American flag company.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Because of the weight genius, for example for GAMA and XRAYS you need LEAD to shield yourself and as everyone knows LEAD is pretty heavy, imagine if a suit used at Cernobil had the weight of 30-40 KG how much whould a shuttle weigh ...



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join