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.

 

The Russians want to build a huge MILITARY moon base.

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Cannot see the US allowing this to happen... one way or another.

20 years gives us time to perfect that new laser weapon the Navy has and mount it to a satalite




posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Where did Putin ever say anything about this being a MILITARY base, OP?

Михаил Корниенко: «Из космоса я звоню родным, близким и даже учительнице Original Russian source; (Use Google translate to read it).


"Russia will boost its efforts to explore the solar system and seek a bigger share of the market for space launches in the next decade, Prime Minister Vladmir Putin said on Thursday.

Speaking ahead of the 50th anniversary of Yuri Gagarin's pioneering space flight, Putin said Russia's plans go beyond transporting crews to the International Space Station.

"Russia should not limit itself to the role of an international space ferryman. We need to increase our presence on the global space market," Putin told space and other government officials at his residence outside Moscow.

Energy-rich Russia's space budget for 2010-2011 is 200 billion roubles ($7.09 billion), which Putin said made it the world's fourth-largest spender on space after U.S. space agency NASA, the European Space Agency and France.

"Such resources enable us to set serious goals," Putin said."


No mention of anything military, just hyperbole about expanding their overall presence, including ISS and other space agencies;


Using existing experience of cooperation, we propose to combine the efforts of States Parties to the ISS program for implementation of projects studying the Moon, Mars and other planets in our solar system. We have here your suggestions. We know the reaction of our partners, we are studying this reaction, and we will choose the most suitable, the most interesting for our country cooperation options. Please also Roskosmos jointly with the Russian Academy of Sciences to prepare plans for research and space exploration for the long term and results in August this year reported to the Government.


To me this doesn't say much at all, just vague hyperbole about how 50 years from now Russia (or any space program/agency) will be doing all these great cool things that will benefit mankind. In the end it will end up like all such talk, little to nothing will be done, we'll still be operating some feeble space station, and no moon bases, much less man on mars.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Hey,
Now we get to see more faked photos from NASA showing how "we built a base first".


Though Im sure "we" already have one up there.
"We", as in "humans".

But still..
that would be funny..

Couldnt let Russia beat us the first time..
think they are gonna let Russia beat them now?

No,
not even if they have to pretend they accomplished it first. lol

"sorry russia, don't bother, see, we already have one!" lol



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
I don't for a minute believe that the inhabitants of the moon will tolerate the Russians building long term bases there.

The Moon is very rich in tons of stuff as well as H-3 which was mentioned. They know how to use the H-3 to power the ships for the return trip to earth and have for years now. Why do you think we don't already have bases on the Moon? We could be mining this whole time building very large bases - we have all the materials needed on the Moon already. but we don't why?

The inhabitants won't let us. And yes, i'm dead serious.
edit on 16-4-2011 by JohnPhoenix because: edit



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Very interesting post. I read few days ago that congress has mandated a 130t heavy lifter to NASA by 2016 It reallt stuck out to me as this is big for even the aries moon launch. I exciting to me I think there is alot going on and the current regime needs to go and alot of people are just waiting but want the NASA pencils moving in the meantime.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Is this for real? If so great i'm glad someone else is going instead of the U.S if the public doesn't have enough interest in space they deserve to be beat to be the first to establish a moon base. Too many americans these days are brain-washed by entertainment and reality T.V no-one gives a crap about space anymore. Its sad and its scary to say that its actually true. When will America Wake up




Why not get more funding for space instead of dumping it for wars...... The Look at this graph

NASA is a great company its sad to see so many people look at it in a bad light when they do so much with such little funding; Compared to the Military.

Now if the Chinese and the Russians beat the U.S to the moon i don't know what will happen but we will not be the one with the base on the moon first and i find it a little bit unsettling..

edit on 16-4-2011 by XRaDiiX because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
U.S will make it back before Russia.

For sure.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by CanadianDream420
 


They mean a base on the moon not just making it back
for another round trip..
edit on 16-4-2011 by XRaDiiX because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Russia is going to have a big surprise when they get there lol Hope they wont start a war there for the moon territories



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Where did Putin ever say anything about this being a MILITARY base, OP?

To me this doesn't say much at all, just vague hyperbole about how 50 years from now Russia (or any space program/agency) will be doing all these great cool things that will benefit mankind. In the end it will end up like all such talk, little to nothing will be done, we'll still be operating some feeble space station, and no moon bases, much less man on mars.



That is interesting. I was taking the English language sources at their word. Thanks for looking up the original source.



It makes me wonder if they aren't trying to play this up as a military threat in order to scare us into throwing more funding into the space program. Not saying the space program couldn't use more funding but, does the government and the MSM have to resort to such blatant propaganda in order to move us in that direction?

Do they think the public only responds to military threats anymore and can't be motivated by a sense of discovery and curiosity of the universe around us?



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 



It makes me wonder if they aren't trying to play this up as a military threat in order to scare us into throwing more funding into the space program. Not saying the space program couldn't use more funding but, does the government and the MSM have to resort to such blatant propaganda in order to move us in that direction?


Well to be sure MSM loves sensationalist headlines, but whoever wrote that article probably still has their head stuck in the "red scare" era. Putin never once mentioned "military" in his speech, and to be honest this speech is much like our president's speeches when it comes to the space program, hyping up our goals. Bush talked about a manned mission to mars, some old communist fear-monger probably wrote an editorial in Pravda about Bush's planned Mars military base.

I don't even see that a military base on the moon would be all that big a threat - not compared to the threat of weaponized satellites. We'd have any such base under constant surveillance and if it ever did launch an attack on any landmass we'd have days to respond (given the speeds of current missiles and rockets). A base on the moon would also be extremely vulnerable to rocket bombardment from earth, what would take billions of dollars and years to build could be wiped out in an instant.

If you go back and look through Putin's speech, he really is saying that he wants to cooperate with other countries to establish a moon base, for all mankind.

Since Clinton left office, we've tacked on nearly $10 trillion in deficit, most of that squandered on pointless Middle East wars and bailing out Wall Street banks. Think of how many space stations and moon bases that money could have built. The US really, really blew it, and if Russians or Chinese want to develop a moon base, who are we to complain?



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by XRaDiiX
 



Why not get more funding for space instead of dumping it for wars...... The Look at this graph


Why not look at the budget, in general?

The Military is only about 15% of the budget. 60% is composed of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid and other income supplement spending.

That said - throwing more money at Nasa does not necessarily mean we will see a proportionate return on investment. Further - we could jeopardize the private space ventures that are beginning to gain momentum. While we could stand to funnel a little more into Nasa than we do - what they really need is more general support in the form of a mission.

Let me elaborate: NASA's mission was, essentially, exploratory. We wanted to send people places and learn things, as well as look deeper into the cosmos. However - we're rapidly approaching the point where our capabilities will exceed our endeavors. In all honesty, we 'should' be mining asteroids about now and dreaming of spending a night at a hotel/casino on the moon. We have had the technological capability for a while, and continue to make leaps and bounds. At some point, though, we have to take the step and commit to developing utilitarian solutions for industry and commerce. Or we will be in the year 3150 and wondering what happened to all of the ancient ambitions of going back to the moon, mars, and bypassing the speed of light restrictions.

If NASA is to see increased funding - they also need to see an increased and revised mission to reflect the current issues. One of those is going to be their role and interaction with private space ventures.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


Do you really think billion dollar launches to just get satellites in space is going to provide a cost effective way of getting things in mass from the moon back to earth? How much tonnage, I mean poundage of this do you think can be mined and transported from the moon to earth would be, a ballpark figure would suffice. Then price per pound that with its expected power yield. Its no more ridiculous in the 70s as it is today, oil is just that cheap.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


Interesting, but....

The things I've read still show some pretty steep costs associated with attempting to mine He3 from the Moon....just the distance, and complications alone. Getting the infrastructure in place is an incredible investment....probably with a very long time to reap any dividends. Still, people are smart, and creative.....may find an economical solution some day.

The He3 isn't just "laying around" either.....even on the Moon it is only a tiny fraction of the regolith. They toss out numbers like "A million tons" as a total amount on the Lunar surface.....BUT, you have to process much, much, much more in order to extract that. (Other raw materials may be found useful, of course....this may make it more econmical).



The Moon's surface contains helium-3 at concentrations on the order of 0.01 ppm in sunlit areas, and concentrations as much as five times higher in permanently shadowed regions..... Because of the low concentrations of helium-3, any mining equipment would need to process extremely large amounts of regolith (over 100 million tons of regolith to obtain one ton of helium 3),[


Wiki's take





(Part 2--- "It's not a madman's dream, to go to the Moon, and access its resources". [Astronaut Harrison Schmitt] But, ...."not everyone believes we should be looking at it as an object to be exploited....."):







edit on 17 April 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Here’s a couple of artist conceptual renderings for fun:

“Tonka” Moon Dump Truck Drone Concept:



Shuttle Transport Dump Truck Concept.
(I’m sure it has obligatory sign on rear that reads: DO NOT PUSH.)






edit on 17-4-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


NASA has done a fine job achieving what they have in the past decade with the abysmal funding they have received. You are quite the funny one indeed suggesting NASA is doing a bad job when they do not get the proper amount of funds to do what most people expect them to do.

I suggest you take a long hard look at that graph again


in the 1960's NASA was receiving 2-4% of the federal budget depending on year. In the past few years they received a mere 0.57-0.68% of the budget. Put that in your mouth and suck it! Remember

-KEPLER
-HUBBLE
-CASSINI
-SPACE SHUTTLE
-ISS
-PIONEERS
-HUGYENS
-MARS ROVERS
-MRO (mars reconaissance orbiter)
-And many more

I think NASA has achieved those and many more great missions and accomplishments/inventions and they don't need people criticizing them constantly about failing when they have done so much with so little. PEACE

On a last note: I Applaud all the great hard working people in the private space Industry and NASA all those great scientist/engineers/and employees, who did; and are leading the way in the future of space travel and exploration into the last frontier.
edit on 17-4-2011 by XRaDiiX because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
2030... WWIII will happen before then. Lame.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by XRaDiiX
 



in the 1960's NASA was receiving 2-4% of the federal budget depending on year. In the past few years they received a mere 0.57-0.68% of the budget. Put that in your mouth and suck it!




Put that into context, as well.

Also, careful what you put in my mouth - I am known to bite.


NASA has done a fine job achieving what they have in the past decade with the abysmal funding they have received.


I think you should go back and read my post again. I never said they were doing a bad job. Simply that the role of NASA is going to have to change, because they are about to be left in the dust and the job of exploration about to be taken over by private interests.

It's only natural, too - as space-flight capability becomes more common and prolific.


I think NASA has achieved those and many more great missions and accomplishments/inventions and they don't need people criticizing them constantly about failing when they have done so much with so little.


My other statement simply stated that more funding does not necessarily yield better results. We could swell NASA's budget to ten times what it is today, and not see much more come from them. It all depends upon how the funds and projects are managed as well as what the mission of NASA is.

I do think it is a mistake for us to not build a replacement for the Shuttle, though. That is a critical lapse of judgment. We've been tinkering with models and designs for a shuttle replacement since the 90s - it's time to get one of those off of the drawing board and into space.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Слава России!



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Funny you post a chart that means nothing! that chart basically shows increased spending for NASA due to infation good job showing nothing meaningful..

Keep supporting your military industrial complex government shill!




top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join