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.

 

Rep. Posey Introduces "Back to the Moon" Bill

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Rep. Posey Introduces "Back to the Moon" Bill


news.yahoo.com

As promised in a recent op-ed, Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., has introduced H.R. 1641, the "Reasserting American Leadership in Space Act" or the "REAL Space Act". In the vernacular it is being called the "Back to the Moon Bill."

Thus far the bill had four cosponsors, Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, Rep. Pete Olson, R-Texas, and Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 04:32 AM
link   
This is good news for fans of NASA but I wonder how self-serving this is for the representatives and their constituencies being that all of them are from states which would benefit from NASA spending on this regardless of the benefits for the nation.

In general I don't see why we don't go back to the moon. The various benefits of doing so have been talked about at length. Also, do we really want to leave it to the Chinese to get back there?

What are your thoughts?

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 04:45 AM
link   
How about this: Instead of them sending us there, we send them...one way.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 04:49 AM
link   
Waste of money. And I don't believe that we "have to get there before they do". If we had the money to spend, then maybe we could entertain the thought. But, we don't have the money.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 04:55 AM
link   
yep let's go back finding aliens



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by JustSomeIdiot
 


y bother now ...not because of the Chinese...is there any good purpose..or did the American astronauts land on the moon ? if not r they scared that the Chinese will expose their lies



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by atsmem1980
 

Well, I certainly don't buy into the Moon Hoax craziness, but going back to the moon provides an opportunity to demonstrate how we did it and that we did it and could address quite a few of the other crazy-ass ideas people have raised around here...



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 05:16 AM
link   
I'll only support further human space flight programs, if NASA develops a field-propelled anti-gravity saucer-ship to launch in!



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Larryman
I'll only support further human space flight programs, if NASA develops a field-propelled anti-gravity saucer-ship to launch in!

So you'd limit them to using technologies that are at best untested and mostly likely unworkable? Well, that's a plan for success.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 05:20 AM
link   
Personally, I think it's a good thing. If we don't assert ourselves in space soon by way of a space colony on another world, we may be destined for a similar fate as the dinosaurs. It's ultimately imperative that we get off this rock we call Earth, if for no other reason than to preserve the human race from extinction via huge space rock.

Besides, I don't think all of that empty space is out there just for us to look at and wonder.

As far as the "we don't have any money" angle goes, I have to disagree. Money means nothing when it's not backed by anything. For all intents and purposes, it's just a tally on a sheet. One pencil eraser can remove it, and start everything over again, if it was decided that way. Also, if there was an announcement that we would be going to the moon, and then immediately to Mars, there would be a job boom the likes of which hasn't been seen since the 40s. Everything would be in demand, and there would be no need to worry about finding a job.

There are many other possible residual side-effects from this, but the point should be that we need to get off this rock sooner rather than later.

TheBorg
edit on 25-4-2011 by TheBorg because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBorg
Also, if there was an announcement that we would be going to the moon, and then immediately to Mars, there would be a job boom the likes of which hasn't been seen since the 40s. Everything would be in demand, and there would be no need to worry about finding a job.


I generally agree except that the majority of jobs would likely be specialized (no problem for me but those liberal arts majors better hope for some serious trickle-down). Also this time hopefully the jobs won't disappear due to the government loosing interest before anything sustainable can be achieved.

I am also perfectly happy with an effort that is multi-national. It doesn't have to be a flag-waving effort, but I do prefer one that will benefit our nation as much as any other. Shared burden means shared benefits, but the burden comes first.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by JustSomeIdiot

Originally posted by Larryman
I'll only support further human space flight programs, if NASA develops a field-propelled anti-gravity saucer-ship to launch in!

So you'd limit them to using technologies that are at best untested and mostly likely unworkable? Well, that's a plan for success.


Yes... I would. It all depends on what 'success' is desired from the space agency. The getting to the Moon success was fulfilled in 1969. But the success of developing a useful space propulsion drive has never been done - and never been attempted.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 05:38 AM
link   
I just wonder if it even has anything to do with space ha, you never know with these snakes. And it definitely seems like it would be a waste of money, money that the United States doesn't even have haha



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Larryman

Originally posted by JustSomeIdiot

Originally posted by Larryman
I'll only support further human space flight programs, if NASA develops a field-propelled anti-gravity saucer-ship to launch in!

So you'd limit them to using technologies that are at best untested and mostly likely unworkable? Well, that's a plan for success.


Yes... I would. It all depends on what 'success' is desired from the space agency. The getting to the Moon success was fulfilled in 1969. But the success of developing a useful space propulsion drive has never been done - and never been attempted.

I am all for investing in new technology, but I think they should invest wisely. The few proponents of Heim's work have some interesting effects but at best it is bleeding edge and according to some highly doubtful. But yeah, throw some one on a few seemingly 'out-there' ideas - who knows some of those might work out. But you better have a plan B. And maybe C.

Also, to get to the moon isn't the point. It is to be able to do it over and over and be able to STAY THERE with permanent facilities. The Apollo astronauts were very lucky they didn't get fried - this time we'll have to construct habitats that can survive "stormy days". That takes technology and experience that will do us well here and on our next steps away from our home.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by JustSomeIdiot

Originally posted by Larryman

Originally posted by JustSomeIdiot

Originally posted by Larryman
I'll only support further human space flight programs, if NASA develops a field-propelled anti-gravity saucer-ship to launch in!

So you'd limit them to using technologies that are at best untested and mostly likely unworkable? Well, that's a plan for success.


Yes... I would. It all depends on what 'success' is desired from the space agency. The getting to the Moon success was fulfilled in 1969. But the success of developing a useful space propulsion drive has never been done - and never been attempted.

I am all for investing in new technology, but I think they should invest wisely. The few proponents of Heim's work have some interesting effects but at best it is bleeding edge and according to some highly doubtful. But yeah, throw some one on a few seemingly 'out-there' ideas - who knows some of those might work out. But you better have a plan B. And maybe C.

Also, to get to the moon isn't the point. It is to be able to do it over and over and be able to STAY THERE with permanent facilities. The Apollo astronauts were very lucky they didn't get fried - this time we'll have to construct habitats that can survive "stormy days". That takes technology and experience that will do us well here and on our next steps away from our home.


"Reach for the stars." An investment in a new propulsion drive that would enable creation of a moonbase on a moon of Jupiter, would also enable creation of a moonbase on the Earth's moon. That sound like 'wise' investment to me. Whether it ends up being by way of Heim, Alcubierre, Tesla, or other advanced techniques.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 06:18 AM
link   
This is wonderful news, I hope he succeeds.

Cancelled Constellation program was too expensive and technologically did not make much sense, but it was right in one thing - Moon is the next logical step. It is time for us to go back, and this time, to stay.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by JustSomeIdiot
 


I'm curious..
Why didn't they send a shuttle to the moon?
At least a quick orbit if not a landing..
The shuttles have plenty of excess storage capacity for fuel and life support etc..



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by JustSomeIdiot
I'm curious..
Why didn't they send a shuttle to the moon?
At least a quick orbit if not a landing..
The shuttles have plenty of excess storage capacity for fuel and life support etc..

Well, the Space Shuttles do not have the means by which they could leverage the cargo space for fuel storage (piping liquid air fuels is a bit tricky) and I am sure there are other 'minor' engineering issues as well.

I assume they could have slowly assembled some sort of craft as they did the space station in a couple or three trips, but that would be just one more jaunt around the moon - not much in the way of new discovery or capability for the money they would have to spend.

Who knows, it would not surprise me to find out someone at NASA did a study or two as to how that might be accomplished... Just never made it anywhere.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Well said, Borg.

My opinion on this matter is to first off, not have a space race. The last thing we need is more competition among world "superpower" nations.

A collaborative effort IS what we need as someone has already mentioned. JFK was pushing for collaboration with the Russians for space missions and technology. He also sent a directive out to investigate and reassess UFO cases and basically lift the veil of secrecy.
He was killed ten days after his last request to Kruschev in Russia.

We should take his lead, quit living in fear and ignorance, stop competing and start working together.

The money issue is a bunch of crap as well. Honestly, we cut social services and programs here in the US this year, but boosted the military budget?!?!
How is the contributing to a better way of life for us and others in the world?

A new chapter in space exploration would be a good thing. Not only for morale of the U.S. people and the world (if we worked together on the project), but we have a whole lot to learn about our neighboring bodies, let alone the rest of the solar system and galaxy.

How long does the caveman want to stay in the dark before he gets curious and learns to build a dwelling? Or should he wait for the cave to collapse and be left with nowhere to go?

I'm very skeptical of NASA and their goings-on, which is why we need to work with other countries.
If you want checks and balances, have countries working together who you really would never expect to.
A US/CHINA/INDIA/EU space program.

Of course this would open a whole entire can of worms with much more to talk about. But if we want to see about making colonies on the moon, then let's do it.

Another important thing would be an open and transparent line of communication that basically the citizens of the world could observe, to some extent at least. There is a lot of talk and research done regarding many, many controversial topics, work by Richard Hoagland comes to mind. At least some more data could be gathered and claims could be investigated.

I realize to investigate these claims will cost money and time in a mission that probably won't have much to spare. So that's where a small colony atmosphere comes in. That would open the door, a baby must take it's first step. It seems we've already begun to crawl.

Our engineers have been rather unproductive and lazy lately. In the past couple of decades the only things we've noticed significant improvement on would be electronics and gadgetry. Of course this can be taken advantage of, but a smaller and smaller iPhone with more and more App capabilities is all one great distraction.

If I was standing on the moon, I wouldn't give a damn who was calling my phone..



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
don't ya think that if TPTB wanted to go back to the moon they would have by now..?
don't ya think that all the money TPTB have spent on satelites looking down on us could have been used to get us back to the moon?
don't ya think the TPTB could have put a base on the moon by now if they wanted to?

maybe we've been warned out of going back to the moon or indeed from leaving close-earth orbit..(?)
the billions of dollars spent on america exerting it's (western) influence on a world that doesn't really want (or need) it could have been used in a far more productive way by uniting the 'human' race by being used by getting us to the moon and beyond..
The bill proposed won't get past (or passed) by congress that I can say (type) with some certainty.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join