It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


End Of Space Shuttle: An Ailen Agenda ?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:18 PM
hmmm, too costly yada yada yada.

12 people walked on the moon within 41 months using primitive technology.

How many have gone back to the moon since 1972 using sophisticated technology and vehicles that can be used over and over again and with bigger budgets..................none!!!!!!!!!!

Either NASA was lying about the moon landings or something has happened to make them not go back.

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:25 PM
reply to post by mcrom901

Aldrin was talking about the apparent size while looking through the monocular, that's why they used the sextant to get a better look. The monocular had 10x magnification. The sextant had a magnification level of 28x.

When first seen with the naked eye it was described as:

brighter than any star and not quite the pinpoint of light that stars are

As someone in that forum you linked points out, bright point sources can appear to have more angular size than they do.

edit on 6/26/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:31 PM
reply to post by Wirral Bagpuss

Its my opinion that all publicly known space programs on this planet are smokescreens to hide the reality of extraterrestrial visitation by pretending its not happening. The black budgets involved in ET/UFO cover-up must be enormous so I do not think for one minute that budgetary concerns are a problem for NASA or any other of the most visible space cover-up operations.

NASA shelving their biggest decoy operation isn't going to change anything. Disclosure isn't going to happen. The governments of the world aren't going to let the secret out on their own and its clear that extraterrestrials aren't either.

That's all I care to speculate about with NASA because they are a large part of the problem by being a public space program that denies extraterrestrial visitation and thus has a criminal agenda of keeping the rest of us in the dark.

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:46 PM

Originally posted by Wirral Bagpuss
I have been thinking. Is there a more covert reason why the Space Shuttle programme is being retired? Yes money and budget concerns are being cited but....

What does everyone think?

As much as I'm a space shuttle supporter and space exploration enthusiast etc. The Space shuttles are antiques! No really, they were conceived in the 1960s, with technology and engineering from the 1970s and some have been modified and upgraded with 80s and 90s technology.

How many of you are still driving [Out of necessity] 30 or 40 year old cars? They have out lived their usefulness IMHO. What I get bent out of shape over is that every new Administration changes the Goals so often to the point of NASA often does not have budgetary or project commitment continuity. Clinton said we should use Automated probes and less Human flights so for 8 years that was the focus then later Bush said we should go back to the moon so for 8 years or so that was in the prep phase then Obama comes along and says "NO, forget the moon. We've already been there and done that. We go to MARS etc"

Meanwhile the only really publicly known project that has stayed the course was the Military drone shuttle. Go figure.

I'm sure there are more advanced crafts the military have and are flying. I wish they would release more advanced technology to American industry. I think that would help the US economy but they don't under the guise of it being important to "National Security" meanwhile the economy IS going down the drain fast!

The economy/budget being in the toilet I believe is and has been the biggest danger/threat to National Security we've seen in the last 60+ years.


edit on 26-6-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:10 PM
reply to post by Phage

my bad on that.... in any case, are you insisting that what they observed has been identified 100% ?

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:47 PM
reply to post by mcrom901

In the words of Buzz Aldrin "99.999"
He's a scientist, he has to waffle a bit. But I would say yes, confirmed.

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 05:26 PM
Any comments on the description of how the SLA panels were often observed FROM EARTH accompanying the Apollo CSMs on the way out to the moon -- and the interesting 'coincidence' that on the way back from the moon, with no S4B and SLA panels, no reports came in about sighted objects flying alongside them?

Originally posted by JimOberg
Is it possible that nobody here realizes that telescopes around the world observed Apollo CSMs headed for the moon accompanied by the SLA panels? Here's the full story:

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 10:28 PM
reply to post by JimOberg

i suppose you never entertain the 'we don't know' factor because it doesn't complement your 'inductive biases'.... so its always 'force fits'....

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 10:54 PM
reply to post by Aliensun

anyone find it odd that Project Aurora and the description of the crashed object at Roswell are identical...

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:00 PM
reply to post by Wirral Bagpuss

It's amazingly expensive, does not serve the function it was designed to do, and is inordinately dangerous to the men and women who man it.

The space shuttle, in short, was crap and needed to be retired.

Now, you want to talk about loss of potential and possible "conspiracies?" Look at President obama's cancellation of the Constellation Project. I mean c'mon. even my liberal socialist ass can give Bush some due here and there, and pushing to continue manned space flight is one such place. Too bad.

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:04 PM
reply to post by Atlantien

Primitive technology was cheap and affordable.

The Shuttle was neither. Nor was it designed to go anywhere near the moon. Hell, I don't think it ever actually left Earth's atmosphere. It also soaked up almost all of the space program's budget, just keeping it fueled and running - mostly to deliver commercial sattelites, to make ends meet, no less.

The space shuttle has as much to do with landing on the moon as a covered wagon has to do with transatlantic flight.

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:10 PM
I fear the true are answers are far more mundane and earthly in their reasoning.

In the 1970s we had space ships travelling to the moon and we had supersonic passenger travel . In the 21st century we have absolutely zilch in terms of new propulsion systems and you make far bigger bucks from shipping 600 people packed in like cattle in an airbus than you do 60 odd people in a plane like Concord.

As for space, well the days of NATO and the Warsaw Pact chucking money at prestige projects just for the propaganda value are long gone. it might well be that the next step, as it were , in propulsion systems will come from a private source and it will cause absolute mayhem on the world markets. As such you can see why, to a large extent, the money says. "We don;t really need it when we can do virtually anything we need to with present technology". After all why slaughter the golden calf just to make people, in general's lives that bit easier?

See, if some new propulsion system is invented the knock on effect throughout technology will be similar to the canal boat v the steam train and History tells us what happened there. One can perfectly argue that, it is not beyond the bounds of feasibility that the black projects are kept secret and at times, hidden behind the veil of the UFO phenomenon because they simply don;'t want us oiks demanding the knock on technology form their toys as it would slam the final nails into the coffin of American motor manufacturing.

I K Brunel spent some days in front of Parliament at a , for those times, a vast cost of something like £80k, in order to push his Great Western railway bill through Parliament. there were huge vested interests railed against him and anyone who thinks, in a capitalistic world, it would be any different today, is in need of s serious reality check.

The reality of the situation is that, world leaders are happy to tinker round the edges of technology so long as it benefits the established power cliques in the post Cold War world and they are more than happy that their is no huge groundswell of world wide public opinion to *tread boldly* into the outer reaches of space with manned expeditions. They are quite satisfied to nod sagely about the world wide problems of food today, not the stars tomorrow as it perfectly suits the inherently conservative nature of big business.

In effect, we await the arrival of the new Thomas Savery and look how long it took for business to catch on to the revolution that was happening under their noses?

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 12:23 AM
reply to post by Phage

where would you place them?

The panels are about 20 feet in length, so from a distance of
320 miles, one of them would be about 2.5 arc seconds in angular
size. Through the command module's 28-power sextant telescope,
the panel would appear to be about 1.2 arc minutes in size.
Since the resolution of the human eye is about 0.7 arc minutes,
it seems highly unlikely that the astronauts would have been
able to discern any shape at all to the object. It would more
likely have appeared as a dot through the telescope.

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 12:35 AM

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by mcrom901

In the words of Buzz Aldrin "99.999"
He's a scientist, he has to waffle a bit. But I would say yes, confirmed.

initially he had the following to say...

Aldrin: We thought it could have been a panel, but it didn't appear to have that shape at all.

As I said before, what I find most interesing about this case is
that Alrdin changed his story. During the debriefing after the
return to Earth, he seems to have ruled out the possibility that
the object was one of the SLA panels for the very logical reason
that their shape didn't match the shape of the object he saw.

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 12:12 PM
reply to post by OMsk3ptic

well i am all for sending justin bieber to the moon

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 12:36 PM
reply to post by jdisgreat

Where can we donate to make this happen?
There are some others that are very welcome to join him.

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:44 PM
reply to post by Wirral Bagpuss

According to some reports in the UFO investigations Humans were told to stay away from the Moon.

Told by who? When? Where? That's intriguing as hell if it's true. I think the budgetary reasons for retiring the shuttle are a factor.

Having said that it's public knowledge that NASA has companies designing new ones for them which further suggests that they have no money. Other factors may include an increase in alien activity but I'm yet to see any real evidence of this (by that I mean specifically to the moon or an increase in UFO sightings of late).

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 05:19 PM
The space shuttle is just old;
Lockheed Martin is working on a new spacecraft for NASA, which is scheduled to launch in 2013

June 24, 2011

edit on 27-6-2011 by DjSuperman because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 06:17 PM
That Orion project is a joke. While many view it as a step backwards just because it resembles the original style space capsules, it is really a step backwards for so many other reasons.

posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 03:15 AM
The Dragons (The new Crafts) will start going up by 2012.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in