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.

 

Moon To Have No-fly Zones By Month End

page: 6
64
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by byeluvolk
Did any of you that are freaking out about this even read the artice? What kind of a secret do you think they plan to hide by requesting you stay...wait for it…

75 METERS AWAY!?



That's the land exclusion zone.

It's the no fly zone OVER the alleged Apollo sites that raise eyebrows.

Could NASA please explain what sort of rocket fuel pollution, a satellite flying a few miles above the lunar surface, creates?




posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Hang on, who does the moon belong to?

From the looks of it, the US have bagged it.
If i leave my jacket on the back of a chair, it doesnt make it mine, so how can they say where we can and cant go (if anybody does manage to get there).

What exactly are they going to do if somebody does go near their kit on the moon?
Its not trespassing if its nobodys land, unless of course they have claimed it as theirs....

I hope somebody does manage to get up there just to p**s them off.

20 years from now peoples facebook profile pics will have them sitting on a moon buggy with a moon cop in the background trying to get them off it!!



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Moon to have no-fly zones by month end

This headline and the first paragraph in particular are sensationalist clap-trap that is not only misleading - It is just plain WRONG.


The term "no-fly zone" is jargon that The Hindu applies even though the recommendations are for SURFACE VISITS to the sites. Note that this includes landing nearby, since dust from the landing rockets can impinge on the sites if the touch-down point is too close.

By whatever definition you want to use, the term "no-fly zone" indicates a prohibited or restricted overflight area. "Prohibited" and "restricted" both imply legal sanction which, as others have pointed-out, does not (and cannot) apply to the Moon. That the article state that such prohibitions will "come into effect" and "come into existence" is inappropriate, misleading and wrong. These are recommendations and guidelines, nothing more.

The recommendations do not apply to orbital overflight at any altitude. This article's use of the term "no-fly zone" - by any definition - is thus INAPPROPRIATE, MISLEADING and WRONG.

The one time that the article actually quotes the NASA document, it inserts a subtle paraphrase: “Apollo 11 and 17 sites [will] remain off-limits, with ground-travel buffers of 75 metres and 225 metres from each respective lunar lander,” (my bold). [Will] indicates another word or phrase was used in the original. What was actually said? By inserting the imperitive word, The Hindu is again creating a misleading impression. Shame on them.

There is historical precident for NASA's concern. Does anyone remember why the Sphinx is missing its nose? Or how about the boring monsoon season that Portugese soldiers spent shooting at 8th-century statues on Elephanta Island. More recently, Bob Ballard recommended that no one disturb the Titanic wreck, but tourists and filmakers ignored this and damaged the structure.

I notice that the Taj Mahal is a legal no-fly zone. Does The Hindu consider this "preposterous"?




posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by InvaderSkich
 





I think that this is mearly TPTB setting up a kind of president.


A "president?"

What the heck? We haven't even colonized the moon yet! I guess if they wanna do things ass backwards, that's their prerogative, but I hope they stay away from the two-party system on the moon. It has destroyed American politics.

On the other hand, I wouldn't be opposed to them sending Perry or Bachmann. Either one of them could be president of the moon. I wouldn't care....I'm not living there.




posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saint Exupery
Moon to have no-fly zones by month end

Note that this includes landing nearby, since dust from the landing rockets can impinge on the sites if the touch-down point is too close.


The same way that the Apollo Landers kicked up NO dust ?

Yet nearby landers wil kick up enough dust to damage " previous " landing sites !



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Darn! i have my holiday booked up there next month.. how the hell am i going to fly there in my rocket now.. i cant take a train.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
argh. forget it.
edit on 8-9-2011 by jamsession because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Highlander64
perhaps they should just claim a slice of the moon as the 53rd state of the U WESSS OF AY

and remember - spelling isnt improtant lol


I take it you consider Puerto Rico and Canada states 51 and 52?



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by buskey
 


GREAT!!!!!!!!
Lets just hope God hit the Moon.....



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Did anyone here get a deed to the moon in the 1950s?

Cereal boxes were serious business back in the day.

*I will not confirm nor deny my lunar holdings, but lets us say this: My patch of moon - if it existed - would be an economic zone and I would charge no taxes or fees. All I expect is that you share your resources with me and bring your own weapons.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
I thought nobody owned the moon? didn't like all the countries agree not to "divvy up" the moon between the superpowers?



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Slanter
 


Thats a load.

In my opinion, The United States owns the moon. We just pretend not to.

The rest of the world is just going to have to deal with it.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Sounds pretty legit, actually.
What with all these "space tourism" companies starting up and private spacecraft flights in the near future, they're going to have to regulate those flights. I mean, space is technically consists of "Class A" and "Class E" airspace.
edit on 8-9-2011 by upgrayeddc310t because: typo



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by upgrayeddc310t
Sounds pretty legit, actually.
What with all these "space tourism" companies starting up and private spacecraft flights in the near future, they're going to have to regulate those flights.


Spaceflight should not be regulated.

But it should be encouraged.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


No it belongs to amun ra the sun god of night thats why the elit is going there........



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   
i read that. i thought it said they were "recommendations" and NASA "hoped" future visitors would respect these "recommendations."

well, nobody respects our (the USA) southern boarder, what makes them think anyone is gonna accept these "recommendations"?



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Wow. Just when you thought there couldn't be another conspiracy coverup.

Everyone knows the astronauts came into contact with E.T. beings on that first moon trip. That's why they never went back.

A no fly zone on the moon for historical preservation? Yeah right. What are we going to do? Litter? Vandalize? Vandalize what? This is more of an insult to our intelligence for them to think we would actually believe any reason they have for creating a "no-fly zone" than anything else.

I think its messed up that we have extra-planetary regulations in the first place. I think space should be a place where we can go to get away from all the repression bullstuff.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Seriously though, how exactly would you enforce such a zone? Makes you wonder...........



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Not sure if this has been posted or not.

Here is a reference with more detail on the recommendations...

Source



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
This sentance from the article sums it all up:

Of course, these recommendations will not be legally binding as the 1967 Outer Space Treaty makes it clear that the lunar surface has no owner.

Sorry people, case closed.





new topics

top topics



 
64
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join