Serious question. Why haven't we returned to the moon?

reply to post by Puck 22


I think we should stop thinking that alien technology is like human made machines but just more advanced.
Why cant they be energy-lifeforms without a body, or ships without a solid structure ...

reply to post by 1967sander

I think we should stop thinking that alien technology is like human made machines but just more advanced.
Why cant they be energy-lifeforms without a body, or ships without a solid structure ...

Then how would we be able to recognize them?

reply to post by 1967sander

Excellent questions. I think though you have misunderstood me. The hypothetical I suggested was simply an attempt to expand the limitations it seemed to me everyone was imposing on their thinking. For the record, it is not what I believe to be the case.
My thoughts run much closer to what you suggest than to my own suggestion, and in fact strays even further off into left field but I avoid going into them as they would probably seem to most to be off the subject.
It is nice though to see the results of others thinking outside the box

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by SyphonX

 

You can start here to get a bit of understanding of different radiation, and continue on to get information on the shielding necessary for various radiation protection, of which one of my favorites are, sunglasses.

People just throw out the radiation card with little to no understanding of it, like a trump card in a game of spades.

We know all about these sources Illustronic. What we are waiting for is someone to DEMONSTRATE IT by shooting a man around the moon. It is the only thing that matters. You can continue to talk about it but until someone actually DOES IT we should be allowed the common courtesy to ask questions about it, to question the authenticity of NASA's claims about Apollo. That is how we deny ignorance. By asking questions.

Nixon. First term. Oh yeah.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Apollos 8 through 17 orbited the moon, haven't you heard? That's 9 separate missions, including Apollo 13. Russian's, have never got a manned craft beyond earth orbit. What's wrong with the sources?

forgive my ignorance on this but if the moon is unimportant or whatever and has no purpose for humanity
does that not also run true for the international space station?

i mean how many billions has it cost to build that and how many billions does it cost to maintain it?

hopefully my questions aint too ignorant but im new to all this and would like an insight into it

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Well we have images taken by the Apollo missions of the far side which you can compare with the LRO images or since you dont trust NASA even some Russian images link below.

www.mentallandscape.com...

The site above also has earth rise over the moon taken on different missions with different type/quality of cameras so go fill your boots!

reply to post by celimonster


I dont know if you familiar with David Icke,s theories on the moon?Imo hes quite interesting.This link is about the moon but if you have time check him out further and let me know your thoughts
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by The Old American
The race to the moon was based on power. Whoever had the power to reach the moon, also had the power on Earth. Firepower, economic power, scientific power. Until now, there was no reason to go back, as we had proven ourselves to be top dog in the space race. But water is getting scarce on Earth now, and there are signs of millions of gallons of water on the moon. We may go back for that, but otherwise, it's pointless.

Destination: Mars!

/TOA

desalination certainly must be more fuel, energy, and cost efficient that flying water down from the moon.

Originally posted by PollyPeptide

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by n3mesis

 

We can survey the probability and signatures of precious metals on the moon with spectronomy, and examining the samples returned, and weigh that with return of investment of life and finances. Anything on the moon is more easily mined on earth and shipped on rail or slow boats to processing industrial complexes. I find it fascinating that people can't understand this. It's MONEY, (and lives).

Money for sure. It's not cheap going anywhere on earth, so going beyond... Ouch. If it came down to safety issues, I'd have a big problem. We're humans, we explore. In order to explore we need to put ourselves into dangerous situations. I'm pretty sure every astronaut on the planet is more than willing to face death in order to explore the cosmos. I know would.

There IS NO WAY our government would ever approve a mission with a 50/50 success criteria in todays environment. It would be too much bad press with the loss of life, let alone the hardware that could be lost ($$). I think we know more today about the dangers of space travel too. We were really lucky not to have the Apollo crew cooked by sun spots. If the boys were up there on the moon during a big blast, they'd still be up there, dead. Protecting them from these kinds of events is almost impossible. It's probably not worth the risks.

Some of you guys are a piece of work.

Did it ever dawn on any of you (likely not) that the program went black after the last mission and was likely transferred to the Air Force?

The military would not give up an opportunity like that one once it was demonstrated that we could go up there quite frequently and with quite some ease once all the major problems had been solved, especially considering the challenge that was overcome.

Cost, cost, cost... who cares.... if you believe all the other conspiracies on here about the other way the military makes its money, there is more than enough cash to have a really sweet space program.

NASA doesn't go there, because you're right, it's been told not too. They weren't told by aliens, but by their bosses at the Pentagon.

Next you'll be dismissing it because of where would they launch it, because no one has reported such a big rocket taking off and quite often. Well no one really saw all those hydrogen bombs being detonated in the Pacific did they? Who's to say they don't have a really nice Saturn 5 sized launch facility on some remote island somewhere in the Pacific?

Or, who's to say they haven't built an orbiting platform to build a larger craft, that can hold more supplies and men, for going to the moon? They could have used more economical rockets to stock it with stuff, than build one giant rocket that probably would never get off of the ground.

A lot of you guys are thinking small or not thinking at all.

i heard that the reason we never returned was because there were two alien races fighting for the moon for ages and they attacked the astronauts that had landed so that's my two cents in that i mean why else will would there be so many craters in the moon? thats just my dumb theory though

It is said that NASA never returned to the moon because it is full of extraterrestial bases, and they were warned not to.

Originally posted by Aquarius1011
It is said that NASA never returned to the moon because it is full of extraterrestial bases, and they were warned not to.

The people that said that origionally are stupid. Pure and simple.

Quit reading those news papers that sit next to the candy at the checkout.