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.

 

Obama Kills Mission to The Moon....REDUX

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Golly. I am actually very very disappointed.


I try to defend Obama. I am generally a democrat... however I am not stupid.
I want someone who is going to advance the human race. Not just seek to maintain the sought after "status que of the 90's" that people miss.

That is why this is probably the single worst thing, in my opinion, he has done...


Really thats NOT FAIR to the FUTURE GENERATIONS! Think about 400 years from now.




posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   
When I think of space exploration I think this. Earth is a cell and we are a virus. We would just be spreading the virus amongst other cells like cancer. I am for space exploration though none the less. I do think we need to finish more of our own frontier though.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Only if we had a new planet to explore, live in comfortably and profit from it in the solar system, our space technology would have evolved unimaginable faster, just like in the 15th century when we realized earth was round and there was America. Anyway then still took around 400 years from the sailing ship to airplane. I wonder how long it will take for us to travel to the nearest star, let alone to mars.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by amongus
 





Why in the he'll havnt other countries copied our lunar program from the frigging 1960s, and beat us and put a base on the moon?


I thought Russia was proposing it (yet again).


Yes, proposing it....but why would it take so long to actually do it if the technology existed back in the late 60s? It doesn't add up......



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Chamberf=6
 

"Hey I didn't come up with the figure.

NASA and governmental estimates did. "

I never said you did come up with that figure but it does beg the question.....
Why so much money for tape and a hand held calculator?
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
OP--

Just wondering...

Are you bringing up something Obama did a few years ago and you disagree with NOW because it is an election year?



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
I like the comments so far, but I'd like to try a slightly different direction.

I don't see anything in Obama's history, or his record as President to indicate that he wants the US to be an exceptional country. I think he wants us to be just one more nation in a mob of nations.

If the US took the lead in space colonization we would be exceptional again, and it wouldn't have been done by the United Nations. I'm sorry, but I don't believe he wants us to be anything special, or a world leader.



Yes!!! You got where I was going to head. Look to the now dead shuttle program, why did he really kill it? Why did he kill it before NASA had a replacement for the shuttles? Though the russians are making out pretty good, $51 Million per trip to the space station. obama doesn't want the US to take the lead in anything good, anything the US could be proud of. No, he'd rather the US take the back seat and let Russia and China leave us in the dust when it comes to space.



Russia will charge US astronauts US$51 million ($86 million) per return trip to the International Space Station (ISS) from 2012 and will resume selling seats to space tourists, Russian news agencies reported.

tvnz.co.nz...



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Christosterone
 


Although I share you disappointment with this President, and the cancellation of the Moon plans, we can dispense with these concerns:


will be honest with you....the no fly zones on the moon was VERY weird and I have absolutely no rational answer as to why we would do that...


The six Apollo landing sites are merely being protected, by the language of that recommendation, to preserve them as historical monuments. It isn't binding, nor enforceable of course.

The facts:


The reason: avoiding any spraying of rocket exhaust or dust onto certain historical sites and artefacts on the moon.

The historical sites are of course the Apollo landing sites and artefacts present on the moon. And the “recommendations” are for preserving and protecting these historical sites. There are currently more than three dozen historical sites that preserve the more than four-decade-old remains.

“Apollo 11 and 17 sites [will] remain off-limits, with ground-travel buffers of 75 metres and 225 metres from each respective lunar lander,” states the July 20 guidelines of NASA. Science journal had obtained the guidelines.

No legal binding.


"No Fly Zones" Around Apollo Lunar Landing Sites

Nothing fishy, here. As you see, even the most "restrictive" buffer zones, for Apollo 11 and Apollo 17, are still only 75 to 225 meters horizontal radius. Easy enough to be a "sight seer" one day, when such things are possible. And 225 meters above?? This is not specified, but would be implied. Hardly very high at all.

The "No Fly Zone" is nonsense, and sadly is well over-stated, and has been pounced upon by numbskulls who continue to spew lies about the Apollo being "hoaxed".

You can see how absurd the "hoax" believers' claims are, to use these guidelines in that manner.





edit on Wed 25 January 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Iwinder
 




I never said you did come up with that figure but it does beg the question.....
Why so much money for tape and a hand held calculator?
Regards, Iwinder

I imagine new research and studies for updated means of getting there, training, materials, test launches, reworking of designs, new tech to "invent" from scratch because of the necessity,

...then of course all the above for habitats that would protect the people from radiation, develop ways for it to be self-sustainable for loooong term, multiple vehicles for lunar surface

...on and on and on.
edit on 1/25/2012 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by Iwinder
 




I never said you did come up with that figure but it does beg the question.....
Why so much money for tape and a hand held calculator?
Regards, Iwinder

I imagine new research and studies for updated means of getting there, training, materials, test launches, reworking of designs, new tech to "invent" from scratch because of the necessity,

...then of course all the above for habitats that would protect the people from radiation, develop ways for it to be self-sustainable for loooong term, multiple vehicles for lunar surface

...on and on and on.
edit on 1/25/2012 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)


My old chevy Nova got me to where I wanted and back for over 250 thousand miles, now to this day cars work the very same way, you put in gas and you go.

Are you saying that if I buy a new car and plan to drive it to the ground as in 250k (which I did in the 70's) that I must invest in training, materials, test drives, reworking of designs, new tech to "invent" from scratch because of the necessity?

Then on top of that I pay 500 times or more the value of my 74 Nova just to get the exact same results?
I am shocked.
Regards,Iwinder



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Iwinder
 




materials, test drives, reworking of designs, new tech to "invent" from scratch because of the necessity?

You? No. Do the car manufacturers and companies? Yes.

You disapprove on training people for such a mission??

So you wouldn't update anything from the '60's??

And how many alive today went to the moon that could do it now??

How many times has long term habitation on the moon been done??
edit on 1/25/2012 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   


In the current financial environment, I think it would be wasteful (financially not scientifically). Sure I would love to see a manned mission to the moon, but $81,000,000,000 could be used for more immediate NEEDS at this time.
reply to post by Chamberf=6
 

You mean like bombing another country back to the Stone Age, or killing 100,000 innocent civilians just to get one supposed dictator? Sure, 81 billion will buy a few days of that "immediate need".



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Good grief.

Does anyone reply without emotions on ATS anymore?



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by Iwinder
 


So you wouldn't update anything from the '60's??

And how many alive today went to the moon that could do it now??

How many times has long term habitation on the moon been done??



Why update anything from the 60's that worked perfectly almost 100% of the time?
If it got to the moon and back how many times???? 10 or so why change it...especially since computers were so advanced back then.
How many missions DID NOT come back from the moon successfully?
Zero they all came home so why the big mark up and the big killing of the programe?
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   


Does anyone reply without emotions on ATS anymore?
reply to post by Chamberf=6
 


My response is anything but emotional. In fact, unfortunately, it is the 100% truth.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Good grief.

Does anyone reply without emotions on ATS anymore?

No emotion here but just logic, I am making a valid point and I am trying to be rational as best as I can here.
There is no way or no answer to why it costs so much now but it was done 40 years ago.
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Iwinder
 


OK...

Glad your not in the space expedition business then.

btw those new cars you were talking about cost $1000 or even less in the '60's.

Did their price remain the same till today?

edit on 1/25/2012 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
I'm all for exploring space, however; with the economy still floundering, I think it's a responsible move on the POTUS' part to stay off such explorations till a time when we can better afford them.
In the meantime, we should just send a probe to Mars that'll plant a flag that reads: "DIBS: PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OF EARTH"




posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
he cancelled it because he would rather spend the money on weapons



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by Iwinder
 


OK...

Glad your not in the space expedition business then.

btw those new cars you were talking about cost $1000 or even less in the '60's.

Did their price remain the same till today?

edit on 1/25/2012 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)


I take it by that snide remark that you are in fact working at NASA right now and have all the answers?
No need to be rude this is a civil board as you know and I know as well.
Regards, Iwinder



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join