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: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Christosterone

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
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?


No....but good question.
I tend to believe that persuading people off their politics is impossible


Nor do I care to discuss politics.

You will never see me say anything in the political forums...

I just want to pursue space. I dont care who is president re space travel...I only care that we, as a country, strive to do this and the other things!!!!
Space is there to be explored....

Travel to the moon must be done if we, as a species, are to survive into the future.

Space, IMHO, should be a priority..

I dont care if the president is democrat, republican, or independent...I just want us to go back to the moon.

chris
We can't explore space ,because we don't know how to travel in it.


You won't EVER here that statement anywhere on Natgeo or Science channel's ,because if you do ,there would be a massive "OccupyNasa" protest. Why do you think ALL media outlets are constantly bombarding us with delusional alien propaganda. To give us delusional hope(and also to not focus on manned military advancements.


We hit a wall after the Apollo Missions. AND PRESENTLY ,We are still behind that wall. This is the reason why we have so many probes and telescopes out in space . We(they) are desperate.




posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iwinder

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by Iwinder
 





I would guaranteed lots of miles, almost zero maintenance , and most importantly it would do the job just as well in the 70's as it would today.


And one hell of a monthly budget for gasoline.


You are correct but I would not have to worry about a budget say for, computers, re-design,engineers, re-progamming,test drives, budget arguments, fear it wont get me there, etc.
stay with the proven and you will be ok.
Regards,Iwinder
So why can't a space vehicle designed and proven in the 60's do the same thing today?
Regards, Iwinder
edit on 25-1-2012 by Iwinder because: (no reason given)


It can, but the whole point of the program is to advance. Maybe they spend more money developing the new ship but now they have a more cost efficient way to travel into space to do multiple missions.

So they landed on the moon with the old Ships, what about mars? What if they want to test new things on The Moon before moving onto Mars?



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
In reality today, liquid fueled rockets can get to Mars in a month, IF, a huge external tank hookup in LEO could be achieved, AND, another manned or unmanned craft follows the control module to Mars with another nice big fuel tank in Mars orbit for the return home. A short maiden voyage to Mars could all be done inside a launch window extended by lots of fuel. The 4G thrust of our rockets today can slice that 2-year launch window of a month or so to last a couple of months for the return home.

Fact; New Horizons spacecraft reached lunar orbit from the launch pad in less than 9 hours, on a medium lift Atlas V rocket and Star 48 escape boost. We can go faster than that with more robust engines from LEO, and lots of fuel. New Horizons passed the orbit of Mars in about 40 days, and reached Jupiter in 13 months.

A 2-month round trip to Mars with our rockets is doable, radiation protection seems to be the larger concern.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by MCJustJ
 

"It can, but the whole point of the program is to advance. Maybe they spend more money developing the new ship but now they have a more cost efficient way to travel into space to do multiple missions. "

But this thread is about the mission to the moon not mars or any other planet.
"Obama Kills Mission to The Moon"

It is really about the moon.
Regards,Iwinder



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Iwinder
 


One trip is never just about one trip, for anything to have any merit, cost effectiveness, multiple missions would be the plan. Its simple if you want to build one Eiffel Tower, it's different if you want to build things that move, therein lies waste to only build one. I'm sure that mission encompasses a whole program, not one rocket firecracker.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Iwinder
 





But this thread is about the mission to the moon not mars or any other planet. "Obama Kills Mission to The Moon" It is really about the moon.


The Constellation program from the OP is also about setting up a base there and exploring ways to get to Mars too.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by dilly1

"That we go forth into space"????

For what? To stay hanging around the moon again for another decade.? Why would we do something we already did before. We will never go back to the moon because there is no need to go back. Unless we need to desperately mine the moon. Which won't happen for another 100 years or more.

Space travel is a "black or white" issue. you either go all out or stay home..one doesn't go to the moon to realize(for a second time) , traveling past the moon is pretty much impossible to achieve using primitive physics( and boatload of hopeful theories).

Forget about the moon and enjoy your short life.

I think it is entirely short sided to view a trip to the moon in terms of a mere century or more.
The end game for our species is to dwell in the stars.
Learning to survive in a self-sustaining fashion on an alien body is the first practical step to colonization of the heavens.

Time to goal realization is, unfortunately, a real problem with an America tending toward a VERY short attention span.
It is precisely the long term aspect of space colonization that requires laser-like focus to begin taking the little steps to achieve this goal.
We must fight the apathy and malaise our modern society breeds like wildfire.

I don't advocate for this for me or my children, but for the very survival of humanity: We must eventually go to the stars.
And NOW is the time to start laying the groundwork for our eventual exodus from this great earth.

We should have never abandoned our dreams of colonizing the moon which is the first and, imho, most important step to achieving this goal.....

So contrary to your suggestion, I will continue to "worry" about the moon.

-Christosterone



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
In reality today, liquid fueled rockets can get to Mars in a month, IF, a huge external tank hookup in LEO could be achieved, AND, another manned or unmanned craft follows the control module to Mars with another nice big fuel tank in Mars orbit for the return home. A short maiden voyage to Mars could all be done inside a launch window extended by lots of fuel. The 4G thrust of our rockets today can slice that 2-year launch window of a month or so to last a couple of months for the return home.

Fact; New Horizons spacecraft reached lunar orbit from the launch pad in less than 9 hours, on a medium lift Atlas V rocket and Star 48 escape boost. We can go faster than that with more robust engines from LEO, and lots of fuel. New Horizons passed the orbit of Mars in about 40 days, and reached Jupiter in 13 months.

A 2-month round trip to Mars with our rockets is doable, radiation protection seems to be the larger concern.


I know we are not supposed to make short, quick remarks like "well said", or "great post".

But.....
WELL SAID!!!!!
GREAT POST!!!

star for you!!!

Chris



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   
oh ffs people, now I understand this
the eye of newt said he wants to make moon bases in his second term (second..first would be silly).

Where the F was everyone when nasa was getting hacked and slashed for 30 years, where it became nearly impossible for big missions?

Here is the issue. I am a mega fan of space, but first off, 81 billion for nothing in particular..they aren't going there with like 5000 ton super crates to bring back precious moon dust...they are going to replant another damned flag and a bit more soil samples.
for 81b, I want real and functional things that pave the way for commercialization of space. Government creates infrustructure, not creates space cruises for fun and entertainment...I would rather see that 81b going towards research and development for sub-light drives and low cost materials that are space safe...not eject a giant money can into space because it would look cool.

But ya, eye of newt now is creating this newfound fascination with the space show...no substance, all talking points. get the hell out of my neighborhood with your nonsense (I live down the street from nasa).



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
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.


Agreed. There are quite a bit of places that the US can cut back on to start cleaning their own house.

According to the Congressional Research Service, an estimated $55 billion was appropriated for foreign aid and diplomatic programs in fiscal 2010.



Edit: I think they should go back to the moon and actually mine it to see exactly what is up there. The potential is there, they just have to figure out a way to get the equipment there and get the material back. Why not set up a base on the moon? With its lower gravity it should be a cinch to build materials there and then launch into space. Plus why not get ready to terraform Mars. Start the program now so future generations will have a place to escape to. (if 2012 doesn't get us first
)
edit on 25-1-2012 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
mission to the moon costing 81 billion?
holy crap? 81 billion what? pesos? surely not dollars...

thats insane. If nasa is asking for that, I would tell them to go straight to erm..the moon...but figuratively.

I think the cost/profit needs to be consider..what would a manned mission do on the moon that a couple million $ robot could not? What does it bring back that somehow translates into more: jobs/resources/science?

I would see that 81b going towards something like a huge space station for scientific research and the like.

the materials are expensive, but not crazy expensive. the fuel to get to a high earth orbit is also expensive but not insane. That money, and some shrewd oversight as to how each dollar is being spent could do wonders for the industry.

This just shows me how wasteful nasa is with the money if that is the number they came up with, and for what purpose? There needs to be a hell of a lot more transparency in the space industry's spending habit...now I am going to revisit the secret space fleet threads we have with a bit more open mind..christs sakes. 81 million..sure, expensive, but sure...but billion? how gullible are we?




It costs $40-50K per pound sent to the ISS. Water, food, scientific equipment - 1 pound = 50K. They are so worried about the weight of food sent up that they are experimenting with packaging that weighs a fraction of a gram less than what they have now.

The transparency is there, it's just that people like you would rather shoot off at the mouth like you what you're talking about instead of doing any heavy lifting. Try doing your own research and also finding the modesty to not spout off when you have no idea what you're talking about.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   
he did what?


is it my birthday?

wait a minute, wait... there's gotta be a catch.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
In reality today, liquid fueled rockets can get to Mars in a month, IF, a huge external tank hookup in LEO could be achieved, AND, another manned or unmanned craft follows the control module to Mars with another nice big fuel tank in Mars orbit for the return home. A short maiden voyage to Mars could all be done inside a launch window extended by lots of fuel. The 4G thrust of our rockets today can slice that 2-year launch window of a month or so to last a couple of months for the return home.

Fact; New Horizons spacecraft reached lunar orbit from the launch pad in less than 9 hours, on a medium lift Atlas V rocket and Star 48 escape boost. We can go faster than that with more robust engines from LEO, and lots of fuel. New Horizons passed the orbit of Mars in about 40 days, and reached Jupiter in 13 months.

A 2-month round trip to Mars with our rockets is doable, radiation protection seems to be the larger concern.




ACTUALLY it's not that great of a post. Sure, you might be able to get to Mars in a month if you are accelerating at 4G the whole time. The only problem is that the astronauts would be dead half way there. The human body can only withstand that kind of G force for limited periods of time. Your idea might work for a robot, but it will kill humans.

Also you have to have enough fuel to "reverse the engines" and slow down enough so that you don't skip out of orbit. Compared to rockets used now, HUGE amounts of fuel would be needed.


Look at the plasma pulse engines they're working on in Texas. These may be part of solution to get there more quickly and efficiently.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Christosterone

Originally posted by dilly1

"That we go forth into space"????

For what? To stay hanging around the moon again for another decade.? Why would we do something we already did before. We will never go back to the moon because there is no need to go back. Unless we need to desperately mine the moon. Which won't happen for another 100 years or more.

Space travel is a "black or white" issue. you either go all out or stay home..one doesn't go to the moon to realize(for a second time) , traveling past the moon is pretty much impossible to achieve using primitive physics( and boatload of hopeful theories).

Forget about the moon and enjoy your short life.

I think it is entirely short sided to view a trip to the moon in terms of a mere century or more.
The end game for our species is to dwell in the stars.
Learning to survive in a self-sustaining fashion on an alien body is the first practical step to colonization of the heavens.

Time to goal realization is, unfortunately, a real problem with an America tending toward a VERY short attention span.
It is precisely the long term aspect of space colonization that requires laser-like focus to begin taking the little steps to achieve this goal.
We must fight the apathy and malaise our modern society breeds like wildfire.

I don't advocate for this for me or my children, but for the very survival of humanity: We must eventually go to the stars.
And NOW is the time to start laying the groundwork for our eventual exodus from this great earth.

We should have never abandoned our dreams of colonizing the moon which is the first and, imho, most important step to achieving this goal.....

So contrary to your suggestion, I will continue to "worry" about the moon.

-Christosterone
Like I said before, if we ever go back to the moon , it will be only to mine it.

The Voyager Probe is the fastest man made object. Its traveling at speeds just over 100,000mph,,And will reach the nearest star outside our solar system in the next 50,000years. Our capabilities in Velocity for space travel is so dam primitive we must focus on "life-support" instead. Controlling our biological clock is the first step.

And the fist step is liquidating Nasa and its budget and converting it solely to investigate ways to control Aging..... Off course,This will never happen so we will not be taxing around LUNA any time soon. Sorry bro



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   
There are things on the moon (plenty!) that he prefers not to deal with, or maybe was told not to go there again, or maybe they are already in constant contact with moon bases.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   
I think it's terribly sad.....we only did a few missions...I think photos were only faked even though we did go because of the technology at the time as the mirrors could not have been placed robotically and no one has an explanantion for that...However India and China and other countries WILL still go to the moon, explore and of course at some point try and get the pictures of those illustrious landing sites (yes US read it and weep because you still have not posted up close up's...mere tracks and a pixellated LM...pah!...If you have nothing to hide except to admit you had to fake some of the photos I think you would gain more respect) Until then....people will still not believe you went unless your pictures are of clarity which we all know is possible nowadays...I guess NASA has their reasons (don't rock the boat!) and i purely think it is because they could not get the pics...so why not admit you went but had to enhance or fake the pics...and give us clarity of landing sites and then we'll all shut up...Pure and simple

Meanwhile watch out for China and India who WILL invest and colonise the moon and collect usable materials....Plus they WILL photograph your landing sites to shut everyone up for once and all...So Nasa...i suggest you come out with it...because things will certainly come back to haunt you....I think WE DID go to the moon but your stupid beauracratic frightened system does not allow flaws and the clock is ticking.....



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by dilly1
Like I said before, if we ever go back to the moon , it will be only to mine it.

The Voyager Probe is the fastest man made object. Its traveling at speeds just over 100,000mph,,And will reach the nearest star outside our solar system in the next 50,000years. Our capabilities in Velocity for space travel is so dam primitive we must focus on "life-support" instead. Controlling our biological clock is the first step.

And the fist step is liquidating Nasa and its budget and converting it solely to investigate ways to control Aging..... Off course,This will never happen so we will not be taxing around LUNA any time soon. Sorry bro


First off, if you think we are going to travel to instellar locations via conventional(ie rocket/nuclear/ion whatever) then you are thinking entirely wrong.

As for your tangent regarding nasa and aging: obtuse and/or incredibly naive is the only way to describe those observations....

My wife who is sitting next to me is a double boarded physician(M.D.)....and if you think nasa's budget would do anything to change our currrent research into aging then we have nothing else to discuss.
$81B would be a drop of water in that ocean...nice try though

I refuse to debate with premises as absurd as your "proposals"...
Sorry, bro!

Chris



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   
I embrace any country that is prepared to go back after all this time...explore more...Mine and build a base.......China or India is my bet.....good luck to them because they are determined and won't give up!....I am sure the Moon has lots more secrets to unlock and what a possible rich resource...and also a platform for transportation to asteroids etc...The moon still has a lot of unknown properties...our knowledge gained from 69-72 is still very small....250,000 miles away should not be a problem nowadays as we did it then...yes budgets are always bandied around but sod nasa....let someone else take over....a handful of missions...discredited photos, missing rocks...and yes I still believe wen went purely cos of the place mirrors....BUT....We need a fresh, longer mission...clarity...and a damn good reason.....



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
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.


I have an idea:

Have a mandatory vote on the matter.
After the vote those who want space exploration will only be taxed for it. While those opposed will have a copy of their DNA and their names added to a registry. The purpose of this is to bar any of their descendants from ever leaving the earth EVER.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iwinder
reply to post by MCJustJ
 

"It can, but the whole point of the program is to advance. Maybe they spend more money developing the new ship but now they have a more cost efficient way to travel into space to do multiple missions. "

But this thread is about the mission to the moon not mars or any other planet.
"Obama Kills Mission to The Moon"

It is really about the moon.
Regards,Iwinder



According to the Washington Post, Obama will seek to shelve the $81bn Constellation program, which called for a return to the moon by 2020 and human landings on Mars by the middle of the century. The plans were laid out by his predecessor, George Bush, in 2004.

Do tell, what does that bolded part above say?

Did you even take the time to read the snippet? I mean damn dude I can understand if you don't want to read the entire article(Though you really shouldn't be as adamant in your arguments if that's the case, just saying) but if you can't even take 10 seconds to read the snippet that gives you a general idea of what the article is about, just keep your opinions to yourself.

Though obviously I can't stop you from posting, just saying it seems kind of ridiculous that you would make these arguments yet you seem to be missing the entire point of the article. As if its nothing more than another trip to the moon.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join