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: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Christosterone

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
Tell your wife to relax, I am not stating the nasa solution is the final word. It was a huge exaggeration to prove a point which you obviously missed. Typical. But 81B would be a great start though instead of jerking around earths orbit with telescopes. Telescopes bro

I'll dumb it down for you: to travel in hostile space we would have to create new-physics for Traveling in(not orbiting)very high velocity(not primitive rockets/solid or liquid propulsion), Bending space and having "Life-support". The life-support is by far the most important one. Without it ,it would be pointless to consider inventing new physic to create sophisticated propulsion systems or trying to control a wormhole(event horizon).


Its all impossible. If you or wife think its possible then you both are completely delusional in facing reality within hostile space.

Our old Voyager Probe is the fastest man-made object ever made. It travels just over 100kmhp(do to sling-shot orbit). 50,000 years from now is when the probe will eventually reach the star nearest to our solar system. Okay? We can not even come close to create a propulsion system that can reach 100kMHP. And 100kmhp is a joke in space.

Aging is a huge obstacle for us fragile humans. Stopping or slowing down our biological clock is imperative. Which is theoretically impossible.


You want to refuse debating me because I am bursting your fictional hope-bubble on we would some day be taxing around the cosmos. This isn't the jetsons Bro.




posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ShockTruther
 
Lockheed Martin Senior Research Scientist Boyd Bushman speaks about anti-gravity and how they were succesfull with it in the old days. Wouldnt it be not so expensive and nearly useless even to use these rockets nowdays.
The money is just excuse and the rockets and shuttles big theatre. Im certain they have a cheap way to lift tons up there. We just havent been told about the technology we posess.

Everybody should google and see for the Boyd Bushman's interwiev about anti-gravity.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Christosterone
 





And if you are in favor of killing the mission, please give me your reasons...


I am all for mission to the Moon, and I agree that space should be a priority.

But Constellation was not a good way to do it. It was a grossly overpriced and delayed mess.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:39 AM
link   
The last thing the USA needs to worry about right now is going to the moon. 81 billion dollars can go to help build our infrastructure or feed people.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ShockTruther
 





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.


False. With that kind of propulsion, you would get to Pluto in about a day.

Acceleration is not a problem. Propulsion performance (thrust and specific impulse) are the main problem for space travel.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:53 AM
link   
As for the money question,

1. The entire NASA manned spaceflight budget is a fraction of a percent of the federal budget. The money spent on space is negligible!

2. 81 billion would be spent over a few decades. Not to mention that it is an overblown figure because of the costly Constellation approach.

3. Every dollar spent on NASA has earned more in return in scientific and technological advancements.

4. NASA is among the best viewed federal agencies among US people, and majority does view spaceflight as an important for the nation.
edit on 26/1/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 26/1/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ShockTruther
 


Nobody said anything about accelerating the whole way, the point is that the thrust of liquid fueled rockets achieve speed in relatively short ignition periods. Your plasma thrust engines ARE the propulsion systems of unmanned probes because they are also one of the least efficient electric propulsion systems, with a thrust efficiency of less than 10%. A month would pass by the time these and ion thrusters reach the same speed as a 3-minute liquid fueled rocket burn. 4G thrust in space wont kill anybody you experience over 3Gs on modern rollycoasters. Again nobody mentioned or figured the length of burns necessary to achieve the relative coasting speeds for the duration of the trip to time ratio. I was merely pointing out the technology and thrust exists in our rockets today. Ion thrusters will never be able to generate/draw from the necessary electricity for a manned craft that doesn't take several months just to get to Mars, it ain't happening. The average nuclear power plant doesn't generate enough electricity for an ion thruster to provide 1G acceleration, that's why they are delegated to unmanned probes, because time is not an issue to a robot.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by scotsdavy1
I reckon he knows what is on the moon and doesn't want it advertised to the public, why do you think he thought about no fly zones on the moon? Crap! Nobody owns the moon, not even the United States Of America!

Wow amazing how a mistaken conspiracy grows arms and legs. NOBODY has implemeneted a no flay zone on the moon. This all came about becasue somebody in NASA SUGGESTED that the moon landing sites should be preserved due to their historical significance, including the footprints. This would require nobody to fly near the sites in case they are disturbed.

To summarise :

* Ther is NO no fly zone.
* It was only a suggestion
* Absolutely nothing to do with Obama



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Constellation has been dead for over a year only Congress has been fighting for it.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by AaronWilson
All the rage that is coursing through my veins. Space exploration and of course, expansion is needed now more than ever! What the hell is he thinking!? Yes, money is tight, but this is our species survival were talking about.

We need resources, the moon is full of Titanium and of course, helium 3. (We have yet to know how to utilize this gas) However, speculation is it could be used as fuel. This is simple, not complicated. If we want to survive, we would have started 30 years ago.


we shouldnt be mining the moon in the first place,

you speak about survival, we NEED the moon as it is to survive. what about the enormous amounts of energy right here on Earth. focus your "rage" into why we arent harnessing that energy. you have any idea how expensive it would be to mine the moon?
I dont like obama either but come on.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
we aren't on the moon for the same reason that the rest of the nations aren't on the moon.

Obama has nothing to do with it. space radiation has everything to do with it.. it keeps us all from escaping



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iwinder

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


Actually, the Apollo missions cost US$145 Billion (in 2007 dollars). Cost

So, this new manned moon landing program would be roughly half the cost in today's dollars. Reasonable I think since, as you say, a lot of the tech already exists or would require minor mods.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Why can't you take some of the money you spend on the defence budget, and use that to
finance the moon mission.

Just a thought.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by 35Foxtrot

Originally posted by Iwinder

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


Actually, the Apollo missions cost US$145 Billion (in 2007 dollars). Cost

So, this new manned moon landing program would be roughly half the cost in today's dollars. Reasonable I think since, as you say, a lot of the tech already exists or would require minor mods.



you forgot to adjust for inflation..

but you prolly knew that didnt ya



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Question Fate
 





you forgot to adjust for inflation..


He did not, the figure is indeed in 2007 dollars.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by dilly1
 

LOL
your entire quote just made my day.

Thank you...
Or should I say "thanks bro"...as that seems to be the manner in which you feel most accustomed to addressing others..



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Neil deGrasse Tyson posted on Twitter that he will be on MSNBC at 3:15 pm ET today, to offer his views on the Newt Gingrich's space plan.

Just FYI, for ayone interested. Here is Space.com's article on Newt Gingrich's space plan...

"Gingrich Space Plan Promises the Moon, Literally: Lunar Base by 2020"
www.space.com...


edit on 1/26/2012 by Larryman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
The idea of going back to the moon, trying to use the same tech that we used almost 50 years ago, gave me a very good chuckle, and a bulging eye expression.

While you're absolutely correct that your old Chevy Nova built in the 70's was able to take you a quarter of a million miles and would work just fine today, I assumed you did the maintenance and up keep on it, correct?

Could you please point us to the nearest Saturn V rocket and LCM that has also been upkept and had maintenance done on it these last 50 years? No? Didn't think so. As all you can find now are parts of it, gutted, and on display for museums.
The electronics that were made for it then, can no longer be built now. I don't know of too many electronic companies making the same stuff that was made back then. We have this new fangled thing now called: IC Liner and Digital chips.

So, sorry, an entirely new type of ship must be made, from scratch to get there. The space shuttle was never designed for going to the moon either.

Could you please grab me at least 3 astronauts that are currently trained to fly to the moon? Oh, and the back up crew to. No? Didn't think so on that either.

For NASA to do any of this, stuff has to be built, not just the rocket, but the training simulators. The astronauts don't just sit in a class room, they have to go through simulations to. All of this stuff (simulators, gear, and vehicle) have to be manufactured and put together by private companies. Neither NASA nor the US government owns any rocket factories. Even our military rockets, missiles, (any kind of munitions), equipment, you name it, is made by private companies, with contracts going to the lowest bidder.

It would actually cost MORE to try and make a Saturn V rocket, just like it was back in the 1960's, simply because companies would have to reconfigure their factors to manufacture the things that were used back then.

81 billion dollars is a bit steep, but heck, as has been pointed out many times, we've spent 4 to 5 times that amount on bail-outs that really have not done a thing for anyone.

Going to the moon was important to a lot of people back then, as more people seemed to have a larger sense of national pride, an the thought of the soviets getting there first was intolerable! Once we got there, interest in it quickly waned in the public, and more people wondered why were were "wasting" all this money to bring back rocks.

Even with the possibility of other countries going back to the moon today, does not spark too much interest for the public. We've been there, and were first, so what's the big deal? Many will think that.

I personally believe that the only way we are going to get back to the moon, and be there on a more perminate basis, is if the private sector finds a way to do it to make a profit from it. As we've said in this thread: minning.

If a company, or group of companies can find a way to get up there, get a establishment going that can then become self sustaining (IE not having to ship food, water and air up to them), they'll start turning a big profit. Getting stuff from the Earth to the moon is hard. Getting stuff from the moon back to the Earth, is easy. Gravity helps quite a bit.
Don't believe me? Just look at how big the rocket was starting out here on the Earth. Then look at what they used to come back in, hehehehe.

So I'm afraid that's the only way we'll get back up there in person. I personally feel that the moon first is the proper step, THEN Mars. Baby steps until we get it right, and get it going. It's a lot easier (and cost efficient) to launch deeper space missions from the moon than it is direct from the Earth.
edit on 26-1-2012 by eriktheawful because: spelling



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
There is no known technology at present that could propel a manned or even unmanned vehicle at anything near a small fraction of the speed of light. The fastest vehicles ever created by mankind, the Voyager probes, used a gravitational slingshot off of the planet Jupiter to attain a velocity of 100K mph — that's STILL the fastest speed ever attained by a man made vehicle, and it's about 5 times faster than the FASTEST man made propulsion system. The Voyager probes have been in space for over 33 years, and they haven't even escaped our solar system ,,Yet.

When the Voyagers FINALLY clears the Heliopause (where the solar wind terminates) in about 6 years, it will have traveled roughly ONE LIGHT DAY. One Light Day is the diameter of our Solar System. It is 4 LIGHT YEARS to the next nearest star system. So far, our FASTEST vehicles EVER require about 40 years to travel ONE LIGHT DAY. Multiply that by 365 for the amount of time required to travel ONE Light Year (over 14,000 years). Now multiply that by FOUR (nearly 60,000 years).We're talking about WAY OVER fifty thousand years to reach the NEAREST star to us, traveling 5 times faster than the fastest current manmade propulsion system. We need to start grasping reality and grasp the distances involved in NEAR SPACE travel. When you hear the "futurists" discussing FTL space travel, they are talking pure fantasy, it's not based on ANY current technology. We have NO IDEA of how to approach near-light-speed velocities, nor how to sustain human life for extended journeys in space. When you hear the String Theorists discussing non-local simultaneity, they're talking about subatomic particles — they're not talking about a 12-million-ton deep space colony probe with a crew of 60 human beings.

It took us about 200,000 years to travel 300 miles, from the surface of the Earth to low Earth orbit. Once into the realm of microgravity, it took us another 10 years to reach the Moon. So, realistically, from the time we invented powered flight, it took us 80 years to travel a quarter of a million miles.
And then we STOPPED. We abandoned our manned interplanetary (Apollo) program in the 1970s. Our best manned efforts have been stuck in low Earth orbit for the last 40 years.
In other words,
we hit The WALL, and we were barely out of Earth's atmosphere.
Not only do we NOT have the
propulsion technology, we don't have a
reliable power source; and, more importantly, we don't have the life-support(this is vital!!!) technology to travel in deep space.
We're not
hiding the technology, we're don't have back-engineered alien spacecraft hidden in a hangar somewhere. That's all fantasy.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Okay, that speed you are saying for Voyager? It's only in reference to the Earth, and is including the Earth's velocity too, since the Earth is moving around the sun.
From a stationary object (the sun), Voyager's speed is actually 38,143 Mph.

citation: voyager.jpl.nasa.gov...

It is the fastest man made object to date, and it's velocity was indeed because of gravitational assists from other planets (and why it took so long to get to the outer planets, I remember drooling over the pictures it sent back as a teen).

NASA's ion drive is full of promises. It doesn't have the huge acceleration boost that chemical engines have, but it can provide constant thrust of very, very long periods of time, meaning that while chemical rockets can achieve high velocity quickly, the ion drive can actually go to much faster velocities over a longer period:

dawn.jpl.nasa.gov...

en.wikipedia.org...

Here is a good over all view of our current space craft engines we can do as of today:

en.wikipedia.org...

As for reaching another star........
You're correct in how long it would take at current speeds that we have. I don't know about alien technology, but I can say that with human technology, the theories and ideas for different means of interstellar travel are there.......but attempting to build these (and to the R and D to get the technology for them), cost money. Lots of money. So there is that evil word again....

en.wikipedia.org...

So should we spend 81 billion dollars to get back to the moon? I'm not sure if we should spend 81 billion dollars, but I do know if we want to get anywhere else and develop new types of propulsion, we're going to have to spend money. Period.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join