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.

 

Newt Promises 'Permanent US Base on Moon' if he's Elected: (now we're talking!)

page: 7
4
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by MrWendal
 





So how do you figure that money wont be a problem?


Because you would have the same rhetoric no matter how much is spent on space. Once again, the truth is, the money would be negligible. In 2012, NASA manned spaceflight budget accounted for 0.21 % of federal budget. It is a problem of political will, not money. If there was even a little political will, cuts could easily be made somewhere else.




We already have 2 spaceports. 1 in New Mexico - Spaceport America - 1 in California - The Mojave Air & Space Port


Its not a spaceport in my book unless the craft achieves stable orbit. Suborbital flights are closer to aeroplanes than spaceships. Without government funding, there will be no manned spaceflight for a long time to come.


I predict we will achieve stable orbit by 2015.

We won't have to wait long to see how right i am.

It's less than 3 years away.
---------
BTW, more can do activity over here.
- Space X On The Move -
edit on 1-2-2012 by Eurisko2012 because: (no reason given)


---------
Wow! Look at all of these private companies on the move!

Seeing is believing.

edit on 1-2-2012 by Eurisko2012 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


SpaceX is indeed promising, but again, without government money I doubt we would see anything more than com satellites being launched by their rockets, if even that.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


SpaceX is indeed promising, but again, without government money I doubt we would see anything more than com satellites being launched by their rockets, if even that.


SpaceX will be docking with the ISS.

Check out the Dragon!

- This will work -

The glass is half full.
edit on 1-2-2012 by Eurisko2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

SpaceX will be docking with the ISS.

Check out the Dragon!

- This will work -

The glass is half full.
edit on 1-2-2012 by Eurisko2012 because: (no reason given)


Yes, but its because NASA pays for it. I am a big fan and follower of SpaceX, I even made two threads about them:

SpaceX says 'reusable rocket' could help colonize Mars

SpaceX Announces Falcon Heavy: The Most Powerful Rocket Since Saturn V!




posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


When they get up and running SpaceX will pay their own way.

Don't overlook the good news. It works!

Grow the private sector not the government.

Lets go!

edit on 1-2-2012 by Eurisko2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by indigothefish
reply to post by anon72
 


this is more of an example to me that newt is on board with spending tons of money on things that won't help any economic, social or war/peace struggle problems. it would be a great distraction though.
edit on 2/1/2012 by indigothefish because: (no reason given)


Newt is already on record saying the - private sector - would do it with a little help from
the government. The US government might give them a phone call. " Watch out for
space junk over here and other there!"


This is also the same thing that was being said when the idea of shutting down the space program was first introduced. Thus far the private sector has not been able to launch anything into space. If anything, they have failed in most of their experiments as far as I know.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 04:48 AM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


Thats not true.
SpaceX successfully launched their Dragon spacecraft on top of their Falcon 9 rocket into orbit:

SpaceX Dragon

On 8 December 2010, a Falcon 9 rocket lifted off from Cape Canaveral in Florida, carrying an uncrewed SpaceX Dragon on COTS Demo Flight 1. The launch was a success, and the Dragon cleanly separated from the Falcon approximately 10 minutes after launch. Three hours of orbital maneuvering tests were conducted at an altitude of 300 kilometres (190 mi; 160 nmi) before a deorbit burn was conducted, putting the Dragon on a re-entry course that ended in a successful splashdown in the Pacific Ocean, approximately 800 kilometres (500 mi; 430 nmi) west of Mexico's Pacific coast.[45]


Bigelow Aerospace inflatable habitat module (Genesis II) is orbiting the Earth as we speak.

Genesis II was launched on June 28, 2007, at 15:02 UTC. As with Genesis I, it was launched aboard an ISC Kosmotras Dnepr rocket from Dombarovskiy missile base near Yasniy, Russia. It successfully reached orbit after separation from the rocket at 15:16 UTC. Due to the mechanics of its orbit, first contact with the craft was established once it passed over SpaceQuest, Ltd.'s Fairfax, Virginia receiving station at 22:20 UTC, confirming that it was alive and functioning nominally with power and air pressure at expected levels.[5][6][7]


Joint public-private funding and private execution is the future of manned spaceflight.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Star to you for a valuable reminder, I had forgotten some details of these projects.

I would still comment, however, that this in no shows any real possibility of going to the Moon within a decade, even without lunar landing. The inflatable craft you quoted is a nice project, but it was launched by a converted Soviet-made ICBM (SS-18 Satan). That's not a forward-looking platform. As to SpaceX, the only reason they made a couple of launches is actual government spending (via contracts awarded), which defeats the idea of "private sector going on their own".



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 05:16 AM
link   
When the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, the race was on. Although Kennedy would talk of cooperation, the two nations ended up going it alone, and America became first to the moon, even though he at times even wondered if his idea could be accomplished.

We're not in a nationalistic competitive mode as the first time to the moon, so there is no Great Race. Even though govt came up with the space race moon venture, private companies used govt contracts to build what was needed. Newt awards prize money, what happens next? To stay in business, the company needs customers.

I'm looking out now towards the Mojave airport/spaceport, and I think it's been seven years since the idea of space tourist took hold there, but I don't see all the tourists lined up at gates with their $200,000 ticket to pay for what amounts to a short, fun, exhilarating space ride. (Weren;t there X15 pilots awarded astronaut wings?)

There are exciting private ideas beyond launching satellites, but a moon base in eight years? That is not a realistic timeline, no matter how exciting an idea.
edit on 4-2-2012 by desert because: oops



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by desert
When the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, the race was on. Although Kennedy would talk of cooperation, the two nations ended up going it alone, and America became first to the moon, even though he at times even wondered if his idea could be accomplished.

We're not in a nationalistic competitive mode as the first time to the moon, so there is no Great Race. Even though govt came up with the space race moon venture, private companies used govt contracts to build what was needed. Newt awards prize money, what happens next? To stay in business, the company needs customers.

I'm looking out now towards the Mojave airport/spaceport, and I think it's been seven years since the idea of space tourist took hold there, but I don't see all the tourists lined up at gates with their $200,000 ticket to pay for what amounts to a short, fun, exhilarating space ride. (Weren;t there X15 pilots awarded astronaut wings?)

There are exciting private ideas beyond launching satellites, but a moon base in eight years? That is not a realistic timeline, no matter how exciting an idea.
edit on 4-2-2012 by desert because: oops


I predict we will have Moon Base Alpha 1 up and running by 2015.

All we need is something new.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
I predict we will have Moon Base Alpha 1 up and running by 2015.


OK, it's the second month of 2012. I'm willing to bet you $1000 (I would bet a lot more, but that's all spare cash I have) that there is no base on the moon in 2015,

Will you accept the bet?


Thanks.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
I predict we will have Moon Base Alpha 1 up and running by 2015.


OK, it's the second month of 2012. I'm willing to bet you $1000 (I would bet a lot more, but that's all spare cash I have) that there is no base on the moon in 2015,

Will you accept the bet?


Thanks.


Keep your cash. I'll offer you a job at Moon Base Alpha 1 instead.

We will be operating a state-of-the-art Meade Telescope Array available for

use by paying customers on the internet.

We will also be mining the moon for Helium-3.

Space tourism will take place at the Lunar 1 Colony.

Does this sound like Science Fiction or Science Possibility?



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
It's 2012, and I'm still waiting for 2001....2001: A Space Odyssey, that is. Saw it in 1969 and could hardly wait for 2001. ...I'm still waiting for the flying cars promised back in the 1950's-60, and where's my food replicator like in Star Trek...wait, that's still in the future...must wait more time...a long time...I could be dead...but if for some reason I were still alive, I'll probably have to buy the extra, special additive upgrade to make it taste "just like homemade."

There's a reason we say "aim for the stars." It's good to have a goal in order to stretch one's imagination and endeavors, but the reality is that we'll fall short but still be in a good place, a place we can build on for the next try.

This article has an explanation why there's not the rush to the moon as we once thought would happen for economic reasons.

Oh, yeah, and I want Rosie the robot to clean my house and do the dishes.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by desert
It's 2012, and I'm still waiting for 2001....2001: A Space Odyssey, that is. Saw it in 1969 and could hardly wait for 2001. ...I'm still waiting for the flying cars promised back in the 1950's-60, and where's my food replicator like in Star Trek...wait, that's still in the future...must wait more time...a long time...I could be dead...but if for some reason I were still alive, I'll probably have to buy the extra, special additive upgrade to make it taste "just like homemade."

There's a reason we say "aim for the stars." It's good to have a goal in order to stretch one's imagination and endeavors, but the reality is that we'll fall short but still be in a good place, a place we can build on for the next try.

This article has an explanation why there's not the rush to the moon as we once thought would happen for economic reasons.

Oh, yeah, and I want Rosie the robot to clean my house and do the dishes.


Well, they got the ISS up and running!

Someone should have advised them to shape it like a large wheel.

Artificial gravity would make the toilets work better.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by desert
This article has an explanation why there's not the rush to the moon as we once thought would happen for economic reasons.


Right on. The numbers on He3 concentration are pretty staggering, i.e. low, despite what some people like to proclaim.Yes, there is He3 on the Moon, but you have to move millions tons of rock to get it in sizable quantity.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Only people with no scientific or engineering and ignorants would even believe Newt's nonsensical proposition. It is exactly what Romney said about this man. He knows there is a big aerospace industry in Florida, so he's just telling them what they want to hear.

Space travel is a dead end and we humans will never get into space (We are just simply not smart enough nor we have the resources). Hell, we aren't smart enough to even calculate the radiation levels at the event horizon of a black hole.

Most conservatives that are educated in the sciences and engineering are surely not willing to have their tax dollars be spent on such frivolous pursuits. Most of us are against NASA funding as its. Let the private sector try to take care of space and fail miserably.

The future of science is in nanotechnology and robotics. Now that is where R&D funds should be invested.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diablos
Only people with no scientific or engineering and ignorants would even believe Newt's nonsensical proposition. It is exactly what Romney said about this man. He knows there is a big aerospace industry in Florida, so he's just telling them what they want to hear.


OK, up to this point I agree with you.


Space travel is a dead end and we humans will never get into space (We are just simply not smart enough nor we have the resources). Hell, we aren't smart enough to even calculate the radiation levels at the event horizon of a black hole.


Sheesh, that's one big non sequitur. Why do we need to calculate ANYTHING regarding black holes to reach not deep space but near-Earth orbit and objects?


The future of science is in nanotechnology and robotics.


What a stupid thing to say.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   
How's he going to establish the base up there? He would have to use the Russian launching sites..

Riiiight... that's gonna happen



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hellas
How's he going to establish the base up there? He would have to use the Russian launching sites..


You just made it more interesting
I mean Newt going to Russia and having a few stiff drinks with there Space Defense bosses...



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   
I would think more closely about biotechnology and materials science.

Robotics will probably never go very far. Just my guesses though.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join