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.

 

Scientist Say NASA Cutting Missions To Mars

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 05:05 AM
link   

WASHINGTON – Scientists say NASA is about to propose major cuts in its exploration of other planets, especially Mars. And NASA's former science chief is calling it irrational. Read more: www.foxnews.com...


www.foxnews.com...

With all the cuts going on in the US government, this is not really a surprise for me, all though I do hate to read articles like this.




posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 05:06 AM
link   
Brush up on your Chinese and maybe in 60 years you could go there on holiday?
edit on 10-2-2012 by Ixtab because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Ixtab
 


You could be more right than you know. I'll be dead by then though, hehe, as that would make me 105.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 05:20 AM
link   
I always hear Nasa is shutting down its space program, yet is not, now is.. Whats the deal?


U
edit on 10-2-2012 by USarmyFL because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 05:21 AM
link   
i'm not surprised either, this is very dissapointing,
NASA you lazy underfunded gits, stop giving up on OUR dreams.

is chinese easy to learn?



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 05:24 AM
link   
may be they have realised it is futile and we are doomed.
after soo looong exploring and sending out unmanned missions and such, i would think it would be in the interest of humanity to have these projects going on and maybe increasing. In a perfect world, the global industrialised community should have a joint financial commitment to space exploration so as not to fall if we lack the $$$



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 
NASA is a bloated federal beaurocracy.

Space exploration should go to the private sector.
Less over-sight, more risk, greater achievement.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by listerofsmeg
 


Love your avatar pic! Big Red Dwarf fan myself.

NASA is a bunch of Smeg Heads! Oh.....so is my government!



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 



I've always felt that we'd get further and do more if private companies joined in or took over. But until they see a quick way to make a profit from it, it's just not going to happen. Start up costs would be huge.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 05:44 AM
link   
The US military machine needs all the money it can get for what is being prepared for


And anyway - NASA has always just been a public relations front, the real stuff goes through the Navy - And probably programmes we couldn't even imagine.

We know they have at least some alternate means of propulsion, I think somebody's already been to Mars



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


The private sector needs to make profits. Who's going to tell their stockholders they get no quarterly dividends or worse yet their holdings plummeted in value, because the company CEO want to send a space probe to Pluto? See how illogical that is? Maybe unrealistic is a better term.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


they can start making money with launching their own communications satalites.
space exploration is as important as exploration was when we first sailed the seas.
new resources, new land could all be very attractive to investors who are willing to take the risk.
i understannd your point but private space has to work because eventually governments will give up.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 06:40 AM
link   
In order for private companies to go to the moon (or anywhere else), there has to be something there that they want, or absolutely need, to make or manufacture something that people down here on Earth will want and will buy.

Supply and Demand of course.

Let's say this: it's discovered that cell phones can be made even better in a way that will make everyone that owns one, want to buy this new one (this is a horrible example, but just follow along).
Let's say the material required to make this new and improved cell phone can only be found on the moon, as it's just too rare here on the earth.

They would have to look at the cost of getting up there, getting a facility estabilshed to mine this material, and get it back of course (plus the cost of manufacturing here on earth).
Getting stuff back to earth is easy peasy (well in relation to getting stuff up there). The moon's gravity is much weaker than Earth's so it takes a LOT less energy to launch something from the moon. The earth's gravity helps make it a down hill voyage back to here.

Getting stuff up there on the other hand, takes a very large amount of energy. You'd have to send a LOT of material up there to estabish a facility (building materials, food, air and water, etc).
They would also need to take a look at: can the facility become self sustaining? Or will the company always have to ship stuff up to them? If it's the latter, then the profit making goes way, way down, if not actually non-existant.

If the facility can be self sustaining, then it's better, but they would still have to spend an huge amount of money to get there and set it up, until it can be self sustaining.

Then, as illustronic pointed out: they would have to sell this idea to their stock holders, and show a really good money making deal. The stock holders would make or break the idea.

So until something is found on the moon that is in HIGH demand here (helium 3 is wanted....but there is just not enough HIGH demand for it), most companies will just continue to stay here on Earth and use it's resources as it's a lot cheaper to get, making profit easier.
edit on 10-2-2012 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by listerofsmeg
 


They would lose clients if what they are paying for their sats to be launched is also funding space probes not in their contract.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 06:52 AM
link   
Since this is a conspiracy site, some will say NASA can't do any more missions because the truth about ET will slip out. Or proof of the Moon bases will slip out.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 07:08 AM
link   
Well, it's Fox News so I don't believe it 100%. Secondly the new Rover which is essentially a lab on wheels and makes the other Mars rovers look like Lego toys is already on it's way to Mars. I'm not sure at this point if there's a need to begin new programs for Mars with the already very effective ones we have going.

I'm not sure about moving space exploration to the private sector, I see the point made by Beezer but I have to wonder how we could verify or obtain any information once that happened. Also, it's not exactly a profitable venture. There's really only prestige to gain from it so, maybe NASA should open a grant receivership program, where people/companies could offer grants to any of the NASA research/exploration programs. Though that is worrisome in the, does that mean we'll see a Walmart flag on Mars kind of way.




posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
Since this is a conspiracy site, some will say NASA can't do any more missions because the truth about ET will slip out. Or proof of the Moon bases will slip out.


Okay, I want to address this "Since this is a conspiracy site...."

I've been seeing this posted a lot in different sections of this website.

Yes. ATS is a website that hosts discussions about conspiracies. However, the forum sections of the site are broken down into different sections. Go take a look. You have a very large selection of forums where you can discuss conspiracies.
But you also have many other sections that are dedicated to other types of discussions. This forum for example is about "Space Exploration". It's not called "Space Exploration Conspiracies"

There are other parts of the forum to talk about almost anything, from video games, to nature to UFO's and Aliens to well....anything!

When I post something here, it's not with the idea that "NASA faked something" or "Our government is covering blah blah blah up!", it's to have a serious discussion about Space Exploration. If I wanted to post something and talk about how "NASA faked everything" I would have started the thread in a more appropriate forum, say under "General Conspiracies"

Not everything is a conspiracy, and not everyone is out to get you. If some of you feel that way, I would suggest taking a break from reading articles here on ATS, and also go see your doctor. You might need some medication.


edit on 10-2-2012 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


I was told by someone important to give you a star for that post, she sent this along...




posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 





We need an emote on here that shows someone falling out of a chair laughing so hard!
That was a good one! Thanks!



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

Originally posted by USarmyFL
I always hear Nasa is shutting down its space program, yet is not, now is.. Whats the deal?


U
edit on 10-2-2012 by USarmyFL because: (no reason given)


The deal is that NASA was a rocket business, originally. The Shuttle was the prime product with a thirty-year or so shelf life. The space rockets lived a long and useful life as a tool for the US to show its superiority over the Soviets and the rest of the world in that regard. Yet we were on to something better,

The real goal was to back-engineer the physics of the mass-cancelling UFOs. That was done with the development of the so-called black triangles. These craft started appearing in the mid-1970s in their typical manners of aerial movement. They are reported almost daily now. Undoubted there were other craft developed also, but the triangles seem to best suit our original, three-axis methods of control. (Not that such is necessary with them,but for the pilots.)

Given that virtually all public plans by NASA relies upon some form of rocket or another, it is not surprising that those plans are being scrapped or loosely kept as covers for the real business being done. We can assume that NASA has been leap-frogged by the military's use and applications of the triangles which we must allow are entirely space capable. (We grant that feature to UFOs seen in our atmosphere without a qualm and such must apply also to the triangles or if not directly to them, then to different craft designed strictly as deep space craft.)

You are kidding yourselves if you think that the decades of keeping the alien UFOs secret has not had a payoff in US R&D and eventually deployment. We don't need rockets for space, hitching rides on the Russian rockets is a way to save money in keeping the facade up. And while the Chinese, Indians and other countries may be talking about developing space activites, they are not thinking in terms of rockets either--they are not stupid--except as cover stories for their own work in developing massless technology.

This following comment is outside the confines of this thread, but important in the over-all picture of the world today. As I've stated many times on ATS over the years, the triangles are the greatest development since the invention of the wheel. As we bettered the Nazi in the development of the A-bomb, we gained the advantage to defeat them by typical, standard means. That was pretty much a given. The subjugation of whole nations, colonial times, by a few guns, was past, an impossible dream of Hitler's.

Arsenals of nuclear bombs maybe did and maybe did not keep the world "safe" for a few decades. But the world has changed and new challenges if not outright threats have emerged where formerly there were none. To a miliary mind, as it did in WWII in bombing the Nazi heavy water facilities, the preceived enemies should not be allowed to threaten the supremacy of our singular hold on massless technology at this time or at any time. So here, we must give normal ideology differences a backseat in favor of protecting secret, glorified military advantages as the rule of thumb for putting down the other guy before he gains the capability himself. Pariety would be unthinkable. And if you are losing in the joint game/war of economics in an insane world, there are few remedial options remaining.
edit on 10-2-2012 by Aliensun because: spelling correction



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join