It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Star Trek Type Craft to make map of Moon

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 05:23 PM
A tiny craft powered by 'Star Trek' technology is standing at the 'gateway' to the Moon - and a landmark date in the history of European space exploration.

On Monday, SMART-1 will manoeuvre itself into lunar orbit and become the first European Space Agency spacecraft to reach the Moon.

But the 814lb, 77 million craft is far more than just another probe fitted with sensors and cameras. The chief purpose of SMART-1 - the acronym stands for Small Missions for Advanced Research and Technology - is to test cutting-edge technology to pave the way for future trips to the Moon and perhaps even lunar colonies.

Along the way it will not only demonstrate a revolutionary new propulsion system, but make the first comprehensive map of elements on the Moon's surface.

SMART-1, launched by an Ariane rocket from Kourou, French Guiana, on September 27 last year, is about the size of a refrigerator with long solar panels spanning 46ft.

Electricity from the panels is used to power the spacecraft's ion engine. Instead of using a chemical rocket, SMART-1 fires a high-speed stream of electrically charged atoms of xenon gas.

A similar idea was used by the makers of Star Trek as part of the Starship Enterprise's propulsion system. Although the thrust produced is minute, only amounting to about a quarter of an ounce, it can be maintained over long periods of time.

The slow acceleration can eventually push SMART-1 to speeds of almost two miles per second and beyond. Travelling in a series of widening spirals, the spacecraft picked up extra speed from the Earth's gravity, reaching a maximum of five miles per second.

It has crossed the crucial 'langrangian point' where the gravitational fields of the Earth and Moon balance out. Professor Bernard Foing, ESA's chief scientist and SMART-1 project scientist, said at a briefing in London today: "At the moment SMART-1 is only at the gateway. We are not yet there.

"Symbolically, it's important because it's the first time that western Europe has a mission that is more attracted to the Moon than the Earth."

posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 05:40 PM

Originally posted by Notme
Has a nuke ever been detonated in space??

A nuclear weapon has already been detonated in space.

I think they were done in a test called Hardtrack or Fishbowl.

posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 05:41 PM

Originally posted by minkey53
OK then all you sceptics, check out the link

for the article about the spacecraft going to the moon.

If you also care to check out the web site about the Disclosure Project it will tell you a little more about Bases on the moon. I have purchased the 4 hour witness testimony video which shows the likes of Buzz Aldrin stating that he saw Alien bases on the moon and he testified this to congress!

have any proof/articles about buzz aldrin and moon bases? ive heard some other people say that, and i read rumours of him supposedly admitting it. but never saw any of the articles.

[edit on 15-11-2004 by ys333]

posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 05:53 PM
Depends what you mean by proof?

I have read in many books about Buzz Aldrin admitting to seeing alien artifacts and craft etc. on the moon. I have also seen on any videos with Buzz himself saying it and others saying they have spoken to him about it.

Evidentally, the FBI seized 123 photographs off NASA showing these things. Many astronauts have spoken about being Buzzed (excuse the punn) by alien craft when on Gemini and Apoolo missions and having some kind of particle beam / emp weapon fired at them disabling there electrical systems momentarily etc.

Also, why are the chinese so keen to suddenly go there recently since some of this evidence if you can call it that came to light? Do the chinese want to seize some alien technology so they can use it against Korea?

I suppose the only real proof would be to see something for yourself but if high ranking official people such as Buzz Aldrin etc. have already testified to congress and publicly about these things when they have been threatened to have their BIG government pensions withdrawn, then there must be some truth to it all.

After researching the subject for 2 years now FULL TIME, I am convinced some of these people ARE telling the truth!

What do you all think???

posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 06:00 PM
theyve been to congress?? never heard of that 1, must be somethin in it if they did goto congress.

need some articles bro, im a newcomer to this whole scene.

[edit on 15-11-2004 by ys333]

posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 07:07 PM
Do you have a link to any data on nuke effect in space?
I searched your keywords on google but didn't find much.

posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 07:36 PM

Originally posted by Notme
Do you have a link to any data on nuke effect in space?
I searched your keywords on google but didn't find much.

I have seen the footage of the test before it looked like a mini sun in the blackness of space. It was really quite amazing.

Im not sure if this is the one I saw

Operation Hardtack
Test Name- Teak
Height (Ft)- 252,000
Yield -3800KT

Thats about 45 miles up I think. I really depends on what you consider outer space 50 miles, 60 miles or 62 miles a 100 miles? The atmosphere gradually thins with increasing altitude so there is no tangible boundary between Earth's upper atmosphere and Space.

There might have been higher test but I havent found information on those yet.

posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 07:44 PM
Heres a quote from another site I found

"Nuclear weapons have been tested by dropping them from planes (an "airdrop"), from the tops of towers, hoisted from balloons, on barges at sea, attached to the bottom of ships, and even shot into outer space by rockets."

It has a list of all known nuclear test series designations. I think I will find it here.

posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 09:13 PM
I found this page on the net descibing the dtonation effect of a nuclear blast, but it describes surface blast mostly. If I read it correctly, the blast would be weak in the vaccume of space as most of the destructive force is derived from the extreme atmospheric pressure wave created.
I maybe (probably) wrong. I will keep looking.

posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 09:31 PM

I have seen the footage of the test before it looked like a mini sun in the blackness of space. It was really quite amazing.

I wonder if that could have been a "cosmic calling card" in and of itself?

Now that would be very interesting.

No proof mind you, just thoughts.


posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 10:14 PM
I found two very good links about the effects of a nuke in space.

Basicaly, there is no destructive blast at all. There is no fireball.
The only effect is EMP and extended radiation.
The links also describe the destructve force of just the diff types of radiation energy released.

Not much of a trump card.

posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 11:39 PM
I think since fire cant burn in space is the effect you see is caused by the release of photons or different types of radiation gamma perhaps.

I been looking into some of the real higher test with nukes and it seems the EMP effect can be quite large blacking out large areas.

The electrons trap in the Earths magnetic field, the EM The pulse can easily span continent-sized areas

It aslo looks into three small devices were exploded in the Van Allen belts as part of Project Argus.

[edit on 15-11-2004 by ShadowXIX]

posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 08:45 PM
Here's a quote

A nuclear weapon in space has exactly two ways to destroy a target: soft X-rays and neutrons. The X-ray flash of a nuclear blast in space is very short, and the X-rays comparatively low in energy. But the instantaneous power in the radiation is enormous. When low-energy X-rays hit the outer skin of a warhead they stop, and their energy heats up a very thin layer of material. That sheath explodes away from the reentry vehicle, producing an intense shockwave that travels through the warhead. The shockwave is so intense that it is likely to destroy the structure of the intercepted nuclear weapon. In addition, plasmas may form on the powered electronics in the reentry vehicle, causing them to fail from "system-generated electromagnetic pulse." Weapons designers can harden a missile, but only at the cost of making the nuclear warhead heavier and significantly reducing its range. It is likely that hardening warheads to 100 calories per square centimeter is the outer range of what an entry-level missile and nuclear power can achieve.

So I guess a nuke is still some what effective, just not as brute force destuction of a pressure wave.

posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 09:09 PM
Interesting enough I was watching the DVDs from the HBO -Ali G Show. There is an interview with Buzz Aldrin on there on there. Its interesting when he is asked about aliens on the moon.

Ali G: So when u arrived on the moon, was the people who lived there friendly or was they scared of you?

Buzz Aldrin: There was absolutely no thought of encountering any living being whatsoever.

He never directly says that they didn't see life on the moon.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in