Closer to Mars

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Closer to Mars

Postby Elvis » Fri Feb 09, 2018 4:19 am

dada » Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:29 pm wrote:China plans to be first to land on the dark side of the moon, later this year, I think. Not a manned mission. They're sending a transmission satellite first, to bounce signal from the dark side back to earth.


This made me wonder, what would good ol' Richard Hoagland say about all this? So I checked up on him, and was glad to see he's still plugging away, now with a radio show/podcast covering the classic topics and more. He's sounding good. I'm listening now, to his take on the renewed interest in the Moon.

Audio player at link:
2018/02/03 – Ken Johnston & SteveTroy – The Suppressed NASA Evidence for Ancient Glass Structures on the Moon … and the Secret Chinese Missions To Confirm Them! Part 1

Why — after almost half a century of “benign neglect” (if not outright institutional disdain) — is the US Government, in the form of President Trump’s new “Space Directive #1,” suddenly championing the idea of “NASA astronauts, for the first time in over fifty years, returning to the surface of the Moon?”

Why are NASA (and the Russians …), in the midst of major geopolitical confrontations reminiscent of the old “Cold War” … suddenly talking publicly about setting up a “Gateway” orbital station to the Moon — together?!

Why have the Chinese, over the previous decade, quietly been sending mission after unmanned mission into lunar orbit … culminating (in 2013) with an historic landing of a robotic Chinese spacecraft (Chang’e-3 — named after the Chinese “Goddess of the Moon”) on the surface of a previously totally unexplored region, called “Mare Imbrium?”

And why are they now planning an even more dauntingly ambitious, never-before-attempted exploration — by a follow-on mission, named “Chang’e-5” — of the forever hidden and mysterious Farside of the Moon (the side we can never see from Earth)?

Why, even now, is the Indian government — separately — preparing its own highly ambitious second exploration of the Moon — with an unmanned spacecraft named “Chandrayaan-2” — to follow its first highly successful orbital mission, in 2008?; the latest, an effort to explore the Moon’s much-discussed “South Polar region” — with a sophisticated lunar orbiter, a lander … and even a robotic surface rover?

Why, suddenly, is everyone “going back to the Moon?!”



https://www.theothersideofmidnight.com/ ... ston_troy/
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7413
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Closer to Mars

Postby 82_28 » Fri Feb 09, 2018 7:17 am

Well, the most hopeful explanation of "everyone wanting to go to the moon" is because it has been proven we can. And also it is even better than the ISS because it has gravity. Sure 1/6th of Earth, but it has gravity. It also proves that not only the militaries of this fine planet also want to possibly branch out into peace rather than keep their eggs in the basket of death? Maybe? Possibly?

See, once these fucking humans really seriously get a glimpse of amazement and there exists a benefactor(s) we can in all actuality get behind, as the conservative governments know nothing but war and stupidity, humanity can stretch its legs. As it were. Yes, that sounds way too capitalist and Randian for me, but the perspective(s) may get mucked up once our focus is on space travel and learning. I am when it comes to it 80% dystopia morphing into reality and the other 20% morphing into something far less interesting to a totally trapped species.

I literally have endured a day and a half of this and found this endurance utterly fascinating knowing that I have days to go and I can fast forward to when the men who landed on the moon weren't sleeping. Give it a try. It's near the weekend and you have the time maybe. Every single moment of Apollo 17 is recorded here. It is amazing. So amazing that I will just say "fuck you" to people who think this shit don't mean nuthin'.

www.apollo17.org

There is also a transcription of the debriefing or something that you can read along with instead with "color commentary" from the astronauts themselves. A lot of detail. In fact all of it other than experiencing landing and exploring the Moon yourself.

You really get the gist of space travel and how possible, yet very hard it is. Travel in space is manageable.

Granted, I have been on Earth since May 2017. But was basically hospital and then housebound all that time until December 2017 due to some freak ass shit. Trust me. Humans can adapt to the reality of shit and it sucks. Had I woken up from some coma as I was on Earth only to find myself hurtling toward Mars it literally would have been all the same. I would have fucking adapted and I have no doubt engineering would have made a "safe" ship. Time for Mars.

I also gained a greater appreciation of the film Apollo 13 this past week. It was on TV and it stirred me to seek this out. Heroic, creepy or what. I just don't know. But they adapted to the situation.

Image


Sleeping On Alien Shores: The Unquiet Slumbers of the Apollo Moonwalkers

More than four decades ago, humanity first made landfall on the Moon and Apollo 11 Commander Neil Armstrong and Lunar Module Pilot (LMP) Buzz Aldrin left their footprints on the dusty regolith of the Sea of Tranquility. Over the span of those decades, we have grown familiar with the sights and sounds and experiences of six pairs of intrepid explorers who touched down in areas as diverse as the flat “seas” (or mare) of Tranquility and the Ocean of Storms, the hummocky foothills of Fra Mauro and the mountainous regions of Hadley-Apennine, the Descartes highland plains, and the tiny valley of Taurus-Littrow. To commemorate the anniversary of Apollo 11—which reached the Moon 46 years ago, this week—AmericaSpace will focus not upon the well-documented experiences of the astronauts on the lunar surface, but upon one of the less well-known experiences of life on an alien world: how they managed to rest and sleep aboard the cramped confines of their Lunar Module (LM), surrounded by the ethereal stillness, the silence of ages, and the realization that as they slumbered they were the only living beings on this lifeless, airless world.

Right from the start, it was clear that each of the Apollo landing crews would be required to spend at least one Earth “night” on the lunar surface. In the case of Armstrong and Aldrin—whose triumphant flight represented the so-called “G” mission in a series of seven core steps to plant American bootprints on the Moon—it was anticipated that about 22 hours would elapse between the touchdown of their Lunar Module (LM) Eagle and their liftoff to rejoin their Apollo 11 crewmate Mike Collins aboard the Command and Service Module (CSM) Columbia in lunar orbit. Subsequent flights were expected to spend yet longer on the Moon, with the “H”-series missions of Apollos 12, 13, 14, and 15 scheduled to remain for about 33 hours and feature a pair of EVAs and, finally, the “J”-series missions of Apollos 16, 17, 18, and 19 spending approximately three days on the surface, benefiting from a battery-powered Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) and performing a trio of EVAs. However, as described in an earlier AmericaSpace history article, in September 1970 Apollos 18 and 19 succumbed to budget cuts and Apollo 15 was advanced from the last H-series mission to the vanguard of the expanded J-series.

With this in mind, each landing crew would need to take time to sleep aboard the confined ascent stage of the LM, whose dimensions and angular interior were described by Aldrin in his 1989 memoir Men From Earth as akin to the cab of a diesel locomotive. “Weight restrictions prevented the use of paneling, so all the wiring bundles and plumbing were exposed,” he recalled. “Everywhere I looked there were rivets and circuit breakers. The hull had been sprayed with a dull gray fire-resistant coating. Some people had said the first Moon landing would be the culmination of the Industrial Revolution; well, the Lunar Module certainly looked industrial enough to prove it.”


Much more as it continues. . .

http://www.americaspace.com/2015/07/20/ ... on-part-1/

Granted this is about Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 was extremely more improved. But all this shit is possible.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Closer to Mars

Postby chump » Fri Feb 09, 2018 12:20 pm

User avatar
chump
 
Posts: 2261
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Closer to Mars

Postby Belligerent Savant » Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:44 pm

.
Haven't been tracking the Space-X/Musk missions in any level of detail, other than whatever's on the news or posted here. Any reason why the Moon isn't being considered as a preliminary landing spot? It's closer -- it's been done before (reportedly) -- so why isn't landing on the Moon an option?

Mars is more attractive from a marketing perspective, surely -- It's never been traversed! (again, as far as us plebes know) -- it represents a new frontier, a potential future, etc., plus the anticipated date for successfully completing such a mission is 15-20 years out at best (or longer), whereas a Moon mission would likely impose more near-term objectives, since, well, we've been there so many times already!

Ever wonder why the Russians never made it to the Moon? They were beating us handily in the space race up until our 'first landing'.... NO OTHER NATION ever landed humans on the Moon. A bit odd, no?

The argument put together by this former earth traveler raises interesting questions. An excerpt:


...the Soviet Union, right up until the time that we allegedly landed the first Apollo spacecraft on the Moon, was solidly kicking our ass in the space race. It wasn’t even close. The Soviets launched the first orbiting satellite, sent the first animal into space, sent the first man into space, performed the first space walk, sent the first three-man crew into space, was the first nation to have two spacecraft in orbit simultaneously, performed the first unmanned docking maneuver in space, and landed the first unmanned probe on the Moon.

Everything the U.S. did, prior to actually sending a manned spacecraft to the Moon, had already been done by the Soviets, who clearly were staying at least a step or two ahead of our top-notch team of imported Nazi scientists. The smart money was clearly on the Soviets to make it to the Moon first, if anyone was to do so. Their astronauts had logged five times as many hours in space as had ours. And they had a considerable amount of time, money, scientific talent and, perhaps most of all, national pride riding on that goal.

And yet, amazingly enough, despite the incredibly long odds, the underdog Americans made it first. And not only did we make it first, but after a full forty years, the Soviets apparently still haven’t quite figured out how we did it. The question that is clearly begged here is a simple one: Why is it that the nation that was leading the world in the field of space travel not only didn’t make it to the Moon back in the 1960s, but still to this day have never made it there?


Could it be that they were just really poor losers? I am imagining that perhaps the conversation over in Moscow’s equivalent of NASA went something like this:

Boris: Comrade Ivan, there is terrible news today: the Yankee imperialists have beaten us to the Moon. What should we do?
Ivan: Let’s just shit-can our entire space program.
Boris: But comrade, we are so close to success! And we have so much invested in the effort!
Ivan: Fuck it! If we can’t be first, we aren’t going at all.
Boris: But I beg of you comrade! The moon has so much to teach us, and the Americans will surely not share with us the knowledge they have gained.
Ivan: Nyet!


In truth, the entire space program has largely been, from its inception, little more than an elaborate cover for the research, development and deployment of space-based weaponry and surveillance systems. The media never talk about such things, of course, but government documents make clear that the goals being pursued through space research are largely military in nature. For this reason alone, it is inconceivable that the Soviets would not have followed the Americans onto the Moon for the sake of their own national defense.

It is not just the Soviets, of course, who have never made it to the Moon. The Chinese haven’t either. Nor has any other industrialized nation, despite the rather obvious fact that every such nation on the planet now possesses technology that is light-years beyond what was available to NASA scientists in the 1960s.

Some readers will recall that (and younger readers might want to cover their eyes here, because the information to follow is quite shocking), in the 1960s, a full complement of home electronics consisted of a fuzzy, 13-channel, black-and-white television set with a rotary tuning dial, rabbit ears and no remote. Such cutting-edge technology as the pocket calculator was still five years away from hitting the consumer market.

It is perfectly obvious, of course, that it was not consumer electronics that allegedly sent men to the Moon. The point here though is that advances in aerospace technology mirror advances in consumer technology, and just as there has been revolutionary change in entertainment and communications technology, so too has aerospace technology advanced by light-years in the last four decades. Technologically speaking, the NASA scientists working on the Apollo project were working in the Dark Ages. So if they could pull it off back then, then just about anyone should be able to do it now.

It would be particularly easy, needless to say, for America to do it again, since we’ve already done all the research and development and testing. Why then, I wonder, have we not returned to the Moon since the last Apollo flight? Following the alleged landings, there was considerable talk of establishing a space station on the Moon, and of possibly even colonizing Earth’s satellite. Yet all such talk was quickly dropped and soon forgotten and for nearly four decades now not a single human has been to the Moon.

Again, the question that immediately comes to mind is: Why? Why has no nation ever duplicated, or even attempted to duplicate, this miraculous feat? Why has no other nation even sent a manned spacecraft to orbit the Moon? Why has no other nation ever attempted to send a manned spacecraft anywhere beyond low-Earth orbit?

Is it because we already learned everything there was to learn about the Moon? If so, then could it reasonably be argued that it would be possible to make six random landings on the surface of the Earth and come away with a complete and thorough understanding of this heavenly body? Are we to believe that the international scientific community has no open questions that could be answered by a, ahem, ‘return’ trip to the Moon? And is there no military advantage to be gained by sending men to the Moon? Has man’s keen interest in exploring celestial bodies, evident throughout recorded history, suddenly gone into remission?


Maybe, you say, it’s just too damned expensive. But the 1960s were not a particularly prosperous time in U.S. history and we were engaged in an expensive Cold War throughout the decade as well as an even more expensive ‘hot’ war in Southeast Asia, and yet we still managed to finance no less than seven manned missions to the Moon, using a new, disposable, multi-sectioned spacecraft each time. And yet in the four decades since then, we are apparently supposed to believe that no other nation has been able to afford to do it even once.

While we’re on the subject of the passage of time, exactly how much time do you suppose will have to pass before people in significant numbers begin to question the Moon landings? NASA has recently announced that we will not be returning, as previously advertised, by the year 2020. That means that we will pass the fifty-year anniversary of the first alleged landing without a sequel. Will that be enough elapsed time that people will begin to wonder? What about after a full century has passed by? Will our history books still talk about the Moon landings? And if so, what will people make of such stories? When they watch old preserved films from the 1960s, how will they reconcile the laughably primitive technology of the era with the notion that NASA sent men to the Moon?

Consider this peculiar fact: in order to reach the surface of the Moon from the surface of the Earth, the Apollo astronauts would have had to travel a minimum of 234,000 miles*. Since the last Apollo flight allegedly returned from the Moon in 1972, the furthest that any astronaut from any country has traveled from the surface of the Earth is about 400 miles. And very few have even gone that far. The primary components of the current U.S. space program – the space shuttles, the space station, and the Hubble Telescope – operate at an orbiting altitude of about 200 miles.

(*NASA gives the distance from the center of Earth to the center of the Moon as 239,000 miles. Since the Earth has a radius of about 4,000 miles and the Moon’s radius is roughly 1,000 miles, that leaves a surface-to-surface distance of 234,000 miles. The total distance traveled during the alleged missions, including Earth and Moon orbits, ranged from 622,268 miles for Apollo 13 to 1,484,934 miles for Apollo 17. All on a single tank of gas.)

To briefly recap then, in the twenty-first century, utilizing the most cutting-edge modern technology, the best manned spaceship the U.S. can build will only reach an altitude of 200 miles. But in the 1960s, we built a half-dozen of them that flew almost 1,200 times further into space. And then flew back. And they were able to do that despite the fact that the Saturn V rockets that powered the Apollo flights weighed in at a paltry 3,000 tons, about .004% of the size that the principal designer of those very same Saturn rockets had previously said would be required to actually get to the Moon and back (primarily due to the unfathomably large load of fuel that would be required).



http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-1/
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Closer to Mars

Postby dada » Fri Feb 09, 2018 2:52 pm

Other than doing it for appearances, I think it makes little sense to send a manned mission to the moon at this point without the longer term plan in place. Just getting there and back is not enough anymore. Building an infrastructure that supports frequent travel and habitation is the new goal.

If we make a serious assessment of all that goes into it, we can see why China and Russia would skip the theatrics. It's a matter of looking at the arc of time with a grander, sweeping scope. A generation or two may seem like a really long time to the casual observer, but in the grand scheme of things it isn't much time at all.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Closer to Mars

Postby DrEvil » Fri Feb 09, 2018 3:32 pm

What's really depressing is that NASA was pretty much ready to go to Mars back when Nixon was president. All they needed was the budget to do it. Hardware-wise they had what they needed, but the US had already "won" the space race, and the prospect of locking themselves in to 20-30 years of non-optional expenses (couldn't very well cut the budget if there was people depending on it on Mars) made them chicken out and wind the whole thing down.

Also, as mentioned in the article above, the main reason for the space race was military. It wasn't so much about landing on the moon as it was telling the rest of the world "hey, look at how precise our guidance systems are! We can "land" something (nudge nudge wink wink) wherever we want with pinpoint precision".
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Closer to Mars

Postby Belligerent Savant » Fri Feb 09, 2018 3:56 pm

.

dada » Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:52 pm wrote:Other than doing it for appearances, I think it makes little sense to send a manned mission to the moon at this point


I can agree it makes less sense now. But what about back then? What about within the first 10 years or so after the U.S. reportedly sent Man to the Moon? They would have certainly have been incentivized, for a variety of reasons, to replicate the feat (and again, to reiterate, Russia already accomplished ALL other aspects of space travel at that point except for manned moon landing... why stop, back then?)

DrEvil » Fri Feb 09, 2018 2:32 pm wrote:Also, as mentioned in the article above, the main reason for the space race was military. It wasn't so much about landing on the moon as it was telling the rest of the world "hey, look at how precise our guidance systems are! We can "land" something (nudge nudge wink wink) wherever we want with pinpoint precision".


RIGHT. All the more reason Russia would have had strong interest in pursuing it, precisely for those military reasons. And, as mentioned, they were the closest in tech/capability (on can argue that they surpassed the U.S. in tech capability during that era, except for that 'landing on the moon' thing)
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Closer to Mars

Postby dada » Fri Feb 09, 2018 4:33 pm

But it's looking for reasons to doubt the manned moon landing that creates this whole line of questioning. If we accept that it happened, there would be no reason for Russia to do it. The competitive spirit doesn't care for second place. I don't try to tie a world record, I want to break it, and break it big.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Closer to Mars

Postby DrEvil » Fri Feb 09, 2018 4:53 pm

Belligerent Savant » Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:56 pm wrote:.

dada » Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:52 pm wrote:Other than doing it for appearances, I think it makes little sense to send a manned mission to the moon at this point


I can agree it makes less sense now. But what about back then? What about within the first 10 years or so after the U.S. reportedly sent Man to the Moon? They would have certainly have been incentivized, for a variety of reasons, to replicate the feat (and again, to reiterate, Russia already accomplished ALL other aspects of space travel at that point except for manned moon landing... why stop, back then?)

DrEvil » Fri Feb 09, 2018 2:32 pm wrote:Also, as mentioned in the article above, the main reason for the space race was military. It wasn't so much about landing on the moon as it was telling the rest of the world "hey, look at how precise our guidance systems are! We can "land" something (nudge nudge wink wink) wherever we want with pinpoint precision".


RIGHT. All the more reason Russia would have had strong interest in pursuing it, precisely for those military reasons. And, as mentioned, they were the closest in tech/capability (on can argue that they surpassed the U.S. in tech capability during that era, except for that 'landing on the moon' thing)


Not really. The Russians probably learned all they needed to know for the military through their other space activities. They sent a ton of probes around the solar system and landed a whole bunch of them on Venus ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venera ). If they can hit Venus they can probably hit New York. Landing on the moon was more psychological warfare and nationalism than technological benefit, plus the fact that Kennedy was assassinated, so it became almost a national obligation to complete his grand vision.

The Russians also had plenty of other firsts to wax jingoistic about, so they probably figured being second on the moon wasn't worth it:

the first intercontinental ballistic missile (R-7), first satellite (Sputnik 1), first animal in Earth orbit (the dog Laika on Sputnik 2), first human in space and Earth orbit (cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin on Vostok 1), first woman in space and Earth orbit (cosmonaut Valentina Tereshkova on Vostok 6), first spacewalk (cosmonaut Alexey Leonov on Voskhod 2), first Moon impact (Luna 2), first image of the far side of the moon (Luna 3) and unmanned lunar soft landing (Luna 9), first space rover (Lunokhod 1), first sample of lunar soil automatically extracted and brought to Earth (Luna 16), and first space station (Salyut 1). Further notable records included the first interplanetary probes: Venera 1 and Mars 1 to fly by Venus and Mars, respectively, Venera 3 and Mars 2 to impact the respective planet surface, and Venera 7 and Mars 3 to make soft landings on these planets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_space_program
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Closer to Mars

Postby Blue » Fri Feb 09, 2018 4:54 pm

Belligerent Savant » Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:56 pm wrote:.

dada » Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:52 pm wrote:Other than doing it for appearances, I think it makes little sense to send a manned mission to the moon at this point


I can agree it makes less sense now. But what about back then? What about within the first 10 years or so after the U.S. reportedly sent Man to the Moon? They would have certainly have been incentivized, for a variety of reasons, to replicate the feat (and again, to reiterate, Russia already accomplished ALL other aspects of space travel at that point except for manned moon landing... why stop, back then?)


Some pretty reasonable explanations for why they didn't beat the US and the last 3 minutes answers your question in this video:



While the Soviets did eventually build their N1 rocket and launch four test flights, every single flight failed and the rockets were destroyed. After those failed launches, the entire program was scrapped due to cost concerns. The Soviets never made it out of the atmosphere.


https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/ ... -the-moon/
User avatar
Blue
 
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:39 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Closer to Mars

Postby Blue » Fri Feb 09, 2018 5:07 pm

But hey, they're going to open the first Space Hotel!

Russia Is Planning to Open a Luxury Hotel in Space by 2022

Anyone can go, as long as they have the money.
As 2017 comes to an end, travelers are getting one step closer to vacationing in outer space, if they have $40 million to spend. The Russian space agency has plans to build a luxury hotel at the International Space Station (ISS), Popular Mechanics reports.

At 15.5-meters long (around 50-feet), the five-star hotel will feature four private sleeping cabins with personal hygiene facilities, Wi-Fi, and exercise equipment (confused as to how those last two are possible? Same). The suite will also have airplane-like windows, with nine-inch diameter portholes in private rooms and larger, 16-inch ones in the communal lounge area. Of course, vacationing in space entails more than looking out the window 250 miles above Earth: Travelers will also be able to take spacewalks guided by a professional cosmonaut. At minimum, the one-to-two-week trip costs $40 million per person, but if you choose to do a spacewalk, you'll have to stay an entire month and pay $20 million more. Affordable!

If all goes according to plan (like if the engineers take the projected five years to build it), the hotel will be open for business by 2022. The Russian agency responsible for the project has estimated that by 2021, there will be at least 43,000 people around the world with a personal fortune of more than $30 million. It's betting that if even a small percentage of this group chooses to spend their money on a trip to space, the hotel will be successful. But don't expect it to be open forever: The ISS is scheduled to close in 2028, so the hotel will only be there for a maximum of six years.



Zero Gee and I feel fine...
User avatar
Blue
 
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:39 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Closer to Mars

Postby Belligerent Savant » Fri Feb 09, 2018 6:46 pm

.

Let's revisit this convo the next time any human makes it "back" on the Moon, or to Mars, via spacecraft.

Despite what y'all are conveying here, it remains (minimally) suspect that no other nation ever landed a human on the moon, and that it's been over 45 years (and counting...) since an attempt was made to 'rivisit' the Moon (or be further along in a human to Mars mission than we currently are).

Money/budget is a BS excuse. If anything is clear about the history of the US over the last two centuries, it's that money is no object in their pursuits (this applies most often to defense budgeting and/or black ops, naturally).

Futile for us to discuss further, however -- it's just confirmation bias all around... until, of course, a human actually lands on a planet/moon "again" -- if that happens, I'll happily eat my hat; I'd want for it to be true just as much as any of you.
Last edited by Belligerent Savant on Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Closer to Mars

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:41 pm

.

(Of course, it's also possible that we have been returning to the Moon since 1972, via various clandestine/black ops. We may well have a base -- bases! -- sprinkled across the dark side of the Moon, interacting with beings from other systems/dimensions, unbeknownst to the huddled masses here on earth... we don't know. We may not ever know for certain. Indeed, nothing is certain -- theoretical physics says so.)
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Closer to Mars

Postby DrEvil » Sat Feb 10, 2018 6:15 pm

^^Could be. The NRO has a budget about the same size as NASA, so basically a top secret NASA on top of the regular space program. Most of that probably goes towards spying on Earth, but you never know.

They did have two Hubble grade telescopes just lying around that they donated to NASA ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Nati ... on_to_NASA ) because they didn't need them any more, so god knows what else they've been up to.

They also built up a secret slush fund for some reason ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... ontroversy ).
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Closer to Mars

Postby dada » Sat Feb 10, 2018 10:09 pm

Dr. Evil! smh.

Don't listen to him, spectators. When China lands on the dark side later this year, we'll see for a fact that the nazi dark side bases are bs.

Never fear. rigorous intuition is here. Wait.. What is rigorous intuition, anyway?

The rosicruscians love you. listen to us.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests