Last manned mission to the moon? 1972. Really!!

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: skyblueworld

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: skyblueworld

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: neversaynever
a reply to: droid56



or they just kept going secretly on black budget money.

Why would they? There is a huge cost to sending a person, and rovers can do a better job / stay longer.

One example

A breakaway civilisation, because when SHTF here on Earth, wouldn't it be logical to say they've already planned and built their next step?

A breakaway civilization .. on the moon? Do you realize what you are saying?

Yes a breakaway civilisation, and the first step would of been to build a base on the Moon, the moon is a stepping stone for further space exploration.

You seem astonished that this could be so, yet plans to do so have already been made..... publicly.
They don't have to tell us when they actually put that plan in place.

The Moon is not a breakaway civilization, and preparing for exploration with the moon as a base does not require MANNED missions. You have nothing and are spouting inane nonsense. Other countries are all over the moon, nothing is hidden.

You fellow the same trend as many others. Blinded.
Plus you take someone's example to your original question as de facto. It was only an example.

In 2014 after all our Governments have done to us and our ways of living, people still believe there word as gospel. These criminals who spend billions of your own fake invented money on secret projects.

a reply to: skyblueworld

wouldn't it be logical to say they've already planned and built their next step?

Well no actually.

If or when TSHTF, wouldn't it be at their best interests to keep it secret and select a new community instead of having every person on the planet running over each other to get a spot on this arc to save humanity.

That would guarantee chaos and likely some of the elites losing their spots.

They don't have to tell us when they actually put that plan in place.

And certainly wouldn't if there was a SHTF scenario.

a reply to: Necrose

the fact is you will never see the dark side of the moon with your eye

The dark side of the moon?

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: Necrose

the fact is you will never see the dark side of the moon with your eye

The dark side of the moon?

yeah?
en.wikipedia.org...

The far side of the Moon, sometimes called the "dark" side of the Moon,[1] is the hemisphere of the Moon that always faces away from Earth. The far side's terrain is rugged, with a multitude of impact craters and relatively few flat lunar maria. It has one of the largest craters in the Solar System, the South Pole–Aitken basin.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

That doesn't answer why we would want to send a person instead of a rover. So .. why?

To make real-time decisions that a "rover", or "virtual presence" is incapable of making...The only logical reason to send people.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

That doesn't answer why we would want to send a person instead of a rover. So .. why?

To make real-time decisions that a "rover", or "virtual presence" is incapable of making...The only logical reason to send people.

So surely that is an argument AGAINST there being anything hidden on the moon. If there were aliens, or whatever, wouldn't you want to have people there who could make "real time decisions", rather than dumb landers or orbiters?

originally posted by: pheonix358
The Space race was the most expensive phallic waving event in our history.

Yet, the US put men on the moon not just once but several times, the USSR never could and China landed a rover 44+ years later...

It is what it is.

originally posted by: neversaynever
a reply to: droid56

or they just kept going secretly on black budget money.

Yeah because it's quite possible to launch a Saturn V or equivalent without anybody noticing. Of course!

The government can't even launch spy satellites into low earth orbit in secret — they don't even try — so what makes you think they could launch men to the moon in secret?

originally posted by: Necrose
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

other countries may as well be hiding the very same thing.
the fact is you will never see the dark side of the moon with your eye

Once you have to resort to "there is no evidence because EVERYONE is in on the conspiracy" you have jumped the ship.

originally posted by: skyblueworld

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: skyblueworld

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: skyblueworld

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: neversaynever
a reply to: droid56



or they just kept going secretly on black budget money.

Why would they? There is a huge cost to sending a person, and rovers can do a better job / stay longer.

One example

A breakaway civilisation, because when SHTF here on Earth, wouldn't it be logical to say they've already planned and built their next step?

A breakaway civilization .. on the moon? Do you realize what you are saying?

Yes a breakaway civilisation, and the first step would of been to build a base on the Moon, the moon is a stepping stone for further space exploration.

You seem astonished that this could be so, yet plans to do so have already been made..... publicly.
They don't have to tell us when they actually put that plan in place.

The Moon is not a breakaway civilization, and preparing for exploration with the moon as a base does not require MANNED missions. You have nothing and are spouting inane nonsense. Other countries are all over the moon, nothing is hidden.

You fellow the same trend as many others. Blinded.
Plus you take someone's example to your original question as de facto. It was only an example.

In 2014 after all our Governments have done to us and our ways of living, people still believe there word as gospel. These criminals who spend billions of your own fake invented money on secret projects.

So you offer no evidence whatsoever, and anyone who won't accept your word as gospel when all the evidence says you are wrong is blinded ... and you see clearly. Hilarious.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

That doesn't answer why we would want to send a person instead of a rover. So .. why?

To make real-time decisions that a "rover", or "virtual presence" is incapable of making...The only logical reason to send people.

And you don't include any reason WHY that is needed. Especially when you consider the length rovers/robots can stay on the moon compared with a human. It makes literally zero sense.

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: neversaynever
a reply to: droid56

or they just kept going secretly on black budget money.

Yeah because it's quite possible to launch a Saturn V or equivalent without anybody noticing. Of course!

The government can't even launch spy satellites into low earth orbit in secret — they don't even try — so what makes you think they could launch men to the moon in secret?

Just say black budget secret project and logic flies out the window, at that point they don't have to explain anything, black budget is the answer to everything.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

That doesn't answer why we would want to send a person instead of a rover. So .. why?

To make real-time decisions that a "rover", or "virtual presence" is incapable of making...The only logical reason to send people.

Do you know how much water a single person needs each day? How much food to keep them alive each day?

Breathable air?

Now think about how much water, food and air a rover needs......0.

While I would love to see more manned missions in deeper space.....it cost a LOT of money not just in those supplies....but in the fuel to get all that mass there too.

Here is an article from 2005.

Notice the price tag.

NASA estimates $104 billion for return to moon
By Tariq Malik
Space.com
Despite a stalled space shuttle program, NASA is confident it can launch and sustain human exploration of the moon by 2018, the space agency’s top official said Monday.

The $104 billion plan calls for an Apollo-like vehicle to carry crews of up to four astronauts to the moon for seven-day stays on the lunar surface. The spacecraft, known as the Crew Exploration Vehicle or CEV, could even carry six-astronaut crews to the international space station or fly automated resupply shipments as needed, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin said.

www.nbcnews.com...


Notice the dates.

Funding is the issue, they want to go back.

But with a roughly 17 billion$ budget it is highly unlikely..

originally posted by: liejunkie01
Here is an article from 2005.



Notice the price tag.

NASA estimates $104 billion for return to moon

By Tariq Malik

Space.com

Despite a stalled space shuttle program, NASA is confident it can launch and sustain human exploration of the moon by 2018, the space agency’s top official said Monday.



The $104 billion plan calls for an Apollo-like vehicle to carry crews of up to four astronauts to the moon for seven-day stays on the lunar surface. The spacecraft, known as the Crew Exploration Vehicle or CEV, could even carry six-astronaut crews to the international space station or fly automated resupply shipments as needed, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin said.

www.nbcnews.com...





Notice the dates.



Funding is the issue, they want to go back.



But with a roughly 17 billion$ budget it is highly unlikely..

Exactly the point some of us make. The response is black budget. Somehow that is the answer to everything.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: skyblueworld

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: skyblueworld

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: skyblueworld

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: neversaynever
a reply to: droid56



or they just kept going secretly on black budget money.

Why would they? There is a huge cost to sending a person, and rovers can do a better job / stay longer.

One example

A breakaway civilisation, because when SHTF here on Earth, wouldn't it be logical to say they've already planned and built their next step?

A breakaway civilization .. on the moon? Do you realize what you are saying?

Yes a breakaway civilisation, and the first step would of been to build a base on the Moon, the moon is a stepping stone for further space exploration.

You seem astonished that this could be so, yet plans to do so have already been made..... publicly.
They don't have to tell us when they actually put that plan in place.

The Moon is not a breakaway civilization, and preparing for exploration with the moon as a base does not require MANNED missions. You have nothing and are spouting inane nonsense. Other countries are all over the moon, nothing is hidden.

You fellow the same trend as many others. Blinded.
Plus you take someone's example to your original question as de facto. It was only an example.

In 2014 after all our Governments have done to us and our ways of living, people still believe there word as gospel. These criminals who spend billions of your own fake invented money on secret projects.

So you offer no evidence whatsoever, and anyone who won't accept your word as gospel when all the evidence says you are wrong is blinded ... and you see clearly. Hilarious.

Really? You are hilarious my friend, the problem is it's only you who has accepted my example as gospel.

Why would you put a man on the moon instead of a rover? What possible benefit is there? OP is seriously deluded.
- See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

You asked the question, you got an answer, albeit an answer you don't accept. No need for snarky remarks to others who are here to discuss.

originally posted by: skyblueworld
You asked the question, you got an answer, albeit an answer you don't accept. No need for snarky remarks to others who are here to discuss.

No, his answer was basically a "because". His answer did not answer anything. The reason we need a man there for real time decision making even though it would cut short the mission by YEARS is because ....

He did not answer because there is no answer. It makes no sense. What is achieved that can not be achieved for 5% of the cost by sending a rover?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

In terms of sheer scientific output, manned exploration of outer space has a good track record. More than 2,000 papers have been published over the last four decades using data collected during the manned Apollo missions, and the rate of new papers is still rising. In comparison, the Soviet robotic Luna explorers and NASA’s Mars Exploration rover program — Mars Pathfinder, Spirit, and Opportunity — have each generated around 400 or so publications.

You're right about the costs, and I know that contrasting manned lunar missions with robotic Mars missions is not the right way to go, I may as well do so, but The total amount spent on science over the Apollo missions, comes to about $2.09 billion in today’s dollars, making it comparable to or even cheaper than the recent $2.5 billion Mars Science Laboratory.
Estimates are by Professor Ian Crawford.
Professor of Planetary Science and Astrobiology.

Here is a link to his paper which was in an issue of Astronomy and Geophysics:
LINK