The Secret Military Moon Base Probably Actually Exists

a reply to: neutronflux

It's an interesting question all around. I think there are enough volatiles of various types available in moon regolith that if you were willing to go balls out nuclear nutty you could build versions of the automated nuke powered multistage processors Kim Stanley Robinson talks about in Red Mars.

I'm being super vague here because it's been forever since I read Red Mars, and I'm not a hard core moon geek who can tell you how much of what you could conceivably extract from a cubic meter of regolith with a given energy budget etc.

Judging by the patents for Nuclear TBM's and etc etc I'm of the belief that the machinery equipment and processes needed to dig in and start boot strapping a moon base could have likely been possible from a pure technical standpoint.

I even 100% believe that you could hide the production, R&d efforts, and etc you'd need on earth in the defense research black technology world successfully all the way until today. (There's many whole development programs for production classified aircraft, technology, submarine stuff, and other goodies that have been successfully kept black basically indefinitely) Basically, I don't see any issue here right up to the launch and recovery events themselves. The other stuff could be hidden.

Once you start launching stuff and doing construction on the moon though, I personally lack enough information by far to say concretely one way or another whether you could pull it off without getting caught.

Additionally, NONE OF US here can conclusively or convincingly say this is what would happen if X country organization or individual did see something!

There's a whole bunch about the chronology of when certain observation methods would have reached given capability levels, sensitivities, coverage densities, and levels of persistence which we just don't have any possible way to get anything better than very rough estimates on.

Additionally, we have even less knowledge of the chronology of this hypothetical moon base, the techniques used, and whether it overlaps with the observation stuff we don't know!

The very limited pool of personal knowledge I'm drawing off of though very heavily points to such an effort being much harder to discover than the people saying it's impossible and why they believe it's impossible think.

My position is we'd need way more information than we have or could conceivably gain access to in order to completely reject the idea out of hand!

Since the idea shouldn't be rejected out of hand by my thinking, I believe it's a perfectly wonderful topic very worthy of discussion and speculation on ATS!

Especially since figuring out even semi plausible ways and means to get it all done could be extremely entertaining.

Like our conversation on drilling and etc.

Also, I'm digging through sources and etc on some of the communication stuff we argued about earlier to find some stuff on LPI/LPD commo and data links etc. I swear I have a really good description somewhere of the basics of hiding your signal and it's origin points. It's just somewhere in like 9000 or more pages of pdf form documents I have on the topic!

a reply to: neutronflux

Also working on some of the questions regarding reactors you asked. I'm doing that the smart way and just flat out asking people I know involved in nuclear research what they think and why.

Luckily for us, said nuke guy is also a huge space geek so he'll likely be able to point to the direction of specifics. Unless it's one of those I can't talk about it things, which does happen in nuclear but usually doesn't equate to anything other than they can't tell you because they're not allowed to tell you.

Fun fact: pointing out to government employees that this is a circular logic fallacy and therefore not a valid argumentation does not impress them in the slightest.

a reply to: roguetechie

I would think the biggest problem of an on going base would be the energy production for heat in peoples space? A decay heat reactor would need to be sizable to produce the heat needed? Need to be shielded to protect people, and prevent detection. So you are back to putting the material in a deep hole, or a shielded bunker.


For context of hiding radioactive sources used by a moon base.

www.space.com...

The Japanese Kaguya spacecraft, which was launched in 2007, detected uranium with a gamma-ray spectrometer. Scientists are using the instrument to create maps of the moon's surface composition, showing the presence of thorium, potassium, oxygen, magnesium, silicon, calcium, titanium and iron.

Detecting Dirty Bombs from a Safe Distance
A modified NASA telescope could detect dangerous radioactive materials.

by Brittany Sauser May 5, 2009

www.technologyreview.com...

The last is to provide context how refined the detection process is.

I can say I would be more open to a small moonbase that was build late sixties, and only staffed for a couple of years.

To me, the theory a current operational moon base that has been secretly staffed decade after decade is totally lacking in credibility or probability.

There has been too much international study of the moon the last twenty years to seriously believe an operating moonbase would not be detected and outed.

It was not a moon base, but thought this was interesting?

Kettering Grammar School

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Work of the group involved tracking satellites with radios, and eavesdropping on communications to cosmonauts, as well as analysing orbits in an attempt to identify different subsets. In 1966, the fledgling group discovered the location of a new secret Soviet launch station in north Russia, Plesetsk, before the American military or intelligence services had released details.

Break

In 1966 the project went international when Swedish student Sven Grahn contacted the group with a recording of the signals from Kosmos 104.[3][4]. The same year it discovered Soviet launches from Plesetsk Cosmodrome, officially unacknowledged until 1983.

In 1973 the group tracked Skylab [5] and in July 1975, the team calculated that the Soyuz - Apollo link up would take place 140 miles over Bognor Regis on 17 July 1975, although the space craft would be travelling at five miles per second.

I think the underlying point in all of this is the simple fact that anything is possible. We may not know how, why, or by whom but no one can really say definitively that it is impossible. We certainly can't give specifics with any credibility, so I am not sure why we would even ask someone who is simply speculating and opening a discussion.

I wouldn't put it past any government to do something like this, especially given what they have done in the past by nefarious means or otherwise. Do I personally believe we do? Not really. I haven't seen any evidence but it certainly could be possible. Just because I can't fathom how, does not mean it isn't true. I think it is fair to say the US has a secret space program at the very least in some form. We already know black projects exist and there is really no debate on that. I don't see how this would be any different other than the scale of the task at hand. We have always found better and more efficient ways of doing things, so who knows.

I will say this though, never underestimate the human race. We have overcome extremely difficult problems and done things no one ever dreamed possible. We still have a long, long ways to go.

Short answer: Probably not, but I'd be a fool to discount it entirely.

a reply to: senxic

The simple point of the thread was “The Secret Military Moon Base Probably Actually Exists” without any credible evidence, no realistic idea what it takes to get material to the moon, and ignorant the moon is the subject of numerous studies, mapping missions, and photographing missions.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: senxic

The simple point of the thread was “The Secret Military Moon Base Probably Actually Exists” without any credible evidence, no realistic idea what it takes to get material to the moon, and ignorant the moon is the subject of numerous studies, mapping missions, and photographing missions.

You are so full of it. You know you're being disingenuous too.

The declassified documents from the late 50s clearly outline in exquisite detail exactly what they believed it would take at their current tech to create the moonbase and even accounted for a 20%+ loss rate.

All those mapping missions would simply have to get an order from the Pentagon saying "don't reveal X Y or Z or face FEDERAL CRIMINAL CHARGES" and every last person would fall in line and hide anything they were told you.

You pretend that all these institutions are 100% transparent and we all know that's NEVER been true.

Therefore you are consciously disingenuous and I don't trust your motives in this discussion at all.

a reply to: muzzleflash

All those mapping missions send their data back to Earth. They can be intercepted. You can only hide stuff after you have it, and if someone else has it as well...?

The US can't impose Federal charges on India, Or Russia, or China, or Japan, or the ESA, all of whom have taken detailed images of the lunar surface over the last 50 years.

Not one image taken of the lunar surface has ever disagreed with any other. There are only two alternatives:

1. The images are as they are, showing exactly what is there - nothing more, nothing less.
2. There as a vast global conspiracy between nations to hide something that you could see, for at least half the surface, with a decent amateur telescope and the signs of activity for the other half would be visible as well.

The world is full of pilot models and feasibility studies and project proposals for things that never happened. This is another example of it.

a reply to: neutronflux

However the topic is worded aside, completely discounting something without really knowing for sure either way is fundamentally flawed. Questioning something is completely appropriate, make no mistake. I simply tend to view things with a more open mind so that I can see all viewpoints and alleviate prejudice as much as possible. Either way, not everyone is going to agree on anything anyway.

All I am trying to say is had we deemed everything we thought too difficult to be impossible, we wouldn't have gotten anywhere.

a reply to: neutronflux

I could see how hiding the reactor and it's various signatures in different spectra would be a potential issue from the probe or etc you referenced.

But if you look at it the detection capabilities you're talking about don't come along for decades after the base could have been built. This would mean that they had decades to research develop build launch assemble and implement a solution, or much more likely several interlocking and increasingly sophisticated solutions.

It's not an all at once situation. They would have had plenty of warning with these things that a new detection capability was about to be integrated into a probe or etc being built and an overwhelming majority of the time actually had access to most or even all of the specifics of the code that runs these probes the design of individual components and et cetera!

And this essentially means that you don't necessarily have to work to beat the sensor itself, you can go for a save at any step in the chain so long as the actual data which is actually received and verified doesn't show telltale indicators which give your base away you win!

The point being here that for a majority of the actual technological threats potentially revealing the bases existence have an entire universe of very viable options when it comes to dealing with them. And in reality because most of the potential threats to this base being discovered come from the scientific community in the specific areas we're talking about here, they're actually pretty poorly equipped and just flat out not even really thinking about someone deliberately attempting to screw with their data etc.

The error checking and other checks and balances they have just aren't designed or optimized to ferret this kind of stuff out. (Because they're doing science not ISR etc against a potential adversary)

So when the vast majority (really all of them because military grade space research just isn't something we have access to) of the data sources we're looking at here, and you are using as proof that a base doesn't exist, are essentially entirely undefended against the type of tricks we know are used to maintain secrecy...

It's just not usable as hard and fast proof with anything resembling a reasonable level of certainty.

I'm still very firmly in the I don't know because I don't have enough evidence either way default position.

I do very much like the stuff you're posting though because it's highly educational and interesting.

I just don't even remotely see the killshot to this entire scenario in any one piece of it or even a combination of the pieces.

What I'm trying to figure out is how the hell they can do all the personnel transfers they'd need to do to keep the people from requiring far too many resources and medical attention to actually do their jobs up there!

Even assuming you had gotten the supply situation ironed out to where the base is damn near self sustaining, you'd still need to move people incredibly frequently.

a reply to: muzzleflash

Another rant? When you could try to cite actual physical evidence?

When was the speculated moon base built? What is the current speculated size? Number of staff?

You implied shuttles are used to get to the moon base? I would think they would require landing strips and landing pads? The moon base uses underground facilities? Items requiring excavation, and would result in mounds of dirt? Or the harvesting of fill dirt? How are the structures, building sites, and excavation sites not detected by photographing missions that can produce discernible photos of the lunar landers? Missions to study the moon with radar that can find caves?

We haven’t even touched on transmission towers and antennas that would need to be built above the surface. For a base on the dark side, would it require a relay station, or satellite?

You claim nuclear reactors are used? How would they avoid detection by moon missions using gamma ray detection to map the uranium deposits on the moon? I would think a nuclear reactor would show as an abnormal concentration. Or require extensive excavation to hide? What would be the benefit of sinking money to try to hide a moon base? Activity that would actually increase the chance of being found out?

And the nuclear reactor thing? You know how many people it would take to design a never before built reactor. A reactor that would probably have to supply electricity to the excavation and tunneling equipment. A reactor that could not rely on water from a large body of water for cooling during a reactor emergency?

I am serous that there is no credible evidence a staffed moon base is in current operation. There is no proof persons have been to the moon since the last Apollo Mission. The theory of a secret moon base going undetected year after year is not practical.

Again, there are more holes concerning your assertion of a manned moon base than a wheel of Swiss cheese.

Especially in the context of a base on a barren wasteland with the same surface area about equal to Asia, void of other human activity, and aggressively studied by countries with sights set on space exploration?

Maybe blow up shelters that look like moonscape? That might work. But craft leaving and landing would be noticed by changes to the Luna soil? The surface shelters would not provide enough protection from radiation and micro meteorites? And they still would require some set up that would leave the lunar soil disturbed. Might cause changes between photographing the surface. Do they leave a space ship at the base? I would think the man made items would cause abnormalities by efforts to study the moon surface with radar. A decay reactor for heat would show up on uranium deposit surveys?

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: muzzleflash

All those mapping missions send their data back to Earth.

The US can't impose Federal charges on India, Or Russia, or China, or Japan, or the ESA, all of whom have taken detailed images of the lunar surface over the last 50 years.

Prove that they took and publicly revealed 100% full depictions of the moon without airbrushing.

I bet most of them barely covered 75% of the surface in their released photos.

Leaves plenty of room for hiding things.

Oh ya and it needs to be in extremely high resolution too.

Good luck.

Look at it this way. What would the point be of dumping money into a secret moon base to keep the base secret as technologies change? Year after year? Upgrades that would increase activity that would actually increase the chance of being outed? Especially in the context of spending billions trying to shield a reactor from detection vs sinking that money in secret killer seeker automated satellites?

a reply to: muzzleflash

Airbrushing? I thought the correct term would be the manipulation of digital files. And there would still be raw files? And why wouldn’t Russia or China want to out the US? Or a group of amateurs running a radio telescope wanting to show off.

a reply to: muzzleflash

You do know there are probes that photograph the moon with the resolution to make out the items left by the Apollo Missions. And they also use radar, infrared, ultraviolet, and gamma surveying of the moon.

a reply to: neutronflux

So you don't have proof those nations released 100% high res maps?

Hmmm

I guess they are in cahoots through some UN backroom deal, like trade concessions or whatever. Free technology or resource deposits, etc. Payoffs.

Maybe even promises to allow them to make their own moon bases and to not tell anyone, or maybe an agreement out of necessity because of E.T. and something to do with that.

Who knows lol.

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: muzzleflash

All those mapping missions send their data back to Earth.

The US can't impose Federal charges on India, Or Russia, or China, or Japan, or the ESA, all of whom have taken detailed images of the lunar surface over the last 50 years.

Prove that they took and publicly revealed 100% full depictions of the moon without airbrushing.

Prove they didn't. See how that works?

I bet most of them barely covered 75% of the surface in their released photos.

Leaves plenty of room for hiding things.

Oh ya and it needs to be in extremely high resolution too.

Good luck.

Leaving aside the US's various probes, Japan and India's images are also high enough quality to resolve Apollo hardware. China and Japan's images cover the entire moon. Trust me, I have spent a lot of time going over images of the lunar surface. I know how to access and convert the raw images from these space agencies into actual images and then do some processing work of my own to squeeze every last drop out of them.

Here, have some help doing it for yourself

onebigmonkey.com...

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

Trust me,

I'm not really in the market to trust you. I don't even know you.