Why has NASA never gone back to the moon?

No you silly idiot, there is nothig sinister behind the fact that NASA stopped going to the Moon.

The Congress of the United States of America cut off the funds for those flights. Congress refused to even fund all of the planned missions. They felt that "we had been there and done that", so there was no real need to go back.

Learn to READ, and go back over the Congressional documents of the era, you fool.

SNIP, there is nothing sinister behind the fact that NASA stopped going to the Moon.

The Congress of the United States of America cut off the funds for those flights. Congress refused to even fund all of the planned missions. They felt that "we had been there and done that", so there was no real need to go back.

Congress was convinced that "reusable spacecraft" was the only way to go. So, they funded the Space Shuttle program, and de-funded the entire Appolo program. They cut the funding so drastically that we no longer have the capability of building those rockets, without essentially reinventing the technology.

SNIP go back over the Congressional documents of the era. The documents are readily available, to anyone that can actually read and do some research.

Of course, for the ignorant and uninformed, it is so much easier to believe in some kind of conspiracy, isn't it?

God forbid that you actually learn something about the subject.


Mod Edit: Removed unnecessary verbal attacks

[edit on 2-7-2008 by Crakeur]

N.A.S.A. Never went to the moon to begin with. Every Apollo mission was filmed on a large sound stage. The was to fool the Russians into thinking we beat them to the moon in the space race.

We never could go to the moon with the technology that N.A.S.A. used at the time, or the technology they use now. One of the main reasons is the Van Allen Belt which begins about 300 miles from the surface of the Earth. The Van Allen Belt shields the Earth from extreme radiation and completely surrounds the Earth. It is like a filter, a sponge of Radiation. No Space rocket or shuttle could successfully protect it's crew from the Radiation.

The Earth is like a giant round magnet is space. Every magnet has a field around it, just like the magnets on your refrigerator. You can't see the field, however you can feel it when you take two different magnets and and make the same poles face each other, like South pole faceing South pole. You can easily with in a certain range, depending on how strong the field, feel the resistance. The invisible field is just like the Earhs field.

Now the Secret Government does have Ships in space, a small fleet as a matter of fact. The use anti gravity technology. The same anti gravity technology protects the ships from the Radiation, because the ships generate their own gravity field like Earth. These ships actually have names, but no names of ships found on Earth in any fleet.
An interview with Gary McKinnon (Charged with Hacking US Gov Pc's) explains in an interview about documents he read concerning this...
www.youtube.com...

Neil Armstrong's cryptic speech...
www.youtube.com...

Moon landing hoax videos...

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Forgive me if this has already been said, but I read somewhere that NASA crashed a couple of bits of rockets into the Moon, for reasons I don't really know, maybe to kick up a bit of dirt to see what was underneath.
Anyway, if that is the case, and I was an alien living in a base on the moon, I'd tell NASA to >SNIP< off too.
Also, I can't see why funding should be a problem, as governments print the money, possess most of the gold, and control the economies all over the place anyway. They're not short of a bob/buck or two, and they seem to have plenty to waste on killing people.
Apparently, there are vast reserves of titanium, iridium, yttrium, uranium, and other useful substances on the moon, which would definitely be a profitable mining resource.
They've been keeping us in the dark about everything for millenia, so why would they stop now?

[Mod edit to snip censor circumvention]

[edit on 7/2/2008 by yeahright]

Originally posted by OldMedic
No you silly idiot, there is nothing sinister behind the fact that NASA stopped going to the Moon.


Learn to READ, and go back over the Congressional documents of the era. The documents are readily available, to anyone that can actually read and do some research.

Of course, for the ignorant and uninformed, it is so much easier to believe in some kind of conspiracy, isn't it?

God forbid that you actually learn something about the subject.

There is no need to be insulting to people with ideas that are different than your own. You can give an opinion without being disrespectful and violating the rules of manners and decorum we have on ATS>

Sometimes being uninformed means accepting everything you are spoonfed by the government at face value, because ... its not like they would ever lie to us right?

They are politicians. They are known for their honesty and sincerity.

right?

wrong.

The fact that politicians lie is an accepted fact.. every american knows this simple truth.. and if you consider that simple truth you cannot call people who question the word of known liars to be uninformed or other colorfull terms you used.

It is logic to question.

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


Anon....based on your erroneous ideas about the VA Belts, then aliens couldn't come to visit us, and threaten us....but you seem to think they are here. So, which is it?

Oh, by the way....no, the VA Belts are easily transversed by Apollo craft, with minimal radiation exposure to the Astronauts. Someone has been seeing too many YouTube nonsense videos!

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


To the other Anon....yes, quite a few craft have been intentionally crashed, after seismographs....well, the equivalent term, the ones to measure the effects, had been placed ON th Moon....

The idea is to somehow discern the interior of the Moon....does it have a molten core, for instance. There are indications of ancient lava flows....is the Moon still internally hot? THAT is why there were intentional crashes.

In fact, the six LM ascent Modules (Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17) were all intentionally crashed back to the Lunar surface. Sheesh!!!! Why does no one look into the history!!!!

We need schools to teach better basic physics, astrometrics, and geometry, to name a few!!

Originally posted by DarthChrisious
Yet the Soviets, America's arch nemesis and sworn enemy for life,

Please be so kind as to offer us proof of that statement after all incredible claims require incredible proof..

'sworn enemies for life' what a bunch of hooie !

Originally posted by weedwhacker
yes, quite a few craft have been intentionally crashed, after seismographs....well, the equivalent term, the ones to measure the effects, had been placed ON th Moon....

Yes indeed NASA just LOVES to deliberately smash their toys (errr OUR toys as we paid for them) into the Moon, Comets, Jupiter and Saturn (loaded with plutonium) and are even planning a new mission to the moon with the intent of crashing into the polar ice just to 'stir things up' They call this 'science'

When they smashed into the comet they were jumping up and down like school kids in the control room... but they got a huge secondary explosion that could be seen from Earth... seems they didn't expect that...

The last mission to Mercury took laser 'pot shots' at Venus... When Galileo hit Jupiter it created a hugh black spot that was visible for a very long time and who know what will happen when they drop Cassini into Saturn all 72 pounds of plutonium (Nagasaki was about 15 pounds)

The idea is to somehow discern the interior of the Moon....does it have a molten core, for instance. There are indications of ancient lava flows....is the Moon still internally hot? THAT is why there were intentional crashes.

Or to see if its hollow? It 'rang like a bell' for HOURS after the impacts...

We need schools to teach better basic physics, astrometrics, and geometry, to name a few!!

True so we can actually put people in NASA that know more about science than blowing things up or gleefully smashing expensive space craft into planets; and enginners that can actually make that Shuttle work right

reply to post by zorgon


OK...still reading, Z....rang like a bell.

I told you I was still reading up on this. But, since you dropped in.... Let me see.....the Moon is 64% of the Earth's mass, (You and John Lear) yet it is hollow (rings like a bell) and is less than 1/4 the diameter of the Earth....OK. I'm about to make some popcorn, for the show....

OK, with approximately 1/2G, if on the Moon....then it COULD hold minimal atmosphere, but mostly in the lowlands, no?

BUT, with that gravity well, we would have to calculate how the LM thrusters actually worked, how the CSM stayed in orbit, at what speed and altitude....it needs to all fit together. ALSO, the weight of the men, in the EVA suits, with the gear and all...the PLSS on the suits....all must fit together.

Also, what is the thrust available for the Ascent Module, in order to achieve Lunar Orbit and rendezvous with the CSM? Because, wasn't the CSM in a parking orbit? It would have to be in a orbit that would be stable, for at least a few days, and be in an orbit that the LM ascent Module could launch up to, and join....and ALSO, they would have to be able to conduct a TEI burn, to escape Lunar orbit. NOW, if the gravity of the Moon is indeed as you suspect, then can you please explain how they have enough fuel to burn out of that orbit, for the TEI?

Thanks.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
OK...still reading, Z...

No problem WW I gave you a lot to ponder in that... I do hope you get something out of it... so please take your time

.rang like a bell.

Yes according to NASA... for several hours after the impact

I told you I was still reading up on this.

None of this is included in the reading material so...

Let me see.....the Moon is 64% of the Earth's mass, (You and John Lear)

No gravity is 64% of Earth we said nothing about the mass. Have you read Pari Spolter's challenge to gravity yet? You might want to

OK, with approximately 1/2G, if on the Moon....then it COULD hold minimal atmosphere, but mostly in the lowlands, no?

Apparently so yes... according to Hansen and mostly on farside as the center of gravity is NOT the center of the moon

BUT, with that gravity well, we would have to calculate how the LM thrusters actually worked, how the CSM stayed in orbit, at what speed and altitude....it needs to all fit together. ALSO, the weight of the men, in the EVA suits, with the gear and all...the PLSS on the suits....all must fit together.

You would think so yes... but if you did a little research... NASA has its own papers on the gravity anomalies on the moon... and how this effects orbits, namely you can not make circular orbits near the moon as those anomalies in gravity will pull you down... as they learned the hard way

They even have a paper showing that an astronaut on one spot on the moon weighs different than on another spot on the moon... and gravity is not always vertical in every spot...

If you want I can dig up the links for you

NOW, if the gravity of the Moon is indeed as you suspect, then can you please explain how they have enough fuel to burn out of that orbit, for the TEI?

Well now that is precisely the point... they didn't have enough fuel based on the gravity issues... which is why Gus Grissom said "that thing will never land on the moon in a year.. that thing will never land on the moon in ten years"

Of course he is dead now so we only have the transcripts...



One thing I like about you... is everytime I have to explain how all this works and go hunt the files, I find something new and better

Links coming next post hang tight

Thanks.

Lunar gravity: Apollo 16

W. L. Sjogren1, R. N. Wimberly1 and W. R. Wollenhaupt2
(1) Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Calif., USA
(2) Johnson Space Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Houston, Tex., USA

Received: 22 April 1974

Abstract Reduction of doppler radio tracking of the orbiting spacecraft has shown consistency with Apollo 14 data results and has revealed new gravity anomalies. Large craters are negative anomalies while wrinkle ridge regions are positive. The Central highlands are mostly a positive anomaly except for the Apollo 16 landing site, which is in a negative area. A gravity high northwest of Theophilus is not easily explained.

www.springerlink.com...

Abstract

Until this date, the lunar gravimetric inverse problem has mainly been posed
as a global problem, solving for gravity fields over the whole of the Moon.
The asymmetric sampling of the force field requires that some sort of regularisation be applied in order to have a meaningful global solution that does not provide spurious information on the far side. On one hand these global solutions work very well in terms of overall orbit quality and consistency, despite the fact that roughly one half of the surface lacks sampling. On the other hand, excellently sampled regions cannot be determined at maximum spatial resolution without affecting too much the solution on the far side, which in itself is highly unstable

snip

With missions in the future such as SELENE, which will provide the first
global tracking data set of the Moon ever, global and regional methods to
solve for gravity field products will remain equally of interest, since they both
can give complementary insight into the low and high resolution gravity field.

astrogeology.usgs.gov...

So it seems they don't know everything about the gravity on the Moon huh? I mean that IS Selene's main mission

From a subset of Lunar Prospector tracking data
from the nominal mission, a lunar gravity field model has been created. This model shows a data fit for (in)dependent data at a level comparable to that of a JPL model. Despite relatively large differences in gravity anomalies over the far side, both models perform equally well in terms of data fit and overlap statistics. The use and impact of historical data, as well as Clementine data, is also commented on. The extended mission data have been processed using the latest Lunar Prospector gravity field model LP150Q in order to assess orbit quality in terms of data fit and overlap statistics, showing the current status of low-lunar orbit determination precision

The radial orbit accuracy for a polar orbit at 100 km altitude
is expected to be below the 1 m level. It should be noted that current gravity field models are tuned towards the polar orbit, leading to expected orbit errors of several orders of magnitude larger for different inclinations, especially in the mid-range

www.cosis.net...

If they are just figuring out correct orbits based on Lunar gravity anomalies NOW how did they manage it back then?



Clementine data...

The Free-air gravity anomalies of the Moon (in milligals,
mGals, where 1 mGal = 0.01 mm/s^2) are evaluated at the
surface, and are determined from the GLGM-2 solution. The
Free-air gravity errors are also in mGals. Bouguer anomalies,
determined by subtracting the gravitational attraction of the
surface topography from the free-air anomaly, are in mGals.
Geoid anomalies and errors are in meters. Crustal
thicknesses, assuming a constant-density crust and mantle, are
in kilometers.

pds-geosciences.wustl.edu...

Forty years after the first spacecraft entered lunar orbit, the gravitational field of the lunar farside remains poorly known, because spacecraft low over the farside cannot be tracked from Earth. Current farside gravity maps are based on indirect information; they are not very precise
and their reliability is uncertain. A complete, dependable lunar gravity map would aid both lunar science and lunar mission engineering. The best way to achieve this—often proposed, never flown—is with an orbiter plus a subsatellite, doing continuous inter-spacecraft tracking, and recording data when out of touch with Earth.

www.utias-sfl.net...

Hansen said it in 1865, John Lear has said it for years and now NASA et all is saying it and measuring it..

THE GRAVITY ON FARSIDE IS DIFFERENT


Lunar Prospector had to constantly readjust its orbit to stay in orbit..

During the one year primary mission, LP executed orbit correction and reorientation maneuvers to maintain its desired orbit and altitude.

Lunar Prospector Orbit Determination Uncertainties
Using the High Resolution Lunar Gravity Models
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
California Institute of Technology

trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov...


[edit on 3-7-2008 by zorgon]

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


Ok cool post...First video, the dude who hacked the computers looks like an alien... Am I wrong here?

Second video Niel Armstrong... Interesting indeed... Wish the entire speech was on there...

Last videos on moon hoax... My Grandfather, God rest his soul, worked on the spacecraft, the shuttles that went to the moon... So I guess he was a liar and everyone else who worked on the project is a liar as well.. ? I don't buy the whole hoax thing... I think the hoax is the hoax... We went to the moon... We have been back and we keep going back... Wouldn't be surprised if most of what John Lear has talked about is true to an extent...

Originally posted by NephraTari

Originally posted by OldMedic
No you silly idiot, there is nothing sinister behind the fact that NASA stopped going to the Moon.


Learn to READ, and go back over the Congressional documents of the era. The documents are readily available, to anyone that can actually read and do some research.

Of course, for the ignorant and uninformed, it is so much easier to believe in some kind of conspiracy, isn't it?

God forbid that you actually learn something about the subject.

There is no need to be insulting to people with ideas that are different than your own. You can give an opinion without being disrespectful and violating the rules of manners and decorum we have on ATS>

Sometimes being uninformed means accepting everything you are spoonfed by the government at face value, because ... its not like they would ever lie to us right?

They are politicians. They are known for their honesty and sincerity.

right?

wrong.

The fact that politicians lie is an accepted fact.. every american knows this simple truth.. and if you consider that simple truth you cannot call people who question the word of known liars to be uninformed or other colorfull terms you used.

It is logic to question.

Well said I was thinking the same. We do all have different options, especially when it comes to the moon landing, Nothing is certain as we havent hardly been told anything by NASA. NASA lie always have always will. You only have to look at the moon pictures that were obviously airbrushed www.youtube.com... to hide what could be buildings. What are they hiding? and why?

I don't think the conspiracy is about going back to the Moon, so much as that we are not nearly as far along in our quest to become space faring as "they" would have us believe.

In my estimation we are basically stuck in Low Earth Orbit (LEO).

Nobody wants to admit that there is no easy route to space or back to the Moon.

This talk of already existent bases or advanced flight technology is just that; talk.

reply to post by zorgon


Very cool info Zorgon, thanks again.

Gravitational anomalies on the Moon? Is it just me, or is there a possible movie script in this? How did Sir Arthur C. Clarke know??

(OK, don't flame me....I know it was the TMA-1 in the iconic movie...magnetic, not gravitational...but still......)

Originally posted by weedwhacker
.I know it was the TMA-1 in the iconic movie...magnetic, not gravitational...but still......)

You haven't been keeping up to par with the latest research... electromagnetism and gravity appear to be very closely linked

Electro magnetism gravity
GR, QM, and Field Unification (DRAFT #4, Part 2)
www.physicsforums.com...

How Gravito Magnetism is Different from Electro Magnetism
Dipole Gravity, Gravitomagnetism
dipoleantigravity.blogspot.com...


"Gravitomagnetism is produced by stars and planets when they spin. "It's similar in form to the magnetic field produced by a spinning ball of charge," explains physicist Clifford Will of Washington University (St. Louis). Replace charge with mass, and magnetism becomes gravitomagnetism" quoted from

In Search of Gravitomagnetis
science.nasa.gov...

Now I have already showed you numerous times the Leviated Dipole experiment from MIT

The problem people seem to have is the term "Anti Gravity" What exactly does that mean? Literally it would be a force equal and opposite to gravity... and like matter and anti matter the two would cancel each other out usually violently... not ideal to use on a spaceship unless you can control it

However gravity shielding gaves you the same effect... if you 'shield' your craft from the gravity pull of the earth you get lift...

Maglev... people see the spinning saucer toy that is floating above the magnetic field They laugh... they say "oh that's just magnetism.." like they really understand... yet the earth is a magnetic field and a dipole at that... so if your 'toy' becomes the spaceship and you magnetic field is the Earth... guess what you have lift off

And it seems NASA agrees going by the above article..

April 20, 2004: NASA's Gravity Probe B spacecraft left Earth today in search of a force of nature, long suspected but never proven: gravitomagnetism.

So this spacecraft left Earth on April 2004

MIT has already made a success of the Levitated Dipole ( I wonder where they get all that HE3 from )

So wake up and have another coffee... you are not in Kansas anymore and Einstein and Newton are yesterdays news ...

reply to post by zorgon


See, that's just it. Wasn't the STS tether experiment to see if moving a wire through the Earth's magnetic field would produce electricity, just as we do down here, with generators and alternators?

I think, the AMOUNT of power that was produced was the shocking (yeah, a little pun) part. Shame, we keep burning dead dinosaurs, when free energy is available everywhere......KAHN!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I think, the AMOUNT of power that was produced was the shocking (yeah, a little pun) part.

Yup and it was so much power they don't yet know how to control it safely

Some of the things NASA DOESN"T show on TV

Just how deadly plasma arcing is in space... If the ISS and the STS are of different charge... can you say ZAPPPP when they dock?




Arc in progress on a solar array










Plasma... Its everywhere yet few understand the implications

AFRL uses it to steer X Planes without ailerons
Lightning is Plasma energy created by rubbing water molecules together
Plasma is created when Stars explode... streaming all that energy into the universe

Einstein died before solving the "Unified Field Theory" but we are getting closer to it...

I suspect that the "Electric Universe' Theory is bang on...

We know how to use electricity yet we still do not truly understand its nature

We can pour water using gravity over a turbine and make electrons move in turn trough wires... but we do not know why this works as it does

THIS is free energy... yet we pay for it if you lived near a river you could tap it yourself as they did with water wheels in the medieval times... just attach a generator to the wheel

Plasma... the life blood of the Universe


A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME IS STILL PLASMA

reply to post by xweaponx


what more can nasa learn from the moon, why would any one keep going back to the same place, even for nasa this will get boring.
How can nasa justify its large budget buy going to the same place over and over again. do any of you even know how expensive a moon mission is. Unless there is strategic reason like using the moon as launch pad for other manned missions, there really is know point.
People here talk as if the moon is hidden from our view, when its not.
Does any of you own your telescope, why dont you invest in buying a powerful telescope and spend some time to observe the moon. count how many ufos you spot.
And please dont tell me all the aliens are on the other side of the moons, if there are any aliens on the moon, why would they want to stay on the moon when they could easily take the earth from man/or at least could have at some point.

There could be financial motives behind some of those books written by ex-nasa officials.