Last man on Moon says Buzz Aldrin went to Mars

reply to post by Tifozi

The Space Shuttle is the perfect example of HOW an "aircraft" would have to be in order to make space travel.

Not true at all.
It is no secret that the government has had several projects over the years for craft that go into orbit and take off and land like a plane. Most of these projects have been cancelled, but there is a good possibility that some of these have just gone black. I'm sure you can find countless threads right here on ATS. Wether or not these projects have gone black or really have been cancelled is debateable, but the fact that the US government has had these projects is not.

Some of you keep saying that if a space plane was to be used then it wouldn't be big enough for the trip to Mars. I agree with this, however the Atlas V wasn't big enough to get us to the Moon either. We had to have several launches of the Atlas V and then all the pieces were put together in orbit before the trip could be made. I submit that the same could be said for the space plane method. You deliver your pieces to orbit on several trips and then assemble them in space.



As for Ignore the Facts:
You ask why we have waisted our time on this thread, and why it has gone on so long. The answer is simple. Some of us are having fun. I know I am. You should try it some time.

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
...Some of you keep saying that if a space plane was to be used then it wouldn't be big enough for the trip to Mars. I agree with this, however the Atlas V wasn't big enough to get us to the Moon either. We had to have several launches of the Atlas V and then all the pieces were put together in orbit before the trip could be made...

First of all, for the sake of accuracy here:
Each entire Apollo Moon Mission only required one launch (of a Saturn V). All of the required pieces of equipment were included in one single launch.

...and back to the topic:
Even if I stipulate that it may be possible to launch a secret mission to Mars (and that's a big maybe, but I'll concede this point for the sake of this debate), how is that evidence that it did happen?

You are engaging in pure speculation based on "what ifs" and "could haves". Plus, you are twisting the words of Gene Cernan in such a way to match your pre-conceived beliefs.

Your argument is a house of cards built on a table with un-even legs.

Sure it's fun to speculate, but you are treating the naysayers as if they are being tremendously close-mindedly ignorant.



[edit on 2/3/2010 by Box of Rain]

reply to post by TeslaandLyne


TaL....

Again with more nonsense????

You referred to the Bible, then wrote:

No hand from these people touch it.

Utter and blatant nonsense, but thanks for playing!!

...makes it all the more amusing.

As far as Buzz Aldrin goes, his views on the recent NASA plans for revisiting the Moon are well known. He thinks NASA is wasting it's time on the Moon and isn't ambitious enough. NASA should concentrate on going to Mars according to him. He repeated that view in every interview given during his recent UK visit. I'm sure the term 'return' to Mars simply meant to follow the robotic missions with manned flights. Of course Mr Obama has put the kaibosh on any manned flights anywhere for the forseeable future (except to the ISS).

WG3

reply to post by Box of Rain


That is what I remember, the Apollo program launched everything at the same time.

Being the well demonstrated ability to launch automated craft, I would think without some secret technology, the way to go to Mars would be to send supplies and equipment ahead, even the rocket booster that would be needed to return the men back to Earth, all in unmanned craft.

Using this type of method, I don't think it would be all that difficult to send men to Mars.

10 years or maybe a blink of an eye...reply to post by OzWeatherman


10 years sure is a long time or maybe, that technology that David Wilcock is talking about exists. Im talking about the Jump Room to Mars.

Personally, i agree with those people that said that he was talking about missions to mars and not that Buzz went there physically.

On the same topic, Obama might have cancelled Moon projects for the same reason that there haven't been Moon manned missions since the last one. That reason, to us regular folks, can only be imagined but, there are beliefs that something on the Moon, doesn't want us there. When i mean something, i mean some being of some sort. (www.ufocasebook.com...) Is one example through out many. Even though, some of these guys are called Lunatics or are declared hoaxes by some form of media or government official, there is still that slight chance that they are speaking some sort of truth.

A couple of months ago, while working up in the Oil Fields out in Northern Alberta, our company hired Buzz Aldrin come up as a motivational speaker. Everybody was excited 'cause we'd never been in the presence of an Astronaut. You can imagine how our minds filled with questions for Buzz. Here's the catch though... we could ask him anything except about his space travels. We were like, WTF?! No Way!!! When time came for the question period, you can believe that lots of us were bitting our tongues hard not to ask him anything about the moon and space at the risk of the abrupt end of the whole event. A few questions went by about his motivation, life and bla, bla, bla when suddenly this one guy gets up and asks about the Moon... Buzz politely looked him over and asked for another question. A couple of minutes later, i got up and asked him about U.F.O. sightings during his trip up to moon. To my surprise, Buzz got up and walked out the room. The doors opened and we were told to leave the auditorium and that the event was now finished. In the midst of the evacuation, i was escorted by 3 goons into to a security off and asked if i was not aware as to not ask him any questions of that nature. I lied and said no. They kept me there for half hour with some guy looking at me and then they let me go. On my way out, one of the goons said to me that i was lucky that my consequences weren't worst then my simple "catch & release". I was fuming!!!

But why is it that asking about the Moon and what happened there so hush hush? Is it because some believe we never went?! Is it because it's already inhabited by it's own beings? Is it because there's another government already in charge of it? So, when Obama says no to new funding or cancelling the future plans for NASA to go up there, im not really surprised, or am i?

Someday, we will and we'll know more. When i say we, i mean the human race. And, maybe the governments that make it up there will be more forthcoming than the American gov about what they find up there... i can only hope!

Originally posted by Box of Rain
First of all, for the sake of accuracy here:
Each entire Apollo Moon Mission only required one launch (of a Saturn V). All of the required pieces of equipment were included in one single launch.

Hmm. You are probably right. Not sure why I thought it was the other way around, but I could have sworn the lander was joined with the command module in space, but I wasn't alive at the time, so I guess I'm wrong on that.

...and back to the topic:
Even if I stipulate that it may be possible to launch a secret mission to Mars (and that's a big maybe, but I'll concede this point for the sake of this debate), how is that evidence that it did happen?

It is not evidence that it did happen. You are correct, just because it is possible is not evidence that it actually happened.

You are engaging in pure speculation based on "what ifs" and "could haves". Plus, you are twisting the words of Gene Cernan in such a way to match your pre-conceived beliefs.

Yes, most of this thread I have been engaging in pure speculation. When some one has suggested it would be impossible I have speculated on how it could have been done.

As for Cernan's quote I am not twisting it to match my pre-concieved beliefs, because I don't have any. i just simply noticed what Cernan had said and thought some on this site would find it interesting... And they obviously have.

Sure it's fun to speculate, but you are treating the naysayers as if they are being tremendously close-mindedly ignorant.

i don't agree with that at all, and I apologize to anyone who have taken my comments in that way. Like you said it's fun to speculate and that is all I've been doing. If somone gives a reason as to why it would be impossible then I try and counter with why they might be wrong, or how it could be possible.

Some of you guys act like this stuff is life or death, or that if somone throws out an idea then that person must belive it with a religious passion. This is not always the case. I'm not telling anyone that I have all the answers or that I know anything at all. I'm just offering ideas and possibilities. Some of the other posters that have called me crazy, stupid, and paranoid. Why? I'm not the one calling people names. I'm just posting a video and discussing possibilities. If that makes me a nut then I guess I'm a nut.

reply to post by fieryjaguarpaw


I don't see you arguing about all the other VERY IMPORTANT factors in your theory.

Not true at all.

Yes, it is true. If you don't agree, that's up to you. But do a little research and you'll know what I mean.

t is no secret that the government has had several projects over the years for craft that go into orbit and take off and land like a plane.

High orbit is very, VERY, VERY different from pulling away from Earth.

The Blackbird and the U-2 have high cruise altitudes. But they can't get away from Earth.

This was discussed on another thread and its consensual(obvious to someone who knows something about aviation) that you can't make a trip to the Moon in an aircraft, let alone to the Mars.

You have all sorts of problems. From the amount of fuel to the fact that there is no oxygen in space to use jet engines... The list of problems and difficulties is way bigger than the amount of advantages in choosing that "system".

Most of these projects have been cancelled, but there is a good possibility that some of these have just gone black.

They were cancelled for a reason.

If a project is cancelled, its cancelled. Its a bit of a fairy tale to think that they pick them up again. A project either is top secret from the begining or it isn't, OR it's a research project with no objective.

When a project is launched, if it is going the right way, you never hear about it. Period. They don't tell everyone "hey, we are making a space plane" to then hide it.

but the fact that the US government has had these projects is not.

The important part is not that these theories and projects are started, what matters, and you are just in denial about it, is that they were cancelled. That, in the real world, means that the concept doesn't work in the real world, just in theory. That's why they are cancelled.

Some of you keep saying that if a space plane was to be used then it wouldn't be big enough for the trip to Mars.

No. It's not "it wouldn't be big enough to go to Mars". The problem is, IN ORDER for the plane to GO to Mars, or EVEN orbit, it has to be a HUGE aircraft. Again, SPACE SHUTTLE, that is what you need to get to orbit.

Do you honestly believe that the US Gov would spend billions on the Space Shuttle when there is a magic aircraft that can do the same with no rockets?

The Space Shuttle is a aircraft that can go to orbit, you CAN'T get better than that. Now, the Space Shuttle CAN'T take off on his own. The problem isn't the size it has to be to be "normal", its the size it NEEDS to have in order to even leave Earth.

We had to have several launches of the Atlas V and then all the pieces were put together in orbit before the trip could be made. I submit that the same could be said for the space plane method.

The trip to the Moon was made in one launch with Saturn 5.

And, going back to my other post (the one you didn't argue all points), how the hell a operation like that can be kept secret? And you can even see the Space Station from Earth. A operation of building something to go to Mars in orbit would have been detected. Easily.

You deliver your pieces to orbit on several trips and then assemble them in space.

You know who does that?

The Space Shuttle.

Originally posted by UnKnown MrT
...On the same topic, Obama might have cancelled Moon projects for the same reason that there haven't been Moon manned missions since the last one. That reason, to us regular folks, can only be imagined but, there are beliefs that something on the Moon, doesn't want us there. When i mean something, i mean some being of some sort....

Or, the Moon mission could have been canceled because of the vast amounts of money it would have cost.

Back in the key developmental, design, and testing phase of Apollo (the phase when the most money was spent for Apollo) in 1965 and 1966, NASA's budget was over 5% of the whole nation's budget -- i.e., it was a huge national priority to beat the Soviet Union to the Moon.

NASA's budget not is now far smaller in actual monetary value (correcting for inflation) AND in % of the national budget -- NASA's budget today is barely over one-half% of the nation's budget.

Therefore, to go to the Moon again with a whole new fleet of spacecraft may take giving NASA a huge increase in budget (at least for a couple of the program developmental years) to get it even close to the Apollo years.

Even if we figure a modest increase in NASA's budget of say 3X (which would make it 1.5% of the national budget), I truly doubt congress would go along. Without the added incentive of beating the Soviet Union, getting to the Moon is no longer a national priority.

It could have nothing to do with "something not wanting us there" and have everything to do with money and national priorities.


[edit on 2/3/2010 by Box of Rain]

Originally posted by sv_gravity 800
You need to realise we live in a world where our goverments withhold information to our public for a reason.

There have been hundreds for space missions not told about.

Did you know just the movie buisness alone gets computer hardware 2 yeasr before the public is able to purchase it, let alone know about it.

....comonnn just think of the interasting crazy things they had 40 years ago let alone now that you cant even imagin just because they dont tell you.

The Australian Defence force or specifically the SAS were using 12 megapixel cameras in their Afghan ops in 2003. The general public are only just getting that amount in cameras now.

[edit on 3-2-2010 by Epsillion70]

O wow, really?

This just proves that the government is hiding things to us.
Not surprised

Watch him die in a few weeks from a "Natural Disaster"

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw

Originally posted by Box of Rain
Sure it's fun to speculate, but you are treating the naysayers as if they are being tremendously close-mindedly ignorant.

i don't agree with that at all, and I apologize to anyone who have taken my comments in that way. Like you said it's fun to speculate and that is all I've been doing. If somone gives a reason as to why it would be impossible then I try and counter with why they might be wrong, or how it could be possible.

Some of you guys act like this stuff is life or death, or that if somone throws out an idea then that person must belive it with a religious passion. This is not always the case. I'm not telling anyone that I have all the answers or that I know anything at all. I'm just offering ideas and possibilities. Some of the other posters that have called me crazy, stupid, and paranoid. Why? I'm not the one calling people names. I'm just posting a video and discussing possibilities. If that makes me a nut then I guess I'm a nut.

I didn't mean that to sound like I thought you were being rude to people (because you are not). However, It does seem like you are (politely ) arguing that people who don't think humans have already been to Mars are wrong and in denial.

Sure it's possible (I suppose), but to me it seems more likely that Gene Cernan knows nothing about secret missions to Mars.


[edit on 2/3/2010 by Box of Rain]

reply to post by Tifozi


Projects don't always get cancelled because they don't work, and yes sometimes they do get restarted.

One of the things we plan to do under Obama's new direction is to restart some of the projects that were cancelled. Specifically the projects concerning propulsion methods.

What about Bigelow Areospace? NASA cancelled the trans hab project and Bigelow restarted it. He currently has two prototypes in space that are working with flying colors. In addition to that, another one of the things NASA is supposed to work on are, you guest it, inflateable habitats. I imagine when they say this what they really mean is that they will just give Bigelow a litle money and eventually buy them from him, but that is a clear example of something that was cancelled and has been restarted.

So the idea that the only reason things are cancelled is because they turn out to be impossible is just so not true.

Another example could be the entire constellation project itself. Do you think it was cancelled because it was impossible? Do you think we will never return to the Moon because going to the Moon is imposssible?

Space planes are possible. The only real question is wether or not they exist.


As for why people don't see this stuff, or how they get away with it I thought I gave my thoughts on that already. They weren't in response to your posts, but I don't feel like re-typeing all that stuff.

I will say though that space is a big place. We know where to look for ISS and that makes it easier to find. It also is in a very low orbit from what I understand. The higher up your orbit is, the harder it would be to detect. I'm not saying that I'm right and that you are wrong, just that I'm not convinced that it's as easy to detect things as some belive. Again Earth is a big place and the space around it is vast. As I said to the other poster on this topic: If you have a link to something that shows how we could monitor every inch of space without any holes or blind spots then I'd love to read up on it, so post away.

Originally posted by Common Good
I was actually watching that show thismorning.
He did not only say it once,but TWICE.

makes ya think dont it?

He does mean Mars and not the moon, because if you listen to what is told to him about buzz agreeing with Obama that we have already went to the moon, he says that He disagrees with Buzz on not going on the moon but he wants to go again to Mars and he SUPPORTS that but in steps. That could be that other people in the program went to the moon other than them, or that he made a mistake and meant a person for the first time landing on mars (thats why he said but in steps, robot probes etc.). He meant Mars in that conversations.

Russia did everything first in space.

America had to show up Russia.
Thats all the Moon mission was all about.
Russia had remote vehicles to the Moon and did not want to risk
lives or produce the equipment to go to the Moon.
Russia was not about to look like a poor loser to the world if America
faked the Moon mission.

Going to the Moon by JFK may not have had official approval.
Later it sounded like a money maker.

Now about the Mars mission.
Russian has a training facility for isolating men in a 18 day mission
to Mars to determine their capability.
The lander sets down by parachutes and has remote arms for
exploring. No man sets foot as the lander is also the rocket
off the Moon. Saw this on RussiaToday TV and don't think it
will work. If they do it then we can all close the book on the
Moon and Mars.

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
Russian has a training facility for isolating men in a 18 day mission
to Mars to determine their capability.

Why only 18 days, the trip will take months, right?

As many have already stated, I do not believe he meant Buzz literally. He was discussing his disagreements with Buzz. OP, you sort of took this out of context.

"Well Buzz and I have disagreed on many things and it's certainly that one ('that one' is referring to USA as a COUNTRY returning to the moon) however, Buzz does want to go back to Mars"

In context it is clear that he was referring to Buzz's opinion of the COUNTRY. If you have any doubts listen to the WHOLE thing again.

reply to post by fieryjaguarpaw


Good post.

You are right that the Lander was Joined with the Command module. They separated once they got to the moon, so that the Lander Module could land on the moon, while the Command and service module orbited the moon. Then, once the lander returned to space, they docked with each other, and reconnected. Then they returned to Earth.

www.popastro.com...

Tucked away under the Command and Service Module (CSM) during launch was the craft that would actually make the lunar landing, the spidery Lunar Module (LM). Once the third stage of the Saturn V had fired to put them safely on their way to the Moon, the astronauts turned the CSM to dock with the LM and extract it.

There is no reason why a vehicles couldn't be launched into space, assembled, and then launched deeper into space. Many deep space probes were carried into space, released, and then launched launched into deep space, at least out of the shuttle. I don't know if Titan carried any deep space probes up into orbit.

It is funny how the debunkers are always the ones who start calling everyone names. How dare we think outside of their box.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
Russian has a training facility for isolating men in a 18 day mission
to Mars to determine their capability.

Why only 18 days, the trip will take months, right?

I was thinking about that.
18 months perhaps.

Are the Russians training people to stay cooped up for more that a year.
Roll over Pavlov.
Talk about the Russians doing things.
That might be the situation yet I do not know how long a space station
ride is.

I was hoping not 18 mos if a fast travel time were involved.
All I remember is 18 if that number was mentioned at all.
Yeah months seem to be the time frame for travel.

I don't get this Russian Mars training.
Guess the lessons of the past were never learned or never disclosed.
I can only figure that would be the conspiracy view and if a Mars
mission is completed what would be the conspiracy objections.

reply to post by fieryjaguarpaw

Projects don't always get cancelled because they don't work, and yes sometimes they do get restarted.

(...)

I was just using common sense. I know that there are projects that carry on and whatnot. What I was trying to show you, it's that this ISN'T the case, because from my aviation background, I know how ridicule the whole idea is.

Space planes are possible. The only real question is wether or not they exist.

I don't want to sound rude, but you got to get this on your mind: THEY ARE NOT POSSIBLE UNDER YOUR DESCRIPTION!

For example, for every passenger that I board on my plane, I have to ad like, 500kg's or more of fuel. And we are talking about a medium person, around 80kg's.

Also, we are talking about taking off, fly a distance, and land. It's a huge step from that, to achieving escape velocity. For that, considering the weight, you need to have tremendous speeds, you know...like the Saturn-5... That isn't possible in an aircraft, not in the idea that you have.

Again, SPACE SHUTTLE. THINK about it.

Lets work that idea out, using basic logic, I'm not even going into advanced avionics and math in here.

What do you need, first of all, to fly? A body that can carry you and your payload, right? Okay. Now you need to airlift that, and control path. So you had two wings on the sides for lift, and tail wings for orientation. Okay. It looks like an ordinary plane, or you can shape it how you like it. We will call that X.

After having that body, you need to move it around, right? So, lets talk about engines. I'm going to be optimistic here, and say that they had the new RR's engines that A380(biggest airliner today) has.

Let's aid that, by adding four of them. It's not a problem. So, you got 4 engines to lift you up and make transportation. But for that, you also need fuel. Let me remind you that a plane can spend up to 5 tons of fuel just to taxi the runway, okay? So you add up fuel. Let's call this part Y.

Now you have X and Y on your aircraft. Looks just like a 747, for example.

Right. Now, what do you need that aircraft for? Go to Mars...Ok.

What does that imply? Gear, lots of it. Suits, tools, air management systems, all sorts of stuff. Lets say...around 100 tons of it for the whole mission. That's your average cargo right there, the crew goes around 540kg's, assuming you need a crew of six to operate that baby and the whole mission. 50,5 tons of weight on your aircraft. Lets call that Z.

reminder:

X-> Body and fuselage.
Y-> Propulsion system (for now)
Z-> Cargo.

Okay, now you have an aircraft that can fly, looks ordinary, and has your gear.

Next step... You need to get out of Earth, escape Earth's gravity.

Now, that is a problem. Jet engines are heavy on them-selfs, plus the cargo and the plane itself... With that kind of aircraft you can't get above 60,000 feet (more or less). Why? Oxygen efficiency. A jet engine that size needs a lot of fuel and oxygen to make proper propulsion (tons of it). That isn't very common in altitudes of 70,000 feet or 80,000 (mind you, those are the heights of U-2).

Now what? Well, you need better engines. Scrap the first ones. lets replace them with military jet engines, made for low-oxygen levels. Those things are massive. They don't build engines for planes, they build planes around the engine. But I'll be optimistic just for your theory.

Now you have a average aircraft, with enormous (long) engines. Four of them to carry that load "high up there".

But, you got another problem. The air up there is thiner, thus the low lift capability. A wing that works just fine in 40,000 feet, fails totally around 70,000feet...

Solution? You either fly very fast and contradict that effect, or you have a huge wing span (the bigger wings compensate for the loss of air going through them). Obviously this isn't a fast plane, so we'll use the bigger wing span.

Now, U-2 has a wing-span of 105 feet (I think), and is light. A 747 has a wingspan of 220 feet, for LOW ALTITUDE flights.

Lets make...300 or 320 feet of wing span for that kind of weight.

Okay, now you have a heavy cargo aircraft, with 4 huge engines, and a wingspan of 300 to 320 feet. Doesn't look very ordinary, right?

But wait. We just got to high altitude, we didn't even left Eartht.

Now, to escape Earths gravity pull, you need a final push. The jet engines can't do that, especially since you're almost out of atmospheric oxygen. You need some rockets. How big? I don't have a idea, I'm not a rocket scientist. But lets make them like, the size of the ones used on the Hercules C for shorter take-offs. Lets call that R.

Again:

X-> body and fuselage (huge)
Y-> propulsion system (huge)
Z-> Cargo (heavy)
R-> Escape velocity auxiliary power.

Alright, finally. You escaped Earth gravity field. Now what?

Well, you need to start your journey to Mars, right? A *optimistic* 1 year and a half of it.

You don't need constant propulsion, from what I know, but you do need that first kick, at least. But how? You spent almost, if not all, of your fuel going to high altitude, and you spent your rockets getting out of Earth... What now?

I know, you need a third propulsion system installed (I'm going to be very optimistic and say that you can divide 50/50 fuel for going and coming to and from Mars). Lets say those rockets weight 20 tons plus fuel, and lets call them T.

Now, you have X, Y, Z, R and T going on and you're off to mars.

You use gravity of Mars to slow down and all...you make your approach, but wait. Where are the runways to land? Oh-oh... You need landing pods, like in the Saturn-5, with life capability in them. More TONS! Let's make it possible, plus, the whole release and capture system to sending them and getting them back inside the "airship".

They go, they come back and off you go to Earth. You arrive to Earth orbit, champagne, Buzz is the man!

Another problem... Re-entry. Space Shuttle has a Delta Wing shape because of the friction with atmosphere...OH-oh..Our plane has normal wings (you know, the huge ones, supposedly to make the aircraft look normal)..they make too much friction and they will either burn up (and the fuel inside) or simply rip apart... What now?

I know, we have to change the SHAPE of the aircraft...To a delta configuration. Great! There goes the "average American Airlines" fashion thingy there.

Part 1