Why nasa has never goen back to the moon?

caseyann

Its a good question,isnt it.Why land once and never go back?
Some say because it was faked landing others say its because :eek:watch the video.
What do you think?
I enjoyed this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIW2cLOgMl8

why my videos arent working? what am i doing wrong? Can one of the mods fix please when you get a chance thanks

<Done. bonkey>

RoboClam

caseyann wrote: »

Its a good question,isnt it.Why land once and never go back?
Some say because it was faked landing others say its because :eek:watch the video.
What do you think?
I enjoyed this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIW2cLOgMl8&NR=1&feature=fvwp

why my videos arent working? what am i doing wrong? Can one of the mods fix please when you get a chance thanks

NASA has launched 6 successful manned missions to the moon, not one.

I didn't watch your video because I've seen it all before. It is simply too expensive to keep sending people to the moon.

Smokin_Aces

RoboClam wrote: »

NASA has launched 6 successful manned missions to the moon, not one.

I didn't watch your video because I've seen it all before. It is simply too expensive to keep sending people to the moon.

And nobody cared too much about the moon landings and whatnot after it was done.

Lack of funding, political will and public interest.

Plus better science has been done with unmanned missions for a faction of the costs.

Simple question, simple answer.

Richard tea

It would be a fantastic idea. Think of all the pictures in HD we could view. In fact I don't see why there is not a small base on the moon at this stage

Or maybe there is something on the moon that they don't want us to see.

squod

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIW2cLOgMl8

FYP. Eh I think?

caseyann

dammit i put gone wrong

I meant the last one not once:p


I think public interest with all the new technology and footage would be alot more interested now.
And watch the video :P

AntiRip

caseyann wrote: »

Its a good question,isnt it.Why land once and never go back?
Some say because it was faked landing others say its because watch the video.
What do you think?
I enjoyed this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIW2cLOgMl8&NR=1&feature=fvwp

why my videos arent working? what am i doing wrong? Can one of the mods fix please when you get a chance thanks

Is this the video you were posting?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVb3cOE9orQ

caseyann

AntiRip wrote: »

Is this the video you were posting?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVb3cOE9orQ

I cant even see that one either I cant seem to see any of the videos lately

caseyann

squod wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIW2cLOgMl8

FYP. Eh I think?

I cant see that either

squod

caseyann wrote: »

I cant see that either

NASA blocking your youtubes?

Bill G

Why did NASA never return to the moon?

Why did Hillary never climb Everest again?

Captain Chaos

Why was there no more Mach2 airliners after Concorde and the Tu144?

caseyann

squod wrote: »

NASA blocking your youtubes?

It looks like they are trying to stop me:(

Bill G wrote: »

Why did NASA never return to the moon?

Why did Hillary never climb Everest again?

I would say she found the yeti

Abelloid

No oil.

Captain Chaos

JustinOval wrote: »

No oil.

There's loads of oil left, just costs more to get it now.

Same reason for the moon, cost. There is no Cold War, no competition, no unlimited funds to beat the other side.

Everything has a price, it's who's willing to fund and pay that's the question.

Abelloid

Captain Chaos wrote: »

There's loads of oil left, just costs more to get it now.

Same reason for the moon, cost. There is no Cold War, no competition, no unlimited funds to beat the other side.

Everything has a price, it's who's willing to fund and pay that's the question.

No oil on the moon.

Captain Chaos

JustinOval wrote: »

No oil on the moon.

True that, but there is the future space equivalent of oil on the moon. H3, massive amounts of it.

caseyann

Captain Chaos wrote: »

True that, but there is the future space equivalent of oil on the moon. H3, massive amounts of it.

Is it possible they have been back and letting on they havent,and in cahoots with alien life forms harvesting humans and animals and getting technology and this fuel you speak of?

Yitzhak Rabin

caseyann wrote: »

Is it possible they have been back and letting on they havent,and in cahoots with alien life forms harvesting humans and animals and getting technology and this fuel you speak of?

Very possible. Probably very likely as well.

Flaregon

My guess is "if there are building up there" that its mostlikely russia got the moon first and build stations and used soft were editing to make Number stations LOL.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055932243&page=3

but the reason is the cost, you dont speed billions on a new rocket just to get to the moon again....... what they should do is head to mars.

WakeUp

One theory as to why we have never gone back to the moon comes from Ingo Swan who is known as the father of remote viewing.

The Americans had a classified remote viewing program for twenty years and they had many brilliant people working on it. The project was known as Stargate and was carried out at the Stanford Research Institute with CIA funding. Remote viewing is the ability to gather information about an unseen target from a distance using ESP (extra-sensory perception). The nature of the technique makes it very hard to prove it actually works but many people believe it is possible. The Russians have the most advanced remote viewing program in the world and it's supposed to be still active at present.

To cut a long story short, Ingo Swan claims to have remote viewed the dark side of the moon. He says there is already a base established there and it’s not of this world and that the dudes operating this base are not of this world either. He says they have some sort of mining operation going on. He believes mankind is not welcome on the moon and that this is the reason we have never been back or attempted to build a base. Quite some story.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingo_Swann
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/12104

squod

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/369440main_lroc_apollo11_lrg.jpg
LROs images of the moon.

http://www.sani-ita.com/images_originals/GeoEye_41cm.jpg
Geo eyes images (of earth) taken from another 400k up.


Bit suspect if you ask me. Can't see so much of the moon even though the photos were taken 50k from the moons surface. Without an atmosphere etc.

Yitzhak Rabin

WakeUp wrote: »

Remote viewing is the ability to gather information about an unseen target from a distance using ESP (extra-sensory perception). The nature of the technique makes it very hard to prove it actually works but many people believe it is possible.

Its extremely easy to conduct tests to see if it works. All you have to do is place an object in a room that the subject can't see, and ask them to remotely view it. However, they always fail these tests, because its absolute nonsense. They can only ever 'view' things that are far away and unprovable.

WakeUp

I don't know if this man is telling the truth or not how could I'm not an expert, no more than you are, saying it is absolute nonsense is a bit rash really the US government spent alot of money and twenty years researching it maybe there is something to it who knows. Interesting all the same if nothing else.

Doyler92

As people have said before it's too costly to keep doing it.

Also they would be considered to be in the lead of the space race now so there is no need.

Yitzhak Rabin

All I'm saying is, it is very very easy to test remote viewing. Those who have been tested consistently fail. This leads me to believe the claims of remote viewers are bogus.

Why would you believe what he says?

WakeUp

To be honest I dont know of many other remote viewers I remember hearing Ingo Swann on coast to coast AM a few years back that's how I heard about his story started reading up on remote viewing then. I read his book aswell his story is so far out you couldn't make it up but like I said I'm not sure what to believe, maybe hes onto something maybe its bull just don't know for sure but it is fairly interesting if nothing else.

c montgomery

Captain Chaos wrote: »

True that, but there is the future space equivalent of oil on the moon. H3, massive amounts of it.

Whats H3????

Sorry if its a silly question

Torakx

Id guess hydrogen compressed to the power of 3? or 3 times? just a guesstimate though

c montgomery

Torakx wrote: »

Id guess hydrogen compressed to the power of 3? or 3 times? just a guesstimate though

Dont think so, it might be an isomer of hydrogen like deuterium or something like that. Thats what i initially assumed but i couldnt think of a reason why there would be loads of it on the moon.

H3 anyone???

WakeUp

He-3 is an isotope of helium, it is abundent on the surface of the moon scientists reckon if extracted properly it could be used as an alternative fuel source for example in fusion reactors. It has a really low level of radioactivity if nuclear power plants used He-3 to heat water and turn it into pressurised steam, as opposed to nuclear fission, it would reduce the danger of them dramatically.

Apparently it is formed by solar winds. He-3 is found in our sun and the gas planet giants. Particles of the element are pushed off from the sun then bombarded with cosmic rays which knock neutrons out of the helium particles. The particles then re-combine forming He-3 on the lunar surface.

It never reaches the surface of the earth because it burns up in our atmosphere. The moon doesnt have an atmosphere so it doesnt have that problem.

tallus

I agree with caseyann.

I think they were warned off. Sites with content like this are always very interesting.

Torakx

Is there any copies made of these ham radio recordings?

tallus

Torakx wrote: »

Is there any copies made of these ham radio recordings?

Did a quick search and couldn't find anything myself.

cable842

am I meant too be looking at something in that video ?

caseyann wrote: »

Its a good question,isnt it.Why land once and never go back?
Some say because it was faked landing others say its because :eek:watch the video.
What do you think?
I enjoyed this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIW2cLOgMl8

why my videos arent working? what am i doing wrong? Can one of the mods fix please when you get a chance thanks

<Done. bonkey>

caseyann

cable842 wrote: »

am I meant too be looking at something in that video ?

Try listening to what they have to say.

caseyann

Thanks bonkey for fixing it

robtri

c montgomery wrote: »

Whats H3????

Sorry if its a silly question

expalins it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_hydrogen#Hydrogen-3_.28tritium.29

Wibbs

H3 is Tritium. It's Helium3 youre thinking of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3 it would be very useful in projected fusion reactors. Bugger all on earth, lots on the moon.

cable842

listen too what ? I heard noting. is the moon talking too me ?

caseyann wrote: »

Try listening to what they have to say.