There's a lot of this and that if we went to the moon or not ...

But this should make you wonder .... IF we went to the moon ... then there is no logical reason why the american military wouldn't be all over that place ... the most strategic piece of real estate in the solar system in regards to controlling air and space over planet earth.

so to my mind ... either we never went ... or the military is there right now with advanced tech they won't let us lowly citizens utilize or be aware of ...

if americans gave up for such a trivial reason ... do you think the russians would be so cavalier as to just give up as well ... ... wouldn't they jump at the chance to supplant the americans on the moon while they lost their "nerve" ... so we have a star wars program but no moon base wars? ... somehow the moon is off limits to politics, spying, subterfuge, the arms race etc.. etc... ? and for 40 years!

doesn't make any sense at all ... we were either lied to ... or are being lied to presently ...

the american military machine ... of which nasa is a branch of ....would spend whatever it took to establish supremacy ...

Sure there is, its too far away to be useful and too expensive to get to. It takes at least three days to get to or from the Moon without spending huge amounts of energy and its easy to spot a vehicle travelling between them making it not very useful militarily at all. Earth orbit is a better place to spy from (closer and you aren't restricted to having just one place to look from making hiding from them far harder). Ground based troops and weapons (eg ICBMs) can be deployed much faster than can anything from the Moon. Generally the Moon just doesn't have any military uses, much less any worth the cots of flying large amounts of material or personell up there.
Or they could just have realised that it really doesn't have any advantages worth going there for. Even if it was as cheap and quick to get to the Moon as Australia it still probably wouldn't be worth it (especially as the tech to get to the Moon that easily would have lots of applications for LEO and ground based operations that would make a military moon base even less useful).
You might want to look up all the all the Soviet satellites with various military applications (spying, communication, and navigation primarily) and also the Outer Space Treaty that specially bans deploying weapon systems in space and the US has signed.
Or the third option, you don't properly understand the military significance (or rather lack thereof) of the Moon.

__________________
"Any Sufficiently Analyzed Magic is Indistinguishable from SCIENCE!" -Agatha Heterodyne

"Any technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those who don't understand it." -Florence Ambrose

NASA is an independent agency and is not part of the Department of Defense. They do cooperate on certain things (the use of certain launch vehicles, for example).

I think Grashtel handled the rest.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Not everything has to make sense to us for it to be real. "American Idol", for example.

__________________
Friendly Rabid Atheists (mostly)

You might also consider the Outer Space Treaty of 1967.

As far as I can see from the map on that page showing signatories to the treaty, all nations with space capabilities have signed (Iran has not fully ratified it). North Korea is about the only one we might need to keep an eye on...

It was my understanding that one of the larger reasons for beating Russians to the moon was to establish a precedence of a non-military space.
And, this also ties into the idea of NASA being a non-military agency.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

why would the military want to cover the fact NASA went to the moon?

__________________
it shows you how much i know....not much i guess----"sohhfly"

I don't see anyone saying that here.
The general gist is that if:
1) we went, so we are not hearing about the military being there.
2) we never went, which is why the military isn't there.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

Initially, the Moon looked like it could have had two military uses: (1) as a nuclear missile base; (2) as an survivable command 'n' control base. They decided to go with submarines for 2nd strike capability; it was cheaper to burrow into Cheyenne Mountain for a command 'n' control base.

If you're looking for a military conspiry WRT the Moon, I would check out the Clementine mission. It was sponsored by the DOD ostensibly in order to check out "Brilliant Pebbles" technology. But why send it to the Moon for that? And why aim for the poles? I think it's possible that the Air Force was interested in something else: probably the ISRU potential for the Moon and to scope out possible locations for a Moon base.

One line of speculation is that they were looking for a place to set up a manufacturing base. Brilliant Pebbles would have required a constellation of 4,000 satellites or more in order to achieve the full-spectrum dominance--the ability to completely dominate ALL activity in LEO and even the upper atmosphere. Thus the idea would be to set up a factory on the Moon to manufacture the thousands of satellites on the Moon, and then launch them from the Moon to take advantage of the lower rocket fuel requirements.

well to me it sounds like a disguise for saying NASA is lying along with the military about the moon shot.
And the statement made by the OP ...we were either lied to or are presently being lied to doesn't help.

__________________
it shows you how much i know....not much i guess----"sohhfly"

And what about the immense resource and rocket fuel requirements needed to establish and supply a manufacturing facility on the Moon?
How would each rocket that went require any less resources than each Apollo launch?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

The place you're thinking of isn't The Moon, it's Low Earth Orbit. And the military is, in fact, "all over that place".

Yes, the construction of a satellite factory would be hugely expensive to set up at first. But once it got going, there would be no need to ever launch a satellite from Earth again. Thus, in an arms race situation where two economies were vying to build comprehensive missile defense shields on the scale of Brilliant Pebbles, the nation with the lunar manufacture 'n' launch capability would have a huge advantage.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

apart from all the ehavy lift rockets they would need to keep sending up to supply the factory. Why not just launch from the earth anyway? Where is the saving?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

I find the planned bombing of the Moon rather astonishing and quite a strange method for looking for water. In fact, I think it is possible that it has nothing to do with water at all, but rather to get rid of certain things that they know are up there, like those bases and stuff, there are many better, cheaper and rational ways to search for water on planets (or moons in this case) than blasting them with bombs. Not only do they have to blast it, but apparently have the satellite orbiter come back over the spot and collect dust that is shot kilometers (i suppose) out into space from the blast itself and then analyze it - sounds like a lot of trouble to collect some drops of water, or try find it in the first place.

Theres plenty of other technology that can search for water fine without any bombs included, after all people DO search for water even here on Earth at many locations that have a lack of it and bombing the area is not a very common approach.

What are those other technologies that can search for water on the Moon?

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

Also what is this 'bomb' that you are talking about? Bomb implies some kind of explosive device, 'bombs' implies a number of them.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Maybe a soft-landing, drilling and analyzing the samples in lunar mini-lab is a better idea that shoot projectiles at the Moon? But who knows - let's hope the results are good.

But that would also question (if there is water in the dark, never to Sun oriented areas in craters) how the Apollo PLIS can worked. If water in shadow on the Moon does not evaporate, then those PLIS cannot work the way they say they did...

__________________
"It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong." - Voltaire
...just keep folding, just keep folding... :)

Maggador:
how do you know that there are bases and stuff up there?

__________________
it shows you how much i know....not much i guess----"sohhfly"

There were plans for military bases on the moon, but they never got past the very early concept stage. You have to consider the realities of getting to the moon to see that it's actually not that great a place for a military base.

It takes a Saturn-V to get a small capsule to the moon to carry a two-man survey team. At most they could carry a few hundred pounds of equipment. How does that help the military? You're talking about thousands of launches and trillions of dollars to make even a small military outpost.

And for what? As a missile base? Not that good of one, actually. It would take the missiles a long time to research the earth as is. They do better in silos on earth.

Actually the moon could not be a less stratigic place for the military. It would be very expensive just to keep a squadron operating on the moon.

The military does use space.. quite a lot.. for communications, spying etc. They use mostly LEO space. It's cheaper and more useful.

In order to establish a military base on the moon, you'd have to routinely launch very large rockets. We don't have rockets that big any more, and even if we did, you couldn't hide it. The idea is absurd on so many levels.

The moon would make a lousy military base. An ICBM can send a warhead to just about any where on Earth in about 30 minutes. It would take from many hours to a few days to send a warhead from the moon to the Earth. The idea just doesn't make any sense.

Because we can't do that yet. Impacting the Moon and looking at the plume is a proven method of studying the immediate subsurface of a body. It has been done several times before, we can do it now.

Sending a rover into deep darkness just about absolute zero and drilling into unknown materials is a highly challenging exercise. If LCROSS finds water then the best way to do this - and the mini lab, would be with astronauts.

I will leave the PLS issues to those more knowledgable.

Jon

Do you really think this is going to be easier to achieve or more effective than punching a few cubic meters of regolith out of the ground and pointing a spectrometer at the plume?


You mean the PLSS? The ice in the PLSS sublimated due to heat from the astronaut in the suit. Lunar water ice exposed to sunlight would sublimate because of the heating caused by that sunlight. There's no contradiction here.

If they have antigravitic flight capability ... you would never see them going there or back. And they could cover all their activity if they used the dark side of the moon.

As far as cost goes ... what do you think all the trillions upon trillions and billions of dollars that has disappeared out of the stock market and your taxes in the last 50 years has gone to ... better roads...?

The last derivative blowout is just one big fundraiser for black ops .....

Interesting video ..... Nukes in Space ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkkS4...eature=related

Maggador -

If it cost tens of billions to put 12 astronauts on the moon, it would cost trillions to build a base there. Having invested that much, why would you blow it up? To hide it? Wouldn't it make more sense to camouflage it?

I'm also a bit confused about what you believe has happened and is happening on the moon. You seem to have doubts about the truth regarding Apollo, but now you're talking about lunar bases.

Maybe you could explain what you think has been going on up there.

__________________
I can't WAIT for January 1, 2013 to arrive! Then again, I'm still waiting for October 1, 1993 ...

You'd better BET there's a spoon, Neo! THWACK!!!!

Russia, Japan, China and India have all sent unmanned spacecraft to the Moon. The far side has been imaged by non-American spacecraft. The Russians first photographed it in 1959. See this gallery of far side images from SELENE. How is NASA hiding the "activity" from them? Or are all these governments in on it?

__________________
"One does not require alien ruins in order to absorb a profound sense of wonder and mystery from the moon. That our civilization had actually visited it is miracle enough." Jason Roberts

The secret bases on the moon would certainly explain the hundreds of Saturn 5 launches we see every year, and the postively amazing number of ships returning from Luna ever day.

__________________
Friendly Rabid Atheists (mostly)

We're NOT "bombing" the Moon, for pity's sake. We're dropping an empty Centaur stage on the pole.
No bombs, no nukes, no explosives...nothing that blows up.

Get it???
Where do you guys get this stuff? (well, yeah, I've seen the sites...) Do you just believe everything you read without the slightest research???

<grumpy mode off...for now>