Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
TheFace

The Moon is a Spaceship?

170 posts in this topic

Something that would have been detected with the lcross and other impacts

Yes, but then I have come across statements and theories similar to these from time to time. This idea that some moons were artificial rather than natural satellites does seem to have been in vogue even in the 1950s and 1960s with Carl Sagan and others.

"The moon’s mean density is 3.34 gm/cm3 (3.34 times an equal volume of water) whereas the Earth’s is 5.5. What does this mean? In 1962, NASA scientist Dr. Gordon MacDonald stated, "If the astronomical data are reduced, it is found that the data require that the interior of the moon is more like a hollow than a homogeneous sphere." Nobel chemist Dr. Harold Urey suggested the moon’s reduced density is because of large areas inside the moon where is "simply a cavity." MIT’s Dr. Sean C. Solomon wrote, "the Lunar Orbiter experiments vastly improved our knowledge of the moon’s gravitational field . . . indicating the frightening possibility that the moon might be hollow." In Carl Sagan’s treatise, Intelligent Life in the Universe, the famous astronomer stated, "A natural satellite cannot be a hollow object."

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CD4QFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abovetopsecret.com%2Fforum%2Fthread295500%2Fpg6&ei=jfh-UJbmGoOQ9gSzv4G4BQ&usg=AFQjCNE05TrcbNPCRbIO5FcAQyFk9bCG9w&sig2=j_HSYsDKnvx1YCcNDIkQ6Q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shine on, shine on hollow moon, way up in the sky.....

cutawaydf1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe a moon could serve as a lifeboat if it could somehow be turned into a spaceship, but as is often the case, there may not be enough room for everybody in the boat.

That was the main point in this classic movie Abandon Ship (1957), which is seen very little today. There was a "full house at the wrong time" and some of the tenants had to be "evicted", which the captain finally did--very reluctantly of course.

[media=]

[/media] Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but then I have come across statements and theories similar to these from time to time. This idea that some moons were artificial rather than natural satellites does seem to have been in vogue even in the 1950s and 1960s with Carl Sagan and others.

"The moon’s mean density is 3.34 gm/cm3 (3.34 times an equal volume of water) whereas the Earth’s is 5.5. What does this mean? In 1962, NASA scientist Dr. Gordon MacDonald stated, "If the astronomical data are reduced, it is found that the data require that the interior of the moon is more like a hollow than a homogeneous sphere." Nobel chemist Dr. Harold Urey suggested the moon’s reduced density is because of large areas inside the moon where is "simply a cavity." MIT’s Dr. Sean C. Solomon wrote, "the Lunar Orbiter experiments vastly improved our knowledge of the moon’s gravitational field . . . indicating the frightening possibility that the moon might be hollow." In Carl Sagan’s treatise, Intelligent Life in the Universe, the famous astronomer stated, "A natural satellite cannot be a hollow object."

http://www.google.co...Knvx1YCcNDIkQ6Q

And Dr. Sagan said that why?

Well, because, as a cosmologist, and astronomer, he knew how planets and moons formed, and realized (somewhat naturally) that a moon can't be a hollow sphere--as there's no planetary mechanics that allow such a thing.

Edited by MID

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Dr. Sagan said that why?

Well, because, as a cosmologist, and astronomer, he knew how planets and moons formed, and realized (somewhat naturally) that a moon can't be a hollow sphere--as there's no planetary mechanics that allow such a thing.

Is that what he said? Or I should ask if that was all he ever said on the subject?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carl Sagan taught astronomy at Cornell University. He was not into extremely 'out there' ideas, although he was open to the notion of life existing elsewhere in the Universe. In the 1970s I attended a couple of his lectures when he visited Syracuse University (my school). I never heard anything about the moon being hollow or being a spaceship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You forgot the most likely answer: #4 Funding was cut

Come on, you REALLY think that???

The US military spends like $1 trillion a year and you say they can't afford to go back to the moon?

What would it cost? A few hundred million $$? Thats nothing in the total scheme of things.

Not to mention NASA have launched spacecraft to go explore other parts of space, so obviously they have money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Night Walker, the 'Far Side' of the moon is a better reference, in that case...

You don't understand the power of the Far-Side (http://www.thefarside.com/)

Seriously you don't, its hilarious Dark-Side Far-Side comedy. :)

I love the Far Side. Do you not love the Floyd?

darksideofthemoonj.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on, you REALLY think that???

The US military spends like $1 trillion a year and you say they can't afford to go back to the moon?

What would it cost? A few hundred million $$? Thats nothing in the total scheme of things.

Not to mention NASA have launched spacecraft to go explore other parts of space, so obviously they have money.

Your cost estimates are way off.

Robotic missions cost only a fraction of what it costs for manned missions.

In 2005, NASA estimated the cost of a manned mission to the Moon to be $104 Billion.

It's all about return on investment. Military spending is more easily justified politically than sending mankind back to the Moon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on, you REALLY think that???

Surely its' very easy to believe that, precisely because of the following:

The US military spends like $1 trillion a year and you say they can't afford to go back to the moon?

What would it cost? A few hundred million $$? Thats nothing in the total scheme of things.

Not to mention NASA have launched spacecraft to go explore other parts of space, so obviously they have money.

Well, exactly; the Military (the U.S. Military, at any rate) can always manage to find an unlimited budget for anything it wants; governments, meanwhile, have to try to find the money from somewhere to go toward the unlimited Military budget. Things that can't show the likeihood of an immediate return for the money, like Space exploration, will inevitably be the first to be cut. And robotic probes are a very cut price method of space exploration compared with manned missions; surely you can see that, can't you?

Edited by 747400

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on, you REALLY think that???

The US military spends like $1 trillion a year and you say they can't afford to go back to the moon?

What would it cost? A few hundred million $$? Thats nothing in the total scheme of things.

Not to mention NASA have launched spacecraft to go explore other parts of space, so obviously they have money.

The entire Apollo program cost more than 25 billion dollars. in 2009 they estimated the cost for the same program in 2005 dollars to be 170 billion dollars. As of 2010 it would have cost 18 billion dollars for just one landing. The 2012 NASA budget was just over 18 billion dollars total.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program#Program_cost

The military may have a trillion dollars in their budget but since NASA is not part of the military, they have no access to those funds. It would take the politicians in Washington allocating more money in the federal budget for NASA to get more money.

So yes I believe it is lack of funding and the numbers back me up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the Far Side. Do you not love the Floyd?

darksideofthemoonj.jpg

The Floyd? As in Pink?

Its the only Floyd Mr Google will give me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How I miss these greats ! Segan,Clark,Newton,Popeye . This is how and why we are who we are ! We tend to pick up a few tid-bits from the Greats.

Right? :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they had'nt switched the base lights off when the Apollo craft orbited, the secret would have been revealed.The Truth is out there. (Fox Mulder)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The entire Apollo program cost more than 25 billion dollars. in 2009 they estimated the cost for the same program in 2005 dollars to be 170 billion dollars. As of 2010 it would have cost 18 billion dollars for just one landing. The 2012 NASA budget was just over 18 billion dollars total.

http://en.wikipedia....am#Program_cost

The military may have a trillion dollars in their budget but since NASA is not part of the military, they have no access to those funds. It would take the politicians in Washington allocating more money in the federal budget for NASA to get more money.

So yes I believe it is lack of funding and the numbers back me up.

That would be true. It is, and has been lack of funding: not because the money isn't available. It's because the right people don't want to explore space!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be true. It is, and has been lack of funding: not because the money isn't available. It's because the right people don't want to explore space!

ITs time to vote ! but the Future is not on the agenda of either Party ! Only Greed !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be true. It is, and has been lack of funding: not because the money isn't available. It's because the right people don't want to explore space!

I'm not at all sure that such exploration hasn't been going on all along, although it they may not be by the "right" people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

does that mean that he need have no knowledge of what he wrote? A lot of the most knowledgeable people use the medium of fiction, and a lot of fiction writers know more about the subject than many "experts". see also Arthur C. Clarke.

You take my comment the wrong way, i don't dissagree that he was clever & a great writer but don't you think...."He is more than likely the most knowledgeable person that ever lived" is over egging it somewhat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"In an Oct. 24, 1954, article in American Weekly, Oberth said, “I think that they (UFOs) possibly are manned by intelligent observers who are members of a race that may have been investigating our earth for centuries.”

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=53&ved=0CCoQFjACODI&url=http%3A%2F%2Flistosaur.com%2Fbizarre-stuff%2F10-famous-people-who-believe-in-ufos.html&ei=w8KBUKe7MoOk8gTp4IDQCg&usg=AFQjCNG8FJ1_rVYSr36V-0AQBnjFnFpwhA&sig2=xU8XVnkmnJzq8xIuBag8Yg

All he's doing here is stating openly what many people already knew at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Moon is a space ship then were the mother ship,and ITs about time to set Sail to all points Younder !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if the Moon is a spaceship then either they did a nice job of parking it, or it's been parked for a helluva long time.

Our Moon is in "tidal lock" and that takes more time than man has been around to happen.

No wonder it's covered with dust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but then I have come across statements and theories similar to these from time to time. This idea that some moons were artificial rather than natural satellites does seem to have been in vogue even in the 1950s and 1960s with Carl Sagan and others.

"The moon’s mean density is 3.34 gm/cm3 (3.34 times an equal volume of water) whereas the Earth’s is 5.5. What does this mean? In 1962, NASA scientist Dr. Gordon MacDonald stated, "If the astronomical data are reduced, it is found that the data require that the interior of the moon is more like a hollow than a homogeneous sphere." Nobel chemist Dr. Harold Urey suggested the moon’s reduced density is because of large areas inside the moon where is "simply a cavity." MIT’s Dr. Sean C. Solomon wrote, "the Lunar Orbiter experiments vastly improved our knowledge of the moon’s gravitational field . . . indicating the frightening possibility that the moon might be hollow." In Carl Sagan’s treatise, Intelligent Life in the Universe, the famous astronomer stated, "A natural satellite cannot be a hollow object."

http://www.google.co...Knvx1YCcNDIkQ6Q

Heh, Mars (3.94 g/cm3) must be hollow too, and Venus (5.2 g/cm3) must be "slightly hollow" as well...
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not at all sure that such exploration hasn't been going on all along, although it they may not be by the "right" people.

We're talking about space exploration. That...has only ever been done, and shall only ever be done, by the right people...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.