TheMacGuffin Posted October 17, 2012 #126 Share Posted October 17, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted October 17, 2012 #127 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Shine on, shine on hollow moon, way up in the sky..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted October 17, 2012 #128 Share Posted October 17, 2012 (edited) 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 October 17, 2012 by TheMacGuffin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted October 18, 2012 #129 Share Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) 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 October 18, 2012 by MID Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted October 18, 2012 #130 Share Posted October 18, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilly Posted October 18, 2012 #131 Share Posted October 18, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uprize Posted October 18, 2012 #132 Share Posted October 18, 2012 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 $$? Thats nothing in the total scheme of things. Not to mention NASA have launched spacecraft to go explore other parts of space, so obviously they have money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night Walker Posted October 18, 2012 #133 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Sorry Night Walker, the 'Far Side' of the moon is a better reference, in that case... You don't understand the power of the Far-Side (http://www.thefarside.com/) Seriously you don't, its hilarious Dark-Side Far-Side comedy. I love the Far Side. Do you not love the Floyd? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
synchronomy Posted October 18, 2012 #134 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Come on, you REALLY think that??? The US military spends like $1 trillion a year and you say they can't afford to go back to the moon? What would it cost? A few hundred million $$? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted October 18, 2012 #135 Share Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) 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 $$? Thats nothing in the total scheme of things. Not to mention NASA have launched spacecraft to go explore other parts of space, so obviously they have money. Well, exactly; the Military (the U.S. Military, at any rate) can always manage to find an unlimited budget for anything it wants; governments, meanwhile, have to try to find the money from somewhere to go toward the unlimited Military budget. Things that can't show the likeihood of an immediate return for the money, like Space exploration, will inevitably be the first to be cut. And robotic probes are a very cut price method of space exploration compared with manned missions; surely you can see that, can't you? Edited October 18, 2012 by 747400 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaentum Posted October 18, 2012 #136 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Come on, you REALLY think that??? The US military spends like $1 trillion a year and you say they can't afford to go back to the moon? What would it cost? A few hundred million $$? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junior Chubb Posted October 18, 2012 #137 Share Posted October 18, 2012 I love the Far Side. Do you not love the Floyd? The Floyd? As in Pink? Its the only Floyd Mr Google will give me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DONTEATUS Posted October 18, 2012 #138 Share Posted October 18, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spud the mackem Posted October 18, 2012 #139 Share Posted October 18, 2012 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) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted October 18, 2012 #140 Share Posted October 18, 2012 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DONTEATUS Posted October 19, 2012 #141 Share Posted October 19, 2012 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 ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted October 19, 2012 #142 Share Posted October 19, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itsnotoutthere Posted October 19, 2012 #143 Share Posted October 19, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted October 19, 2012 #144 Share Posted October 19, 2012 "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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DONTEATUS Posted October 19, 2012 #145 Share Posted October 19, 2012 If the Moon is a space ship then were the mother ship,and ITs about time to set Sail to all points Younder ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
synchronomy Posted October 20, 2012 #146 Share Posted October 20, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted October 20, 2012 #147 Share Posted October 20, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DONTEATUS Posted October 20, 2012 #148 Share Posted October 20, 2012 OMG ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted October 20, 2012 #149 Share Posted October 20, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booNyzarC Posted October 20, 2012 #150 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Heh, Mars (3.94 g/cm3) must be hollow too, and Venus (5.2 g/cm3) must be "slightly hollow" as well... Why not? The earth is hollow too after all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now