Militarization and The Moon-Mars Program :

[Duane Daman]

For those of you who think they know what the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ( NASA ) is all about , they really need to read this eye opener of an article .

Not only did NASA scam the entire world with their bogus Apollo Program , beginning in 1969 , but they are not a civilian space organization , as they have always claimed to be ... NASA is a branch of the US military industrial complex ... and their agenda is not and has never been the "peaceful exploration of space " , but rather military dominance of space at any cost ..

As if man's inhumanity to man is not awful enough on this planet , now these war mongers want to take this horror show out into space .

......................................................

by Richard C. Cook

Global Research, January 22, 2007

The way NASA has started its new moon-to-Mars exploration program, the October 2006 White House announcement of a new national space policy, and subsequent statements by the State Department raise grave concerns about whether a new push to militarize space has begun. Events are pointing to an aggressive extension of U.S. supremacy beyond the stratosphere reminiscent of Reagan administration actions in the 1980s. Then it was the militarization of the space shuttle and the start-up of the Strategic Defense Initiative—"Star Wars"—which were gaining momentum until space weapons technology testing halted with the space shuttle Challenger disaster.

To date, the principal beneficiary of the moon-Mars program is Lockheed Martin, to which NASA awarded a prime contract with a potential value stated at $8.15 billion. Already the world’s largest defense contractor, Lockheed Martin’s stock yielded an instant bonanza, rising more than seven percent in the five weeks following NASA’s August 2006 announcement.

NASA is not paying the giant of the military-industrial complex $8.15 billion to have people hop around and hit golf balls on the moon. The aim of the moon-Mars program is U.S. dominance, as suggested by NASA Administrator Michael Griffin’s statements that "my language"—i.e., English—and not those of "another, bolder or more persistent culture" will be "passed down over the generations to future lunar colonies."

The first step will be a colony at the moon’s south pole, described by NASA in a December 2006 announcement. According to Bruce Gagnon of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, "In the end, NASA’s plan to establish permanent bases on the moon will help the military control and dominate access on and off our planet Earth and determine who will extract valuable resources from the moon in the years ahead."

NASA’s plans appear to be a step backward to the Cold War perspective which the International Space Station (ISS) was supposed to transcend and is contrary to its original mission. NASA’s 1958 authorization stated that, "The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of mankind." Fostering a 21st century race to the outposts of the solar system, which Griffin has likened to the armed scramble by European nations for colonies, would not appear to further the visionary goals for which NASA was created.

These goals were compromised by the words and actions of the Reagan administration in the 1980s and are being repeated today, as shown by the new national space policy outlined by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

At the landing of the fourth space shuttle mission by Columbia on July 4, 1982, nine months before his March 1983 speech inaugurating SDI, President Ronald Reagan told an audience at Edwards Air Force Base in California that a primary goal of the space program was to "strengthen the security of the United States." A fact sheet issued that day said that the use of space "for peaceful purposes…allows activities in pursuit of national security goals."

The language of the October 2006 White House announcement is similar, defining "peaceful purposes" in the use of space as including all "U.S. defense and intelligence-related activities in pursuit of national interests." The announcement was amplified in a December 2006 speech by Undersecretary of State Robert G. Joseph, where he stated that "We reserve the right to defend ourselves against hostile attacks and interference with our space assets. We will, therefore, oppose others who wish to use their military capabilities to impede or deny our access to and use of space. We will seek the best capabilities to protect our space assets by active or passive means." Joseph spoke at the George C. Marshall Institute, which had published a policy statement two months earlier entitled, "The War in Space Has Already Begun."

The mixing of civilian and military priorities by NASA led to the Challenger disaster of January 31, 1986, an incident which showed how muddled motives and lack of candor in public programs can result in tragedy.

On February 9, 1986, almost two weeks after Challenger was lost, the New York Times published a series of explosive documents, including a memo I had written the previous July—and which I shared with Times science writer Phil Boffey— warning of a possible catastrophe from a flawed O-ring joint. Thus began a cascade of disclosures that included the account of how contractor engineers protested against launching in the cold weather and NASA’s past knowledge of the deficient booster rocket seals.

But it was not until after the presidential commission which investigated the disaster completed its work that I learned why NASA kept flying shuttle missions after the worst damage to date had occurred on the seals during a January 1985 cold-weather flight, a full year before Challenger blew up. It was because a launch commit criterion for joint temperature could interfere with the military flights NASA planned to launch for the Air Force out of Vandenberg Air Force base in California, where the weather tended to be cooler than in Florida. Many of these flights were to carry "Star Wars" experiments in preparation for possible future deployment of "third-generation" nuclear weapons, such as the x-ray laser.

Flying with the O-ring problem was but one of the design compromises made on the shuttle to accommodate the military. These began at the shuttle’s inception, when NASA abandoned a straight-wing design and agreed to a huge 65,000-pound capacity payload bay to launch military satellites. The shuttle orbiter also had to be as lightweight as possible, which accounted in part for the heat-shield tiles that have been so troublesome. This compromise contributed to the loss of Columbia in 2003 from a reentry fuselage burn-through that began with tile damage at liftoff.

The shuttle will stop flying after 2010. But the nationalistic tone of Griffin's language about the moon-Mars program, combined with the gargantuan contract awarded to Lockheed Martin, the Bush administration's 2006 space policy declaration, and the Air Force’s "Strategic Master Plan for FY 2006 and Beyond," which designates space as "the ultimate high ground of U.S. military operations," sets the stage for another attempt to militarize NASA’s manned space activities.

These issues point to a flawed direction in U.S. space policy that calls for national debate. The U.S. could gain credibility by reversing its opposition to ongoing efforts at the U.N. to ban weapons in space. NASA has said, almost as an afterthought, that they are talking to other nations, including Russia, China, and India, about involvement in the moon-Mars program, but wouldn’t an honest intention to forego using future manned space activities for military purposes start with the kind of overt international agreements observed with the ISS?

Funding is also an issue. In ten years, $100 billion has been spent by the U.S. on the ISS, a half-finished six-person workshop in low-Earth orbit, a cost which does not count the expense of shuttle flights to build and service it. Critics might say the money was "squandered," since, according to Gregg Easterbrook writing in Slate, little of the promised private sector investment ever materialized. Meanwhile, NASA’s space science and aeronautics budgets have been drastically cut just to keep the shuttle and ISS aloft. Has Congress really determined what the moon-Mars program will eventually cost the U.S. government and what its impact will be on a budget whose deficits have again skyrocketed as they did in the Reagan era?

Perhaps it's not NASA's question to answer, but it should also be asked how we as a nation can be planning to spend hundreds of billions more to extend our imperial reach throughout the solar system when we cannot provide for our own people at home—when over forty-five million citizens have no health insurance, thirty-five million lack what USDA calls "food security," the income of our middle class is in long-term decline, the city of New Orleans remains largely in ruins, the value of the dollar is plummeting, recession looms from deflating asset bubbles, and we must sell Treasury bonds to China to keep the doors of federal government offices open from one day to the next because, as stated in a July/August 2006 analysis published by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, "the U.S. government is, indeed, bankrupt."

Addressing space policy concerns should now become an urgent priority of the new Congress.

Richard C. Cook was the NASA analyst who testified on the dangers of the solid rocket booster O-ring seals after the Challenger disaster. His book, Challenger Revealed: An Insider’s Account of How the Reagan Administration Caused the Greatest Tragedy of the Space Age, has been published by Thunder’s Mouth Press. Currently he is an independent writer and consultant, his website is at www.richardccook.com.

Global Research Articles by Richard C. Cook

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...;articleId=4554

[Evan Burton]

First off, I hope that Joe Trento (author of Prescription for Disaster, and a member of this forum) will make some comments in this thread. I'll alert him to its presence.

For those of you who think they know what the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ( NASA ) is all about , they really need to read this eye opener of an article .

Not only did NASA scam the entire world with their bogus Apollo Program , beginning in 1969 , but they are not a civilian space organization , as they have always claimed to be ... NASA is a branch of the US military industrial complex ... and their agenda is not and has never been the "peaceful exploration of space " , but rather military dominance of space at any cost ..

As if man's inhumanity to man is not awful enough on this planet , now these war mongers want to take this horror show out into space .

I disagree. They are a civilian space agency except where "...activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems, military operations, or the defense of the United States (including the research and development necessary to make effective provision for the defense of the United States) shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, the Department of Defense..."

The determination of which agency has control is determined by the US President.

This is hardly news. It has not been concealed. Military payloads or projects have been carried aboard US spacecraft all the way back to Mercury. Does it make it a "...branch of the US Military-Industrial Complex.."? In some ways, I suppose that is correct; the same could be applied to most any branch of the US government, I suppose.

Did the Soviets make military use of their space programme? Yes.

Have / will the Chinese make military use of their space programme? I think so.

The "... military dominance of space at any cost..." is far-fetched since it is not within their purview. They may have to provide facilities for military use - it does not make them "war mongers". Are the current Russian Space Agency people also "war-mongers"?

I think you are using a 'guilt by association' reason in your statement.

To date, the principal beneficiary of the moon-Mars program is Lockheed Martin, to which NASA awarded a prime contract with a potential value stated at $8.15 billion. Already the world’s largest defense contractor, Lockheed Martin’s stock yielded an instant bonanza, rising more than seven percent in the five weeks following NASA’s August 2006 announcement.

I haven't checked, but this is probably true. Lockheed-Martin are experts in space. They have been involved in both civil and military space programmes for a long time. Why shouldn't they be part of the renewed space programme?

The aim of the moon-Mars program is U.S. dominance, as suggested by NASA Administrator Michael Griffin’s statements that "my language"—i.e., English—and not those of "another, bolder or more persistent culture" will be "passed down over the generations to future lunar colonies."

That is selecting what he said without giving context. He said:

And so, looking into the future of space exploration, I sometimes wonder what languages the explorers and eventual settlers of the Moon and Mars will speak? Will my language be passed down over the generations to future lunar colonies? Or will another, bolder or more persistent culture surpass our efforts and put their own stamp on the predominant lunar society of the far future?

You should read his full address (Partnerships in Space Activities), not just selected words. Determine for yourself what he was trying to say.

The mixing of civilian and military priorities by NASA led to the Challenger disaster of January 31, 1986, an incident which showed how muddled motives and lack of candor in public programs can result in tragedy.

On February 9, 1986, almost two weeks after Challenger was lost, the New York Times published a series of explosive documents, including a memo I had written the previous July—and which I shared with Times science writer Phil Boffey— warning of a possible catastrophe from a flawed O-ring joint. Thus began a cascade of disclosures that included the account of how contractor engineers protested against launching in the cold weather and NASA’s past knowledge of the deficient booster rocket seals.

But it was not until after the presidential commission which investigated the disaster completed its work that I learned why NASA kept flying shuttle missions after the worst damage to date had occurred on the seals during a January 1985 cold-weather flight, a full year before Challenger blew up. It was because a launch commit criterion for joint temperature could interfere with the military flights NASA planned to launch for the Air Force out of Vandenberg Air Force base in California, where the weather tended to be cooler than in Florida. Many of these flights were to carry "Star Wars" experiments in preparation for possible future deployment of "third-generation" nuclear weapons, such as the x-ray laser.

Flying with the O-ring problem was but one of the design compromises made on the shuttle to accommodate the military. These began at the shuttle’s inception, when NASA abandoned a straight-wing design and agreed to a huge 65,000-pound capacity payload bay to launch military satellites. The shuttle orbiter also had to be as lightweight as possible, which accounted in part for the heat-shield tiles that have been so troublesome. This compromise contributed to the loss of Columbia in 2003 from a reentry fuselage burn-through that began with tile damage at liftoff.

I don't know about this "cold weather criterion" that has been mentioned. By all means, there was pressure to launch - possibly due to the State of the Union address due to be given.

It certainly is true that engineers brought their concerns to the fore at the Flight Readiness Review. There had been partial O-ring failures on previous flights, and this was being addressed (albeit not at the priority it should have been given). The engineers at Morton-Thiokol strongly addressed concerns that the launch (WRT the SRB, particularly the field joint) was being launched outside its known data and that the interpolation that formed the basis for a GO decision was invalid.

It is also almost certainly true that NASA pressured MT to give a GO for launch, and that MT in turn pressured the engineers in turn.

To my knowledge, this was not a military decision.

The military involvement in the Shuttle was also known. The OMB cut the budget for Shuttle development, and the only way NASA could produce one was for the US DoD to climb aboard. They were reluctant, and forced NASA to change the design of the Shuttle to incorporate cross-range and payload bay requirements. Perhaps Joe Trento would like to expand on this area.

I'll add some more later.

[Duane Daman]

NASA is not and never has been a civilian organization ... They are part of the military industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned the Nation about , along with many other government organizations including the NSA .

Plus , I believe that all of the Apollo astronauts were military test pilots and also Freemasons .

[Peter McKenna]

First off, I hope that Joe Trento (author of Prescription for Disaster, and a member of this forum) will make some comments in this thread. I'll alert him to its presence.

For those of you who think they know what the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ( NASA ) is all about , they really need to read this eye opener of an article .

Not only did NASA scam the entire world with their bogus Apollo Program , beginning in 1969 , but they are not a civilian space organization , as they have always claimed to be ... NASA is a branch of the US military industrial complex ... and their agenda is not and has never been the "peaceful exploration of space " , but rather military dominance of space at any cost ..

As if man's inhumanity to man is not awful enough on this planet , now these war mongers want to take this horror show out into space .

I disagree. They are a civilian space agency except where "...activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems, military operations, or the defense of the United States (including the research and development necessary to make effective provision for the defense of the United States) shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, the Department of Defense..."

The determination of which agency has control is determined by the US President.

This is hardly news. It has not been concealed. Military payloads or projects have been carried aboard US spacecraft all the way back to Mercury. Does it make it a "...branch of the US Military-Industrial Complex.."? In some ways, I suppose that is correct; the same could be applied to most any branch of the US government, I suppose.

Did the Soviets make military use of their space programme? Yes.

Have / will the Chinese make military use of their space programme? I think so.

The "... military dominance of space at any cost..." is far-fetched since it is not within their purview. They may have to provide facilities for military use - it does not make them "war mongers". Are the current Russian Space Agency people also "war-mongers"?

I think you are using a 'guilt by association' reason in your statement.

To date, the principal beneficiary of the moon-Mars program is Lockheed Martin, to which NASA awarded a prime contract with a potential value stated at $8.15 billion. Already the world’s largest defense contractor, Lockheed Martin’s stock yielded an instant bonanza, rising more than seven percent in the five weeks following NASA’s August 2006 announcement.

I haven't checked, but this is probably true. Lockheed-Martin are experts in space. They have been involved in both civil and military space programmes for a long time. Why shouldn't they be part of the renewed space programme?

The aim of the moon-Mars program is U.S. dominance, as suggested by NASA Administrator Michael Griffin’s statements that "my language"—i.e., English—and not those of "another, bolder or more persistent culture" will be "passed down over the generations to future lunar colonies."

That is selecting what he said without giving context. He said:

And so, looking into the future of space exploration, I sometimes wonder what languages the explorers and eventual settlers of the Moon and Mars will speak? Will my language be passed down over the generations to future lunar colonies? Or will another, bolder or more persistent culture surpass our efforts and put their own stamp on the predominant lunar society of the far future?

You should read his full address (Partnerships in Space Activities), not just selected words. Determine for yourself what he was trying to say.

The mixing of civilian and military priorities by NASA led to the Challenger disaster of January 31, 1986, an incident which showed how muddled motives and lack of candor in public programs can result in tragedy.

On February 9, 1986, almost two weeks after Challenger was lost, the New York Times published a series of explosive documents, including a memo I had written the previous July—and which I shared with Times science writer Phil Boffey— warning of a possible catastrophe from a flawed O-ring joint. Thus began a cascade of disclosures that included the account of how contractor engineers protested against launching in the cold weather and NASA’s past knowledge of the deficient booster rocket seals.

But it was not until after the presidential commission which investigated the disaster completed its work that I learned why NASA kept flying shuttle missions after the worst damage to date had occurred on the seals during a January 1985 cold-weather flight, a full year before Challenger blew up. It was because a launch commit criterion for joint temperature could interfere with the military flights NASA planned to launch for the Air Force out of Vandenberg Air Force base in California, where the weather tended to be cooler than in Florida. Many of these flights were to carry "Star Wars" experiments in preparation for possible future deployment of "third-generation" nuclear weapons, such as the x-ray laser.

Flying with the O-ring problem was but one of the design compromises made on the shuttle to accommodate the military. These began at the shuttle’s inception, when NASA abandoned a straight-wing design and agreed to a huge 65,000-pound capacity payload bay to launch military satellites. The shuttle orbiter also had to be as lightweight as possible, which accounted in part for the heat-shield tiles that have been so troublesome. This compromise contributed to the loss of Columbia in 2003 from a reentry fuselage burn-through that began with tile damage at liftoff.

I don't know about this "cold weather criterion" that has been mentioned. By all means, there was pressure to launch - possibly due to the State of the Union address due to be given.

It certainly is true that engineers brought their concerns to the fore at the Flight Readiness Review. There had been partial O-ring failures on previous flights, and this was being addressed (albeit not at the priority it should have been given). The engineers at Morton-Thiokol strongly addressed concerns that the launch (WRT the SRB, particularly the field joint) was being launched outside its known data and that the interpolation that formed the basis for a GO decision was invalid.

It is also almost certainly true that NASA pressured MT to give a GO for launch, and that MT in turn pressured the engineers in turn.

To my knowledge, this was not a military decision.

The military involvement in the Shuttle was also known. The OMB cut the budget for Shuttle development, and the only way NASA could produce one was for the US DoD to climb aboard. They were reluctant, and forced NASA to change the design of the Shuttle to incorporate cross-range and payload bay requirements. Perhaps Joe Trento would like to expand on this area.

I'll add some more later.

Evan,

You are correct in that NASA is a civilian operation. Back in the early 1990s the Marshall Space Center was directed to participate in technology transfer, which the Military was specifically exempted from. I know this since I liased with NASA at Marshall and obtained NASA technology which was free (or a nominal fee was charged to cover their costs) to the NGO/private sector.

The NASA charter (Actually the NASA act) is as follows:

DECLARATION OF POLICY AND PURPOSE

Sec. 102. (a) The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.

( The Congress declares that the general welfare and security of the United States require that adequate provision be made for aeronautical and space activities.

The Congress further declares that such activities shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, a civilian agency exercising control over aeronautical and space activities sponsored by the United States, except that activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems, military operations, or the defense of the United States (including the research and development necessary to make effective provision for the defense of the United States) shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, the Department of Defense; and that determination as to which such agency has responsibility for and direction of any such activity shall be made by the President in conformity with section 2471(e).

© The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (as established by title II of this Act) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.

(d) The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:

(1) The expansion of human knowledge of the Earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;

(2) The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles;

(3) The development and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, equipment, supplies, and living organisms through space;

(4) The establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to be gained from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes;

(5) The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology and in the application thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere;

(6) The making available to agencies directly concerned with national defense of discoveries that have military value or significance, and the furnishing by such agencies, to the civilian agency established to direct and control nonmilitary aeronautical and space activities, of information as to discoveries which have value or significance to that agency;

(7) Cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations in work done pursuant to this Act and in the peaceful application of the results thereof;

(8) The most effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources of the United States, with close cooperation among all interested agencies of the United States in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, facilities, and equipment; and

(9) The preservation of the United States preeminent position in aeronautics and space through research and technology development related to associated manufacturing processes.

(e) The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the unique competence in scientific and engineering systems of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration also be directed toward ground propulsion systems research and development. Such development shall be conducted so as to contribute to the objectives of developing energy- and petroleum-conserving ground propulsion systems, and of minimizing the environmental degradation caused by such systems.

(f) The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the unique competence of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in science and engineering systems be directed to assisting in bioengineering research, development, and demonstration programs designed to alleviate and minimize the effects of disability.

(g) It is the purpose of this Act to carry out and effectuate the policies declared in subsections (a), (, ©, (d), (e), and (f).

There were several civilian scientists on NASA missions during Apollo (I don't remember their names, but anyone could easily look them up).

One of the points that the people at Marshall made (as I remember them saying), and was later studied as a "lessons learned" was that the Challenger disaster root cause was overconfidence in the shuttle and the pervasive lack of a questioning attitude at the managerial level. They were far too driven by schedule pressure.

A very interesting article on the space arms race is linked below:

http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/C...eap_Forward.pdf

This is from the Hudson Institute a well respected think tank.

As you say, there have been military missions in space, classified and otherwise, as was determined to be in the National interest.

Edited February 22, 2007 by Peter McKenna

[Jack White]

NASA is not and never has been a civilian organization ... They are part of the military industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned the Nation about , along with many other government organizations including the NSA .

Plus , I believe that all of the Apollo astronauts were military test pilots and also Freemasons .

...............

The idea of a U.S. base on the Moon is nothing new. In a secret study called "A U.S. Army Study for the Establishment of a Lunar Outpost" published on June 9, 1959, the military maintained that, "The lunar outpost is required to develop and protect potential United States interests on the Moon; to develop techniques in Moon-based surveillance of the Earth and space; in communications relay, and in operations on the surface of the Moon; to serve as a base for exploration of the Moon.Any military operations on the Moon will be difficult to counter by the enemy because of the difficulty of his reaching the Moon, if our forces are already present and have means of countering a landing or of neutralizing any hostile forces that have landed."

 

In 1999, John Young, former Gemini, Apollo, and space shuttle astronaut, said that the Moon would also be useful for "planetary defense."

 

Recognizing that "control" of the Moon could cause enormous conflict over time, the United Nations created the Moon Treaty in 1979. Much of the Moon Treaty reiterates earlier and internationally-accepted "space law," particularly the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. Article 11 of the treaty maintains, "The Moon and its natural resources are the common heritage of mankind." The treaty also prohibits national appropriation, adding the words "by means of use or occupation, or by any other means." In other words, no military bases and no claims of ownership are allowed. The U.S. never signed the Moon Treaty, and in fact it was only ratified by nine nations.

 

A 1989 study commissioned by Congress, called "Military Space Forces: The Next 50 Years" reports that whoever holds the Moon militarily will control the "earth-Moon gravity well" and thus will essentially control the front gate to the Moon.

 

Former Nazi Major General Walter Dornberger, who was in charge of the entireV-1 and V-2 missile operation for Hitler's Germany, testified before the U.S. Congress in 1958 that America's top space priority ought to be to "conquer, occupy, keep, and utilize space between the Earth and the Moon." (Dornberger, along with 1,500 other top Nazi scientists, was smuggled into the U.S. under Operation Paperclip after WW II. He became Vice-President at Bell Aerospace in New York.)

 ..............

The U.S. Space Command's plan, Vision for 2020, says, "Historically, military forces have evolved to protect national interests and investments - both military and economic. During the rise of sea commerce, nations built navies to protect and enhance their commercial interests....Likewise, space forces will emerge to protect military and commercial national interests and investment in the space medium due to their increasing importance."

 

..................

There has long been a military connection to NASA's Moon missions. In early 1994, NASA launched the Deep Space Program Science Experiment, the first of a series of Clementine technology demonstrations jointly sponsored with the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO). The Pentagon announced that data acquired by the spacecraft indicated that there is ice in the bottom of a crater on the Moon, located on the Moon's south pole - the same venue NASA now envisions as the site for the 2024 permanent base. According to a Pentagon website, "The principal objective of the lunar observatory mission though was to space qualify lightweight sensors and component technologies for the next generation of Department of Defense spacecraft [star Wars]. The mission used the Moon, a near-Earth asteroid, and the spacecraft's Interstage Adapter (ISA) as targets to demonstrate sensor performance. As a secondary mission, Clementine returns valuable data of interest to the international civilian scientific sector."

 

In the end, the NASA plan to establish permanent bases on the Moon will help the military "control and dominate" access on and off our planet Earth and determine who will extract valuable resources from the Moon in the years ahead.

 

FROM THE INTERNET BY GOOGLING

[Peter McKenna]

Anyway Evan,

I agree with you completely.

One change from my own post though, when I stated that several civilian scientits wre on Apollo missions I believe I may have been mistaken and was thinking of both Apollo and the Shuttle programs combined. I do remember thats several civilian scientists went on space missions (although one or two were in Apollo missions) if needed I can find references.

[Duane Daman]

Evan and Peter ... You are both wrong ... NASA might have started out under the guise of being a civilain organization , but their cover has now been completely blown ... Along with their many lies and cover ups , including the bogus Apollo moon landings .

Here is an article explaining how the US military industrial complex now controls NASA and everything they do .

WHY THE SECRECY?

A Millennium Group Report

Earl L. Crockett, Writer

Over the last few years we all have experienced various situations where NASA has covered up, altered, or otherwise kept space information and data hidden from public view. Our first big example was, and still is, the fact that not one close range photo of Hale-Bopp has ever been released from the Hubble Space Telescope, or any other major U.S. observatory. We are also painfully aware that live, uncensored or delayed, broadcasts of space data and photos are simply no longer available. In addition we see example after example where NASA "gives" exclusive proprietary, or otherwise, data rights to private individuals or companies like Malin Space Sciences (Mars Surveyor), or Applied Research Corp. (Hale-Bopp); thereby excluding us, the taxpaying public, from information we have paid for.

The question must be asked, "Why the secrecy?" In fact if you are involved with documenting and reporting these instances of "missing" information, as we are at The Millennium Group, someone, somewhere, sometime (like on the Art Bell Show) will eventually challenge you to provide a plausible explanation. This presents a big problem since NASA is a $13.7 billion dollar per year institution now operating under stringent military/intelligence security policies, and we at the Millennium Group are self-funded private individuals doing this work in our spare time. The situation is so lopsided that it is ludicrous. You would need an intelligence force like the former KBG, working several years, to conclusively "prove" the reason for NASA's information blackout. And if you're new to this conversation, the information we're talking about is not the "what they had for breakfast, and the color of the astronauts underwear" public relations pabulum pumped out daily by the international NASA media combine.

There is, however, another means of approaching the question. In speaking about the then new science of quantum mechanics, Albert Einstein remarked that it was like looking at the face of a clock, seeing the numbers on the dials, and the minute and hour hands turning, but never being able to look around in back to see the arms and gears of the mechanism. This did not, however, prevent science from producing the sum total of our modern technology from quantum science. What did they do? They observed and measured the visible appearances of sub-atomic particles, like the electron, and then developed probabilities, or potentias. We must do the same. Science will never actually see an electron, and we'll never see inside the bowels of NASA.

So here's what our observations have recorded. We have a governmental organization that is charted to be a "civilian agency devoted to peaceful purposes". This supposed "civilian agency devoted to peaceful purposes" is acting like a top-secret, high- security, branch of the military. Why would NASA go to such pains to purposely withhold information from the public? Here are a few possibilities:

1. The military/intelligence takeover of NASA is so complete that secrecy is simply the standard operating procedure.

2. NASA now knows that it has spent trillions funding and supporting bad science based on the Big Bang cosmology model, and must hide the constant stream of space data coming in from our new satellites that proves them wrong; in other words a massive cover up.

3. There is something about the changes being seen in our Solar System environment such as the appearance of the "comets" Shoemaker/Levy-9 and Hale-Bopp, the probable new solar system members, and the increasing activity of the Sun that could be dangerous, if not catastrophic to planet Earth. NASA is, therefore, invoking a "National Security" factor, and hiding the data.

4. If NASA dropped its Big Bang "cover science", and revealed the true nature of our Universe, it would open the floodgates to private development of technology that they, NASA and the military/intelligence community, now possess and use for their own gain through their many incestuous relationships with the military-industrial complex.

5. There is something about the nature of Hale-Bopp, and the many strange and wondrous changes occurring in the Solar System, that if fully known, would alter forever humankind's view of who we really are as beings.

6. All of the above.

More here .

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/secret/why.html

Edited February 23, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Duane Daman]

bump

[Evan Burton]

Our first big example was, and still is, the fact that not one close range photo of Hale-Bopp has ever been released from the Hubble Space Telescope, or any other major U.S. observatory.

Hubble sees ejected material from Hale-Bopp

Hale-Bopp observations with Hubble

Hale-Bopp images, including those from the Astronaut Memorial Planetarium & Observatory, Cocoa, Florida

Hale-Bopp images, including those taken from STS-85 in Earth orbit

Hale-Bopp images, including those from the Limber Observatory, Pipe Creek, Texas

We are also painfully aware that live, uncensored or delayed, broadcasts of space data and photos are simply no longer available.

http://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/events/monitor/

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html

http://iono.jpl.nasa.gov/latest_rti_global.html

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/latestimages.html

http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/images/latest.html

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/2007055/

http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/GOES/

http://gipsy.jpl.nasa.gov/center/products/...x.html#realtime

Sorry, but I think those guys lack credibility.

[Kevin M. West]

2. NASA now knows that it has spent trillions funding and supporting bad science based on the Big Bang cosmology model, and must hide the constant stream of space data coming in from our new satellites that proves them wrong; in other words a massive cover up.

Actually the entire budget of NASA since it's inception in '57 has been about $419 billion. Amazingly enough, the 'defense' budget for last year alone was the same amount. NASA gets royally screwed in terms of budget.

[Duane Daman]

nasa has royally screwed all of us , so maybe it's time to shut them down and turn over space exploration to private organizations who might know how to get the job done .... All this planet needs is to have a bunch of yahoos carrying nuclear bombs up to the moon in the year 2020 .

Return to the moon in 2020 ? .. What a joke !

All the billions of dollars that nasa has pissed away circling this planet going nowhere , should have gone to more important endeavers ... Such as fixing all of the billions of problems on this planet , before creating more on another one .

Edited February 25, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Michael Hogan]

All the billions of dollars that nasa has pissed away circling this planet going nowhere , should have gone to more important endeavors ... Such as fixing all of the billions of problems on this planet , before creating more on another one .

Here is NASA's take:

NASA’s Spinoff publication accomplishes several goals. First, it is a convincing justification for the continued expenditure of NASA funds. It serves as a tool to educate the media and the general public by informing them about the benefits and dispelling the myth of wasted taxpayer dollars. It reinforces interest in space exploration. It demonstrates the possibility to apply aerospace technology in different environments. It highlights the ingenuity of American inventors, entrepreneurs, and application engineers, and the willingness of a government agency to assist them. And finally, it continues to ensure global competitiveness and technological leadership by the United States.

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/

[Duane Daman]

nasa's time is over with .... They have wasted many years and many billions of dollars accomplishing nothing of importance .... It's time to take space exploration out of their incompetant hands and turn future space exploration over to real civilian organizations which are privately funded , not government funded , and who do not have the military agenda of global control from space ...

[Guest Stephen Turner]

t's time to take space exploration out of their incompetant hands and turn future space exploration over to real civilian organizations which are privately funded , not government funded ,

Thats a great idea, because of course private Corperations never screw up, or defraud their employees or the general public. Perhaps we should have asked Enron to help fund it, or Worldbank, or Barings. "To privatise where no man has privatised before"

[Evan Burton]

...They have wasted many years and many billions of dollars accomplishing nothing of importance ....

Probably not.

(best Monty Python voice) What has NASA ever done for us?

- Development of improved anti-icing fluid for airliners

- Hurricane tracking & analysis systems via NASA satellites & technology

- Ingestible 'thermometer pill' developed for astronauts used to track heat stress in athletes, divers, firefighters, etc

- Ambulated 'walker' that aids people with spinal cord or brain trauma injuries

- Treatment system for contaminated ground water

- NASA imaging technology being used in diabetes research

- Metallurgy analysis techniques reducing fatigue-related failures in aircraft

- NASA infrared and multi-spectral imaging allowing examination of historic / ancient documents and artifacts

- Vision devices for the vision-impaired

- Liquidmetal for new high strength / low weight material used in things like baseball bats, tennis rackets, golf clubs, thumb drives, etc

- Robotic techniques for uses such as remote medical procedures, bomb disposal, undersea exploration, etc

- Improved contact lenses

- Insect / pest sensing technology for the wine industry

- Temperature-controlled ergonomic material for treatment of sports injuries (developed from Apollo space suits)

- Development of Zipnuts (replacing ordinary threaded nuts & bolts with a single-motion securing system)

- Lightning detection and tracking technologies

- Synthetic soil for growing plants, originally developed for the ISS

- Air breathing / body cooling systems for firefighters (developed from the Apollo PLSS backpacks)

- Heart pump technology (developed from rocket engine fuel pump technology)

- Reducing sonic booms for high-speed flight

- Air traffic management computer technology developed by NASA

- Turbulence radar to reduce incidence of Clear Air Turbulence

- Thousands of new airliner design spinoffs from aerodynamic research

- "Virtual cockpit" technology for zero-visibility flight and landings

- Noise reduction for passenger cabins in airliners

- Discovery of 32,000 year old bacteriological life in polar regions

- Research into reducing blood cell degradation in high radiation environments (such as artificial red blood cells)

- Earth resources monitoring technology, such as for the Great Barrier Reef

- Nanotechnology for cell repair (cancer research)

- Development of artificial muscle fibres

- Climate study resources

- Pollution level sensing

- Tracking of volcanic ash / eruptions

etc

etc

(best Monty Python voice) Yeah, but apart from that, what have they done for us? Nothin!