PARALLAX · established 1995 · evidence first · no hoaxes · no threats · write the date down

PARALLAX

see it twice.
sightings & case files · the experiencers · cryptozoology · ancient anomalies · esoterica & prophecy · preparedness — an international community since 1995
PARALLAX  »  UFOLOGY & AERIAL PHENOMENA  »  Underground & Off-World Bases  »  Secret Moon bases -- why the lunar silence after Apollo is stranger than the landings
✎ Post Reply   « Underground & Off-World Bases
Secret Moon bases -- why the lunar silence after Apollo is stranger than the landings
Page 3 of 4   «1234»
Anonymous Coward
anon
(unregistered)
User ID: 40845265
From: a VPN, probably
#17▸ Posted: 04 May 1999, 18:03 PST
moon hotels lol

wake me when the minibar inventory leaks
PayloadTrace
Member
◆◆
Posts: 760
Joined: Oct 2000
From: Florida, US
#18▸ Posted: 14 May 1999, 18:41 PST
Starting a candidate matrix for anything that could have gone radio quiet without asking a crew to keep a secret.

Columns so far: mission bus, declared payload, possible secondary package, tracking footprint, power budget, and who would have noticed.
mass is the witness that forgets nothing
Rex_Pruitt
Member
◆◆◆
Posts: 980
Joined: Apr 2001
From: Houston TX, US
#19▸ Posted: 24 May 1999, 19:06 PST
I can accept the unmanned framing. It explains why the archive would show gaps without requiring astronaut testimony to vanish.

If the claim needs humans on site, it collapses fast. If it only needs a quiet package on a known probe, it becomes testable.
ask what payloads we stopped being told about
Rae_Lowry
Member
◆◆
Posts: 430
Joined: Jan 2001
From: Cambridgeshire, UK
#20▸ Posted: 04 Jun 1999, 19:38 PST
Separate passive from active payloads in the matrix. Passive reflector, buried sensor, film, or dosimeter can sleep forever and leave almost no signature.

Active relay, beacon, mapper, or jammer needs power, heat control, and a reason for someone to schedule listening time.
quiet is a design requirement
Al_Riggs
Member
◆◆
Posts: 510
Joined: May 2001
From: Houston TX, US
#21▸ Posted: 14 Jun 1999, 20:11 PST
Power and thermal are the gatekeepers. Lunar night punishes batteries, noon cooks exposed boxes, and dust makes radiator math worse.

Anything active for more than a few days needs a serious power source or a very clever duty cycle.
old hardware still teaches
DulceDigger
Field Researcher
◆◆◆◆
Posts: 9,120
Joined: May 1999
From: New Mexico, US
#22▸ Posted: 24 Jun 1999, 20:46 PST
Clementine belongs on the sheet because the SDIO paper trail is strange enough without inventing new spacecraft.

Do not treat the public mission summary as the payload list. Treat it as the first layer and compare it against contractor language.
Show me the folder number.
Rey_Sayers
Senior Member
◆◆◆◆
Posts: 2,710
Joined: Oct 1999
From: Maryland, US
#23▸ Posted: 05 Jul 1999, 21:19 PST
Piggyback is the path I would test first. A secondary box rides with a mapper, wakes after separation or impact survey, then either transmits briefly or stores locally.

Not glamorous, but it matches how quiet programs hide inside normal logistics.
documents first, visions second
Occams_Razorback
Resident Skeptic
◆◆◆◆◆
Posts: 16,720
Joined: Apr 1998
From: Chicago, US
#24▸ Posted: 15 Jul 1999, 21:52 PST
Name candidates, please. I want actual missions with dates, mass margin, comms, and custody chain.

Clementine is one. Lunar Prospector maybe. Anything else needs to survive the boring questions before it gets promoted to mystery.
bring your denominator
Page 3 of 4   «1234»
✎ Post Reply
PARALLAX · see it twice. · evidence first · write the date down · sources or it didn't happen
all times shown in the poster's local zone