Amazon boss wants to start a delivery service to the Moon

58b95ca4c3618842568b45d8

https://www.rt.com/business/379311-amazon-bezos-shipping-packages-moon/

The founder of Amazon Jeff Bezos has proposed to set up shipments for “future human settlement” of the Moon, reports The Washington Post, which is owned by the billionaire.

In an internal report, Bezos, who owns a private space travel company Blue Origin, wrote that a reliable delivery service will be critical to establishing a functioning lunar settlement.

“It is time for America to return to the Moon — this time to stay. A permanently inhabited lunar settlement is a difficult and worthy objective. I sense a lot of people are excited about this,” Bezos said in response to emailed questions from the daily.

The billionaire’s proposal reportedly seeks NASA support to send a “Blue Moon” spacecraft to Shackleton Crater near the Moon’s south pole. The lander would be able to carry a payload of up to 10,000 pounds and be launched by Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket or by other vehicles such as NASA’s Space Launch System or United Launch Alliance’s Atlas 5.

Blue Origin’s proposal is focused on a series of cargo missions which would be able to carry the equipment necessary to help establish a human colony on the Moon.

“Once on the surface, the lander’s useful payload can be used to conduct science or deploy rovers. A robotic arm attached to the lander will deploy to examine the lunar surface with an array of instruments,” the proposal said.

The first lunar mission could be underway July 2020, but is possible only in partnership with NASA, according to Bezos.

“Our liquid hydrogen expertise and experience with precision vertical landing offer the fastest path to a lunar lander mission. I’m excited about this and am ready to invest my own money alongside NASA to make it happen,” said Bezos.

———-

hahahahaha..hahaha..err..whuh?

hes serious??

“The billionaire’s proposal reportedly seeks NASA support to send a “Blue Moon” spacecraft to Shackleton Crater near the Moon’s south pole.”

oh nice..

“Bezos has proposed to set up shipments for “future human settlement” of the Moon, reports The Washington Post, which is owned by the billionaire.”

dont hold your breath..

401

Advertisements

~ by seeker401 on March 9, 2017.

5 Responses to “Amazon boss wants to start a delivery service to the Moon”

  1. Reblogged this on World Peace Forum.

  2. Public theft for private B.S. programs.

  3. When I first read the article, I thought ‘putting the cart before the horse’, then realized the following:

    I am thinking more and more, this is the timeline they are working on:
    http://www.10000yearclock.net/learnmore.html
    (Bezos is the major funder of the 10,000 year clock)

    By saying they will go to the moon to set up an Amazon station, then according to Speech-Act philosophy (S-A), they are doing it. According to S-A, they are doing it, and they may persuade others, i.e. a community or other individuals, they are doing it and therefore there will be others to help them accomplish what Amazon is doing. They may not be able to do it on their own, but by saying they are doing it, then they are and they wait for others to make it happen with them. Bezos is planning in accord with the 10,000 year clock. It does not matter when it happens, as long as they keep saying it, they are showing others they are doing it, which according to S-A philosophy others may be persuaded and then a larger community of people will be doing it. (I think this fits in well with the overall NWO way of doing things as well, they drill the propaganda in people’s heads and boom – it is here without even knowing how much it has been here all along.).

    Speech-Act philosophy is at play (not the only philosophy, but it is contemporary):

    “Thus, utterances do more than reflect a meaning, they are words designed to get things done.
    “In other words this means that one does not need to say the words apologize, pledge, or praise in order to show they are doing the action. All the examples above show how the actions and indirect words make something happen rather than coming out straightforward with specific words and saying it.
    “They may exist, and be complete, without being expressed, without being known to any other person. But, in the social operations, the expression is essential. They cannot exist without being expressed by words or signs, and known to the other party.”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_act

    Speech-Act philosophy is a major philosophy being used in AI and other computer processing applications. John Searle is a leading S-A philosopher who also works on developing AI systems.

    • thanks, adirondack. very interesting.
      “they are words designed to get things done.”

      I believe, there is physics behind this as well:
      “human thoughts and feelings generate torsion waves.”
      “consciousness is related to vibrations within a fluid-like “aetheric” medium.4”

      http://blog.world-mysteries.com/science/torsion-the-key-to-theory-of-everything/

      • Physics is the raw data. Physics is involved. The philosophy, or the ‘what or how of the raw data’, goes hand in hand. Language philosophy is not so much interested in the “what” of raw data, but more the “how” of raw data. The physics remains; the questions, i.e. “how” and “what”, about the physics are differently posed. Knowledge, or the “what”, is explaining and giving something definition. The “how” is describing what the raw data does and how it does it. I picked my words carefully, such as “explaining” or “describing”. The two involve carefully understood nuisances to make a point. The underlying point is not really necessary to know what is going on by using two different words. Just knowing that two different words have been used carefully delineates how two different acts or understandings are being thought about.

        The “how” is more interested in the method, not the content of the method, which is what happens when the senses, and not reason, are deemed how one gets knowledge. Not that neither sense or reason are ultimately better than the other. Philosophy, or understanding the world, is either one or the other: sense oriented or rational oriented. It is never both or something else, unless the philosophy is Scripture based, because that brings the Standard into the understanding. A Personal arbitrator who had decided what creation is and how creation works. Man has always been on his own accord: sense or rational oriented, and man, whether a poet, philosopher, painter, or scientist, has understood they are of the one group or the group orientation.

        When the “how” is surmised, the content or meaning, that the method is using or employing, is curbed to a blank slate, so to speak, so the individual is left to explore and create for their own self what the content is. The content is left alone to be painted however one desires, but the method is given serious consideration, according to those that adhere to pragmatic philosophies, such as Speech-Act. Interpretation is left opened, because they say, there is no meta-interpretation to provide a standard between two or more different interpretations as to which interpretation explains reality the best. How the ‘best’ interpretation is reached, therefore, is by emotive persuasion or art appeal and not rational argumentation. We are in the age of postmodernity (poetics rein) and not modernity (rational reins). The cultural arts, like the images that seeker posts, are an excellent example of the majority means to communicate and persuade a postmodern society. Philosophies, like Speech-Act, understand the age we live in, reflect on how the age operates, and know how to manipulate the cultural age, because they know how it ticks.

        Language philosophy, especially Speech-Act, is a recognized branch by the adherent philosophers of pragmatism, which is an empirical epistemology (how knowledge is gained, i.e. epistemology, is by the senses, i.e. empirical). It is hyper-empirical, for those that adhere to pragmatism dismiss rationality basing their understanding more on a hunch or intuition, i.e. ‘go with ones gut’ mentality. It is pragmatic, because as long as it works, then it must be ok. It is about creating reality, they say, by speaking words that make it reality. They say – it must be! Fiat. And when expressed in society, if the society is persuaded to go along with it, then they were right, ‘it must be’ because it is. Not that society thought it up or nature led them that way. There are people who think these things up and mold society. It does not always go their way, and the church knows the gospel, which as I mentioned, is a completely different way of thinking.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: