It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hummm Guess who supplies the Airforce with engines for the Atlas launch vehicles ?

page: 2
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by 727Sky
 


Go a little further and where do you think the majority of electronic components and chips that we put into our defense systems come from?

IMO the outsourcing of defense system components is a major red flag for controlled and coordinated world conflicts.




posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by 727Sky
 


So sad.

My father was the director of aerospace engineering in the USAF throughout the 90's and he designed the Atlas II launch system. All American made parts, using American scientists, and never had a failed launch (over 70) in his career using his designs for over 10 years.

Then everything changed.

My father questioned the direction of the USAF when they made the switch to "cheaper" Russia designs towards the end of his military career. He got in a bit of trouble for voicing his opposition but he know this could happen and he did not want to jeopardize our military defense by using foreign parts.

Before heading aerospace engineering, he was an intelligence operative in Eastern Europe, and knew that Russia was "playing dead" in 1991. But as a result of his comments he was denied promotion to general and retired after 25 years of service as a colonel.

After the switch the USAF had 3 failed launches in a row (after 70 straight successful ones), and wasted billions of dollars because of desiring "cheaper" parts. The thing about space launches is, one failure and you are literally burning billions of dollars in thin air! Pay a bit more for quality and ensure successful launches, THAT is how you save money in the long run.

God Bless,
edit on 8-4-2014 by ElohimJD because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 02:59 PM
link   

hounddoghowlie

Vovin

hounddoghowlie
reply to post by 727Sky
 





Global market or Global stupidity ?


i vote Global stupidity. buying anything from a foreign country that relates to a county's security, military, or scientific need's is just plain stupid.

even if your allies, you should not place your interest in jeopardy.


edit on 5-4-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)


Except that in the real world, some countries are endowed with certain mineral resources while others are not. This is true for the USA as well. USA requires some minerals that cannot be mined in its geographical borders. The real tragedy is how the US government liquidated most of its stockpiles of rare mineral reserves after the fall of the USSR. Huge strategic blunder.


i agree with most of that, except raw materials is a far cry from finished goods. you can't put a back door in a raw silicon, and you can't manufacturer a defeat in raw iron ore so that a engine shuts down in mid flight. i suppose you could add stuff to the raw materials that would cause problems.but that would be found during the refining process and could be corrected.

it's a big step from raw materials to finished product.


And yet that step is done by the very same countries that go out of their way to mine outside of their borders, in order to produce immense surplus value from producing commodities demanded from the have-not countries.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   

ElohimJD
reply to post by 727Sky
 

After the switch the USAF had 3 failed launches in a row (after 70 straight successful ones), and wasted billions of dollars because of desiring "cheaper" parts. The thing about space launches is, one failure and you are literally burning billions of dollars in thin air! Pay a bit more for quality and ensure successful launches, THAT is how you save money in the long run.

Out of curiosity, what are these 3 failed launches that you refer to? AFAIK, the only 3 USAF launches which have failed, in sequence (at least since the very early days of spaceflight), were 3 Titan IV launch vehicles in 1998-1999 (source here, not the Atlas II/III/V series you seem to refer to with your "70 straight successful ones" comment - Atlas has always been a reliable LV, whether with US- or Russian-made engines.

All three Titan IV vehicles failed for different reasons (guidance system short circuit, upper stage error, and guidance database error) and all three were built in the USA, although it is possible that they used some foreign-made components. None of those vehicles used the RD-180 engine which is the subject of the original post.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 02:37 PM
link   

cavtrooper7
Our buisness leaders killed our industry to pursue profit overseas.


"The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them" -- VI Lenin




top topics
 
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join