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.

 

USAF commercial mentions starships

page: 9
60
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: clay2 baraka

No, just Olympus.




posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


Imagine if the Gods were to hear you call it "just" Olympus!



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 11:57 PM
link   
a reply to: aorAki

Eh, they already don't like me.





posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 12:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: clay2 baraka

No, just Olympus.



Project Olympus stations would become space-environment research facilities, “national laboratories” for research into meteorology, geophysics, communications systems, navigation systems, and astronomy, and “orbital operations” facilities (that is, sites for assembling spacecraft bound for points beyond space station orbit).


www.wired.com...




posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 05:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bigburgh

originally posted by: Zaphod58
There's another thread about this, and I'll say the same thing here. If you sit down and really think about it, the Air Force is a bad choice for starships.


Navy?
Don't dare say coast guard!

Only because the navy seems more advanced on knowledge.... and capable of knocking a satellite out of space from a sea platform...
All of which I said has nothing to do with where your headed....I assume....


Yes I think Navy. Outer space is more similar to being underwater than it is to being in our atmosphere. At least thats what I was told a long time ago. I was told thats why the Navy handles more of the space command type stuff. Sorry if someone more in the know already mentioned this or proved me wrong. I didnt have time to read the whole thread but wanted to at least point that out.



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 06:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3n19m470

originally posted by: Bigburgh

originally posted by: Zaphod58
There's another thread about this, and I'll say the same thing here. If you sit down and really think about it, the Air Force is a bad choice for starships.


Navy?
Don't dare say coast guard!

Only because the navy seems more advanced on knowledge.... and capable of knocking a satellite out of space from a sea platform...
All of which I said has nothing to do with where your headed....I assume....


Yes I think Navy. Outer space is more similar to being underwater than it is to being in our atmosphere. At least thats what I was told a long time ago. I was told thats why the Navy handles more of the space command type stuff. Sorry if someone more in the know already mentioned this or proved me wrong. I didnt have time to read the whole thread but wanted to at least point that out.


\
Under water is not the same as Space / Vacuum enviromnent.. totally different set of difficulties in underwater. The immense pressure at depth prevent easy human exploration underwater , barring some specialist diving bell..



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 06:49 AM
link   
a reply to: milomilo

Doesn't matter because the same conditions occur on a long distance space ship as on a submarine. Long term, little to no contact with your home, tight spaces, etc. It's almost identical to submarine service, which makes the navy better suited than the air force.



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 06:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: milomilo

Doesn't matter because the same conditions occur on a long distance space ship as on a submarine. Long term, little to no contact with your home, tight spaces, etc. It's almost identical to submarine service, which makes the navy better suited than the air force.


there still gravity in a submarine you know .. and really, dont let submariners ride on a space-craft, they can suddenly open the airlock/hatch and forgot they are on a spaceship



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 07:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: milomilo
.. and really, dont let submariners ride on a space-craft, they can suddenly open the airlock/hatch and forgot they are on a spaceship


You have a good sense of humour.

Its the Army we worry about 'opening hatches'.. that's why we use Navy (UK SBS, US SEAL / Marine SF) Commando types. They are used to looking at a hatch and saying 'no touchy'.

The Army? they always looking for a quick smoke break and a way to hide 'out the way'.



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 07:20 AM
link   
I really hope some of you more respected Air force experts are not trying to play us here. There are a few here who's word I do take as golden and would hate for them to be playing a joke.



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 07:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
I really hope some of you more respected Air force experts are not trying to play us here. There are a few here who's word I do take as golden and would hate for them to be playing a joke.


They are not, I am not.






edit on 16-7-2014 by Astr0 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

I don't think they are trying to play you. Believe me there is some weird and very,very advanced stuff flying these days. SO advanced that they can take what we would be assumed to be huge risks and fly them almost openly. Who's going to believe it if they saw it? If they can see it. Gotta be quick. But I suspect a lot of those "stars" going across the sky, bright flashes etc. are not satellites or even soon to go grey aircraft but stuff much more endeavoring.

Orion could be like the term aurora. An umbrella name for stuff associated with space propulsion and travel. The big ass space rocket looking thing with nuclear detonations out the back might be a red herring. Meanwhile the real propulsion and look of the space vehicles and platforms could be very different. Or they abandoned that "Orion" concept vehicle when better ideas replaced it.

One caveat or warning. Don't underestimate the current level of technology the US military or the corporations that develop these sorts of things have. Being several years more advanced than what the public or even acadamia knows about is no lie. NO LIE.

As far as building this stuff in secret. Or even having the technology to even come up with this stuff. Humans are extremely cleaver when they want to be.

Meanwhile, my advice. Keep looking up. Pay attention. you never know what kind of cool stuff you might see. No matter where you are. In the woods or in the city. Look up. So many people don't. be the exception. look up.



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Astr0

Thats the thing.

I respect many of you guys on matters of Aircraft and military tec.

So dont take it as a insult. The fact im asking is cause I know most of you dont BS.

As far as some of stuff PM'd me, certainly interesting and wont go further than PM unless permission given.
edit on 16-7-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

There is a reason that some of the physicists at Boeing, Lockheed, Northrup, Teladyne (insert whatever bad ass company name here) working on their space projects get paid better than Brain Surgeons. No joke. a lot of them do.



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Well I have seen the fabled black triangle.

I know crzy crap is out there. I also know a few Military R&D that work on joint US/UK projects, talking to them like bleeding blood from a rock but they do say some crazy stuff out there and I have got a few fun facts I wont share, though it mainly army stuff.
edit on 16-7-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Trickle down.

How many times have you heard 'I saw it in a dream.and started trying to make it real' regarding super hitech materials and related projects?

Its like throwing a packet of seeds onto a field. Some will germinate, some won't.

BASSPLYRs triangle is a prime example. Smaller,.deathly silent, built by workers in remote hangers. The idea? A crazy dream come true.

Seeding. Trickle down.



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

We are like brothers then with this triangle thing. Where did you see yours? Any descriptions or threads/posts you can point me to if you have ever posted about it here on ATS? Just interested in putting together the pieces and figuring this all out. My life got very interesting after I saw the ones I did.

Gotta find time to PM Astro one of these days. Except I can't get all my thoughts together regarding the phenomena, and I don't want to bore him with some three page PM. I maybe might owe him an apology too.



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

I have mentioned it a few times.

here
and
here

My sighting was when I was 10. It was at night and flying over the Thames estuary UK on a route and direction I normaly see military and government aircraft and helicopters.

Was huge in size, must have been the size of a C-130 or bigger. It was a solid triangle and flew silently with no running lights towards Europe. No fast maneuvers though, it just seemed to cruise along.
edit on 16-7-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: sputniksteve
a reply to: Sammamishman

That answers a lot of questions. Thank you very much for that post. Very interesting reading. Glad to have the Dragon answered.


The dragon seems to be protecting the earth



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 09:48 AM
link   
The thing with the Olympus idea is where did they get all the extra Saturn V rockets from.

I mean they were pretty big things somebody must have noticed dozens being made or going missing?



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join