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.

 

X37-B: 631 days in orbit and counting... Wow!

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: MrAoxx

I haven't tracked it, but I've read that some people have have. If it can be tracked, it can be seen. That throws out the theory that it's scooting over the other satellites and docking/messing with them.

Also, as I said -- weapons in space are forbidden after the nuclear test ban treaty. No one is "supposed" to have anything weaponized up there. Besides, what good would an orbital weapon be if you can track it?

It's a lot more "cool" to imagine these theories, but logically they just don't make sense.


I bet there is at least one or two there anyway, you know so if every silo and plane is irradiated some how they have a just encase nuke on one of those many many satellites up there. Im sure of it in fact.




posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Mysrtic. come on. you know the russians have weapons sats up there good as we do. That treaty was broken in the first year it was ratified id bet ya. and according to reports before it was announced people were not tracking it because they didnt know about it. a mirror reflecting device could make visual tracking hard to do if it has something liek that onboard. or painting it the color of space itself.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Biigs

If every single silo and plane is irradiated/destroyed or non-operational, I doubt there would be anyone or any infrastructure left behind to target and launch a secret orbiting nuke.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

The Russians did put recoil-less rifles on some of their very early manned orbital satellites. I believe the Salyut program had a few. They didn't stay armed for very long



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Biigs

The ISS has been in orbit for a lot longer and hasn't been "pummeled". Micrometeor hits are NOT that common.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

But..but...I saw that movie "Gravity" with George Clooney and it looked so real in 3-D IMAX?!



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 12:28 PM
link   
That's a very interesting thought
i have never looked at it that way



a reply to: Glassbender777



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Glassbender777

Most satellites don't store information. The image, and immediately send, either to another relay satellite, or directly to the ground station. It's not like before when they had to drop a film canister back to earth to be recovered.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

hey zap. cover the satellites camera lenses with space paint. imagine a robot arm with a hand that can apply the paint.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Except that it works a lot better of they don't know you've done it. Otherwise they send a new one up, and you have to do it again.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

whats the best wayto do that? it i sprolly so easy id slap myself.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   
I think one of the things being tested is how long they can keep it capable maneuvering to different orbits with the current payload and fuel type. Also, with the advent of micro and nano satellite tech there is no better deployment platform I can think of. Spying? sure. Weaponizing? easy.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Nudge it so you alter the orbit just a little make it look like a satellite failure they effectually put a new one up, but not until they try to save that one, and waste potentially months. That's one way.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

have you heard of any research onto Co2 space to space weapons (bb guns in space lol)? I have, but don't know how credible it is.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Well no matter what it brings up there each flight, it should always bring something back down with it. Why not bring older or malfunctioned satellites back to earth to reuse the expensive electronics on board. You could even steal your enemies satellites to study their technology.

You could use it to recover highly classified failed satellites to prevent enemies from ever recovering them cause if we can build this the Chinese will be in a few years. Is there any treaty preventing anyone from taking stuff out of orbit?



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Xeven

The problem with bringing them back is that they're heavy. That means you're pushing max landing weight. That's a Bad Idea, especially with no engines to help you correct.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: howmuch4another

I've always heard there were better ways than that. They were good for awhile, and still have some uses, but they've since refined other methods.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks. I personally never understood the concept unless to attack a pressurized environment. I think the directed EMP is still a go. Not much buzz about MAHEM anymore.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: howmuch4another

Plink a satellite, and "oh damn! I'm sorry, but it looks like your satellite just got hit by some space debris." They cast bring them down, so prove it wasn't.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

ah..space debris. how stupid of me. would also give cover to the proximity accusations. we just say it happened to us too.




new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join