The Militarization of Near Space?

originally posted by: TucsonOne
a reply to: Psynic
Follow my last posted link please.

Last bullet point in the : About the EKV

Edit: its not a waiting ground system

I HAD already read the link and I think you should read it again.

The system consists of GROUND launched missiles and an eye in the sky.

The missile relies on kinetic energy instead of an explosive warhead.

Does it matter if I am killed from a weapon in space as opposed to an ICBM?
Did I miss something? Not trying to be trite at all, or is this whole topic more about the "cool factor" of space weapons?

originally posted by: boohoo
Also, why an F-15? Why not something exotic that fly's high like the SR-71, U-2, etc? Because whatever is being delivered to orbit needs to be capable of getting sent up from any base, any time, not just the few bases with the high tech stuff, hence, this system is for weapons.

The SR-71 and U-2 were incapable of carrying external payloads. The U-2 carries 5,000 lbs of sensors, and has a tiny window between stalling and overspeed. An external payload like this would destroy it.

There are no flying SR-71s, and none of them can be returned to flight ever again.

The F-15 on the other hand, has a fairly tall landing gear, making it capable of carrying a large missile on the centerline station. It already carried the ASAT missile the Air Force developed in the 1980s.

originally posted by: Psynic
You can't fly SR71s or a U2s off aircraft carriers.

They flew U-2s off carriers several times during tests to determine if the Navy would operate them. The main issue is their flight envelope is ridiculously difficult without a large payload hanging off the airframe.

originally posted by: MKMoniker
www.cbsnews.com...
(July 2014) RECENT PLANE CRASHES MAY HAVE BEEN SHOT FROM ABOVE?
Several were known to be flying above 20,000 feet, which is above the range of ground-based missiles.

No. Surface to Air missiles are more than capable of engaging above 20,000 feet. Gary Powers was flying in a U-2 over 60,000 feet and was shot down by a SAM. As were a huge number of aircraft shot down over Vietnam.

a reply to: Psynic

According to some reports they fired it several times under the control of ground stations, after the astronauts had returned to earth, and before it was deorbited.

originally posted by: Patriotsrevenge
a reply to: MKMoniker




The next war wont be in space but that will be the next great fairytale excuse to put weapons in space to feed the defense industry.

Airborne Launch Assist Space Access (ALASA) allows the US to "put weapons in space" anyday, anywhere as desired, while keeping that ability protected on the ground.

This isn't going to be "the next fairytale" to come along, defense has been dining off of putting weapons in space since late last century.

originally posted by: Zaphod58

originally posted by: Psynic
You can't fly SR71s or a U2s off aircraft carriers.

They flew U-2s off carriers several times during tests to determine if the Navy would operate them. The main issue is their flight envelope is ridiculously difficult without a large payload hanging off the airframe.

And they proved they could fly B-25's off them too, but it wasn't practical.

Keep it real Z.

a reply to: Psynic

Actually it was practical. The CIA flew U-2Gs off the carriers twice on operational missions. The project took the carriers away from their "real" missions, and the Air Force said that there were enough land bases available for them to fly from, so the program never went anywhere, and was killed.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Psynic

Actually it was practical. The CIA flew U-2Gs off the carriers twice on operational missions. The project took the carriers away from their "real" missions, and the Air Force said that there were enough land bases available for them to fly from, so the program never went anywhere, and was killed.

In the application pertaining to THIS thread it is not practical.

Do I need to list the reasons?

a reply to: Psynic

I already pointed out the reasons why it's not feasible for either the U-2 or SR-71 to do it, and why the F-15 is a great platform for it.

a reply to: MKMoniker

If you want to talk space war, then you really need to start with the book that lays it out for you. That book is Military Space Forces: The Next 50 Years by John M. Collins and comissioned by the US Congress, 1989, ISBN 0-08-037432-B. It is the blueprint for Reagan's Space Defense Initiative, the so-called "Star Wars" program. The strategy is all there, the who of the military's various arms, and the where of how space is to be defended out to and including the Moon by the US military. The book tells the core plan,but the author, Collins, was a complete novice about space and simply fills the balance of the book with simple stuff that the Congress (at that time) could touch on to seem knowledgeable about where the money was going.

If you have ever seen a triangle moving silently, low, and slow, then you know that there was more on Reagan's mind than the "Brilliant Pebbles" project. Other key projects were where the lost trillions of the Pentagon went.

Talk in the media about advanced jets and wings is mostly cover talk to misdirect and take attention away from stunning reports of triangles. Turn such talk on its head and ask questions of why there never was a legitimate replacement for the shuttle and dozens other logical questions about orbiting military platforms, bases on the Moon if not Mars made possible by triangles and similar craft fashioned from UFO technology. And that new rail gun on display in DC last week? That is your perfect orbital space defensive and offensive weapon, better than a laser.

I don't like the idea of space weapons but they are necessary. The way I see it though is we are gridlocked with each other as nations on this tiny planet with more than enough weapons to tear apart Saturn. This armed-to-more-teeth-than-you-have trend will continue into space, continuing the gridlock like ugly anomalies like this www.cynicalsmirk.com... Excuse my extreme simile but that's what war looks like in space.

It sounds like fun though, sitting at your home computer, using your satellite laser weapon to cut a man in half as he walks out his front door.

Here is a discussion I just revived:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
(2012) RUSSIAN MISSILES NOT SO THREATENING NOW

I added the last post with a photo and article of Russia's massive 'Tesla Tower' in a forest outside Moscow. This 'lightning generator' is one of the world's largest impulse generators.

Could it be used as a ground-to-space weapon? Can lightning even be directed at an above-earth target?

a reply to: MKMoniker

You would have to have a way of directing the pasma ...like HAARP.
Which OF course isn't any sort of military weapon...right?

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: MKMoniker

You would have to have a way of directing the pasma ...like HAARP.
Which OF course isn't any sort of military weapon...right?

HAARP was a HF transmitter. And its direct effect was limited to a 30 degree cone from the vertical (less on some bands) over Gakona.

Not much way to direct plasma with it, and you couldn't even do ionospheric heating unless you were pretty much over the site.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Thanks for your post, Cav. But it does look like the Army is (or was) working on directed-plasma weapons:

www.gizmag.com...
(June 2012) U.S. ARMY WEAPON SHOOTS LIGHTNING BOLTS DOWN LASER BEAMS

And the Navy is (or was) working with HAARP to create "Plasma Spheres".

www.geoengineeringwatch.org...
(Feb. 2013) U.S. NAVY LABS CREATE PLASMA SPHERES USING HAARP

And MIT research labs can produce artificial plasma or lightning using NEXRAD RADAR. So NEXRAD RADAR can function as small HAARPs or EISCATs, so they no longer need the huge HAARP arrays.

(HAARP, Alaska, was shut down in May 2013, when their "heating up the ionosphere" experiments were making Global Warming a reality. The site is supposedly inactive, with dismantling scheduled for May 2015

www.adn.com...
HAARP CLOSURE POSTPONED UNTIL 2015

originally posted by: MKMoniker

Could it be used as a ground-to-space weapon? Can lightning even be directed at an above-earth target?

No. It's a Marx generator. It hasn't got anything to do with Tesla, other than RT (sort of the Russian version of Daily Mail) called it that, and pretty much anything with arcs and coils is erroneously attributed to Tesla.

The purpose of a Marx generator is to take a somewhat lower input voltage, charge a bunch of capacitors in parallel, then discharge them in series.That gives you a big high voltage pulse, suitable for, among other things, testing reaction to lightning strikes.

A lot of university high voltage labs have them, they're pretty common. You can make your own if you're really bored and want to be injured. At GTech if you were taking the hv lab they would set off a shot behind you during orientation, and that's a long embarrassing story.

Watch a video on YouTube
Dr Carol Rosin and listen to what Dr Von Braun disclosed to her in the late 70's early 80's.

originally posted by: MKMoniker
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Thanks for your post, Cav. But it does look like the Army is (or was) working on directed-plasma weapons:

Actually, that would be a company called "Applied Energetics" working on it, and the Ionatron has been a dismal failure. It's also a bit of a misnomer to call it "directed plasma", what Ionatron was supposed to do was created an ionized channel with a UV laser, then discharge a high voltage source down the channel. Not new, either (the first example of someone trying this was in the late 30's) but it's very tough to do well, and AE didn't, although they're still burning money on it. It's big, it's bulky, it's expensive, and it's for IEDs, it has a very short range. Like 100 feet.

And the Navy is (or was) working with HAARP to create "Plasma Spheres.:

The entire ionosphere is plasma, and that's what HAARP used to work with.

And MIT research labs can produce artificial plasma or lightning using NEXRAD RADAR. So NEXRAD RADAR can function as small HAARPs or EISCATs, so they no longer need the huge HAARP arrays.

A good understanding of "maximum usable frequency" would help you understand why this isn't true.

(HAARP, Alaska, was shut down in May 2013, when their "heating up the ionosphere" experiments were making Global Warming a reality. The site is supposedly inactive, with dismantling scheduled for May 2015

They ran one last time after your article, it's been offline since. The weeds are growing hip high in the antenna field. If there's no funding or no one buys the thing before May, you will have a really great opportunity to buy a 2-10MHz 10kW final amp. There's 360 plus spares, lovingly maintained. The antennas and tuners won't do you a lot of good, and the exciter is sort of designed for that setup and won't do you much good other than if you're trying to build a movie set.

They've got four really nice diesel locomotive generators if you wanted to power something major. And there's a lot of general purpose comm stuff, a radar, a few SW receivers, an ionosphere height finder and the like.