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.
originally posted by: sirChill
They tested this thing a year ago, it may be round like a classic "flying saucer", but this is basically a ballute.
originally posted by: SixX18
Now this makes me think, how long have they had this? Which also brings up, what do they have now that we won't know for 20 more years?
I used to have this project 1794 flying saucer from the USAF in my signature until the mods deleted it, but it dates back to the 1950s, though it was only plans:
originally posted by: TinfoilTP
That's it, game over, you have all been hit with the disclosure hammer.
NASA has "flying saucer technology".
Next time anyone sees a flying saucer, it will be said, oh there goes NASA.
They have shut down for all practical purposes.
originally posted by: [post=19407294]TrueBrit I think they would come up with alternatives to rocketry fast if their continued existence as an organisation depended on doing so. What do you think?
originally posted by: TinfoilTP
originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Too much fail to even bother explaining why this isn't a flying saucer in the sense that we ought to be discussing them.
This is just a round rocket.
This is a real flying saucer.
Not a make believe one.
Not one in an always fuzzy photo.
Not one dangling from a fishing line.
Not a shooting star or swamp gas.
The real deal with a government agency providing the show and tell.
Maybe your jaw is still on the floor from the disclosure impact.
Consider this, this is how they are going to land on another planet, using this flying saucer technology.
I think everybody including NASA would like to see better propulsion methods and NASA's eagleworks has some interesting research toward that end but some of it is on very fundamental science which means it's nowhere near yielding any practical drive, though they are also working on some more practical alternatives. The Dawn probe photographing Ceres uses an ion drive, but unfortunately such a drive doesn't have enough thrust to escape Earth's gravity so it was launched by conventional rocket.
originally posted by: TrueBrit
I have a suggestion for NASA, which might speed up the process of coming up with new and better propulsion methods for their various craft. What they need to do, is behave as if chemical rockets of any kind, are physically impossible, and give up on building them. No more rockets allowed.
I think they would come up with alternatives to rocketry fast if their continued existence as an organisation depended on doing so. What do you think?
So will mine if I ever see any video of any aircraft breaking the laws of physics, though I think it's a myth that flying saucers can do this, which has never been recorded on film to my knowledge. Given a choice between a mis-perception or the laws of physics being broken, I think the misperception is the more likely of the two.
originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
My jaw will be on the floor when I see it turn acute angles at a speed that would tear pilots apart in conventional aircraft.
originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Too much fail to even bother explaining why this isn't a flying saucer in the sense that we ought to be discussing them.
This is just a round rocket.
There is likely to be hardcore denial all the way to spin doctoring this into aliens somehow.