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.

 

Is it so hard to believe secret space operations are happening?

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower
The space junk argument is true for every launch, I can´t see the problem with that. If you refer to launches (I suppose because that´s mystics topic in the post)




posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Aliensun

My whole problem with it being derrived from UFO's is this...

Imagine you drove a car back in time, to 1492 -- and crashed into a tree. How long do you think it would take the brightest minds of the time to:

1. know what it is

2. what it's even capable of

3. make it do some of what it's capable of

4. Duplicate the materials

5. re-create the energy source (they'd have to figure out how to extract and refine oil into gasoline)

So you see, when something that advanced drops into your laps, you probably won't even know what it is or what it can do. If you manage to make it do anything without killing yourself, you're eventually going to have to duplicate it. In order to do that, you're going to have to figure out what it's made of and how to make that too. Then, you'll have to find out how its powered and duplicate that whole thing as well.

Reverse engineering is not as easy as taking something a part, going, "Oh so THATS how it works" and putting it back together. Our fundamental understanding of science may be flawed, and these things might operate under laws of physics we have completely misunderstood.

All of this is assuming there's no one (or thing?) to help you ...



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

how are you going to go to the past without your chemistry 101 and steam plant operation book in the trunk, that is just rude man



Aliens must got warp drive for dummies in the trunk too

someone must have seen army of darkness...



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Rods are overrated. They're not the most accurate weapons due to vagaries of reentry.



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 05:54 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...
edit on 29-1-2016 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: verschickter

I suppose you're right about that now that I apply some logic lol

~Tenth



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Rods are overrated. They're not the most accurate weapons due to vagaries of reentry.


Yeah but you miss your target by a few hundred feet, you're still making a mile wide crater lol

~Tenth



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

The problem was that they tended to miss by miles. They would pick up imperfections on reentry that made them wobble when they modeled them.



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: verschickter

Yeah, there's be "issues" for sure.
I have a great book from the eighties called War in space. Its full of wacky ideas and is very dated indeed. I dare say some of the ideas were followed up but what they conceived as possible back then bears little relation to the results we see now. A great read, though.
I think the only successful looking space weapon I ever saw was on a James Bond film.
Ones things for sure, though.
If they've got weapons up there, they are, indeed, secret.
Cheers.



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

So they were actually tested? poke poke



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: tothetenthpower

The problem was that they tended to miss by miles. They would pick up imperfections on reentry that made them wobble when they modeled them.


I guess it really is hard to guide something so rudimentary.

~Tenth



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Tulpa

I wanted to avoid "impossible" but. BTW, you totally can damage their electronic components with the right equipment. From earth. You "just" need a big maser and high precision (still, several magnitudes inaccurater then your laser idea).
All you have to do is give the antennas enough energy.



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: tothetenthpower

The problem was that they tended to miss by miles. They would pick up imperfections on reentry that made them wobble when they modeled them.


They tested this idea?

You do know Boeing (I think) grow metals in a single crystal form somewhere in the UK, for aeroplane parts? Cutting edge stuff.

Makes me think... If the problem is imperfections...



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990

Not only. atmospheric disturbances again, angle of entry etc. At Mach 10, there´s not much correcting in the final descend.



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: verschickter

I can imagine you'd want to launch something at terminal velocity and continuing as it enters the atmosphere. Would atmospheric conditions effect that? What would happen if it hit ice for instance?

If the arrow is straight and true would anything else matter?



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990

From what I know, the idea was the rod would produce the same force as an atomic bomb, regardless of where it struck.

~Tenth



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: verschickter

On a small scale. They modeled the reentry and drop tested them from what I understand.



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: RAY1990

From what I know, the idea was the rod would produce the same force as an atomic bomb, regardless of where it struck.

~Tenth


But obviously there is a lot more to it, otherwise we are sitting with thousands of nukes right above us now.

far as I see it you need a list of things to produce anything like the "rods of gods" concept.

1. a heavy material
2. a flawless material
3. something easily propelled
3b. something you can control far away
4. a material that burns without damaging it's shape as it enters atmosphere especially at drastic speed.

Do we have any materials that can create some kind of boundary around it?

It's probably a flawed concept considering the density and weight of the materials needed anyway.



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990

They were originally supposed to be Tungsten rods I think.

~Tenth



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990

They were Tungsten rods. They weren't propelled except to launch them. They were dropped from a satellite in orbit while over the target area. It worked just fine, except for the accuracy issue. They corrected that, but by the time they did there were better alternatives that were more effective.







 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join