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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

China's secretive space program threatens NASA's dominance

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: projectvxn

Only in the publics view


What?

Who is that one guy who goes satellite watching at night and assumes all the satellites going to and fro are actually our intersolar space fleet in a war with aliens...




posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Am I the only one who thinks that Nasa should concentrate on space?
I saw a documentary how they are refining tech to give to Boeing and air bus to make their planes more efficient.
They are studying the global warming, oops climate change too?

Multi tasking doesn't work. Do one thing and be the absolute best at it.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

Climate change is a very serious issue. I think they need the budget for both. We should reallocate some of our defense budget for them.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

I would certainly want NASA to hand over climate change research and monitoring to the NOAA. It would make more sense. That way the NOAA can contract out its own satellite constellation programs.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

My opinion is climate change is a political game, I find it hard to get a handle on it when we are constantly being told that numbers are doctored, manipulated and then we must trust it. It seems like there is a ton of $$$$ to be made.

Just my opinion. And this has happened before.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: seasonal

NASA has a budget of $19 billion.

I don't think we have to worry about China outspending us.

But China is hungry. They are more willing to take risks in order to master space the way we have in a faster way.

The US has been very risk averse when it comes to space exploration. It's an attitude that I think needs to change.


Very true but it is also about state will, the US seem's to have lost it's impetus and has lowered the priority of it's national space program and though fervor may remain high among space exploration enthusiast's and even NASA itself public opinion in the US has always been a make or break agenda for the US government.

China on the other hand has a state drive as they fear US dominance and want to become the new superpower, they may see themselves as being in a race with India as well and have of course almost total access to the former Soviet space data and expertise, worryingly they may also be seeking to weaponize space in fear of the US black space program which has been run alongside the public NASA program all along and there probable fear that the US may have space based weapon deployment ability such as EMP bursters and kinetic rod droping platform's, they are however even with the former Soviet expert's help at least 30 years behind the state's on this front, remember the Russian's never really got there Buran space bombers up to spec and ditched the program, the test rig and the half built main buran are now sitting abandoned and dust covered in a former soviet era lauch facility.

The Buran or Soviet shuttle was not a satellite deployment craft though it could have been used as such, this copy of the NASA shuttle was envisaged as a reusable long flight orbital nuclear bomber, a nuclear ballistic submarine in space if you like, kottke.org... of course the fact the Russian's were developing it as such meant that they believed the US already had such a craft or fleet of them and so they were doing so in response as part of the arms race, of course from a more sober point there is every possibility that the US did indeed or does indeed have such though the NASA shuttle's provided a very handy smoke screen for such operation's.
www.buran.su...
www.space.com...

This was the soviet's at least 10 years behind the US and trying to catch up with the success of the STS, it was far cruder though despite it's external similarity's and of course more military in function.


edit on 27-11-2016 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

The things they've done for the aviation world have been huge. And they're continuing to improve it. They do a lot of things that companies don't have the resources to do, or don't have the technology to do until NASA comes along and jumpstarts the program.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

My opinion is climate change is a political game

There could be both the real threat of climate change and political shenanigans surrounding it. No reason these are mutually exclusive.


we are constantly being told that numbers are doctored, manipulated and then we must trust it.

The World sure seems to be in agreement it's a serious issue. Hence that UN Paris agreement. We are constantly being told it's a hoax and such, sure. We are constantly being told lots of things online, and largely from people that are also antagonistic towards much of science.

Well let's not stray too far from the topic. All I'm saying is that I strongly think we can give NASA the budget to prioritize both that and space exploration.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 11:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

My opinion is climate change is a political game, I find it hard to get a handle on it when we are constantly being told that numbers are doctored, manipulated and then we must trust it. It seems like there is a ton of $$$$ to be made.

Just my opinion. And this has happened before.


Remember Rahm Emanuel said, "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

I believe climate change is very real.

What isn't real are the tax schemes and corporate-favoring regulatory nightmares proposed as a means to combat it. Scientific issues deserve a scientific response. I think the best we can do is fund research and technical development as a nation to fight man made climate change.

That said, this is another step in our transition from a type 0.8 civilization to a type 1. Planetary societies can manipulate weather and geological phenomenon in order to increase environmental stability necessary to continue to harbor human life. We really shouldn't be fighting solutions to climate change by claiming that it is a hoax. It isn't. But it does make a convenient excuse for global elites to continue funding their lavish lifestyles on the backs of their respective tax payers.


edit on 27 11 16 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I would love to help the profitable companies out, but we have a finite amount of money, and they need to do their own work.
Now that being said, I have very little room to shoot my mouth off, becasue I am on the outside looking in, and it is always easy to say what I did, until you are given the whole story.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 11:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

My opinion is climate change is a political game, I find it hard to get a handle on it when we are constantly being told that numbers are doctored, manipulated and then we must trust it. It seems like there is a ton of $$$$ to be made.

Just my opinion. And this has happened before.


even if there is or isnt alot of $$$$ to be made, is it so bad and scary to change our dependency on oil?



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

I think if this an international problem, then why don't we have an international "Manhattan project"?

And when the media that is owned by the wealthy and large corp tell me something, I want to know what they have to gain.

Report: 95 percent of global warming models are wrong
Photo of Michael Bastasch
Micha
dailycaller.com...


Error in NASA climate data sparks debate
www.geotimes.org...

Global Warming 'Fabricated' by NASA and NOAA
www.breitbart.com...



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: choos

Absolutely we should stop tomorrow. Burning fuel into our air we breath is dumb.
I like the idea of thorium reactors.




posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

It's far more than "helping profitable companies out", it's majorly improving safety, efficiency, reducing emissions including noise levels, etc. They have six X-Planes planned for the coming years, including hybrid electric aircraft, long endurance aircraft, new shapes to aircraft, quiet boom aircraft, etc.

In 2015, NASA joined with the FAA, AFRL, and five other companies to advance knowledge of composite materials. This will help reduce maintenance costs, and come up with the best ways to repair composites in the field (such as the Ethiopian 787 that burned through the top of the fuselage in England). They plan to reduce development and certification by up to 30% for composite materials.

They're also testing a wing that folds in flight. This will drastically improve efficiency for aircraft, and eventually use an electric charge applied to the wing to fold it, instead of electrical motors attached to a mechanical mechanism. They're already working on a wing that changes shape for both better efficiency and to act as control surfaces. This would reduce the requirement for mechanical controls that move, and parts of the wing that create drag, and weight.

There's so much more than just helping companies make money to the NASA aerospace program. Those are just three programs that they have going on right now, with more on the way. They're going to revolutionize air travel even more than they have, and that technology will translate to other things that NASA does.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

NASA's dominance, Buzz Lightyear has a better space program at the moment thanks to Obama



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
I get the whole they have the best and brightest, and can get things done.

I still contend that tax payer money shouldn't be spent to further private sector companies to better their product that they in turn will make a profit on.
The show I saw was Nasa redesigning an jet engine intake to, honestly I have forgotten. But I found it odd that NASA was spending big bucks to make the airline industry a better profit. And we are talking over a decade on this little milk cow.

Are they helping car companies? I drive a car, and would love to get 125 miles per gallon.

Or how about furnace companies? I heat my house, I would love to have my gas bill go down by 1/2.

How about tire companies...... There are plenty of companies that could use a helping hand, and of course planes and NASA are in the same ball park. But when multi billion $ companies are subsidized by the tax payers for R+D I think the system is kinda wrong.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

I think we are getting too off topic. I'm sure we will engage in that topic together in another thread soon enough



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

It goes FAR beyond helping profitable companies. It's keeping the traveling public safe, and reducing costs for that traveling public. Many of the things that they're working on don't go into existing aircraft, but will be used to help with designing and building future aircraft. They're not helping the airline industry make a profit, they're improving safety for future aircraft. The companies involved are doing their own R&D for their aircraft, not NASA. NASA develops technology and techniques that help them.

The composite team is a great example. New aircraft are largely composite material. Both Boeing and Airbus have built their newest aircraft out of more than 50% composite material by weight. No one knows the best ways to repair, maintain, or inspect composite materials in the long term. NASA is helping with that. It has nothing to do with helping their profits, and everything to do with helping advance technology that will eventually come back to them and space exploration, and keeping people safe.

The car companies don't need as much help, as they don't have up to 400 people die in a single crash, but yes, they're helping the auto industry too. They're putting new computer technologies into cars being designed and built now. They're using some technology that was developed for the rovers among other technologies.

They also helped Goodyear develop new tires using technology for the parachute shrouds for Viking. It increased tire life by over 10,000 miles when they developed it. In 2009 they were working with Goodyear to develop puncture proof tires for the future moon buggy. That technology could be put into tires that Goodyear will develop. They worked with Michelin to develop new tires for aircraft that would reduce heat and drag going down the runway.

edit on 11/27/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/27/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I can see we will not agree on all of this.
Now if there is a cross over tech that will help let's say goodyear, cool.

But to set up teams of people that work for nasa, but only work on making a better jet engine for the already super-duper safe airline industry, nope I can't see the value to the tax payer who can't afford health insurance. And I have my reservations that the 20% is going to suddenly lead to a reduction of ticket prices, in the future.

I think this is the doc I saw.




posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 12:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Zaphod58

I can see we will not agree on all of this.
Now if there is a cross over tech that will help let's say goodyear, cool.

But to set up teams of people that work for nasa, but only work on making a better jet engine for the already super-duper safe airline industry, nope I can't see the value to the tax payer who can't afford health insurance. And I have my reservations that the 20% is going to suddenly lead to a reduction of ticket prices, in the future.

I think this is the doc I saw.



not even if the engine is capable of reducing fuel consumption and reducing emissions?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join