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.

 

Plasma jet engines that could take you from the ground to space

page: 3
13
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2017 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Read the post.

There's some interesting info in there.




posted on May, 25 2017 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

Will do, out and about right now, and 40+ eye sight combined with tiny wee screen hurts my eyeballs.

Edit: The possibility of the creation of some form of anti matter particle beam seems to present the best way of weaponizing such technology, simply by way of the fact that you are creating the anti particles and then discharging them through a beam. Hence storage may not present the same problem as say using the stuff as a bomb. But i imagine we are still a few decades away from deploying or creating antimatter particle beams.

Might be wrong all the same.

edit on 25-5-2017 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

I like how the Rockefeller Foundation announced they were divesting all of their oil interests in September. Then in October, Lockheed made their initial announcement! Seems that somebody was tipped off what was going to be announced.

Ain't Bohemian Grove in mid-July?

"Pass the owl juice. Oh, btw we are announcing a fusion reactor in October..."

eta: Now we are in a "chicken and egg" thing with funding CFR. One hand: How to fund it and not wipe out your long term investments? The other: How do we make money off of it?
edit on 25-5-2017 by TEOTWAWKIAIFF because: clarity and an observation



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: yuppa

I like how the Rockefeller Foundation announced they were divesting all of their oil interests in September. Then in October, Lockheed made their initial announcement! Seems that somebody was tipped off what was going to be announced.

Ain't Bohemian Grove in mid-July?

"Pass the owl juice. Oh, btw we are announcing a fusion reactor in October..."

eta: Now we are in a "chicken and egg" thing with funding CFR. One hand: How to fund it and not wipe out your long term investments? The other: How do we make money off of it?


Well I do declare you have several good points there. And they are spot on id say.



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Wolfenz

Wolf Umm the post he made takes into account the size as well. Lockheed INTENTIONALLY is playing stupid. Their actual design we dont see is small in comparison.


of course they are playing stupid , as of everything ,
Defense contractors always do towards the public ,
when its classified, just thrown for the Public to stop their questioning ,

as The Government is Advanced 10 to 20 years Ahead of Schedule .
In the Extreme Serious Rolls of Projects


I Could of Showed you Mouth Dropping Plans that Was Conjured up ,
on the Drawing Board , and Plans to Concepts
to even Testing , that NASA , JPL , RAND ,
and others Had , that Could of Worked ,

that was done up in the late 50s ad through out the 60s 70s , and 80s


It was Called the Information Bridge and was Easier to use
It had also Unclassified, Plans, ideas, to even Testing
now in a different name , as some documents are not available anymore

Now Called :
Scitech Connect
www.osti.gov...

Here ya go:

Scitech Connect : Pulsed Plasma Thruster
www.osti.gov...:%20pulsed%20plasma%20thruster/filter-results:F



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Wolfenz

One day... a aircraft is going to roll out of a hangar...and the internet is going to melt...... twice.



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

I do recall, "the internet will melt down, this site twice. But I still think it is "Berenstein" Bears, so what h3ll do I know!

Funny that Astr0's posts are being corroborated as time goes on. Well, some are, if you look.

Thanks for the Green Lady info!



posted on May, 26 2017 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Then again. Maybe we have.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 26 2017 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: yuppa

I do recall, "the internet will melt down, this site twice. But I still think it is "Berenstein" Bears, so what h3ll do I know!

Funny that Astr0's posts are being corroborated as time goes on. Well, some are, if you look.

Thanks for the Green Lady info!


Oh you are correct,but i was just paraphrasing im just a lowly padawan compared to the master.
As to the lady in green though. twas just a educated guess judging from the info i replied to. Though that would explain its green exaust trail that glows.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Thought the Lady was Civil?



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger

Nah, black, man. And I always thought borane was wrong because that is too corrosive,

Plasma and electric are the way!!

Should we ever see it that is.




posted on May, 28 2017 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

Thanks for the link!

Over the last few years I've had a bit of an interest in the scramjet, from my understanding the idea has been around for a while, just like the jet engine. Tbh propulsion is a fairly simple concept to get the old noggin around, it's making it practical that's the hard bit.

I mean we've had gunpowder for a while, fireworks like the Catherine wheel... Propulsion isn't the hard bit, it's sustainable propulsion that's difficult. Hence why bullets and shells have flew for a while but rockets are fairly new since they usually require a fuel source and something to react with to keep them burning constant. All of which must be kept in the rocket, then their's the conundrum of what's stored, solids, liquids or gas... Effectiveness VS safety is how I've always seen it.

This is why I love ATS, for a nitwit I've learned a lot... It makes me ponder about what we don't know about. Considering jets partly replaced the need to carry oxygen for combustion, the scramjet in theory needn't have fuel and now nuclear propulsion?

Pretty clever for a bunch of monkeys really isn't it?



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nickn3
a reply to: RAY1990
I would like to see any practical fusion reactor work.



Who wouldn't?

It's being worked on though, by civilians. So who's to say what might have been accomplished in the black world of military R&D.

A link to the website of the fusion reactor being worked on in France by about 35 nations, for whoever is interested.
ITER



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: grey580

Will do, out and about right now, and 40+ eye sight combined with tiny wee screen hurts my eyeballs.

Edit: The possibility of the creation of some form of anti matter particle beam seems to present the best way of weaponizing such technology, simply by way of the fact that you are creating the anti particles and then discharging them through a beam. Hence storage may not present the same problem as say using the stuff as a bomb. But i imagine we are still a few decades away from deploying or creating antimatter particle beams.

Might be wrong all the same.


You might be wrong.



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 09:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: Blackfinger

Nah, black, man. And I always thought borane was wrong because that is too corrosive,

Plasma and electric are the way!!

Should we ever see it that is.



You might be right. Borons are pretty wacky to be using.



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Would not be the first time.

But if i am wrong that means that armaments technology is far more advanced than we are lead to believe by rather a few orders of magnitude.

Plus the question begs why we are still launching cruise missile attacks and aerial strikes on our enemy's when we could simply be destroying them with anti matter particle beams?

I mean one has to wonder whats more cost effective, considering the cost of a cruise missile(about $1 million) strikes that usually involve a multitude of missiles or a one shot scalable energy beam discharged from a particle beam?

Tell you this if we did utilize such technologies against groups such as ISIS they might think twice about there belligerent acts of terrorist aggression.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Would not be the first time.

But if i am wrong that means that armaments technology is far more advanced than we are lead to believe by rather a few orders of magnitude.

Plus the question begs why we are still launching cruise missile attacks and aerial strikes on our enemy's when we could simply be destroying them with anti matter particle beams?


Perhaps chemical explosives are more effective in creating blast to break up stuff, as opposed to sterilizing something biological underground with gamma rays.



I mean one has to wonder whats more cost effective, considering the cost of a cruise missile(about $1 million) strikes that usually involve a multitude of missiles or a one shot scalable energy beam discharged from a particle beam?


The risk in deploying the platform.


Tell you this if we did utilize such technologies against groups such as ISIS they might think twice about there belligerent acts of terrorist aggression.


If 15 years of A-10's and Apaches and B-1's and B-52's and F-16's and JDAMs didn't change their mind, I don't think a whole lot is going to work.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 05:58 PM
link   


Tell you this if we did utilize such technologies against groups such as ISIS they might think twice about there belligerent acts of terrorist aggression.

Collateral damage I think is the limiting factor against ISIS..A few cockroaches scurrying behind the walls doesnt mean to demolish the house..



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Nickn3


I would like to see any practical fusion reactor work.


Look no further then Lockheed Martin's Skunkworks

Skunk Works Reveals Compact Fusion Reactor Details

Expect to see Lockheed have a production fusion reactor about the size of a truck ready for use by 2020-2025.



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: AnonyMason

Funny! I just re-read this thread (again): ATS thread - Lockheed reactor.

It is now 2017. But may have to wait until after the Bilderberg Group meets (Bohemian Grove??) The fact the LM gave a timeline is kind of the tell.

 


Thanks to all that have responded! I've kind of unplugged for a few.

I too like trying to figure out stuff and this has so many directions the conversation can go!

eta: Great band name... Bohemian Groove!!







 
13
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join