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.

 

China's Second Long March 5 Rocket Launch Ends in Failure

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: PhloydPhan

a reply to: Zaphod58

I'm claiming nothing , just speculating. Like both you are...

Denial noted, again.
edit on 2-7-2017 by intrptr because: added reply




posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Of course you are. You never make any claims so you don't have to prove a damn thing and can say whatever you want.

www.globalsecurity.org...


The Airborne Laser did find some success on the test range on several occasions in 2010 and 2011 (see the Missile Defense Agency's full list), but by that point the writing was already etched on the wall: the Pentagon was pretty much done with this experiment in directed-energy weaponry. In 2009, Defense Secretary Robert Gates scrapped plans to build a second plane (the Air Force had once thought it might have as many as seven Airborne Lasers), and the one existing aircraft cruised to a lonely fate as an R&D effort only.

www.cnet.com...

It's amazing. There's zero evidence that more than one aircraft was bought for the program, zero evidence of more than one laser system being bought, zero evidence of the major infrastructure they would need for the aircraft anywhere, zero evidence of the fuel required for the laser.

But sure, we'll just jump straight to there's a 747 with no support system out there flying around blowing up other nations rockets. Because the only way they'd blow up is if the US did it.

edit on 7/2/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Billions of black project dollars aside, you can cover for the military all day, means nothing.



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

And you can't prove that there was ever more than one plane ever built. You can't find a hangar that supports it, or evidence of fuel being produced for the laser, or anything else. You can make all the wild claims you want to make, but you don't have a shred of evidence beyond "I say it's so, so it's true".
edit on 7/2/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: intrptr

And you can't prove that there was ever more than one plane ever built. You can't find a hangar that supports it, or evidence of fuel being produced for the laser, or anything else. You can make all the wild claims you want to make, but you don't have a shred of evidence beyond "I say it's so, so it's true".

The technology exists has been under development since star wars era. There was at least one prototype built.

I got more 'proof'' on my side than you.

But thanks for playing along...




posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: SilverOwls

You actuallu got that reversed, US historic launches and landing on the moon is what spurs nations, to beat that bench mark.



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: intrptr

And you can't prove that there was ever more than one plane ever built. You can't find a hangar that supports it, or evidence of fuel being produced for the laser, or anything else. You can make all the wild claims you want to make, but you don't have a shred of evidence beyond "I say it's so, so it's true".
...Isn't that kind of the point? I've long held that we should never unviel our weapons platform, sounds like a strategic blunder to me.

When the SR 71 was aeound, I'm sure its existence was denied just as vehemently.



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Wow, so you consider "because I say so" and "they've worked on the technology a long time" to be more proof than physical documentation, and actual physical evidence? Amazing. There was one prototype built, and it was destroyed. Just because one was built doesn't mean that there were more. There was a reason it was renamed the Airborne Laser Testbed.



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


There was one prototype built, and it was destroyed. Just because one was built doesn't mean that there were more. There was a reason it was renamed the Airborne Laser Testbed.

Coming from you, I believe that even less. You should just quit while I'm ahead.

Advancements in mobile ground based lasers



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Mobile GROUND BASED LASERS. So which did they do? Fly a 747 that there's no evidence exists, disguised as a commercial flight and blow it up? Or drive a truck next to the launch site and blow it up that way? The two are NOT interchangeable.



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: intrptr

Mobile GROUND BASED LASERS. So which did they do? Fly a 747 that there's no evidence exists, disguised as a commercial flight and blow it up? Or drive a truck next to the launch site and blow it up that way? The two are NOT interchangeable.

Those ground based systems can fit aboard aircraft.



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

If it was that simple they'd simply take a ground based system, slap it on an aircraft and be done with it. Airborne lasers require modification that ground based lasers don't. Such as power systems, and reducing the weight of the lasers, if you want them for more than just self defense lasers.



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: intrptr

If it was that simple they'd simply take a ground based system, slap it on an aircraft and be done with it. Airborne lasers require modification that ground based lasers don't. Such as power systems, and reducing the weight of the lasers, if you want them for more than just self defense lasers.

I an sure its under development somewhere, if not already deployed.

By the time we hear of a weapon system it usually is.



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Yes, they are. For short range and self defense systems. The Hellads system will be mounted on the AC-130, or even some modified C-130s to attack ground targets. And anti missile systems are already out there, but they're very short range.



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 07:58 PM
link   
I watched the video for clues but the launch starting at 54 minutes looked normal.
Its heavily choreographed with telescope and on board footage.




posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 09:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cauliflower
I watched the video for clues but the launch starting at 54 minutes looked normal.
Its heavily choreographed with telescope and on board footage.



It certainly looked normal up until the boosters separated. After that, there appears to be some sort of gas venting from the left-hand side of the screen from 57:51 onwards. The Long March 5 core stage has two YF-77 engines that burn liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen, which together produce a relatively faint bluish flame. The light that is coming off the left-hand side of the screen is fairly bright and yellow-orange, and it seems to be directed up and away from the rocket body, not directly behind it. This could be something else burning - although I'm at a loss for what - or the propellants venting and the gas being caught in the sunlight.

That said, the rocket remained intact through second-stage separation at approx. 1:03:30 in the video above. It is possible that the first-stage issues resulted in staging too slow and/or too low for the second stage to make orbit. It's also possible there was an issue with the first AND second stages of the rocket.



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: PhloydPhan

It looked like a burn through, and it was venting something.



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 12:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: intrptr

And you can't prove that there was ever more than one plane ever built. You can't find a hangar that supports it, or evidence of fuel being produced for the laser, or anything else. You can make all the wild claims you want to make, but you don't have a shred of evidence beyond "I say it's so, so it's true".

The technology exists has been under development since star wars era. There was at least one prototype built.

I got more 'proof'' on my side than you.

But thanks for playing along...


Gonna be pretty funny to have any other prototypes without lasers. There was one , and only one laser built.And that was in the early 80s.
Peace.



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 08:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: intrptr

And you can't prove that there was ever more than one plane ever built. You can't find a hangar that supports it, or evidence of fuel being produced for the laser, or anything else. You can make all the wild claims you want to make, but you don't have a shred of evidence beyond "I say it's so, so it's true".

The technology exists has been under development since star wars era. There was at least one prototype built.

I got more 'proof'' on my side than you.

But thanks for playing along...


Gonna be pretty funny to have any other prototypes without lasers. There was one , and only one laser built.And that was in the early 80s.
Peace.

Oh

Ve Haf No Wunderwaffe, lol.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join