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.

 

SpaceX and Blue Origin

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 12:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: Kettu Damn you.... Now I am going to be up all night. Well at least I took tomorrow off to prepare for a meeting at 4:30 pm and I have some beer so tonight will be fun




Cheers mate. If you can find it, there's a cool story about a civilian guy who used to try and "hunt" them. He said he's only ever managed to catch little blips here and there over the years. Be a fun hobby for sure!

Damn. Now I want a telescope.




posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 12:31 AM
link   
a reply to: TheScale After reading all the info your provided I don't understand why you are upset. They provided a working platform that is cheaper and more effective. All ideas where developed with his own money. Then NASA wanted to utilize his technology so they gave him 1 Billion for a 12 mission resupply contract for the ISS. They do the same with ULA and don't get the rockets back. Why the backfire? It is ok so say ya maybe they are doing something right and creating a competition that was not there before. It's ok, I will not judge and I KNOW no one else on this thread will. I have admitted my mistakes on ATS before. I may have bit my lip a little at first but fealt good the next day. And a cold one always helps





posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 12:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Kettu And down the "rabbit hole" I go! Thank you very much, this is awesome stuff.





posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 12:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: TheScale After reading all the info your provided I don't understand why you are upset. They provided a working platform that is cheaper and more effective. All ideas where developed with his own money. Then NASA wanted to utilize his technology so they gave him 1 Billion for a 12 mission resupply contract for the ISS. They do the same with ULA and don't get the rockets back. Why the backfire? It is ok so say ya maybe they are doing something right and creating a competition that was not there before. It's ok, I will not judge and I KNOW no one else on this thread will. I have admitted my mistakes on ATS before. I may have bit my lip a little at first but fealt good the next day. And a cold one always helps




the initial falcon 1 rocket was funded with his money but only flew cause the dod purchased and funded the launch of the falcon 1's. the falcon 9's were developed with funding from nasa, which gets its funding from us the tax payer. again though the main question still stands which is what bothers me, why do u think its ok for us tax payers to fund private for profit companies so they can develop products which they can sell to us or our govt for a profit when banks or investors are meant to fill that role for the private sector.
edit on 15-11-2017 by TheScale because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 02:08 AM
link   
a reply to: TheScale Investors do fill that role to a degree. NASA gave funding for development so SpaceX can continue to further the plans for a cheaper future space launch system. Would you rather we keep giving money to Russia for resupply missions or keep giving money to the ULA to launch rockets that can not be reused that are powered by Russian engines developed in the Ukraine during the USSR. It is time for change and NASA, the Airforce and the DOD have already saved money using SpaceX so your argument is mute. Simple as that. Your links did not help your case in any way and your argument is ridiculous.




posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 05:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Allaroundyou

There is a big picture or elephant on the dining room table that never gets discussed in polite/correct company such as on this thread. Everybody here accepts at face value that what they know and think that they know is what's happening and that is all there is to it.

Many of us on ATS have seen vehicles in the air that are so exotic that their appearance defy an adequate translation into words. Such vehicles are either earth's own creations or the works beings from elsewhere. Or, as is typical, you can totally ignore the data of that either/or issue with a complete dismissal that protects the santity of a closed mind.

The reality of those mysterious machines tells us one simple fact: what we are told about and assume about atmospheric and space flight is a gigantic lie that is only sustained by our history of not knowing any other methods to attain our highest goals. We cannot look beyond our always primitive efforts to the unimaginable even when they are flaunted in our faces.

Whether the black triangles and assorted other UFOs are domestic or alien is not so important as what they tell us about the future of motion and our limited mindset in that regard. Think in terms of what a railroad locomotive engineer would think in 1900 as he whisked along the rails at a maximum speed of 87 miles per hour. At the height of his glory, at the pinnacle of technology for that time, he would have bet his life that no man could ever go faster or haul more freight than his coal-driven beast. Such is the way many of you look at today's technology, the ultimate now and sure to be gradually improved upon while remaining rocket-powered one way or another.

There are forces in the military-industrial complex that knows the future of air/space travel, and that future is not based upon rocket technology. But they have to keep that information to themselves, of course. At the same time, they recognize the danger of R&D that spins it wheels trying to make the wheel rounder rather than looking elsewhere for answers. The eventual acknowledgement of machines that move through air and space without wings or jet/rocket propulsion is upon us. When that time comes, the crash in various economic areas will be staggering. It is foreseen by those in the know. Don't dismiss the voices that seem to want to limit a field of human endeavor that has seen its day come and ready to fade away in a moment. Don't be blinded by the current locomotive's steam in your eyes.



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
:
...If Boeing and others are so worried about the commercial side of space flight they should come up with a viable program to challenge this.


Boeing does have a viable program, at least when it comes to crewed launch services.

Boeing has the CST-100 which is on pace to launch humans to the ISS by as early as November 2018. SpaceX's "Dragon 2" crew vehicle is scheduled to possibly launch a crew as early as August of 2018.

However, depending how the testing goes for each company, it might end up that Boeing's CST-100 launches with a human crew before SpaceX does.

Boeing CST-100 Starliner Home Page




By the way, Boeing is also currently heavily involved with other launch services. Boeing and Lockheed Martin have a joint-venture company called "United Launch Alliance" than has been providing launch services to NASA and others for several years now.

United Launch Alliance Website

Wikipedia -- United launch Alliance




edit on 15/11/2017 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Aliensun Whoa...mind blown, I feel like I am in the Twilight Zone or at a lecture. Very well put and very thought provoking. Thank you for posting that. With any luck others will read that and realize that we debate possibly old tech that is Childs play to what is actually out there.




posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People I believe Boeing will get humans to the ISS first with CST-100 before the Dragon2 does. Musk kinda back peddeled on his gen 2 capsule to focus on the BFR and Falcon heavy.




posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People Does the ULA have any plans for reusability? To be honest I have never looked that up. That is my biggest concern as that concept have proven to cut cost and could allow us to explore more of out solar system at a fraction of the cost.




new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join