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.

 

Why NASA is a scam - Satellites aren't real or NASA are total thieves

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2018 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: notsure1


I know there budget is 10-20% of ours yet they put up satellites..

Really? 10-20%. That's pretty low. Do you have a source?

But what are their priorities and do those satellites have the same capabilities?
We put up some pretty cheap ones too. But then, we pay our development teams more. Maybe we should cut their wages.

Or maybe buy ours from China?

edit on 5/13/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 13 2018 @ 09:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: notsure1

Fine, since we're going that route. Have you looked at what the helmet does. Or did you just stop at the price tag.


Its looks like its because it has cameras in it so they can see the bottom of the plane?

I bought a dash cam for my car for 25 bucks..



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: notsure1

Is your car supersonic?


There's quite a bit more to it than that, but being a luddite (apparently), your confirmation bias probably would get in the way of going deeper.

edit on 5/13/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: notsure1

It does a lot more than that. And it's far more advanced than your $25 dash cam.


edit on 5/13/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)


(post by ZombieZygote removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on May, 13 2018 @ 09:40 PM
link   
bah
edit on 13-5-2018 by gr8skott because: Ok



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 09:42 PM
link   

edit on 5/13/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: notsure1

It does a lot more than that. And it's far more advanced than your $25 dash cam.



Like what? It allows then faster access to some info and has cameras in it? How advanced does the camera have to be to see under the plane?

This is overspending by the military nobody need a 400k helmet..



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: notsure1

GoPros are mass produced. Does that mean anything to you?



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: notsure1

Do some research on it. And when you're flying a fighter in combat, having information fast can be the difference between being shot down and not being shot down.

But apparently that doesn't matter. They should just go back to $20 leather helmets and prop driven aircraft since jets are too expensive.



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: notsure1

Is your car supersonic?


There's quite a bit more to it than that, but being a luddite (apparently), your confirmation bias probably would get in the way of going deeper.


Yeah you guys go ahead and keep believing a helmet cost 400k and a satellite is half a billion.. It was 10% of that in the 90s to build and launch a satellite.



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: notsure1

Do some research on it. And when you're flying a fighter in combat, having information fast can be the difference between being shot down and not being shot down.

But apparently that doesn't matter. They should just go back to $20 leather helmets and prop driven aircraft since jets are too expensive.


Yeah when was the last time we had one shot down?



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: notsure1



It was 10% of that in the 90s to build and launch a satellite.

Nope. 1989

Analysts put cost of the mission, one of the most important and costly unmanned flights the Air Force has conducted, at almost a half billion dollars, including $220 million for the Titan IV and $250 million for the cargo.

source

1999

The mishap left the $800 million Milstar in a useless orbit, 21,000 miles lower than intended. With a total price tag of $1.2 billion, the mission was the costliest unmanned accident in a half-century of launches from Cape Canaveral.

library.cqpress.com...
edit on 5/13/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: notsure1

25 bucks? Pfffttt.... I got mine for 20. You paid too much.

Let's be honest, you have no idea what you're talking about and that comes across very clear in this thread.



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

And how much do jets cost? What a waste of money that would be if the pilot just crashed. If only there was a helmet to deliver all this information to them so they could avoid destroying such an expensive aircraft? It's like they don't care about money or lives.

Why argue with these people? They don't care about your facts or life experience and they certainly aren't ingesting any information you've provided for them to ponder on. They assume they are right about the world and that's all they need.



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: notsure1

So in the 50s and 60s, it cost as much as it does now to build and launch them, then suddenly in the 90s out dropped to 10% of the cost?

They bought 31 GPS satellites, not one. That brought the price down. A Block IIR satellite weighed about 4500 pounds. A communication satellite can weigh 12,000 pounds. GPA satellites are in a relatively low orbit, communications satellites are frequently in higher orbits. When GPS I was launched, they had the shuttle to launch them, now they have private launch firms, and only a couple of those.

Every one of those things affect the price of a satellite, both the satellite and the launch price.



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: notsure1

25 bucks? Pfffttt.... I got mine for 20. You paid too much.

Let's be honest, you have no idea what you're talking about and that comes across very clear in this thread.


I never claimed to be an expert. But I do know bS when I smell it.. And 400 k for a helmet is BULL CACA.

Ellon musk will launch for 63 million when the government says its 300 million just to launch.

So how is it not overspending to pay 300 million?



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Yeah, previous comments are correct. I'm out.
edit on 5/13/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Yeah, previous comments are correct. I'm out.


Ok Please break down how you think it can possibly cost 400k for a helmet? It has cameras and quicker access to info how is that worth 400k a piece?

What info does it access quicker? and how much faster does it access it then what they have?



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: notsure1

www.airspacemag.com...

F-35 Helmet

www.businessinsider.com...

The cost includes the computer interface and equipment on the aircraft.




top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join