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.

 

Pentagon Has Far-Reaching Defense Spacecraft in Works

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Realist05
ICBM use is problematic, given that space based early warning systems can detect thier launch and interprate this as a first strike nuclear attack.


My point exactly


Thats why I want a space PLANE.




posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Qwas
I'm sorry but I see nothing but new problems with this project.

First, I seem to recall a treaty signed by the US stating space is to be used for peaceful purposes only. So wouldn't this project be in defiance of that treaty?

Second, I see a start to future space wars. Other countries will have to come with a defense to this weapon. How long until civilian satellites get damaged by these space wars. And then we have to launch more rockets and spend millions more to replace bad satellites.

Third, there are other treaties that keep our military presence on foreign soils. So how could this project close down those bases?


No one has the money to do this sort of thing. That is why there will be no space wars.

No one else can keep a modern army, navy, and airforce along with a space based military.



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
This would not interfere with any space related treaties, just because it goes high (sub-orbit), it doesn't get to satellite height. It poses no threat to satellites.


But this is based on your determination of satellite orbits. we have many satellites in Low Earth Orbit including GPS. GPS is important to both our civilian economy and the military. These satellites are constantly moving and there are more than 30 in orbit. There are many other satellites, including Serius(?) Radio that are in low earth orbit. When someone "shoots" at our military objects and misses, where does that shot go? Keep in mind that NASA is already telling us that "Outer Space Orbits" are already filled. And it is dangerous every time we launch the space shuttle.

Now you and I know that DOD is not going to be satisfied having 1 or 2 of these things in orbit. They will likely want closer to 10 or 12.

Each one added in space increases the chances of a "miss" when someone shoots at it. Where is that miss shot going to go in this already crowded "outer space"?



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 02:39 AM
link   
Now I understand why the US, has spent around 300billion dollars since the end of the cold war. Russia 70 billion and china 20 billion. Amazing.



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Qwas
But this is based on your determination of satellite orbits. we have many satellites in Low Earth Orbit including GPS. GPS is important to both our civilian economy and the military. These satellites are constantly moving and there are more than 30 in orbit. There are many other satellites, including Serius(?) Radio that are in low earth orbit. When someone "shoots" at our military objects and misses, where does that shot go? Keep in mind that NASA is already telling us that "Outer Space Orbits" are already filled. And it is dangerous every time we launch the space shuttle.

Now you and I know that DOD is not going to be satisfied having 1 or 2 of these things in orbit. They will likely want closer to 10 or 12.

Each one added in space increases the chances of a "miss" when someone shoots at it. Where is that miss shot going to go in this already crowded "outer space"?


ahhhh...no.
LEO is around 250 miles up, which is around the International Space Station level is at. 62 miles up is considered sub-orbit. No GPS sats are in LEO orbit, they are much higher, at around 1,100 to 1,200 miles up, and there are 24 of them with 3 spairs, but at the moment i believe 4 spares, which makes it 28, not 30, you might be thinking the European system called Galileo wich will have 30.a Satellite radio (Sirius & XM) are not in LEO.
and space isn't full, theres plenty of room, its just getting more crowded from space debris, Rockets leave a lot of small part as well as big parts when they put something in orbit, and there debris stays floating around up there for a while.
Of course its dangerous every time the Space Shuttle is launched, but the reason Columbia was lost is because of a foam impact on lift off, not space debris.



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Is there any wonder why other countries are madly dashing to become more relevant in this world through nuclear technology. Whatever happened to Reagan's hopes for non-proliferation. WE can have all the missiles we can imagine and not be safe from the threat that will someday wake-us up. Somebody with a small dirty bomb is going to kill a lot of people and were going to be wondering who to unleash our might, on.



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by kazi
Is there any wonder why other countries are madly dashing to become more relevant in this world through nuclear technology. Whatever happened to Reagan's hopes for non-proliferation. WE can have all the missiles we can imagine and not be safe from the threat that will someday wake-us up. Somebody with a small dirty bomb is going to kill a lot of people and were going to be wondering who to unleash our might, on.


dirty bombs are a well known threat, that has nothing to do with this spacecraft. Just because the Pentagon is spending money on this doesn't mean there not spending money on making this country safer from other means, such as dirty bombs. Money is being spent on better detectors for borders and Airports that can detect any explosive, some cities are planning on detectors through out a city, that could "sniff out" certain explosive and chemicals, like: put a detector at a street corner with a camera, once it goes off the camera records video of it, gets the vehicles plates, sends that info for the cops to pull the vehicle over to check its contents inside. So just because money is being spent in areas that you dont think it should go, doesn't mean there isn't money going into projects that you think deserve it. Homeland Security budget grows every year.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by kazi
Is there any wonder why other countries are madly dashing to become more relevant in this world through nuclear technology. Whatever happened to Reagan's hopes for non-proliferation. WE can have all the missiles we can imagine and not be safe from the threat that will someday wake-us up. Somebody with a small dirty bomb is going to kill a lot of people and were going to be wondering who to unleash our might, on.


And that is why we have taken Iraq, and will take Syria, Iran and North Korea in the future.

This project is to help with time sensitive strikes.

As unpopular as war may be, there is no denying that the US is safer having Iraq, Afghan, Syria, north Korea and Iran under it's control. They are the countries that pose a threat.



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Huh so this sounds pretty interesting. It almost sounds like they are going to drop compact UAV's out of these satellites and have them deliver the payload. I've seen some high altitude tests of varous other UAV's but didn't think they were going to take it this high.



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Just go on google and look up U.S. military space plans. First we will have these space planes that can go anywhere in the world in 2 hours and deliver their payload. Then Satellites with high powered lasers on them to zap anyone on the ground. Then the Missile Shield stuff will be up there. But my favorite “Rods from God” if you don't know what that is go look it up its simply amazing. There are a bunch of other things too but Ill post them later.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Here's some info on "Rods from God", plus other U.S. weapons in the works that no other nation on earth has the means to build.

Future U.S. weapons - coming soon to an axis of evil country near you.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 03:26 PM
link   
I'm actualy very much in favor of this, as it will reduce the US's overseas basing requirments, and thus reduce the temptation to interfere in local politics around the world.

I also bet it will produce spinoff technology that will help move civil spaceflight along, and that can only be a good thing.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 04:25 AM
link   
Whoopee. The US Air Force may actually be able to field three or four of these spaceplanes. All to go blow apart a mud hut. With the bollocks Bush has been sprouting about Mars missions and lunar bases in the next 20 years or so, the Comanche cancelled and the F-22's per unit price soaring upwards because of cutbacks in the fleet size, plus the staggering price tag on the war on Iraq, yes, I can really see this happening.

A spaceplane would be nice. But I'd rather have a shuttle replacement...



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
Here's some info on "Rods from God", plus other U.S. weapons in the works that no other nation on earth has the means to build.

Future U.S. weapons - coming soon to an axis of evil country near you.


Some scientist was saying Rods From God wouldn't work. Because they would disintegrate upon impact with the Earth, because of the speed they will traveling at. The scientist suggested putting Rods on ballistic missiles instead. Because they wouldn't hit the Earth as fast. Besides, the U.S Air Force plans to test a 30,000 lb bunker-buster in 2006.

[edit on 30-3-2005 by NWguy83]



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 02:30 PM
link   
I think the rods could work. Heck, certain rocks make it to the surface, why not solid Tungsten rods designed for it?

I am certain they can think of something. I have a feeling that anything that it touches would also be vaporised, maybe even the ground beneath it for some distance?

[edit on 30-3-2005 by skippytjc]



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Just to clear up some disinformation for some poster on here F/A-22 unites to be produced 339, cost is expected to go down when production begins and production has already begun 16 F/A-22's will be available for service in late 2005.

Now the USAF testing a large bunker buster doesn't mean anything the whole point of rods from god are to respond quickly to ever changing situations. The new Bunker Buster bomb will probably be for a war that is in its middle stages. The rods are meant o be a first strike weapon.

Plus ok they disintegrate when they hit the earth, What happens to the stuff they hit though? On has to assume that what is hit also disintegrate.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lampyridae
Whoopee. The US Air Force may actually be able to field three or four of these spaceplanes. All to go blow apart a mud hut. With the bollocks Bush has been sprouting about Mars missions and lunar bases in the next 20 years or so, the Comanche cancelled and the F-22's per unit price soaring upwards because of cutbacks in the fleet size, plus the staggering price tag on the war on Iraq, yes, I can really see this happening.

A spaceplane would be nice. But I'd rather have a shuttle replacement...


mud hut...I think it would be worth it if Osama was inside, dont you. Other then people they could be used extensively in a war...Say we decide to pre-emp a country and we know where there nuclear missile silos are.

Not sure where you think NASA fits in with a sub-orbit unmanned bomber?

The F-22's price keeps going up because they keep lowering the number of Raptors. The Comanche.....as good as it looked really didn't have a very big role, and with armed unmanned helos like Firescout and in the future the A-160, it would no longer have a role, it was expensive...so I hope that they use what they learned in future programs.

The Shuttle replacement is the CEV (Crew Exploration Vehicle).



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago

Originally posted by Lampyridae
Whoopee. The US Air Force may actually be able to field three or four of these spaceplanes. All to go blow apart a mud hut. With the bollocks Bush has been sprouting about Mars missions and lunar bases in the next 20 years or so, the Comanche cancelled and the F-22's per unit price soaring upwards because of cutbacks in the fleet size, plus the staggering price tag on the war on Iraq, yes, I can really see this happening.

A spaceplane would be nice. But I'd rather have a shuttle replacement...


mud hut...I think it would be worth it if Osama was inside, dont you. Other then people they could be used extensively in a war...Say we decide to pre-emp a country and we know where there nuclear missile silos are.

Not sure where you think NASA fits in with a sub-orbit unmanned bomber?

The F-22's price keeps going up because they keep lowering the number of Raptors. The Comanche.....as good as it looked really didn't have a very big role, and with armed unmanned helos like Firescout and in the future the A-160, it would no longer have a role, it was expensive...so I hope that they use what they learned in future programs.

The Shuttle replacement is the CEV (Crew Exploration Vehicle).


NASA has used cast-off Air Force hardware for ages, such as one of the SR-71s testing the aerospike concept for the Deltastar. What I'm saying is, that it's a waste of money. The Space Shuttle is the monstrosity that it is as a direct result of the Air Force's meddling.

Speaking of the Deltastar, that was yet another promised shuttle replacement. CEV? I hardly think so. NASA's thumbs are so far up their colons, we'll never see it. What we'll get is a billion dollars poured into a thousand page document about why it wouldn't work. At the rate NASA is going, they'll be lucky to get a shuttle replacement flying by 2020.

And yes, I know all about why the F-22 is costing so much. But for all the projections of costs going down, do you reall believe what the spin doctors say? The F-22 was supposed to a front-line, afforable air superiority fighter. What I'm stating is Murphy's law: everything takes longer and costs more. Especially when there's a fire lit under somebody's ass.

And... blowing up Osama's mud hut with a multi-billion dollar space plane it is great, but this is the sort of thing we have the SAS for. And speaking of the Great Boogey Man, why the hell can't the combined military and intelligence might of two First World Nations not catch a man that's supposedly 'dying of renal failure" and has to cart around his own "dialysis machine"?

What I'm telling you is, that flashy hardware aside, this is simply a story of bureacratic bull. This'll probably end up in the scrapyard along with the Navy's A-12, and we'll get something completely different 20 years later.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Just to clear up some disinformation for some poster on here F/A-22 unites to be produced 339,


Actually its 180, though there are rumors they might go back to 277.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   
They need to design a system that can deploy troops anywhere in the world in 30 min. THAT would be something. Spaceborn Rangers...




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join