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.

 

Giant space based fly swatter weapon

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 04:29 AM
link   
In the weird but true category, it seems that the defense department is considering putting a giant kevlar "fly swatter" into space to destroy enemy sattelites. The Kinetic Energy Anti-Satellite weapon, would give the United States the power to virtually crush any sattelite in orbit. Interesting, albeit weird, read.


www.defensetech.org...

www.globalsecurity.org...

[edit on 19-3-2005 by skychief]




posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Maybee its actually ment top swap space flies.



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Man, you could tell I was dead tired when I came up with that title. Seriously though, this proposed weapon looks like something right out of a Mel Brooks movie. Maybe the Russians or China can get one and we can have one heck of a bad mitten game



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Interesting read, if a bit strange. But wouldn't it be more effective to simply shoot missiles or lasers at satellites? Plus the gyroscope that would be needed for a swatter would probably be pretty expensive, not to mention a pain to fix in zero gravity.



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 07:32 PM
link   
I guess this could work. It seems like a lot of hassle though since it looks like there could be a chance of both satelites colliding if someone at the control booth gets sloppy.



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Sounds like pong, in space.

eventually, warfare will be degraded to swatting satellites around.



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Sounds like 2 guys with 2 sattelites will be having a bit of fun to me.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Space Pong. That sounds like fun. I wonder which kind of satellite has more bounce, American, Russian or Chinese. Lol, space pong looks like so much fun. But it's only a matter of time before Russia and the US run out of military and spy satelittes to whack. Then there goes all satelitte TV. Good thing I have cable.



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Space Pong. That sounds like fun. I wonder which kind of satellite has more bounce, American, Russian or Chinese. Lol, space pong looks like so much fun. But it's only a matter of time before Russia and the US run out of military and spy satelittes to whack. Then there goes all satelitte TV. Good thing I have cable.

HAH! As if that makes a difference, Cable TV is so subliminal, it is sattelite TV, only it relays local channels to a main base, which relays the channels through cables to the millions of homes, have you ever gotten that message on cable saying "Due to horrible weather, your programming is being delayed." Yea, well that's cause the only sattelite is being blocked by clouds. I know I've gotten that message with Cable.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 08:56 PM
link   
well if it is true then it seems like a waste of time and money . although 2 people could have a dandy space tennis match using whayever satellite happens to come near one.



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Hmm... We could put this technology to good use. Just think, we can annilate a whole bunch of spy satellites, or even better, perhaps cripple the MTV network
. That could be an interesting tennis match. The Russian military satellite vs. a US military satellite in the world tennis championship. The ball can be one of those cheap Fox network satellites, I wonder if a cardboard and ballon supported satellite would work well (Simpsons reference of sorts).



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Maybe this is a defensive response to the Black helicopters?
I just find the irony humorous.

I think they could find better things to waste our tax dollars on.



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 10:41 PM
link   
You know what beats sattelites? Rocks.

Shoot a rocket full of rocks into orbit on the same plane as your enemies space based system, and sit back with a beer for the fireworks.

Multi-Billion dollar space hardware simply can't stand up to rocks. It's beautifully ironic isn't it?

Seriously, all this space hardware is a waste of money. Why spend billions on something that can be defeated by solar storms, dust clouds, and ROCKS?!

They should be building dome homes with that money, not playing silly buggers in the upper aptmosphere.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
You know what beats sattelites? Rocks.

Shoot a rocket full of rocks into orbit on the same plane as your enemies space based system, and sit back with a beer for the fireworks.

Multi-Billion dollar space hardware simply can't stand up to rocks. It's beautifully ironic isn't it?

Seriously, all this space hardware is a waste of money. Why spend billions on something that can be defeated by solar storms, dust clouds, and ROCKS?!

They should be building dome homes with that money, not playing silly buggers in the upper aptmosphere.


I can't agree more Wyrde, it seems that we have become so used to such ridiculous amounts of money being spent on these satelites. I mean think about it, hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on these things and they are so fragile. When one gets fried or quits working it is just dismissed as a failure and we just build another. Good post but one thing though, why domed homes?



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Yeah, I bet you can't play space pong with a domed home. Lol, just kidding. But yeah, why not just build a satellite with a couple of missiles and a hyper-death ray? It does seem a bit like a waste. Still it'll be entertaining once some of the DOD guys get a bit bored and decide to launch FSB satellites at UFO's.



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 01:30 AM
link   
"God help you if that thing carried the Spice channel !" - Moe the bartender



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by skychief
I mean think about it, hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on these things and they are so fragile. When one gets fried or quits working it is just dismissed as a failure and we just build another. Good post but one thing though, why domed homes?


Yeah, they are fragile, and so delicate they have to be built in clean rooms at additional cost. They fall from the sky on a fairly regular basis, which is why the DoD has something like 3 redundancies in the sat overlap.

I think dome homes are pretty much the answer to the social inequity we see in America and the rest of the world. The design and fabrication process can be streamlined for mass building, driving the cost down to 5-10k for a sizable home. If the market were flooded with these things, previously poor people who once had to devout a sizable portion of their monthly income to rent (pissing money down a rat hole) would be able to understand the freedom and responsibility of home ownership.

Crime is way down in communities where people own their own homes, it's so low because people HAVE something they want to protect and preserve. They're less likely to become involved in crime if they're not so concerned about making ends meet, and they take more pride in their community when they own a portion of it.

Increasing home ownership also has tangible benefits for the country, like less welfare for section 8 and rent vouchers, not to mention foodstamps, (in Billions of $), less law enforcement required, and a sharp drop in homelessness.

Basically it would alleviate some major societal problems with minimal investment.

For the cost of one (1) F-16 you could house something like 700k people, permanently, safely, economically, and stylishly. Concrete domes are 50-70% more energy efficient, and they are almost impervious to natural disasters, which means less federal disaster relief going into the pockets of private contractors to rebuild homes in disaster areas like the west coast, east coast, and central flood plains.

The reason it hasn't been done..it makes sense.



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   
I agree, dome structures could help solve a lot of problems. I have always been interested in this design as it does seem very sturdy. I have never understood why more in hurricane prone areas don't choose this type of structure. I would love to own a dome structure worked into a hill side. Man the money you could save on your electric bill.




top topics



 
0

log in

join