Why NASA is the only one that can get to mars.

i like intelgurl's style. offering a compromise when there is no other viable solution. hat's off and here is a theory on the same idea. because I agree with the author.

Hypothesis:
If a nation possess the technology to destroy space-faring craft, could it and would it be able to successfully disable or destroy the vehicle? Could a motive also be established to support the reason for such an act to be engaged?

Weapons that can be used to perform the suggested task:
12.3 DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS (DEW)


Directed energy weapons deposit their highly concentrated energy levels on the surface and interior of their targets. Lasers kill by burning through the target's skin or impart-ing such a high impulse on the skin that it spalls, destroy-ing vital interior systems or resulting in aerothermal structural kill. Neutral particle beams penetrate the skin ionizing as it transits. Inside the target, its damage is done by ionization of materials in its path. Besides poss-ibly ionizing electronics (resulting in a soft kill), the energy deposited in the high explosives surrounding the nuclear warheads may be sufficient to ignite them, giving a non-nuclear hard kill. DEW programs have evolved in three areas: the space based chemical laser, the free electron laser, and neutral particle beam.


12.3.1 Space Based Chemical Laser (SBCL)

The advantage of being space based gives the quick reaction laser the opportunity to destroy ICBM's in their most vul-nerable stages. A hydrogen-flouride (HF) chemical laser is designed to destroy targets in the boost and post-boost phases. Although the technology for this system is mature (begun in the '70's), the large number of space platforms and the limited fuel supply carried on each mitigate against its deployment unless transportation can be made less expensive.

12.3.2 Ground Based Free Electron Laser (GBFEL)


Through space based relay and fighting mirrors, this high energy laser is designed to direct its energy at ballistic missiles in the boost and post-boost phases. Several ground based stations would provide the lasers. The free electron laser is among the newest SDI technologies with inherent problems. Besides the power inefficiency associated with all lasers, the laser's transmission through the atmosphere will present heretofore insoluble problems.


As can be observed from this gathering, several of these weapons function most efficiently when the target's launch vehicle, the booster rockets, are in flight and towards the end of their launch cycles... meaning they would still be below Earth Ortbit.


How does this account for the loss or malfunction of craft beyond the Earth's atmosphere?
Methods:

1. Sabotage - Any agency with a budget over a billion a year could perform the necessary task to disable the craft before it leaves the launch pad. A preferred method of eliminating the target, as it leaves little room for foreign or domestic investigation.

2. Information Wars - Every advanced military on Earth now has their hands deep in computers, and every state has direct control over the computers that are a part of mission control for a variety of agencies, such as NASA and ESA. In having this control, the target can be easily disabled with little to no investigation or detection. The computer responsible for programming and making adjustments remotely to the craft in space would be commandeered and would send commands to disable the craft. It is highly likely that the nation with the most computing power would be able to perform this task.

Examples of downed or disabled craft and their mysteries:

1. Shuttle Columbia was making an abrubt landing, within the specified landing vector, shortly after it entered New Mexico. As it passed through that state, residents in Texas started to witness this craft as it was about to crash, and reported a loud rumbling sound. Not because of the craft in the sky, because the rumbling's resonance was deep enough to rattle entire houses and their internals. Not to mention the blue lights and the awful incineration of the entire craft, the incredible vibration is enough to bring the use of a high-energy weapon into debate as that is the kind of technology which could produce such intensity.

2. Of the craft that have gone to Mars, many many many of them have been disabled except for US craft, such as Mars Global Surveyor, Pathfinder, and Viking. Russia has lost dozens of craft, including Phobos II which purportedly may have been destroyed by a UFO in Mars orbit. japan's noizumi (sp/) was scheduled to reach Mars last month, but was regrettably delayed and possibly forced to scrap the entire mission due to... wait for it... a computer malfunction.

As a matter of fact, many craft are lost in space because of computer malfunctions, which arguably, may be caused by a variety of hacking or malicious intent with enough satellite access to access the otherwise functional craft.


weapons and descriptions from: www.fas.org...

these are US Navy weapons

other blurbs are courtesy of my brain

woops, forgot the motive.

the motive is obvious. if you have control over one direct flow of multimedia from a planet, you don't have to worry about funny pictures like that Mars Face or a ship docking with Olympus Mons (made that up)

if you have several space agencies that you may NOT have direct or indirect control of, you will have all of that multimedia being spread around like a virus. an intelligence virus.

this is why on CSPAN they show you Spirit's work in progress, but with goofy 3-d vision (the red/blue on black and white pictures)... AND they restrict certain pictures. I caught the guy say at least once, "and here is another picture of the curious large rock formations. hmmm, i guess not." Because the picture remained the same as before. And he proceeded, like a programmed dolt, speaking of the picture that shouldve replaced the old one but didn't, "You could see a truly alien surface around here, and we were talking about sending Spirit to investigate the rock formations."

then he bored the hell out of everyone, and then put on an engineer to talk about the dumb craft and not the data from the planet.

how much data is the mission receiving from the Mars crafts? the guy said: "we're bouncing off from MGS @ 100Kbs about 100Mbs of data, and we're getting more bandwidth by getting other ortbial sattelites to work in coordination with the crafts thus increasing the efficiency"

that's a lot of data, and all yuo get to see are dumb pictures. not always in color, and not always panoramic.


..sigh

The problem with so many of the ideas and theories presented on these forums is that they have no grounding in reality and their creators have abosultely no way of backing them up beyond circumstantial evidence at BEST.
You take coincidence or factual science you simply do not understand and uncomfortably try and twist it into the conspiracy of the ages. That simply doesn't work, and it can't be considered as anything more than whimsical daydreaming.

Conspiracy theories are fine and dandy, when there is ACTUAL EVIDENCE for them. If I posted that I had a theory the weather was controlled by sasquatch, most here would ignore or cofront my claims (hopefully). Why? Because I have no logical way of reinforcing those claims. Sure, I can throw around facts about weather or ape men all day, but tying the two together in any kind of a coherent fashion would be impossible, and thus, my theory isn't realistic.
Rocks that can roughly be perceived as a human face and the complexities of space travel naively condensed into science fiction in an attempt to explain what you don't understand is simply not a viable explanation or theory for anything as complex as this.

I can't stress enough how agonizing it is to read posts from people questiong the science they themselves do not and probably will never understand. To boot, many use the very science presented to them by the people with whom they consider to be conspiring against them as proof of a sinister plot! That is absurd! You cannot take facts NASA has provided you on the one hand to try and disprove other facts you deem uninteresting.
Explaining the difficulties for a successful mission to another planet as a conspiracy or facade (even when no actual evidence is put forward at all) screams of irresponsible ignorance. Ignorance is one thing. I dare say that there is probably not one person on these forums who truly understands (let alone appreciates) the actual science behind all of this. But ignorance is not the problem. The irresponsible application of that ignorance is another matter entirely. Just because I don't understand how and why volcanoes form does not give me the authority to question the science put forward by geologists and volcanologists. It's no better than the ancient greeks thinking Zeus MUST be angry whenever there was a lightning storm because they didn't understand the science of it. Today we laugh at that logic. But coming up with stories or "myths" to quantify science you do not understand is no more absurd than hydras and minotaurs.

Oh, and to the statements about NASA being successul due to it's funding, that's asinine. Funding helps, but it is not the be-all-end-all. This ignorant idea that throwing money at a problem or project will somehow make it successful is naive. Look at US schools, they are some of the most funded in the world, and then look at their quality and result. One of the lowest of developed socities. What? You mean money won't do homework for me? You mean money won't make me smart?

Money doesn't build the rovers, money doesn't plan the landing sites, money doesn't analyze the data. People do that.

P.S. This post was not in reply to any one person and I truly hope it didn't come off that way.

my post above totally rips your debunking attempt to shreds

im kidding. it is a lot of circumstance in that post, however, a lot of proven things are made possible through circumstantial evidence... because everything is cause and effect. if you have something that can cause something, there will always be an effect as a result appropriate enough for the cause.

but you cannot really attack theories on this basis because if we had access to all of the data on the world, a lot of these theories would finally be proven as fact for skeptics and everyone else. we dont have access because asswipes black out the important words with black markers, and other jerks mince the truth with disinformation to throw a dark cloud over inquisitive minds.

I know what youre saying, about how a lot of people twist possibilities into fantastic stories and explanations. I totally agree with that and do my best to filter the bullstuffing. But you won't find anything like that above; my words are not good contortionists. everything I said is a possible reality and has been applied before on a variety of different objects and CAN still be applied through the methods and specifics I mentioned above. whether or not such things have happened are, unfortunately, only known by the higher-ups of the military and agencies.

[Edited on 1/8/2004 by AlnilamOmega]

[Edited on 1/8/2004 by AlnilamOmega]

Originally posted by digmeout
NASA / America has satellites positioned around mars with rocket launchers or lazers or whatever to destroy any other countries attempt at landing on mars with a rover of any kind.

So, the fact that we have a larger budget than most nations has nothing to do with it? This last escapade with Beagle 2 is a prime example of what happens when you do work on an extremely limited time and money budget.

Question for you Dig:

When did the United States launch these space craft and send them to Mars? Space launches by our government are made public. Even if one was kept a secret, I think someone would notice a giant rocket taking off when it wasn't supposed too.

So a few of these launches must have been diversions then. Tell me, which ones were the diversions?

Originally posted by AlnilamOmega
my post above totally rips your debunking attempt to shreds

im kidding. it is a lot of circumstance in that post, however, a lot of proven things are made possible through circumstantial evidence... because everything is cause and effect. if you have something that can cause something, there will always be an effect as a result appropriate enough for the cause.

but you cannot really attack theories on this basis because if we had access to all of the data on the world, a lot of these theories would finally be proven as fact for skeptics and everyone else. we dont have access because asswipes black out the important words with black markers, and other jerks mince the truth with disinformation to throw a dark cloud over inquisitive minds.

I know what youre saying, about how a lot of people twist possibilities into fantastic stories and explanations. I totally agree with that and do my best to filter the bullstuffing. But you won't find anything like that above; my words are not good contortionists.

everything I said is a possible reality and has been applied before on a variety of different objects and CAN still be applied through the methods and specifics I mentioned above. whether or not such things have happened are, unfortunately, only known by the higher-ups of the military and agencies.

[Edited on 1/8/2004 by AlnilamOmega]

[Edited on 1/8/2004 by AlnilamOmega]

I was afraid that because my post directly followed yours it would be perceived as a reply to your posts. It was not. Sorry for any mix-up.
It's obvious from your posts that your theories were conjecture, and ideas, and you admit that.
I was more talking about the people who firmly believe these "conspiracy hoax" ideas they have made up, even when there is no evidence for it.
Hypothesizing about possible conspiracies is one thing, and that's the reason I came to these boards. But I believe blindly believing or following those ideas even when nothing supports them is the wrong way to go.

But again, I understand the tone and meaning of what you were saying, and wasn't what I was responding to.

Cheers!