It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Critical_Mass
Why did this recent spy satellite suddenly "lose power"? Could it have been an example from China or Russia? We won't know until it jumps out in our faces.
U.S. Fears Satellites Damaged
Peter G. Neumann
Sun 24 Jan 88 14:10:34-PST
Subtitle -- Soviets used lasers to cripple equipment, sources contend.
Washington, by Richard Sale (UPI, 24 January 1988).
U.S. intelligence agencies are convinced Soviet laser attacks have damaged
supersophisticated U.S. spy satellites deployed to monitor missile and
spacecraft launches, administration sources said. These sources said they
believe the Soviets fired ground-based lasers to cripple optical equipment
attempting to scan launches at Tyuratam, the major Soviet space center, to
obtain a variety of sensitive military information. Administration
intelligence sources said they fear that other vital U.S. reconnaissance
satellites will soon be endangered because six new Soviet laser battle stations
are under construction... "There is no way you can protect the optical sensors
on satellites" from laser attacks, an Air Force official said. ...
Intelligence sources acknowledged that the Pentagon also has trained
ground-based lasers on Soviet spacecraft, sometimes in attempts to disrupt
their sensors. ...
One effect of the panic was the strengthening of U.S. satellites against
radiation that in the end would help shield them from ground-based laser
attacks. According to U.S. intelligence sources, who asked not to be named,
such attacks damaged super-sophisticated American spy satellites deployed to
monitor missile and spacecraft launches at the major Russian space center.
In 1976, a KH-11 or Code 1010 satellite was "painted" by a Soviet laser
and sustained "permanent damage," according to a senior Air Force official.
This source said that such paintings continued into the late 1980s.
Air Force officials told UPI that for years the Soviets had a
"battle-ready" ground-based laser at Saryshagan that they said they believed
had been involved in past blindings of U.S. spacecraft.
But the result of the "hosings" of U.S. equipment was positive. The United
States moved quickly to install laser warning receivers on its newest
generation of low-orbit spacecraft, U.S. intelligence sources said. The
receivers have allowed time for evasive action and have assisted ground
controllers seeking to prove the Soviets had inflicted the damage.
One State Dept. analyst said that the whole Star Wars system of the Reagan
presidency was the result of Soviets "messing around with our satellites."
Kornilov points out a laser reflector but gives no information on any scientific experiments using it. He also states that personnel on ships, aircraft and the ground were to take part in experiments with Polyus. It appears they were to attempt to target the platform by radar, infra-red and visible light, and when the platform was detected they were to fire at it with lasers. If the laser hit the platform, the mirror would reflect it back to Earth, and thus the platform's stealthiness could be tested without making radio transmissions. Earlier launch pad photos showed that the Polyus was covered by an optically black shroud and it is suspected that this may have been radar absorptive as well.
The Soviet response was immediate. Yuri Andropov ordered additional funding and implementation of Fon-2. At the same time Soviet diplomatic initiatives were undertaken. A proposal was made to the Unite States to ban all space-based weapons. Andropov declared a unilateral moratorium on testing of the improved IS-MU ASAT. As a 'warning shot' the Terra-3 complex was used to track the STS-41-G space shuttle Challenger with a low power laser on 10 October 1984. This caused malfunction of on-board equipment and temporary blinding of the crew, leading to a US diplomatic protest.
China has successfully developed a laser cannon with a range of over 100km and might have already deployed it in Fujian Province facing Taiwan, defense sources said yesterday.
"One version goes that the weapon is still under development. Another is that the weapon has already been deployed across the Taiwan Strait and that there are around 20 units in service," the official said.
Chang Li-teh (???), a senior editor with Defense Technology Monthly magazine, said it is possible that China had successfully developed a laser cannon with Taiwan in its range.
"The US' airborne laser was designed to have a range of between 200 and 300km. If the system could strike that far from an aircraft, it should be able to reach much further launched from land," Chang said.
"Such laser weapons depend on power supply for effectiveness. A land-based laser cannon has a much greater power supply than airborne one," he said.
One approach is "parasite satellites"--orbiting limpet bombs that attach themselves to enemy craft for detonation at a later date. The Chinese say they can do this already, though the claim is hard to verify. A simpler method is to disable your enemy with a high-speed projectile. In other words, shoot at it. This was tried in 1974 when the Soviet Union launched Salyut 3, the first crewed military reconnaissance outpost in orbit. In anticipation of an attack by the US, the Soviets mounted a modified machine gun on the satellite so they could greet any hostile approach with a hail of bullets. The attack never came. Salyut 3 proved to be a white elephant and was quickly decommissioned, although not without a shot being fired. After the two-man crew had left, the ground crew fired a few rounds by remote control. It must have been quite a sight.
Particle-beam weapons inflict damage in a similar way. They emit beams of particles, perhaps hydrogen or deuterium ions, at near-light speed. Details remain sketchy, but the principle is essentially the same as in an ion-propulsion system (New Scientist, 21 November 1998, p 22). A working particle beam is believed to have been on board the mysterious Soviet "battlestar" Polyus-Skif, which was launched in May 1987 but crashed during take-off. Polyus-Skif also carried a prototype laser for destroying satellites. In the US, research on particle-beam weapons continues at the High Energy Research and Technology Facility on Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico.
In 1983 flight trials of the approximately 60t laser device commenced on an Ilyushin Il-76MD heavylift transport. At the same time research was being carried out on the propagation of laser beams in the atmosphere.
Starting at the end of the 1960s, the Russians also developed ground-based nuclear laser systems for combating spacecraft. Unlike the American x-ray lasers, they could be used several times over. The programme was terminated after the USSR announced a unilateral moratorium on trials of the space defence system and the puzzling deaths of the two project managers in the mid-1980s.
The mobile Pamir-SU electro-generator, with an output of 15MW and a mass of around 20t, could supply power to long-range lasers and ultra-high-frequency weapon systems. It could be used both on the Earth and also in space. In 1994/1995 this equipment was sold to the USA.
We have right now, I believe, one weapons-grade laser operating in the United States. The Soviets have at least ten we have identified and there may be more. At Los Alamos right now our scientists are working on developing a very compact particle accelerator. This is vital work toward the development of something you have all heard about, a particle beam weapon of some kind. At the heart of that system is a Soviet invention dating back to the 1960s called a radio frequency quadrapole. Years ago, the Soviets mys@eriously decided that there would be no more literature, open or semi-open, on this or any similar development. Such information suddenly disappeared from these vaunted scientific exchanges that we hear are so important. Of course, the Soviets exchange very little information that is vital to them in these so-called exchanges, anyway.
I am pretty convinced though that space is already well weaponized on the part of the US.
Look at some of the satellite images that make it to youtube, google earth, and all of the other resources.
With sophisticated imagery like that, it's safe to say if they wanted to they could easily use that tech in conjunction with a laser weapon, or even some form of re-entry vehicles.
Originally posted by daniel_g
reply to post by mikesingh
lol and what exactly do you think NACA & Co. accomplished in regards of space exploration? They put 1 satellite in space, just one, so much for the extra 40 years in space exploration research that you are adding..
Now it's easy to come here and say things like 'back then they put many man on the moon, now we have to wait 20 years...'
I repeat, know your facts before you say anything with no fundaments:
In 1966 NASA had a budget of 5.933 billion dollars.
In 2007 NASA had a budget of 16.25 billion dollars.
Sure you can argue that right now they have 3 times as more as they had back then. However, lets not forget something very basic: The value of money doesn't stay constant over time. One dollar in 1966 was worth 3 times as much as it's worth today, meaning a $5 billion budget would be equivalent to the $16 billion budget that they are getting today. So in reality there has not been a real budget increase.
However, back then they didn't have 1000 satellites to worry about, they also didn't have Space Shuttles or ongoing Mars exploration programs. The money for those programs didn't grow in trees, and I don't think that the fact that the apollo era stopped just years before the space shuttle program was a coincidence.
I'll repeat it to you: If you are going to say that there is something fishy with NASA's budget, at least try to provide proof of what you are saying.
Here, why don't you have fun with the 2007 budget?
Do the math, look up the projects. If you find large amounts of money missing, or non-existing programs, then say so, I'm open minded.
[edit on 28-1-2008 by daniel_g]
Originally posted by daniel_g
I saw the post by goosdawg, I'm not blind, no need to repost it.
However, I'll repeat it to you for a third time: Do research before using information you learned from other people.
I'll quote the exact words of Mr. Donald Rumsfeld that led to this 'controversy':
1- Not anywhere in that quote did I see "$2.3 trillion missing".
2- Assuming a DoD budget of $300 billion per year before 2001(the year the claim was made). It would take 7 years for the DoD to lose 2.3 trillion if they had lost every single penny, 14 years if they lost half their budget, etc, etc
While the committee staffers are neither elected nor open to public input, they remain accessible to program contractors. "The contractors who stand to benefit from the funding decisions," Aftergood says, "are free to lobby the staffers."
According to the Sept-Oct 1995 issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, published by the Educational Foundation of Nuclear Science, all of the top ten defense contractors in the U.S. were convicted of or admitted to fraud during the period from 1980 to 1992.
"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.$2.3 trillion — that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million.
"We know it's gone. But we don't know what they spent it on," said Jim Minnery, Defense Finance and Accounting Service.
The problem is not that the money is missing, the problem is that if you try to find info about a specific transaction, you won't be able to find it because it may be buried between millions of other documents.
For instance, in June 2002 the GAO reviewed the history of a proposed Corporate Information Management system, or CIM. The initiative began in 1989 as an attempt to unify more than 2,000 overlapping systems then being used for billing, inventory, personnel and similar functions. But after "spending about $20 billion, the CIM initiative was eventually abandoned," the GAO said.Gregory Kutz, director of GAO's financial management division and co-author of that report, likened Defense to a dysfunctional corporation, with the Pentagon cast as a holding company exercising only weak fiscal control over its subsidiaries -- the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. Today, DOD has about 2,200 overlapping financial systems, Kutz said, and just running them costs taxpayers $18 billion a year."The (Pentagon's) inability to even complete an audit shows just how far they have to go," he said.
Kutz contrasted the department's loose inventory controls to state-of-the- art systems at private corporations.
"I've been to Wal-Mart," Kutz said. "They were able to tell me how many tubes of toothpaste were in
Fairfax, Va., at that given moment. And DOD can't find its chem-bio suits."
In fact, all Mr. Rumsfeld was trying to accomplish with that speech was to create a better model to avoid the bureaucracy offered by the system they had back then. 9/11 came shortly afterwards, and it proved fatal for Rumsfeld proposal. Consequences: $10000 screws(the short way of saying contractors are now having the time of their lives).
The Pentagon has no accurate knowledge of the cost of military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan or the fight against terrorism, limiting Congress's ability to oversee spending, the Government Accountability Office concluded in a report released yesterday.
The Defense Department has reported spending $191 billion to fight terrorism from the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks through May 2005, with the annual sum ballooning from $11 billion in fiscal 2002 to a projected $71 billion in fiscal 2005. But the GAO investigation found many inaccuracies totaling billions of dollars.
"Neither DOD nor Congress can reliably know how much the war is costing and details of how appropriated funds are being spent," the report to Congress stated. The GAO said the problem is rooted in long-standing weaknesses in the Pentagon's outmoded financial management system, which is designed to handle small-scale contingencies.The probe also found "inadvertent double accounting" by the Navy and Marine Corps from November 2004 to April 2005 amounting to almost $1.8 billion.
Some news agency missinterpreted that information, and the missunderstanding spread like a virus. Hence the importance of at least trying to dig more information before offering personal opinions.
Link to the speech here:
Note I'm still not disputing the existance of black projects.
However, if there is such thing, then I personally believe that it's budget is not going to come from the budget of other institutions, all I'm saying is that if the government is covering something up, they are going to do a good job, and the money allocated towards whatever they are covering is not going to show on a paper that everyone has access to, even if it's not obvious.
å Second, to paraphrase Dr. George Mueller at a NASA history conference held in Washington in recent years, we “got the shuttle we have today from the ‘Bureau of the Budget Design Bureau’” that NASA did not want and that was not cheaper than Saturn 5.
Griffin puts the marginal cost at $100M in 1970 dollars or about $500M today. That would give us $2000/lb to LEO. If we had continued to put $15B/year in current dollars into Lunar development, that would be about 87.5 million to LEO in the last 35 years if 1/3 of the money was spent on launches or over 15 million pounds to the Moon assuming no improvement over 1960s technology (and to be fair no bureaucratic price inflation beyond the consumer price index). That is about 75 international space stations worth of mass.
Why do I think that? Well, one would think that they learned from the errors that led to the disclosure of Area 51, don't you think?
The proposed U.S.-only "Total Information Awareness" program relied on technology similar to that supposedly used by ECHELON, and is believed to have been intended to integrate the extensive sources it is legally permitted to survey domestically with the "taps" already supposedly compiled by ECHELON. It was canceled by the U.S. Congress in 2004. It was later discovered in 2005 that the CIA had not dismantled the program, but had simply blacklisted it as classified and funded it using CIA money allocated for such top secret operations, thereby defying Congress.
It has been alleged that in 2002 the Bush Administration extended the ECHELON program to domestic surveillance.
Originally posted by mybigunit
I love people like Cool Hand who believes everything the government spouts out at them. Its a fact that there is a black budget even the government doesnt deny that anymore. So where does that money go? I think this is totally believable I dont see anyone who can prove it wrong without a doubt. I dont see anyone who can prove it right without a doubt either but Ill go a. and choose to think outside the box. There sure are a lot of UFO sightings these days and I know they are not F16s like the government says they are.
Cool you just keep believing everything your told oh and btw I have a bridge in brooklyn for sale you interested?
Originally posted by COOL HAND
For God's sake, another one of these topics? Are you kidding me?
Let's ask the same simple questions that have been asked in all the OTHER FORUMS here about the same subject and see if you can shed any more light on them.
1. Where do these ships launch from?
2. Where are the eyewitness accounts of these launches? Where are the reports from other countries of launches that weren't predisclosed?
3. Where are they recruiting these secret astronauts from?
4. Where are the pictures of these secret stations in orbit? Why aren't other countries asking about unkown objects in orbit?
5. Why haven't any other countries attempted to put their own secret stations up there to monitor ours?
Start with those, if you can answer them we can hit you with the others that no one else here can answer.
Deny Ignorance, don't embrace it.
[edit on 28/1/08 by COOL HAND]
Originally posted by COOL HAND
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi
Hey, I am asking you to provide your own evidence to back up your support of the existence of this program.
If this is too hard for you to do (and not rely on somenone else's "work") then let me know and I will stop wasting my time on you.
Originally posted by Odessy
sheesh, that was easy.
ill take the next set of questions now... just dont ask anything too hard
Originally posted by COOL HAND
1. Who built them? Where are the disgruntled former employees selling their stories to C2C about how they built the things?
2. Why can't we get a decent picture of one of these things in orbit? With a commerical telescope it should be easy, but no one has pulled it off yet.
Originally posted by Odessy
ok, ill give it a shot...
1) WE built them... do you have clearance to top secret military bases? neither do I, so I'm going to assume that they build them there... perhaps even area 51, who knows!
Maybe an underground base! point is, the govt controls so many secret bases that only a select few can enter that anything is possible.
Where do you think the govt build the latest top secret combat plane? They kept the stealth bomber secret even when they were using it!
Many disgruntled employees do in fact come out and disclose information. If you watch almost any UFO documentary there are always the blacked out faces of former employees telling secrets.
NASA has had many employees quit and come forth...
Many people are so brainwashed with the news they see on TV (which is controlled by the media.. which in turn is controlled by the govt.) that they write these individuals off as crazy...
Thats why most of these conspiracy sites dont make front page news...
2)Perhaps... I'm sure the govt also puts restrictions on airspace, and we dont know where these commercial telescopes are...
Remember the movie Armeggedon? well, they said in that movie (which i know is just a movie) that they controlled something like 6 of the 7 telescopes that could spot the asteroid.
Why couldnt that be true? The govt does know where all the commercial telescopes are located and what they can see... Im sure there are some places out there that only those comercial telescopes cant observe. And many times those telescopes, as i mentioned before, are probably restricted. I;ve never seen a good picture of the space station or a shuttle from one of those telescopes, they are always taken from a satellite or a camera attached to the shuttle...
Originally posted by Odessy
well, like i mentioned earlier, you should check out the Interstellar movie. That shows what you can see with back yard telescopes...
I will search for some movies or files of disgruntled nasa employees later as i know i have browsed them before, unfortunatly i have a deadline on a project im working on and have already wasted too much time on ATS today
as for the top secret clearance, thats great, but Ill bet you all my money you dont have top secret clearance into everything... ie: black projects stuff that we know actually goes on.
and im not saying they launch from those bases, just that they are built there, or at least parts are.
They can transport anything anywhere without the general public knowing about it.
Originally posted by Odessy
im not going to find where they are launching...
Im not going to even get near a restricted area....
Im not going to be able to film any of it...
Im not going to find proof of any of this...
So STOP asking for the impossible, or ill be a baby also and ask you, "well prove that its not going on!"
YOU CANT! NEITHER CAN I!
All i am doing is giving an opinion to the possibilities that this could happen.
I didnt answer all your questions "matter of factly."
Isnt this what this site is for? denying ignorance?
correct me if I'm wrong...
Your saying its impossible, I'm saying its not...
So no, I dont have anything to show for it... but i did give a possible answer to your silly questions...
You really think the govt cant do any of this?
You really think there are no black operations, at all, for anything period?
Well, i guess if the govt says there not stealing tax payer's dollars, then their not!
Well, I guess since the govt tells us there are WMDs in Iraq then there are.
... see the drift?