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.

 

Space Age hieroglyphs

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by logicize
reply to post by ngchunter
 




Talk about over-reaching, a P-38J fires bullets, not lasers.


I'm pretty sure they wouldn't build a satellite that fires bullets. The point was they would both be used for attack. And yes, electronic jamming is a form of attack and fittingly a dragon with lightning bolts.

No, it's a countermeasure. To suggest that any mission that has a dragon in its patch must be actively offensive in nature is just unfounded overreaching.


And yes we do have attack lasers and have had them for quite some time.

Air Force Airborne Military Laser Weapons System Mounted On Boeing 747-400 Aircraft

I know all about this program, but it certainly wasn't around in the 70's when the first of this particular class of satellite was launched. Have had them for quite some time? BS. The system you mentioned is still in testing. Furthermore, the system you mentioned was designed to work up to 600 km away. This satellite orbits at an altitude in excess of 30,000km.


It would make perfect sense to station weapons such as this in space. The geosynchronous placement would work depending on where they put them.

See above; no it wouldn't work there.


And there is really no reason not to believe that it is possible that they are weapons.

Geosynch orbit says otherwise. Furthermore, even the system you mentioned can only fire a very limited number of shots, 20, and that's with the storage space of an entire 747. What good would a much smaller satellite disguised as a communications sat weighing only 700kg do? Worse yet, what good would a laser built in the early 70's do - that was when the first of this line started flying. They've increased the power of these lasers about 400% in the last half decade alone.




posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 



No, it's a countermeasure.


Jamming is offensive

Countermeasure is defensive


Have had them for quite some time? BS.


Wrong, I watched military demonstrations of laser weapons over 20 years ago.


Furthermore, the system you mentioned was designed to work up to 600 km away.


Those limitations don't apply when a weapon such as this is fired from space.

Certainly you must know that our current capabilities go far beyond what is publicly disclosed.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by logicize
reply to post by ngchunter
 



No, it's a countermeasure.


Jamming is offensive

Countermeasure is defensive

Watching you try to draw a comparison between electronic jamming and space-borne superlasers built nearly 40 years ago is quite hilarious. The electronic jamming being conducted was defensive in nature.

Wrong, I watched military demonstrations of laser weapons over 20 years ago.

A) your link didn't say anything about 20 years ago, let alone a ready-to-go system with a 30,000km range.
B)still not good enough - the first satellites of this type were launched almost 40 years ago.


Those limitations don't apply when a weapon such as this is fired from space.

Right, which is why a laser fired at retroreflectors on the moon will hit it at nearly full strength and be visible to people trying to see it with telescopes on the moon... oh wait, that's not right at all! Sorry, on apollo 11 collins couldn't manage to see a very powerful laser being fired right at him and the landing site below, even with the aid of the command module's magnifying sextant. you will get plenty of dispersion over a 30,000km+ distance, atmosphere or not, and then you'll have to deal with the distortion the atmosphere introduces after that. By the time it reaches the target it will be harmless. And since when does 40 years of development time not apply if it's fired in space?


Certainly you must know that our current capabilities go far beyond what is publicly disclosed.

Nice handwaving. Too bad it doesn't prove anything.

[edit on 27-8-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Depending on it's use, jamming can be defensive, but is usually offensive. For example jamming anti-aircraft radar systems during an attact is part of an offensive move.

I never said that the dragon represents lasers. I said it would seem to indicate an offensive capability. So


still not good enough - the first satellites of this type were launched almost 40 years ago.


means pretty much nothing.


which is why a laser fired at retroreflectors on the moon will hit it at nearly full strength and be visible to people trying to see it with telescopes on the moon


lasers are very directional, so unless you're standing directly in the return path, I would expect you would see nothing.


you will get plenty of dispersion over a 30,000km+ distance


Define 'plenty'. You nor I have any idea what are current laser weapon systems are capable of.


And since when does 40 years of development time not apply if it's fired in space?


Have no idea what you are trying to say.


Nice handwaving. Too bad it doesn't prove anything.


Handwaving? So you're saying that all of the weapon systems we have are public knowledge? They will appear in some news article? You're saying for certainty that we currently have no space laser weapon systems in place? If that is the case then you must have a very high level of security clearance.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by logicize
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Depending on it's use, jamming can be defensive, but is usually offensive. For example jamming anti-aircraft radar systems during an attact is part of an offensive move.

I never said that the dragon represents lasers. I said it would seem to indicate an offensive capability. So


still not good enough - the first satellites of this type were launched almost 40 years ago.


means pretty much nothing.

Then this type of satellite doesn't have lasers... make up your mind. If it's too small to have a laser then what the heck kind of "offensive" capability do you think it has? Bullets? LOL


lasers are very directional, so unless you're standing directly in the return path, I would expect you would see nothing.

They were directly in the path. The sad fact of the matter you can't seem to grasp is that over extreme distances like this even a laser beam will widen to over a mile in diameter. That means a VERY low concentration of photons.


Define 'plenty'. You nor I have any idea what are current laser weapon systems are capable of.

It's a simple limitation of optics, pitiful handwaving isn't an excuse. Here's a NY times article showing how by the time a laser reaches the moon its beam is 4 miles wide.
abcnews.go.com...
I don't care how powerful your laser is, you won't have a destructive beam with a radius of a mile or more.


Have no idea what you are trying to say.

You said none of those limitations apply in space, one limitation is the technology of the early 70s as opposed to now, you said that didn't apply in space, why not?


Handwaving? So you're saying that all of the weapon systems we have are public knowledge?

More handwaving. Is that all you know how to do?



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


It's like talking to a brick wall. Who said anything about going to the moon? When they bounce lasers off the moon they have to aim directly at the reflector or they get no return. Not a mile off or 500 feet, but dead on or nothing. Again you point to ABC news as if they would know the current state of classified technology. It is feasable, it is possible, it's smily a matter of technology, focus and power. Whether or not it is occuring now is not known. If not now, I'm pretty sure they are working on it.

Recently one of these satellite fell to earth. It was an old one and it was the size of a bus. Why would you need a bus sized satellite for cameras and radio receivers?

Anyway, respond if you want, I don't really care. For you, if it hasn't been reported on ABC, then it cannot exisit. So there really is no point in going on with this. I'm actually don't really care what you believe is possible or impossible.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by logicize
reply to post by ngchunter
 


It's like talking to a brick wall. Who said anything about going to the moon?

I did because it shows how even a laser that's been carefully collimated using the world's most powerful ground telescopes loses power over vast distances to the point that it's imperceptible without a telescope.


When they bounce lasers off the moon they have to aim directly at the reflector or they get no return. Not a mile off or 500 feet, but dead on or nothing.

Wrong, the beam is 4 miles wide. They have to hit it within 4 miles, which is still a very tiny area to hit, even when trying to target it with high resolution imaging.


Again you point to ABC news as if they would know the current state of classified technology.

Again you handwave to "classified technology" without a shred of proof of a magic substance that can apparently alter the laws of physics and optics as we know them to produce a laser beam that remains within a tiny diameter over 30,000km!


It is feasable, it is possible,

No and no. 30,000km is too great a distance.


it's smily a matter of technology, focus and power.

LOL focus and power... you really have no clue what you're talking about. That they launched an optic for this "superlaser" that can keep the beam concentrated over 30,000km. For comparison sake, a really good ground setup with a giant professional telescope will produce a laser beam 5 arcseconds wide. At 30,000km distance that corresponds to a beam size of 727 meters. A beam that was deadly when it left the laser will be harmless when it becomes that wide. And I'm sorry, but a satellite of this size couldn't possibly have an optic as accurate as the one that produced the 5 arcsecond wide beam, but even if it did, it still wouldn't be nearly good enough.


Recently one of these satellite fell to earth. It was an old one and it was the size of a bus. Why would you need a bus sized satellite for cameras and radio receivers?

Hubble's the size of a bus, it'd make a decent spy telescope if you put it into geosynch orbit and pointed it at earth (if you equipped it with the proper cameras first, of course). A "camera" is only as good as the optic it's attached to. But even hubble's optic couldn't produce the concentrated beam you'd need for a weapon from the distance of geosynch orbit.

For you, if it hasn't been reported on ABC, then it cannot exisit.

For you, the laws of optics do not seem to exist.

[edit on 28-8-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   

The potential to intercept and destroy a missile over enemy territory soon after launch, rather than over friendly territory, makes the development of a boost phase intercept (BPI) capability very desirable. In concert with ground based theater missile defense (TMD) systems already under development, the U.S. continues to investigate BPI concepts for BMD systems.


Space Based Laser


From May 2002


Perhaps more "out there", but openly discussed by military space strategists, are orbiting laser and particle beam weapons that focus killer rays of energy to zap satellites, enemy warheads in flight, or even blast targets on Earth.


Space Weapons For Earth Wars


From July 2001


However, as reported in the Spring 2001 GN Newsletter, the environmental assessment for the SBL refers to the possibility of a catastrophic explosion that could result in a sudden release of a large quantity of toxic materials and/or destruction of surrounding structures with additional environmental consequences - although no reason for such an assessment of risk is given.


Interesting because is cites the possiblity of toxic materials, the same reason given for the recent shoot down of a military satellite. This report says it won't be fully operational until 2020, 12 years. Then again they wouldn't tell you if it already was operation.

Star Wars - The Next Generation: The Space Based Laser


From March 1982


Laser weapons, based in space and capable of the global projection of power to attack a wide range of targets—satellites, aircraft, and missiles—have attracted an increasing level of attention during the past several years.


The Strategic Value of Space-Based Laser Weapons



BEAR (Beam Experiments Aboard a Rocket)



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by logicize

The potential to intercept and destroy a missile over enemy territory soon after launch, rather than over friendly territory, makes the development of a boost phase intercept (BPI) capability very desirable. In concert with ground based theater missile defense (TMD) systems already under development, the U.S. continues to investigate BPI concepts for BMD systems.


Space Based Laser


Nice try, but what does this have to do with geosynchronous satellites? You didn't think you were going to get away from the laws of optics that quickly, did you? These weapons are all most effective in lower orbits, medium earth orbit at best. If they really could do it from geosynch orbit, you wouldn't need 20 of them, you'd need maybe 4 to provide full coverage. Their weight is incredible compared to that of the satellites mentioned before with the "dragon patches." 17,500kg?! Lets go over this again, the satellites we were talking about before had a mass of about 700kg. Less than 5% of these beasts. These monsters need nuclear power to give the umpff needed, that's not something you can fit with a 700kg budget and a 4 meter telescope as well. Hubble, for comparsion, is only a 2.4 meter telescope. This thing would dwarf hubble. Sorry, but Rhyolite could not secretly be this at all.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 04:35 PM
link   
We never spoke of any specific satellite, at least I didn't. I merely suggested that the dragon on the may indicate an offensive capability.

I suggested that they may have laser weapons which you have gone to great lengths to counter.

But, having said that, it looks like you didn't read any of the links.


US Department of Defense will decide whether to deploy a fully operational network of 20-30 laser battle stations giving global coverage.



Source



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by logicize
We never spoke of any specific satellite, at least I didn't.

I'm not sure if this is an attempt at a lie or just plain wrong. You talked about specific mission patches = specific satellites all of the same type.


I merely suggested that the dragon on the may indicate an offensive capability.

The "dragon" on the patch indicates a specific series of satellites! Guess where those satellites went? Geosynchronous orbit!


I suggested that they may have laser weapons which you have gone to great lengths to counter.

But, having said that, it looks like you didn't read any of the links.

I guess you haven't been paying any attention to a darn thing I've said. Why did I say that the Rhyolite and its successors could NOT be armed with offensive lasers? Can you even remember why I said it was impossible? Two main things: distance and mass. A laser weapon would not belong in geosynch orbit, it belongs in a lower orbit necessitating at least a dozen satellites or more to provide good coverage. A laser weapon satellite would also have a LOT more mass than a regular spy satellite, which even your own links confirm. 17,000kg vs 700kg. Maybe you didn't read my post but I pointed this out to you already.

Let me spell this out for you so that there's no further confusion. I did not say a laser weapon on ANY satellite was impossible, I said a laser weapon on a geosynchronous satellite would be useless. Your links do not indicate that they ever planned to put these weapons into geosynch orbit. If they could do that they could get full coverage with fewer satellites.

[edit on 29-8-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


I understand that you are getting frustrated. But, trying to change the argument isn't helping. I suggested that the dragons 'may' mean an offesive capability, which it may. I then wondered if they might be placing lasers in space. Which I have shown that they are now, or will be in the very near future.

I'm not sure why you're so defensive. I guess some people feel it necessary to take an opposing view. You must like to argue. I guess I do too.

For clarity, I've never said they have definitely put lasers in space. I also have never said the dragon definitely indicates an offensive capability. I merely suggested that they may. That is what got you started. Still either, or both of those may be true.

[edit on 29-8-2008 by logicize]



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by logicize
reply to post by ngchunter
 


I understand that you are getting frustrated. But, trying to change the argument isn't helping. I suggested that the dragons 'may' mean an offesive capability, which it may. I then wondered if they might be placing lasers in space.

My frustration is in your attempt to generalize your previously specific statements. You said this specific mission patch indicated a laser weapon. You were talking about this satellite class specifically. Let me jog your memory. This is what you said before:


The dragon is a fierce creature capable of attack by fire. It would seem to indicate some sort of laser weapon to me.

I have disproven that statement. Now you're trying to change the subject to laser weapons in general, not me.


I also have never said the dragon definitely indicates an offensive capability.

Please stop equivocating. You literally said it indicates an offensive capability to you.

[edit on 29-8-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 



It would seem to indicate some sort of laser weapon to me.


Exactly my point. It's what I believe. I never said it was definite fact. As you, I have no way of knowing that. I have many beliefs that are not proven facts. That's what make them beliefs. I'm not asking you to believe it. Believe whatever you want.

Here's another quote by me


That means that the dragon represents something and that him licking the earth also represents something. What it represents is unknown.


I could go back an quote many of you're incorrect statements, but I won't bother. You can go read them yourself. Fact is, you have your beliefs and I have mine. Since all this stuff is secret neither one of us know for sure.

For kicks though, you might want look up the JAXA project where then will collect solar energy from a satellite in geosynchronous orbit and beam the energy to earth via laser.

New JAXA Technology Captures Solar Energy in Space



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by logicize
reply to post by ngchunter
 

Exactly my point. It's what I believe. I never said it was definite fact.

I don't care whether you claimed it was a fact or not. Your original statement said it indicated a laser, and opinion or not, that's verifiably false.


I could go back an quote many of you're incorrect statements, but I won't bother.

Stop making threats and excuses, prove my figures for a geosynch laser false or stop equivocating.


Fact is, you have your beliefs and I have mine. Since all this stuff is secret neither one of us know for sure.

The laws of physics are no secret. Do you have many beliefs that are as verifiably false?


For kicks though, you might want look up the JAXA project where then will collect solar energy from a satellite in geosynchronous orbit and beam the energy to earth via laser.

For kicks though you might want to look up what such a giant project would require:


Testing both the microwave and laser systems will require gargantuan structures in space: thin-film condenser mirrors, solar panels and a microwave transmitter stretching for kilometers and weighing 10,000 metric tons, as well as a 100-unit laser array of 5,000 metric tons that would be 10 kilometers long.

www.sciam.com...

Such a thing would be absolutely unmistakable and not look anything like a 700kg spy satellite or anything else in the sky. It would be as obvious to amateur spy sat observers as the ISS is to regular sat observers. The large ground structures required to collect all the light prove it would be useless as a weapon; the light would not be concentrated enough once it reaches earth to damage anything. Thanks for further proving my point, I couldn't have done it better myself.

This FAQ on the technology confirms everything I've been saying
www.spacepowerassociation.org...


The small power density of the beam means that as a weapon, the SSP is less effective than a squirt gun!

Once again, thank you for dismantling your own argument.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 



I don't care whether you claimed it was a fact or not. Your original statement said it indicated a laser, and opinion or not, that's verifiably false.


Jeez, you are getting a little testy now aren't you.

Here's my original quote.


If what these do is highly classified, they must be doing a little bit more than taking pictures and intercepting transmissions. But what else could a satellite do unless it is some sort of laser weapon. The dragon licking the earth is kind of eerie.


The stuff with the JAXA project makes sense, since they will be using it as a power station. Most power stations here on earth are larger than most weapons as well. They plan to collect and transmit power on a massive scale, so a direct comparison really doesn't make sense. The bottom line is that they will be sending the power to earth via laser. A feat which you say is impossible from geosynchronous orbit.


but "laser weapons" being fired from a geosynchronous orbit seems unlikely in the extreme.



you will get plenty of dispersion over a 30,000km+ distance, atmosphere or not, and then you'll have to deal with the distortion the atmosphere introduces after that. By the time it reaches the target it will be harmless.



The sad fact of the matter you can't seem to grasp is that over extreme distances like this even a laser beam will widen to over a mile in diameter. That means a VERY low concentration of photons.



Stop making threats and excuses, prove my figures for a geosynch laser false or stop equivocating.


Personally though, I don't care if it's geosynchronous or not. I just said the dragon seems to be offensive in it's nature and may represent the capabilities of these satellite. I then wondered if it may indicate a laser weapon. Something they seems to really bother you.

The fact is lasers are possible from both geosynchronous or other non-geosynchronous oribts. Whether or not these satellites are or not is both not known and for most of us not knowable. It could be a laser weapon, a particle beam, a plasma weapon, or even conventional missles. It doesn't really matter to me.


The small power density of the beam means that as a weapon, the SSP is less effective than a squirt gun!


Perhaps that would be because it wasn't designed to be a weapon. It would be pretty dangerous to have a beam as that could potential harm whatever was in it's path firing at earth from space on a continuous basis.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by logicize
The bottom line is that they will be sending the power to earth via laser. A feat which you say is impossible from geosynchronous orbit.

Wrong. I said a laser weapon from geosynchronous orbit was impossible. Or didn't you read the quote you pasted below?



but "laser weapons" being fired from a geosynchronous orbit seems unlikely in the extreme.


And this is contradicted by a laser power transfer with a wide surface area HOW? Actually it confirms what I said; lasers fired from that high up will have too low an energy density due to the increasing surface area of the beam by the time they reach the ground.


Personally though, I don't care if it's geosynchronous or not.

Well there's you problem right there. It makes all the difference in the world. You're trying to change what I said, sadly for you I was too specific.


I just said the dragon seems to be offensive in it's nature and may represent the capabilities of these satellite. I then wondered if it may indicate a laser weapon. Something they seems to really bother you.

What bothers me is that you have been dishonest about what I said and you refuse to acknowledge how your own "evidence" contradicts your theory.



The fact is lasers are possible from both geosynchronous or other non-geosynchronous oribts.

The fact is that lasers in geosynchronous orbit are useless as weapons. The fact is that I never said you couldn't fire a laser from geosynchronous orbit, that's not the point, the point is such a laser would never make a good weapon. Read the faq I posted.


Whether or not these satellites are or not is both not known and for most of us not knowable.

Simple physics says otherwise.


Perhaps that would be because it wasn't designed to be a weapon. It would be pretty dangerous to have a beam as that could potential harm whatever was in it's path firing at earth from space on a continuous basis.

So if I shine my flashlight at the wall long enough it'll burn a hole in my wall, that's the equivalent of what you're saying. Read it again and please try to understand the simple physics of WHY it's harmless. There is not enough energy DENSITY there. Duration has NOTHING to do with it. The beam COULD NOT potentially harm a fly on earth. If even a 10km wide solar array would be incapable of getting enough energy density to be harmful from geosynch orbit that should tell you it's impossible to do from geosynch orbit. They were even specifically addressing its non-potentional as a weapon in the FAQ and you still refuse to get it. That tells me you lack any intellectual honesty.

[edit on 30-8-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 07:40 AM
link   
There is a lot of time, money and effort being placed on what you say is impossible.

Zenith Star Experiment to Test Laser Weapon in Space

Since I'm quite certain at this point that you are in possession of all the knowledge that exists when it comes to military laser weapon systems it is no longer necessary for me to continue this debate. Feel free to respond with whatever insults or or demeaning comments you feel necessary.

Have a nice day.


[edit on 31-8-2008 by logicize]



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by logicize
There is a lot of time, money and effort being placed on what you say is impossible.

Why are you wasting so much time posting links to irrelevant information? What I said was impossible was a laser weapon in geosynch orbit. There is nothing in your link that contradicts this. I never said all laser weapons in space were impossible, just that the satellites you were referring to could not have them. I have not personally insulted you, you're way too sensitive about this.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   
I have heard from a reliable source that the Scientist who put up the photo's for the $10,000.00 Challenge also has solved the "Phoenix Lights 1996 UFO Sighting" and will release the photo's of the Craft and Pictograph's soon. I also learned that the Scientific community has been unable to prove the photo's are fake. There may even be Conformation that they are real by other Scientist's soon......



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join