Whatever Happened To SDI ?

I was pondering this question over the weekend. SDI or Star Wars as it is better known was introduced by Ronald Regan in the 1980s. He claimed it was for protecting the USA against Soviet missle attack. However i have always felt that SDI was more than what it is appeared. What if it was intended for defence of Earth against hostile attack from outside. With this in mind, does anyone care to speculate what happened with SDI now? Is it mothballed or has advanced to true star wars technology that would make George Lucas drool?!!!

reply to post by Wirral Bagpuss

Has been replaced by The NWO

reply to post by Wirral Bagpuss


SDI just isn't in the news anymore like most of our space programs.

Question / Statement: We went from a hang glider to landing on the moon in 70 years. Do you guys really think we suddenly stopped progressing in our space program? We currently "use" the same rocket technology in "Public" that we did 40 years ago.... The space shuttle hasn't really changed much since the early 80's.... Really?

Of course we have made massive advancements in space but the technology is not for public knowledge. I assume the technology is and will be classified due to the nature of the propulsion systems and how they could be weaponized in the wrong hands.

reply to post by Wirral Bagpuss


It has been replaced with the Missile Defence Agency

It achieved its purpose which was to push the soviets over the financial cliff.

No doubt much of the tech was pulled through into other programs for more earthbound application.

The Norwegian spiral stopped their zeals forever.

SDI, (Strategic Defence Initiative) better know as the famous "Star Wars Defence System" was built, and enhanced over the years since the Regan speech to a degree not known by us lowly humans. I am quite certain they have a great many exotic weapons system up there in orbit, and they mean to fight off an alien force of some kind. I would submit that the Oklahoma City bombing and the Twin Towers were tests of the Beam Weapons they have up there.

Originally posted by infolurker
reply to post by Wirral Bagpuss

 

SDI just isn't in the news anymore like most of our space programs.

Question / Statement: We went from a hang glider to landing on the moon in 70 years. Do you guys really think we suddenly stopped progressing in our space program? We currently "use" the same rocket technology in "Public" that we did 40 years ago.... The space shuttle hasn't really changed much since the early 80's.... Really?

They upgraded the shuttle electronics and made some other tweaks but the airframe looks pretty much the same as the orginal, and now it's obsolete. Not only did our space program stop progressing, it actually regressed, as we don't have the ability to put a man on the moon today, according to the space center tour guide speech given when I visited the space center. And yes I believe it.

We could develop the ability again, but we don't have it right now.

Regarding SDI, we get some glimpses from time to time, look at the Boeing YAL-1 Airborne Laser

was designed for use against tactical ballistic missiles (TBMs).

But I do agree that some of the best defense tools are still secret. I don't see why any of them would involve travel to the moon though, but I'm sure they have some cool stuff the average folks like us don't know about.

If you are an average folk what you do here?

it actually regressed, as we don't have the ability to put a man on the moon today, according to the space center tour guide speech given when I visited the space center. And yes I believe it.

I don't believe that for one minute. My PHONE is more powerful than the computers used during that time, and we've still got all of that technology, and THEN some. Heck, since then, we've had ROBOTS exploring Mars...so the idea we can't put a man on the moon again with current capabilities seems a bit ludicrous.

As for SDI, at the time, it was likely smoke and mirrors, meant, as another poster put it, to basically bankrupt the Soviets. Of course, in doing so, it doesn't mean they didn't make some real advances, and likely put some HEL's up there, or maybe even some PBW's, who knows?

reply to post by Gazrok
Yes you've got an advanced phone, and other technology that's way more advanced.

But are you saying you think we have the ability to put a man on the moon today like we did in the 1960s?

Or would we have to re-develop the means to do it?

But are you saying you think we have the ability to put a man on the moon today like we did in the 1960s?

Or would we have to re-develop the means to do it?

We still have the blueprints, calculations, etc. The hardware is too old to be reliable, so it would have to be rebuilt, and while doing so, no doubt you'd put in updated electronics, etc. There wouldn't be any need for "redevelopment" though...and we do have the ability.

The better question though, is would and should we? Unless we're establishing a base there as a platform for further exploration, going there just to go there is fiscally irresponsible. We don't NEED new tech to go to the moon, but we would USE it to do so...just as you don't NEED a camera on your phone, but it won't keep you from using it when you want to....

Mars would be a much more worthy goal (for manned exploration)...but again, there has to be the proper motivation to do so. As silly as it sounds, likely the only thing that will do so, is if we think China will get there first....(but they've still got a ways to go)...

reply to post by Arbitrageur

They upgraded the shuttle electronics and made some other tweaks but the airframe looks pretty much the same as the orginal, and now it's obsolete. Not only did our space program stop progressing, it actually regressed, as we don't have the ability to put a man on the moon today, according to the space center tour guide speech given when I visited the space center. And yes I believe it.

Sounds like something the PTB would like us and the rest of the world to believe.

Especially with other nations keeping such a close eye on the moon's surface...and in case they find something really strange...Sounds to me like "Don't look at us(A), we couldn't build there if we wanted to"

SDI never existed other than a concept.

Reagan knew that we "could" spend billions of dollars on researching and developing it and the Soviets could not.

The Soviets were basically broke and barely making it.

History proved Reagan was correct and the Soviet system failed.

Reagan called their bluff and the Soviets blinked.

The only upgrade to the rocket motors NASA have managed in 40 years. was installing a piece of kit the Russians have been using since 1969. No supersonic passenger jets flying any more. Pulse jets extremely expensive and can't fly in a vacuum.

SDI was mere propaganda designed to let the Russians think the Americans were going to do it. They never did, and the 747 born Lasers are far far cheaper, relatively, to design build and fly than space platforms.

Originally posted by FireMoon
SDI was mere propaganda designed to let the Russians think the Americans were going to do it. They never did, and the 747 born Lasers are far far cheaper, relatively, to design build and fly than space platforms.

I looked it up in Wiki, the US spent over $100 billion on it!:

en.wikipedia.org...

the U.S. has certainly invested well over $100 billion on "SDI" and follow-on programs

Under the administration of President Bill Clinton in 1993, its name was changed to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) and its emphasis was shifted from national missile defense to theater missile defense; and its scope from global to more regional coverage. It was never truly developed or deployed, though certain aspects of SDI research and technologies paved the way for some anti-ballistic missile systems of today. BMDO was renamed to the Missile Defense Agency in 2002.

I didn't realize the Missile Defense Agency was the remnants of the SDI organization, but it makes sense.

I hope they got something for that over $100 billion they spent.

Originally posted by Gazrok
We still have the blueprints, calculations, etc. The hardware is too old to be reliable, so it would have to be rebuilt, and while doing so, no doubt you'd put in updated electronics, etc. There wouldn't be any need for "redevelopment" though...and we do have the ability.

The articles I've read say the blueprints are useless and there would need to be redevelopment, probably starting from scratch. And unlike the decade it took at Kennedy's coaxing, I doubt the space program will ever be funded that well again unless aliens attack or something, so it will take longer than a decade to put a man on the moon if we decide to start working on it today:

Saturn 5 Blueprints Safely in Storage

Geoffrey Hughes from the Rotary Rocket Company supported Shawcross's view.

"There is no point in even contemplating trying to rebuild the Saturn 5," he said. "Having a complete set of Saturn 5 blueprints would do us no good whatsoever. True, we would still be able to bend the big pieces of metal fairly easily. But they are not the problem.

"The real problem is the hundreds of thousands of other parts, some as apparently insignificant as a bolt or a washer, that are simply not manufactured any more. Everything would have to be redone. So a simple rebuild would be impossible. The only real answer would be to start from scratch and build anew using modern parts and processes.

They mention another large rocket NASA is developing, the magnum, but it still doesn't have the capacity of the Saturn V, that thing could launch 100 tons of payload, what a monster!

But that just mentions the Saturn V, an important part of Apollo but I'm not even sure a complete set of blueprints for all aspects of the program survived, but even if most of them did it would still probably be a start from scratch proposition like the Saturn V.

The better question though, is would and should we? Unless we're establishing a base there as a platform for further exploration, going there just to go there is fiscally irresponsible. We don't NEED new tech to go to the moon, but we would USE it to do so...just as you don't NEED a camera on your phone, but it won't keep you from using it when you want to....

Yes, that's a good question, and you answered your own question about "why" with the exploration base, so until we design a manned mission to Mars, I'm not sure what it will look like and if it might involve a moon base for launch...maybe not. There's also the He3 on the moon to be mined, but we have no reactors that can use it yet so that's sort of pie-in-the-sky right now.

I looked it up in Wiki, the US spent over $100 billion on it!:

Problem with that is it really doesn't tell you what they were spending any of it on. It wasn't SDI though that much i can say. it was probably diverted into more practical applications of satellites etc under the auspices of SDI. It works like this. You know SDI doesn't work and is way way too expensive anyway. So you dig up a few other projects that do work and bung them under the auspices of SDI, when otherwise they would not receive funding.

Chances are there are a few billion dollar satellites floating around up there that have no connection with SDI, but were developed under the SDI banner. You can;t blame the scientists for using the Government and playing them at their own game for once.

reply to post by Oneolddude

SDI never existed other than a concept.

Really now?

When the shuttle was first approved, the US Air Force and the secret National Reconnaissance Office planned on making extensive use of its capabilities. But soon after the shuttle began flying, military and intelligence leaders started to have second thoughts and ultimately only ten military shuttle missions were flown. Several other missions were officially civilian, but conducted work that was important to the military. Overall, about ten percent of nearly 140 shuttle missions had some kind of military component. Of the eight classified shuttle missions, only one of them has been substantially declassified. This was STS-51J, the launch of Atlantis on October 3, 1985, on a four-day mission to deploy two military communications satellites.

A lighter shade of black: the (non) mystery of STS-51J

Are we building the ‘Death Star’ for the ‘Empire’

Space Defense Program Gets Extra Funding

SOVIET MILITARY CAPABILITIES AND INTENTIONS IN SPACE (NIE 11-1-80)

Indian military space activities

Now for the real scare. Skynet.
The Real SKYNET
Skynet (satellites)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Skynet is a family of military satellites, now operated by Paradigm Secure Communications on behalf of the UK Ministry of Defence, which provide strategic communication services to the three branches of the British Armed Forces and to NATO forces engaged on coalition tasks.
Skynet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org...

Britain Launches Final Real-Life Skynet Satellite, Dubs it Skynet with No Sense of Irony

The UK has just sent up a new communications satellite that's completed their Skynet, the highly-advanced network that's going to give them the ability to allow robotic military units at long range. You know, like in the apocalyptic vision of the future from the Terminator movies. The network's name in those movies? Skynet. Have you learned nothing, England?! The system allows for communication both in the voice and data variety between basically any unit of the British Armed Forces, including computers talking to computers, probably about how best to murder their makers. For example, a base computer in cheery old London can communicate with the "Reaper," a robotic spy drone in Afghanistan, retrieving data and telling it where to go, and transmitting live video over the connection from the UAV. The sat also has solar sails which extend its life to 15 years, a special anti-jamming antenna is set on the receive side, while 4 steerable antennas can be aimed in a single spot to concentrate broadcasting ability. Even worse is the fact that the whole thing is privately owned, with the British Armed Forces only promised a portion of the bandwidth rather than having control over the whole thing.

SKYNET

CYBERDYNE SYSTEMS is also a real company...
I could not find a lot of info on them, but, they work with software, and and have been in business since 1991.
Here are links to what I could find...

www.cyberdyne-systems.co.uk...

www.cdats.com...

www.cyberdyne-systems.co.uk...

Read my post on this here:
Skynet and Cyberdyne are real, and they equal trouble