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.

 

Why are the robots they send to other planets so rubbish?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 01:36 AM
link   
FYI..

True story.

That thing I am standing on is Vibration Training platform. The idea of vibration therapy has been around since 1870.

NASA researched its potential for exercising in space. ( because a heavy vibration in zero gravity still creates a heavy eccentric muscle contraction )

One problem.... The TVIS system built for the space station is always broken. And piss weak. It is an embarrassment on so many levels.

Too many academics and not enough engineers.
edit on 11/19/09 by thedeadtruth because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by LUXUS
He is a senior research scientist for lockheed martin!


no he is not.... what makes you claim that?


Firstly he introduces himself as such, secondly you can confirm it by looking at his patents some of which show he is working for lockheed martin eg:

"Publication number US5543917 A
Publication type Grant
Application number US 08/329,338
Publication date Aug 6, 1996
Filing date Oct 26, 1994
Priority date Oct 26, 1994
Fee status Lapsed
Inventors Boyd B. Bushman
Original Assignee Lockheed Martin Corporation"

"Publication number WO1995014243 A1
Publication type Application
Application number PCT/US1993/011231
Publication date May 26, 1995
Filing date Nov 16, 1993
Priority date Feb 7, 1992
Inventors Boyd B. Bushman
Applicant Lockheed Corporation"

"Publication number US5590014 A
Publication type Grant
Application number US 08/405,342
Publication date Dec 31, 1996
Filing date Mar 16, 1995
Priority date Mar 16, 1995
Fee status Lapsed
Inventors Boyd B. Bushman
Original Assignee Lockheed Martin Corporation"

"Publication number US5404225 A
Publication type Grant
Application number US 08/093,223
Publication date Apr 4, 1995
Filing date Jul 14, 1993
Priority date Feb 7, 1992
Fee status Paid
Inventors Boyd B. Bushman
Original Assignee Lockheed Corporation"

"Publication number US5999652 A
Publication type Grant
Application number US 08/988,717
Publication date Dec 7, 1999
Filing date Dec 11, 1997
Priority date May 25, 1995
Fee status Lapsed
Inventors Boyd B. Bushman
Original Assignee Lockheed Martin Corporation"


This is just a sample of a few, he has loads of patents all of which confirm his story that he worked in aeronautics for Lockheed Martin.
edit on 6-8-2013 by LUXUS because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by LUXUS
 


So what?

the little ring levitating is nothing more than standard electromagnetic levitation - it's been done a million times before - eg



Levitation doesn't actually change the mass!!
edit on 5-8-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)


I never said anything about the ring, I was referring to the part of the video where he showed an aircraft powered by a nuclear generator ie it has been done!



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by LUXUS
 


Wrong. The only confirmed aircraft that had nuclear reactors on them were a B-36, and a Tu-95, designated the Tu-119. Neither aircraft ever flew with the reactor engaged. Both suffered the problem of either having enough shielding to protect the crew. If they put enough shielding on them, they were too heavy to fly. There was also the risk of a crash spreading radioactive contaminants around the area.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


"The only confirmed" well your answer is in that statement right there! He clearly shows an aircraft and the reactor being fitted.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by LUXUS
 


That's the reactor that was put in the B-36. The aircraft was flown on many test flights with the reactor in it, and even with it powered up for short times. But it was never used to provide power to the aircraft.

I say confirmed, because I refuse to speculate on the "TR-3B" aircraft, because that's so much crap, and there is always the chance of it happening, even though it's extremely unlikely. I have also spoken with several people I consider experts on the topic in recent years, and they say that to this day it would be extremely difficult to put a reactor on a plane, and protect the crew, and still get airborne.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 09:01 AM
link   
I'd just like to know where this "secret" branch of NASA has gotten the money to fund all these high tech fancy gadgets since the 1930's? Also since NASA wasn't formed until 1958, what are you talking about?



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by LUXUS
 


That's the reactor that was put in the B-36. The aircraft was flown on many test flights with the reactor in it, and even with it powered up for short times. But it was never used to provide power to the aircraft.

I say confirmed, because I refuse to speculate on the "TR-3B" aircraft, because that's so much crap, and there is always the chance of it happening, even though it's extremely unlikely. I have also spoken with several people I consider experts on the topic in recent years, and they say that to this day it would be extremely difficult to put a reactor on a plane, and protect the crew, and still get airborne.


The aircraft in the photo that Boyd bushman shows is clearly not a B-36 and it is well before the TR3B, I believe it was Jet powered and nothing to do with anti gravity.

BTW as far as I remember a TR3B has no nuclear reactor, rather it's plasma reactor doubles as a power source.

The fact that a rapidly spinning magnetic field can produce reduction in mass is well established ie

news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Krazysh0t
I'd just like to know where this "secret" branch of NASA has gotten the money to fund all these high tech fancy gadgets since the 1930's? Also since NASA wasn't formed until 1958, what are you talking about?


From your pocket, black budget projects



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by LUXUS
...The aircraft in the photo that Boyd bushman shows is clearly not a B-36 and it is well before the TR3B, I believe it was Jet powered and nothing to do with anti gravity...


Zaphod said that the reactor WAS IN FACT fitted into the B-36. He isn't disputing that.

But he also was pointing out that the B-36 was not powered by the reactor.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Somehow you have managed to totally miss what I said so I will make it clearer with the help of pictures. First photo is of the B-36 fitted with a nuclear battery and below that is a photo of a nuclear powered aircraft...clearly not the same craft!






posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by LUXUS
 

That is not a nuclear powered aircraft. That is a long-EZ. A home built kit aircraft.
cdn-www.airliners.net...
en.wikipedia.org...
What makes you think it is nuclear powered?

edit on 8/6/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by LUXUS
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Somehow you have managed to totally miss what I said so I will make it clearer with the help of pictures. First photo is of the B-36 fitted with a nuclear battery and below that is a photo of a nuclear powered aircraft...clearly not the same craft!





And if he had a pic of Unicorn with pink hair saying it was nuclear powered you would also believe?

What I am asking is how did you confirm what he says is true, did you identify the craft in the pic he is holding up?



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by EasyPleaseMe
Maybe this? Patents


So he has patents.... so what? That does not make him a "senior research scientist for lockheed martin"


You obviously didn't bother to look at the link. If you had you would have seen Lockheed Martin in all of them.

Unless you know better of course...

edit on 6/8/2013 by EasyPleaseMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by LUXUS
 

That is not a nuclear powered aircraft. That is a long-EZ. A home built kit aircraft.
cdn-www.airliners.net...
en.wikipedia.org...
What makes you think it is nuclear powered?

edit on 8/6/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Nope it looks like some classified version of the WS125


edit on 6-8-2013 by LUXUS because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by LUXUS
 


The WS-125 never went beyond design stage, and was an expensive boondoggle.

All nuclear powered aircraft have the same problems. What happens when they crash (which eventually they will), and how do you shield the crew well enough to keep from killing them during flight, and still have a usable payload? Both problems are going to be extremely difficult to overcome, even today with the technologies that we have.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by LUXUS
 




Nope it looks like some classified version of the WS125

No. It's a Long EZ.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Sorry, I gotta agree. It's a Long EZ, with external fuel tanks hanging off the wing.





posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by LUXUS

Originally posted by Krazysh0t
I'd just like to know where this "secret" branch of NASA has gotten the money to fund all these high tech fancy gadgets since the 1930's? Also since NASA wasn't formed until 1958, what are you talking about?


From your pocket, black budget projects


Ah yes the the elusive and mysterious "black budget."


The annual cost of the United States Department of Defense black budget was estimated at $32 billion in 2008[1] but was increased to an estimated $50 billion in 2009.[2]


In comparison:


The final cost of project Apollo was reported to Congress as $25.4 billion in 1973.[72] It took up the majority of NASA's budget while it was being developed. For example, in 1966 it accounted for about 60 percent of NASA's total $5.2 billion budget.[73] A single Saturn V launch in 1969 cost up to $375 million, compared to the National Science Foundation's fiscal year 1970 budget of $440 million.[74]


en.wikipedia.org...

So 60% of NASA's budget went to the Apollo missions to develop the crappy computer systems (by today's standards) that got us to the moon. If the black budget of 2008 was only $32 billion, what was it in 1966? Or heck how about 1930 (the year you claim NASA allegedly split apart into two entities). You obviously need a better understanding of how technology develops and the costs associated with them. So where did the money come from to fund these space stations on the moon and mars? You know considering the black budget was being used for other things like the B-2 Bomber in addition to your wild claims.

Actually, check that you need a better understanding of history. You still haven't addressed how NASA could have split apart into two entities in the 1930's when it didn't even exist for another 28 years.
edit on 6-8-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


According to boyde bushman who worked for lockheed without a question something that looks very similar did fly.

The Russians had a totally nuclear powered aircraft that flew 40 times...however all the occupants later died



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join