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.

 

Soviet Space Battle Station

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:
ExD

posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Soviet Union was developing laser space battle station Skif from beginning of 80's.
Length: 37 meters
Diameter: 4.1 meter
Weight: 80 tons
It was supposed to be launched by Energia booster.



Unarmed prototype filled with scientific equipment was created around 1985 and launched 15 May 1987. It was failed to start operations and with the fall of Soviet Union project was scrapped.
Here some photos:

www.army.lv...
www.army.lv...
www.army.lv...
www.army.lv...
www.army.lv...
www.army.lv...
www.army.lv...
www.army.lv...
www.army.lv...
www.army.lv...

There are not much details, all facts are top secret, it's really exciting project even for our days.

Energia Corporation is one of the leaders of Russian Aero-Space industry, currently working on russian Mars program.




posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 03:56 PM
link   
I'm suprised it doesn't have nuclear missles loaded on it. It sure would be cool if Russia made and launched one. Does anybody know how far Russian laser technology had advanced? BTW watch out Russia could beat the US to Mars if we don't get to work. Any chance one of these stations could be used to sabatoge the US's attempts to go to Mars?



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 05:14 PM
link   
The USA was plannig to put Nukes on the Moon, but never got very far...

That Russian one would have been cool, and nukes in spacew would be good for Russia, but a bit impractical cost wise.


Yeah, Russia is trying to get to mars too. But I think the Radiation would serverly damage or kill the Astronaughts, I personally (its my opinion, don't flame me please!
) don't think the US ever got to the moon, not with the technology of the time, there was never any footage of the Lunar lander working on earth properly, only of it crashing. But it is my opinion, there is no prrof for either point ATM. Hopefully someone will take pics of the landing area soon and prove one or the other, it really should be done to end this debate
. We have the technology now to go however, that would be good.

Mars is a bit far away, it would take years, so the Austronaughts/Cosmonaughts better take some good books. LOTR would waste the time.
I think the US and Russia should work together on it and it would be done quicker.



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Teh_Gerbil
Hopefully someone will take pics of the landing area soon and prove one or the other, it really should be done to end this debate
. We have the technology now to go however, that would be good.



Not trying to flame you but we already left a reflector up on the moon that you can hit with a laser and calculate how far the moon is away from earth

About taking picture of the landing area that would cost alot of money since Hubble cant even come close to seeing something that small. I dont think NASA is in a rush to spend lots of money to prove something they already have loads of evidence on.

Cool space station though it looks very expensive

[edit on 20-11-2004 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Teh_Gerbil
Mars is a bit far away, it would take years, so the Austronaughts/Cosmonaughts better take some good books. LOTR would waste the time.
I think the US and Russia should work together on it and it would be done quicker.

I don' think anybodies going to try going to Mars before inventing either practical cryotechnology or really fast space ships. Obviously this is because it wouldn't be able to carry that much food. Most likely cryotech will come out first so entertainment won't be a problem. I would be nice if Russia and the US could work together but most of the politicians still have the cold war in their minds. That and Russian stuff is a lot different from western stuff. Just compare fighters, the cockpits have a lot of differences, it would be chaotic trying to send the two in one ship. It sure would be cool to see the US and Russia work together a bit more than just the ISS.



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 06:28 PM
link   
A trip to Mars with current rocket technologly would take 9 months one way. Russians have stayed in space much longer then that. Well within the timescales humans can stay in space.

A new propulsion concept with a magnetized-beam plasma propulsion a (ion drive) can make it in 90 days.

www.spacedaily.com...



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Heres a cool site that shows how a ion drive matches up against a chemical rocket. They rocket is better off the line but has no staying power

www.esa.int...



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 07:44 AM
link   
I like the sheer size and the "crude but does the job" design , it has that brotherhood of NOD touch.

Naturally this was going to be a most expensive answer to Reagans Star Wars plans, but history took another turn in Reykjavik.

[edit on 21-11-2004 by Countermeasures]



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Thats a very impressive piece of hardware, got to hand it to the Soviets .... when they think big they really do think BIG!
I wonder what other defunct Soviet programs like this are kicking around the old Soviet Union?



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 07:58 AM
link   
that ion drive is nice isnt it shadow?
run completely on electricity , if i remember correctly , so the fuel wont be an issue.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Running off of electricity in space means it can have three types of propulsion systems; solar or nuclear. Solar doesn't give enough energy since solar panels only turn a small amount into electricity. As for nuclear it's more powerful but it requires constant supervision to prevent meltdown. Fusion is a good power source but we don't have it yet, and it would also need some constant supervision. So electricity has it's problems too. I would think that in the case of nuclear power NASA would remotely operate the reactor but theres still plenty of danger if say a solar flare disrupts communications.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 09:24 AM
link   
heh, its okay for the Russians to put nukes in space, but the USA can't!


ITS TOTAL DOMINATION FOR THE USA TO HAVE NUKES IN SPACE BLAH BLAH

Its perfect for Russia! Nice touch of essence!


Sad how jelousy gets into the way of hate of the Americans.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
that ion drive is nice isnt it shadow?
run completely on electricity , if i remember correctly , so the fuel wont be an issue.


Yeah ion drives are really amazing vs a chemical rocket it like a top fuel dragster vs a geo metro one is way faster off the start. But the dragster runs out of fuel after the 1/4 mile and the geo just keeps on going faster and faster.

I think you still need to carry a gas to ionize though so it does need some type of fuel. I think they use xenon in ion drives.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Laxpla
heh, its okay for the Russians to put nukes in space, but the USA can't!


ITS TOTAL DOMINATION FOR THE USA TO HAVE NUKES IN SPACE BLAH BLAH

Its perfect for Russia! Nice touch of essence!


Sad how jelousy gets into the way of hate of the Americans.


Nobody said it was okay for the Russians to have nukes in space. They don't. The technology is amazing, that's what is being commented on.

And besides that, it was the Soviets who tried to put the station in space. They may be the same people, but the ideology is completely different.



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 02:31 PM
link   
If the Soviets put a Space Battle Station into space, then every country worldwide would be in trouble. With that kind of power, the Russians could fire nukes at any country of their choosing, why else would it be up there?

To my knowledge, Russian Laser Technology has become very advanced (to the nearest meter), but if your using a nuker, the nearest click would be alright...



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join