US Space Fleet

originally posted by: Triton1128
a reply to: pikestaff

I know many that would volunteer for a one way ticket into an advanced secret program such as this.

IF a space fleet exists. Its not using conventional technology. Don't forget. The military is 40+ years more advanced then what they lead on to have.

IF there is a potential for a base on the moon. Then there's your maintenance location. They could be completely self sufficient and never need to even come back to Earth for anything. Except maybe to pick up new recruits.

I would volunteer.

I have no family (wife, kids) and if they ever approached me to do so, I'd be all in.

of course there's a secret space program, with attendant secret space craft, powered by secret propulsion methods, all kept secret from the public at large, by secret people in secret black departments/forces. secret is the modus operandi of the military/government/science/industrial web. it's a given. and i don't give a rat's nads for the supposed lack of corroborative confirmation from 'all the world's astronomers' and their friends. they perceive through a filter of ingrained repetition to the exclusion of anything outside what they deem to be possible. what they can't imagine, they refuse to consider. but who cares? take it or leave it. believe or deny. choices, people. choices.

a reply to: Triton1128 It makes you think about why they don't want to spend money on a return to the moon program when we're there now and probably on Mars and the technology they'd have to use is way more primitive than what they use in secret. I wish the aliens would get their heads out of their kiesters and realize that the people they deal with are just toadies and nowhere near our best and brightest representatives. But maybe that's what they want to deal with.

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: Viperion

So your saying that even in a shtf scenario where the World got bombed back to Stone Age, the Space Fleet would watch silently?

hmm interesting question.

That would depend on what orders they been given. But still its a valid question. Would space fleet command just sit and watch when we slowly return to stone age or would they take a risk to save whats left of human race at our war scarred planet. But then how are they going to do when they interfere and how are they going to explain the human race that they are a secret organization and etc. its consequences has to be considered.

The longer and deeper secrets being kept, thus the greater consequences will be. Keeping secrets has always a tall price.

still its a good question. something to ponder..

sincerly yours

- V -

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
Sorry but you know the moto of this site. Pictures or it does not exist? Or better yet, you can go the ol skeptic route and say if we have this space fleet out there and even base's on the moon, well the many amateur astronomers around the world would have seen something by now, after all some of them look at the sky and moon on a daily basis and have for years.

It would seem rather doubtful that any astronomer could recognize spacecraft 30,000 kilometers from Earth.

In space terms 30,000km is a rather short distance, yet there are few telescopes that can render an image of something that distance in space. I like to play around with3D modeling and rendering software, and that can't produce a "recognizable" image, even when One knows what to look for...it is all in the lighting, size of the object and of course its distance.

A craft 4 X the size of the Ronald Reagan would enjoy practical invisibility at distances not much more than 30,000km. Even ISS would be difficult to see IF it were not reflective (bare metal / white paint).

And, it should be rather easy to avoid astronomers...they tend to "look" at, and focus on, known objects.

Logically, IF an astronomer did manage to get a glimpse of a spacecraft, he would probably think it "space junk", and be more or less correct, since a spacecraft would be indistinguishable from "junk". And since most amateur astronomers aren't out collecting data (doing actual photometry), and are casually "looking" at the stars...it becomes statistically improbable that they would "see" a spacecraft.

leaving aside anomoulous effects from space drives and portals and addressing the visuals... there are hundreds of astronomers looking for near earth asteroids. these are much smaller than the Reagan yet they find them often using long exposures or other techniques.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
leaving aside anomoulous effects from space drives and portals and addressing the visuals... there are hundreds of astronomers looking for near earth asteroids. these are much smaller than the Reagan yet they find them often using long exposures or other techniques.

Like radar!

And I didn't say they were impossible, just not probable with amateur equipment and technique...not that either are flawed in any way...

But, to actually "see" either that spacecraft, or that asteroid requires a rather different observational technique...and it may be a bit more than even a serious amateur is willing to devote to.

Finding and resolving transient events like this require quite alt of data , and most amateur typically don't have that kind of time...nor do they have the kind of equipment that makes such data collections easier (like the robot I'm building)

Oh, and those "hundreds of astronomers looking for near earth asteroids"...they're programing (making a request) on a robot to do the tedious work for them...all they do is review and analyze the results of a "data collection"...

Finally, long exposures are not necessary...with the help of a good sensor and a wee bit of AI...A surprising amount of data can be acquired in a relatively short time...and of course this works on a "field of view" rather than on an object.

And about those anomalous effects...It would be difficult at best to predict the kinds of "visual" effects created by a "drive"...I suppose that would depend on the "kind" of drive. But, "portals", as you put it, more specifically a "Wormhole", may be far easier to detect that y'all think...A "sort of" luminous tube with a starry background on the inside walls, and "out of place", or unknown, stars at the "bottom...again, a little AI will go a long way...

a worm hole according to more recent simulations would appear as a sphere in which the distal scene would be inverted and reversed left to right. but the outer periphery would create a gravity lens like effect for images passing near it. in other words it would be for all intents and purposes an Einstein ring. and Einstein rings are something i'd imagine that astronomers would note. maybe not every time or even frequently -but over the decades such an event would likely get caught at some scope somewhere.

and radar waves are subject to doppler shifts too. a ship approaching would have not only it's own spectrum shortened or upshifted but so too would any radar waves or even old over the air radio transmissions. this assumes a high velocity real space propulsion method which is desireable because it appears that the warp speed effect is directly related to real space velocities when entering warp. this would mean the ship would have to get up to speed when entering warp or slow down after emerging from warp. then you'd get doppler effects both coming and going. maybe even unexplained x ray or gamma ray bursts.

a reply to: tanka418
Hum you dont say. No really you dont say.

So what your saying that whole amateur or even professional astronomers world wide would not be able to distinguish a space craft floating in space or on the moons surface from a chine lantern or a hill or rock. And all those people looking at the moon both with the more pricey into the millions of dollars professional telescopes, or just regular cheep 600$ to over $2 k ones that amateurs use. Well then they are wasting there time as they would not be able to distinguish a space ship from a rock on the moon from that distance.

I always new they were all bull#ing and it was all Chinese lanterns or weather balloons.

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: tanka418
Hum you dont say. No really you dont say.

So what your saying that whole amateur or even professional astronomers world wide would not be able to distinguish a space craft floating in space or on the moons surface from a chine lantern or a hill or rock. And all those people looking at the moon both with the more pricey into the millions of dollars professional telescopes, or just regular cheep 600$ to over $2 k ones that amateurs use. Well then they are wasting there time as they would not be able to distinguish a space ship from a rock on the moon from that distance.

I always new they were all bull#ing and it was all Chinese lanterns or weather balloons.

Yep, that's kind of what I'm saying! You see the problem isn't how much the telescope costs, but it's resolving abilities. Your "cheep" $600 device probably can't resolve anything less than 2 km or so...more expensive telescopes (like the 11 inch device I've selected) can resolve something just under 1 km...and Hubble, about 100 meters. Any object, rock, Chinese lantern, or spacecraft smaller and it won't be seen...harsh reality!

Add to that the fact that the object is in space, with the poorest lighting possible, and you won't be able to "see" squat!

I don't think I indicated they were "wasting their time"

a reply to: stormbringer1701

Very quickly here...yes. Though, I can automate the process of finding a gravity lens...application of computer vision and some AI.

Doppler shifts in the low frequency, audio, are all (for the most part still audible, though the shift itself may not be. In the radio frequencies it is still in the kilohertz to megahertz range. Instars, that shift is typically within the visible range...a star may shift from a green to a yellow during its red shift...and that does not constitute infrared...conversely, that same star approaching may shift to a nice blue, and NOT into the x-ray, and definitely not gamma...though such things remain possible.

It is my understanding that in a real world warp drive system the "ship" remains stationary relative to its local space...and it is that "local space" that moves. How this may appear to a stationary observer remains to be seen.

There is a whole new physics waiting for Human kind...the physics of the super-luminal.

a reply to: tanka418

Add to that the fact that the object is in space, with the poorest lighting possible, and you won't be able to "see" squat!

You forget that space craft need to painted white to reflect the heat from the sun.
There has never been any heaters on space craft.
But all of them use methods to remove excess heat.

We have stealth fighters with the radar signature of a baseball, and that's a KNOWN capability.I'm pretty sure with optical cloaking and other exotic tech the black triangles use, we'd never see them.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: tanka418

Add to that the fact that the object is in space, with the poorest lighting possible, and you won't be able to "see" squat!

You forget that space craft need to painted white to reflect the heat from the sun.
There has never been any heaters on space craft.
But all of them use methods to remove excess heat.

Yes, though, this typically applies only to terrestrial spacecraft...only a slight improvement in technology and this is no longer necessary...

A dark gray ship vanishes rather quickly...

Mining and colonization should be our goals in space, not conquering and destroying. Why can't we embrace our inner explorers and finally start setting boots of peace on the moons and planets? We could be far above the tech level we currently have now if we just got our heads out of our rumps and started setting up shop above the atmosphere.

I will just put this put out there... I posted a thread a few years ago about government commercials and photos that are completely dismissable as fiction but are mixed in with factual images... as if the info is put out there to get a response, and no one responds.


2 moons...


"..spaceships...starships..." ok with space ships but starships?



"It's not science fiction". Truth in advertising maybe?

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Very quickly here...yes. Though, I can automate the process of finding a gravity lens...application of computer vision and some AI.

Doppler shifts in the low frequency, audio, are all (for the most part still audible, though the shift itself may not be. In the radio frequencies it is still in the kilohertz to megahertz range. Instars, that shift is typically within the visible range...a star may shift from a green to a yellow during its red shift...and that does not constitute infrared...conversely, that same star approaching may shift to a nice blue, and NOT into the x-ray, and definitely not gamma...though such things remain possible.

It is my understanding that in a real world warp drive system the "ship" remains stationary relative to its local space...and it is that "local space" that moves. How this may appear to a stationary observer remains to be seen.

There is a whole new physics waiting for Human kind...the physics of the super-luminal.

at least in alcubierre related warps there is a space bubble in which the ship is at rest once the warp is activated but the bubble itself is travelling and that speed at which it does is dependent on the ships velocity before turning the drive on. Dr White and Mr March's calculation says a ship going ten percent c before entering thier version of warp geometry will have the warp bubble travelling at 10 to 11 times the speed of light. this may create a einstein ring just like a wormhole except the effect will be travelling at illegal (by the laws of physics) speeds and create cherenkov radiation to stay legal.

of course other versions of warp do not evidently require the isolation bubble and seem to work by creating just the contraction and expansion in local space. (Example: Lazar's version)

The thing is when the ship tries to get to a velocity that makes going to warp worthwhile there will be a doppler effect and the same thing for when it turns off warp. it will reenter our space at the real space velocity it had when the warp was first initiated. this means in order to stick around at the destination it needs to slow immediately; otherwise it is travelling at stellar and galactic escape velocity and will be unable to land or orbit.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
of course other versions of warp do not evidently require the isolation bubble and seem to work by creating just the contraction and expansion in local space. (Example: Lazar's version)

roflmao...Now there's some sound science!!!
How about we stick with something that's seen the inside of a laboratory...

And, super luminal does not violate any laws of physics..it only means the device is no longer observable...seriously; have you checked out the relevant equations? Or did you just take everybody's "word" for it?

I hope we have a good secret space program or US taxpayers have been getting their money wasted for a long time.

Someone posted or thought the dark side of the moon is really dark. It is not called the dark side because sunlight never hits it. I believe it is called dark because it is the side always facing away from the Earth. It does occassionally face the sun. Earth's radio waves are blocked because the other side of the moon blocks radio waves from Earth. The dark side could be a good radio astronomy site.

Now in a wild speculation it would be really cool if very advanced tech allowed contact with alien civilizations and even more massive advances in tech. It would be cool if a US secret program was over 50 years more advanced than commercial tech and they were learning and developing psionic, telekinetic, and telepathic abilities.

Maybe they already have quantum communication devices that instantly communicate via quantum entanglement. Such a communicator would allow instant communication several light years away I believe.
Telepathy might do the same thing but it might have limits. Spacecraft that traveled through different dimensions might not be visible in this dimension. The different dimension might get called hyperspace or something else. I'm speculating.

a reply to: Volund

I'd hardly call the Space Shuttle a starship. LOL Poor guy, he only got to ride on a glorified cargo bus to LEO and back. I'd be ticked off if I was him, watching a black triangle zoom by the shuttle window.

Oh well, at least he got to play around with M&M's in zero g, that's something most of us can't say we've done.