Nuclear Spacecraft

a reply to: CyberMoses1001

That's no secret. It was in the news a little while ago. Two threads were made about it here.

nuclear NASA

Earth to Mars In 100 days might be possible with a nuclear rocket

a reply to: LookingAtMars

If that's the news, what's the secrecy?

a reply to: CyberMoses1001

I don't know any secrets.

You tell me

a reply to: LookingAtMars

This is what am hypothetically pondering in my question.

a reply to: CyberMoses1001

In one of the threads this was posted:

the Boeing engineer tells my colleague, “I chuckle every time I see one of those articles about how long it takes to gets to Mars... we can get there in 3.5 hours...

and this:

As Picard once said, "Make it so Number One".

a reply to: CyberMoses1001

Did you know claims should be sourced.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

If I where a historian writing a history book or a scientific paper for the scientific community.

Why is it always highly oudated "nuclear" with you ?
Why can't it be photon , anti-gravity , pseudo electromagnetism , anti-matter , dark energy....?
You know it has been out for decades that there was ongoing nuclear research .
Step into the 21st Century and tell us something we didnt know.

a reply to: CyberMoses1001

Or a poster on ATS. Because I heard everything you said is wrong. No source needed I guess.

a reply to: Gothmog

Well, I have actually contemplated the idea of anti-gravity or some other highly advanced form of aviation, beyond our current understandings.

originally posted by: CyberMoses1001
Did you know, the Americans and others are developing nuclear spacecraft in secret underground aircraft hangers, and have being doing so since the late 1960s, alongside having contact with extraterrestrials in the milky-way, as they work toward building a space-force Earth, which was hinted at recently by Donald Trump.

Unless something has changed, the same problems exist as they did in the 60's when they started developing this stuff at the NTS:
1) Shielding the crew (assuming there is one) from the radiation
2) What happens if the thing blows up on the launchpad? That's one hell of a dirty bomb

originally posted by: CyberMoses1001
a reply to: schuyler

I have my methods, it's called mathematics, geometry, physics, linguistics, architecture, law, chess, game theory, geometry, computer science, this is how I get my information, as a savant.

Hello CyberMoses.

Could you kindly, please supply us here on ATS an example or a couple of examples even : (Photos, screen shots, calculations or diagrams) of how you know that Americans and others are developing nuclear powered spacecraft in secret underground hangers using the different tools and crafts that you claim to have as methods as described above.

I am very interested.

Thank you.

Lags

a reply to: Lagomorphe

No, not really, as they're secret underground hangers and locations that would require me to access highly sensitive top secret knowledge which could have me arrested and possibly sent to prison, I suppose we just have guess.

a reply to: Lagomorphe

Possibly, but since a prevision user pointed out that, they, I think it was NASA who he mentioned, where planning on using a nuclear rocket to get to Mars, or so, I asked him, "if that is public news, then what is secret", and by putting one and one together in relation to the evolution of the military, and being a savant in aviation, the only place the air-force can from here, is nuclear spacecraft, or some other type of craft, so based on that, and the architecture of civilisation, I am assuming they are working on nuclear spacecraft in highly secretive, underground hangers or locations, since the 1960s with the end of World War 2 and the beginning of the space race, make sense? For example, if the B2 bomber stealth bomber is public, then what is secret??

a reply to: Lagomorphe

No, I'm very much a human, slightly posh, but a human none the less.
My grammar, as I have stated to another user, is correct, it is because you speak either American, or peasantry.
Banned from ATS? Is your family a good law abiding Christian church family?

a reply to: CyberMoses1001

as I have stated to another user, is correct

And, as I’ve already explained to you, it’s still wrong. Using the excuse of not being American to a British guy (me) is hilarious.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Tell me where it is wrong? Just because you are British, does not mean you speak correct grammar, it just means you speak a dialect of English, which descended from old German, which itself descended from older languages, which all descended from Egyptian hieroglyphics, which descended from Pre-Egyptian civilisations.
I was not going to, as it is petty and immature, but I will point out your own ignorance, you say a "British guy" yes, but a Scot and a Welshman are British, and they speak different grammar than the English, just as people form the Hebrides speak different than the Lowlands, or Cardiff from Port Talbot, or Birmingham from London.
Again, I speak with correct grammar.

a reply to: CyberMoses1001

Tell me where it is wrong?

I already have.

So much for being a “savant”.

LOL