SpaceX Launch - Indirect Disclosure?

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

What say you?

We are still using cars, so what does that mean. 50 years ago it was totally analog, same principals, but I would like to see them land the booster rock on a drone ship 50 years ago...just saying

a reply to: EnigmaChaser

Also on the launch footage they'd forgot to put a go pro (curved) lens on one of the booster cameras that was looking back at earth, and all I'm saying is the earth shape looks strange, accident or veiled disclosure for the more astute. Just sayin... 🤔

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

What say you?

We are still using cars, so what does that mean. 50 years ago it was totally analog, same principals, but I would like to see them land the booster rock on a drone ship 50 years ago...just saying

Cars from 50 years ago serve the same purpose as cars today. Transportation.

In that way, you’re right - today’s launch is just another vehicle. Transportation to space.

But comparing a car from 50 years ago to a car today is ridiculous.

Never mind carbs to EFi to COP ignition and the tuning thereof. Have you tuned a carb? Have you broken out a lap top to tune the fuel delivery and timing of a highly strung engine? At its most basic level, it’s still a pump but that’s a serious oversimplification.

What was panty dropping, industry leading horsepower in 1970 can be found in a base model Honda Accord today.

So, using your example, what we saw was a motor-swapped and EMS/display upgrade of something from 50+ years ago. I assure you that many cars are far far far upgraded from that. Go out and slam a classic DTM car and then go get in a modern Porsche GT car. Not even the same game. Smaller engines, more power, less peaky, light years more dialed in suspension, better tires, lighter wheels, better everything. Way better. This is why a Porsche GT-3 RS can decimate a classic race car (and some modern “race cars”) by a mile as a street car. Hell, I’m making 600+ hp out of a 3.8 turbo flat six on pump gas with a conservative tune. That was unheard of out of an engine 50 years ago. Alpha-N, TPS driven EM in the 80s was way beyond what we had 50 years ago with cars. Never mind something like Wolff, Motec, COBB EM where you have multi-dimensional control of the engine.

Yet today we watched a liquid oxygen rocket go up with a capsule at similar rates of acceleration and ease as what we watched 50+ years ago. But it had sweet screens, suits and we landed the rocket. I’m not discounting this accomplishments btw - but I’m saying this as oppotion to your example.

So no, the car vs. rocket comparison doesn’t remotely hold water. We should have watched the SpaceX “Starship” fly into orbit without multi-stage rockets, no space suits, enertia dampening fields and artificial gravity once on-orbit if you want a comparison between 50 years ago and modern high-end performance automotive technology.

SpaceX just launched a Tesla into space with an iPhone interface. Yeah, it IS different than 60 years ago when Alan Shepard rode an old Redstone rocket in a 15 minute flight. A lot of things have changed since 1961. Has nothing to do with aliens.

originally posted by: DiddyC
a reply to: EnigmaChaser

Also on the launch footage they'd forgot to put a go pro (curved) lens on one of the booster cameras that was looking back at earth, and all I'm saying is the earth shape looks strange, accident or veiled disclosure for the more astute. Just sayin... 🤔

Hey now - let’s slow the troll roll here...

originally posted by: HalWesten
Since they used technology that is similar to what was used in the 1960s, the only real difference is who did it. Sure, the guidance systems are superior and returning that first stage to a boat safely was huge, but they launched a rocket with basically kerosene and liquid oxygen so that hasn't changed much.

Don't misunderstand, I love the space program but we should have better means of propulsion today.

We do, we don't even need "propulsion". 20 and back.

originally posted by: schuyler
SpaceX just launched a Tesla into space with an iPhone interface. Yeah, it IS different than 60 years ago when Alan Shepard rode an old Redstone rocket in a 15 minute flight. A lot of things have changed since 1961. Has nothing to do with aliens.

First, I never said anything about what SpaceX is doing has to do with aliens.

Second, you’re saying they modernized the controls and read outs, cabin, paint scheme and general engine management. I am not and haven’t debated that. Those are all true things.

But thinking we really moved the needle because we have touch screens isn’t going to equate to enough advancement for me when compared to other aspects of our existence.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: EnigmaChaser

Let's use that logic. What advanced propulsion methods does the f-22 or f-35 use? Since that's cutting edge military.

Ughh... lots.

Super cruise
en.m.wikipedia.org...

Supermaneuverability
en.m.wikipedia.org...

Well heck just read the whole thing:

en.m.wikipedia.org...

You should compare that against operational Vietnam-era aircraft. Zaphod can crush me here but I‘ok stand by the fact that a current F22 is many factors of X more impressive than anything in service 50 years ago (ex the SR aircraft or U2).

But beyond any of that... the underlying essence of your argument is other things have advanced at a similar pace so today was in fact the razor edge of technology.

I have too many examples to the contrary to say I can agree with that.

a reply to: EnigmaChaser

"Can’t just flip the switch"
Why not?
What if, in fact, flipping the switch is precisely the plan? Nothing makes a bigger impression than paradigm shifts such as that resulting in a sudden, vast technological leap that clears every known developmental hurdle. So, what if that - the shock of such an abrupt leap - has been the intent all along?
To what end? Simply put: fear is a powerful motivator. Fear of the unknown immeasurably so.
Just feeding thought...

Just a reminder people, that Four(4) years ago, Trump said, we will go back to space.

In less than four years, we have achieved that.

Trump is not directly responsible for that, what he is responsible for is unlocking and clearing the beaucracy for SpaceX to do what it needed to do.

Good Job SpaceX, to the many scientist and engineers and Thank you Trump for reinvigorating space.

a reply to: EnigmaChaser

The tell-tale sign is what energy source we use, as long as nobody uses a miniature fusion reactor, or solar power with an amplifier to 200% efficiency, you know they're not more advanced than the public.
And with regards to nuts'n bolts ET-ships, if they got here in a meaningful timespan (less than a few tenthousand years) that would mean they know something about spacetime we don't. And if they're capable of manipulating matter and time, they simply don't crash.
If there's anything we recovered it's almost certainly a decoy and the tech we "discover" from it would most likely be a trojan.

And don't even bother with anti-gravity that idea comes from some dummy who thought that because electricity and magnetism are two sides of the same force that would be true for all forces. Purest bs.

Space travel doesn't make any sense beyond maybe putting up satellites, mines on the Moon, exploiting asteroides,... because we hit two walls the speed of light is already kind of too slow for the distances between galaxies and the amount of energy and efficiency we got available is in theory by so far not enough to bend space time our only option is to rethink categorically.

We are indeed very primitive because we blast and shoot and burn, instead of start looking beyond the veil of materialism where far more elegant solutions would become apparent.
We are cursed by the limitation of our senses. While we know that "stuff" is only 5% or so of what the universe is made of.
That is the human condition sadly. We think we're the crown jewel while we can't even see if there is a crown.

a reply to: Arnie123
Ok sure common man physically pulled it off. But who kept the air space secured huh??

a reply to: Arnie123

No. SpaceX was doing (sans manned-flight) what it did today 8-10 years ago. No trumped up, fantastically imagined bureaucracy handicapping the early blood, sweet, and tears in the intervening years, huh? Nope. But you’re that guy.

Trump did nothing to expedite the process that otherwise would not have been done. Go attribute his responsibility elsewhere; this was all Elon Musk. Period. Full-stop.

Is it ET tech the Feds have? I don’t know. Could be reverse engineered, engineered, relearnt knowledge, etc. But I’m nearly certain it’s way ahead of what we saw today.

Could it be Roswell was a convenient way to cover up a secret military project? That it had absolutely nothing to do with anything other-worldly, but people jumped on it so the government ran with it and pushed the alien agenda?

It certainly has worked for covering up their developing of a lot of fighter jets. Whenever someone spots a prototype it only takes a nano second for MUFON to scream proof.

a reply to: EnigmaChaser

Look I ain't no flat earther but one camera shot was all curved you could tell the difference in a big way, one shot curved the other flat... Explain.. Did Elon Musk intentionally do it or was it an over site. I've watched that footage over and over, and when it gets even more obvious, I think some one realised and said stop showing the feed and they did. What say you cause I'm confused. At what point do we start believing our own eyes or what someone else tells us is true. If enough people told you the sky was yellow, and you could see it was blue but over years and years... 🧐

I notiecd a couple of differences, notably the lift off speed. With Shuttle and Apollo you're looking at a HUGE amount of mass lumbering slowly off the ground. WIth SpaceX the load is pared to the minimum because it's not carrying much (relatively speaking) so it was straight off the ground. The other massive difference is the huge amount of electronics in there, that's where the tech has advanced and it also allows a lot of weight saving where every gram counts.

As far as "surely there's a better way to do this?", probably not. We are using Newtonian physics to get it off the ground, and that requires a a huge amount of force going in one direction to shove a bunch of mass in the other. The best way we have at the moment for that is to use something that expands a lot very quickly: an explosive gas mixture. You might find fancier ways of making that mix (better valves and whatever) but essentially you're still just controlling things that go bang when you bring them together.

The sci-fi stuff is just that, there isn't another way right now until someone uncovers a new set of rules for physics.

a reply to: DiddyC

It's all to do with the angle of view for the camera. Right now there are bunch of concave Earth loons (no, really) claiming victory because one camera shows the curve one way while simulataneously snorting in derision at the curve going the other way and shouting 'fish eye lens! Fake!'.

You choose the camera to do the job. That kind of lens allows a lot of view and that's all they need. They haven't put a camera on there to prove anything, they've put a camera on there to see what's happening with their expensive rockets.

a reply to: EnigmaChaser

Yes, eventually private citizens and private industry will marginalize government and continue sidelining them as much as possible.

Just another step closer to realizing true freedom.

That being said, it is clear the UFO technology is so far advanced if they decided to be hostile, it'd be the shortest war ever fought. Hint: humans lose and we lose big time.

The United States? Russia? Aliens don't recognize them as competitors anymore than we'd recognize a squirrel in our backyard as a competitor...just totally different playing field.

From a very limited human perspective, it is pretty darn impressive though. We've demonstrated once again we can reach an escape velocity and get in orbit of our planet (or other very near by bodies)

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser
But comparing a car from 50 years ago to a car today is ridiculous.

Comparing a rocket from 50 years ago to a rocket today is ridiculous too. But you do it anyway.

Yet today we watched a liquid oxygen rocket go up with a capsule at similar rates of acceleration and ease as what we watched 50+ years ago. But it had sweet screens, suits and we landed the rocket. I’m not discounting this accomplishments btw - but I’m saying this as oppotion to your example.

What we watched today is a reusable launch system capable of precise controlled powered descent landings using throttleable and reignitable engines. That is nothing like the stuff from 50+ years ago.

a reply to: EnigmaChaser

The only disclosure I see from this is that a private company is better at going to space than the US space agency , years of under-funding and mismanagement has diminished the ability of the once great NASA.

It's way past time for the ISS to be sold off and turned into a space hotel , the $1.1 billion a year it costs to maintain the ISS could be put to better use , NASA could rent part of the ISS for science and move on to the grander vision of a station orbiting the Moon , a far better idea than a Moon Base.