The TR-3B for civilian manned space exploration.

I propose that NASA replace it's rocket-based vehicle technology, with the military (black ops) TR-3B anti-gravity triangle craft technology. Especially since it's technology development has already been funded over past years! Why continue to pay more... for less... again? Doesn't the U.S. military work for the same government/country as NASA?

Discussions of the TR-3B's functions and uses are 'on topic'. Suggestions and statements of the non-existance of the TR-3B are 'off topic' - and can be placed in other message threads.

[edit on 3/11/2010 by Larryman]

Originally posted by Larryman
I propose that NASA replace it's rocket-based vehicle technology, with the military (black ops) TR-3B anti-gravity triangle craft technology. Especially since it's technology development has already been funded over past years! Why continue to pay more... for less... again? Doesn't the U.S. military work for the same government/country as NASA?

Discussions of the TR-3B's functions and uses are 'on topic'. Suggestions and statements of the non-existance of the TR-3B are 'off topic' - and can be placed in other message threads.

[edit on 3/11/2010 by Larryman]

Sorry but I don't get it! How can you propose anything which existence is merely 'hypothetical'. Not only that, but it's also been attributed to have anti-gravity & can also double up as a space craft as well.

Then to top it all off, you 'propose' that if this thing even 'exists', the sections of the military who have spent billions on it's development & who operate it in total secrect. Will simply throw it out into the public domain for all to see.

If this thing is so advanced, do you really think the US military will simply put it out there for the Russians/Chinese/Iranians to scan & study. Attempt to reverse-engineer the thing based on what they learn, then start proceed to beef p their aircraft by building fighter planes based on the same premise as the TR-3A/B.

If this craft exists & can go into space, use anti-gravity, beam people up with it's teleporters & the like, then it will never, ever be revealed to the world for as long as it's 'operators' can keep it a secret. It's also entirely possible that if it is in existence that the reality is nowhere near as impressive as the 'myth' than has ultimately enveloped it.

If a civilian agency wants a space craft of any kind, then they're going to have to develop it themselves!

Did ,you consider that O'bama knew of its existence and THAT was he reason he defunded the civilian run NASA on its money wasting attempt to go back to the Mars?

You know I think Carter knew also and that is the reason he shut down the military launch facility in Calif. and their own shuttles.

You know almost anything Lockheed/Marietta-Martin is involved in goes way over budget.Wonder where all that money actually ends up.

The F-35 is extremely over budget and I don't think they have built one.The F-22 is ultra-expensive.The Osprey was a money pit and they will never recoup the money spent on its development.Every thing this conglomerate is involved with is a fiscal pit.

I believe this "black program" is not even under a government department.I think the whole thing has been contracted out to Lockheed/Marietta-Martin.

Plausible denial ability. "The government does not now or ever had"type of thing.

Sometimes when the government does not do something or does something illogical it may be what they don't say or do that is the real answer.

Watch this video or go to the youtube where you will find a link to a complete webblog on his encounter.



Do some serious research on Lockheed/Marietta-Martin the largest military contractor in the world.?!

They don't have to disclose anything to anybody.Any technology is proprietary and therefore secret from public scrutiny.

reply to post by big_BHOY


It's easy to propose a hypothetical, as you point out that I already did. Most concepts are hypothetical until facts establish a true or false to them. However, the funding paid to black op's over the past years was not hypothetical. It was hard-earned tax-payer cash.

The military has no need for an anti-gravity ship - but NASA does. It's to the benefit of America that NASA receive the developed anti-gravity technology. Simple.


[edit on 3/11/2010 by Larryman]

Originally posted by Oneolddude
Did ,you consider that O'bama knew of its existence and THAT was he reason he defunded the civilian run NASA on its money wasting attempt to go back to the Mars?

I would hope that is the reason. It would be nice to think someone in government finally used some sense. Why develop new inept rockets, when you already have an anti-gravity ship in another parking lot?

Originally posted by Larryman
The military has no need for an anti-gravity ship - but NASA does. It's to the benefit of America that NASA receive the developed anti-gravity technology. Simple.

Meh. That's not called a TR3B (Aurora wasn't built either), and it's not anti-gravity.

Think of it as more anti-inertia. The military does indeed have a need for inertially controlled craft, and so you won't get a taste of it for maybe 20-40 years.

However, when you're tottering around on your walker and gumming oatmeal, you're going to be really pissed off when you find out we were cruising the system back in the 80's.

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by Larryman
The military has no need for an anti-gravity ship - but NASA does. It's to the benefit of America that NASA receive the developed anti-gravity technology. Simple.

Meh. That's not called a TR3B (Aurora wasn't built either), and it's not anti-gravity.

Think of it as more anti-inertia. The military does indeed have a need for inertially controlled craft, and so you won't get a taste of it for maybe 20-40 years.

However, when you're tottering around on your walker and gumming oatmeal, you're going to be really pissed off when you find out we were cruising the system back in the 80's.

These links call the black triangle the TR-3B:

www.darkgovernment.com...
www.rense.com...

And they state that it is 'anti-gravity' - not just 'anti-inertia'.

That's because they're wrong.

All those fast maneuvers and tight turns have jack to do with gravity. By controlling inertia, you can accelerate like no-one's business, including accelerations used to turn and maneuver. Without turning the pilot into borscht.

The reason that people on Rense call it 'anti-gravity' is because they heard the term on some sci-fi show and it stuck. If they gave it a bit of thought (and had any physics background) it would be plain. It's anti-inertia, more specifically, apparent mass reduction which reduces inertia. Gives you a lot of bang for your buck, thrust wise.

Originally posted by Larryman
reply to post by big_BHOY

 

It's easy to propose a hypothetical, as you point out that I already did. Most concepts are hypothetical until facts establish a true or false to them. However, the funding paid to black op's over the past years was not hypothetical. It was hard-earned tax-payer cash.

The military has no need for an anti-gravity ship - but NASA does. It's to the benefit of America that NASA receive the developed anti-gravity technology. Simple.

[edit on 3/11/2010 by Larryman]

Exactly! This TR-3A/B is hypothetical even after over 2 decades (if you base it on the account of Chris Gibson) & that's the way it will stay. If you have something more advanced than unfriendly rivals & can get away without revealing it to them or anyone else for that matter, then that's the way it will stay. Hence, it will still remain 'hypothetical' for the forseeable future. Only way, it might ever be relased is if a civilian or other nation develops similar technology.

As for a military not needing an anti-gravity ship. Anti-gravity is not far off the top of the tree on any military wishlist!

Anti-gravity tech would make your aircraft weightless or significantly reduced (if going on the 'reports' that gravity is reduced by 90%). You need smaller loads of fuel to make it fly. Because of this, you can make your ships smaller/larger, carry more bombs/missiles. You can fly further with no refuelling needed along the way, accelerate quicker etc, etc. Also depending on how advanced it was, uber mobility & maneuverability for said aircraft. It could be installed in warheads/missiles. Apart from that though, I can definitely see why a military wouldn't be interested in developing anti-gravity tech!

The US military won't release it to the public simply because they won't want another nation to get their hands on the tech. Which even though they might not be able to steal it, they can use camera's, sensors, satellites to analyize & take readings from said ship etc, etc. Put your smartest guys on it, take in all the data you have gathered & it gives them at least a brief idea of how the thing works & how they might go about replicating it. Think if the Russians/Chinese got their hands on such tech. Built 100's/1000's of super fast/agile anti-gravity based fighters/bombers. They could also use the tech on missiles/warheads. Say, they then sold that on to Iran, North Korea or whoever. In short, they won't take any risks & even if the US military has anti-gravity tech/craft, they ain't gonna simply throw it to NASA for all the world to see. It's staying in the 'Black' for as long as they can keep it that way.

You ask the question, then you state that the obvious answer is off-topic. That is what I call a 'Self-fulfilling prophecy'. The answer to your question is either:

1. The TR-3B doesn't exist.

or

2. The TR-3B is a BLACK PROJECT.

reply to post by C0bzz


Ok, I'll try to rephrase the question...

How does the TR-3B function, and what could NASA do with the TR-3B technology?

Originally posted by big_BHOY

As for a military not needing an anti-gravity ship. Anti-gravity is not far off the top of the tree on any military wishlist!

Anti-gravity tech would make your aircraft weightless or significantly reduced (if going on the 'reports' that gravity is reduced by 90%). You need smaller loads of fuel to make it fly.

Weight is what gravity gives mass. Even in free fall, it still requires the same amount of fuel to achieve the same acceleration of the same object. That's because mass still has the same inertia, even in the absence of gravity.

Weight's not the issue. F=MA doesn't have "and how much does it weigh" in there.

Originally posted by Larryman
reply to post by C0bzz

 

Ok, I'll try to rephrase the question...

How does the TR-3B function, and what could NASA do with the TR-3B technology?

There really isn't a TR-3B.

But if you're asking "how does anti-inertia function", we don't have just one mechanism for doing it, there are two.

"The other NASA" is using both, because they're optimal in different circumstances. One would be just ducky for every occasion, except in the extreme case where you might like to use it, the control function becomes very unstable (it gets into poles and zeroes in the half-plane you don't want them in, I'm sure you'd rather avoid details) and not only is it inherently unstable, it's dynamically unstable as well, meaning the poles and zeroes you don't want end up moving around in addition to being in the wrong place. So you end up with ship bits and homogenized crew when the control system finally makes a mistake. It is a lot smaller and lighter though, and if you're moving smaller things around at less of a reduction, it's just fine, and makes for interesting small in-system craft and in-atmosphere craft that have what we term "anomalous behavior".

The other one is big, bulky, and costs more than the annual income of small countries. But you can take it to the far end of inertial reduction to near-total decoupling, with the decoupling going to 100% in forward plane of flight.

You really don't want 100% decoupling all around the craft, because then you're in your own pocket universe.

Anyways, the first is a von Neumann-Einstein drive, the second is a Mach drive, named after Ernst Mach, who was the first guy to hypothesize the thing, but was way too early for development of it.

Originally posted by Larryman
Discussions of the TR-3B's functions and uses are 'on topic'. Suggestions and statements of the non-existance of the TR-3B are 'off topic' - and can be placed in other message threads.
[edit on 3/11/2010 by Larryman]

Prove it exists and you have a topic then. Saying that anyone questioning the existence of this plane is off-topic is just absurd. I think it would be on topic because your entire thread is based on a plane which may or may not exist. That's kind of like saying .. "Discussions of the healthcare plan and uses are 'on topic'. Suggestions and statements of the healthcare fail are 'off topic' .." see what I'm getting at? (Some of you might not agree with the analogy but you should get the jist)

I think there's a black triangle craft lurking around.. just look at my avatar. That doesn't mean this craft is the TR-3B... so don't make assumptions and more importantly, don't tell others how posting an opposing view to your idea is 'off topic'.

Deny Ignorance