It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Our own capabilities as deducted from simple facts

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 12:41 AM
I know there's extensive research on this already...

I want to reiterate the facts as I am aware of them.

The secret budget of the government

The not even secret Air force space budget

Nasa's budget

Lets say all of the money thrown at these things represent research development and testing.

After all these years the best nasa and the airforce can do is hire private companies to fly everything into space?

How about it took a private company a mere 25 million dollars and a few years to fly into space in a few years from scratch.

And I am supposed to believe that we have made absolutely negligible advances in flight with that kind of funding? Right now we don't even have anything capable of putting a man in space.

Right- soooooo Russia and China have more capabilities with humans in space than we do....

How about I don't think so. Not for one second. If you compare how much it cost to get into space from scratch, and then add a trillion dollars and 50 years to that you obviously end up with a shuttle from the 80's operating till 2010 and then we have nothing going on after that. Yeah right.

Not that I can say outright I know for a fact, but give me a break. These numbers are absurd.

To me it's simple deduction.

The United States has capabilities (in space and on Earth) far beyond what we are told. And given the numbers I will personally speculate that our capabilities are akin to common science fiction.

Because we are the United States, and if you are from here you, you should know the mentality- which is--- If I can, I will. So why wouldn't we?

posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 01:40 AM
reply to post by SeekerForLight

While your logic is sound, and I do agree with you to an extent, I also just want to add that, for example, all that Nasa budget isn't just going to one project.

There's a multitude of things that are happening with that money, not just some top secret uber spaceship or what have you.

You are correct though, I definitely agree we are capable of A LOT MORE than the average civilian is aware of.

posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 02:30 AM
reply to post by SeekerForLight

You've got it all wrong.

It seems that all you think NASA does is build rockets.

You're ignoring all the satellites, telescopes, rovers, landers, orbiters and impactors designed and built by NASA.

Who do you think built Hubble?

The Mars rovers?

The lunar reconnaissance orbiter?

The solar dynamics observatory?

Or the other dozens of projects that have been developed or are in development.

The budgets that you and I have access to, will not give any indication of what top secret projects they have going on (NASA or otherwise), That's why it's called a black budget and that's why it's top secret.

posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 02:46 AM

That sum does not include classified spending for other Defense Department and National Reconnaissance Office space programs.

I feel that sums it up. The spending that would indicate major operations in space are hidden from view, because of 'national security'.

I really wonder how this so call black budget compares in size to the non-classified budget. Would be interesting to compare.

Nevertheless, I don't think we've got enough to go on to get to the bottom of these black projects, despite the hints (fabricated or not) we keep finding. Otherwise the programs wouldn't be very well hidden.

Unless something major happens, I doubt we'll find out the truth. Sad as that sounds.

posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 12:12 PM
I understand all of the money doesnt go into producing pure product. Point really was- look how much they spend doing what they tell us, heres what it could cost realistically to start a space program. And then top that with classified budget. With the amount of money going in, and the fact that it is increasing each year, its not a huge leap of faith to say that more is going on, and if they are telling the truth than very soon a lot will be going on publicly. Which we all know isnt going to happen.

posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 12:12 PM
[edit on 8/16/2010 by SeekerForLight]

posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:01 AM
IMHO, we will never know the full extend of "black" operations budget and for the most part I'll wager our elected officials aren't privy to everything that is going on either.

posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:59 AM
First, you are right there are things "deep black" that are probably years if not decades ahead of the current future projections. However you look into the wrong places, looking at gov't black-budget analyses and projections. Alot of the black-budget programs that are being reported in these analyses are traditional "secret" technology programs as to keep foreign intelligence interests focused on tech that is mearly 5-10 years "outside" of the box. The majority of the money that funds projects, which subsequently are developed and built by military contracted agencies, are funded through white-world means. Constant cost overruns in highprofile, high dollar projects (i.e. F-35, F-22, the Comanche etc.) as well as investment of funds at the contractor level AND the gov't level keep these programs off of the "grid" ,so to speak. It is a big private-corporation shell game. Which subsequently, is why alot of the research and development on new tech has been moved outside of the military proper and to contractors, as they do not fall under FOIA and oversight capacities of Congress. They only projects that a private corp are subject to congressional oversight, are the "official" contracts they accept to build a warplane or some other technology for the military. And off hand I can't think of a single one that has EVER come in on budget or even just slightly over budget.

posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 01:25 PM
Thread could possibly approach the neighborhood of interesting if it was started by a poster that knew the difference between "deducted" and "deduced."


[edit on 8/17/2010 by Harte]

top topics


log in