ADVANCED SECRET SPACE PROGRAM

[SFAL]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hZxA6r_6R1g&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DhZxA6r_6R1g

 

And the other one is http://www.stopthecrime.net

 

So we live in the 21st century. Buck Rogers style... the only diffrence is that the world hasnt ended as we know it and we dont get allien abasadors publicly visiting.:thumbup:

 

Dr Bowman died a few month ago.

 

I like to know what the sim comunity thinks about this topic. It somewhat valid disscussion since the military aviation is involved.

I hope i dont get a another warning too :)

Edited October 28, 2013 by SFAL

[Irregular programming]

I turned off as soon as I saw Alex Jones.

[GeorgeLKMT]

I turned off as soon as I saw Alex Jones.

 

As I had no idea who that was, I googled the name, clicked Images and... pleasant surprise :lol:

[cichlidfan]

Thanks, needed a good laugh!

[SFAL]

Yes hate him or love him.. I dont agree with all he has to say..

 

Im sure all is fine in the good old USA..

 

I hope u dont wake up under marshal law one day...

 

Any coment on the subject?

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Waste of time ...

[Wichid]

Looks like nonsense to me.

 

Just remember that the mind has a cognitive bias to see patterns and relationships where there are none. It is easy to believe there is objective proof in far fetched ideas by using a highly constructed narrative over the obvious and more simple explanation.

 

Also note the use of non sequiturs whereby something strange is somehow evidence supporting the conspiracy.

[Kenan]

I turned off as soon as I saw Alex Jones.

 

+1

[Picksplitter]

"I turned off as soon as I saw Alex Jones."

 

+1

 

+1 also c/w tin foil hat & full body suit

[EtherealN]

[EDIT] Actually, the below serves well as response in full.[/EDIT]

 

Edited October 29, 2013 by EtherealN

[SFAL]

Tin foil... sure. A comon answer from a close minded person.

 

Lets see ... powered flight early 1900s, rocket engnlne late 1930s, jet engine mid 1940s...

 

S for the last 70 year or so wifh all the scientific advancments all we have is rockets to get to space? No alternative method exits?

Sure it wont be public becouse the petrol dolar would dissapear... and with that the control over expension.

Like book printing made the information flow faster.... then the talegraph...radio.... tv.....and now the internet.

 

Here is one of the best tinfoil hat videos

 

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/151040/NASA_STS75_Tether_Incident__flightpathvelocity_tracking_of_all_unidentified_objects_short_demo/

 

Look up what was the purpose of this device. Until this all space shultle broadcasts were PUBLIC. You could tune in press record on the vcr and you had it. THIS was the las open broadcast of video footage from ANY spaceprgram.

[BHawthorne]

Some people are truly bored with reality...

[Rotorhead]

I turned off as soon as I saw Alex Jones.

 

I turned off as soon as I heard of government cover-ups...

 

Here is one of the best tinfoil hat videos

 

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/151040/NASA_STS75_Tether_Incident__flightpathvelocity_tracking_of_all_unidentified_objects_short_demo/

 

 

Cool video. Just out of curiosity, what is it supposed to prove? :huh:

 

 

EDIT:

 

Btw, that guy is amusing as hell! Just found this video, some of you guys probably know it but man, it's just hilarious...

 

 

 

33 doubled is 666, and 33 is pi, and that's the number computers are working on...

:megalol::megalol::megalol:

Edited October 29, 2013 by Rotorhead

[SFAL]

the STS 75 mission was to prove how spacecrafts/stations/satelite can use that device to get power and stay in orbit without fuel and trusters.

 

Its just a curiosity to see object doing those high speed manuvers...

as said before... tin foil hat stuff.... you know....

[cichlidfan]

33 doubled is 666, and 33 is pi, and that's the number computers are working on...

:megalol::megalol::megalol:

 

I guess the old saying is true. The devil is in the details! :lol:

[EtherealN]

Tin foil... sure. A comon answer from a close minded person.

 

"You should have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out."

- Unknown

 

Having an "open mind" is just tinfoilspeak for being credulous.

What you should have is an active mind, one that doesn't just accept random bull it encounters.

 

Lets see ... powered flight early 1900s, rocket engnlne late 1930s, jet engine mid 1940s...

 

S for the last 70 year or so wifh all the scientific advancments all we have is rockets to get to space? No alternative method exits?

 

First, why do you even assume there should be another way "to get to space" by now?

Second, your description is rigged; you are trying to make it sound like no development has occurred in the intervening time. Which is, as you know, quite false since - for example - you're reading this on a computer. They've been used for all sorts of fun stuff, including spaceflight.

 

However, the thing with spaceflight is that "getting to space" is a very big deal, purely physically speaking. You need a lot of energy to get out of this deep an energy well, and to top it off you have to fight the atmosphere while en route. (Try Kerbal Space Program with the Realistic Earth modification and you'll get yourself an idea.) There has, in actual fact, been quite a few innovations on how to get into space; the basic method for a space elevator exists (just waiting for someone to invent strong enough materials, and how to regulate it's safety is a massive political question since that cable, if snappet, can slam down three laps around the earth...), explosive nuclear propulsion is just an engineering question (but good luck getting political and public support for THAT), nuclear reactors powering the energizing of propellant gases same thing (people get nervous at nuklear stuff, even though this one at least doesn't involve nuclear explosions), etcetera etcetera.

 

But of course, you'll say "but those are still rockets!" (The explosive nuclear isn't, neither the elevator, but nevermind.) Yeah. They are. You know why?`PHYSICS!

 

To impart a momentum on something, you must expel something else in the other direction*; either a lot of stuff slowly (conventional, chemical rocket), or a lot of stuff pretty quick (nuclear rocket), or a little stuff extremely quick (ion drive). Basically, you know, mass * speed, equal and opposite, etcetera etcetera. The same principle you have with pretty much all non-friction propulsion, including jet engines and propellers. However, I would point out that there's as much difference between a scramjet as there is between a propeller and a turbofan. There's a lot more nuances in the developments and technologies of this and related fields that has happened than you let on.

 

* Ignoring maglev and such effects; they've been looked at for getting things to orbit as well, but were considered impractical and requiring materials that are so far away from what we can imagine that we might as well start discussing an alqubierre drive. :P

Edited October 30, 2013 by EtherealN

[EtherealN]

the STS 75 mission was to prove how spacecrafts/stations/satelite can use that device to get power and stay in orbit without fuel and trusters.

 

Its just a curiosity to see object doing those high speed manuvers...

as said before... tin foil hat stuff.... you know....

 

Staying in orbit without fuel and thrusters is pretty easy. Just need to not be in LEO where there still is comparatively a lot of atmosphere.

 

Anyway, yeah, they were investigation - amongst many things - ways to generate power through having a conductive cable extending through a differential. This is not weird in any way. The actual problem is this though: having electricity does not mean you get thrust. Well, I guess, what you could do is rig a HUGE set of lights and propel yourself through the momentum of expelled photons, but protip: using any materials we even remotely know of, you might as well just "get out and push". Or use something that works, like an ion drive, the upcoming vasimirs, etcetera etcetera. And then be happy about the electricity you collected since you can use it to power - for example - the magnetic fields used in the ion drive, and your in-spaceship entertainment station.

 

The UFO-style stuff is just silly. Overactive pattern seeking combined with an out-of-focus video. The same thing people have for ghosts, aliens and all such kinds of things.

[Rotorhead]

"

Having an "open mind" is just tinfoilspeak for being credulous.

What you should have is an active mind, one that doesn't just accept random bull it encounters.

 

That. Don't blame me, but I'm already allergic of people using this phrase. Thanks to UFO'ers, conspirationists, cultists and other superstitious people, "open minded" has become one of the most over-used, meaningless and washed-out words ever.

 

"Open minded" has become just other way of saying "I believe everything I hear without even thinking about it." Or how my ex-coworker used to say, when I questioned his pseudo-science claims "You can believe it if you want, it's just up to you how far want you to go." What kind of BS is that? I want to go only as far as it makes sense, not an inch further!

 

Needless to say those "open minded" people are in fact very close-minded. Really open-minded person examines the claim first, and decides whether to accept it or not second.

 

"

(extensive analysis why there are no new space flight technologies in recent years)

 

I should also mention that the most rapid development of space technologies happened during the Cold War. After it ended, both sides lost their reason and will to compete each other, and therefore to come up with new, groundbreaking technologies. Also, general public lost interest in space flight, then you have budget cuts, etc. etc.

 

 

BTW, those super secrets UFO things in that video remind me human sperm cells under microscope. Does it say something about my personality? :D

[SFAL]

Well well...

 

Indeed there should be alternative way to reach low mid and high orbit then NEWTONIAN methods. It is technological evolution.

Just like the computer used in the apollo missions was a digital watch by the mid 80s.

 

So lets get something straight. There was a time when the Earth was flat. Then heacier objects then air cant fly. Then the sound barrier.

All tought by people who were so indoctrinated that the slightest diviation from it made them mad. And this is the same again. Publicly we have a space craft that is operating with NEWTONIAN physics. And please... kebal space program? A newtonian product.

 

I dont say it lightly but humas like you Etherneal will find it very difficult to accept to belive something that is right the oposate of what your indoctrination makes you think. If it would come from the "official" chanels ie TV and mainstream media you belive it. Untill that you will dissmiss it. Simple.

 

Acualy to stay in orbit change orbit is VERY expensive and dangerous. You see when you put a craft into orbit earths gravity will do what it does best... pulls you back. No if or but. The oy way at present is to use fuel to generate enough force to act as a counterfoce aginst... gravity. Simple newtonian physics.

Now yiu only have a finite amount if fuel to do this that has to be carried to orbit. Ion drive atomic cbemical...etc...

Btw if a craft carrying atomic reactors would explode becouse of malfunction you me and all better have a lot if iodium for the rest of our life...

The "thether" woukd have bade this all obsolate. It would have worked as two same polarith magnet.. pushing away from each other with the benifit of generating electricity.

 

So its getting off topic now a little. Has anyone took the time and reseached ANY other material fron Dr Bowman?

He was the head of the star wars program after all. Or any other source?

So far i cant see none..

Just the usual ridiculing and tinfoil stuff.

[EtherealN]

I should also mention that the most rapid development of space technologies happened during the Cold War. After it ended, both sides lost their reason and will to compete each other, and therefore to come up with new, groundbreaking technologies. Also, general public lost interest in space flight, then you have budget cuts, etc. etc.

 

Additionally, during the "space race" the nature of the competition meant that they happily accepted way greater risks. The Apollo astronauts were lucky not to get fried by radiation outbursts from the sun, for example - understanding of the risk was rudimentary at best, and analysis tools to predict them was pretty much nil. And the lander module was rickety as heck; a mistake with a pencil could open a hole to space...

 

Without the spectre of "cold war", such risks simply aren't acceptable to people in general. Hell, look at what happens nowadays whenever a new fighter jet crashes; people immediately shout about how it's being "rushed" and is "unsafe" etcetera - forgetting that the safety record of our new fighters, compared to similar programs in the 50's, 60's and 70's, is absolutely stellar. ONLY some 4-6 crashes? Back in the day you could have that per year, easily. :P

 

But of course, as far as space goes, the big deal that has happened is that humans are now fairly redundant. We can send quite capable robots at a fraction of the cost, with no risk to human lives, and get MORE science done at the same time.

 

Now, if Russia, Europe, China, Japan, India and the US were to suddenly ditch those pesky safety aspirations and go full-steam-ahead on a new space race... We'd have people on Mars quite soon indeed. It would just have cost a lot more money, and quite a few lives. :P

[Rotorhead]

So lets get something straight. There was a time when the Earth was flat. Then heacier objects then air cant fly. Then the sound barrier.

All tought by people who were so indoctrinated that the slightest diviation from it made them mad.

 

Yep. So because people who claimed Earth is round were once ridiculed and then turned out to be right, it's only logical that people claiming that little green men are all around, running conspiracies with evil government agencies, who are now ridiculed, MUST turn out to be true sooner or later.

 

Makes sense, your logic is bulletproof.

 

And this is the same again. Publicly we have a space craft that is operating with NEWTONIAN physics.

 

If you know a way how to make a spacecraft (or any other physical object) to NOT be affected by Newtonian physics, I'd really like to see it.

 

Acualy to stay in orbit change orbit is VERY expensive and dangerous. You see when you put a craft into orbit earths gravity will do what it does best... pulls you back. No if or but. The oy way at present is to use fuel to generate enough force to act as a counterfoce aginst... gravity. Simple newtonian physics.

 

Now do you actually have a basic knowledge of orbital mechanics, right?

[EtherealN]

Well well...

 

Indeed there should be alternative way to reach low mid and high orbit then NEWTONIAN methods. It is technological evolution.

 

Using non-newtonian methods to get to space isn't evolution. It's absolutely total revolution. There are mathematically sound ways of doing it - an alqubioerre drive for example (aka "warp drive"). The problems with that are however quite spectacular both in amount of energy needed (to initiate the warp you might need the equivalent of Jupiter converted into energy, and whatever is inside the warp field - including the drive itself - will get roughly as hot as the big bang itself as a result... non-trivial material science question right there :P ).

 

Can you tell me any even remotely feasible "non-newtonian" method for going to space?

 

Just like the computer used in the apollo missions was a digital watch by the mid 80s.

 

Which was why they used optical navigation for most of it. ;)

In actual fact, they still do. New Horizons routinely takes pictures of starfields to verify it's location.

 

So lets get something straight. There was a time when the Earth was flat. Then heacier objects then air cant fly. Then the sound barrier.

 

First of all, people didn't think the earth was flat. Eratostenes calculated the circumference of the earth in the 3rd century BC.

Second, that heavier-than-air objects cannot fly was never a widely held opinion, especially not amongst scientists. Because it has been known that heavier-than-air objects can fly since the stone age - birds.

The sound barrier was a colloquialism, very few people thought it was an actual barrier (noticeable through the fact that they actively tried to overcome it). The sound barrier was an engineering barrier that was meant to be overcome.

 

All tought by people who were so indoctrinated that the slightest diviation from it made them mad. And this is the same again. Publicly we have a space craft that is operating with NEWTONIAN physics. And please... kebal space program? A newtonian product.

 

Again, please give me a remotely feasible alternative. I strongly suspect that you are a bit short on your physics classes in school. But of course, going to school and learning this stuff only means you get limited through indoctrination, right? ;)

 

But it is funny how you talk about "indoctrination"; you spoke previously about "open minds", but in your world anyone that does not agree with your completely revolutionary concept is just "indoctrinated". That is in diametric opposition to "openmindedness".

 

I dont say it lightly but humas like you Etherneal will find it very difficult to accept to belive something that is right the oposate of what your indoctrination makes you think. If it would come from the "official" chanels ie TV and mainstream media you belive it. Untill that you will dissmiss it. Simple.

 

You make a lot of interesting assumptions there. Like me watching TV (lol! that only happens in hotels, I haven't owned a TV in years, and even then it was only there for the Xbox) and reading "mainstream media" (which are actually only about as good at reporting science as is Alex Joens - that is, they get it all wrong all the time. :P )

 

Acualy to stay in orbit change orbit is VERY expensive and dangerous. You see when you put a craft into orbit earths gravity will do what it does best... pulls you back. No if or but. The oy way at present is to use fuel to generate enough force to act as a counterfoce aginst... gravity. Simple newtonian physics.

 

Oh my...

No.

Dude, if you want to claim to overturn newtonian physics, perhaps you should start with learning how it works. For example the from newtonian laws of motion: Objects in motion stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. Remember that one?

 

ORBIT is when this pull from gravity is equaled by the curvature of the earth, meaning that as you fall towards the ground, the earth equally curves away under you due to your forward momentum.

 

 

Seriously, you really should consider getting yourself some elementary grasp of this stuff before you try to refute it. The reason why satellite orbits decay is that they are, technically, still in an atmosphere. A rediculously rarefied one, but there's still "air" up there, which causes drag. You've probably heard of the words Troposphere and Stratosphere, right? Well, above the Stratosphere (12 to 50km) you have the Mesosphere (50 to 80km), and then after that you get the Thermosphere which extends to very very high up. (Depending on factors it can go up to 800km altitude, which I shall remind you is higher than the ISS, the space shuttle, and quite a few satellites.)

 

ISS and the others experience atmospheric drag just like an aircraft does. Just a lot less of it, meaning that little adjustments tend to be necessary. However, one of the bigger reasons they want to bring some fuel along up is that the earth's gravity is actually not uniform, and there are effects from the moon and tides which after a long enough time does become significant. Not to forget things like being able to maneuver out of the way of debris.

 

But make no mistake: if you are in an orbit around a single body with no atmosphere, you will not get "dragged down to the ground". That is actually what orbit is! Not getting dragged down because your forward momentum compensates to let you follow the curvature of the body you are in orbit around. Quite elementary.

 

Btw if a craft carrying atomic reactors would explode becouse of malfunction you me and all better have a lot if iodium for the rest of our life...

 

There has been plenty of quite spectacularly powerful nuclear explosions already, and we don't find ourselves in such a need. For example, behold the glory of a ~50 Megatonne airburst.

 

 

The "thether" woukd have bade this all obsolate. It would have worked as two same polarith magnet.. pushing away from each other with the benifit of generating electricity.

 

No, it really wouldn't.

 

So its getting off topic now a little. Has anyone took the time and reseached ANY other material fron Dr Bowman?

He was the head of the star wars program after all. Or any other source?

So far i cant see none..

Just the usual ridiculing and tinfoil stuff.

 

Dr. Bowman was not head of the Star Wars programme. He left the administration before that program, and was a vocal critic of it. At the time he ran his own little thinktank, funded by writing books. But of course, wouldn't be the first time people in those circles make false claims about their credentials in order to sucker the gullible into taking their word as gospel.

 

Seriously dude, what you need to do is to stop trawling the interwebs for conspiracy nut website and videos, and take some time off where you go to learn actual physics. You'll find that it is a very fascinating subject to learn. Your statements here have shown very well that you don't understand the topic even at a basic level. (But I guess that's the point, right? Through not having been tempted into "indoctrination" your mind is unsullied by the manipulation of the Reptilian overlords or whatever... Or perhaps you have at least not falled to the David Icke level yet?)

Edited October 30, 2013 by EtherealN

[Togg]

Moreover, a totally new exotic way of propulsion with an awesome name doesn't mean automatically something very efficient with a huge thrust. :)

[EtherealN]

Can add one quick thought to the whole orbits and newtonian physics things:

 

SFAL, if thrust is required to stay in orbit, how does the moon do it? It's got no engines, yet is actually slowly boosting away from the earth. Guess what explains how this works? Newtonian mechanics! ;)

 

So really, when I say you might want to be careful in your assumptions of knowledge, I'm quite serious. And incidentally, the functions of orbital mechanics are, in cases like this, just awesomely beautifu. I recommend it. :)

[cichlidfan]

...humas like you Etherneal...

 

This is now my favorite forum quote!! :lol:

 

*spelling errors not considered*