NASA Weapons (1 Viewer)

[cranston36]

Another NASA blunder.
This time they crashed a spacecraft into a satellite.
It damaged the spacecraft and nearly destroyed the out of service satellite.
Both items are now catapulting around the earth in wild orbits causing danger to our communications satellite system.
Just more million dollar NASA space junk.
It is called DART. That stands for Demonstration for Autonomous Rendezvous.
The accident has been investigated and the word is that this failure could be directly attributed to the management of the mission. There appeared to be a general lack of training and not much experience amongst the team which had been showered with money and advantage.
That’s about it for honesty, however, as NASA is refusing to release the full 70 page report.
They are saying that sensitive information is in the report that is protected by International Traffic in Arms Regulations.
The satellite they destroyed was operated by the Pentagon. NASA, which is supposed to be working on civilian space projects is apparently involved in military missions.
Keep in mind that the result of this failure was a successful impact with a military satellite.
This shot was managed from Marshall Space Center in Huntsville, Alabama and was built by Orbital Sciences Corp.
Orbital Sciences Corporation specializes in missile defense systems.
http://www.orbital.com/MissileDefense/
Their main offices are in Dulles, Virginia.
They are now trading on the New York Stock Exchange at nearly 16 dollars a share - up from 8 dollars a share last year.
Don’t expect to see that report.

 

[jfuh]

Another NASA blunder.
This time they crashed a spacecraft into a satellite.
It damaged the spacecraft and nearly destroyed the out of service satellite.
Both items are now catapulting around the earth in wild orbits causing danger to our communications satellite system.
Just more million dollar NASA space junk.
It is called DART. That stands for Demonstration for Autonomous Rendezvous.
The accident has been investigated and the word is that this failure could be directly attributed to the management of the mission. There appeared to be a general lack of training and not much experience amongst the team which had been showered with money and advantage.
That’s about it for honesty, however, as NASA is refusing to release the full 70 page report.
They are saying that sensitive information is in the report that is protected by International Traffic in Arms Regulations.
The satellite they destroyed was operated by the Pentagon. NASA, which is supposed to be working on civilian space projects is apparently involved in military missions.
Keep in mind that the result of this failure was a successful impact with a military satellite.
This shot was managed from Marshall Space Center in Huntsville, Alabama and was built by Orbital Sciences Corp.
Orbital Sciences Corporation specializes in missile defense systems.
http://www.orbital.com/MissileDefense/
Their main offices are in Dulles, Virginia.
They are now trading on the New York Stock Exchange at nearly 16 dollars a share - up from 8 dollars a share last year.
Don’t expect to see that report.

Just another failure of the Star Wars program.

 

[Jay R]

Just another failure of the Star Wars program.

I think what he's trying to suggest is that it is actually a successful demonstration of an anti-orbital attack. A means to engage and destroy other peoples satellites, think about the value of satellite surveillance, space is the ultimate 'high ground'. Denying an enemy access to it would be an advantage in a confrontation with a technologically advanced enemy. Modern warfare is all about information, identifying your target is paramount because as the saying goes; "You can't kill what you can't see"

 

[::Major_Baker::]

Nasa's new plan!

 

[Little-Acorn]

Another NASA blunder.
This time they crashed a spacecraft into a satellite.
It damaged the spacecraft and nearly destroyed the out of service satellite.

I've seen nothing about this on any news outlet.

And you provide no source, no link, no backup.

Did you make up the story?

.

 

[Gibberish]

Nasa's new plan!

That's awesome.

 

[jfuh]

I think what he's trying to suggest is that it is actually a successful demonstration of an anti-orbital attack. A means to engage and destroy other peoples satellites, think about the value of satellite surveillance, space is the ultimate 'high ground'. Denying an enemy access to it would be an advantage in a confrontation with a technologically advanced enemy. Modern warfare is all about information, identifying your target is paramount because as the saying goes; "You can't kill what you can't see"

Shooting down satellites is actually nothing new. Pegasus rockets have had that ability for a long time.
The ABS system was intended to destroy incoming warheads. Much much more difficult to shoot down. Yet first the missle missed it's intended target and accidently knocks out an old sattelite system.
So you spend billions of dollars to shoot down weapons of the enemy, yet then because the entire system is an utter failure justify it by doing garbage duty? Lol. That's a big failure in my book.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

ABS? What's that? Anyone got any useful links to any of this crap?

There have been several successful SDI tests of late, including a successful first run for ABL at the Edward's AFB SIL facility, in preparation for flight testing of the flying flashlight in it's modified 747-200 in the near future.

There's nothing inherently wrong with the technology of ballistic missile defense, and frankly, as more and more turd world countries get missile technology, (thanks, Bill, we appreciate all you've done to us) the need for effective real time missile defenses with national coverage is only going to increase.

Yet another reason why idiots living on hurricane tracks should rebuild their own damn homes and the money saved should be spent on underpaid aerospace engineers living in Los Angeles.

 

[RightinNYC]

Moderator's Warning:

Please post only breaking news with a link and proper title in the breaking news forum.

 

[cherokee]

Shooting down satellites is actually nothing new. Pegasus rockets have had that ability for a long time.
The ABS system was intended to destroy incoming warheads. Much much more difficult to shoot down. Yet first the missle missed it's intended target and accidently knocks out an old sattelite system.
So you spend billions of dollars to shoot down weapons of the enemy, yet then because the entire system is an utter failure justify it by doing garbage duty? Lol. That's a big failure in my book.

LOL..Sorry buddy but the Pegasus project was never intended to shoot down sats. It was and still is used today to place low orbit sats.
It’s had only 37 launches in its lifetime because of its limited ability to carry heavier payloads.
Why in gods name would anyone try to use a rocket that has to be launched from a plane to take out a target sat when a modified ICBM would do the job at ½ the time and cost?

ABS? Maybe you’re thinking of BP which never left the ground.

Always…Its real name is ABM.
Now the PAC-3 worked 100% on short-range missiles but it not was not tested on long range since none where fired in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
The newest design is THAAD (Long range/Higher altitude targets) while it was started in 92, it’s gone thru several revisions and is still a working project today.
A successful project.
But you cant ignore Boeing work on the Airborne Laser.

 

[cherokee]

Nasa's new plan!

A few other funny stories from that web site are

Hamas Calls For 'Giant Summit' With All Israelis
February 15, 2006 | Issue 42•07
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/45357


Don Knotts, Richard Pryor Team Up For Madcap Haunting
http://www.theonion.com/content/local


Passengers Bravely Take Down Plane Showing Big Momma's House 2
May 24, 2006 | Issue 42•21
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/48747



Army Of Identical Scientists Demands Legislative Support For Cloning
February 20, 2006 | Issue 42•08
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/45577


And the last one...

Archaeological Dig Uncovers Ancient Race Of Skeleton People
December 8, 1999 | Issue 35•45
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29976

 

[cranston36]

NASA is in the way of human endeavor and private enterprise. They don't produce science anymore. They waste money.

 

[Tashah]

NASA is in the way of human endeavor and private enterprise. They don't produce science anymore. They waste money.

You're as wrong as wrong can be. I myself use data supplied by NASA launched scientific satellites. I would strongly suggest that you explore the contemporary realms of astrophysics, astronomy, and cosmology before making such unfounded and disingenuous statements.

 

[cranston36]

You posted your opinion, Tasha and have not supported it with facts.

NASA is a waste of money, time and effort.

 

[Tashah]

You posted your opinion, Tasha and have not supported it with facts. NASA is a waste of money, time and effort.

Well cranston, I am a physicist who has had extensive dealings with NASA. What exactly are your qualifications again?

You've made the assertion that NASA is a waste of 'money, time and effort'. Beyond your personal sentiment, show us in empirical terms exactly how the investment is not worth the benefits. You put forth a postulate cranston, therefore the intellectual onus to prove its mettle resides with you.

 

[Hoot]

I support NASA 100%...I always have, and my background was in the field of Satellite communications for the military, with a top secret security clearance and the honor of graduating from the longest school the military offered at that time...26Yankee. ( A school no longer in existence because of it's length. It has since been separated into 2-3 different schools.)

As far as NASA, since 1976 there have been at least 1,400 documented inventions that have touched the lives of every single American...inventions that not only benefited U.S. industry, but improved the quality of life and created jobs...including advancements in the health field...advancements that have saved lifes.

For just two examples, a kidney dialysis machine was invented by NASA because of the need to have a chemical process to remove toxic waste from fluid. Cat Scanners, which can find tumors in the human body came about as a result of NASA developing a computerized system to find imperfections in areospace structures and components.

The list goes on forever....If I was in charge, NASA would have ten times the money allocated to their research.

I will say though, that I DO NOT support weapons in space. I prefer that a world-wide ban be enforced to prevent this possible occurence. Space should be kept free and the advancements shared with the world for the benefit of all.

 

[Jay R]

I will say though, that I DO NOT support weapons in space. I prefer that a world-wide ban be enforced to prevent this possible occurence. Space should be kept free and the advancements shared with the world for the benefit of all.

:rofl "Can't we all just get along?" Laughed my a** off reading that. Like we can even control the arms trade on Earth.

Good post, I just found the innocent naivety of the last point hilarious. It was a hoot!:mrgreen:

Does NASA get to hold patents on the stuff it develops or is there an exception as it's a government funded operation? You'd think they'd be taking a fair bit of money on that. I've no idea, just thinking in type.

 

[RightinNYC]

While its pretty clear that NASA has done amazing things in its time, and likely continues to do them now, I think that as with all government bureaucracies, over time they need to be refocused and reevaluated. There is an incredible amount of private investment and innovation occurring in the space industry currently, most of it undoubtedly piggy backing off of NASA research to some degree. However, I think that because of its effective monopoly on space flight and its overwhelming budget and freedom from the constraints of profitability, NASA is curbing private development.

Say it costs a business 1 million to send a payload to space, and they offer to do it for 2 million, turning a profit. It might cost NASA 5 million, but they can offer to do it for $500,000 because they don't need to be profitable. It's the Amtrak syndrome, and something should be done about it...

 

[Hoot]

:rofl "Can't we all just get along?" Laughed my a** off reading that. Like we can even control the arms trade on Earth.

Good post, I just found the innocent naivety of the last point hilarious. It was a hoot!:mrgreen:

Does NASA get to hold patents on the stuff it develops or is there an exception as it's a government funded operation? You'd think they'd be taking a fair bit of money on that. I've no idea, just thinking in type.

Well...maybe I'm dreaming on the banning of weapons in space, but as Lennon would say..."I'm not the only one."

 

[Tashah]

However, I think that because of its effective monopoly on space flight and its overwhelming budget and freedom from the constraints of profitability, NASA is curbing private development.

There are numerous efforts underway by private business to enter into the realm of orbital flight. For the sake of safety, they are regulated by the Department of Transportation and monitored by NASA, the USAF, and the FAA.

Say it costs a business 1 million to send a payload to space, and they offer to do it for 2 million, turning a profit. It might cost NASA 5 million, but they can offer to do it for $500,000 because they don't need to be profitable. It's the Amtrak syndrome, and something should be done about it...

NASA is a not-for-profit government organization. However, that does not infer that NASA has bottomless pockets or is not results oriented. NASA simply must be results oriented or Congress will slash its funding. NASA has a yearly budget and MUST stay within bugetary confines. Each approved project is allocated a portion of the yearly NASA funds. These projects CANNOT overrun their funding. There are numerous accounting proceedures to insure this. If a project is at anytime projected by NASA to be in the throes of a cost overrun, that project is given X amount of time to remedy the situation or... the funding will be directed elsewhere. Therefore, it is up to project managers and engineers to obtain the highest rewards for the least expense. As an example, if engineering ingenuity brings a project under budget, they can then apply the excess funding to add an additional instrument to the payload. This is project heaven! and is what all scientists and engineers strive for.

As far as device patents etc, these items remain the intellectual and real property of the originating scientist/engineer.