Even if they are painted black?Cog wrote:Not sure if you can truly lose a satellite since they are observable by amateur astronomers.
Even if they are painted black?Cog wrote:Not sure if you can truly lose a satellite since they are observable by amateur astronomers.
vtsnowedin wrote:Even if they are painted black?Cog wrote:Not sure if you can truly lose a satellite since they are observable by amateur astronomers.
Might be easier to just say it is gathering data for the climate change crowd and have it do it's real mission on the QT embedded in the data stream.Cog wrote:vtsnowedin wrote:Even if they are painted black?Cog wrote:Not sure if you can truly lose a satellite since they are observable by amateur astronomers.
Occlusion of stars, by the passage of the satellite, would still happen black or not. I'm also surmising the Chinese and Russians have the ability to use radar the same way we do to keep track of objects in orbit. Unless there is some radar defeating stealth to this thing. Not saying this isn't some sort of secret mission, testing some new technology though.
Cog wrote:Now put on your tin-foil hats. The Zuma launch was not a failure. The Zuma launch was a target for whatever weapon was put onboard the X37B space plane. The same space plane that was launched by SpaceX September 2017.
vtsnowedin wrote:Cog wrote:Now put on your tin-foil hats. The Zuma launch was not a failure. The Zuma launch was a target for whatever weapon was put onboard the X37B space plane. The same space plane that was launched by SpaceX September 2017.
No tin foil needed for that to be plausible. Hope they didn't really use a high tech, high cost satellite when any hunk of junk would do.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tanada wrote:vtsnowedin wrote:Cog wrote:Now put on your tin-foil hats. The Zuma launch was not a failure. The Zuma launch was a target for whatever weapon was put onboard the X37B space plane. The same space plane that was launched by SpaceX September 2017.
No tin foil needed for that to be plausible. Hope they didn't really use a high tech, high cost satellite when any hunk of junk would do.
LOL given you have no more idea what ZUMA was than I do for all we know it was a black plastic 55 gallon barrel filled with tap water! NASA did some pretty neat tests in the early 1960's exploding barrels of water at extreme sub orbital altitudes. The nice thing is they have a lot of mass but other than the container there is nothing left to run into after the explosion because the water turns to vapor.
Besides under your scenario they would target a dead satellite that at least four space agencies track on every orbit, the USAF missile command, the Russian ABM command, the Chinese space command and the European space surveillance authority. If someone did a test on a well established object everyone would know it, if someone shoots down an object that has not made even one complete orbit it is much more mystery than knowledge.
You didn't really think they spent $5000 on a toilet seat did you?
Cog wrote:SpaceX is doing incredibly well and is set to make billions more.
radon1 wrote:The advantage of solid fueled rockets is a much greater safety and cheaper maintenance. The disadvantage is a significant loss in maneuverability and precision as the thrust cannot be managed actively.
radon1 wrote:Liquid rocket fuels have historically been lethally poisonous and quickly vaporizing, and thus required regular re-fueling with lots of special equipment at the stationary silos. Possibly, this has changed now.
dissident wrote:radon1 wrote:Liquid rocket fuels have historically been lethally poisonous and quickly vaporizing, and thus required regular re-fueling with lots of special equipment at the stationary silos. Possibly, this has changed now.
You are implicitly talking about hydrazine. But the point of using this toxic fuel was precisely to not have to refuel ICBMs all the time. This liquid fuel could sit inside the silo ICBM tanks for decades. By contrast cryogenic fuels such as LOX and LH cannot be used until just before the rocket flight. This is especially true of LH since it leaks like there is no tomorrow through nanofractures and even "tight" valves. Other gases do not have this problem.
Ilon Musk is a snake oil salesman and all the focus this showboater gets is unwarranted. I would rather pay attention to Blue Origin.
Return to North America Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests