Customer Discussions > Science Fiction forum

The Real Upcoming Space Wars?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 151-175 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 26, 2009 5:46:51 PM PST
Flowerbug says:
RE: Walter R Johnson . . .
Here's a link to a report from a consulting firm that basically says that space based weapon systems are too expensive and not particularly effective - for the time being, at least.
http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/R.20071031.Arming_the_Heavens/R.20071031.Arming_the_Heavens.pdf

me: when you talk of space . . you mean outer space or imploded space . . . internal black hole, dark matter . . space . . .? . .

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 26, 2009 6:03:27 PM PST
Flowerbug says:
BA Diger . .:Am I really suppose to say something intelligent here? Well...What if the aliens are controlling what we write on the Internet by creating rumors of alien technologies being secretly developed?

-- when the aliens want to talk about Greenland over and over again . . then you know there's a problem. (or . . some other large country over in . . . you know . . .)

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 26, 2009 6:35:15 PM PST
Flowerbug says:
-- was it SALT or SALT II projects in space . . I forgot. Let's bring down the wall and win one for the gipper . . . anyway . . it's hard to say what we should do about the Death Star . . . is it glowing or is it just a reflection . . .? . . .

Posted on Dec 27, 2009 8:07:30 AM PST
Hi Flowerbug!

Let's see if I can answer most of your recent questions:

http://www/dailygalaxy.com/
(Lists all current articles, including ANTI-MATTER LIGHTNING DISCOVERED ON EARTH)

http://plasma2.ssl.berkeley.edu/ConstellationClassMissions/panetta.pdf
(This is an undated PDF titled "NANO-SATELLITE TECHNOLOGY".)

http://jdw.janes.com/public/jdw/index.shtml
(This is Jane's Defense Weekly's current list of articles (you have to be a subscriber to read the entire article). One article abstract in this index states that the U.S. and Russia should have their new START treaty signed by year's end.)

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2009 1:18:29 PM PST
Flowerbug says:
RE: Marilyn Martin . . .

-- thanks . . the nano-satellite article was good . . also, they talk about heuristic programming for each satellite . . . do you have any other articles on AI and /or heuristic programming for satellite deployment and why we need AI out in space . . .

-- thanks again . . . .

Posted on Dec 28, 2009 7:30:52 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 28, 2009 7:36:28 AM PST
Hi Flowerbug!

Here are some more links that may interest you:

http://heuretics.wordpress.com
(A good basic description of "heuretics".)

http://www.nanotech-now.com/
(Some good articles on nano-tech in satellites.)

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/06/04/Casper/index.html
(This 2001 article from CNN says that NASA starting launching satellites with AI in 2002 - "NASA Satellites to use Artifical Intelligence".)

http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/7346/1/03-1139.pdf
(This is an interesting NASA/JPL presentation from 2003, "Goals For Future NASA Space Systems", that includes some nano technology.)

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 29, 2009 10:48:48 AM PST
Flowerbug says:
-- great Marilyn . . any articles on heuristics as it relates to AI and other forms of computer programming . . .

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 29, 2009 11:16:14 AM PST
M. Helsdon says:
"any articles on heuristics as it relates to AI and other forms of computer programming"

As a starter (it is a little rambling but makes valid points):

http://www.rogerdavies.com/2009/01/artificial-intelligence-ai-part-i-importants-of-heuristics-and-teaching-machines-to-think/

For some terminology:

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/whatisai/node2.html

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 29, 2009 12:02:17 PM PST
Flowerbug says:
RE: M Helsdon . .

-- the first article was great. It's hard to say what life will be like once all the undesirables are gone and you're left with Marilyn Monroe . . . still I like the way the author thinks and . . . there's still more to understand . . .

--referring to: http://www.rogerdavies.com/2009/01/artificial-intelligence-ai-part-i-importants-of-heuristics-and-teaching-machines-to-think/

Posted on Dec 30, 2009 11:36:37 AM PST
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/12/micro-fusion-for-space-propulsion-and.html

"MICRO-FUSION FOR SPACE PROPULSION AND WEAPONS" - From Dec. 2008, this is an article based on the (finally) declassified work of Friedwardt Winterberg's research (1950s-1970s) on micro-fusion.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2010 8:16:17 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 1, 2010 10:26:20 AM PST
Hi Flowerbug!

Below is a link to a 2007 Sanford University article, "BRANCHES OF AI". It includes an entry for heuristics as "...a way to discover something imbedded in a program ...". (I know it's dated, but it gives a good, basic explanation of the different types of AI, at least up thru 2007.)

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/whatisai/node2.html

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2010 9:13:00 AM PST
To Flowerbug:
RE: "when you talk of space . . you mean outer space or imploded space . . . internal black hole, dark matter . . space . . .? . ."

I'm referring to a volume of space that starts at (according to NASA) 50 miles (80 kilometers) above Earth's surface and extends radially to the edge of the observable universe. NOTE: The age of the Universe is about 13.7 billion years, but due to the expansion of space we are now observing objects that are now considerably farther away than a static 13.7 billion light-years distance. The edge of the observable universe is now located about 46.5 billion light-years away [1, 2].
Reference:
1. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#DN
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

What is so-called "imploded space"? Is that the space that is inside the event horizon of a black hole?

Dark matter is, so far, a theoretical contruct only. However there are many centers, including the LHC, that are currently carrying on investigations.

Posted on Jan 1, 2010 10:23:21 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 1, 2010 10:24:38 AM PST
http://technovelgy.com

This is a fun site! It categorizes ideas and inventions by science fiction writers. And acknowledges when one of those ideas/inventions has later been actually created. Great way for sci fi writers to check if their cutting-edge "idea" has already been done. Or how another author treated a similar idea/invention.

At the bottom of their (left-hand column) category of "Weapon", are some interesting ideas that also may one day be science "fact". An Assassin Bird? (Calling DARPA ...) Ballisticules? Cephalotropic dart?

Posted on Jan 6, 2010 9:21:22 AM PST
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/

Today's nextbigfuture.com has an article titled "MICRO UAV ASSASSINATION ROBOT COMPLETED". (The smallest drone in service, this is thought to be an armed version of the Wasp Micro UAV. Its endurance is 45 minutes, and its line of sight control extends for 3 miles. It's possible it is already in use by special forces in combat zones.)

Hmmm ... Did anyone see my post before this? About an "assassin bird" thought up by a sci fi writer?

Posted on Jan 14, 2010 10:43:04 AM PST
Below are some links/references to articles about current and future cutting-edge weaponry:

http://aerospace-engineering.suite101.com/article.cfm/laser_guns_rail_guns_and_invisibility_cloaks
LASER BEAMS, RAIL GUNS AND INVISIBILITY CLOAKS (11/09 - When Science Fiction Becomes Science Fact. "Just recently, the British Military was able to make a battle tank completely invisible by using cameras and projectors to map images of the surrounding terrain onto the tank.")

http://journal.borderlands.com/1996/the-sonic-weapon-of-vladimir-gavreau/
(Long but good background article on psychotronic and infrasonic weapons.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_weapon
(Quick explanation of sonic weaponry, with a list of "conceptual weapons in development". Including a Vortex ring gun; sonic bullets; ultrasound beam to liquefy living tissue; and powerful low frequency sounds to resonate structures and cause them to collapse.)

Remember those sky-spirals? Some thought they were wormholes or openings into another dimension. The Russians claimed they were their failed rocket tests. Russia Today (RT.com) reports that the Russian military has stopped their Bulava missile tests (which supposedly caused the sky-spirals) until summer 2010. They cited "floating failure" during each Baluva test, meaning that each time the rocket failed in a new way.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2010 11:45:15 AM PST
M. Helsdon says:
"Remember those sky-spirals? Some thought they were wormholes or openings into another dimension. The Russians claimed they were their failed rocket tests. Russia Today (RT.com) reports that the Russian military has stopped their Bulava missile tests (which supposedly caused the sky-spirals) until summer 2010. They cited "floating failure" during each Baluva test, meaning that each time the rocket failed in a new way."

Oh yes, I remember those... 8-))))

http://www.amazon.com/tag/aliens/forum/ref=cm_cd_pg_next?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1M0WJNFU1QN90&cdPage=31&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3OP5P62HBKV8M&displayType=tagsDetail

Posted on Dec 11, 2009 8:00 AM PST

Last edited by the author on Dec 11, 2009 8:02 AM PST

Marilyn Martin says:

International news broke a curious story yesterday, about how Norway got to view a Russian missile self-destructing overhead. However, if you view the (supposed) self-destructing Russian missile, it is the same Russian "sky-spiral" seen before in You Tube clips. (And one clip was from over Moscow, so I'm already suspicious that the Norway-viewing was a dangerous missile test!)

Without trying to start or feed any conspiracy theories, let's examine these Russian "sky-spirals" with some speculative logic. If they are indeed attempts to access other dimensions, I'll list some possible reasons why the Russians are so interested in this:

1) They could travel unseen, possibly at speeds beyond what are possible in our accessible dimensions.

2) They might be able to meet up with war-like alien craft who stay in that unseen dimension, to "do a deal" for advanced weaponry beyond our imaginations.

3) The global Balance of Power would shift overnight, if the Russians were able to achieve one or both of the above.

The Russian approach to UFOs has always been curious to me. On one hand, they spend time, money and effort making (increasingly better) bogus UFO/aerial-phenomenon footage. While their real energy seems to go into things like these "sky-spirals", that they try to pass off as failed missile tests. And, to the best of my knowledge (Avraham can correct me, if I'm wrong) no other nation on the planet is conducting such ambitious overhead experiments like the "sky-spirals". The U.S. may have the most captured and/or contracted ETs, but common sense tells you that these technologically-advanced ETs are never going to "give away" all their tech secrets.

So is Russia bypassing the (U.S. favored) ET-connection and underground laboratories, by conducting dimensional tests overhead? Maybe they found the key to cracking into another dimension by analyzing data from a real "failed test"?

(P.S. - My husband is watching the movie "Alien Nation" on TV, and one "newcomer" has the name Martin Heldon ...)

Posted on Dec 11, 2009 9:10 AM PST

Marilyn Martin says:

More confusion over the Russian "sky-spiral" sighting recently seen near Norway, that was an alleged "missile test" gone wrong. Jane's Defence Weekly lists a 12/11/09 article titled RUSSIA ACHIEVES SUCCESSFUL TEST LAUNCH OF A TOPOL ICBM. (You have to be a subscriber to read the entire article.)

So now we have an announced "failed" missile test - that was a success after all! (Providing that this is all in reference to the same Russian missile-test a few days ago. Which it most likely is, since the time-frame matches, and I doubt several missile-tests would have been conducted at the same time.)

Are the Russians scrambling to explain the "sky-spiral"? Was the "sky-spiral" the real objective, covered up by some supposed "missile test"? The flip-flop by Russia over a missile test that was said to be a failure, then a success, is very suspicious.

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Dec 11, 2009 10:12 AM PST

M. Helsdon says:

"International news broke a curious story yesterday, about how Norway got to view a Russian missile self-destructing overhead. However, if you view the (supposed) self-destructing Russian missile, it is the same Russian "sky-spiral" seen before in You Tube clips."

Not in the footage I've seen. Missile failures at high altitude will often demonstrate similar results; this was a third stage failure of the Bulava, fired from the Dmitry Donskoi submarine in the White Sea, the usual site for such missile tests by Russian submarines. The RSM-56 Bulava is derived from the Topol M, but is lighter and more sophisticated, capable of carrying six MIRV warheads.

"Without trying to start or feed any conspiracy theories, let's examine these Russian "sky-spirals" with some speculative logic. If they are indeed attempts to access other dimensions, I'll list some possible reasons why the Russians are so interested in this:"

Those three dubious speculations would be conspiracy theories and not based in reality.

"The Russian approach to UFOs has always been curious to me. On one hand, they spend time, money and effort making (increasingly better) bogus UFO/aerial-phenomenon footage. While their real energy seems to go into things like these "sky-spirals", that they try to pass off as failed missile tests. And, to the best of my knowledge (Avraham can correct me, if I'm wrong) no other nation on the planet is conducting such ambitious overhead experiments like the "sky-spirals."

There are as many people elsewhere in the world fabricating hoaxes.

The "sky spirals" are an effect of a missile malfunction. Russian newspapers have reported thirteen similar failures, so it looks like there is a serious problem with the design and/or engineering of the Baluva.

"So is Russia bypassing the (U.S. favored) ET-connection and underground laboratories, by conducting dimensional tests overhead? Maybe they found the key to cracking into another dimension by analyzing data from a real "failed test"?"

Reality failure.

"More confusion over the Russian "sky-spiral" sighting recently seen near Norway, that was an alleged "missile test" gone wrong. Jane's Defence Weekly lists a 12/11/09 article titled RUSSIA ACHIEVES SUCCESSFUL TEST LAUNCH OF A TOPOL ICBM. (You have to be a subscriber to read the entire article.)"

The Norwegian "sky-spiral" was seen on Wednesday, 9 December 2009. The Topol is an entirely different missile, and one was successfully launched in November. The land-based Topol missile family is tried and tested; the sub-launched Baluva has been less successful.

"The flip-flop by Russia over a missile test that was said to be a failure, then a success, is very suspicious."

Only if you fail to understand that these were two different missile firings, of different missiles at different places and times.

Posted on Jan 15, 2010 7:57:36 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 15, 2010 7:58:13 AM PST
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1234773/The_answer_mystery_Norways_spiral_light_display_Was_failed_Russian_Bulava_missle_test.html

This December 2009 article says that Russia finally came clean, and admitted that the Norway sky spiral was the result of one of its failed Bulava rocket tests. This delay in admitting the truth (Russia initially denied it), only fueled the speculation over what the sky spirals were.

Curiously, this article also mentions a similar sky spiral seen over China the year before. Are both countries testing similar types of rockets?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 15, 2010 8:07:55 AM PST
M. Helsdon says:
"Curiously, this article also mentions a similar sky spiral seen over China the year before. Are both countries testing similar types of rockets?"

These are a common feature of certain types of missile failure, especially at high altitude, prior to the vehicle being issued a destruct when it flies out of control.

Posted on Jan 18, 2010 9:09:05 AM PST
http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Soviet_Star_Wars.html

This long Jan. 2010 historical article explores SOVIET STAR WARS. Or "The launch that saved the world from orbiting laser battle stations." (As the saying goes, "If you don't know history, you are bound to keep making the same mistakes.")

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 18, 2010 9:26:56 AM PST
M. Helsdon says:
" Marilyn Martin says: http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Soviet_Star_Wars.html"

The correct address is:

http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Soviet-Star-Wars.html

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 18, 2010 6:40:31 PM PST
Ronald Craig says:
(Details, details... LOL)

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 19, 2010 7:41:15 PM PST
To Marilyn Martin:
Thank you for the link to the excellent article.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 19, 2010 7:52:32 PM PST
To M. Helsdon:
Thank you for the correction.

Posted on Jan 25, 2010 10:05:28 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 25, 2010 10:06:46 AM PST
http://jdw.janes.com/public/jdw/indes.shtml

Today's index of Jane's defense articles, includes the following, all from January 2010. (Again, you have to be a subscriber to access the entire article).

U.S. ARMY BEGINS 'SKY WARRIOR' OPERATIONS IN IRAQ - Operational missions have begun with the new drone GA-ASI (General Atomic Aeronautical Systems) MQ-1C. (Is it atomic powered? Then why is NASA cancelling future space missions from lack of plutonium?)

JAGM UNDERGOES CAPTIVE-CARRY TRIALS - New Joint Air-to-Ground missiles are being tested in Southern Arizona.

U.S. ARMY EVALUATES LOAD-CARRYING EXOSKELTONS - These hydraulic-powered outer shells are designed to help soldiers carry up to 200 pounds. (Is "Ironman" becoming reality? Is there a military limit - or limited interest - in nano-technology?)

Posted on Jan 25, 2010 10:23:33 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 25, 2010 10:24:37 AM PST
M. Helsdon says:
"U.S. ARMY BEGINS 'SKY WARRIOR' OPERATIONS IN IRAQ - Operational missions have begun with the new drone GA-ASI (General Atomic Aeronautical Systems) MQ-1C. (Is it atomic powered? Then why is NASA cancelling future space missions from lack of plutonium?)"

The Sky Warrior is not atomic powered but powered by a Thielert Centurion 1.7 Heavy Fuel Engine, a diesel piston engine using jet fuel, to give better performance at high altitudes. The Sky Warrior is an upgrade of the MQ-1 Predator.

The drone is manufactured by GA-ASI, a division of General Atomics; GA have diversified into a variety of areas from their origins and are no longer purely involved in nuclear technologies.

"Then why is NASA cancelling future space missions from lack of plutonium?"

NASA is not cancelling missions because of a lack of Plutonium 238 - the United States stopped making it about 20 years ago; the Russians have a small stockpile but they've stopped making it as well.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science Fiction forum
Participants:  57
Total posts:  1114
Initial post:  Oct 8, 2009
Latest post:  Nov 5, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 8 customers

Search Customer Discussions