US space program and military communications at risk due to Russian rocket engine ban

A ban on the rockets supply to the US heavy booster, Atlas V, which delivers weighty military communications satellites and deep space exploration vehicles into orbit, could put a stop to NASA’s space programs – not just military satellites. An unnamed representative of Russia’s Federal Space Agency told the Izvestia newspaper that the Security Council is reconsidering the role of Russia’s space industry in the American space exploration program, particularly the 2012 contract on delivering to the US heavy-duty RD-180 rocket engines.

Russian rocket engine ban

Then again, RT is the new Pravda.

As long as some people believe and promote the government line that we don't have a space-capable vehicle for manned flight, I'll keep jumping in to remind them that the black triangles seem to very easily fit the bill for a general purpose weapon and supply vehicle. They are undeniable. Reports of their immense size (that of a C-5 or larger) and fantastic capabilities of motion given time and time again by citizens (myself include) are indicative that they are capable hardware that make rockets totally obsolete.

The US government has never supplied us with a good answer to why the US space vehicle programs ended with the retirement of the shuttle. The simple reason is because we have cracked the ability to build UFO-like vehicles. So those fantastic, dark triangular shapes hide a lot more secrets than merely being a new type of craft.
Keep in mind that they are not even "aircraft." They don't use atmospheric air for lift or control.

reply to post by Aliensun


Any chance you could not jump in about Black Triangles and secret propulsion in my threads. Just saying. I know it is an open forum and all, but I like to stick to factual information.

I tried to post an interesting article on what basically amounts to a failure on the US government by allowing outsourcing to Russia for rocket engines. It has absolutely nothing to do with Black Triangles.

Originally posted by Aliensun
As long as some people believe and promote the government line that we don't have a space-capable vehicle for manned flight, I'll keep jumping in to remind them that the black triangles seem to very easily fit the bill for a general purpose weapon and supply vehicle. They are undeniable. Reports of their immense size (that of a C-5 or larger) and fantastic capabilities of motion given time and time again by citizens (myself include) are indicative that they are capable hardware that make rockets totally obsolete.

Yes there was a time when i noticed 'UFO'S' ( in the sense that they really are unidentified) quite often when looking at 'chemtrails' and all the related weather phenomenon. My conclusion at the time was basically that the US would not mess up it's own weather patterns like that and would also not have a obvious reason to send their own high tech 'aircraft' ( oval/circle ish shaped craft) to observe these events so my theory was that whichever foreign power were changing US weather patterns were also deploying these high tech craft to monitor the US chemtrail laying aircraft ( chem trails being a means to interpret what was being done to the weather patterns) over the continental US. Either way these craft seem to be pretty ubiquitous on chemtrail forums and i still think that is significant even if i am less sure as to the who and the why than i used to be.

The US government has never supplied us with a good answer to why the US space vehicle programs ended with the retirement of the shuttle.

Because the space shuttle's were terribly expensive way of doing what they were supposedly doing and there are not too many reasons one can think of for their continued usage when they have proved to be so unreliable despite the best efforts of some of the best and brightest minds.

* The US had no better way of accomplishing satellite launches and crew delivery to LEO..
* Regular bureaucratic ineptitude and contract fraud kept the Shuttle's in service despite tremendous mission costs.
*The Us were being actively prevented by some foreign ( or i guess REALLY foreign) powers from replacing the shuttle with a useful launch vehicle and the best compromise was to use the shuttle in a quasi military capacity but with civilian 'cover'; enemies can not blow it up if everyone believes it has a non military function.

That's pretty much the major themes but perhaps you can think of better reasons why the Russians of supposedly all are providing the US with the rockets to keep it's civilian/military space program going.

The simple reason is because we have cracked the ability to build UFO-like vehicles. So those fantastic, dark triangular shapes hide a lot more secrets than merely being a new type of craft.
Keep in mind that they are not even "aircraft." They don't use atmospheric air for lift or control.

Sure but the massive build up of conventional US forces suggest, if it isn't just the same old contract&military establishment fraud, EXACTLY the opposite and is in line with these fantastic craft actually belonging to someone or *something* else. Why didn't the US take our Yugoslavia, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan and whoever else stands up with this force of high tech aircraft? Why did the US require ten years of sanctions and air bombardment before they felt confident in finishing off Saddam? Why was the air campaign against Yugoslavia such an abortion of an operation? It my reasoning it certainly makes more sense if these high tech craft were in fact preventing or reigning IN us aggression against the rest of the world.....

But yes, when discussing this sort of thing there is more conjecture involved in tying the 'facts'&'observations' together than there are facts and observations to be tied together so one really can let your imagination go and have much strait faced 'fun' with it. It's something like cosmology models where it all hangs together pretty well as long as you presume into existence 95% more mass than you can observe with your current level of technology. If that doesn't help you to believe to go where your best reasoning from primary source material leads you i do not know what will!

Cheers,

Stellar

Originally posted by Aliensun
The US government has never supplied us with a good answer to why the US space vehicle programs ended with the retirement of the shuttle.

Actual facts.

1) The reasons for ending the shuttle were explicitly discussed in enormous detail. In a nutshell, too expensive for the capability.

2) US space vehicle programs have not ended. There is the usual suspects from Big Contractor, Delta & Atlas, and then newer rockets from Orbital and completely home grown design from SpaceX. And then there is the SLS (Senate Launch System) to give some more pork to red districts.

The simple reason is because we have cracked the ability to build UFO-like vehicles.

It would be cool, but no evidence. In any case, even if it were true, what makes you think that a large black triangle that can fly low and slow and quiet could possibly get a large payload up into orbital speeds? What if it were an electrostatically powered stealth blimp? Might be nice for special forces logistics, but it ain't putting even Sputnik in orbit.

Originally posted by gariac

A ban on the rockets supply to the US heavy booster, Atlas V, which delivers weighty military communications satellites and deep space exploration vehicles into orbit, could put a stop to NASA’s space programs – not just military satellites. An unnamed representative of Russia’s Federal Space Agency told the Izvestia newspaper that the Security Council is reconsidering the role of Russia’s space industry in the American space exploration program, particularly the 2012 contract on delivering to the US heavy-duty RD-180 rocket engines.

Russian rocket engine ban

Then again, RT is the new Pravda.

Actually might be good for the US. If the Russians cut off the RD-180, Falcon 9 Heavy gets the go-ahead.

reply to post by mbkennel

Actually might be good for the US. If the Russians cut off the RD-180, Falcon 9 Heavy gets the go-ahead.

Shocker! A relevant post.

If you are on the Vandenberg mailing list, there is a flight of the Falcon 9 soon. The author gets real cranky about information from his website being cut and paste, but here is the link.
upcoming KVBG launches

I don't have it handy, but I think the Falcon Heavy (used to be called the Falcon 9 Heavy) was targeted (notice I didn't say scheduled) to fly in Jan 2014 from KVBG.

Actually might be good for the US. If the Russians cut off the RD-180, Falcon 9 Heavy gets the go-ahead.

Shocker! A relevant post.

Just obvious.... The Falcon 9 will go ahead anyways as Musk wont stop unless stopped by a premature death.

If you are on the Vandenberg mailing list, there is a flight of the Falcon 9 soon. The author gets real cranky about information from his website being cut and paste, but here is the link.
upcoming KVBG launches

I don't have it handy, but I think the Falcon Heavy (used to be called the Falcon 9 Heavy) was targeted (notice I didn't say scheduled) to fly in Jan 2014 from KVBG.

Thank you for the link and i absolutely agree that any dependence on Russian rocket motors should be seen for just how ridiculous it is. They already had astronauts trotted out to 'attack' ( or that is what it seemed liked to me) private industry, by which they meant Elon Musk, but i do not think the RSS will have much luck with their little rocket pork project if they mean to go up against Musk.

Stellar

reply to post by StellarX


As far as I understand, most of the demand for D4 Heavy/Atlas sized payloads is from US government, and mostly classified cargo.

So far, the usual suspects in Military Industrial Complex (ULA) get them by default as they provide continuing employment and consulting gigs to retired military/intelligence people---and they're the only option now. They will continue to get contracts at $400 million for political/bureaucratic reasons. If, however, Russia cuts off the main engine production, maybe they might begrudgingly look at Falcon. There is still Delta (hydrogen and not kerosene)

It's not known if SpaceX's numbers are believable but they're promising nearly 2x the payload of a D4 Heavy at half the cost.