Trump tuli ulos eilen. Muistan lukeneeni quoten, missä hän sanoi että jenkkilaivaston lentäjät olivat nähneet jotakin, ja hän ei uskonut se olevan totta. Joten, taboo jatkuu.
Master of Orion?
https://arstechnica.com/science/201...-control-information-about-satellite-program/One of the key themes of HBO's new Chernobyl miniseries is the Soviet Union's control of information. As the television series shows, the state's warping of reality had very real consequences in terms of lives lost.
The control of information has continued into the modern Russian era, as the nation's state television network is now planning its own series to recount the Chernobyl incident. Reportedly, a central theme of the series to be shown to Russian viewers is that American operatives infiltrated the nuclear facility and orchestrated the disaster. (There appears to be no credible evidence that this actually happened.)
This predisposition to avoid or obfuscate information that could be embarrassing to the Russian state also evidently applies to the aerospace industry, with fresh reports from the country saying the leader of Russia's space corporation, Roscosmos, is limiting the flow of news about spaceflight activities.
According to a report in RIA Novosti, Roscosmos head Dmitry Rogozin recently issued a directive classifying information about the condition of Russia’s orbital satellites as "For Official Use Only." One source told the publication, "The directive covers technical information including launches and functional condition of satellite constellations." (A translation of this article was provided to Ars by Robinson Mitchell).
The order requires that any of the press offices of the various companies that comprise the Roscosmos enterprise must receive approval from Roscosmos itself before sharing any information about satellite launches or failures. "Transmission and distribution of any such information using wireless technology, email, faxes, by mobile or landline telephone, or social networking is now banned," according to a second source.
It's not entirely clear what may have prompted the missive from Rogozin, who has had a controversial tenure as head of the Russian space agency and has recently resorted to making wild promises, such as human landings on the Moon by 2030.
The decision may have come down to some recent problems with Russian space satellites and GLONASS, Russia's version of the Global Positioning System. Two GLONASS-M satellites reportedly failed in 2018, bringing the network perilously close to not having enough coverage for the entire Russian territory.
Roscosmos oversees civilian and dual-use spacecraft for Russia, including its Soyuz program that currently transports Russian and US astronauts to the International Space Station. Russia’s Air and Space forces control military satellites. In his annual report earlier this year, Rogozin said Russia currently has 156 civilian and military satellites in orbit, of which 91 are for civilian purposes.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/06/19/aliens_where_are_they/After years of listening to the cosmos, scientists have failed to pick up any sign of alien civilizations. So, the experts have dumped online a petabyte of signals picked up from the Breakthrough Listen project so nerds like you and me can rifle through the readings and have a crack at finding E.T.
A staggering $100m (~£79,6m) went into funding Breakthrough Listen, a project launched in 2016 to detect extraterrestrial communications whizzing across space. It was hoped the astro-geeks would find some confirmation that there are other forms of intelligent life out there.
Three years in, and the eggheads haven’t quite found what they’re looking for, but they have amassed a petabyte of radio and optical data taken from the Green Bank Telescope in West Virginia, USA, and the Parkes Telescope in Australia.
Don’t be naive and think the three USS Nimitz/Go Fast/Gimbal events are the only ones on the “official” books. Luis Elizondo, director of the governmental AATIP, has claimed there were “hundreds” of other incidents in the recent past which are not cleared for public release. But we needn’t care— there are thousands of governmental records (as disclosed via the Freedom of Information act) describing these craft with insane maneuverability as far back as the 40s. So, these advanced crafts do exist— there is no question about it. Here’s what we can say, noting this technology has stayed somewhat stagnant since the days of the “foo fighter” UFOs in WWII:
- Someone has discovered a propulsion technology which does not rely on jets of gas or emission of particles, otherwise, we would see contrails. There are no sonic booms as the craft accelerates. This is a hint that the makers are using some esoteric form of propulsion (related to the gravitational field?).
- Someone has discovered how to make: right-angled turns in all directions at supersonic speeds; almost instantaneous acceleration from rest and similarly almost instantaneous deceleration from supersonic speeds to rest. (I said ALMOST instantaneous— it may well APPEAR instantaneous due to an altered metric tensor. Thus, the apparent time taken for a maneuver would not be the same for the occupants of the aircraft.)
- Thus, someone has discovered how to mitigate g-forces to a very large extent. A highly trained pilot can withstand about 10g’s. But craft described by the military regularly force their internal contents (note: occupants, if there are any) to experience hundreds of g’s. The USS Nimitz UFO dropped from 28 000 feet to 50 feet in 0.78 seconds … That is, for reference, 10 900 m/s. The craft’s other “buddies” (similarly sized capsules) previously had dropped from 80 000 feet to 20 000 feet in a few seconds.
- At the same time, these crafts regularly “glow” in different colors. Red and green “firey” balls were infamously known as “foo fighters” in WWII, following Allies and Axis fighter craft in the night. Thus, the plasma field over their craft is a hint that indeed there is a lot of energy being produced by the craft since the particles are highly excited.https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-...within-a-sphere-See-link/answer/Ibteesam-ReazLt. Graves and his fellow pilots told the newspaper that "the video showed objects accelerating to hypersonic speed, making sudden stops and instantaneous turns — something beyond the physical limits of a human crew."
Among the great conspiracy theories is that they are actually the product of US government black projects. These contracts are assumed to be given out to Lockeed Skunkworks or Northrop Phantomworks. I do work on aerodynamics at Lockheed Martin at Forth Worth and have a few friends from the Skunkworks division here. Whenever I have tried to ask them about the feasibility of black projects resulting in these aircraft, they flat out say that our engineering methodologies are not far enough developed to build such craft. Besides, why would the US be pumping out $60 B on F-35s that can barely reach Mach 2?
And if we did— if we have this advanced technology for ~60+ years— why aren’t they being used in warfare today, at least in an unacknowledged capacity? Why aren’t they being used anywhere in the world in other technological applications? Lastly, how did the US (or Nazi Germany/Soviet Union, if you buy that angle) develop these craft with a comparatively primitive aerospace engineering field in the 40s? That last question is one big problem because these aircraft (with the exact same characteristics and maneuverability) have been seen at least since the 40s.
The senior-most radar technologist on the USS Nimitz, Kevin Day (also the man who ordered the intercept of the tic tac UFO) claimed there were “hundreds” of other companion craft which dropped from 80 000 ft to 20 000 ft to monitor the situation. Only one, which dropped to 50 feet, tangoed with the two jets. On his appearance of the second episode of Unidentified, he says that the fleet made it all the way to Guadalupe Island near Santa Catalina Island, upon which they disappeared from radar (meaning they had all submerged into the ocean). This really stuck out to me … because Santa Catalina is a hotspot for flying objects submerging into the ocean. Luis Elizondo hinted that, although he couldn’t go into specifics, the military probably had a strong presence on the island, judging from the many radar sites installed. Thus we are left with a stronger impetus to speculate that the US government does indeed have something to do with the tic tac. One of the petty officers’ claim that “men in plainclothes” confiscated the tapes makes more sense now. If indeed this is the case, I must say, most of the aerospace engineers who are not privy to the details of how the craft works are being played for fools. Why are we wasting so much sweat, hard work, money when some select group of people literally have technology that is beyond the reach of modern physics? The entire world and its reliance on power would change … but then again, is that a good thing for the powerful who rely on oil and gas for geopolitical control?
Three more U.S. senators received a classified Pentagon briefing on Wednesday about a series of reported encounters by the Navy with unidentified aircraft, according to congressional and government officials — part of a growing number of requests from members of key oversight committees.
One of them was Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, whose office confirmed the briefing to POLITICO.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...o-sightings/ar-AAD8RRU?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=HPCDHPThe growing congressional interest is credited for playing a major role in the service’s recent decision to update the procedures for pilots and other personnel to report such unexplained sightings, which POLITICO first reported in April.
“In response to requests for information from Congressional members and staff, Navy officials have provided a series of briefings by senior Naval Intelligence officials as well as aviators who reported hazards to aviation safety,” the service said in a statement
They come several days after President Donald Trump told ABC News that he, too, had been briefed on the reports. “I did have one very brief meeting on it,” he said. “But people are saying they’re seeing UFOs. Do I believe it? Not particularly.”
But several current and former officials with direct knowledge describe the Capitol Hill briefing as the latest for members of Congress and their staff representing the Intelligence, Armed Services and Defense Appropriations panels.
“There are people coming out of the woodwork,” said one former government official who has participated in some of the meetings.
A current intelligence official added: “More requests for briefings are coming in.”
The sessions have been organized by the Navy but have also included staff from the under secretary of Defense for Intelligence, the sources said. Both were not authorized to talk publicly about the briefings.
Advocates for giving the mystery greater attention say they hope Congress will take more formal steps, such as requiring the Department of Defense to collect and complete a detailed analysis of data collected by satellites and other means of unidentified craft intruding into military airspace or operating under the sea.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...are-encountering-be-airborne-radar-reflectorsFollowing the revelations that a series of bizarre encounters between Navy pilots and UFOs had occurred off the east coast of the United States from 2014 to early 2015, The War Zone set out in search of any possible explanation for at least some of these incidents that don't involve fantastic origins or extremely advanced technology. Over the last month, we have identified one possibility, in particular, that is worth mentioning. Instead of anti-gravitational propulsion or flying machines from space, this possibility—and that is all it is, a possibility—has to do with specially designed radar reflector balloons and submarines, as well as a historical precedent for an obscure operational electronic intelligence gathering concept that first came to be during one of the hottest moments of the Cold War.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...occurred-constantly-across-multiple-squadronsOne of the biggest questions surrounding the most recent known spate of UFO encounters with U.S. Navy pilots—those that occurred off the southeastern seaboard of the United States between 2014 and early 2015—pertains to how persistent they actually were. We know Super Hornet aircrews from Strike Fighter Squadron 11 (VFA-11), the Red Rippers, detected unknown objects multiple times on radar and one aircrew even had a close encounter visually with one of them, but what about the rest of the many Hornet squadrons based at Naval Air Station Oceana, not to mention the E-2 Hawkeye squadrons from nearby NAS Norfolk? We have the answer to this question and it is remarkable.
https://www.defenseone.com/politics...-alternatives-independent-space-force/153119/Pentagon leaders were dutifully double-timing toward a new military branch. Then they got new marching orders.
For months, Pentagon officials have been rushing to prepare plans for an independent Space Force, a sixth branch of the military ordered up by President Trump. But since Oct. 26, they have been marching to new White House orders: go back and look at different ways to reorganize the military’s space operations.
One of the four new options is an old one, defense officials said: a space corps that would be part of the Air Force, the way the Marine Corps is part of the Department of the Navy. The proposed structure is similar to a bipartisan proposal that passed in the House but failed in the Senate last year.
Why the second thoughts? The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, suggested that some in the Trump administration fear that the proposed independent Space Force might not make it through Congress.
A former senior defense official said Pentagon officials would be more comfortable with a space corps within the Air Force, but feel Trump’s comments that he wants a “separate but equal” space force have given them little wiggle room.
The four options, according to one of the officials, include: 1) an Air Force-owned space corps that includes only Air Force assets, 2) an Air Force-owned space corps that also takes space-related troops and assets from the Army and Navy, 3) an independent service that takes from the Air Force, Army, and Navy, and 4) an independent service that takes from the three services plus parts of the intelligence community.
Vice President Mike Pence and Deputy Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan — who are leading the reorganization of the military’s space operations — are scheduled to meet Thursday. The two are to discuss the options.
“As part of an ongoing review, the Department is developing options for a Space Force as a sixth military service branch to implement the President’s vision and guidance,” Lt. Col. Joseph Buccino, a Defense Department spokesman, said in an email.
A White House spokeswoman declined to comment.
No matter which option is chosen, the new organization is likely to be called “Space Force”, according to an Oct. 26 White House memo to the Pentagon. The memo is from Scott Pace, who is the National Space Council’s executive secretary, and Earl Matthews, who directs defense policy and strategy at the National Security Council, and it asks the Pentagon for alternate recommendations.
“As we work to meet the President’s intent of establishing a separate but distinct branch of the Armed Forces for Space, [we] request that the Department of Defense provide analysis and recommendations to the President on the optimal organizational construct to meet his intent,” they wrote.
The memo asks the Pentagon to decide whether it would be “best served by the establishment … of a new independent military department or whether the new Space Force would be most effectively organized as a separate service within the Department of the Air Force.”
The latter option would likely mimic the Marine Corps’ relationship to the Navy. The Marines are run by a four-star general overseen by the civilian Navy secretary.
Four times in the two-page memo, Pace and Matthews stress that the Pentagon’s recommendations should meet the “President’s intent” of establishing a space force. The term “space corps” is not used in the memo.
The memo was sent four days after Defense One published details from a draft of the Pentagon’s proposal to Congress. That draft proposed an independent service that would draw assets from the three spacefaring services but not the National Reconnaissance Office or other parts of the intelligence community.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Countdown_to_NATO_space_strategy_999.htmlNATO will launch its first strategy for space this week as the alliance heads beyond the skies to defend against the likes of China and Russia.
As concerns grow about the possible militarisation of space -- alongside more mundane worries about debris orbiting the Earth -- allied defence ministers will sign off on a policy framework.
The aim is for NATO to make space a full operational domain -- alongside land, sea, air and cyber -- perhaps as early as the alliance summit in London in December, diplomats say.
"Space is part of our daily lives, and while it can be used for peaceful purposes, it can also be used for aggression," NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters.
"Satellites can be jammed, hacked or weaponised. Anti-satellite weapons could cripple communications, so it is important that we are vigilant and resilient."
NATO has tried unsuccessfully to craft a policy in the past, most recently in 2011-12, but officials point to fresh impetus now as space becomes "more congested, contested and competitive".
Around 2,000 active satellites currently orbit the Earth, along with half a million pieces of debris, 30,000 to 40,000 of which are capable of damaging a satellite.
And a NATO official said that while there is so far no known deployment of space-based weapons in orbit, concerns are growing about "more aggressive behaviour" from China and Russia.
Like the US, Russia and China are capable of destroying enemy satellites using missiles fired from Earth, and probably also by engineering deliberate collisions. The three countries may also be developing lasers to blind or damage satellites.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Pentagon_seeks_ideas_for_small_military_space_station_999.htmlThe Defense Innovation Unit of the Pentagon announced a call for ideas for a small, autonomous military space station this week.
The "solicitation brief," known in civilian circles as a request for proposal, seeks "solutions for a self-contained and free flying orbital outpost. The solution must be capable of supporting space assembly, microgravity experimentation, logistics and storage, manufacturing, training, test and evaluation, hosting payloads, and other functions."
It specifies no more than 35 cubic feet of available experimentation space, indicating it is inappropriate for human habitation. The craft must be able to move in its own orbit, be made of material conducive to low Earth orbit, and be ready for flight two years after a contractor is chosen, the brief stipulates.
The space station would be scalable, or expandable, with the capability of carrying attachments, such as an exterior robotic arm, and eventually, human passengers. The brief does not specifically address the craft's purpose, but appears to be a space station exclusively for military purposes.
A 186-pound payload is also specified, as well as "zero to one atmosphere pressurization," indication the craft would operate in near-vacuum conditions and further suggesting that it will not be designed for human space travel.
In the early 1960s, the U.S. Air Force proposed a similar effort, the Manned Orbiting Laboratory, which was scrapped after it was determined that satellites could accomplish tasks less expensively. The Soviet Union had several manned military space stations, known as the Salyut series, but those, too were eliminated in favor of satellites.
The Pentagon currently seeks only ideas on what to launch into space, what Col. Steve Bulow of the DIU called "the 'how' rather than the 'why,'" and must adhere to the Outer Space Treaty, which specifies a ban on nuclear weapons in space.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/U...fuses_talks_with_Russia_says_Sterlin_999.htmlPresident Donald Trump decreed in February to establish the US Space Force in a bid to counter China and Russia in the space among other priorities. Moscow has repeatedly urged for the prevention of an arms race in space and its transformation into another theatre of armed confrontation.
The head of the Russian General of Staff, Andrei Sterlin, has said in a statement that the United States is looking to use space as a theatre of war. He condemned Washington for its refusal to engage in talks on the non-deployment of weapons with Russia and China.
"The Pentagon considers space as a potential theatre of military operations and demands to maintain complete freedom of manoeuvre in this direction. In this regard, the United States refuses to hold talks on the basis of the Russian-Chinese draft treaty on the prevention of the placement of weapons in space and the formation of an international legal framework limiting its ability to use space for military purposes", Sterlin said.
On Wednesday, special adviser to NASA's deputy administrator, William Gerstenmaier, reaffirmed the agency's commitment to pursue cooperation with Russia on the ISS programme regardless of political mood swings in Washington.
US President Donald Trump in February signed a directive to establish a new Air Force branch, the US Space Force, which will focus on global surveillance, missile targeting, and countering Chinese and Russian hypersonic weapons, among other priorities.
Russia condemned the move, calling on the United States to avoid an arms race in space. China echoed Moscow's stance, stressing that Washington is trying to justify its supremacy in space by undertaking this step.