In news:44d4b30c$0$71418$dbd4f001@news.wanadoo.nl,
dre <v> typed:

Amanda Angelika schreef:

In news:c199d2p8qh87b7jdtn12jeccvfvciqmvu4@4ax.com,
http://peaceinspace.com <truth@r.us> typed:

On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 08:14:37 +0000 (UTC), "Harvey@NZ"
<kiwilove@co.nz> wrote:

"Amanda Angelika" <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:6sHAg.1536$XQ.226@newsfe7-win.ntli.net:

In news:qk0rc2lthsatjcea33f7f6tc0m2hltmr53@4ax.com,
http://peaceinspace.com <truth@r.us> typed:

I have seen on the History Channell a show about flying disks
built by US.

Yesh the AVRO, and it flew for a few feet and crashed.

Not sure the AVRO air car would qualify as an American built
craft. It was made in Canada and AFAIK AVRO was a British owned
company, AVRO are best known for the Lancaster and later the
Vulcan bomber which were some what more successful :)

There is an aspect about the Avro project, not generally known
about. In that, in the Nick Cook book "The Hunt for Zero Point"
which deals with Nazi Super secret weapons and technology,
Anti-gravity, the US Aerospace industry and history, and
Zero Point Energy --- it mentions that the Avro Air Car seems to
have just been a cover, <snip>

Cover?  Cover for what?  Oh yeah!  The Super Duper Top Seekrit space
shuttle.

And the fact that the US aerospace industry is now begging the
Russians and paying 12,000,000 per ride to the Spaze Station 'cause
Lockhed's shuttle is so advanced it can't make it that far.

In case you're wondering, Super Duper Top Seekrit clearance is
higher than Cosmic Magestic 12 Umbra White House Ultra.  That's
because they're hiding the fact that there isn't a US Space
Industry.

Ask any NASA employee.

It does sometimes seem ridiculous the levels they must be going to
cover things up. Like I've never understood why NASA use rockets to
launch the shuttle, when surely they could piggy back a shuttle on a
conventional aerocraft (as was the concept for the European Hotol
project) or use an airship or balloons to lift it aloft.

how big is this balloon?
thie size of texas?

I was thinking of something about the size of the Hindenburg. Airships can
carry quite a high payload and hybrid craft even more. The shuttle is of
course already transported around on the back of a specially converted 747.

  Using a high altitude release would

enable the shuttle to dive a couple of thousand feet before firing
rockets once at an upward trajectory this would give enourmous added
momentum and totally  dispense with the need to tie it to a bomb full

of highly explosive

fuel

your rockets don't need fuel?

Yes but you would need less fuel than for a ground launch

and mean the craft used to lift it to high
altitude would be completely

reusable. It's like as if they go out of their way to make it
difficult, more costly not to mention more dangerous than it really
needs to be.

the russians do
it,chinese,europeans,japanese,india.....they must
have a damn good reason why they do it like that
and not your method...

Air launch was proposed for Hotol, but funding for the original Hotol was
ended in the 1980s. Actually Hotol was going to use special revolutionary
air breathing rocket engines, and needed to carry less fuel in any case.
However the project was never completed. However the engines are still
classified.
-- 
Amanda