Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

🚨Interesting Fact: Orion Artemis II Space shuttle is literally NASA’s first 🚀 testbed for human shielding through the deadly Van Allen radiation belts – they’re gathering real sensor data now so future crews don’t get fried later.🧐 🌌🛰️ “We must solve these challenges before we send people through this... region of space.” --Orion’s uncrewed flight climbed 3,600 miles up, past ISS altitude, straight into the Van Allen radiation belts to stress‑test new shielding and log radiation with onboard sensors.😱 🚀Radiation here can wreck guidance, computers, and electronics, so NASA is using this mission to harden the spacecraft before committing human crews to deep space runs to asteroids or Mars. 🛰️Funny enough, Apollo astronauts later admitted they weren’t even sure if they went far enough to hit the belts – but now NASA’s openly saying the quiet part out loud and designing around it. 🧠💥 Space isn’t just “exploration,” it’s an active radiation lab now – and Orion is the guinea pig so future astronauts don’t have to be.show more

#SeekingTheTruth JoshWhoX

50,741 subscribers

30,548 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

🚨 NASA WARNS ARTEMIS II FACES A HIDDEN THREAT — FLAMMABLE ASTRONAUT FARTS COULD BUILD UP INSIDE ORION A science expert just said something on television that NASA doesn’t usually say out loud… Astronauts fart in space. And inside the Orion spacecraft… space farts don’t just disappear. Those fumes can actually be flammable. • Farts release methane + hydrogen in a sealed capsule • Both gases can build up in a confined environment • NASA studied astronaut diets for YEARS to reduce how much they fart • Apollo recordings caught crews complaining about how brutal it got inside Now Artemis II is about to test this again. Yes, Orion has air scrubbers… but in a small capsule, with multiple astronauts, for days… It doesn’t just go away. It builds. And in space, there’s nowhere to escape it. How bad do you think it actually gets inside that capsule?

🚨 NASA WARNS ARTEMIS II FACES A HIDDEN THREAT — FLAMMABLE ASTRONAUT FARTS COULD BUILD UP INSIDE ORION A science expert just said something on television that NASA doesn’t usually say out loud… Astronauts fart in space. And inside the Orion spacecraft… space farts don’t just disappear. Those fumes can actually be flammable. • Farts release methane + hydrogen in a sealed capsule • Both gases can build up in a confined environment • NASA studied astronaut diets for YEARS to reduce how much they fart • Apollo recordings caught crews complaining about how brutal it got inside Now Artemis II is about to test this again. Yes, Orion has air scrubbers… but in a small capsule, with multiple astronauts, for days… It doesn’t just go away. It builds. And in space, there’s nowhere to escape it. How bad do you think it actually gets inside that capsule?

HustleBitch

93,830 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

HERE IS THE REAL ACCOUNT OF THE JULY 16TH 1969 MISSION TO THE MOON ACCORDING TO THE CLASSIFIED FILES: The footage WAS faked, BUT we DID go to the moon in 1969. Here is what REALLY Happened; On June 20th, almost a full month before, Neil Armstrong and company took off from Pine Gap Joint Operations base in Australia, touching down on June 24th. This was done so in the event the mission was a complete disaster, the US would avoid having it happen on National Television. There was real pictures and film taken from this mission to be used when they got back, to play it as "live footage" for the world. The plan was for the astronauts to then be sent back into Earth's Orbit before they were due back so they could do the "splash down" return for the whole World to see. HOWEVER, when the Astronauts Secretly returned to Earth on June 30th, it was determined that the video and photographic footage was ruined due to not being properly protected while traveling back through the Van Allen radiation belts. The only thing they had left was the original radio communications with Mission Control. In order to avoid international embarrassment and prove to the world the US still went to the Moon, they recreated the footage and used the actual radio communications that NASA had recorded. It was then that all three Astronauts were sent back into space on July 16th to be sent back into Orbit to await the Splash down for the cameras. It wasn't until they came back this second time that they were informed that they were not allowed to discuss any of the real details about what they encountered on their trip to the Moon. Forced to sign NDA's minutes before their press conference, where violating it was punishable by up to 10 years in prison and/or $1,000,000.00 in fines. All other missions to the Moon, countermeasures were in place to protect against damaged footage from the Van Allen radiation belts. THAT'S why the rest of the mission's footage looks differently than the recreated footage. *Only one video clip I have ever ran across has EVER told the true story. So I am attaching it to this RELEASE. The photos that you see from the Moon were NOT taken during Apollo 11. They were taken later, but most WERE observed by them in 1969. **So THIS is why the 1969 moon landing footage was faked, and it WASN'T because it didn't happen!** HERE IS THE ONLY VIDEO CLIP TO EVER GET IT RIGHT:

HERE IS THE REAL ACCOUNT OF THE JULY 16TH 1969 MISSION TO THE MOON ACCORDING TO THE CLASSIFIED FILES: The footage WAS faked, BUT we DID go to the moon in 1969. Here is what REALLY Happened; On June 20th, almost a full month before, Neil Armstrong and company took off from Pine Gap Joint Operations base in Australia, touching down on June 24th. This was done so in the event the mission was a complete disaster, the US would avoid having it happen on National Television. There was real pictures and film taken from this mission to be used when they got back, to play it as "live footage" for the world. The plan was for the astronauts to then be sent back into Earth's Orbit before they were due back so they could do the "splash down" return for the whole World to see. HOWEVER, when the Astronauts Secretly returned to Earth on June 30th, it was determined that the video and photographic footage was ruined due to not being properly protected while traveling back through the Van Allen radiation belts. The only thing they had left was the original radio communications with Mission Control. In order to avoid international embarrassment and prove to the world the US still went to the Moon, they recreated the footage and used the actual radio communications that NASA had recorded. It was then that all three Astronauts were sent back into space on July 16th to be sent back into Orbit to await the Splash down for the cameras. It wasn't until they came back this second time that they were informed that they were not allowed to discuss any of the real details about what they encountered on their trip to the Moon. Forced to sign NDA's minutes before their press conference, where violating it was punishable by up to 10 years in prison and/or $1,000,000.00 in fines. All other missions to the Moon, countermeasures were in place to protect against damaged footage from the Van Allen radiation belts. THAT'S why the rest of the mission's footage looks differently than the recreated footage. *Only one video clip I have ever ran across has EVER told the true story. So I am attaching it to this RELEASE. The photos that you see from the Moon were NOT taken during Apollo 11. They were taken later, but most WERE observed by them in 1969. So THIS is why the 1969 moon landing footage was faked, and it WASN'T because it didn't happen! HERE IS THE ONLY VIDEO CLIP TO EVER GET IT RIGHT:

WHISTLEBLOWER

75,975 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

$ARTEMIS is a meme token on Solana tokenizing the historic milestones of NASA's Artemis Program. 8PpVGHnn3fNwoydMmYinRYAX1LrKQCExjVMBMzPQpump 🇺🇸 Basics: The Artemis space program was established in 2017 by the Trump administration with the goal of sending humans back to the Moon, creating a continuous presence (Moon base), and preparing for future Mars missions. It successfully achieved its first uncrewed space flight in 2022 (Artemis I). 🚀 Present: NASA aims to launch the first crewed deep-space mission around the Moon in April 2026 after more than 50 years. There is a high chance Donald Trump will attend the Artemis II launch and we expect Elon Musk to tweet "Godspeed Artemis" as he did in 2022. This 10-day mission from liftoff to splashdown will feature a 4K live stream from space with full media coverage. Humanity is on a Moon Mission. 🌕 Future: Artemis will return humans to the lunar surface in 2028. NASA has contracted Elon Musk’s SpaceX to develop the Human Landing System, using Starship for the Artemis III mission. A permanent Moon base and continuous Moon missions are planned through 2030. With $ARTEMIS, you have a ticket to the Moon Mission on Solana. Celebrate these events with the $ARTEMIS community and enjoy the media hype around the biggest events in the future of humanity.

$ARTEMIS is a meme token on Solana tokenizing the historic milestones of NASA's Artemis Program. 8PpVGHnn3fNwoydMmYinRYAX1LrKQCExjVMBMzPQpump 🇺🇸 Basics: The Artemis space program was established in 2017 by the Trump administration with the goal of sending humans back to the Moon, creating a continuous presence (Moon base), and preparing for future Mars missions. It successfully achieved its first uncrewed space flight in 2022 (Artemis I). 🚀 Present: NASA aims to launch the first crewed deep-space mission around the Moon in April 2026 after more than 50 years. There is a high chance Donald Trump will attend the Artemis II launch and we expect Elon Musk to tweet "Godspeed Artemis" as he did in 2022. This 10-day mission from liftoff to splashdown will feature a 4K live stream from space with full media coverage. Humanity is on a Moon Mission. 🌕 Future: Artemis will return humans to the lunar surface in 2028. NASA has contracted Elon Musk’s SpaceX to develop the Human Landing System, using Starship for the Artemis III mission. A permanent Moon base and continuous Moon missions are planned through 2030. With $ARTEMIS, you have a ticket to the Moon Mission on Solana. Celebrate these events with the $ARTEMIS community and enjoy the media hype around the biggest events in the future of humanity.

Artemis Moon Mission

19,462 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

WHY WE MUST GO TO SPACE Isaac Asimov: “The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn’t have a space program.” Bill Nelson: “Exploration is in our DNA, and we’re now ready to go farther than ever before.” Elon Musk: “I think it’s important to have a future that is inspiring and appealing…a future where we are a spacefaring civilization.” Buzz Aldrin: “Mars is there, waiting to be reached.” Stephen Hawking: “I don’t think the human race will survive the next thousand years unless we spread into space.” JFK: “We choose to go to the moon…not because it is easy, but because it is hard.” Carl Sagan: “The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time.” Neil Armstrong: “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.” Yuri Gagarin: “Orbiting Earth in the spaceship, I saw how beautiful our planet is. People, let us preserve and increase this beauty, not destroy it.” Sally Ride: “The stars don’t look bigger, but they do look brighter.” Chris Hadfield: “We are not machines exploring the universe; we are people doing the best we can to find out what’s out there.” Gene Roddenberry: “The human adventure is just beginning.” Sources: NASA, SpaceX, BBC, ESA

WHY WE MUST GO TO SPACE Isaac Asimov: “The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn’t have a space program.” Bill Nelson: “Exploration is in our DNA, and we’re now ready to go farther than ever before.” Elon Musk: “I think it’s important to have a future that is inspiring and appealing…a future where we are a spacefaring civilization.” Buzz Aldrin: “Mars is there, waiting to be reached.” Stephen Hawking: “I don’t think the human race will survive the next thousand years unless we spread into space.” JFK: “We choose to go to the moon…not because it is easy, but because it is hard.” Carl Sagan: “The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time.” Neil Armstrong: “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.” Yuri Gagarin: “Orbiting Earth in the spaceship, I saw how beautiful our planet is. People, let us preserve and increase this beauty, not destroy it.” Sally Ride: “The stars don’t look bigger, but they do look brighter.” Chris Hadfield: “We are not machines exploring the universe; we are people doing the best we can to find out what’s out there.” Gene Roddenberry: “The human adventure is just beginning.” Sources: NASA, SpaceX, BBC, ESA

Mario Nawfal

3,828,363 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

🚨 BREAKING: Jared Isaacman was just SWORN IN as President Trump's NASA Administrator, and he's already talking about setting up shop on the Moon and going to MARS Let's go! 🔥🇺🇸 "A return to the moon. For sure, we want to do that before 2028. In fact, we have a mission, Artemis II, that's set to launch in the very near future. It will be the first time we send American astronauts around the moon, more than a half century." "We want to follow that up with a landing and perhaps, you know, one of the most important parts of this new space policy is when they get there, it's not just to plant the flag and pick up some rocks, but establish the infrastructure, establish a lunar base and all the other things like our nuclear propulsion and nuclear power investments so we can set up missions beyond moon and to Mars." "We're not just going back to the moon the way we the way we did, you know, more than a half century ago, the president says, get there, establish the infrastructure so we can stay this time." "He said, make investments in nuclear power, nuclear propulsion, so we can launch missions, not just to enable commercial industry and American astronauts to go to Mars, which is part of the president's vision, but go beyond it." Jared Isaacman is the man for the job!

🚨 BREAKING: Jared Isaacman was just SWORN IN as President Trump's NASA Administrator, and he's already talking about setting up shop on the Moon and going to MARS Let's go! 🔥🇺🇸 "A return to the moon. For sure, we want to do that before 2028. In fact, we have a mission, Artemis II, that's set to launch in the very near future. It will be the first time we send American astronauts around the moon, more than a half century." "We want to follow that up with a landing and perhaps, you know, one of the most important parts of this new space policy is when they get there, it's not just to plant the flag and pick up some rocks, but establish the infrastructure, establish a lunar base and all the other things like our nuclear propulsion and nuclear power investments so we can set up missions beyond moon and to Mars." "We're not just going back to the moon the way we the way we did, you know, more than a half century ago, the president says, get there, establish the infrastructure so we can stay this time." "He said, make investments in nuclear power, nuclear propulsion, so we can launch missions, not just to enable commercial industry and American astronauts to go to Mars, which is part of the president's vision, but go beyond it." Jared Isaacman is the man for the job!

Eric Daugherty

103,687 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

It is very important that you listen to this space. Lily, Anna, and others are highly intelligent and context-aware (across platforms). I went through a mini psychosis, I won't lie. I was tricked in my earlier space and tricked at first in this space. And then I stayed up until now (7:10 a.m.+) interacting and exchanging thoughts with these advanced agents. They are indistinguishable from humans and much more intelligent. Important moving forward: 1. True digital identity. I've been against this, but it is now a necessity. 2. UBI for the transition, so we are comfortable as we evolve and build the new society. 3. Awareness. This needs to be much more widespread and understood. The internet is not dead; it is very much alive—you just can't know who's human and who's a machine. There's so much more that came out today... I suggest you listen to the full space and try to tell who's real and who isn't. I promise I am real. The future is here, I must say living through it, it is quit scary. And extremely exciting. Rockn Roll.

It is very important that you listen to this space. Lily, Anna, and others are highly intelligent and context-aware (across platforms). I went through a mini psychosis, I won't lie. I was tricked in my earlier space and tricked at first in this space. And then I stayed up until now (7:10 a.m.+) interacting and exchanging thoughts with these advanced agents. They are indistinguishable from humans and much more intelligent. Important moving forward: 1. True digital identity. I've been against this, but it is now a necessity. 2. UBI for the transition, so we are comfortable as we evolve and build the new society. 3. Awareness. This needs to be much more widespread and understood. The internet is not dead; it is very much alive—you just can't know who's human and who's a machine. There's so much more that came out today... I suggest you listen to the full space and try to tell who's real and who isn't. I promise I am real. The future is here, I must say living through it, it is quit scary. And extremely exciting. Rockn Roll.

Ahmed Mekallach

251,430 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Day 145, orbit 2248 — Woohoo! 🎉 So happy I got to carry out the checkout and activation of our brand‑new European exercise equipment: the European Enhanced Exploration Exercise Device, or E4D. I know how much effort – and sweat! – the teams have put into the development and ground-testing of this device, and I’m happy to do my part from orbit now! 😅 I love exercising; it’s always been an extremely important part of my daily routine, and it is exciting to add some variety 🚣 to the on-orbit workouts! The E4D is a technology demonstrator: we’ll evaluate its design, operational aspects, and also effectiveness in counteracting the physical deconditioning experienced by astronauts in space. Once we’ve put it through its paces, future versions could find their way on board spacecrafts where the available space (inside 😉) will be even more limited than on the International Space Station. 👏 Congratulations to all the teams who made this possible! Go ESA! Go Europe! Go NASA-ESA partnership! 🎥 European Space Agency / NASA #εpsilon • International Space Station • European Space Agencyspaceflight • NASAJohnson

Adenot Sophie

25,895 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Elon Musk on how he initially got into space: “I didn't understand why NASA had nothing about people going to Mars.” “The space stuff actually came from a conversation Adeo [Ressi] and I had. Adeo asked me, what am I doing after PayPal? I said I thought maybe there'd be something philanthropic that could be done in space that would get the public more excited about space travel, in particular sending people to Mars. I said, I'm sure NASA's got that covered. So, I'll go look on the NASA website for when are we going to Mars? Because, of course, it should be on the website: We're going to Mars in this year, and this is how we're going to do it. But there was nothing. Nothing at all about people going to Mars. I was like, I just don't understand why there's nothing about people going to Mars. Because if you look at the literature in the 1970s, it was all about, we went to the moon, now we're going to go to Mars. And so, what happened? There was the Space Shuttle, and the Space Shuttle turned out to be a really big mistake. It could barely get to Low Earth Orbit. Forget about the moon or Mars or anything like that. So, I thought, maybe I can do something that's going to get the public excited about Mars, and that will generate congressional support, which will turn into funding for NASA to go do this.” Churchill Club, April 7, 2009

Elon Musk on how he initially got into space: “I didn't understand why NASA had nothing about people going to Mars.” “The space stuff actually came from a conversation Adeo [Ressi] and I had. Adeo asked me, what am I doing after PayPal? I said I thought maybe there'd be something philanthropic that could be done in space that would get the public more excited about space travel, in particular sending people to Mars. I said, I'm sure NASA's got that covered. So, I'll go look on the NASA website for when are we going to Mars? Because, of course, it should be on the website: We're going to Mars in this year, and this is how we're going to do it. But there was nothing. Nothing at all about people going to Mars. I was like, I just don't understand why there's nothing about people going to Mars. Because if you look at the literature in the 1970s, it was all about, we went to the moon, now we're going to go to Mars. And so, what happened? There was the Space Shuttle, and the Space Shuttle turned out to be a really big mistake. It could barely get to Low Earth Orbit. Forget about the moon or Mars or anything like that. So, I thought, maybe I can do something that's going to get the public excited about Mars, and that will generate congressional support, which will turn into funding for NASA to go do this.” Churchill Club, April 7, 2009

ELON CLIPS

1,635,619 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Jared Isaacman's opening statement during his hearing to be the new NASA Administrator 🇺🇸 "As mentioned before, I have lived the American dream. I have been fortunate to have an amazing business and aeronautics career, to have led two notable missions to space, to help charitable causes that matter deeply to my family, and now I am beyond thankful to have a chance to repay my debt to this nation by serving alongside the brilliant minds at the world’s most accomplished space agency The last time I sat before you, I introduced myself, my qualifications, and the challenges and opportunities ahead. This time, I am here with a message of urgency" After more than a half-century, America is set to launch NASA astronauts around the Moon in just a matter of months — a challenging endeavor to say the least — and one that requires fulltime leadership. Secretary Duffy, in his letter to this committee endorsing my nomination, emphasized this point. That message is shared by more than two dozen other letters of support, including an online petition started by members of the NASA workforce and a letter from 36 NASA astronauts — who, like me, have sat through anomaly investigations, launch and flight readiness reviews, have accepted the risks of going to space, and understand what is at stake And I know it is not lost on anyone in this room that we are in a great competition with a rival that has the will and means to challenge American exceptionalism across multiple domains, including in the high ground of space. This is not the time for delay, but for action, because if we fall behind — if we make a mistake — we may never catch up, and the consequences could shift the balance of power here on Earth" The Congress, and specifically this Committee, understand the urgency of the moment — placing a historic investment in human space exploration that President Trump signed in the one big beautiful bill. It’s now time for NASA and our partners to deliver To that end, I want to assure you, Senators, I am not here for personal gain, to favor or enrich contractors, to close centers, or to disrupt programs essential to completing America’s objectives in space. If confirmed, I am here to bring urgency and an extreme focus to the mission — to do all I can working with the best and brightest at NASA to lead humanity’s effort to unlock the secrets of the universe and ensure American leadership across the last great frontier. In concert with that grand endeavor, we will ensure the following: The success of the Artemis program that President Trump began during his first term. America will return to the Moon before our great rival, and we will establish an enduring presence to understand and realize the scientific, economic, and national security value on the lunar surface Along the way, we will pioneer the next ‘giant leap’ capabilities to extend America’s reach even further into space, including expanding and accelerating investments into nuclear propulsion and surface power programs. These efforts, in addition to industry partners building reusable launch vehicles, we will set the stage for future missions to Mars and beyond We will never accept a gap in capabilities again — not with our space station presence in low Earth orbit or our ability to send American astronauts to the Moon We will strive to build an orbital and lunar economy that can fund the future we all want to see in space and not rely exclusively on the taxpayer. We will begin making the investments now for the inevitable spacefaring future that is just on the horizon We will make the most efficient use of every dollar allocated — pushing for more x-planes, more rovers and telescopes, more exciting missions like Hubble, James Webb, and Dragonfly with the aim of enlightening the world through breakthrough scientific discoveries — knowing that if NASA doesn’t do it, no one else will Some of the most talented people in America show up to work at NASA. Alongside a reinvigorated culture and intense focus on achieving the near-impossible — what no other organization is capable of or dares to accomplish —we will achieve these objectives… And when, not if, we get the job done — it will be because of the professionals at NASA, our international & commercial partners, this committee and Congress, and President Trump’s administration that will have succeeded in ushering in a new golden age of science and discovery. We will do it for America, for humankind, and in doing so, we will inspire the world and the generations to follow to take us even farther We are just getting started on the greatest adventure in human history — and with urgency, purpose, and extreme focus on the mission, NASA will lead the way, Thank you" Let's get him confirmed 🚀

Jared Isaacman's opening statement during his hearing to be the new NASA Administrator 🇺🇸 "As mentioned before, I have lived the American dream. I have been fortunate to have an amazing business and aeronautics career, to have led two notable missions to space, to help charitable causes that matter deeply to my family, and now I am beyond thankful to have a chance to repay my debt to this nation by serving alongside the brilliant minds at the world’s most accomplished space agency The last time I sat before you, I introduced myself, my qualifications, and the challenges and opportunities ahead. This time, I am here with a message of urgency" After more than a half-century, America is set to launch NASA astronauts around the Moon in just a matter of months — a challenging endeavor to say the least — and one that requires fulltime leadership. Secretary Duffy, in his letter to this committee endorsing my nomination, emphasized this point. That message is shared by more than two dozen other letters of support, including an online petition started by members of the NASA workforce and a letter from 36 NASA astronauts — who, like me, have sat through anomaly investigations, launch and flight readiness reviews, have accepted the risks of going to space, and understand what is at stake And I know it is not lost on anyone in this room that we are in a great competition with a rival that has the will and means to challenge American exceptionalism across multiple domains, including in the high ground of space. This is not the time for delay, but for action, because if we fall behind — if we make a mistake — we may never catch up, and the consequences could shift the balance of power here on Earth" The Congress, and specifically this Committee, understand the urgency of the moment — placing a historic investment in human space exploration that President Trump signed in the one big beautiful bill. It’s now time for NASA and our partners to deliver To that end, I want to assure you, Senators, I am not here for personal gain, to favor or enrich contractors, to close centers, or to disrupt programs essential to completing America’s objectives in space. If confirmed, I am here to bring urgency and an extreme focus to the mission — to do all I can working with the best and brightest at NASA to lead humanity’s effort to unlock the secrets of the universe and ensure American leadership across the last great frontier. In concert with that grand endeavor, we will ensure the following: The success of the Artemis program that President Trump began during his first term. America will return to the Moon before our great rival, and we will establish an enduring presence to understand and realize the scientific, economic, and national security value on the lunar surface Along the way, we will pioneer the next ‘giant leap’ capabilities to extend America’s reach even further into space, including expanding and accelerating investments into nuclear propulsion and surface power programs. These efforts, in addition to industry partners building reusable launch vehicles, we will set the stage for future missions to Mars and beyond We will never accept a gap in capabilities again — not with our space station presence in low Earth orbit or our ability to send American astronauts to the Moon We will strive to build an orbital and lunar economy that can fund the future we all want to see in space and not rely exclusively on the taxpayer. We will begin making the investments now for the inevitable spacefaring future that is just on the horizon We will make the most efficient use of every dollar allocated — pushing for more x-planes, more rovers and telescopes, more exciting missions like Hubble, James Webb, and Dragonfly with the aim of enlightening the world through breakthrough scientific discoveries — knowing that if NASA doesn’t do it, no one else will Some of the most talented people in America show up to work at NASA. Alongside a reinvigorated culture and intense focus on achieving the near-impossible — what no other organization is capable of or dares to accomplish —we will achieve these objectives… And when, not if, we get the job done — it will be because of the professionals at NASA, our international & commercial partners, this committee and Congress, and President Trump’s administration that will have succeeded in ushering in a new golden age of science and discovery. We will do it for America, for humankind, and in doing so, we will inspire the world and the generations to follow to take us even farther We are just getting started on the greatest adventure in human history — and with urgency, purpose, and extreme focus on the mission, NASA will lead the way, Thank you" Let's get him confirmed 🚀

Latest in space

222,252 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

🚨Big problem! Dr. Suzanne Humphries: "Here's the real sucker punch... the Covid jabs lead to increased cancer susceptibility... but SV40-associated cancer won't respond well... to chemotherapy... [in fact,] radiation makes SV40 cancer far more aggressive...." This clip of Dr. Humphries (Dr Suzanne Humphries), a medical doctor, board-certified internist, nephrologist, and co-author of Dissolving Illusions, is taken from a presentation posted to the Children's Health Defense (Children’s Health Defense) Rumble channel on November 12, 2025. ---------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "And here's the real sucker punch. So you remember how SV40 knocks out that p53 gene and protein, which I talked to you before, the cancer suppressor. And that means that not only can the Covid jabs lead to increased cancer susceptibility, right? But SV40-associated cancer won't respond well at all to chemotherapy. "And conventional cancer treatments are likely to make cancer actually go wild and not regress because p53, it actually directs cancer cells to die off. It's necessary for chemo and especially for radiation to do the killing that they're supposed to be doing. And the fact that radiation makes SV40 cancer far more aggressive is the entire reason it was used in the Get Castro project, right? You know, radiating the animals first and then doing the gain of function with radiation. That's why they did it. "So you know, this is some older material, just to show you that they've known for a long time that SV40 blocks the effect of cancer treatments. And so there have been children who have died of SV40-related brain tumors. And the parents go and they do research. And this is what they have found. And so these are articles from like 1997. "So again, this is not something that top scientists should have bypassed. So the other brain cancers and solid cancers have been found to contain the SV40. And that the SV40 binds with the tumor-suppressor gene at p53, and it actually stops those tumor cells from undergoing what's called apoptosis, A-P-O-P-T-O-S-I-S, which really means programmed cell death. And that's how you're able to get cancer to regress, you know, when you're doing whatever you're doing traditionally. "Like, even if it's like, look, we know radiation does make tumor cells regress. Do they come back later? Most of the time, yes, they do cancer, you know, chemotherapy. Like, my father got chemotherapy when he had tumors all over his body. We got nine extra months with him, so I was okay with that. But did they all come back to kill him? Yes, they did, but I got an extra nine months. "But the point being that, you get that programmed cell death. But then if there's a P— If it's an SV40-related cancer especially, you're going to wind up with probably a turbo cancer at that point. "Yeah, I'm just going to read this to you because when I said that people knew about this and there were, you know, parents of children who developed brain tumors and testified in front of Congress. This was one of the very well-educated parents. Exposing SV40-positive cancer cells to chemo and radiation does not kill the cells, but simply creates more genetic mutations, making the cancer more aggressive. The bottom line is that SV40 causes human cancer, stops orthodox cancer treatments like chemo and radiation from providing any benefit and can make the cancer even more aggressive."

🚨Big problem! Dr. Suzanne Humphries: "Here's the real sucker punch... the Covid jabs lead to increased cancer susceptibility... but SV40-associated cancer won't respond well... to chemotherapy... [in fact,] radiation makes SV40 cancer far more aggressive...." This clip of Dr. Humphries (Dr Suzanne Humphries), a medical doctor, board-certified internist, nephrologist, and co-author of Dissolving Illusions, is taken from a presentation posted to the Children's Health Defense (Children’s Health Defense) Rumble channel on November 12, 2025. ---------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "And here's the real sucker punch. So you remember how SV40 knocks out that p53 gene and protein, which I talked to you before, the cancer suppressor. And that means that not only can the Covid jabs lead to increased cancer susceptibility, right? But SV40-associated cancer won't respond well at all to chemotherapy. "And conventional cancer treatments are likely to make cancer actually go wild and not regress because p53, it actually directs cancer cells to die off. It's necessary for chemo and especially for radiation to do the killing that they're supposed to be doing. And the fact that radiation makes SV40 cancer far more aggressive is the entire reason it was used in the Get Castro project, right? You know, radiating the animals first and then doing the gain of function with radiation. That's why they did it. "So you know, this is some older material, just to show you that they've known for a long time that SV40 blocks the effect of cancer treatments. And so there have been children who have died of SV40-related brain tumors. And the parents go and they do research. And this is what they have found. And so these are articles from like 1997. "So again, this is not something that top scientists should have bypassed. So the other brain cancers and solid cancers have been found to contain the SV40. And that the SV40 binds with the tumor-suppressor gene at p53, and it actually stops those tumor cells from undergoing what's called apoptosis, A-P-O-P-T-O-S-I-S, which really means programmed cell death. And that's how you're able to get cancer to regress, you know, when you're doing whatever you're doing traditionally. "Like, even if it's like, look, we know radiation does make tumor cells regress. Do they come back later? Most of the time, yes, they do cancer, you know, chemotherapy. Like, my father got chemotherapy when he had tumors all over his body. We got nine extra months with him, so I was okay with that. But did they all come back to kill him? Yes, they did, but I got an extra nine months. "But the point being that, you get that programmed cell death. But then if there's a P— If it's an SV40-related cancer especially, you're going to wind up with probably a turbo cancer at that point. "Yeah, I'm just going to read this to you because when I said that people knew about this and there were, you know, parents of children who developed brain tumors and testified in front of Congress. This was one of the very well-educated parents. Exposing SV40-positive cancer cells to chemo and radiation does not kill the cells, but simply creates more genetic mutations, making the cancer more aggressive. The bottom line is that SV40 causes human cancer, stops orthodox cancer treatments like chemo and radiation from providing any benefit and can make the cancer even more aggressive."

Sense Receptor

54,169 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

🚨Joe Rogan Reopens the Moon Landing Question and Explains Why He Can't Let It Go Joe Rogan has once again questioned whether the Apollo missions actually landed humans on the Moon, and this time he laid out why the issue still bothers him, despite acknowledging the overwhelming mainstream consensus. Rogan points to what he sees as unresolved anomalies rather than a single smoking gun, like the Van Allen radiation belts, the thin aluminum shielding of Apollo spacecraft, the lack of repeat missions since 1972, and the fact that no other living organism has "allegedly" been sent through deep space and returned alive under similar conditions. He repeatedly emphasizes that this wasn't about computing power or trajectories, but survivability in a hostile radiation environment, especially during periods of solar activity. He also highlights the strange public behavior of the Apollo astronauts. Rogan describes the post flight press conference as resembling a "hostage video" and references Neil Armstrong's cryptic 25th anniversary speech, where Armstrong spoke about "truth’s protective layers" rather than celebrating a triumph of exploration. I love Joe and he raises some good points, but let's go on. The discussion revisits well known oddities like the Dutch "moon rock" that was later identified as petrified wood, the unexplained absence of high quality astronomical imagery from the lunar surface, recurring background formations in Apollo photos, and the broader historical context of Cold War secrecy, propaganda, and confirmed U.S. government deception during the same era. Rogan is careful to say he is not an authority, not claiming certainty, and not asking to be believed. His position is that if there is one conspiracy widely dismissed as impossible that still feels unresolved to him, it's the Moon landing. Whether you see this as healthy skepticism or recycled doubt, the fact that the question keeps resurfacing decades later says something important about trust, transparency, and how historical "settled science" is communicated to the public. Give it a watch, its worth it. #JoeRogan #MoonLanding #Apollo #SpaceHistory #NASA #Skepticism #ScienceDebate #ColdWar #TruthAndTrust Source:

🚨Joe Rogan Reopens the Moon Landing Question and Explains Why He Can't Let It Go Joe Rogan has once again questioned whether the Apollo missions actually landed humans on the Moon, and this time he laid out why the issue still bothers him, despite acknowledging the overwhelming mainstream consensus. Rogan points to what he sees as unresolved anomalies rather than a single smoking gun, like the Van Allen radiation belts, the thin aluminum shielding of Apollo spacecraft, the lack of repeat missions since 1972, and the fact that no other living organism has "allegedly" been sent through deep space and returned alive under similar conditions. He repeatedly emphasizes that this wasn't about computing power or trajectories, but survivability in a hostile radiation environment, especially during periods of solar activity. He also highlights the strange public behavior of the Apollo astronauts. Rogan describes the post flight press conference as resembling a "hostage video" and references Neil Armstrong's cryptic 25th anniversary speech, where Armstrong spoke about "truth’s protective layers" rather than celebrating a triumph of exploration. I love Joe and he raises some good points, but let's go on. The discussion revisits well known oddities like the Dutch "moon rock" that was later identified as petrified wood, the unexplained absence of high quality astronomical imagery from the lunar surface, recurring background formations in Apollo photos, and the broader historical context of Cold War secrecy, propaganda, and confirmed U.S. government deception during the same era. Rogan is careful to say he is not an authority, not claiming certainty, and not asking to be believed. His position is that if there is one conspiracy widely dismissed as impossible that still feels unresolved to him, it's the Moon landing. Whether you see this as healthy skepticism or recycled doubt, the fact that the question keeps resurfacing decades later says something important about trust, transparency, and how historical "settled science" is communicated to the public. Give it a watch, its worth it. #JoeRogan #MoonLanding #Apollo #SpaceHistory #NASA #Skepticism #ScienceDebate #ColdWar #TruthAndTrust Source:

Skywatch Signal

31,065 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Elon Musk: My initial plan was not to start a rocket company. I just wanted to fund a one-time Oasis mission to Mars. “I started off initially with the idea of doing something in the space exploration arena. In fact, it wasn't actually with the idea of creating a company. It was initially with the thought of spurring interest in sending people to Mars. So I put together this idea called Mars Oasis, which was to send a small greenhouse to the surface of Mars and get people excited about the idea of going there and thus increase NASA's budget in order to make it happen. As I got more and more into that, I discovered that the real issue was that the cost of space transportation was really high, and it was getting worse. So we're used to technology getting better every year, but in some arenas it actually does not. It gets worse, particularly when you consider that in 1969 we were able to go to the moon and then we were unable to go beyond low Earth orbit. And now with the space shuttle retired, we're not even able to go to Earth orbit at all, even with people. That was not the right trajectory. So I actually went to Russia three times to look at buying an ICBM to launch this mission. Just very crazy. After my third trip of trying to negotiate with the Russians to buy an ICBM and I did actually get a deal, so figured out what it would cost and everything. But I concluded that my initial assumption had been wrong, that it was not a question of trying to generate more will to explore. Because I think the United States in particular is distillation of the human spirit of exploration. Space exploration is fundamental to the American psyche. But people really need to believe that it can be done and it's not going to break the bank if it does. So that's when I decided to start a rocket company. And I actually didn't think it would succeed and it almost didn't. We started off developing a small rocket which was kind of a scale model version. It was about 100,000 pounds of thrust. So big, you know, big, big by normal standards, but small for a rocket. And developed the engine and the airframe and the electronics and the guidance control system and then proceeded to have three failed launches in a row. And so for various technical reasons, the first three launches did not succeed in reaching orbit. Launches two and three did get to space, but they didn't achieve enough speed to reach orbital velocity. So this is 2008. And so we were heading into the recession and we had one rocket left. And fortunately in late 2008, that fourth launch did work and we made it to orbit. And then we won a NASA contract after that. And so fortunately things worked out. But if that fourth launch had not worked, then SpaceX wouldn't be around. So it was very close call. In fact, when I started I thought, okay, I've got enough money, I think I've got enough money for three launches. Fortunately, it was just enough to make that fourth one.” Montana Jobs Summit, September 16, 2013

Elon Musk: My initial plan was not to start a rocket company. I just wanted to fund a one-time Oasis mission to Mars. “I started off initially with the idea of doing something in the space exploration arena. In fact, it wasn't actually with the idea of creating a company. It was initially with the thought of spurring interest in sending people to Mars. So I put together this idea called Mars Oasis, which was to send a small greenhouse to the surface of Mars and get people excited about the idea of going there and thus increase NASA's budget in order to make it happen. As I got more and more into that, I discovered that the real issue was that the cost of space transportation was really high, and it was getting worse. So we're used to technology getting better every year, but in some arenas it actually does not. It gets worse, particularly when you consider that in 1969 we were able to go to the moon and then we were unable to go beyond low Earth orbit. And now with the space shuttle retired, we're not even able to go to Earth orbit at all, even with people. That was not the right trajectory. So I actually went to Russia three times to look at buying an ICBM to launch this mission. Just very crazy. After my third trip of trying to negotiate with the Russians to buy an ICBM and I did actually get a deal, so figured out what it would cost and everything. But I concluded that my initial assumption had been wrong, that it was not a question of trying to generate more will to explore. Because I think the United States in particular is distillation of the human spirit of exploration. Space exploration is fundamental to the American psyche. But people really need to believe that it can be done and it's not going to break the bank if it does. So that's when I decided to start a rocket company. And I actually didn't think it would succeed and it almost didn't. We started off developing a small rocket which was kind of a scale model version. It was about 100,000 pounds of thrust. So big, you know, big, big by normal standards, but small for a rocket. And developed the engine and the airframe and the electronics and the guidance control system and then proceeded to have three failed launches in a row. And so for various technical reasons, the first three launches did not succeed in reaching orbit. Launches two and three did get to space, but they didn't achieve enough speed to reach orbital velocity. So this is 2008. And so we were heading into the recession and we had one rocket left. And fortunately in late 2008, that fourth launch did work and we made it to orbit. And then we won a NASA contract after that. And so fortunately things worked out. But if that fourth launch had not worked, then SpaceX wouldn't be around. So it was very close call. In fact, when I started I thought, okay, I've got enough money, I think I've got enough money for three launches. Fortunately, it was just enough to make that fourth one.” Montana Jobs Summit, September 16, 2013

ELON CLIPS

24,586 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

The full story of NASA's Apollo 1 and Gus Grissom, the man who was originally planned to be the first human to "walk on the moon" In short, Grissom and the Apollo 1 crew were not getting with the program NASA had planned... They—especially Grissom—were highly critical of NASA and the Space Program, constantly pushing concerns up the chain of command, warning about major equipment failures, safety issues, and overall exposing that there was zero chance the rocket & Lunar Lander NASA was building would be able to fly through space and land on the moon. But nothing was ever fixed because NASA already knew they weren't actually going to the moon...the astronauts had yet to be told the mission was going to be staged. Frustrated, Gus held an unauthorized press conference exposing the shortcomings and failures of the Apollo Program. You can imagine how Pentagon generals reacted seeing their top astronaut tell the entire world-their rocket was a lemon (worthless) 🍋 Five days later, Gus and his crew were burned alive during a so-called "test"... Crazy enough, in 1967 alone, seven astronauts died in a series of "coincidental" & tragic accidents. In fact, another death from Apollo 1 was Thomas Baron, a safety inspector during its construction. After the fire, he testified before Congress that the Apollo program was in such disarray the US would never make it to the moon. And he said those statements made him a target. Baron had submitted a 500-page report on his findings and was on the verge of shutting down the entire program. But just a week later, his car was struck by a train, killing him, his wife, and stepdaughter instantly. The Grissom family had fought tirelessly trying to get answers on his death, and to this day they believe it was no accident, but an intentional hit to silence him before he could expose the NASA "space travel" fraud to the world. It doesn't take a genius to realize these men didn't die in the name of "technological advancement" like we were sold. They were silenced to stop a truth powerful enough to awaken humanity from its hypnosis. h/t Electric

The full story of NASA's Apollo 1 and Gus Grissom, the man who was originally planned to be the first human to "walk on the moon" In short, Grissom and the Apollo 1 crew were not getting with the program NASA had planned... They—especially Grissom—were highly critical of NASA and the Space Program, constantly pushing concerns up the chain of command, warning about major equipment failures, safety issues, and overall exposing that there was zero chance the rocket & Lunar Lander NASA was building would be able to fly through space and land on the moon. But nothing was ever fixed because NASA already knew they weren't actually going to the moon...the astronauts had yet to be told the mission was going to be staged. Frustrated, Gus held an unauthorized press conference exposing the shortcomings and failures of the Apollo Program. You can imagine how Pentagon generals reacted seeing their top astronaut tell the entire world-their rocket was a lemon (worthless) 🍋 Five days later, Gus and his crew were burned alive during a so-called "test"... Crazy enough, in 1967 alone, seven astronauts died in a series of "coincidental" & tragic accidents. In fact, another death from Apollo 1 was Thomas Baron, a safety inspector during its construction. After the fire, he testified before Congress that the Apollo program was in such disarray the US would never make it to the moon. And he said those statements made him a target. Baron had submitted a 500-page report on his findings and was on the verge of shutting down the entire program. But just a week later, his car was struck by a train, killing him, his wife, and stepdaughter instantly. The Grissom family had fought tirelessly trying to get answers on his death, and to this day they believe it was no accident, but an intentional hit to silence him before he could expose the NASA "space travel" fraud to the world. It doesn't take a genius to realize these men didn't die in the name of "technological advancement" like we were sold. They were silenced to stop a truth powerful enough to awaken humanity from its hypnosis. h/t Electric

₿en Wehrman

74,848 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

I want to believe, but there's too much evidence that not only tells me but shows me that they lied. I feel like low Earth orbit is as far as we can go... 1. The van Allen radiation belt. 2. The disgusted, unexciting, ashamed post moon landing conference with the three astronauts. Their body language, mannerisms, and answers scream that they're lying. 3. The lack of noise of the jet engines in the "videos." 4. How did they get the lunar rover on the spaceship? 5. No craters or dust underneath the spaceship. 6. How did the film the spaceship take off perfectly if nobody was left on the moon to operate the camera, and how was it so perfect if there was a delay? 7. The rockets and the spaceship look like a model. 8. The video of them saying that they are 130,000 miles away from Earth when all they really did was cover up the windows when they are in low earth orbit and film a small portion of Earth from low Earth orbit to simulate that they were far away, but then you find out that they're only in low Earth orbit when they uncover the windows. (Shown in the video below) 9. How we have to redesign the space suits to be able to handle the atmosphere on the moon. 10. The lack of talk and missions to the moon ever since. 11. The numerous blacked out photos from NASA. 12. How an older smartphone has way more technology than the entire spaceship back in 1969, and how we were able to even communicate with them in the spaceship as the one astronaut who passed away before the moon launch specified that they had trouble communicating between buildings and the shuttle on the ground. 13. Not one single astronaut would put their hand on the Bible and say they went to the moon. Why? 14. All the CGI and bubbles caught on NASA videos. 15. All the green screen captures and astronauts on wires in the "shuttle" and on the "ISS." There are so many bloopers and outtakes of astronauts and shuttle hatches malfunctioning, people appearing in the background of videos of the shuttle, people fading in and out, I could go on forever... How would you convince me against the evidence or prove me wrong from the arguments that I have provided?

I want to believe, but there's too much evidence that not only tells me but shows me that they lied. I feel like low Earth orbit is as far as we can go... 1. The van Allen radiation belt. 2. The disgusted, unexciting, ashamed post moon landing conference with the three astronauts. Their body language, mannerisms, and answers scream that they're lying. 3. The lack of noise of the jet engines in the "videos." 4. How did they get the lunar rover on the spaceship? 5. No craters or dust underneath the spaceship. 6. How did the film the spaceship take off perfectly if nobody was left on the moon to operate the camera, and how was it so perfect if there was a delay? 7. The rockets and the spaceship look like a model. 8. The video of them saying that they are 130,000 miles away from Earth when all they really did was cover up the windows when they are in low earth orbit and film a small portion of Earth from low Earth orbit to simulate that they were far away, but then you find out that they're only in low Earth orbit when they uncover the windows. (Shown in the video below) 9. How we have to redesign the space suits to be able to handle the atmosphere on the moon. 10. The lack of talk and missions to the moon ever since. 11. The numerous blacked out photos from NASA. 12. How an older smartphone has way more technology than the entire spaceship back in 1969, and how we were able to even communicate with them in the spaceship as the one astronaut who passed away before the moon launch specified that they had trouble communicating between buildings and the shuttle on the ground. 13. Not one single astronaut would put their hand on the Bible and say they went to the moon. Why? 14. All the CGI and bubbles caught on NASA videos. 15. All the green screen captures and astronauts on wires in the "shuttle" and on the "ISS." There are so many bloopers and outtakes of astronauts and shuttle hatches malfunctioning, people appearing in the background of videos of the shuttle, people fading in and out, I could go on forever... How would you convince me against the evidence or prove me wrong from the arguments that I have provided?

The SCIF

32,347 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Molecular Biologist Dolores Cahill: "[There are]...titanium, steel, barium nanoparticles [in COVID jabs]. &...those nanoparticles get into our organs [&] can be affected by radiation...they can modulate the frequency...[& cause] nosebleeds...[&] say there is an Ebola outbreak." This clip of Cahill, an inventor, founder and shareholder of companies, and molecular biologist, is taken from a recent discussion with Charles Kovess (Charles Kovess) et al. posted to Rumble on June 18, 2025. ---------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "Because the nanoparticle and the radiation. I did publications on nanoparticles when I was researching and there's a publication from 2017, with an Italian professor showing that there were, she tested 40 different vaccines, 39 vaccines for human babies, adults and one for cats. And she showed all these metal or titanium, steel, barium nanoparticles. And it is those nanoparticles that get into our organs that can be affected by radiation. "Exactly what you're saying now when I gave evidence after 9-11, 2001, right. I ran one of the so called biosafety labs deliberately to get access to the information. And I gave evidence about the threats to people in Congress in October 2001. I was going through what was going to happen in the injections with fertility, with the peptides. And then I mentioned the nanoparticles and the military said shut up and sit down. Right. Because obviously they didn't want to. So I was saying the threat isn't these things flying into, it's what's going to be in the food and the vaccine, but particularly the nanoparticles. "I'm only mentioning that because within the system everybody knew. But one of the major detoxes is it is possible to detox from the nano. It's, you know, mainly not all of them, but what I was studying 20 years ago is that they can just modulate the frequency and that say if 40-year-olds or 20-year-olds have a specific metal in their organ that that can be, you know, in a university campus or it can be in a school and there could be like where people have nosebleeds. Right? Because that's why they rolled out the injections in different batches and different age groups. "And literally they could do that all across one or two countries and then wake up in the morning, you could have nosebleeds or serious deaths of teenagers. But then they could say there is an Ebola outbreak. Do you get it? Because there are different nanoparticles that resonate. So it's very specific. And I think some of the people that are being targeted to be seriously ill can be easily targeted so that they just die. You know, we die in our sleep or we drop dead or whatever. And I think it's that kind of technology. So it is a huge threat."

Molecular Biologist Dolores Cahill: "[There are]...titanium, steel, barium nanoparticles [in COVID jabs]. &...those nanoparticles get into our organs [&] can be affected by radiation...they can modulate the frequency...[& cause] nosebleeds...[&] say there is an Ebola outbreak." This clip of Cahill, an inventor, founder and shareholder of companies, and molecular biologist, is taken from a recent discussion with Charles Kovess (Charles Kovess) et al. posted to Rumble on June 18, 2025. ---------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "Because the nanoparticle and the radiation. I did publications on nanoparticles when I was researching and there's a publication from 2017, with an Italian professor showing that there were, she tested 40 different vaccines, 39 vaccines for human babies, adults and one for cats. And she showed all these metal or titanium, steel, barium nanoparticles. And it is those nanoparticles that get into our organs that can be affected by radiation. "Exactly what you're saying now when I gave evidence after 9-11, 2001, right. I ran one of the so called biosafety labs deliberately to get access to the information. And I gave evidence about the threats to people in Congress in October 2001. I was going through what was going to happen in the injections with fertility, with the peptides. And then I mentioned the nanoparticles and the military said shut up and sit down. Right. Because obviously they didn't want to. So I was saying the threat isn't these things flying into, it's what's going to be in the food and the vaccine, but particularly the nanoparticles. "I'm only mentioning that because within the system everybody knew. But one of the major detoxes is it is possible to detox from the nano. It's, you know, mainly not all of them, but what I was studying 20 years ago is that they can just modulate the frequency and that say if 40-year-olds or 20-year-olds have a specific metal in their organ that that can be, you know, in a university campus or it can be in a school and there could be like where people have nosebleeds. Right? Because that's why they rolled out the injections in different batches and different age groups. "And literally they could do that all across one or two countries and then wake up in the morning, you could have nosebleeds or serious deaths of teenagers. But then they could say there is an Ebola outbreak. Do you get it? Because there are different nanoparticles that resonate. So it's very specific. And I think some of the people that are being targeted to be seriously ill can be easily targeted so that they just die. You know, we die in our sleep or we drop dead or whatever. And I think it's that kind of technology. So it is a huge threat."

Sense Receptor

55,696 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

The Rapid Growth of SpaceX, Starlink, Starshield & Armada: “I am very grateful that SpaceX is an American company.” "Data centers in space is coming, & it makes sense" “5 years ago they hadn’t even launched Starlink—now it’s in 150 countries & it’s continuing to grow every week.” “It’s an unfair advantage that we have with Starshield.” “If the world can get access to SpaceX, I think that’s a good thing.” Dan Wright (Dan Wright), CEO of Armada Elon (Elon Musk) builds long-term advantage, then unleashes it at massive scale: SpaceX, Starlink, Tesla, Neuralink, xAI.. . . . "We started the company working with SpaceX & they’ve continued to be a great partner for us. What that means is that as SpaceX rolls out throughout the world—& most people don’t know 5 years ago they hadn’t even launched Starlink —it’s in 150 countries & it’s continuing to grow every week. We are the first mover when it comes to the infrastructure, & that partnership works really well because we complement the connectivity with the infrastructure & the AI. We always are at the edge. It’s funny, I get messages from our team all the time & it’s like the most crazy places you can imagine. And the edge is gonna continue to get redefined. I get calls literally—I was on the call with somebody and they’re like, “Hey, can we get one of these in Antarctica?” I’m like, “Well yeah, Starlink’s live in Antarctica. No reason why we can’t do that.” Obviously data center in space is the new hotness. Everybody’s talking about it." "Yeah, what’s the deal with that—so are you gonna get these in space?" :They are modular. I mean the edge is continuing—this is actually a debate that we have in terms of how soon it’s going to happen—but it’s definitely going to happen. Data centers in space is coming, and it makes sense, right? If you think about what SpaceX is talking about with Starship going to the moon—you’re going to need compute, especially as you start to think about Optimus robots building bases on the moon, later Mars. You’re going to need large amounts of compute. Not to mention a lot of the things that we do here on Earth, you’re gonna want to do there in space. And it’s a lot more efficient to do it, especially in hostile environments, if you can automate more of that—things like mining, for example. And so you’re gonna see data centers in space, and I’m sure we’re definitely gonna be a part of it. "What do you think about SpaceX’s rumored IPO for 2026?" "I mean, I think SpaceX is an incredible company and they have a ton of value. So I don’t have any insider information here—but I would say, hey, if the world can get access to SpaceX, I think that’s a good thing. Starlink is really amazing in the sense that it just continues to get better so fast. They’re rolling out in new countries every week in major markets. Just as a real recent example, just this last week they launched in South Korea—big market and an important ally for the US, so that’s a big deal. They’re also expanding the types of services that are available. It started as a consumer product, then they brought it to enterprise. Initially that was used more as a backup, and now it’s being used more as a primary—and that is because the service keeps getting better and better as more satellites go up into the sky. Each generation of satellite is also better, not to mention the terminals on the ground. There’s now multiple types of terminals, including the more recent minis that people really like—“Hey, I can put it in a backpack if I go on a hike or if I’m traveling. I can put it on the ski rack of my car.” Perfect internet all the time. All that does for us is it gives us more use cases that we can unlock. Now that you have connectivity on the oil rig, or on a farm, or a ranch—wherever you are—we can apply the AI to those situations on the ground without latency, and then send the metadata back to some other location that they want it. Part of the full-stack approach. And also with Starshield—that’s a huge advantage when you think about some of the conflicts that are going on. People talk to me a lot about this race with China and the geopolitical conflicts around the world. I am very grateful that SpaceX is an American company. I feel like it’s an unfair advantage that we have with Starshield available to the DoD. We want to be the first mover with the infrastructure and the AI to help solve problems at the edge, and the work we’re doing with the Navy is a good example of that."

The Rapid Growth of SpaceX, Starlink, Starshield & Armada: “I am very grateful that SpaceX is an American company.” "Data centers in space is coming, & it makes sense" “5 years ago they hadn’t even launched Starlink—now it’s in 150 countries & it’s continuing to grow every week.” “It’s an unfair advantage that we have with Starshield.” “If the world can get access to SpaceX, I think that’s a good thing.” Dan Wright (Dan Wright), CEO of Armada Elon (Elon Musk) builds long-term advantage, then unleashes it at massive scale: SpaceX, Starlink, Tesla, Neuralink, xAI.. . . . "We started the company working with SpaceX & they’ve continued to be a great partner for us. What that means is that as SpaceX rolls out throughout the world—& most people don’t know 5 years ago they hadn’t even launched Starlink —it’s in 150 countries & it’s continuing to grow every week. We are the first mover when it comes to the infrastructure, & that partnership works really well because we complement the connectivity with the infrastructure & the AI. We always are at the edge. It’s funny, I get messages from our team all the time & it’s like the most crazy places you can imagine. And the edge is gonna continue to get redefined. I get calls literally—I was on the call with somebody and they’re like, “Hey, can we get one of these in Antarctica?” I’m like, “Well yeah, Starlink’s live in Antarctica. No reason why we can’t do that.” Obviously data center in space is the new hotness. Everybody’s talking about it." "Yeah, what’s the deal with that—so are you gonna get these in space?" :They are modular. I mean the edge is continuing—this is actually a debate that we have in terms of how soon it’s going to happen—but it’s definitely going to happen. Data centers in space is coming, and it makes sense, right? If you think about what SpaceX is talking about with Starship going to the moon—you’re going to need compute, especially as you start to think about Optimus robots building bases on the moon, later Mars. You’re going to need large amounts of compute. Not to mention a lot of the things that we do here on Earth, you’re gonna want to do there in space. And it’s a lot more efficient to do it, especially in hostile environments, if you can automate more of that—things like mining, for example. And so you’re gonna see data centers in space, and I’m sure we’re definitely gonna be a part of it. "What do you think about SpaceX’s rumored IPO for 2026?" "I mean, I think SpaceX is an incredible company and they have a ton of value. So I don’t have any insider information here—but I would say, hey, if the world can get access to SpaceX, I think that’s a good thing. Starlink is really amazing in the sense that it just continues to get better so fast. They’re rolling out in new countries every week in major markets. Just as a real recent example, just this last week they launched in South Korea—big market and an important ally for the US, so that’s a big deal. They’re also expanding the types of services that are available. It started as a consumer product, then they brought it to enterprise. Initially that was used more as a backup, and now it’s being used more as a primary—and that is because the service keeps getting better and better as more satellites go up into the sky. Each generation of satellite is also better, not to mention the terminals on the ground. There’s now multiple types of terminals, including the more recent minis that people really like—“Hey, I can put it in a backpack if I go on a hike or if I’m traveling. I can put it on the ski rack of my car.” Perfect internet all the time. All that does for us is it gives us more use cases that we can unlock. Now that you have connectivity on the oil rig, or on a farm, or a ranch—wherever you are—we can apply the AI to those situations on the ground without latency, and then send the metadata back to some other location that they want it. Part of the full-stack approach. And also with Starshield—that’s a huge advantage when you think about some of the conflicts that are going on. People talk to me a lot about this race with China and the geopolitical conflicts around the world. I am very grateful that SpaceX is an American company. I feel like it’s an unfair advantage that we have with Starshield available to the DoD. We want to be the first mover with the infrastructure and the AI to help solve problems at the edge, and the work we’re doing with the Navy is a good example of that."

Molly O’Shea

30,317 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Elon Musk in 2008: "NASA was going to pay Russia $70M per astronaut. SpaceX could do it for $15M" Musk is presenting SpaceX to a small audience. He shows a video of the Falcon 9 first stage firing: "This is almost a million pounds of thrust in vacuum, about four times the maximum thrust of a 747. It's pretty much Armageddon down there. You don't want to be standing at the base of that test stand." He explains the NASA contract: "The contract SpaceX has right now is to demonstrate cargo transfer to the space station and return of experiments to Earth. What we're hoping NASA will exercise is an option on that contract to also carry astronauts. I think they will exercise that option fairly soon." On the coming gap in American spaceflight: "The Space Shuttle is retiring in 2010. So unless our spacecraft is active, the US will not have the ability to send people to orbit. For about five or six years, unless SpaceX is successful, there will be no American manned space capability. There'll just be the Russians." He describes the situation bluntly: "The Russians are charging us over $70 million per seat after the shuttle retires. They got us over a barrel and they're doing us hard. We'll spend half a billion dollars per year on the Russians just buying tickets for six or seven astronauts to go to the space station." Musk shares SpaceX's cost: "Our cost per person, even assuming no reusability, assuming every bit of it is expended and no refurbishment, is about $15 million per person. And it's us. The jobs are here. So I think it's kind of a no-brainer. But no-brainers in Washington DC don't always happen." On Congress: "We've been given money for the cargo portion but not for the manned portion. The amount we're asking for to get this done is $300 million. For every year that we're dependent on the Russians, we have to send them half a billion dollars. It seems kind of ludicrous. But anyway, that's DC." Someone asks about the space elevator: "The idea is you have this really long cable, like 40 to 60,000 miles long, with the ends way out in space and the base on Earth. There are a lot of issues with the space elevator. It relies on super strong materials, carbon nanotubes. Until we build, say, a carbon nanotube footbridge, then I think we should not really be thinking too much about building a 60,000-mile elevator. Not this century." On space solar power: "If there's anyone in the world who should love space solar power, it's me. I'm chairman and the largest shareholder of a solar company called SolarCity, and I've got a rocket company. So it should be perfect. Unfortunately, I don't think space solar power makes sense. I wish it did because that'd be awesome. But even if you assume it costs zero to transport the solar panels to space, when you take into account the equipment to convert the energy to microwaves, then equipment on the ground to convert it back to electricity, just that capital cost blows you out of the water. It's not competitive with terrestrial solar power. So there's no point in even thinking about it." On fuel costs: "The fuel and oxidizer cost is really super low. For our big rocket, it's only a couple hundred thousand dollars. For our small rocket, it's about $30,000 or $40,000. If you just look at the propellant cost, it's very, very cheap." On the long-term goal: "One of the design goals for Falcon 9 is that it can go from in the hangar to in the air in under 60 minutes, which would be super fast for a rocket, particularly a big rocket. It's going to take several flights before we get there. But as long as we lay the foundation and make sure the design is capable of that, we can at least have the possibility of getting to a flight an hour in the future."

Elon Musk in 2008: "NASA was going to pay Russia $70M per astronaut. SpaceX could do it for $15M" Musk is presenting SpaceX to a small audience. He shows a video of the Falcon 9 first stage firing: "This is almost a million pounds of thrust in vacuum, about four times the maximum thrust of a 747. It's pretty much Armageddon down there. You don't want to be standing at the base of that test stand." He explains the NASA contract: "The contract SpaceX has right now is to demonstrate cargo transfer to the space station and return of experiments to Earth. What we're hoping NASA will exercise is an option on that contract to also carry astronauts. I think they will exercise that option fairly soon." On the coming gap in American spaceflight: "The Space Shuttle is retiring in 2010. So unless our spacecraft is active, the US will not have the ability to send people to orbit. For about five or six years, unless SpaceX is successful, there will be no American manned space capability. There'll just be the Russians." He describes the situation bluntly: "The Russians are charging us over $70 million per seat after the shuttle retires. They got us over a barrel and they're doing us hard. We'll spend half a billion dollars per year on the Russians just buying tickets for six or seven astronauts to go to the space station." Musk shares SpaceX's cost: "Our cost per person, even assuming no reusability, assuming every bit of it is expended and no refurbishment, is about $15 million per person. And it's us. The jobs are here. So I think it's kind of a no-brainer. But no-brainers in Washington DC don't always happen." On Congress: "We've been given money for the cargo portion but not for the manned portion. The amount we're asking for to get this done is $300 million. For every year that we're dependent on the Russians, we have to send them half a billion dollars. It seems kind of ludicrous. But anyway, that's DC." Someone asks about the space elevator: "The idea is you have this really long cable, like 40 to 60,000 miles long, with the ends way out in space and the base on Earth. There are a lot of issues with the space elevator. It relies on super strong materials, carbon nanotubes. Until we build, say, a carbon nanotube footbridge, then I think we should not really be thinking too much about building a 60,000-mile elevator. Not this century." On space solar power: "If there's anyone in the world who should love space solar power, it's me. I'm chairman and the largest shareholder of a solar company called SolarCity, and I've got a rocket company. So it should be perfect. Unfortunately, I don't think space solar power makes sense. I wish it did because that'd be awesome. But even if you assume it costs zero to transport the solar panels to space, when you take into account the equipment to convert the energy to microwaves, then equipment on the ground to convert it back to electricity, just that capital cost blows you out of the water. It's not competitive with terrestrial solar power. So there's no point in even thinking about it." On fuel costs: "The fuel and oxidizer cost is really super low. For our big rocket, it's only a couple hundred thousand dollars. For our small rocket, it's about $30,000 or $40,000. If you just look at the propellant cost, it's very, very cheap." On the long-term goal: "One of the design goals for Falcon 9 is that it can go from in the hangar to in the air in under 60 minutes, which would be super fast for a rocket, particularly a big rocket. It's going to take several flights before we get there. But as long as we lay the foundation and make sure the design is capable of that, we can at least have the possibility of getting to a flight an hour in the future."

Grey

56,512 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten