In the light of yesterday's blog about the FAA and space, and the possibility of secret space capabilities bot military and otherwise, consider this important article contributed by Ms. P.H.:

U.S. to Save Millions by Ditching Russian Space Taxis

Now the critical thing here to note is that the commercialization of space launch capability is considerably cheaper than government-sponsored platforms (which should be good news to capitalists):

"SpaceX and Boeing said Monday that they are on track to carry out their first manned test flights to the space station in 2017. NASA chose the two private companies last September to transport American astronauts to and from the orbiting lab.

"U.S. manned launches ended with the retirement of the space shuttles in 2011. Until SpaceX and Boeing begin flying crews from Cape Canaveral, NASA astronauts must continue to hitch rocket rides with Russia.

"NASA's commercial crew program manager, Kathy Lueders, said the average price for a seat aboard the SpaceX Dragon and Boeing CST-100 capsules will be $58 million. That compares with $71 million a seat charged by Russia under its latest NASA contract."

The size of the contracts themselves are intriguing, for they are indicators of how rapidly the commercialization of of space is, as predicted, proceeding this year:

"Lueders said the plan is to have two "robust providers" for crew transport, in case one of them ends up grounded by technical problems. NASA awarded SpaceX $2.6 billion for crew transport, while Boeing got $4.2 billion. Each is to provide two to six missions."

The intriguing thing here is, however, the launch capability itself, for the new space capsules being developed are supposedly capable of carrying five astronauts, one more than NASA's minimum requirement of four:

"Unlike the Russian charge, the $58 million per-person cost estimate includes a fair amount of cargo to be flown aboard the SpaceX and Boeing spacecraft, along with four crew members. That price tag is based on a five-year period, Lueders said.

"The Russian Soyuz holds a maximum of three people, with at least one a Russian to pilot the craft.

"SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell said the future enhanced Dragon capsule could carry five astronauts — one more than NASA's stipulated four — and still meet all the cargo requirements.

However, I hope you noticed something peculiar about this article, one that, when I saw it, immediately brought home to me the possibility that we are looking at some "news between the lines," i.e., we're being told things "without being told." In this instance, what caught my eye was not what was said in the article, but what was pictured, and I rather suspect that this may have been the main reason Ms. P.H. shared the article. Note that the picture at the top of the article carries a rather bland caption "NASA expects to save millions of dollars sending astronauts to the international space station," a rather bland caption for what is really pictured, namely, a picture of a mock-up Boeing space capsule, on which is boldly emblazoned the statement "7 person maximum capacity," a picture suggesting that the practical lift capabilities being developed are rather well-beyond what is being said publicly.

The real question is: why seven? Why such a large number in a capsule? Here comes my high octane speculation: I suggest what we are being given glimpses of is a quiet, but nevertheless very real, development of large transport capacity, not for any missions to the International Space Station, but rather, for something far more long distance, namely, Mars, which in the context of yesterday's blogs and tidbits, included, you'll recall, a rather thought-provoking Lockheed-Martin commercial about manned missions to Mars as a regular occurrence, and a story about investigations of fusion based propulsion systems. In other words, it would seem that the popular mainstream media is deliberately ratcheting up the disclosure of space objectives and capabilities.

In that light, Ms. P.H. also shared this about the developments in Russia:

Who will join Russia on its journey to other planets?

What's intriguing in this article is the clear indication that Russia to some extent appears to be "commercializing" space as well, and more importantly - the sanctions regime notwithstanding - doing so with China and the other BRICSA bloc nations (as predicted) but also in conjunction with Germany.

Packaging all this together and what is one looking at? A real bona fide space race, one fundamentally different than that driving the space race of Cold War, version 1.0, for in this new version 2.0, the race is ultimately commercial... and that means ultimately that the race is also military. Once one admits this, one has admitted that the real race is in the development (and public disclosure) of at least some of those hidden technologies that many people, this author included, think exist off-the-books. Given the dates in the articles - 2024 - we are looking at a decade of development that will, I believe, be rather stunning.

See you on the flip side...

Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and "strange stuff". His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into "alternative history and science".


  1. Guygrr on February 9, 2015 at 8:27 pm

    My question still returns to how the hell are 4 people, let alone 7, suppose to live in a tiny little capsule for a 150 day in one direction journey to mars.

  2. DownunderET on February 8, 2015 at 1:38 pm

    More theater and more ink, it seems that all these articles are messages being sent to a deaf audience. I don’t see it making the 6 o’clock news any time soon. But for what it’s worth is that it is a “hint” of whats to come, and what I’d like to know, is, what are they really doing up there on the ISS?
    You don’t pour billions into a project, UNLESS, you are going to get a return. So dear friends, just like CERN, we have billions spent on a flying carpet (ISS), and not a benefit to be seen for the people of this planet.

  3. marcos toledo on February 8, 2015 at 11:41 am

    While we looking up into space we forget about underwater. What are our oligarchs up to in exploiting what ever lies beneath the oceans. And if anyone on this website has read the NOVEL Master Of The World by Jules Verne you will know what I mean. McDonald-Douglas tested the DX-20 as a land landing spacecraft fairly successfully so this fetish with landing in water and Apollo capsule redux I don’t get it’s stupid.

    • Lost on February 8, 2015 at 12:54 pm

      A couple tests of a prototype rocket, without a crew, landing on land is very different than a capsule bringing 3 crew members safely back from space.

      The US was building tilt rotor aircraft in the 1960s, and 45+ years later to Osprey still doesn’t work quite as advertised.

  4. Robert Barricklow on February 8, 2015 at 9:13 am

    Commercialization in the East India Company Sense[cent$], with a dash of CIA & a pound of the National Security State. I think we all know “here”, that “real” capitalism is a sin; simply because it is “real” competition.
    They are about “control”
    and Monopolies of power
    [i.e. energy markets, issuing currencies, land, border, laws, treaties, etc., etc.].

    Now Space is being monopolized; both inner & outer
    [& if truth be known; “they” are also fencing-in that territory between your ears].

    • Robert Barricklow on February 8, 2015 at 9:23 am

      Patented so it’s perfectly legal.
      Probably surreptitiously chipped by the CIA[or some other alphabet mickey-mouse club], and designed by NASA[or other lettered club].
      maybe some other unknown organization has, or is in the process,
      of setting-up they’re shop “in” – “there”.
      After all, it’s just real estate to them. And real estate is good business when the FIRE sector is not taxed; labor is.

  5. Lost on February 8, 2015 at 8:07 am

    News to me that any US company, or agency, has mastered landing a space rocket capsule on land. The Soviets figured that out years ago. I know that NASA and SpaceX have experimented, but mastery is in order if returning a crew from orbit.

    Landing in the sea would seem to require a much more expensive recovery operation.

    Anyhow rockets? Expensive, dangerous, don’t go far, have all sorts of vibration problems + really caustic fuels.

  6. basta on February 8, 2015 at 5:41 am

    Oh that sign is just for the restroom! That’s actually just the hatch of a tricked-out TR3B painted white with some NASA decals slapped on…
    Boeing got the plans for a song from LM since they’ve got quantum teleportation up and running now (the part they didn’t mention in that slick commercial) and have no more use for all that old hardware. /joke

    But seriously, how did the LEM get off the moon? DID the LEM get off the moon? If they really did do that in 1969, a seven-person restroom in space is a cake-walk.

Help the Community Grow

Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.

Upcoming Events