It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Challenger disaster '86 and Black "successor-follow-on" after it!

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 06:34 AM
link   
January 28, 1986.
The eyes of the world were upon the NASA shuttle orbiter mission STS-51-L and the tenth flight of Space Shuttle Challenger (OV-99). Nothing seemed what would happen 73 seconds later.. Disaster,that happened shortly after, claimed seven lives - five NASA astronauts and two payload specialists. Parts of the OV-99(STA-099) plunged into the Atlantic Ocean...

Events that happened that day made Air Force to realize that further development of the Shuttle for military use was uncertain and US brains had to 'fill the gap'. Since then, history hold a unique significance. It is remarkable how it was possible to overcome enormous technological challenges in limited timeframe to field such a successful "successor".

There was work to do and... that was it.
The thing was to field a space program in minimum time using multiple aerospace contractors. As it was stated here on this forum before, Northrop brought their experience with lift abilities. What other contractors done for that project is anyone's guess at the moment. It is beliveable that Northrop could have been responsible for lifting body vehicles. They had an experience with HL-10, M2F2 so they know how to run it.

Then we read this posts:



A big one for pretty much all the majors (not a competition though) from 87-97



Immensely successful and certainly never hangar queens by any measure. It still baffles me to this day how remarkably few hiccups there actually were on the road to getting stuff built, and realizing (even exceeding) the performance/mission goals. Still flying? Probably. Expensive? Yes indeed..Necessary? Absolutely. There was a reason why it was a collaboration, and not a competition. No ties whatsoever to DC-X. Any comparison to X-37B is also invalid..



The "skyquakes" could be heard/felt in the LA area depending on where the landing site was, and the approach to such..I can only hope that one day that project will be declassified, given the herculean effort by all involved to overcome enormous technological challenges in a limited time frame to field a program that was so hugely successful, it directly led to a follow-on that is still bringing an unmatched niche capability 20 years later...



And there is one platform that uses JP-7 that has been flying for 26 years and counting...



The bird that uses the JP7 is not directly responsible for the so called skyquakes, but is related, and it's not a Northrop bird, although they were involved in the project..Not related to the Green Lady whatsoever..



Speaking specifically to what caused the "skyquakes" in the early-mid 90's, I would say yes, add that one to the list, because it (and what it eventually developed into) is a different animal altogether.


It was said that "the bird using JP-7 that has been flying for 26 years and counting" is different animal than the original "skyquakes" emitter from the early 90s. My best guess would be that they took the platform changed its propulsion methods and prepared it for wartime missions. Is it how it changed its mission profile?? or maybe it is something different?

What would be mission profile? Are we talking here about one project that evolved into something entirely different or was gained technology used later for the second, totally separate program/project?

Discussion comes again...





posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 06:41 AM
link   
a reply to: SpeedFanatic
Links to anything?
Or is this from personal knowledge of the program?



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

A littlebit of puzzle work and outside help. The only links I could provide would be to the ATS posts I've quoted in original post.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 06:56 AM
link   
That's very interesting, but as BG, It would likely lead to a much more in depth discussion if you could provide some credible links.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: CulturalResilience

I could count to this one link:
www.eaa55.org...
+ knowledge gained from ATS posts. The whole thing is to mixture small pieces together.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 07:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
That's very interesting, but as BG, It would likely lead to a much more in depth discussion if you could provide some credible links.

most of this stuff should be in here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

IMO its inconceivable to think they didnt try something during the Reagan years. Clinton cancelled whatever they had going and during Bush II they came up with the Green Lady as a stop gap until Lockheeds new bird is ready.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: SpeedFanatic

So you jump from opening about space flight needs after a shuttle crash to generalized jibberious about a old special projects aircraft that needs jet fuel? 'Makes no sense. You present us with little of nothing with big holes.

I can tell that by the fall of 1985 that we definitely had triangle-like craft that were operational. On the simple basis of that, it can be reasonable argued that the death trap shuttle should have been retired after the first crash or more likely, should never had made it first flight because of the developments in the entirely different field of massless flight.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 08:47 AM
link   
The notion of ferrying people and equipment (called "Shuttle") to space and back was born of the 80s. We're 'colonizing space', fulfilling the overhyped hollywood dream of 2001; space shuttles, space stations, moon bases, Jupiter... and beyond infinity.

The Shuttle was way too complex and expensive, was doomed to fail spectacularly, at some point.

EOS

ETA:

The only thing to come good of the shuttle was Hubble. The space station is naught but an expensive hotel in space.

.o2
edit on 21-9-2017 by intrptr because: Edit:



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Thanks for posting.

This is something somewhat new hearing for me.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
The notion of ferrying people and equipment (called "Shuttle") to space and back was born of the 80s. We're 'colonizing space', fulfilling the overhyped hollywood dream of 2001; space shuttles, space stations, moon bases, Jupiter... and beyond infinity.

The Shuttle was way too complex and expensive, was doomed to fail spectacularly, at some point.

EOS

ETA:

The only thing to come good of the shuttle was Hubble. The space station is naught but an expensive hotel in space.

.o2


The space shuttle was conceived as a cheaper way to boost supplies/crews into orbit for the space stations for research purposes. It really had nothing to do with colonization. As you correctly pointed out however, it wasn't so cheap. The idea was that if we built a reusable craft it would save money, but it didn't turn out that way.
edit on 21 9 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)


Edit: Also the idea for a "space shuttle" goes back to the 60s.
edit on 21 9 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: intrptr
The notion of ferrying people and equipment (called "Shuttle") to space and back was born of the 80s. We're 'colonizing space', fulfilling the overhyped hollywood dream of 2001; space shuttles, space stations, moon bases, Jupiter... and beyond infinity.

The Shuttle was way too complex and expensive, was doomed to fail spectacularly, at some point.

EOS

ETA:

The only thing to come good of the shuttle was Hubble. The space station is naught but an expensive hotel in space.

.o2


The space shuttle was conceived as a cheaper way to boost supplies/crews into orbit for the space stations for research purposes. It really had nothing to do with colonization. As you correctly pointed out however, it wasn't so cheap. The idea was that if we built a reusable craft it would save money, but it didn't turn out that way.

Edit: Also the idea for a "space shuttle" goes back to the 60s.


I thought the idea for the space shuttle was to make use of as much existing technology as possible. Moon lander capsule for the cockpit, rocket engines for the boosters, main fuel tank and thrust controllers at the back.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: stormcell

What you just stated and what I stated are not mutually exclusive.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 01:17 PM
link   
cough dyna soar cough



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

Do you think we are employing combat capable systems or only sensing systems?



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: mightmight

Do you think we are employing combat capable systems or only sensing systems?


During the Cold War neither side had aneed for a conventional strategic strike capability. Kinda pointless when both sides have a launch on warning policy and fear decapitation strikes.
So i dont think any of the fast birds, rocket planes or whatever had a dtrike capability. Maybe the Navy wanted something in the ASuW department but thats a different story.
Obviously this has changed radically. The US has been talking about prompt global strike for more than a decade at this point and various projects are moving forward.
And yes, i do think the US already has a prompt global strike capability at this point. Nothing fancy, just some more or less experimental conventional warheads of ICBMs or SLBMs.
I also believe that the LRSB family of systems effort includes a supersonic strike capability. I dont think its anywhere close to operational and i highly doubt any possible current fastmover (TGL) is armed.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: humanoidlord
cough dyna soar cough

You wouldnt be able to hide the launch. If they tried anything in the boost glide department it would have come out of Isinglass/Rheinberry. ie Mach 3 mothership and high altitude rocket plane as second stage. Kinda like Blackstar from SpeedFanatics link, just with a less... ridiculous performance envelope. Brilliant Buzzard if you dont mind the tinfoil.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

Delivering a conventional warhead with an ICBM would be an incredible waste of money, even for the US military.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: mightmight

Delivering a conventional warhead with an ICBM would be an incredible waste of money, even for the US military.

Well, if you want to hit a time sensitive target within 30 mins your options narrow pretty quickly. And it wouldnt cost much. You can use relativley simple kinetic warheads, the Impact velocity of an ICBM is enough to obliterate a target.
Also the missiles have been payed for long ago, using one now is acutally cheaper than decommissioning down the road. And using a missile is always cheaper than deploying an air force expeditionary wing or a Carrier Battle Group to do the job.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

A conventional-tipped ICBM is a fantastic way to get your country glassed by Russia or China's launch on warning systems.

A conventional-tipped theater ballistic missile or IRBM makes a hell of a lot more sense, and found potentially be carried in a Ticon/Burke's VLS cell.

Stuff a conventional or kinetic warhead into an MGM-134 derivative and you're basically there.
edit on 21-9-2017 by Barnalby because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barnalby
a reply to: face23785

A conventional-tipped ICBM is a fantastic way to get your country glassed by Russia or China's launch on warning systems.


That's another reason why it wouldn't be very wise to use one, especially if you're hitting someone in the relative vicinity of Russia or China where the trajectory would be easy to mistake for an attack on them.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join