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.
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.
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.
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
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.
originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: mightmight
Do you think we are employing combat capable systems or only sensing systems?
originally posted by: humanoidlord
cough dyna soar cough
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.
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.