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: 2
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 03:45 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.


No it isnt. They dont even have a launch on warning policy at this point. And even if they had, they wouldnt strike back based on the decetion of one missile launch.
If you want to, you can migate this danger further. Base the conventional ICBMs elsewhere (Vandenberg) and tell them advance. A suprise launch from Vandenberg is far less intimidating than a missile field lightning up. And if circumstances permit, just give them a call before you launch.




posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: SpeedFanatic

Mother of Pete, zaph. How do you not go around throttling members here? For the comedy?

Sf, I told you to go to dig into copper canyon. It would have lead you to the cover program that was chronologically coincident with the one you mentioned time wise used as a cover. It was loud and proud as a shuttle replacement. It was always unofficially noted there was a black part.

That you also only got as far as the dc-x for rocket propulsion makes me equal ly surprised. The x-33 had chunks that were considered radical at the time and made everyone think - and some wink - there had been a black program to develop the tech enough for lockheed to propose their use.

Now. Is there a fast mover? Sounds like it from the forum here.

Was there a lot of hypersonic research? Even black programs. Damned straight.

Is there a secret launcher? Almost certainly not.

The way to convince me otherwise would be to have offer unexplained sat sightings coincident with your sky quakes. It is virtually impossible to hide a sat.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: anzha
The way to convince me otherwise would be to have offer unexplained sat sightings coincident with your sky quakes. It is virtually impossible to hide a sat.


How is Misty doing these days, anyway?

The subject of this thread is something I keep going back and forth on, personally. Obviously we're talking about Blackstar, perhaps by another name, perhaps not exactly as the Aviation Week article described it.

It would be a hell of thing to keep quiet. From my assessment, the TSTO system that Scott described did not make sense (launch at Mach 3? 100,000 feet? all you've done is make a much more complicated and expensive and secret rocket, because that XOV had better have the fuel fraction of a conventional rocket.)

Why would the Reagan administration be desperate for a second, secret way into space? My guess would be SDI. If SDI was to work as advertised, it'd need a hell of a lot of satellites.

I'm very curious to hear more about what anzha is talking about above.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: anzhaThe x-33 had chunks that were considered radical at the time and made everyone think - and some wink - there had been a black program to develop the tech enough for lockheed to propose their use.


Funny thing about the X-33. From what I heard, it was extremely promising and all but ready to go, but in the end it was killed by the NASA director's insistence that they use the composite fuel tank instead of just going with something people could actually manufacture, like aluminum. This was after the composite fuel tanks failed in testing, and basically every engineer involved told him it was a death sentence to the project to try to go forward with the composites. There was no way the composite tanks would work without a complete redesign of the entire project. It made no sense.

At the same time they would have no problem getting the thing in the air with an aluminum tank.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

they have secret launch sites hidden deep in vastly unexplored places like the saahara desert



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: SpeedFanatic
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.


"Rogers Smith, who at the time was flying the SR-71 at NASA Dryden. He related a story about flying from Edwards to White Sands and back. He asked his back seater, flight test engineer Marta Bohn-Meyer, to see what the controllers at White Sands were showing as their groundspeed and altitude. The controller replied that they were at 3500 feet per second and 129,000 feet. Both Rogers and Marta knew that wasn’t correct. When asked again, the rather flustered controller replied, 2450 feet per second and 81,500 feet. They both knew that there was another flight above them, using their flight as a cover for a classified program."

The "cover" part of this story never made sense to me. Why would you need cover? If you're flying that much faster than your SR-71 cover plane, you're going to overtake it anyway, right? Seems needlessly complicated.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: wirehead

I'm not sure they meant they were covering the classified's entire flight. Probably just if anyone saw or heard them launching the Air Force could be like nah that was our SR-71.

Or he was wrong and it was just a glitch or mistake by the operator.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: wirehead

Funny thing about the X-33. From what I heard, it was extremely promising and all but ready to go, but in the end it was killed by the NASA director's insistence that they use the composite fuel tank instead of just going with something people could actually manufacture, like aluminum. This was after the composite fuel tanks failed in testing, and basically every engineer involved told him it was a death sentence to the project to try to go forward with the composites. There was no way the composite tanks would work without a complete redesign of the entire project. It made no sense.


Actually, Lockheed bid the lobed composite tank. The NASA admin cancelled the x-33 after they had failure after failure on the tank testing. Goldin didn't demand they have the tank. I am sure he was an ass when he cancelled the program though.

Lockheed test flew a scale model from the nm spaceport with the tank and linear aerospike. My nsho was it was meant as a fsck you to Goldin.


At the same time they would have no problem getting the thing in the air with an aluminum tank.


Actually, no. They needed the composite tank tech to have the right mass fraction to get to orbit. The 33 would have nor reached orbit, but it would have proven the tech. The problem was Lockheed proposed too many bleeding edge technologies. That killed the program. That they were so confident the tech was ready was what was...surprising.


edit on 21-9-2017 by anzha because: Bad quoting



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Has ATS become too young to remember the tav 'race' of the 80s?

The Americans went with scramjets. The Brits and Japanese went with lace. The Germans even has their Sanger.

The us and Brits are the only ones to keep plugging at it.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: anzha
Actually, no. They needed the composite tank tech to have the right mass fraction to get to orbit. The 33 would have nor reached orbit, but it would have proven the tech. The problem was Lockheed proposed too many bleeding edge technologies. That killed the program. That they were so confident the tech was ready was what was...surprising.



Oh, I see. That clarifies some things and sounds a little more reasonable, like the choice was between "rocketship that can't make it to space" or "rocketship that can make it to space but we've got to solve this composite issue"



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: anzha
Has ATS become too young to remember the tav 'race' of the 80s?

The Americans went with scramjets. The Brits and Japanese went with lace. The Germans even has their Sanger.

The us and Brits are the only ones to keep plugging at it.


Speaking for myself, yes. This is all stuff I'm trying to piece together after the fact by digging through documents and things.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: wirehead
Speaking for myself, yes. This is all stuff I'm trying to piece together after the fact by digging through documents and things.


TAV. Trans atmospheric vehicle.

The left over Brit bits is now known as Reaction Engines. The original project was called HoToL. Its engine they now call SABRE and then was called LACE.

Their mass fraction still doesn't reach orbit, BTW.

Now can anyone name the cover program the US ran? It was legit and a cover...



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: anzha

originally posted by: wirehead
Speaking for myself, yes. This is all stuff I'm trying to piece together after the fact by digging through documents and things.


TAV. Trans atmospheric vehicle.

The left over Brit bits is now known as Reaction Engines. The original project was called HoToL. Its engine they now call SABRE and then was called LACE.

Their mass fraction still doesn't reach orbit, BTW.

Now can anyone name the cover program the US ran? It was legit and a cover...



Well there was all that talk about the NASP right? The Rockwell X-30?



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: wirehead

Well there was all that talk about the NASP right? The Rockwell X-30?


Bing.

Look at the NASP shape. Look at the hypersonic demonstrators the USAF flew. Hmmmm.

This stuff doesn't develop in a vacuum, guys. There is history and its not magitech.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

You're kidding, right? The first time I mentioned the neural net they flew in the 90s, most of the responses I got were the message board equivalent of a blank stare.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: anzha

You're kidding, right? The first time I mentioned the neural net they flew in the 90s, most of the responses I got were the message board equivalent of a blank stare.


Geezus.

I am not that old, damnit.

Bread crumb trails are not a viable strategy with them, are they?



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Some. Those are the ones to cultivate. Others, not so much.

Even Sam has his days. I'll drop hints and talk about something in a fairly obscure way, and after a few exchanges I'll look at his replies and think to myself, "he has no clue what I'm talking about".


edit on 9/21/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/21/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: anzha
Look at the NASP shape. Look at the hypersonic demonstrators the USAF flew. Hmmmm.

This stuff doesn't develop in a vacuum, guys. There is history and its not magitech.


So, I've heard that there was an "X-24C" in the mid 1970s that went black pretty quickly. It sounds kind of like what you're talking about, but It's hard to find any info on the thing.

That was part of the broader, white X-24 project that NASA was running.

I fully admit I have no clue what most people are talking about here!
edit on 21-9-2017 by wirehead because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: wirehead

originally posted by: anzha
The way to convince me otherwise would be to have offer unexplained sat sightings coincident with your sky quakes. It is virtually impossible to hide a sat.


How is Misty doing these days, anyway?

The subject of this thread is something I keep going back and forth on, personally. Obviously we're talking about Blackstar, perhaps by another name, perhaps not exactly as the Aviation Week article described it.

It would be a hell of thing to keep quiet. From my assessment, the TSTO system that Scott described did not make sense (launch at Mach 3? 100,000 feet? all you've done is make a much more complicated and expensive and secret rocket, because that XOV had better have the fuel fraction of a conventional rocket.)

Why would the Reagan administration be desperate for a second, secret way into space? My guess would be SDI. If SDI was to work as advertised, it'd need a hell of a lot of satellites.
.


Agreed, but Mach 4.8 at 140K ft would make things a bit more doable wouldn't it? Hypothetically speaking of course


As for having access to space, with the shuttles potentially grounded for an indefinite period of time post Challenger, the US had zero access to space during that time. Given the period of time this all took place, there were some understandably nervous people in the Govt that found that to be unacceptable..



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

I wondered if the Rockwell MRCC was updated to a better system.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join