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

originally posted by: Barnalby
a reply to: intrptr

If it works in Kerbal Space Program, it should work IRL.

Although I chose to build my fuel transfer station orbiting minmus since the lower gravity was more conducive to easy flights by my fuel transfer vehicles from the mobile extractors and refinery vehicles to the station.

Too bad earth doesn't have a small, icy outer moon.

And a lot more money. The factories, fleets and stations you proposed in my imagination are prohibitive.

And after all, as long as we use 'engines', a snails pace for 'exploring' space.

It wasn't about going into outer space and beyond, it was about being able to control (key word) near space in the absence of having the shuttles putting people into that same near space...Goodness gracious, it's just common sense..

a reply to: SpeedFanatic

Your material science is the failing. We are still struggling with Mach 5+ for air breathers for that reason.

Material science is one of the reasons I have issues with the F-117 companion being around in an operational sense.

I don't doubt there have been fastmover programs, just not "TAVs".

a reply to: anzha

Maybe were not struggling so much to go faster than mach 5 for an air breather😉

But officially. .of course we cant seem to get bast mach 5. No way no how.

a reply to: EBJet

Indeed as always, EBJet!

a reply to: anzha

As to your post, anzha. You have your opinion. I have mine aswell. Since you only believe your sources we can't agree anymore. What when your ideas are totally wrong? I'm not going convince you about anything. Believe what you want but please do not consider your thoughts as the best of the best.

a reply to: anzha

We should develop FISSION rocket systems and bypass it altogether,we already have the MACH 7 data anyway

I have said before and I will say it now: I has be been wrong before and will be again. I can be convinced quite easily...if there is evidence. The problem with the scenario you have built is that it is testable. And that's actually a good thing!

The skyquakes you know of and have a track for (or should). *IF* this secret launcher exists, then there ought to have been a satellite placed in an orbit that has an ephemeris that matches that track. That's easy to suss out from all the amateur sat watchers' reports. If you think there are a bunch of us watching the bases and whatnot, you really ought to see how many are watching the skies.

The data is there. If you can support your hypothesis with it, I am sold. If you can't, then perhaps you've stumbled on something else.

Since I am very aware of the problems of getting things into orbit (haven't just worked on lasers...I've had a fortunate and good career), I am 99% sure there's not a secret launcher. Fastmovers, sure. Even ones my sources have no idea about. A launcher? Seriously doubt that.

We still had Titan IV and Delta III and Scout rockets being used for sat launches in 86. We didn't lose access to space for military purposes. Just for human spaceflight.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: anzha

Maybe were not struggling so much to go faster than mach 5 for an air breather😉

But officially. .of course we cant seem to get bast mach 5. No way no how.

Oh we've flown past it several times. However, there is a limitation for how long the air breathers can operate before they come apart above Mach 5. Matsci has more work for it still.

a reply to: anzha

Wouldnt it be cool if we had something that cruises not dashes above mach 6. 😉

But officially of course we dont wink wink nudge nudge knowhatimean

a reply to: anzha
The payload of a spaceplane would be very small anyway. So if anything, think short lived small satellites in lower orbits. Stuff that is hard to track.
Its also possible to a certain extent to avoid detection. Locating satellites if you have a general idea where they are based on the launch is one thing. Detecting stuff masking as space debris nobody is looking for is quite another.

Anyway, i think an ISR capability is much more likely too.