WTF was that refueling

a reply to: Woody510

Correct.

Just watched a 135 fueling a C17,nothing exotic,but darn fun to see.I really need to keep my csmcorder charged up and handy to get to.

a reply to: ridgerunner

Would love to know if and/or when you see the 'special' bird again

a reply to: macpdm Absolutely.It`s been seen at least 3 times by people I know so maybe I`ll get a better look sometime-hopefully with a camera in hand

a reply to: macpdm

I was rereading some of the old Aviation Week article/expose on project BlackStar, and some old ATS stuff about Brilliant Buzzard and it’s payload (XOV, pumpkin seed, whatever), and stumbled upon this excerpt:

“In 1994 an F-15 crew chief spotted a manned XOV at Holloman AFB, NM. He told the pilot who from the cockpit and using a pair of binoculars was able to see the activities surrounding this spaceplane. The pilot sketched a drawing of the craft along with a detailed description:

He said it was approx 90-100 ft in length, a highly swept blended wing lifting body design with the outer portions of the wings drooped or curved downward.

The F-15 pilot also noted the unusual nose of the craft which is flattened and "spade-like". Additionally the rear of the craft appeared to have had 4 rectangular exhaust ports that were described as resembling something akin to a linear aerospike engine.”

This Aviation Week description is especially interesting because it neatly matches the spade-nosed, rocket-propelled vehicle described and pictured in the ATS thread Hunting the Fast Movers:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That OP in Hunting the Fast Movers describes the vehicle as making unpowered, gliding landings. Also, there is a vague description in that thread by someone supposedly in the know of a larger and smaller vehicle visiting U.K. in the 90s. Perhaps the vehicle described in that ATS thread is carried aloft by the Brilliant Buzzard. Imagine a boost-glide something not unlike a larger X-15 launched from 90,000 feet and Mach 3.5 off the back of an upgraded XB-70-type plane.

The XOV could then boost itself up to 200+K feet and Mach whatever. It may be TSTO or just a fast boost glider. Furthermore, a lot of the 80s and 90s depictions of notional hypersonic vehicles featured that same flat nose (x-43a, x-30, etc.). This seems possible with state-of-the-art 1980s technology. Maybe all of the pulse detonation propulsion speculation was really some sort of a pulsing rocket? Perhaps Aurora was a cover for this program.

www.gettyimages.co.uk...

Interesting/uncanny similarities across threads and purported witness accounts of small space shuttle-like vehicles. Perhaps these provide clues as to the purpose of the giant Klingon Bird of Prey seen refueling.

originally posted by: ridgerunner
a reply to: macpdm Absolutely.It`s been seen at least 3 times by people I know so maybe I`ll get a better look sometime-hopefully with a camera in hand

You do that my friend and I will do my part to try and keep this fascinating thread alive.

a reply to: TheHans

A short & sweet reply but thats my bed time reading sorted many thanks my friend

a reply to: TheHans

It seems unlikely that a fighter pilot would keep a pair of binoculars in the cockpit. That tale sounds a bit hinky.

Also, senior AvWeek editor Mike Dornheim thought the BlackStar story was rubbish, and that it should never have been published. Aerospace analyst and historian Dwayne Day compared it to a similar article, published by the magazine in 1958, that "revealed" the "existence" of a nuclear-powered Soviet bomber. Other critics were equally scathing.

a reply to: TheHans

"Hunting the Fast Movers" is very likely a hoax from start to finish... None of its claims can be substantiated (all the sightings, booms over the UK; a coordinated team of UK hunters, etc) and at least one of the photos is very likely photoshopped. The author disappeared from the original forum it was posted on and never returned to offer details on anything. It just reeks of hoax, like the poster earlier in this thread who promised much and never delivered.

I happen to have the fighter pilot's original sketch of the XOV here, for curiosity's sake:

originally posted by: Shadowhawk
a reply to: TheHans

It seems unlikely that a fighter pilot would keep a pair of binoculars in the cockpit. That tale sounds a bit hinky.

Might have been handed to him by the hround crew who spotted the thing in the first place.

Also, senior AvWeek editor Mike Dornheim thought the BlackStar story was rubbish, and that it should never have been published. Aerospace analyst and historian Dwayne Day compared it to a similar article, published by the magazine in 1958, that "revealed" the "existence" of a nuclear-powered Soviet bomber. Other critics were equally scathing.

and yet there may be a grain of truth to it
some were less dismissive afterall
deepbluehorizon.blogspot.com...

Unfortunately the article did more harm to search for the two stage system than good - just as Aurora.

This was posted before somewhere, but its one of the more interesting tidbits outthere
www.eaa55.org...
page 4

a reply to: mightmight

If there is a pre SpaceX TSTO or an HTHL TSTO, I ought to say, then where are the satellites associated with its launches?

a reply to: mightmight

the ruskis flew a reactor on a bomber but the crew got very sick or died.

the US tried to do it but couldn't get the weight low enough as well as finding the right shielding, that used a neat shadow type of shielding where they used plates of shielding distributed over the cabin as to not be so heavy.

also the direct drive was more powerful but way more toxic to the environment compared to the closed cycle .


what i don't understand is why they never used the reactor they made for a rocket engine. they used hydrogen and the heat from the reactor to create trust. if you could collect hydrogen in space for your fuel tanks you could have years of propulsion.

a reply to: penroc3

They both flew with reactors on board. The NB-36 flew with it both cold and hot but not connected to the propulsion system.

NB-36 Crusader

a reply to: penroc3

The Project NERVA, what you are describing, penroc, was abandoned because of the concerns about the environment. A rocket explosion could have effectively been a dirty bomb. And rockets explode with distressing frequency, even for the most reliable, compared to aircraft. The energy involved is far, far greater and must be expended far, far faster.

There was a follow-on called Timberwind, but it was shelved for similar reasons.

Don't worry. The Russians are using Project Pluto clones for crui se missiles.

Completely Doc Strangelove.

originally posted by: anzha
a reply to: mightmight

If there is a pre SpaceX TSTO or an HTHL TSTO, I ought to say, then where are the satellites associated with its launches?

Nowhere obviously.
I didnt say a word about satellites.

a reply to: mightmight

You know what TSTO stands for, right?

a reply to: anzha
i never referred to it as an TSTO either

The idea of launching an 80s satellite sized payload in LEO using a rocket powered craft from a Valkyrie on steroids has always been pretty ridiculous in my mind. The numbers dont add up, you wont simply be able to carry enough rocket fuel on the second stage to push any payload into orbit. Not unless we get into kinda esoteric of futuristic means of propulsion (probably) not available for a late 80s gap filler SAP.
As said previously, stop thinking super secret space program. That thing was intended for something else entirely. It even says so in the damned original AW article. But not fancy enough i guess.

a reply to: mightmight

Unfortunately the article did more harm to search for the two stage system than good - just as Aurora.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

How else can you explain that comment?

a reply to: anzha

I meant exactly what i wrote. Two stage system. Not two stage to orbit.

a reply to: Zaphod58

right but i was under the impression that the russian crew got massive doses and some died. I saw a little talk from LLNL that said they could more than likely field an effective reactor and screens.

Anzha: i think if they used the reactors in deep space like close to or past the moon it would be okay.