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.

 

Secret military space shuttle

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666

Originally posted by Murcielago
I dont think the military has a spaceplane, but I would bet that they have a craft that can put satellites in orbit...for a fraction of toadys rocket costs.

One of them calls Pegasus and exists today.


I was talking more on the lines of "Black", like a PDE or Scramjet type of rocket.




posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 07:41 PM
link   
PDE's and scramjets are not 'black' they're out in the open. They are plastered all over the Airforce, Navy, Army, DARPA, NASA research sites they are so wide open.

Oh and spaceship one reached about a third of the shuttle's orbit...not what I would call 'close'. On top of that, it only did this with a one-man payload...after being dropped from a plane no less. Why even bother with it when Orbital Science will do you much better with an L1011 launching a Pegasus.

Now for sake of argument I'll play along and say the govt. has some super-duper secret shuttle. I'm sure we own a few islands out in the Pacific (ones we didn't blow up mind you) where we could fire off a fair amount of things without John Q knowing about it. The govt. may have to phone the ruskies and tell them it's not an ICMB headed their way, but they might be able to sneak it past the public.

As for the space elevator, thats nothing but Popular Science drivel and powerpoint engineering right now, and honestly I think it's a waste of time. Even if it works as perfect as the theory goes, we'll just use it as a crutch and put propulsion technology on the back burner. So what happens when we maybe want to go somewhere besides Earth orbit? Build an elevator there? Best case scenario it's a fancy piece of half-assed engineering.



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nipples


Oh and spaceship one reached about a third of the shuttle's orbit...not what I would call 'close'. On top of that, it only did this with a one-man payload...after being dropped from a plane no less.


Umm.. Shapeship one entered space with a three man payload not a single man one. Weight equivalent of 2 people plus the pilot = 3 person payload. That was the only way it could have won the X-prize, taking 3 people into space or the weight equivalent was required to win.

And it cost about 30 million to develop, you would be lucky to afford spare parts for some of the Airforces more advanced planes with that amount of money.

[edit on 30-10-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nipples
PDE's and scramjets are not 'black' they're out in the open. They are plastered all over the Airforce, Navy, Army, DARPA, NASA research sites they are so wide open.

As far as i'm aware of, there isn't any PDE rocket or scramjet rocket in development.....am I wrong?



As for the space elevator, thats nothing but Popular Science drivel and powerpoint engineering right now.


Its past powerpoint...its to the point of scale test models and maturing the technology needed.



and honestly I think it's a waste of time

??? Do you relize it would lower the cost of space access by a factor of 40.



Even if it works as perfect as the theory goes, we'll just use it as a crutch and put propulsion technology on the back burner.

yeah...because rockets have advanced so much in the past decades.

But money will still be put into rockets and scramjets and PDE's because sometimes time is important, like for the military...so they will continus putting money into faster missiles and aircrafts.



So what happens when we maybe want to go somewhere besides Earth orbit?

huh?
or planetary probes would still use rockets to get to there destinations...they would just use the elevator to get it into space...making the mission MUCH cheaper.



Build an elevator there?

But as we expand...I dont see anything wrong with building elevators on our moon, and Mars.



Best case scenario it's a fancy piece of half-assed engineering.

half-assed? Why do you think that? It will take some great engineering feats to make it possible, like the strength in the cable, and it getting its power from a laser on earth.



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 08:36 AM
link   
ShadowXIX, sorry, I did forget they added the weight of an extra pair of people. So the payload was 500lbs-ish. Still not all that impressive in my mind. It's impressive they accomplished it as a pseduo-private organization, but the accomplishment itself is 40+ years old. The awe of the x-prize was the ability to do something without government help. The success was in the means to the end and not the end itself. It can be debated which one is more important, I'm just not all that amazed by rehashing an old accomplishment on the cheap and calling it a breakthrough.

PDE's and Scramjets have been at the forefront of propulsion research. You can hardly pick an AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power without reading an article regarding supersonic combustion or pulse-det. engines. Just go to the link below to see what research is out there open to the public.....


AIAA electronic library search

Sadly you have to subscribe to the journal to read the whole entry...either that or find a decent library and read it there. Any respectable engineering school's library will have most of the AIAA pubs. You can also read the NASA research papers at....

NASA Technical Reports server

For those who are lazy out there, here are 3 from AFRL Propulsion Directorate on PDE's and scramjets that are easy to find by browsing their site...

Scramjet

PDE

PDE

Now to the elevator. I don't doubt that this university or that company has produced these carbon nanotubes that they plan on building the ribbon out of. But what I haven't seen is anyone demonstrating a realistic means of propelling the thing UP the ribbon. If it crawls under its own power it has to have onboard power to last for the multiple-day long trip up the ribbon, that doesn't come free of any weight charge. Solar power conversion is too inefficient. Beamed laser energy is unproven on the scale needed for placing appreciable payloads into orbit. If we could reliably beam laser energy through the atmosphere we wouldnt worry about lining our sats' solar panel up all the time. That's why I call it powerpoint engineering...it makes for nice theories and pretty pictures, but it falls short in several key areas. Even if it works great it's only good for small payloads anyways, and those launch costs have been substantially lowered in the past decade with standard rocket technology.

Speaking of launch costs (what a segway), I've read similar cost reduction claims (40 times) from when the shuttle was being built and we all saw how that worked out. Granted a fair deal of that was program management, but it's a good example of how iffy these preliminary claims of unproven technology tend to be.

Rocket technology has progressed well in the past few decades. Launch reliability has gone way up while costs continue to decline. There was a day when if you had something heavy to put in orbit you HAD to use the shuttle. Now you have expendable launch options from Boeing (Delta IV Heavy), Lockheed (Atlas V), and the ESA (Ariane 5). It's true that the PRINCIPLE behind chemical rockets has not changed much, save the aerospike engine and slow cycle efficiency improvements. That doesn't mean we give up on newtons third law altogether. The problem is people are too affraid of the N-word (nuclear...not the other). The NERVA project back in the 60's showed tremendous promise, and NASA is just now starting to think about using that tech for the Prometheus project. Imagine if we could have developed nuclear rockets over the past 30 years to the state of refinement we have chemical rockets?

Ultimately we need to develop acces to space to a point similar to airline travel. Any deviation we take from the path is just a side trip. Will the space elevator be an amazing achievement...maybe. Will the technology develped to make it a reality further the field science...definitely. In a perfect world we could develop the elevator, rockets, and any other wild idea to their pinnacle. But we can't, so we have to choose.

I view it this way, if you had to build a ladder or a bridge to any workplace/bar/restaraunt/etc. in order to get their, you would think that driving your car would be there would be a much better choice. Yes, yes, gas is high and that is a metaphor for high launch costs, but that doesn't mean you just give up...and that's what I see the sace elevator as doing. Plus we're going to need propulsion advancements if we ever plan on leaving earth orbit routinely, so why not get crackin?

Clearly from reading this you should realize that I hold a little bias since I'm a propulsion guy, so I'll grant anyone that claim.



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   
the engines and the propulsion system the spike nozles could have revolutionized the space industry if they hadden't scrapped the venature star :S the single stage would be succesor of the spaceshuttle which came under bugdet problems because the cost went up and the had problems with the fuel tanks which are currently solved but the project was allready scrapped allthough some people claim that the space plane was later on finished under black bugdet and secretly been flown.

the venature star was much cheaper and safer as the space shuttle which is now grounded.

but congress and some other people didn;t like the cost which run out over the bar they had set as the max.
pitty but I hope some privat entrepeneurs will use the engines and prove that it is much saver and better and more fuel economic



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 01:34 PM
link   
I heard that the venture star was deemed scientifically unfeasible and they were just wasting time. After one problem was solved another one surfaced, I saw a documentary about spacecrafts and they spoke a lot about the time and money wasted on projects like venture star, which from the start would never actually work.



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nipples
ShadowXIX, sorry, I did forget they added the weight of an extra pair of people. So the payload was 500lbs-ish. Still not all that impressive in my mind. It's impressive they accomplished it as a pseduo-private organization, but the accomplishment itself is 40+ years old. The awe of the x-prize was the ability to do something without government help.


Its a easy mistake
They just did what they had to do to win the X-prize which was the goal. Im sure if they spent more money they could have had a much bigger payload and have went higher. They just wanted to safetly exceed the minimum requirements of the X-prize.

Now if the X-prize had been to get 5 cargo tons in orbit twice in two weeks with the same craft, and the prize was $1 billion dollars we might have seen some cutting edge stuff from the private sector.



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 06:22 PM
link   
I also think that Scaled Composites is developing a full 3-passenger follow on to Spaceship One for the proposed Virgin Galactic tourism company.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 12:01 AM
link   
I know about all those Scram & PDE projects...but those are all air-breathing vehicles, so they cant even get high enough to reach LEO. I mean rocket type, which would have to carry its own oxygen, actually the best option would be more of a hybrid, have it scoop air in until it gets to high, and then switch to the stored oxygen...that would save on weight.
The links you showed are of a lame PDE aircraft, and a scramjet missile project. I'm refering to the commerial launch sector, none of those will help a satellite get to orbit.


Originally posted by Nipples
But what I haven't seen is anyone demonstrating a realistic means of propelling the thing UP the ribbon.

check the web...its all there, LiftPort recently had a scale model climb to (I believe) 1000ft.



If it crawls under its own power it has to have onboard power to last for the multiple-day long trip up the ribbon, that doesn't come free of any weight charge. Solar power conversion is too inefficient. Beamed laser energy is unproven on the scale needed for placing appreciable payloads into orbit.

The recent elevator competition that was held a week or two ago had a laser that "beamed" the power to the climber...that climber had no battery on board, and it made it to 40ft. .....and thats only the beginning though...like I said, the technology needs to mature.
The power laser thing has a ways to go, and its a critical piece of gear, since its impractical to hual its payload up with an engine on board with its gas to generate the electricty...although thats sounds a lot like a rocket engine.




Even if it works great it's only good for small payloads anyways, and those launch costs have been substantially lowered in the past decade with standard rocket technology.

not really, LiftPort (space elevator company) is aiming at 13 tons.

and No, rocket launches have not gone down...thats the inherent problem with rockets. However I lave seen several "concepts" and R&D in smaller rockets, or being ignited in the air after air-dropped by a aircraft, which makes a smaller trip for the rocket...hence lowering its costs...but those are not in production.



Rocket technology has progressed well in the past few decades. Launch reliability has gone way up while costs continue to decline. There was a day when if you had something heavy to put in orbit you HAD to use the shuttle. Now you have expendable launch options from Boeing (Delta IV Heavy), Lockheed (Atlas V), and the ESA (Ariane 5).

reliability is up...but still, even today 1 in 20 rockets will fail.
The Shuttle can put 29 tons into LEO, the Delta IV can put 25 tons into LEO. But of course the Delta is cheaper though...because of obvious reasons, like its newer and unmanned, no life support systems, etc.



and NASA is just now starting to think about using that tech for the Prometheus project.

Prometheus has nothing to do with getting off of the earth. Nor does it have a nuclear rocket. It's power plant will be nuclear, but it will have electric Ion enignes.



Ultimately we need to develop acces to space to a point similar to airline travel.

That wont happen for awhile, IF the space elevator doesn't work ((which it will)) then our best tech is scramjets, which would take around 50 years to have them be as "routine" as the concorde was. So it wont mean much to the avewrage guy.



yes, gas is high and that is a metaphor for high launch costs, but that doesn't mean you just give up...and that's what I see the sace elevator as doing.

Give up??? Rockets will still have a role...but it will be smaller, like missiles only.
I see it as an advancement...It seems if it were up to you we would all have steam powered cars..but hey, they would be slightly more efficient.




Plus we're going to need propulsion advancements if we ever plan on leaving earth orbit routinely, so why not get crackin?

Thats the whole point of the Space Elevator...it to get us to become a space fairing world.
A Space Elevator to a rocket, is like a Bently to a Model-T.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nipples
But what I haven't seen is anyone demonstrating a realistic means of propelling the thing UP the ribbon.


And you won't for a while yet. Lasers or Masers will most likely be used and it will be powered by no less then a Nuclear reactor. More advanced models might even be powered by Fusion reactors(if that pans out eventually that is). We all know how powerfull DEWs can be, remember SDI?

Murc your Steam comment got me thinking, what if they used passive energy collection by aiming a tight beam at a boiler which will drive a conventional motor etc. Would that work or even be efficient?



If it crawls under its own power it has to have onboard power to last for the multiple-day long trip up the ribbon, that doesn't come free of any weight charge.


It doesn't need to be slow. We could have an initial "burn" phase to get through most of the initial atmosphere by pulsing the beam (in fact some designes rely soley on refraction of a pulsed laser beam) We could tune it to be a gentle "burn" instead of sudden like in the Shuttle. You forgetting that this thing will be 50,000 km in length we could have multiple "floors" at different altitudes. Some designs have even called to use it as a "sling" of sorts to render rockets pretty much obsolete for inner-solar system trips.

Also on the down trip on the elevator, well you ever hear of regenerative breaking?




Solar power conversion is too inefficient.


Thus the need for competitions and research grants to explore the possiblities. I don't know if you are really aware but we are amist a technological revolution the likes this planet has never seen. Skeptism is good but Pessimism is foolish.



Beamed laser energy is unproven on the scale needed for placing appreciable payloads into orbit.


Maybe. Maybe not. Who knows what SDI cooked up behind closed doors, this project could blow open allot of avenues that were previously "abandoned" in the "Star Wars" Era. I think allot of people underestimate a lasers power(as well as the ultimate efficiency we can convert from light to action)



If we could reliably beam laser energy through the atmosphere we wouldnt worry about lining our sats' solar panel up all the time.


Silly argument really why would we ever want to do that? Put solar panels on them only to beam up power to them :p



That's why I call it powerpoint engineering...it makes for nice theories and pretty pictures, but it falls short in several key areas.


Yeah and 5 years ago it was considered purely fiction.



Even if it works great it's only good for small payloads anyways, and those launch costs have been substantially lowered in the past decade with standard rocket technology.


Really? Where ever did you hear that? Do some research before critising this project. Nuclear power will be used to power the beam(whatever wavelength it operates on)



Speaking of launch costs (what a segway), I've read similar cost reduction claims (40 times) from when the shuttle was being built and we all saw how that worked out.


Let me guess those claims were from the Buerocrats
Funding call. The difference with this is that it's mostly a business/prize foundation venture and that will make all the difference.



RThe problem is people are too affraid of the N-word (nuclear...not the other). The NERVA project back in the 60's showed tremendous promise, and NASA is just now starting to think about using that tech for the Prometheus project. Imagine if we could have developed nuclear rockets over the past 30 years to the state of refinement we have chemical rockets?


Yeah I can imagine. It's not a pretty picture either.



Will the space elevator be an amazing achievement...maybe.


It will get built. Even if it fails it will get built and it will be an engineering achievement. The only thing I see stopping us is extinction. Also Even if it fails the first time we will try again until we get it right, our species is stubborn like that.



Will the technology develped to make it a reality further the field science...definitely. In a perfect world we could develop the elevator, rockets, and any other wild idea to their pinnacle. But we can't, so we have to choose.


You do know that Rutan was funded by private money right? Liftport is a Private company hoping to create new markets with their lifter tech like cheap wireless phone and internet access in disaster zone, they have a plan to prove their technology and I like the direction they are going. Point is when this market takes off the Venture dollers are going to be pouring into all sorts of start-ups so even a lowerly Rocket guy yourself will get a piece of the sizable pie that is coming down the road



Plus we're going to need propulsion advancements if we ever plan on leaving earth orbit routinely, so why not get crackin?


Ion and Solar Sail technology are the best bet right now. Also I mentioned this before but we can use the elevator as a sling shot.



Clearly from reading this you should realize that I hold a little bias since I'm a propulsion guy, so I'll grant anyone that claim.


Well I'm neither and I believe that your pessimism will bite you in the butt in the near future



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I'd be kind of pissed off if the US military had orbital capability and still left the Columbia crew ride the shuttle down! I'm betting that they probably do given the signs. It is funny people mention Vandenberg AFB, since that is one of the signs to which I am referring. For years the Air Force spent billions of dollars to put a shuttle capable launch pad at Vandenberg and then interest seemed to disappear overnight. I'm guessing the reason the air Force dumped it's shuttle project is that they have something else as good if not better. What it is I don't know. As far as astronomers seeing it in their telescope my guess would be some kind of stealth technology or they use an existing satellite as a cover. Remember one thing the F-117 and the B-2 are 1970's technology and the SR-71 was 1950's. No telling what they might have now. The donuts on a rope vehicle might be it. Not too much of a leap from 120,000 feet to orbit.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Sardion
You forgetting that this thing will be 50,000 km in length we could have multiple "floors" at different altitudes. Some designs have even called to use it as a "sling" of sorts to render rockets pretty much obsolete for inner-solar system trips.

ahhh...no. Times that number by 2. Cause it has to be 62,000 miles long.

It would work well in that "sling" fashion...we could get a spacecraft to orbit another planter with nothing more then small thrusters on it for correction adjustments.


It would be cool if around the end of the cable they built a building. since it you would have the same amount of "gravity" as you did on earth...so you could have a glass roof, and when you look up you would see the earth...damn that would be a sight to see!

[edit on 1-11-2005 by Murcielago]



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I'd be kind of pissed off if the US military had orbital capability and still left the Columbia crew ride the shuttle down! I'm betting that they probably do given the signs.


Couldn't NASA have kept Columbia up and tried to scramble some type of emergancy shuttle with the remaining fleet for a rescue mission. I mean if NASA really knew there was something wrong. I dont know how long they could have stayed up there and how long it would take to get a shuttle up in a emergancy.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Murc:

I’m sorry, but PDE’s are air breathers right now. You brought them up, I was a little confused why you even mentioned them at first because we aren’t intending to use them for orbit launch right now. I guess maybe I misunderstood what you were getting at when they mentioned them (maybe referring to black projects in general?). Scramjets are however an extremely promising option for a two stage to orbit launch vehicle. The link I posted is for a project whose immediate goal is for missile application, but the research will apply to larger scale engines. NASA, AFRL, NRL, and DARPA have all been looking into scramjets heavily for some time now.

My main doubt regarding the space elevator is in the ability to power the thing via lasers for the payloads they claim they’re going to attempt to lift. I did see that Liftport had a successful test to 1000’, but that climber was battery powered (unacceptable for the real deal). My comment regarding launch payload size is related to this. As long as beamed power technology remains in its infancy the elevator will be limited to small payloads. As any decent engineer I’ll change my tune if I see some breakthroughs in this key technology, but until beamed power matures a great deal the space elevator idea will be grounded. I hope we do make breakthroughs, and I think it’s great that this idea has generated a lot of interest in extra-planetary operations. I’m thrilled that CNT’s have made as much progress as they have in the past decade, even if we never use them for the elevator ribbon, they have numerous benefits elsewhere.

Now to traditional launch tech. You’re right that the major launch platforms have reliabilities in the high 90% range…I’ll admit still not good enough. However, launch costs HAVE gone down. They dropped by about 30% through the 90’s. That’s not yet good enough obviously, but it’s still a noticeable drop.

Futron Corp launch cost assesment

I’ll admit I goofed on attributing the Prometheus name to NASA’s NTR research. I meant to refer to nuclear thermal rockets and screwed up the project name. I apologize for my haste. But NTR’s based off the old NERVA program would definitely be feasible launch platforms and would show substantial increase in efficiency over chemical rockets.

No I don’t want us to be driving around in steam powered cars, I would love to see advancements. But if all we had were steam powered cars I’d rather spend our efforts improving the steam engine than reading a Popular Science article and talking about how awesome our 20 lb battery powered robot dangling from a balloon is. If the key technologies for the elevator come into being in the next several years than that’s awesome, I’ll be cranked, but I just haven’t seen that happen yet…at least not with the critical beamed power technology. If the elevator does come into being I think it and rockets will compare to each other in the same way a trolley and a car does today. The space elevator must travel a fixed path and have its power delivered to it, like a trolley. Rockets will have their own fuel and thus more freedom, but like a car is more expensive than a trolley ticket, rockets will (assuming current launch tech. and the proposed performance of the elevator) most likely be more expensive per-pound-to-orbit than the elevator. I’ll just reiterate that I do hope the space elevator makes progress, if nothing else a technology incubator, and I don’t want to be driving ‘steam powered cars’ forever. I have enjoyed talking shop with you though.

Sardion:

If it does crawl it will go slow. That is, if it uses friction to drag itself up the ribbon it will go slow. I have seen plans to have some sort of vertical maglev travel at hundreds of kph, but again I don’t know where that power is coming from. Yes I have heard of regenerative breaking. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you weren’t trying to patronize me and were just offering a suggestion. Regenerative breaking is all well and good, believe me I love the ‘something-for-nothing’ factor as much as the next guy, but where exactly is the free power going? The crawlers aren’t supposed to have batteries. That’s why this beamed power technology is so crucial.

My satellite argument was not ‘silly’. I was making the point that if we could reliably transmit power through the atmosphere into space then we wouldn’t bother lining up the solar panels on our existing sats with the sun because we could just power them with laser light instead. NASA has looked into using laser light to feed the photocells on satellites during eclipses and for radiation damaged panels that have lost a lot of conversion efficiency. Again, it’s only in the case-study phase. I’ll take the blame for not make my point clearly enough.

I already addressed the launch cost and payload issues to Murc., so I won’t rehash it here. I will ask for clarification on your nuclear powered laser statement though. Do you mean the electricity will come from a nuclear plant? Frankly I don’t care if the electricity comes from a hamster wheel. I’m hoping you aren’t referring to the supposed super-laser ideas from back in the SDI days. If you are I’m going nowhere near that argument. I can’t discuss something that has only existed o the concept board or in the minds of conspiracy theorists. That’s not to say you are automatically wrong if you believe we have all these laser sitting around ready to go, I just can’t debate something that has no reliable public record.

You are right in that a good deal of the problems associated with the shuttle related to program management. A lot of it had to do with in-fighting between NASA and the AF on what the shuttle should exactly be used for. And yes I’m sure a lot of those early cost reduction claims for the shuttle were made by someone looking for more funding. That is precisely what these start-up companies like Liftport are doing as well. I don’t see how a private company looking for venture capitalist investments is any less prone to overstating the promise of a technology than a program manager for the government.

Yes I do know spaceship one was privately funded. I also know that by being privately funded, it was financed by mega millionaire business tycoons Paul Allen a Richard Branson. Yes that is obviously still privately funded, but it wasn’t exactly some backyard project funded by lemonade sales either.

Again I should have made myself clearer when I said ‘leaving Earth orbit’. I was referring to the need for landing on and departing from other planets. This will require traditional propulsion technology unless we plan on building an elevator anytime we want to go anywhere. Clearly this argument is for a time further from now, but it’s something to consider. We’re going to need to develop better rocket-type propulsion eventually (and in reality currently) so we shouldn’t forget about rockets just because someone promises us a shiny new space elevator.

If it’s any kind of appeasement to the elevator people I’ve apparently upset here, I do think the LEO to GEO tether idea is a pretty cool concept, although I’m not enough of a dynamicist to go into that in too much detail. Again, I have enjoyed talking shop with fellow space buffs, and I’m sorry I wrote so much for this one post…but I had two fairly in-depth posts to respond to.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 09:02 PM
link   
I'm not sure why you think that if we had space elevators that we wouldn't still spend money on new rocket tech...because of course we will.

like currently for example...Nasa and the AF spend money on several types of prolusion...prop, jet, scramjet, PDE, Rocket, etc, as well as hybrids that attempt to take the best of both and put into one aitcraft...like the Blackbird (which was a turbo/ramjet).

BTW, the space elevator ((yes I know...this thread has being totaly de-railed, but oh well
)) will have batteries, They will act as a buffer though, so the craft can have a consistant speed, and not continually going a little faster and a little slower.

Also...Regenerative braking??? Not sure how that would play a role...considering LiftPort has no intentions on bringing the climbers back down to earth...at least fo for several several years. Why? Counter weight, they figure it would be easier to just leave them out there since each climber will weight 7 tons, hundreds of them will be the counterweight. A lot better then the older plans which said we needed to "capture an asteroid".



posted on May, 10 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Haven't got time to look at the thread right now, but in case it hasn't been brought up look up the H10

I'll be back!



posted on May, 12 2007 @ 04:05 AM
link   
Nipples, something like 80% - 95% of the fuel capacity of a space launch is to reach orbit Depending on mission). Imagine where the Innergia rocket with all boosters and fuel tanks could go if it was already in orbit. What speeds would it reach? theoretically you may be apraching the velocity of your exhaust gasses by the time the fuel has run down. I would love it if I could see this or better in my lifetime.



posted on May, 12 2007 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I wouldnt doubt the military could do this. NASA's annual budget was $15.4 billion last time I checked represented less than 1% of the entire federal budget . The best estimates of the US military (Black) budget is $40 billion a year.
They could easily fund such a craft in the black budget alone if they wanted
[edit on 25-10-2005 by ShadowXIX]


You are forgetting also that companies that specialize in black ops planes etc fund development out of their OWN pockets until they actually sell the finished product



posted on May, 12 2007 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
It is impossible to have a secret shuttle or space station because such things cannot be launched in secret.


Impossible? There is always Antarctica... and since the US and Russia have been partners in space explotation since before the cold war (The cold war was just an excuse on both sides of the fence to justify military spending
)

But here is one even better... from another thread...


Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by darkbluesky
By the way, it's being kept from the public quite unsuccessfully as evidenced by the number of web sites, books, and discussion forums like ATS, where it's openly discussed daily.


Well one of the theories we have is that they are gearing to a major release of secret info in the near future and I have a lot of evidence to support this...

However ATS is one of the best sites for this kind of discussion, and all you have to do is look at this thread to see the reactions to anything out of the ordinar... Imagine then what its like all over the web. I bet the government knows this... counts on it... and most likely feeds it to keep people guessing.

As long as people trying to bring stuff to public attention have to suffer ridicule and abuse, the government can do what it wants... anyone sees something they merely point to the conspiracy nuts..

One main factor in this is that people generally DO NOT read links to material in most of these discussions... I posted military documents from the DoD, AFRL and LANL regarding work on teleportation and stargates... the mere fact that these bodies are even TALKING about it should get peoples attention... yet only a few people even glanced at it and there were no comments at all in three threads.

What does this mean? There are literally THOUSANDS of documents available online about things like work on stargates, gravity shielding, warp drives etc. They are public, but not easy to find... so they are invisible to the majority of the public...

Unless you know what you are looking for, you won't find it...

Now we are talking secrets launches...

How about launching from a moving platform at sea? You can go anywhere with one of those...

Maybe something big enough that can launch Delta IV Heavy component rockets?

That would put a new twist into the picture wouldn't it?

And how about if that Launch Platform was an international venture, proving they are working on this together?

And what if the Launch vehicle was a Joint Boeing Energia venture? You know Energia... the RUSSIAN company who builds the RUSSIAN shuttle Buran?

Hmmm that would really put a twist into things...



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join