rods of god!

just guided chunks of steel.


at that speed and altitude wouldn't need too much explosives to make a big hole.

Originally posted by SpringHeeledJack


The OP's own sources contradict her claims. Not to mention 2007 does not qualify as recent.

check the date of the OP

I think it's sad if the SR-72 turns out to be an UAV. Man can easily travel at these speeds and do a better job in in the cockpit with peripheral vision etc.. in combat situations.

I would prefer if they called this something else and saved the SR-72 moniker for a possible manned successor in the future.

Originally posted by bdn12
Bhadhidar, do you really think we would sell such a cutting edge piece of equipment to foreign countries? Some things are best left in the nations hands that builds it, and this is one of those things, just as the SR-71 was and the B-2 and F-22 are. Not everything that the US builds has to be sold to foreign countries.

Absolutely not, infact those countries can just wait for it to crash into their back yard or their neighbours back yard then get it free.

Being american technology, it won't exactly be safe nor reliable. Ask any chinook pilot (especially the dead ones).

Originally posted by intelgurl

Originally posted by northwolf
This is a real bomb, it's nice to have some real news for a change.

Any ideas on the payload and weapons mix for the attack version?

No such info at this time - this is a black project and we're lucky to get this much.

The picture of the "actual" craft looks a lot like combination lifting body that can with a MHD "sled" take off vertically and land the same way, though with it's own deployable landing gear. Also new advances in mixed propulsion that includes hybrid-"air breathers" as part of the propulsion mix allow for powered in atmosphere maneuverability. It also looks like it would have two complete but separate main power/propulsion systems. The air-breather may or may not be integrated with the "rocket" propulsion system. If so it would be much more complex. And complex means complicated and the more complicated, the more things break. A MHD sled that can get it moving on the ground could get this to very high speed before sled "break-away". It would stay on the ground, or even have an additional power source that would serve as a first stage, more or less and carry it up to higher altitude where air-breathers or non-air-dependent propulsion kicks in.

I must wonder if your source was given a "grey light" to talk about this but as so much has been in the media, including some very interesting anionic nuclear power systems that use thorium or other materials and are irradiated to generate power. This has also been mentioned in the area of "NASA, Fusion Power Options" as well as a power source for our very long duration UAV's though its in a different league as you need a huge specific impulse in newtons to get the needed thrust to take off from the Earth. Hence the use of a "sled"

No doubt we have some very cool stuff at various stages of development. Ben Rich said so much at his retirement party (also OS reported) that we have stuff in the desert 50-to-75 years ahead of anything people can now imagine. And that was in the 1990's. It would make sense to design this kind of vehicle first for military missions, possibly a "Sanger" like bomber, or a energy weapon equipped space plane. Both are of interest to say the least but don't know the status. I just hope we release this technology to get the rest of us into space faster, and a lot cheaper. Yeah I know, when hell freezes over. But when technology is introduced and become's more familiar to the masses, then the options do open up.

Perhaps those involved in private space projects can take a serious look at this. Though no way is any nation going to give up a significant advantage with any military potential, unless others also figure it out...

What kind of propulsion that plane will used? hydrocarbon fuel?