Did anyone catch this on the last link.The purpose of this notification is to publicize the Government’s intent to award a sole source contract to Lockheed Martin, Valley Forge, PA. This sole source contract will be for modification of the current design to reflect weaponization.
Check out Lockheed Martin Falcon Hypersonic Global strike vehicle.



It is designed to loft up a 12,000lb payload and be able to strike at a 9,000 mile radius in under 2 hours, and it is to be able to be soley based on CONUS soil and like wise recover to its point of origin.

Thats no missile, its a hypersonic UCAV.
Don't look!Hey look!" it's a bird"...

Appologies... just before this thread does die, I have a question. On the 8th 'page' of the article posted Mr Czysz talks about work done at Mcdonnel Douglas......

"when we designed a mach-6 aircraft, we didn't follow NASA 's strategy of building a research and develop vechicle that could only be flown 3 times a year. What we developed were vehicles that were operationally as functional as much as a B-52 is.

Our resupply vechicle in 1964 for the manned orbiting laboratory had 11 operational vechicles and 3 spares and those vehicles flew 100 times a year for 15 years. That's 1964 industrial capability - no magic at all. I don't need magic. Now compare that to the shuttle".


At the risk of embarrasing myself, I must has missed that period of aviation history?

Manned orbiting lab... what??? too early for skylab surely

resupply vehicle.... a hundred times a year??? really???

Does anyone have any thoughts?

s+f, nice article

always been facinated as to what they built after the black bird.

Originally posted by Catalytic
Appologies... just before this thread does die, I have a question. On the 8th 'page' of the article posted Mr Czysz talks about work done at Mcdonnel Douglas......

"when we designed a mach-6 aircraft, we didn't follow NASA 's strategy of building a research and develop vechicle that could only be flown 3 times a year. What we developed were vehicles that were operationally as functional as much as a B-52 is.

Our resupply vechicle in 1964 for the manned orbiting laboratory had 11 operational vechicles and 3 spares and those vehicles flew 100 times a year for 15 years. That's 1964 industrial capability - no magic at all. I don't need magic. Now compare that to the shuttle".


At the risk of embarrasing myself, I must has missed that period of aviation history?

Manned orbiting lab... what??? too early for skylab surely

resupply vehicle.... a hundred times a year??? really???

Does anyone have any thoughts?

USAF Manned Orbiting Lab would have been a manned recce orbiting station but was cancelled when newer orbiting satellites could do the job better, cheaper and without the risk.

[edit on 11-2-2010 by firepilot]

Originally posted by Catalytic


"when we designed a mach-6 aircraft, we didn't follow NASA 's strategy of building a research and develop vechicle that could only be flown 3 times a year. What we developed were vehicles that were operationally as functional as much as a B-52 is.

Our resupply vechicle in 1964 for the manned orbiting laboratory had 11 operational vechicles and 3 spares and those vehicles flew 100 times a year for 15 years. That's 1964 industrial capability - no magic at all. I don't need magic. Now compare that to the shuttle".

So he saying that they had 11 vehicles that could fly mach 6 to resuply the manned orbiting laboraty before they had realised satellites could do the job better and never bothered to build the manned orbiting laboratoy .. bare with me im a bit simple to the facts and history

Originally posted by Catalytic
Appologies... just before this thread does die, I have a question. On the 8th 'page' of the article posted Mr Czysz talks about work done at Mcdonnel Douglas......

"when we designed a mach-6 aircraft, we didn't follow NASA 's strategy of building a research and develop vechicle that could only be flown 3 times a year. What we developed were vehicles that were operationally as functional as much as a B-52 is.

Our resupply vechicle in 1964 for the manned orbiting laboratory had 11 operational vechicles and 3 spares and those vehicles flew 100 times a year for 15 years. That's 1964 industrial capability - no magic at all. I don't need magic. Now compare that to the shuttle".


At the risk of embarrasing myself, I must has missed that period of aviation history?

Manned orbiting lab... what??? too early for skylab surely

resupply vehicle.... a hundred times a year??? really???

Does anyone have any thoughts?

Its a fantasy, another reason to take the whole article with a huge pinch of salt.

Mr Cszyz crendentials appear to check out..... American anti gravity's?

gleefully It's all very interesting (meant in the british sense of using that word)

I'd love there to be more to this than just concepts..... but i dont think so


[edit on 12-2-2010 by Catalytic]

Originally posted by ThePeaceMaker

Originally posted by Catalytic


"when we designed a mach-6 aircraft, we didn't follow NASA 's strategy of building a research and develop vechicle that could only be flown 3 times a year. What we developed were vehicles that were operationally as functional as much as a B-52 is.

Our resupply vechicle in 1964 for the manned orbiting laboratory had 11 operational vechicles and 3 spares and those vehicles flew 100 times a year for 15 years. That's 1964 industrial capability - no magic at all. I don't need magic. Now compare that to the shuttle".

So he saying that they had 11 vehicles that could fly mach 6 to resuply the manned orbiting laboraty before they had realised satellites could do the job better and never bothered to build the manned orbiting laboratoy .. bare with me im a bit simple to the facts and history

I think the Mach 6 aircraft, and then the resupply vehicles for the MOL, are two different things

Has anyone actually been through Paul Czyzs' credentials? Because in the interview from the OP, he makes some pretty obvious mistakes. The kind of mistakes you wouldn't expect from a pro. For example:

"So if you have a scramjet vehicle, and you want to increase the thrust of it, you have to increase it’s angle of attack – not by much, only by about 2 or 3 degrees. Nevertheless, as you advance the throttle, the nose comes up, and that’s very counterintuitive to a pilot, who will think that the nose coming up when you advance the throttle means that there’s something wrong"

Nonsense. It is in fact completely natural for an aircraft to behave this way, and everyone knows it. Maybe with the exception of certain aerospace engineers.

Edit: I have now finished reading the interview, and not only is he bogus, he's laughably useless bogus. I love the part where he says:

"From the beginning, NASA had their own ideas about bluntness and all sorts of crazy design ideas that ended up in the Shuttle."

Does anyone take this man seriously?



[edit on 1/3/2010 by Voiceoftreason]