America's Secret Space Program and The Super Valkyrie

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 21 2004 @ 12:31 PM
link   
AMERICA'S SECRET SPACE PROGRAM AND THE SUPER VALKYRIE By Bill Rose for UFO Magazine UK There is growing evidence that a mini-shuttle was developed shortly after the space shuttle Challenger disaster on January 28, 1986 and that the trials began in 1992. Operating under the mysterious Aurora Project, the system is believed to comprise a spaceplane roughly the size of an SR-71 spyplane and a hypersonic launch vehicle resembling the experimental XB-70A strategic bomber designd in 1957-60. This large aircraft could perform a number of roles, but it appears to have been designed specifically to carry the smaller spaceplane to a suitable launch altitude. Sightings of the aircraft described as a "mothership" first began in the late summer of 1990. It was said to resemble a modernized version of the highly advanced North American XB-70 Valkyrie bomber, developed for the USAF, but never put into production. Designed to achieve high efficiency through a very close integration of propulsion and aerodynamics, the XB-70 could achieve a speed of Mach 3. On September 13 and October 3, 1990, sightings of the aircraft were made at Mojhave, near Edwards Air Force Base (AFB). Another sighting occured north of Edwards AFB in April 1991. On May 10, 1992, a journalist with CNN saw the plane flying near Atlanta, Georgia. The final sighting occurred on July 12 at 11:45p.m. near Lockheed's Hellendale Facility and because it coincided with a severe thunderstorm in the Groom Lake area, speculation arose that an emergency divert had taken place. An indication as to the aircraft's manufacturer came on January 6, 1992, when there was a sighting of an SR-71 shaped forward fuselage section being loaded onto a C-5 transport plane at the Lockheed Skunk Works facility in Burbank, California. It was about 65 to 75 feet long and 10 feet high. The C-5 was bound for Boeing Field in Seattle. The aircraft was described as having a large delta wing and a large forward fuselage. The wingtips were upturned to form fins. The edges of the wing and fins had a blck tile covering, while the rest of the fuselage was white. The rear fuselage had a raised area with a black line extending down it. Some witnesses reported seeing a long-span canard near the nose. It was said to be about 200 feet long. Nothing is known, however, about the aircraft's propulsion system. If the "Super-Valkyrie" has been designed as a hypersonic launch vehicle, the most likely method of propulsion would be Pulse Detonation Wave Engines (PDWEs). Operating on a different principle then conventional ramjets, PDWEs dont't continuously burn kerosene, but detonate fuel as it starts to leave the combustion chamber. This generates a regular pulse which may be responsible for producing the unusual "doughnuts-on-a-rope" contrails. The most probable fuel for PDWEs would be cryogenic liquid methane, which could also act as a structural coolant. At 1:45p.m. on August 5, 1992, A United Airlines 747 crew reported a near miss with an unknown aircraft as the airliner headed out of Los Angeles International Airport. The airliner was in the vacinity of Georges AFB, California, when the 747's Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) warned the flight crew that an aircraft was approaching at high speed. The unidentified aircraft flew past the 747 about 500-1000 feet below it at high supersonic speed. The UFO was described as having a lifting-body configuration, much like the forward fuselage of an SR-71, and being roughly the size of an F-16. It was speculated that the aircraft was a drone that had "escaped". Could this have been the secret spaceplane? It has been reported that the spaceplane is codenamed Brilliant Buzzard or Blue Eyes. The spaceplane has most likely been based on NASA's X-24C proposals or the highly classified USAF FDL-5 Project. The aircraft was also most likely to have been developed alongside the "North Sea" Aurora. Feasibility studies by many companies all led to the same conceptual design: A one-man delta-shaped vehicle with a 75-degree sweep. The X-24C rocketplane was intended to follow NASA's X-24B. At the same time, the USAF was considering the black budget Lockheed FDL-5 as a successor to the X-15 rocketplane, the most successful US high-speed research aircraft with 199 flights to speeds of Mach 6.7 and altitudes of 354,200 feet. A mockup was built, and if the X-24C was fully developed and tested, it would explain why the X-24C was cancelled by NASA. It may be however, that the FDL-5 and the proposed X-24C were actually "black" and "white" versions of the same vehicle. Despite the X-24C being officially scrapped in 1977 and NASA and the USAF apparently unable to produce enough money to build prototypes, Historian Rene Francillon, in a survey of Lockheed aircraft published in 1982, reported that Lockheed had already flown an experimental aircraft capable of sustained flight at Mach 6. If Lockheed had developed a hypersonic vehicle like the X-24C, it is possible that technology was used in the development of the "North Sea" Aurora and the spaceplane. Testing of the vehicle would have been undertaken at the top-secret Groom Lake installation and the decision to go ahead with constructing prototypes of the "North Sea" Aurora and two-stage spaceplane may have coincided with the Challenger disaster in 1986. The commissioning of these two systems would also explain unusual changes within the "black world" and it's "white" exterior: The Pentagon's decision to scrap the military space shuttle launch facilities at Vandenburg AFB, the appearance of a major black program in the mid-1980s, and also its appearance showing up in Lockheed's company accounts in the form of an extreme budget. Another factor reinforcing the belief that these projects left the drawing board in 1986, is the redevelopment carried out at Groom Lake. The old housing area, built for A-12 Oxcart personnel, was replaced by modern accomadation blocks. An indoor recreation facility and a new commisary were also built. Four water tanks were built and an extensive runway upgrade program was undertaken. Another improvement was the construction of a new fuel tank farm at the south end of the base, which was believed to store the liquid methane which fuelled Aurora. These improvements were initially attributed to the "North Sea" Aurora spyplane, but a larger hangar was built. Larger than the rest, this could house the "mothership", the Super-Valkyrie/ Spaceplane Project. Known as Hangar 18 by base personnel (after the Hangar 18 at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio), observers claim to have caught glimpses of large aircraft moving in and out of it prior to the closure of land overlooking Groom Lake in 1995. All evidence points to the existence of the Super-Valkyrie and while it's exact role remains unknown, the aircraft seems to have been primarily designed as a mothership. The flight testing of a spaceplane would have began with a scale-sized demonsrator, used in a series of glide drops conducted from a converted B-52. Although the parent aircraft was being developed, a rocket booster may have been considered as a fall back launch system. Interestingly enough, in 1991 NASA awarded Lockheed's Skunk Works a contract to explore the possibility of developing a small lifting-body spaceplane. A mockup of this vehicle was built and designated HL-20 PLS. If it had been built, the mini-shuttle would have been an economical alternative for transporting astronauts and pay-loads into Low Earth Orbit (LEO). The project was abandoned in 1993 in favor of the X-33 Venture Star demonstrator. Propulsion for the spaceplane is unknown and may take the form of a highly advanced scramjet running on liquid hydrogen. The vehicle will carry two crew members within an ejection capsule who observe the outside via high definition video screens and small side windows. Assuming the spaceplane is capable of reaching LEO this will allow it to launch small military satellites, inspect foreign satellites and destroy them if necessary. The spaceplane could also carry out global reconaissance missions and deliver nuclear missiles. Current estimates suggest that as many as five spaceplanes have been built, perhaps costing as much as a Super-Valkyrie. The Super-Valkyrie may have been built by Boeing in Seattle and then transported to Groom Lake and/or Edwards AFB for testing in total secrecy at the beginning of the 1990s. Using proven technology and modern developments, Boeing could have built as many as four of these motherships, costing $2 billion each with funding secretly diverted from "visible" projects. The likely contractor for the small spaceplane is Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works who are also believed to be the contractors of the "North Sea" Aurora. The existence of both programs seems to be confirmed by the way officials from Lockheed-Martin deny their involvement with hypersonic aircraft and their existence. Despite official denials, the CIA is probably responsible for operating the "North Sea" Aurora and mini-shuttle programs with support from the USAF. The spaceplane probably operates from Groom Lake, Nevada and the White Sands Space Harbor, New Mexico, with reports claiming that the Super-Valkyrie has occasionally visited Wallops Island, Virginia. From where the "North Sea" Aurora spyplanes operate is less clear, but some of the aircraft may be based at Beale AFB which is home to the 9th Reconnaissance Wing. (reprinted with permission)




posted on Jun, 21 2004 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Here is an interesting link that could be the Super Valkerie aircraft.

www.dreamlandresort.com...

Here is another intersting one.

www.boeing.com...



posted on Jun, 21 2004 @ 07:56 PM
link   
already included all of this in the aurora aircraft research project. bizzang



posted on Jun, 21 2004 @ 08:09 PM
link   
If I get the names there was a guy who worked for the skunk works just before he died he told someone that he would't belive how far in advance tech wise with planes etc. Most of the show was based on ufos im going to reaserch the names and put a list up with the info I find on them and the search for disk shaped planes and what not



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 02:43 PM
link   
It wouldn't surprise me if the air force has their own version of the shuttle without the need of rockets. who here actually thinks that the military would depend on nasa to have the only reentry vehicle? not me! u know they have something of their own.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 12:53 AM
link   
also how fast does this new jet travel?



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
also how fast does this new jet travel?
well judging by the fact it uses pulse detonation wave engines it would have to go atleast hypersonic.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Well I think the Area 51 link has no crediblity whatsoever. How accurate can the information be on a site that includes the line "as on the French Concorde" French? FRENCH? Cheek!



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Well sound is a mechanical wave which requires a medium and therefore it cannot travel through space because space has no medium. So unless that plane travels through air then it cannot be called hypersonic because sonic is a term used in sound.



[edit on 23-4-2006 by wildcat]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildcat
no offence but the people on this website do not know science. well i guess you cant blame them for this stuff on this website are only theories. hypersonic speed is incorrect term for space travel. its astronomical unit. so leaders of ATS please correct your space flight speed terms. b/c all space travel speeds are measured with the speed of light.

please excuse my spelling errors.

Perhaps if we were talking deep space travel we might be calculating speed based on light speed.

However, when talking about transatmospheric, low orbit and/or high orbiting vehicles, (which we are) no one discusses their speed in terms relative to the speed of light. Rather you hear terms such as "miles per hour", "kilometers per hour", "meters per second", "feet per second", "knots" and yes, for a transatmosperic vehicle increments of speed can indeed be measured in terms of "Mach'.

Before slamming the good people here at ATS one should bear in mind that ATS is represented by everyone from middle school students to astrophysicists and aerospace engineers.
Please do some research before correcting others - and be kind when you do so.
Regards,
Natalie~

[edit on 4-22-2006 by intelgurl]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 09:09 PM
link   
That's the neat thing about this site, you have everything from 5th graders to Phds giving advice on the same subjects, and arguing with each other too!!



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildcat
no offence but the people on this website do not know science. well i guess you cant blame them for this stuff on this website are only theories. hypersonic speed is incorrect term for space travel. its astronomical unit. so leaders of ATS please correct your space flight speed terms. b/c all space travel speeds are measured with the speed of light.

please excuse my spelling errors.



Pardon me if I'm wrong but all interplanetary devices launched have their speeds measured in terrestrial terms, including the Apollo Program.
If you're going to compare anything that travels in space since the beginning of spaceflight and IMHO say for the next 50 years or so at least with the speed of light then all you'r going to end up with are loads of zeroes after the decimal point !



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 04:48 AM
link   
I have very hard to believe this either... If USAF would make a new space program, they wouldn't use old design as the Valkyre, but a totally new design...



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 05:15 AM
link   
interesting note

funny thing that they should use the name VALKYRIE,

just going by the photo very similar to the XB-70 program for which may have been the basis and spring backboard



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 05:35 AM
link   
The picture at the top of this article looks nothing like the Valkyrie to my eyes. I think the 'Super Valkyrie' name may be unofficial, maybe even unheard of outside this thread?

To me the picture looks more like a cross between the SR-71 and Concorde, so we could call it the Concbird maybe?


I really don't believe it exists, but obviously I don't know any better than anybody else.;l



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
To me the picture looks more like a cross between the SR-71 and Concorde, so we could call it the Concbird maybe?


That was Waynos ladies and gentlemen, one of our best performers, give him a big hand, he’ll be here all week, enjoy yourself everyone.


You know I had to.



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by waynos
To me the picture looks more like a cross between the SR-71 and Concorde, so we could call it the Concbird maybe?


That was Waynos ladies and gentlemen, one of our best performers, give him a big hand, he’ll be here all week, enjoy yourself everyone.


You know I had to.



And yes we do have sense of humors on ATS......... WELL SOME DO


Using the name 'Super Valkyrie' could just be a cover or simply disinformation but i have heard of "Brilliant Buzzard "



[edit on 23-4-2006 by Jezza]



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   
If we have aircraft such as the B-2 and the Raptor we dont need another aircraft. Plus funding for these things is horrible just look at the B-2, that project was almost dumped for its bill. So the US is rich but not that rich. Believe it or not, the government has these weird projects like studying how americans wash their dishes and bicycle study.

[edit on 23-4-2006 by wildcat]



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

That was Waynos ladies and gentlemen, one of our best performers, give him a big hand, he’ll be here all week, enjoy yourself everyone.


You know I had to.


Funny, very funny indeed... So it is a Concbird... I like it...
Since when have USAF gotten so smart that they have used best sides of two good words...


[edit on 24-4-2006 by Figher Master FIN]



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Perhaps if we were talking deep space travel we might be calculating speed based on light speed.

However, when talking about transatmospheric, low orbit and/or high orbiting vehicles, (which we are) no one discusses their speed in terms relative to the speed of light. Rather you hear terms such as "miles per hour", "kilometers per hour", "meters per second", "feet per second", "knots" and yes, for a transatmosperic vehicle increments of speed can indeed be measured in terms of "Mach'.


originally posted by intelgurl Before slamming the good people here at ATS one should bear in mind that ATS is represented by everyone from middle school students to astrophysicists and aerospace engineers.
Please do some research before correcting others - and be kind when 01
Regards,
Natalie~



I see what you mean because when the shuttle enters earths atmosphere it travles around mach 20. Oh and I deeply apologize if I upset anyone. And Im WAY pass middle school.


sorry for no box around it i accedentaly erased some stuff.

[edit on 23-4-2006 by wildcat]

[edit on 23-4-2006 by wildcat]


mod edit to fix quote
U2U sent



[edit on 23-4-2006 by masqua]





new topics
top topics
 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join