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.

 

Top Secret USAF orbital space plane

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:
jra

posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Violater1
They are different. They are different because SpaceFlightNow is using photos of a model, and not the real bird. And I still question the authenticity of the first photo. The model has to rest on concrete blocks because it can’t support it’s own weight.


There are plenty of photos that show nothing under it.

spaceflightnow.com...
spaceflightnow.com...

I don't think those blocks are touching the underside, if they are, then it's just barely. And I don't think they're concrete. Concrete against the thermal tiles? Not a good idea. It's much more likely to be a foam of some sort.


And then it has to be carted around on it’s own Hollywood trailer and non-gobermnt pick-up truck.


What's a "Hollywood trailer"? And why should a Government vehicle need tow it? The truck has "Boeing" written on the side, which makes sense since this is made by Boeing. How do you think the vehicle should be towed back to the hanger?




posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by jra
 

I won't get in a peeing match with you.
But, You sound so certain that the blocks are not concrete. Were you there?
I don't see Boeing on the photo of the white pick-up truck provided by the OP.
As far as the craft being towed (I don't have any of the X-37), here are links to photo's of the Global Hawk being moved.
www.nasa.gov...
And this:


Please notice the gobermt pick-up truck in the above photo.
And lastly, several photos from my home base. Please note the gobermnt truck towing the GH.
www.edwards.af.mil...
Have a Happy New Year.
Violater1 out.

edit on 31-12-2010 by Violater1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-12-2010 by Violater1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Violater1
 


Those aren't blocks...its part of the servicing equipment....
No masks,because all the fuel resiidue would be gone after 225 days....
It's on a runway because that's where it glided to a landing,225 days after being launched like a rocket.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   
All of the photos in the SpaceFlightNow article are real. Anyone who says otherwise is just being foolish.

The foam blocks were placed under the vehicle to protect the underside in case the landing gear collapsed. One of the main tires blew out during landing so they weren't taking any chances.

There is nothing sinister about the X-37B. It is just a technology demonstrator. Someday the data collected with this vehicle will be applied to an operational system unless requirements change or the budget is cut.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Photoshoped for sure..

errorlevelanalysis.com...



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
I suppose it's neither here nor there whether the photos are 100% authentic or not. What we DO know from previous historical examples of high-tech craft being unveiled is that it is generally done to throw the scent from something *really* secret that was nearly discovered, like the unveiling of the stealth fighters / bombers.

Why else announce the landing of a secret shuttle mission on the Internet?



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by boyg2004
 


Because it wasn't so secret when the Government splashed the launch all over the news.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by SeeingBlue
Photoshoped for sure..

errorlevelanalysis.com...
What specifically in that analysis leads you to believe it's photoshopped? I see the red area highlighted but the explanation says that's not evidence of Photoshop, it's normal:


It is worth noting that edges and areas red in colour are often depicted as brighter in the ELA tests. This due to the way the photos are saved by various programs. It is not proof that image was manipulated.

If you are unsure how to interpret the results, please do not claim the results of this tool as proof of anything.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by SeeingBlue
Photoshoped for sure..

errorlevelanalysis.com...


What the hell is that showing me? That site could use a better explanation of what we are looking at..



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   
I can't wait for world war 3 ...IN SPACE! Seems like USA, China, and Russia all have new toys to play with and with which to drain our bank accounts.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
This relies on assumptions of course and may be a bit far fetched, but has anyone suggested yet that it might be used to transport anti-matter to orbital generators or batteries?

1) Nuclear reactors are banned from space in the Geneva convention (we only allow nuclear reactions here on Earth haha), but antimatter devices are not as far as I know. Not that this would stop the USAF anyways.

2) The US Gov't is spending record breaking amounts on its defense budget, anti-matter takes record breaking amounts to create, it is not outside of logic to say the Gov't has found a way to 'mass produce' it secretly and contain it for longer periods of time.

3) It does not have solar panels and it is unclear what exactly is the the power source of this thing for 200+ days, so like traditional atmospheric USAF tankers it could run off its own payload to an extent.

4) Not much space would be required to transport effective quantities of anti-matter, still leaving room for some sensory equipment possibly for a secondary mission or defensive awareness.

5) Since anti-matter is no secret to the public, the transport itself would not be required to be highly classified, but revealing its purpose would reveal we have certain technologies/devices in orbit. People would think it has purposes as an attack craft and forget about the bombardment satellite in orbit that it is transporting its cargo to when it 'disappeared' for a moment. Keep in mind recent advances in visible light cloaking materials and technology, a sheet could literally be pulled around the craft and its host between it and Earth and light would travel around it.

What do you think?


jra

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77
3) It does not have solar panels and it is unclear what exactly is the the power source of this thing for 200+ days...


Actually it does have solar panels and it uses lithium-ion batteries.

X-37B



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Violater1
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Slayer is correct. It is real.
However look at the control surfaces in this photo of The Real X-37.
To enlarge the photo, open up MS word. Then right click on the image and use the “copy image” option. Next, go to your word document and “paste” the image to the document. Now “drag” the corner of the photo diagonally to the outer margin. Next use the document enlarger command in the tool bar. You can now see the image with some small pixalation.
upload.wikimedia.org...
Now compare it with the model of the X-37 in the OP’s provided link.
spaceflightnow.com...
Next, look at the landing gear of the real x-37.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Now compare the landing gear of the model at SpaceFlightnow.
spaceflightnow.com...
They are different. They are different because SpaceFlightNow is using photos of a model, and not the real bird. And I still question the authenticity of the first photo. The model has to rest on concrete blocks because it can’t support it’s own weight. And then it has to be carted around on it’s own Hollywood trailer and non-gobermnt pick-up truck.
For crying out loud! It’s not even a Pintle trailer hitch! Really! Towing a 100 million dollar bird around on this thing!
I’m not discrediting the OP, only stating that the SpaceFlightNow photos Are Not Real.
No way, not today, and not tomorrow.


The photo is of a training mock up.
Someone used it for a photo op thinking no one would notice.

Plus it would be unlikely that a training mock up would have any classified items on it so its safe to allow the media to take photos,

And a lot of the media are dumb and would never know.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77
1) Nuclear reactors are banned from space in the Geneva convention (we only allow nuclear reactions here on Earth haha)


Atomic reactors are not banned, in fact the US and USSR developed and deployed the first atomic reactors in the 60's, and the USSR eventually sent about 30 atomic reactors into space.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by aaa2500
 


Oh sorry I thought nuclear reactions (man-made) in space were banned in the Geneva treaty, my mistake. Just bombs then?

reply to post by jra
 


Ah, didn't know it was used on this spacecraft. Figured all the details were still classified.
edit on 19-1-2011 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:37 AM
link   
All you guys are missing the big point, the program is called "Space Maneuver Vehicle". What does "Space Maneuver" mean you ask? Don't current satellites change their orbits (maneuver) in space? Yes, but it takes a lot of fuel to change orbits. The X-37 instead does a small re-entry burn, when it gets down to 300,000 feet uses it's wings to change orbital plane aerodynamically, then another small burn to boost back up into space. This technique uses a fraction of the fuel to change orbits compared to normal satellites.

Right now with normal satellites the enemy can predict their path, and hide when they are known to be coming over. Normal satellites don't carry enough fuel to make numerous surprise orbit changes to catch an enemy off guard. The X-37 on the other hand does have that ability. It could be in an orbit thousands of miles away, then do a quick orbit change and sneak up through "space maneuver" to photo or bomb a target, and do it a dozen times or more for the mission duration.

In some respects it's a replacement for the SR-71, since the SR could overfly a target without warning. Or it can attack a target same as a B-2 Stealth bomber but without violating enemy airspace.


edit on 4-2-2011 by TimBrummer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by boyg2004

Would it just be my way of thinking, or is it more thrifty to employ USAF Technicians to run the show at the vehicle side than NASA employees, plus there's the added bonus of not having to justify what exactly it is that you're up to.


No, it takes many years of specialized training and experience to work on this one of a kind R&D project, it's cheaper to let the people who designed and built it do the processing than spend years training Airmen for just one or two missions. They are Boeing employees, not NASA employees. Also they already have Top Secret security clearances.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:59 AM
link   



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 02:10 AM
link   
I was always interested in type of "killer satellites" etc.. And everytime I look in the night sky I try to imagine what kind of types of space drones etc may be spying on us... Kind of creepy



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Dalbeck
 


These are not the drones you are looking for. But they are interesting.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join