Is area 51's main runway used or not?

www.allmystery.de..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

I know this image is an old image because the hangar at the bottom of the pic is still getting built when infact it has been built now, i have checked latest satellite imagery and the question still stands.

the newer runway that has been extended i think is now 6 miles long! is different to the second runway and any other runway i have looked at.

Q. is the runway unused or is it used for different aircraft that do not have conventional ways of landing ie tyres?

I ask this question because if you look at a photograph of any runway it has black skid marks where planes have landed the longer one at area 51 has not or very very little.

Q. is the longer runway just used to take off and the shorter to land?
Q. Is the longer runway not the main runway?
Q. Or am i just going mad why extend the runway not to use it

Maybe long enough for a shuttle to land.

I actually think they are similar in length.

Look at the new hangar with the landing pad behind it. Massive circle marked out in the concrete around the landing area. Ain't marked as a helicopter landing pad and is far, far too massive for a helicopter.

That's where the Legacy Class Starship ports and gets rolled in.

It was 1959 when the "Hot Rod" first flew:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQCrPNEsQaY

Orion was a military spacecraft using the same propulsion technique and flew along the Apollo missions to the moon. Only it dropped small nuclear bombs instead of C-4 behind it for propulsion.

en.wikipedia.org...(nuclear_propulsion)

We're waaayyyyy beyond that. Congress didn't want a Legacy Class Starship and for years funded the Rover program and smaller craft using that propulsion.

We didn't build the Legacy Class ships until Clinton.

No, the main runway isn't used much....factoring in all the sorties being flown from that locale....

The longer runway, on the left, is the old runway. It was built in 1960 as an 8,500-foot-long concrete strip, with a 6,500-foot asphalt extension onto the lakebed for emergency use only. In the 1980s, the south end was extended about 5,000 feet because the north end of the concrete strip was subject to flooding during the rainy season.

Due to wear and tear, and increasing maintenance costs, this runway was eventually closed. It was replaced with a new 13,000-foot concrete runway in the early 1990s. The old runway is no longer used.

The the concrete pad south of Hangar 19 is marked with a turnaround circle. Airplanes taxi into the north end of the hangar and out the south end, where they can turn around and park for easy exit. Before Hangar 19 was extended to three times its original length, there was taxiway leading back to the runway and thus no need for the turnaround pad.

shadowhawk i do not meen to sound rude but source?

i know its the old runway but why extend it? if its not going to be used the old runway looks brand new

The old runway was extended on the south end during the 1980s, while it was still being used. The lakebed extension was built in the early 1960s, solely for emergency use.

When the new runway was built, the old runway was phased out of service. In the most recent satellite images (circa 2009) you can see that the old runway is marked with yellow X's denoting that it is closed.

again where did you get this info from i am just interested? i would like to read it

My information comes from a combination of several sources:

1. Analysis of aerial and satellite images

2. Area 51 Standard Operating Procedures documents

3. Interviews with former Area 51 personnel


You can find much of the material on several web sites:

www.dreamlandresort.com

www.roadrunnersinternationale.com

www.area51specialprojects.com

Besides the X marks, you can simply listen to ATC recordings to determine if the runway is used or not. Hint: it isn't used. ;-)

Of course X marks at these spook bases don't always reflect reality. For instance, Base Camp has its runway Xd out, yet they still use the runway.

Nevermind, misundersood OP sorry

well, you dont need a runway for a flying saucer

The old runaway could have been to short for a new type of aircraft to take off so they had to build a new one. But you are not mad this is a great thread with good questions that need answered. But I am unfortunately not one that could supply you with these answers.

Shadowhawk's explanation, even without the documents, makes sense as the right answer. The dry lake floods. That is what made/keeps it flat. Dry lakes are fine for emergency runways, but the base needs an all weather runway. Note that the localizer for 32R is much further away from the end of the runway than is typical. This is because the dry lake floods, and they needed to put the gear where it won't flood.

Considering the base is active 24/7/365 you're not going to see this kind of stuff with delayed aerial, telescopic and satellite photography the rest is just speculation.. but you're not going to invest time and effort into something that isn't used

Here's what I think why invest time and money into a new runway when you could test and adjust with the exsisting runway you already have to get exactly what you want from it. Does that sound stupid?

It came down to a choice between spending increasing amounts of money on repairing and maintaining the old runway or simply building a new runway. A cost analysis resulted in a decision that it was more economically sensible to build the new runway.

A similar decision had to be made for Edwards AFB, and for essentially the same reasons. Both airfields are built on the edge of dry lakebeds where the alkali soil eventually degrades the concrete. At Groom Lake, there was available space to build a new runway just a bit further to the east and then phase out use of the old runway. At Edwards there was no available space, due to the presence of other facilities, so the old runway was demolished and rebuilt in the same location. A second (nominally temporary) runway was built between the old runway and the flightline in order to continue flight operations until the new airstrip was complete.

Ok Edwards AFB I can believe but area 51 explanation you just gave, you gave it ad though you worked on the runway or at groom lake??????? Did you??? I didn't think so. Will research now and see if I can find anything else unless you already have then can I have the link plZ thank you always appreciate your input

reply to post by simples


You may want to take a gander at this thread from 2007. It talks about the SR-72. Seems to me that it would need the longer runway.

SR-72 Confirmed: Mach 6 Project Blackswift

reply to post by SLAYER69


I can see where you are coming from but surly it would be able to slow down before landing therefore only needing the smaller runway and ad for take off I doubt it would need 6 miles of runway to get airbourne

reply to post by simples


Not everything can be found on the internet, and not everything on the internet is true. (Dulce!) You could file a FOIA for the cost/benefit analysis of the runway construction.