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.

 

Say Hello to the RQ-180

page: 10
16
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 03:42 AM
link   
a reply to: gariac

I'm well aware of this. Some of us are just as smart as you when it comes to these things. Every satellite in orbit has a limited amount of fuel for orbit changes. Once it's gone it's gone. The X-37 requires fuel too. It's no different from a satellite in that respect.




posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 04:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: gariac

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: buntalanlucu

It's the size of a pickup truck, where does it store the massive amounts of fuel it will need to repeatedly change its orbit over the course of the year plus that it's been in orbit? It's not like it can stop at the ISS to refuel. And orbit changes can be tracked.


A course correction is not like launching a rocket into space. Unless you have inside information, I don't believe you can make a definitive statement about the fuel requirements. Oh, and being a rocket scientist would also help.

I would make the claim that if the USAF wanted a satellite, they would have a satellite and not the X37. he X37 needs to land periodically, so it is safe to assume it has some consumable product onboard that needs to be replenished. It isn't like they need to pull film off the bugger like Ice Station Zebra. One has to assume the optics are electronic in the 21st century.



but of course it need fuel and have to replenish it's consumables.. yet it can stay for weeks even months unlike a spy plane that can have hours of endurance. not to mention there only a few weapon that can reach that high, unlike spyplane that can easily get shot down for the goverment's embarassment..



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: gariac

I'm well aware of this. Some of us are just as smart as you when it comes to these things. Every satellite in orbit has a limited amount of fuel for orbit changes. Once it's gone it's gone.


Unless something else is filling it up.

Anyway, my go-to unsupported conspiracy theory is that the X-37 is collecting antiprotons in Southern Magnetic Anomaly. tee!

Much more likely and boring is that it is an in-situ test-bed for experimental optical system prototypes which will be fielded later on dedicated ISR satellites, and also a test-bed for telerobotics and autonomous control for future UCAV's.

It's the payload, stupid. Consider your typical $3 billion surveillance satellite. In the past, these were all one single expensive unit and there was budget for all of them. Now, no more. But now what if you can reconfigure the hardware, remotely? What if you designed a series of modular systems where you could swap out the sensors, communications, CPU and software---stuff which advances rapidly---and keep the large expensive infrastructure: optics, solar power, guidance, etc, technology which changes slowly.

You don't have astronauts muscling spanners any more, you have to do it with your low-end astromech droid.


edit on 15-8-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-8-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-8-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

the x37 was up there helping out another lady get all ready for her debut show. Not growing space crystals and making positrons.

Everyone knows that the positron collection facility is on the far side of the moon.
edit on 15-8-2014 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-8-2014 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: gariac

I'm well aware of this. Some of us are just as smart as you when it comes to these things. Every satellite in orbit has a limited amount of fuel for orbit changes. Once it's gone it's gone. The X-37 requires fuel too. It's no different from a satellite in that respect.


But we don't know the amount of fuel it requires. All we know is there is an endpoint (limit to the fuel). That doesn't tell us of the capabilities.

I for one am very careful not to say things that can't be verified, or I deem my statements to be a good guess without evidence. I don't claim to possess inside knowledge, i.e. an argument from authority, in order to win the argument.



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Perhaps an interesting article. I don't see anything necessarily new, but will share:

The X-47’s Missing Link


The Navy went on to commission the X-47B to make further demonstrations, but a close observer might note that there seems to be a step or two missing in this research program.



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   
What was the missing link? That the USAF didn't do A2A refuelling in its J-UCAS tech demonstrator?

If so, what is it trying to say, USAF must have done it, so there must be another secret project out there that has done it?

It wouldn't suprise me, but it doesn't really hint at anything, just leaves it hanging?

What do you think of it Tag?



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Forensick

You missed the Sentinel pictures? The Air Force has been refueling UAVs for at least ten years already.
edit on 5/16/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: buntalanlucu

originally posted by: gariac

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: buntalanlucu

It's the size of a pickup truck, where does it store the massive amounts of fuel it will need to repeatedly change its orbit over the course of the year plus that it's been in orbit? It's not like it can stop at the ISS to refuel. And orbit changes can be tracked.


A course correction is not like launching a rocket into space. Unless you have inside information, I don't believe you can make a definitive statement about the fuel requirements. Oh, and being a rocket scientist would also help.

I would make the claim that if the USAF wanted a satellite, they would have a satellite and not the X37. he X37 needs to land periodically, so it is safe to assume it has some consumable product onboard that needs to be replenished. It isn't like they need to pull film off the bugger like Ice Station Zebra. One has to assume the optics are electronic in the 21st century.



but of course it need fuel and have to replenish it's consumables.. yet it can stay for weeks even months unlike a spy plane that can have hours of endurance. not to mention there only a few weapon that can reach that high, unlike spyplane that can easily get shot down for the goverment's embarassment..



What if you could orbit a fuel station, which can be refuelled by small autonomous drone that hitch a ride on commercial launches, the X37 can stay up there as long as it's payload is functional and not obsolete.

Of course it's proven it can stay up a year which is pretty good from a maintenance standpoint so probably no need for the expense of a fuel station, unless there were a few just docked that could zoom off to a flashpoint and do its mission before either flying back to dock and hooking itself to wait for another mission.

Jeez the future is going to be awesome!!



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

So what was the point of the article, I'll read it again incase I missed something but even the article mentioned that sentinel refuel?

Confused.

Found pictures

sentinel
edit on 16 5 2015 by Forensick because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Forensick

They didn't go from the Predator, to the X-47. Something led to that design and the philosophy change.



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Forensick

They didn't go from the Predator, to the X-47. Something led to that design and the philosophy change.


I look at UK UAV programme, the predator types (or first gen) were always that platform for surveillance and the UCAS plan form was a triangular one, but the UCAS were longer in development because of the increased complexity of stealth, autonomy, range etc so it appeared it were a changed philosophy?

Predators got armed, probably because they were uncontested airspace but for deep strike stealth UCav you don't use a predator hence sentinel and others.

And the global Hawks or whatever the BAMS system is using is still predator type platform?

So there isn't a change in philosophy what I can tell, 2 different philiosophies one for surveillance in non hostile airspace and one for penetration of hostile airspace.



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Forensick

The original UAVs, including the Predator were designed for uncontested airspace, and were built to be non-stealthy. They were to do recon where they didn't want to send manned aircraft for whatever reason, but in relatively lightly defended airspace. That philosophy changed into a UAV that could enter contested airspace, perform its mission, and get out again, and now we're getting into a UAV that can enter contested airspace, perform strike missions, and get out again.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 11:08 PM
link   
There are rumors that Northrop RQ-180 assets have moved to the renovated south complex of Edwards Air Force Base:

RQ-180 Rumblings

Edwards AFB South Complex

This new information appears to corroborate Shadowhawk's intel from well over a year ago.
edit on 19-2-2016 by TAGBOARD because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: TAGBOARD

I thought he said the new bomber would be going there?



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 12:10 AM
link   
a reply to: B2StealthBomber

My understanding is that a large black program would be surfacing at Edwards AFB south complex. Can anyone confirm?
edit on 19-2-2016 by TAGBOARD because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 12:11 AM
link   
a reply to: TAGBOARD

Bomber EMD aircraft.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 12:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Can you/anyone post a link to his comments? I can't readily find them.
edit on 19-2-2016 by TAGBOARD because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 02:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
"http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/air-force/2016/02/18/air-force-release-lrs-b-details-march/80559496/"
Ma y be it have a link with the bomber going soon in Edwards ?


edit on 19-2-2016 by darksidius because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 06:07 AM
link   
a reply to: TAGBOARD

I can't find them either but I think it was a project moved from groom, the -180 was already operational so it probably would have been at tonapah or creech.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join