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.
originally posted by: Barnalby
a reply to: face23785
A conventional-tipped ICBM is a fantastic way to get your country glassed by Russia or China's launch on warning systems.
originally posted by: anzha
The way to convince me otherwise would be to have offer unexplained sat sightings coincident with your sky quakes. It is virtually impossible to hide a sat.
originally posted by: anzhaThe x-33 had chunks that were considered radical at the time and made everyone think - and some wink - there had been a black program to develop the tech enough for lockheed to propose their use.
originally posted by: SpeedFanatic
a reply to: CulturalResilience
I could count to this one link:
www.eaa55.org...
+ knowledge gained from ATS posts. The whole thing is to mixture small pieces together.
originally posted by: wirehead
Funny thing about the X-33. From what I heard, it was extremely promising and all but ready to go, but in the end it was killed by the NASA director's insistence that they use the composite fuel tank instead of just going with something people could actually manufacture, like aluminum. This was after the composite fuel tanks failed in testing, and basically every engineer involved told him it was a death sentence to the project to try to go forward with the composites. There was no way the composite tanks would work without a complete redesign of the entire project. It made no sense.
At the same time they would have no problem getting the thing in the air with an aluminum tank.
originally posted by: anzha
Actually, no. They needed the composite tank tech to have the right mass fraction to get to orbit. The 33 would have nor reached orbit, but it would have proven the tech. The problem was Lockheed proposed too many bleeding edge technologies. That killed the program. That they were so confident the tech was ready was what was...surprising.
originally posted by: anzha
Has ATS become too young to remember the tav 'race' of the 80s?
The Americans went with scramjets. The Brits and Japanese went with lace. The Germans even has their Sanger.
The us and Brits are the only ones to keep plugging at it.
originally posted by: wirehead
Speaking for myself, yes. This is all stuff I'm trying to piece together after the fact by digging through documents and things.
originally posted by: anzha
originally posted by: wirehead
Speaking for myself, yes. This is all stuff I'm trying to piece together after the fact by digging through documents and things.
TAV. Trans atmospheric vehicle.
The left over Brit bits is now known as Reaction Engines. The original project was called HoToL. Its engine they now call SABRE and then was called LACE.
Their mass fraction still doesn't reach orbit, BTW.
Now can anyone name the cover program the US ran? It was legit and a cover...
originally posted by: wirehead
Well there was all that talk about the NASP right? The Rockwell X-30?
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: anzha
You're kidding, right? The first time I mentioned the neural net they flew in the 90s, most of the responses I got were the message board equivalent of a blank stare.
originally posted by: anzha
Look at the NASP shape. Look at the hypersonic demonstrators the USAF flew. Hmmmm.
This stuff doesn't develop in a vacuum, guys. There is history and its not magitech.
originally posted by: wirehead
originally posted by: anzha
The way to convince me otherwise would be to have offer unexplained sat sightings coincident with your sky quakes. It is virtually impossible to hide a sat.
How is Misty doing these days, anyway?
The subject of this thread is something I keep going back and forth on, personally. Obviously we're talking about Blackstar, perhaps by another name, perhaps not exactly as the Aviation Week article described it.
It would be a hell of thing to keep quiet. From my assessment, the TSTO system that Scott described did not make sense (launch at Mach 3? 100,000 feet? all you've done is make a much more complicated and expensive and secret rocket, because that XOV had better have the fuel fraction of a conventional rocket.)
Why would the Reagan administration be desperate for a second, secret way into space? My guess would be SDI. If SDI was to work as advertised, it'd need a hell of a lot of satellites.
.