Black Military Shuttle ?

[carp]

"Air Force, Boeing Unveil Prototype Military Spaceplane<br />The U.S. Air Force and Boeing rolled out a prototype of a unmanned military spaceplane September 3 that may eventually deliver payloads into orbit and provide reconnaissance capabilities for the military.<br /> The Space Maneuver Vehicle, unveiled at a Boeing plant in Seal Beach, California, is a 90-percent scale model of a reusable spacecraft. Not designed for launch, the unpowered vehicle will be used for landing tests.<br /> In tests slated for this fall in New Mexico, the vehicle will be dropped from a helicopter at 10,000 feet. Using parachutes and its own wings, the 6.7-meter (22-foot), 1130-kg (2,500-lbs.) vehicle will glide to a safe landing on a runway, using GPS systems for guidance. <br /> "The craft will replicate what would be expected during the final stages of its re-entry from a mission," said Capt. John Anttonen, chief of the Military Spaceplane Program Office.<br /> The Space Maneuver Vehicle is part of a larger military spaceplane program. A military spaceplane, currently being planned, would loft the maneuver vehicle into orbit. The maneuver vehicle could then move payloads into higher orbits or serve as a long-term platform reconnaissance platform.<br /> "The military spaceplane allows us to routinely fly suborbital or orbital missions, while the space maneuver vehicle lets us move all over the sky," said Lt. Col. Craig McPherson, head of the Military Spaceplane Technology Systems at the Air Force Phillips Labs.<br /> Future phases of the program, including the development of a manned spaceplane which would deliver the maneuver vehicle to orbit, are planned but as yet unfunded".<br />http://www.seds.org/spaceviews/970915/tech.html <br /><br />

 

[nacnud]

Thats the X-37/X-40 program, it only ever got as far as one drop test of the X-37A also the Whiteknight has also taken the sub scale X-37A on a few joy rides recently.<br /><br />http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/x-37.html

 

[n_kitson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>from the distance one rocket looks like another and the orbiter is undistinguishable<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />With today's commercially available satellite imaging, anyone can see what's on top of a rocket. Of course, a nice payload shroud can obscure our view <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />, so I guess you're correct there.

 

[CalliArcale]

X-37 is alive and well, but it's no longer a purely NASA program. NASA is still involved, but it's primarily a DARPA project now, and seems to be partly classified (which is a change from the original program). Nevertheless, it's still going, and I know the plans got modified for launch from an EELV.<br /><br />Trouble is, there's lately been a lot of uncertainty in this business. Contracts are being delayed or halted, and responses to bids aren't coming as quickly as they were supposed to. So companies are scrambling for funding. The problem is that this may make potential subcontractors lose confidence in these programs and seek other work instead. So even if the X-37 is alive and desired by the DoD, it still might perish. Things might brighten once the initial CEV contracts get awarded; those who lose out will be seeking other work more aggressively. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

a small lifting body like the Mig spaceplane might fit under a shroud.<br />Probably not a Dynasoar. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[skyone]

"the launch needs not be hidden...from the distance one rocket looks like another and the orbiter is undistinguishable. The launch payload and objective can be altered before a press statement is released."<br />Ah...telescope or binoculars?

 

[josh_simonson]

>A reconaissance platform might not necessarly be a spacecraft or aircraft, perhaps a high altitude, long duration UAV airship?<br /><br />Or a UAV named GlobalHawk.

 

[drwayne]

Not long after I came to work here I got to see Global Hawk do an automated landing here - they stopped traffic for its approach...<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

depends on how close to Vandenberg you can get? Or whether the launch is during the day or at night? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

Of course, there is a dedicated amateur community of satellite watchers (sort of like trainspotters or planespotters) who will take notice if something is placed into orbit. It would be virtually impossible to keep an orbital spaceplane program completely secret after first flight. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[trailrider]

"I think X-37 should have been the basis for our next manned spacecraft, instead of reviving the Apollo command module. I hope that our military succeeds in developing a useful spaceplane, if NASA is going to give up and return to capsules."<br /><br />Please give this a rest. NASA is NOT "giving up" on anything. You don't need wings to fly to the Moon, and that is the mid-term objective (Mars hopefully being the long-term objective) of Project Constellation. That the command module will initially be used for carrying crews to the ISS and back, and one or more versions used as cargo vehicles is simply a matter of good economics. There is a lot of useful aerodynamic data available from the Apollo program. The heat shield of the new, expanded command module is offset considerably (noticeably), providing more lifting and vectoring capability (by rolling the vehicle). But it will be capable of withstanding "capture re-entry velocity" heating (that's the opposite of escape velocity) coming back from the Moon.<br /><br />If USAF needs the capabilities of a lifting body with more crossrange capability, they will, no doubt, go for it. But near-Earth operations requirements are far different from inter-planetary or cislunar space. Let's stop making the mistake of trying to make one bird be everything to all users. With RARE exceptions that has NEVER worked! You don't run to the corner grocery store with an 18 wheeler, and you don't try to move a house-full of furniture across country with a VW beetle! And neither are much good for competing at Indy!<br /><br />(You know, I could complain because NASA has never used the winged V-2 design von Braun and Chestley Bonestell showed for a space ship to the Moon! Neither Apollo nor the Shuttle are like that!)<br /><br />Take heart! Someday we may see some sort of Space Plane. But right now, we're lucky there is even a PLAN to go back to the Moon.<br /><br />Ad Luna! Ad Aries! Ad Astra!

 

[jatslo]

Sounds pretty neat

 

[mikejz]

I disagree<br /><br />You can keep it quite: Just launch from a island far out in the Pacific<br /><br />As far as optical sighting, i find no reason why these could not be counted. <br /><br />It would be far harder to hide something like that from early warning satellites that could very well pick up the exaust of such a shuttle.

 

[dobbins]

"You can keep it quite: Just launch from a island far out in the Pacific"<br /><br />The USA and Russia both keep infrared tracking satellites in orbit to detect missile launches that could be an attack aimed at them. It is impossible for either nation to make a launch from anywhere without the other knowing about it. Both nations use radar to track objects in orbit. Both would know if an orbital object came down in a pattern consistent with a black shuttle landing.<br /><br />Most of this thread is tin foil hat nonsense and it belongs in the Phenomena section with the UFOs and Men in Black crap.<br /> <br />

 

[n_kitson]

Russia no longer has the capacity to be able to detect or track missile launches globally. After the collapse of the Soviet union, Russia lost major satellite tracking stations in Ukraine, Latvia, Georgia, and Kazakhstan. as a result the Strategic Rocket Forces and thus Nuclear Command have significant blind spots.

 

[spacefire]

are the russians able to track a shuttle landing at Vandenberg? <br />other than on CNN? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[dobbins]

Russian spy satellites can easily observe something as large as the Shuttle landing, and their infrared satellites are more than capable of spotting something as distinctive as the exhaust plume of a missile launch. Due to the existence of Boomer subs they watch the oceans as well as the US land mass for the signs of a missile launch.<br /><br />

 

[n_kitson]

Yes, they can. For that matter, so can commercially available imaging satellites. As Dobbins pointed out, the satellites can track a launch. The problem is that the tracking ability is limited by the period of the satellite's orbit. A launch vehicle can probably be launched from an underground silo, with the silo only opening for the launch, when the satellite is not overhead. This is the reason we still need spyplanes today.<br /><br />Of course, you can track the heat trail of the satellite, but then you don't know what is on board. The blind spots also affect the ability to track the entire launch. <br /><br />There is a nice (and somewhat scary) example of this. In 1995 there was a Black Brant 12 launch from an island of Norway. Advanced notification had not reached Russian nuclear command, and gaps in the early warning system meant that the Russians spotted the rocket late and were unable to accurately determine the trajectory. Yeltsin was woken up and brought his nuclear command briefcase - as far as we know the only time in history this has happened. The generals indicated that if it was a warhead aimed at Moscow, Yeltsin had less than 8 minutes to authorize a counter strike. Given that Russia was still operating under a "launch-on-warning" system, you can imagine how close we came to nuclear war!

 

[tomnackid]

Most of this thread is tin foil hat nonsense and it belongs in the Phenomena section with the UFOs and Men in Black crap. <br />---------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />If in 1962 someone had come up to you and said that the US had a secret plane capable of flying at mach 3.3 and at over 75,000 feet you probably would have said that was conspiracy theory nonsense! Yet the A-12 (forerunner of the SR-71) had already been doing this for several months.<br /><br />Its a known fact--not "tin foil hat nonsense"--that the military operates aircraft that it keeps secret from the general public. Now, I doubt that the Air Force could be operating a clandestine STS--its just too big and expensive. However I think that it is unlikely--even irresponsible--for our military NOT to have some kind of human access to space independent of NASA (a nominally civilian organization).<br /><br />I'm not saying pilots are hopping into x-wing fighters and flying off into orbit on a daily basis, but I would bet that the Air Force has some kind of contingency plan to put people in space on an emergency basis. Maybe something like the "son of Blue Gemini" or maybe "Blue Gemini on steroids?" <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[mlorrey]

Quite so. If it is anything like the Blackhorse proposals of the 90s or the Sortie Vehicle proposals of the early 80's, it would never exhibit the typical launch plumes of missiles, it would look more like an SR-71 with its tail on fire. I have no doubts that the military shuttle exists as some form of small payload TAV.

 

[dobbins]

Some people have no doubt that the military is operating the UFO it found at Roswell. That doesn't make it so.<br /><br />

 

[tomnackid]

Some people have no doubt that the military is operating the UFO it found at Roswell. That doesn't make it so. <br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />The military WAS operating the UFO at Roswell--it was a weather balloon carrying an aluminized mylar radar reflector and equipment to detect Soviet nuclear tests! <br /><br />Seriously though, why is it so hard to believe that the military might have its own manned space capability? We have been putting people into space since the early sixties. Its not like its way out technology or anything.

 

[formulaterp]

<font color="yellow">I think that it is unlikely--even irresponsible--for our military NOT to have some kind of human access to space independent of NASA (a nominally civilian organization).</font><br /><br />And what would they do with this capability? It's totally unnecessary.

 

[josh_simonson]

Indeed, there's no reason for the military to need people in orbit.

 

[mikejz]

I would venture to guess that most 'Black' projects use technology that is about 10-14 years ahead of what is done publically or by private companies. Given that there seems to be some hope that in 10-14 years private companies might begin to test private orbital RLVs and surely already begin offering private suborbital RLVs, along with lower cost access to orbit----I find no reason to not think that such already exist in the 'black' world.