Black Military Shuttle ?

[mlorrey]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>We have had supersonic aircraft - both classified and unclassified - for many, many years. Yet not one of these has transferred into the commercial space. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /> <br />This is patently untrue. There are quite a number of supersonic aircraft in private hands today. I know a few owners of such myself: T-38s, Electric Lightnings, Migs, F-90, among others. Furthermore, there are commericially built supersonic aircraft for sale that were developed for civil aviation entirely.<br /><br />Your statement is the same sort of lack-of-knowledge ignorance that I see with people who claim you can't own gold.

 

[mlorrey]

It doesn't matter where you snatch the soviet or other sat: unless they've installed local cameras or other proximity detection systems, their sats will just stop transmitting, as if they broke or got whacked by spacejunk. They won't know what happened to the satellite, and as they won't be looking for anything else, all they will notice is that the satellite reentered over North America after it failed in orbit, which could easily indicate that a fuel tank ruptured, with the explosion driving the sat back into the atmosphere... when all along it is a once-around snatching and reentering.

 

[tomnackid]

The fact is that one of the Air Force's criteria for a shuttle design was that it be able to capture a Soviet satellite in one polar orbit to and from Vandenburg. It was never actually attempted, and most likely most military people thought it was an unlikely scenario to begin with, but the fact is it was something they wanted to do on the outside chance it became necessary.

 

[dobbins]

There are a handful of them owned by private collectors. That puts them in the same category as World War One aircraft. There are also a few of them in private hands. This is hardly in the commercial space, no one is making supersonic private aircraft or Sopwith Camels for the market.<br /><br />

 

[CalliArcale]

You're right that it can be done, mlorrey, but it would be very expensive. I honestly do not believe the expense would be justified by the fairly small gain. That's been the major stumbling block for the many anti-satellite proposals that have come up through the years; they haven't been able to justify themselves financially. <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>

 

[gawin]

"his is patently untrue. There are quite a number of supersonic aircraft in private hands today. I know a few owners of such myself: T-38s, Electric Lightnings, Migs, F-90, among others. Furthermore, there are commericially built supersonic aircraft for sale that were developed for civil aviation entirely.<br /><br />Your statement is the same sort of lack-of-knowledge ignorance that I see with people who claim you can't own gold."<br /><br />well if it is private pilots doing this im shure they are aware of FAA regulation 91.817<br /><br />(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft in the United States at a true flight Mach number greater than 1 except in compliance with conditions and limitations in an authorization to exceed Mach 1 issued to the operator under appendix B of this part.<br /><br />(b) In addition, no person may operate a civil aircraft for which the maximum operating limit speed MM0 exceeds a Mach number of 1, to or from an airport in the United States, unless --<br /><br />(1) Information available to the flight crew includes flight limitations that ensure that flights entering or leaving the United States will not cause a sonic boom to reach the surface within the United States; and<br /><br />(2) The operator complies with the flight limitations prescribed in paragraph (b)(1) of this section or complies with conditions and limitations in an authorization to exceed Mach 1 issued under appendix B of this part.<br /><br />(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2120-0005)<br /><br />so i don think thies private pilots would be doing it more then once if they wished to contiue flying

 

[n_kitson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>There are quite a number of supersonic aircraft in private hands today. I know a few owners of such myself: T-38s, Electric Lightnings, Migs, F-90, among others. Furthermore, there are commericially built supersonic aircraft for sale that were developed for civil aviation entirely. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />The point of my post was to illustrate that despite that military pilots have routinely reached supersonic speeds for 40 years, the average Joe cannot do that today. You can nit-pick and divert the argument if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that a private individual has no realistic options for routine supersonic travel today.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Your statement is the same sort of lack-of-knowledge ignorance that I see with people who claim you can't own gold. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />And this supports your point, how?<br />And this adds value to the argument, how?

 

[mlorrey]

The restriction is only on flying supersonic over land or such that a sonic boom hits land. <br /><br />I personally have gone mach 2 over open ocean in a civilian owned aircraft.<br /><br />Furthermore, such restrictions do not apply to private suborbital aircraft, such as SpaceShipOne, which, as you might recall, reached a peak of Mach 3.5 last year over the Mojave Desert, which, I believe, is land of the United States, so, smarty pants, what do you say now?<br /><br />As for Dobbins: there are five supersonic vehicles under construction at Scaled Composites for a commercial airline (The Virgin Group), or don't you read the newspapers? There is also the Xerus vehicle under construction at XCOR, as well as several other private commercial projects.<br /><br />I might also point out the BD-10, which, while it had a spotty safety record, was also a completely privately developed and commercially sold supersonic jet.<br /><br />Denigrating private owners of supersonic jets is inappropriate, because you are talking about supersonic military fighter (i.e. 1-2 seats) technology, neither of which carries passengers or which any commercial airline would operate, subsonic or supersonic. I would point out that the US military operates absolutely no supersonic bombers, transports or any other aircraft other than fighters, so expecting civilian transfer of supersonic technology to airline passenger aircraft is a straw man. If the military doesn't find big supersonic troop transports feasible, there is no reason to expect the airlines to do so. <br /><br />Passenger capacity for supersonics and suborbitals will remain in the 1-8 person range for a good decade or more no matter who owns and operates them.

 

[nacnud]

The B1b is a supersonic bomber.

 

[n_kitson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I personally have gone mach 2 over open ocean in a civilian owned aircraft<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Why do we have supersonic aircraft? I can think of two reasons:<br /><br />1. To get from A to B very quickly<br />2. To get away from something very quickly<br /><br />There is NO commercial supersonic plane that satisfies these two reasons. Your Mach 2 plane was not produced to provide joyrides. Depending on what it was, it was intended to be a fighter, a bomber, a trainer or a research plane. It was definitely not originally designed to be a joyride plane.<br /><br />Now, SS1 is a rocket. It is in the same class as many other commercial sounding rockets. I wasn't talking about rockets, and you know that. Maybe Xerus, or an SS1 derivative will one day offer non-space commercial flights. They don't yet. The BD-10 is certified as an experimental aircraft.<br /><br />My point stands: black aircraft do not per se transfer into commercial breakthroughs.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Mojave Desert, which, I believe, is land of the United States, so, smarty pants, what do you say now<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />What an incredibly mature debate style. How old are you?

 

[n_kitson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>classified high speed aircraft was creating sonic booms over southern California 10 or 15 years ago on the way to that 6 mile long runway at Groom Lake. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Maybe, but this supports the lack of useful applications for a superfast military aricraft. Those same sonic booms will make everyone aware of the plane, especially if it was hypersonic.<br /><br />The potential good news is that rumor has it that the X-43 program is now partially funded as a black program, and Tupolev is playing around with a new SST concept, the Tu-444. I'll post something on that in Free Space, where it is probably more topical

 

[josh_simonson]

Well, if it's illegal for commercial and private aircraft to fly over mach 1 in the US, of course there isn't going to be much commercial demand for such capabilities. <br /><br />Other formerly classified things have gotten out into normal industry just fine, spysats - google earth, nuclear fission - nuclear power... There's no fundamental blockage, private industry just won't do anything with declassified stuff unless there's money to be made in it.

 

[drwayne]

"The B1b is a supersonic bomber."<br /><br />No it isn't. The original B1 was, but not the B1-B<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

Yes it is, but not the Mach 2+ the B1a was going to be, the B1b can still manage 900-plus mph (Mach 1.2 at sea level).<br /><br />Link

 

[drwayne]

No, I am wrong there - it still pokes its head over Mach 1 - not by much, but I remembered that it had lost more speed that that with the B--B design.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

You are correct.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> I got worried that a random internet link was unreliable there, phew, just as I though the internet came through as being 100% reliable again.<br /><br />Ooh that pop-up says free ipod! Back in a mo...<br />

 

[quasar2]

has anyone mentioned the "West wing" fiction thread? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[drwayne]

My memory is not 100% reliable to be sure...<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />Why do we have supersonic aircraft? I can think of two reasons: <br /><br />1. To get from A to B very quickly <br />2. To get away from something very quickly <br /><br />There is NO commercial supersonic plane that satisfies these two reasons. Your Mach 2 plane was not produced to provide joyrides. Depending on what it was, it was intended to be a fighter, a bomber, a trainer or a research plane. It was definitely not originally designed to be a joyride plane. <br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Doesn't matter what it was produced FOR. What is it being used for? It is a two seater, and its owner happens to use it, most of the time, to get from point A to point B very quickly for business meetings, as his time is very valuable, too valuable to be wasted at subsonic speeds.<br /><br />Your comment indicates that you don't know many guys who are or were fighter pilots. Getting paid to joyride is half the job motivation.<br /><br />They once used WWI fighters and bombers to deliver the mail by air back in the 1920's. Those were therefore commercial aircraft. Surplus DC-3s were the backbone of the postwar air cargo industry. C-130's, Catalinas, and other military surplus planes make up 90% plus of forest fire fighting aircraft planes in operation today. You are making stupid and absurd qualifications and exceptions. It doesn't matter what it was built for: did the aircraft have a large historical impact upon a commercial flight industry? In many cases, yes.<br /><br />The Concorde was highly dependent in its aerodynamics upon the hypersonic work of the X-15 program.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />Now, SS1 is a rocket. It is in the same class as many other commercial sounding rockets. I wasn't talking about rockets, and you know that. Maybe Xerus, or an SS1 derivative will one day offer non-space commercial flights. They don't yet. The BD-10 is certified as an experimental aircra</p></blockquote>

 

[n_kitson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>There's no fundamental blockage, private industry just won't do anything with declassified stuff unless there's money to be made in it. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />That's an excellent way of summarizing the situation. A lot of classified work only makes sense in a military environment. I'd love it if we had hypersonic or even supersonic transport, but despite it having become routine and common technology, financially it does not yet make sense.

 

[n_kitson]

"Doesn't matter what it was produced FOR"<br />It does matter. If they were commercially successful, someone would be building them. Just like your DC3 examples. They were commercially successful and the successors have been designed for that industry. It's called supply matching demand.<br /><br />"The Concorde was highly dependent in its aerodynamics upon the hypersonic work of the X-15 program"<br />a) Not sure where you get this, I can find no evidence. Link?<br />b) Is the Concorde a commercial success? Can I buy Concorde and fly it today?<br /><br />"The BD-10 was commercially sold by an active corporation, for profit, to people intent on operating them for personal transportation for whatever reasons they felt they needed it. Not allowing it as a private and commercial aircraft displays both your ignorance and absurdity."<br />There were five BD-10 kits produced that I can track down (perhaps there were more, but info is limited):<br />1. First prototype sold in bankrupcy to a Canadian firm to convert it into a drone <br />2. Second prototype killed the test pilot Mike Vanwaggon during an in-flight break-up<br />3. Third prototype killed the test pilot during landing <br />4. Fourth prototype is unaccounted for<br />5. A kit was built in California and crashed, killing the owner Frank Everett<br />Do you really call this a commercially viable application of supersonic technology? Every pilot dead and the manufacturer bankrupt?<br /><br />"SS1 ... is an aircraft that happens to be rocket powered, and is used to get from point A (the ground) to point B (space)"<br />SS1 is a suborbital spacecraft, not an aircraft. However, semantics aside, can I buy one today? Is it routinely ferrying passengers?<br /><br />"XCOR's EZ-Rocket just set the distance record for a rocket powered aircraft, both ways"<br />Can I buy one today? Is it an FAA licenced commercial aircraft? Is the 200mph speed it flew at supersonic?<br /><br />"Black aircraft technologies? Now you are changing the subje