"quiet" launch - a theoretical question

[georgeniebling]

Would it be possible for NASA to launch a Shuttle without the Media getting wind of it?<br /><br />Obviously once it is launched they'd know but how long do you think (NASA pros and non-pros alike) a launch could be kept "quiet" ...<br /><br />no visible countdown clock, no news releases, as low-profile as possible ...<br /><br />it would be one way to avoid the media stupidity ....

 

[chriscdc]

No, there are just far too many people working on it. Enough people to make it a political issue. Enough to affect the outcome of the florida result in any presidential election.<br /><br />The shuttle programme seems to be designed, to need so many thousands of workers from hundreds of sub-contractors.<br /><br />A launch of say T-spaces CXV (possible shuttle replacement) would have so few contractors that it may be possible to make an extra vehicle (using spare parts) without anyone noticing.

 

[crix]

Hehe. Brings to mind the movie Contact when it is found that 'the Japanese' have built a 2nd alien mechanism in secret. That would have been much more difficult than pulling off a quiet space shuttle launch. Since the Japanese really did do it......

 

[vogon13]

Had the Vandenberg California facility ever been used, US military would have had more control over launch secrecy, but I doubt it would have been sufficient to deter media. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

What do ya'll think about the chances of this being true? I know, consider the source, and I personally doubt the existence of an orbital vehicle, but I figured I'd throw it out for discussion...<br /><br />http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/svalk.html<br /><br /><i>"There is growing evidence that a mini-shuttle was developed shortly after the space shuttle Challenger disaster on January 28, 1986 and that the trials began in 1992."</i> <br /><br />I can tell right away that the author doesn't quite have the "facts" straight:<br /><br /><i>"Operating under the mysterious Aurora Project, the system is believed to comprise a spaceplane roughly the size of an SR-71 spyplane and a hypersonic launch vehicle resembling the experimental XB-70A strategic bomber designd in 1957-60."</i><br /><br />The "spaceplane" would obviously be much smaller than an SR-71, and this so called super Valkyrie would be a ~Mach 3 aircraft, not hypersonic.

 

[john_316]

dont forget that the sr-71 was made in several configurations.<br /><br />the a-12 was the interceptor and could carry falcon missiles(early version of phoenix aim-54c) and travel mach 3+<br /><br />the sr-71 also could carry the d-21 drone which had cameras and would travel even faster once it left the sr-71 at mach 3+ over enemy territory at 95,000 ft.<br /><br />so that let us to wonder did they ever have a model that could exceed the 101,000 ft mark? some information is still classified but if you look at it in a conspiracy way then yes the sr-71 could reach that and perhaps higher but not the 300,000 mark needed for low space entry. 21 to 25 miles i can see tops for the sr-71 but no higher.<br /><br />now aurora if it is truely a pulse detonating aircraft might exceed mach 6 and reach an altitude of 200,000 ft but that is just a guess. i have a feeling that technically the scramjet technology is more mature than what they lead to beleive with the x-43 and i feel skunkworks has built an experimental aircraft that can exceed 200,000 ft but isnt a space plane or capable of 300,000+ flight..... YET!!!!!!!!<br /><br />ok maybe its a conspiracy..........<br />

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">the a-12 was the interceptor and could carry falcon missiles(early version of phoenix aim-54c) and travel mach 3+ <br /><br /><font color="white">The YF-12 was the interceptor version<br /><br /><font color="yellow">the sr-71 also could carry the d-21 drone which had cameras and would travel even faster once it left the sr-71 at mach 3+ over enemy territory at 95,000 ft.<br /><br /><font color="white">The M-21 could carry the D-21 drone. Which was a modified A-12 not a modified SR-71. The 21 number came from reversing the 12 to get a different designation.<br /><br />/pedantic <br /></font></font></font></font>

 

[john_316]

does it really matter if it was an a-12 or yf-12 or sr-71 or sr-71a b or c or a m-21 or a d-21? <br /><br />the point i tried to make was that they had different configurations like all combat aircraft but they do not reach LEO and are sometimes undetectable as in quiet launch. The reference was made in lieu of we do not have any other "aircraft" with orbital capabilities.<br /><br />now project aurora would be a nicely arguable program since it is believed that the aircraft can exceed mach 6 and 200,000 ft. But it still isnt 50-60 miles up.<br /><br />now i could see the sagger skipjack bomber being built in a configuration for LEO use but that DARPA program must be idle again...<br /><br />

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">does it really matter if it was an a-12 or yf-12 or sr-71 or sr-71a b or c or a m-21 or a d-21? <br /><br /><font color="white">To me, yes. Hence the /pedantic tag <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Don’t take offence. It dosen't effect your point.<br /></font></font>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>Would it be possible for NASA to launch a Shuttle without the Media getting wind of it? <<br /><br />Basically, no. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" />

 

[john_316]

<br /><br />no offense taken... <br /><br />