GIGANTIC Aviation Week story, Pentagon has been flying 2-stage orbital spaceplane throughout 1990s&# Options

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

It may even have been manned:
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/chan...ws/030606p1.xml

My God, what a story -- if it's even partially true. And, judging from this article, they are absolutely certain they have proof (along with proof that the thing, although it works, has recently been mothballed as not
cost-effective).

It's important to keep in mind, though, that this thing is NOT a workable prototype of the originally planned 2-stage winged Space Shuttle. The second stage -- the spaceplane that actually achieved orbit -- was relatively small and probably very inefficient as a cargo carrier; its advantage lay in allowing the US to get a military reconaissance (or weapons) satellite into orbit surreptitiously, with no advance warning of the launch going to other countries. Even at that, as I say, AW reports that the thing has been recently canned as not worth its (doubtless huge) black-budget expense.

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

Bell, having now read the two other Aviation Week stories on this subject, has developed a new theory of what the eyewitnesses were really seeing:

"The second article on the orbiter has a detailed description of the
vehicle as seen by an F-15 pilot at Holloman AFB (NM). He describes the
four main engine exhausts as having a gridlike or 'radiator' appearance.

"Now this is not typical of aerospikes or any rocket engine. But the air
intakes on the F-117 do have grids over them to keep radars from seeing
the compressor blades (which give a strong radar return and a
distinctive modulation).

"So, if one was designing a high-subsonic or transsonic stealth recon
plane, one might well use grids to keep radars or IR systems from
looking up the tailpipe and seeing the turbine blades. Probably there
would still be a narrow spike of high detectability along the thrust
axis, but with a little care this axis will never point directly at a
ground radar or hostile aircraft.

"This article also describes two circular ports flanking the engines
and white cylindrical objects seen on the ramp alongside the
'spacecraft'. AvWeek interprets these as solid-fuel booster rockets that
fit into the stern ports.

"But a stealthy recon plane might want to shoot missiles backwards at a
pursuing fighter. There is a naval version of the Sparrow/AIM-120 family
that steers by vectored thrust at low airspeeds. With a little work it
could steer at negative airspeeds. Back in the late 50s the Navy worked
on backward firing missiles for P6M and possibly A3D.

"So if there is any truth to this story at all, I think it refers to a
super-stealthy but otherwise conventional peacetime strategic recon
aircraft that sneaks over key sites between passes by imaging
satellites. This operational concept makes far more sense than the
blatantly obvious orbital or boost-glide scenario advocated by AvWeek.

"Holloman would be a logical emergency landing site for this aircraft
because it hosts the F-117 wing and has a lot of secure hangars:
http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.asp...man+AFB%7cnm%7c

"The third article about the 'Mothership' is less convincing. The author
claims that many reports of B-70ish aircraft have been sent to AvWeek,
but the only one he describes in detail is ludicrous. An 'experienced
birdwatcher' in Pennsylvania claims that a Mothership flew by her house
at only 2500' AGL, lit off its afterburners, and climbed away with
tremendous noise. Sure seems like a top-secret operation, doesn't it?"

[Bob Shaw]

Is it a bad sign when Jeffrey Bell starts agreeing with me?

I may have to go and lie down.

Bob Shaw