GIGANTIC Aviation Week story, Pentagon has been flying 2-stage orbital spaceplane throughout 1990s |
GIGANTIC Aviation Week story, Pentagon has been flying 2-stage orbital spaceplane throughout 1990s |
Guest_BruceMoomaw_* |
Mar 6 2006, 02:24 AM
Post
#1
|
Guests |
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_* |
Mar 18 2006, 03:51 AM
Post
#2
|
Guests |
Having finally read all of Dwayne Day's story, I note that he agrees not only with Jeffrey Bell's anti-Spaceplane arguments involving fuel-payload ratio and Russian detection of the exhaust plume, but also with Bell's arguments (which I wasn't qualified to judge) involving the nonexistence of aerospike jet engines and the high probability that the plane, had it flown in the daytime, would have been seen by planespotters. (Apparently that hobby is much more popular than I thought.) In fact, the only one of Bell's arguments that isn't mentioned and agreed with by Day is the one involving difficulties with boron-based fuel. I think this particular Av. Week story is not merely dead; it's really most sincerely dead (to quote the Munchkins' coroner).
And yes, Alex, I DID steal that joke (from "Science"). |
|
|
Mar 18 2006, 01:36 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2488 Joined: 17-April 05 From: Glasgow, Scotland, UK Member No.: 239 |
Having finally read all of Dwayne Day's story, I note that he agrees not only with Jeffrey Bell's anti-Spaceplane arguments involving fuel-payload ratio and Russian detection of the exhaust plume, but also with Bell's arguments (which I wasn't qualified to judge) involving the nonexistence of aerospike jet engines and the high probability that the plane, had it flown in the daytime, would have been seen by planespotters. (Apparently that hobby is much more popular than I thought.) In fact, the only one of Bell's arguments that isn't mentioned and agreed with by Day is the one involving difficulties with boron-based fuel. I think this particular Av. Week story is not merely dead; it's really most sincerely dead (to quote the Munchkins' coroner). And yes, Alex, I DID steal that joke (from "Science"). Bruce: Are you suggesting that it is an ex-story, that it is no more, has cast off this mortal coil and is generally pining for the fjords? If you think plane-spotters are bad, try spaceflight enthusiasts! Bob Shaw -------------------- Remember: Time Flies like the wind - but Fruit Flies like bananas!
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 31st October 2024 - 11:34 PM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |