Originally Posted by sandiego89
(Post 11046151)
Thanks so much for sharing that article West Coast. I have followed all things "Aurora" related over the years, but never saw that article. Good stuff. I strongly believe something large and fast was flying in the 1990's and hope someday we learn more.
|
Originally Posted by tdracer
(Post 11045870)
I heard the XB-70 has now been moved to the main museum (not sure about all the other stuff that was in the annex - including several former Air Force One aircraft.
|
Originally Posted by sandiego89
(Post 11046214)
Perhaps some of the same reasons that expendables still have a place in transonic and space flight. Remember the Space Shuttle was originally envisioned as a space truck that could be rapidly reused and re-launched cheaply and easily, but as we saw it did not replace expendable boosters, was never cheap, and was replaced by Titan derivatives for heavy payloads. Only now are we seeing some truly reusable launch methods, but even these are only partially reusable, and they work....sometimes.....
IF an Aurora or XB-70 type aircraft was developed as a mother ship for a reusable orbiter, that would have been two very complex airframe systems with exotic materials, fuels, maintenance and security requirements. Not cheap or easy. Crewed vehicles also have the highest safety requirements. |
Current Location:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...727dfb6d_c.jpgR&D Aircraft by Mark Carlisle, on Flickr |
Former Location
https://live.staticflickr.com/749/21...0793c5a9_c.jpgR&D Trio by Mark Carlisle, on Flickr Original: https://live.staticflickr.com/4307/3...b22cbe2d_c.jpgNorth American XB-70A Valkyrie 62-0001 by Mark Carlisle, on Flickr |
Originally Posted by pasta
(Post 11046714)
So the XB-70 retirement, on grounds of being too expensive, too complex and obsolete, was actually a cover story for top-secret Aurora. However the reason Aurora has never reached the public domain, despite being replaced by a system that regularly features in USAF press releases, is that it was retired, on grounds of being too expensive, too complex and obsolete. Have I got that right?
Developing something that big and complex could never be done in secret these days or in the 90s. |
This has all entered the tinfoil hat territory methinks. Developing something that big and complex could never be done in secret these days or in the 90s. https://thespacereview.com/article/576/1 Six blind men in a zoo: Aviation Week’s mythical Blackstar https://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2006/03/20/1472209.htm Blackstar A False Messiah From Groom Lake Of course there were projects ISINGLASS, Rheinberry and QUARTZ…. |
Originally Posted by TURIN
(Post 11046749)
This has all entered the tinfoil hat territory methinks.
Developing something that big and complex could never be done in secret these days or in the 90s. |
Originally Posted by sandiego89
(Post 11046844)
It is perhaps worth mentioning that while the airframes were smaller than something XB-70 sized, OXCART, Have Blue, Bird Of Prey, Tacit Blue, Senior Trend, various MiG's, various helos, some very large and complex space based sensors, and now a 6th gen fighter jet were all flown in secrecy by the USA and some of these were large and complex programs. OXCART was over 100,000 pounds, quite complex and 15 were built. Not a small program.
In that context, why would another program from the same era, that was also retired due to cost/obsolescence, and who's successor is very much in the public domain, still be under wraps? For the answer to that question have a look at the two links posted by ORAC, the first of which is a particularly good read. |
Originally Posted by pasta
(Post 11046855)
........why would another program from the same era, that was also retired due to cost/obsolescence, and who's successor is very much in the public domain, still be under wraps?
As for some programs being declassified and in museums and others not, there can be a whole variety of reasons for that. I do not believe we know all about every past program, whether they were successful or not, nor should we. |
Originally Posted by sandiego89
(Post 11046889)
A just in time air launch for transonic/suborbital recce or strike is a different profile to a spacecraft that spends months or years in orbit.
|
An interesting side effect of the emergence of multi thousand satellite constellations is that nuclear strikes from orbit become much easier to set up and a lot less easy to detect.beforehand. When satellites numbered in the hundreds, putting up a bunch of orbital bombs was pretty conspicuous.. Now, who can tell among the many thousands whizzing around in low orbits?
|
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....9e3ce79de0.jpg
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....467c1d207e.jpg https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....32bfd3d730.jpg Some pics taken at Edwards circa 1967 - 68 Memorial Day Air Show I think. Made a good sun shade on a hot sunny day. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 18:47. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.