| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"David E. Powell" |
| Date: |
04 Jun 2007 05:08:55 PM |
| Object: |
NASA rules.... |
I want to go up in that new space capsule they are making. It is going
to have totally new avionics, glass cockpits, multi function, it is
going to be a space craft designed with modern aircraft style
controls, as opposed to all the switches and so on or the Shuttle's
1980s tech... Multitasking, high speed computing, six person capacity,
and it can fly to the Moooooooooooon........
.
|
|
| User: "Daryl Hunt" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA rules.... |
04 Jun 2007 06:36:45 PM |
|
|
"David E. Powell" <David_Powell3006@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1180994935.752552.55080@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
I want to go up in that new space capsule they are making. It is going
to have totally new avionics, glass cockpits, multi function, it is
going to be a space craft designed with modern aircraft style
controls, as opposed to all the switches and so on or the Shuttle's
1980s tech... Multitasking, high speed computing, six person capacity,
and it can fly to the Moooooooooooon........
Does Alice know about this?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA rules.... |
04 Jun 2007 10:10:44 PM |
|
|
Daryl Hunt wrote:
"David E. Powell" <David_Powell3006@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1180994935.752552.55080@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
I want to go up in that new space capsule they are making. It is going
to have totally new avionics, glass cockpits, multi function, it is
going to be a space craft designed with modern aircraft style
controls, as opposed to all the switches and so on or the Shuttle's
1980s tech... Multitasking, high speed computing, six person capacity,
and it can fly to the Moooooooooooon........
Does Alice know about this?
Alice doesn't Livermore.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daryl Hunt" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA rules.... |
05 Jun 2007 02:40:22 PM |
|
|
"Dan" <B2431@aol.com> wrote in message
news:kv49i.175027$nh4.112178@newsfe20.lga...
Daryl Hunt wrote:
"David E. Powell" <David_Powell3006@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1180994935.752552.55080@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
I want to go up in that new space capsule they are making. It is going
to have totally new avionics, glass cockpits, multi function, it is
going to be a space craft designed with modern aircraft style
controls, as opposed to all the switches and so on or the Shuttle's
1980s tech... Multitasking, high speed computing, six person capacity,
and it can fly to the Moooooooooooon........
Does Alice know about this?
Alice doesn't Livermore.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
One of these days, Alice, clean to the moon.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "chumley" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA rules.... |
04 Jun 2007 05:27:52 PM |
|
|
"David E. Powell" <David_Powell3006@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1180994935.752552.55080@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
I want to go up in that new space capsule they are making. It is going
to have totally new avionics, glass cockpits, multi function, it is
going to be a space craft designed with modern aircraft style
controls, as opposed to all the switches and so on or the Shuttle's
1980s tech... Multitasking, high speed computing, six person capacity,
and it can fly to the Moooooooooooon........
I have signed you up to go on the mission to Mars.
It is a really nice place like being at the beach, just no water, no air, no
seagulls, no life anywhere.
The radiation will be a *****, you will probably be blind by the time you
get back.
Minimum time up and back is 3 years.
No Women, they cause problems, like last time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Arndt" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA rules.... |
04 Jun 2007 05:38:34 PM |
|
|
On Jun 4, 3:27?pm, "chumley" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
"David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com> wrote in messagenews:1180994935.752552.55080@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
I want to go up in that new space capsule they are making. It is going
to have totally new avionics, glass cockpits, multi function, it is
going to be a space craft designed with modern aircraft style
controls, as opposed to all the switches and so on or the Shuttle's
1980s tech... Multitasking, high speed computing, six person capacity,
and it can fly to the Moooooooooooon........
I have signed you up to go on the mission to Mars.
It is a really nice place like being at the beach, just no water, no air, no
seagulls, no life anywhere.
The radiation will be a *****, you will probably be blind by the time you
get back.
Minimum time up and back is 3 years.
No Women, they cause problems, like last time.
Yes, and try to stay away from the Nazi military base there. If you
see a Haunebu III and SS in Draeger suits with AEG death ray guns or
I.G. Farben lasers... better evacuate immediately.
The angry red planet isn't called that w/o reason... adding Nazis just
made it angrier!
Rob :)~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Arndt" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA rules.... |
04 Jun 2007 05:41:47 PM |
|
|
On Jun 4, 3:38?pm, Rob Arndt <teuton...@aol.com> wrote:
On Jun 4, 3:27?pm, "chumley" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
"David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com> wrote in messagenews:1180994935.752552.55080@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
I want to go up in that new space capsule they are making. It is going
to have totally new avionics, glass cockpits, multi function, it is
going to be a space craft designed with modern aircraft style
controls, as opposed to all the switches and so on or the Shuttle's
1980s tech... Multitasking, high speed computing, six person capacity,
and it can fly to the Moooooooooooon........
I have signed you up to go on the mission to Mars.
It is a really nice place like being at the beach, just no water, no air, no
seagulls, no life anywhere.
The radiation will be a *****, you will probably be blind by the time you
get back.
Minimum time up and back is 3 years.
No Women, they cause problems, like last time.
Yes, and try to stay away from the Nazi military base there. If you
see a Haunebu III and SS in Draeger suits with AEG death ray guns or
I.G. Farben lasers... better evacuate immediately.
The angry red planet isn't called that w/o reason... adding Nazis just
made it angrier!
Rob :)~- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Also, how exactly does NASA "rule"... when they can barely run what's
left of the shuttle fleet and have problems planning trips back to the
moon, let alone Mars?
BTW, NASA doesn't even "rule" its budget.
Rob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daryl Hunt" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA rules.... |
04 Jun 2007 07:42:12 PM |
|
|
"Rob Arndt" <teuton263@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1180996907.714273.301990@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 4, 3:38?pm, Rob Arndt <teuton...@aol.com> wrote:
On Jun 4, 3:27?pm, "chumley" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
"David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com> wrote in
messagenews:1180994935.752552.55080@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
I want to go up in that new space capsule they are making. It is
going
to have totally new avionics, glass cockpits, multi function, it is
going to be a space craft designed with modern aircraft style
controls, as opposed to all the switches and so on or the Shuttle's
1980s tech... Multitasking, high speed computing, six person
capacity,
and it can fly to the Moooooooooooon........
I have signed you up to go on the mission to Mars.
It is a really nice place like being at the beach, just no water, no
air, no
seagulls, no life anywhere.
The radiation will be a *****, you will probably be blind by the time
you
get back.
Minimum time up and back is 3 years.
No Women, they cause problems, like last time.
Yes, and try to stay away from the Nazi military base there. If you
see a Haunebu III and SS in Draeger suits with AEG death ray guns or
I.G. Farben lasers... better evacuate immediately.
The angry red planet isn't called that w/o reason... adding Nazis just
made it angrier!
Rob :)~- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Also, how exactly does NASA "rule"... when they can barely run what's
left of the shuttle fleet and have problems planning trips back to the
moon, let alone Mars?
BTW, NASA doesn't even "rule" its budget.
Can you imagine if the US had gone with the AF designs instead of the
Mercury design? I believe we would have been much further ahead today
considering the AF is capable of building a recoverable vehicle that
launches from the top of a 747. It's been flown and the program scrapped
(at least we think it's been scrapped). The technology has been there for
nigh on 20 years but the Shuttle Program just keeps sucking the bucks in.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Derek Lyons" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA rules.... |
05 Jun 2007 03:57:49 AM |
|
|
"Daryl Hunt" <dhunt@celticommnospam.com> wrote:
Can you imagine if the US had gone with the AF designs instead of the
Mercury design? I believe we would have been much further ahead today
considering the AF is capable of building a recoverable vehicle that
launches from the top of a 747. It's been flown and the program scrapped
(at least we think it's been scrapped).
Cite?
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daryl Hunt" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA rules.... |
05 Jun 2007 02:39:30 PM |
|
|
"Derek Lyons" <fairwater@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:46662580.572222140@news.supernews.com...
"Daryl Hunt" <dhunt@celticommnospam.com> wrote:
Can you imagine if the US had gone with the AF designs instead of the
Mercury design? I believe we would have been much further ahead today
considering the AF is capable of building a recoverable vehicle that
launches from the top of a 747. It's been flown and the program scrapped
(at least we think it's been scrapped).
Cite?
No cite needed unless on just came out from under a rock. Take a look at
the X-15 program. They missed low level orbit by 2 weeks against the
Mercury program. The first to make it was the one that the US was going to
back. The AF never really stopped. Yes, the X-15 was laid to rest as they
had learned all they could from that project.
As for the other half look at:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/030606p1.xml
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11691989/
The X-15 may have been dropped but there have been plenty of follow-on
programs. Remember, the X-15 used to make daily trips into low orbit. It
shouldn't surprise anyone that they have much better systems today than the
old B-29/B-52 X-15 program.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Findley" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA rules.... |
06 Jun 2007 07:31:49 AM |
|
|
"Daryl Hunt" <dhunt@celticommnospam.com> wrote in message
news:46659898$1@news.i70west.com...
"Derek Lyons" <fairwater@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:46662580.572222140@news.supernews.com...
"Daryl Hunt" <dhunt@celticommnospam.com> wrote:
Can you imagine if the US had gone with the AF designs instead of the
Mercury design? I believe we would have been much further ahead today
considering the AF is capable of building a recoverable vehicle that
launches from the top of a 747. It's been flown and the program
scrapped
(at least we think it's been scrapped).
Cite?
No cite needed unless on just came out from under a rock. Take a look at
the X-15 program. They missed low level orbit by 2 weeks against the
Mercury program.
Cite?
The X-15 program was suborbital.
Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Derek Lyons" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA rules.... |
06 Jun 2007 11:19:27 AM |
|
|
"Daryl Hunt" <dhunt@celticommnospam.com> wrote:
"Derek Lyons" <fairwater@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:46662580.572222140@news.supernews.com...
"Daryl Hunt" <dhunt@celticommnospam.com> wrote:
Can you imagine if the US had gone with the AF designs instead of the
Mercury design? I believe we would have been much further ahead today
considering the AF is capable of building a recoverable vehicle that
launches from the top of a 747. It's been flown and the program scrapped
(at least we think it's been scrapped).
Cite?
No cite needed unless on just came out from under a rock.
I've been following aerospace issue for twenty years.
So yes, I need a cite - because there is no evidence the USAF has or
had such a capability. (Note: Links to theoretical craft do not
constitutes cites that prove the existence of the capability you claim
the USAF has.)
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daryl Hunt" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA rules.... |
06 Jun 2007 06:22:18 PM |
|
|
"Derek Lyons" <fairwater@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4668ddd0.685069843@news.supernews.com...
"Daryl Hunt" <dhunt@celticommnospam.com> wrote:
"Derek Lyons" <fairwater@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:46662580.572222140@news.supernews.com...
"Daryl Hunt" <dhunt@celticommnospam.com> wrote:
Can you imagine if the US had gone with the AF designs instead of the
Mercury design? I believe we would have been much further ahead today
considering the AF is capable of building a recoverable vehicle that
launches from the top of a 747. It's been flown and the program
scrapped
(at least we think it's been scrapped).
Cite?
No cite needed unless on just came out from under a rock.
I've been following aerospace issue for twenty years.
So yes, I need a cite - because there is no evidence the USAF has or
had such a capability. (Note: Links to theoretical craft do not
constitutes cites that prove the existence of the capability you claim
the USAF has.)
The below links are all you are going to get. Remember, the F-117 was in
operation in 1983 and wasn't heard of until 1989. It didn't exist because
there were no confirmations made by the "Experts", only by the "Others".
But, as you can see, this is more than just theoretical birds. It follows
the lines of may other projects out of Groom Lake.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/030606p1.xml
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11691989/
I have heard scuttlebutt about these types of programs during a couple of
decades of AF. Not a single one can be proven until the bird is sitting at
some Civilian Airport with all the cameras rolling.
Now, here is one you can sink your teeth into or just sink. I await your
responses on this one. I will cite AFTER you people go into your frenzy.
These programs have been going on for the last 40 years. The AF will admit
that they have already given out the requirements and have built computer
simulations that are workable. Do they admit to anything else? Not hardly.
But, then again, it took a bombing war to get them to admit that there was a
Stealth AC flying around as well. Sightings of the F-117 were plentiful.
But it's better to have them discounted as the tin foil kind of occurrences.
Now, try connecting the Dots.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Derek Lyons" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA rules.... |
08 Jun 2007 03:12:37 AM |
|
|
"Daryl Hunt" <dhunt@celticommnospam.com> wrote:
"Derek Lyons" <fairwater@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4668ddd0.685069843@news.supernews.com...
"Daryl Hunt" <dhunt@celticommnospam.com> wrote:
"Derek Lyons" <fairwater@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:46662580.572222140@news.supernews.com...
"Daryl Hunt" <dhunt@celticommnospam.com> wrote:
Can you imagine if the US had gone with the AF designs instead of the
Mercury design? I believe we would have been much further ahead today
considering the AF is capable of building a recoverable vehicle that
launches from the top of a 747. It's been flown and the program
scrapped (at least we think it's been scrapped).
Cite?
No cite needed unless on just came out from under a rock.
I've been following aerospace issue for twenty years.
So yes, I need a cite - because there is no evidence the USAF has or
had such a capability. (Note: Links to theoretical craft do not
constitutes cites that prove the existence of the capability you claim
the USAF has.)
The below links are all you are going to get.
In other words, you don't have a cite. But I _do_; these two links
debunk the Blackstar 'myth' - the second in particular is worth
reading because it was written by a respected and knowledgeable writer
on aviation affairs.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Blackstar_A_False_Messiah_From_Groom_Lake.html
http://thespacereview.com/article/576/1
And if you had the brains to read your *own* cites rather than
reguritating ***** you lack the wit to understand, you'd note that
one of them raises serious doubts about the veracity of the other.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Arndt" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA rules.... |
08 Jun 2007 06:12:58 AM |
|
|
On Jun 6, 4:22?pm, "Daryl Hunt" <d...@celticommnospam.com> wrote:
"Derek Lyons" <fairwa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4668ddd0.685069843@news.supernews.com...
"Daryl Hunt" <d...@celticommnospam.com> wrote:
"Derek Lyons" <fairwa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:46662580.572222140@news.supernews.com...
"Daryl Hunt" <d...@celticommnospam.com> wrote:
Can you imagine if the US had gone with the AF designs instead of the
Mercury design? I believe we would have been much further ahead today
considering the AF is capable of building a recoverable vehicle that
launches from the top of a 747. It's been flown and the program
scrapped
(at least we think it's been scrapped).
Cite?
No cite needed unless on just came out from under a rock.
I've been following aerospace issue for twenty years.
So yes, I need a cite - because there is no evidence the USAF has or
had such a capability. (Note: Links to theoretical craft do not
constitutes cites that prove the existence of the capability you claim
the USAF has.)
The below links are all you are going to get. Remember, the F-117 was in
operation in 1983 and wasn't heard of until 1989. It didn't exist because
there were no confirmations made by the "Experts", only by the "Others".
But, as you can see, this is more than just theoretical birds. It follows
the lines of may other projects out of Groom Lake.
More wrong chronologies Daryl. The F-117 became operational in 1981
and was disclosed in 1988. Prior to this, the first US pure stealth a/
c experiment was a 1970s Windecker Eagle fitted with RAM which might
have slowly progressed towards a combat a/c had it not been for the
USAF aquisition of Russian Professor's Ufimtsev's book on radar
diffraction through use of geometric shapes in 1972. That is the
entire origin of the F-117 and the US concept of stealth seperate from
the German WW2 stealth technology of wooden flying wings and radar-
absorbing paints (later developed as US Ironball for the U-2).
However, the West Germans and MBB had their own faceted MBB Lampyridae
project in 1981 seperate from the US as a stealth interceptor which
proves the Germans were still connected to their WW2 efforts.It is
little-known that Messerschmitt (part of MBB) worked on a secret
stealth craft in 1945 seperate from the Ho-IX/Go-229 in co-operation
with GEMA and DFS. The Kristallflugzeug (sp?) was in its infancy when
the program was cancelled in 1945, but the knowledge retained (or so
it has been claimed). It would have been a diamond shaped craft and
that is what MBB came up with independent of the F-117 and Ufimtsev's
book. Look up Dr.Zippermayr's work too in Lofer during 1945. That
strange declassified craft that is believed to be a wooden mock-up for
the Sanger Silbervogel that is on the net from 1945 US Army intel may
NOT be that at all. Although Sanger & Bredt were in Lofer, Austria at
the time, that does not mean that is their spacecraft mock-up. Dr.
Zippermayr had a design for an arrow-wing supersonic aircraft called
the Pfeil (no connection to the Do-335) that was supposed to be tested
as a wooden glider first. That Sanger photo does NOT claim to be a
mock-up found... but an a/c that "never flew". Mock-ups don't fly, so
now we may be looking at the Pfeil under construction w/o the wings.
Everyone just "assumes" it is the Sanger mock-up due to appearance,
but I think the dimensions are off and we cannot see the entire craft
anyway. But the US had the photo classified from 1945-1954 and the
photo emerged on the net back around 2003 IIRC.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst...http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11691989/
I have heard scuttlebutt about these types of programs during a couple of
decades of AF. Not a single one can be proven until the bird is sitting at
some Civilian Airport with all the cameras rolling.
Or the USAF declassifies its files... with all photos, construction
and flight footage, and whatever remains of those craft made public.
Now, here is one you can sink your teeth into or just sink. I await your
responses on this one. I will cite AFTER you people go into your frenzy.
These programs have been going on for the last 40 years. The AF will admit
that they have already given out the requirements and have built computer
simulations that are workable. Do they admit to anything else? Not hardly.
But, then again, it took a bombing war to get them to admit that there was a
Stealth AC flying around as well. Sightings of the F-117 were plentiful.
But it's better to have them discounted as the tin foil kind of occurrences.
Historically, since WW2 ended, more disc a/c have been sighted than
black triangles Daryl. The F-117 falls into a minority category and
for only one decade. BTW, it took until 1995 to get the USAF just to
admit that Germany had disc a/c experiments in WW2. How long do you
think it will take them to admit that they used that German technology
for US disc a/c and that the only reverse-engineering going on at Area
51 was on German EMG drives? Another decade or two?
Now, try connecting the Dots.- Hide quoted text -
Daryl, no revelations to me pal. The entire military aviation history
of the US post-WW2 to present is falsified and ever since the NRO,
NSA, and other agencies became involved it means that all ATS
classified info is even more compartmentalized than before. I don't
think we will ever get the truth out of them.
Rob
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daryl Hunt" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA rules.... |
08 Jun 2007 11:13:59 AM |
|
|
"Rob Arndt" <teuton263@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1181301178.098364.204960@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 6, 4:22?pm, "Daryl Hunt" <d...@celticommnospam.com> wrote:
"Derek Lyons" <fairwa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4668ddd0.685069843@news.supernews.com...
"Daryl Hunt" <d...@celticommnospam.com> wrote:
"Derek Lyons" <fairwa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:46662580.572222140@news.supernews.com...
"Daryl Hunt" <d...@celticommnospam.com> wrote:
Can you imagine if the US had gone with the AF designs instead of
the
Mercury design? I believe we would have been much further ahead
today
considering the AF is capable of building a recoverable vehicle
that
launches from the top of a 747. It's been flown and the program
scrapped
(at least we think it's been scrapped).
Cite?
No cite needed unless on just came out from under a rock.
I've been following aerospace issue for twenty years.
So yes, I need a cite - because there is no evidence the USAF has or
had such a capability. (Note: Links to theoretical craft do not
constitutes cites that prove the existence of the capability you claim
the USAF has.)
The below links are all you are going to get. Remember, the F-117 was
in
operation in 1983 and wasn't heard of until 1989. It didn't exist
because
there were no confirmations made by the "Experts", only by the "Others".
But, as you can see, this is more than just theoretical birds. It
follows
the lines of may other projects out of Groom Lake.
More wrong chronologies Daryl. The F-117 became operational in 1981
and was disclosed in 1988. Prior to this, the first US pure stealth a/
c experiment was a 1970s Windecker Eagle fitted with RAM which might
have slowly progressed towards a combat a/c had it not been for the
USAF aquisition of Russian Professor's Ufimtsev's book on radar
diffraction through use of geometric shapes in 1972. That is the
entire origin of the F-117 and the US concept of stealth seperate from
the German WW2 stealth technology of wooden flying wings and radar-
absorbing paints (later developed as US Ironball for the U-2).
However, the West Germans and MBB had their own faceted MBB Lampyridae
project in 1981 seperate from the US as a stealth interceptor which
proves the Germans were still connected to their WW2 efforts.It is
little-known that Messerschmitt (part of MBB) worked on a secret
stealth craft in 1945 seperate from the Ho-IX/Go-229 in co-operation
with GEMA and DFS. The Kristallflugzeug (sp?) was in its infancy when
the program was cancelled in 1945, but the knowledge retained (or so
it has been claimed). It would have been a diamond shaped craft and
that is what MBB came up with independent of the F-117 and Ufimtsev's
book. Look up Dr.Zippermayr's work too in Lofer during 1945. That
strange declassified craft that is believed to be a wooden mock-up for
the Sanger Silbervogel that is on the net from 1945 US Army intel may
NOT be that at all. Although Sanger & Bredt were in Lofer, Austria at
the time, that does not mean that is their spacecraft mock-up. Dr.
Zippermayr had a design for an arrow-wing supersonic aircraft called
the Pfeil (no connection to the Do-335) that was supposed to be tested
as a wooden glider first. That Sanger photo does NOT claim to be a
mock-up found... but an a/c that "never flew". Mock-ups don't fly, so
now we may be looking at the Pfeil under construction w/o the wings.
Everyone just "assumes" it is the Sanger mock-up due to appearance,
but I think the dimensions are off and we cannot see the entire craft
anyway. But the US had the photo classified from 1945-1954 and the
photo emerged on the net back around 2003 IIRC.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst...http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11691989/
I have heard scuttlebutt about these types of programs during a couple
of
decades of AF. Not a single one can be proven until the bird is sitting
at
some Civilian Airport with all the cameras rolling.
Or the USAF declassifies its files... with all photos, construction
and flight footage, and whatever remains of those craft made public.
Now, here is one you can sink your teeth into or just sink. I await
your
responses on this one. I will cite AFTER you people go into your
frenzy.
These programs have been going on for the last 40 years. The AF will
admit
that they have already given out the requirements and have built
computer
simulations that are workable. Do they admit to anything else? Not
hardly.
But, then again, it took a bombing war to get them to admit that there
was a
Stealth AC flying around as well. Sightings of the F-117 were
plentiful.
But it's better to have them discounted as the tin foil kind of
occurrences.
Historically, since WW2 ended, more disc a/c have been sighted than
black triangles Daryl. The F-117 falls into a minority category and
for only one decade. BTW, it took until 1995 to get the USAF just to
admit that Germany had disc a/c experiments in WW2. How long do you
think it will take them to admit that they used that German technology
for US disc a/c and that the only reverse-engineering going on at Area
51 was on German EMG drives? Another decade or two?
Now, try connecting the Dots.- Hide quoted text -
Daryl, no revelations to me pal. The entire military aviation history
of the US post-WW2 to present is falsified and ever since the NRO,
NSA, and other agencies became involved it means that all ATS
classified info is even more compartmentalized than before. I don't
think we will ever get the truth out of them.
For once we do agree.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Derek Lyons" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA rules.... |
08 Jun 2007 11:00:38 AM |
|
|
Rob Arndt <teuton263@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst...http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11691989/
I have heard scuttlebutt about these types of programs during a couple of
decades of AF. Not a single one can be proven until the bird is sitting at
some Civilian Airport with all the cameras rolling.
Or the USAF declassifies its files... with all photos, construction
and flight footage, and whatever remains of those craft made public.
He also forgets that there have been scuttlebutt about a wide variety
of programs - that have never seen the [public] light of day. The
Stealth fighter is the exception, not the rule.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daryl Hunt" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA rules.... |
08 Jun 2007 12:09:43 PM |
|
|
"Derek Lyons" <fairwater@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:466c7c19.856851125@news.supernews.com...
Rob Arndt <teuton263@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst...http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11691989/
I have heard scuttlebutt about these types of programs during a couple
of
decades of AF. Not a single one can be proven until the bird is
sitting at
some Civilian Airport with all the cameras rolling.
Or the USAF declassifies its files... with all photos, construction
and flight footage, and whatever remains of those craft made public.
He also forgets that there have been scuttlebutt about a wide variety
of programs - that have never seen the [public] light of day. The
Stealth fighter is the exception, not the rule.
Nope, didn't forget that. It was, in my own way, stated. Much like the
Aurora project. Here is a very good write-up on that project and what is
publicly known today.
http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/aurora.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Flannery" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA rules.... |
08 Jun 2007 06:20:49 PM |
|
|
Derek Lyons wrote:
He also forgets that there have been scuttlebutt about a wide variety
of programs - that have never seen the [public] light of day. The
Stealth fighter is the exception, not the rule.
We got The Whale, and the Boeing "Bird Of Prey".. and in the latter
case, almost no one suspected that that thing even existed.
If you were going to keep a program secret, that one would have been a
piece of cake.
I think that for around every ten rumored "secret" programs, around 9.5
don't exist.
Pat
.
|
|
|
| User: "Derek Lyons" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA rules.... |
08 Jun 2007 06:50:16 PM |
|
|
Pat Flannery <flanner@daktel.com> wrote:
Derek Lyons wrote:
He also forgets that there have been scuttlebutt about a wide variety
of programs - that have never seen the [public] light of day. The
Stealth fighter is the exception, not the rule.
We got The Whale, and the Boeing "Bird Of Prey".. and in the latter
case, almost no one suspected that that thing even existed.
Actually, in both cases nobody had any idea until they were
declassified IIRC. In the case of the Whale, rumors of advanced new
recce aircraft have been a staple for decades - too common to claim
that any of them were actually rumors about Tacit Blue.
I think that for around every ten rumored "secret" programs, around 9.5
don't exist.
I suspect you are correct. The rumor mill is generally far more
concerned with sensationalism than accurate collation and analysis.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daryl Hunt" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA rules.... |
08 Jun 2007 08:08:20 PM |
|
|
"Derek Lyons" <fairwater@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4669e72d.884323718@news.supernews.com...
Pat Flannery <flanner@daktel.com> wrote:
Derek Lyons wrote:
He also forgets that there have been scuttlebutt about a wide variety
of programs - that have never seen the [public] light of day. The
Stealth fighter is the exception, not the rule.
We got The Whale, and the Boeing "Bird Of Prey".. and in the latter
case, almost no one suspected that that thing even existed.
Actually, in both cases nobody had any idea until they were
declassified IIRC. In the case of the Whale, rumors of advanced new
recce aircraft have been a staple for decades - too common to claim
that any of them were actually rumors about Tacit Blue.
I think that for around every ten rumored "secret" programs, around 9.5
don't exist.
I suspect you are correct. The rumor mill is generally far more
concerned with sensationalism than accurate collation and analysis.
The easiest way to hide something is to have someone give disinformation
about aliens. Worked in 1947-8
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Flannery" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA rules.... |
09 Jun 2007 08:54:55 AM |
|
|
Derek Lyons wrote:
Actually, in both cases nobody had any idea until they were
declassified IIRC. In the case of the Whale, rumors of advanced new
recce aircraft have been a staple for decades - too common to claim
that any of them were actually rumors about Tacit Blue.
In the case of The Whale, that was indeed the Tacit Blue; the people on
the project's nickname for it was "Shamu" due to it's whale-like shape,
especially the up-swept tail fins looking like flukes.
My favorite quote about that was the perspective pilot laying eyes on it
for the first time, and talking to one of its test pilots:
"Well...it's got to fly better than it looks."
"You haven't flown it yet." :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Kearton" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA rules.... |
08 Jun 2007 06:37:23 PM |
|
|
Pat Flannery wrote:
I think that for around every ten rumored "secret" programs, around
9.5 don't exist.
Pat
That's because you guys aren't looking at the secret Antarctic base,
they're all down there.
--
Cheers
Dave Kearton
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA rules.... |
08 Jun 2007 07:01:01 PM |
|
|
Dave Kearton wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:
I think that for around every ten rumored "secret" programs, around
9.5 don't exist.
Pat
That's because you guys aren't looking at the secret Antarctic base,
they're all down there.
You mean aren't's super secret Nazi underground u-boat base in
Antarctica? They moved it to Area 51 and it's classified for 100 years.
It's so secret only aren't knows about it.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Kearton" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA rules.... |
08 Jun 2007 07:27:12 PM |
|
|
Dan wrote:
Dave Kearton wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:
I think that for around every ten rumored "secret" programs,
around
9.5 don't exist.
Pat
That's because you guys aren't looking at the secret Antarctic base,
they're all down there.
You mean aren't's super secret Nazi underground u-boat base in
Antarctica? They moved it to Area 51 and it's classified for 100
years. It's so secret only aren't knows about it.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Shhhh, switch to sanskrit and use your decoder ring.
--
Cheers
Dave Kearton
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Flannery" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA rules.... |
09 Jun 2007 09:18:40 AM |
|
|
Dave Kearton wrote:
Shhhh, switch to sanskrit and use your decoder ring.
This is a lot of fun to play with:
http://users.telenet.be/d.rijmenants/en/enigmasim.htm
Pat
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dan" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA rules.... |
09 Jun 2007 06:18:01 PM |
|
|
Dave Kearton wrote:
Dan wrote:
Dave Kearton wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:
I think that for around every ten rumored "secret" programs,
around
9.5 don't exist.
Pat
That's because you guys aren't looking at the secret Antarctic base,
they're all down there.
You mean aren't's super secret Nazi underground u-boat base in
Antarctica? They moved it to Area 51 and it's classified for 100
years. It's so secret only aren't knows about it.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Shhhh, switch to sanskrit and use your decoder ring.
All I got was references to plans for a mercury powered flying saucer
no one but aren't has seen.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Arndt" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA rules.... |
08 Jun 2007 04:15:07 PM |
|
|
On Jun 8, 9:00?am, (Derek Lyons) wrote:
Rob Arndt <teuton...@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst...
I have heard scuttlebutt about these types of programs during a couple of
decades of AF. Not a single one can be proven until the bird is sitting at
some Civilian Airport with all the cameras rolling.
Or the USAF declassifies its files... with all photos, construction
and flight footage, and whatever remains of those craft made public.
He also forgets that there have been scuttlebutt about a wide variety
of programs - that have never seen the [public] light of day. The
Stealth fighter is the exception, not the rule.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Stealth is just a term that originated in the 80s with the F-19 craze.
It has existed since WW1 and the key nations involved have been
Germany and the US. Since the late 80s, however, many nations joined
the club with stealth fighter projects, helos, UAVs, UCAVs, and cruise
missiles. The list now includes: Russia, UK, France, Italy, Spain,
Japan, China, RSA, Sweden, S Korea, Israel, India, and Iran...
Pretty soon stealth will be common and a more advanced type with real
cloaking ability will probably start an "anamolous" category by 2020
(if we make it that long). Electrochromatics and miraflage are just
the starters...
Rob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA rules.... |
08 Jun 2007 06:27:24 PM |
|
|
Rob Arndt wrote:
On Jun 8, 9:00?am, (Derek Lyons) wrote:
Rob Arndt <teuton...@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst...
I have heard scuttlebutt about these types of programs during a couple of
decades of AF. Not a single one can be proven until the bird is sitting at
some Civilian Airport with all the cameras rolling.
Or the USAF declassifies its files... with all photos, construction
and flight footage, and whatever remains of those craft made public.
He also forgets that there have been scuttlebutt about a wide variety
of programs - that have never seen the [public] light of day. The
Stealth fighter is the exception, not the rule.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Stealth is just a term that originated in the 80s with the F-19 craze.
Actually Carter used the term in a speech when he was president.
Political cartoons had a field day with the term.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dan" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA rules.... |
06 Jun 2007 06:15:01 AM |
|
|
Daryl Hunt wrote:
<snip>
Remember, the X-15 used to make daily trips into low orbit.
Daily? 199 flights over how many years?
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Crowell" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA rules.... |
06 Jun 2007 07:13:54 AM |
|
|
Daryl Hunt wrote:
Remember, the X-15 used to make daily trips into low orbit.
Dan wrote:
Daily? 199 flights over how many years?
Well, and "low orbit???"
The X-15 never made it into low orbit, it made ballistic flights
to altitudes which might have been considered "low orbit" in
a pinch (can't recall actual max altitudes achieved) but it
never achieved orbit, in the sense that an orbit is a ballistic
path which will sustain itself for at least one circuit of the Earth.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|