X-37 maiden flight tonight!

The best part is how regardless on how many statements the USAF and DARPA give about what it's for, these media morons feed off each other and keep calling it secret. The millions of reasons military wants a small reusable space vehicle for are obvious, and they haven't withheld infor from anyone. If there was anything hidden about it, we wouldn't have the slightest inclination.

The lid was blown off the B-2 project multiple times in the 70's and 80's with espionage, and the general public was still way off mark with their aurora theories.
 
From memory most if not all of the Aurora theories I ever heard here in the UK were of a successor to the SR-71 capable of hypersonic flight.
 
centuryseries said:
From memory most if not all of the Aurora theories I ever heard here in the UK were of a successor to the SR-71 capable of hypersonic flight.
Click to expand...

The Aurora project was 'found out' because someone saw billions of dollars on an armed forces committee's package, and Aurora was the name. This, combined with an 'official' drawing of what would come to be dubbed the 'F-19' (among other names) and tons of speculation started the Aurora rumors. The B-2 and Aurora are synonomous. It's project name was 'Project Aurora' dating into the 70's, as stated by Ben Rich, who laid all of his knowledge (to a reasonable extent) on the table before he passed.

I've been to AF testing locations before, and people I've come back with will lie just for fun and tell inquirers that they totally saw 'aurora' or something stupid like that.
 
tigisfat said:
The Aurora project was 'found out' because someone saw billions of dollars on an armed forces committee's package, and Aurora was the name. This, combined with an 'official' drawing of what would come to be dubbed the 'F-19' (among other names) and tons of speculation started the Aurora rumors. The B-2 and Aurora are synonomous. It's project name was 'Project Aurora' dating into the 70's, as stated by Ben Rich, who laid all of his knowledge (to a reasonable extent) on the table before he passed.

I've been to AF testing locations before, and people I've come back with will lie just for fun and tell inquirers that they totally saw 'aurora' or something stupid like that.
Click to expand...

When I was based at Nellis AFB, NV, I was eating lunch in my flightsuit at the Jack 'N The Box outside the gate. Some dude sitting at the table next to me asked me what I flew. Normally, I just politely decline to reply.

But, this time I guess I had a bit of the naughty in me working, so I said, "A classified spy plane. Can't talk about it though!"

The look on his face was priceless!

I'm sure he immediately conjured up concepts in his mind about Mach 20 Aurora spy planes! And most likely called up one of those many Area 51 websites with his story to tell how he met one of the Aurora pilots! :icon_lol:

Ken
 
centuryseries said:
Anyone remember F-19 Stealth Fighter - loved that game!!
Click to expand...


Still better yet: I played multiple games with F-22s in them long before the world's 'brand new' and 'cutting edge' fighter was even a decade before entry into service. No doubt it's very complicated, but it's not revolutionary and we never would've won WWII like that.


Getting back on topic: The feats of the sixties were without doubt incredible. I hope the X-37 serves as a technology demonstrator and confidence builder, and I hope the lessons learned from it help us truly make reusable orbit vehicles a bit easier for us. By now, I'm surprised we don't have several systems that make getting into orbit relatively routine.
 
tigisfat said:
Getting back on topic: The feats of the sixties were without doubt incredible. I hope the X-37 serves as a technology demonstrator and confidence builder, and I hope the lessons learned from it help us truly make reusable orbit vehicles a bit easier for us. By now, I'm surprised we don't have several systems that make getting into orbit relatively routine.
Click to expand...

While computer aided design was supposed to speed up and improve the design process; I wonder sometimes if it is doing more harm than good to the creativity process. So many of the advances of the 1960s, including the SR-71, were done with nothing more than a slide rule.

We are no where close to Arthur C. Clark's Pan Am shuttle Orion in 2001 - A Space Odessey, much less the nuclear powered ship bound for Jupiter.

-James
 
jhefner said:
While computer aided design was supposed to speed up and improve the design process; I wonder sometimes if it is doing more harm than good to the creativity process. So many of the advances of the 1960s, including the SR-71, were done with nothing more than a slide rule.

We are no where close to Arthur C. Clark's Pan Am shuttle Orion in 2001 - A Space Odessey, much less the nuclear powered ship bound for Jupiter.

-James
Click to expand...

I never thought of it that way, and that's a very keen and possible interpretation. Just about the time that design was automated, development costs and time went through the roof.

It is entirely possible that the new development times from manufacturers have a lot to do with the complexity of modern systems, but then more people are involved now and more components are off-the-shelf. Virtually every part for the blackbird, including the materials they were made out of, was new.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top