SR-71's sucessor

"Arie Kazachin" wrote

If memory serves, that was the reason that SR-71 had been
returned to service few years before being retired finally (at least,
so far): sats were not flexible enough (remember, you can't refuel
them and changing orbit takes LOTS of fuel).

It was forced on the USAF by Congress. The USAF wanted to spend the
money on more important stuff (like dormitories to get the enlisted troops
off the economy, and off of welfare).

You may not be aware, but most recce sats are nuclear powered, and the
fuel to scoot them around does not have to be combustible.

"Gene Storey" wrote in message
news:B0qFb.3428$6l1.2442@okepread03...
"Arie Kazachin" wrote

If memory serves, that was the reason that SR-71 had been
returned to service few years before being retired finally (at least,
so far): sats were not flexible enough (remember, you can't refuel
them and changing orbit takes LOTS of fuel).

It was forced on the USAF by Congress. The USAF wanted to spend the
money on more important stuff (like dormitories to get the enlisted troops
off the economy, and off of welfare).

You may not be aware, but most recce sats are nuclear powered, and the
fuel to scoot them around does not have to be combustible.

Eh? While the use of nuclear power cells in satellites is not unheard of, I
don't think any of our satellites are using any kind of nuclear-ion
propulsion, and that the intel sats do indeed rely upon goo old fashioned
liquid rocket fuels.

Brooks

"Gene Storey" wrote in message
news:B0qFb.3428$6l1.2442@okepread03...

You may not be aware, but most recce sats are nuclear powered, and the
fuel to scoot them around does not have to be combustible.

I think your mixing two different power needs. If the birds are
carrying nuclear powered
energy cells that's simply for the electrical circuits. To move a satellite
requires propellant
(and it had better NOT be combustible) that once used cannot be renewed.
Move the bird
too much it becomes a paperweight.

"Gene Storey" wrote in message news:B0qFb.3428$6l1.2442@okepread03...
"Arie Kazachin" wrote

If memory serves, that was the reason that SR-71 had been
returned to service few years before being retired finally (at least,
so far): sats were not flexible enough (remember, you can't refuel
them and changing orbit takes LOTS of fuel).

It was forced on the USAF by Congress. The USAF wanted to spend the
money on more important stuff (like dormitories to get the enlisted troops
off the economy, and off of welfare).

You may not be aware, but most recce sats are nuclear powered, and the
fuel to scoot them around does not have to be combustible.

I do not know of any nuclear power _propulsion_ systems in present
use. Even if there were, it would still have to throw something
away from the vehicle to get momentum which means eventually it
woudl run out of whatever it was throwing away.

Even a cursory understanding of physics would lead you to conclude
that satellite-based recon is scheduled for when the vehicle will
pass over the target, and satellites are not manouvered on a
target by target basis. Manouvering is done for station keeping,
that is to keep the vehicle in it's desired orbit. For a narrow
FOV instrument one presuems that attitude control will be used
to capture the right target area when passing close enough.

My experience is with civilian satellites, or rather with joint
civilian/DOD vehicles like GEOSAT, but physics is physics.

--

FF

"R420" wrote in message
om...
I for one think that the SR-71 has not only been replaced, but its
replacement has been replaced. in other words, there have probably
been two generations of ultra-fast spy planes beyond the SR-71.

The SR-71 was made in the 60s. probably by the late 70s or early
80s, a sucessor to SR-71 was flying.

and by now, the sucessor to the SR-71's sucessor has, at least been
tested, if not put into service.

OK, so now tell us what the successors were. You DO know that, right?

"Ragnar" wrote in message ...
"R420" wrote in message
om...
I for one think that the SR-71 has not only been replaced, but its
replacement has been replaced. in other words, there have probably
been two generations of ultra-fast spy planes beyond the SR-71.

The SR-71 was made in the 60s. probably by the late 70s or early
80s, a sucessor to SR-71 was flying.

and by now, the sucessor to the SR-71's sucessor has, at least been
tested, if not put into service.

OK, so now tell us what the successors were. You DO know that, right?

I find this topic fascinating; however, I don't believe that we have
yet fielded a second generation replacement for the old SR-71 bird.

My personal belief is that a number of technology demonstrators were
probably tested from the late 1970s forward and that all the Aurora
hype is probably unjustified as that program(s) was/were most likely
cancelled in transition from manned recon to unmanned systems like
high-res spy satellites and loitering UAVs.

However, maybe in the 1990s someone decided to play it safe with a
manned aircraft as well (keeping humans in the loop). The NRO must
have some form of aircraft operating under its agency and for argument
sake let's just say that it is probably the often talked about
GENERAL-DYNAMICS F-121 Sentinel, a.k.a "Centennial" now speculated as
LOCKHEED-MARTIN SR-100.

There are so many post SR-71 designations: SR-75, 84, 86, 89, and 100.
Who can tell which, if any, are true?

The multiple agencies involved should someday soon divulge this
information so we all can move on.

Ashton Archer III

"Ragnar" wrote in message ...
"R420" wrote in message
om...
I for one think that the SR-71 has not only been replaced, but its
replacement has been replaced. in other words, there have probably
been two generations of ultra-fast spy planes beyond the SR-71.

The SR-71 was made in the 60s. probably by the late 70s or early
80s, a sucessor to SR-71 was flying.

and by now, the sucessor to the SR-71's sucessor has, at least been
tested, if not put into service.

OK, so now tell us what the successors were. You DO know that, right?

Oh Oh! _I_ know!

Aurora.

--

FF