SR-71's sucessor

"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message
...
Satellites, Drones (air/ground/sea), U-2, "Other" manned platforms . . .

All Very Healthy and Very Funded.

All proving to be much better than the very obsolete SR-71.

"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.

"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

In message VasEb.2214$6l1.2011@okepread03 - "Gene Storey"
writes:

The SR-71 was replaced by several drones. One of the problems
with the SR-71, was the Intel was basically redundant to what was
collected by satellites. It had no tactical intel value due to its speed.

Operating out of the former Soviet republics, we have been flying
drones almost every day, producing real-time data, and electronic
order of battle tables, that used to take weeks with the RC-135.

Speed isn't everything, and it isn't the only thing. Most battle
managers would love to just park a vehicle over a country and
have it update in real-time, rather than the one pass a day, the
old SR-71 provided. There's drones today that have unrefueled
orbit times of 24 hours, and they have kilowatt power sources that
are able to produce significant data collection.


The scenario you describe is distinctly different from what SR-71
could handle: to "park UAV" over a hot spot requires KNOWING IN ADVANCE
where it is and slowly bringing all the logistics of the loitering UAV.
The speed of the SR-71 allowed rec. flight when some place on the globe
UNEXPECTEDLY became "hot spot" and you have no close bases to deploy
slow flying UAVs from. Satellites are often useless because their
orbits are predictable and the "bad guys" schedule their activities
accordingly. 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).



************************************************** ****************************
* Arie Kazachin, Israel, e-mail: *
************************************************** ****************************
NOTE: before replying, leave only letters in my domain-name. Sorry, SPAM trap.
___
.__/ |
| O /
_/ /
| | I HAVE NOWHERE ELSE TO GO !!!
| |
| | |
| | /O\
| _ \_______[|(.)|]_______/
| * / \ o ++ O ++ o
| | |
| |
\ \_)
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\_|

"Wayne Allen" wrote in message
...

"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.

An electric plasma engine can address your issue of electric propulsion. A
teflon electric engine can fire many times.

On or about Sun, 21 Dec 2003 17:04:23 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
allegedly uttered:


"Wayne Allen" wrote in message
...

"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.

An electric plasma engine can address your issue of electric propulsion. A
teflon electric engine can fire many times.

You still need reaction mass, no matter how you're moving the vehicle
(unless you've got the mystical gravity drive).

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

"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

"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

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...
"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.

Except, possibly, solar electric propulsion.

http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/proj...solar-ion.html

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