How Life on Mars Will Be Revealed by Curiosity

In article f00425cf-6b95-4aa2-89e8-af9c391cf030
@l32g2000yqc.googlegroups.com, says...

On Jun 20, 2:40*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:

Agreed. *It's also important to note that the USAF, or at least some
people in the USAF, have always had a desire to have their own manned
space program. *Unfortunately for them, the programs have never been
funded to the point where they actually fly a man in their own
spacecraft (I'm ignoring DOD flights of the space shuttle from KSC).

I'm mostly thinking of programs like X-20, MOL, Blue Gemini, and etc.
MOL got close, but again, budget problems were part of the reason they
were all canceled. *The other reason was lack of a credible mission for
a manned spacecraft since unmanned craft were proving how valuable they
could be (e.g. unmanned recon satellites).

black operations mean there may and likely is a manned DOD operations
but its not public knowledge...

It's is bloody difficult to hide a launch. It's doubly bloody difficult
to hide a satellite in orbit in a way that it cannot possibly be tracked
(neither optically nor by radar). It's triply difficult to hide a
satellite reentering and landing because it makes a huge fracking
ionization trail as it reenters.

Manned "black ops" in orbit is pure fiction.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...


It's is bloody difficult to hide a launch. It's doubly bloody difficult
to hide a satellite in orbit in a way that it cannot possibly be tracked
(neither optically nor by radar). It's triply difficult to hide a
satellite reentering and landing because it makes a huge fracking
ionization trail as it reenters.

Manned "black ops" in orbit is pure fiction.


I have wondered about this. What's harder to hide? The launch phase or the
re-entry?

I'm guessing the re-entry.

I suppose it may be possible to have an entirely black program, but the
operational constraints would be huge. You'd probably have to launch from
some place like Kwajalein Atoll and then start re-entry someplace way out
over the Pacific and come in on a descending leg from the NW to SE to stay
out over uninhabited areas as much as possible. This means landing at like
Tierra del Fuego. And then of course shipping stuff back to Kwajalein
Atoll.

Just not practical or at all likely.


Jeff

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On Jun 27, 9:03*am, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:
"Jeff Findley" *wrote in message

...



It's is bloody difficult to hide a launch. *It's doubly bloody difficult
to hide a satellite in orbit in a way that it cannot possibly be tracked
(neither optically nor by radar). *It's triply difficult to hide a
satellite reentering and landing because it makes a huge fracking
ionization trail as it reenters.

Manned "black ops" in orbit is pure fiction.

I have wondered about this. *What's harder to hide? *The launch phase or the
re-entry?

I'm guessing the re-entry.

I suppose it may be possible to have an entirely black program, but the
operational constraints would be huge. You'd probably have to launch from
some place like Kwajalein Atoll and then start re-entry someplace way out
over the Pacific and come in on a descending leg from the NW to SE to stay
out over uninhabited areas as much as possible. *This means landing at like
Tierra del Fuego. *And then of course shipping stuff back to Kwajalein
Atoll.

Just not practical or at all likely.

Jeff

--
Greg D. Moore * * * * * * * * *http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses.http://www.quicr.net

a mini space plane could be launched by a larger carrier aircraft, and
return to a air strip somewhere

In article e526812d-cc61-486b-9839-ef614f7990a5
@j9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com, says...

On Jun 27, 9:03*am, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:
"Jeff Findley" *wrote in message

...



It's is bloody difficult to hide a launch. *It's doubly bloody difficult
to hide a satellite in orbit in a way that it cannot possibly be tracked
(neither optically nor by radar). *It's triply difficult to hide a
satellite reentering and landing because it makes a huge fracking
ionization trail as it reenters.

Manned "black ops" in orbit is pure fiction.

I have wondered about this. *What's harder to hide? *The launch phase or the
re-entry?

I'm guessing the re-entry.

I suppose it may be possible to have an entirely black program, but the
operational constraints would be huge. You'd probably have to launch from
some place like Kwajalein Atoll and then start re-entry someplace way out
over the Pacific and come in on a descending leg from the NW to SE to stay
out over uninhabited areas as much as possible. *This means landing at like
Tierra del Fuego. *And then of course shipping stuff back to Kwajalein
Atoll.

Just not practical or at all likely.

a mini space plane could be launched by a larger carrier aircraft, and
return to a air strip somewhere

That's not the point Bob. The point is that launch vehicles have really
*hot* exhaust which is easily detected by satellites watching for ICBM
launches. On reentry, the reentry vehicle similarly generates a lot of
heat (think glowing heat shield and big plasma sheath), also easily
visible in IR.

Launching your rocket from a plane (ala Pegasus) does nothing to hide
the IR from the rocket engine. Similarly, reentry in a seemingly remote
location is difficult considering how *long* a spacecraft's reentry
track can be.

Plus there are radar and optical techniques for spotting and tracking
satellites in orbit. The fact that the news media reports on spy
satellite launches and that amateurs routinely track them once in orbit
says a lot.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

In sci.space.policy "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:
I have wondered about this. What's harder to hide? The launch
phase or the re-entry?

I'm guessing the re-entry.

I suppose it may be possible to have an entirely black program, but
the operational constraints would be huge. You'd probably have to
launch from some place like Kwajalein Atoll and then start re-entry
someplace way out over the Pacific and come in on a descending leg
from the NW to SE to stay out over uninhabited areas as much as
possible. This means landing at like Tierra del Fuego. And then of
course shipping stuff back to Kwajalein Atoll.

How easy is it to distinguish between the re-entry of a space vehicle
and the entry into the atmosphere of a meteor? Even out over the
Pacific there are still ships and planes yes?

rick jones
--
Process shall set you free from the need for rational thought.
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

In article ,
says...

In sci.space.policy "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:
I have wondered about this. What's harder to hide? The launch
phase or the re-entry?

I'm guessing the re-entry.

I suppose it may be possible to have an entirely black program, but
the operational constraints would be huge. You'd probably have to
launch from some place like Kwajalein Atoll and then start re-entry
someplace way out over the Pacific and come in on a descending leg
from the NW to SE to stay out over uninhabited areas as much as
possible. This means landing at like Tierra del Fuego. And then of
course shipping stuff back to Kwajalein Atoll.

How easy is it to distinguish between the re-entry of a space vehicle
and the entry into the atmosphere of a meteor? Even out over the
Pacific there are still ships and planes yes?

Usually pretty easy. Most meteors are so small, they burn up quickly in
the atmosphere. Anything which doesn't is "interesting" either because
it's a meteor which is going to hit the surface of Earth, or it's
artificial. DOD is *very* interested in anything artificial reentering,
considering that anything artificial could be a potential threat (e.g.
nuke warhead). Even "civilians" who see such an event start calling the
local law enforcement, media, and etc. trying to find out what happened.

Like the US DOD, the Russians keep a very close eye out too, lest those
sneaky Americans try something funny... Same for Europe, China, and
etc. I'd guess even India is very interested in such a capability
considering neighboring Pakistan...

Any country with the ability to put up a satellite is interested in
using them for early warning of ICBM attacks. So yes, it's pretty damn
hard to launch and land something covertly.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

Rick Jones wrote:
Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:

I have wondered about this. What's harder to hide? The launch
phase or the re-entry?

I'm guessing the re-entry.

Because the decelleration phase of the reentry lasts longer. Correct.
Probably. The acceleration at launch is limited by the power of the
rockets, which are made to accelerate unmanned spacecraft rapidly. The
decelleration on renetry is limited by friction with the air so it can
last a lot longer. I'm not sure the larger size at launch time is a big
enough difference to matter. There's a huge ion cloud trailing behind a
reentering object and that's visible on radar. At launch the rocket
gets as high as it can as fast as it can to avoid generating a large ion
cloud.

I suppose it may be possible to have an entirely black program, but
the operational constraints would be huge. You'd probably have to
launch from some place like Kwajalein Atoll and then start re-entry
someplace way out over the Pacific and come in on a descending leg
from the NW to SE to stay out over uninhabited areas as much as
possible. This means landing at like Tierra del Fuego. And then of
course shipping stuff back to Kwajalein Atoll.

Launch at noon so the flight from the rocket matters less. Ooops,
except it's the infrared from the heat of the rocket that's detected.
Launching in summer just doesn't matter on that scale.

How easy is it to distinguish between the re-entry of a space vehicle
and the entry into the atmosphere of a meteor? Even out over the
Pacific there are still ships and planes yes?

There's no reasonable way for a meteor to be going slower than escape
velocity. There's no reasonable way for almost any spacecraft to come
in near escape velocity. Once the velocity of the object is measured,
it's easy to tell. Before the velocity is measured, it's hard to tell.

It can happen that a meteor explodes with a bang near nuclear range
before anyone notices the track. Big reaction by everyone. Woe unto
the world if that happens over Moscow or Washington some day.

On Jun 29, 1:19*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Jun 27, 9:03*am, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:
"Jeff Findley" *wrote in message

...

It's is bloody difficult to hide a launch. *It's doubly bloody difficult
to hide a satellite in orbit in a way that it cannot possibly be tracked
(neither optically nor by radar). *It's triply difficult to hide a
satellite reentering and landing because it makes a huge fracking
ionization trail as it reenters.

Manned "black ops" in orbit is pure fiction.

I have wondered about this. *What's harder to hide? *The launch phase or the
re-entry?

I'm guessing the re-entry.

I suppose it may be possible to have an entirely black program, but the
operational constraints would be huge. You'd probably have to launch from
some place like Kwajalein Atoll and then start re-entry someplace way out
over the Pacific and come in on a descending leg from the NW to SE to stay
out over uninhabited areas as much as possible. *This means landing at like
Tierra del Fuego. *And then of course shipping stuff back to Kwajalein
Atoll.

Just not practical or at all likely.

Jeff

a mini space plane could be launched by a larger carrier aircraft,

Not if it was going to actually go into space, unless it is a VERY
mini space plane.



and return to a air strip somewhere

It still has to boost up and reenter down. *That stuff is pretty
obvious, what with the bright lights and such.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

sats are made to be invisible or at least hard to detect.....

air launched by a carrier aircraft would appear for most of its flight
as just another plane flying around..

military probably has a way to mask a incoming something. stealth
aircraft are common knowledge

In article cacf834d-c709-4a26-b1ee-
, says...

sats are made to be invisible or at least hard to detect.....

B.S. Solar arrays reflect sunlight and are fairly easy to detect.

air launched by a carrier aircraft would appear for most of its flight
as just another plane flying around..

Except when the extremely hot and bright rocket engine fires. How else
do you propose a vehicle get to orbit after being dropped from an
aircraft?

military probably has a way to mask a incoming something. stealth
aircraft are common knowledge

Reentry creates more heat, plasma, and a huge trail of ionized gasses.
You can't hide that.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 08:39:50 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

bob haller wrote:

On Jun 29, 1:19*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Jun 27, 9:03*am, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:
"Jeff Findley" *wrote in message

...

It's is bloody difficult to hide a launch. *It's doubly bloody difficult
to hide a satellite in orbit in a way that it cannot possibly be tracked
(neither optically nor by radar). *It's triply difficult to hide a
satellite reentering and landing because it makes a huge fracking
ionization trail as it reenters.

Manned "black ops" in orbit is pure fiction.

I have wondered about this. *What's harder to hide? *The launch phase or the
re-entry?

I'm guessing the re-entry.

I suppose it may be possible to have an entirely black program, but the
operational constraints would be huge. You'd probably have to launch from
some place like Kwajalein Atoll and then start re-entry someplace way out
over the Pacific and come in on a descending leg from the NW to SE to stay
out over uninhabited areas as much as possible. *This means landing at like
Tierra del Fuego. *And then of course shipping stuff back to Kwajalein
Atoll.

Just not practical or at all likely.

Jeff

a mini space plane could be launched by a larger carrier aircraft,

Not if it was going to actually go into space, unless it is a VERY
mini space plane.

and return to a air strip somewhere

It still has to boost up and reenter down. *That stuff is pretty
obvious, what with the bright lights and such.


sats are made to be invisible or at least hard to detect.....


Utter bull****.

Well, not entirely. There are reports of some efforts to make
satellites hard to spot, both from "inside sources say..." and from
amateur observers. I think the satellite launched by STS-28 Columbia
was said to be such a design.

However, it is very rare.

air launched by a carrier aircraft would appear for most of its flight
as just another plane flying around..


And then it becomes a really ****ing bright flame that triggers every
bird looking down with something like IONDS. You can't do 'secret
launches'.


military probably has a way to mask a incoming something.


Utter poppycock! Learn some physics, you ignorant ****.


stealth aircraft are common knowledge


Yeah, and stealth aircraft don't fly at Mach 15+ and leave a ****ing
huge bright streak from their plasma sheath across hundreds or
thousands of miles of sky.

Again, learn some physics.

Well, I think Bob is way off base with his "secret manned space
program" nonsense, because it is just too expensive for whatever value
it could conceivably offer. But we need to be careful in dismissing it
outright. We still don't know what was causing all those Shuttle-like
sonic booms heard in Southern California in the 1990s, remember. At
the time, "Aurora" was all the rage, but it now seems pretty clear
Aurora was just a code name for B-2 funding. But if the "Aurora" SR-71
successor wasn't behind all those odd sightings and sonic booms, what
was?

And then there is Aviation Week's cover story about "Blackstar".

So Bob's daydreams of secret military astronauts is probably way off
in science fiction territory, but saying "you can't hide a launch"
is going a bit too far. You probably *could* hide both a launch and a
re-entry, at least from the public (and there's no guarantee Russia or
China would report it publicly, they may not want us to know that they
know). A Pegasus-like launch from Kwajalein could be conducted with
hardly anyone in the public knowing about it. Kodiak Island wouldn't
be much harder to conceal. A re-entry coming up over the south and
central Pacifc and crossing the California coast at high altitude to
land at Creech AFB would not be easily noticed by the public,
especially in the middle of the night (the visible plasma trail ends
hundreds of miles offshore.) It would probably make a noise, like a
sonic boom, but... oh wait, there WERE lots of unexplained sonic
booms... But a launch of something big enough to carry crews? No, that
would be too much to conceal for long.

Brian