SR-71's sucessor

[Wayne Allen]

Since the Americans were still flying the SR-71 on missions into the
early
90's I'd have to day you are wrong.


"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.

[R420]

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.

[tim gueguen]

"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.
>
I don't. I've yet to be convinced a direct SR71 replacement was fielded.

tim gueguen 101867

[Bjørnar Bolsøy]

(R420) wrote in
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.

The SR-71s sucessor is probably hurdeling along at 150km
as we speak.


Regards...

[Ragnar]

"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?

[Gene Storey]

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 unsophisticated days of Vietnam, with its morning recce,
followed by an air strike, is over. Even the most basic forces have
much more sophisticated defenses, and it takes hours of
observation to produce an ATO.

[Leadfoot]

"tim gueguen" > wrote in message
news:EOlEb.743405$pl3.46839@pd7tw3no...
>
> "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.
> >
> I don't. I've yet to be convinced a direct SR71 replacement was fielded.

There was probably a replacement that just didn't quite work out and was
dumped.


>
> tim gueguen 101867
>
>

[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?

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

[Alan Minyard]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:51:32 GMT, "tim gueguen" > wrote:

>
>"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.
>>
>I don't. I've yet to be convinced a direct SR71 replacement was fielded.
>
>tim gueguen 101867
>
Well, if you count satellites..... :-))

Al Minyard

[Leslie Swartz]

Satellites, Drones (air/ground/sea), U-2, "Other" manned platforms . . .

All Very Healthy and Very Funded.

Steve Swartz



"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:51:32 GMT, "tim gueguen" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"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.
> >>
> >I don't. I've yet to be convinced a direct SR71 replacement was fielded.
> >
> >tim gueguen 101867
> >
> Well, if you count satellites..... :-))
>
> Al Minyard

[Tarver Engineering]

"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.

[Wayne Allen]

"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]

"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.

[Kevin Brooks]

"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
>
>

[Arie Kazachin]

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
| | |
| |<
\ \_)
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\_|

[Tarver Engineering]

"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.

[Peter Kemp]

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

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"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

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"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

[Ugly Bob]

"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/projects/vss/docs/Propulsion/zoom-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

[B2431]

>From: Peter Kemp peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@

>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
>
Peter, you know tarver is going to explain
how he meant electron acceleration derived from the plutonium reactor. Never
mind the heat generated if you managed to get enough thrust to do anything
important would fry the systems in the satellite.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Wayne Allen]

"Ugly Bob" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > 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/projects/vss/docs/Propulsion/zoom-solar-ion.
html
>

Fred is right, no matter what process you use to excel the propellant
once the fuel is
gone its gone. Big paperweight floating around in space doing nothing.
Read the url you
provided and look up how the ion drive works, still needs a propellant - and
since any
craft has to be of a fixed size you have a fixed amount of fuel. Once its
gone it doesn't
matter if you use compressed gases or liquid fuels or itty bitty electrons -
its gone.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Peter Kemp" <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote in message
...
> 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).

The teflon becomes the reaction mass.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(Wayne Allen) wrote in message >...
> "Ugly Bob" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > 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/projects/vss/docs/Propulsion/zoom-solar-ion.
> html

I suppose solar anything is a subset of nuclear propulsion but the
comments below are entirely accurate.

> >
>
> Fred is right, no matter what process you use to excel the propellant
> once the fuel is
> gone its gone. Big paperweight floating around in space doing nothing.
> Read the url you
> provided and look up how the ion drive works, still needs a propellant - and
> since any
> craft has to be of a fixed size you have a fixed amount of fuel. Once its
> gone it doesn't
> matter if you use compressed gases or liquid fuels or itty bitty electrons -
> its gone.


But there is one alternative that does not have that limitiation--
solar sailing. Solar sailing relies on the momentum transfer from
sunlight, deflected off of movable panels of some sort. No mass
is expelled from the vehicle. (At least not on purpose.)

--

FF

[Gene Storey]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote
>
> But there is one alternative that does not have that limitiation--
> solar sailing. Solar sailing relies on the momentum transfer from
> sunlight, deflected off of movable panels of some sort. No mass
> is expelled from the vehicle. (At least not on purpose.)

Probably not fast enough for intel sats :-)

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message news:<YUOFb.4220$6l1.998@okepread03>...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote
> >
> > But there is one alternative that does not have that limitiation--
> > solar sailing. Solar sailing relies on the momentum transfer from
> > sunlight, deflected off of movable panels of some sort. No mass
> > is expelled from the vehicle. (At least not on purpose.)
>
> Probably not fast enough for intel sats :-)

I'm doubtful that intel sats are manouvered on a target by
target basis. They would burn way way too much fuel and thus
be very short-lived.

--

FF

[Arie Kazachin]

In message > -
(Wayne Allen) writes:
>
>
>"Ugly Bob" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> > 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/projects/vss/docs/Propulsion/zoom-solar-ion.
>html
>>
>
> Fred is right, no matter what process you use to excel the propellant
>once the fuel is
>gone its gone. Big paperweight floating around in space doing nothing.
>Read the url you
>provided and look up how the ion drive works, still needs a propellant - and
>since any
>craft has to be of a fixed size you have a fixed amount of fuel. Once its
>gone it doesn't
>matter if you use compressed gases or liquid fuels or itty bitty electrons -
>its gone.
>
>
>

Although it's correct that ion propilsion uses MUCH less fuel to produce the
same impulse (higher exaust speed), the thrust is tiny. For example,
the "Deep Space 1" craft had ion propulsion thrust of about 9 grams
and todays thrusters are no more than few tens of % better. Try calculating,
how long will it take to change the orbit by, say, 10 deg using ion
thruster. Without calculating I would guess order of months - too late for
most wars. You can use another way of thought: had nuclear-electric
propilsion be CAPABLE to supply significant impulse in reasonable time,
we would have spacecrafts with such propulsion traveling the bredth and
width of our solar system carrying people and cargo for reasonable cost.
Since it isn't going to happen with current combination of power sources
and electric propulsion, that's another proof of what electric propulsion
can't do.


************************************************** ****************************
* 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
| | |
| |<
\ \_)
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\_|

[Bob Martin]

> > Probably not fast enough for intel sats :-)
>
> I'm doubtful that intel sats are manouvered on a target by
> target basis. They would burn way way too much fuel and thus
> be very short-lived.


Usually not, though for a few really important taskings, the mission
planner guys are willing to expend quite a bit of fuel to get
coverage. Usually, they won't do plane changes (those are REALLY
fuel-expensive and wouldn't provide much difference), but fairly
drastic changes in apogee/perigee heights are more common. They can
even drop below 100km if really necessary, though only for a couple
orbits (any more and the satellite would decay).

Current US recon satellites are solar- and battery-powered, with
hypergolic fuels. The current optical recon series uses the same
basic frame as the Hubble telescope (though the Hubble doesn't have
any fuel, and its optical system is different).

[Tank Fixer]

In article >, Peter Kemp
<peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> says...
> 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).

Damn it Peter, now you've gone an done it.

Just wait patiently by the door for the men in black suits...


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >, says...
>
> "Peter Kemp" <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote in message
> ...
> > 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).
>
> The teflon becomes the reaction mass.
>

Didn't know there was great amounts of teflon floating around in space....


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[fudog50]

Hey Tangent Engineering,,,please tell us what that had to do with the
original question???

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 08:51:59 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Peter Kemp" <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote in message
...
>> 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).
>
>The teflon becomes the reaction mass.
>

[Peter Kemp]

On or about Wed, 24 Dec 2003 03:54:45 GMT, Tank Fixer
> allegedly uttered:

>In article >, Peter Kemp
><peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> says...
>> 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).
>
>Damn it Peter, now you've gone an done it.
>
>Just wait patiently by the door for the men in black suits...

I would like to apologize for distressing the group by making false
statements about the alleged gravity drive, which everybody <next
page> knows does not exist. If such a drive did exist then of course
the United States Government <next page> would announce it to the
world and not try to keep it hidden. I am so ashamed by my words that
I will voluntarily and of my own <next page> free will refrain from
posting anything more to any groups for 7 years (or 4 if I behave
myself), subject to appeal. Thank you for your attention.

Prisoner no. 345098273, Leavenworth.
---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

[Tank Fixer]

In article >, Peter Kemp
<peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> says...
> On or about Wed, 24 Dec 2003 03:54:45 GMT, Tank Fixer
> > allegedly uttered:
>
> >In article >, Peter Kemp
> ><peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> says...
> >> 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).
> >
> >Damn it Peter, now you've gone an done it.
> >
> >Just wait patiently by the door for the men in black suits...
>
> I would like to apologize for distressing the group by making false
> statements about the alleged gravity drive, which everybody <next
> page> knows does not exist. If such a drive did exist then of course
> the United States Government <next page> would announce it to the
> world and not try to keep it hidden. I am so ashamed by my words that
> I will voluntarily and of my own <next page> free will refrain from
> posting anything more to any groups for 7 years (or 4 if I behave
> myself), subject to appeal. Thank you for your attention.
>

hehehehe

nice comeback.


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.