Classified LTA platforms

S

sublight

Guest
1960's to 1970's

Silent Joe
Silent Joe II
POBOL
HASKV
POBOL-S

1980's

HAPP
HI SPOT

1990's ?

On the Global Near Space Services web page it lists chief Scientist Dr. Adam Chu as having worked on "a phased array radar integrated into a powered, station-keeping stratospheric blimp" but no mention of what project it was or what defense contractor it was.

Bonus round "Dr. Chu is an expert in penetration RF technologies for imaging and analyzing objects behind barriers."..... Nice.

21st century:
In an Air Force paper on "near space" there is a quote by STEPHEN J. MILLER Brigadier General, USAF:
"The technical challenges can prove more daunting than those associated with development of the high-altitude unmanned aerial vehicle,
a similar program lasting a decade and costing close to $2 billion."

Was this an LTA platform or something else?

In 2004 the "near space concept" was developed and promoted by Lt Col Edward B. Tomme. The cause was then taken up by Air Force Chief of staff General John p Jumper as a way to get affordable persistent ISR.

In December 2005 Brigadier General Elaine Knight, director of Air and Space Operations directed that all work on near space initiatives be halted immediately.

In 2006 the director punted "near space" to Air Combat Command.
Air Combat then killed funds. Air force "near space" initiative = dead.
 
sublight said:
In an Air Force paper on "near space" there is a quote by STEPHEN J. MILLER Brigadier General, USAF:
"The technical challenges can prove more daunting than those associated with development of the high-altitude unmanned aerial vehicle,
a similar program lasting a decade and costing close to $2 billion."

Was this an LTA platform or something else?

That was AARS.
 
Instead of speculation, why not try Google?

HYBRID NEAR-SPACE VEHICLE TAILORED TO FILL MILITARY AND HOMELAND SECURITY “TACTICAL CAPABILITY GAPS” COULD REVOLUTIONIZE THE COMMERCIAL REMOTE- SENSING AND CELLPHONE-COMMUNICATION SECTORS.

CollaborX and Multimax, small companies that joined forces to develop a plat-form dubbed “MaXflyer,” took a different approach to designing a vehicle intended to remain at a 100,000-ft. altitude for several weeks. Rather than design an airship to carry a specified payload weight to those high altitudes, they first defined a con-cept of operations (conops) that met commanders’ needs.

“We wanted to solve the last-tactical-mile’ problem that we experienced in Operation Iraqi Freedom,” says USAF Maj. Gen. (ret.) John W Hawley, CollaborX Inc. founder, president and CEO. “We did a good job of getting information into command centers [during the war], but we still failed to bring needed info down to the soldier, Marine and special operator. So, we view MaXflyer as a tactical near-space platform to provide persistent TSR and communications.” Hawley headed USAF’s Command, Control, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance
Center.

MaXflyer is a 220-ft.-dia. circular balloon that lifts a wedge-shaped gondola. But “it’s not a blimp on steroids,” Hawley notes. The balloon assumes an airfoil shape when fully inflated by helium, hydrogen or a mixture of both gases. “It uses the principles of both lighter-than-air and aeronautics, which allows us to fly in a very unique manner,” he explains. “The government tends to categorize these new vehicles as airships, high-altitude UAVs and ‘free-floaters,’ but this is a hybrid.”
The vehicle can maneuver both vertically and horizontally, controlled by a three- axis autopilot . It can be flown from a command center via satcom channels, or through a direct comm link from an in-theater special ops team using a secure, wire -less, laptop computer, for example.

The patented MaXflyer design was “inspired by Navy undersea gliders,” explains Adam Chu, Multimax’s principal investigator. Starting from a desired conops, “We took a systems approach: look at the environment----Mother Nature’s existing forces----then figure out how to work with, not against, them.”

The 100,000-ft. operating altitude “has strategic significance, in terms of sensor coverage. We can cover about 160,000 sq. mi.,” an area about the size of Colorado, says Ron Oholendt, Multimax’s director of local operations here. It also is above today’s fighter aircraft and surface-to-air missile threats, improving the platform’s survivability.

Most near-space vehicles, such as Lockheed Martin’s High Altitude Airship, are designed to operate in the 60,000-70,000-ft. altitude band, where average wind speeds tend to be low. Higher air density at 60,000-ft--—known in near-space circles as the “sweet spot”--—also improves engine efficiency, making it easier to move a huge airship. However, “If you go from 60,000 ft. to 100,000 ft., physics dictates that you more than double the horizon-to-horizon sensor coverage,” Hawley notes. Winds at 100,000 ft. average 20-30 kt., though, and gusts can reach 70-150 kt. “The feature that separates MaXflyer from other near-space concepts is our maneuvering capability,” Oholendt says. “Our unique pitch- and-directional control methods allow us to operate in higher winds.”

All MaXflyer materials and technologies are space-qualified and available commercially, enabling a vehicle to begin tactical operations in about a year—if fund-ing were available today, Hawley says. Balloons will be constructed from Kevlar- based composites and other materials, and each envelope will be tailored to the mission’s planned duration. Longer flights dictate using a thicker materials that tolerate temperature swings and ultraviolet radiation.

“We know the technology to go to near-space is here now. We don’t have to invent anything,” he says . “We designed MaXflyer to a certain capability and made it scalable to meet customer needs—but we didn’t force a payload-weight require-ment on it. That’s what’s driven other near-space concepts and designs to lower operating altitudes and larger vehicles. No single platform will do it all, though,” he cautions. “We’re designing a ‘fighter,’ but the military services also need ‘bombers”’—large, long-duration air-ships designed for strategic missions.

Because it’s tailored to tactical applications, a production MaXflyer—a balloon and gondola fitted with solar panels, batteries, two electric motors and propellers ---- could be fielded for $14.5 million, exclusive of sensors, CollaborX and Multimax officials say. Sensor suites will be tailored to particular applications, such as imaging, communications and intelligence-gathering. A MaXflyer system would he deployed in portable containers transported in-theater by a CH-47 Chinook helicopter. The system would be assembled and launched upwind from its high- altitude operating location. “We have a proprietary design for a launch shelter and a launch technique that protects the balloon during inflation,” Oholendt says. Unlike other balloons, ours isn’t spread out across the ground, so it isn’t subject to the usual risks of damage.” The balloon and its payload gondola will be allowed to “free-float” to high altitude, minimizing the effects of atmospheric turbulence and wind shear . In essence, the launch profile will emulate that of weather balloons that drift with the wind. Once above about 80,000 ft., a MaXflyer’s electric motors and propellers will maneuver the platform into position, then keep it there. “We don’t fight our way up or down, and that mitigates structural stresses, explains G. (Mo) Blackmore, CollaborX’s vice president of technical solutions. “We’ve had a plethora of people tell us we can’t do this, but we’ve solved every problem they’ve raised.” The vehicle also is designed for precision recovery, using an off-the-shelf system “being employed in Iraq today for precision payload delivery,” Hawley says. Lighter-than-air gases wilt be vented overboard and replaced by ambient air to decrease buoyancy, causing the system to descend at a controlled rate.

Production balloon envelopes will be replaced for about $100,000, but the gondota wilt be refurbished with quick-change paytoads and reflown. “With today’s fuel prices, we think we could ‘reballoon’ a MaXflyer for the cost of refueling a big airplane,” he notes.

The next step toward an operational MaXflyer is to build and flight-test a prototype. A strategic partner is needed to underwrite the cost—ideally, a sensor or telecommunications company that sees the MaXflyer as a “dismptive” technology that will spawn a new multibillion-dollar industry. “Communications companies out there have a global vision.. . such as creating third-world nations’ communication infrastructures in hours,” Oholendt says. “Not having to put up cell phone towers can be compelling.”

A platform parked at 100,000 ft. could provide a ready-made emergency cell phone network after natural disasters, like last year’s Katrina and Rita hurricanes that hit the southern U.S. It also could create large-area “WiMax ” broadband wireless “hotspots,” bringing high-speed Internet service to remote regions.

“As soon as this near-space potential is recognized, the market will follow,” Oho-lendt predicts. Despite such rosy projections, big telecommunication, remote- sensing and sensor firms are reluctant to jump on the near-space wagon until a real prototype has flown. Hawley acknowledges that a visionary partner is now needed to jump-start the MaXflyer program and mitigate perceived risks associated with near-space.

“We’re very, very confident this will work,” he stresses. “You get innovation and creativity from small companies, but, unfortunately, ‘the system’ doesn’t always believe small companies can pull off a project like this without help from a bigger brother.”

William B. Scott / Colorado Springs

SOURCE:
AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY
January 30, 2006. (Pg. 60-61)

Adam Ning Chu patents:

2006 - http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=ONqbAAAAEBAJ
1998 - http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=7HALAAAAEBAJ (Working for SAIC -Science Applications International Corporation)
 

Attachments

  • AdamChuPatent.png
    AdamChuPatent.png
    33.5 KB · Views: 643
HAPP was not LTA, as I recall, more a solar-powered 'glider' predating Zephyr --however, as far as I can tell all of these are simply paper projects and concepts, not actual platforms.

You see the same thing in the civilian world, every decade or so people start talking about the return of the airship abd it keeps not happening. That may change, but...
 
It's really laughable, given how many qualified and neutral observers have reported on large LTA-looking UAP that this topic seems unable to get beyond "aliens!" and "tin foil hat!"

What did those pilots see over Alderney in the Channel Islands? What did Flight 564 see over the restricted airspace? What was the "huge, solid" structure that descended onto Phoenix and needed industrial numbers of parachute flares to cover up? Etc.

I get that there's going to be agendas in operation on this site, but disappointing that so little of substance seems to emerge. Maybe in this case absence of evidence is actually evidence of something...
 
Maybe in this case absence of evidence is actually evidence of something...

Generally speaking, I view absence of evidence as a state in which you don't know enough to make an informed judgement. Maybe that makes me old fashioned.

Of course, the CIA/New World Order/Reptilian Aliens pays me lots of money to run this site discrediting rumour-based evidence.
 
Heh, no insinuations intended, just idle musings.

And we don't need reptilian overlords for fancy conspiracy theories, there's plenty of corruption, pork and elite power-grabbing already without adding a layer of 8-foot tall extra terrestrials ;)
 
http://defensetech.org/2004/01/26/zeppelins-return/

Old article and an interesting huge 'V' shaped LTA vehicle photo. Oh and not to forget JP Aerospace Ascender work. Very 'V'. :)


http://www.jpaerospace.com/
 

Attachments

  • airship.jpg
    airship.jpg
    78.5 KB · Views: 623
Northrop LEMV is the latest LTA on the drawing boards, but this thread is focused on the classified LTA platforms that may or may not have made it off the drawing board.
 
This could throw a fair spanner in the works: Military Struggles to Find Helium for Spy Blimp Surge

If the giant blimps can get the helium and helium containers they need to fly, that is. Demand for helium in Afghanistan has shot up, from 49,000 cubic meters to fiscal year 2009 to an estimated 531,000 cubic meters this year.

When one of those airships, the Long Endurance Multi-Intelligence Vehicle, needed its gas, it ran into a problem. LEMV-builder Northrop Grumman “could not obtain the helium and/or the large number of bulk containers needed for its initial fill and as such, required emergency support,” according to a Defense Logistics Agency contracting document.

To meet LEMV’s “huge gaseous helium requirements” in time, DLA Energy couldn’t competitively bid out the 800,000 standard cubic feet of helium needed to fill up the “longer than a football field, taller than a seven-story building” airship.

DLA ran into similar bottlenecks trying to fill up the smaller, tethered aerostats used in Afghanistan to watch and listen for enemy action.

In justifications for “other than full and open competition,” DLA said that it wasn’t able to competitively bid out container lease contracts in the rush to keep the aerostats aloft. “Manufacturing new bulk helium ISO containers is a very lengthy process.”

“Industry cannot keep up with the increased demand for containers needed by the Army’s second and third Aerostat deployment surges,” the agency admitted in July.

Not to mention that the problem was partly self-inflicted (i.e. getting rid of the National Helium Reserve).
 
Grumman airship programs

Has anybody heard anything about Grumman airship programs or related projects during the late 70's?
 
Grey Havoc said:
This could throw a fair spanner in the works: Military Struggles to Find Helium for Spy Blimp Surge

If the giant blimps can get the helium and helium containers they need to fly, that is. Demand for helium in Afghanistan has shot up, from 49,000 cubic meters to fiscal year 2009 to an estimated 531,000 cubic meters this year.

When one of those airships, the Long Endurance Multi-Intelligence Vehicle, needed its gas, it ran into a problem. LEMV-builder Northrop Grumman “could not obtain the helium and/or the large number of bulk containers needed for its initial fill and as such, required emergency support,” according to a Defense Logistics Agency contracting document.

And there is the big problem with a classified LTA platform - the helium. Helium is scarce, and it's very easy to track who/what is using it.
 
quellish said:
Grey Havoc said:
This could throw a fair spanner in the works: Military Struggles to Find Helium for Spy Blimp Surge

If the giant blimps can get the helium and helium containers they need to fly, that is. Demand for helium in Afghanistan has shot up, from 49,000 cubic meters to fiscal year 2009 to an estimated 531,000 cubic meters this year.

When one of those airships, the Long Endurance Multi-Intelligence Vehicle, needed its gas, it ran into a problem. LEMV-builder Northrop Grumman “could not obtain the helium and/or the large number of bulk containers needed for its initial fill and as such, required emergency support,” according to a Defense Logistics Agency contracting document.

And there is the big problem with a classified LTA platform - the helium. Helium is scarce, and it's very easy to track who/what is using it.
Not so easy. Show me the paper trail for the LEMV fill.
 
Hydrogen means lighting strike protection becomes a lot more troublesome, plus other generalized fire risks on the ground you’d hardly want on a program so secret the helium supply is a security risk. Now, the superior lifting abilities of hydrogen, those could be a reason to use it.
While helium production is low its still in the range of ~30,000 tons per year. Meanwhile the US strategic helium reserve isn’t empty yet, and was fairly large in the past. Nobody would have any way of knowing if some helium was pumped out for a classified project. If you want to go into the crazy level of secret, it’ also possible for enough money to just build some natural gas wells on federal land somewhere helium rich and siphon off the stuff into some classified storage tanks. It'd be less insane and costly then Glomar Explorer was.
I don't buy the classified airships simply because they are big and slow. How are you going to hide them from a wide range of optical sensors in space for years and years? They can't just hide indoors any time a Soviet satellite passes overhead like the F-117 could and still be usable.
 
Sea Skimmer said:
Hydrogen means lighting strike protection becomes a lot more troublesome, plus other generalized fire risks on the ground...

Not if you design it right: a blimp within a blimp. Inner blimp: hydrogen. Surrounding blimp: nitrogen. Ta-da...

Hydrogen can be produced on-site. Helium, not so much.
 
The best option would be to just design it so the constant leaks will directly vent out of the envelope and have no void spaces to build up in at all. A conformal hydrogen tank if you will. That's if its a blimp anyway and not a dirigible. You can produce hydrogen on site, but I cannot see that being that useful when the number of plausible hangers for a large classified airship is very limited. A mobile hydrogen plant and all the ultra high grade piping and storage tanks you need shows up at one and people take notice. Maybe you could conceal that with another balloon project, but then how big are we talking? Helium leaking rates are a little more relaxed, and you could ship it covertly inside modified jet fuel trucks or some such. A lower leak rate would also be useful for supposedly long endurance flights, though of course everything is trade offs. Hydrogen lifts more so it could have more ballast to dump.

Anyway the hanger hanger and ground handling issue is a huge hurdle for any large project, so much depends on what you think one of these craft might be doing. They could be much smaller if they just persistently mutilate cattle then if they actually need to carry and power and store data from a useful Soviet sniffing electronic intelligence capability for months on end.. They can't be using a satellite to broadcast data because then, once again they'd be detected if they did it for protracted periods. One requires dozens of pounds of payload and the other many thousands, unless it was very limited in collection capabilities.
 
sublight said:
Not so easy. Show me the paper trail for the LEMV fill.

Try fbo.gov . You'll find plenty.
Want more? Find the PE code and contract numbers on dtic.mil, or comptroller.defense.gov. Or even federalspending.org. Use the contract numbers to search fbo.gov, dtic, or www.acq.osd.mil/osbp/sbir/solicitations/index.shtml .

Again, you should find plenty (I did). It didn't take me more than a few minutes to find SP0600-09-D-1545, the emergency support contract through DLA for the initial fill. It was an emergency because LEMV's requirements were not given to DLA in time to be included as part of DLA's existing helium contract (SP0600-09-D-1545-P00004). As such, to support the initial fill a number of bulk helium containers were needed, blah, blah. The initial fill was planned for 8/10/11, but due to these issues was delayed. The article was to be flown to Afghanistan in early 2012 after testing. FBO has plenty of information on bulk helium contracts that should be very illuminating - like how DoD is having to lease helium containers because they're scarce, and they can't get them back to their suppliers fast enough.

LEMV development is funded through PE 0305205A, which is hardly classified. Using that, you can find things like the Urgent Operational Needs Statement which lays out the requirements LEMV is intended to meet in the near term. You can also find that DoD wanted to reprogram funds to buy a second LEMV aircraft and support - but was denied. Oops.

I encourage you to cultivate the skills needed to use the resources listed above effectively. This will allow you to find answers on your own, and become a SECRET PROJECTS SEARCH NINJA!
 

Attachments

  • the-more-you-know.jpg
    the-more-you-know.jpg
    138.8 KB · Views: 317
  • the-more-you-know.jpg
    the-more-you-know.jpg
    138.8 KB · Views: 310
quellish said:
Try fbo.gov . You'll find plenty.
Thanks for that, but on a classified program wouldn't they take more care to hide support contracts and program numbers? For example, if you tried to dig up where Lockheed bought the lift gas for the P-791, that info wouldn't be on any government sites. Would it?
 
Stargazer2006 said:
Check out Mercedes's experiment with invisibility. If the automotive industry can do it now, you can be sure that the military has been doing it for several years and in a much more effective way...

It's a stunt. More, it's a *heavy* stunt. The LED mats alone would preclude use on a LTA vehicle, then you have to add in the cameras, control systems and, importantly, power systems.
 
sublight said:
Thanks for that, but on a classified program wouldn't they take more care to hide support contracts and program numbers?

No. They still have to account for everything, and there are very limited ways they can "hide" that. There are also very few places they can buy helium, and very few ways to store it.

sublight said:
For example, if you tried to dig up where Lockheed bought the lift gas for the P-791, that info wouldn't be on any government sites. Would it?

P-791 was privately funded, it was not a classified government program. Given that there are less than a handful of bulk helium sources that LM could have used to fill it in Palmdale, it's not hard to find out which of those helium suppliers got a big purchase and rented helium containers to LM.
 
quellish said:
No. They still have to account for everything, and there are very limited ways they can "hide" that. There are also very few places they can buy helium, and very few ways to store it.
But where can I get good historical data? There were even fewer places to get helium 1980-83. The helium plants were almost exclusively government owned. Following the helium trail right around 1980 would be really, REALLY helpful!
 
sublight said:
But where can I get good historical data? There were even fewer places to get helium 1980-83. The helium plants were almost exclusively government owned. Following the helium trail right around 1980 would be really, REALLY helpful!

A good library.
 
quellish said:
A good library.
Oh don't be like that. You're SO close to shutting me down. If say, the helium output from the Exell Helium Plant during the first couple years of the 80's could be accounted for then I'd really have to take my lumps, keep my mouth shut, and sit in the back of the class... :)
 
sublight said:
If say, the helium output from the Exell Helium Plant during the first couple years of the 80's could be accounted for then I'd really have to take my lumps, keep my mouth shut, and sit in the back of the class... :)

Do not forget to count the Mythbusters Helium Consumption Factor.
Kari_Byron_Balloons.jpg


Now, here's a LTA platform I believe we could all support: armies of Kari Byron Cylons air-dropped into conflict zones armed with Wolverine claws.
 
Orionblamblam said:
Now, here's a LTA platform I believe we could all support: armies of Kari Byron Cylons air-dropped into conflict zones armed with Wolverine claws.
I'd just like one of those dropped on my front porch. No, actually I would like TWO of those dropped on my front porch. B)
 
sublight said:
quellish said:
A good library.
Oh don't be like that. You're SO close to shutting me down. If say, the helium output from the Exell Helium Plant during the first couple years of the 80's could be accounted for then I'd really have to take my lumps, keep my mouth shut, and sit in the back of the class... :)

No, really. A good university library will have those records. Solicitations, contracts, RDT&E summaries, etc. from that era were published regularly (quarterly or yearly) and a library will have them. fbo.gov, dtic.mil, etc. won't have those things reliably.
 
quellish said:
sublight said:
quellish said:
A good library.
Oh don't be like that. You're SO close to shutting me down. If say, the helium output from the Exell Helium Plant during the first couple years of the 80's could be accounted for then I'd really have to take my lumps, keep my mouth shut, and sit in the back of the class... :)

No, really. A good university library will have those records. Solicitations, contracts, RDT&E summaries, etc. from that era were published regularly (quarterly or yearly) and a library will have them. fbo.gov, dtic.mil, etc. won't have those things reliably.
Christ, I thought I would never have to hear or see the "dewey decimal system" again, but if that is what I have to do, then that is what I have to do....
 
Stargazer2006 said:
Check out Mercedes's experiment with invisibility. If the automotive industry can do it now, you can be sure that the military has been doing it for several years and in a much more effective way...


Tell me, just how many different wavelengths do you think those LEDs are able to generate light over? Also how much do you think that system weighs per square foot? Also how much thermal energy do you think said LEDs will generate on the skin of the airship?
 
Sea Skimmer said:
Tell me, just how many different wavelengths do you think those LEDs are able to generate light over? Also how much do you think that system weighs per square foot? Also how much thermal energy do you think said LEDs will generate on the skin of the airship?

Agreed. But here we were talking about visual invisibility, not stealth or RCS reduction.
 
No, you might be talking about visible to the human eye wavelengths only. I was not. The only point of being stealthy is to hide from nation state military forces. You can hide from random people on the ground simply by flying very high. Nation states have access to a wide range of optical technology. Using a massively heavy system that would increase your IR signature, a far more likely means of being detected, while hiding you from the naked eye only is pointless and does not solve the innate problem of a large loitering object being stealthy day and night.
 
Sea Skimmer said:
No, you might be talking about visible to the human eye wavelengths only. I was not. The only point of being stealthy is to hide from nation state military forces. You can hide from random people on the ground simply by flying very high. Nation states have access to a wide range of optical technology. Using a massively heavy system that would increase your IR signature, a far more likely means of being detected, while hiding you from the naked eye only is pointless and does not solve the innate problem of a large loitering object being stealthy day and night.

Depends on who the enemy is.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,13468.msg134403.html#msg134403

Hiding from the naked eye and ear is very much on some people's minds right now.
 
Could be an aerostat. Could be something else...

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/afghanistan-massacre-video/
 
Sea Skimmer said:
Stargazer2006 said:
Check out Mercedes's experiment with invisibility. If the automotive industry can do it now, you can be sure that the military has been doing it for several years and in a much more effective way...


Tell me, just how many different wavelengths do you think those LEDs are able to generate light over? Also how much do you think that system weighs per square foot? Also how much thermal energy do you think said LEDs will generate on the skin of the airship?
Check out this article. Guy Cramer has been showing it to the US military for a while now.
http://outfront.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/16/canadian-helps-soldiers-disappear/

I think after it finally comes out that we have had some sort of inviso systems for a while (visible wavelengths) some of you guys that write about the history of these technologies will want to cover all the interesting details in its' history. Specifically in early 1993 I remember an Associated Press story where an Air Force Colonel was quoted as saying "we have invisibility and we can go in any time we want". I tried a couple of years back and could never find this in the Lexis/Nexis database or anywhere else. I think after it comes out of the black it will be a lot easier to find that Colonel.
 
On the issue of Helium supplies: http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/business/T130105002728.htm
 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/28/helium-reserve-of-urgent-concern-for-congress-ahea/
 
Grey Havoc said:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/28/helium-reserve-of-urgent-concern-for-congress-ahea/

There's always hydrogen. Just put up more "no smoking" signs.... :)
 
quellish said:
sublight said:
In an Air Force paper on "near space" there is a quote by STEPHEN J. MILLER Brigadier General, USAF:
"The technical challenges can prove more daunting than those associated with development of the high-altitude unmanned aerial vehicle,
a similar program lasting a decade and costing close to $2 billion."

Was this an LTA platform or something else?

That was AARS.

But was it AARS? Here is the full quote:

It points out that daunting technical challenges exceed those encountered in the development of high-altitude UAVs, a similar program that began with significantly more technical maturity but took a decade and close to $2 billion to develop. The vehicle’s planform as it transits the atmosphere to its mission altitude, payload mass fraction at these altitudes, and gas management represent just a few of near space’s technical challenges.

AARS had lift gas?

They also mention Quartz separately and don't tie it to the unmentionable $2 billion program. Isnt Quartz synonymous with AARS?

The PDF in question: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/maxwell/mp38.pdf
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom