Re: Re: Dream Chaser for CEV requirement
That's strange, i was thinking exactly the same thing about you. When you keep denying people's references and posting of available documents that anyone can go find for themselves, as typical trolls do, you either post your name and stop hiding under a nickname and avatar or you go troll elsewhere. Right now, you have no credibility whatsoever, you did not even spend the effort to go look for the documents i pointed out because you know full well it will prove you wrong. Secondly, you can keep denying, it is not the number of times you deny that will make you any more believable. So you are wasting your time.
You can keep collecting all the photos your want and pretend you know the content of every launch that was ever put into orbit. You are either extremely naive to believe these lists or you are of extremely bad faith, or both. Do you think the Russians told the world YES, we are launching a space battle station when they did their (thankfully unsuccessful) launch of the Polyus, and earlier successful military recon. Almaz ? Do you think the Russians did us the courtesy of telling us in advance they kindly put FOBS with nuclear warheads into orbit ? Do you think the USAF is telling us what they actually put in the cargo bay of their X-37 vehicles ? Do you think the USAF and NRO tells us, YES, we launched a stealth satellite (after they conveniently spread some debris in orbit and declared their new reconnaissance sat as being 'destroyed', yet countless amateur astronomers and observers saw the supposedly 'dead' sat change orbit and reported these change in matter of days where others also saw them.
Not a chance in the world, so you hit a wall again with your illogical claims.
You suddenly discover my website since the past 3 or 4 days because of my post and you think you know everything ? The FDL-5 sections of my website (the information posted on the new website have been updated many times and have evolved as more data became available. Right now that version of FDL-5 is still classified, so you cannot claim that it was NOT flown, even if you were in the know, in which case you would not be allowed to publish that information publicly or you'd be in trouble.
So, 'a habit of making unsubstantiated claims' ? Quite the contrary (for having said once years ago that the FDL-5 had 'most likely' been flown (never said 100% sure, huge difference...), i don't know any serious aviation author that does not update and revise his work when he reprint his book, same here). I am one of only a handful of persons on the forum that went to the trouble of spending years of research on specific subjects (for months on end), sifting through hundreds of thousands of pages of printed documents, web documents and microfilms, photos and drawings, and interviewing engineers directly involved in hypersonic programs or space programs.
If you want to spend more time, you can go do some reading here (though based on your previous answers i believe you'll again be less than interested to click on yet another link that proves you wrong):
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1580/1
I did not even remember i still had that link on my computer, interestingly Mr. Ketchum refers to the Rocketdyne Nevada test site also, in reference to, yes, fluorine engine tests. Say, wasn't that where they tested that annular aerospike engine again... mmh ? (which was planned to use fluorine and power the FDL-5 in one of the smaller version of that engine ?). Kind of strange they had that big fluorine accident on the same test site where a new type of engine which was also designed to use FLOX was also tested. If that's not an extraordinary coincidence, i don't know what you call it.
Also, to quote an aerospace engineer who worked since the 1960's both for the USAF and for one of the major aerospace contractors on hypersonic programs who told me places like (this forum for example) would be an ideal platform to publish disinformation (about classified programs, when people in the industry are not too happy to see researchers of black programs post info pertaining to them when they would rather keep these program details hush-hush). And he was right, i saw it numerous times, both in the press and on forums like this one.
(Slight correction: i have seen your website probably once or twice years ago, what i had not seen was your personal page, so i correct what i wrote, you are not related to or employed since 30 years by the USAF nor Nasa, you are located in Germany and your webpage is nothing more than a list. I know a few people who make lists and they are nothing more than that. One can find more details on the official list published by the UN. I command you on your passion for Rattus Norvegicus though, it's not everyone who keeps one of these at home).
(quote: 'Additionally, I know you are wrong'... I am pretty much sure there is a scientific team somewhere who will spend time on this one).
It's also always found it funny to look at 'official' records of history published by gov't sources concerning hypersonic program which all had those enormous gaps in their history, with most of the classified stuff being absent from the list. If you look back at history timelines for those programs in papers published during the 1970's you find barely nothing, except for Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, the Nasa lifting bodies and not much else. Go a decade or two closer to us and they timidly add 2 or 3 more things... almost with regret. Go to the last few years, and now we see a lot of the things they wanted to keep out of pubic view (even though papers on specific programs were available since many years if you knew where to look). They are very slow to adapt to the reality of these programs having already been declassified and they still keep omitting to mention a lot of the (known) good stuff in their official histories. It's a bit ridiculous.
What kills science and education in the US in the field of engineering (just ask Mikio Kaku) is not just the way the education system works, but actually all this obsession about keeping all the interesting and cutting edge developments and what works in space and hypersonic programs away from the vast majority of people (except to those who were directly involved with these) for decades. That's how we forget the lessons learned by our predecessors and we keep spending billions and making the same old mistakes over and over again. One engineer who commented about the X-33 program at the time of its failure about the last minutes changes to the wings and the addition of an external cargo bay referred to all the trade studies they had done decades earlier on other program and how they had learned (what the X-33 engineers learned the hard way).
That's probably why the proposed replacement for the Space Shuttle is now a copy of an old Russian spaceplane. It's sad in a way. Well... at least they will get something built, not cancelled, this time. I don't keep my fingers crossed though..