9 ms·

Skunk Works Reveals SR-71 Successor Plan

56 points by starpilot 13y ago

ck2 13y ago
If we cannot have manned moon missions anymore and no more space shuttles then I don't want the military to have SR71 successors or their own mini-shuttle. Our priorities are all screwed up, we need to be making science exciting for the next generation. We'll always have plenty of warmongering to go around. Many of you around here are too young or not from the USA to have this experience but I remember when the first shuttle was being developed and tested and how exciting that was to schoolkids (it was the Enterprise! [1]) And I was fortunate enough to have someone from NASA visit our elementary school with moon rocks and gave us space photos and other presentations that were so interesting that I remember the experience to this day. We need that again for school kids. [1] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/44/Star_Trek_cast_and_Space_Shuttle_Enterprise.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/44/Star_Trek_cast...
- chroem 13y ago
  But with this we could kill people all over the globe in record time! Edit: Just to be clear, this is sarcasm.
  - ck2 13y ago
    Well it is more for spying. And with advances in gigapixel digital sensors, satellites and drones, a mach 6 manned plane is probably pointless for spying in comparison. Let's fund things that can break earth orbit and inspire the world.
    - avmich 13y ago
      This would make awesome reusable first stage for orbital launches. Provided, of course, other air launch problems could be solved.
      - nickff 13y ago
        Going mach 6 at high altitude is not as much of a boost as it seems. Consider that orbital velocity is ~mach 25, and energy = (1/2)mv^2. Launching a space vehicle from a carrier moving mach 6 would give you (6^2)/(25^2)= 5.76% of the energy required to reach orbit. You do get some benefit from launching at high altitude, and reducing atmospheric drag, but that does not require a high speed launch. The high speed launch adds significant danger due to aerodynamic issues, along with requiring a massive fuel expenditure, and a much heavier, more complex, and expensive carrier.
    - melling 13y ago
      At the height of the moon mission, we spent 4.4% of our GDP trying to get to the moon. We did it, and haven't been back in 40 years. What you're saying does not work.
      - ck2 13y ago
        How can you measure the return on investment for all we learned from trying to get to the moon? From inspiring so many people to go into science. I don't think building better war machines inspires people to go into science.
        potatolicious 13y ago
        You can't measure the ROI, and honestly the ROI argument is as rhetorical and handwavy as the "TSA makes us safer" argument. It only feels somewhat plausible, but is so utterly vague and unmeasurable that there's simply no way to make it not an empty statement. Also, I'm as anti-warmongering as everyone else here, but it's a patently false claim to say that the industry of war doesn't drive massive leaps in science and technology. Silicon Valley itself was birthed out of massive military research funding post-WW2. The Internet started as a DARPA project. The foundational technology we built on top of to get the moon was reversed engineered in large part out of deadly German V2 rockets captured during the war. Hell, one of the biggest chief architects of the US space program was Wernher von Braun, whose rocketry expertise came out of Nazi Germany. The Russians weren't exempt either - all of their early satellite and manned mission launch vehicles were derivatives of ICBMs - Sputnik, the first satellite in orbit, launched from a R-7 ICBM. I wish it weren't the case, but there is tons of evidence, all around the world and all throughout history, that the waging of war drives a shitload of science.
        melling 13y ago
        I think you missed my point. We weren't inspired enough to continue once we reached the moon. We did not continue on to Mars, and we didn't want to increase NASA's budget. Most people here weren't even born when we went to the moon. Consider that we need to import engineers in the US because many Americans don't want to do the job.
      - 13y ago
    - DougWebb 13y ago
      Satellites have fixed orbits, which makes them relatively easy to hide from because you can figure out when they can see you. Drones are good for spying because they're unpredictable, silent, and pretty much invisible, but their range isn't great. If you're not within range of a place where drones can be deployed, you're relatively safe from them. A mach 6 manned plane can be anyplace, anytime. They can sit in their base in Nevada (or wherever) and be deployed to investigate anyplace in the world within a matter of hours. Drones and satellites just don't compare to that. So, if you accept that the basic mission of these technologies is valid, then it makes sense to develop manned aircraft. It's just unfortunate that it takes so long for the technology that's developed to trickle out of the secret programs so everyone can get some benefit from it.
      - mikeash 13y ago
        Drones can be anyplace in the world within a matter of hours too, if you keep a bunch of them on station all over the place. And while that sounds expensive, drones are so cheap (relatively) to build and operate that it's still going to be far more cost effective than a mach 6 anything.
        nickff 13y ago
        Drones are not as cheap as you would think (, and I used to believe). Global hawks cost as much as U2s to operate, and much more to acquire;[1] predators and reapers are not cheap either, once you include the whole control system.[2] [1] http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130624/C4ISR01/307010011 http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130624/C4ISR01/30701001... [2] http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/the-us-and-its-uavs-a-cost-benefit-analysis/ http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/the-us-and-its-...
      - jfoutz 13y ago
        If the satellite imaging is good enough, it's probably cheaper to just have complete coverage. GPS was like 20 billion? a billion in ongoing costs? If i understand correctly, a new jet is a trillion dollars. Perhaps the imaging isn't good enough, cloud cover or whatever, but a whole bunch of satellites seems like a far simpler solution.
- melling 13y ago
  Is there a standard answer when someone complains about the "war machine" and incorrect priorities? It's kind of common in this crowd, and probably not the proper way to look at it. To me, it's a Frequently Mentioned Complaint. Certainly many of us here wish there was more money spent on big science. For example, if the US built Super Collider 20 years ago, what we are discovering in physics today, would have been discovered almost 2 decades ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider Anyway, the US spends a fortune on its military. The cost was something like 20 billion for air conditioning in the Iraq war? (that's one supercollider). Until we have that ever elusive world peace, we're probably going to continue to spend a fortune. Having the military spend some of its money on new SR71's, robotic vehicles, the Internet, drones, etc isn't going to be cheapest research but fewer people question it, and the research does get done. Consider that if we didn't need national defense, people would probably just want lower taxes and you still couldn't convince them to go to the moon. There's nothing there, after all.
  - drzaiusapelord 13y ago
    >Until we have that ever elusive world peace, we're probably going to continue to spend a fortune. We spend 10x what China does. We don't have to spend as much. >people would probably just want lower taxes Heaven forbid I have more cash in my wallet. More for me to invest to help fund companies that do interesting things, perhaps even go to the moon with. I personally don't mind my tax load if it gave us things like universal healthcare and cheaper higher education and better infrastructure. I do mind it when it just powers the various killing machines at our disposal and wars based on clear lies like "yellowcake" and "WMDs." How many Mars missions did Iraq cost us? >and the research does get done. Locked away as classified or patent encumbered via Lockheed or whoever is developing $expensive_weapons_system? Yeah, we can do better. edit: The list linked on spending doesn't include all the special spending bills that paid for the Iraq and Afghani wars. Yes, we are close to spending 10x what Russia spends and probably closer to 5 or 6x what China spends. I mixed up my countries, but we are GREATLY overspending. NASA's annual budget is about a month in Afghanistan. We've spend at LEAST 2 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan. 4 is you count actual expenditures and future commitments like medical and disability. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/14/iraq-war-cost-more-than-2-trillion_n_2875493.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/14/iraq-war-cost-more-...
- drzaiusapelord 13y ago
  Agreed. We're spending 1.2 trillion on the lifetime of the F-35 project, yet NASA begs for scraps. I hate my country's priorities. We're military first, people second, and science last. Not sure why we think this is a winning formula, especially as we watch Asia rise. So "yes" to every pork-barrel weapons system designed for enemies we don't have and for a conflict we'll never have (another WWII-style drawn out war with everyone pretending they dont have nukes). "No" to anything that doesn't make the military industrialists wealthy. Heck, when we do let NASA do something, we give it parameters that destroy any chance of success like giving Republican Senator with ties to $x_company_in_his_district to bring jobs to his district instead of going with a efficient vendor.
  - clarkmoody 13y ago
    > We're military first, people second, and science last. 2013 United States Federal Budget Outlays[1] Agency Billions ------------------------------------- -------- Department of HHS (Medicare+Medicaid) 940.9 Social Security Administration 882.7 Department of Defense, including wars 672.9 Interest on Debt 246.0 ... NASA 17.8 ... National Science Foundation 7.5 To me it looks like spending on people is more than 2x spending on military (including wars). But you're right about putting science last, as far as federal spending goes. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budget#Total_revenues_and_spending http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budg...
    - rosser 13y ago
      In terms of absolute dollar-outlay amounts, perhaps. But in terms of discretionary spending — the things on which we can choose to spend money — blowing shit up accounts for more than half of it. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are monies the government is obligated to spend, and so in terms of a discussion of our priorities, aren't exactly relevant. Source: the same Wikipedia article you used.
      - nickff 13y ago
- jstalin 13y ago
  But, but... terrorists!!
- rbanffy 13y ago
  > I don't want the military to have SR71 successors This is probably a PR stunt. You never, ever, under no circumstances, pre-announce military technology. Having said that, it's really a shame humans never flew to the moon since I was a kid. I'm not particularly sad about the shuttles - they were engineered by marketing - but I'd like to see some more cool space technology.
macmac 13y ago
HN killed aviationweek.com...
kevincennis 13y ago
It's the Aurora, resurrected! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(aircraft) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(aircraft)
Shihan 13y ago
Why would Skunk Work make something like that public? Do I miss something or wouldn't that be really weird? I thought normally such military related technological projects are only released to the public after they cannot longer hide it (e.g. like 'Beast of Kandahar' etc.).
- moogleii 13y ago
  I figure to gain much-needed political capital somehow. It's probably a dead-in-the-water project, and they need some mil-industry complex saber rattling to give it a much needed (desperate) jump start. Because it sounds pretty useless to me. The article claims there's a growing intel gap, and yet what's changed since the original was retired (other than satellite coverage getting better, + unmanned drones)? It's probably still going to be ridiculously expensive to operate, and provides what advantages? Who are we going to use this on? The only nations that can probably deny us satellite coverage, at least politically, are China and Russia, and are we really going to start flying hypersonic jets over their airspace anyway? This whole thing just makes me laugh.
  - dsr_ 13y ago
    "Skunk Works has revealed exclusively to AW&ST details of long-running plans for what it describes as an affordable hypersonic intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and strike platform that could enter development in demonstrator form as soon as 2018." Here's a translation in line with your suspicion: "Lockheed-Martin really wants a new contract. High-technology projects can only be purchased by the government, so political pressure on (and rewards to) members of Congress is an effective tool. Nobody bought the super-sensor-blimp project, the heavily-armed-and-armored blimp project, or the flying jeep project, so maybe we can get traction for something sexy. Speed sells, and everybody has good memories of the Blackbird... let's make some pretty drawings and get our name mentioned a lot. Since it's only a drawing right now, we can propose it as a recon plane and a strike bomber and an interceptor and an anti-satellite launcher and a dessert and a floor wax, too!"
    - Nelson69 13y ago
kayoone 13y ago
an incredible story related to the SR71: http://roadrunnersinternationale.com/weaver_sr71_bailout.html http://roadrunnersinternationale.com/weaver_sr71_bailout.htm...
jonlucc 13y ago
This can fly around Earth at the equator in 5 hours.
Theodores 13y ago
This is Lockheed Martin we are talking about. The same Lockheed Martin that pretty much built (and is) the NSA, the same Lockheed Martin that processes the census, the same Lockheed Martin that processes the tax returns, the same Lockheed Martin that can test your DNA, the same Lockheed Martin that makes the Trident nukes, the same Lockheed Martin that builds the spy satellites, the same Lockheed Martin that can supply 'interrogators' to Guantanamo, the same Lockheed Martin that supplied the planes that went in first in Iraq, the same Lockheed Martin that owns Afghanistan (to all intents and purposes) and the same Lockheed Martin that owns all the politicians in Washington. If they want this then they can get you to pay for it.
- evacuationdrill 13y ago
  >the same Lockheed Martin that processes the tax returns I don't understand this one. Are they behind the IRS's systems or something?
  - fintler 13y ago
    Yes. It seems like they've been involved since at least 1996 or so (probably way earlier than that). http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2008-02-04/business/36862542_1_e-file-tax-professionals-speeds-refunds http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2008-02-04/business/36862... http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/lockheed-martin-wins-two-contracts-to-help-modernize-irs-technology-58931237.html http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/lockheed-martin-wins...
  - gamblor956 13y ago
    It's just FUD. In 2007, LM was awarded a minor contract to help update the IRS' technology systems: (1)to modernize the notice system (referring to notices received by taxpayers under audit or for penalty assessments) and the publication system (the pdf's available on the IRS website. (See http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2007/october/1026_LMWins2ContractsToHelpModernizeIRSTechnology.html http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2007/oc...) Lockheed Martin was not involved in helping the IRS design or update its return processing system (including e-file). A contract of that magnitude would be worth billions, not the $36 million LM was paid for the work above.
ihsw 13y ago
It'll be another F-35 nightmare.
Kilo-byte 13y ago
Mirror since the original link is unavailable http://pastebin.com/HqmzuAZ4 http://pastebin.com/HqmzuAZ4
zobzu 13y ago
tl;dr;didntload: they talk about a scramjet design

56 points by starpilot 13y ago

ck2 13y ago

If we cannot have manned moon missions anymore and no more space shuttles then I don't want the military to have SR71 successors or their own mini-shuttle. Our priorities are all screwed up, we need to be making science exciting for the next generation. We'll always have plenty of warmongering to go around. Many of you around here are too young or not from the USA to have this experience but I remember when the first shuttle was being developed and tested and how exciting that was to schoolkids (it was the Enterprise! [1]) And I was fortunate enough to have someone from NASA visit our elementary school with moon rocks and gave us space photos and other presentations that were so interesting that I remember the experience to this day. We need that again for school kids. [1] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/44/Star_Trek_cast_and_Space_Shuttle_Enterprise.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/44/Star_Trek_cast...

chroem 13y ago
But with this we could kill people all over the globe in record time! Edit: Just to be clear, this is sarcasm.
- ck2 13y ago
  Well it is more for spying. And with advances in gigapixel digital sensors, satellites and drones, a mach 6 manned plane is probably pointless for spying in comparison. Let's fund things that can break earth orbit and inspire the world.
  - avmich 13y ago
    This would make awesome reusable first stage for orbital launches. Provided, of course, other air launch problems could be solved.
    - nickff 13y ago
      Going mach 6 at high altitude is not as much of a boost as it seems. Consider that orbital velocity is ~mach 25, and energy = (1/2)mv^2. Launching a space vehicle from a carrier moving mach 6 would give you (6^2)/(25^2)= 5.76% of the energy required to reach orbit. You do get some benefit from launching at high altitude, and reducing atmospheric drag, but that does not require a high speed launch. The high speed launch adds significant danger due to aerodynamic issues, along with requiring a massive fuel expenditure, and a much heavier, more complex, and expensive carrier.
  - melling 13y ago
    At the height of the moon mission, we spent 4.4% of our GDP trying to get to the moon. We did it, and haven't been back in 40 years. What you're saying does not work.
    - ck2 13y ago
      How can you measure the return on investment for all we learned from trying to get to the moon? From inspiring so many people to go into science. I don't think building better war machines inspires people to go into science.
      - potatolicious 13y ago
        You can't measure the ROI, and honestly the ROI argument is as rhetorical and handwavy as the "TSA makes us safer" argument. It only feels somewhat plausible, but is so utterly vague and unmeasurable that there's simply no way to make it not an empty statement. Also, I'm as anti-warmongering as everyone else here, but it's a patently false claim to say that the industry of war doesn't drive massive leaps in science and technology. Silicon Valley itself was birthed out of massive military research funding post-WW2. The Internet started as a DARPA project. The foundational technology we built on top of to get the moon was reversed engineered in large part out of deadly German V2 rockets captured during the war. Hell, one of the biggest chief architects of the US space program was Wernher von Braun, whose rocketry expertise came out of Nazi Germany. The Russians weren't exempt either - all of their early satellite and manned mission launch vehicles were derivatives of ICBMs - Sputnik, the first satellite in orbit, launched from a R-7 ICBM. I wish it weren't the case, but there is tons of evidence, all around the world and all throughout history, that the waging of war drives a shitload of science.
      - melling 13y ago
        I think you missed my point. We weren't inspired enough to continue once we reached the moon. We did not continue on to Mars, and we didn't want to increase NASA's budget. Most people here weren't even born when we went to the moon. Consider that we need to import engineers in the US because many Americans don't want to do the job.
    - 13y ago
  - DougWebb 13y ago
    Satellites have fixed orbits, which makes them relatively easy to hide from because you can figure out when they can see you. Drones are good for spying because they're unpredictable, silent, and pretty much invisible, but their range isn't great. If you're not within range of a place where drones can be deployed, you're relatively safe from them. A mach 6 manned plane can be anyplace, anytime. They can sit in their base in Nevada (or wherever) and be deployed to investigate anyplace in the world within a matter of hours. Drones and satellites just don't compare to that. So, if you accept that the basic mission of these technologies is valid, then it makes sense to develop manned aircraft. It's just unfortunate that it takes so long for the technology that's developed to trickle out of the secret programs so everyone can get some benefit from it.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      Drones can be anyplace in the world within a matter of hours too, if you keep a bunch of them on station all over the place. And while that sounds expensive, drones are so cheap (relatively) to build and operate that it's still going to be far more cost effective than a mach 6 anything.
      - nickff 13y ago
        Drones are not as cheap as you would think (, and I used to believe). Global hawks cost as much as U2s to operate, and much more to acquire;[1] predators and reapers are not cheap either, once you include the whole control system.[2] [1] http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130624/C4ISR01/307010011 http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130624/C4ISR01/30701001... [2] http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/the-us-and-its-uavs-a-cost-benefit-analysis/ http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/the-us-and-its-...
    - jfoutz 13y ago
      If the satellite imaging is good enough, it's probably cheaper to just have complete coverage. GPS was like 20 billion? a billion in ongoing costs? If i understand correctly, a new jet is a trillion dollars. Perhaps the imaging isn't good enough, cloud cover or whatever, but a whole bunch of satellites seems like a far simpler solution.
melling 13y ago
Is there a standard answer when someone complains about the "war machine" and incorrect priorities? It's kind of common in this crowd, and probably not the proper way to look at it. To me, it's a Frequently Mentioned Complaint. Certainly many of us here wish there was more money spent on big science. For example, if the US built Super Collider 20 years ago, what we are discovering in physics today, would have been discovered almost 2 decades ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider Anyway, the US spends a fortune on its military. The cost was something like 20 billion for air conditioning in the Iraq war? (that's one supercollider). Until we have that ever elusive world peace, we're probably going to continue to spend a fortune. Having the military spend some of its money on new SR71's, robotic vehicles, the Internet, drones, etc isn't going to be cheapest research but fewer people question it, and the research does get done. Consider that if we didn't need national defense, people would probably just want lower taxes and you still couldn't convince them to go to the moon. There's nothing there, after all.
- drzaiusapelord 13y ago
  >Until we have that ever elusive world peace, we're probably going to continue to spend a fortune. We spend 10x what China does. We don't have to spend as much. >people would probably just want lower taxes Heaven forbid I have more cash in my wallet. More for me to invest to help fund companies that do interesting things, perhaps even go to the moon with. I personally don't mind my tax load if it gave us things like universal healthcare and cheaper higher education and better infrastructure. I do mind it when it just powers the various killing machines at our disposal and wars based on clear lies like "yellowcake" and "WMDs." How many Mars missions did Iraq cost us? >and the research does get done. Locked away as classified or patent encumbered via Lockheed or whoever is developing $expensive_weapons_system? Yeah, we can do better. edit: The list linked on spending doesn't include all the special spending bills that paid for the Iraq and Afghani wars. Yes, we are close to spending 10x what Russia spends and probably closer to 5 or 6x what China spends. I mixed up my countries, but we are GREATLY overspending. NASA's annual budget is about a month in Afghanistan. We've spend at LEAST 2 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan. 4 is you count actual expenditures and future commitments like medical and disability. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/14/iraq-war-cost-more-than-2-trillion_n_2875493.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/14/iraq-war-cost-more-...
drzaiusapelord 13y ago
Agreed. We're spending 1.2 trillion on the lifetime of the F-35 project, yet NASA begs for scraps. I hate my country's priorities. We're military first, people second, and science last. Not sure why we think this is a winning formula, especially as we watch Asia rise. So "yes" to every pork-barrel weapons system designed for enemies we don't have and for a conflict we'll never have (another WWII-style drawn out war with everyone pretending they dont have nukes). "No" to anything that doesn't make the military industrialists wealthy. Heck, when we do let NASA do something, we give it parameters that destroy any chance of success like giving Republican Senator with ties to $x_company_in_his_district to bring jobs to his district instead of going with a efficient vendor.
- clarkmoody 13y ago
  > We're military first, people second, and science last. 2013 United States Federal Budget Outlays[1] Agency Billions ------------------------------------- -------- Department of HHS (Medicare+Medicaid) 940.9 Social Security Administration 882.7 Department of Defense, including wars 672.9 Interest on Debt 246.0 ... NASA 17.8 ... National Science Foundation 7.5 To me it looks like spending on people is more than 2x spending on military (including wars). But you're right about putting science last, as far as federal spending goes. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budget#Total_revenues_and_spending http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budg...
  - rosser 13y ago
    In terms of absolute dollar-outlay amounts, perhaps. But in terms of discretionary spending — the things on which we can choose to spend money — blowing shit up accounts for more than half of it. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are monies the government is obligated to spend, and so in terms of a discussion of our priorities, aren't exactly relevant. Source: the same Wikipedia article you used.
    - nickff 13y ago
jstalin 13y ago
But, but... terrorists!!
rbanffy 13y ago
> I don't want the military to have SR71 successors This is probably a PR stunt. You never, ever, under no circumstances, pre-announce military technology. Having said that, it's really a shame humans never flew to the moon since I was a kid. I'm not particularly sad about the shuttles - they were engineered by marketing - but I'd like to see some more cool space technology.

macmac 13y ago

HN killed aviationweek.com...

kevincennis 13y ago

It's the Aurora, resurrected! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(aircraft) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(aircraft)

Shihan 13y ago

Why would Skunk Work make something like that public? Do I miss something or wouldn't that be really weird? I thought normally such military related technological projects are only released to the public after they cannot longer hide it (e.g. like 'Beast of Kandahar' etc.).

moogleii 13y ago
I figure to gain much-needed political capital somehow. It's probably a dead-in-the-water project, and they need some mil-industry complex saber rattling to give it a much needed (desperate) jump start. Because it sounds pretty useless to me. The article claims there's a growing intel gap, and yet what's changed since the original was retired (other than satellite coverage getting better, + unmanned drones)? It's probably still going to be ridiculously expensive to operate, and provides what advantages? Who are we going to use this on? The only nations that can probably deny us satellite coverage, at least politically, are China and Russia, and are we really going to start flying hypersonic jets over their airspace anyway? This whole thing just makes me laugh.
- dsr_ 13y ago
  "Skunk Works has revealed exclusively to AW&ST details of long-running plans for what it describes as an affordable hypersonic intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and strike platform that could enter development in demonstrator form as soon as 2018." Here's a translation in line with your suspicion: "Lockheed-Martin really wants a new contract. High-technology projects can only be purchased by the government, so political pressure on (and rewards to) members of Congress is an effective tool. Nobody bought the super-sensor-blimp project, the heavily-armed-and-armored blimp project, or the flying jeep project, so maybe we can get traction for something sexy. Speed sells, and everybody has good memories of the Blackbird... let's make some pretty drawings and get our name mentioned a lot. Since it's only a drawing right now, we can propose it as a recon plane and a strike bomber and an interceptor and an anti-satellite launcher and a dessert and a floor wax, too!"
  - Nelson69 13y ago

kayoone 13y ago

an incredible story related to the SR71: http://roadrunnersinternationale.com/weaver_sr71_bailout.html http://roadrunnersinternationale.com/weaver_sr71_bailout.htm...

jonlucc 13y ago

This can fly around Earth at the equator in 5 hours.

Theodores 13y ago

This is Lockheed Martin we are talking about. The same Lockheed Martin that pretty much built (and is) the NSA, the same Lockheed Martin that processes the census, the same Lockheed Martin that processes the tax returns, the same Lockheed Martin that can test your DNA, the same Lockheed Martin that makes the Trident nukes, the same Lockheed Martin that builds the spy satellites, the same Lockheed Martin that can supply 'interrogators' to Guantanamo, the same Lockheed Martin that supplied the planes that went in first in Iraq, the same Lockheed Martin that owns Afghanistan (to all intents and purposes) and the same Lockheed Martin that owns all the politicians in Washington. If they want this then they can get you to pay for it.

evacuationdrill 13y ago
>the same Lockheed Martin that processes the tax returns I don't understand this one. Are they behind the IRS's systems or something?
- fintler 13y ago
  Yes. It seems like they've been involved since at least 1996 or so (probably way earlier than that). http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2008-02-04/business/36862542_1_e-file-tax-professionals-speeds-refunds http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2008-02-04/business/36862... http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/lockheed-martin-wins-two-contracts-to-help-modernize-irs-technology-58931237.html http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/lockheed-martin-wins...
- gamblor956 13y ago
  It's just FUD. In 2007, LM was awarded a minor contract to help update the IRS' technology systems: (1)to modernize the notice system (referring to notices received by taxpayers under audit or for penalty assessments) and the publication system (the pdf's available on the IRS website. (See http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2007/october/1026_LMWins2ContractsToHelpModernizeIRSTechnology.html http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2007/oc...) Lockheed Martin was not involved in helping the IRS design or update its return processing system (including e-file). A contract of that magnitude would be worth billions, not the $36 million LM was paid for the work above.

ihsw 13y ago

It'll be another F-35 nightmare.

Kilo-byte 13y ago

Mirror since the original link is unavailable http://pastebin.com/HqmzuAZ4 http://pastebin.com/HqmzuAZ4

zobzu 13y ago

tl;dr;didntload: they talk about a scramjet design