Would there be any point in making a stealth spaceplane? Current ones are gliders as they are boosted by a rocket.

Would there be any point in making a stealth spaceplane? Current ones are gliders as they are boosted by a rocket. Making it stealth would compromise the payload by a bit and require complete engineering of the vehicle for atmospheric reentry.
Then put it in orbit around allied satellites, and it can be a missile defence system to kill anti satellite missiles, and make the rest of the payloads radiators for extra stealth
Stealth would be good too if it could have turbines and loiter at high alt after reentry as an awacs thing

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    you know, sometimes i wonder how there's so much mission creep in american DARPA projects. then i see posts like this. thanks OP.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      OP is just doing his patriotic duty to keep the MIC wheels spinning, and us one step ahead of our enemies. God Bless.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Im canadian.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    what are the merits of having a stealth spaceplane. if it's in space everyone can see it regardless of stealth. do you understand how stealth even works

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Everyone can see it
      How do we make a spaceplane thats unseeable then? And no having the russian space program doesnt count

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >How do we make a spaceplane thats unseeable then?
        unless you have a Romulan cloaking device you don't

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Find a way to bypass basic physical laws.

        Heat, motherfricker. Spacecraft need to radiate heat they build from running their systems. Which means when contrasted to empty space they light up IR sensors like a giant neon billboard spelling out "OVER HERE DUMBASS!"

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah but space is really far over there, how does an ir tracker from earth see that far?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >how does an ir tracker from earth see that far?
            Do you think IR has a range limit? That it expires after going a set distance?
            Let me ask you this in a different way; would an IR sensor pickup a star?

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Yes, but youre actually seeing the stars IR light as it was 15 years ago or more

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >>Yes, but youre actually seeing the stars IR light as it was 15 years ago or more
                And?
                Do you think what you are seeing with your eyes right now is the light as it is or as it was when it was emitted from the object?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I dont know. I think things traveling at light speed are only light and that light experiences no time so its effectively instant for us

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I think things traveling at light speed are only light and that light experiences no time so its effectively instant for us
                You have fundamentally failed to understand what the speed of light means and implies.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Why do we even bother with radars if you can so easily see things in IR then? Aren't planes much hotter than the sky?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Why do we even bother with radars if you can so easily see things in IR then? Aren't planes much hotter than the sky?
                Because the sky isn't full of radio sources but is full of IR sources. You don't passively sense radio because objects like aircraft are not emissive in that wavelength. In short, it's easier to see radio waves bouncing off an object than it is to look for the faint low power blackbody radiation coming off something in the air. In space it's a bit easier to see due to a lack of clutter of other sources. That's also why you could use visible light as a search beam in space.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >In space it's a bit easier to see due to a lack of clutter of other sources.
                Saying it's "A bit" easier to see is a pretty big understatement by the way. The smallest rockets on the space shuttle can be detected from halfway across the solar system, it's main thrusters can be detected at twice that distance. Voyager 1 is over 15 billion miles away and emits less energy than a lightbulb but modern telescopes can still clearly pick it out of the background noise if they're pointing in it's direction.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The smallest rockets on the space shuttle can be detected from halfway across the solar system, it's main thrusters can be detected at twice that distance.
                If you know where to look.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That's the beauty of space, moron-anon. You don't have trouble knowing where to look because its so barren noise issues with a wide stare sensor are nonexistent at sub-lightyear ranges. You can stare and then cue as you like.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Just read about this thing - NEO Surveyor, planned to be launched in 2027. Its wiki page says: "In the nominal survey the telescope is expected to detect ⅔ of asteroids with a diameter larger than 140 meters in the first 5 years". Why does it take scientists 5 years to detect 2/3 of asteroids >140 meters in diameter if seeing things in space is so easy?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It just does, okay!

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I assume cause theres a lot of them

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >the mental level of stealth in space truthers
                Asteroids are colder than rocket exhaust.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                My stealth space bombers move around by shooting fine dust particles electrostatically accelerated to extreme speeds, they don't have a rocket exhaust. They also have a side clearly marked "FRONT TOWARDS ENEMY" that is cooled down to 10 K. WWYD?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So in other words, your bombers have jack shit for thrust, low delta-V and are still sticking out like a sore thumb because they need to radiate heat from all the onboard systems including the massive electrical power generators needed to run your drive.

                >They also have a side clearly marked "FRONT TOWARDS ENEMY"
                Useless.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I was about to post a scientific reply proving you don't understand space but you're propably some moronic ass burger who defends imperial and farenheit system online meanwhile you think 1/4 is bigger than 1/2 and gets order of operations wrong to the point of being unable to math.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Lots of asteroids, the rocks have cooled to an equilibrium that's extremely cold so the blackbody radiation they emit is very weak.
                5 years is 43,800 hours. Estimate over 5,000,000 asteroids of the size. That would be one tracked every 30 seconds. Oy vey! Don't question the math.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Because asteroids are cold anon. And therefore very hard to detect from far away. Space ships are not cold and thus very easy to detect, especially if they're actively maneuvering since nothing else in space that looks and moves like a space ship under burn.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                anon a high temperature unknown object in the solar system is going to stand out like a sore thumb to virtually every telescope on Earth

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          There are no high-resolution wide-angle fast-exposure thermal telescopes. The fanciest operational IR telescope - Stratospheric Observatory For Infrared Astronomy, has field of view of 8 MOA. They will see it only if they know where to look.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Modern telescopes can do a full scan of the sky in like 4 hours. If/when they find your exhaust trail (which, since you're in space, will not have dissipated after 4 hours) they can track it back to your current position even if you've since turned the engine off and are running silent (no engine means no maneuvers, so you're essentially a ship shaped asteroid who's location can be easily predicted) because as has been pointed out multiple times in this thread there is no way to hide your movements in space.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Overrated. It's very difficult to make a spacecraft all aspect, all spectrum stealth; but trivial to put the radiators on the far side of the spacecraft behind an isolating heatshield like the JWT's. Then you paint the heatshield itself a very dark black, and from the Earth facing side you'd only be able to identify the spacecraft when it occludes stars.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >just put the radiators on the far side LMAO
            Not how it actually works outside of a 4th-graders understanding of physics. And that's before we get into multiple networked sensor plattforms.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >quantum stealth materials
        already in production

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Back to ATF larper

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >stealth space plane
      There is no stealth in space

      At what height above sea level does stealth stop working? Please be specific.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        once you get into low earth orbit. the radiative heat that your vehicle is outputting is being silhouetted against a void with no heat which is easily discriminated against

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Radars up to the stratosphere, IR/visible lights beyond mesosphere.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Why does radar stealth stop working at 30km?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you are unironically a giant moron.
            the atmosphere scatters IR, space doesn't. fricking moron.
            we can track faintly heat emitting objects far beyond the moons orbit. you might be able to make it radar stealth, but you will never make it stealthy in every single other part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

            seriously, do you not feel ashamed because someone actually has to explain to you how the atmosphere works?

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Radar stealth doesn't stop working at 30km above sea level but having to admit I'm wrong makes me very angry so it has to be someone else's fault.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Needs Sadam Hussein

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's not that radar deflection/absorption doesn't work in space but rather that space is so lacking in ambient heat that any amount of heat is going to shine like a beacon in infrared, also due to the nature of orbits ballistic trajectories are very easy to track with orbital corrections easy enough for computers to calculate making hiding a spacecraft virtually impossible.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It would literally be invisible. No one at all would be able to see it.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >stealth space plane
    There is no stealth in space

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      stealth sats maybe exist. with a spaceplane you need to think reentry which makes it too complicated.

      mitwit alert. we are not living in the edge of scifi possibilities.

      Your mass and dV are known. It's trivial to compute where you can be, so even if you had a magic invisible rocket we could simply look at the manifold of possible trajectories over time.

      x-37 has a lot of dv and does whacky orbital maneuvers over places where there are no observers so it gets lost. it does get found again but it takes a while. combine this with radar and ir stealth pointing to earth and it makes things pretty difficult for countries that don't have america tier space observation.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Buddy at night you can see the ISS with your naked eye. How the frick are you gonna hide a space plane against the background of literal void and known stars?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Place it in a highly elliptical orbit, as high as it goes while staying in earth sphere of influence
      Once it goes past the moon it will be invisible
      It can still go close to earth when its at its periapsis.. It just has to wait until it gets there

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not making it out of giant fricking mirrors would be a start.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        they kinda have to use shiny foil shit because of cosmic radiation

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          So its like a tinfoil wrapped potato in space, neat

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >f literal void and known stars?
      A cone pointing to Earth is a good start.
      See how SpaceX reduced the albedo of their newer satellites.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There is no stealth in space, anon.
    Not in a sense where you can claim the same for atmospheric planes, I am talking about literally there being no way you can hide yourself in space outside distance.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You can hide behind objects. For instance if a missile is flying towards your planet, you can't see any additional missiles lined up behind the first one in a train formation. You don't know if you're dealing with 1 missile or 100.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    whole lotta lazy earth and belter shits ITT

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Setting martainwumao conveniently ignores Anubis Class

      >better stealth
      >spinal mounted railgun first in class
      >better torp guidance than muh red planet
      >out ECMs your flagship
      >Mercs rape your marines and grabs your F.L.A.G.S.H.I.P.
      >without an hero-ing earth would have had everything of intelligence value in the hulk that WAS the Donnager
      >all this done by a private company.

      Earth wins again.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    6th Gen are supposed to go to space and have visual, radar, and ir stealth

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Stealth is space is impossible because even if you avoid detection by radar you will be detectable by your heat signature. Any spacecraft will shine like a beacon in thermal against the ~3 kelvin backdrop of the void. The space shuttle's main engines firing at full would be detectable from somewhere between Saturn orbit and Neptune orbit with current telescopes depending on who you ask. There will never be a cloaking device for your impossible starship.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Stealth is space is impossible, Assuming you have constant monitoring of the entire sky from all possible angles.
      Fixed
      It's not that stealth is just completely impossible under any circumstance but rather that the conditions to allow it to be possible have to line up so perfectly as to make it completely unreliable.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >muh IR signature
    IR sensors are noisy as shit because they’re very temperature sensitive. Sure a spacecraft might be warm but that doesn’t matter when that small dot gets swamped in all the other small dots in your camera’s field of view. Rocket launches are easy to see cause they’re so bright.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >compare small dots from tonight to the night before
      >see that this one wasn't there before
      >every observatory in the world suddenly swivels towards it in a race to be the first to discover something new in the Solar System

      https://i.imgur.com/Wc2gHfn.png

      Just read about this thing - NEO Surveyor, planned to be launched in 2027. Its wiki page says: "In the nominal survey the telescope is expected to detect ⅔ of asteroids with a diameter larger than 140 meters in the first 5 years". Why does it take scientists 5 years to detect 2/3 of asteroids >140 meters in diameter if seeing things in space is so easy?

      because an Asteroid that's been there since the forming of the Solar System is nearly the same temperature as everything around it

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >because an Asteroid that's been there since the forming of the Solar System is nearly the same temperature as everything around it
        anon, that pic is a thermal map of the asteroid Bennu, clearly showing that it gets to 170F on the sunlit side...

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Rocket exhaust is about 5800F. The gap between the flame and your asteroid isn't 3% bigger, it isn't 30% bigger, it isn't triple, its over 3000% bigger bigger than the gap between the asteroid and the cosmic background temp, are you starting to understand now?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >implying it is impossible to cool down rocket exhaust
            Exhaust velocity is what matters, not its temperature.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >have limited fuel and energy capacity in a spacecraft
              >waste it trying to cool rocket exhaust
              Motherfricker you need life support systems to radiate away the heat generated by just people living inside a spacecraft otherwise they cook themselves as heat is trapped and unable to conduct through the void of space.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >implying spacecraft must have a crew and life support systems
                Spaceplane in the OP pic is unmanned.
                >implying cooling the rocket exhaust is much harder than dumping supercooled shaved ice into a long nozzle
                Water has massive heat capacity and will have to go through 2 state transitions on the way out.

                Your engine still needs to cool down after finishing a burn. Where do you think all that waste heat goes? How do you vent heat in space? There's no air or water you can't use convection, there's no objects nearby so you can't use conduction either, the only option is radiation, which means even after you've turned the engine off you're still emitting heat. Plus your life support and electronics also generate heat. More than enough to be noticeable against a background temp of near absolute zero.

                Heat sinks can provide some help, but rockets get very very hot and you'd need to sink almost ALL of that heat in order to avoid detection, plus have enough left over to keep sinking the heat generated by the electronics and life support for however long you want to stay hidden. The heat sinks required to do that are prohibitively large, as in they'd be larger than the craft itself, not to mention absurdly expensive. And they still would only work for short amount of time because you'd have to vent them into space eventually or else you'd cook yourself inside your ship.

                >Where do you think all that waste heat goes?
                Radiated away from the side that is not pointed towards the enemy. And you don't necessarily need to produce hot gas to maneuver in space.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Radiated away from the side that is not pointed towards the enemy
                That only works if the enemy is looking at you from one direction, there's no reason not to have multiple sensors covering each other from multiple angles. And honestly all they really need is a handful of satellites far enough out in space to be "behind" anyone attempting to approach the earth.

                Even if you aren't using rocket propulsion the same principle still holds. Any method of producing enough thrust to get from A to B in a decent amount of time will also produce enough waste heat to make you noticeable if you dump it. Electrical propulsion like ion thrusters create less heat than chemical rockets, but are still more than enough to light you up like a Christmas tree to anyone in the local stellar neighborhood.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Water has massive heat capacity and will have to go through 2 state transitions on the way out.
                Alright so the specific heat of water is 4.2 kJ/kg, so it takes 420kJ to raise the temp from 0 degrees to 100. The phase transition from solid to liquid takes 334 kJ and the transition from liquid to gas takes 2260 kJ. So if you start with regular ice you can get 3014 kJ/kg of heat absorption assuming it's not pressurized and you can handle hot steam rolling around in your heat sinks.

                So that means for every kW of power your ship produces you'll need a kg of ice every 3014 seconds, or roughly 50 minutes. Switch to ice cooled down 100 degrees below 0 and you add an extra 420 kJ/kg for 3428 seconds per kg or a little short of an hour. From some quick googling modern jet engines put our around 250-400kW. So you'd need at least 250 kg of ice per hour to sink the heat generated by a modern jet engine. Chemical rockets obviously would require even more ice to cool them.

                Now ion engines apparently only consume around 1-7kW, so I'll admit water based heat sinks could actually be practical in that case, at the cost of having 100-1000 times less thrust than a chemical engine and therefore going nowhere fast, as well as increasing the size and weight of the ship, making it easier to detect and harder to change direction.

                Ion engines also have to burn for much longer in order to get up to speed, which makes it even more likely for someone to spot you while accelerating/decelerating or notice your exhaust trail, increasing your risk of detection.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Spaceplane in the OP pic is unmanned.
                You're fricking moronic.
                The point is that just having people and computers in a tin can will heat it up with no way for the heat to go away.
                You're gonna just shut down the engines to cool them down? moron.
                >Water has massive heat capacity and will have to go through 2 state transitions on the way out.
                So you have the Death Star exhaust port. What happens when you run out of water?
                On Earth, you can condense the vapor and run it back into the cycle in liquid form. In space you have to eject the mass out.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >What happens when you run out of water?
                Same thing that happens when you run low on fuel, air, or any other expendable (the mission ends).

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The problem is that by radiating away heat you can (with proper heat management) extend your stay in space for as long as your oxygen, fuel and food/water last.
                With stealth as a requirement, you will run out of coolant way before you'll ever run out of any of the other things. Basically narrowing down the missions to something so specific it's not worth building a spaceplane for.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >just cool it LOL
              Fun fact: Cooling doesn't make thermal energy vanish, it just puts it elsewhere. So where are you going to put that thermal energy you take away from your rocket exhaust?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            jesus you are fricking stupid.
            a rocket engine is not on 24/7. when it's turned off the craft cools down. most of the times crafts use this system to manuver https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_control_system. good luck finding this in ir from ground
            >but whatabout when you turn in on
            sure if someone happens to look in that particular direction then yes they would see it for a few moments and then write it off as a random error.
            >but what if i use a ir satellite to look for the satellite
            space is big, if you don't know where to look you won't find shit

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              And you keep moving in your slow predictable way. If anyone saw you once you are seen forever.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Your mass and dV are known. It's trivial to compute where you can be, so even if you had a magic invisible rocket we could simply look at the manifold of possible trajectories over time.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >a rocket engine is not on 24/7. when it's turned off the craft cools down
              Your cooldown is based on radiative temperature losses.
              Objects on earth cool by themselves as they can conduct heat to a surface and have convection from nearby air. In space you have neither. In space you're inside the most efficient double-walled thermos flask. Turning off the rocket engine won't cool it down - it just maintains it at the working temperature.
              You will have to use some kind of pumped fluid to carry the heat towards a radiative panel which loses temperature via radiation. You don't get to just spin a fan, use incoming ram air or increase the size of radiators (which despite the name use convection).

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Your engine still needs to cool down after finishing a burn. Where do you think all that waste heat goes? How do you vent heat in space? There's no air or water you can't use convection, there's no objects nearby so you can't use conduction either, the only option is radiation, which means even after you've turned the engine off you're still emitting heat. Plus your life support and electronics also generate heat. More than enough to be noticeable against a background temp of near absolute zero.

              Heat sinks can provide some help, but rockets get very very hot and you'd need to sink almost ALL of that heat in order to avoid detection, plus have enough left over to keep sinking the heat generated by the electronics and life support for however long you want to stay hidden. The heat sinks required to do that are prohibitively large, as in they'd be larger than the craft itself, not to mention absurdly expensive. And they still would only work for short amount of time because you'd have to vent them into space eventually or else you'd cook yourself inside your ship.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >jesus you are fricking stupid
              >rocket engine is not on 24/7
              the reflective surfaces and radiators NEEDED to keep a long-term deepspace craft from cooking itself are, and they are plenty enough to paint you as a target.
              >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_control_system. good luck finding this in ir from ground yeah, so still many times brighter than it's surroundings, also the fact that these RCS thrusters initially produce white clouds that refract sunlight as well before they expand enough to become translucent.
              >if someone happens to look in that particular direction
              they will be, because we have plenty of sats all looking for random shit like IR bursts pretty much 24/7 covering almost every angle.
              >then write it off as a random error
              >write it off
              jesus christ, i hate how overused dunning krugger has become as an insult, but for fricks sake anon.
              why are you this confident? it's giving me second-hand embarrassment.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Do you have any idea what the shiny panels on the inside of the payload bay are you fricking moronic summer kiddo?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Thermal noise is changing constantly. An object optimized for low IR emissions could be dim enough that you accidentally throw out the data when you remove the noise. It’s not as simple as just looking at the sky

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Thermal noise is changing constantly.
          Not in fricking space it's not. And even still, "low IR emissions" by space ship standards are still several orders of magnitude larger than the background noise anyway.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I don't think you understand just how much hotter a rocket is compared to the background tempature of space. We are talking like 1000s of times hotter at the very least. Imagine someone turning a spotlight on in pitch darkness then multiple that by 100, that's how fricking bright you look when you try to go anywhere in a rocket ship.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Imagine someone turning a spotlight on in pitch darkness
            Imagine someone lighting a match on Phobos, would you see it from Deimos?

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Again, you do not seem to fully grasp the scale of temperature difference here. The space shuttles maneuvering rockets - not its main thrusters, the smaller ones it uses for fine trajectory correction - could be seen from beyond the asteroid belt. It is impossible to hide a rocket burn in space.

              Think about it this way. Launching a rocket from earth can be easily detected by terrestrial and satellite means. It is virtually impossible to launch a rocket on earth without people noticing. Detecting rockets in space is even easier than detecting them on earth. Why the frick do you think it would somehow be more difficult to notice rockets in space than it is on earth?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That's the whole point, moron: THERE IS NO THERMAL NOISE IN SPACE. The only thing out there is planets and stars, and they're well known. Anything that isn't a well-known object thus sticks out like a sore thumb and will attract immediate attention.

          This is literally playing a game of Spot The Difference on such an easy mode, a fricking 90's-era computer program can do it in a matter of seconds and with somewhere around 99.999% reliability. And that's the pessimistic estimate.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So I'm thinking, to defend a satellite or a space station or plane, you'd probably want to network with the sensors on surrounding satellites. Being outside of the atmosphere, are they more resistant to jamming, in terms of communicating between each other?

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Would there be any point in making a stealth spaceplane?
    leaving alone the shape and heat absorbant materials problem.
    space is fairly stealth by itself, if you trow a satellite in leo orbit and give it engines to move around it will be very hard to detect just due to the amount of shit that is in orbit, also you could use other satellites to shadow your spacecraft.
    If your craft has no engines then regardless of what you do everyone will know where it is.

    >Stealth would be good too if it could have turbines and loiter at high alt after reentry as an awacs thing
    this makes no sense

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the MIC has dudes who sit in rooms and dream up fantastical shit, and has done so since the end of WWII. doesn't mean it ever gets past the concept/drawing board stage but it's still discussed.

    so if you're ever wondering if the bullshit nonsense you've dreamed up high as a kite, there's a not-zero chance some eggheads in the 70's already proposed it and did the preliminary design/math.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Space planes are obsolete/worthless. We would have been investing more into space planes historically if it was worth our while. See: X-plane experiments. We made ICBM's, as a result. Hypersonic glide vehicles > loitering munitions, very 1950's view of nuclear war. Hint, really really fast thing harder to shoot down than well camouflaged loitering thing.

    To be fair, the F-35, F-22 and B-21 are all kind of worthlessly over complex wunderwaffen. and F16 are simple, and effective, and also better designed than their Russian counter parts. If Ukraine is any indication, tactics and volume of fire matter more than beating the enemy technologically past a certain point. The more complex a system the longer it takes to produce, and the more it costs to maintain, and the more it stings when it's destroyed.

    Arguably the B-52 is pretty useless at this point, only good for bombing cities or jungles full of rebels. HIMARS/ATACMS is cheaper to produce and maintain, and honestly more accurate than air dropped bombs. Scrap the Raider, phase out the existing bomber fleet, redirect that into ATAMCS/HIMARS systems improvements, F-35 is already spent, NGAD is getting scrapped, make new production F16s with upgraded systems to make them homogenous with the new F-35 fleet, finish the Sentinel projects and upgrading the sub fleet, and we have all our bases covered. It seems given the current balance of power, munitions are much more important that the platform that launches it, and fast and precise is the name of the game now.

    So to answer your question, no, completely pointless. I hope my government unfricks their budget choices and stops thinking like Nazi Germany/Russia, the wunderwaffen race is so WW2 :).

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You are moronic. Each of your paragraphs has wrongs in it
      >Hint really really fast thing
      Actually the faster it is the harder it is to maneuver and thus easier to shoot down.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        hypersonic is a relative term, there is probably a sweet spot between speed and maneuverability, still the point stands.

        Valid concern tho. Also what else is wrong with my post? Please inform, I am but an armchair general.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      To expand on the opinions about the F16, SEAD planes are expendable a bit.... especially in a real war against major powers.

      As the first Gulf War showed, stealth planes only exist to open up a gap in enemy air defense (anyone remember that one f117 ace combat mission? Xbox360 Era/ literally how the F117 was used irl) so that the f-16's can roll in and mop up the rest. Granted this was against like S-300 class systems, but again a hypersonic air defense is hard to make a lot of and maintain, and most countries can't or won't do that, except China, maybe. At that point, unmanned stealth units, or literally unmanned f-16s might be better (see current AI F16 experiments) to lead with to hit the hypersonic systems, and send the conventional jets in to mop up the rest.

      My whole esoteric weapons fetish is that the F4 was the greatest strike plane ever devised, and we should replace the entire conventional bomber fleet with a modernized version of that. Since the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, CAS has switched to precision strikes instead of mass carpet bombing. Mach 1ish fighter bomber, that's cheap as shit and basically the A-10 but a fighter bomber? Where do I sign!

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >To be fair, the F-35, F-22 and B-21 are all kind of worthlessly over complex wunderwaffen. and F16 are simple, and effective
      get back in your fricking box Pierre

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        same poster, I know who you are referring to, but Pierre would probably argue to keep it at F-16 Block 1. I want maybe, F-16 as a design point, but eek every possible efficiency out of the design instead of make a fresh design. Probably cheaper in the long run. Treat every combat effective design like the B-52.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The only way to use stealth in space is to hide behind celestial objects, or in front of the sun. Both options require careful management of positioning relative to the enemy sensor, and fall apart if the enemy has multiple sensors in different locations.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Just park it on the far side of the moon

      To expand on the opinions about the F16, SEAD planes are expendable a bit.... especially in a real war against major powers.

      As the first Gulf War showed, stealth planes only exist to open up a gap in enemy air defense (anyone remember that one f117 ace combat mission? Xbox360 Era/ literally how the F117 was used irl) so that the f-16's can roll in and mop up the rest. Granted this was against like S-300 class systems, but again a hypersonic air defense is hard to make a lot of and maintain, and most countries can't or won't do that, except China, maybe. At that point, unmanned stealth units, or literally unmanned f-16s might be better (see current AI F16 experiments) to lead with to hit the hypersonic systems, and send the conventional jets in to mop up the rest.

      My whole esoteric weapons fetish is that the F4 was the greatest strike plane ever devised, and we should replace the entire conventional bomber fleet with a modernized version of that. Since the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, CAS has switched to precision strikes instead of mass carpet bombing. Mach 1ish fighter bomber, that's cheap as shit and basically the A-10 but a fighter bomber? Where do I sign!

      This is just reformers shit

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Parking it at L2 could hide it from view on Earth, but satellites looking at it from different angles could still see it. Also, L2 would be like the first place anyone looks since it's the obvious hiding spot.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That and china is capable of sending a probe to the far side
          Would be easier to just drop a few bombs on all of china

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Just park it on the far side of the moon
        Ah yes because I'm sure no one will have thought to just send a fricking probe there to watch for that exact trick. Anything that involves putting some object between yourself and the enemy's sensors can easily be foiled by just... launching more sensors. Space has plenty of free real estate and satellites are only getting cheaper, it would not be hard to place your satellites in such a way that there is no place anywhere in earth orbit that you could hide without being seen.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The "no stealth in space" argument always boils down to "anybody that cares could just scan every patch of space, constantly, forever, and see the stealthy thing", without considering that anybody that cares can scan every patch of sky, constantly, forever, with passive IR and various forms of RADAR, and yet "stealth" was probably the most important conventional military development of the last century. It turns out scanning every patch of sky, constantly, forever, from multiple angles and with various types of detection equipment, is extremely difficult and costly and nobody can do it.
    But in space, obviously, everybody will be doing it.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      yeah because in space you can see in every direction with no atmosphere in the way. Imagine a huge ball with cameras covering every angle taking 100mp photos per camera every second and running all those frames trough an ai, powered by a nuclear reactor. There will still be funny tricks like moving at certain times and pointing some sort of passively cooled surface at certain detectors but in general you can't hide in space if you're in a detectors range. You sure as shit will not be able to approach Earth without being seen.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous
    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Radar is active, IR sensing is passive. It is way easier and quicker to scan an entire area with passive IR sensors then it is to scan it with active radar. It also has the added benefit of not giving away your position, which is one of the reasons people don't constantly scan the sky with radar all the time.

      Additionally you don't need to be able to get the same resolution you would for atmospheric detection, because its really really hard to mistake a space ship for anything else. Do you see something small, hot, and actively moving that wasn't there the last time you checked? Then it's a fricking space ship and you track that shit. I don't need sensors accurate enough to pick out the exact shape of your ship from 10 million miles away, it's enough for me to know that *something* started throwing off heat in that direction that wasn't there before.

      Once I've got a rough location and heading, which can be done with much cheaper and wider range equipment, *then* I can turn my high power stuff on and start getting a good picture of exactly what kind of ship it is. You don't seem to understand the order of magnitude difference there is between how hard it is to track stuff in atmosphere and how hard it is to track stuff in space.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >It turns out scanning every patch of sky, constantly, forever, from multiple angles and with various types of detection equipment, is extremely difficult and costly and nobody can do it.
      Let's do some math here anon. A full spherical sky is about 41,000 square degrees. A good wide angle lens can cover about 100 square degrees so that's 410 pictures to get a complete view of the sky, you probably want some overlap between them so let's bump that up to a nice round 500 pics. Additionally let's say each photo requires a full 30 seconds of exposure in order to capture all the IR data you want.

      So that's 500 pictures at 30 seconds per capture, or 2 pictures per minute. 500/2 = 250 or a little over 4 hours to capture a complete view of the sky using ONE wide angle camera. Slap 10 cameras on a device and you can get a complete image of the entire sky in 25 minutes.

      Now my Samsung phone has a 200 megapixel camera, and I'd assume you'd want to use something better than a cell phone camera, so let's say your camera is 400 megapixels, twice as good. That's 500 photos * 400 megapixels per photo = 200,000, so once you've scanned the whole sky you've got a 200 gigapixel image to process.

      For reference if you've got a good gaming PC that can run 4K at 60fps it's processing about 500 megapixels a second, so it could churn through 200 gigapixels in about 400 seconds, roughly 6-7 minutes. Granted image rendering is not the same as image comparison, which is what our sensor will be doing, but with a decent PC you can probably scan the entire sky in like half an hour.

      Obviously you'd need multiple sensors if you wanted up to the minute data but the point I'm trying to make is that these are absolutely workable numbers, if you had the money you could built a network like this with off the shelf components. It is completely feasible to expect the military to be able to make something like this. And they'd have way wider range and lower power usage than radar detection.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Holy effort posting.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        And yet nobody does it because it turns out that actually doing it, and not just posting on PrepHole about how you could totally do it after you finish installing that ceiling fan you've been putting off, would be extremely difficult and expensive and pointless.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Nobody does it because no one is trying to really defend against space ships and passive IR sensors are of limited use in atmosphere. In the current paradigm yes it would be pointless, but if you're at the point where you are building space ships then building something like it, or just leveraging your existing telescopes in similar ways would absolutely be something people would invest in.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          it's incredibly obvious how desperate you are to win this little argument anon, you lost, you're a baka, you underestimated how little you know about space.
          have some humility and be graceful and grateful that you learned something, don't start throwing a temper tantrum.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >A good wide angle lens can cover about 100 square degrees
        Wide angle = poor resolution. A good starship is around 100 ft in diameter. 1200 miles away from you its angular size is 0.03 seconds of an angle. Unless it's blasting engines in your direction you will not see it.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          If it is blasting any remotely relevant amount of energy out of its engines, it will have a detectable drive plume several miles wide that will be clearly visible from halfway across the solar system by a shtity 80's-era wide-angle IR camera, no matter the direction it's blasting in, moron.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Actually, they don’t even need to constantly watch.
      Because you fundamentally cannot hide rocket launches. So as soon as your space plane gets up in space, and it becomes clear it’s not a regular old communications satellite, every competent intelligence agency is going to be keeping track of its movements.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes. Because get this, wide-area scanning for thermal anomalies in space is a TRIVIAL challenge with fricking 1980's technology, let alone anything from this century.

      >sky
      The mere presence of Earth's atmosphere increase the difficulty of this same task by roughly a couple hundred degrees of magnitude. Looking for thermal anomalies IN A VACUUM is fricking easy mode compared to doing the same inside an atmosphere, let alone one with an active weather system.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What even is the point of the X37. I once ate dinner with a 75 year old engineer who said he worked on things related to it and it was "super obvious if you think about it" as far as what it actually does. Is it just a spy satellite storage and dispersal unit?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >wow what if we could put things down and pick things up
      >in space
      basically

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Snooping on Chinese military comms satellites and leaving bugs on them

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If you can interact with your own satellites, what's stopping you from interacting with other nations' defenseless satellites? Sure, you might not do this outside of war or rare hush hush operations, but still a good tool to have.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Its literally just a test platform thats it

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      i'll give you a hint as a spacegay:

      it's literally just a little bus with experiments on it that has to be a spaceplane because they want to bring the experiments back intact with as little g-forces on them as possible and have an easier recovery proces (something you can't do with a capsule as it's gonna garuantee some decent G-forces and either a splashdown dealing with salt water and ocean recovery or on land with a possible hard thunk if your final slowdown mechanism (either times explosives or airbags) don't work perfectly.
      it carries and tests sensors and electronics in space and takes them back right to a runway where they can be analyzed. it's not a fricking weapon, it doesn't drop fricking weapons, it's probably not even spying on the chinese (probably), you homies all need to calm down and understand that not everything being done sneaky is some metal gear solid superweapon.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I bet they grow fancy non-linear crystals in zero g for muh lasers.

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There's no point yet. The incredible effectiveness of Soviet ground-based air defense in Vietnam convinced the US to start dumping money into low observable programs (and cruise missiles) because the other options to achieve explosives on enemy targets were either losing a lot of bombers or putting in huge amounts of effort and time into degrading the air defense until the bombers could get there safely.
    No such problem exists in space. There's no need to sneak up on an enemy satellite because the enemy satellite can't do anything about the carefully programmed approach of your kinetic-kill vehicle approaching at 5 km/s. And there's no point in trying to make "stealthy" satellites because either their position (i.e. GPS, if you know what time it is you can precisely locate every satellite in the constellation) or their emissions, or both (satellite communications in geostationary) are critical to their purpose.
    The point of stealth is to improve the survivability of assets in an air defense environment in a war, not to sneakily infiltrate James Bond into Beijing in peacetime, because stealth doesn't actually make things invisible, it just makes them difficult to target under certain conditions (such as a sky filled with missiles, decoys, chaff, jamming, etc). When somebody figures out how to defend a satellite against a missile, the US is going to start working on a way to deliver the missile without activating the defenses. Until then, why bother.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      best post itt

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Make space plane a proper full on space battleship with a nuclear reactor and all that shit, has the most distant orbit possible with current tech
    >Enemy launches missiles at it
    >Lmao laser defense turrets, which are 100% effective in vacuum without that pesky atmosphere to sap power and that the missiles will have 0 way of radiating heat from
    >Lob a few tungsten rods at whoever dared scratch your fancy space plane with 0 chance of retaliation
    >Use space plane as permanent space station (that can still maneuver), slowly add onto it megazord style with more space planes until you have the world's first orbital military base
    >Be sure to jettison all human waste over the seething thirdies who claimed it would never work and was impossible, waste will unfortunately just burn up in atmosphere but it's the principle of the matter

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Every time you launch something at earth you have to slow down to reduce your perigee to suborbital and that takes logarithmically large amounts of fuel with the mass of the spacecraft
      Or just put the shit in a missile so the missile can deorbit itself

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Well yeah, I guess I should have specified that said tungsten rods would have small boosters to set themselves on the right trajectory. Much easier to just kick them out the door and let them align themselves than maneuvering the whole ship. Since you'd need such a small amount of thrust in a 0g environment to set your metal rod on course I'm not even sure if I'd consider it a true missile.
        Although it would probably need all the fancy nav gadgets sensors etc to actually hit the target directly since I assume even a tungsten rod at re-entry speeds can't just ignore things like wind completely so I guess yeah it'd be a missile.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why does every single thing devolve into a power fantasy with /k/tards?
      >talks about spaceships
      >NONONO IT HAS TO BE LIKE SUOER MEGA DEATH STAR AND U CAN ONLY MAKE TEEENY TINY SCRATCH ON IT HAAHAHAHAH I KILK U WHOLE PLANET FOR SCRATCH!!!! I AM GOD AND YOU ARE WORM!! MMMPPPFFFF UGGGHHNNN YEEEAHHHH! PUNISH HIM DADDY!!!!
      it literally impossible to discuss anything on /k/ without it immediately devolving to the most extreme and unhinged power fantasy possible for a human to have.
      it's not just common, its immediate, guaranteed and not a single thread can exist without it becoming that.
      >Why?
      I can only imagine that most of you are not actually interested in weapons at all, you are interested in power, weapons to you are just a means to that power. The idea of someone being interested in the principles, mechanics or operation of a weapon is seemingly alien to /k/, it's just a whole bunch of sniviling shitty little kids that gree up into vicious sniviling little people. I bet you got bullied as a kid and you used to lick the legs off spiders and trap small animals to torture, I am confident in the assertion that this describes most of /k/

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        pick the lega off spiders* thanks autocorrect good job.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Because it funi :DDD
        I was onbly bretending do be moronic :DDDD

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    maybe they were testing something else at the same time
    isn't this often the case with space flight? a lot of multitasking

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    space planes are naturally stealthy. it's why you've never seen a ufo.

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    stealth satellite/probe yes, but launch and reentry are inherently unstealthy. Do you have any idea how much light, heat and RF reentry plasma gives off? The mere thought is moronic

  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So just... hypothetically here
    What if you made a vessel entirely insulated so that it doesn't radiate IR
    Except for a specific "aimable" radiator to cool it?
    >space junker in orbit
    >need to cool down or crew/electronics/whatever will boil
    >radiate heat away from any prying eyes and into deepspace
    It should theoretically work, shouldn't it? Or am i missing some crucial detail here?
    I don't think ir radiation scatters off of itself...

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      it should be effective. But it will be difficult to know where all the detectors are

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >But it will be difficult to know where all the detectors are
        >there's no stealth in space... except when there is
        Classic no stealth in space argument.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          nothing I said was logically unsound. Yes there will be some stealth tricks. They will be very hard to do and probably not feasible in a lot of situations

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Except for a specific "aimable" radiator to cool it?
      Your "aimable" radiator is detected, because it causes a heat plume wider than your ship.

  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Would there be any point in making a stealth spaceplane?

    Goddamn aliens.

  24. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What the actual fauci is up with the unironically uneducated people in this thread

  25. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If you have something powered at all in space it is extremely hard to hide vs infrared.

    t."no stealth in space", see atomic rockets website et etc

    Maaaaybe if you had something actively cooling some sort of shield facing the Earth to average space temperature (but it would have to be active cooling, can't be done passively) and then somehow radiating the heat directionally the other way. (some fancy way using laser cooling maybe)

    And ofc all that adds weight and power demands of it its own (with their own waste heat etc)

  26. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How do you plan on launching a massive space plane without anyone noticing?

  27. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >itt: people who watched some popsci youtuber babble about how space stealth is acschyually totally theoretically impossible (under certain specific conditions and 800 years in the future) demonstrate danning-kruger effect

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Networks of undetectable orbital sensors will easily detect any objects in space, thus rendering stealth in space impossible.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >he was still seething hours after the thread pretty much ended and had to get an ITT in to sate his ego after he lost the argument
      this is pretty sad, folks who see this in an archive, take pity on this spacelet.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *