Image Compositing Used to Fake Apollo Photos

[Duane Daman]

I just want to make sure we all know what we are talking about here. In this thread, the following was said:

I didn't misunderstand what you wrote.. Nor was I making a cheap slur.. You quoted President Obama about the merging of NASA with the DoD, so naturally I assumed you agreed with him.

As for him lying, I doubt it .. More like he's been misinformed by the powers that be in NASA / DoD, which, as I stated before, are joined at the hip, and always have been.

Maybe I need to send you the documents, proving that most of NASA's "civilian" space missions were performed to place DoD spy sattelites into low earth orbit.

http://en.wikipedia....orbital_flights

Last dedicated Space Shuttle mission with a partially or wholly classified DoD mission payload was in .... 1992.

Some payloads since have been for the DoD, but as an afterthought, not specifically missioned for. When there's been room after all the Science missions, and ISS materials have been loaded.

DoD/Military have turned to unmanned boosters to launch their recent payloads. Guess they didn't want to risk another loss like Challenger in 1989, eh?

I seriously doubt NASA and DoD are as close now as they were for the years of the "Cold War". Hell, NASA have to compete for contracts these days with other nations' space-programs.

I have the DoD/NASA documents that prove otherwise.

Like I said before, many of NASA's recent missions were done to place DoD spy satellites into low earth orbit.

Just to remind everyone about the claim.

Right... Here is part a DoD document from that same page on NASA.gov under the search engine DOD-119.

NASA Administrator on February 14.

NASA Asked To Review Its Program. During the 3y2 weeks between

Glennan leaving NASA and Webb being sworn in, NASA was under the direction

of Dr. Hugh L. Dryden whose resignation had not been accepted by President

Kennedy, and who, therefore, stayed on as Deputy Administrator. Dryden then

served as Acting Administrator during this interim period. At a House Astronautics

Committee hearing, Representative Fulton asked Dryden if he had received

any instructions from the White House while he was Acting Administrator "to

speed up anything." Dryden replied that he had not. He added, however, that

the new Administrator had received a letter from the White House asking Webb

"to review all the programs of the agency and to make his recommendations." :'

The results of this review are discussed later in this chapter.

DOD Reorganizes Its Space Program. On March 6, 1961, President Kennedy's

new Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, issued a directive designed

to improve DOD's space program by "better organization and dearer assignment

of responsibility." :5 The directive assigned responsibility for all "research,

development, test and engineering of Department of Defense space development

projects" to the Air Force. A "DOD space development project" was one that

had been approved by the Secretary or Deputy Secretary of Defense. All DOD

agencies could conduct "preliminary" research and draw up proposals for R&D

programs and projects. These proposals would then be reviewed by the Director

of Defense Research and Engineering. Only after formal approval at the top

would they be turned over to the Air Force. The directive dealt only with

8, U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Science and Attronautict, Discussion o/U.S. Satellite

TTacking System, Hearings, Feb. 15, 1961, 87th Cong., 1st seu. (Washington: GPO, 1961 ), p. 9.

m Department of Defense Directive No. 5106.32, Mar. 6, 1961. Subject: Development of

Space Systems.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4101.pdf

Though I don't have access to clasified DoD/NASA documents, I have provided the proof that these agencies have been working together since the creation of NASA.. In other words, I have proven that NASA is not a "civilian" space agency.

As for the DoD spy satellites in low earth orbit, do you have any evidence that they got there by any other means than NASA launches?

If so, I would like to see it.

[Evan Burton]

So the claim is "...that most of NASA's "civilian" space missions were performed to place DoD spy sattelites into low earth orbit...". Let's examine what Duane has supplied us and see if it supports the claim.

So what the first piece of evidence?

"The observations will occur when the Space Shuttle fires its engines at night or twilight. A telescope and all-sky imagers will take images and data while the Space Shuttle flies over the Maui site. The images will be analyzed to better understand the interaction between the spacecraft plume and the upper atmosphere of Earth."

So, no, it doesn't support the claim. It is an experiement to watch what happens when the rocket engine flame interacts with the atmosphere. Yes, the DoD is involved. So what? No mention of spy satellites.

Next evidence?

Well, there was the XB-70. That was a Mach 3 bomber developed for the USAF. It was cancelled after two prototypes, as the role of the manned bomber had changed. The aircraft were turned over to NASA for high speed flight testing, mainly in support of the National Supersonic Transport Aircraft, the SST. Nothing to do with spy satellites and space missions.

I see the origins of the X-20 Dyna Soar, which was a military spaceplane. It never got beyond the mockup stage, though. It was also a purely military project, with "U.S. Air Force" on the craft, piloted by USAF crews and launched by USAF Titan boosters. NASA was involved because they were the experts in atmospheric re-entry. They were studying lifting bodies. No spy satellites, no NASA missions though.

What else?

"Department of Defense placed Navy's SPASUR (Space Surveillance Detection Net) and the Air Force's SPACETRACK (National Space Surveillance Control Center) under the North American Air Defense Command for military functions. NASA would assume SPACETRACK's function of passing on information on space vehicles to the world's scientific community. "

Okay, so it shows that space tracking functions were combined under NORAD, and that NASA would be involved so as be the source for information on non-classified spacecraft. Seems pretty sensible, but still nothing about NASA manned missions being secret DoD flights.

And so it goes on. No big deal, nothing really to support what Duane has claimed.

Now lets deal with facts.

People tend to forget about the first A in NASA, and where NASA came from. That first A stands for AERONAUTICS, and NASA was born of the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics or NACA. NASA has is and has always been a centre of excellence for aeronautical research, advising both the military and civilian groups of advances in aerospace science. You know that digital flight computer in the passenger jet you flew on? Guess who developed it? yep - NASA (and it was developed from a modified Apollo guidance computer). You know the sleek wing on that airliner - guess who developed it? Yep - NASA developed the supercritical wing. Know those fuel saving but funny looking upturned wingtips on big jets? Guess who developed them? Right - NASA.

NASA has been on the leading edge of aeronautical development for decades, and so naturally they will be working closely with the military regarding the latest developments.

Next, let's look at the Shuttle. This is where there is a small amount of creedence to what Duane has said. NASA could not fund the shuttle programme on its own, and sought funding fro the US military. They weren't really interested but the USAF eventually agreed to provide the funds as long as specific changes where made to the shuttle. These were a change in the size of the cargo bay, and cross-range performance of the shuttle during the re-entry / landing phase. The cargo bay requirement was to allow for classified military payloads (satellites).

So here we have an example of where NASA did co-operate with the DoD for military purposes, but they also announce when the payload is classified. Still, have the majority of manned space flights been for DoD purposes? NO! In fact, from Mercury to Apollo, there was only one Apollo flight that had any military military objectives. That was Apollo 16 and the CHAPEL BELL experiment. This seemed to involve the tracking of spacecraft, though no-one has any definitive proof of what the experiment actually involved.

Have a read of this article.

[Duane Daman]

This article contradicts your claims of NASA not being involved in the launching of military spy satellites.

'Shocking Menace of Satellite Surveillance'

"Unknown to most of the world, satellites can perform astonishing and often menacing feats.

This should come as no surprise when one reflects on the massive effort poured into satellite technology since the Soviet satellite Sputnik, launched in 1957, caused panic in the U.S.

A spy satellite can monitor a persons every movement, even when the target is indoors or deep in the interior of a building or traveling rapidly down the highway in a car, in any kind of weather (cloudy, rainy, stormy).

There is no place to hide on the face of the earth. It takes just three satellites to blanket the world with detection capacity. Besides tracking a persons every action and relaying the data to a computer screen on earth, amazing powers of satellites include reading a persons mind, monitoring conversations, manipulating electronic instruments and physically assaulting someone with a laser beam.

Remote reading of someones mind through satellite technology is quite bizarre, yet it is being done; it is a reality at present, not a chimera from a futuristic dystopia!

To those who might disbelieve my description of satellite surveillance, Id simply cite a tried-and-true Roman proverb: Time reveals all things (tempus omnia revelat).

As extraordinary as clandestine satellite powers are, nevertheless prosaic satellite technology is much evident in daily life. Satellite businesses reportedly earned $26 billion in 1998. We can watch transcontinental television broadcasts via satellite, make long-distance phone calls relayed by satellite, be informed of cloud cover and weather conditions through satellite images shown on television, and find our geographical bearings with the aid of satellites in the GPS (Global Positioning System).

But behind the facade of useful satellite technology is a Pandoras box of surreptitious technology. Spy satellites - as opposed to satellites for broadcasting and exploration of space - have little or no civilian use - except, perhaps, to subject ones enemy or favorite malefactor to surveillance.

With reference to detecting things from space, Ford Rowan, author of Techno Spies, wrote,

Some U.S. military satellites are equipped with infra-red sensors that can pick up the heat generated on earth by trucks, airplanes, missiles, and cars, so that even on cloudy days the sensors can penetrate beneath the clouds and reproduce the patterns of heat emission on a TV-type screen. During the Vietnam War sky high infrared sensors were tested which detect individual enemy soldiers walking around on the ground.

Using this reference, we can establish 1970 as the approximate date of the beginning of satellite surveillance - and the end of the possibility of privacy for several people.

The government agency most heavily involved in satellite surveillance technology is the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), an arm of the Pentagon. NASA is concerned with civilian satellites, but there is no hard and fast line between civilian and military satellites.

NASA launches all satellites, from either Cape Kennedy in Florida or Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, whether they are military-operated, CIA-operated, corporate-operated or NASAs own. Blasting satellites into orbit is a major expense. It is also difficult to make a quick distinction between government and private satellites; research by NASA is often applicable to all types of satellites.

Neither the ARPA nor NASA makes satellites; instead, they underwrite the technology while various corporations produce the hardware."

cont.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_satellitesurveillance.htm

Edited September 19, 2010 by Duane Daman

[Evan Burton]

Right... Here is part a DoD document from that same page on NASA.gov under the search engine DOD-119.

NASA Administrator on February 14.

NASA Asked To Review Its Program. During the 3y2 weeks between

Glennan leaving NASA and Webb being sworn in, NASA was under the direction

of Dr. Hugh L. Dryden whose resignation had not been accepted by President

Kennedy, and who, therefore, stayed on as Deputy Administrator. Dryden then

served as Acting Administrator during this interim period. At a House Astronautics

Committee hearing, Representative Fulton asked Dryden if he had received

any instructions from the White House while he was Acting Administrator "to

speed up anything." Dryden replied that he had not. He added, however, that

the new Administrator had received a letter from the White House asking Webb

"to review all the programs of the agency and to make his recommendations." :'

The results of this review are discussed later in this chapter.

DOD Reorganizes Its Space Program. On March 6, 1961, President Kennedy's

new Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, issued a directive designed

to improve DOD's space program by "better organization and dearer assignment

of responsibility." :5 The directive assigned responsibility for all "research,

development, test and engineering of Department of Defense space development

projects" to the Air Force. A "DOD space development project" was one that

had been approved by the Secretary or Deputy Secretary of Defense. All DOD

agencies could conduct "preliminary" research and draw up proposals for R&D

programs and projects. These proposals would then be reviewed by the Director

of Defense Research and Engineering. Only after formal approval at the top

would they be turned over to the Air Force. The directive dealt only with

8, U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Science and Attronautict, Discussion o/U.S. Satellite

TTacking System, Hearings, Feb. 15, 1961, 87th Cong., 1st seu. (Washington: GPO, 1961 ), p. 9.

m Department of Defense Directive No. 5106.32, Mar. 6, 1961. Subject: Development of

Space Systems.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4101.pdf

Though I don't have access to clasified DoD/NASA documents, I have provided the proof that these agencies have been working together since the creation of NASA.. In other words, I have proven that NASA is not a "civilian" space agency.

As for the DoD spy satellites in low earth orbit, do you have any evidence that they got there by any other means than NASA launches?

If so, I would like to see it.

So? We have evidence that the DoD (probably read USAF) has an interest in a military space programme. That has been known for decades. try reading up on the X-20, the MOL, Gemini BLUE and others. Of course there was an interest. All the programmes were cancelled, for various good reasons.

Now, the spy satellites: do I have evidence? YES!

The first satellites DID get there via NASA, as part of the Discoverer programme. These were the first of the CORONA / KEYHOLE series. The majority of these, however, became a USAF / DoD programme and none of them were manned.

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Support_Program

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corona_%28satellite%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NRO_satellites

The best reference is a book called DEEP BLACK: THE SECRETS OF SPACE ESPIONAGE by William E. Burroughs (Bantam Press, 1988). I'll dig up my copy and post some section from it as soon as i can.

[Evan Burton]

Stop trying to shift the goal posts, Duane. Your claim was that the majority of NASA civilian missions were responsible for spy satellites. Some early unmanned missions - during the Cold War - involved spy satellites during the early 1960s. No-one denies this. Your claim involved the majority of launches, that NASA was doing lots of "black ops" for the DoD.

That's wrong.

[William Kelly]

Right... Here is part a DoD document from that same page on NASA.gov under the search engine DOD-119.

NASA Administrator on February 14.

NASA Asked To Review Its Program. During the 3y2 weeks between

Glennan leaving NASA and Webb being sworn in, NASA was under the direction

of Dr. Hugh L. Dryden whose resignation had not been accepted by President

Kennedy, and who, therefore, stayed on as Deputy Administrator. Dryden then

served as Acting Administrator during this interim period. At a House Astronautics

Committee hearing, Representative Fulton asked Dryden if he had received

any instructions from the White House while he was Acting Administrator "to

speed up anything." Dryden replied that he had not. He added, however, that

the new Administrator had received a letter from the White House asking Webb

"to review all the programs of the agency and to make his recommendations." :'

The results of this review are discussed later in this chapter.

DOD Reorganizes Its Space Program. On March 6, 1961, President Kennedy's

new Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, issued a directive designed

to improve DOD's space program by "better organization and dearer assignment

of responsibility." :5 The directive assigned responsibility for all "research,

development, test and engineering of Department of Defense space development

projects" to the Air Force. A "DOD space development project" was one that

had been approved by the Secretary or Deputy Secretary of Defense. All DOD

agencies could conduct "preliminary" research and draw up proposals for R&D

programs and projects. These proposals would then be reviewed by the Director

of Defense Research and Engineering. Only after formal approval at the top

would they be turned over to the Air Force. The directive dealt only with

8, U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Science and Attronautict, Discussion o/U.S. Satellite

TTacking System, Hearings, Feb. 15, 1961, 87th Cong., 1st seu. (Washington: GPO, 1961 ), p. 9.

m Department of Defense Directive No. 5106.32, Mar. 6, 1961. Subject: Development of

Space Systems.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4101.pdf

Though I don't have access to clasified DoD/NASA documents, I have provided the proof that these agencies have been working together since the creation of NASA.. In other words, I have proven that NASA is not a "civilian" space agency.

As for the DoD spy satellites in low earth orbit, do you have any evidence that they got there by any other means than NASA launches?

If so, I would like to see it.

So? We have evidence that the DoD (probably read USAF) has an interest in a military space programme. That has been known for decades. try reading up on the X-20, the MOL, Gemini BLUE and others. Of course there was an interest. All the programmes were cancelled, for various good reasons.

Now, the spy satellites: do I have evidence? YES!

The first satellites DID get there via NASA, as part of the Discoverer programme. These were the first of the CORONA / KEYHOLE series. The majority of these, however, became a USAF / DoD programme and none of them were manned.

References:

http://en.wikipedia....Support_Program

http://en.wikipedia....%28satellite%29

http://en.wikipedia...._NRO_satellites

The best reference is a book called DEEP BLACK: THE SECRETS OF SPACE ESPIONAGE by William E. Burroughs (Bantam Press, 1988). I'll dig up my copy and post some section from it as soon as i can.

Here's an interesting review of Deep Black and Burroughs' perspective of these things.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/deep-black--by-william-e--burrows-7281

Also note the role of Dr. Alverez,in the program, and his study and analysis of the Zapruder film.

There is also interest in the role of Kodak in the Corona (it's a codeword not an ACRONYM) project, how SAC Globemasters picked up the film as it desended in parachutes over the Pacific and flew it by jet to Rochester, New York, where it was processed at the Hawkeyeworks before being reviewed by the photo interpreters at NPIC, first at Steuarts Garage and then (Jan. 1, 1963) at the Navy Yard.

When they built the latest headquarters for the NRO they used the cover of - pretended it was going to be the new HQ for Collins Radio, the same cover they used for the CIA Maritime Raider Mothership Rex in 1963.

In one of the last issues of George Magazine, before JFKJr died, David Wise wrote an article about the NRO and tried to find out what happened to something like $60 billion that it couldn't account for.

The photos are neat though.

BK

[Duane Daman]

We're not playing football here, so I haven't moved any "goal posts".. If I claimed the majority of NASA's missions were to launch spy satellites, then that was wrong, but what's not wrong is that all satellites are launched by NASA, including the military ones.

You can pretend that NASA is a civilian space agency all you want, but they have been launching military payloads ever since their inception and have been (and still are) joined at the hip with the DoD, as I proved with that long list of DoD agreements.

They are also now launching satellites that are designed to track ballistic missiles for the US Missle Defence Agency.. So obviously my claim of NASA launching black ops projects can't be proven, as I'm not privy to classified information, but I have proven that NASA is NOT a civilian space agency and is working for the DoD and US military.

'U.S. Launches Two Experimental Missile Defense Satellites'

Global Research, September 26, 2009

SPACE.com - 2009-09-25

A NASA-managed rocket launched two experimental satellites designed to track ballistic missiles Friday in a test flight for the United States Missile Defense Agency.

The Delta 2 rocket blasted off at 8:20 a.m. EDT (1220 GMT) from the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida carrying two Space Tracking Surveillance System (STSS) satellites on a technology demonstration mission. They reached orbit just under an hour later.

"With confirmation of the payload's delivery into the correct orbit, the launch is a success," said Omar Baez, launch director for NASA's Launch Services Program headquartered at Kennedy Space Center, in a statement. The launch was delayed by two days due to weather and technical glitches.

The two STSS demonstration satellites form part of the Missile Defense Agency's layered Ballistic Mission Defense System. They are designed to demonstrate the ability of tracking ballistic missiles in every stage of flight, something U.S. space-based assets cannot currently do.

....

The satellites were originally built by Northrop Grumman for an earlier flight demonstration program that was scrapped in 1999. The project was revived in 2002 when the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) awarded Northrop Grumman an $868 million contract to ready the satellites for launch. To date, $1.5 billion have been spent on the project.

"Even though the hardware was built in the 1990s, when the two STSS demonstrators are on orbit, they will bring a unique capability to the MDA," Gabe Watson, Northrop Grumman's STSS program manager, told SPACE.com in June. "We can track missiles in every stage of flight, from launch to intercept, and do hit assessment as well. If the MDA wants to intercept missiles in the ascent phase, they will need additional data that [current missile warning satellites] don't provide."

The STSS satellites follow NASA's launch of another missile defense satellite - the STSS Advanced Technology Risk Reduction spacecraft - in early May. They weigh about 5,000 pounds (2,267 kg) and are equipped with a staring sensor similar to those used on other Air Force defense satellites. But they also carry a multi-band infrared sensor to track missiles.

At least two tests of the STSS system are planned using dedicated missile launches to check the satellites' performance. They may also play a role in two other tests with other defense systems such as the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system, STSS program officials have said.

The new STSS satellites are expected to undergo a three-month checkout phase by Northrop Grumman, which will operate them from the Schriever Air Force Base in Colorado. A six-month test period is expected to follow.

Congress has not yet approved any funding for an operational version of the missile defense satellites, though military officials may pursue funds to begin that work in 2011 if the STSS demonstration satellites prove to be effective.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15395

Edited September 19, 2010 by Duane Daman

[Evan Burton]

We're not playing football here, so I haven't moved any "goal posts".. If I claimed the majority of NASA's missions were to launch spy satellites, then that was wrong, but what's not wrong is that all satellites are launched by NASA, including the military ones.

Well, I'm impressed. You admitted you were wrong, because that is indeed what you claimed... but then you claim that "...all satellites are launched by NASA, including the military ones...".How wrong can you get?

For a start - and yes I am being pedantic - have you never heard of Ariane? Of course you are refering to US satellite launches.

Now, before we start - what sources are you going to consider acceptable? Ther are numerous sources which will show you are wrong but I suspect there will be a cry that the source is not acceptable.

[Steve Knight]

Duane,

I just did a little reading on some few of those, and nothing stands out to me as being proof of a conspiracy of silence between NASA and the US DoD. They've always informed the public that they work together sometimes, and as you said, those are actually on the NASA website. One is a creator of new technologies, and the other is a consumer of new technologies. Seems a marriage made in heaven for them to me. Then there's the fact that NASA drew pretty extensively from Air Farce...Force personnel for the early manned missions into space - test pilots mostly. Again, never hidden, and even actively promoted into public domain. They were working together, ostensibly, for the betterment of the United States. That's still not proof of NASA being a military-run organisation.

So....where's the collusion, secrecy and conspiracy? Sure, NASA/DoD don't always release specific information on what a certain payload is/was, but they've never hidden the fact they perform orbital insertions for the military. As I said previously.

Now, both receive their funding from the US Government, but unless there's been a coup I haven't heard about, that's a civilian government. So does that make the DoD a civilian organisation?

Some early Military programs put purely scientific payloads into orbit. Again, what does this mean?

So, where can the US Military go if they want to maintain at least a little secrecy of what they're putting into orbit? ESA? Japan? Russia?

Does NASA perform this for free?

Does any civilian space program around the world put satellites into orbit for their military for free?

You're going to need to provide something much more substantial than publicly available service provider agreements.

[John Dolva]

Just a sidestep purely out of personal interest. I note the Post Office had a test. Philosophically this is interesting. When one looks at the evolution of methods of PO mail transmission one often finds it right at the front sometimes preceding frontiers and along the way use its powers to designate the portals they use, whether they be by pony express, track, road, rail, canal..., as ''postal routes'' that they then have a ''command'' over. Any comments welcome here or elsehwere. Prob elsewhere.

Better elsewhere.

However it can be seen as a married at the hip situation as it inevitably involves data transmission. Of particualar interest to me is the current evolution of the postal services. There are moves to standardise individual countries carriers as global concerns.

edit typos etc

Edited September 19, 2010 by John Dolva

[Duane Daman]

Yes Evan, I'm aware of Ariane .. I did some research on it last night and found out that not all launches belong to NASA.

But aside from that, I'm not sure why all of you are being so protective over NASA.. If you don't understand their involvement in US military, DoD, black projects, then you obviously don't know, or maybe don't care to know, what is really taking place in space today.

NASA has been heavily involved with the US Air Force, the Office of Naval Intelligence and the Department of Defence since their creation .. NASA has never been and never will be a "civilian" space agency.

Here is even more proof of that fact.

'Unknown Budget, Unknown Purpose: U.S. Air Force Plans to Launch X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle'

"After a decade of development, the Air Force this month plans to launch a robotic spacecraft resembling a small space shuttle to conduct technology tests in orbit and then glide home to a California runway.

The ultimate purpose of the X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle and details about the craft, which has been passed between several government agencies, however, remain a mystery as it is prepared for launch April 19 from Cape Canaveral, Fla.

As long as youre confused youre in good shape, said defense analyst John Pike, director of Globalsecurity.org. I looked into this a couple of years ago the entire sort of hypersonic, suborbital, scramjet nest of programs of which there are upwards of a dozen. The more I studied it the less I understood it.

The quietly scheduled launch culminates the projects long and expensive journey from NASA to the Pentagons research and development arm and then to a secretive Air Force unit.

Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on the X-37 program, but the current total has not been released.

The launch date, landing sites and a fact sheet were released by Air Force spokeswoman Maj. Angie I. Blair. She said more information would be released soon, but questions on cost and other matters submitted by e-mail werent answered by Friday.

While the massive space shuttles have been likened to cargo-hauling trucks, the X-37B is more like a sports car, with the equivalent trunk capacity.

Built by Boeing Co.s Phantom Works, the 11,000-pound craft is 9 1/2 feet tall and just over 29 feet long, with a wingspan of less than 15 feet. It has two angled tail fins rather than a single vertical stabilizer.

Unlike the shuttle, it will be launched like a satellite, housed in a fairing atop an expendable Atlas V rocket, and deploy solar panels to provide electrical power in orbit.

The Air Force released only a general description of the mission objectives: testing of guidance, navigation, control, thermal protection and autonomous operation in orbit, re-entry and landing.

The missions length was not released but the Air Force said the X-37B can stay in orbit for 270 days. The primary landing site will be northwest of Los Angeles at coastal Vandenberg Air Force Base.

The significance of the X-37B is unclear because the program has been around for so long, said Peter A. Wilson, a senior defense research analyst for the RAND Corp. who several years ago served as executive director of a congressional panel that evaluated national security space launch requirements.

From my perspective its a little puzzling as to whether this is the beginning of a program or the end of one, Wilson said Friday in a telephone interview from Washington, D.C.

As NASA anticipated the end of the shuttle, the X-37B was viewed as a working prototype of the next-generation design of a fully reusable spacecraft, but the space agency lost interest and the Air Force picked it up, Wilson said.

Its viewed as a prototype of a vehicle that could carry small payloads into orbit, carry out a variety of military missions and then return to Earth, he said.

The Air Force statement said the X-37 program is being used to continue full-scale development and orbital testing of a long-duration, reusable space vehicle.

Wilson sees the upcoming launch as a one-shot deal.

He acknowledged that he does not know if there is a classified portion of the program but said there is no evidence of a second vehicle being built to follow the prototype. In aerospace, a prototype typically remains a test vehicle used to prove and improve designs for successive operational vehicles.

To fully function as a completely reusable launch system there would also have to be development of a booster rocket that is capable of landing itself back on Earth to be reassembled with the spacecraft, according to Wilson, who does not see any support for such an initiative.

Wilson also said the usefulness of payloads such as small military satellites is in question, which would undercut the need for the launch system.

The X-37B is now under the direction of the Air Forces Rapid Capabilities Office. Its mission is to speed up development of combat-support systems and weapons systems.

Operating since 2003, the office has worked on several things, including upgrading the air defenses around the nations capital as an anti-terrorism measure and assessing threats to U.S. combat operations, according to an Air Force fact sheet.

NASA began the X-37 program in 1999 in a cooperative deal with Boeing to roughly split the $173 million cost of developing an experimental space plane. The Air Force put in a small share. The X-37, initially intended to be carried into space by shuttles in 2003, was a larger version of the Air Force X-40A, a concept for a Space Maneuver Vehicle to put small military satellites in orbit. The X-40A was dropped from a helicopter in glide and landing tests but was never capable of actual space flight.

In 2002, NASA awarded Boeing a $301 million contract to complete a version of the X-37 to be used in approach and landing tests and begin designing an orbital version that would fly in 2006.

But in 2004 NASA turned the project over to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Defense Departments research and development arm. In 2006, the X-37 was put through captive-carry and drop tests using Mojave-based Scaled Composite LLCs White Knight, the jet that launched SpaceShipOne on the first private suborbital manned space flights. The Air Force then began work on the X-37B, projecting it would fly in 2008. An Air Force News story at the time reported that the first one or two flights would check out the performance of the vehicle itself and then it would become a space test platform with unspecified components flown in its experiment bay."

http://cryptogon.com/?p=14626

Edited September 20, 2010 by Duane Daman

[Jack White]

Jim has been out of town several days because of a death in his family. Tomorrow he will begin reviewing the next batch of debate images.

Jack

[Duane Daman]

And here is more proof that NASA is more of a military agency than a civilian one.

Defense Contributions Help NASAs 50-Year Legacy

By Donna Miles

American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Sept. 29, 2008 As the National Aeronautics and Space Administration celebrates its 50th anniversary this week, the Defense Department also can take a bow for the key role it has played in lending technology and expertise to NASAs space exploration and research mission.

NASA began operations on Oct. 1, 1958, just a few days short of the one-year anniversary of the Soviet Unions successful Sputnik I launch. Concerned about the race for technological superiority in space, U.S. officials debated long and hard over whether the space program should be placed under military or civilian control, historical documents show.

Ultimately, NASA was established as a new civilian agency that borrowed heavily from the Defense Department and other government organizations as it built its own capabilities.

One doesnt have to look hard to see the deep connection between NASA and DoD, beginning with the astronaut program. In fact, President Dwight D. Eisenhower almost assured that connection when he decreed that all astronaut candidates be test pilots with college degrees. All seven original astronauts known as The Mercury 7 because they were chosen for Project Mercury, the nations first manned space flight program -- came from the military. Alan Shepard, Walter Schirra and Scott Carpenter were Navy aviators; Virgil Gus Grissom, Gordon Cooper and Donald Deke Slayton were Air Force pilots; and John Glenn flew in the Marine Corps.

The long list of military members who became firsts at NASA didnt stop there. Glenn, who flew 59 combat missions during World War II and another 63 during the Korean War before joining the Naval Air Test Center, made history at NASA as the first American to orbit Earth on Feb. 20, 1962.

Neil Armstrong, the first person to walk on the moon, got his initial flight training at Naval Air Station Pensacola, Fla., in 1949 and 1950, then went on to fly 78 missions over Korea during the Korean War. His words as he stepped from the Apollo 11 lunar module on July 20, 1969-- That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind -- are an indelible mark in NASAs history.

Armstrongs fellow Apollo 11 crewmembers had deep military roots, too. Edwin Buzz Aldrin, the second person to walk on the moon, graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., in 1951, before serving as an Air Force fighter pilot during the Korean War.

Michael Collins, who orbited the moon as Armstrong and Aldrin walked on its surface, also got his commission at West Point before joining the Air Force and receiving flight training at Columbus Air Force Base, Miss.

Thirty years later, Eileen Collins no relation to the Apollo 11 astronaut -- made NASA history in 1999 as the first woman to command a space shuttle aboard the Columbia. Collins, an Air Force colonel, graduated from Air Force undergraduate pilot training in 1979. She was attending Air Force Test Pilot School at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., when NASA selected her for its astronaut program.

Military members have participated in NASAs great triumphs as well as its deep tragedies, including the Challenger and Columbia space shuttle disasters.

Four servicemembers were among the seven Challenger crewmembers killed when a fuel tank exploded 73 seconds after launch on Jan. 28, 1986. Michael J. Smith, the pilot, was a Navy captain; Francis Richard Dick Scobee and Ellison Onizuka were Air Force lieutenant colonels; and Gregory Jarvis was an Air Force captain.

Again, five U.S. military officers, as well as an Israeli officer, died when Columbia disintegrated over Texas as it re-entered Earths atmosphere on Feb. 1, 2003. That incident killed Navy Cmdr. William C. McCool, the pilot; Air Force Col. Rick D. Husband; Air Force Lt. Col. Michael P. Anderson; Navy Capt. David M. Brown and Navy Capt. Laurel Clark. Israeli Air Force Col. Ilan Ramon and Kalpana Chawla, the only civilian on the mission, also died.

But the connection between the military and NASA goes far beyond the astronaut program.

From its inception, NASA looked to the Defense Department and other interagency, academic, industry and international partners to build its capability, Roger D. Launius, curator for the Smithsonian Institutions National Air and Space Museum, noted in an article written for NASAs 50th anniversary magazine.

The military had been looking to space and the development of rocket technology and expertise since the closing days of World War II, Air Force Space Command officials noted. NASA was anxious to tap into this expertise, and quickly absorbed several ongoing military efforts into its organization. These included the space science group of the Naval Research Laboratory in Maryland that would form the core of the new Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. NASA also incorporated the Jet Propulsion Laboratory managed for the Army by the California Institute of Technology, and the Army Ballistic Missile Agency in Huntsville, Ala., where Wernher von Bauns engineering team was developing large rockets.

Shortly after its formal organization, NASA took over management of space exploration projects from other federal agencies, including the Air Force.

These activities relied fully on the expertise and resources of the U.S. Air Force in seeing them to fruition, Launius wrote.

One of NASAs earliest borrowings from the military came in the form of launch vehicles originally developed to deliver nuclear weapons.

Most of the launchers used by NASA during its formative years originated as military ballistic missiles, Launius wrote. It was, and remains, the fundamental technology necessary for civil space exploration, and it came largely from the military.

Meanwhile, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency another organization Eisenhower created in response to the Sputnik launch has provided critical expertise that has benefitted NASA throughout its 50-year history.

The Defense Department stood up DARPA to find and quickly develop advanced technology for the military so the United States would never again suffer a technological surprise by another nation.

Initially, DARPA scientists and engineers concentrated on the first surveillance satellites that ensured U.S. presidents had accurate intelligence information on Russian missile program activities, historical records show. But DARPA advanced other space projects as well, developing the Saturn V rocket that ultimately enabled the United States to launch the Apollo missions to the moon.

As it observes its 50th anniversary, NASA can look back on its many accomplishments that have brought mankind a better understanding of the solar system and universe. As it advanced this research, NASA, like the military services and DARPA, has pushed the technological envelope in everything from weather forecasting to navigation to global communications.

Speaking last week at NASAs 50th anniversary gala, Neil Armstong looked back on the agencys history and its future.

The goal is far more than just going faster, higher and further, he said. Our goal, indeed our responsibility, is to develop new options for future generations -- options for expanding human knowledge, exploration, human settlement and resource development in the universe around us.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/news/2008/space-080929-afps01.htm

If anyone still believes NASA is a "civilian" agency, then DENIAL ain't just a river in Egypt.

Edited September 20, 2010 by Duane Daman

[John Dolva]

''...developing the Saturn V rocket that ultimately enabled the United States to launch the Apollo missions to the moon.'' - can this be taken as proof too?

[Duane Daman]

''...developing the Saturn V rocket that ultimately enabled the United States to launch the Apollo missions to the moon.'' - can this be taken as proof too?

It's a fact that the Saturn V rocket publicly launched ten Apollo missions.. so proof of that is not even necessary.

As to whether any of them really landed humans on the Moon or not, is a matter of opinion.