From Aviation Week and Space Technology
U.S. intelligence agencies may have quietly mothballed a highly classified two-stage-to-orbit spaceplane system designed in the 1980s for reconnaissance, satellite-insertion and, possibly, weapons delivery. It could be a victim of shrinking federal budgets strained by war costs, or it may not have met performance or operational goals.

...

A large "mothership," closely resembling the U.S. Air Force's historic XB-70 supersonic bomber, carries the orbital component conformally under its fuselage, accelerating to supersonic speeds at high altitude before dropping the spaceplane. The orbiter's engines fire and boost the vehicle into space. If mission requirements dictate, the spaceplane can either reach low Earth orbit or remain suborbital.

The manned orbiter's primary military advantage would be surprise overflight. There would be no forewarning of its presence, prior to the first orbit, allowing ground targets to be imaged before they could be hidden. In contrast, satellite orbits are predictable enough that activities having intelligence value can be scheduled to avoid overflights.

After reading the entire article, consider if you will the following questions for debate:

1) Does this article constitute a significant leak, either in regards to our general security, or specifically in regards to the War on Terror?

2) Why would AW&ST, which has a pretty good track record in the past for accuracy, as well as friendly relations in general with our defense establishment, publish this story? maybe the editor is bucking for a job at the Grey Lady?

3) What, if any, implications does this have in regards to the escalating tensions with Iran?

4) Tabloid level dreck, or legitimate skunkworks black program?

Very interesting article!

1. I don't see how this is much, if any, of a leak. After all, such a concept is not unknown:



In addition to the fact the basic idea is not new, I don't think it's much of a leak to say that such a project probably existed, and that it may have been shelved. This isn't exactly hard information that could help any possible enemy.

2. Maybe I'm missing something; is there some way in which the article seems inaccurate? To me, it seems that the author has bent over backwards to point out what is factual, and what is speculative. I also don't see any sign that this article is anti-military in any way.

3. Not a whole lot, I think. At the most, if this system is operational, it could add some evidence to what is going on in Iran. (You also have to assume that Iran is hiding something, but only when "ordinary" spy satellites are overhead. This doesn't seem very likely.)

4. I'm not sure I understand this question. Are you asking if this article is worthless? I'd say it seems like a very well-researched and written article. Are you asking if this project is worthless? It seems like it could be quite useful for a number of uses (including peaceful, civilian uses.) However, it would have to be reliable and worth the cost, and we don't have enough information to judge that.

1
No. This is merely reporting that this program may have existed and is now apparently dead. If the program is dead no doubt there is another program replacing it and AW&ST is not “outing” an ongoing secret program as was done recently with the wire taps.


IMO the government must believe that ther is little reason for continued secrecy and AW&ST knows this.


3
Little if any. They surely suspect that we can look down on them at anytime with either satellites or aircraft like the U2. Thus they like Iraq and others keep most of what they do hidden underground.




AW&ST is a respected magazine. I have read it for years and they never engage in tabloid type speculation.