The J-58 was a nuclear engine

The Air Force's Advanced Development Objectives Have The Same Shape As The Development Of The U-2 and SR-71

The real date for this ADO must have been circa 1945. 

November 1960

The Air Force established Advanced Development Objective (ADO)120, superseding GOR 81 and GOR 172. The ADO stated that the objective was:

“A To develop a manned nuclear powered test aircraft with essentially unlimited endurance independent of in-flight refueling which will have the potential of adding a new dimension to the spectrum of manned flight. Due to the present state-of-the-art, the initial system will be limited to subsonic performance, however, the ultimate attainment of supersonic speeds on nuclear heat only is an objective of the program. The aircraft will be used to explore the feasibility and suitability of nuclear power for manned aircraft by studying (a) the performance and handling characteristics of nuclear aircraft, (b) the problems of carrying personnel and equipment for long flight durations, and (c) the problems of operations and maintenance.“B- To provide a manned nuclear powered aircraft which can be used to investigate the operational problems and the applications of manned nuclear powered aircraft to various military missions.”

The CORONA satellite was the CAMAL

An examination of the CAMAL program and CORONA program timelines shows that they were the same program. CORONA was not a "reconnaissance" program. It was a weapons system. The "overflight" program of the Eisenhower Administration was a psychological warfare campaign to let the Soviets know that they could be exterminated at any time.

What would happen if a nuclear powered rocket exploded over your head?

Where are America's Land Based ICBM Nuclear Missiles? Part One.

America's land based missiles are based on trains and semi tractor trailers that roam the American Interstate Highway System. The midget man missile measures 46 feet in length, 3ft.10 inches in diameter and weighs 30,000 pounds. This fits inside a 53 foot tractor trailer meaning that it could carry a midget man missile and be within 80,000 pound gross vehicle weight limitations. In terms of volume alone a semi-tractor trailer could easily carry six missiles. Weighing 180,000 pounds a six missile semi trailer would require a modified trailer. I suspect that four would be the limit. Semi trailers do exist that can carry this kind of weight have you ever seen a semi moving a Caterpillar earth mover on the highway? 

Does Walmart provide the cover for America's mobile ICBM force? 

Trailer Dimensions 

Midget Man Missile 

The Midget Man Missile 

The W-54 warhead is it thermonuclear? 

Shipping and Receiving at AREA-51 could be where the trucks are serviced.  

Logical Argument for the capabilities of a Semi-Tractor Based Midget Man Missile System
Assumptions
1. The American Ruling Class has broke the START Treaty.
2. America can build a miniaturized nuclear warhead in lines with weight of the W-54's 50 pounds.
3. The Midget Man's useful payload equals 5% of its gross weight or 1500 pounds.
If these assumptions are all the case then America has fielded a mobile missile that carries up to 30 nuclear warheads. And a modified tractor trailer could carry four Midget Man Missiles armed with 120 warheads.













https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-134_Midgetman

The U-2 was a Nuclear Powered Plane

This article is just a sketch.

When one looks at the timelines of the Congressional funding for the ANP program and the history of the U-2 program it is clear that the U-2 was a nuclear powered plane. The first U-2's were built by Convair and Lockheed. This is why the planes had the "CL" designation. These companies had a special relationship. It was not a reference to Kelly Johnson's initials "Clarence L." A declassified National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) document mentions this relationship. We know from the June 1957 issue of "Aeronautical Engineering Review" that Kelly Johnson was working on the design of nuclear powered air frames. The location of the U-2 program also is a give away. The U-2 was based out of Groom Lake aka AREA-51. AREA-51 is an area that was annexed to the Atomic Energy Commission's Nevada testing grounds. What better place to run the nuclear plane program? It is already being used as an atomic testing ground. Also if there is a crash of the plane it will most likely take place near the airport.

The U-2 flew above 100,000 ft according to the May 31, 1960 issue of "Aviation Week." How could this be the case? How could a plane cruise at that altitude just using chemical means? Unless the plane is carrying oxygen on board it would not be able to fly at that height and would have a limited range. A nuclear powered plane would not have this problem. The plane outlined in the 
REPORT ON REVIEW OF MANNED AIRCRAFT NUCLEAR PROPULSION PROGRAM ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE would be able to fly at that height because there is no need for oxygen. A nuclear powered plane could take off using only nuclear power carrying chemical fuel / reaction mass that would only be used when the atmosphere was too thin. The chemical fuel would be forced through the reactor propelling the plane forward.

The evidence all points to the U-2 being a nuclear powered plane.

CONVAIR LOCKHEED SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP 

Bibliography:
Cleveland, F.A., & Johnson, Clarence L., "Design of Air Frames for Nuclear Power", Aeronautical Engineering Review 16 (June 1957): 48.

REPORT ON REVIEW OF MANNED AIRCRAFT NUCLEAR PROPULSION PROGRAM ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

HANGAR-18 IS WHERE NUCLEAR POWERED TURBOJET, RAMJET AND ROCKET ENGINES HAVE THEIR REACTOR ELEMENTS REPROCESSED.

AREA-51 is the home base of America's Nuclear Aerospace Program. This program maintains a constellation of orbital stealth weapons platforms and extraterrestrial bases giving the American Ruling Class a preemptive first strike capability over any foe. 

HANGAR 18

The two photos you see above are respectively the infamous Hangar-18 and beneath it the flight engine test facility located in Idaho at the Test Area North known as the TAN 629 Hangar. The TAN hangar was part of the public Atomic Airplane program of the 1940's/50's known as NEPA/ANP. Studying these photos closely you will see that they have the same basic footprint. They are both large hangars with a building adjoining them on the right. We know from the history of the TAN 629 hangar that the building on the right was where the reactor cores utilized inside of jet engines would be dismantled and their fissile materials reprocessed. Hangar-18 we can see has had it's reprocessing facilities greatly expanded. Having roughly three times the footprint of the original reprocessing facility we know that there is a very large nuclear aerospace project being hosted at AREA-51. Hangar 18's roof differs because TAN 629's roof was leaky. So, the roof was redesigned. 

To be more specific the building next to Hangar-18 is an Engine Maintenance Assembly & Disassembly Facility or EMAD building. We know this because the footprint of the building adjoining Hangar-18 is the same as EMAD building that existed at AREA-25. The EMAD at AREA-25 was used by the American nuclear rocket program known as ROVER/NERVA. So, the EMAD is the hot shop where nuclear engines are serviced. The timeline of AREA-51 and AREA-25 also clues us in on what Hangar-18 is. Hangar 18 appeared sometime after 1974 and before 1988. 

This  satellite photo from 1974 shows that Hangar-18 had not yet been built. But, the runway had been built to the 23,000 foot length. A sign that an ASPEN SSTO space shuttle was operating from the base.    

1973 is when the NERVA program started building vapor core reactors aka the Nuclear Furnace. 1973 is also the year some major changes in the space program occurred. This is the year where the Space Shuttle program went into full effect. There were plans for the civilian version of the space shuttle to use nuclear rocket or NERVA engines. In parallel to that the NERVA program and the EMAD building of AREA-25 were shut down in 1973. The timeline suggests that the NERVA program was cancelled and then went black or top secret at AREA-51. We know this because the EMAD building at Jackass Flats was shut down and then Hangar-18 with its EMAD pops up within the proper timeframe.  

The dimensions of Hangar 18 also clues us in one what goes on there. And the dimensions suggest that it is used to mount a space shuttle on a Shuttle Carrier Aircraft. The reported height of hangar 18 approximates the shuttle mate-demate device. 

A shuttle carrier aircraft outfitted with nuclear turbo-ramjets and nuclear rocket engines could take the shuttle to a launch altitude of greater than 100,000-ft. The carrier plane would do this by flying to the middle of any ocean to launch the Shuttle. This is a necessary move to prevent detection of launch from the ground. Offshore launch sites mitigate this problem. There are vast swaths of the any ocean on earth where a carrier craft could launch a shuttle unseen. 

Rocket launches at night can be quite a spectacle from the ground. 

This launch was visible from the ground within a 1500 mile radius. 

No one would witness the launch of the shuttle. 

This shipping map shows that maybe a passing freighter might see the launch. 

If hydrogen propellant is used then exhaust plumes would be transparent possibly negating the need to launch in the middle of the ocean. This would make insertion to orbit for satellite tending much easier as well.

This video demonstrates the relative transparency of a nuclear rocket engine utilizing hydrogen reaction mass.

Once in orbit the shuttle would deploy a stealth skirt to obscure it from radar and optical detection. 

Why pursue a nuclear powered aerospace program?

Nuclear power is the most powerful form of energy known to man. One pound of uranium has same amount of energy as there are in over a million barrels of oil. A nuclear powered aerospace vehicle will outperform their chemical powered cousins in every way. They are both faster and able to carry more useful cargo. 

ECONOMICS
The use of nuclear thermal rockets (NTR) drops the price to put a pound of mass into space by orders of magnitude. The price to put a pound into orbit using NTR's is around 100 dollars. Current chemical fuel rockets put a pound into orbit for about 3000 dollars. The Space Shuttle did it for 10,000 dollars a pound. The U.S. Military used this technology to cheaply place their space based weapon systems into orbit. 

In what ways do nuclear powered aerospace vehicles outperform chemically powered vehicles?

Nuclear powered aerospace vehicles are more efficient, faster and can carry more cargo or bombs than chemically powered vehicles. The Project PLUTO 100 ft. long nuclear powered cruise missile could carry more than 50,000 pounds of nuclear bombs. This was more than the Navy's nuclear powered "boomer" submarines. The SR-71 coincidentally or not was 107 feet long and since the nuclear Blackbird did not have to carry fuel it could easily carry more than 50,000 pounds of bombs. 

Why would the government keep this secret?

Because the U.S. government has used this technology to dominate the earth. Nuclear powered aerospace craft are used to maintain and power a ring of orbital stealth weapons platforms. These platforms are used by the government to monitor and when necessary shoot down anything flying around the earth. These satellites were placed into orbit under the cover of reconnaissance. The Keyhole Satellites armed with lasers are part of this system. General Curtis Lemay said that our spy satellites would be armed with death beam lasers in the early 1960's. 

Stealth Skirts are used to hide satellites from ground sensors. 

NUCLEAR SPACE COMMAND

The reactors used in these craft also reveal that all of America's electrical energy could be generated with a handful of reactors. The deep state ruling class of America (the Oil Cartel), are covering up the fact that electricity can be produced for pennies i.e. for free in order to protect the profits of the big oil and coal companies. Roughly 6 nuclear reactors could power the whole of the United States. 

The U.S. ruling class also will leave the planet in case of nuclear war. They will go to Mars or the moon, living there while the vast majority of Americans and other earth dwellers die in the nuclear winter. During the build up to the second Gulf War an S-IVB (J002E3) from the Apollo program came and orbit the Earth then left after President Bush declared "Mission Accomplished." The world was much closer to nuclear war in 2002 than was generally known at the time. The media covered up this fact. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J002E3

There were plans to put nuclear engines in the upper stages of the Apollo rockets. J002E3 confirms that this did happen in secret. There is no other explanation for the behavior of this object. Apollo 12 was orbiting the Earth, so it was caught in our gravity well. It takes energy to leave that well. Where did that energy come from? This situation is similar to walking down a flight of stairs. In order go back to where you came from you need to walk back up the stairs. In other words you need to expend energy. Therefore it is a powered craft. 

This was the position of Earth to Mars the day of Apollo 12 leaves. 

For comparison purposes this is the position of Mars to Earth for the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter launch. 

There is a Mars Base. The base is probably at the pole and manufactures hydrogen rocket fuel from the ice. The fuel is then ferried back to Earth's L2 point where the stealth weapons platforms are tended. 

This is the reason why they changed the design of the roof for Hangar-18. 

Tan hangar building area equals 7,698 m² or  82860 sqft. 

Sources:
http://cdn.loc.gov/master/pnp/habshaer/id/id0200/id0269/data/id0269data.pdf

http://fas.org/irp/overhead/groom-interpret.htm


Hangar 18
The largest hangar on the base, Hangar 18 takes up approximately 51,366 square feet capable of  accommodating aircraft with a wingspan of 235 feet, and a length of 190 feet. The height of Hangar 18 is estimated to be eight stories. Reports claim this high bay building is used to mate a secret hypersonic aircraft to its launch vehicle. 
http://fas.org/irp/overhead/ikonos_040400_overview_04.htm

Shuttle Carrier Aircraft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_Carrier_Aircraft

General characteristics

• Crew: 4: pilot, co-pilot, 2 flight engineers (1 flight engineer when not carrying Shuttle)
• Length: 231 ft 4 in (70.5 m)
• Wingspan: 195 ft 8 in (59.7 m)
• Height: 63 ft 5 in (19.3 m)
• Wing area: 5,500 ft² (510 m²)
• Empty weight: 318,000 lb (144,200 kg)
• Max. takeoff weight: 710,000 lb (322,000 kg)
• Powerplant: 4 × P&W JT9D-7J turbofans, 50,000 lbf (222 kN) each

Performance

• Cruise speed: Mach 0.6 (with Shuttle) (397 knots, 457 mph, 735 km/h)
• Range: 1,150 mi (1,000 nmi, 1,850 km) while carrying Shuttle
• Service ceiling: 15,000 ft (4,500 m) (with Shuttle)

MDD Description

The facility consists of two 100-foot towers with stationary work platforms at the 20-, 40-, 60- and 80-foot levels on each tower and a horizontal structure mounted at the 80-foot level between the two towers. The horizontal unit cantilevers out 70 feet from the main tower units. It controlled and guided a large lift beam that attached to the orbiters to raise and lower them.

Three large hoists were then used simultaneously to raise and lower the lift beam. Two of the hoists are connected to the aft portion of the lift beam and one hoist is attached to the beam's forward section. Each of the three hoists has a 100,000-pound lift capability. Operating together, the total lifting capacity of the three units is 240,000 lbs (120 tons).

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-014-DFRC.html

The TAN Hangar was the same height as the MDD. 

Here are nine articles with sources supporting the contention that the U.S. Military has a nuclear aerospace program. 

1. Hanger 18
2. Buried Nuclear Waste on the base. 
3. Stored Liquid Nuclear Waste on the base 
4. Contractors Died from Radiation Poisoning in the late 80's and early 90's. 
5. The history of the Atomic Airplane. 
6. The call for a secret space launch capability. 
7. Parts of the Apollo program are still active and come to orbit the earth. 
8. Space based weapons that can destroy cities from space. 
9. Space based anti submarine warfare satellites. 

Offensive Laser Space Weapons

By the time of the 1980's America deployed strategic laser weapons in space capable of destroying cities. This article reiterates an article from January 1963's MECHANIX ILLUSTRATED entitled "THE MIRACLE LIGHT BEAM" by James H. Winchester. This article contained an interview with Curtis LeMay who was pressing for developing dual use gamma/x ray laser/spy-satellites that could be used to "terrorize whole areas." 

Los Angeles Times
January 12, 1986 - front page

'Star Wars' Lasers Held
Able to Incinerate Cities
Consequences of Resulting Massive Firestorms
Called as Disastrous as Those of 'Nuclear Winter'
    By Robert Scheer, Times Staff Writer

    LIVERMORE, Calif. — Laser weapons being developed as part of President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative could more easily be used to incinerate enemy cities than to protect the United States against Soviet missiles, according to an article in the current issue of a leading physics magazine and a separate study being circulated among government weapons scientists.
    Many advocates of the "Star Wars" defense systems hope lasers fired down from space stations or shot up from the Earth and reflected off space-based mirrors onto targets below may one day be part of a defensive shield against enemy missiles. But new analysis suggests that high-intensity laser light from such weapons could also be used offensively to unleash massive firestorms, possibly producing an environmental disaster similar to a "nuclear winter."

    Non-Nuclear Armageddon

    The study, which was produced by R&D Associates, an influential defense think tank based in Marina del Rey, cites data indicating that, "in a matter of hours, a laser defense system powerful enough to cope with the ballistic missile threat can also destroy the enemy's major cities by fire. The attack would proceed city by city, the attack time for each city being only a matter of minutes. Not nuclear destruction, but Armageddon all the same."
    Lasers "have the potential of initiating massive urban fires and even of destroying the enemy's major cities by fire in a matter of hours," according to the article by Caroline L. Herzenberg, a government physicist at the Argonne National Laboratory near Chicago.
    "Such mass fires might be expected to generate smoke in amounts comparable to the amounts generated in some major nuclear exchange scenarios," the article in the current issue of Physics and Society, a publication of the American Physical Society, warned. This could cause "a climatic catastrophe similar to 'nuclear winter,'" a reference to the disastrous lowering of the Earth's temperature many scientists believe would result from a nuclear war.
    The R&D study does not mention a "nuclear winter" but does stress that lasers are not intrinsically defensive weapons and can be used offensively to start massive fires.
    "The lasers can be employed in a manner not contemplated by the (Strategic Defense Initiative)," caution Albert L. Latter and Ernest A. Martinelli, who wrote the eight-page R&D Associates study and are highly regarded advocates of a stronger U.S. defense. "Specifically, they can be targeted against the same entities they were designed to protect: the cities.
    "After spending hundreds of billions of dollars, we would be back where we started from: deterrence by retaliation. Our cities would be hostage to lasers instead of nuclear weapons," the report said.
    President Reagan has offered ultimately to share "Star Wars" technology with the Soviet Union. But the R&D Associates report suggests that such weapons in the hands of the Soviets might prove menacing: "A Soviet laser weapon system . . . powerful enough to defend against the U.S. ballistic missile threat can incinerate our cities without warning on a time scale of minutes-per-city; minutes to hours for the whole country. To deter such an attack, the U.S. could only threaten to retaliate."
    The authors suggested that laser weapons might also be used against Soviet conventional forces. "For those who have advocated limited nuclear options against the Soviet Union itself, limited laser options would produce less collateral damage and be just as effective otherwise," they wrote.
    The danger of laser-induced fires had not been much noticed by critics or proponents of the Strategic Defense Initiative until the appearance of the article and the R&D study. When asked to comment, a Strategic Defense Initiative spokeswoman stated on a non-attribution basis after checking with other officials that "lasers could start fires." But she added that "this is not a problem that we are addressing at this time. It is not the intention of (the Strategic Defense Initiative) to start fires. This is an anti-ballistic (missile) program."
    She denied also that lasers designed for defense could be used as offensive weapons. "They would have to be designed differently to cause fires," she said.
    However, in an interview Friday, Herzenberg, the author of the physics magazine article, responded that "all you need is to dump enough energy on something and, if it's flammable, it will go up. The free electron laser, the excimer laser, and the deuterium fluoride chemical laser (which are the subjects of current research) all can go through the atmosphere and cause fires."
    The free electron laser is being developed at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory here. However, lab spokesman Norris Smith said that "the lab will have no comment" on the matter.
    Theodore A. Postol, until recently adviser on nuclear weapons to the chief of naval operations and an expert on the implications of firestorms, said: "If you were attempting to set fires with an optical laser that was already sufficiently powerful to attack hardened ICBM boosters, there is no question that such a device could also be used to create mass fires of enormous scale and ferocity—mass urban fires potentially larger and more intense than those created by the great incendiary raids on Hamburg and Dresden in World War II."

Home