Last edited by JemR; 06-21-2012 at 02:32 AM.
186,232 miles per second. The speed of the light from all our flashlights.
While there are issues with getting the photons through the turbulent atmosphere, you could at least send a plane up to 30,000 feet to pick up the signal. There's certainly no need to send a vehicle up to space to get that data.
My comments about them tracking my computer were all tongue in cheek.
I read a post about the "Privacy" issues on the Web, just tying in two conspiracy threads.
I have some spare tin foil, we can both make matching hats if you wish. lol
You have a beautiful planet, by the way!
Originally Posted by TedTheLe:
you should have seen it 2 centuries ago!
Meanwhile, Ted's doing his part by living in grass huts and burning zero coal, oil, or wood...Just giving ya a hard time buddy!
nah, back then we made do with methane only, and we liked it that way!
Last edited by TedTheLed; 06-28-2012 at 10:41 AM.
originally cpf member #14 write me at gmail.
The last week or so there have been runs spraying for mosquitos along waterways in South Louisiana. A C-130-H isn't a secret plane but nearly everyone who sees the monster flying at treetop level from horizon to horizon is mystified by it.
Heck, when I first saw one making passes after Katrina I thought they were spraying Febreze...
I wonder if any of these X-37's have anything to do with DARPA's proposed Space Delivery Vehicle? Got a hot spot flaring up somewhere in the world? We'll have some marines there in about 2-hours. I read about it a while back, but I never heard if the idea got scrapped. BUT, I DID see a UFO on the base I work at. And no, I'm not crazy, cause my coworker saw it with me as well (or maybe we were hallucinating after being in MOPP-4 for 3 hours??? LOL!). It was PROBABLY an UAV, but, I didn't think we had any where I am at, and haven't seen one in my 7 years here. Plus, it was flying a little too close to the flight line.
It was a military project, with a lot of pie-in-the-sky sorts of applications, but the manned intercontinental bomber app seemed to me to be the most likely or desired. The development of ICBMs probably caused a loss of interest in the Dyna-Soar. Back in those days (late 50's), there was a big competition among the US military forces to be able to deliver nukes all around the world, as well as a lot of funding for these projects.
Anyway... the wiki page has an interesting paragraph that may address why the X-37 is built with wings:
"A drawing in Space/Aeronautics magazine from before the project's cancellation depicts the craft dipping down into the atmosphere, skimming the surface, to change its orbital inclination. It would then fire its rocket to resume orbit. This would be a unique ability for a spacecraft, for the laws of celestial mechanics mean it requires an enormous expenditure of energy for a rocket to change its orbital inclination once it has reached orbit. Hence the Dyna-Soar could have had a military capacity of being launched into one orbit and rendezvousing with a satellite, even if the target were to expend all its propellant in changing its orbit. Acceleration forces on the pilot, however, would be severe in such a maneuver."
I hadn't considered the convenience of using the atmosphere to move to a different orbital inclination! Getting rid of the pilot means that the acceleration forces are no longer such a big issue too. Very interesting stuff.
Last edited by Steve K; 06-29-2012 at 11:01 AM. Reason: I can't type worth a darn...
X37B team, thanks for the ion beam implanted, microgravity alloy key fob. It's wicked, awesome, baaaad!
Next, we race..
imagine the sound of that? two stealth fighters flew over me once, and it has been the loudest thing I have ever heard.
I was going to say photoshopped but I guess the shadows are ok...
I saw the auroras, two flying together flanked by jets...when they landed them at edwards, in 95 or 6 or there abouts..looked something like these, but were perfect isosceles triangles..
Last edited by TedTheLed; 10-12-2012 at 04:20 PM.
originally cpf member #14 write me at gmail.
It's Lockheed-Martin's photo; what really verifies it are the puddles of leaking fuel.
And there are a lot of triangular aircraft at Edwards, I'd wager that's where this pic was taken..
I'm surprised that thing in the OP picture can even glide with its tall, wide fuselage and tiny wings!
Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield.
This is what happens when you gave Kelly Johnson a slide rule, a really big black budget, and 60's technology . Easily the most sinister thing that's every flew. I remember listening to the news in the 70's as a kid and network anchors reporting sonic booms all along the east coast as SR-71s transitioned from suborbital speeds on their way to Eastern Europe over-flights. So many engineering miracles performed on this beast. Lots of control tower transcripts on the web as various SR-71's made their retirement flights very well known. Good stuff - wicked machine.
While on the subject of the SR-71, its maximum sustained speed is Mach 3.2, but the maximum speed is still classified (and rumored to be well in excess of Mach 5). I would imagine heating of the fuselage would be the biggest issue keeping the plane from maintaining >Mach 3.2, but it wouldn't prevent brief forays to Mach 4 or perhaps even Mach 5.
Somewhat related to this was Project Pluto. Although intended for cruise missiles, a nuclear-powered ramjet would probably have found its way into the SR-71 had Project Pluto succeeded. In fact, there were rumors that Project Pluto was merely a cover to develop nuclear-powered ramjets for the SR-71.
jtr-- Thanks for posting that. Years and years ago I had a great documentary on Project Pluto. I got rid of it a long time ago when I dumped my VHS tapes. I wanted to see it again a couple years ago but I couldn't remember the project's name.
IMO Project Pluto is one of the weirdest aviation stories of all time.
Last edited by moldyoldy; 10-18-2012 at 06:00 PM.
Last edited by moldyoldy; 10-18-2012 at 06:08 PM.
Last edited by moldyoldy; 10-18-2012 at 06:36 PM.
perhaps an fyi would help out CPF members as to some of the nuances of speeds at an altitude, especially when discussing fast aircraft such as the SR-71, Aurora, and beyond.
Using a Mach number to describe a flight speed is deceptive, and valid only for that aircraft at that altitude nominally as determined inside the aircraft. For most of the ground-based purposes, speeds are cited in a distance covered in a short period of time, such as 1.6 miles per sec (SR-71), or a named ground speed in conventional units which can be used for speed record purposes. Nevertheless, a Mach number is dependent on the altitude, temperature, density of the air, etc. Here are some links to help out the discovery process:
There is a calculator in the following link that is quite useful.
Flying supersonic at low level is a feat of power. The B-58 Hustler was designed to fly supersonic at low level (over Moscow) and was equipped with 4 after-burning engines. At higher altitudes, the B-58 Hustler at Mach 2 was a challenge to the fighters of it's time and set many records! The F4 Phantom could achieve Mach 2.2 and was considered a good example of if you mounted big enough engines on a rock, it would fly. The SR-71 is listed only as Mach 3+. Modern A-A missiles fly around Mach 5. The US Space Shuttle re-enters the atmosphere at about Mach 25 and comes out of the ionization layers at about Mach 23.
Flying supersonic at high altitude requires less power as compared with low level supersonic flight from an air-breathing engine. However, how that air-breathing engine is designed varies widely between nominally supersonic aircraft.
The SR71 uses turbo-ramjets with an inlet cone or spike that moves back in the housing with increasing speed. The MiG-21 has an inlet cone that moves forward with increasing speed. The MiG-25 Foxbat was supposed to be a competitor to the SR-71 and uses a totally different type of air intake. For the English speakers:
In all cases, the engine design controls the airflow in to the engine such that a supersonic shock wave does not reach (too far) into the air-breathing engine where the goal is to avoid supersonic flow inside the engine such as a scramjet. ie: The SR-71 engines are mounted farther out on the wings to avoid the shockwave from the nose. A more critical factor in the SR-71 is that the shock wave from the inlet spike nominally ends at the outer shroud and should not penetrate (too far) in to the engine. At max speeds, the inlet is fully back against the stop. Those shock waves vary with the various altitude related factors. Which means that a "max" speed at one altitude is not the same "max" speed at another altitude. Which is one of the reasons why the MiG-25 and the SR-71 traded off setting speed records....
Here is a link to the SR-71 manual opened to the engine page showing the air flow and shock waves. Notice that the bottom image stops at Mach 3.2 with a fully retracted inlet cone. That means a specific Mach number at flight altitude - leaving some wiggle room for the many rumors of how fast the SR-71 could fly
In my mind, the SR-71 is truly the last of it's kind, meaning very fast with air-breathing engines, no matter at low or very high altitudes. Beyond the SR-71 are other interesting aircraft with a ramjet/scramjet, or the rumoured Aurora with maybe a pulse-jet,..... At my former work, I had a full-screen photo of the SR-71 in flight on my home screen. The SR-71 was truly impressive in so many ways!
Last edited by moldyoldy; 10-19-2012 at 03:14 PM.
Interesting stuff. Thanks for the education.
My favorite part of the SR-71 - who can name this device?
Is that the rear view periscope, handle included? With the rear-view periscope the pilots could visually check on the engines, etc.
Last edited by StarHalo; 10-24-2012 at 06:58 PM.