Weird California sighting

originally posted by: TXRabbit
I saw on one of these threads somewhere a map-graphic which showed common refueling routes across the country and luckily, the space above DFW here is a very common one.

Q - would these test-flights use these common lanes for refueling (if they refuel mid-air) so chances of seeing one are higher?

This?


641A and 641B are the primary groom lake refueling tracks, but when were up there testing, usually dreamland will tell us where to circle at, most of the time right above the flight testing going on. Since were already in restricted airspace, no need for MARSA from air traffic control and no need to even coordinate with controllers.

Right now they are going over the pacific ocean to refuel. Probably to stay out of the publics view. we have military airspace out there as well.

a reply to: boomer135

From what I have heard they were running West on speed runs, sitting there after landing, and waiting until it was dark back here, so they could launch and land here at night.

All: I have been lurking around the Aircraft Projects forum for about a week and finally decided I probably have a few things to share, so I reactivated my account.

By way of introduction, my background is in nuclear/high energy physics—a field in which I worked for about 6 or 7 years--followed by about 35 years as a professional aerospace engineer based out of Moffett Field, CA. I guess I will comment about the Weird California sighting on this thread and on the Proteus events that have been seen in Utah over at the Wichita Sighting thread.

A couple of weeks ago SonofaSkunk asked what I think is the right question: “What type of fuel would produce a green flame?” I haven’t seen anyone answer, but I think the answer is Diborane.

Diborane is a very energetic fuel that has the advantage that its combustion products are very light and therefore move very fast. When combined with a good oxidizer it can produce a rocket motor with a specific impulse almost as good as Lox-Hydrogen. But, in the liquid form, Diborane is much denser than liquid Hydrogen, so the fuel tanks can be much, much smaller and lighter. This makes it a really good candidate in theory for a single stage to orbit vehicle. Also, it burns with a very distinctive green flame.

Back in the 50s the US had a covert program to use Diborane in aircraft propulsion. There is a book on this topic that is out of print but which has been described to me by a colleague titled something like “Green Glow”. I’ve been trying to find a copy to buy for quite some time. Since Diborane’s energy density is maybe 50% greater than hydrocarbon fuels, the idea was that it could extend the range of turbine powered aircraft by a similar amount. As I understand it, production plants were secretly built to produce Diborane in industrial quantities and some turbojet engines were modified to run on the stuff. Some aircraft (like the B-58 Hustler, as I recall) and some US and Canadian F-86s were modified to run on it. This supposedly allowed nuclear attack aircraft to reach Russia, unrefueled. The program ultimately ended because air-to-air refueling was accepted as a better technological solution and because some of the Diborane plants had a nasty habit of spontaneously blowing up for no good reason, leaving a massive, smoking hole in the ground.

Fast forward to the early to mid 2000s period. Aviation Leak and Waste Technology started publishing rumors about the “Blackstar” system based out of Groom. Supposedly Blackstar was a two-stage system in which the second stage (which went to orbit) was a Diborane fueled rocket stage. There were very specific descriptions of the orbital stage’s design, all of which made perfect sense to me as an aerospace engineer. One detail was that the Diborane fuel included a gelling agent in it to stabilize it and make it resistant to premature decomposition.

My conjecture would be that there is a system out there flying around using Diborane fuel for the transatmospheric portion of the flight.

a reply to: 1947boomer


Welcome aboard and thanks for that information. I'm sure we will be picking your brain now knowing of your background!

Turbine Engines for High Speed Flight by Hugh Henneberry and Arthur Zimmerman, make sure to check the date to understand where we're at.

a reply to: 1947boomer
Uh oh two boomers .. This is gonna end up in trouble :p don't have anything add to the subject other than I sit and read this thread everyday. Loving you aviation guys discuss all the juicy bits. As for 1974boomer thanks for joining us. If the info you provided about yourself is true (and I have no reason to not believe you) then you are gonna be a great asset. Welcome aboard !!

originally posted by: 1947boomer

A couple of weeks ago SonofaSkunk asked what I think is the right question: “What type of fuel would produce a green flame?” I haven’t seen anyone answer, but I think the answer is Diborane.

Not going to argue on that part.

Diborane is a very energetic fuel that has the advantage that its combustion products are very light and therefore move very fast. When combined with a good oxidizer it can produce a rocket motor with a specific impulse almost as good as Lox-Hydrogen. But, in the liquid form, Diborane is much denser than liquid Hydrogen, so the fuel tanks can be much, much smaller and lighter. This makes it a really good candidate in theory for a single stage to orbit vehicle. Also, it burns with a very distinctive green flame.

But.......
If you want to produce it, you are going to need a site that has the ability to instantly super cool the final stage end product or face an explosive mix.

Back in the 50s the US had a covert program to use Diborane in aircraft propulsion.

NACA archived material has an amazing amount of this research still available to view as it was never caught in the classification net.

One detail was that the Diborane fuel included a gelling agent in it to stabilize it and make it resistant to premature decomposition.

-80 degrees F or lower.

My conjecture would be that there is a system out there flying around using Diborane fuel for the transatmospheric portion of the flight.

Makes a terrific highly stable ramjet fuel.

a reply to: Astr0

Where might a facility of that nature be? I have an idea but not sure.

Astro. SPACE would be able to super cool that fuelinstantly woudnt it? Absolute zero in space in the shade correct?

a reply to: yuppa

It's cold in space but nowhere near absolute zero. Surfaces that reflect light can reach hundred of degrees while in the shade it can get to -100C.
Deep interstellar space can get close though.

www.eucass-proceedings.eu...

Boron gel fuel

www.samizdata.net...

www.islandone.org...

Burns a neat green colour

originally posted by: Astr0
www.eucass-proceedings.eu...

Boron gel fuel

www.samizdata.net...

www.islandone.org...

Burns a neat green colour

Astro. the last link was VERY interesting. especially the parts about the SHARP project near the bottom. I suspect the craft(the more normal looking one not the triangles) i s using said tech mentioned in that link.

a reply to: boomer135

Yes sir. That was it. Thanks Boomer

So diborane is the boron slurry fuel I've heard mentioned in the past. Specifically in the context of a cruise missle program from the 80s.
If I remember correctly diborane also has a very low combustion temp. compared to hydrocarbon fuels. In this particular project the engine had a high bypass flow that also helped to cool the exhaust further, so as to lower the ir signature.
That was another program that seemed to disappear while all was going good.

a reply to: 1947boomer

Welcome back! We need as many physics types as we can get

Eagerly awaiting your comments in the other thread...

originally posted by: punkinworks10

originally posted by: Tajlakz
a reply to: Zaphod58

The problem is, we don't know what causes inertia, at least officially. Mach's principle--mass out there causes inertia here-- is interesting but pretty vague. We know that inertial mass is equivalent to gravitational mass, for whatever reason.

We need the deep black physics handbook

Inertia is a property of mass, absent external forces a mass at rest will stay at rest , and a mass in motion will stay in motion, it's as simple as that and is adequately demonstrated by interplanetary space craft.

Right, but we don't know whether inertia is an inherent or relational property of mass...hence Mach's conjecture

a reply to: Tajlakz

This is turning into the sweetest ATS thread in a long time. I would like to take the time to welcome back 1947Boomer! Excellent post BTW.


I'm thinking the pretty green bird would probably like to land as soon as possible after sundown to maximize the time it has before its turn around. you know in case you live in southern California between the ocean and either Edwards or Groom.

Thinking she likes to visit exotic locals in the south for mid-day getaways. There are lots of resorts over there in the southern hemisphere that cater to classy ladies such as herself. Plenty to drink. enough to fill you up Lots of interesting sights to see. maybe an afternoon refresher.

But, of course she must eventually come home after a hard days work jet setting around the world. Get her beauty sleep. I'm thinking life in the fast lane makes for an early wake up and a hasty pre-dawn departure cause this lady can't get enough adventure these days.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Also can anyone give me a break down of the differences between a ramjet and a scramjet and how their uses differ? Trying to figure it out but my brain hurts good when I do.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

A ramjet has no moving parts. It relies on high speed air to operate. It slows the air to subsonic speeds, compresses it, and mixes it with fuel, which then detonates, and it operates as a jet engine. It has a good high speed (around Mach 6 or so), but it's most efficient at about Mach 3, or so, and requires a booster or something like a JATO assist to get up to speed where it will work efficiently.

A scramjet on the other hand, is a ramjet where the airflow is supersonic through the entire engine. A scramjet has a theoretical top speed window of between Mach 12 and 24. A scramjet has to be around Mach 4 to begin operating.

It's more technical than that, but that's the non-brain hurting explanation of the two.

a reply to: Zaphod58

So you could build an engine that does both theoretically? I have a hunch about something.