It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SR-71 getting a make over

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlesT

Take an obsession, turn it up to 12, add ice and shake.




posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: CharlesT

Take an obsession, turn it up to 12, add ice and shake.


No, no, no,
That's a martini



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

so it isnt the same thing?



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: humanoidlord

No. They're completely different.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 07:44 PM
link   
What a confusing article! Throw that on top of a brain that is already running in circles trying to keep up with what projects maybe flying and what tech went where and I'm thoroughly lost.

I guess the thing that is most confusing to me is, it seems that Blackswift and the Green Lady would have a significant amount of mission overlap but, some of the artist renderings that were posted in the Green Lady thread were planforms relating to QueSST and here they are showing up in a Blackswift article. The QueSST planforms makes sense to me as the Green Lady would have to go SS without making at much of a fuss. The caveat to that is that the Lady makes significant use of plasma to manipulate airflow (per trusted forum members suggestions) so as to avoid these booms. So then that begs the question, would she necessarily have a planform that looks like the QueSST offerings?

Now, I need to do more research, but does the Blackswift planform also have significant sonic boom inhibiting qualities? It seems that you would want that quality on the blackswift, but the blackswift renderings look nothing like the theorized Green Lady. Also, does it make significant use of plasma generation as well? Seems like I need to read more about these ADVENT engines.

I guess maybe I have some sort of time line error in regards to these two different projects developments? It seems to me that Blackswift would have had to have been around for awhile due to there being such a large gap between the sr-71 and Blackswift development. That doesn't make sense to me though as intelgurl was very adamant that Blackswift was going black around 2007. So was the Green lady flying prior to the Blackswift?

Or is this all a case of a project going grey vs. a project that is very deep black? Or is it just me being a complete noob and needing to do more research.

Clearly I need to be taking more notes on all these different platforms and cross-referencing them with all their pertinent research. Sadly, I can't justify the time that would take right now. Sorry if that rambled, the article's QueSST renderings reminded me of the Lady thread and scrambled my brain a bit. Apologies to the OP or the mods if this was way out of line.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Please remember, folks. Article is in the Daily Mail. This is a british tabloid. Its value is in the negative territory.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

haha that's a good point

2nd line



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacksonsman1

Think U-2 and SR-71 or RQ-4. Same mission, different ways to go about it.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 08:18 PM
link   
The one abstract about the SR 71 I read back in the 60's mentioned a windshield bug and an ultrasound technology.
My reading comprehension back then was limited and I've often wondered what that was all about.
The Hexcel composite corporation was founded in 1948 and ultrasound carbon fiber orientation technology was used at some later date in air frame construction.
That all must have been declassified by now?



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks for that. Couldn't get my mind around what seemed like a massive overlap in mission. This thing really is an onion. you think you've got one bit figured out and then you find another bit of information in the next layer that makes you go back and re-examine the bits you've already chopped up. Or, while digging deeper you start missing mundane details and start thinking too abstract. Really wish I had the time to dissect it all and piece together this massive list of bookmarks I have going haha.

Thanks again and Happy 4th!



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

always happy to be corrected, that's the source of knowledge.

It sounded like the the lockheed guy was alluding to something that is already flying.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacksonsman1

That's what makes it fun. You have no idea how many times I've watched a thread hit right on something, only to have someone come along and say "that can't be it", and the whole thread take off on some tangent that's nowhere even close.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: penroc3

They're probably flying some of the bits and pieces, and took others from other earlier projects. They probably used some of the ideas from the hypersonic programs they ran over the years. A couple of the instrumentation testbeds that hadn't flown much over the last few years are flying again too.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

does SSTO or TSTO count as aircraft or spacecraft?



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: penroc3

Hybrid and hard as hell. It takes a lot of fuel to get to orbit, even if you take off as an aircraft.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Haha I feel like I've seen it a couple times in one or more of the bigger threads, think it was witchita, where it felt like things were following a logical progression only to have it derailed by a member who wants the plane in question to be their personal favorite project and then the discussion will follow down that road and never really get back on track. A lot of supposition then follows. Not that I blame those members. Everyone has their favorite planes or hypothetical favorites ( I'd love to think something happened to the YF-23 for instance.)

Now to stop de-railing the flow of this thread... thanks again.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Woody510

They had two that were given to NASA when the Air Force retired them. NASA used them for high speed testing, including cold flow testing of LASRE.

Blackswift was a different program. This is probably an evolution of the earlier programs look the X-51.
edit on 7/4/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/4/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Saying that it's now 'mature technology' has me wondering what programs this is built off of. Has anything ever flown with a combined cycle engine before? They seem to be implying that yes, something has been using that & all works perfectly well now. But what?

Does the SR-72 utilize quiet boom or plasma? If so, what's flying with that in place currently? Again if it's 'mature technology' then that means you've got a fully working something out there now using it.

Wasn't the SR-72 supposed to carry hyper-sonic weapons? Are these in existence yet?

I just feel like they're strongly implying that these things are out there flying around working now but we don't seem to have any clue what they are. Not officially. Wonder if we'll ever get to see these test beds?



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: PhantomTwo

TBCC engines have been tested by NASA, the AFRL, and UTC. One of the hypersonic testbeds a few years ago was supposed to test them in flight.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

but I thought those testbeds all failed in one way or another?




top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join