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.

 

*Hunting the Fast Movers*... back to the past!

page: 8
28
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 01:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: penroc3
i think this forum should have the jackalope icon, were all seeing and hunting things that don't exist lol

Here you go, new forum pic:





posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 02:28 AM
link   
a reply to: penroc3

No, not JP7, nitromethane for sure. It might have been mentioned in one of the threads or i might have read it somewhere else. But for sure nitro, the main reason it caught my eye, is I build custom machined parts for top fuel harley drag bikes as side job.
In fact tonight i was working late mounting a VERY large flow fuel pump, like 65gpm on the bike.
In fact right after I read that, mentioned it to my customer and he thought it was being used because it is self oxygenating.
That conversation peaked my interest, so on a rare full day off, I went on a reading spree, and that is the problem, I am a speed reader, in a good sesh I can read dozens of articles, and sometimes I cant find my way back to any particular article.
I found references to some work from the 60-70's that used nitro/lox in some sort of rocketish type motor.

The oxygen content of nitromethane enables it to burn with much less atmospheric oxygen.

4 CH3NO2 + 3 O2 → 4 CO2 + 6 H2O + 2 N2
The amount of air required to burn 1 kg (2.2 lb) of gasoline is 14.7 kg (32 lb), but only 1.7 kg (3.7 lb) of air is required for 1 kg of nitromethane. Since an engine's cylinder can only contain a limited amount of air on each stroke, 8.7 times more nitromethane than gasoline can be burned in one stroke. Nitromethane, however, has a lower specific energy: gasoline provides about 42–44 MJ/kg, whereas nitromethane provides only 11.3 MJ/kg. This analysis indicates that nitromethane generates about 2.3 times the power of gasoline when combined with a given amount of oxygen.

I know that what i read referenced procurement docs, and I simply dont remember which " certain airbase" it was, but it might have WP.



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 02:39 AM
link   
That is so RAD,
As a pre-teen/teen, one of my best friends dads was a bonafide trophy hunter, as much as I am against that now, he actually had a modicum of "decency", he only took a trophy animal once.
Well he had a professionally mounted Jakalope, but his used a rack from an actual pronghorn antelope and big Fresno county black tailed jack rabbit.



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 02:55 AM
link   
a reply to: punkinworks10

Nitromethane was used by the air force to simulate nuclear detonations in soil. One such test was performed near a MX missile site near Luke AFB in the early 80s.
www.nytimes.com...



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 02:58 AM
link   
a reply to: punkinworks10

I keep seeing references to hydrazine being the propellant to initiate a nitromethane burn. Is this what you are referring to?



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 03:01 AM
link   
a reply to: punkinworks10

Well, we'll know we're onto something when in a few months, we start seeing USAF Jackalope mission patches..



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 03:04 AM
link   
a reply to: clay2 baraka

No, I dont remember a hydrazine connection, so you set it off with a hydrazine kickstart then.
Add the lox and off you go.



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 03:07 AM
link   
a reply to: punkinworks10




A small amount of hydrazine blended in nitromethane can increase the power output even further. With nitromethane, hydrazine forms an explosive salt that is again a monopropellant. This unstable mixture poses a severe safety hazard and is forbidden for use in the United States for model aircraft fuels, which has also banned tetranitromethane for similar reasons of volatility.



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 03:21 AM
link   


I can attest that the orange/yellow light can certainly move very fast.

Does that go with a green exhaust?



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 03:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger

No.



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 03:49 AM
link   
Oooooooooohhhh

Could the mystery blur be this?



SR-71C was a hybrid aircraft composed of the rear fuselage of the first YF-12A (S/N 60-6934) and the forward fuselage from an SR-71 static test unit. The YF-12 had been wrecked in a 1966 landing accident. This Blackbird was seemingly not quite straight and had a yaw at supersonic speeds.[111] It was nicknamed "The Bastard"

edit on 16-8-2017 by Blackfinger because: added



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger

its not from the fuel, per say.


a reply to: clay2 baraka

LOL love it gave you a star. he even looks mysterious, to bad they don't come in the black floppy ear variety, very stealthy i hear

a reply to: punkinworks10

ahh sorry for assuming. that's pretty interesting.

so it sounds like testing faux nukes, maybe for testing Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) explosions, to simulate a RRW detonation

fast jet or a cool car or bike.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 12:14 AM
link   
BASSPLYR:

A few days ago you asked about a "limited strike" vehicle characterized by " a small payload of only a few munitions and intended to strike a single target."

It took me a few days of back of the envelope calculations to work out the answer.

The key idea is that all hypersonic glide strike vehicles are essentially single target vehicles, whether they are piloted or robotic. That's due to several factors all acting together.

First, a hypersonic glider is still just a glider; once it's pointed in the direction of it's first target it lights off its rocket and burns all its fuel. After that, it begins its pull-up into the glide and at that point it's going as fast as it's going to go (I estimate around 3 km/sec). From that point on, it's all downhill in terms of speed and altitude and has no way to add any energy.

Assuming that the vehicle is about as aerodynamically efficient as we know how to make it, I estimate it would take about 20 to 25 minutes to glide about maybe 2500 miles to touch down (whether that be a controlled landing or an impact). In order to stay high enough and fast enough to defeat conventional defenses, you want to overfly the target no slower than about Mach 5. That gives you about maybe 6 or 7 minutes from the time you level off to get over your target and do whatever you're going to do. (Remember, you're flying faster over the first half of your ground track than you are over the second half.) as soon as you overfly your first target at Mach 5 your turn radius is so large that you can't turn around and go after a second target. Notice that with an air breathing vehicle cruising at Mach 5, this would not necessarily be true. Air breathing propulsion is a lot more efficient than rocket propulsion and can be exploited for greater range/endurance.

Since a boost-glide vehicle is limited to one target per sortie, it's pointless to carry more ordnance than you can expend on that target. In the case of the piloted vehicle that the UK group is describing, that would probably be maybe 4000 lb or so. So that kind of vehicle starts looking like an F-117 replacement that's using speed and altitude instead of stealth.

In the case of a robotic vehicle, the vehicle itself impacts the target with a suitably sized warhead (1 to 2 tons?). That starts sounding a lot like the Chinese WU-14 (also known as the DF-ZF).

a reply to: BASSPLYR



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 12:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: 1947boomer
BASSPLYR:

So that kind of vehicle starts looking like an F-117 replacement that's using speed and altitude instead of stealth.

a reply to: BASSPLYR


Except it wouldn't be used to soften up defenses like the F-117.. There is another stealth craft around to fulfill that mission role..



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 06:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: 1947boomer
BASSPLYR:

A few days ago you asked about a "limited strike" vehicle characterized by " a small payload of only a few munitions and intended to strike a single target."

It took me a few days of back of the envelope calculations to work out the answer.

The key idea is that all hypersonic glide strike vehicles are essentially single target vehicles, whether they are piloted or robotic. That's due to several factors all acting together.

First, a hypersonic glider is still just a glider; once it's pointed in the direction of it's first target it lights off its rocket and burns all its fuel. After that, it begins its pull-up into the glide and at that point it's going as fast as it's going to go (I estimate around 3 km/sec). From that point on, it's all downhill in terms of speed and altitude and has no way to add any energy.

Assuming that the vehicle is about as aerodynamically efficient as we know how to make it, I estimate it would take about 20 to 25 minutes to glide about maybe 2500 miles to touch down (whether that be a controlled landing or an impact). In order to stay high enough and fast enough to defeat conventional defenses, you want to overfly the target no slower than about Mach 5. That gives you about maybe 6 or 7 minutes from the time you level off to get over your target and do whatever you're going to do. (Remember, you're flying faster over the first half of your ground track than you are over the second half.) as soon as you overfly your first target at Mach 5 your turn radius is so large that you can't turn around and go after a second target. Notice that with an air breathing vehicle cruising at Mach 5, this would not necessarily be true. Air breathing propulsion is a lot more efficient than rocket propulsion and can be exploited for greater range/endurance.

Since a boost-glide vehicle is limited to one target per sortie, it's pointless to carry more ordnance than you can expend on that target. In the case of the piloted vehicle that the UK group is describing, that would probably be maybe 4000 lb or so. So that kind of vehicle starts looking like an F-117 replacement that's using speed and altitude instead of stealth.

In the case of a robotic vehicle, the vehicle itself impacts the target with a suitably sized warhead (1 to 2 tons?). That starts sounding a lot like the Chinese WU-14 (also known as the DF-ZF).

a reply to: BASSPLYR


Did not some of the "Green Lady" witnesses say they saw her turn in a large arc?



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Forensick

I dunno. Ive only seen the greenlady go in a straight line. She was hauling ass flying outbound and was just feet wet at the time of the sighting.

Greenlady is air breathing and flies like a normal aircraft more or less. Shes just big and really fast and got sone kick ass propuosion.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: 1947boomer

What if the proposed PGS bird isnt rocket powered nor a hypersonic glider. What if propulsion systems have evolved to allow such things without scramjets either.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Forensick

If she's flying between mach 3-5 then a long arc is about the only turn she can do.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: 1947boomer

In the case of the piloted vehicle that the UK group is describing, that would probably be maybe 4000 lb or so.



This is the same "UK group" that disseminates photoshops of Typhoons remember?

...and you are using their BS as a calculable factor in your analysis?

LOL this is tragic.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Launch signature of ICBM is very dangerous too.




top topics



 
28
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join