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-72 Scaled model spotted landing Oct 16 2017 thread

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 12:12 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

ohh i agree it could be used to slow down the incoming hypersonic/supersonic air to something useable. but look at the russian AJAX and you can see they had a very interesting design.

im not sure if you can or can not change the speed of sound in a plasma but my guess would be that you can and with a plasma bloom far out in front of the nose of the craft you could form a large spread out bow shock thereby dissipating allot of the energy into the air reducing allot of the energy available to smash the air into itself to create a pile up AKA sonic boom

Winterpain, in the PDF i posted they do use a plasma bloom in front of the craft to mitigate as much of the air friction as possible.




posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

What if it's powered by our old friend the gamma ray...in part at least.



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Intelgurl was kind enough to author a thread a decade ago confirming the existence of the SR-72. If the SR-72 existed then, why are they flying scale model demonstrators now? The only thing that makes sense to me is if, just like with the A-12/SR-71, the first version flies for (insert ABC agency here) a number of years until something better comes along and the next agency down rolls the "white" version out as a similar but different aircraft like it was brand spanking new.

Could the alleged SR-72 be the follow on of a more exotic version flying for someone else?

edit on 31-10-2017 by StratosFear because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: StratosFear

Because that was not the SR-72. That was an informal designation for a program that started back then.



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

blackswift?



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 09:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: StratosFear

Because that was not the SR-72. That was an informal designation for a program that started back then.


I use the designation "SR-72" as loosely as "TR-3B", a way to refer to a still unknown classified aircraft like you and the other aviation enthusiast do. I wouldnt be upset at all if it got the nickname Aurora though, might be sort of nostalgic in a way.



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: penroc3

Yes.



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Blackswift and SR-72 look a lot similar in their design .



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: darksidius

meh. Not really.



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: darksidius

Blackswift:



SR-72:



Not seeing it.



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Im with you on this one blackswift and the "sr72" look nothing similar.



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 10:16 PM
link   
I really wonder how true it is was that all of the blackswift tests ended in catastrophic failure. When I heard those results, a part of me instantly thought "well it must work, and is going black".

I wonder if it evolved into with SR-72 aircraft or if it's a separate line of creation just serving a similar function.

~Winter



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 12:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Zaphod58

Im with you on this one blackswift and the "sr72" look nothing similar.

Allegedly the same propulsion concept though. Never put much faith in concept art.

It think its clear from the other thread, Blackswift was 'cancelled' and one of the things it morphed into is the SR-72.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

PGS comes to mind...

bit its funny that they always show a blueish glow at at the nose of the SR-72 art.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 03:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I make a reference with this "https://www.globalsecurity.org/jhtml/jframe.html#www.globalsecurity.org...|||
edit on 2-11-2017 by darksidius because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 04:24 AM
link   
a reply to: darksidius

at first glance, i guess i see the resemblance.

but one is a test vehicle and the other is an operational(or soon to be) platform. Im sure the HTV's were a good learning tool and the HTV 3B didn't fly funding was cut so it was never built as far as i know.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 05:20 AM
link   
The 8 min mark delayed a lot of developed didnt it?



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger

pretty sure they broke that, give me a year and a few mill an access to Lockheed and i bet i could get close or maybe even beat it


then again mach 6 is very different then mach 20



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: penroc3
Sure mach 20 in the atmosphere is a Madness at the limit of the impossible , mach 6 is more of the range of possibility.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger

Not sure it delayed it. The 9 minutes the HTV-2 was able to fly at Mach 20 gave them a lot of data they could use towards material science needed to sustain that kind of velocity in thicker air.


DARPA does not plan to conduct a third flight test of the HTV-2. The decision was made because substantial data was collected from the first two flights, and a third was not thought likely to provide any additional valuable data for the cost. The first flight provided data in aerodynamics and flight performance, while the second provided information about structures and high temperatures. Experience gained from the HTV-2 will be used to improve hypersonic flight.


en.wikipedia.org...



new topics




 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join