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.

 

anti gravity air craft!

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 06:31 PM
link   
www.janes.com...


CNN.com
Boeing, the world's largest aircraft manufacturer says it is working on anti-gravity propulsion, which could revolutionize conventional aviation.

If the science underpinning the program can be made into reality, it will be the biggest thing to hit the aviation industry since the Wright Brothers.

"GRASP," or Gravity Research for Advanced Space Propulsion, was only recently reported in Jane's Defence Weekly, but the U.S. military may have had the technology for years.

The National Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS), based in Nevada, say that mysterious U.S. military craft using this kind of technology have been skirting the skies since the 1980s.



www.cnn.com...

In the coming decades we will witness some amazing new technology including insane air craft! Can't wait!

Mod Edit: Reduced Copy & Paste, Quoted, Added Link.

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 13/10/2005 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Information from Dr. Richard Boylan:

www.apfn.net
Defense Contractor Leaks Details of a U.S. antigravitic
space fighter-bomber, the Advanced TAW-50 aircraft

A defense contractor leaked details of a U.S. antigravitic space
fighter-bomber, the Advanced TAW-50. Developed during the
early 1990s, the capabilities of this war-bird are
jaw-dropping. And the technology shows that the Defense
Department did not fail to utilize what it learned combing
through the wreckage of various UFO crashes.

The TAW-50 has speed capabilities well in excess of Mach 50,
a number the contractor calls "a very conservative
estimate." Its actual speed "is classified." Mach 1 is 1,225
kilometers per hour, (approximately 748 mph). That means
that the TAW-50 is capable of moving way faster than 38,000
mph. In comparison, the velocity required to escape Earth's
gravity is 25,000 mph. And yes, the TAW-50 does go into
space.

The TAW-50 has a SCRAM (supersonic ramjet) propulsion system
for passing through the outer atmosphere.


www.apfn.net...



[edit on 13-10-2005 by meshuggah1324]

Mod Edit: Reduced Copy & Paste, Quoted, Added Link.

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 13/10/2005 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Also: www.newscientist.com...



[edit on 13-10-2005 by meshuggah1324]



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Your 2nd posts reeks of crap. Nonsense. Care to post a link to where this so called "leak" came from?

Train - Skeptical-



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 11:09 PM
link   
I agree...that is completely made up by a guy with an overactive imagination.


here's some flaws.

It talks about how the US Gov has utilized things from UFO's.....Then why is it using a Scramjet engine?

and how exactly does this thing take off????? Scramjets need to be going at least mach 4 - 5 to kick into effect.

oh.....and what the hell is it made out of? Nothing I know off could with stand those hellish temps.

- Then the article ends it with the author bashing the US military??? WTF?




America has used its enormous wealth to become the global
super-power. The TAW-50 is but one example of its exotic,
unnecessarily proliferative arsenal. The world awaits the
day when America finds its soul, and pays more attention to
matters of spirit, mind and metaphysical reality, and
withdraws from its addiction to war toys.


[edit on 14-10-2005 by Murcielago]



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Dr. Richard Boylan.... oh yeah, it doesn't get any more credible that that!

This TAW-50 is tabloid fantasy.
The linked article states that it has to be driven by some AI software.
Then it mentions a "Valkyrie XB/9000" AI series of computer by American Computer Company.
The Valkyrie series of supercomputers are servers, not AI boxes.

[edit on 14-10-2005 by intelgurl]



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 12:27 AM
link   
yeah, that dr boylan stuff is high fiction, to say the least. your first link however, the jane's piece by nick cook....now THAT has some teeth. i remember when that first surfaced a few years ago, i got real excited. i thought "FINALLY!!! lets take the wraps off of it!!!!"

then...nothing. Absolutely nothing.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by el cid
yeah, that dr boylan stuff is high fiction, to say the least. your first link however, the jane's piece by nick cook....now THAT has some teeth. i remember when that first surfaced a few years ago, i got real excited. i thought "FINALLY!!! lets take the wraps off of it!!!!"

then...nothing. Absolutely nothing.


The fact that Cook and CNN have commented on it does give it some serious validity.

Beyond that, Cooks intrigue and investigation into anti-grav technology (see his ATS favorite, "The Hunt For Zero Point") may perhaps mean he has known about this for a while, or at least had an idea, but it was just recently confirmed to him.

BTW, great post



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 02:19 AM
link   
I was rather amused that it has this super high tech laser, but they can barely fit one onto the ABL, and are having problems with that one. And the AI, but the F/A-22 is still using 10+ year old computers. Some of the tech claims just don't make sense. As was pointed out, a scramjet has to be supersonic to function, which is why NASA uses a Pegasus booster for the X-43.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 02:34 AM
link   
How credible is this Nick Cook guy?... if this guy is telling us the truth then wouldn't anti-gravity make it safer and cheaper to go to the Moon and Mars?of course this is assuming that the goverment does let the pubic know about the technolgy



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 02:55 AM
link   
I notice from the link that Boylan is a hypnotherapist, I think he's been practising in front of a mirror.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 07:40 AM
link   
*Reads Richard Boylan, Ph.D on article link* O dear god. *Slaps forehead*

I think we all know what the girgling noise is, this thread going down the toilet.

I only say this because as others have said, Mr. Boylan, is a crack pot therapist who has no virtual experience or knowledge of any form of military project, now Nick Cook might, but since when did CNN commenting on things make it valid?

Shattered OUT...



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Can I meekly point out that every aircraft is anti-gravity - in that it defies gravity - otherwise, it would just sit on the ground like a very wide car


[edit on 14-10-2005 by kilcoo316]



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Anti-gravity research started back in the 30's in Germany. Interest in it intensified in most countries in the 80's, with lots of quietly increased funding. Research seems to taper off in the 90's.

The question, is whether or not something was developed from the research.

Many innovative developments in aircraft design are too big and heavy to fly, at first. And when they do, they are still too big and heavy. It takes time to create manufacturing processes, and develop small scale devices necessary to bring it all together.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   
The word that I get is that my company (Boeing) is reviewing some Russian journals and have asked this one researcher to consult. Whether this is an IR&D program or a CR&D to DARPA or someone else is something I don't know.

But I do know tht every aerospace company is constantly looking at concepts to see if they have any military or commercial capability. Most of them turne out to be bogus; or, if there's any validity to the concept, it's often not feasible or cost-effective.

The Boylan thing, as everyone else has pointed out, is bogus. That rascal is no more a scientist than the Man in the Moon; I'm convinced he makes all his stuff up, since he never has any evidence or citations for his assertions.

If there were an anti-gravity drive that really worked, then we'd automatically have SSTO (single stage to orbit) capability and could get rid of that hidesously inefficient shuttle. But if we actually do have that capability as evinced by a Real Flying Plane, why is the USG spending billions and billions and billions of bux on "obsolete" aircraft like the F-22, F/A-18, F-35, C-17, AH-64 D, etc.?

And if we really had an anti-gravity airplane, think what it'd do to the commercial aircraft business! We'd squash Airbus Industrie like a cock-roach!

I'm not saying such stuff isn't theoretically possible or even feasible. It might even be cost-effective. But I'll believe it when I see it.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   
"How credible is this Nick Cook guy?... "

He has a very solid background. But being an aviation journalist doesn't give you bestsellers or your own show on TV.
Peddling stories about UFO's and antigravity, on the other hand...well, it's fun anyway.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Can I meekly point out that every aircraft is anti-gravity - in that it defies gravity - otherwise, it would just sit on the ground like a very wide car


[edit on 14-10-2005 by kilcoo316]

Someone's not very familiar with the 4 forces of flight.

Thrust, Drag, Lift, and WEIGHT.

Weight being the gravity that PULLs the aircraft down, and lift being the force that keeps it up, in no way is any plane anti-gravity.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   
*off topic* Can't the Aurora go 3,600 mph or 1 mile per second? I've heard this before.

Also, I've heard people say anti-gracity aircraft is impossible. It's not defying gravity 100%, it's really just aircraft that "manipulate" or reduce gravity around the craft by 30%, 50%, or even up to 70% using electro-magnetics and other means...

[edit on 14-10-2005 by meshuggah1324]

[edit on 14-10-2005 by meshuggah1324]



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 05:20 PM
link   
meshuggah1324, Some people have theorized that the B2 Spirit uses some type ofelectrogravitic lifting technolgy in the wings but who knows. I read one claim that made good sense to me in that even if the technology didn't work that great and "only" provided 5-10% of the lift required to stay airborne it could drastically reduce fuel consumption, increase the payload capacity and the range of the aircraft.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 05:20 PM
link   
More information for yaz. Your thoughts please!

en.wikipedia.org...

350px-H_W_Wallace_force_field_figure_4.png






new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join