Aurora XST and NASP

page: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 06:56 PM
link   
boeing proposed a new shuttle concept that would lauch off and returnt earth just like the shuttle.




posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Wasn't the Aurora a mach 6-8 plane...??



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Wasn't the Aurora a mach 6-8 plane...??


How dare you bring this topic back up after almost 2 years?
shame on you!

But now I have to go Aurora 101 on you:

The concepts were:
1.) Mach 6-8 (big woop, the SR-71 could press mach 4.5 to 5).
2.) Mach 10-13 (And we think we can do this with 4 undersided engines!)
3.) Mach 25-30 (Which would probably cause your insides to get thrown outside of yourself if not made right).

So with the bottom two in mind, they'd have to be using special materials or covering (either like the space shuttle or something else). Thus, you'd also have to look at weight, and thrust. All of which you probably can't find online unfortunately.

I'm beginning to think that instead of an Aurora coverup there's a UCAV X-30/43 coverup going on, as in the fact, that they're using what they have in more departments than testing, or that there are more than what is just mentioned. But I don't have any proof of the last two statements, only the first, which would say "there may be an aurora".



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Blame the chat not me... isn't the SR-71 a mach 3+ plane...??
never been good with the exact numbers...



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Blame the chat not me... isn't the SR-71 a mach 3+ plane...??
never been good with the exact numbers...


Actually the SR-71 has a top speed of roughly 4.5, and higher using the PWE System (Mach 5), but the airframe couldn't withstand it. Thus why the engines were left at where they were, but the fact of that matter is that the SR-71 got retired (retarded), with no replacement, it was back to the U-2 they went.

So it's up in the air about what the "object" IS.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shugo

Actually the SR-71 has a top speed of roughly 4.5, and higher using the PWE System (Mach 5),


I absolutely do not believe that for one second, unless you have any evidence for this wild claim? I on the other hand present;

www.google.co.uk...
www.wvi.com...
www.sky-flash.com...
www.marchfield.org...
www.sr-71.org...
www.aircraft.co.za...
www.danshistory.com...
www.dfrc.nasa.gov...

Now, care to elaborate on why you are posting this Mach 4/mach 5 fantasy?


[edit on 1-2-2006 by waynos]



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 07:06 PM
link   
The only evidence I can provide is Sled Driver by Brian Schull. He explicitely states they were over Mach 4 passing over Libya after the F-111 bombing. He said it was the fastest he'd ever been in an SR. I highly recommend the book. That and The Untouchables. Outstanding books.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 07:19 PM
link   
You googled for the SR-71 in general


Did you google for the Mach 5 set?

www.wvi.com...

WIKI NEVER LIES!


en.wikipedia.org...:SR-71_Blackbird



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Zaphod, no I have never heard of this book, how trustworthy is it?


Originally posted by Shugo
You googled for the SR-71 in general


Did you google for the Mach 5 set?

www.wvi.com...

WIKI NEVER LIES!


en.wikipedia.org...:SR-71_Blackbird


You are JOKING aren't you?

In response to 'how fast can it fly?' your first link explicitly states mach 3+, how does this support your argument?

Also Wikipedia? Don't make me laugh. If you accept that as a trustworthy source then you are an extremely gullible person. Wiki is built up from submitted content. If I write an article explaining how the TSR 2 was really faster than the Blackbird (no, of course it wasn't) Wiki will publish it!

Furthermore the actual page you linked to says this;



No myths. The Inlets were sized for mach 3.2, but the real limitation was Compressor Inlet Temperature ( I want to recall it was 427 degrees C, but that's from memory and can be checked by those that want precise numbers ). Crews did encounter unexpected areas of much colder than usual air and I know some excursions went to mach 3.3 for short times without exceeding the CIT limit. There may even have been unplanned higher mach numbers touched briefly, but never mach 4.0. The Blackbird was planned and flown as a mach 3.0 to 3.2 "single point design aircraft


You'll have to do better than that. A LOT better.

[edit on 1-2-2006 by waynos]



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Like I said, read Brian Schull. I'll take the word of a pilot over an engineer any day of the week.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 08:23 PM
link   
lol, someone's getting owned. Best to admit it when the evidence is against you.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 08:24 PM
link   
All that evidence is from engineers. Engineers said there was no way in hell that IAF F-15 flew with one wing. The SR didn't have a Mach 5 capability, but it could go just over 4. That came directly from a pilot that flew it over 4.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Zaphod, I respect you a great deal and we have had some great chats on here but this is going too far, by the way engineers are known to deal in facts whilst pilots have been reknowned 'line shooters' for a hundred years. Exaggerated claims are included in their terms and conditions of employment, or at least you would think so.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Yeah, I agree Waynos, but on the other hand, I've seen engineers make claims, and then someone goes out and does it and proves them completely wrong. I think this is one time we're gonna have to agree to disagree.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Yeah, I think thats best on this occasion


Talking about engineers getting wrong, Dr Christmas believed his 'Bullet' fighter would fly, unfortunately he found a pilot who believed him. I understand it was a nice funeral.


Google for 'Christmas Bullet' if you want to know more.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   
*laugh* Thanks for the laugh Waynos. That was.....different.


You are one of the few people on here whose opinion I actually value, and look froward to reading your comments on these threads. I'd hate to have a huge argument over this.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Might I recommend the World Aircraft encyclopedia?
While you are correct, there wasn't time DEVOTED to looking for this information, was meerly snip. Most information is found on paper, not on a monitor. Read some books, and you'll be suprised what you can find.

On that note, I will have to leave that topic, just as we disagree. However, I just do want to recommend looking it up in some books maybe.

[edit on 2-2-2006 by Shugo]



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 06:37 AM
link   
Read some books?
Most of the guys on here will tell you that that is always my main source, I have a personal library that runs into the hundreds and is growing all the time, thanks. All those links I posted were just quickly googled to make the point, you don't think I trawled though them all do you? If you think I am going to sit here scanning pages and pages of books to prove what I want to say, when there are hundreds of online sources that can be quickly linked to, you are very much mistaken.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Here is the official link to the project. Just some concepts

Dryden



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 06:46 AM
link   
hay, your looking in the wrong place! here's an idea check satellite image's from those dates. have a look where there coming from. you can follow there path.





top topics
 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join