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.

 

2nd test flight of X-51 aircraft ends in crash

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   

2nd test flight of X-51 aircraft ends in crash


hosted.ap.org

The Los Angeles Times reports Friday that a video shows the unmanned X-51 WaveRider crashing after it was successfully dropped by a B-52 bomber that had taken off Monday from Edwards Air Force Base.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.sacbee.com
www.af.mil




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Boeing and Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne built four X-51A flight test vehicles with the program goal of reaching Mach 6 in hypersonic flight. The next flight is tentatively scheduled for this fall. I am really looking forward to the final product. This should get interesting.

I am wondering what the practical use will be for this system. I mean beside the obvious weapon system. I also find the way they delivered this vehicle to be the future.

hosted.ap.org
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by whyamIhere
I also find the way they delivered this vehicle to be the future.
You mean launching off a B-52? The only problem I see with that is, the B-52 isn't all that fast, is it? I thought the whole idea of the hypersonic plane was to get where you're going fast, not be slowed down by a B-52, unless you're talking about just using the B-52 as a means to get it off the ground.

They were doing high speed plane launches from planes six decades ago with the Bell XS-1, but they eventually got it to supersonic speeds from a ground takeoff.

Regarding the crash, they have a pretty narrow list of culprits to find the cause since the plane failed to separate from the rocket. If it's not a software failure, it's probably a hardware failure, and there can't be that much to the hardware. Whatever mechanism they've been using to eject the solid rocket boosters from the space shuttle seems pretty reliable.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Yes, I should of been clearer...

Two points: Top of the atmosphere delivery method.

With the amount of fuel required to get any payload off the ground.

I can just picture "TPTB" using this method to get into space.

Mainly to keep it out of the public eye.

My second point is...You could use this technology to deliver equipment

or pizzas anywhere in the world in seconds.

It wouldn't be much good as a weapon if it had to stay airborne.

Sorry, It's very early here...



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   
If I had the expertise I'd love to make a black and white Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin era video of the whole thing, kinda like the Wright Brother's footage in their pioneering days. lol.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
oh my god! why crush? didn't they check the engine first? poor pilot . .>.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
This is for combat plane or just for exhibition only?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by chepye
poor pilot . .>.<
What pilot? The OP says it was unmanned so if there was a pilot he was just operating a remote controlled joystick somewhere.

reply to post by whyamIhere
 

Thanks for the clarification. But in its current version it doesn't look like it can deliver much equipment, it doesn't look much bigger than a sidewinder hanging off the wing of the B-52, though that's probably partly an illusion just because the B-52 is so big. Still, it looks pretty small, though I'm sure they could engineer larger versions later.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
This is all for public show. They already have craft way more advanced then you will ever know. IE: Large black triangles spotted all over the world. UFOs are not from some other planet, they are ours.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
That's too bad. Cool little plane.

Although, I did my thesis on waverider technology. Tricky stuff - so, I can see why it crashed!



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by EthanT
 



Do you have any idea of the dimensions ?

We were kind of curious about that.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by whyamIhere
 


No idea, but a quick search turned up info on the length: 7.9 m. Seems to be the most info available ...

en.wikipedia.org...
www.af.mil...

Typically with the waveriders, the dimensions are strongly coupled to the aerodynamics, in order to gain the improved lift-to-drag ratio from the supersonic shockwaves.

There's a bit more info available on the X-43, from what I can tell:

www.aerospaceweb.org...
www.globalaircraft.org...



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Thanks for all the great information.

I assumed nothing was available to the public.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
"Successfully dropped"

I lol'd.

They really need to accept the fact that it failed.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur Whatever mechanism they've been using to eject the solid rocket boosters from the space shuttle seems pretty reliable.


And yet... it was a lowly simple o-ring that took down Challenger (RIP)




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
And yet... it was a lowly simple o-ring that took down Challenger (RIP)

Actually even that O-ring seemed to work pretty well and probably wouldn't have taken down challenger had they not launched in near freezing temperatures where most engineers know that the material that makes up O-rings becomes more stiff, and less flexible and less effective at sealing. It was predictable to some extent that leakage could occur at low temperature, and some claimed to have predicted the problem which seems quite plausible.

In any case that's not related to the release mechanism as far as I know.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by EthanT
reply to post by whyamIhere
 


No idea, but a quick search turned up info on the length: 7.9 m. Seems to be the most info available ...

en.wikipedia.org...
Thanks that gives me a much better idea of the size seeing the guys heads in the photo for comparison.


From that I'm guessing maybe a little less than a meter in diameter, maybe a little more with the fins? However only the back section looks round (is that the rocket that was supposed to detach but didn't? I'm guessing yes.), the rest of it looks slightly boxy in cross-sectional profile.

It looks roughly similar in size to a Tomahawk cruise missile

With "wings" that small (meaning the fins), it can't glide too well if the engines fail!
edit on 18-6-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
the launch platform is not a problem

the x-1 was launched from a b-29 considerably slower than the x-1.

b-52 while slower creates a stable platform for vehicle launch.

the crash could have been caused by any number of reasons but the b-52 aint one of them.

i just look at millions lost.


edit on 18-6-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by whyamIhere
 


Dropping a rocket plane from a B-52! Don't they have any imagination!

If you believe the X-51 is a legitimate R&D activity for aircraft/aerospace industries in this day, I've got some very slightly used F-117As for sale and soon, some priceless B-2 bombers. These will be further examples of the high art that those industries have been directed to produce for public consumption. They are part of the dog-and-pony show to keep interest away from the triangles and other exotic craft--not aircraft--that do not use air for lift or propulsion. (Potential buyers for the surplus F-117As and B-2s please note these craft are evn close to being supersonic not intended for serious business such as engaging in modern real war activities.)

I urge all of you airplane enthusiasts steeped in the lore and history of conventional aircraft development to broaden your horizons to get beyond the old concepts that limit what you allow yourselves to accept as possible in aviation.

If as much amateur effort was put into proving the existence of triangles as was involved in digging up the little facts and tidbits of the F-117 before it was announced, you could have virtual proof in a short time of the realaity of triangles.

Those enthusiast that deny or ignore triangles as unique craft are either set in old-fashioned ways or have other obligations that shape their words and views. I've always loved aircraft, the older the better, but something else is up there these days.

As I've said many times on ATS on one thread or another, I've seen a triangle low, slow and silent at close range and I know they exist. So don't bother trying to convince me that they don't exist or explain them away. If I were the only person to ever report one, you could do that, but there are thousands and thousand of sightings of them.

Is this post off topic? No. I'm denying the true legitimacy of craft such as the X51
edit on 18-6-2011 by Aliensun because: Clarification/word corrections



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
I have been away and retired from "the life" for more than half a decade now but was involved in the test flights of the X-43 scramjet of which we had two successful flights out of 3 with non-recoverable models and reaching about mach 7 then 10 on the last one.

Thanks for the post. I didn't know there were new models. Sounds like we're not there yet but these are supposed to be recoverable, eh?

OK, now I will read the source material. Or better yet, maybe I'll just stay retired and ignore it all. A margarita and shrimp cocktail sounds better than the galley chow on San Nicolas Island. Time to enjoy life and not get involved in the excitement anymore.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join