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: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Sky watcher
 

So you subscribe to the MILAB theory?




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by chepye
oh my god! why crush? didn't they check the engine first? poor pilot . .>.<


Um, unmanned means not manned. Not manned means no man. No man means no pilot.

No "poor pilot" was in there.

It was "unmanned".



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


the tomahawk cruise missile was designed in the 70s making it over 40 years old.

supersonic cruise missiles could be a major asset and deterrence

a strike anywhere in the world in less than an hour.


i hope they iron out the bugs.
edit on 18-6-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
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)


Not sure about any details of this vehicle but sounds like the next step after Hyper-X (X-43). Those were strapped under a B-52 with a Pegasus booster to take it up to operating speed for the scramjet to start working.

One possible (and likely scenario) reason for the crash or aborted test is if the trackers lose track it will be given Destruct command. End of test. Dum Dum Ops people like to put every available tracker from Edwards, China Lake, Pt Mugu, Vandenberg, etc. on these ops. Then we are tripping over each other's main bangs. At those speeds our bangs start crossing too quickly to stay out of each others way and to cross main bangs can knock two trackers off the target. When we observe signals about to cross we can "skip" in time to avoid each other. At Mach 6 that is not easy and the ops people put too many trackers on.

I was designated primary track for the final two X-43's. I was skipping like a mad mutha'.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 01:13 AM
link   
I dont know how true it is, but I remember hearing that the blackbird could reach mach 8 back then.

Question. How long do they expectt this little plane to stay in the air?
It doesnt look big enough to hold a lot of fuel for long periods of time.
Will it be for unmanned use only, or for future kamikaze pilots?



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Aliensun
 


Agreed. You can't deny it when you see one of the triangles.

If only it wasn't so fast I would have had 5 or 6 witnesses.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikepopy
I dont know how true it is, but I remember hearing that the blackbird could reach mach 8 back then.

Question. How long do they expectt this little plane to stay in the air?
It doesnt look big enough to hold a lot of fuel for long periods of time.
Will it be for unmanned use only, or for future kamikaze pilots?


The SR-71 Blackbird would top mach 3, around m 3.2. That was the fastest air-breather until tests of the X-43 whose third and last flight nearly reached mach 10, about 9.8 actually.

The X-43 and now X-51 are test platforms for the scramjet design, a variant of the ramjet. These are air-breathing designs that rely on intake of air compressed at supersonic speeds for its combustion.

More immediate plans are for use in un-manned weapons delivery systems but this could all pave the way, someday, for possible passenger transportation in the future.

Not sure about those triangles being talked about, some other kind of propulsion system entirely - if they exist. I worked with test and evaluation of the latest and greatest goodies in the known world. Never saw a "triangle" as being described in other posts - who knows?

After reading the short article I see the reason for this "crash" (these are all non-recoverable even if they do fly successfully). The X-51 test vehicle was unable to separate from its booster. In the test operations these are carried out of Edwards AFB in Calif high-desert by a B-52 out to the pacific. After passing beyond the channel islands they are launched, dropped actually, and a booster rocket fires and takes the scramjet platform up to supersonic speeds where it can achieve combustion of its scramjet engine, intended for high-altitude flight at the threshhold of space. The flight is then monitored throughout its duration and the spent vehicle drops-off into the pacific and is not recovered.

These are test platforms for this propulsion-system design and are not currently designed to be used yet in actual delivery-systems. That will come later.


edit on 19-6-2011 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Pretty interesting that we are working on Hypersonic cruise missles when the Russians have had them for quite awhile now. Moskit/SS-N-22 Sunburn, 38M2 Mosquito,Indian/Russian Brahmos 2. While the missles are Ramjet style and capable of Mach 3. While typical of one upmanship we are going for mach 6+ scramjet. I was wondering if you can actually make high speed manuvering at these speeds in atmosphere, say avoiding missile defense systems, without tearing themselves apart.Or are these things going in a straight line trajectory like a bullet or maybe smaller less agressive manuvering?


Bill



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aliensun
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


I could not have said it better. This Bravo Sierra that they serve the public is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, and detracts from the real platforms that are cloaked above us.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Violater1
 


Let's get some data then. If they got "triangles" they are not in regular production or use. Can't say they don't exist, can only say I've never seen them. Missiles and weapons testing has been my career up until I retired five years ago. I've been involved with the most advanced "conventional" airframes and propulsion systems known for the past several decades. Scramjets and mach 10 from air-breathing aircraft is no child's play.

I can't deny those who have seen or claimed to have seen "triangles" but I am not among those folks. If they exist then there is some unknown reason why they are not in regular use and production, whatever that may be.

Until that is revealed there is still plenty of development to do with the known technology. That is where the test and eval $$ are going and what is keeping a number of us busy, my former co-workers that are still working ops day in and out, that is.

Tell us what you know about the "new stuff", the who, where, and why fors. I am truly interested.

Camperguy asks

6+ scramjet. I was wondering if you can actually make high speed manuvering at these speeds in atmosphere, say avoiding missile defense systems, without tearing themselves apart.(?)


That's part of what we were trying to find out, just how much we can do within given limitations. I think we did manage to figure out we could use it to go fast. Some stability and handling tests are sure to come soon. It was being tested in very thin atmosphere at the verge of space.

I'm sure ballistics is part of the plan as far as weapons go but the talk was about being able to use that propulsion systen in passenger craft, eventually. Where there is a will there is a way, so they say. A ver.


edit on 20-6-2011 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Erongaricuaro,

thanks for your input as a former researcher which is greatly appreciated by anyone seriously interested in these subjects.

Now as for the black triangles. Why is it that anytime somebody begins mentioning exotic research programs some idiot or said bunch of idiots jumps out of the woodwork making completely fantastic and completely unproven claims of black triangles, alien technology or some other self absorbed crap? NO SERIOUSLY, what are you, socially disaffected? This rubbish has nothing to do with the subject matter at hand. If you feel the need to spout this drivel because you lack self control, are a teenager masquerading as an adult, or need the social attention why dont you do it in the appropriate forum? There are plenty of UFO threads here so why come and hijack the aircraft forum, the OP wasn't giving you carte blanche to derail the thread so why do it?

Some of us here just want to understand what happened to the test and how it went wrong.

LEE.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   
The X-51A is just being used to develop supersonic combustion ramjet (scramjet) technology. The two successful X-43A flights only provided data for about 10 seconds or so of scramjet operation for each flight. The goal of the X-51A is to get several minutes of scramjet operation up to about Mach 6. Eventually, when the technology is mature, the data will be used to develop operational systems. Technology applications involving development of hypersonic weapons are more easily achievable, and more economical, than concepts for global reach or access to space.

For test purposes, the X-51A is carried to 50,000 feet beneath the wing of a B-52H. The combination of payload weight and the capabilities of the bomber's engines means that the B-52 is operating at the edge of its performance envelope. It has to get the test vehicle to 50K because of limitations inherent in the rocket booster, and the X-51A must be carried by the booster to significantly higher speeds and altitudes in order to meet scramjet test conditions.

After each flight, the X-51A falls into the ocean. No hardware is recovered. All data is telemetered to the ground. The news media like to use the word "crashed," but this creates the wrong impression. It is planned that the vehicle falls into the water within the test range.

During this last test, the X-51A was successfully released from the B-52. The rocket booster accelerated it to just over Mach 5. The scramjet engine was successfully ignited using ethylene fuel (a feat that has been compared to lighting a match in a hurricane). While attempting to transition to JP-7 (the same fuel used in the SR-71), the vehicle experienced a phenomenon known as and aerodynamic disturbance, or "unstart."

An inlet unstart can only occur when the aircraft is supersonic and after and inlet has been "started"; that is, supersonic flow is established inside the inlet. An unstart occurs when the inlet pressure becomes too great and has no place to go inside the inlet, causing a shockwave expulsion to relieve the excess pressure build up.

The X-51A automatically reoriented itself to optimize engine start conditions, but attempts to restart failed. The X-51A continued to descend in controlled flight until it impacted within the test range. As with the earlier X-43A, data was collected throughout the flight. Although relatively little scramjet operation data was collected due to the unstart, a great deal of other information was collected, so it was not a total failure by any means.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadowhawk
 



That is the most informative posts I have ever read.

Thanks...



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by thebozeian
Now as for the black triangles. Why is it that anytime somebody begins mentioning exotic research programs some idiot or said bunch of idiots jumps out of the woodwork making completely fantastic and completely unproven claims of black triangles, alien technology or some other self absorbed crap? NO SERIOUSLY, what are you, socially disaffected?


Time for decafe




Couldn't resist with such an opening

As to what happened to the X-51a... seems shadowhawk covered it pretty well

edit on 29-6-2011 by zorgon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 
Nah thats ok man.

I just had enough that day of of the same people constantly trying to derail threads by being "Triangle Trolls!". That said I happen to have seen what I believe was a trio of triangles at night over suburban Sydney around 1995. However I dont speculate that they are alien or government or that existing white world programs are shams to cover them. And I dont ever try and force my views on them down other peoples throats on other peoples threads/posts. It's just plain rude and frankly a bit slack of the mods to allow it to happen all the time. Be that as it may, nice pic you found there
.

Yeah I think Shadowhawk pretty much said it all.

LEE.




top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join