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.

 

This is the amazing Lockheed Martin SR-72—the space Blackbird

page: 20
38
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by kingofyo1
 


They could fly between 85-100K without needing it, or closer to space, and be able to add it fairly easily I would imagine.




posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


There's never been a need before to attempt to incorporate oxidizer system into a jp7 fuel, correct? what about any studies on the subject??
Trying to find plausability in the topic to warrant higher atmosphere flight



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   

solidshot
Story has made it to the BBC. BBC They claim it will be unmanned, which personally i find a little disappointing. Was hoping for a manned version myself.


and not flying until 2030.

Expecting it to be manned these days is a little unrealistic - the amount of effort that would need to go into life support systems would be considerable, and it would also add a great deal of mass to the plane - to what purpose?



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


for the lack of need to transmit a signal halfway across the world to an armchair pilot, and have instantaneous reaction in case of a instantly needed situation fix



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Also, could a M20 craft within the atmosphere and generating a large amount of heat/ionized gas around the craft be able to be remotely controlled? Would the craft be able to receive and transmit data or would it have to be completely autonomous without input from ground controllers?
I know in the early days of manned space flight they could communicate with the re-entering module but I can't seam to recall if that was the same for the Shuttle as well during re-entry as it was encased in plasma.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Sammamishman
 


Pretty sure that the craft can communicate during re-entry, as its required to inform them of their procedure changes, etc



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by kingofyo1
 


There was a three minute window during reentry where they were out of comms because of the plasma sheath. Once they were in atmosphere, they were fine, but they lost comms for a few minutes.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   
What if they were to take this guy up to 100k with a smaller rocket powered craft underneath it? Or maybe even a missile to shoot down enemy sats?

My imagination goes wild thinking about this thing!



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


After some self education, the Shuttle (mid 1980's) was able to communicate with ground control through hole in the ionized gas of re-entry due to the angle and orientation of the orbiter as it entered the atmosphere. The signal was then relayed via sat to ground control.
I'm not sure a craft traveling parallel to the ground would be able to utilize the same method as later Shuttle orbiters. I would suspect the ionized gas sheath would encompass most of the leading edge surfaces maybe only leaving the tail section able to communicate through?



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 


That's a possibility! I dont see why it couldnt work, especially this many years after the d21 program (even though it was a complete failure on so many levels) we've had success with unmanned attached drones, including some of the htv systems



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Sammamishman
 


I'm only refering to Mach 20 craft though. This isn't an issue at "only" Mach 6.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 


Brilliant Buzzard program?



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Sammamishman
 


Check your messages.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Sammamishman
 


Well, the brilliant buzzard (blackstar) was apparently mothballed according to avation weekly, and The Aviation Week report was a few days later dismissed as "almost certainly bogus" and the project termed a "technical absurdity" by Jeffrey F. Bell in an article in Spacedaily.

You've got to remember the problems that occurred between the m21 and the d21... Having a top released craft push off at supersonic speeds creates a multitude of issues. In one of the instances, it caused a death of the release operator because the D21 nosedived into the 21 instead of separating and going nose up. The nosedive made the M21 go unstable, and the pilot and operator ejected but the operator didnt survive.

This would most certainly call for a underbelly type separator craft if there's going to be one at all.

If you'd like to read a bit more into it, here's the link

Buzzard source
D21 source

edit on 4-11-2013 by kingofyo1 because: reasons



edit on 4-11-2013 by kingofyo1 because: again, reasons



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by kingofyo1
 


He ejected with the pilot (unless it's in single ejection mode, they both automatically go when one does), but when he landed in the water, he opened his helmet before he was in the raft (possibly panicking), and his suit filled up, and he drowned.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Oh, my bad, I had forgotten that portion of the story.. What do you think of the brilliant buzzard theory, Z?



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Didn't a Superman movie show a theoretical space plane looking thing on top of a commercial air liner? I think it was the Superman movie with Kevin Spacey. If I recall in the movie it failed to separate.
edit on 4-11-2013 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   

kingofyo1
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


for the lack of need to transmit a signal halfway across the world to an armchair pilot, and have instantaneous reaction in case of a instantly needed situation fix


If the problem CAN be fixed - and if it can't then you've just lost a pilot as well.

For a recce mission at massive speed and altitude you are not looking at combat manouvres. the communication issue is required anyway since you will want real-time information rather than waiting for the aircraft to land to retrieve it.

There is just no significant upside for putting a man on board that justifies the sort of costs the supporting him on board involves - you'll lose range for starters - either by displacing fuel to maintain the current size, or by increasing size (and hence weight) thus also losing performance.

Edit: Re time frame - the article says it wil be operational by 2030 - not flying by then, so it should be flying well before then.

They are also talking about having a "sub-scale demonstrator" by 2018 in conjunction with the high speed strike weapon (HSSW) which will use a lot of the hypersonic technology required and is expected to go ahead.

The full Aviation Week article is here with more info on the background and thinking.
edit on 4-11-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 


Yeah, it was. Superman Returns. They used a 777 with a small shuttle type vehicle that would launch. They've talked about that for years.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by kingofyo1
 


Not a big fan of it honestly. Too many "What ifs" with it.




top topics



 
38
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join