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.

 

New Boeing comercial shows Hypersoar aircraft!

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 09:14 PM
link   
I just saw a new Boeing Comercial that depicted future technologies in developement.

Among them were repair sats, new materials, safety devices for aircraft - all the usual crapola....

But then at the very end of it, there is a black space plane that looks exactly like the Hypersoar - long delta shape, propolsion underneath the aircraft and all. The ad ends with this aircraft flying off into space.

Could this be a sign that Boeing is the main contractor on this project? Could it allready be in testing phases?

It looked EXACTLY like the Hypersoar.



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
But then at the very end of it, there is a black space plane that looks exactly like the Hypersoar - long delta shape, propolsion underneath the aircraft and all. The ad ends with this aircraft flying off into space.

Could this be a sign that Boeing is the main contractor on this project?

That was the Boeing X-43 "Hyper-X"... it is a hypersonic experimental craft that just recently had it's first successful flight.
Boeing is part of the team that has built the X-43 Hyper-X scramjet vehicle - it is designed to explore Mach 7 to 10 regions of flight.
Boeing's responsibilities on this project include assembly level design, the thermal protection system and the vehicle management system.

Intelgurl




posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 10:45 PM
link   
I haven's seen the commercial, but I was just reading an article on it. The only thing it mentions about Boeing though, is the potential for the HyperSoar to carry the same payload as a 747. The article also mentions constructing a HyperSoar about the same dimensions as the F-22 and it will be used as a bomber.

I didn't want to paste a picture, because it is a little large, so here's the link.



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 11:19 PM
link   
OK - i didn't see the NASA logo on it, just saw the ad once.

Once again, thanks for setting the record straight Intelgurl



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Was it as good a cartoon of 'what they're gonna....' as the ones 'we' in Europe did for HOTOL, SKYLON or SAENGER?

Wow, I bet it impressed.

Cartoons and computer graphics are great these days aren't they? You can imagine the stuff is really real and on the verge of actually happening any moment (better shovel them a few more billion $ of the tax-payers finest, huh?)....

....hey, call it a 'black program' and no doubt there'll be a few dozen here who believe it real and actually very ancient old fashioned tech already! (get out your 'anti-grav'!)

Never mind, it's only a US concept 20yrs after the modern concept was originally conceived, established and developed in Europe.....and nearly 60yrs now since it was first originally conceived in Germany.

(Still not able to get the multi-mode engine right, huh? ......maybe 'we' didn't sell you everything 'we' knew about it, hmmm?

I wonder if the guy bitching about Chinese planes just being copies of someone elses idea will be on complaining about this 'American' orbiting 'plane'? LOL)



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Sminkey sminkey sminkey. Was this really needed?

First off, the HyperSoar is much different then that of the German idea of the 'American Bomber' as I believe it was called. You see the hyperSoar would "skip" across the atmosphere making it much faster then the German rocket based idea of high altitude bomber. Second, it would most likely be stealthy, something the Germans hadn't thought of. Thirdly, it would use a completely different propulsion system then the German bomber.

And BTW, as Intelgurl has pointed out, Scramjets have just been tested and were successful. So needless to say, it won't be long untill these types of engines are used by the USAF.

Suck it up - Europe is behind. Just be greatfull you live in a country that we are allies with so you can reap the benefit of American technology.



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Scramjet/hypersonic article


Scramjet technology, sorry to say, did not come from U.S. Scramjet tech has been in evolution for about 50 years now, it's nothing new.

[edit on 5-10-2004 by Aether]



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 12:02 PM
link   
true, but america was the first one to build a real life operating on, and not just keep it confined to wind tunnels.

People always use the "America didn't think of it" card, That because America is a fairly new country, But over time people wont be hearing that as much, cause we will have new ideas that will be all ours.

Its Oblious Sminkey lives in Europe, But its fine just to be patriotic to your country (as long as it isn't France). But just dont try and talk # to make your country sound better then it really is.



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 12:37 PM
link   

its fine just to be patriotic to your country (as long as it isn't France). But just dont try and talk to make your country sound better then it really is.



Could some of you Americans please print a big poster of this and stick it on the wall you normally face when on the internet


Also the German knew perfectly well about the stealth attributes of the Horten Ho IX thanks to (the lack of) radar tracking of the prototypes, it was just too late to do them any good.

I agree with sminkey about the 'anti-grav brigade'.

[edit on 5-10-2004 by waynos]



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Sminkey sminkey sminkey. Was this really needed?


- Oh come on AMM; I'm just having a little fun with this.....and you're not really taking slick-looking commercials, cartoons and CGV as the basis for serious discussion now are you?


First off, the HyperSoar is much different then that of the German idea of the 'American Bomber' as I believe it was called. You see the hyperSoar would "skip" across the atmosphere making it much faster then the German rocket based idea of high altitude bomber.


- Er, I think you'll find the original WW2 Saenger/Sanger (sorry for the spelling I can't do the .. over the 'a') idea was all about using atmospheric 'skips' during it's mission. That was part of the designer's significant insight.


Second, it would most likely be stealthy, something the Germans hadn't thought of.


- No, sorry but this is completely wrong.

The concepts of stealth, radar return diffusion by designed-in shaping and radar absorbant materials and paints were recognised, invented and deliberately and specifically tested and used in Germany during WW2.


Thirdly, it would use a completely different propulsion system then the German bomber.


- That I'll grant you but nevertheless the multi-mode engine will be a development of the UK & Germany's designs and data sold to the US during the late 80's.


And BTW, as Intelgurl has pointed out, Scramjets have just been tested and were successful. So needless to say, it won't be long untill these types of engines are used by the USAF.


- Hmmm, that's true but the trick isn't just to move (with the one engine) from 'normal' jet operation to operating as a ram-jet (which is difficult enough).....

....it's to do that and move to operating as a rocket.....with the one engine.

Which you can't do yet.....and which Europe has been far ahead of 'you' on.


Suck it up - Europe is behind.


- Naaa, Europe had another look at this and explored it up until the late 80's. Then we decided not to bother and sold the US what we knew.

Good luck developing it.


Just be greatfull you live in a country that we are allies with so you can reap the benefit of American technology.


- Oh come on AMM, be honest.

Seems like you Americans are the ones who continually benefit from 'our' tech and this is a prime example (even if you guys are really taking your time over doing anything tangible with it).


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



People always use the "America didn't think of it" card, That because America is a fairly new country,


- What do you mean 'card'?

America is over 200yrs old now, how old is flight? How old is electricity?


But over time people wont be hearing that as much, cause we will have new ideas that will be all ours.


- Some boast that is....considering the basic premise is absurd and you have no basis for making it.

Anyhoo, who is this 'us'? I have many members of my family in the USA. You are us and we are you.

You'll find physics, chemistry and metalurgy are not any single nations 'property'.


Its Oblious Sminkey lives in Europe,


- Correct, I make no secret of it. The UK to be precise.


But its fine just to be patriotic to your country


- well beyond having a little fun with this kind of thing I'd just like to point out that it has nothing to do with any kind of 'patriotism' (as the great Dr Johnson said the last refuge of the scoundrel).

Personally I find overdone 'patriotism' a tedious bore and generally (usually) a tool for manipulating the poorly educated and usually less thinking element of one's society.

I was having a little fun with the facts and the truth in the background of this matter.


(as long as it isn't France).


- I have to say I find the current attitude that seems not uncommon amongst some in the US towards France distasteful and ridiculous.

Some of you seem to love to attack France for behaving just like your country/government has done....ie in a - plainly - ruthlessly self-interested manner but dressed up as if for other more laudable reasons.


But just dont try and talk # to make your country sound better then it really is.


- I'd say that works both ways, wouldn't you......which, come to think about it, was kinda what I was getting at in the 1st place (but with a little sense of fun), wouldn't you say?

PS.....watch out for any sign of a sense of humour failure there guy!









[edit on 5-10-2004 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 01:19 PM
link   

SminkeyPinkey
Seems like you Americans are the ones who continually benefit from 'our' tech

Yeah we got alot of good ideas and smart people from germany, but now America is above germany (and everyone else on earth) on technology. I'm referring to aircraft and space, not some chink in South Korea who can make better camera phones.



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago

SminkeyPinkey
Yeah we got alot of good ideas and smart people from germany, but now America is above germany (and everyone else on earth) on technology. I'm referring to aircraft and space.


Yes but you would be way behind if it were not for all the development done by europe during just about every war we've had (which I hastily point out is where we [Europe - not just the UK] have far more experience then the US and so design things slightly more practically).


not some chink in South Korea who can make better camera phones.


That's a little out of order don't you think.........and anyway why would a chinese person work in South Korea ?



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago

SminkeyPinkey
Seems like you Americans are the ones who continually benefit from 'our' tech

but now America is above germany (and everyone else on earth) on technology.


Not true. Most of our computer science tech is off bred from Japan.



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Infidellic - Hey, I had a smiley face.



Aether
Not true. Most of our computer science tech is off bred from Japan.

The sentence after that is what I was talking about.



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Oh come on AMM; I'm just having a little fun with this.....and you're not really taking slick-looking commercials, cartoons and CGV as the basis for serious discussion now are you?


Well, I saw a comercial, and at the end there was an animation of an aircraft that looked EXACTLY like the pics I have seen of hypersoar. I thought I'd bring it up. It's certanly more based in fact then a lot of the crap I have seen posted.



- Er, I think you'll find the original WW2 Saenger/Sanger (sorry for the spelling I can't do the .. over the 'a') idea was all about using atmospheric 'skips' during it's mission. That was part of the designer's significant insight.


Unless we are thinking of different aircraft, the one I know of was to use rocket power for the entire flight to the US. The HyperSoar would turn off it's engines for long periods of time to save money and fuel.



- No, sorry but this is completely wrong.

The concepts of stealth, radar return diffusion by designed-in shaping and radar absorbant materials and paints were recognised, invented and deliberately and specifically tested and used in Germany during WW2.


My point was on this specific bomber and the aplication. BTW, I believe that you can't say ANYONE invented stealth aircraft except the US. We were the first to make it an operational technology. And oh, btw, the math behind stealth in the US was based on RUSSIAN research, not German.


- That I'll grant you but nevertheless the multi-mode engine will be a development of the UK & Germany's designs and data sold to the US during the late 80's.


Oh really - so please point me to a working Scramjet or PDE that is flight proven in Europe. The US has done it with Scramjets, has Europe?



- Hmmm, that's true but the trick isn't just to move (with the one engine) from 'normal' jet operation to operating as a ram-jet (which is difficult enough).....

....it's to do that and move to operating as a rocket.....with the one engine.

Which you can't do yet.....and which Europe has been far ahead of 'you' on.


Links please!


- Naaa, Europe had another look at this and explored it up until the late 80's. Then we decided not to bother and sold the US what we knew.

Good luck developing it.


Luck has nothing to do with it. The talent of our researchers and our vast resources does.


- Oh come on AMM, be honest.

Seems like you Americans are the ones who continually benefit from 'our' tech and this is a prime example (even if you guys are really taking your time over doing anything tangible with it).



Riiiiiiiiiight. I'd say you are benefiting from our computer, our internet to talk to me, our combustion engine, our telephone, our plane, ourlightbulbs ect ect ect ect ect ect ect.

And I won't even mention US military technology that protected you for some 50 years from Russia.



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 03:50 AM
link   
Oh dear, and Americans aren't arrogant, oh no, perish the thought



Who invented the World Wide Web?


2003-06-30: the World Wide Web was invented by Tim Berners-Lee in 1989, with the first working system deployed in 1990, while he was working at CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research). He went on to found the World Wide Web Consortium, which seeks to standardize and improve World Wide Web-related things such as the HTML markup language in which web pages are written.
Tim Berners-Lee wrote the first web browser and the first web server. Tim Berners-Lee invented both the HTML markup language and the HTTP protocol used to request and transmit web pages between web servers and web browsers, in addition to coining the phrase "World Wide Web."


Wasn't the internal combustion engine invented in Germany by someone called Otto? Hence the term 'Otto cycle'?

Weren't aerodynamics invented by Sir George Cayley almost a century before the Wrights? Also the first powered flight was by Clement Ader in the 1890's. The Wrights gave us controllability and had the skill to produce a working aeroplane, but they were also fortunate enough to live in a time when the lightweight petrol engine made success possible, an engine was recently (ie last 25 years) fitted to an otherwise unchanged Cayley design of 1854 and it worked, and was controllable which was the Wrights real achievement.

The computer was invented in Britain during WW2, no explanation necessary as it is a fact. As is the fact that the first practical home computer was the Sinclair ZX80 of Sir Clive Sinclair.

How long has Edinburgh been in the USA? I ask because that is where Alexander Graham Bell was born. The father of the telephone was British, Scots to be precise.

OK, you can have lightbulbs. you win that one.


[edit on 6-10-2004 by waynos]



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
it would most likely be stealthy,


!!!!!!@%#%&^%# WHAT???

stealthy at hipersonic speed are you crazy
The air infront of the Airplane will ionise only because of the heat unlished from the friction and it will....that no one can catch is obvius

[edit on 6-10-2004 by vorazechul]



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 07:46 AM
link   


Riiiiiiiiiight. I'd say you are benefiting from our computer, our internet to talk to me, our combustion engine, our telephone, our plane, ourlightbulbs ect ect ect ect ect ect ect.


1st computer was not American.
Internet was/is not American.
Combustion engine is not American
Planes where not american, in fact they could well be Italian. Just no one paid much attention to a smart arse old git who liked drawing stuff.

Perhaps you may wish to revise your posts and claim tech that America has invented before attacking sminkey and the rest of us (fortunate) non-US citizens.

Anyway, back on topic, Sminkey has a point, this is just fancy graphics and showmanship, anyone actually got a real picture or some worthwhile info, or are we gonna cream ourselves over some CG image of a black paperweight?



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Unless we are thinking of different aircraft, the one I know of was to use rocket power for the entire flight to the US.


- You are thinking of something different. The WW2 Sanger project involved the deliberate 'skipping' on the atmosphere to achieve the necessary range/weight requirements.

Clearly this was way ahead of Germany's actual capabilities at the time but nevertheless the concept originated there and there was serious work done on the idea. Given time who knows what they might have done with it?


My point was on this specific bomber and the aplication.


- In which case you are incorrect. Germany - (as so often happens) by accident (via their own radar and it's difficulty in 'seeing' these planes) - recognised and attempted to build stealth into the Horten bombers both by the materials used in the (blended) flying wing design and in the paints used on it. Go goggle the Horten 9/Gotha Go 229, the Horten Ho8 and Ho 18. The Messerchmitt P1107 and 1108 also illustrate the move toward flying wing designs.

It's also true that Northrop staff visited the Smithsonian to see the remains of the Horten they have there before they finished designing the B2.


BTW, I believe that you can't say ANYONE invented stealth aircraft except the US. We were the first to make it an operational technology.


- This is plain wrong.

Germany was equipping U-boats with radar absorbant mats to hide the schnorkel device.

Aircraft were being designed with materials and shapes and paint coatings specifically designed to capitalise on the newly discovered stealth effect.

Plainly they recognised the technology was not only practical but they were using it as an 'operational technology'. It might not be as flashy as a B2 or a F117 but nevertheless this is quite plainly 'stealth' technology.

A European first.


And oh, btw, the math behind stealth in the US was based on RUSSIAN research, not German.


- Yes this is sort of true. But only sort of. Check this -

In the nineteenth century, Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell developed a series of mathematical formulas to predict how electromagnetic radiation would scatter when reflected from a specific geometric shape. His equations were later refined by the German scientist, Arnold Johannes Sommerfield. But for a long time, even after aircraft designers attempted to reduce radar signatures for aircraft like the U-2 and A-12 OXCART in the late 1950s, the biggest obstacle to success was the lack of theoretical models of how radar reflected off a surface. In the 1960s, Russian scientist Pyotr Ufimtsev began developing equations for predicting the reflection of electromagnetic waves from simple two-dimensional shapes. www.centennialofflight.gov...




Oh really - so please point me to a working Scramjet or PDE that is flight proven in Europe. The US has done it with Scramjets, has Europe?


- I told you, Europe stopped bothering with this and sold what we knew to you guys.



Links please!


- Look up Hotol etc etc.


Luck has nothing to do with it. The talent of our researchers and our vast resources does.


- Taking your time though wouldn't you say?


Riiiiiiiiiight. I'd say you are benefiting from our computer, our internet to talk to me, our combustion engine, our telephone, our plane, ourlightbulbs ect ect ect ect ect ect ect.

And I won't even mention US military technology that protected you for some 50 years from Russia.


- Well as my old pals Stu and Waynos have said each of your examples is either plain wrong or ignores the notion of the same idea being developed independantly by completely separate individuals or groups.

Even the electric lightbulb wasn't Edison's idea. Ask the Englishman Joseph Swann....or the guys Edison bought the idea from Henry Woodward and Matthew Evans.

Edison was good at the commercialisation of a product but he didn't invent the electric light no matter what the US folklore says.

Deny ignorance isn't it?









[edit on 6-10-2004 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Sminkey thats what I love about you europeans, always msing the point by a mile.

Who cares who came up with it first? Who cares who did the basic resaearch? We are actually building one, is europe?

Its a lot like when america, germany, and the U.K. were all trying to be the first to break the sound barrier.
Germany had the idea first.
The the U.K. tried
America entered the race next to last
The USSR entered the race last.

The U.K. had all the design elements, and in fact could have been the first. But your country lacked the political will to keep both supersonic projects going and ironically the one you guys canceled, we now know would have been the best choice to continue. America got you guys to give us your research and then we used it to beat you to the punch. Immoral? Maybe.
But the first man to fly a supersonic plane was Chuck Yeager, not some pasty faced stiff upper lipper.
In the end it doesn't matter who thinks of it first, or who designs it first, all that matters is who builds it first and who uses it first.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join