+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: While We Are Staring at Virgin Galactic, is Mil Testing Its Own Secret Hypersonics? (Or Worse!)

  1. Link to Post #1
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    20th November 2012
    Location
    gone
    Age
    42
    Posts
    4,873
    Thanks
    15,814
    Thanked 18,722 times in 4,284 posts

    Question While We Are Staring at Virgin Galactic, is Mil Testing Its Own Secret Hypersonics? (Or Worse!)

    "Sticking Out Like a Sore Thumb": A Not-So-Clandestine Rocket Launching Operation


    So... Yahoo News etc. and Space.com were likely told that the Terrier-Orion triple rocket launch scheduled to take place in Virginia today (not sure if they've launched yet?) is no big deal, yada yada, typical "science payload" on a weather balloon parachute, blah blah. If there is any story here, it's classified and none of our beeswax. That's where I hope to help out.

    Well. You know that up-and-coming company, Virgin Galactic? Run by that crazy and successful long haired guy that looks a bit like Dog the Bounty Hunter? Well, he just watched his space plane take off the other day this week, iirc, with an assisted launch from the specialized mother ship "WhiteKnightII".

    The thing that struck my interest is that the latest known (to the public) "scramjets", operated by our military and contractors, still require an "assist" from another vehicle in order to achieve orbit (or sub-orbit, as you would have it).

    For a hypersonic UAV, the logical means would be a tried-and-true solid fuel rocket, ideally something like the Terrier-Orion or Black Brant rockets. Because the crew has been removed from the picture, all life support concerns are also removed -- including worry about G-forces (which is why a different type of rocket may be used!).

    I suppose that it's possible (but not definite of course!) that this amazing "triple launch" from Virginia ( http://news.yahoo.com/launch-3-milit...220717169.html ) might be something to do with an amazing new technology (that's been in sci-fi for many years!) required in order to "boost" a specialized craft into space...

    Particularly in the case of a stealth or spy craft, you would not want to be over-encumbered by the bulky equipment needed to launch from the surface while the drone is mapping or attacking a target. Therefor a rocket assisted launch or airplane assisted launch is the way to go -- and the only way to race another nation's ICBM launch is by launching your counter-measures just as quickly.



    Hope you guys enjoy the footage of the launches, if it's out there already!

    I really hope it's not just another Vandenberg style nuclear dry run toward Syria



    p.s. I should give some info on these launches!

    http://news.yahoo.com/launch-3-milit...220717169.html

    Quote Launch of 3 Military Rockets Tonight Visible Along US East Coast
    SPACE.com By by Mike Wall, Senior Writer
    3 hours ago


    The U.S. military will launch three rockets from Virginia early Tuesday (Jan. 14) in back-to-back-to-back liftoffs that could be visible to observers in the mid-Atlantic region, weather permitting.

    Three Terrier-Orion suborbital rockets are scheduled to blast off from NASA's Wallops Flight Facility between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m. EST (0600 to 1000 GMT) Tuesday within a span of 20 seconds, on hush-hush missions for the Department of Defense (DoD).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramjet_programs
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sounding_rocket
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misty_(satellite)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandenberg_Air_Force_Base
    http://www.space.com/24249-commercia...-off-2014.html
    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Upd...et-test-flight


    Virgin Galactic CEO

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramjet_programs

    It could be that the military is trying to see which scramjet to mass produce: could be a test run of 3 different craft to compare their abilities in action!

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/18/scramjet_test/

    Quote DARPA scramjet nudges Mach 10
    Successful Oz launch of HyCAUSE
    By Lester Haines, 18th June 2007

    Australia's Woomera Test Facility last Friday hosted the successful launch and firing of a scramjet engine which reached speeds of "up to Mach 10", the country's Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) has announced.



    The HyCAUSE lifts off atop a TALOS rocket. Photo: DSTOThe HyCAUSE vehicle - a joint project between DSTO, the US's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and the Australian Hypersonics Initiative (AHI)- took off atop a TALOS rocket and reached a heady 530km before firing its way to around 11,000km/h (6,800mph), according to Oz's parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Defence, Peter Lindsay.

    Lindsay trumpeted: "This research is a major boost to Australian and international scramjet technology research. Australia is a world leader in hypersonics research."

    DARPA's deputy director of the Tactical Technology Office, Dr Steven Walker, said: "This test has obtained the first ever flight data on the inward-turning scramjet* engine design. DARPA will compare this flight data to ground test data measured on the same engine configuration in the US. We are pleased with this joint effort between the US and Australia and believe that a hypersonic airplane could be a reality in the not too distant future."

    DSTO boffin Dr Warren Harch explained that "hypersonic propulsion using supersonic combustion ramjet (scramjet) technology offered the possibility of very high speeds and fuel efficiencies". He added: "This technology has the potential to put numerous defence and civilian aerospace applications within our reach during the next couple of decades."

    The principal advantage of the scramjet is that it contains relatively few moving parts. To qualify for the scramjet title, the engine must mix atmospheric air with fuel (hydrogen) and ignite it while flow throughout the engine remains at supersonic speeds.

    This last requisite points to the scramjet's main disadvantage - it has to be going pretty fast before it can be fired up, meaning it has to be brought to operational speed by, for example, a good old-fashioned rocket.

    The latest test of the tech follows last year's acceleration of a HyShot III scramjet to an estimated 9,000km/h (5,600mph) as part of a joint project with the UK's Qinetic.

    DSTO last year signed the AU$74m "Hypersonics International Flight Research Experimentation (HiFire) Agreement" with the United States Air Force, which will see 10 "hypersonic flight experiments" at Woomera over the next five years. ®

    Bootnote
    *The difference between an inward-turning scramjet and, for example, NASA's X-43, is that the latter has a box-shaped combustion chamber in which "the large surface areas created by rectangular designs generate tremendous heat transfer into a vehicle, requiring extra fuel loads just to cool areas around the engine chamber", as DefenceTalk puts it.

    The former boasts a funnel-shaped combustion chamber "where air comes in through a circular opening, increases in pressure as it passes through, then leaves with more thrust and less heating than through a rectangular design".

    The Road to Enterprise PaaS
    p.s.

    Quote http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/l...php/t1034.html

    Full Version: Solid Vs. Liquid Rockets
    Unmanned Spaceflight.com > Other Missions > Private Missions


    Chmee
    May 27 2005, 07:38 PM
    I am no rocket scientist, but it seems to me that the cheapest way to space for unmanned missions would be to use rockets with solid fuel and not liquid. Solid rockets are much, much simpler than liquid rockets since they have virtually no moving parts (no pumps, engines, etc). It has been my experience that the simpler the design, the fewer potential points, and thus opportunities, for failure.

    This simplicity also translates into a much easier assembly process, and thus lower cost. So why don't we use some modified Shuttle SRB's to get into orbit?

    I know that that solid rockets have some "drawbacks", in that they cannot be throttled nor turned off once lit. But how many (unmanned) launches have we seen that needed the thrust to be cut? If the rocket went off course, they are blown up immediately, regardless what kind of fuel is in them.

    I believe that solid fuel is not as efficient as liquid (at least does not have a high ISP). However, if it is 4 times cheaper to assemble a solid rocket vs. a liquid, the higher fuel requirement should not be a big deal; just make the rocket a bit larger and it will still be much cheaper.

    Are there other issues that I did not list that would make using solids not desirable? If there are no other issues, why isn't the space industry using them now for cheap access?


    Bob Shaw
    May 27 2005, 07:47 PM
    Using SRB-derived rockets for manned launches has been given serious support by the new NASA Administrator, who says also that he already has a heavy-lift vehicle available - the Shuttle stack without the Orbiter.

    These are persuasive concepts, though the new Hybrid rocket motors (as used by SpaceShipOne) have some very attractive features, being non-toxic, non cryogenic, and able to be throttled - albeit with a poorer specific impulse than Hydrogen/Oxygen etc.

    I can't honestly see unbuilt and expensive Titan-IV class boosters competing, somehow - the post-Shuttle landscape will surely use as much Shuttle hardware as possible, and thereby will save zillions on the launch support side of things...


    http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/...c335b-336.html

    Quote NASA unveils new super rocket for manned flights beyond Earth orbit
    09/14/2011 03:23 PM Filed in: Space News | Exploration | SLS
    By WILLIAM HARWOOD
    CBS News




    NASA unveiled the design of its long-awaited post-shuttle super rocket Wednesday, a gargantuan Saturn 5-class booster intended to propel the agency's manned Orion crew capsules beyond low-Earth orbit and onto a variety of deep space destinations ranging from nearby asteroids to Mars.


    NASA's heavy-lift Space Launch System rocket will be ready for its initial test flight in 2017 if the program is fully funded. (Credit: NASA)
    If fully funded and developed, it will be the most powerful rocket ever built, dwarfing the lift capability of the space shuttle and exceeding that of the mighty Saturn 5 that propelled the Apollo missions to the moon.
    I would like to know -- whenever the gov discloses it of course (did I miss it?) how many men died in nuclear missile silos over the last 60 years because of liquid-fuel rockets produced by corrupt companies... how long has NASA tolerated the constant setbacks of having to develop and provide support to terrestrial wartime missions rather than off-world peaceful missions?

    I think it's pretty sick that the nuclear program hijacked our space program.

    What do you guys think?
    Personally, I want to know what happened re:

    "This launch system will create good-paying American jobs, ensure continued U.S. leadership in space and inspire millions around the world," NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said in a statement. "President Obama challenged us to be bold and dream big, and that's exactly what we are doing at NASA. While I was proud to fly on the space shuttle, tomorrow's explorers will now dream of one day walking on Mars."

    Why are we stuck with launching small-time unmanned rockets then, instead of actually making good on this?
    Last edited by Tesla_WTC_Solution; 14th January 2014 at 02:52.

  2. Link to Post #2
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    20th November 2012
    Location
    gone
    Age
    42
    Posts
    4,873
    Thanks
    15,814
    Thanked 18,722 times in 4,284 posts

    Default Re: While We Are Staring at Virgin Galactic, is Mil Testing Its Own Secret Hypersonics? (Or Worse!)

    p.p.s. they launch sometime tonight (14th after midnight) between 1 and 5am, but my reading glasses aren't around.

    For some reason I thought it was earlier in the evening. lol dur!

    Anyhow, some may be wondering, what IS a scramjet and why do they matter?
    You might recall recently (within 5 years) hearing DARPA whine about not being able to sustain "continuous flight" (i.e. self-fueling!) with their high-alt drones...

    Well, we are getting closer and closer to "cheap (if not free!) energy" being a reality but will it be available to the public, or a privilege of trigger happy warhawks?



    Quote A scramjet (supersonic combustion ramjet) is a variant of a ramjet airbreathing jet engine in which combustion takes place in supersonic airflow. As in ramjets, a scramjet relies on high vehicle speed to forcefully compress and decelerate the incoming air before combustion (hence ramjet), but whereas a ramjet decelerates the air to subsonic velocities before combustion, airflow in a scramjet is supersonic throughout the entire engine. This allows the scramjet to operate efficiently at extremely high speeds: theoretical projections place the top speed of a scramjet between Mach 12 (8,400 mph; 14,000 km/h) and Mach 24 (16,000 mph; 25,000 km/h).[not verified in body]

    The scramjet is composed of three basic components: a converging inlet, where incoming air is compressed and decelerated; a combustor, where gaseous fuel is burned with atmospheric oxygen to produce heat; and a diverging nozzle, where the heated air is accelerated to produce thrust. Unlike a typical jet engine, such as a turbojet or turbofan engine, a scramjet does not use rotating, fan-like components to compress the air; rather, the achievable speed of the aircraft moving through the atmosphere causes the air to compress within the inlet. As such, no moving parts are needed in a scramjet. In comparison, typical turbojet engines require inlet fans, multiple stages of rotating compressor fans, and multiple rotating turbine stages, all of which add weight, complexity, and a greater number of failure points to the engine.

    Due to the nature of their design, scramjet operation is limited to near-hypersonic velocities. As they lack mechanical compressors, scramjets require the high kinetic energy of a hypersonic flow to compress the incoming air to operational conditions. Thus, a scramjet-powered vehicle must be accelerated to the required velocity by some other means of propulsion, such as turbojet, railgun, or rocket engines.[1] In the flight of the experimental scramjet-powered Boeing X-51A, the test craft was lifted to flight altitude by a Boeing B-52 Stratofortress before being released and accelerated by a detachable rocket to near Mach 4.5.[2] In May 2013, another flight achieved an increased speed of Mach 5.1.[3]

    While scramjets are conceptually simple, actual implementation is limited by extreme technical challenges. Hypersonic flight within the atmosphere generates immense drag, and temperatures found on the aircraft and within the engine can be much greater than that of the surrounding air. Maintaining combustion in the supersonic flow presents additional challenges, as the fuel must be injected, mixed, ignited, and burned within milliseconds. While scramjet technology has been under development since the 1950s, only very recently have scramjets successfully achieved powered flight.[4]
    There was a scifi novel a while back about a Ramjet (or scram?) carrying a bunch of freedom fighters in continuous flight around the Earth, since the Powers That Be were trying to arrest them! Their jet could provide its own fuel by taking elements straight from the air.

    However, we don't really know for sure what continuous scramjet presence in the earth's atmosphere would do to the delicate layers of air... unlike many people assume, our atmosphere is quite complicated, and like the nuclear bomb, the jet also shares certain destructive potential when put up against the Final Frontier!


    LOX, short for liquid oxygen, is one of the compounds that makes working around silos and rockets in general very dangerous! Even when dealing with a small liquid oxygen tank, such as a pilot would require in order to breathe at cruising altitude, requires a great deal of care!

    LOX eats through a lot of things, and so you can understand why missiles and the like cost so much money -- the failure rate is quite severe.

    Scramjets are the technological keystone that will allow mankind some freedom from the dangers of the LOX tanks.

    Quote Propellant[edit]
    An advantage of a hypersonic airbreathing (typically scramjet) vehicle like the X-30 is avoiding or at least reducing the need for carrying oxidizer. For example the space shuttle external tank holds 616,432 kg of liquid oxygen (LOX) and 103,000 kg of liquid hydrogen (LH2) while having an empty weight of 30,000 kg. The orbiter gross weight is 109,000 kg with a maximum payload of about 25,000 kg and to get the assembly off the launch pad the shuttle uses two very powerful solid rocket boosters with a weight of 590,000 kg each. If the oxygen could be eliminated, the vehicle could be lighter at liftoff and maybe carry more payload. That would be an advantage, but the central motivation in pursuing hypersonic airbreathing vehicles would be to reduce cost.[citation needed]

    On the other hand, scramjets spend more time in the atmosphere and require more hydrogen fuel to deal with aerodynamic drag. Whereas liquid oxygen is quite a dense fluid, liquid hydrogen has much lower density and takes up much more volume. This means that the vehicle using this fuel becomes much bigger and gives even more drag.[31]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_oxygen

    Quote Liquid oxygen — abbreviated LOx, LOX or Lox in the aerospace, submarine and gas industries — is one of the physical forms of elemental oxygen.

    Liquid oxygen has a pale blue color and is strongly paramagnetic; it can be suspended between the poles of a powerful horseshoe magnet.[1] Liquid oxygen has a density of 1.141 g/cm3 (1.141 kg/L) and is cryogenic with a freezing point of 50.5 K (−368.77 °F, −222.65 °C) and a boiling point of 90.19 K (−297.33 °F, −182.96 °C) at 101.325 kPa (760 mmHg). Liquid oxygen has an expansion ratio of 1:861 under 1 standard atmosphere (100 kPa) and 20 °C (68 °F),[2][3] and because of this, it is used in some commercial and military aircraft as transportable source of breathing oxygen.

    Because of its cryogenic nature, liquid oxygen can cause the materials it touches to become extremely brittle. Liquid oxygen is also a very powerful oxidizing agent: organic materials will burn rapidly and energetically in liquid oxygen. Further, if soaked in liquid oxygen, some materials such as coal briquettes, carbon black, etc., can detonate unpredictably from sources of ignition such as flames, sparks or impact from light blows. Petrochemicals, including asphalt, often exhibit this behavior.

    The tetraoxygen molecule (O4) was first predicted in 1924 by Gilbert N. Lewis, who proposed it to explain why liquid oxygen defied Curie's law.[4] Modern computer simulations indicate that although there are no stable O4 molecules in liquid oxygen, O2 molecules do tend to associate in pairs with antiparallel spins, forming transient O4 units.[5]

    Liquid nitrogen has a lower boiling point at −196 °C (77 K) than oxygen's −183 °C (90 K), and vessels containing liquid nitrogen can condense oxygen from air: when most of the nitrogen has evaporated from such a vessel there is a risk that liquid oxygen remaining can react violently with organic material. Conversely, liquid nitrogen or liquid air can be oxygen-enriched by letting it stand in open air; atmospheric oxygen dissolves in it, while nitrogen evaporates preferentially.
    more reading on trouble with LOX:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_X-1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SABRE_(rocket_engine)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_S..._external_tank

    Quote A Space Shuttle External Tank (ET) was the component of the Space Shuttle launch vehicle that contained the liquid hydrogen fuel and liquid oxygen oxidizer. During lift-off and ascent it supplied the fuel and oxidizer under pressure to the three Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME) in the orbiter. The ET was jettisoned just over 10 seconds after MECO (Main Engine Cut Off), where the SSMEs were shut down, and re-entered the Earth's atmosphere. Unlike the Solid Rocket Boosters, external tanks were not re-used. They broke up before impact in the Indian Ocean (or Pacific Ocean in the case of direct-insertion launch trajectories), away from shipping lanes. The tanks were not recovered.[1]

    Although the external tanks were always discarded, it could have been possible to re-use them in orbit.[2] Plans for re-use ranged from incorporation into a space station as extra living or research space, as rocket fuel tanks for interplanetary missions (e.g. Mars), to raw materials for orbiting factories.[2]

    Another concept was to use the ET as a cargo carrier for bulky payloads.[3] One proposal was for the primary mirror of 7 meter aperture telescope to be carried with the tank.[3] Another concept was the Aft Cargo Carrier (ACC).[4]


    http://space.about.com/od/challenger...OX-Tank-Ru.htm

    Quote Challenger Disaster STS-51L Pictures - LOX Tank Rupture
    By Nick Greene



    Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster STS-51L Pictures - LOX Tank Rupture
    NASA
    The bright luminous glow at the top is attributed to the rupture of the liquid oxygen tank just above the SRB/ET attachment. At this point, Challenger is completely engulfed in a firey flow of escaping liquid propellant.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-51-L_Mission_timeline

    Quote At around T+72, the right SRB apparently pulled away from the aft strut attaching it to the external tank. Later analysis of telemetry data showed a sudden lateral acceleration to the right at T+72.525, which may have been felt by the crew. The last statement captured by the crew cabin recorder came just half a second after this acceleration, when Pilot Michael J. Smith said "Uh oh". Smith may also have been responding to onboard indications of main engine performance, or to falling pressures in the external fuel tank.

    At T+73.124, the aft dome of the liquid hydrogen tank failed, producing a propulsive force that pushed the hydrogen tank into the liquid oxygen tank in the forward part of the external tank. At the same time, the right SRB rotated about the forward attach strut, and struck the intertank structure.

    The breakup of the vehicle began at T+73.162 seconds and at an altitude of 48,000 feet (14.6 kilometres (9.1 mi)).[1] With the external tank disintegrating, Challenger veered from its correct attitude with respect to the local air flow and was immediately torn apart by abnormal aerodynamic forces resulting in a load factor of up to 20g – well over its design limit. The two SRBs, which can withstand greater aerodynamic loads, separated from the ET and continued in uncontrolled powered flight for another 37 seconds. The SRB casings were made of 12.7 millimetres (0.50 in) thick steel and were much stronger than the orbiter and ET; thus, both SRBs survived the breakup of the space shuttle stack, even though the right SRB was still suffering the effects of the joint burn-through that had set the destruction of Challenger in motion.[2] The boosters were destroyed by the range safety system at around 110 seconds after launch.

    Clearly the LOX tank was the problem with this design, not just an O ring.
    Last edited by Tesla_WTC_Solution; 14th January 2014 at 04:18.

  3. Link to Post #3
    United States Avalon Member jagman's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th June 2011
    Location
    Coast of Texas
    Age
    53
    Posts
    2,168
    Thanks
    17,577
    Thanked 12,376 times in 1,905 posts

    Default Re: While We Are Staring at Virgin Galactic, is Mil Testing Its Own Secret Hypersonics? (Or Worse!)

    Excellent thread Tesla! Dont you wish you could have a peek behind the curtain just
    once Tesla? I know I do but if we did, we might be completely scared out of our minds lol

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jagman For This Post:

    mojo (14th January 2014), Tesla_WTC_Solution (14th January 2014)

  5. Link to Post #4
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    20th November 2012
    Location
    gone
    Age
    42
    Posts
    4,873
    Thanks
    15,814
    Thanked 18,722 times in 4,284 posts

    Default Re: While We Are Staring at Virgin Galactic, is Mil Testing Its Own Secret Hypersonics? (Or Worse!)

    Quote Posted by jagman (here)
    Excellent thread Tesla! Dont you wish you could have a peek behind the curtain just
    once Tesla? I know I do but if we did, we might be completely scared out of our minds lol
    I think that is how the Chinese delegation to the Pentagon reacted a couple years ago, Jagman!!

    They got an "inside look" and claimed to be impressed with what's over here.

    p.s. Thank you for the kind words! My spouse watched some Youtube on rocket launch disasters this week and we were shocked to read the news lol

  6. Link to Post #5
    United States Avalon Member conk's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Language
    Southern English
    Posts
    3,937
    Thanks
    11,067
    Thanked 11,177 times in 2,998 posts

    Default Re: While We Are Staring at Virgin Galactic, is Mil Testing Its Own Secret Hypersonics? (Or Worse!)

    Many believe the shuttle Challenger was shot down. I was lucky enough to see the photo showing a strange, spiral blue light going toward the shuttle. Similar in appearance to the Norway Spiral. Many on this forum have discussed this theory and also believe it was an ET kill shot. The photo cannot be found on the web now. A "John Lear" type claims to own the photo, can't recall who specifically.
    The quantum field responds not to what we want; but to who we are being. Dr. Joe Dispenza

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to conk For This Post:

    mojo (14th January 2014), Tesla_WTC_Solution (14th January 2014)

  8. Link to Post #6
    Sao Tome Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    12th February 2011
    Location
    where ever there is a smile, ill be there :-)
    Posts
    2,041
    Thanks
    1,906
    Thanked 7,412 times in 1,702 posts

    Default Re: While We Are Staring at Virgin Galactic, is Mil Testing Its Own Secret Hypersonics? (Or Worse!)

    I love the illusion being set. Its a publicity stunt to give credence that we are not that advanced. Mach 10 is cilds play in terms of advanced avionics already achievable with our level of technology ( or closer to the point , their level )

    They want to put us in the mind set of the 1950's ... oooh a rocket ... oooh we are advancing ... ( im thinking of homer here )

    N

  9. Link to Post #7
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    20th November 2012
    Location
    gone
    Age
    42
    Posts
    4,873
    Thanks
    15,814
    Thanked 18,722 times in 4,284 posts

    Default Re: While We Are Staring at Virgin Galactic, is Mil Testing Its Own Secret Hypersonics? (Or Worse!)

    Quote Posted by conk (here)
    Many believe the shuttle Challenger was shot down. I was lucky enough to see the photo showing a strange, spiral blue light going toward the shuttle. Similar in appearance to the Norway Spiral. Many on this forum have discussed this theory and also believe it was an ET kill shot. The photo cannot be found on the web now. A "John Lear" type claims to own the photo, can't recall who specifically.
    I think they blew the Oring story way out of proportion and downplayed the inherent danger of using these liquid fuel rockets
    Is it possible that the spiral was gas escaping the fuel cell? They didn't know about the leak until they throttled up and blew up (when LOX tank went, it was only a matter of milliseconds before the whole thing was gone!)

    I do believe it is possible to take out a fuel tank by inducing current directly into it, but that might be hard without testing.
    There was a flight that left the NYC area years back, that people think went down possibly due to electronic inference, or I should say electrical interference;
    a jolt targeted the fuel system and overcame the protective features that normally insulate the system from the rest of the electronics.

    Induction IS weaponized... and remotely so...

    Quote Nuclear weapons emit large amounts of thermal radiation as visible, infrared, and ultraviolet light, to which the atmosphere is largely transparent. This is known as "Flash".[12] The chief hazards are burns and eye injuries. On clear days, these injuries can occur well beyond blast ranges, depending on weapon yield.[2] Fires may also be started by the initial thermal radiation, but the following high winds due to the blast wave may put out almost all such fires, unless the yield is very high, where the range of thermal effects vastly out ranges blast effects, like that observed in the multi-megaton range.[2] This is because the intensity of the blast effects drops off with the third power of distance from the explosion, while the intensity of radiation effects drops off with the second power of distance. This results in the range of thermal effects increasing markedly more than blast range as higher and higher device yields are detonated.[2] Thermal radiation accounts for between 35-45% of the energy released in the explosion, depending on the yield of the device. However, in urban areas, the extinguishing of fires ignited by thermal radiation may matter little, as in a surprise attack fires may also be started by blast-effect-induced electrical shorts, gas pilot lights, overturned stoves, and other ignition sources, as was the case in the breakfast-time bombing of Hiroshima.[13] Whether or not these secondary fires will in turn themselves be snuffed out as modern noncombustible brick and concrete buildings collapse in on themselves from the same blast wave is uncertain, not least of which, because of the masking effect of modern city landscapes on thermal and blast transmission are continually examined.[14] When combustible frame buildings were blown down in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they did not burn as rapidly as they would have done had they remained standing. Moreover, the noncombustible debris produced by the blast frequently covered and prevented the burning of combustible material.[15] Fire experts suggest that unlike Hiroshima, due to the nature of modern U.S. city design and construction, a firestorm in modern times is unlikely after a Nuclear detonation.[16] This does not exclude fires from being started, but means that these fires will not form into a firestorm, due largely to the differences between modern building materials and that used in World War II era Hiroshima.

    Quote TWA Flight 800 alternative theories, advocated by independent investigation groups and individuals, including 6 members of the original National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigation team, allege that the crash of Trans World Airlines Flight 800 (TWA 800) was due to causes other than those determined by the NTSB.[1] The NTSB stated that the probable cause of the crash of TWA 800 was an explosion of flammable fuel/air vapors in a fuel tank, most likely from a short-circuit. Alternative theories state that the crash was due to either a U.S. Navy, terrorist missile strike or an on-board bomb. On June 19, 2013, a documentary alleging that the investigation into the crash was a cover-up made news headlines with statements from six members of the original investigation team, now retired, who also filed a petition to reopen the probe.[2]
    I worked extensively on C130H fuel tank wiring between 2004 and 2007, and can say that a short causing an explosion like that is very unlikely... the electrical power supplied to the fuel quantity capacitance system is very small... not enough to cause an explosion, only enough to sense liquid levels.

    The official story is complete BS.

    Challenger might have been the same.

    p.s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inerting_system

    http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/04-41.pdf
    EVALUATION OF FUEL TANK FLAMMABILITY AND THE FAA INERTING
    SYSTEM ON THE NASA 747 SCA
    Last edited by Tesla_WTC_Solution; 14th January 2014 at 23:17.

  10. Link to Post #8
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    20th November 2012
    Location
    gone
    Age
    42
    Posts
    4,873
    Thanks
    15,814
    Thanked 18,722 times in 4,284 posts

    Default Re: While We Are Staring at Virgin Galactic, is Mil Testing Its Own Secret Hypersonics? (Or Worse!)

    "rain" postponed the launches apparently

    http://www.newsplex.com/news/vastate...240071041.html

    January 14, 2014

    WALLOPS ISLAND, Va. (AP) - Rainy weather has postponed the launch of three suborbital rockets from NASA's Wallops Island facility on Virginia's Eastern Shore.

    The Terrier-Orion rockets were scheduled to be launched for the Department of Defense on Tuesday morning. NASA says the launch has been rescheduled for Wednesday between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m. because of approaching rain.

    Backup launch days are Thursday through Saturday.

    NASA says the rockets will be launched within a 20-second period and may be visible to residents in southern New Jersey and on the Delmarva Peninsula.

    The NASA Visitor Center at Wallops won't be open for viewing the launch. The Defense Department also has requested that NASA not provide real-time launch updates.

    http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/...cket-launches/

    Quote On Jan. 8, 2014, Orbital Sciences Corp. elected to scrub that day's launch attempt of an Antares rocket from NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, Va., due to unusually high levels of space radiation – an example of the ways in which space weather can affect human technology.

    Monitoring for space radiation – which refers to excessive high-energy protons in near-Earth space, often funneled in from space in association with an event on the sun such as the solar flares and associated coronal mass ejections that occurred on Jan. 7, 2014 – is a standard protocol for any launch attempt. Excess radiation can affect the critical computer systems aboard the launch vehicle.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_storm

    Quote A geomagnetic storm is a temporary disturbance of the Earth's magnetosphere caused by a solar wind shock wave and/or cloud of magnetic field which interacts with the Earth's magnetic field. The increase in the solar wind pressure initially compresses the magnetosphere and the solar wind's magnetic field interacts with the Earth’s magnetic field and transfers an increased energy into the magnetosphere. Both interactions cause an increase in movement of plasma through the magnetosphere (driven by increased electric fields inside the magnetosphere) and an increase in electric current in the magnetosphere and ionosphere.

    During the main phase of a geomagnetic storm, electric current in the magnetosphere creates a magnetic force which pushes out the boundary between the magnetosphere and the solar wind. The disturbance in the interplanetary medium which drives the geomagnetic storm may be due to a solar coronal mass ejection (CME) or a high speed stream (co-rotating interaction region or CIR)[1] of the solar wind originating from a region of weak magnetic field on the Sun’s surface. The frequency of geomagnetic storms increases and decreases with the sunspot cycle. CME driven storms are more common during the maximum of the solar cycle and CIR driven storms are more common during the minimum of the solar cycle.

    There are several space weather phenomena which tend to be associated with or are caused by a geomagnetic storm. These include: Solar Energetic Particle (SEP) events, geomagnetically induced currents (GIC), ionospheric disturbances which cause radio and radar scintillation, disruption of navigation by magnetic compass and auroral displays at much lower latitudes than normal. In 1989, a geomagnetic storm energized ground induced currents which disrupted electric power distribution throughout most of the province of Quebec[2] and caused aurorae as far south as Texas.[3]
    Last edited by Tesla_WTC_Solution; 14th January 2014 at 23:32.

  11. Link to Post #9
    Palestinian Territory Avalon Member thunder24's Avatar
    Join Date
    22nd February 2011
    Location
    Middle of the woods
    Posts
    2,202
    Thanks
    15,120
    Thanked 9,176 times in 1,846 posts

    Default Re: While We Are Staring at Virgin Galactic, is Mil Testing Its Own Secret Hypersonics? (Or Worse!)

    any body got the astrological alignments for the date of launch and corrected date of launch?
    OBADIAH 1:21
    The Good things in life

    "...where ever you go, there you are..."

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to thunder24 For This Post:

    ExomatrixTV (29th June 2023), Tesla_WTC_Solution (15th January 2014)

  13. Link to Post #10
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    20th November 2012
    Location
    gone
    Age
    42
    Posts
    4,873
    Thanks
    15,814
    Thanked 18,722 times in 4,284 posts

    Default Re: While We Are Staring at Virgin Galactic, is Mil Testing Its Own Secret Hypersonics? (Or Worse!)





    ________________________________________________





    ________________________________________________



    http://www.usa.com/wallops-island-va.htm

    ________________________________

    Few days ago, same port:


  14. Link to Post #11
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    20th November 2012
    Location
    gone
    Age
    42
    Posts
    4,873
    Thanks
    15,814
    Thanked 18,722 times in 4,284 posts

    Default Re: While We Are Staring at Virgin Galactic, is Mil Testing Its Own Secret Hypersonics? (Or Worse!)

    http://www.gizmag.com/scramspace-interview/28991/
    September 13, 2013


    Quote
    Professor Russell Boyce with a scale model of Scramspace

    In conversation with Scramspace director Russell Boyce

    By David Szondy

    September 13, 2013

    1 Comment
    3 Pictures
    Professor Russell Boyce with a scale model of Scramspace
    Professor Russell Boyce with a scale model of Scramspace
    Image Gallery (3 images)
    The University of Queensland’s (UQ) Scramspace project hopes to launch its unmanned scramjet vehicle from a test range in Norway early next week. We caught up with Scramspace Director and Chair for Hypersonics at UQ, Professor Russell Boyce, who is in Norway for the test, to talk about Scramspace, the test flight, and the future of scramjet technology.

    Gizmag: I understand that the tests depend on the weather. Is rain a problem for launching?

    Russell Boyce: We’re not too worried about clear skies when it comes to collecting data from the experiment, but for our payload it’s not a benefit. It needs some holes inside because when it’s flying through the atmosphere the pressure is falling quite rapidly and we need vents on the side of the scramjet to even that out. Despite that, we should be good to fly on Sunday.

    Gizmag: Why is the test being conducted in Norway? Why not at the RAAF Woomera Test Range in Australia?

    RB: Woomera is extremely busy and Australian defense needs have top priority, particularly when there are active troops engaged in things in the vicinity. It’s also quite hard to get a spot on the range. Another issue, and this is in public domain, is that the rocket motors we use have a small amount of asbestos in them and regulations don’t permit the import of asbestos into Australia. The third reason is the launch service provided by Germany’s DLR Mobile Rocket base. They routinely launch from Norway and a rocket base in Sweden.

    Gizmag: Why is Australia carrying out a hypersonic test like this?

    RB: Australia’s been doing hypersonic work since the 1960s. It started with re-entry research and it employed a special kind of shock tunnel that was invented in Australia, which enabled to do research at high speed that other people couldn't. And so from that, this particular shock tunnel enabled us to do hypersonic research back in the ‘80s. We have the capability in Australia to do high Mach number scramjet research at Mach eight, ten, twelve – that sort of number. In the United States and the rest of the world, scramjets are operating at typically Mach four, five, six, or up to seven. In Australia, we are able to work with a different class of scramjet and we've done it for quite some time.

    Gizmag: How does a scramjet work? It looks like an empty pipe, not an engine.

    RB: If you think of a jet engine underneath the wing of a Boeing 777, for example, it requires moving compressor blades to compress the air to the temperature and pressure required for ignition and combustion. It’s a bit like a diesel cycle in that you compress and then add fuel that ignites. It’s the same with scramjets, except at supersonic speed and the compression is done by shockwaves instead. So, that’s where the “ram” comes from. The air comes in the inlet and it’s compressed to the desired conditions to produce the shockwaves and then, in the combustion chamber, there are the conditions that we need so that we can carefully inject fuel in such a way that it doesn't scrap the whole cycle and combustion takes place and you release a vast amount of energy, which you convert to thrust with a nozzle and you have a working engine.

    Gizmag: It sounds like a ramjet. Is a scramjet a more advanced version of a ramjet or is it different?

    RB: In most ways, it’s completely different. A ramjet has an inlet with shockwaves and the air that passes through that inlet, by the time it passes into the combustion chamber, it’s reduced to subsonic speed. As a result of the conservation of energy, the temperature of that combustion chamber is extremely high.

    The problem with the combustion reaction is that if the temperature is too high, you might start those combustion reactions, but you never complete them. Instead of combining hydrogen and oxygen into water, you might split the hydrogen and oxygen up, but they never recombine into the water molecules. Therefore, a lot of energy simply dribbles out the back of the engine in the form of chemical energy rather than producing thrust. So, as you go up in speed with a ramjet and the temperature in the combustion chamber gets higher and higher, the ramjet gets less efficient.


    The Andøya Rocket Range, where Scramspace will be launched

    In a scramjet, there’s supersonic combustion and you design your inlet and your internal chamber in such a way that that you never get subsonic flow inside the engine. Therefore, the temperature remains low, and you have a chance of good combustion efficiency, but that brings a whole new class of problems because the air through the scramjet doesn't get much below 90 percent of flight velocity. It’s screaming through the engine and then you have the challenge of injecting fuel and mixing it so it won’t ignite before it all goes to the back.

    Gizmag: Other hypersonic designers say that the incoming air is heated so much it could melt the engine. Is heat a problem for Scramspace?

    RB: Yes, it’s definitely a problem. Dealing with it and making sure that the materials have structural integrity is a real challenge. So, for example, at the leading edge of the Mach 8 scramjet the temperature of the gas is exceeding 3,000 K, which is extremely hot, so you need to have a fuel that can withstand that environment. Ideally, the engine materials won’t reach that temperature as they receive the heat from that air flow and manage it in some way.

    You can have high-temperature ceramics, which can survive at those temperatures, but has poor mechanical properties, you can have thermal conducting material, which operate at reasonably high temperatures, but you try to conduct as much heat away from the hot areas as possible as quickly as possible. There’s a variety of games that can be played. On Scramspace, we’re only conducting our experiment for about three seconds, so we've designed the engine from aluminum with sufficient mass to absorb that heat and manage structural integrity for the duration of the test.

    Gizmag: What do you hope to accomplish with this test flight?

    RB: We’re looking at a particular concept for an engine that we've been working on in Australia for about a decade for very high Mach number flight and it involves injecting fuel into the inlet rather than the combustion chamber and then using shockwaves to ignite the fuel. We've done this in ground tests and supercomputer simulations, where we can get very nice combustion and we can understand what’s taking place from the point of view of physics and chemistry. What we need to do is get some flight data of the same configuration as the simulations and ground tests to supply more answers and beyond that, this is the first high Mach flight experiment that Australia has done, which is a free flyer.

    Prior to this, there have been a number of experiments where the payload has been a captive carry on a rocket motor where the rocket flies it up into the atmosphere at the Mach numbers its needs during the reentry, but its still attached to the rocket. What we want to do is measure the performance of this scramjet, so for this flight we are pushing off from the rocket as soon as we leave the atmosphere.

    We will have a free-flying 1.8-meter (5.9-ft) long aircraft with the operational concept for a scramjet engine with sensors on board to measure how much acceleration is produced during combustion. I should say that this flight is going to be net drag. We never designed this engine to produce thrust. We designed it to modify the drag as it operates, and the data we collect will help us to evaluate our simulations.

    Gizmag: It sounds like you’re using the Earth’s atmosphere as a giant wind tunnel.

    RB: That’s exactly what we’re doing. When doing high Mach research, you have a common action by three approaches: To have ground-based wind tunnel testing, which gives you great data, but doesn't always represent the reality of flight. The second is the computational simulation and that can be extremely precise, but not necessarily accurate. And the third is the reality of flight, but that’s quite expensive and don’t take on lightly or do very often.

    The process is to be able to take all three and couple them together. That’s the significant part of this Scramspace program; doing all three simultaneously in a highly complex fashion. From that, we hope to get the best possible understanding of the figures and what is taking place.

    Gizmag: What’s the next for Scramspace after the test?

    RB: It will take quite some time to get through this flight’s data. That will be the focus in the short term. Also, reconstructing the flight in computational simulations, comparing it to data testing, and writing publications. There are many flight experiments that I can think of to do to take the science forward.

    Artist's concept of Scramspace
    Unfortunately, it has not been possible at this stage to get funding and most of the Scramspace flight team will be dispersing at the end of this project and that’s quite a shame. The reason for the funding in the first place is to build a talent pool for the Australian space effort and we've done that quite successfully. Ideally, we’d keep this team together and proceed to another flight experiment, but the talent we generated will be dispersing into other opportunities in the aerospace sector.

    Gizmag: Looking further forward, what do you see as the practical application of this technology?

    RB: If you were to replace the middle stage of a launch vehicle with an air-breathing system, such as a scramjet, particularly if it was reusable, then the efficiency gains that you achieve over a full rocket configuration are so significant and the reliability is so great that the ultimate outcome could be the reduction of the price per kilo for sending a payload into orbit of 50 percent or greater.

    Whether it would be Australia doing this or not is another matter. The Australian government recently launched our first national space policy and the focus is more on pragmatic, satellite-based applications rather than developing a launch capability. However, it was the same part of the government that funded this particular project that now recognizes that Australia now has a new capability, so the hope would be that we would either plug into a bigger international project and hopefully see a capability for putting nano satellites and pico satellites into orbit cost efficiently in the coming decades. And that, in turn will open to Australia other specialized technologies later on.

    Gizmag: Are scramjets going to be used on manned aircraft or is the heat too much of a problem for more than payload launches?

    RB: The reality is that if you can manage the heat for a few minutes, then you can manage the heat for a long time.Once the material’s heated up and you have an equilibrium there’s no reason why we can’t keep cruising. The difficulty that I see is that it’s a bigger step to go from an unmanned system to a man-rated system. Certainly NASA has seen that when it was looking at returning to the Moon. It takes a lot of time and a lot of money.

    The problem I see it of scramjet-powered vehicles is that I believe that we may know how to fly these, how to get them working – it’s just a matter of financial resources. We have the talent and the knowhow. But getting it to the point where the reliability has been demonstrated, that’s going to make many decades. I don’t think I’ll see it in my lifetime.

    Gizmag: So, we could see a hypersonic Concorde one day?

    RB: That’s certainly been desire for many people around the world for many years. At the moment, there are many concepts being worked on in the US and in Europe and possibly in Asia. It’s something that’s going to happen, it’s just going to take some time before it’s at the stage where we can safely and reliably put passengers in these things.

    Project website: Scramspace

  15. Link to Post #12
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    20th November 2012
    Location
    gone
    Age
    42
    Posts
    4,873
    Thanks
    15,814
    Thanked 18,722 times in 4,284 posts

    Default Re: While We Are Staring at Virgin Galactic, is Mil Testing Its Own Secret Hypersonics? (Or Worse!)

    http://www.dailypress.com/news/break...0,733833.story

    NASA launches three rockets from Wallops Island

    Daily Press
    7:23 a.m. EST, January 15, 2014

    NASA launched three rockets early Wednesday morning from Wallops Island for the Department of Defense.

    The Terrier-Orion suborbital rockets were launched within a 20-second period beginning at 4:09 a.m., according to a NASA Wallops Flight Facility news release.

    The next rocket launches are scheduled for April and May.

    @_@ Y so secret?

    ¤=[Post Update]=¤

    f'n bastards and your triple redundancy.

    testing scramjets or what..??

  16. Link to Post #13
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    20th November 2012
    Location
    gone
    Age
    42
    Posts
    4,873
    Thanks
    15,814
    Thanked 18,722 times in 4,284 posts

    Default Re: While We Are Staring at Virgin Galactic, is Mil Testing Its Own Secret Hypersonics? (Or Worse!)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equator...tex_Experiment

    The Equatorial Vortex Experiment (EVEX) is a NASA-funded sounding rocket mission to better understand and predict the electrical storms in Earth's upper atmosphere. Part of this experiment, two rockets will be launched for a twelve-minute journey through the equatorial ionosphere above the South Pacific. These rockets will be launched from Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands and is scheduled to take place sometime from April 27 to May 10, 2013.

    The principal investigator for this mission is Erhan Kudeki of the University of Illinois.[1][2] The purpose of this experiment is to study what disrupts Radio waves.

    A NASA Terrier Oriole sounding rocket was launched at 3:39 a.m. EDT on 7 May 2013 from Roi Namur, Republic of the Marshall Islands. 90 seconds later a Terrier-Improved Malemute sounding rocket also was launches successfully.

    This experiment will help scientists better understand and predict the electrical storms in Earth's upper atmosphere. The electrical storms can interfere with satellite communication and global positioning signals.[3]

    These two rockets released vapor clouds of lithium (trimethyl aluminum),and were observed from various locations in the area. All scientific instruments on the rockets worked as planned. These two rockets were the second and third rockets of four planned for launch during 2013's campaign in the Marshall Islands.[4]

  17. Link to Post #14
    Netherlands Avalon Member ExomatrixTV's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd September 2011
    Location
    Netherlands
    Language
    English, Dutch, German, Limburgs
    Age
    59
    Posts
    28,952
    Thanks
    43,150
    Thanked 162,479 times in 26,975 posts

    Lightbulb Re: While We Are Staring at Virgin Galactic, is Mil Testing Its Own Secret Hypersonics? (Or Worse!)

    • LIVE! Virgin Galactic First Commerical Launch:
    No need to follow anyone, only consider broadening (y)our horizon of possibilities ...

+ Reply to Thread

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts