Ch4(uk) UFOs progr.

Moderator: Mike Everman

Post Reply
Ray(GB)
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 3:44 pm
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: England

Ch4(uk) UFOs progr.

Post by Ray(GB) » Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:02 pm

This Ch4 progr about usa propulsion experiments being the real cause of UFO sightings speculated that there is a USA PDE propelled aircraft that travels at Mach 8, evidenced by a con trail on a satellite photo. going at Mach 8.
Why would they want it as a spy plane when satellite do it all now?.
It must be for an attack aircraft,but missiles can be used to attack individual rooms anywhere on the planet, so what's the use of a v.fast plane?
Ray.

Bruno Ogorelec
Posts: 3542
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 7:31 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

Re: re: Ch4(uk) UFOs progr.

Post by Bruno Ogorelec » Thu Oct 20, 2005 11:09 am

Ben wrote:A plane capable of mach 8 would also likely be a space plane
Unfortunately, not so. The physics of space flight precludes the possibility of a space plane until we find technology that will extract vastly greater amounts of energy from the given mass of fuel.

A relatively straightforward bit of math shows that you cannot build a space plane that can take enough fuel and oxidant to take off, reach orbit, return and land with any cargo on board. Indeed, it is a big question if it could do it at all, much less with a useful load.

That is why rockets reign supreme. Compared to aircraft, they need little in the way of structure and almost no ancillaries. Rockets are essentially nothing but huge thin-wall fuel containers with an engine and a laughable amount of cargo tacked on as an afterthought. Add something as simple as the landing gear and the task becomes more difficult by an order of magnitude, as the percentage of total mass avalable for fuel storage drops dangerously. Wings? Forget it. Armament? Ha-ha-ha. Might as well order a Jaccuzi and a marble fireplace. And of course, you can forget about the internal structure necessary for the fuselage to take flight loads.

Yes, I know we all dreamed of space planes -- the older among us still remember the Dyna Soar -- but it turns out that virtually all of the experimental projects that fired our imagination were ruses designed to lead the Russkis astray in their planning.

Reportedly, the Russians scratched their heads in wonder at the apparent idiocy of US planners, so apparently intent on building impossible projects, but their politicos refused to believe the scientists' figures, fearing that the US knew what it was doing. So, a few such projects were ordered from Kremlin and the Russian space industry dutifully complied. Studies and mock-ups were produced, but none of those progressed as far as ground testing, much less flight -- for the same reason the US never went down the space plane path for real.

We may see Mach 8 aircraft but they will not go into orbit and return to land, that's for sure, until we invent anti-gravity drive or something similar.

Ray(GB)
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 3:44 pm
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: England

re: Ch4(uk) UFOs progr.

Post by Ray(GB) » Thu Oct 20, 2005 12:38 pm

Thanks for the info.,Ben and Bruno.
Ray.

El-Kablooey
Posts: 723
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 3:39 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Northwest Georgia, USA

Re: re: Ch4(uk) UFOs progr.

Post by El-Kablooey » Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:39 am

Ben wrote:It takes time and fuel to re-task satellites, and they're always orbiting so you can't stay over an area and keep watching something going on.



I don't know anything about spy satellites, but I think most satellites travel at a speed relative to earth's rotation, keeping them above the same point on earth all the time. This is why you don't ever have to adjust satellite TV dishes, and how GPS units know where they are, etc....
On an endless quest in search of a better way.

Bruno Ogorelec
Posts: 3542
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 7:31 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

Re: re: Ch4(uk) UFOs progr.

Post by Bruno Ogorelec » Fri Oct 21, 2005 10:15 am

Ben wrote:Who said anything about reaching orbit?
Sorry, I misunderstood you. To me, 'space plane' equals something that is capable of reaching orbit. You are right on the non-orbit space 'jumps'.

Post Reply