electric indigo Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 Weren't there experimental shark skin coatings for civilian aircrafts to reduce fuel consumption? Quote
F-ZeroOne Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 Does anyone know how a degrading paint scheme on a military aircraft affects the flying characteristics? Not exactly the same, but there was a news story in the UK press a few years back about how Pepsi paid for a Concorde to be painted Pepsi blue and it backfired because the new scheme meant that Concorde couldn't fly at Mach 2 because the paint messed up its ability to handle the kinetic heating. Not sure how much truth there was to that, the UK press are typically exceptionally poor at accurate aviation stories (did you know the A-10 Thunderbolt II has a 30inch gatling cannon?). Quote
David Hingtgen Posted December 3, 2014 Author Posted December 3, 2014 I do believe that Concorde story is true. The Blackbird works because it EMITS heat by being black, vs the XB-70 and Concorde reflecting it away with white. Quote
Shadow Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 It's a very loose interpretation of aircraft but still great to see. Orion's successful test launch. Quote
SchizophrenicMC Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 Spacecraft are the best aircraft. Quote
VF-19 Posted December 6, 2014 Posted December 6, 2014 I miss the glory days of Apollo... If we were running at Apollo's pace, we would be seeing a crewed mission within 6 months, and within a year, we'd be orbiting the moon. Quote
Shadow Posted December 6, 2014 Posted December 6, 2014 (edited) The budget or willingness to spend at such a pace just isn't there right now and understandably so. I'm just glad we won't have to keep depending on the Russians for much longer. An alternative to the solid rocket boaster would be the next big step I see in human space development. Maybe I've forgotten how loud the shuttle launch could be but those Delta IVs certainly have a roar to them. Here are some shots. Edited December 6, 2014 by Shadow Quote
frothymug Posted December 7, 2014 Posted December 7, 2014 The next logical step to open up true space exploration would be the nuclear thermal rocket. The significant improvement in specific impulse means it's the best way for us to get to Mars and near-Earth asteroids. There's just this huge stigma surrounding it, but they're not dangerous to the planet if used as the final stage of the rocket. Quote
Chronocidal Posted December 7, 2014 Posted December 7, 2014 That assumes that the rocket doesn't have problems before leaving the planet though. Any serious issues during launch could send the entire thing crashing down, and no matter how reliable we think the rocket might be, nothing has a 0% failure rate. Quote
SchizophrenicMC Posted December 7, 2014 Posted December 7, 2014 That assumes that the rocket doesn't have problems before leaving the planet though. Any serious issues during launch could send the entire thing crashing down, and no matter how reliable we think the rocket might be, nothing has a 0% failure rate. That's the logic that people have used for decades to try and stop the launch of nuclear powered probes, rovers, and landers, and it has been rebuffed time and again. Cassini-Huygens comes to mind, as does Curiosity in more recent memory. There are failsafes that are designed into nuclear devices, specifically to prevent the kinds of catastrophes people complain about the potential for. Quote
frothymug Posted December 8, 2014 Posted December 8, 2014 See, this is what most people think about nuclear rockets. It's not nuclear if you haven't turned on the reactor. For safety considerations, you only turn it on after the vehicle is on a no-return trajectory. Quote
F-ZeroOne Posted December 8, 2014 Posted December 8, 2014 I think possibly two different things are being thought of here? One is a nuclear rocket thats turned on once the craft has entered orbit, the other is a nuclear rocket thats turned on when its leaving the ground (which would be different to say, a space probe using a nuclear power source for power). NASA experimented with the latter during the 60s, and theres been at least two fictional sources I know of that have considered the implications should a malfunction occur using one (Stephen Baxters "Voyage" and the graphic novel "Ministry of Space" - both set in alternate universes involving Mars mission attempts). One potential issue is that you'd need to test the rocket somehow in any case - and early tests are usually ground-based... Quote
frothymug Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 I think possibly two different things are being thought of here? One is a nuclear rocket thats turned on once the craft has entered orbit, the other is a nuclear rocket thats turned on when its leaving the ground (which would be different to say, a space probe using a nuclear power source for power). NASA experimented with the latter during the 60s, and theres been at least two fictional sources I know of that have considered the implications should a malfunction occur using one (Stephen Baxters "Voyage" and the graphic novel "Ministry of Space" - both set in alternate universes involving Mars mission attempts). One potential issue is that you'd need to test the rocket somehow in any case - and early tests are usually ground-based... Yup. You pretty much outlined the issue. I was talking about turning it on during the TMI burn for a Mars mission. Ground tests are definitely a good thing to have, but they don't have that luxury with nuclear. Essentially, you'd have to just build a good rocket system and bet on it being successful. If anything goes wrong during startup, there could be an escape system to bring the passengers back home while ditching the rest of the craft. Quote
SchizophrenicMC Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 You can ground-test nuclear rocket engines, you just need a lot of Nevada to perform the engine tests. The one concept that doesn't get raised often enough is testing a nuclear rocket in space. Either by sending it up as assembled payload, or assembling the engine in orbit, safe testing can be achieved. This may be an option for after more permanent positions on the moon have been established, or after the proposed asteroid-capture mission succeeds. Quote
F-ZeroOne Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 Once you get far enough away from Earth, I think the public at large would then consider it "safe" - any closer to the planet thats theres a risk of re-entry, and y'know... it'd be like a "Futurama" episode... Quote
Knight26 Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 Guess who gets to visit the Boeing 787 plant on friday. Quote
David Hingtgen Posted December 12, 2014 Author Posted December 12, 2014 Are you bringing a bottle of superglue? You could help put one together. Quote
SchizophrenicMC Posted December 12, 2014 Posted December 12, 2014 Forget the 787, am I the only one who's still upset that we never replaced Concorde? Quote
Knight26 Posted December 12, 2014 Posted December 12, 2014 It was cool walking the factory floor, you could fit a couple carriers in that place, sheesh. I never saw so many 787s, 777s, 767s and 747s in one place before. You can see the various ways they are built too, very cool. I can see why the place has its own microclimate. Quote
F-ZeroOne Posted December 15, 2014 Posted December 15, 2014 Music video that may be of interest - no, its not "Danger Zone!". See if you can spot the Hurricanes... Quote
wm cheng Posted December 19, 2014 Posted December 19, 2014 Hey since when did anyone mod a F-5 to have twin tails?! Quote
Knight26 Posted December 19, 2014 Posted December 19, 2014 The Iranians started doing that about 10 years ago, I know a guy who used to work on the F-5 program and he calls those things a travesty. Quote
miles316 Posted December 20, 2014 Posted December 20, 2014 The Iranians started doing that about 10 years ago, I know a guy who used to work on the F-5 program and he calls those things a travesty. If you are interested in Iranian travesty Google F-313! Quote
reddsun1 Posted December 20, 2014 Posted December 20, 2014 Okay, I took the bait, and.... oh, good one, man. Thanks, I needed that... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0DGZfc-nJQ This thing would make a great space fighter prop, for a sci fi TV show or something. Quote
miles316 Posted December 20, 2014 Posted December 20, 2014 (edited) Okay, I took the bait, and.... oh, good one, man. Thanks, I needed that... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0DGZfc-nJQ This thing would make a great space fighter prop, for a sci fi TV show or something. I felt bad for the guy they made sit in the cockpit!!Reminds me of the Hammer head from "Space above and beyond"! Edited December 20, 2014 by miles316 Quote
David Hingtgen Posted December 20, 2014 Author Posted December 20, 2014 Hey since when did anyone mod a F-5 to have twin tails?! Twin canted tails are very stealthy you know, it's as good as an F-22 now. Quote
Nekko Basara Posted December 21, 2014 Posted December 21, 2014 I dunno, I feel pretty confident that no hostile power will ever see that thing on their radars Quote
Shadow Posted December 21, 2014 Posted December 21, 2014 Not that it's needed or would ever happen but I'd be amused if Northrop was given a contract to update the F-20 with modern avionics and the F414. Offer to sell them to the Kuwaiti's and UAE just to rustle feathers among Iran's Air Force. Quote
Vifam7 Posted December 21, 2014 Posted December 21, 2014 Considering that the F-18 Hornet's lineage can be traced back to the F-5, what the Iranians did isn't totally outrageous. Quote
skullmilitia Posted December 21, 2014 Posted December 21, 2014 Iran's F-5 Blue Angel ripoff. Omg I love the huge weld marks under those "Custom" rear stabilizers. That's totally legit Quote
Phyrox Posted December 21, 2014 Posted December 21, 2014 Omg I love the huge weld marks under those "Custom" rear stabilizers. That's totally legit Pretty sure that's a bolted fairing and not welded. Looks crude, but not welded crude. Quote
dizman Posted December 21, 2014 Posted December 21, 2014 I dunno that almost looks welded, makes the plane all that much more awesome! Quote
David Hingtgen Posted December 22, 2014 Author Posted December 22, 2014 Considering that the F-18 Hornet's lineage can be traced back to the F-5, what the Iranians did isn't totally outrageous. Yeah, but considering that the F-20 exists, going to a single more powerful engine would likely have been the better option, if you wanted to upgrade an F-5. (but that would have taken, you know, work, instead of bolting on new fins and adding a papier-mache fairing) Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.