Aerospace crafts, 50s and 60s

creedo299

creedo299

Epochal Historian
Aerospace crafts, 50s and 60s

Please note with reference to the X-15 space plane, I did not get file data, till this point in time.

What I was not apprised of, is that the X-15 rocket planes, were made in a type of production line.

This was evidenced in NASDA file footage.The footage file, showed approximately three to five craft, within a production line, being assembled in respects to each other.

From this file footage, which was probably aerospace privileged sectored, the X-15 had variable throttle capable rocket motors, which would function on demand.

Had heat resistant metal alloy skins, which could withstand extremely high rates of velocity within the very upper atmosphere.

These ships, also had pilots, that were trained, in early, semi-astronaut ways.

This information is a milestone, as with this technology then, being the addition of twin extra external fuel tanks, the F-15s, with a little extra preparation, could have flown to the moon.

*The problem with the X-15s, were their heat build-ups, placed upon external hard angled leading structures, once those high speeds runs had dropped to lower altitudes.

The concept of placing a heat resistant sled, beneath the entire space carft, probably gave encouragement to developing the lifting body.
 
The X-15 is not the birth of human space travel, it is the birth of human endurance to forced subjected to the body under extreme forces.

The birth palce of human space travel is the Avro car.
 
Early experiments in the U.S.A on a space car was the Avro car, this was the first reverse engeneered tentative space car made by human hands.

Please prove otherwise RainmanTime because that is the only information that can be derectly connected to the military.
 
AlienChild,
Please prove otherwise RainmanTime because that is the only information that can be derectly connected to the military.
Click to expand...
First of all, YOU should be the one doing the proof, because you are the one making a claim. However, there are elements of what you said that can clearly be proven false:

Early experiments in the U.S.A on a space car was the Avro car
Click to expand...
The Avro car was NEVER intended as a "space" car. It could not have been for the simple fact that its basis of propulsion was based on a fan that moved air...so it is based on conventional propulsion which relies on momentum change of air. There is no air in space, and this would render it useless for creating thrust via its given technology.

this was the first reverse engeneered tentative space car made by human hands
Click to expand...
This is stretching the truth a bit. First, as pointed out above, anyone even remotely aware of the technical nature of the Avro car knew it could never fly in space. Moreover when you look at photos of the pilot flying it (SEE HERE) you can see he is operating in an open cockpit. So not only would this not work in space, it wouldn't even work above 20,000 feet (MAX)!

As far as "reverse engineered" UFO (which is what it seems you are implying), it is not much of an attempt at "reverse engineering" if you are using your existing propulsive methods and not trying to attempt "Weightless Warp Drive", which the presumed technology used by alleged UFOs (at least that is what a large number of physicists agree upon).

So...now I await your proof of the claims you have made about this vehicle.
RMT
 
The avro car was never ment to fly in space. it was simply built so that the saucer shape could be tested as flyable in a stable fashion.

Agreed that some other agendas were created afterwards such as the U.S. Harrier Jump Jet and hovercrafts.

the avro car is a direct test and the first step.
 
The Avro car seems like a bad dream these days (although realise its relative significance back then)....

If the Avro car was an attempt to reverse engineer, (this is only my confusion) What would be the point spending millions of dollars seeing how the 'saucer shape' reacted to air resistance under a giant (and crude) fan propultion system.

Even for the 50's, it seems like a very expensive way to find out that this shape, would be highly unstable and unpractical for manuvoures under such a method.

If it was an attempt to reverse engineer (in the context i suspect AC implies) - i would suspect that the funding would have been focused around cracking the real propulsion system under original analysis. Which was (even back then) obviously not built around air transfer.

I would suspect that the avro car had a rather different purpose.
 
Humans did not understand what they had at hand to reverse engenere from in the first place, let alone rebuild it.

The Avro car was a simple test of shape and control, it was the first step, the second was to have the Avro car be jet propultion capable and eventually capable of space travel.

"""i would suspect that the funding would have been focused around cracking the real propulsion system under original analysis. Which was (even back then) obviously not built around air transfer."""

You are right and to this day D.O.D. is stil funding the developpemnt of a perfected propultion engine found in the Roswell 1947 incident.
 
The avro car was never ment to fly in space. it was simply built so that the saucer shape could be tested as flyable in a stable fashion.
Click to expand...
Clearly from those tests (and later understanding of rotary dynamics) it was established that this configuration is anything but statically stable. In point of fact, the reason this project was discontinued was due to the ultimate INSTABILITY of this configuration given the control system technology of that day and age.

I caution you, Alienchild, that you are venturing into an area that is my speciality. I am an established expert in aerospace vehicle dynamics and control, and I have developed highly non-linear control algorithms for vehicles much more advanced than the Avrocar. If you think you are going to portray the Avrocar or its descendents as part of some future-directed technology, you should think twice. You should consider the fact that my knowledge in these areas is much more advanced than what I am permited to portray in a public forum.

In other words, be careful of what you claim.
RMT
 
If the Avro car was an attempt to reverse engineer, (this is only my confusion) What would be the point spending millions of dollars seeing how the 'saucer shape' reacted to air resistance under a giant (and crude) fan propultion system.

Even for the 50's, it seems like a very expensive way to find out that this shape, would be highly unstable and unpractical for manuvoures under such a method.
Click to expand...

Olly expressed an understanding of aerospace research of that day and age. Please understand that in the 50s there were already extremely advanced transonic and supersonic wind tunnels in use in the USA for aerospace research. In point of fact, the EXACT supersonic wind tunnel that I used and learned my craft upon in the 1980s was built at my university in the 1960s! The aerodynamics, stability, and control tendencies of rotary-symmetric bodies was well investigated and understood by the time Apollo 11 was landing on the lunar surface. If it were not, there is NO WAY we could have perfected the machinations of the helicopter, which was an established technology in the Vietnam War.

Alienchild seems to be wishing to paint this technology as something that the US has yet to reveal, but I assure you that any idiot can find the basics of rotary mass and airmass mechanics anywhere on the internet today. It is a well-known technology. Now, where I am willing to admit that not "everyone" understands the finer points of this technology is in how the HIGHER ORDER derivatives (i.e. the non-linear effects) can be used in a closed-loop control manner to achieve much more effective systems.

RMT
 
I am not trying to portray as you seem to think. You are correct that this technology was fully exploited and is communly used today. All that I have said on this subject is the Avro car was step one in the evolution of this type of travel. Correct that air propultion was not the optimal propultion for this type of vehicle but none the less it was fully tested and is being used in other vehicles now.

The keys to the avro car testing was for the saucer shape and the air propultion system.
DND and DOD has never fully rel;eased documents on the shape part of the tests and to this day are still using infortation based on those first tests.

Please understand RainmanTime that your intelligence and knowledge is ont being questioned but you must understand that in the 1950's the tests were all about understaning not develloping.
 
Back
Top