-Those Fantastic Flying Machines-


NEWS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

Man must rise above the Earth—to the top of the atmosphere and beyond—for only thus will he fully understand the world in which he lives.— Socrates



Google
 

Search This Blog

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

China Developing Super Electromagnet Pulse Bomb To Use In War Against U.S. (Photos)



China Developing Super Electromagnet Pulse Bomb To Use In War Against U.S. (Photos)
Comment50

View 8 photos
Camera
Declassified Intellegence Report Details China's Plans For War Against U.S (US government)

Alexander HigginsJersey City Civil Rights Examiner
Subscribe
Follow:


Related Video:

Play
Once only a futuristic envision, China is developing a Super EMP bomb like the one in this Future Weapons Series report. (Future Weapons)
Related Photo:
David Icke
Related Ads

Military Weapons
China
EMP
Iran Nuclear Capability
Advertisement


July 24, 2011



China is gearing up for war against the United States and their top weapon is a super electromagnetic pulse bomb that can blanket the U.S. and send America back to the dark ages in less than one second.

Past reports from Chinese military websites and Asian newspapers have outlined a several attacks that China could launch to win a war against the more technologically and militarily advanced United States.

These strategical attacks, as a MITRE research report reveals, are part of an arsenal known as shashoujian or the assassin's mace.


Demystifying Shashoujian: China's 'Assassin's Mace' Concept

Interestingly, very few modern definitions of shashoujian can be documented. The most comprehensive Chinese military statement about shashoujian―that resembles a formal definition―comes from a PLA Air Force (PLAAF) officer, Senior Colonel Yang Zhibo, who, in 2002, served as a deputy researcher at the PLAAF Command College in the Office for Planning and Management Research. According to Yang, shashoujian can be “weapon systems and equipment” and/or a certain type of “combat method.” In a Kongjun Bao article, he wrote:


Basically, it is whatever the PLA needs to win future local wars under modern high-tech conditions. It includes two aspects: (1) weapon systems and equipment (e.g., hardware); and (2) every type of combat method (e.g., software). Weapons and equipment are the systems needed to deal with the enemy’s electronic warfare and information warfare, and to counter every type of weapon and equipment the enemy can use for firepower attack. [Shashoujian] [c]ombat methods include attacking different types of weapons, such as early warning aircraft, stealth aircraft, and cruise missiles, as well as the combat principles to deal with different situations.

To build a shashoujian, China must first complete a development program. It is a difficult, systematic process and not just one or two advanced weapons. It is something that all the services will use. It is an all-army, all-location, composite land, sea, and air system. It must also be a Chinese program that can use advanced foreign technology, but should not be purchased as a full system from abroad. One reason for not purchasing it from abroad is that these types of technology and tactics are common knowledge to everyone else, including the enemy. Second, other countries may not want to give China those types of technology and tactics, which are secret. Third, during wartime, political and foreign affairs (diplomacy) could possibly cut the flow of technology off from China In developing new combat methods research, combat methods constitute the full development of weapons and equipment technical and tactical capabilities, and the effective methods of raising combat effectiveness. The development of weapons, equipment, combat methods, and training must go hand-in-hand for them to be effective.

Source: MITRE

Military strategists have long predicted that the top attack in China's assassin's mace arsenal would be an Electromagnetic pulse bomb.

Watch: Future Weapons Series Report On The Threat Of Aa EMP

Now declassified defense intelligence reports reveals is already building the EMP super bomb according to a two page Washington Times report.


Report: China building electromagnetic pulse weapons for use against U.S. carriers

China's military is developing electromagnetic pulse weapons that Beijing plans to use against U.S. aircraft carriers in any future conflict over Taiwan, according to an intelligence report made public on Thursday.

Portions of a National Ground Intelligence Center study on the lethal effects of electromagnetic pulse (EMP) and high-powered microwave (HPM) weapons revealed that the arms are part of China’s so-called “assassin’s mace” arsenal - weapons that allow a technologically inferior China to defeat U.S. military forces.

EMP weapons mimic the gamma-ray pulse caused by a nuclear blast that knocks out all electronics, including computers and automobiles, over wide areas. The phenomenon was discovered in 1962 after an above ground nuclear test in the Pacific disabled electronics in Hawaii.

The declassified intelligence report, obtained by the private National Security Archive, provides details on China’s EMP weapons and plans for their use. Annual Pentagon reports on China's military in the past made only passing references to the arms.

“For use against Taiwan, China could detonate at a much lower altitude (30 to 40 kilometers) … to confine the EMP effects to Taiwan and its immediate vicinity and minimize damage to electronics on the mainland,” the report said.

The report, produced in 2005 and once labeled “secret,” stated that Chinese military writings have discussed building low-yield EMP warheads, but “it is not known whether [the Chinese] have actually done so.”

The report said that in addition to EMP weapons, “any low-yield strategic nuclear warhead (or tactical nuclear warheads) could be used with similar effects.”

“The DF-21 medium-range ballistic missile has been mentioned as a platform for the EMP attack against Taiwan,” the report said.

According to the report, China’s electronic weapons are part of what are called “trump card” or “assassin’s mace” weapons that “are based on new technology that has been developed in high secrecy.”

“Trump card would be applicable if the Chinese have developed new low-yield, possibly enhanced, EMP warheads, while assassin’s mace would apply if older warheads are employed,” the report said.

According to the report, China conducted EMP tests on mice, rats, rabbits, dogs and monkeys that produced eye, brain, bone marrow and other organ injuries. It stated that “it is clear the real purpose of the Chinese medical experiments is to learn the potential human effects of exposure to powerful EMP and [high-powered microwave] radiation.

[...]

Source: The Washington Times

As the Asia the Asia Times reports, an EMP strike launched from outer space would cripple the United States and "send it back into the dark ages" in a single strike.

WATCH: Video produced by the Center for Security Policy warning about the dangers of an EMP attack


AMERICA'S ACUPUNCTURE POINTSPART 1: Striking the US where it hurts

A noted Chinese theorist on modern warfare, Chang Mengxiong, compared China's form of fighting to "a Chinese boxer with a keen knowledge of vital body points who can bring an opponent to his knees with a minimum of movements". It is like key acupuncture points in ancient Chinese medicine. Puncture one vital point and the whole anatomy is affected. If America ever goes to war with China, say, over Taiwan, then America should be prepared for the following "acupuncture points" in its anatomy to be "punctured". Each of the vital points can bring America to its knees with a minimum of effort.

I) Electro-magnetic Pulse (EMP) attack

China and Russia are two potential US adversaries that have the capability for this kind of attack. An EMP attack can either come from an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), a submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), a long-range cruise missile, or an orbiting satellite armed with a nuclear or non-nuclear EMP warhead. A nuclear burst of one (or more) megaton some 400 kilometers over central United States (Omaha, Nebraska) can blanket the whole continental US with electro-magnetic pulse in less than one second.

An EMP attack will damage all electrical grids on the US mainland. It will disable computers and other similar electronic devices with microchips. Most businesses and industries will shut down. The entire US economy will practically grind to a halt. Satellites within line of sight of the EMP burst will also be damaged, adversely affecting military command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR). Land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles will be rendered unserviceable in their silos. Anti-ballistic missile defenses will suffer the same fate. In short – total blackout. And American society as we know it will be thrown back to the Dark Ages.

Of course, the US may decide to strike first, but China and Russia now have the means of striking back with submarine-launched ballistic missiles with the same or even more devastating results. But knowing China's strategy of "active defense", when war with the US becomes imminent, China will surely not allow itself to be targeted first. It will seize the initiative as mandated by its doctrine by striking first.

China has repeatedly announced that it will not be the first to use nuclear weapons. But as an old Chinese saying goes: "There can never be too much deception in war." If it means the survival of the whole Chinese nation that is at stake, China will surely not allow a public statement to tie its hands and prevent it from seizing the initiative. As another saying goes: "All is fair in love and war."

Source: Asian Times

The Asia Times article goes onto list cyber attack , interrupting the US foreign oil supply, an attack on the US dollar, and diplomatic isolation as other means of crushing the Untied States and goes into a detail on each of the methods of attacks.

But the most powerful attack, termed the Trump card, is development of a super EMP.

Here of some more of the attacks China may use in a war against the U.S.


AMERICA'S ACUPUNCTURE POINTSPART 2: The assassin's mace

If America ever goes to war with China, Chinese military doctrine suggests the US should expect attacks on a number of key points where it is particularly vulnerable - where a single jab would paralyze the entire nation. China would aim at targets such as the US electricity grid, its computer networks, its oil supply routes, and the dollar. Other vital "acupuncture" points are outlined below.
1) A powerful triumvirate - [The Alliance of Russia, China, And Iran]

No one ever imagined before 1991 that China and Russia would come together to form a close-knit alliance politically, diplomatically and, most important of all, militarily. For more than three decades before the break-up of the Soviet Union, China and the USSR had been bitter rivals, even going into a shooting war with each other along their common border.

[...]

Add to that the announcement of President George W Bush that the US would come to the aid of Taiwan in the event that China uses force against it; the sending of two aircraft carrier battle groups to waters near Taiwan in 1995-1996; and the naval show of strength of seven aircraft carrier battle groups converging off the China coast in August 2004. All these aggressive moves by superpower America pushed China to embrace its former bitter rival, Russia.

[...]

If we add Iran to the equation, we have a triumvirate that can pose a formidable challenge to the lone superpower. Iran is the most industrialized and the most populous nation in the Middle East. It is second only to Russia in terms of gas resources and also one of the largest oil producers in the world.

[...] Modern bottom-rising, rocket propelled sea mines and supersonic cruise missiles deployed along the long mountainous coastline of Iran, manned by "invisible" guerrillas, could indefinitely stop the flow of oil from the Gulf, from which the US gets 23% of its imported oil.

Japan also derives 90% of its oil from the Persian Gulf area, and Europe about 60%. In a major conflict, Iran can effectively deprive the US war machine and those of its key allies of much needed energy supplies.

Imagine the war machine of the superpower running out of gas. Imagine also a US economy minus 23% of its imported oil. This 23% can rise considerably once Chinese and Russian submarines start sinking US-bound oil tankers. The triumvirate of China, Russia, and Iran could bring the US to its knees with a minimum of movement.

2) The US's geopolitical disadvantage

Another "acupuncture point" in America’s anatomy [...] the US will be crossing thousands of miles of sea lanes of communication (SLOC) that can easily become a gauntlet of deadly Chinese and Russian submarines lying in ambush with bottom-rising sea mines, supercavitating rocket torpedoes, and supersonic cruise missiles that even aircraft carrier battle groups have no known defense against. Logistic and transport ships and oil tankers are particularly vulnerable.

The air corridors above these sea lanes will also be put at great risk by advanced air defense systems aboard Sovremenny destroyers or similar types of warships in Chinese and Russian inventories. [...]
Of course, the US has "forces in being" and "logistics in place" in numerous military bases scattered around the world, especially those strategically encircling China, Russia, and Iran. But when the shooting war starts, these bases will be the first to be hit by barrages of short- and medium-range ballistic missiles and long-range land-attack cruise missiles armed with electro-magnetic pulse, anti-radar, thermobaric, and conventional warheads.

Following the missile barrages, the remnants of such weakened US military bases will easily be overwhelmed by blitzkrieg assaults from Russian and Chinese armored divisions in the Eurasian mainland. China, for instance, has four large armored units constantly on standby, poised to cross the Yili Corridor in Xinjiang province at a moment’s notice. The US base in Kyrgyzstan near the Chinese border would not stand a chance.

[...]

3) Asymmetric attack

Superpower America is particularly vulnerable to asymmetric attack. A classic example of asymmetric attack is the September 11, 2001, attack on America. Nineteen determined attackers, armed with nothing but box cutters, succeeded in toppling the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City and causing the death of some 3,000 Americans. Notice the asymmetry of casualty ratio as well - the most lopsided casualty ratio ever recorded in history.

China, Russia, and Iran also possess asymmetric weapons that are designed to neutralize and defeat a superpower like America in a conventional conflict. Supersonic cruise missiles now in their inventories can defeat and sink US aircraft carriers. The same is true for medium- and short-range ballistic missiles with independently targetable warheads, extra-large bottom-rising, rocket-propelled sea mines (EM52s), and supercavitating rocket torpedoes (SHKVAL or "Squall"). The US Navy has no known defense against these weapons.

Iraqi insurgents are conducting a form of asymmetric warfare. They use improvised explosive devices, car bombs, booby traps and landmines against the most modern army the world has ever seen. The US's huge advantage in weaponry is negated by the fact that its soldiers cannot see their adversary. They are fighting against a "phantom" enemy - an invisible army.

[...]

Connected to asymmetric warfare is asynchronous warfare, where the weaker side bides its time to strike back. And it strikes at a time and place where the adversary is totally unprepared.

For example, if the US were to strike Iran’s underground nuclear facilities with bunker-busting tactical nuclear warheads, Iran could bide its time until it develops its own nuclear weapons. It could then use its Kilo class submarines, equipped with supersonic "moskit" cruise missiles armed with Iran’s own nuclear warheads, to hit New York, or Washington, DC as a payback to the US for using nuclear weapons against Iran. Or the Iranians could infiltrate nuclear scientists into the US, where they would fabricate a "dirty" bomb to be detonated near the US Congress, in full session while the president is making his annual state of the nation address.

The possibilities for asymmetric and asynchronous warfare are limitless. Various weapons are available to the asymmetric or asynchronous attacker. If a simple box cutter produced such devastating results on September 11, 2001, imagine what chemical or biological weapons dropped from a private aircraft could do to a crowded city; or trained hackers attacking the US banking system and other key infrastructure and basic services; or man-portable surface-to-air missiles attacking US airlines taking off or landing in various airports around the globe; or non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse weapons hitting New York City or the US Capitol. No amount of even the best intelligence in the world can totally guard against and stop a determined asymmetric attacker.

[...]

4) Attack on US's command and control

[...]

China now has the capability to identify and track satellites. And for more than two decades they have been busy developing anti-satellite weapons. China has been developing maneuverable nano-satellites that can neutralize other satellites. They do their work by maneuvering near a target satellite and neutralizing the target by electronic jamming, electro-magnetic pulse generation, clinging to the target and physically destroying it, bumping the target out of orbit, or simply exploding to bring the target satellite down with it. Such nano satellites can be launched in batches on demand by road-mobile DF21 or DF31 booster rockets.

Another anti-satellite weapon in the works is a land-based laser that blinds the sensitive sensors of satellites or even destroys them completely. Of course, if worse comes to worst, China can always use its weapon of last resort, destroying adversary satellites with a high-altitude nuclear burst. But this will only be used if China has not yet fully developed the other options when major hostilities start. With the neutralization of its C4ISR, America would be like "a blind man trying to catch fish with his bare hands", to quote Mao Zedong. In short, America would be brought to its knees.


Tuesday, October 01, 2013

Retro Space - Pan Am Ferry Rocket Pad 39A

Retro Space - Pan Am Ferry Rocket Pad 39A

Thursday, September 19, 2013

Archangel: CIA's Super Spy Plane

Can This Scorpion Fly?







Can This Scorpion Fly?
Posted by Bill Sweetman 3:02 PM on Sep 18, 2013

Somewhere in the deeper recesses of the US Air Force museum is one of two surviving Piper PA-48 Enforcer close air support aircraft. It looks a lot like a P-51D Mustang, from which it was derived, but was almost entirely new in detail. Its origins lay in the Cavalier Aircraft company, which had spent the 1960s remanufacturing P-51s for enthusiasts and smaller air forces and had gradually evolved a turbine-powered aircraft, which was eventually adopted by Piper.

USAF


The USAF's interest in the Enforcer could not be measured by the most sensitive instruments known to science, but friendly Congressmen managed to stuff the concept down the service's throat, at least as far as an evaluation program. That was farther than any of the many subsequent attempts to design a light combat aircraft got. (These included the Scaled Composites Ares and the Fairchild Republic AT-46, the latter being based on what was probably one of the lamest aircraft ever to make it to Edwards.)


The Textron Scorpion is not, conceptually, very different from these. The basic idea is to sacrifice fighter-type air-to-air performance, and a heavy weapon load, in order to reduce acquisition and operating cost. However, "mudfighter" concepts have also appealed to military commentators and thinkers who suspect that the USAF and other air services don't pay enough attention to close air support: in their view, the fact that a low-performance aircraft can't be used for air combat or deep strike is an advantage in itself.


So far, those arguments have resulted in exactly two successful programs in the past 70 years (the A-10 and the Su-25). The Scorpion does not introduce any radical new technologies, so the question is whether the environment has changed enough give the new aircraft a chance of success.


The biggest environmental change has been the number of air combat operations flown in permissive airspace, where the threat is limited to small arms and manportable air defense systems. Scorpion should be effective in that environment - particularly with the help of modern sensors and communications systems, and small precision weapons, which allow an effective overwatch mission to stay out of the range of the "golden BB". The jet is also big enough to mount a directed infrared countermeasures system for MANPADS defense, as laser DIRCM systems themselves are getting smaller.

With a design optimized for endurance, and with the availability of lightweight, high-performance radars, processors and displays, Scorpion is being pushed for maritime and border surveillance -- the kind of mission where modified light commercial aircraft are widely used today -- and even for low-speed air interdiction, a mission that Textron Cessna's Citation 550s already perform for US Customs & Border Protection.

The question is whether Scorpion's backers can persuade customers to carve out a mission space large enough to justify adding a new type to their fleets. The aircraft does not have any direct competitors -- but its missions overlap in some areas with other aircraft. A King Air or the new Piaggio-ADASI multi-role ISR aircraft can perform maritime or border missions, carrying a crew of sensor operators and mission managers. With a loaded weight of 21,250 pounds, the Scorpion is not tiny -- it's the size of an A-1 Skyraider or A-4 Skyhawk -- and while today's least costly fighter, the JAS 39 Gripen, is about 50 percent bigger, it has far greater performance, except in endurance. On the lower end, Textron has to convince people looking at light combat aircraft that they need something around twice the size of a Super Tucano or AT-6.

Regardless of the design's merits, Textron had better be prepared to commit some serious time and money to this project if it is to find an economically realistic market.


Relationship Therapy Making Headway on F-35 Program
Spaceplane -- DARPA's Reusable Idea
How To Win The Bomber Contest
VIDEO: Aurora's Orion 120hr UAV Flies

Archives:
September (36)
August (46)
July (37)
June (41)
May (40)
April (44)
March (44)
February (47)
January (69)
December 2012 (38)
November 2012 (43)
October 2012 (59)
Older



Can This Scorpion Fly?

Relationship Therapy Making Headway on F-35 Program

Spaceplane -- DARPA's Reusable Idea


Copyright © 2013, Penton

Wondering what happened to all fuel tanks jettisoned by U.S. fighter jets over Southeast Asia during Vietnam War?


Wondering what happened to all fuel tanks jettisoned by U.S. fighter jets over Southeast Asia during Vietnam War?
Sep 18 2013 - 10 Comments


External tanks are extremely important for military aircraft as they provide fuel to integrate internal tanks and extend fighters and bombers endurance.

Indeed, even if they can be refueled by aerial tankers, tactical jet planes heavily rely on the JP-8 fuel loaded on the external fuel tanks. However, the auxiliary fuel tanks represent an additional weight, additional drag, and they will reduce the aircraft maneuverability.

In real combat, external fuel tanks are jettisoned when empty or as soon as the aircraft needs to get rid of them to accelerate and maneuver against an enemy fighter plane or to evade a surface to air missile.

Several thousand drop tanks were jettisoned over Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War.

And here you can see what happened to some of those that were recovered.



Images via Des Barker
Related articles
[Photo] Twenty five F-117 Stealth Jets flying together
Iranian F-14 Tomcat fighter jets get a modern “splinter” color scheme
Exclusive: Close encounter with “Ivan”, as seen from inside the Russian spyplane!
Up close and personal with Russia’s 5th generation stealth fighter: first close-up pictures of the PAK-FA
In the meanwhile in Syria Assad’s Mig-21 fighter jets are downed by rebel anti-aircraft fire
Why is Poland purchasing Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles for its F-16s?
How two U.S. Navy F-14 Tomcats shot down two Gaddafi’s Su-22 Fitters, 32 years ago today



Stunning image captures a split second before a GBU-10 bomb dropped by a B-1 hits a small boat at sea
Here’s how the Turkish F-16 shot down a Syrian Mil Mi-17 Hip helicopter today
Wondering what happened to all fuel tanks jettisoned by U.S. fighter jets over Southeast Asia during Vietnam War?
[Photo] Twenty five F-117 Stealth Jets flying together
Exclusive: Close encounter with “Ivan”, as seen from inside the Russian spyplane!




Blog Authors









Links
ACIG.org
AviationGraphic
Aviationintel.com
Harpia Publishing
Information Dissemination
Military Aviation Blog
OKB01

Feeds
Full
Comments



HOME
ABOUT
IN THE NEWS / CITATIONS
ARTICLES & WORKS
PICTURE GALLERY
CONTACTS
PRIVACY


© David Cenciotti - Contents of this blog/website may not be used without author's prior written permission. All rights reserved.



Tuesday, September 10, 2013

The Next Space Shuttle


The Next Space Shuttle: Hybrid Engines Make Runway-To-Orbit Missions A Reality
A new type of engine could usher in an era of affordable spaceplanes
By Nicole DyerPosted 09.10.2013 at 10:00 am4 Comments


Skylon Reaction Engines’ Skylon spacecraft would make short hauls into orbit, come back, and be ready to do it again two days later. Nick Kaloterakis


A disembodied jet engine, attached to a hulking air vent, sits in an outdoor test facility at the Culham Science Center in Oxfordshire, England. When the engine screams to life, columns of steam billow from the vent, giving the impression of an industrial smokestack. Engineer Alan Bond sees something more futuristic. “We’re looking at a revolution in transportation,” he says. For Bond, the engine represents the beginning of the world’s first fully reusable spaceship, a new kind of craft that promises to do what no space-faring vehicle ever has: offer reliable, affordable, and regular round-trip access to low Earth orbit.

Bond and the engineers at Reaction Engines, the aerospace company he founded with two colleagues in 1989, refer to the future craft as the Skylon. The vehicle would have a fuselage reminiscent of the Concorde and take off like a conventional airliner, accelerate to Mach 5.2, and blast out of the atmosphere like a rocket. On the return trip, Skylon would touch down on the same runway it launched from.

Bond’s Synergistic Air-Breathing Rocket Engine (Sabre)—part chemical rocket, part jet engine—will make Skylon possible. Sabre has the unique ability to use oxygen in the air rather than from external liquid-oxygen tanks like those on the space shuttle. Strapped to a spacecraft, engines of this breed would eliminate the need for expendable boosters, which make launching people and things into space slow and expensive. “The Skylon could be ready to head back to space within two days of landing,” says Mark Hempsell, future-programs director at Reaction Engines. By comparison, the space shuttle, which required an external fuel tank and two rocket boosters, took about two months to turn around (due to damage incurred during launch and splashdown) and cost $100 million. Citing Skylon’s simplicity, Hempsell estimates a mission could cost as little as $10 million. That price would even undercut the $50 million sum that private spaceflight company SpaceX plans to charge to launch cargo on its two-stage Falcon 9 rocket.

The engine produces incredible heat as it pushes toward space, and heat is a problem. Hot air is difficult to compress, and poor compression in the combustion chamber yields a weak and inefficient engine. Sabre must be able to cool that air quickly, before it gets to the turbocompressor. In November, Reaction Engines hit a critical milestone when it successfully tested the prototype’s ability to inhale blistering-hot air and then flash-chill it without generating mission-ending frost. David Willetts, British minister for universities and science, called the achievement “remarkable.”

The Skylon concept has also impressed the European Space Agency (ESA), which audited Reaction Engines’ designs last year and found no technical impediments to building the craft. The bigger challenge may be securing funding. While ESA and the British government have invested a combined $92 million in the project, Bond and his crew plan to turn to public and private investors for the remaining $3.6 billion necessary to complete the engine, which they say could be ready for flight tests in the next four years. Building the craft itself would require a much heftier investment: $14 billion.

* * *



The quest for a single-stage-to-orbit spaceship, or SSTO, has bedeviled aerospace engineers for decades. Bond’s own exploration of the topic began in the early 1980s, when he was a young engineer working with Rolls-Royce as part of a team tasked with developing a reusable spacecraft for British Aerospace. That’s when he came up with the idea of a hybrid engine. But the team struggled to figure out how to cool the engine at supersonic speeds without adding crippling amounts of weight. “By the time the plane hits Mach 2 or so, the air becomes very hot and extremely difficult to compress,” Bond says. Rolls-Royce and the British government, doubtful that an easy and economical solution existed, canceled the program’s funding.

NASA and Lockheed Martin, meanwhile, had their own plans for a fully reusable spacecraft, the VentureStar, intended as an affordable replacement for the partially reusable space shuttle. The VentureStar demonstrator, called X-33 (which graced the cover of this magazine in 1996), was a squat, triangular rocket that would take off vertically and glide back to Earth just as the shuttle did. Eliminating the expendable rockets needed to boost the shuttle into space could theoretically reduce the cost of launches from $10,000 per pound to $1,000 per pound. But by 2001, after sinking more than $1 billion into the project, the agency pulled the plug, citing repeated technical setbacks and ballooning costs. “We backed off because we felt it was better to focus our efforts on other, less costly ways to get payloads to orbit,” says Dan Dumbacher, NASA’s deputy associate administrator for exploration systems development, who spent two years working on the X-33.


The Sabre Engine: How It Works: Air traveling at Mach 5 enters the engine and passes through a heat exchanger. There, a network of paper-thin metal tubes filled with liquid helium chill the 2,000F air to –238F almost instantly. That chilled air flows into the turbocompressor, then into the thrust chambers, where it’s mixed with liquid hydrogen and ignited to produce thrust for the spacecraft. Courtesy Reaction Engines
With the shuttle now retired, and companies such as SpaceX under contract to resupply the International Space Station (ISS), NASA has doubled down on expendable boosters as a means of sending humans and probes well beyond Earth’s orbit. NASA’s new platform for deep-space exploration, the Space Launch System, will be the most powerful rocket ever built. The agency’s focus on space exploration, and the need for big rockets to achieve it, means NASA no longer needs to build its own platforms just to get cargo into orbit. “From a pure technical perspective, we’d all love to go do SSTO,” Dumbacher says. “But we’re focused on making sure we get humans farther into space, and that’s an expensive proposition.”



Expendable rockets make sense for missions beyond low-Earth orbit. They can haul more cargo and more fuel than single-stage craft. Rockets also offer reliability—on average, only one out of 20 launches fail, in part because they suffer no wear and tear from repeated use. Finally, rockets come with fewer R&D costs, as much of the technology has existed since the 1960s.

But for routine missions to the ISS, or to park a small observational satellite in orbit, affordability becomes a critical consideration. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk told an audience at the National Press Club in 2011 that private spaceflights would need to follow a model closer to that of airlines. “If planes were not reusable, very few people would fly,” he said. SpaceX plans to make rocket stages reusable, but there are drawbacks to that, too: While it is possible to recover rocket stages, designing bits and pieces to survive reentry in good working order adds a level of complexity and cost.

Fly anywhere in the world in under four hours.
Hempsell says Skylon could potentially make 100 flights annually—which, if true, could in its first year recoup the money spent in R&D and construction, leaving only expenses like fuel, maintenance, and overhead. And Bond’s engine technology, aside from keeping a launch vehicle intact from start to finish, offers another advantage: supersonic aviation. “It could enable an aircraft to fly anywhere in the world in under four hours,” says Bond.

* * *



When air strikes an engine at five times the speed of sound, it can heat up to nearly 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Bleeding off that heat instantly, before the air reaches the turbocompressor and then the thrust chamber, was the most onerous technical challenge for Reaction Engines engineers. Bond’s solution is a heat exchanger that works by running cold liquid helium through an array of tubes with paper-thin metal walls. As the scorching-hot air moves through the exchanger, the chilled tubing absorbs the energy, cooling the air to minus 238 degrees Fahrenheit in a fraction of a second. Bond says his exchanger could handle about 400 megawatts of heat (equivalent to a medium-size natural-gas plant). “If it were in a power station, it would probably be a 200-ton heat exchanger,” he says. “The one we’ve built is about 1.4 tons.”

For rocket scientists, nothing matters more than weight. “Each pound you put into orbit requires about 10 pounds or so of fuel to get it there,” says NASA’s Dumbacher. “The challenge with the SSTO has always been to get the craft as light as possible [and generate] as much thrust as possible.” Bond estimates that Skylon would weigh about 358 tons at takeoff and hold enough hydrogen fuel to carry itself and about 16.5 tons of payload—about the same capacity as most operational rockets—into orbit.

If and when the engine passes flight tests, one of Reaction Engines’ plans is to license the technology to a potential partner in the aerospace industry. Bond hopes the recent success of the heat exchanger will inspire interest. After 30 years of research, it has certainly inspired him. “It represents a fundamental breakthrough in propulsion technology,” he says. “This is the proudest moment of my life.”

This article originally appeared in the September 2013 issue of Popular Science.

ELSEWHERE ON POPSCI.COM
The 123,000 MPH Plasma Engine That Could Finally Take Astronauts To Mars
Why Deaf People Don't Achoo When They Sneeze
Laser Scanner Can Detect Someone Watching You A Kilometer Away
Forty Years Ago, A Cosmonaut Experienced What Can Only Be Described as 'Hell'
Biggest Japanese Warship Since WWII Will Carry Helicopters, No Planes
What Would Antarctica Look Like If All The Ice Melted?
FROM AROUND THE WEB
NASA Developing TextureCam Smart Camera System (redOrbit)
The Bad Habits That Can Speed Up Cognitive Decline (redOrbit)
22 Gorgeous Patio Ideas (HGTV)
Best Five Schools to get a Degree Online (Education Portal)
4 Surgeries to Avoid (AARP.org)
Air Force, DARPA plan new hypersonic vehicle (Tech)
Recommended by

Previous Article: The Robotic Search For Lost World War II Airmen

Next Article: The Publicity And Flattery Economy Comes To NBC News


4 COMMENTS

Link to this comment
AmyLiz90
09/10/13 at 10:34 am



I wish them the best of luck. I'm sure within my lifetime I will see a single stage space plane take off to space and land back on earth. I really think once there is profit in this for private industries, such as from astriod mining, or space tourism, the space industry will explode with so many companies getting into this. There are already a number of them out there.

- Just trying to keep my girlish asymptote!


Link to this comment
Starz
09/10/13 at 10:59 am



Ya just got to adore a ben engine that can fly to space, develop by an engineer with the last name of Bond!


Link to this comment
lawsonrw
09/10/13 at 11:00 am



I've been following Skylon for some time now, I wish them all the succcess they hope to achieve. Truthfully, Skylon or SSTO is the only way to make space common. Imagine a fleet of these vehicles whisking payloads to LEO on a daily basis. If multiple countries operate their own fleets, there will eventually be multiple payload deliveries per day. We could finally start to build a true space presence... moon base, lunar orbital base, a lunar tether, space manufacturing, space recreation, and ultimately, deep space travel. Setting up shop on Phobos and Deimos, Mars, Titan, Europa...

Later on sky cities wafting through the Venusian atmosphere (oxygen is a lifting gas on that planet, so technically a simple Nitrogen/Oxygen atmosphere (which is what we breathe) would be sufficient to provide bouyancy in the atmosphere. An enclosed "city" will eventually happen.

It all starts with regular SSTO flights.


Link to this comment
D49
09/10/13 at 12:21 pm



Very awesome breakthrough on heat exchange. This single breakthrough will ripple through a host of applications. So, basically, a Ram Air (Oxygen)induction that is super cooled used to ignite/burn rocket/hydrogen fuel. I am guessing that due to the need for Ram Air at mach 5.2 that this thing has to stop engine burn at orbit (due to lack of oxygen) and then dive back into the atmosphere to reach Ram Air induction speed again? Or am I missing something? Secondary fuel source that doesn't require oxygen? Maybe just takeoff requires Ram and not return?

"Do not try and bend the spoon. That is impossible. Only try and realize the truth - there is no spoon."




Is War Really In Decline?

Why Futurama Was The Greatest Show About The Future Ever Aired

Should We Really Be Encouraging People To Buy Books?

The 10 Best Fictional Laboratories, Ranked

With Nymi Wristband, Your Heartbeat Unlocks Your Devices

FYI: What Are Cruise Missiles, And How Do They Work?

Why It's So Hard To Predict Hurricanes

Science Fair Projects: Winning Tips From Intel And Google Judges

The Official Popular Science Guide To All The Gadgets You'll Need In College

Trapped In A Bear Trap And Shot In The Body: The Story Of A Minnesota Wolf

Packing For The Apocalypse And Other Amazing Images From This Week

Why Do We Pathologize Gender Nonconformity?



Subscribe to the Print Edition
Subscribe to the iPad Edition
Renew Subscription
Customer Service
Site Map
About Us
Contact Us
Advertising
Privacy Policy
Terms of Use
Abuse
Buy Popular Science Covers
RSS Feeds
PS Showcase



Copyright © 2012 Popular Science

A Bonnier Corporation Company. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Thursday, August 01, 2013

Will China Be the Savior of U.S. General Aviation?


Will China Be the Savior of U.S. General Aviation?
Posted by John Morris 3:02 AM on Jul 30, 2013

Its Presence Grows as it Takes – and Invests – in a World View

Look upwards, and one will see – not aerobatics, but more Chinese flags than ever fluttering gently in the breeze here at AirVenture in Oshkosh, Wisconsin.

Look down, and China has a fast-growing presence in U.S. general aviation, underscored with a national pavilion here and another sponsored by the province of Shandong. Look even more closely and one sees Chinese labeling on an Enstrom 280FX helicopter following the company’s acquisition by China’s Chongqing Helicopter Investment Co., last December.

The drumbeat is relentless. China, in its preparation to meet the pent-up demands of a dammed-up domestic market for general aviation, is buying up general aviation in the West at an ever-increasing rate.

Cirrus. Continental aircraft engines. Epic Aircraft. Superior AirParts. Thielert diesel engines. Brantly, and Enstrom Helicopters. All are now Chinese-owned. Count China as a recently-announced major investor in the ICON light sport aircraft, whose airframes will now be made by Chinese-owned Cirrus, albeit in the U.S. And Chinese money is also bringing the single-engined Cirrus Vision jet to market.

Cirrus CEO Dale Klapmeier notes that owner China Aviation Industry General Aircraft (CAIGA) is committed to supporting the company ’s development efforts, and that the Vision is among several products on the drawing table. While he would not specify details, he said yesterday, “We do have plans. We know what . . . we want next; we know what the airframes are. We have a growth path.”

Chinese companies build the Cessna Skycatcher, and will soon be sending Cessna business jets out of their doors. They are already turning out Cessna Caravans.

In Shandong province, Bin Ao Aircraft Industry Co. has built 96 complete Diamond DA40D four-place single-engined diesel-powered light aircraft out of orders for 235, and is now supplying composite airframes to Austria-Diamond as required, and components to the European company’s Canadian operation. All Chinese-built, completed and ordered Diamonds are for Chinese flight schools; all are powered by Centurion diesel engines made by Thielert. That company was acquired last week by Chinese AVIC’s Continental engines subsidiary.

“We have 66% of the Chinese four-seat market between 2008-13 with the Diamond DA-40D aircraft, compared with 34% for Cessna and Cirrus together,” says Li Long, assistant to the general manager and head of sales for Bin Ao, at Oshkosh. Sales campaigns are now underway for the first exports, to Vietnam, Thailand and South Korea, he says.

China’s Yuneec International has taken a step back from aspirations it could flood the world with FAA certified electric-powered aircraft; instead it has gone into partnership with California-based GreenWing International to sell the eSpyder and e430 ultralight kits in the U.S. as experimental light-sport-aircraft kits. In a surprise announcement at AirVenture, GreenWing opened up the order book for the mostly-Chinese-built kits at $39,990. Plans call for the aircraft to be LSA-certified once the FAA grants exemptions to its LSA rules that require a reciprocating engine; an electric engine is currently not allowed under that rule.

GE Aviation will use AirVenture to announce today with its Chinese partners the first, and maybe only service center in China for the new H80 turboprop engine that will power aircraft in that country, including the Thrush 501G crop duster and the single-engined Primus 150 executive aircraft built by AVIC’s CAIGA. GE is well ahead on anticipated demand: the third Thrush 501G out of on an initial order of six is currently en-route to China, and the Primus 150 should make its first flight this year.

Chinese flags are becoming increasingly common at Oshkosh.


Enstrom was bought by a Chinese company last December.

Mostly-Chinese Yuneec aircraft are now available.

Monday, June 24, 2013

Did Chinese plane have mid-air crash with UFO?


Did Chinese plane have mid-air crash with UFO?

Dent ... Air China jet visibly damaged
EXCLUSIVE
By HARRY HAWKINS
Published: 10th June 2013


SHOCKING images have emerged from China showing the dented nose cone of a passenger plane after a mystery collision with a suspected UFO.

The Air China jet was forced to make an emergency landing after the incident.

Airline officials have so far refused to say what caused the damage – but flying saucer experts saying it could have been a UFO.

The Boeing 757 passenger plane was flying at around 26,000 feet over China when it was rocked by a huge thud.



Smash ... UFO 'could be cause' of damage



The pilot immediately called air traffic controllers who allowed him to touch down at a nearby airfield.

It was only when the plane was grounded that the huge dent was spotted.

Experts say the aircraft was at such a high altitude the impact is unlikely to have been caused by a flock of birds - with another possible explanation cited as a drone strike.

But former government UFO investigator Nick Pope said: “Whatever struck the aircraft will have left evidence."

He continued: "Analysis of the damaged nose cone should reveal microscopic traces of whatever struck the aircraft, or possibly even larger pieces of debris. So this is a solvable mystery.

"The only question is, will the notoriously secretive Chinese authorities reveal the truth about what happened?



Bump ... dent on the plane's nosecone



“Cases like this show that whatever people believe about UFOs, there are serious air safety issues here. MoD and CAA files contain dozens of reports of near misses between UFOs and commercial aircraft.

“It's only a matter of time before there's a catastrophe.

"From the look of the photos, this disturbing incident came very close to blowing this aircraft out of the sky.”

The flight was on its way from the Chengdu to Guangzhou when the smash happened about 20 minutes into the journey.



Mystery ... cause of accident is unknown



No passengers or crew were hurt in the mind-boggling incident.

Air China was asked to say what caused the damage to the plane but repeatedly failed to respond.

The crash comes just days after we revealed how three passenger jets had close encounters with flying saucers above Britain’s scientology HQ.

Pilots reported seeing “flat silver discs” with unidentified objects also appearing on the screens of air traffic controllers.

A probe into the sightings failed to find an explanation.

Friday, May 10, 2013

Boeing Dreamliner Takes Another Punch


Boeing Dreamliner Takes Another Punch
by 24/7 Wall St. May 7th 2013 12:05PM
Updated May 8th 2013 7:00AM


In addition to the compensation claims against Boeing Co. (NYSE: BA) for the three months that its 787 Dreamliner spent grounded due to a battery problem, the aircraft maker is also losing orders to chief rival Airbus. The CEO of Qatar Airways said today that his company may order as many as 15 of the Airbus A330 wide-body jets, at a total list price of more than $3.5 billion.

The A350 is more directly a competitor for Boeing's 777, and the new A350-1000 is poaching sales from Boeing. Last week's announcement of a new version of Boeing's 777 - called mysteriously enough the 777X - is aimed directly at the A350-1000. Both British Airways and Air Lease Corp. (NYSE: AL) have ordered several of the new A350s as replacements for the 777.

Akbar Al Baker, Qatar Airways' CEO, also said that the airline has no plans to cancel further orders of the 787 and, in fact, may double its order from 30 to 60 of the Boeing jetliners. The airlines also may order more A380s, the Airbus answer to Boeing's venerable 747.

Airbus has taken orders for 262 of the A380s, which carries a list price of $389.9 million each, compared with orders of 105 to 110 for Boeing's latest 747-8. Last month Boeing said it would cut production of the 747 from 2 a month to 1.75 a month.

Monday, April 22, 2013

Hyundai Made A Flying Car (Sorta)


Hyundai Made A Flying Car (Sorta)
It is impractical! And cool! And we would like to fly it.
By Colin LecherPosted 04.22.2013 at 1:00 pm2 Comments


Flying Car Concept Hyundai via Fox News

For Hyundai's annual Idea Festival--a Wacky Races-style competition where engineers show off the most bonkers ideas they can dream up--a team unveiled this crazy flying car. Basically, it's a multirotor drone, except with a driver's seat and 16 rotors instead of the more conventional four.

So "car" is kind of a loose term here: it's not even being piloted by the person in the cockpit; someone with a remote control is standing by. (Hopefully someone the guy in the cockpit trusts.)

Yes, cool, but just remember this is part of a swarm of inventions from Hyundai's futuristic Idea Festival. Meaning you're not going to be signing up for a flying car soon.

Darn. So close. Until it's the future, see the car in action below (it comes in at about 53 seconds in).



[SUAS News]


Previous Article: Audi Wants Its Cars To Predict Where Traffic Will Be


Want to keep track of the latest concept cars, automotive innovations, and more