frank.tino
So, things are right where "they were " back in '57 in Project Blue Book …
So, things are right where "they were " back in '57 in Project Blue Book …
The Truth is Out There.
These photos are easy to explain. Example: if you film a jet very far away, it looks like it is hardly moving. If you film next to the runway, the jet could be a flash in your film and possibly out of focus. Distance, speed and respective are hard to determine in a film. Space is also littered with manmade space junk and natural debris from meteorites and small particles. Now you put a cameras in space traveling at a high speed, you are bound to pickup something. Even filming outside when not moving, bugs can ruin a photo.
Oh, as for visible intelligent life out there, if there were any - why would they bother coming to earth?
I agree. Flying microwave ovens?
“Better Data” would by necessity have to consist of CNN or MSNBC conducting an interview with the “space aliens” operating these UAPs. Until then, any investigation is a waste of time same as Project Bluebook of decades ago. If indeed they are ETs, why would they bother snooping around this planet? Nothing here, move on.
They way things are here, if an intelligent life form from another planet were to fly this direction, they would most likely fly PAST, not TO this ball of dirt ………and lock their doors.
“Most of the others were the result of innocuous encounters with common objects such as balloons or microwave ovens.” Microwave ovens? FLYING microwave ovens??? is this a typological error? Please explain how microwave ovens get launched and more than that maintain some sort of flight trajectory?
As for UAP, well to quote Robert McNamara “we don’t know what we don’t know”. And that will always be true, even in a finite universe.
“…balloons or microwave ovens.”–stopped reading and went, “WTF?” An obvious error, probably involving a word processor program’s auto-error funtion in close proximity to an interstellar propulsion system. Or something.
Giggling aside, I really prefer UFO to UAP. Maybe I’m just old fashioned.
My guess is he meant microwave reflectors, but the word processor “corrected” it. I don’t use auto-error, because I want all typos to be my own.
I’ve lost several microwave ovens that way. I think they were abducted…
I have never understood why someone felt the need to change the acronym from UFO to UAP. Why bother expending the time and energy to change it?
1 reply
As for “microwave ovens” - unless that is indeed an autocorrect error, I believe it it is more of a (very successful) tongue-in-cheek author’s liberty by Mr Niles. Great job!
I don’t know if this is what NASA is referring to, but there was a famous story in Australia where a radio telescope was recording unexplained random radio bursts, which some theorized were from an intelligent source outside of our solar system. After many years and lots of study, it was determined (and demonstrated) to be the result of people opening a break room microwave oven door while it was on. Not an Unidentified Flying Object (UFO), but it was Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP).
2 replies
That story made my day! Thanks Douglas C.
I’ve flown various microwave ovens. It’s not really aerodynamic, unless you leave the door open… However, it fits the category of UFO. Unidentified Flying Oven.
Many microwave ovens do have rotating saucers in them.
Apparently, the Australia microwave oven incident was indeed discussed by the panel, which is how this found its way into the report. Point being that the various flavors of observation & targeting hardware in use today collectively utilize almost every variety of electromagnetic radiation, so anything that radiates might well pop up on some display or other.
1 reply
Ahh, NOW it makes sense. Sort of.
My aviation mentor once told me “With enough power, anything can fly.” I suspect a microwave oven’s range would be limited by the length of the power cord though.
“No convincing evidence”. Seriously?
I have no dog in this fight one way or the other, but coincidentally I just read this article:
It’s interesting as the reporting is from The Hill, not the National Enquirer.
UFO/UAP have been previously explained in a classic text by Christopher Buckley - Little Green Men. Highly recommended.
It’s really sad when the mental pygmies in this country feel compelled to make threats of violence against responsible people doing things for the benefit of the country. Election officials all over the nation are being harassed and threatened while they try to conduct fair and impartial elections. This type of behavior threatens the very basis of a free and democratic society whether it involves elections or people volunteering to do research on somewhat controversial issues. Unfortunately it seems to be a byproduct of the internet generation and probably not much can be done about it.
The story should have clarified that it was interference from a microwave oven, not an actual flying microwave oven. I actually own the only flying microwave oven, or did, until the trash collectors hauled it to the landfill after I launched it into the front yard.
1 reply
Because UFO = nut, and they don’t want to sound like nuts.
Paul
Mate you are half the reason I subscribe to this newsletter and I love what you present and value your wisdom. However in this matter you are plain wrong. You are/were not the only owner of an unidentified flying microwave oven. I too have owned one such paranormal appliance: it got well and truly airborne when my apprentice rolled my work truck 20 years ago.
Maybe some of those scientists picked it up on radar?
This is the best laugh I’ve had all this month, reading these comments.
Where would we be without microwave ovens?
I just about jumped out of my skin the last time I was at the receiving end of a full scale sonic boom as a French air force Rafel made its way to a Russian bomber in the channel.
Admittedly it was right over head but still. A neighbour swears it damaged his roof too.
Used to live in SW England, when every night you would get the distant booms as Concorde went supersonic over the channel – they were heard over a very wide area. Some people were convinced it ruined TV reception too.
Slightly off topic but came across in a throw away remark by an ex pilot, the fuel consumption of the German Starfighters from way back – 80 litres a second as they went to 40,000 feet in a ridiculously short time… The Lightnings of the RAF were similar. Speed needs huge amounts of fuel – how is NASA going to sell that one along with the supposedly quieter booms?
Sometimes things are just so freakin cool you can’t just not do them. I’ve heard sonic booms as a kid. Go fast NASA.
Bring them on guys. I’ve always loved hearing the sound of someone hauling a$$. Even tho it takes lots of $$$.
Couple of fighter jets shot past in Petra, Jordan and the boom was quite impressive. They were pretty low, maybe 1500ft.
We’ll use green fuel. Oh yeh . . . that was the old 100/130 octane av-gas.
The requirement to stay in afterburner to maintain supersonic flight, using excessive amounts of fuel, is no longer necessary. The F-22 can “supercruise”, coming out of afterburner once past the sound barrier. Newer, more powerful engines on commercial aircraft, may make supersonic flight viable.
1 reply
I can see the 106 going supersonic shortly after takeoff, but not the 102.
Being longtime neighbors of Edwards AFB, we are used to sonic booms. Even so, an unusually loud one with a “sharp” onset can still make us jump out of our skins. The more they can make it sound like a soft “thump” the better.
Presumably, less energy going into creating the shockwave would reduce fuel consumption also, but that’s still going to be the elephant in the room.
1 reply
They have been working on this thing for seven years - was supposed to fly in 2021. Every time someone drives in another rivet, they issue a press release. Didn’t North American build the XP-51 in five months? With pencils and slide rules?
1 reply
Having spent 27 years living ON Edwards AFB, in Palmdale and the AV, the sonic booms never really bothered me. Startle … maybe. The USAF did use the SR-71, et al, to scare bad boys, though.
There is a small area of homes that were built adjacent to the departure end of runway 22 at Edwards in the 50’s. They were specially built and instrumented to test/measure the impact of the shock waves on the various kinds of structures. After that testing was completed, base personnel asked to live in them so the “P” area was instituted. The large P1 house on a knoll was used as a ‘party’ house available for rent for special affairs. They’re all still standing half a century + later.
Several people here APTLY point out that going supersonic – irregardless of the reduction in sonic boom overpressure wave – requires a lot of fuel. Further, the BASIC research on the pressure reduction theories was ALREADY DONE … 20 years ago. Northrop Grumman built the SuperSonic Boom Demo (SSBD) airplane out of a worn-out F-5 aggressor airframe in St Augustine. That DARPA / NASA / NAVY program airplane was flown against an unmodified F-5 right there at NASA Dryden (now Armstrong) on Edwards. The theory worked and the airplane is now at the Valiant Air Museum on the Titusville, FL airport. Why they’re now spending $247M more of our tax dollars to refine the idea is both wasteful AND ridiculous. This cost should be borne by the companies seeking to build such a ridiculous unneeded gas guzzling airplane so fat cats can save a few minutes of flight time.
As I have commented ad nauseam, one office at NASA Armstrong is paying to build this non-“green” airplane while another was trying to build an equally ridiculous $87M ($47M over run) X-57 “Maxwell” to ‘save’ the planet. After that expenditure, the project was abandoned due to immature technology recently. I guess they’re showcasing this airplane in ‘green’ status so the slow learners around us think it too will save the planet. It won’t.
It’s time to put these Government entities on a VERY LEAN MONETARY DIET !!! The X-57 and X-59 Programs have cost taxpayers a third of a BILLION dollars … for what? What’s on first? Who’s on second?
1 reply
Who’s on first, what’s on second, I don’t know is on third.
That is about 15 gallons per second…imagine the fuel delivery lines and pumps to get that much moving into the engine. Crazy stuff…oh, but you do go fast.
The perfect world doesn’t exist. Governments, large corporations, individuals all make what look like in retrospect, poor decisions. But it’s (usually) fun to read the comments here…sort of like the comments that have probably been made whenever guys get together to do whatever, from sitting at a counter in a diner, to chatting in the bleachers of a game somewhere.
The next batch of Concorde (never built) didn’t need an afterburner at all. See ‘Concorde-B’.
That was unnecessary and snotty
Sort of. They did piggy-back on NACA’s (taxpayer-funded) research on laminar flow for the wing; and bought Curtiss’s research on the belly-mounted radiator (with Meredith effect) for, as I remember, $60,000. I love Dutch Kindelberger’s reaction to the “designed in 120 days” press campaign: “Nobody ever pulled a rabbit out of a hat without carefully putting one there in the first place.”
As I understand current boom-suppression activity, along with the aerodynamics of the actual aircraft, a lot of the research involves leveraging advanced atmospheric (“big”) data that would not have been available back then. They say it is possible now to accurately predict whether or not the now-aerodynamically minimized boom will reach the surface given prevailing atmospheric conditions (pressure, humidity, etc.). By mapping that, ATC and even cockpit displays could enable routing and altitude changes that would theoretically keep the boom from reaching the ground.
I imagine the cockpit display as looking like a weather radar display - as in “OK to fly here. Not OK over there, so let’s turn left 20 degrees.” Or, perhaps, climb or descend to a more “boomless-friendly” altitude.