Congress Shoots Down Hypersonic Plane

[USS KG5]

Of course, what can you do that's useful up there? You're nowhere near low-earth orbital velocities, as you pointed out, and it'd take a lot more fuel to finish the job. But you could then deploy smaller payloads with their own rocket motor, and those will launch with most of the work of getting into space already accomplished. This might be useful for small satellites or maybe one or two man space tourism capsules.

i don't get why they'd need it to be that manoeuverable...

i thought if a hypersonic military jet ever went into service it'd be in one 3 roles; fast-recon like the supposed Aurora, fast bomber or some kind of rapid-deployment troop carrier...

and for those, flying at Mach 5+ in a straight line is all you need.

You guys seem to envisage a very large Hypersonic plane - there is no guarantee we could even build one as large as the SR-71, and it would cost billions and billions of dollars for a US military that can barely afford the F-22, and in not nearly the quantities it wants!

For a troop carrier you would need a big plane, and for an orbital launch platform probably even bigger - its all good stuff but we are really talking sci-fi here at this point.

 

[John Picard]

As much as i like hyper sonic planes, somehow it falls pretty low on the bottom of the list compared to solving the energy crisis, dealing with the tanking economy, dealing with global poverty, and etc.

I'd love to see us make such planes- once we have our more pressing problems solved.

There's an energy crisis? Why should the US deal with global poverty? And exactly how is the economy tanking?

 

[prometheuspan]

There's an energy crisis?

1. We have already hit peak oil. Nothing can stop gas and oil thus from getting more expensive.
2. Using any kind of fossil fuels will bring about the end of life on earth as we know it if we do not stop 10 years ago.
3. Maybe you hadn't noticed that gas prices are poised to go over 5 dollars a gallon.
4. Geothermal power and solar power would be an order of magnitude cheaper and greener, and transforming over to them would boom the economy.
5. Exxon oils billion dollar propaganda campaign has managed to keep the real solutions off the table.

Why should the US deal with global poverty?

Because the only way to prevent the eventual nuclear destruction of a few dozen USA cities at the hands of Al Qaeda et all is to actually solve the problems. I could build a nuke out of a microwave oven and 300 dollars worth of spare parts from radio shack. The rest of the world won't stay ignorant forever.

And exactly how is the economy tanking?

Fannie may. Freddie mac. Drop 500 points yesterday? Dozens of banks loosing it? did you just wake up from a coma? Bushes tax cuts to the rich
made the rich richer and the poor poorer at a new multiplied rate which has now created a systemic failure arising from "trickle up". Unless we seriously turn this thing around immediately, the USA is going to crumble economically. Its already a situation where every last bubble is being popped in a domino effect, and thats not good, because the USA economy for 50 years has been based on nothing but ephemeral bubbles.

Yes you are mistaken. An aircraft traveling at 5 times the speed of sound (aprox 3,600 mph)will never be a true spacecraft as a matter of fact it will never reach space - ever. Air breathing aircraft have more difficulty the higher they climb, with a traditional rocket transport system you don't have to worry about lack of atmosphere you'll still get thrust with no air. Shuttle and Soyuz are a totally different ball park they travel at speeds of 28,000 mph not a pathetic 3600. The only use I could foresee for this project is using it as a military aircraft to launch hyper sonic missiles - more money for the military industrial complex less money for NASA and exploration

I'm a proponent of ram rocket technologies and design them. But no known ram rocket will work in between atmosphere and compression speeds on a space ram rocket. That requires actual standard fuel rockets. Space tethers are great, but first we have to tow an asteroid into earth orbit to base it from.

The simple fact of the matter is that this project is fluff. There is no good use for such a vehicle other than as a
weapons platform. We would be wiser to spend the money on ram rocket R+D for a decade than to try to actually make any planes. The current tech level is right at the edge of being able to do it right. Sure we can build super sonic planes right now, but only at enormous expense and such. And they are going to be primitive compared to what we will be able to build 20 years from now, because we are on a technological cusp and have yet to cross it.
Once we know how to do it, then it makes sense. Till then, its a gimmick toy for the military industrial complex.

 

[USS KG5]

I could build a nuke out of a microwave oven and 300 dollars worth of spare parts from radio shack. The rest of the world won't stay ignorant forever.

You MIGHT be able to build a dirty bomb with medical waste, not a fissionable nuclear weapon, unless you are talking about acquiring some fissionable material from somewhere, which is the most difficult part after all.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

1. We have already hit peak oil. Nothing can stop gas and oil thus from getting more expensive.

It's actually set to go down as world demand for oil lessens the more we develop cleaner energy production. Just recently OPEC lowered oil production but the price still went down because figures have shown that oil dependency wont be as bad in the future.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

Initial reports indicate that the Congressional warhead was composed of 100% enriched administradium, the hardest-headed substance known to man.

 

[Psion]

Initial reports indicate that the Congressional warhead was composed of 100% enriched administradium, the hardest-headed substance known to man.

Damn, I wish TrekBBS had a karma system -- you so deserve a digg for that!

 

[prometheuspan]

You MIGHT be able to build a dirty bomb with medical waste, not a fissionable nuclear weapon, unless you are talking about acquiring some fissionable material from somewhere, which is the most difficult part after all.

You think "radioactive" materials are required to make a nuke!!


All that is required is a microwave maser beam tuned to the specific frequentia of the strong force.

For a low tech version, All you need is an oscillometer, and a well tuned microwave oven.

 

[Psion]

Prometheuspan, what is the frequency of the strong force to which one would tune a maser?

 

[Gepard]

Prometheuspan, what is the frequency of the strong force to which one would tune a maser?

Beats me. Maybe he subscribes to the ZPF theory of inertia?

 

[Lindley]

You think "radioactive" materials are required to make a nuke!!

Well, you need *something* that is capable of initiating a supercritical fission reaction. My (limited) understanding is that knocking neutrons off of Uranium 235 or plutonium 239 is the most common mechanism for achieving this.

I've never heard anything about this maser-based approach you mention, and if it were that easy, I would have expected cities to start disappearing by now. That's not to say it's impossible, just.....link?

 

[prometheuspan]

Prometheuspan, what is the frequency of the strong force to which one would tune a maser?

That depends on the element in question. Each element has different frequencies. The strong force. You know,? the one that binds an atom together? Its just an oscillating phase state energy wave with a frequency.
Cancel it out and the atom drifts apart.

In reverse of the standard physics which the USA propaganda has made most people think is the ONLY way to do it, this actually works better with atoms
that have few neutrons and protons, since more complicated atoms can have more than one frequency. It used to be that the frequency was listed in periodic table charts of the 60s and 70s. Now you can't usually find that information as its been censored.

For good reasons...
but still.

Well, you need *something* that is capable of initiating a supercritical fission reaction. My (limited) understanding is that knocking neutrons off of Uranium 235 or plutonium 239 is the most common mechanism for achieving this.

Certainly the most common and all things considered, certainly less technologically challenging. 1950s tech. You may have noticed its 60 years later.

I've never heard anything about this maser-based approach you mention,

No, and you won't, its blacked out. I mean? Why ya think?

and if it were that easy,

I didn't say it was easy, just that it could be done. Its actually really hard. But in a different way.
The tolerances must be exact, you can't be even a tiny bit off tune or it won't work.

I would have expected cities to start disappearing by now.

Theres an upside to state sponsored misinformation and propaganda, wouldn't you agree?

That's not to say it's impossible, just.....link?

lol. In the late eighties you could find a few references on the net. I assume at this point that the few references you might still be able to find would be me.

You don't think google censors stuff only for just china, do you?

feel free to knock yourself out ....
Results 1 - 10 of about 460,000 for soft fission. (0.32 seconds)
Did you mean: soft fusion

Search Results

1. Soft Fission...
   
   Soft Fission... ... Soft Fission...PhotosProfileFriendsMore · Blog · Lists · Music · Tools · Send a message · Subscribe to RSS feed · Tell a friend ...
   lawrencezhuang.spaces.live.com/photos/ - 32k - Cached - Similar pages
2. Soft Fission CM8295.Com - Daily Update RSS Collection
   
   Fission We Collection Health News And Web Information Everyday Just For You.
   rss.cm8295.com/postshow_4155.html - 15k - Cached - Similar pages
3. Fission of Pb in the 4He-induced reactions at 0.65-12.7 GeV
   
   Using the correlation between the common observables which characterize fission events, we identified events originated from thermal (soft) fission and more ...
   cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1083304 - Similar pages
   by Z TODOROVIC - 2001 - Related articles - All 3 versions
4. Microelectronics Reliability : Neutron-induced 10B fission as a ...
   
   Using a cold neutron beam to accelerate soft error rate events, we unambiguously demonstrate that neutron induced 10B fission can be a significant source of ...
   linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0026271400002183 - Similar pages
   by RC Baumann - 2001 - Cited by 10 - Related articles - All 3 versions
5. Neutron-induced boron fission as a major source of soft errors in ...
   
   unambiguously demonstrate that neutron induced ‘OB fission is a significant source of soft errors. in deep-submicron SRAMs fabricated with ...
   ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/6814/18276/00843906.pdf?arnumber=843906 - Similar pages
   by RC Baumann - 2000 - Cited by 23 - Related articles
6. Help - Fission in SaFire (Firefox 1.5) - Aqua-Soft Forums
   
   Jan 6, 2007 ... Help - Fission in SaFire (Firefox 1.5) Application Skins.
   www.aqua-soft.org/board/showthread.php?t=33539 - 89k - Cached - Similar pages
7. [cond-mat/0009167v2] Active Fusion and Fission Processes on a ...
   
   In the stable case, such fusion/fission events suppress long wavelength ... Subjects: Soft Condensed Matter (cond-mat.soft); Quantitative Biology (q-bio) ...
   arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0009167v2 - 6k - Cached - Similar pages
8. Investigations of nuclear fission
   
   a "soft" fission spectrum according to the accumulation of 24. V. N. Andreev determined the value for neutron. energies of 20, 200, and 800 keV according ...
   www.springerlink.com/index/N37K4111168310P1.pdf - Similar pages
   by AV IGNATYUK - 1996 - Related articles
9. Welcome to Fission Corp
   
   Fission Corp’s soft skills training is synonymous with the terms employee ... Executive, Managers, Supervisors and Administrators all view Fission Corp soft ...
   www.[B]fission[/B]corp.net/services.htm - 21k - Cached - Similar pages
10. Amiga Games by Fission Soft - Lemon Amiga Game Database
    
    Amiga games database with information about every Amiga game ever released!
    www.lemonamiga.com/games/list.php?list_year=1993&list_publisher=Fission%20Soft&list_date=2007-07-29 - 16k - Cached - Similar pages

Did you mean to search for: soft fusion




12345678910Next

 

[Timo]

What is hilarious is that obviously, most of those links don't even deal with the word pair "soft fission", and of course none deal with this resonance nonsense you are blabbering about.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[prometheuspan]

What is hilarious is that obviously, most of those links don't even deal with the word pair "soft fission", and of course none deal with this resonance nonsense you are blabbering about.

Timo Saloniemi

I don't think i meant to say that they did; quite the opposite.

Should somebody wish to go spend their time looking for needles in haystacks which probably don't exist due to censorship, let them have at it. My point is
pretty much only what the search terms to start with would be, and that
I'm certainly not going to spend the next three weeks looking for references that in all probability don't exist.

I'm glad you are amused. It appears you missed the point.

 

[Timo]

But you didn't provide the necessary search words, as your search amply demonstrates. You need to provide a word combination that works.

Also, you allude that you yourself have contributed something on this issue. The natural thing to do would be to directly link to those contributions. How could a person of average intelligence fail to use that approach?

The bottom line remains, though, that the phenomenon you suggest is complete nonsense except as unverified thought experiments, and moreover has no theoretical possibility of sustaining a chain reaction. Subcritical excitation for fission via collisions (say, e-beams or protons or external neutrons that would all amount to extrenal feed of neutrons to sustain the chain reaction) is a trivial issue on certain fissionables, and might theoretically be extended onto materials less prone for fission simply by cranking up the energy; but neither that nor this resonance nonsense would result in supercriticality.

Perhaps further study might validate some elements of this resonance stuff. But the claim "I could build this thing out of a 300W microwave resonator now" is obviously a lie.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Outpost4]

I could build a nuke out of a microwave oven and 300 dollars worth of spare parts from radio shack.

Yeah...right.

Why don't you publish and win the Nobel Prize?

 

[prometheuspan]

But you didn't provide the necessary search words, as your search amply demonstrates. You need to provide a word combination that works.

You are not listening. There is not a word combination that works. For very good reasons which i happen to agree with, the topic has been censored out of existence.

Also, you allude that you yourself have contributed something on this issue. The natural thing to do would be to directly link to those contributions. How could a person of average intelligence fail to use that approach?

my contributions are merely conversational, and don't give away anything more than i have already stated.

The bottom line remains, though, that the phenomenon you suggest is complete nonsense except as unverified thought experiments, and moreover has no theoretical possibility of sustaining a chain reaction.

No, its not nonsense. Yes, theres no chance of a chain reaction. Some people would think of that as a positive side. What did you want, a full scale standard concept nuke? Leveling a city block with a microwave oven
seems pretty darn good enough for me.

Subcritical excitation for fission via collisions (say, e-beams or protons or external neutrons that would all amount to extrenal feed of neutrons to sustain the chain reaction) is a trivial issue on certain fissionables, and might theoretically be extended onto materials less prone for fission simply by cranking up the energy; but neither that nor this resonance nonsense would result in supercriticality.

We don't need supercriticality, thats the OTHER way of doing it.

Perhaps further study might validate some elements of this resonance stuff. But the claim "I could build this thing out of a 300W microwave resonator now" is obviously a lie.

Okay, if it pleases you to think so.

Are we done with this digression now that you have to your own satisfaction demonstrated I'm an idiot?

Hypersonic plane. Bad idea. Why ? Because we need to fix more important problems. Why? because if we don't, eventually American Cities go poof. If i am wrong about these physics that only makes it the kind of problem where
some foreign entity needs to find themselves a uranium mine.

The whole thing is moot in either case. If we don't solve world poverty
before technology advances past a certain threshold, then the victims of economic oppression will in the end "win" .

Are you okay with that, or do we need to explore more deeply your intellectual superiority?

Why don't you publish and win the Nobel Prize?

I have more important fish to fry, and the USA government would not allow such a document to be published.

 

[Timo]

Are you okay with that, or do we need to explore more deeply your intellectual superiority?

I think the issue is more your mental stability. You demonstrate very dangerous symptoms of something that all too often materializes as a threat to the society, in this case I assume the American society. Which as such is ironic considering your general argument.

Apart from that, though, I'm not sure it could be argued that a few hundred million thrown after a technology would be away from trying to eliminate or defuse world poverty. A few billion probably wouldn't. Throwing money around is not the recipe for eliminating poverty, it's the recipe for hyperinflation. So why not keep on developing exotic technologies - including that atomic resonance thing you stole from Ender's Game if need be?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[prometheuspan]

I think the issue is more your mental stability. You demonstrate very dangerous symptoms of something that all too often materializes as a threat to the society, in this case I assume the American society. Which as such is ironic considering your general argument.

I take exception to that, and I am insulted and offended by it. I remained
consistanly respectful of you and have not made any ad hominems against
you. Nothing I have said reveals anything more about me than that I am a geek. If in your opinion i am somewhat self aggrandizing and I'm faking an understanding of physics, that still does not mean that I pose any real threat to society. The simple fact of the matter is quite the opposite, I work for the benefit of society and this is after all only a thought experiment to demonstrate why we should act as i say we should; because if i could do something in theory, its not long till somebody else could. You reject my argument that it could be done in theory, and I accept that.
For you to turn that into anything resembling a psychoanalysis of me is a cheap shot not worthy of the rest of our discussion.

Apart from that, though, I'm not sure it could be argued that a few hundred million thrown after a technology would be away from trying to eliminate or defuse world poverty. A few billion probably wouldn't.

Estimates range towards just under one trillion to end world poverty, which is significantly less than we will end up spending on the Iraq war.

Throwing money around is not the recipe for eliminating poverty,

You haven't even asked me what my process would be for ending poverty,
you are just making a generalized accusation and some might say, a second ad hominem.

it's the recipe for hyperinflation. So why not keep on developing exotic technologies

Because it makes more sense to solve our more pressing problems first,
esp considering that this actually would create more economic energy potential to then afterward explore such technologies.

- including that atomic resonance thing you stole from Ender's Game if need be?

Three ad hominems. I thought from our conversations you were better than this, and I am deeply disappointed in you.

 

[Outpost4]

Why don't you publish and win the Nobel Prize?

I have more important fish to fry

So do I...so do I. Impressive debut on the board, though. I will give you that.

and the USA government would not allow such a document to be published.

You've seen too many Hollywood movies.

Academia is a chaotic environment, almost a perfect free market of ideas. Supression of knowledge has never, ever worked in the long run and it won't today. If I could re-invent physics with a microwave oven and $300 worth of spare parts, as you claim, I would want to be ahead of the curve, rather than behind it.

Plus I will take from your posting times that you are a European, or at least live in time zones closer to those than mine in Wisconsin. I hate to tell you this but Dick Cheney doesn't know your name.