http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/black_triangle_020805.html
I dunno … to me this seems like they’re explaining away one unlikely possibility with an equally unlikely one. Does anybody believe this is a reasonable explanation? And just what the heck is an “electrokinetic drive”?
IMHO this seems like they’re explaining away the UFOs with a secret goverment cover-up. And isnt that where this thread belongs?
As we are unlikely to find anyone who will come in and say, “Yeah, I work for the DOD and these are souped-up blimps”, and provide a cite, this probably should go to IMHO.
In the meantime, the explanation sounds mostly plausible. Reports of very large triangular air vehicles are among the most common UFO sightings since the early 1980’s, and the vast majority of sightings of these vehicles, IIRC, have taken place in the USA. Several companies are currently developing large lighter-than-air craft as cargo lifters (though with more or less conventional design and propulsion), with the revived Zeppelin corporation perhaps the best-known.
I don’t have the references at hand to go into detail, but I have read of various efforts to enhance aerodynamic lift by applying electrical charges to the lifting surfaces. IIRC, this ionises the air near the surface and the ionised air can be directed to flow from areas of positive to negative charge, increasing lift and augmenting forward propulsion. This is not known to be used in an operational aircraft, although there have been persistent rumors that the B-2 bomber incorporates this feature.
The effect is weak; I assume that the larger the charged surface area, the greater the lift or propulsive force generated, and a flying-wing type vehicle hundreds of feet across would certainly provide plenty of surface. Beyond that my grasp of the theoretical aspects is pretty shaky.
The only element of implausibility is that it seems odd indeed that the US military would keep such a tight lid of secrecy, for such a long time, on a cargo vehicle, when it seems perfectly happy for all to know the appearance and general capabilities of its most advanced combat and intelligence-gathering aircraft. In the case of the ‘black triangles’, I presume this secrecy would have more to do with the propulsion system and possibly stealth features, than with the vehicle’s operational status and mission.
Doesn’t seem credible to me…
How could a government that can’t keep its war plans secret hide something that huge?
It just so happens that I work for the DOD, and I helped design these. Indeed, they are “souped up blimps,” just as El_Kabong states. Now I’d like everyone to lean back, close your eyes, and just listen to the sound of my voice…
…nothing…
…you will remember nothing…
Well, I can see one reason for keeping them secret
Not too many folks would be thrilled to know that there’s an atomic pile floating overhead.
And this
is supposed to make it the ideal cargo craft? Me thinks ideal spy craft is more like it and as such, we won’t see the declassification of them any time soon.
HAHA … you people believe in UFOs!!!
Please move to IMHO.
Well, I can see one reason for keeping them secret
Not too many folks would be thrilled to know that there’s an atomic pile floating overhead.
And this
is supposed to make it the ideal cargo craft? Me thinks ideal spy craft is more like it and as such, we won’t see the declassification of them any time soon.
Wow! Sorry for the double post, with the 28 minutes between 'em.
The only thing I can make of this is that the folks at space.com have their calenders opened to the wrong page, and think that it’s April.
There is no conceivable reason to make a blimp shaped like a Star Destroyer. There’s a reason that most blimps are shaped like blimps: It’s cheaper, easier, and (at the speeds blimps can go) more aerodynamic to make them that shape. Sharp wedges aren’t prectical until you get to supersonic speeds, and I don’t think that anyone’s seriously claiming that the DoD is trying to make supersonic blimps. As for that “electrokinetic” system that El_Kabong describes, I can think of no plausible method for something like that to provide any lift or thrust at all, let alone enough to make it worthwhile. Ionizing the entire surface of something that size, and the air adjacent to it, would require enormous amounts of power, which would be put to much better use just turning a propellor.
chriszarate, do you know what the definition of UFO is? I judge from your post that you believe it means alien spacecraft. Not so, of course; anything airborne that you cannot identify is, by definition, a UFO.
But you knew that, right? :>
So the defintion of a UFO is something that is unidentifed by you?
Clearly, the Visitors have arrived. I for one welcome our new alien overlords.
Lifters were covered in an earlier thread, but I’m too lazy and the server is going too slow for me to look it up. 