Space 1999 Eagle Transporter Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • We have updated the Terms and Conditions, you will be prompted to read and agree to these next time you are active on the forum.
SPONSORED BY

Which planes might have flown?

boatshewsd2

Alphans
Source It!

:2c:

Always a good idea to seek out multiple sources, for whatever subject you're researching...

Taken in that context, Wiki becomes but one source amongst many. It can provide a certain useful snapshot, and also serve as a jumping-off point to others...

:read:
 

Ham Salad

Alphans
The nice thing about Wikipedia is, they make a point of citing their sources.

If you can point to references for your claims, by all means add them to the article.

As you know, if a posted statement contradicts the ideology of wikipedia, it will be removed, of course. This is well known.
Your suggestion , if followed, would be a pointless exercise.

http://wikipedia-is-wrong.com/

This is part of the reason wikipedia is worthless as a source: since there is no accountability, nor professional ethics nor academic reputation for wikipedia.
It's full of blatantly wrong information, politically biased orientation, gross omission of inconvenient facts, and outright intentional falsehood.


Wikipedia is considered a worthless , biased source and therefore anything it pro ports should be checked (and never accepted at face value) .

Further, the citations in wiki's own sources are in agreement with my facts as stated (did you NOT notice my citation?) ...and they do, in fact, contradict what the article states and implies.

I agree with boatshewsd2: that the only thing wiki is useful for is as a 'snapshot', and that anything it says should be viewed with a highly skeptical eye.
 
Last edited:

Odahs

Alphans
Wiki is a very valuable source, particularly when researching misinformation, bias and lack of knowledge of the writers! OK I'm being harsh but one needs to use it as a source not an authority.


A more informed and factually correct source article may be found here:

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/N/NERVA.html

And I quote from it:

The NERVA and Rover programs, involving LASL, Westinghouse, Aerojet, and other industrial partners, ran in parallel and were impressively successful from a technological standpoint. One of the most notable demonstrations was a 12-minute test of the Phoebus-2A reactor – the most powerful nuclear reactor ever built – which delivered over 4,000 megawatts of thermal energy. The NERVA/Rover programs were cancelled, however, in 1973, for a variety of reasons including environmental concerns, loss of public and political interest in a manned mission to Mars in the wake of Apollo, and the growing use low-cost unmanned, robotic space probes.

Which I think confirms the point made by Ham Salad that it was not a technological failing but a political one that halted the program.
 

Odahs

Alphans
Getting back to the fun side of things, bits are arriving for the Kingfisher model, just waiting on the two main motors to arrive from Germany. Particularly impressive is the KK2.1.5 flight controller, almost unbelievably at £30 it has the ability (when flashed with the right firmware) to control stabilise a tilt rotor model. At least we can be happy with electronics developments over the past 40 years, if not propulsion systems!

I thought this article comparing the Project Zero aircraft to the Kingfisher was fun:

http://www.gerryanderson.co.uk/ufo-helicopter-inspires-new-helicopter/

Not quite factually correct as the Anderson design is a tilt wing ducted fan, whilst Project Zero is an in wing tilt fan, but fun all the same!

For those interested in where things are going in aerospace, Project Zero was a test-bed for several new innovations, particularly the 'more electric' concept of removing hydraulic systems, use of composites etc. It's Achillie's heel is Li-Po battery energy density, but there are high hopes for future improvements in this area over coming decades.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvelR2aoheE"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvelR2aoheE[/ame]
 
Last edited:

Odahs

Alphans
But none of those atomic engines ever flew.

They were not test flown, but there is nothing at all in the factual history of the projects to suggest they would not have flown very successfully.

The point Ham Salad originally made was that they were not flown, due to political and social factors, not technological ones.


You said very categorically that none were built or tested, can you see that you were wrong? A propulsion system doesn't have to be flown to be built and tested... the testing of propulsion systems is done before flight, it usually works out better that way :)
 

Odahs

Alphans
Here are some interesting numbers,

A Boeing 747 weighs in at around 88 UK tons. One Phoebus 2 motor (circa 1967 the year I was born!) produced 250,000 lb of thrust (about 10 times more than a modern military turbofan on reheat). That's 111 tons of thrust. So one can see that just one Phoebus 2 had the potential to vertically lift an aircraft the size and weight of a Boeing 747.

So it appears Gerry Anderson wasn't being at all fanciful, over-imaginative or unrealistic with his concepts.

With a large reactor and multiple nuclear motors, Skybase could have flown indefinitely in the atmosphere.

TB2 wouldn't have struggled with it's fusion reactor to lift heavy equipment and fly without refueling around the world... I always thought Gerry had his feet firmly grounded in reality with his concepts and was keeping a close eye on real world developments of the day.

It appears that it is only a case of political and social history that we now look at the concepts as fanciful rather than visions of our future.

Interesting too that many of the storylines of Thunderbirds involve International Rescue saving people from this slightly more dangerous (but definitely much more exciting) technology and nuclear driven new world. :thumbup:
 

Ham Salad

Alphans
Here are some interesting numbers,

A Boeing 747 weighs in at around 88 UK tons. One Phoebus 2 motor (circa 1967 the year I was born!) produced 250,000 lb of thrust (about 10 times more than a modern military turbofan on reheat). That's 111 tons of thrust. So one can see that just one Phoebus 2 had the potential to vertically lift an aircraft the size and weight of a Boeing 747.

So it appears Gerry Anderson wasn't being at all fanciful, over-imaginative or unrealistic with his concepts.

With a large reactor and multiple nuclear motors, Skybase could have flown indefinitely in the atmosphere.

TB2 wouldn't have struggled with it's fusion reactor to lift heavy equipment and fly without refueling around the world... I always thought Gerry had his feet firmly grounded in reality with his concepts and was keeping a close eye on real world developments of the day.

It appears that it is only a case of political and social history that we now look at the concepts as fanciful rather than visions of our future.

Interesting too that many of the storylines of Thunderbirds involve International Rescue saving people from this slightly more dangerous (but definitely much more exciting) technology and nuclear driven new world. :thumbup:

Another interesting item from one of the citations is something I DIDN'T know: that there was a fuel (not reactor) explosion during testing...which addresses the issue of 'how dangerous would the atomic engine be in case of a disaster?'

According to the article I read, since the reactor is relatively tiny and the core used less radioactive elements, the clean up and contamination was minimal.

This makes it considerably less dangerous than the fireflash, which would apparently give you a lethal dose of radiation if you stayed aboard too long!
 
Last edited:

Ham Salad

Alphans
For those interested in where things are going in aerospace, Project Zero was a test-bed for several new innovations, particularly the 'more electric' concept of removing hydraulic systems, use of composites etc. It's Achillie's heel is Li-Po battery energy density, but there are high hopes for future improvements in this area over coming decades.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvelR2aoheE

Now, you see, that's the ticket! Why don't I have one of those?

Oh, and I neglected to mention I want the future where everything is neatly labeled.

Even terrorist bombs.

Saves a lot of trouble and makes for clarity, don't you think?
 
Last edited:

ldo

Alphans
The point Ham Salad originally made was that they were not flown, due to political and social factors, not technological ones.

Supposedly. And yet I haven’t seen a single reference to back up any such claim. On the contrary, when I gave a Wikipedia reference for my point, that seemed to provoke some kind of rabid anti-Wikipedia hatred among certain parties in this group, even though they were completely unable to give any reference as to why the article in question might actually be wrong.

You said very categorically that none were built or tested

Please point to where I said any such thing.
 

Ham Salad

Alphans
Supposedly. And yet I haven’t seen a single reference to back up any such claim.

Yes, actually you did.


>A more informed and factually correct source article may be found here:

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/N/NERVA.html

And I quote from it:

The NERVA and Rover programs, involving LASL, Westinghouse, Aerojet, and other industrial partners, ran in parallel and were impressively successful from a technological standpoint. One of the most notable demonstrations was a 12-minute test of the Phoebus-2A reactor – the most powerful nuclear reactor ever built – which delivered over 4,000 megawatts of thermal energy. The NERVA/Rover programs were cancelled, however, in 1973, for a variety of reasons including environmental concerns, loss of public and political interest in a manned mission to Mars in the wake of Apollo, and the growing use low-cost unmanned, robotic space probes.<

Please point to where I said any such thing.

Right here:

But you said “built and tested”, when there was no such thing.

Yes, there was such a thing. Yes, it was built. Yes , it was tested.

I've seen it personally.. The motor was built, it did in fact not only work, but it exceeded specifications.

whether it was used in actual flight is irrelevant to the issue of it being built and tested.

completely unable to give any reference as to why the article in question might actually be wrong.

Oh, sorry: apparently there's a logical disconnect between your claims that successful nuclear rocket engines were never built and tested, and between you wanting to know what part of THIS PARTICULAR article on wikipedia is misleading (rather than the proven fact that wikipedia is full of false and misleading statements in general) .

Those are two separate claims, and we've been dealing with them together.

Here's an excerpt of the misleading part:

>Members of Congress in both political parties judged that a manned mission to Mars would be a tacit commitment for the United States to decades more of the expensive Space Race. Manned Mars missions were enabled by nuclear rockets; therefore, if NERVA could be discontinued the Space Race might wind down and the budget would be saved.<

This is misleading in that it claims that the program was cancelled due to budgetary considerations, and by both parties. This implication is false.

First, since congress at the time was controlled by one party, it is their actions that are involved. The opposition party advocated reducing the government budget in general, and did not advocate cutting the NASA budget specifically.

Second, it was NOT cancelled because of budgetary considerations: it was cancelled because a treaty supported by the party in control was signed severely limiting the use of nuclear power in space, spurious environmental concerns , and the false claim of concern for the federal budget. Their real reason, then as now, was the desire of that particular party to redirect funds away from space exploration and into more social spending. Said party had no intention of reducing the federal budget or spending in general, and they did not do so.

The current head of said party has continued this policy when he essentially cancelled the US manned space program personally, against the protests of well known scientists, astronauts, and members of the opposing party, as well as without the agreement of congress or the people. Clearly, spending itself is not the issue as he was at the same time spending more than had ever been spent before.

This despite the fact that attempting to curtail efforts to explore and colonize space are (as has been stated) a threat to the very survival of the human species. As has been stated, it is certain that the earth will become a hostile environment within the foreseeable future as it's ecosystem is unstable.


There's nothing 'rabid' about stating the fact that wikipedia is not a valid source of information: it's merely the fact of the matter. and citations proving this fact have already been given.
 
Last edited:

ldo

Alphans
Could you just clarify one thing for me: when you said “tested”, did you mean “passed tests which showed it was ready to be seriously used as a form of propulsion”? For example, up to the standard of, say, the Apollo 4, 5 and 6 missions, which demonstrated that the Saturn rockets were indeed ready to be seriously used as a form of propulsion. Because that’s what I thought you meant, and clearly none of the tests you’ve quoted came up to that standard.

But if you didn’t mean that, then I have no argument with you.
 

Odahs

Alphans
Could you just clarify one thing for me: when you said “tested”, did you mean “passed tests which showed it was ready to be seriously used as a form of propulsion”? For example, up to the standard of, say, the Apollo 4, 5 and 6 missions, which demonstrated that the Saturn rockets were indeed ready to be seriously used as a form of propulsion. Because that’s what I thought you meant, and clearly none of the tests you’ve quoted came up to that standard.

But if you didn’t mean that, then I have no argument with you.

You very clearly stated that they were not built and tested, now you have been corrected you have decided you meant tested to some imaginary criteria.

"passed tests which showed it was ready to be seriously used as a form of propulsion"

Clarify exactly which tests these would have been please? Do you mean flight certification tests?

You see, there would be no requirement for such tests, the program would have run under 'Experimental' and therefore no such imaginary tests would have been necessary.

What you described as a 'rabid' response to the use of Wiki was entirely down to the fact you used it as a reference to backup your statement, when both wiki and your statement were clearly misleading and wrong :roll: A very clear example of why it is not a good reference source to quote.
 

Odahs

Alphans
Now, you see, that's the ticket! Why don't I have one of those?

Oh, and I neglected to mention I want the future where everything is neatly labeled.

Even terrorist bombs.

Saves a lot of trouble and makes for clarity, don't you think?


Oh definitely, but I want a big countdown display and a red and clearly labelled DISARM button on those bombs too!
 

Odahs

Alphans
Supposedly. And yet I haven’t seen a single reference to back up any such claim. On the contrary, when I gave a Wikipedia reference for my point, that seemed to provoke some kind of rabid anti-Wikipedia hatred among certain parties in this group, even though they were completely unable to give any reference as to why the article in question might actually be wrong.



Please point to where I said any such thing.


Post # 24 is where I provided the reference to back up such a claim

and

Post # 17 is where you stated

But you said “built and tested”, when there was no such thing.


Hatred is a strong and emotive word, educated view, would be more descriptive of my opinion of Wikipedia.
 

Ham Salad

Alphans
Could you just clarify one thing for me: when you said “tested”, did you mean “passed tests which showed it was ready to be seriously used as a form of propulsion”? For example, up to the standard of, say, the Apollo 4, 5 and 6 missions, which demonstrated that the Saturn rockets were indeed ready to be seriously used as a form of propulsion. Because that’s what I thought you meant, and clearly none of the tests you’ve quoted came up to that standard..

I'm pretty sure the Saturn booster was considered a serious form of propulsion before it actually flew with a manned mission. The F1 and J2 engines were considered tested and 'serious' before they were actually flown as well. One of the articles mentioned that the NERVA engine was at the time being fitted to the 2nd. stage of the saturn booster for flight tests.

NASA thought so, and I think the quote makes that pretty specifically clear.

> at the end of 1968 SNPO certified that the latest NERVA engine, the NRX/XE, met the requirements for a manned Mars mission.

The engines functioned correctly and effectively in run tests. The design was approved to install in a manned vehicle. I don't see how this would not qualify as 'ready to be seriously used as a form of propulsion'.

The next step would have been a flight test, but then the program was cancelled.

Generally, 'certified' means ' passed all tests'. You know, like when I get my car 'smog certified', it means it 'passes the smog test'. This means 'ready to be seriously used as a form of propulsion to the supermarket'.

Also, I'm not sure what form a 'not serious' form of propulsion would take. You mean like the 'not serious' atomic bomb Doc brown built for the terrorists in BACK TO THE FUTURE?
Or perhaps it would be an atomic engine that , after installation, would make a farting sound and throw confetti? You know, so the engineers could have a good laugh at the astronauts who thought they were going to mars?
 
Last edited:

Ham Salad

Alphans
Oh definitely, but I want a big countdown display and a red and clearly labelled DISARM button on those bombs too!

Well, of course, that would be the well mannered thing to provide.

I would just love going into my kitchen and seeing AUTOMATIC ATOMIC REFRIGERATOR on it in big letters. Perhaps AUTOMATIC ATOMIC SINK as well.

Of course, my washolet already says AUTOMATIC ATOMIC TOILET on it....
 

ldo

Alphans
Clarify exactly which tests these would have been please?

For example, up to the standard of, say, the Apollo 4, 5 and 6 missions, which demonstrated that the Saturn rockets were indeed ready to be seriously used as a form of propulsion.

What you described as a 'rabid' response to the use of Wiki was entirely down to the fact you used it as a reference to backup your statement, when both wiki and your statement were clearly misleading and wrong

And when I asked for references as to why Wikipedia is such a bad source of information, I was directed to Conservapedia, of all things. People who donṫ even believe in biological evolution... :no:
 
Top