# Secret Aircraft



## Dark Matter (Jul 10, 2009)

Does any one know when were going to have aircraft that Hover and fly without jet, rocket or piston engines

And is it possible to go the speed of light


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2009)

Well they will require some kind of propulsion, so what kind of engine are you thinking about?


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 10, 2009)

Like some sort of ray?
Or a matter moving material?
Or an energy cnonverter of some sort?

I dont know, its the Future!


----------



## Waynos (Jul 10, 2009)

If you want to visit ATS (abovetopsecret.com) some of the more fanciful members there already think the B-2 flies using anti grav technology. Though why you would want that in a plane that is just a big wing is not made clear.


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 10, 2009)

I'm talking about without wings.


----------



## davparlr (Jul 10, 2009)

I have heard of ideas of powering some sort of airborne machine that would us a beam projected from the ground for power like microwaves. This type of power typically has a low energy density so such a vehicle would be rather light, probably unmanned.

According to Einstein's theories, as speed approaches the speed of light, relative mass increases toward infinity(simplistically). So to make it to the speed of light, infinite energy would be required. Therefore, the speed of light cannot be obtained, thus not exceeded. I think!


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 10, 2009)

Why do they say that if you go past the speed of light, time goes backwards


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 10, 2009)

I think the idea of 'ray' propulsion is still really sci-fi at the moment. The nearest thing I can think of is maglev technology, but that is effective over altitudes of a few feet, not thousands. Any propulsive system is governed by the old chestnut "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". So, an engine has to emit something in order to provide thrust. 

It is theoretically possible to use something like a rail gun to launch a craft, but range and maneverability would be dictated by maximum velocity at launch, which is itself limited by materials technology and human physiology. So it is of little practical value for military and/or civil aviation applications.

As for aircraft without wings, it simply ain't gonna work within Earth's atmosphere. At present, you still need an airfoil to generate lift. I don't see how that requirement can be dropped without fundamentally changing or even scrapping flight as we know it...


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 10, 2009)

I know that.


----------



## Waynos (Jul 10, 2009)

So why ask?


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 10, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> Does any one know when were going to have aircraft that Hover and fly without jet, rocket or piston engines
> 
> And is it possible to go the speed of light


There's a concept called ion engines but I don't know where they are with them. Last time I looked, they could move very (very) small masses with extremely modest levels of thrust. You may be more familiar with the concept from the ion engines in Star Wars, the Empire used them in their TIE (Twin Ion Engine) Fighters; suffice it to say we're nowhere near that level of performance yet. Life imitating Art.

Well currently, no. As you increase the energy required to exceed 1.0c, you increase your mass in direct proportion, requiring a further increase in energy to overcome your new mass and thus increasing your mass again. You might look to the Star Trek universe for the possible answer to this one but I'm afraid I'm a bit sketchy on warp field theory 

Can't rule it out though, they said we'd never dogfight at 600mph then Korea happened...


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 10, 2009)

Waynos said:


> So why ask?



I wanted to see what you guys thought.


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 10, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> Why do they say that if you go past the speed of light, time goes backwards


Regarding your question wrt linear time (time the way we traditionally view it)
imagine a large'ish clock 100 metres away from you, you can see the second hand moving clearly from one second to the next. The time it takes the passage of time from one second to the next is relayed to you at the speed of light ie what you can visibly see. 

There is, over 100m, a nano-fractional delay incurred from the time the clock strikes the next second, until the visual information of that second being struck reaches your eye but that's negligible here.

Now imagine that visual information being transmitted to your eye from the clock at speeds greater than light, let's say 2.0c. The nano-fractional delay is easily overcome by this and you will receive the visual information at your eye at some time before that second is physically reached by the clock's second hand.

Clearly (I hope) there is a causality issue here and if superluminal travel (or in the case of my example, information transfer) were possible, there'd be some very strange issues to deal with.


----------



## lingo (Jul 10, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> Does any one know when were going to have aircraft that Hover and fly without jet, rocket or piston engines
> 
> If someone who knew did tell you he would have to kill you immediately due to the security implications!
> 
> ...



Not yet!


----------



## Velius (Jul 10, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> I dont know, its the Future!



It's the way of the future, the way of the future, the way of the future, it's way of the future, the way of the future.....


----------



## evangilder (Jul 10, 2009)

Theories abound, but no practical applications of those theories have materialized that we know about. Besides, if it was a secret project, then how would we know about it. And if we did, we obviously couldn't talk about it...


----------



## Aaron Brooks Wolters (Jul 10, 2009)

I've heard of gravitational propulsion but don't know how feasible it is or weather the technology even exists yet.


----------



## comiso90 (Jul 10, 2009)

i thought this was veru interesting:

* Radio waves traveling faster than the speed of light:*

For the past 60+ years, we lived in a world that incorrectly interpreted a statement from Albert Einstein, who allegedly claimed that nothing can move faster than the speed of light. Just like Moore's Law, people tend to "bend" its meaning until it has no meaning at all.

Radio waves accelerated past the speed of light represent a new benchmark in speed.Scientist John Singleton created an interesting device that accelerates the radio waves until they pass the speed of light. Yes, you've read that correctly - by using a process that is similar to the way Pulsar stars emit light - John jerked radio waves until they caved in and passed their theoretical speed barrier.

With radio waves traveling faster than the speed of light, near real-time communication as seen in Star Trek is possible [traveling in Star Trek style is another thing], but more importantly, this has serious implications in the world of telecommunications and the design of computer chips.

For ages now, semiconductor industry thought that once that conventional ways of communication are used, a move to optical interconnects will be mandatory. Back in 2006, Intel demonstrated its own SOI [Silicon-On-Insulator] wafers that used the optical laser interconnect. As you might know, the latency inside computer chips increased due to the fact that electrons lost the ability to travel at the speed of light, hence the SRAM latencies of 1-4 cycles, up from the latency of 0 in Pentium 4 and original Athlon processors. If accelerated radio waves could be used, semiconductor industry just might enter a whole new era of speed.

Singleton stated that usages for his device are enormous: "Because nobody's really thought about things that travel faster than light before, this is a wide-open technological field". This discovery could revolutionize medical, communication, semiconductor, space exploration fields.

Who knows, last day of June 2009 might be hailed in scientific books in decades to come. From attacking cancer to complete change in way how astronomers search the universe above - accelerated radio waves just might be the silver bullet we needed.

Somehow, there is no doubt who just positioned himself as the prime candidate for Nobel's prize for Physics.

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/new...s-a-revolution-in-semiconductor-industry.aspx

,


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 10, 2009)

I remember seeing something about using electromagnetism for propulsion.

I do not believe if you go faster then the speed of light you go backwards in time but forward. IIRC ignoring the issue with mass if you had a spaceship that went the speed of light, what would seem like minutes or hours on the ship would be eons on earth (not sure of the exact time but something like that)


----------



## evangilder (Jul 11, 2009)

Good find, Comiso and quite interesting. I think because the computers of today get more and more powerful, they can run calculations and formulas that were once impossible, or would take a very long time. Plus with the simulations and modeling that can be achieved because of the processing power, I think we are on the age of some big discoveries.


----------



## RabidAlien (Jul 11, 2009)

evangilder said:


> Good find, Comiso and quite interesting. I think because the computers of today get more and more powerful, they can run calculations and formulas that were once impossible, or would take a very long time. Plus with the simulations and modeling that can be achieved because of the processing power, I think we are on the age of some big discoveries.



That would be nice.....here we are, sittin in the future, and I'm still waiting for my flying car!!!


----------



## evangilder (Jul 11, 2009)

How about this :




The Moller Sky Car

And let's not forget this latest one, The Terrafugia:





Lots of attempts over the years. Nothing has caught on yet.
Experiments with Flying Cars


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 12, 2009)

DARPA is building a "Jeep" that holds four warriors and flys. That should be interesting. Claim is they need it for areas like Afghanistan.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 12, 2009)

Something like that has been done before in 1943. Kinda interesting concept IMHO.

Hafner Rotabuggy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## drgondog (Jul 16, 2009)

davparlr said:


> According to Einstein's theories, as speed approaches the speed of light, relative mass increases toward infinity(simplistically). So to make it to the speed of light, infinite energy would be required. Therefore, the speed of light cannot be obtained, thus not exceeded. I think!



The General Relativity Theory would require an 'infinite universe' to attain the Velocity of light, as attaining the velocity of light requires a divisor approaching zero ------------> requiring an infinite quantity of energy which is not available in a finite universe with finite mass.

The more interesting question may no be "how fast may we travel in our space-time continuum" , but "will we be able to travel to distant locations in this space-time continuum far faster than light travels over a period of time?"

Monstrous Gravity Wells like Black holes raise the theoretical questions of 'worm hole' connectivity between such masses (like perhaps from one Black Hole in one galaxy to another - or others - in a different Galaxy/Star sytem)

There is no theoretical approach for a vehicle or surviving approaching the Event Horizon, but supposing an artificial 'black hole' could be theoretically constructed (and safely contained) as part of a stellar vehicle, could it be designed to create a constant singularity that a.) links with other singularities, and b.) maintains a 'relative time' throughout the transfer (i.e Not pass 2 millions years into future during this 'trip0)', and c.) be able to navigates back to desired Space-Time locus?


----------



## drgondog (Jul 16, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> I remember seeing something about using electromagnetism for propulsion.
> 
> I do not believe if you go faster then the speed of light you go backwards in time but forward. IIRC ignoring the issue with mass if you had a spaceship that went the speed of light, what would seem like minutes or hours on the ship would be eons on earth (not sure of the exact time but something like that)



In the 'vehicle' approaching the velocity of light, perception of relative time lapse within the vehicle approaches zero while the observing frame of reference (i.e. your twin brother on Earth) perceives Newtonian time passage as normal.

The travelling twin brother, while travelling near light speeds perceives his trip at those speeds as a 'blink of the eye' while the brother on Earth dies of old age as well as all the kids, grandchildren, etc - depending on how far the light speed vehicle travels in Newtonian Space-Time. When the vehicle slows down the perception and experience of time within the decellerating vehicle more closely matches the external Newtonian frame of reference..


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 16, 2009)

How about first flight with a 20kW fuel cell on 7 July. With twice the efficency of a piston engine from tank to propeller, a motorized glider has achieved 44% efficiency. A range of 466miles at 105mph, the motorglider's only emission is water vapor. This was accomplished by the Antares DLR-H2.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 18, 2009)

drgondog said:


> In the 'vehicle' approaching the velocity of light, perception of relative time lapse within the vehicle approaches zero while the observing frame of reference (i.e. your twin brother on Earth) perceives Newtonian time passage as normal.
> 
> The travelling twin brother, while travelling near light speeds perceives his trip at those speeds as a 'blink of the eye' while the brother on Earth dies of old age as well as all the kids, grandchildren, etc - depending on how far the light speed vehicle travels in Newtonian Space-Time. When the vehicle slows down the perception and experience of time within the decellerating vehicle more closely matches the external Newtonian frame of reference..



Like Joe Haldeman's time-travelling soldier William Mandella?

William Mandella - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I haven't read these books, but they are essentially an investigation of the phenomena that Bill just explained. FTL travel throws up some huge questions - even if it is possible, what will it do to human beings and human societies? Even long-distance sub-light travel throws up a range of human and social issues that will have be dealt with alongside the scientific ones...


----------



## Junkers88A1 (Jul 18, 2009)

now this just when above my head..tried to read some of it and got stuck with the tie fighter.. math and physic was never my stronge side..  so i just say.. go tie fighters


----------



## drgondog (Jul 18, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> Like Joe Haldeman's time-travelling soldier William Mandella?
> QUOTE]
> 
> BT - IIRC it was a Robert Heinlien book about telepathic twins (mid 50's) able to communicate - one earthbound, the other on an exploratory spaceship heading for Andromeda.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 18, 2009)

That rings a bell - can't think of the title of the top of my head, but it was definitely Heinlein, and there have been similar stories coming out ever since. _The Forever Wars_ were part of that movement


----------



## Lastvautour (Jul 23, 2009)

I am not a physicist but maybe one should circumvent the speed of light. If one can bend light, one should perhaps look at folding light/space and just step through to your destination. I am sure the "skunk works" have more than they let on.

Gravity driven vehicles. Getting rid of the tracks for maglift trains is probably just around the corner.


----------



## river (Jul 23, 2009)

Hi,

Bahhh, the speed of light is just another barrier we'll have to break. We did it to sound, so we can do it to light.

For pete's sake... if we can't beat the speed of light then how are we going to effectively find other inhabitated planets and wage war on them. 

river


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 24, 2009)

river said:


> ...the speed of light is just another barrier we'll have to break. We did it to sound, so we can do it to light...


There is no natural implication that simply because we broke the sound barrier, we will one day break the luminal barrier, or whatever it will be called. Relativity had no say in exceeding the sound barrier but it will have plenty of say in FTL travel (or information transfer). With the benefit of hindsight, exceeding sound was merely appropriate aerodynamics coupled with a powerful enough engine - that will not/can never be enough to exceed light.


----------



## RabidAlien (Jul 24, 2009)

Heh. 100 years from now, somebody's gonna be having a discussion on whatever they use for forums (telepathy, perhaps?) and say "with the benefit of hindsight, exceeding light was merely ____and____ coupled with _____. That can never be enough to exceed ____!"  They also said man would never fly. Or walk on the moon. Tell someone (especially a group of scientists with funding) that they can't do something, and they'll do it just to prove you wrong. Humans are like that.

**slithers off to communicate with mothership**


----------



## Butters (Jul 24, 2009)

If you believe that scientists are destined to find a loophole in GR theory that allows faster-than-light travel, I've got a design for a perpetual motion machine that I think you'll wanna invest in.

BTW, there is not, nor ever was, a sound 'barrier'...

JL


----------



## beaupower32 (Jul 28, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> so what kind of engine are you thinking about?




Hell, put a DB605 in it lol


----------



## Flyboy2 (Jul 28, 2009)

The idea behind an ion engine is that high energy gases are stripped of there electrons and then shot out to create some sort of force, using Newton's 1st law of motion to get the ship to go somewhere. Of course this is nothing like a TIE Fighter that uses ion engines to manuveur like an earth bound fighter jet, rather its a version of propulsion like rockets.
If you are familiar with the movie and book _2001: A Space Odyssey_ the spaceship _Discovery_ uses a nuclear powered ion drive. It is noted that _Discovery_ is the fastest ship to be ever created by humans yet still takes about two years to reach its final destination.

To answer your question concerning the speed of light, it is impossible to break the speed of light. Einstein's theories are exact and revolve around the fact that light will always reach its target, making it possible to travel relatively faster than the light photon. However the speed of light 3.0x10^8 is attainable, but you are not actually outrunning light.
It is possible to cheat the speed of light to produce a similar effect. The newest and most accessible theory to this is made possible by a sub-atomic particle called tachyons. Although I don't understand the math behind them, tachyons have an imaginary mass (_i_-mass) allowing them to travel faster than the speed of light. If any ship were enveloped in a concentrated tachyonic field it would allow the ship to travel faster than light.
Other universe hoping theories include creating a gravitational singularity strong enough to bend space time. Imagine folding a paper in half, the distance from each side has no shrunk considerably. Theoretically this is also possible in space, by bending space with a gravitational field. We can also use worm holes apparently. However this is all speculation.


----------



## Aaron Brooks Wolters (Jul 28, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> There is no natural implication that simply because we broke the sound barrier, we will one day break the luminal barrier, or whatever it will be called. Relativity had no say in exceeding the sound barrier but it will have plenty of say in FTL travel (or information transfer). With the benefit of hindsight, exceeding sound was merely appropriate aerodynamics coupled with a powerful enough engine - that will not/can never be enough to exceed light.



Nothing is impossible. It just take a group of determined people working together toward the same goal.8)


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 29, 2009)

Aaron Brooks Wolters said:


> Nothing is impossible. It just take a group of determined people working together toward the same goal


Aaron, read my post
nobody said it was impossible, I pointed out that exceeding the trans-sonic threshold does not imply that we will do the same to any trans-luminal threshold as a matter of course. 

My main point in that post is that we WILL NOT do it with appropriate aerodynamics and a nice, big powerplant.


----------



## Auravir (Aug 1, 2009)

If we did manage to create aircraft capable of the speed of light, it would render them invisible to every form of detection available at the present time until they had passed. Some time in the future, maybe we will create some sort of super radar or something, but I do not see how.

The speed of light is calculated to be 670,617,629 mph or 1,079,254,458 kph. To put this into proportion, The Space Shuttle's re-entry speed is 17,322 mph or 27877 kph. If we were going to be trying this speed in the atmosphere, things would not end well. In space however,I can't see how we could not do it. Since there is no friction from an atmosphere in space, we theoretically should be able to reach an unlimited speed as long as we can be propelled for a long enough time, and we can dodge around asteroids and planets and whatnot. If this is true, we should be able to reach the speed of light with technology we have already, we just haven't bothered to try yet

Scientists have also been looking at the possibility of "wrinkling" space to essentially create a shorter distance to travel. You would not feel anything inside the aircraft, but it would appear that stars are streaking by outside the ship, sort of like warp drive in Star Trek. 

This is as much as I know on the subject of light speed. There are probably a few holes in my knowledge, and I would appreciate it if you guys can correct me, as I like to learn.


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 1, 2009)

Auravir said:


> If we did manage to create aircraft capable of the speed of light, it would render them invisible to every form of detection available at the present time until they had passed. Some time in the future, maybe we will create some sort of super radar or something, but I do not see how.
> 
> Since there is no friction from an atmosphere in space, we theoretically should be able to reach an unlimited speed as long as we can be propelled for a long enough time, and we can dodge around asteroids and planets and whatnot.
> 
> If this is true, we should be able to reach the speed of light with technology we have already, we just haven't bothered to try yet


If we can propel anything with mass at superluminal speeds, then information (detection) shouldn't pose too much of a problem. I can't see FTL being applied to aircraft, in 1/7th of a second you'd be round the world and back where you started, I'd suggest planetary travel might be accomplished by a next-gen HOTOL vehicle.

The friction experienced by atmospheric travel becomes progressively more noticeable as drag the faster you go, right up to re-entry for a space shuttle which requires a ceramic nose to keep it from incinerating itself. An increase in speed presents the atmosphere as more of a 'wall' to the vehicle. 
The detritus in space is minimal and does not need to be considered for current space flight velocities but at FTL velocities this too could present more of a 'wall' to the vehicle.

I don't know if we've 'bothered to try', I'll be surprised if we have but we cannot reach light speed with current technology- we won't exceed any trans-luminal threshold with brute power.


----------



## MrCreak (Aug 2, 2009)

Auravir said:


> The speed of light is calculated to be 670,617,629 mph or 1,079,254,458 kph. To put this into proportion


It's usually given in miles (or metres) per second: 186,000 miles per second or 3x10^8 metres per second. (Actually 299,792,458 metres/ sec, but 3E8 is close enough for back of the envelope calculations )



> In space however,I can't see how we could not do it. Since there is no friction from an atmosphere in space, we theoretically should be able to reach an unlimited speed as long as we can be propelled for a long enough time, and we can dodge around asteroids and planets and whatnot. If this is true, we should be able to reach the speed of light with technology we have already, we just haven't bothered to try yet


Unfortunately it's not true. Besides time slowing down as you approach the speed of light length contracts and mass increases. So the faster you go the more thrust you need to accelerate more since your vehicle/ craft gets heavier. At C your length is zero, your time has stopped (relative to where you left) and your mass is infinite.



> Scientists have also been looking at the possibility of "wrinkling" space to essentially create a shorter distance to travel. You would not feel anything inside the aircraft, but it would appear that stars are streaking by outside the ship, sort of like warp drive in Star Trek.


Google "Alcubierre Drive": a serious look at space-warp drives from a serious physicist. Unfortunately other serious physicists took it seriously and found even more serious faults.
Little things like not being able to navigate _at all_ (you can't see through the warp bubble you'd be in to look where you're going), or needing exotic matter (something we haven't even found outside of the equations yet) in quantities that outweigh the universe itself.


----------



## PJay (Aug 29, 2009)

Bombtaxi, the Heinlein book was 'A Life for the Stars'.


----------

