Giant Flying Saucer UFO Made In Russia by piratenews

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Giant Flying Saucer UFO Made In Russia

POSTED BY: PIRATENEWS
UPDATED: Saturday, February 21, 2009 12:39
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1715
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, February 19, 2009 11:08 PM

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
Flying Saucer to be Created in Russia

Russian engineers currently work on a unique flying vehicle, which looks like a flying saucer. The vehicle called “Lokomoscanner” will have 250 meters in diameter and 100 meters in height. The giant vehicle will be able to carry up to 1500 tons of various goods.

The vehicle is a combination of an aircraft, a helicopter and an aerostat, since it can move in a straight line, turn around, hover when needed and perform vertical landing. The shape of “flying saucer” provides great wind resistance, making “Lokomoscanner” indispensable for works in hard-to-reach areas.

Resources of “Lokomoscanner” attract many potential customers from both Russian and foreign enterprises.

www.russia-ic.com/news/show/7745/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 19, 2009 11:33 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Not much info to go on, could be just a reboot of the Avrocar.

Me now, I wanna know how the goddamn TR-B3 Aurora manages to exceed Mach 1 without the friggin sonic boom - and I suspect THAT has much to do with WINTERHAVEN and the follow up work done later by Townsend Brown, the only one who had sense enough to get the hell out of dodge when all his buddies started dropping like flies.

If they ever did get the kinks worked out of the leading-edge charging experiments done back in 68, that may well explain it.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 2:22 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Frem, regarding the Aurora - and I'm just going off the top of my head here - could it have anything to do with altitude? The air gets much thinner at the altitudes where the SR-71 was flying (100,000 feet plus), and may not even be as conducive to a sonic boom. Plus, being some 20 miles up, it likely wouldn't be noticeable on the ground if there were one.

Like I said, just throwing out ideas. I haven't had my coffee yet, so my brain may not be up and running just yet... Got any operational specs on Aurora? I've heard the rumors for years, but never really been able to confirm much.

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 3:19 AM

KIRKULES

It's nothing but an over sized, funny shaped Goodyear Blimp. It will never be built because there's no utility to it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 7:07 AM

FREMDFIRMA

I got nothin on that front, Mikey - it's not really my area of interest, but I do know the friggin things been seen at less than 10,000 feet, at Mach 1+, and still no boom.

It also may not be manned, cause at least one confirmed visual contact from a reliable source indicates an accelleration that would squish a human pilot unconscious pretty quick.

And again, no boom, although there were a few when the damn thing just started to appear.

Of course, knowing something about the technology that has to be involved, while it might be radar-invisible, because of the only known method with the potential to do this, it would be highly detectable to someone who knew what to look for.

Also brings me to wonder how the hell they'd get conventional instruments to function onboard, if that's even possible - you'll figure out why if you follow up on Browns work.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 7:26 AM

KIRKULES

NASA has been working on the sonic boom problem for a long time now and has made progress by shaping the shock wave created by supersonic speeds. As far as I know they haven't yet been able to eliminate it, just reduce the volume substantially. From a good distance it might not even be noticed due to low frequency and dissipation in the atmosphere.

"NASA's attempt to stifle sonic booms is focused on changing the shape of the shock waves — a technique called boom-shaping — to spread them out over a larger area so they sound more like distant thunder."

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2009/02/nasa-wants-to-t.html

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 8:07 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"how the goddamn TR-B3 Aurora manages to exceed Mach 1 without the friggin sonic boom ..."

"NASA has ... made progress by shaping the shock wave created ..."

Pretty much was I was going to say. The Russians have done the same thing with their subs.

***************************************************************

"The Russians inwented it."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 9:30 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Mighty interesting, that.

I supposed leading edge charging in combination with what you describe could very well explain it, especially since a quick review of the sightings in question does indicating a deep grinding or rumbling type sound in concurrence with the sighting, something most folk would just take for engine noise - but if it's using the same type of engines that I do believe they are, a combination of two particular theories with a high volume passover (this being obvious due to the shape of the TR-B3), then the noise has no other explaination.
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/echeveron.htm
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2006/11/07/tech-jet.html

Of course, that brings up the idea of where the hell they're getting the juice, cause charging the leading edge, silencing the engines, and I highly suspect a certain lift-enhancement affect besides - that takes a *LOT* of juice, at least insofar as Winterhaven and Browns work seems to indicate.

Which leads to speculation about how the hell to generate that much power onboard - even Browns operationally flight-worthy test craft was tethered cause there wasn't any way to provide that much juice onboard.

Any clues on that end of it ?

Oh, and thanks for the headsup, I was unaware of profile shaping as another method of boom reduction.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 12:43 PM

OUT2THEBLACK

http://sonicbooms.org/ReferenceTechPapers/AIAA2005p0012.pdf

Modified F-5 testbed . Here's a photo , the white aircraft in the middle is the test article :

Here's the Tech Brief from NASA :
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/research/sonic_booms.html

The Aurora may actually be a system that involves more than one vehicle...

One of the vehicles may be powered by a external-combustion engine , known as a pulse-detonation wave engine ,
and the vehicle body may surf along on the shockwave induced by the combustion process...

The PDWE is believed to be responsible for the distinctive " doughnuts-on-a-rope "
( sorry , whozit , no bagels !)
contrail...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 12:48 PM

WHOZIT

That is not a TRUE Flying Saucer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 21, 2009 12:39 PM

OUT2THEBLACK

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The Russians have done the same thing with their subs.

"The Russians inwented it."

The Russkies have supersonic submarines ?
http://www.akin.ru/spravka_eng/s_i_svel_e.htm

I'm calling the Navy...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE