Slashdot Mirror


Russians Invade with Flying Saucer

Ridgelift writes "Wired is covering a project revived from Russia by the US Naval Air Systems Command: The Ekip, a pita-bread-shaped, stubby-winged, wheel-less, unmanned ship that weighs in at 500 pounds. 'For more than two decades, engineers at a former Soviet aerospace plant have been toiling on a drone aircraft that looks a whole lot like a prop from Plan 9 From Outer Space.'"

172 comments

  1. Ever heard of the AVRO Car? by evil_one · · Score: 5, Informative

    AVRO Canada had a working flying saucer back in the height of the cold war.
    Link: http://www.avroarrow.org/Avrocar/Avrocar.html

    --
    Desperation is a stinky cologne
    1. Re:Ever heard of the AVRO Car? by Boo5000. · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of RTFA??? "In the 1950s, at a plant just outside of Toronto, the Avro-Canada company designed a jet-powered saucer it dubbed the Avrocar (http://www.vectorsite.net/avplatfm.html#m4). Intrigued by the UFO-esque craft, the U.S. Air Force took over the project in 1955."

    2. Re:Ever heard of the AVRO Car? by digital+bath · · Score: 4, Informative

      Moller International has been working on personal 'skycars' for a long time. Some of their earlier models resemble flying saucers, strangely enough.

      I can't wait to own one of these, though.

      --
      find / -name "*.sig" | xargs rm
    3. Re:Ever heard of the AVRO Car? by evil_one · · Score: 2

      That's great. It's on the second page and doesn't have any info on avro. Just because you read the article (as I did, thanks) doesn't mean the rest of the people will.

      More links:
      http://www.ufx.org/avro/avro.htm
      http://www.avroland.ca/al-vz9.html

      --
      Desperation is a stinky cologne
    4. Re:Ever heard of the AVRO Car? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you RTFA through pages and posted a link made redundant by the article itself but didn't post any development of that thought.

      Yeah, right.

    5. Re:Ever heard of the AVRO Car? by pkhuong · · Score: 2, Informative

      Working is a bit of an exaggeration. IIRC, it could hover, but wasn't stable enough, so they only let it fly tethered to the ground.

      --
      Try Corewar @ www.koth.org - rec.games.corewar
    6. Re:Ever heard of the AVRO Car? by pipingguy · · Score: 3, Informative


      AVRO Canada had a working flying saucer back in the height of the cold war.

      The hosers also developed a great interceptor, but it got shitcanned due to the emerging threat of ballistic missiles. Or something like that. Some say the program was killed by the Marecans.

    7. Re:Ever heard of the AVRO Car? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You will be waiting a long time. Moller has been bilking investors since the early 70's for his various sky-cars that will be available 'next year'.

    8. Re:Ever heard of the AVRO Car? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They didnt bother tethering it after they realized it couldn't "hover" any higher than a couple feet. And I wouldn't say it hovered in the way they expected (like a helicopter) but more like a hover craft where it depended upon ground effect.

    9. Re:Ever heard of the AVRO Car? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't see any of his links in the article

    10. Re:Ever heard of the AVRO Car? by earthforce_1 · · Score: 3, Interesting


      I remember seeing an interview with one of the engineers who worked on it. The videos of the AVRO flying saucer only showed it scooting about less than a metre above the ground. As cool as it was, the AVRO flying car had a fatal flaw - as soon as it rose more than a metre or so above the ground, it would "hubcap" - yawing about in an unstable circular motion, that got worse the higher the vehicle rose. They needed a fast response active stability control system, but were never able to design it in before the contract was cancelled.

      (They sort of allude to this on page 3 of the aforementioned web site)

      --
      My rights don't need management.
    11. Re:Ever heard of the AVRO Car? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, Moller is the aviation industry's foremost snakeoil salesman. He will never get an FAA cert for any of his designs.

    12. Re:Ever heard of the AVRO Car? by DynaSoar · · Score: 3, Informative

      From the WIRED article: "In the 1950s, at a plant just outside of Toronto, the Avro-Canada company designed a jet-powered saucer it dubbed the Avrocar. Intrigued by the UFO-esque craft, the U.S. Air Force took over the project in 1955."

      Had the designer allowed them to put an apron around the bottom and keeping it close to the ground, rather than insisting on trying to make it fly as it was, he would have been credited with inventing the hovercraft. The original design was too prone to rotary oscillation when it got too high (like 3 feet).

      Also: "But despite piles of Pentagon cash, and years of testing, the Avrocar couldn't stay stable more than a few feet off the ground. The program was finally killed in 1965. An Avrocar test model can still be found in a National Air and Space Museum storage facility near Washington."

      The other AVRO (of the two built for the US) is on display outside the US Army Transportation Museum at Ft. Eustis, Virginia, half an hour northwest of Norfolk/Virginia Beach. The visitors' center plays a 15 minute documentary about it including footage of flight (such as they were) tests.

      --
      "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    13. Re:Ever heard of the AVRO Car? by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of the AVRO Car?

      Yep, if you've RTFA.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    14. Re:Ever heard of the AVRO Car? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Moller Skycar, coming soon for over thirty years! They've designed a car, nay, a company that runs entirely on snake oil.

    15. Re:Ever heard of the AVRO Car? by GooberToo · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've seen a documentary on this vehicle on History or Discovery channel. The car was crap. The only reason it was even semi-stable close to the ground was because of the cushion of air (ground effect) that it cruised on to keep it stable. Once it left the "ground effect", it was a death trap. One of the "cars" were finally taken to a wind tunnel to find out how stable it was and how much lift they could hope to produce from one in the wild.

      The wind tunnel tests showed it to be a death trap, begging to kill anyone that wanted to fly it. In order to help stabilize it, they added a huge horizontal stabilizer to the tail end of it. It was basically a huge wing grafted to the tail of it. It was still considered to be a flying death trap, in spite of the fact that it was considerably more stable with the horizontal stabilizer attached.

      Worse yet, the engines were not able to generate enough thrust for the vehicle to ever properly fly because the vehicle was so incredibly over weight. Early vehicles could not generate enough thrust to get more than 10 or 20 feet into the air. Basically, just high enough to leave the "ground effect" generated from it's thrust and shape, to properly kill the pilot. Long story short, the vehicle was a horrible design, which was horribly under powered, and unfit for flight, even with a large "wing" added to it. Aerodynamic engineers certainly had a good bit of laughs when they go a hold of that beast.

    16. Re:Ever heard of the AVRO Car? by cyclist1200 · · Score: 1

      Despite the best intentions, the Avrocar was more hovercraft than aircraft.

    17. Re:Ever heard of the AVRO Car? by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 1

      The hosers also developed a great interceptor, but it got shitcanned due to...

      The aircraft in question leaves thousands of middle-aged Canadian men huddled in their dens building models of it, all the while grumbling about massive American military-industrial complex which squelched it. When the Canadian troops come pouring over the border, you'll know then that Washington made a grave mistake treating Canada like a banana republic.

  2. 500 pounds? Use hexadecimal SI. by Thinkit3 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    What's that in hexadecimal kilograms?

    --
    -Libertarian secular transhumanist
  3. UFO sightings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I am a field investigator for MUFON. I've been investigating sightings here in the Midwest for quite some time now, and I've come to believe that stories like this one are planted by the government to make people believe that UFO's are secret military aircraft.

    Well, I've been out there, in the field, taking the eyewitness reports. I do not believe for a second that these craft that people are seeing are made by humans.

    Go out there, talk to eyewitnesses, talk to an abductee - you'll quickly realize that stories like this are carefully written "plants" by conspirators that reach the highest corridors of power in World Government.

    1. Re:UFO sightings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Mior dou puivior vuexa baovai ezeek naegueha tiiseef tuiceaz, soasaaw. Ruoze zo giaz viuc moekauca. Poixeox ecie seega veepi tuatuoy coizei owianu heepu jia. Aciewauz kaeqia moodi nou ji. Unii xuoqae I neelauso saopuo. Kuiy cooj I buory ruov ruek ew du jiabii I tiolu qiodo. I gaoz edioh heido omourioh fiuj, jeih viiw la, ojeub. Laaj xii ve qeo ezia woulo kuomoeru epai, vuevo emietoe zau. Deodo I ceuxaa zaabiac I. Loufeelu suil iqee ariiju puut fae. Umuojo uri ux. Uheemo veigoa giicy zuy?

      - Xeroaen of Perusii 8

    2. Re:UFO sightings by nnnneedles · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Id like to be a field investigator for muff on.

      --
      Will code a sig generator for food
    3. Re:UFO sightings by James+in+Iowa · · Score: 0

      Mmmmmmmmm.... MUFONs

    4. Re:UFO sightings by jamesh · · Score: 4, Funny

      Damn. They got to this post and moderated it 'Funny' so nobody would take it seriously.

    5. Re:UFO sightings by earthforce_1 · · Score: 4, Insightful


      I have been thinking about those rumors of a crashed UFO being studied at the Groom Lake facility, and it got me thinking about the possibilities. If the stories were true, I doubt they would gain much useful knowledge from it. Technology far in advance of your own, (or even moderately in advance of your own) would be unfathomable. Consider the following:

      A modern F-16 enters a temporal vortex, and crashes on the White House lawn, back in 1862 or so. The pilot is dead, and the plane will never fly again, but President Lincoln realizes the by studying the wreakage of this futuristic machine, they might be able to develop a flying war machine that would bring a speedy victory against the south. He summons the top scientists and engineers of the day to study the wreak and learn what they may.

      They would discover that the machine is made of wonderous materials - Aluminum was newly discovered and more expensive than Silver in that day. Titanium was unknown, as would be carbon fibre and other composites. They could discover some of its physical properties, but would have no idea how to manufacture it.

      The principle of the turbine was known, but they would likely assume the aircraft was steam driven. The electronic fly by wire controls and on board computer systems would of course be completely unfathomable. It would be doubtful they could even determine the function of the countless electronic black boxes on board, let alone try and reproduce them. Even if the plane and landed intact, and the pilot was co-operative, he could not help them design and build another F16 with the technology of the day. It is doubtful they could even refine the fuel that would enable the one aircraft they had to fly a single mission!

      An examination of the overall aircraft would not give them any advantage in learning how to build a flying machine either - aircraft of the early 20th century bear no respemblence to a modern jet fighter. If the Wright brothers were given the opportunity to carefully examine one before they started building their flyer, it would have set them back many years. They might have been wasting time trying to build gas turbines, instead of using internal combustion engines with propellors. Also, modern fighters are not aerodynamically stable, a sacrifice made to improve maneuverability. They require active computer control systems - if the onboard computer goes down, so does the plane. And 1900's era flying machine design attempting to emulate the construction of a modern fighter would be doomed to failure.

      --
      My rights don't need management.
    6. Re:UFO sightings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On July 8, 1947, at the so called "Foster Ranch" in the desert outside Roswell, New Mexico, a certain incident occurred. While the details of the incident are vague at best, and no certain conclusions can be drawn from the many contradictory stories surrounding it, one thing is clear: a small disk, made of apparently magnetic materials embedded and sheathed in celluloid or flexible bakelite, was recovered by RAAF investigators from a Major Jesse Marcel, a RAAF officer who was one of the first to explore the site of the "incident"....

      The TRUE Story. Better check it out....

    7. Re:UFO sightings by blincoln · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Technology far in advance of your own, (or even moderately in advance of your own) would be unfathomable.

      You bring up some very good points (and I really enjoyed the post), but I think that if genuine alien technology ended up in our laps, we would be able to learn at least something from it.

      History isn't my forte, but I would think that an F-16 crashing in America of 1862 would give the US a head-start on technologies like radio and television, lasers, and jet engines.

      You are right that they wouldn't be able to build a plane using those technologies, but having jet engines might be useful for something else, like watercraft.

      I very much doubt that the modern US has gotten its hands on alien technology. There are some interesting theories that use it to explain how we got our hands on transistors, for example, but I think they are best used as an inspiration for historical fiction, not an understanding of how the technology was invented.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    8. Re:UFO sightings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "would give the US a head-start on technologies like radio and television, lasers, and jet engines."

      I think you missed his point. The wouldn't recognize a laser if it bite them in the ass because it is so "far" advanced that they don't even know what it is or works..

      The 2003->1862 example might be a bit week, but just think of crashing that plane in 1262 in central europe...

      Tels

    9. Re:UFO sightings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't know whether an alien technology would be beyond comprehension nor beyond usability (we might not have to understand it to use it -- most computer users don't know how the thing works).

      Structures might be grown rather than manufactured, and we might learn how to use them. Or maybe a scraping of their nanotech would rebuild an entire ship. Or a book might provide useful viewpoints for science, art, or the meaning of life, the universe, and everything. Or we might find a really neat paperweight.

      Is waving all five of my hands in the air ambiguous enough?

    10. Re:UFO sightings by sharkey · · Score: 2, Funny
      I very much doubt that the modern US has gotten its hands on alien technology.

      Explain Velcro, then.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    11. Re:UFO sightings by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1
      Explain Velcro, then.
      That you'll understand when you've grown old enough to grow a beard and leazy enough not to shave.
    12. Re:UFO sightings by Stone316 · · Score: 1
      To people living in 1862 most of our society would be 'alien' to them... But I would think that the modern world would have a much easier time learning from technology a hundred years in the future than they would. Were alot more advanced both technologically and intellectually, so it would only be natural that we could learn from it.

      I guess a modern example of an F16 crashing in 1862 would be a FTL (faster than light) aircraft that was found crashed on earth. The technology involved probably wouldn't even exist yet but I think we'd be better equiped to analyze it.

      --
      "Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
    13. Re:UFO sightings by earthforce_1 · · Score: 2, Insightful


      Would we indeed?

      Let's suppose a friendly alien landed his intact FTL craft at a military airport and hands the "keys" to the officer in charge. He then says "It's all yours bud - you just need to fill her up with 20 kilos of anti-hydrogen to reach the next star." What do you mean you can only refine a few atoms of it at astronomical cost? I thought you were a technologically advanced, well equipped society?

      Consider even a small difference in timeframe. Some of Intel's top engineers in 1970 are handed a modern laptop PC to analyze. They would of course be familiar with integrated circuit technology and have relatively advanced scientific equipment such as electron microscopes to do the analysis. They would certainly be awed by its complexity and would likely glean more than a few patentable ideas from it. But they would not be cranking out 2 GHz Pentium 4's the following year, or likely even by the 1980s. The fabs of the day would be utterly incapable of producing them for many years, even when the CPU was fully analyzed and understood.

      I believe it was Asimov who once said that any sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic. We like to think of ourselves as advanced, but I think that this view is pretentious. There is still much to learn about the universe.

      --
      My rights don't need management.
    14. Re:UFO sightings by dublin · · Score: 1

      I have been thinking about those rumors of a crashed UFO being studied at the Groom Lake facility, and it got me thinking about the possibilities. If the stories were true, I doubt they would gain much useful knowledge from it. Technology far in advance of your own, (or even moderately in advance of your own) would be unfathomable. Consider the following:

      I cry "BS!" You're falling for the "modern man is superior" fallacy. The mechanical engineers of 1862 were better educated and had a better grasp of engineering fundamentals than MEs of today. (That's the opinion of my father, who was an ME professor at a prominent university. As an aside, the better engineers were more likely to be found in the South - the creativity lived there, it was production capapcity that the North had in spades...)

      They would discover that the machine is made of wonderous materials - Aluminum was newly discovered and more expensive than Silver in that day. Titanium was unknown, as would be carbon fibre and other composites. They could discover some of its physical properties, but would have no idea how to manufacture it.

      Somewhat true, but knowing what they were aiming for, they might figure it out before too long. Aluminum they'd get, it's really not that hard. Composites would be much tougher, since it's not at all clear from looking at a crosslinked thermoset that the resin was once a two-component goo, but most of the chemistry was known then. Interestingly, it would probably be welding that would throw them the most - not until WWII was welding steel possible on an industrial scale, and welded aluminum would appear even more exotic.

      The principle of the turbine was known, but they would likely assume the aircraft was steam driven.

      Oh, really, even with that quite simple oil burning combustion chamber, with all it's injector nozzles? I don't think so...

      It is doubtful they could even refine the fuel that would enable the one aircraft they had to fly a single mission!

      Oh, bunk! Jet fuel is only slightly modified kerosene, a fuel that was available in both high qualities and quantities in 1862, owing to the prevalence of the fuel for relatively smokeless lighting. Also, gas turbines will run on darn near anything that burns and can be pumped into the combustor, from near-tar to Chanel No. 5 (yes, that's actually been done - search the web...)

      An examination of the overall aircraft would not give them any advantage in learning how to build a flying machine either - aircraft of the early 20th century bear no respemblence to a modern jet fighter. If the Wright brothers were given the opportunity to carefully examine one before they started building their flyer, it would have set them back many years.

      Again your point boils down to a condescending, "Those poor dolts wouldn't know enough to figure out which parts they could build and which parts they couldn't." The actual ingenuity of the Wrights testifies to the opposite. Every critical aspect of the Wright Flyer except the propellor is present and recognizable in an F-16.

      Don't assume people used to be stupid. They weren't. In fact, they were at least as bright and most likely better educated than people are today. By the way, that's as true of people 2000 years ago as it is of people 100 years ago. If you don't believe it, look up "Antikythera Mechanism" on the net to see how Rhodian scholars and engineers were building differential calculating gearsets in 80 BC. Not all progress and engineering prowess is recent, and it's a huge mistake to think that's the case...

      --
      "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
    15. Re:UFO sightings by dublin · · Score: 1

      I very much doubt that the modern US has gotten its hands on alien technology.

      Explain Velcro, then.


      Anyone who's ever tried to get "stick-tights" brushed out of a dog's coat has absolutely no trouble believing the story that it was that operation that was the inspiration for Velcro... ;-)

      --
      "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
    16. Re:UFO sightings by Steeltoe · · Score: 1

      I can just imagine our "intellectual and advanced" society trying to fathom how to operate a vehicle operated by spiritual energy. Where you harness your oneness with the universe and God to drive it to anywhere you want.

      I have no doubt the same kind of people would make the same remarks 200 years back too.. "It's impossible! We know all there is to know! Heresy! Now we're pretty much as advanced as we can get. We smart, old people stupid. etc. etc."

      Wise men says they know nothing.

    17. Re:UFO sightings by kiwipeso · · Score: 1

      actually, it was Arthur C. Clake who once said that any sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic.

      And if you knew anything about physics, you'd realise that anti-hydrogen tends to anhiliate within nanoseconds.

      --
      - Kaos games and encryption systems developer
  4. ALIENS by adot · · Score: 2, Funny

    That goes to prove russians really are aliens.

    --
    -green is the color of the rainbow
    1. Re:ALIENS by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Or rather, the aliens are Humans from the future sent back in time to gather core DNA sequences and maybe even undo the genetic engineering that was done to their now-changed race before hand.

      Thus, the anal probe was invented....

      Am I being serious, or funny? You decide

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      7 ?

    3. Re:aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite yet.

    4. Re:aliens by sharkey · · Score: 1
      I, for one, welcome our vodka-drinking overlords.

      And I, for one, hope they share.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  5. Re:500 pounds? Use hexadecimal SI. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    About 0xE3 Kg.

  6. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  7. Covering all bases... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    In Soviet Russia, saucers belong to all bases welcoming new alien overlords.

    1. Re:Covering all bases... by oPless · · Score: 1

      what you say ?

      Main screen turn on!

    2. Re:Covering all bases... by mcp33p4n75 · · Score: 1

      You forgot "you insensitive clod," you insensitive clod!

  8. Oh great. by iamdrscience · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now that Gulf War 2: Junior's Revenge is ending we have Russian/American Space Race 2: Above and Beyond to look forward to.

    Where will Hollywo^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Washington's obsession with sequels end?

  9. no drugs necessary by dandelion_wine · · Score: 2, Funny

    The Flapjack was tested near Area 51, the clandestine military base that's been an obsession of X-Filers for decades.

    "It's what originated many people's belief in flying saucers," said Phil Scott, author of The Wrong Stuff: Attempts at Flight Before (and After) the Wright Brothers. "Anyone on a lot of drugs would think it was a flying saucer."


    I know at least half a dozen people who wouldn't need drugs for this.
    It just tips the amusing/pathetic balance when they are.

    1. Re:no drugs necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am the MUFON field investigator that posted above.

      "It's what originated many people's belief in flying saucers," said Phil Scott, author of The Wrong Stuff: Attempts at Flight Before (and After) the Wright Brothers. "Anyone on a lot of drugs would think it was a flying saucer."

      Oh really? Has he actually spoken with any eyewitnesses or done any research into the UFO phenomenon? I'll bet he hasn't, and furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised if he isn't on the payroll of a military branch whose job it is to spread this sort of misinformation.

      The Men in Black don't exist, but the Air Force Blue Berets do.

      Please, if you are going to respond with an account of your own sighting, post anonymously for your own safety!

    2. Re:no drugs necessary by wljones · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I saw the V-173 on the ground in Connecticut in 1947 during a tour of the Chance Vought factory grounds. My uncle, a Chance-Vought employee, told me of the XF5U-1, which was not on display. The X plane was VTOL. The V-173 had a top airspeed of 500 MPH and a landing speed of 10 MPH. They were remarkable planes, killed by the jet age, just like the article says.

    3. Re:no drugs necessary by dublin · · Score: 1

      The V-173 had a top airspeed of 500 MPH and a landing speed of 10 MPH.

      It wasn't quite *that* good, but it did have a remarkably low stall speed.

      These were indeed weird beasts - I looked up the "flying flapjacks" in the archives when I worked for LTV in the 1980's, as well as the Cutlass, which was a conglomeration of German design features that was a decade or two ahead of its time, and arguably the most successful failure in naval aviation history - the list of firsts racked up by that plane are truly impressive, even though it failed operationally.

      If you want a look at "future" aviation technology we *were* reverse engineering after WWII, forget UFOs and concentrate on the Germans: Luft46.com is a real eye-opener - had the war lasted another year, Germany would have filled the sky with jets that the Allies couldn't match until a decade later, not to mention the stealth fighter-bombers, guided air-to-air missiles, rocket planes, and the atmosphere-skipping Sanger "Amerika Bomber". Impressive. And scary. Thank God that Hitler was foolish enough to try to fight in the Russian winter, or we'd all be speaking German...

      --
      "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
  10. Re:500 pounds? Use hexadecimal SI. by Emil+Brink · · Score: 1, Redundant
    Since, I'm too tired to mod you down, I just typed
    dc -e "6k 16o $(lynx -nolist -dump 'http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=ut f-8&q=500+pounds+in+kilograms' | grep = | tr -s ' ' | cut -d' ' -f6) p"
    into my friendly shell, and the answer came back as
    E2.CBD2C
    Learn to do that by yourself, instead of trolling these fine forums. I now realize I'm far too tired to even contemplate floating point numbers in base 16, and lightly curse you for making me see one.
    --
    main(O){10<putchar(4^--O?77-(15&5128 >>4*O):10)&&main(2+O);}
  11. Re:OT: Slashdot Personals by b_w_duncan · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I know there are some women that read slashdot, but I think it's a safe guess there are way more men reading /. then women.

    And even less people are looking at 0,Offtopic posts.

  12. The Dehn RingWing is another odd contraption... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    that looks rather like a flying saucer.
    http://members.cox.net/twitt/dehnring.htm shows a model of one. Vertically-oriented ringwings can be found at http://www.esotec.co.nz/hb/HTML/Aero.html

  13. Really? by mr+i+want+to+go+home · · Score: 1

    This is very interesting, but the plane in question does *not* use ion propulsion. It's not even a jest engine...it's a rotor! Or maybe you're talking about the space craft from Plan 9?

    1. Re:Really? by mr+i+want+to+go+home · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ok, before I get flamed to hell, I'll correct that last post.... It does use turobojets, and is supplemented by turboshafts. My bad. But it's still not ion propulsion technology. The parent poster has been stealing crack from SCO.

    2. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's trying to build up karma by searching for older comments that were highly rated and cutting and pasting them into a thread where they are only slightly (or not at all) relavant. I imagine he's wallowing in the mastubatory excitment of his egoism even now.

    3. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It might in fact be a jest engine, if it's a fake.

  14. Wright Flyer vs Flying Saucer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just found out that the Wright Bros had used lift tables on their early gliders that had been made 30 years before by a German man, and that they found these tables to be in error, when they made their own wind tunnel, with instruments and came up with the cross section of the perfect wing that we use today. Seems that changes to the wings didn't have the expected results, so the Wind Tunnel had to be made, and hundreds of wing configurations had to be tested. I don't know why the Wright Flyer didn't use that cross section, or at least look like it did.
    Then, they designed and made their own engine to use in the powered Flyer, right down to casting the engine block. Just two guys doing this, with helpers, ranging from machinists on the engine, to crew at Kitty Hawk. Interesting to note that their parents encouraged them at an early age, and that they had a limited social life, directing their energy instead toward their scientific explorations. One time when the glider part of the project was going badly, one of them supposedly remarked that it would take 1000 years to come up with a design that would fly. I've gotten in that mood myself, especially when working on modern automobiles, where no thought was put into "ease of service" on certain components by the designers.
    The development of flying saucer machines seems to be aimed at looking like something that a science fiction writer/illustrator came up with, rather than going after the final design of a real flying machine, like the Wright Flyer.

    1. Re:Wright Flyer vs Flying Saucer. by uradu · · Score: 3, Informative

      > had used lift tables on their early gliders that had been made 30 years before by a German man

      That "German man" was Otto Lilienthal, hardly an obscure figure. In fact, many consider him at least as important as the Wrights, since he pioneered controllable heavier-than-air flight and made further pursuits into and consideration of flight even acceptable. And he did it all alone.

    2. Re:Wright Flyer vs Flying Saucer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the Aviation History site:
      However, some of the data published by Lilienthal was erroneous based on the incorrect coefficient of air pressure published by John Smeaton in 1759. The error was corrected by the Wright Brothers through wind tunnel tests made in their bicycle shop.


      When the Wright Bros based their glider on those tables, and essentially went down a blind alley, that's when they really got down to the science of flight, with the wind tunnel, and instuments they designed themselves. It was one of those "now I know 999 things that won't work" ala Thomas Edison, developing the light bulb filament.

    3. Re:Wright Flyer vs Flying Saucer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no thought was put into "ease of service" on certain components by the designers

      The designers put all of their considerable engineering prowess towards making vehicles as cheap to manufacture as possible. They don't care how long it takes you to change the oil after you've bought the vehicle.

    4. Re:Wright Flyer vs Flying Saucer. by dublin · · Score: 1

      Just two guys doing this, with helpers, ranging from machinists on the engine, to crew at Kitty Hawk. Interesting to note that their parents encouraged them at an early age, and that they had a limited social life, directing their energy instead toward their scientific explorations.

      Your 21st century bigotry is showing. The Wrights did not have a "limited social life". Theirs was probably better than yours. Their father was a travelling minister, and they often hosted all kinds of visitors when he was home. They were quite well educated, and like most successful home-schoolers today, they had a far better and more rounded education than products of government propaganda mills. They were encouraged to pursue all sorts of things (which they did), "science" being only one of those.

      Like Nathaniel Bowditch before them (probably the greatest American mathemetician ever, also home and self educated), one of their chief contributions was realizing that the existing tables and calculations were wrong and that they would need to create their own if they were going to succeed.

      --
      "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
  15. Re:500 pounds? Use hexadecimal SI. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was too tired to mod you down, so i typed a whole line of cryptic shit with no promise that my answer would be right.

  16. yeah! by mr_tommy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    0h N0! Teh Ali3ns are coming!

    :S Russian engineering brought us greats such as the skoda... the larda...

    1. Re:yeah! by Afrosheen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...the mig, the sikorsky helicopters, you name it, they built it well. Cars, well, cars are so pedestrian that under a strict military regime the best scientists and engineers build weaponry. Few can argue with the machines the Soviets built during the Cold War. All of their aircraft are works of art and many times more durable and simple than comparable US or other international warplanes.

  17. This headline... by mog007 · · Score: 1

    sounds like it should come from /. circa 1957.

  18. Oh No!!! by d3faultus3r · · Score: 4, Funny

    Not only are they sapping and impurifying our precious bodily fluids, they're in league with the aliens. close off all communications at the base, Col. Mandrake.

    --
    read my blog
    musings on politics and technol
    1. Re:Oh No!!! by balloonhead · · Score: 1
      "Please Mr Simpson!"


      "There's only so much we can learn from an anal probe"


      Although I think the quote might be a little incorrect, it's along those lines...

      --
      This idea was invented by Shampoo.
  19. Bad Design for Passengers.. by hopbine · · Score: 4, Informative

    One of the things that killed the passenger flying wing project was that folks on the outside of the aircraft will be going up and down too much when the plane rolls. This design appears to have the same problem. Hand out the sick bags!!!

    --
    Semper ubi sub ubi
    1. Re:Bad Design for Passengers.. by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Funny
      Personally, I want to be inside the airplane, where it is considerably less windy. If your design includes placing passengers outside the aircraft, perhaps it is time to consider a significant alternation.

      (With apologies to G. Carlin)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Bad Design for Passengers.. by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      I guess you missed the bit where it says that they're unmanned probes, right?

    3. Re:Bad Design for Passengers.. by owlstead · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, the prototypes are unmanned. But if the article is as short as this, you might want to take a look at the link. There _are_ meant for passengers.

      Not that they will succeed in the current financial climate. Which is a shame, since I hope that that these cramped, noisy, poluting jets we are using now are not the end of aviation evolution.

    4. Re:Bad Design for Passengers.. by iNetRunner · · Score: 1

      Well, wasn't the US originally interested in this flying thing to transport military hardware? The biggest design they have would carry 120 tons. Though they are now only planning to build the easiest thing: a small unmanned plane?

      --
      Store with salt
  20. No it doesn't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF? It just doesn't.

    This is an aircraft. He's talking about a space propulsion technology which is impractical in an atmosphere. The two have nothing to do with each other.

  21. Seems like news... by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 1

    Except for that there's probably been a million classified journeys by both US and Russian-made UFO-type objects, and somehow with all the Reality TV "send in your tape" shows, no one has caught one reliably on film... amazing. Or, maybe they did, and the gov't responsible bought the tape.

    --
    stuff |
  22. Re:This uses ION propulsion technology by coraxo · · Score: 1

    So you need a phisics degree for this to explain?

    --
    Strc prst skrz krk and vomit! Can help.
  23. plan 9? by martin-boundary · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So the US navy is reviving a dead Russian project, after all other countries' previous attempts failed? Will this technology eventually use solar power, or is this question a dead end as far as exploring the universe?

    1. Re:plan 9? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When are they going to try and duplicate the flying saucer that is fueled by dirt socks?

    2. Re:plan 9? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yow ?

    3. Re:plan 9? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your bold text is intresting when taken alone:
      reviving dead. all other attempts failed. use solar power. end the universe.

      Very intresting :)

    4. Re:plan 9? by Kewjoe · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't like what you are implying. I took your bolded words and put them together and got this:

      reviving dead. all other attempts failed. use solar power. end the universe.

      So you are saying the Russians have a project that will raise the dead, and use some kind of solar power to end the universe.

      talk about paranoia. the Russians are our friends now.

    5. Re:plan 9? by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      Sigh. Does anyone watch old movies anymore? Geeks of today!

  24. pita-bread-shaped? by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Ekip, a pita-bread-shaped, stubby-winged, wheel-less, unmanned ship

    Pita-bread shaped? And I suppose a bus is shaped like a loaf of bread, a 747 is shaped like a baguette, a croissant, and some pieces of matzoh cracker.

    Please, if there is any alternative, avoid copying text verbatim from Wired. Their editors make the ones around this joint look like the heads of mensa.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  25. Oh, come on you people ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    It's just a glorified swamp buggy, designed to skim the surface of lakes and bays, which Russia has plenty of.

    It's Slashdot Super Saturday! Let the speculation begin!

    1. Re:Oh, come on you people ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's wrong with Swamp Buggies?

  26. Ekip Aviation Concern Site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Check out http://www.ekip-aviation-concern.com/ for a brouchure with lots of details and more pictures.

  27. The AVROCAR couldn't even get it up by Colymbosathon+ecplec · · Score: 5, Informative
    According to the article (yes I actually read it before posting, and yes I am new here): But despite piles of Pentagon cash, and years of testing, the Avrocar couldn't stay stable more than a few feet off the ground. The program was finally killed in 1965. An Avrocar test model can still be found in a National Air and Space Museum storage facility near Washington. A "working flying saucer"? I don't think so.

    Alaska Bugs Sweat Gold Nuggets

  28. Re:500 pounds? Use hexadecimal SI. by jared_hanson · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    If you, the incessant proclaimer of switching to base 16, can't convert units yourself, why do you expect the rest of us to?

    --
    -- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
  29. Born in the USA? by Thinkit3 · · Score: 1

    The very first thing you hear is essentially base sixteen floating point. As in--eight pounds, twelve ounces, being 8.C pounds.

    --
    -Libertarian secular transhumanist
    1. Re:Born in the USA? by jared_hanson · · Score: 0, Troll

      The very first thing you hear is essentially base sixteen floating point. As in--eight pounds, twelve ounces, being 8.C pounds.

      Correction, the very virst thing you here is base-10 decimal. As in -- eight pounds, telve ounces.

      12 is a decimal number.
      Anything less than 10 is grandfathered in to base-16.

      You are an idiot.

      --
      -- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
  30. It's time for somebody to do this by Animats · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Aviation R&D in the 1950s produced several interesting, but unstable, design concepts. The flying wing, the flying disk, and the flying platform were all tried. Many of the prototypes ended up at the Hiller Aviation Museum in Silicon Valley, which is worth a visit. But all those designs lacked stability, and electronics technology wasn't good enough to do active stabilization at the time.

    The Flying Wing concept was pushed all the way to bomber size, and several were built. Most of them crashed. (Edwards AFB is named after a Flying Wing pilot.) Not until the 1980s, and the Have Blue stealth prototype, was the stability problem resolved adequately. (A modified F-16 analog autopilot handled the stabilization.)

    Some of those 1950s designs could now be revisited. The AvroCar could be made to work today, if anybody cared. If a competent aircraft designer, like Rutan, built one, it would work.

    The problem, of course, is that all pure-thrust vehicles need huge engines and have lousy fuel economy, since they need enough power to go straight up on thrust alone. The only sucessful pure-thrust VTOL aircraft is the Harrier. Since modern fighters have enough thrust to go straight up anyway, a VTOL fighter is feasible. Marginally.

    This new Russian thing sounds flakey, but not fake. They should be able to build a prototype and fly it. But the claims for efficiency are probably not real.

    It sounds like they're fooling around with boundary layer control. This has been done before, all the way back to WWII. Aircraft with "blown" or "sucked" wings have been tried. It works, but the practical problems with a wing full of holes and plumbing have been too great. Ice, for example. A few aircraft, including the C-17, have blown control surfaces, but not the whole wing.

    There's considerable interest in disk-shaped craft in small scales, from the micro air vehicle people. AeroVironment has built some.

    1. Re:It's time for somebody to do this by uradu · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > This new Russian thing sounds flakey, but not fake. [...]
      > It sounds like they're fooling around with boundary layer control.

      I think there's a bit of tunnel vision involved here. I read their "brochure", and they do mention that it's supposed to fly at 500-700 km/h at an altitude of 8-13 km, but the rest of the text only talks about ground effect flight and landing. Judging by the shape of the plane, its flat underside (it's definitely no lifting body), and the minuscule wing surface area, I'm convinced that whatever they've tried so far was a pure ground effect vehicle. Their thinking might have been, hey, once we've got that licked, we'll worry about getting higher up. Except that getting out of the boundary layer and high up into the atmosphere involves a very different type of flying, which would explain their lack of success so far.

      Mind you, Russia has taken ground effect flight further than anyone else with their Ekranoplans, particularly the KM. That was a pretty awesome vehicle, even though ten jet engines sounds a bit ridiculous.

    2. Re:It's time for somebody to do this by darth_silliarse · · Score: 1

      "The only sucessful pure-thrust VTOL aircraft is the Harrier. Since modern fighters have enough thrust to go straight up anyway, a VTOL fighter is feasible. Marginally."

      Actually the Harrier is highly feasible. For one it doesn't need a runway to take off so you could have a 700 meter x 700 metre island in the middle of the Atlantic and have room to park over 2000 Harriers... quite a feat in modern warfare I can tell you but criminally underused

      --
      I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born - Ronald Reagan
    3. Re:It's time for somebody to do this by Animats · · Score: 1

      More than one in three Harriers has crashed.
      No other aircraft crashes as frequently. Stability remains a problem.

  31. Republic Pictures did it first by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

    Well, maybe not a flying saucer, but a neat flying wing with a very small take-off requirement. I think it was first used in Dick Tracy, the first of (I think) three serials done with Ralph Boyd in the lead. I'm not sure off-hand what other serials it was used in, but can find out if anybody's that interested. The Dick Tracy serials are fine entertainment, and Ralph Boyd looks like what Chester Gould was thinking of when he drew the character.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
  32. You forgetted. by -kertrats- · · Score: 1

    1. Build 50s-UFO-throwback model plane 2. Fly plane over US 3. ??? 4. PROFIT!!!

    --
    The Braying and Neighing of Barnyard Animals Follows.
  33. Haven't seen Plan 9 by midimonkey · · Score: 1

    Aside from the OS, I haven't seen the movie. Anyone care to describe what they're talking about?

    1. Re:Haven't seen Plan 9 by DrEasy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Plan 9 From Outer Space is a very cheaply made B-movie by Ed Wood. It's kinda entertaining in its own way. You can easily tell that the flying saucers in there are very cheap props hanging by a thread... Tim Burton is a big Ed Wood fan, he even did a movie bearing his name which I haven't seen, but Mars Attacks is also some sort of tribute to him I guess.

      --
      "In our tactical decisions, we are operating contrary to our strategic interest."
    2. Re:Haven't seen Plan 9 by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Aside from the OS, I haven't seen the movie. Anyone care to describe what they're talking about?

      Cheap "hubcaps-on-a-string" flying saucers.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    3. Re:Haven't seen Plan 9 by kiwipeso · · Score: 1

      Mars Attacks is based on the 1960's collecting cards set.
      You can see the whole set at 1 to 66

      --
      - Kaos games and encryption systems developer
  34. Re:UFO sightings & Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Don't you know, a lot of our technology today was no doubt seeded by these aliens! A microchip to some yahoo engineer in the 40's and 50's who thought a tube was advanced technology might well look like magic. And operating systems, who'd a thunk of those? But now we know what happened to those recycled UFO parts once they were figured out; they became the seed stock for intel, and they ran windows! Thats why they crashed, after all...

  35. Nah by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 1

    They don't look enough alike to be a convincing debunk, and they don't do a thing to attack the many non-disk UFO stories (spheres, triangles, and what-have-you). Even if UFOs were true (on which I claim ignorance and hence, neutrality) a more sensible explanation would be both parties making use of shapes designed to exploit the same atmospheric physics.

    1. Re:Nah by Tongo · · Score: 1

      Speaking of triangles, I believe the "Stealth Fighter" offers a wonderfull explanation for those types of UFO's. I was recently watching a documentry on Area 51 which showed an image of the F-117 taking off at night (with nav lights on). From the angle they showed the take off from it look almost exactly like the sketches of the triangle UFO's many have reported seeing. I even thought it was "genuine footage" of a UFO for a second.

  36. Sikorsky is an American company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Igor Sikorsky emigrated to avoid communism. He did all of his significant work here, retard.

  37. Re: Your sig by elmegil · · Score: 1

    Bastard.

    --
    7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
  38. not new by pbjones · · Score: 1

    I seem to remember seeing photos of a similar design from the '50s on the web some place obscure. Very similar to some flying designs from the '50's which used a large cross section instead of the wide wings of the B1 and Horten etc.

    --
    There was an unknown error in the submission.
  39. Here come the Pita-Saucers! by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

    Quick! Order all the Gyros and Tzatziki in the country to be mobilized!

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  40. Re:This uses ION propulsion technology by resin8 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Offtopic, I know, but can someone explain how the URL in the parent's sig works? How does http://3338121056 resolve to hick.org? I googled, but coludn't find any info...

  41. Re:OT: Slashdot Personals by Powercntrl · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    For the same reason there's ads for Microsoft's products that Slashdot claims to hate... It's so Slashdot can make a buck - no great conspiracy.

    I'd venture to guess of Slashdot's readership is more interested in the Microsoft ads than the personals site ads... Personals are really pretty stupid if you stop to think about it. If you've got the social skills to ask women/men/whatever out on a date, WTF do you need a personal ad for? The stereotype about personals being full of losers you wouldn't want to date is largely true - think of it this way, the people on there can't figure out how to date in real life! If you do find someone you like on a personal site, you'll quickly find out why they're on one - either they have unrelistic standards and are waiting for a perfect match, they have social skill problems or they're just on a personals site to stroke their ego (and won't actually go out with anyone). Just as you can find working television sets in the garbage, you'll hear success stories about personals sites, but for the most part, they're both full of trash.

    If you really want to meet people, you have to go out and be seen. Get some decent clothes that don't look like you just stepped out of a time warp. It also doesn't hurt to get a haircut and shave, if you happen to look like Alan Cox. Yes, it takes an investment both in time and money. Yes, people care what you look like - get over it. If you're not motivated to give it 110% and you'd rather sit at home putting CCFTs in your computer case or compiling a kernel - better get used to being alone. Porn ain't all that bad. Russian brides are a scam, I hear...

    --

    ---
    DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
  42. I strongly suspect this guy is serious :-D ... by Grizzlysmit · · Score: 1
    I am a field investigator for MUFON. I've been investigating sightings here in the Midwest for quite some time now, and I've come to believe that stories like this one are planted by the government to make people believe that UFO's are secret military aircraft.

    Well, I've been out there, in the field, taking the eyewitness reports. I do not believe for a second that these craft that people are seeing are made by humans.

    Go out there, talk to eyewitnesses, talk to an abductee - you'll quickly realize that stories like this are carefully written "plants" by conspirators that reach the highest corridors of power in World Government.

    I strongly suspect this guy is serious, my recommendation is for +/-1 raving loony mod option.

    hmmm I think we need two:
    • +1 funny but your a raving loony
    • -1 your just a raving loony

    :-D

    --
    in my life God comes first.... but Linux is pretty high after that :-D
    Francis Smit
  43. watch out for little green men ... by Grizzlysmit · · Score: 1

    they come from your nose :-D

    --
    in my life God comes first.... but Linux is pretty high after that :-D
    Francis Smit
  44. WTF? No it doesn't! by lommer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Um, I don't know which article you were reading, but this plane does not use any kind of ion engine, nor are ion engines even mentioned in the article! While your post was factually correct, it has nothing to do with the article in question and is in fact completely offtopic. Hrm, maybe you've stumbled on a new formula for cheap karma:
    1) Claim that something you know is relevant to the story (even if it's not)
    2) Talk about what you know
    3) Karma!!!

    1. Re:WTF? No it doesn't! by c.emmertfoster · · Score: 1

      The obvious giveaway is that his homepage link is to a photo on urinalpoop.org.

      --
      We can neither love nor pity nor forgive. If you make a slip in handling us you die!
  45. Re:This uses ION propulsion technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It's the dotless form of the IP address.
    An IP is usually represented as
    a.b.c.d, where each section is one byte.
    However, if you combine those 4 bytes into one long, i.e.
    (a << 24) | (b << 16) | (c << 8) | d,
    That's also a valid representation of an IP.
    3338121056 = 0xC6F7AF60 = 0xC6.0xF7.0xAF.0x60 = 98.247.175.96,
    which is the IP address for hick.org.
    $host hick.org
    hick.org has address 198.247.175.96

  46. aliens by sklib · · Score: 4, Funny

    We always thought aliens from outer space would descend in flying saucers, but it's actually going to be (possibly illegal) aliens from Russia.

    I, for one, welcome our vodka-drinking overlords.

    --
    -S
  47. See it fly on the Discovery Wings channel by JANYAtty. · · Score: 1

    I was just watching "Flight of the Future" while reading slashdot and watdyaknow! There goes a flying Pita bread! Into the air!! Sounds like a lawn mower!!!

    --
    I dont do meaning of life questions.
    1. Re:See it fly on the Discovery Wings channel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yow again ?

  48. Re:This uses ION propulsion technology by resin8 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Cool. Thanks for the detailed explanation. I thought it might have something to do with the IP address, but I wouldn't have figured out that decimal to hex to decimal conversion. Thanks Again!

  49. Re:Reality... by MyFourthAccount · · Score: 1

    I always idly thought: one reason all this UFO crap can't be true is: the design doesn't make sense.

    Guess that argument doesn't work any more :)


    No, I think it' still true all right. It's just that the Wired people got suckered into a deal where someone showed some poor quality photos and insisted they were from some 'new' Russian airplane.

    I mean, sorry, but those pictures are funny as hell. They look like scans from pictures that someone took in 1962. I'm pretty sure that Russia has come to advanced digital photography by now. (hehe, yeah that's on purpose)

    In other words, if they had a program like this, we'd see something better than a bad picture of a model 'UFO' airplane and a few pictures that look worse than the best UFO sightings ever recorded...

  50. Re: Air Force Blue Berets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't worry, we already know who you are.

  51. Pita shaped? by Feztaa · · Score: 1

    Are you sure it's not shaped like a... saucer?

  52. It's an old formula by roystgnr · · Score: 1

    And it's even easier than you stated: you don't even have to talk about something you know, just something you can describe with impressive prose, or something you can crib a highly scored comment about from a previous Slashdot story.

    Fortunately, the formula for dealing with it is just as simple:

    1) Debunk this particular (apparantly trolling) post.
    2) Check the author's prior posts and journals to see if this is a single mistake or a repeated pattern. Check any post that has been downrated or has tons of replies. In this particular case, journal entries like "I forgot how much fun trolling can be" make it too easy.
    3) Make use of Slashdot's fun "friend or foe" system to automatically label (and optionally downrate for yourself) the offending user. Karma doesn't mean much when your posts have a big red warning flag on them (like rkz already had for me and any of my "fans") or have been rescored to the point where Slashdot won't even put them on the page.

  53. Think about a Really Big sheet of paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many sheets of paper can we lift a few inches if we use a FermiLab accelerator ring as the field generator for our ion engine?

  54. My kitchen is full of odd contraptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I found that a certain part of my house has many things which look like flying saucers. They don't seem to be flying most of the time, though. Wife reports sighting them not landing very well.

  55. Can somebody tell me why Frank Whittle invented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the jet engine in 1930. If you do a search on the web for the "inventor of the jet engine", his name pops up on every result.
    Is that a result of him being English and the guy who actualy flew the first jet-propeled aircraft in 1910 being Romanian. http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coanda-1910

    1. Re:Can somebody tell me why Frank Whittle invented by wjsteele · · Score: 1

      Frank Whittle invented the turbojet engine - which is the modern jet engine.

      In 1910, Henri Coanda, displayed an airplane wich was powered by a piston engine driving a turbine blade. That is similar to todays "Ducted Fan" engine.

      These engines are entirely different in nature. The Turbo Jet would work well at any altitude and run on about any fuel. The Ducted Fan would only run well at low altitude and has a limited performance range.

      Bill

      --
      It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!
  56. But Sikorsky is Russian. Like Einstein is jew :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Correct, but he invented his craft in "Mother Russia". After him, there was Mil with his MI, which is the most popular and widespread helicopter in the world.

    Russians very often abandoned great ideas. For example, winged rockets, space shuttles, a number of conceptual planes, rockets, tanks, too much to mention. Remember the KA-50 helicopter, the "black shark"? This, best in the world, military helicopter, which can do tricks that only planes can do, was a dead project since 1979. How they have a few of thes, number is probably about 10. http://rvvs.h1.ru/Planes/Photo2.php?p=Ka&n=50

    This particular plane was shown on TV in the middle of 90s, flying. Flying, but dead, with no much chances to see the sky again, because government is not interested on it, having more serious financial problems. Which seems to be solved now, by USA.

  57. Re:Reality... by TyrranzzX · · Score: 1

    As an airplane, it only makes sense if you want something that can turn 180 degrees, have something that can ascend and decend rather quickly, and if you're in space, have a small outline when going at fast speeds to reduce the chance of collision with small objects like rocks. Additionally, you can design a flying saucer so that it creats lift on it's own, so that in the event of a space-to-ground crash landing on a planet with an atmosphere you could theoretically glide to safe speed or landing spot, or at the very least, angle so you aren't going into the ground head first. An airplane shape is poorly poorly designed for this, although any craft with unidirectional thrust can be modified to have lots and lots of unidirectional thrust with a big engine, while a flying saucer has to somehow be able to either move their engine or something else. This is why you don't see gigantic flying saucer motherships in video games. You've got to carry a lot of ships a long distance inexpensivly. Big engine and an efficient design, coupled with lots of storage room and no need neccissarily to have craptons of manuverability and you've got the design needs for a carriar.

  58. Re:This uses ION propulsion technology by Avian+visitor · · Score: 1

    The opening has a magnetized torid ring around it. Using the right hand rule (...) you create an electrical flow around the metal torid ring. The resulting magnetic field 'pulls' the ions through the ring, resulting in propulsion.

    High school physics.

    The force exerted on the charged particles by the magnetic field is always perpendicular to their velocity. Charged particles in a magnetic field move with a constant speed. Because of this ion engines use an electric field to accelerate ions.

  59. Re:OT: Slashdot Personals by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Or use the formula S = n * L * M * P

    S: succes
    n: number of females you meet
    L: looks
    M: amount of available money
    P: Personality

  60. Looks familiar by Decaff · · Score: 1

    Could be useful as a rescue craft. Paint it green, and call it something exciting, like 'Thunderbird 2'.

  61. Wrong. by Thinkit3 · · Score: 1

    Try looking at words instead of numerals. Twelve is not "onety two" or something like that. "Twelve" is not decimal in any shape or form. Hmm..."virst", "telve"--is the truth making you go crazy?

    --
    -Libertarian secular transhumanist
    1. Re:Wrong. by jared_hanson · · Score: 1

      Sorry about the spelling. I just got this new 23" Apple HD Cinema display, so when I read things that don't make sense, it tends to ooze out of the display and into my head.

      Anyway, words have little meaning in relation to numbers. They are convieniences made up to allow us to refer to them better.

      For instance, if we switched to hex, and had a 3E8 dollar bill ($1000) no one would go around saying three ee eight all the time. A new word to refer to it would probably evolve into our language. Much the same way as no one refers to animal species as their latin, scientific names. Its too much of a mouthful.

      Also, I would imagine that there are languages that use the base numbers to refer to the entire numeric set. Do not assume English is universal. In spanish, most numbers are referred to by a ten and a one, for two digit numbers. (doce y tres) 23 (trans: twenty and three). Granted, words have come into use that represent the digits between 10 and 20. Again, I'd guess this is simply a convience of the language, as those numbers are very frequently used, for instance in referring to ages.

      If you'd like, you could start pushing for everyone to pronounce numbers as a concatenation of single digits. That would keep everything in one base system. You might get a lot of people thinking you are even more crazy however, not to mention making mathematical discussions completely unintelligble.

      --
      -- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
    2. Re:Wrong. by jared_hanson · · Score: 1

      I should have clarified in my original post.

      It is perfectly acceptable spanish to refer to 13 as "once y tres" (pr: ohnsay ee tres) (tr: ten and three). There is also a shorter word "trece" (pr: treysay). Most people of course use the shorter word.

      Note, I have no idea how to actually spell these Spanish words, and where the accents go, etc. The point still stands however.

      --
      -- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
    3. Re:Wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well you're a fucking idiot.

      once is eleven in Spanish, you dork. So once y tres would be 14, but no one is ever as dumb as you to actually say that.

      This is even lamer than your last post, because even my shithead snot-nosed 4 yr. old cousin knows the numbers up to ten.

      Fuck wit.

  62. Differential pricing by BigBadBri · · Score: 1
    Perhaps we could have differential pricing for the passenger version - jessies wanting to sit near the centreline would pay business class fares, while those with steadier stomachs and stronger constitutions could get away with cheap fares in the window seats.

    Personally, I'd prefer the more interesting ride - my favourite flights involve small passenger aeroplanes coming into windy areas.

    But then I'm just an inveterate people-watcher who likes to laugh at his fellow passengers.

    --
    oh brave new world, that has such people in it!