Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (193912)	11/21/2022 6:01:36 PM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218163

<<Global Britain>> Best UK remain united and play along to get along, because technologies of defence about to take leaps beyond which disunited states can play, as they involve political will, technical brains, number of multidisciplinary brains, manufacturing capabilities and capacities, supply chains, market share, more attractive narrative to prospective friends who do not want busy-bodies kibitzing, and and and, and cost, cost-savings A guess, mach 9 beats mach 2, and once positioned, wars do not start. Afterwards, cislunar high grounds, moon bases, and Mars colonies. Best to save money on important stuff, like keeping up, as opposed to fighting other people's bankrupting wars, and be flooded with consequential migrant invasions. iflscience.com China Tests Hypersonic Engine That Can Push Aircraft To 9 Times The Speed Of Sound It uses aviation kerosene, which is far less explode-y than hydrogen. With most jets only touching Mach 2, Mach 9 would be astonishing. Image credit: Logtnest/Shutterstock.com Chinese researchers claim to have successfully tested a hypersonic detonation engine that can push aircraft up to Mach 9, a blistering nine times the speed of sound. What’s more, the engine uses aviation kerosene as fuel, which carries neither the cost nor risk of explosion that hydrogen solutions do. Published in a peer-reviewed paper, the research states this is the first time a kerosene-based detonation engine has been publicly tested. A detonation engine uses a chain of shockwaves to propel the aircraft forward by injecting fuel into a ring-shaped channel, before igniting it to form a controlled explosion. The shockwave then ignites the next round of fuel injected into the channel, creating a cascade of detonations that self-sustain themselves while the combustion products are ejected out of the rear. These engines release more energy than hypersonic alternatives, namely the scramjet that the US are investing in, and are markedly more efficient at high speeds. For carrying cargo or significant journeys, this could mean astonishing cost savings. The tests used the JF-12 hypersonic shock tunnel, the largest shock tunnel in the world, that replicates hypersonic flight conditions. With a diameter of up to 3.5 meters (11.4 feet), the tunnel can simulate conditions from Mach 5-9, allowing the testing of hypersonic aircraft profiles and engines. Detonation engines are not a new concept, but the dream of using aviation kerosene has posed challenges for scientists, as it burns more slowly than hydrogen. Using kerosene would require a huge chamber that is ten times longer than current hydrogen engines, and you can’t simply make things bigger when it will be travelling at close to Mach 9. To get around this, Liu Yunfeng and colleagues from the Institute of Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, came up with an ingenious but simple solution – a tiny bump (which they call a “bulge”) in the air inlet allows kerosene to detonate more readily. As air spins round the chamber at huge speeds, it collides with the bump to create a small shockwave that helps ignite the fuel. They tested their creation using RP-3 fuel and it was successful in creating powerful and sustained thrust. Hypersonic flight is rapidly becoming a smaller form of the space race, with nations around the world searching for hypersonic technologies that can power missiles, passenger planes, and more. Aircraft travelling at that speed are almost unstoppable with current technology, so the appeal to create viable engines is rapidly coming to the forefront of research and development. The research was published in the Journal of Experiments in Fluid Mechanics.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (193912)	11/21/2022 6:41:34 PM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218163

These are fun An observation, that usually when China China China publishes stuffing in magazines siliconinvestor.com , the subject matter has already moved way down the road, and CPC is just and only teasing, and once it shows up in a military parade, the toy is in serial production and deployed aplenty Whereas the US US US tends to announce vapor ware to fake it until make it, historically speaking. In the case of UFOs, the recent sharp increases needed to be explained by all sides, and then spun into a narrative Obama had something to say, perhaps when the stuffing was nearer the get-go China boyz reporting scmp.com China’s only officially confirmed UFO sighting occurred over a military airbase in Cangzhou, Hebei province, on October 19, 1998. According to a report in Hebei Daily – official newspaper of the province which neighbours Beijing – two military jets were ordered to intercept a low-flying object that appeared suddenly above the airbase. The object looked like a “short-legged mushroom”, with two beams of light shooting down from its belly. When the jets approached, the object climbed with “ghostlike” speed to an altitude of more than 20,000 metres, before disappearing from radar and visual contact. Of course, an alien UFO thing is also possible The Pentagon is beginning to sense that something is not quite right militarytimes.com ... and the good news is that it has an explanation :0) I would think weather balloons are easy to track, and does not cause contrails nytimes.com Many Military U.F.O. Reports Are Just Foreign Spying or Airborne Trash Forget space aliens or hypersonic technology; classified assessments show that many episodes have ordinary explanations. Oct. 28, 2022 A video image by Navy pilots of “unidentified aerial phenomena.”Department of Defense, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images WASHINGTON — Government officials believe that surveillance operations by foreign powers and weather balloons or other airborne clutter explain most recent incidents of unidentified aerial phenomena — government-speak for U.F.O.s — as well as many episodes in past years. The sightings have puzzled the Pentagon and intelligence agencies for years, fueling theories about visiting space aliens and spying by a hostile nation using advanced technology. But government officials say many of the incidents have far more ordinary explanations. Intelligence agencies are set to deliver a classified document to Congress by Monday updating a report made public last year that said nearly all of the incidents remain unexplained. The original document looked at 144 incidents between 2004 and 2021 that were reported by U.S. government sources, mostly American military personnel. This article is based on interviews with American officials familiar with the findings of the Pentagon and intelligence agencies’ examination of the incidents. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the classified work. Some of the incidents have been formally attributed to Chinese surveillance — with relatively ordinary drone technology — and others are also thought to be connected to Beijing. China, which has stolen plans for advanced fighter planes, wants to learn more about how the United States trains its military pilots, according to American officials. Much of the information about the unidentified phenomena remains classified. While Congress has been briefed on some of the conclusions about foreign surveillance, Pentagon officials have kept most of the work secret — in large measure because they do not want China or other countries to know that their efforts to spy on the American military were detected. But such official secrecy comes at a cost, allowing conspiracy theories about government lies to thrive unchecked. Sue Gough, a Defense Department spokeswoman, said the Pentagon remains committed to principles of openness but must balance that with its “its obligation to protect sensitive information, sources and methods.” While the Pentagon will not “rush to conclusions in our analysis,” Ms. Gough said, no single explanation addresses the majority of unidentified aerial phenomena reports. “We are collecting as much data as we can, following the data where it leads and will share our findings whenever possible,” she said. It was not clear how much of the new intelligence report would be made public. But of the cases that have been resolved, most have proved to be either errant junk in the sky, like balloons, or surveillance activity, officials said. Incidents recorded in the past year, for which more data has been collected, have turned out to have ordinary, earthbound explanations. Officially, many of the older incidents are still unexplained and there is just too little data for Pentagon or intelligence officials to make final conclusions. “In many cases, observed phenomena are classified as ‘unidentified’ simply because sensors were not able to collect enough information to make a positive attribution,” Ms. Gough said, referring to cameras, radar and other devices that collect information. “We are working to mitigate these shortfalls for the future and to ensure we have sufficient data for our analysis.” Other officials insist that even though the evidence is imperfect, the grainy videos do not show space aliens. Optical illusions along with the characteristics of classified sensors have caused ordinary objects, like drones or balloons, to appear to be something unusual or frightening. In May, the Pentagon announced that previously released images of green triangles that looked like they could be alien ships were actually drones photographed through night-vision lenses. Military officials declined to say precisely when or where the images were taken. But they believe the incidents are examples of attempts to conduct surveillance on military maneuvers. U.F.O. skeptics and experts in optics have long said many of the videos and sightings by naval aviators represent optical illusions that have made ordinary objects — weather balloons, commercial drones — appear to move faster than possible. Military officials have largely come to the same conclusion. Besides the images of the green triangles, the other recordings released by the Pentagon have not been categorized as surveillance incidents, at least so far. But Pentagon officials do not believe that any of them represent aliens, either. One of the videos, referred to as GoFast, appears to show an object moving at immense speed. But an analysis by the military says that is an illusion created by the angle of observation against water. According to Pentagon calculations, the object is moving only about 30 miles per hour. Another video, known as Gimbal, shows an object that appears to be turning or spinning. Military officials now believe that is the optics of the classified image sensor, designed to help target weapons, make the object appear like it is moving in a strange way. Pentagon analysts remain puzzled by some of the videos collected by the military. One where an object hovers over the water, jumps erratically, then peels away, is more difficult to explain, officials said. But analysts who have studied that video, as well as ones associated with eyewitness reports from aviators, are convinced it is not a piece of alien technology. Nevertheless, efforts by the Pentagon or intelligence officials to stamp out theories about aliens have largely failed. The Pentagon has formed, and then reformed, groups inside the department to improve data collection around the incidents and provide better explanations. Military officials have repeatedly said there is no evidence that any of the images show space alien visitors, comments often played down in the news media or ignored by lawmakers. In May, Pentagon officials testified under oath that the government had not collected materials from any alien landing on Earth. But the testimony did little to dampen enthusiasm for theories about extraterrestrial visitors. Publicly, military and intelligence officials have been reluctant to offer alternative theories, in part because they lack complete information, like in the case of the three videos, or because they do not want to reveal what they know about the surveillance, for fear China or other countries could learn to better hide their activities. The failure to categorize or offer explanations for many of the unidentified incidents has allowed U.F.O. enthusiasts to argue that the government does not know what the incidents are — at least leaving open the possibility that aliens have been visiting the United States. There is a long history of the U.S. government using speculation over conspiracy theories to prevent secrets from becoming widely known. During the development of American spy planes like the U-2 and SR-71 Blackbird, the government allowed rumors about U.F.O. sightings to continue to help hide the development of those programs. But intelligence officials concluded long ago that using conspiracy theories as cover for classified programs sows distrust in the American government and paranoia. Some American officials believe the secrecy surrounding the Chinese surveillance of military bases once again risks giving life to conspiracy theories and heightening distrust of government in a ever more bitterly divided society. Scott Bray, the deputy director of Navy intelligence, briefing the House Intelligence Committee in May.Michael A. McCoy for The New York Times At the hearing in May, the Pentagon declassified the conclusions about two separate images of ghostly green triangles recorded in two incidents, one on the East Coast and one on the West. Officials testified publicly that the green triangles were actually drones, with a trick of the camera lens and night vision technology transforming them into glowing triangles that look like alien spacecraft. At the hearing, other military assets saw drones operating in the area, allowing the Navy to conclude the strange triangles were nothing otherworldly, said Scott W. Bray, the deputy director of naval intelligence. At the hearing, Mr. Bray also explained why the government was not releasing more information about the incidents. “We do not want potential adversaries to know exactly what we’re able to see or understand, or how we come to the conclusion,” Mr. Bray said. “Therefore, disclosures must be carefully considered on a case-by-case basis.”

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (193912)	11/21/2022 7:00:43 PM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218163

Re <<Global Britain>> anachronistic. Interplanetary Britain much better, but needs partners Let's see if UK UK UK or Russia Russia Russia signs on first Perhaps UK shall maintain move to teach Aussies to operate nuke subs per current trajectory scientificamerican.com China Wants to Build a Mega Spaceship That’s Nearly a Mile Long A proposal plans to study how to build a giant spacecraft Edd Gent, LiveScience September 2, 2021 A 3-D rendering of an imagined future spacecraft. Credit: Getty ImagesChina is investigating how to build ultra-large spacecraft that are up to 0.6 mile (1 kilometer) long. But how feasible is the idea, and what would be the use of such a massive spacecraft? The project is part of a wider call for research proposals from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, a funding agency managed by the country’s Ministry of Science and Technology. A research outline posted on the foundation’s website described such enormous spaceships as “major strategic aerospace equipment for the future use of space resources, exploration of the mysteries of the universe, and long-term living in orbit.” The foundation wants scientists to conduct research into new, lightweight design methods that could limit the amount of construction material that has to be lofted into orbit, and new techniques for safely assembling such massive structures in space. If funded, the feasibility study would run for five years and have a budget of 15 million yuan ($2.3 million). The project might sound like science fiction, but former NASA chief technologist Mason Peck said the idea isn’t entirely off the wall, and the challenge is more a question of engineering than fundamental science. “I think it’s entirely feasible,” Peck, now a professor of aerospace engineering at Cornell University, told Live Science. “I would describe the problems here not as insurmountable impediments, but rather problems of scale.” By far the biggest challenge would be the price tag, noted Peck, due to the huge cost of launching objects and materials into space. The International Space Station (ISS), which is only 361 feet (110 meters) wide at its widest point according to NASA, cost roughly $100 billion to build, Peck said, so constructing something 10 times larger would strain even the most generous national space budget. Much depends on what kind of structure the Chinese plan to build, though. The ISS is packed with equipment and is designed to accommodate humans, which significantly increases its mass. “If we’re talking about something that is simply long and not also heavy then it’s a different story,” Peck said. Building techniques could also reduce the cost of getting a behemoth spaceship into space. The conventional approach would be to build components on Earth and then assemble them like Legos in orbit, said Peck, but 3D-printing technology could potentially turn compact raw materials into structural components of much larger dimensions in space. AdvertisementAn even more attractive option would be to source raw materials from the moon, which has low gravity compared with Earth, meaning that launching materials from its surface into space would be much easier, according to Peck. Still, that first requires launch infrastructure on the moon and is therefore not an option in the short term. Big spaceship, big problems A structure of such massive proportions will also face unique problems. Whenever a spacecraft is subjected to forces, whether from maneuvering in orbit or docking with another vehicle, the motion imparts energy to the spaceship’s structure that causes it to vibrate and bend, Peck explained. With such a large structure, these vibrations will take a long time to subside so it’s likely the spacecraft will require shock absorbers or active control to counteract those vibrations, he said. Designers will also have to make careful trade-offs when deciding what altitude the spacecraft should orbit at, Peck said. At lower altitudes, drag from the outer atmosphere slows vehicles down, requiring them to constantly boost themselves back into a stable orbit. This is already an issue for the ISS, Peck noted, but for a much larger structure, which has more drag acting on it and would require more fuel to boost back into place, it would be a major concern. On the flip side, launching to higher altitudes is much more expensive, and radiation levels increase quickly the further from Earth’s atmosphere an object gets, which will be a problem if the spacecraft houses humans. But while building such a structure might be technically possible, it’s not feasible in any practical sense, said Michael Lembeck, a professor of aerospace engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who has worked on both government and commercial space programs. “It’s kind of like us talking about building the Starship Enterprise,” he told Live Science. “It’s fantastical, not feasible, and fun to think about, but not very realistic for our level of technology,” given the cost, he said. Given the research project’s tiny budget, it is likely only meant to be a small, academic study to map out the very earliest contours of such a project and identify technological gaps, Lembeck said. For comparison, the budget to build a capsule to take astronauts to the ISS was $3 billion. “So the level of effort here is extremely small compared to the outcomes that are desired,” he added. There are also questions about what such a big spacecraft would be used for. Lembeck said possibilities include space manufacturing facilities that take advantage of microgravity and abundant solar power to build high-value products like semiconductors and optical equipment, or long-term habitats for off-world living. But both would entail enormous maintenance costs. “The space station is a $3 billion a year enterprise,” Lembeck added. “Multiply that for larger facilities and it quickly becomes a rather large, expensive enterprise to pull off.” China has also expressed interest in building enormous solar power arrays in orbit and beaming the power back to Earth via microwave beams, but Peck said the economics of such a project just don’t stack up. Peck has done some back-of-the-envelope calculations and estimates it would cost around $1,000 per watt, compared with just $2 per watt for energy generated from solar panels on Earth. Perhaps the most promising application for such a large space structure would be scientific, Peck said. A space telescope of that scale could potentially see features on the surface of planets in other solar systems. “That could be transformative for our understanding of extrasolar planets and potentially life in the universe,” he added. Copyright 2021 LiveScience, a Future company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.