Richard C. Hoagland

[SredniVashtar]

Being able to travel more places would have helped.

I can see the point about noise pollution though. The racket it made when it flew past was absolutely deafening, and you never really got used to it. Even as someone who lives close to a major airport, the noise was astonishing. I can't imagine a fleet of those things shuttling between the major destinations of the world ever catching on, despite how sexy it might have looked.

[Juan Cena]

I can see the point about noise pollution though. The racket it made when it flew past was absolutely deafening, and you never really got used to it. Even as someone who lives close to a major airport, the noise was astonishing. I can't imagine a fleet of those things shuttling between the major destinations of the world ever catching on, despite how sexy it might have looked.

sidenote: I finally got the Donald Fagen song I tried to post work on the last page.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sogYgHlNnqo

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

...Now, the aliens could have nanotech that could generate an airtight glass dome out of materials from the lunar surface. However, if the plan is to terraform the moon using nanotech, there would really be a need for a glass dome (or a force field), as the nanos wouldn't need breathe air to begin with. They could first artificially alter the moon's gravity to where it could hold an atmosphere, then step by step transform the moon to where it could become hospitable for life.

Remember, this exercise is to debunk RCH, not support his theories.

But the exercise is to debunk it with real physics and science. 

I erased my earlier post, but there is no scientific basis for force fields as imagined in science fiction.  Sure, the atoms of our bodies are held together by electromagnetic force fields, but that requires a latticework of atoms... in other words a physical structure.  A force field in science is something that is generated by some physical object and then diminishes radially outward, like gravity or magnetism.  You can't just have an isolated self-supporting blanket of it sitting there without affecting anything below.  Likewise I don't think a wall of energy makes any real physical sense either.  I think the closest we've been able to imagine is a plasma shield, but that would still require a physical structure to support and constrain it.

As far as artificial gravity, our physics tells us you would need to generate an equivalent amount of energy to the mass you wanted to simulate, by the equation E=mc^2.  To give the Moon the Earth's gravity at its surface, you would need the equivalent amount of energy as produced by the Sun over a period of three million years, and you would need to hold it all there at once.  That's if you put your gravity emitter at the center of the moon.  You could probably distribute a bunch of them closer to the surface, but it would still require a tremendous amount of energy.

I don't know if it could ever be physically possible to engineer a self-supporting glass dome big enough to contain a city, even in the Moon's limited gravity, but its looking like the most tenable option.  It doesn't matter how advanced the civilization is.  They still could not overcome physics.  Maybe such things are possible, but if they are I don't believe we have the science to support it.

[Jackstar]

Remember, this exercise is to debunk RCH, not support his theories.

You guys are adorable! https://www.metabunk.org/

[HorrorReporter]

I think this would be the perfect HOAGLAND opening


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23ywNYOde4Y

[UnscreenedCaller]

This. I actually think he can be entertaining if he leaves his own Mars stuff off the table and just does straight interviews with people. There's a spark with Hoagland that might make for an interesting show. That said, I am 6000 times more likely to call in with Hoagland than I am with Art's show to call BS on something. But I think Hoagland is going to surprise us and may call out his guests even more than Art does. There's a smart guy under all that luxuriant hair, he may be a loon or a con man, take your pick, but let's not forget that some people get by in life by basically bullshitting their way along or getting lucky. That describes every politician in existence today. So let's give Hoagie a chance. If he sucks, well, no one's holding a gun to our head to listen. If he doesn't, well, there we go.

I was basically going to say the same thing, but you said it better. I get a kick out of Hoagland. I know his theories are full of baloney, but he's entertaining. I've done the math on some of his so-called angles and of course it doesn't add up, but  I want to believe that face on Mars was no accident or at least be as passionate as he is about the moon and Mars. Aside from the bs, the passion he has is great. It makes people want to look at all those old NASA photos and educate themselves about Martian or lunar terrain, and that's a good thing. In all probability, no one will see what he sees, but that's not the point. Becoming enthused about our solar system is the goal. And I agree, he has a lively interest in a lot of subjects. He may well surprise everyone and do a good job as an interviewer if he shuts up and lets his interview speak. That's going to be his test.

[SredniVashtar]

Hoagland manages to get away with not being absolutely irritating, when there is always the potential for him to bore everyone stupid all the time with his demented CTs about NASA and basically everyone who thinks he is full of it. He obviously has a certain charisma as a guest, but whether that translates into a successful solo show remains to be seen. If he is not prepared to adapt and just keeps on hammering his own pet theories then it will drive us all up the wall, and we will realise all too quickly that his act is just based on repeating a set of well-worn tropes: 'our three-dimensional model', 'torsion-field physics', 'the data', the 'Accutron', 'NASA means ''never a straight answer''. And on and on.

I have a bad feeling about this, as someone else (with more credibility) connected with space once said.

[pate]

...

I have a bad feeling about this, as someone else (with more credibility) connected with space once said...

Not Sure what you mean about the WUN NINER STOP FIFE, OVER:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxRMg6PKcd0

[Yorkshire pud]

The whole point about Concorde was to say that you had flown on Concorde. It had great snob value but, as you say, it wasn't anything that you could use for most practical purposes, if they flew to so few places. London to New York was the big one, but it could only cater for a small group of people who had the money to do it. It was also so small with its narrow fuselage; I don't know how many people you could fit inside it, but it wasn't that many. An amazing achievement and a beautiful looking aircraft, but they never really had an idea how it was going to make money.

I'm CC ing Juan Cena in this too. Concorde was a technological milestone. The engineers that designed, developed and built it were up there with those who did the same with the SR71 as far as breaking new ground is concerned. Today our entire airline industry owes much to the innovations learnt with Concorde. It didn't fail as a commercial prospect as much as had the rug pulled from underneath it. The then president of PanAm was enthusiastic, and wanted a fleet of them. He wanted them so badly it hurt. However; two things happened. Aerospacial (who would be swallowed up by Airbus) put too much stock in then then BOAC Air France and PanAm and other carriers buying fleets of the aeroplane (as in dozens)...The fuel crisis in the 70's almost overnight made the press run front page headlines openly demanding it be scrapped before another penny was spent on this 'public waste of money.'  And the president of P A played golf with his good friend the head of Boeing...and mentioned his love of this beautiful white bird the Brits and French had flown and proved would work.  The man at Boeing was not a happy man, but promised the head of P A that Boeing would make a supersonic airliner that would carry more passengers and would run alongside the then brand new (as it was designed initially) freight only 747.

The furthest Boeing got with their SST aircraft was a $500 Million wooden mock up. That was it. The head of P A had by this time cancelled his order for Concorde and therefore the initial run of (I think) 12 aircraft was all and would ever be, had been built. Boeing then had to redesign the 747 to take passengers as the hadn't a dedicated passenger only SST aircraft. The noise pollution thing was a red herring of course, the US government of the day were under enormous lobbying pressure to do what it could to stop Concorde over flying the US (in the absence of a US carrier)...Per unit, Concorde was probably the most expensive commercial aeroplane to date, if it had been built in the dozens it's unit costs would be comparable with perhaps a 747 or the newer Airbus 380. But it was thirsty, cramped, and had compared with modern airliners, woefully antiquated cockpit environment. To redesign it's cockpit, engines that ran more efficiently, (read: quieter and more frugal) and avionics would be more than it's initial development costs. It's take off speed alone was around 250 knts on full reheat (afterburners)  Airbus withdrew it's support after the the AF crash in Paris and it's fate was there writ large. Even stood still today it looks futuristic and will still look like that long after I've gone. It was ahead of it's time, born at the wrong time, with too much political interference.

[chefist]

Even stood still today it looks futuristic and will still look like that long after I've gone. It was ahead of it's time, born at the wrong time, with too much political interference.

It's design was based on the North American XB-70, the Valkyrie.

[Yorkshire pud]

It's design was based on the North American XB-70, the Valkyrie.

No it wasn't. The Concorde ideas started in the very early 50's, Sure the design team studied such as the Lockheed 104 Starfighter to gleen info on ultra thin but efficient wings, but that was it. It's engines were used in the Vulcan bomber and TSR2 prototype, which shared the reheat facility. It had nothing in common with the XB-70, which wasn't conceived until two years later and only ever reached prototype status. It's doubtful NA allowed any Concorde engineers up close and personnel with the XB-70 to study it's design, and vice versa. Although it was mooted Concorde could be pressed into service as a supersonic strike aircraft, but that never got off the drawing board.

[pate]

I am 19.5% sure that both countries stole the design plans from the Nazies, who in their stead copied alien technology...

[chefist]

No it wasn't.

hmmmmm....

[pate]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N3J6fE-0JI

You could smoke in-flight on either areoplane, like when they were flying and such, right?

[SredniVashtar]

I'm CC ing Juan Cena in this too. Concorde was a technological milestone. The engineers that designed, developed and built it were up there with those who did the same with the SR71 as far as breaking new ground is concerned...

Thanks for an interesting post, YP. It certainly filled in a lot of blanks of stuff that I had either forgotten or never knew in the first place. I sort of grew up with the old girl in an odd kind of way - like a lot of kids who grew up around that time. My father was involved with  Harrier Jump Jets and the Eurofighter (whatever happened to that?) and I can recall a model of Concorde in the house somewhere. I even went in a prototype at the Fleet Air Museum and remember how surprised I was at the narrowness of the thing.

I really took Concorde for granted, because it went roaring over the house regularly at around 7.15pm or thereabouts, and after a while I grew quite blase about it.  I think there was a genuine issue with noise pollution, though. The noise it made was truly window-rattling, and you almost braced yourself when it came over, the din was indescribable. The prospect of serried ranks of the things - however beautiful - sweeping majestically across the sky like wildebeest makes me shudder a bit.

[Yorkshire pud]

hmmmmm....

By that logic the Spitfire and P51 Mustang were copies by dint of them both having Merlin engines. There is nothing in common with the XB-70 and Concorde. The 70 has twin fins, canards and six under fuselage engines mounted in a huge pod.. Concorde has two pods with two engines in each and a single fin...oh and a drooping nose. Both had movable visors.

[Yorkshire pud]

Thanks for an interesting post, YP. It certainly filled in a lot of blanks of stuff that I had either forgotten or never knew in the first place. I sort of grew up with the old girl in an odd kind of way - like a lot of kids who grew up around that time. My father was involved with  Harrier Jump Jets and the Eurofighter (whatever happened to that?) and I can recall a model of Concorde in the house somewhere. I even went in a prototype at the Fleet Air Museum and remember how surprised I was at the narrowness of the thing.

Really? Ask him if he knows a certain gentleman, who is an aerospace engineer with the initials P R. Did he work at BEA systems?

[chefist]

By that logic the Spitfire and P51 Mustang were copies by dint of them both having Merlin engines. There is nothing in common with the XB-70 and Concorde. The 70 has twin fins, canards and six under fuselage engines mounted in a huge pod.. Concorde has two pods with two engines in each and a single fin...oh and a drooping nose. Both had movable visors.

The P51 was based on the British spitfire...clearly it was...just interesting you don't accept the Concorde was based on the Valkyrie...it's fine, this is an Art Bell fan site...you can believe in remote viewing and bigfoot too if you want!

[SredniVashtar]

Really? Ask him if he knows a certain gentleman, who is an aerospace engineer with the initials P R. Did he work at BEA systems?

He worked at Kingston mainly, when it was still called British Aerospace, and then became BAE Systems. I remember he was also at Dunsfold quite a lot when I was quite young. I think he was also with Hawker Siddeley for a while too. He died a few years ago.

[Yorkshire pud]

He worked at Kingston mainly, when it was still called British Aerospace, and then became BAE Systems. I remember he was also at Dunsfold quite a lot when I was quite young. I think he was also with Hawker Siddeley for a while too. He died a few years ago.

That's a shame. I would be surprised if they didn't cross paths. My acquaintance was quite heavily involved with the Harrier, and apparently in the Schwarzenegger film with the Harrier, his leg is in shot (No idea why!). When HMG mothballed the Harrier he was furious and heartbroken in equal measure.

[Yorkshire pud]

The P51 was based on the British spitfire...clearly it was...just interesting you don't accept the Concorde was based on the Valkyrie...it's fine, this is an Art Bell fan site...you can believe in remote viewing and bigfoot too if you want!

I don't accept it because it isn't true. Likewise I don't accept Bigfoot exists. I didn't say the P51 was based on the Spitfire, that was my point.

[SredniVashtar]

That's a shame. I would be surprised if they didn't cross paths. My acquaintance was quite heavily involved with the Harrier, and apparently in the Schwarzenegger film with the Harrier, his leg is in shot (No idea why!). When HMG mothballed the Harrier he was furious and heartbroken in equal measure.

.

I don't know how close-knit the Harrier community was, but he would probably have heard of him, I daresay. My father was an electrical engineer. I can recall going to countless air shows when the Harrier was on display, along with the Red Arrows, of course. I have vivid memories of it bowing to the crowd before shooting off. Your post took me back nearly thirty odd years, with all the racket they made. My ears are ringing even now. 

[Yorkshire pud]

.

I don't know how close-knit the Harrier community was, but he would probably have heard of him, I daresay. My father was an electrical engineer. I can recall going to countless air shows when the Harrier was on display, along with the Red Arrows, of course. I have vivid memories of it bowing to the crowd before shooting off. Your post took me back nearly thirty odd years, with all the racket they made. My ears are ringing even now. 

I think from memory the Pegasus engine in the Harrier is the most powerful 'dry' turbine fitted to a military aircraft. Pete gets quite animated in another forum when the Harrier comes up in topics; especially when someone says things such as 'It was water cooled'...His seething indigence knows no bounds! 

[chefist]

I don't accept it because it isn't true. Likewise I don't accept Bigfoot exists. I didn't say the P51 was based on the Spitfire, that was my point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_P-51_Mustang

Designs for the P51 were give to NA from BPC...NA had the closest relationships with the British defense industry of all the US companies...

[SredniVashtar]

I think from memory the Pegasus engine in the Harrier is the most powerful 'dry' turbine fitted to a military aircraft. Pete gets quite animated in another forum when the Harrier comes up in topics; especially when someone says things such as 'It was water cooled'...His seething indigence knows no bounds!

I can well believe it. I can remember Dad getting regularly worked up about some point of abstruse aeronautical detail that nobody else had a clue about. I don't know how important BAE even is any more in the great scheme of things. I know they decamped to Farnborough and elsewhere over 20 years ago, but what they are doing remains a mystery. All this talk has really sent my thoughts back several decades. I suppose it's appropriate, considering I became a Time Traveller a few weeks ago. 

[Yorkshire pud]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_P-51_Mustang

Designs for the P51 were give to NA from BPC...NA had the closest relationships with the British defense industry of all the US companies...

That'll explain why they both didn't have elliptical wings and both didn't have under fuselage supercharger exhausts. And both didn't have undercarriage that retracted the same way (Unless you throw in the Spiteful that came later which was a carrier derivation of the Seafire), but not really a Spitfire/Seafire at all.

[chefist]

That'll explain why they both didn't have elliptical wings and both didn't have under fuselage supercharger exhausts. And both didn't have undercarriage that retracted the same way (Unless you throw in the Spiteful that came later which was a carrier derivation of the Seafire), but not really a Spitfire/Seafire at all.

well is was the next generation...and all those improvements were given to NA from the BPC...due to the urgent nature to escort long range bombers over Europe, the US did not have time to make up it's design gap to folks like England and Germany...we had to borrow designs...and buy engines from Rolls Royce...

NA also hired quite a few AA engineers from England during and after the war...some stayed and worked on the XB-70, some returned to work for the BAC...there was a very small pool of engineers that knew and understood this technology...most of these designs were and still remain classified, thus no direct links to where it originated...but makes for good back and forth on who came up with it first!

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

hmmmmm....

Well, there's only so many ways to design a plane for specific functions, right?  I think that delta wing concept was a pretty popular idea in aerospace circles at the time as well.

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

That's a shame. I would be surprised if they didn't cross paths. My acquaintance was quite heavily involved with the Harrier, and apparently in the Schwarzenegger film with the Harrier, his leg is in shot (No idea why!). When HMG mothballed the Harrier he was furious and heartbroken in equal measure.

True Lies, I believe

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_P-51_Mustang

Designs for the P51 were give to NA from BPC...NA had the closest relationships with the British defense industry of all the US companies...

I believe I've read something along those lines as well.  Before the US entered the war, they were working closely with Britain on aircraft technology in support of the British war effort.