• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

Mysterious BOOMS

Started by albrecht, January 16, 2016, 10:47:03 AM


Ciardelo

We had something like this locally. Turned out it was a metal recycler trying to shred cars that still had gas in the tank. We did get a few days of woo, what are those booms? in the local media.

albrecht

Quote from: Ciardelo on January 16, 2016, 11:01:38 AM
We had something like this locally. Turned out it was a metal recycler trying to shred cars that still had gas in the tank. We did get a few days of woo, what are those booms? in the local media.
Ha, yeah. Its NJ so likely there are some bodies in the car crushers.

Hi guys, first post;
I was out in the delaware bay, right down near the ocean, on my boat, maybe 4 years ago, and i heard one of those "booms"  . When i got in, i asked several people none of whom heard it. I was surprised because it was a serious kinda sound. It was very low frequency and i swore it was gonna be one of those mystery booms misleadingly identified as sonic boom. Now i wonder if they're telling the truth....

whoozit

Quote from: Chris Lightoast on February 02, 2016, 02:23:02 PM
Hi guys, first post;
I was out in the delaware bay, right down near the ocean, on my boat, maybe 4 years ago, and i heard one of those "booms"  . When i got in, i asked several people none of whom heard it. I was surprised because it was a serious kinda sound. It was very low frequency and i swore it was gonna be one of those mystery booms misleadingly identified as sonic boom. Now i wonder if they're telling the truth....
Welcome!  Post often.

Uncle Duke

I wonder how many people today would even know a sonic boom if they heard it?  Doubt many under the age of fifty have heard one.  I remember hearing them regularly in the early 60s when there was an F-104 unit stationed at WPAFB, but by the 70s they were very rare. 

Coffeeman

Quote from: Uncle Duke on February 02, 2016, 04:07:19 PM
I wonder how many people today would even know a sonic boom if they heard it?  Doubt many under the age of fifty have heard one.  I remember hearing them regularly in the early 60s when there was an F-104 unit stationed at WPAFB, but by the 70s they were very rare.

I remember hearing them ever Phoenix in the early '90s; it seemed like two or three times a week. I know they stopped breaking the sound barrier over urban area below a certain ceiling around then. Always figured it was because some law or regulation was enacted, or more fun at the time, Luke had cool new engines that didn't emit a boom  8)

onan

Quote from: Uncle Duke on February 02, 2016, 04:07:19 PM
I wonder how many people today would even know a sonic boom if they heard it?  Doubt many under the age of fifty have heard one.  I remember hearing them regularly in the early 60s when there was an F-104 unit stationed at WPAFB, but by the 70s they were very rare.

I live one peninsula over from Harvey Point Defense Testing. I think I hear sonic booms every so often. Either that or howitzers, I'm betting it's the sonic boom.

GravitySucks

Quote from: Coffeeman on February 02, 2016, 06:59:49 PM
I remember hearing them ever Phoenix in the early '90s; it seemed like two or three times a week. I know they stopped breaking the sound barrier over urban area below a certain ceiling around then. Always figured it was because some law or regulation was enacted, or more fun at the time, Luke had cool new engines that didn't emit a boom  8)

It is not the engine that makes the boom, it is any object moving faster than the speed of sound. The shuttle used to make them on entry, and they were not using their engines.

starrmtn001

Quote from: GravitySucks on February 02, 2016, 07:57:07 PM
It is not the engine that makes the boom, it is any object moving faster than the speed of sound. The shuttle used to make them on entry, and they were not using their engines.
I didn't know that Gravity.  Thanks for the heads up.

Coffeeman

Quote from: GravitySucks on February 02, 2016, 07:57:07 PM
It is not the engine that makes the boom, it is any object moving faster than the speed of sound. The shuttle used to make them on entry, and they were not using their engines.

Wasn't really talking about the aeronautical physics, per say, just as some snot-nosed elementary school kid who thought the stuff was neat. I mean, I had a space shuttle operations manual that was detailed as all get out about operating in space, but as a second-grader I wasn't too concerned with loss of bone and muscle mass.

GravitySucks

Quote from: Coffeeman on February 02, 2016, 08:12:48 PM
Wasn't really talking about the aeronautical physics, per say, just as some snot-nosed elementary school kid who thought the stuff was neat. I mean, I had a space shuttle operations manual that was detailed as all get out about operating in space, but as a second-grader I wasn't too concerned with loss of bone and muscle mass.

That shuttle operations manual was cool... Even the engineers at NASA bought copies and had them on their bookshelves.

Coffeeman

Quote from: GravitySucks on February 02, 2016, 08:16:37 PM
That shuttle operations manual was cool... Even the engineers at NASA bought copies and had them on their bookshelves.

Yeah, it was cool! It seemed so thin a book for the subject, too. I remember some equipment I worked on in the Army had replenshible binders, and volumes to boot. Tell you, the documentation I would love to get my hands on are the reference material the shuttle maintenance teams used.

GravitySucks

Quote from: Coffeeman on February 02, 2016, 08:27:26 PM
Yeah, it was cool! It seemed so thin a book for the subject, too. I remember some equipment I worked on in the Army had replenshible binders, and volumes to boot. Tell you, the documentation I would love to get my hands on are the reference material the shuttle maintenance teams used.

LOL, somebody on Reddit the other day posted the 36 page Army specification for making oatmeal cookies and brownies. No joke.

http://everyspec.com/MIL-SPECS/MIL-SPECS-MIL-C/MIL-C-44072C_24608/

GravitySucks

Quote from: Coffeeman on February 02, 2016, 08:27:26 PM
Yeah, it was cool! It seemed so thin a book for the subject, too. I remember some equipment I worked on in the Army had replenshible binders, and volumes to boot. Tell you, the documentation I would love to get my hands on are the reference material the shuttle maintenance teams used.

Here is a link to a .pdf that is an official NASA Shuttle Crew Operations Manual. It is almost 1200 pages. It provides a lot of details that the commercial book from the 80s didn't cover. Knock yourself
out.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/390651main_shuttle_crew_operations_manual.pdf

Coffeeman

Quote from: GravitySucks on February 02, 2016, 08:42:25 PM
Here is a link to a .pdf that is an official NASA Shuttle Crew Operations Manual. It is almost 1200 pages. It provides a lot of details that the commercial book from the 80s didn't cover. Knock yourself
out.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/390651main_shuttle_crew_operations_manual.pdf

Hey, thanks! I've gotten quite a few PDFs from NASA's before, spent months reading stuff from this library:

http://history.nasa.gov/series95.html

One particular one I really liked was a memoir of the Soviet space program written from that perspective, the author is Boris Chertok:

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4110/vol1.pdf

Another favorite, just because the plane itself is so unique:

https://www.nasa.gov/connect/ebooks/sweeping_forward_detail.html


Quote from: Ciardelo on January 16, 2016, 11:01:38 AM
We had something like this locally. Turned out it was a metal recycler trying to shred cars that still had gas in the tank. We did get a few days of woo, what are those booms? in the local media.
I had a friend talking about this too and after some research we found out it was also a metal recycler.

GravitySucks

Quote from: Coffeeman on February 02, 2016, 09:06:12 PM
Hey, thanks! I've gotten quite a few PDFs from NASA's before, spent months reading stuff from this library:

http://history.nasa.gov/series95.html

One particular one I really liked was a memoir of the Soviet space program written from that perspective, the author is Boris Chertok:

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4110/vol1.pdf

Another favorite, just because the plane itself is so unique:

https://www.nasa.gov/connect/ebooks/sweeping_forward_detail.html

Russians read that stuff too. Look at pictures of their Buran Shuttle, and of course the Su-47

Uncle Duke

Quote from: onan on February 02, 2016, 07:53:19 PM
I live one peninsula over from Harvey Point Defense Testing. I think I hear sonic booms every so often. Either that or howitzers, I'm betting it's the sonic boom.

Yes there are designated areas where faster than sound flight is authoritzed, restricted air space such as test and air combat training ranges.  Breaking the sound barrier in unauthorized areas and/or without approval (such as was granted on 9/11) can get a pilot in deep shit.  Back in the day however, starting in the mid 1950s when the "Century Series" of fighters could break the sound barrier in level flight, sonic booms were fairly common.  A former boss of mine, an F-101 pilot,  referred to it as "supersonic dick waving".  Soon the DoD was getting complaints about the noise, as well as paying damages for property damage, decreased farm productivity, etc.  Don't know when the general restrictions were put in place, but I don't remember any booms locally much beyond the late 1960s.  The last sonic boom I heard was in the late 90s/early 2000s while TDY to Edwards AFB.

albrecht

Quote from: GravitySucks on February 02, 2016, 09:20:55 PM
Russians read that stuff too. Look at pictures of their Buran Shuttle, and of course the Su-47
I'm not an aviation or science/space guy like you and Uncle but I've always thought this project(s)/idea was weird. I can 'see' conceptually, as a layman, the idea of swept wings, extending/distending wings (lengths), or even various curves but this odd layout of one-side forward and one-back just seem bizarre (to me- why pivot in only one direction? And why that direction and not the other way? Because the effect is the same- so just 'go that way?'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_AD-1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblique_wing

GravitySucks

Quote from: albrecht on February 02, 2016, 09:51:42 PM
I'm not an aviation or science/space guy like you and Uncle but I've always thought this project(s)/idea was weird. I can 'see' conceptually, as a layman, the idea of swept wings, extending/distending wings (lengths), or even various curves but this odd layout of one-side forward and one-back just seem bizarre (to me- why pivot in only one direction? And why that direction and not the other way? Because the effect is the same- so just 'go that way?'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_AD-1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblique_wing

The first paragraph in the wiki article tells one of the advantages. The center of gravity pretty much stays the same. With sweep wing aircraft, you are moving the mass of the wings towards the rear, greatly changing the center of gravity. Since the wings serve a dual purpose (being fuel tanks), this shift in center of gravity can make a large difference in maneuverability.

I think the actuators to change the angle of the oblique wing would be less complex, meaning less weight as well.

Sometimes aero engineers do stuff just to see if they can.

I think this was a cooler concept.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_Switchblade

albrecht

Quote from: GravitySucks on February 02, 2016, 09:59:08 PM
The first paragraph in the wiki article tells one of the advantages. The center of gravity pretty much stays the same. With sweep wing aircraft, you are moving the mass of the wings towards the rear, greatly changing the center of gravity. Since the wings serve a dual purpose (being fuel tanks), this shift in center of gravity can make a large difference in maneuverability.

I think the actuators to change the angle of the oblique wing would be less complex, meaning less weight as well.

Sometimes aero engineers do stuff just to see if they can.
Ha, yeah, just wonder why they decide to design to go one-way, and not the other (even if one directional,) since assuming things on the craft is equally distributed weight-wise it wouldn't matter 'which' way to swing it around? Are their cultural biases towards a certain direction? Government grant right there!

ps: we should do more of letting folks experiment with 'just to see if you can' actually (within limits, depending on the types of science; or weaponry.  ;) ) Might come up with some interesting cool, new developments.

chefist

Are these the same sounds as the trumpets? Super creepy!

Ciardelo

Quote from: chefist on February 02, 2016, 10:10:18 PM
Are these the same sounds as the trumpets? Super creepy!
What trumpets?

GravitySucks

Quote from: albrecht on February 02, 2016, 10:08:32 PM
Ha, yeah, just wonder why they decide to design to go one-way, and not the other (even if one directional,) since assuming things on the craft is equally distributed weight-wise it wouldn't matter 'which' way to swing it around? Are their cultural biases towards a certain direction? Government grant right there!

ps: we should do more of letting folks experiment with 'just to see if you can' actually (within limits, depending on the types of science; or weaponry.  ;) ) Might come up with some interesting cool, new developments.

Computer modeling is quite advanced these days. Wind tunnels for model testing help as well. They have a pretty good idea what will work and what won't before they ever cut metal. My guess is that the models are pretty good up through about Mach 3-5. The shuttle helped gather some data between Mach 1 and Mach 25, but there is still stuff to be learned as speed increases past about Mach 5.  That's why they are having/had troubles with the scramjet. Fluid dynamics is way above my head.

Uncle Duke

Quote from: albrecht on February 02, 2016, 10:08:32 PM


ps: we should do more of letting folks experiment with 'just to see if you can' actually (within limits, depending on the types of science; or weaponry.  ;) ) Might come up with some interesting cool, new developments.

Problem with that approach is money.  With the ever tightening of the belt we see in the defense business these days, few are willing to spend precious dollars on "science projects" that cannot be matched to a funded requirement.   The war fighters are in much the same boat, hard to justify much of anything beyond defined mission capability when they are struggling to keep what they've got working due to increased operational tempo with no corresponding increase in serviceability/sustainment funding.  Just last month there was an article on one of the respected military aviation sites about USAF cutting back on preventative maintenance to save money and keep a/c operational until they break.

albrecht

Quote from: GravitySucks on February 02, 2016, 10:29:08 PM
Computer modeling is quite advanced these days. Wind tunnels for model testing help as well. They have a pretty good idea what will work and what won't before they ever cut metal. My guess is that the models are pretty good up through about Mach 3-5. The shuttle helped gather some data between Mach 1 and Mach 25, but there is still stuff to be learned as speed increases past about Mach 5.  That's why they are having/had troubles with the scramjet. Fluid dynamics is way above my head.
It is all above my head! Though I'm glad they are experimenting and hopefully the computer modelling, 3-D printing, and newer materials will make developments even cheaper and easier to test, use, bring to market safely. Though I also hope we don't totally eclipse the human element or make things too complicated for the 'average guy' to tinker with or maintain. I worry that, almost everything, is going 'to specialized' or 'patented' so that only the mfg or experts can, or will be allowed, to tinker with, fixed, etc (I've already seen some worrying things about tractors and cars with regard to this.)

Ciardelo

Quote from: albrecht on February 02, 2016, 10:40:18 PM
It is all above my head! Though I'm glad they are experimenting and hopefully the computer modelling, 3-D printing, and newer materials will make developments even cheaper and easier to test, use, bring to market safely. Though I also hope we don't totally eclipse the human element or make things too complicated for the 'average guy' to tinker with or maintain. I worry that, almost everything, is going 'to specialized' or 'patented' so that only the mfg or experts can, or will be allowed, to tinker with, fixed, etc (I've already seen some worrying things about tractors and cars with regard to this.)
How fast do you drive?

albrecht

Quote from: Ciardelo on February 02, 2016, 10:41:53 PM
How fast do you drive?
Mach-5. No, ha. I actually am a very safe driver. Speed kills. But I saw some article in Wired a while back about Deere and other companies trying to use stuff like the DMCA for some interesting things. I'll bet the TPP etc might make it worse, in theory. Many, well all, vehicles use software now and mfg are starting to assert their 'rights' there. Then with the govt mandated black-boxes, insurance companies being able to access (on occasion) and govt laws on smog, etc one could see even criminal penalties for 'doing stuff' at home (similar to how it is illegal, if attempting to defraud or to beat emissions, manipulating your old odometer, change your catalytic converter, etc.)
http://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere/

Ciardelo

Quote from: albrecht on February 02, 2016, 10:47:14 PM
Mach-5. No, ha. I actually am a very safe driver. Speed kills. But I saw some article in Wired a while back about Deere and other companies trying to use stuff like the DMCA for some interesting things. I'll bet the TPP etc might make it worse, in theory. Many, well all, vehicles use software now and mfg are starting to assert their 'rights' there. Then with the govt mandated black-boxes, insurance companies being able to access (on occasion) and govt laws on smog, etc one could see even criminal penalties for 'doing stuff' at home (similar to how it is illegal, if attempting to defraud or to beat emissions, manipulating your old odometer, change your catalytic converter, etc.)
http://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere/
Right. We have passed the point where we don't own the product. We just have a "license" to use it. I don't know of a way around it especially if the old models get declared illegal to operate on roads...I can see that coming. The way the politicians are taking in cash from the corporations, it may be sooner than later.

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod