Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Toys Hardware

Russians Invade with Flying Saucer 172

Posted by michael from the bem dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Russians Invade with Flying Saucer More

Russians Invade with Flying Saucer

Comments Filter:

  • Ever heard of the AVRO Car? (Score:5, Informative)

    by evil_one ( 142582 ) on Saturday December 20, 2003 @07:48PM (#7775795) Homepage
    AVRO Canada had a working flying saucer back in the height of the cold war.
    Link: http://www.avroarrow.org/Avrocar/Avrocar.html [avroarrow.org]

  • UFO sightings (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 20, 2003 @07:52PM (#7775821)
    I am a field investigator for MUFON [mufon.com]. 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.

    • Re:UFO sightings (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      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 Perusi
    • Id like to be a field investigator for muff on.

    • Re:UFO sightings (Score:5, Funny)

      by jamesh ( 87723 ) on Saturday December 20, 2003 @09:11PM (#7776232)
      Damn. They got to this post and moderated it 'Funny' so nobody would take it seriously.

    • Re:UFO sightings (Score:5, Insightful)

      by earthforce_1 ( 454968 ) <earthforce_1@y[ ]o.com ['aho' in gap]> on Saturday December 20, 2003 @10:43PM (#7776663) Journal

      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.

      • Re:UFO sightings & Microsoft (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        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...

      • Re:UFO sightings (Score:5, Insightful)

        by blincoln ( 592401 ) on Sunday December 21, 2003 @02:30AM (#7777548) Homepage Journal
        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.

        • Re:UFO sightings (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          "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

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

          Explain Velcro, then.

          • Explain Velcro, then.
            That you'll understand when you've grown old enough to grow a beard and leazy enough not to shave.
          • 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... ;-)
        • 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

          • Re:UFO sightings (Score:3, Insightful)

            by earthforce_1 ( 454968 )

            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
            • 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.
            • 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.
      • 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 en
    • 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.
      • 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.

    • 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 th

    • they come from your nose :-D

  • ALIENS (Score:2, Funny)

    by adot ( 730101 )
    That goes to prove russians really are aliens.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday December 20, 2003 @07:55PM (#7775849)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • 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 dig
    • 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

  • Covering all bases... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 20, 2003 @07:58PM (#7775869)
    In Soviet Russia, saucers belong to all bases welcoming new alien overlords.

  • Oh great. (Score:4, Funny)

    by iamdrscience ( 541136 ) on Saturday December 20, 2003 @07:58PM (#7775872) Homepage
    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?

  • no drugs necessary (Score:3, Funny)

    by dandelion_wine ( 625330 ) on Saturday December 20, 2003 @08:02PM (#7775887) Journal
    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.

    • Re:no drugs necessary (Score:3, Interesting)

      by wljones ( 79862 )
      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.
      • 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

  • The Dehn RingWing is another odd contraption... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 20, 2003 @08:07PM (#7775918)
    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

  • Wright Flyer vs Flying Saucer. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 20, 2003 @08:13PM (#7775951)
    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.

    • Re:Wright Flyer vs Flying Saucer. (Score:4, Informative)

      by uradu ( 10768 ) on Saturday December 20, 2003 @11:59PM (#7776958)
      > 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 [aviation-history.com], 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.
    • 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
  • sounds like it should come from /. circa 1957.

  • Oh No!!! (Score:5, Funny)

    by d3faultus3r ( 668799 ) <willpNO@SPAMearthlink.net> on Saturday December 20, 2003 @08:26PM (#7776018) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • "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...

  • Bad Design for Passengers.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by hopbine ( 618442 ) on Saturday December 20, 2003 @08:28PM (#7776034)
    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!!!

    • Re:Bad Design for Passengers.. (Score:5, Funny)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Saturday December 20, 2003 @08:53PM (#7776146) Homepage Journal
      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)

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

  • 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.

  • plan 9? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by martin-boundary ( 547041 ) on Saturday December 20, 2003 @08:54PM (#7776151)
    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?

    • Re:plan 9? (Score:2, Funny)

      by Kewjoe ( 307612 )
      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.

  • pita-bread-shaped? (Score:5, Funny)

    by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Saturday December 20, 2003 @08:58PM (#7776165) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • Ekip Aviation Concern Site (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 20, 2003 @09:41PM (#7776384)
    Check out http://www.ekip-aviation-concern.com/ [ekip-aviat...oncern.com] for a brouchure with lots of details and more pictures.

  • It's time for somebody to do this (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Saturday December 20, 2003 @10:22PM (#7776589) Homepage
    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.

    • Re:It's time for somebody to do this (Score:5, Interesting)

      by uradu ( 10768 ) on Sunday December 21, 2003 @12:41AM (#7777125)
      > 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 [se-technology.com]. That was a pretty awesome vehicle, even though ten jet engines sounds a bit ridiculous.
    • "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
  • 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, [imdb.com] 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.
  • Aside from the OS, I haven't seen the movie. Anyone care to describe what they're talking about?

    • Re:Haven't seen Plan 9 (Score:2, Informative)

      by DrEasy ( 559739 )
      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.
    • 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.
  • 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.

  • aliens (Score:5, Funny)

    by sklib ( 26440 ) on Sunday December 21, 2003 @02:19AM (#7777515)
    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.

  • 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!!!
  • Are you sure it's not shaped like a... saucer?
  • Could be useful as a rescue craft. Paint it green, and call it something exciting, like 'Thunderbird 2'.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close