• May 19, 2020, 11:44 p.m.

    For some of you reading this, you probably think that UFOlogy is pseudoscience and intellectual tripe. For others, you may be a little more open-minded, and remain skeptically intrigued by the idea. We’re also sure that some of you are so-called “believers” in the phenomenon.

    We respect all of these views, although we’ll will state for the record that we don’t think aliens are here on Earth, at least not interacting with the governments of the world, or abducting hapless folks. This is less based on actual evidence (there is none really either way) and more just on logic: if the advanced technology implied by interstellar travel is used by these aliens, they would have very little interest in interacting with us openly, or even covertly; no doubt they’d prefer to study us remotely with technology too advanced for us to notice them. Any biological data they needed they could probably gather quite covertly, or in small, unnoticeable amounts - enough to be useful in their missions. We are not digressing here, merely pointing out how unlikely it is that the cause of worldwide UFO sightings is down to aliens. While we can’t disprove the possibility for ALL cases, only that it should always be considered a remote one.

    It is was with this mindset that @Stellarator#1218, @Dr. λᵐᵉʳᶤᶜᵃ#1776 and @destrucules#7325, with some help by other folks over on the SpaceEngine Universe Simulator Discord server, approached solving a persistent mystery in the field of UFOlogy: what is the nature of the so-called giant “black triangles“?

    Black Triangle Phenomenon Overview:
    Whether you are a believer in the reality of UFOs (either of alien origin or not) or just have a casual familiarity with the subject - you will no doubt know what we are talking about. The so-called black triangles, which in this context also include craft shaped like boomerangs and wedges, are a (in)famous type of UFO phenomenon sighted world-wide starting in the 50s, but usually confined to sightings in North America and Europe - especially during the 80s and 90s. The most well known case, and in our eyes the most defensible as a sighting of one of these craft, are the “Phoenix Lights” of 1997.
    We are not explicitly saying that all of these cases (the most famous of which you can Google for yourself) are real sightings - after all, people lie even when what they reporting actually happens elsewhere. However, the fact that many are mass sightings, wherein it would be hard to organize people to lie congruently and systematically, strengthens these cases in our eyes. We are only stating that, contrary to poplar belief, the sightings of these craft that we believe are real (take the Phoenix Lights, for example) are in fact truthful reports of craft operated by humans (or are unmanned drones) whose methods of flight do not in fact violate any laws of physics - or indeed are not hard to conceive of!

    Craft Design Overview:
    It is a common theory that these black triangles are secret government technology being used for reconnaissance. Unfortunately there is no good census on the exact details of the matter. The theories in the UFOlogy communities are usually baseless and conspiratorial, claiming that the black triangles are made with reverse engineered alien technology; utilizing antigravity capabilities and “free energy” to fly. On the other hand, more conventional experts in physics and engineering dismiss the sightings of black triangles like the sightings of all UFOs: they are either misidentified aircraft, natural phenomenon or fantasy.

    There is a middle ground here, and one that myself and my co-researchers are convinced is the real explanation, at least for most sightings. We believe that these craft are so-called ATOs (Airship To Orbit) craft used by NATO military, utilizing ionic thrust for propulsion and a compact nuclear fission reactor to power them. Keep in mind though that it is not the purpose of this work to explain the nature of ALL UFOs, or even of all black triangle sightings. We only think that the following speculation and research represents a reasonable explanation for a sizable population of black triangle sightings.


    I will not go into details regarding the mechanics of the JP Aerospace craft that inspired us to do this research. You can investigate it for yourself with the following links:





    Needless to say, within the context of black triangle UFOs, the details of the ATO and Ascender craft discussed above present compelling evidence that these are viable aircraft, capable of seemingly gravity-defying feats due to their propulsion techniques and negligible overall weight. We also assume that the military has had this technology since the 60s, made for them by various companies, as this interview with the JP Aerospace Company founder tells us:


    The above models seem to be civilian or corporate derivatives of military models that are used for high-atmospheric research. It is implied here that the military models use different specs in order to fulfill longer and harsher usage, such as sustained high atmospheric recon missions that might go on for days, if not weeks. In order to fulfill these missions, the craft would need attain impressive speeds and be invisible to ground and radar observation. All of this would require versatile and persistent engines, and a very energy-dense power source with energy yields far greater than the solar-cells of the JP Aerospace ATO would be able to offer. Conceptually this design is actually quite simple, and in line with the observed behavior and appearance of such black triangles and boomerang craft.

    The basic design of both the military and private ATOs seems to be that of a dirigible, with a more unconventional shape. The “arms” of the boomerang vessels, and the majority area of the triangles, is taken up by dirigible balloons, most likely filled with helium. Another component to this shape is the ballast system, which will be explored more below. A cockpit is likely situated somewhere near the center top of the craft, with accompanying life support systems, although we think that most of these would be unmanned (especially near the end of the century, when computer systems were more advanced). Such an area in the unmanned models would no doubt contain the computer systems that control the craft. The frame to support the balloons, ballasts and other components would probably be made of aluminium, along with other metals for other purposes.

    In JP Aerospace designs, the boomerang shape seems to be used to incorporate conventional chemical rockets for thrust all along the boomerang arms, and to maximise efficiency for high-speed atmospheric ascent. Since rockets and their attributed sounds were never noticed by people who have seen these craft, we think that the military models have ionized air accelerating along the arms of the boomerang craft or along the edges of the triangles in order to provide ionic thrust. Thus, this is less of a blimp, and more of a blimp and ionocraft in one.
    In the center of the triangle, or nose of the boomerang, we have a megawatt reactor (see below), with a lightweight aluminium frame that supports the integrated computer systems around it. Around this reactor, we are led to believe that there a dynamo hosting a donut of quickly-rotating, highly pressurized liquid metal. We cannot say whether or not it's hydrogen, only that it may be possible, but would require extreme pressures, while in turn reducing weight considerably. If it’s not hydrogen, it would almost certainly be sodium metal. Whatever substance it is, it’s spun at high velocity to transform reactor output into the high voltage needed for the ion engines. To increase the quality and power of the containment magnetic field, this toroid could have a twisted structure a little like a stellarator.
    Along each arm of the boomerangs, or corners of the triangle, there are landing or indicator lights that come on if the craft decreases in altitude (which in most public sightings, we think is caused by the reactor overheating, see below). High amounts of energy (the exact value is not known) is pumped through the outer frame for the ionocraft to build up the ionic charge needed to propel itself quickly and silently, albeit besides a low buzzing heard by some onlookers. The central reactor may at times superheat the ceramics/glass/composite material that is built around the reactor if the coolant somehow fails or is misapplied, which is why the central light is seen to glow red. There is a ballast system filled with helium or hydrogen. As the reactor heats up, heat is pumped through the frame and into the gas system which lowers density and maintains pressure, this allows for high atmospheric flight for same input.
    As we mentioned before, these may be unmanned by default, but with a small cockpit and accompanying maintenance shafts. People may sometimes stay in the craft to do diagnostics and such, but for high altitude missions, these things would stay near the top of the atmosphere for months at a time. Paying for life support systems is absurd - although the smaller craft, which would be easier to make and field, it might be able to support a human crew due to the shorter mission durations the smaller reactor would entail.

    Reactor & Ballast System:
    As we noted above, based on ground-based observations, it would seem that the center light is a heat glow from an overheating the reactor. Fission reactors (especially experimental ones!) generate huge amounts of heat, and the heat has to be pumped out very quickly. So if the coolant system somehow failed, the heat would fluctuate very quickly, thus leading to the pulsating central light of the triangle that can typically be seen if this craft is ever spotted at a lower altitude. This seems to be the only time when people get to see these - when the craft malfunctions and overheats. Such a malfunction would lead to less electrical gain from the reactor, less ionic propulsion and hence a decrease in altitude.
    We suspect that in normal operation, there wouldn't be any glow whatsoever. Any glow in the center has to be a sign of failure, since that's the worst possible place for you to try to radiate heat on purpose.
    The totality of our theory is that this is a very stripped down fission reactor. We are thinking that it’s something along the lines of a successor to the Heat Transfer Reactor Experiment (HTRE) 1 through 3 series of reactors that were to be used in nuclear-powered aircraft back in the 50s and 60s. Basically no shielding and a very shitty coolant system, probably using a high pressure cryogenic coolant like liquid helium (although liquid hydrogen could also make sense) that disperses heat to radiators near the outside of the craft. This sort of technology is fairly in line with what the military was researching and using since the 1950s.
    One might question all of the apparent weaknesses evident to this system, and you would be right to. But, if having a lightweight compact reactor with high energy output as your power supply is your end goal, it makes sense for them to skimp on shielding and heat management, and so the failure mode described above is exactly what we’d expect for such a craft. Additionally, given the number of sightings, it does seem to be a common failure mode. Whether or not this affects its field operation during a mission is unknown, as these things have been sighted worldwide. Presumably the reason why the public sees it more than foreign militaries is either because these are only tests working under new experimental parameters, or that most locations they visit are so remote that a brief loss in altitude (most are only sighted for a few minutes) doesn’t matter as much unless ground observers are actively looking for them (which they probably wouldn‘t, at least for most of the century since drone technology wasn‘t around).

    So, you might ask how we are so sure that ion engines are being used for propulsion? This is mainly based on observations of these craft by qualified observers or by mass-sightings. In all cases, these craft operate completely silently, besides exhibiting a low humming or hissing. This seems to indicate that these are ion craft, as no other method of fast propulsion matches observations. For an ion engine to be efficient, you want to accelerate the air molecules at extremely high speeds. You’d accomplish this with a source of extremely high voltages and a long distance over which to pump kinetic energy into the air molecules. This length could be the “arms” of the boomerang, or the edges of the triangles. Ionized air molecules would be wrapped around and accelerated along the wings of the boomerang-shaped craft, or along the edges of the triangle-shaped craft to provide thrust. As this happens, there is a distinct hissing sound, along with a build-up of plasma accumulating on the craft. Both types of phenomenon are heard and seen, respectively, by observers in (some) of the sightings of these craft, at least from within a few hundred meters or so away. More convincingly, when such craft are seen close to the ground, arcs of lightning are supposedly seen. This is in line with the behaviour of highly ionized materials grounding out when they near charged parts of the ground.
    Altogether, this indicates that these are giant blimps (estimates suggest that the largest of these craft measure over a mile along one boomerang arm or triangle edge, although with most being smaller than the average blimp due to ionocraft propulsion), and appear to defy gravity because of the combination propulsion. Due to the fact that these craft are expected to travel very long distances and for a lengthy time, ionic propulsion makes sense.

    The first question that anyone with any knowledge of aviation might ask is how the military had such advanced technology for its time. If what we have written on is true, then that would mean NATO military forces had access to advanced compact nuclear generators, functional liquid metal dynamos and highly advanced ion craft technology. This does seem a little too high tech for the 1950s when these things were originally (we think) conceived and built. However, it is not a stretch to think that the military has a distinct advantage over the public as far as testing and using technology goes, especially as time went on and the science of these vessels was perfected and improved. Some technology is known to have been classified for years, even decades. That this craft has had a continued usage suggests that the military has good security reasons for keeping most of this tech classified.
    You might also ask why the military would invest in such a craft for surveillance purposes when spy planes were being made during the time, and satellites were on a similar path? Well, one obvious explanation is that the military experiments with lots of craft that are not necessarily practical. The reasoning of “lets experiment with these designs and see what sticks” is pretty much the only justification many top military spenders need to follow-through expensive research into technology. However, the fact that this design is still in use means they've found some purpose for it. Another explanation becomes evident once you look into the capabilities of these craft. While they aren’t very war worthy ships, they do seem to actually fulfill a reconnaissance role far more efficiently than spy planes or satellites. With its reactor, the boomerang and triangular craft can cruise in the high atmosphere for weeks, maybe even months. With its larger size, more useful and larger pieces of surveillance equipment might be storable on them then on satellites. Plus their height and any radar-deflecting alterations would make them completely invisible to any enemy observations. In addition, these would be easy to store, as the majority of bulk is taken up by the balloons, which can be deflated and wrapped around the ultra-compact reactor.
    The fact that we (the public) are still are not fully privy to their secrets and design means that they must be effective enough at this job to be still strategically viable. The design is not perfect, of course, but given the initial capabilities, such ships seem like a money pit that looks like it would eventually promise greater returns if you keep pushing it. The United States seem to be particularly exemplary in regard to this style of military research.
    To justify the importance of these craft, one can also look to the blank areas of the last 60 years of aerospace development and the empty spot of FOIA requests on nuclear engines in aircraft, the research into stealth blimps, the know how of an ion craft and the energy required to lift an airplane with such technology. It is not at all a surprising conclusion to make that if all of this “dark” technology was crammed together, the "TR-3B" UFOs are the result people would see.
    Why NOT share this sooner with the public, beyond the ones powered by chemicals rockets as with the JP Aerospace design? Probably due to the ban on having nuclear-powered aircraft, and their unpopularity as a concept. Nuclear powered aircraft were originally conceived of to be used as weapons delivery systems, however, ICBMs were refined and perfected, and shorter range missiles could be delivered with submarines.


    What we have laid out here was essentially the “Stealth Blimp” theory, which is one that is less known in UFOlogy communities, and more accepted among conventional academia. It is mainly objected to by both circles because it suggests that blimps are a viable technology for military purposes, when generally they are seen by engineers as not being ideal. However, we have it from a trusted, but undisclosed source that this technology is being used. It would seem that this fusion of technology is dismissed by the military in order to distract onlookers from their black-budget activities. We might even go so far as to state that it is likely that the military might say they have alien technology powering these crafts, for the sake of humor or misdirection. At any rate it is purposefully dismissed by the military due to it’s strategic usage, and the fallout that may occur if the public realizes that their military was flying nuclear reactors above their heads. To speculate even further, it is entirely possible that one usage of these crafts is to gauge the reaction of the public in response to sighting alien-seeming craft.
    Of all the research done on this subject, only Robert Bigelow’s NIDS foundation ever took this route, and their finds have sadly been mostly forgotten. We believe that most so-called researchers are either biased in believing that what is being seen is just a hoax or misidentified objects, or are keen on keeping the “mystery” of it alive for the sake of profit. Even if our findings here are in error in some way, this is at the very least a step in the right direct, away from either total denial or whacky speculation.
    Bear in mind that these findings are based on two days of Discord conversations (albeit, among with very informed and educated individuals, several of whom hold university degrees, with extra input from others), so that is why we haven’t pulled up equations describing the energy requirements, mass-to-thrust ratios or similar, harder proofs to support our conclusion - which was drawn entirely from our shared studies of UFOlogy and physics in general.


    PNG, 114.9 KB, uploaded by Stellarator on May 19, 2020.

  • May 20, 2020, 12:52 a.m.

    Where do they store these dirigibles during the day time?

  • May 20, 2020, 7:44 a.m.

    As we said at the end of the second paragraph under the "Viability" section, these should be very easy to store, either in a hanger or underground. Indeed, considering all of the potentially dangerous equipment aboard (like the reactors), underground storage might be preferable. But that is just speculation, an aircraft hanger might do just as well.

    Almost all of the bulk of these vessels is taken up by the dirigible balloons, which should be quite easy to de-pressurize, deflate and fold up (or remove entirely) around the reactor and any computer systems onboard. The frame supporting all of this could be collapsible as well.

  • bookmark_border

    Thread has been pinned locally.

  • May 21, 2020, 6:40 a.m.

    Airship to Orbit vehicles are over 1 mile long I don't think there is going to be anything easy about storing them. These things are just too big to hide in my opinion.

  • May 21, 2020, 12:44 p.m.

    If they were undeflated, then yes, storing them would be tricky at best, unless you had underground hangers to house them (unlikely given the inferred size). However, I'll repeat my point again that there is no reason to believe that these things would be stored fully inflated. It is VERY likely that the dirigible portions are deflated and removed. Also, the mile long vessels, while impressive, are probably few in number. Most would be of a smaller size, similar to the Ascender craft filmed here:


  • May 21, 2020, 10:07 p.m.

    Thanks for posting the video. My understanding of how this system work is you have 1st stage smaller ascender craft that bring cargo and materials to a floating stationary second stage. From that second stage the cargo and materials are loaded onto the these mile long air ships and flown into orbit over the course of 9 days. Once these mile long airships are built and launched, they are going to be in the air quite a while, perhaps their entire service life. Even smaller ascender craft are going to be in the air quite a while. Dirigibles just don't move that fast.

    I don't know anything about inflating/deflating dirigibles and launching them so I can't say that you are wrong. My "common sense" suggest it is a process that takes a lot of time and labor and probably could not be kept a secret. People have taken pictures of the X37 in orbit with its solar panels deployed. No attempt is made to keep the X37 existence and launches a secret because doing so would be futile. The craft used in airship to orbit systems have to be substantially larger than the X37. If amateurs are taking pictures of the very small X37 in orbit, surely they would be getting pictures of these craft. I just don't see it possible to keep something like that a secret.

    People sighting multiple planes at night flying in a formation and confusing that with a large single triangular shaped UFO seems like a more plausible explanation to me.

    X37 in orbit

  • May 22, 2020, 8:58 a.m.

    What you say describes what the JP Aerospace folks are doing, and it's a pretty neat system. I only wish I could find more about it online, but alas, the JPA website and the affiliated YT channels (plus some random references here and there) are all that I could find. In any case, as we said, these Ascender/ ATO vessels seem to be derivatives of the military models (due to how it's probably illegal for companies to test aircraft with nuclear reactors on board!) and as such do not have similar capabilities.

    It's true, dirigibles that gain power from onboard batteries or solar cells, and propel themselves with either dirigible motor engines (as with some of the heftier Ascender models) or a series of modified chemical rockets (as with the monster ATOs) would take days to achieve top speed, and might be fairly noticeable. However, a vessel like the reported "TR-3B"s and other black triangle/ boomerang craft seem to be powered by compact nuclear reactors, which provide the required high amounts of energy to ion engines (whose function is described above), which seem to be able to accelerate and decelerate faster than more conventional means. Me and my colleagues are keen to try and figure out how fast they can go, how quickly they can achieve speed or stop, and how much power these operations demand.

    We are aware that the bane of most conspiracies and cover-ups is the amount of people involved. Tbh I have no good answer to this, besides offering the possibility that perhaps less people are involved with this than we think (beyond some engineers, technicians and airbase personnel). I can't see deflating a dirigible being too difficult.
    Chances are you could compartmentalize handling the indirect (as in storing) handling of vessel components so that nobody really knew what exactly they were dealing with, and intimidate any others into silence. Since the military does operate on a strict need-to-know basis with projects of this nature, and coercing a technician into silence by threatening his family would be effective, I could imagine these things being covered up quite adequately. Any whistleblowers who slip through security can just be called loonies and conspiracy theorists. That's just for handling these vessels. As for designing them, that's even easier to covver. Teams of scientists could work on separate components, and you just have one small engineer team combine the results. The origins of the technology used in these craft (like compact reactors and ion technology) is desperate throughout aviation history, and would have been easy to source because of this. As for manufacturing, we know from THIS interview with the founder of JP Aerospace that companies have been making stealth dirigibles for decades. Just because no-one "blew the lid" on these projects doesn't mean that they don't exist!

    I would argue that these craft, and modern spy planes like the X37 or SR-72, are completely different in nature and operation, and thus the prerequisites for observing and imaging them cannot be compared. As you say, the X-series spy planes aren't really much of a secret. Their origins and plans of construction were fairly well-known, and their test parameters are fairly easy to predict. If you had modern equipment (as the fellow who captured the test being done had), it should possible (although exceedingly difficult!) to find and capture footage. These factors do not apply to the "black triangle" craft.
    First of, the public has little to no knowledge of their existence, and so cannot predict where to look for them.
    Second of, because the bulk of their testing (presumably) took place decades ago, AND was mainly in the high atmosphere OR close to the ground in remote areas, it would likely be impossible for anyone avid enough to try and spot secret government technology to observe these vessels with the equipment of the time that was available to citizens, much less capture good footage of them. That is not to say that we of course never see these. As my original post states, these things are apparently subject to malfunction, and may descend during such an event. Thus, people can see them, although the craft seemly manage to get away before good footage can be captured. Rather like ball lightening, the event is too sudden and alien for people to adequately react to.
    Third, the black triangles and boomerangs do not fly like planes, and as such cannot be anticipated to have footage captured of them in the manner one may capture footage of a low-flying spy plane or nigh-space bound space plane.

    I strongly argue against sightings of these craft being misidentified airplanes or helicopters. I DO acknowledge that many sightings of these craft may have been faked, due to their prevalence in the UFO community, and that certain unqualified observers might mistake them with normal aircraft or natural phenomenon. But the cases of mass sightings, along with reports made by highly-qualified observers (like pilots or military men) are hard to counter with saying that these people are lying or delusional.

    Take the Phoenix Lights for example. These were stationary lights in the sky, apparently emanating from a completely silent, but huge craft. Take a look at the original footage for yourself (apologies for the terrible quality, it was 1997 after all):
    And compare to what happened when the airforce tried to recreate the scene with combat flares:
    In case you think the above video is biased, check out these flares (you'll notice how quickly they fade in comparison to the Phoenix Lights, and how different they look):

  • Feb. 3, 2021, 3:01 p.m.

    Airship to orbit is a weird and fun problem to work out.

    At first you think 'Ridiculous! Airships are big and floppy and full of drag. No way could you reach orbital speed without exploding.'

    But then you think 'Wait, there's no drag in a vacuum, and at high altitude air density is nearly vacuum.' How fast can a balloon really go up there?

    To find out, let's start with some real-life airship parameters...

    The highest an airship has ever gone is about 50 kilometers above sea level. Then we will use the US Los Angeles (USLA), a real airship with known max speed, but make it light enough to be neutrally buoyant at 50 km altitude, and see how fast it can go in that air density.

    Stats on the US Los Angeles to plug in:
    radius = 13.8 meters (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Los_Angeles_(ZR-3))
    resistance_area = Math.PI * radius * radius = 598 square meters (circular profile)
    top_speed = 89 kph (24.72 meters per second)
    drag_coefficient = 0.023 (ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19930091470)

    Our math will be mostly the terminal velocity equation: (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_velocity#Physics). This is the same terminal velocity skydivers use. It only refers to the point at which air friction cancels out your thrust and your speed plateaus.

    Before we start, we have to calculate the thrust of the USLA, given that its top speed was 89 kph (24.72 meters per second) at about sea level. Using the terminal V equation backward, solved for thrust, plug in 24.72 for terminal_v under full power:

    thrust = (terminal_v * terminal_v * (resistance_area * drag_coefficient)) / 2.0;

    So the USLA's thrust would have been about 5363 newtons.

    Now that we know thrust, how fast can the USLA go at 50,000 meters altitude on 5363 newtons thrust?

    Air density at that altitude is = 0.001027 kg per cubic meter. (www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html)

    So we plug all our values into the terminal V equation the normal way to get max speed:

    terminal_v = sqrt((2.0 * thrust) / (air_density * resistance_area * drag_coefficient));

    and you get 871 meters per second (1,948 miles per hour = mach 2.5)!
    LEO speed is 7800 meters per second, so that's over 11% of orbital speed!

    Not bad for a big floppy air bag.

    Of course the US Los Angeles propellers won't work at that altitude, so we'd assume this thrust is delivered by rockets.

    While these parameters can't reach orbital speed, you could maybe run a 'first stage' service to deliver rockets to 11% orbital speed in near-vacuum before they launch. I think this would save the rocket more than 11% of its fuel because a rocket's worst mileage is at the start of its trip, when it is carrying the most fuel.

    All the math is in Java code in case anyone wants to plug in their own parameters.

  • Feb. 5, 2021, 4:25 p.m.

    Playing with parameters some more...

    If you increase the USLA's thrust by about 20% to 7728 newtons, and you somehow achieve neutral buoyancy at 80 kilometers altitude, then your airship's terminal velocity will be orbital speed and your balloon can leave the planet.

    Atmospheric density at 80km is 0.00001846 of what it is at sea level though. This means that our airship needs to have 54,171 times the volume of the USLA while retaining the same drag and mass. (Taking the cube root, that is equivalent to making the USLA 38 times bigger in height, width and depth.)

    Or if you like, keep the USLA the same size but make it 0.00001846 of its original mass. I don't have the dry weight of the USLA, but within the same order of magnitude, the Hindenburg weighed 215,002.78 kg (474,000 lbs en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg-class_airship).

    So 215,002.78 kg * 0.00001846 = 3.9 kg maximum mass.

    So yes, airship to orbit is possible if your ship is as big as a zeppelin with a little more thrust, and a total mass of about 4 kilograms (8.5 lbs). That weight must include gas, rockets, payload and everything. We may be talking about a vacuum dirigible (as in The Diamond Age?)

    You might benefit by replacing your ion rocket with some kind of ion jet, using ambient air as reaction mass. That way you won't need to worry about low specific impulse or carrying a lot of heavy fuel. Conveniently, 80km is right in the ionosphere so your air is already charged and ready to be pushed.

  • Feb. 6, 2021, 7:40 a.m.

    An excellent analysis! When my friends and I were playing around with the concept, we did not do much in the way of calculating such things, or include them into our thought process further than is neccassary to formulate the idea. This is very much a "proof of concept" write up, rather than a technical one. But one day, when I'm less busy, I'd love to dive into the technical nitty gritty details as much as possible, and really see if this concept could do the things these boomerang and black triangle craft are seen doing.

    While the JP Aerospace ATOs seem to use chemical rockets to get to orbital speed, the high atmosphere "UFO" craft reported here we think are using electrohydodynamic thrust, of a type seen in concept planes made by high end universities and corporations these days. Certainly the extravagantly long arms of the boomerangs, the unusual shapes of the triangles, the hissing ad sparks seen when they fly and the silence at which they do so all support this claim. Such propulsion is useless for space travel. but this is not what these are used for, seemingly. Recon work is their primary purpose. Any thoughts on that?



  • Feb. 10, 2021, 7 p.m.

    Yes I was thinking along the same lines. EHD thrusters count as electronic 'jets' in that they react against ambient air. But maybe we could take it one step further with oscillating charges on the surface of the airship:


    Positive charges are red, negative are blue, and the thin black lines are lightweight high-voltage low-current wires doing the 'wave'. This assumes the atmosphere is already ionized.

    1. It uses its whole gas envelope surface for traction against the air. (Could this even reduce drag?)
    2. Nothing interrupts the streamlining of the hull shape.
    3. You can dial in any speed you like by tuning the ring frequency.
    4. The drive does not have to decelerate oncoming air to push against it.

    1. It needs electricity! Lightweight power sources might be out of reach for today's technology.

    Even without hitting orbit, I would love to see a whole menagerie of giant filmy airships oozing around in the ionosphere. Their aerodynamics would be neither for space or for sea level, but more like the environment inside of a novelty plasma globe.

    That said, maybe you could reach orbit on a jet if you built up enough inertia before leaving the atmosphere, kind of like a whale breaching out of the sea. Or, maybe after jets get you to the very edge, ion rockets power up as the second stage for the rest of the trip.

    If I was JP Aerospace, I would make propulsion research a top priority. The only difference between airship-to-orbit and a weather balloon is ATO can go sideways. I would invest in a low-pressure wind tunnel and test the heck out of every EHD configuration I could think of. They're probably smart to start with chemical rockets though, that will get a lot of data.


    GIF, 304.8 KB, uploaded by MultiTool on Feb. 10, 2021.

  • Feb. 11, 2021, 8:55 a.m.

    Ah, I see you've fallen into the trap myself and my colleagues did when first we were investigating this. At first we thought it was just an interesting idea, but the more we learned about it, the more plausible it began to sound to us!

    Wow! This is really interesting. My question is how would a triangular or boomerang shape play with this configuration? I know that the JP Aerospace craft are shaped the way that they are for very specific reasons, but in your illustration you have the craft in a more traditional dirigible shape for the sake of being streamlined.

    Visual cues are another thing to consider. When close to the ground, folks would report these things sparking or arcing with small bolts of electricity, which connected to the ground (a sign of the soil being charged?). Sometimes a very bright white light can be seen along a edge, in the case of the triangles.

    I think the compact nuclear reactors we've seen in development since the 50s would serve this purpose very well.

    JP Aerospace does mention that they use a hybrid electric/ chemical rocket propulsion system to fly their craft. It's frustrating that they don't give away more info.

  • Feb. 13, 2021, 7:29 p.m.

    Yes it is quite addictive. I think it is because its weirdness, and the promise of really cheap hobby access to space. I am a big fan of paradoxes.

    I'm using Zeppelin shapes because it's so easy to get data on them. If we had good data and math on JP's V-shaped craft it'd be cool to do that too, but as you say there isn't much information yet. Fish are good at fluid dynamics though, so a fish-shaped craft is still valid.

    And we can still do art!




    GIF, 77.6 KB, uploaded by MultiTool on Feb. 13, 2021.


    GIF, 175.2 KB, uploaded by MultiTool on Feb. 13, 2021.

  • Feb. 19, 2021, 5:26 a.m.

    Hi all! While I'm slightly new to posting, I just wanted to chime in on all of this- I have witnessed TWO of these black triangles. One of them was 100ft away or less.
    While this happened in 2014, I made sure to write down everything and draw everything I could (I have an arts background) and have spent a lot of years digesting my sighting and the sightings of others. I could go on and on about how these things looked moved, and made no sound, but instead
    basically, I'm convinced these craft are operating under branches of physics that are not discovered or available to the public.
    Nothing that big can move so fast or turn invisible without a sound. It is either advanced earth tech, or ET is here doing a terrible job of hiding.

  • Feb. 19, 2021, 3:32 p.m.

    We'd love to see your drawings! Just hit the upload icon (up arrow) at the bottom of the comment editor.