James May on The Moon
Discussion
Burke lives in the US.
There was an article in this month's "Sky at Night" magazine by Cliff Mitchelmore on the BBC's coverage of the first moon landing.
The BBC's main presenters for the Apollo missions were Mitchelmore, Patrick Moore and James Burke. ALL of them were ex-RAF. Moore had been a navigator in Bomber Command - Burke and Mitchelmore had both been pilots.
We need people like this in the media - instead of media luvvies with a degree in Media Studies and a fixation on Reality Television.
There was an article in this month's "Sky at Night" magazine by Cliff Mitchelmore on the BBC's coverage of the first moon landing.
The BBC's main presenters for the Apollo missions were Mitchelmore, Patrick Moore and James Burke. ALL of them were ex-RAF. Moore had been a navigator in Bomber Command - Burke and Mitchelmore had both been pilots.
We need people like this in the media - instead of media luvvies with a degree in Media Studies and a fixation on Reality Television.
Some of the U2's capabilities are still classified so they don't tell us everything about it. I bet it has a higher ceiling than 70,000 feet too.
The Lighning had a rapid rate of climb for its day - but I reckon it would be outpaced by aircraft such as the F-15 and F-22 - which are much later technology.
Although the U-2 first flew in the mid 1950s, the versions in service today are much more recent - mid 80s. At one stage, the newer versions were given a different designation, the TR-1, but they reverted to a standard U-2 moniker in the 90s.
The Lighning had a rapid rate of climb for its day - but I reckon it would be outpaced by aircraft such as the F-15 and F-22 - which are much later technology.
Although the U-2 first flew in the mid 1950s, the versions in service today are much more recent - mid 80s. At one stage, the newer versions were given a different designation, the TR-1, but they reverted to a standard U-2 moniker in the 90s.
derestrictor said:
Eric, I'm being told by my chum Gandalf that Lightnings could hit in excess of 80,000 feet!
There's a place in SA which sells rides in these things; can you imagine?
They could, in a ballistic zoom climb - and the F-104N could hit 100,000 (it had a booster rocket in the tail). The SR-71 regularly cruised well above 70,000 (its true capabilities are also still classified).There's a place in SA which sells rides in these things; can you imagine?
The X-15 flew at up to 400,000 feet (nearly 70 miles).
Yep - the three X-15 aircarft flew 199 flights between 1958 and the end of the programme in 1968. According to Wiki, the highest flight achieved was in July 1963 when Joe Walker took an X-15 to an altidude of 347,424 feet (63.5 miles).
The fastest X-15 flight was carried out by Pete Knight in October 1967 when he reached 4,519 mph (Mach 6.7). The aircraft was so badly damaged by aerodynamic heating that it never flew again.
One cool, but dangerous, aeroplane.
The fastest X-15 flight was carried out by Pete Knight in October 1967 when he reached 4,519 mph (Mach 6.7). The aircraft was so badly damaged by aerodynamic heating that it never flew again.
One cool, but dangerous, aeroplane.
Dunk76 said:
The X-15 isn't really an aeroplane though is it? More of a guided Air to Surface Missile.
Regards the Lightning, I'm pretty sure it had the legs on an F-15. The F-22 does have a higher rate of climb, as does one other - but I can't recall what... possibly the Typhoon?
I seem to recall a story about Lightning in a Ballistic Climb 'intercepting' a U-2 over Blighty.
It flew aerodynamically (as opposed to ballistically) so it was a bona fide aeroplane. Its handling characteristics weren't an awful lot different to those of the F-104. That is why NASA and the USAF used the F-104 as a chase plane and converted one F-104 (the F-104N) with a booster rocket in the tail and with atitude thrusters in the nose and wingtips to give X-15 pilots some practice at using thrusters rather than conventional flight conmtrols for atitude control.Regards the Lightning, I'm pretty sure it had the legs on an F-15. The F-22 does have a higher rate of climb, as does one other - but I can't recall what... possibly the Typhoon?
I seem to recall a story about Lightning in a Ballistic Climb 'intercepting' a U-2 over Blighty.
Yeager crashed the F-104 (famously portrayed in the film, "The Right Stuff").
No, the U-2 pilot was correct.
The last X-15 flight was 41 years ago. The SR-71 was retired at the end of the 1990s.
The only current craft that take people higher than U-2s are Space Shuttles and Soyuz spacecraft - and the Space Shuttle is being retired next year.
Virgin Galactic intends to start X-15 type flights for paying passengers in the next few years.
The last X-15 flight was 41 years ago. The SR-71 was retired at the end of the 1990s.
The only current craft that take people higher than U-2s are Space Shuttles and Soyuz spacecraft - and the Space Shuttle is being retired next year.
Virgin Galactic intends to start X-15 type flights for paying passengers in the next few years.
Gridl0k said:
Eric Mc said:
No, the U-2 pilot was correct.
No, the U-2 pilot was either lying or just uninformed.I know the Blackbird (and X-15!) are both retired.
For a start, there's a fairly good chance at least one other U-2R was on a mission profile at the same time, which could have put him 15-30K feet higher.
Then there's the piggy-backing SSTO bird that flies/flew out of somewhere in the US (maybe even the illustrious Groom), and god knows what else they have "floating" about at ridiculous altitudes.
I mean, what are they replacing the shuttle with?
You can easily, of course, steer into 'conspiracy theory' stuff but fact is, there's people higher than they were.
Who are these people and what are they in?
How do you "know"? Are you an employee of the US Dpartment of Defense or the CIA?
The Shuttle is being replaced by the Ares/Constellation spacecraft - which will fly in 2015 at the earliest - if at all.
The USAF have had precious little to do with the Space Shuttle since the Challenger accident and have relied on their unmanned satellites and U-2s since 1986 (and the SR-71 until withdrawn).
Items "floating about" at ridiculous altitudes are ridiculously easy to see - so it is highly unlikely that there is anything up there that we don't know about - even if we aren't sure of its true purpose.
jmorgan said:
defblade said:
That was a great programme... I'm not James' biggest fan by any stretch, but that was good 
When he said (something like) "then they had to find men to sit on top of 7,000 tonnes of exposive" I was bouncing up and down saying "I'll do it! Still, now!"
Certain levels of "I'll do it" though. I would with Apollo but not with the shuttle. Hats off to them as well. Also someone has a finger on the button that can blow the whole lot up, crew or no crew should the need arise.When he said (something like) "then they had to find men to sit on top of 7,000 tonnes of exposive" I was bouncing up and down saying "I'll do it! Still, now!"
I would have a lot more faith riding a Saturn V (or any Saturn for that matter) than the rather iffy Shuttle system.
Gridl0k said:
Dunk76 said:
Looking at that Simon Ward MIG-25 flight, I'm not sure who'd I'd trust the least;
Russians in very old MIGs
or
South Africans in very old Lightnings.
You can guarantee (unless the offer was made by the US initially) the Beeb looked at both the Foxbat and Lightning options and ran away scared, ending up with a U-2R ride.Russians in very old MIGs
or
South Africans in very old Lightnings.
Who flies the U-2R, USAF or CIA? Or NRO?
The BBC sent one of their chaps up in one of the Thunder City Lightnings a couple of years ago for their "Earth - The Power of the Planet" series.
Regarding the U-2 operators, these days the U-2s are in the USAF inventory and carry full USAF markings and serials. Back in the 1950s however, the early U-2s were operated by the CIA nad carried no markings.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff