In other words, this type of aircraft could someday be built large enough to ferry around people. But, Roy says, "we need to walk before we can run, so we're starting small. Roy is not sure what kind of energy source he will use yet. He anticipates that the craft's body will be made from a material that is an insulator such as ceramic, which is light and a good conductor of electricity.
The choice of a power source that is powerful, yet lightweight is "probably going to be the thing that makes or breaks it. Roy began designing the WEAV in The following year, he and Colozza wrote a paper for the now-defunct NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts NIAC about the use of electrohydrodynamics, or ionized particles, as an alternative to liquid fuel for powering space vehicles.
If he's successful, Roy hopes to develop a more stable aircraft and a new form of fuel—air. Other craft that interact with the atmosphere have a problem: moving parts, whether jet engines, propellers or rotors.
If these parts stop moving, the aircraft falls from the sky. The flying saucer, on the other hand, has no moving parts. In theory, the WEAV would be more stable than an aircraft—airplanes and helicopters, for example—that rely on aerodynamics to provide lift. Using a plasma field, "you could produce lift in any direction, you could change direction quickly and that power could be turned on or off almost instantly," Colozza says.
If the pilot wanted such an aircraft to move to the right, he or she would increase power to electrodes on the left side of the craft and vice versa for moving to the left. Electrodes on the bottom of the craft would power its lift, whereas those on top would bring the craft back down to Earth. Happily, seconds later, I exhaled with relief as the starship turned and sailed away at the kind of mind-boggling speed described by fighter pilots.
That summer, I was staying with my older brother, Tom. Tom chuckled, rolled his eyes, and made some wisecrack. But later in the day he told me that there were reports of sightings in the area that night. Even during my teen years, I figured that if I saw a UFO up close and so had definitive proof of intelligent life on other planets, my worldview would do a flip. My close encounter enhanced my empathy for sane people who have a singular insane type of experience that should, at least, shift their perspective on life.
What is to be done? Do you keep it to yourself and change your perspective on life? But what happened next—the precise manner in which flying saucers, as a concept, transferred from the mind of Kenneth Arnold to that of the nation—remains unclear. We know that Arnold had mentioned saucers in his discussions with reporters; but was he being literal, or metaphorical? Stories of the time credit Arnold with using the terms "saucer," "disk," and "pie-pan" in his description of the objects he'd seen.
Arnold himself, however, would say that he was misquoted—or, at least, taken out of context. Some argue that the entire idea of a flying saucer was based on a reporter's misunderstanding of Arnold's "like a saucer" description as describing a saucer itself— making it "one of the most significant reporter misquotes in history.
Arnold would corroborate this. In a interview with Edward R. Murrow , he discussed the interviews he'd given to military intelligence officers about what he'd seen. Murrow noted that the officials had doubted the accuracy of some of Arnold's descriptions of that sighting; Arnold blamed some of that on the media.
From the transcript :. Arnold was questioned by military intelligence. They expressed doubt as to the accuracy of some of his reported observations. Now of course some of the reports they did take from newspapers which did not quote me properly.
Now, when I told the press, they misquoted me, and in the excitement of it all, one newspaper and another on got it as ensnarled up that nobody knew just exactly what they were talking about, I guess.
ARNOLD: These objects more or less fluttered like they were, oh, I'd say, boats on very rough water or very rough air of some type, and when I described how they flew, I said that they flew like they take a saucer and throw it across the water. Most of the newspapers misunderstood and misquoted that too.
They said that I said that they were saucer-like; I said that they flew in a saucer-like fashion. While Mr. Arnold's original explanation has been forgotten, the term "flying saucer" has become a household word. Was it a "historical misquote," or the second thoughts of reluctant source? Just after the sighting, on June 27, Arnold would tell reporters that "I haven't had a moment of peace since I first told the story. The first draft of history can be a rough one. What is clear, in retrospect, is that, starting on June 26, the flying saucer—as an idea, if not an object—was introduced to Americans.
Newspapers began using the terms "flying saucer" and "flying disk" occasionally: "flying disc" to describe the objects Arnold had seen. On July 4, a United Airlines crew reported seeing another collection of nine disk-like objects in the skies over Idaho.
Bloecher, in his paper, collected reports of flying disc sightings in alone—gathered from newspapers from nearly every U. And when enough people look for something, some people will think they see something.
Reports of flying saucers started coming in from all over. Will Smith may not have been born in ; nonetheless, that year, the Will Smith effect was alive and well.
0コメント