NASA Scramjet breaks record
-
Steve Mayfield wrote: of course, they would probably have to peal you out of your seat Fish you out of the Atlantic more like.
Steve Mayfield wrote: peal you out of your seat :~ Shouldn't that be brush - at the quoted temprature of 1,650 degrees Celsius you will be more than just fried.
-
Steve Mayfield wrote: peal you out of your seat :~ Shouldn't that be brush - at the quoted temprature of 1,650 degrees Celsius you will be more than just fried.
-
Sorry - its corrected but I don't know how to move it to the correct place.:-O
-
just under 7,000 mph (around Mach 9.6) for about 20 seconds[^] NASA said it had no plans to recover Tuesday's test craft. Instead, the remains sank into the Pacific, in accordance with standard procedure for the scramjet tests. If they can commercialize this technology, you could board a plane in New York at 4PM and arrive in Los Angeles at 1:20PM (of course, they would probably have to peal you out of your seat) :-D Steve
Steve Mayfield wrote: (around Mach 9.6) :wtf: :omg: :cool: And commuters everywhere wish they had one :-)
-
just under 7,000 mph (around Mach 9.6) for about 20 seconds[^] NASA said it had no plans to recover Tuesday's test craft. Instead, the remains sank into the Pacific, in accordance with standard procedure for the scramjet tests. If they can commercialize this technology, you could board a plane in New York at 4PM and arrive in Los Angeles at 1:20PM (of course, they would probably have to peal you out of your seat) :-D Steve
I wonder if they cruise with a slight downward vector so they don't go orbital.
-
I wonder if they cruise with a slight downward vector so they don't go orbital.
Jeff Bogan wrote: I wonder if they cruise with a slight downward vector so they don't go orbital. Not quite fast enough to go fully orbital. I would expect more than likely that they shoot just above tangent to the earth so that gravity pulls it to tangent plane. Altitude wise you can assist speed on acceration because you would be dropping in altitude over the first half of the flight while gaining speed. Second half would be rising in altitude. So yes, I do expect that you are correct in having a downward vector from the starting point, but not to go orbital. They need to fire much longer for that. But I am just guessing. NASA comes here, but I haven't worked closely with them. They have the PhD's for that stuff. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
just under 7,000 mph (around Mach 9.6) for about 20 seconds[^] NASA said it had no plans to recover Tuesday's test craft. Instead, the remains sank into the Pacific, in accordance with standard procedure for the scramjet tests. If they can commercialize this technology, you could board a plane in New York at 4PM and arrive in Los Angeles at 1:20PM (of course, they would probably have to peal you out of your seat) :-D Steve
But if you have to land the damn planes in the open ocean like that, it's gonna be a pretty long walk to the terminal for the passengers. File this under "Slightly Impractical". ------- sig starts "I've heard some drivers saying, 'We're going too fast here...'. If you're not here to race, go the hell home - don't come here and grumble about going too fast. Why don't you tie a kerosene rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
-
But if you have to land the damn planes in the open ocean like that, it's gonna be a pretty long walk to the terminal for the passengers. File this under "Slightly Impractical". ------- sig starts "I've heard some drivers saying, 'We're going too fast here...'. If you're not here to race, go the hell home - don't come here and grumble about going too fast. Why don't you tie a kerosene rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
It will all become obsolete when Transporter (several TV series including Star Trek), Hyperspace (Star Wars) or Interdimensional Travel (Earth Final Conflict) technology becomes a reality. ;) Steve
-
It will all become obsolete when Transporter (several TV series including Star Trek), Hyperspace (Star Wars) or Interdimensional Travel (Earth Final Conflict) technology becomes a reality. ;) Steve
Steve Mayfield wrote: It will all become obsolete when Transporter (several TV series including Star Trek), Hyperspace (Star Wars) or Interdimensional Travel (Earth Final Conflict) technology becomes a reality. yup, but I am busy tied up with unmanned aerial vehicles this week, and autonomous ground forces for the rest of the year. But I will try to get on that as soon as possible. :rolleyes: actually... one of my favorite stories is the guy who invented ion propulstion for NASA deep space probes. There was an episode in Star Trek (spock's brain), there is a reference to Ion propulsion being more advanced than warp engines. The guy who did it ignored it as everyone did as being infeasable because we hadn't discovered warp fields yet. I don't know how, but it struck him one day how to do it, and then proved it. Science fiction is often an eye to the future, but not always the best eye. If I don't show up here for a few months, you know I figured out how to emmerse myself in a 3D environment (James P. Hogan, Real-time Interrupt, and others). _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Jeff Bogan wrote: I wonder if they cruise with a slight downward vector so they don't go orbital. Not quite fast enough to go fully orbital. I would expect more than likely that they shoot just above tangent to the earth so that gravity pulls it to tangent plane. Altitude wise you can assist speed on acceration because you would be dropping in altitude over the first half of the flight while gaining speed. Second half would be rising in altitude. So yes, I do expect that you are correct in having a downward vector from the starting point, but not to go orbital. They need to fire much longer for that. But I am just guessing. NASA comes here, but I haven't worked closely with them. They have the PhD's for that stuff. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote: Not quite fast enough to go fully orbital. Ummm no, not quite. You need to get to about 25000kmh (~15500mph) to do that :)
Ryan
"Punctuality is only a virtue for those who aren't smart enough to think of good excuses for being late" John Nichol "Point Of Impact"
-
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote: Not quite fast enough to go fully orbital. Ummm no, not quite. You need to get to about 25000kmh (~15500mph) to do that :)
Ryan
"Punctuality is only a virtue for those who aren't smart enough to think of good excuses for being late" John Nichol "Point Of Impact"
Ryan Binns wrote: Ummm no, not quite. You need to get to about 25000kmh (~15500mph) to do that yup, though it all depends on type and height of orbit. According to NASA's public releases: At an altitude of 124 miles (200 kilometers), the required orbital velocity is just over 17,000 mph (about 27,400 kph). I just draw the pretty pictures. :-D _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
