TheAnvil 0 #1 November 17, 2004 Clicky That's cool! Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LilJon 0 #2 November 17, 2004 How much for jump tickets on that baby? _________________________________________ You look like a well fed robin. -monkey1031 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #3 November 17, 2004 ...Soon to be the world's only supersonic coral reef.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #4 November 17, 2004 what's the big hurry? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TEB6363 0 #5 November 17, 2004 Very very cool... I love technology Once the plane takes off, you're gonna have to land - Might as well jump out!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #6 November 17, 2004 QuoteThe X-43A was mounted on a Pegasus rocket and carried aloft by NASA's B-52 carrier aircraft to a range off the Southern California coast. At 40,000 feet, the Pegasus was released and ignited, soaring to high altitude and a speed of Mach 9.8 before the X-43A separated and flew on its own at an altitude of 111,000 feet. So it didn't do 9.6 without the rocket...The rocket did all the work."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
feuergnom 22 #7 November 17, 2004 How much for jump tickets on that baby? *** a supersonic s***tload! The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle dudeist skydiver # 666 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,470 #8 November 17, 2004 >So it didn't do 9.6 without the rocket...The rocket did all the work. They didn't try to solve the problem of making the scramjet work at lower speeds; the test was to see if it could operate reliably at that speed. A lot more work needs to be done before this technology is useful, but this is a big first step. It could make economic SSTO a reality. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #9 November 17, 2004 ***They didn't try to solve the problem of making the scramjet work at lower speeds; the test was to see if it could operate reliably at that speed. A lot more work needs to be done before this technology is useful, but this is a big first step. It could make economic SSTO a reality.Quote Yes, but we can already do above Mach 9.6 with a rocket engine....People on here are getting excited about the Mach number....The only cool thing is the engine worked....The speed is unimportant since it was a rocket that made it go that fast."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kris 0 #10 November 17, 2004 QuoteThe speed is unimportant since it was a rocket that made it go that fast. Actually, the speed *is* the most important thing. NASA has proven that this air-breathing engine can indeed operate at hyper velocities. That they used a rocket engine to get there is sceondary because the type of engine they were testing will only operate above a certain velocity.Sky, Muff Bro, Rodriguez Bro, and Bastion of Purity and Innocence!™ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,470 #11 November 17, 2004 >Yes, but we can already do above Mach 9.6 with a rocket engine . . . But rockets have to carry their own oxidizer. The shuttle's external tank, for example, carries 200K lbs of hydrogen fuel, but also has to lift 1200k pounds of oxidizer. Jets don't need oxidizer, they use air - so they have to carry six times less weight. Which means that if you could launch a scramjet and have it light off at a reasonable speed, you could reach orbit with a fairly small aircraft (SSTO, or single-stage-to-orbit, vehicle.) Think of the implications of something the size of a Concorde being able to take off, reach orbit, and re-enter on a single load of fuel. It would make access to low earth orbit not much more complex than a 767 flight to Australia. It would also make it possible to get pretty much anywhere on earth within about 90 minutes. >The speed is unimportant since it was a rocket that made it go that fast. The speed is critical! Being able to keep an engine lit at that speed means you can operate it over a much wider regime. They wouldn't have needed the rocket if the carrier vehicle could have hit Mach 3-4 (lightoff speed for current scramjet designs.) It was easier to use a rocket than to try to get the thing mounted to, say, an SR-71. A fanjet/scramjet hybrid could take off a regular runway, reach 65,000 feet, dive to light off the scramjet, accelerate to mach 20 or so, and then use a small rocket (similar to the shuttle's OMS) to do the orbital insertion. Alternatively a carrier aircraft could carry a scramjet/rocket hybrid aloft and release it at the same altitude. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Paulipod 0 #12 November 17, 2004 Ahhh thats nothing.... In the UK we do that around windy country lanes on the wrong side of the road Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shunkka 0 #13 November 17, 2004 that`s WOW ------------------------- "jump, have fun, pull" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zep 0 #14 November 17, 2004 Big deal my Saturn can do 9.6 mph any day of the week Gone fishing Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 7 #15 November 18, 2004 QuoteActually, the speed *is* the most important thing. NASA has proven that this air-breathing engine can indeed operate at hyper velocities The fact that it works is the cool thing...Not the speed. Some are acting like 9.6 is a big deal...It's not. The fact the engine works is a big deal...The fact that the craft went 9.6 is not."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Kris 0 #10 November 17, 2004 QuoteThe speed is unimportant since it was a rocket that made it go that fast. Actually, the speed *is* the most important thing. NASA has proven that this air-breathing engine can indeed operate at hyper velocities. That they used a rocket engine to get there is sceondary because the type of engine they were testing will only operate above a certain velocity.Sky, Muff Bro, Rodriguez Bro, and Bastion of Purity and Innocence!™ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,470 #11 November 17, 2004 >Yes, but we can already do above Mach 9.6 with a rocket engine . . . But rockets have to carry their own oxidizer. The shuttle's external tank, for example, carries 200K lbs of hydrogen fuel, but also has to lift 1200k pounds of oxidizer. Jets don't need oxidizer, they use air - so they have to carry six times less weight. Which means that if you could launch a scramjet and have it light off at a reasonable speed, you could reach orbit with a fairly small aircraft (SSTO, or single-stage-to-orbit, vehicle.) Think of the implications of something the size of a Concorde being able to take off, reach orbit, and re-enter on a single load of fuel. It would make access to low earth orbit not much more complex than a 767 flight to Australia. It would also make it possible to get pretty much anywhere on earth within about 90 minutes. >The speed is unimportant since it was a rocket that made it go that fast. The speed is critical! Being able to keep an engine lit at that speed means you can operate it over a much wider regime. They wouldn't have needed the rocket if the carrier vehicle could have hit Mach 3-4 (lightoff speed for current scramjet designs.) It was easier to use a rocket than to try to get the thing mounted to, say, an SR-71. A fanjet/scramjet hybrid could take off a regular runway, reach 65,000 feet, dive to light off the scramjet, accelerate to mach 20 or so, and then use a small rocket (similar to the shuttle's OMS) to do the orbital insertion. Alternatively a carrier aircraft could carry a scramjet/rocket hybrid aloft and release it at the same altitude. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #12 November 17, 2004 Ahhh thats nothing.... In the UK we do that around windy country lanes on the wrong side of the road Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shunkka 0 #13 November 17, 2004 that`s WOW ------------------------- "jump, have fun, pull" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zep 0 #14 November 17, 2004 Big deal my Saturn can do 9.6 mph any day of the week Gone fishing Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #15 November 18, 2004 QuoteActually, the speed *is* the most important thing. NASA has proven that this air-breathing engine can indeed operate at hyper velocities The fact that it works is the cool thing...Not the speed. Some are acting like 9.6 is a big deal...It's not. The fact the engine works is a big deal...The fact that the craft went 9.6 is not."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
