Mach 10 - Excellent work
- Thread starter Shannow
- Start date
- Status
MolaKule
Staff member
quote:
Originally posted by Shannow:
http://ww1.mid-day.com/news/world/2004/november/97198.htm
And "once again" this worthless organization has wasted tax dollars that could have more efficienty been spent to have private companies do the job.
NASA has become a politically inept organization full of CYA yes men. Their primary mission is history. We would be better off contracting with the Chinese/Russians to carry men and equipment back and forth to the space station. I mean we don't need a multi-trillion $ agency to provide mule service to the space station.
And we will never be able to afford the astronomical costs required to go beyond the moon. I am a huge proponent of spending money on research vs doling it out in welfare. But this agency is not up to the task.
It may not be all their fault though. The government/news media/U.S. Citizens are not willing or able to accept prudent risks (with human life). As a result-making the safety factor 99.9999% safe is not affordable or practical.
I agree..those days are over though.
This book shows what can be done without government. A terrific read.
[ November 17, 2004, 09:42 PM: Message edited by: Al ]
Fascinating.
A better question is why has the US Military not built Hypersonic weapons?
Such a technology demonstrator would make for a dandy stand off missile.
ie...station a few here and there on the west coast and effectively stand down nosy Chinese and North Korean wayward vessels without relying on forward presence in politically hostile countries elsewhere.
Other militaries have supersonic arms but not nearly as long range or brutally fast as this concept envisions.
The Indians do have the supersonic Brahmos missile and the Russians/Chinese with their aircraft carrier-killing Moskit [NATO SS-N-22 "Sunburn"] system.
The joint Indian-Russian Brahmos cryogenic engines in contrast to this NASA demonstrator is a skant Mach 2.8-3.0.
As my dad always told me the United States is always at least 20 years ahead of the next guy in these high tech and R&D sectors
A better question is why has the US Military not built Hypersonic weapons?
Such a technology demonstrator would make for a dandy stand off missile.
ie...station a few here and there on the west coast and effectively stand down nosy Chinese and North Korean wayward vessels without relying on forward presence in politically hostile countries elsewhere.
Other militaries have supersonic arms but not nearly as long range or brutally fast as this concept envisions.
The Indians do have the supersonic Brahmos missile and the Russians/Chinese with their aircraft carrier-killing Moskit [NATO SS-N-22 "Sunburn"] system.
The joint Indian-Russian Brahmos cryogenic engines in contrast to this NASA demonstrator is a skant Mach 2.8-3.0.
As my dad always told me the United States is always at least 20 years ahead of the next guy in these high tech and R&D sectors
Not exactly for fuel, but you are close. Hydrogen is the fuel. The thin air at that altitude is compressed by the shape of the aircraft and engine inlet. That provides the oxygen for combustion. This is what is so different compared to conventional rockets that must carry some kind of oxidizer on board.
I worked on this program several years ago.
I read that this vehicle fell into the ocean after the flight. Was that correct? Seems like a lot could have been learned from it's condition if it had been recovered....?
There were three built and all were "splashed" in the ocean. It was attemped to design a method for landing and recovery, but that proved to be impractical. The nose is solid tungsten with a knife edge of carbon-carbon that reaches 3700 degrees F in flight.
In July 2002 Australian work received worldwide recognition with the University of Queensland's HyShot II flight where Scramjet combustion was demonstrated at Mach 7.8 in atmospheric free flight.
An experimental Scramjet capable of Mach 10 that is to be test flown at Woomera Rocket Range South Australia in late 2005, is a joint venture between Australia's DSTO and the US Department of Defence. The trials follow the successful X-43A which achieved Mach 9.8 of the US coast recently. It was the third and final flight of NASA's Hyper-X program. Dr. Noel Martin, Research Leader in DSTO's Emerging Weapons Technology, Weapons Systems Division, said next years tests at Woomera were part of a program called HYCAUSE, an acronym for the HYpersonics Collaboration between Australia and US Experiment. The program involves the research, design, testing and manufacture of all components involved in preparation for flight-testing a scramjet engine. It will use a similar profile to HyShot II, but at Mach 10. NASA's Hyper-X program was more about developing a vehicle, but the HYCAUSE program will investigate and demonstrate high-risk and high-payoff leading-edge engine technology.
Air Force News www.defence.gov.au/news/raafnews
An experimental Scramjet capable of Mach 10 that is to be test flown at Woomera Rocket Range South Australia in late 2005, is a joint venture between Australia's DSTO and the US Department of Defence. The trials follow the successful X-43A which achieved Mach 9.8 of the US coast recently. It was the third and final flight of NASA's Hyper-X program. Dr. Noel Martin, Research Leader in DSTO's Emerging Weapons Technology, Weapons Systems Division, said next years tests at Woomera were part of a program called HYCAUSE, an acronym for the HYpersonics Collaboration between Australia and US Experiment. The program involves the research, design, testing and manufacture of all components involved in preparation for flight-testing a scramjet engine. It will use a similar profile to HyShot II, but at Mach 10. NASA's Hyper-X program was more about developing a vehicle, but the HYCAUSE program will investigate and demonstrate high-risk and high-payoff leading-edge engine technology.
Air Force News www.defence.gov.au/news/raafnews
- Status
