[QUOTE=st0rmforce;37267525]I remember somebody (I really can't remember who he was) going out on a limb and saying that scramjets will never have any use other than missiles.
He said that he'd love to be proven wrong, but that with what we currently have and currently know, you'd never be able to make something big enough and strong enough to hold people that can accelerate enough to turn the engines on, survive hypersonic speeds, be controllable and have enough fuel on board to be worthwhile.
As far as he knew at the time, there are a great number of obstacles and we don't even know if it's possible to overcome them while staying within the laws of physics.
I'm searching around, but I can't find where I read it.[/QUOTE]
I am pretty sure I remember that mistily and that the person ironically the pejorative name "Scamjets".
I tried to search for it through that and sadly it seems to be common misspelling, too :v:
[QUOTE=st0rmforce;37267525]I remember somebody (I really can't remember who he was) going out on a limb and saying that scramjets will never have any use other than missiles.
He said that he'd love to be proven wrong, but that with what we currently have and currently know, you'd never be able to make something big enough and strong enough to hold people that can accelerate enough to turn the engines on, survive hypersonic speeds, be controllable and have enough fuel on board to be worthwhile.
As far as he knew at the time, there are a great number of obstacles and we don't even know if it's possible to overcome them while staying within the laws of physics.
I'm searching around, but I can't find where I read it.[/QUOTE]
Making scramjets feasible for human travel is probably going to require a ton of different technologies to come together. First probably being the perfection of the scramjet, advanced composite materials, probably linear magnetic accelerators of some sort, and some sort of light weight solid rocket technology. I wouldn't say that they're never going to be useful for anything other than missiles, but the technology necessary to make them carry people or other things is pretty far from coming together. I wouldn't be surprised if they're feasible with in a couple decades though.
[QUOTE=Reader;37254266]What's point of it?[/QUOTE]
Gotta go fast.
[QUOTE=areolop;37256544]That adds weight and drag. Two things they dont need while flying Mach 6[/QUOTE]
I find it weird that the cost to add a parachute and not having it impact your design too much is more expensive than just dumping the thing like a plastic bottle rocket after one go. Especially in this case, some control fin didn't work and bam everything down the drain. Then again I'm no engineer who has to minimize the bills and I'm sure those guys did a better job than I would.
[QUOTE=Shogoll;37269188]Making scramjets feasible for human travel is probably going to require a ton of different technologies to come together. First probably being the perfection of the scramjet, advanced composite materials, probably linear magnetic accelerators of some sort, and some sort of light weight solid rocket technology. I wouldn't say that they're never going to be useful for anything other than missiles, but the technology necessary to make them carry people or other things is pretty far from coming together. I wouldn't be surprised if they're feasible with in a couple decades though.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, advances in materials science is probably one of the very major things that will be required. It seems somewhat common that engineering projects which push the boundaries of our knowledge tend to be slowed down by a lack of appropriate materials.
[QUOTE=Number-41;37277037]I find it weird that the cost to add a parachute and not having it impact your design too much is more expensive than just dumping the thing like a plastic bottle rocket after one go. Especially in this case, some control fin didn't work and bam everything down the drain. Then again I'm no engineer who has to minimize the bills and I'm sure those guys did a better job than I would.[/QUOTE]
I'd imagine when something going mach6 fucks up it doesn't simply just fall to the ground.
[QUOTE=Valdor;37277241]I'd imagine when something going mach6 fucks up it doesn't simply just fall to the ground.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, chances are if this thing starts to tumble mid-flight or something, there's not gonna be all that much left to recover anyway.
[QUOTE=Number-41;37277037]I find it weird that the cost to add a parachute and not having it impact your design too much is more expensive than just dumping the thing like a plastic bottle rocket after one go. Especially in this case, some control fin didn't work and bam everything down the drain. Then again I'm no engineer who has to minimize the bills and I'm sure those guys did a better job than I would.[/QUOTE]
I'd be willing to bet that a parachute wouldn't hold up well if you deployed it at Mach 5-6.
Also the thing weighs about 4 thousand pounds [i]without[/i] fuel, meaning you'd need one heck of a parachute to really accomplish anything.
Wait holy shit they're re-using the X-15?
wait snip that I need glasses
[QUOTE=BadDrum;37279503]Wait holy shit they're re-using the X-15?
wait snip that I need glasses[/QUOTE]
no the article has a typo; you're fine
[QUOTE=Alan Ninja!;37279352]I'd be willing to bet that a parachute wouldn't hold up well if you deployed it at Mach 5-6.
Also the thing weighs about 4 thousand pounds [i]without[/i] fuel, meaning you'd need one heck of a parachute to really accomplish anything.[/QUOTE]
Well I'd say that if it fails at Mach 5-6 it has some altitude, so while falling down (with the engine turned off) it would reduce its speed to its terminal velocity (which usually isn't more than 200-300 km/h I think)
The weight thing is indeed a problem though.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
