If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New Scientist)   Mach 6 scramjet test could one day allow the airlines to separate you from your luggage at more than 75 miles per minute   (newscientist.com) divider line 40
    More: Spiffy, speed of sound, jet engines, air transportation, combustion, private firms, Pacific Oceans, jet fuel, airspace  
•       •       •

3461 clicks; posted to Geek » on 08 May 2010 at 3:29 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



40 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2010-05-08 03:33:44 PM
Sweeeeeeet....
 
2010-05-08 03:41:13 PM
I don't see this tech being used on civilian aircraft in my lifetime.

Way too f*cking dangerous.
 
2010-05-08 03:44:53 PM
But will it do ludicrous speed?

/Waiting to go to plaid.
 
2010-05-08 03:50:36 PM
How about that airline food?

/huh?
//HUH?
 
2010-05-08 03:53:57 PM
NY to LA in 33 minutes. Works for me.
 
2010-05-08 04:09:27 PM
hot damn
 
das
2010-05-08 04:19:47 PM
Like
 
2010-05-08 04:29:25 PM
aspAddict: Sweeeeeeet....


Agreed. The reason aircraft go the speed they do and use the engines they do is primarily design simplicity. Jet engines were chosen not because they go fast, but they were a significant reliability improvement over piston engines. Thus the time interval between overhauls was seriously lengthened. They go the speed they do because that is the speed turbofans are most efficient. It is also a hell of a lot easier to build a high subsonic aircraft than a supersonic one.
 
2010-05-08 04:29:55 PM
Airline tech is stuck in the 60's and looks to stay that way for the foreseeable future.
 
2010-05-08 04:37:27 PM
crab66: I don't see this tech being used on civilian aircraft in my lifetime.

Way too f*cking dangerous.


So was the Concorde. We as a race don't fly them anymore because
1) Oil is more expensive
2) People are not that much in a hurry to pay that much more. Remember, it was twice as fast and the tickets were five to ten times the price.
3) This planet is not that big

swahnhennessy: AirlineEnergy conversion tech is stuck in the 60's Chemical Era and looks to stay that way for the foreseeable future.

Ahh, better. The '60s were amazing because of all the great industrial revolution stuff before, WWII, the 1930s, and finding lots of oil.

Electricity is great for on-demand stuff but we are nowhere near getting the kind of energy densities we can get from oil.
 
2010-05-08 05:02:01 PM
Quantum Apostrophe: People are not that much in a hurry to pay that much more

Actually people would pay for it if they could. British Airways Concorde flights were operating profitably when they were canceled ie what it cost to fly the flights was less than what they took in from ticket sales. Where the losses would mount is in fixing up the planes since the parts weren't cheap and the engines were ancient. The speed was just part of the package, the other part was the level of service, which was beyond first class airline service.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2010-05-08 05:38:16 PM
Not only does that draw off heat to prevent the engine from melting, it also helps warm the fuel to the temperature needed to ignite it.

Standard technique in liquid fuel rocket engines -- run the fuel through the nozzle before injecting it into the combustion chamber.

And I have to stop typing now because the heat transfer problems from my rocket propulsion class are starting to come back to me and my head is going to hurt really bad if I let them.
 
2010-05-08 05:38:52 PM
Who're they kidding? Airlines will be flying the same, boring POS aircraft long after I'm dead and buried.


Still bitter about this never getting off the drawing board.

www.aerospaceweb.org

hotlinked like a muthafarka.
 
2010-05-08 06:14:28 PM
All we need is Al Queda getting those things.
 
2010-05-08 06:15:40 PM
studebaker hoch: All we need is Al Queda getting those things.

Yeah that sounds totally realistic.
 
2010-05-08 06:24:58 PM
Ah, the "MACH 6 Scramjet", the nickname my wife gave my penis.
 
2010-05-08 07:24:48 PM
Old enough to know better: Who're they kidding? Airlines will be flying the same, boring POS aircraft long after I'm dead and buried.


Still bitter about this never getting off the drawing board.


Only way something like that happens is if Branson or the Google guys get a wild hair up their ass and basically bankroll it themselves... no way is Boing or Airbus going to spend a billion dollars to develop, you know, something actually different.
hotlinked like a muthafarka.
 
2010-05-08 07:35:08 PM
ptelg: Ah, the "MACH 6 Scramjet", the nickname my wife gave my penis.

It'll be coming in 30-50 years
 
2010-05-08 07:53:02 PM
ptelg: Ah, the "MACH 6 Scramjet", the nickname my wife gave my penis.

Because it goes by so fast, leaving her dazed and wondering "What the hell was that???"
 
2010-05-08 08:51:34 PM
ptelg: Ah, the "MACH 6 Scramjet", the nickname my wife gave my penis.

She told me she called it "Quick draw".
 
2010-05-08 09:14:12 PM
festivalderobots.info
Close enough?
 
2010-05-08 09:35:31 PM
WhyteRaven74: which was beyond first class airline service.

Do you know why? The thing was cramped, tiny and noisy. They *had* to compensate for that. Besides, I don't see how the cabin service pertains to the profitability; if anything, that's a cost the slower planes don't have to worry about.

In the go-go '60s, Lockheed and Boeing both had their own SSTs on the drawing boards, the L-2000 and the 2707.

They never made them. Too expensive and loud. If anyone could have made money with them, they've had 40 years to show me. Hasn't happened.

Sure, the Concorde may have been profitable, but anything that caters to the rich is. I'm sure building 35 million $ houses is profitable too, do you think it would be if every house was built like that? The rich will still be able to buy the house, but no one else will be. They'll have to settle for 250000$ condos.

So we can't fly the Concorde due to cost. Yes, safety is part of it; the cost of oil and the fact that people are poor also play a role. Do you think that a scramjet or other SST will not have to obey safety regulations, or be exempt from the laws of physics as we know them pertaining to flying in an atmosphere?

This is another one of those "ain't gonna happen" things. It could work in a fascist state if it decided it wanted SST travel for all, damn the costs. Sort of like the North American XB-70 Valkyrie.

Or we find some revolutionnary form of
1) Energy. With fusion, supposing it works, and works cheap enough, we could synthesize all the chemical fuel we want. Remember, nothing even comes close to kerosene/gasoline in terms of energy density, safety and ease of handling. Plus we have decades of experience with the stuff.

2) Some sci-fi breakthrough to transform energy from the potential to kinetic. (I've always wanted to build a relativistic-capacitor drive... Charge a cap, the energy is mass, pull on it, discharge the cap, now it's lighter. Make it differential and you can push-pull out of phase with the current. Of course, my initial calculations show you'd need something like a black hole to get any usable thrust out of that, and current densities never seen on Earth.)
 
2010-05-08 09:36:42 PM
"If we could recover it, the engine would basically be pristine and reusable," Vogel says. Previous scramjet tests have ended with the craft burning up in the atmosphere.

In other news, Boeing has several exciting new job openings in the test pilot field...

flucto: NY to LA in 33 minutes. Works for me.

Tests so far indicate something more like "NY to a fiery death over NJ in 14 seconds."
 
2010-05-08 09:38:30 PM
WhyteRaven74: The speed was just part of the package, the other part was the level of service, which was beyond first class airline service.

Not really. It was better and worse. You got to load via a special lounge, in London anyway. The seats and service on board were only average first class. The thing that always struck me was how hot the skin was and how cool it was to occasionally pass a 747 20,000 feet below. They looked like they were standing still.
 
2010-05-08 09:39:23 PM
LoneVVolf: "NY to a fiery death over NJ in 14 seconds."

Beats going to LA.
 
2010-05-08 09:46:47 PM
bygonetv.com

Not in any hurry for it to be adopted.
 
2010-05-08 09:52:32 PM
So how long until I can put on in my car?
 
2010-05-08 10:37:26 PM
This or something like it is the breakthrough needed to get into space at reasonable cost per mass. It's silly to carry all those heavy oxygen-containing molecules when there's perfectly good O2 in the air. And as the air thins out, you go faster and the engines breathe more.

Tricky stuff but looks promising.
 
2010-05-08 11:07:54 PM
oonatic112358

It'll be coming in 30-50 years

img34.imageshack.us
 
2010-05-09 12:11:00 AM
Bacontastesgood: This or something like it is the breakthrough needed to get into space at reasonable cost per mass. It's silly to carry all those heavy oxygen-containing molecules when there's perfectly good O2 in the air. And as the air thins out, you go faster and the engines breathe more.

Tricky stuff but looks promising.


So you want one unrealizable fantasy to help with the other utterly unrealistic delusion? I see, I see. Tell me about your mother.

There's nothing in space. Why you would want to go there is baffling. Send some probes to take pretty pictures. Wait on Earth for signals. Here on Earth we have:

1) Gravity. This is required for human health. Do your own research on the effects of free-fall on humans. If you don't want to stay in space long enough for the bad effects, take a balloon, it's been done and looks like it was a lot of fun.

2) Air. There's air pretty much everywhere here. You won't run out. Dig a hole, it fills with air. Climb a mountain, there's usually enough air.

3) Water, food and a technological infrastructure. You know astronauts are usually highly trained, super smart and physically fit people, almost a class by themselves. You think you're gonna get your couch-potato ass to stay up there with no infrastructure?

And if you still want some fast planes, clicky click. (new window)
 
2010-05-09 12:15:41 AM
Super-fast flight is becoming irrelevant. What's the point of paying double to save a half hour on your flight when it takes an extra 8 hours to go through security?
 
2010-05-09 12:18:06 AM
Basically, you can get to anyplace in the world in less than 18 hours with current technology. There just isn't enough demand to shrink the world further at the prices people are willing to pay to travel, especially for the vast majority of business travel.
 
2010-05-09 12:26:45 AM
Harry_Seldon: Basically, you can get to anyplace in the world in less than 18 hours with current technology. There just isn't enough demand to shrink the world further at the prices people are willing to pay to travel, especially for the vast majority of business travel.

There is certainly demand and people willing to pay.

But the technology is not there to do it safely yet, and probably wont be for quite a long time.
 
2010-05-09 02:24:57 AM
Old enough to know better: Who're they kidding? Airlines will be flying the same, boring POS aircraft long after I'm dead and buried.

There is a reason for that.... The shape/configuration op planes these days is pretty much the best shape/configuration.
 
2010-05-09 03:38:32 AM
crab66: There is certainly demand and people willing to pay.

But the technology is not there to do it safely yet, and probably wont be for quite a long time.


Can't do what safely? Blast around at mach 2 or mach 3? We've had that technology for 40 years. The problem is that the cost rapidly outpaces the time savings, and shockwave mitigation isn't far enough along (last time I looked) that you can move at those speeds on any route you please.

Don't let anybody tell you Concorde was killed because of safety issues; if the type economics supported it, they'd still be around.
 
2010-05-09 03:46:17 AM
FTFA: "Previous scramjet tests have ended with the craft burning up in the atmosphere. "

American Airlines will charge you extra for that, and Southwest will sell it as a benefit as the sweaty fat guy jammed in the middle seat will provide free tallow.
 
2010-05-09 05:16:53 PM
Quantum Apostrophe: Bacontastesgood: This or something like it is the breakthrough needed to get into space at reasonable cost per mass. It's silly to carry all those heavy oxygen-containing molecules when there's perfectly good O2 in the air. And as the air thins out, you go faster and the engines breathe more.

Tricky stuff but looks promising.

So you want one unrealizable fantasy to help with the other utterly unrealistic delusion? I see, I see. Tell me about your mother.

There's nothing in space. Why you would want to go there is baffling. Send some probes to take pretty pictures. Wait on Earth for signals. Here on Earth we have:

1) Gravity. This is required for human health. Do your own research on the effects of free-fall on humans. If you don't want to stay in space long enough for the bad effects, take a balloon, it's been done and looks like it was a lot of fun.

2) Air. There's air pretty much everywhere here. You won't run out. Dig a hole, it fills with air. Climb a mountain, there's usually enough air.

3) Water, food and a technological infrastructure. You know astronauts are usually highly trained, super smart and physically fit people, almost a class by themselves. You think you're gonna get your couch-potato ass to stay up there with no infrastructure?

And if you still want some fast planes, clicky click. (new window)


Because flying without atmosphere is free, dumbass. An efficient, affordable spaceplane could go anywhere in the world in under an hour. The trick to making it efficient is to get said vessel into LEO using air-breathing engines as far as fundamentally possible.

I'm not sure how you failed to understand the point.
 
2010-05-09 06:05:22 PM
costermonger: Can't do what safely? Blast around at mach 2 or mach 3?

There is a big difference between mach 2 and mach 5-6.

You are reaching.
 
2010-05-09 06:29:08 PM
sojourner: Quantum Apostrophe: Bacontastesgood: This or something like it is the breakthrough needed to get into space at reasonable cost per mass. It's silly to carry all those heavy oxygen-containing molecules when there's perfectly good O2 in the air. And as the air thins out, you go faster and the engines breathe more.

Tricky stuff but looks promising.

So you want one unrealizable fantasy to help with the other utterly unrealistic delusion? I see, I see. Tell me about your mother.

There's nothing in space. Why you would want to go there is baffling. Send some probes to take pretty pictures. Wait on Earth for signals. Here on Earth we have:

1) Gravity. This is required for human health. Do your own research on the effects of free-fall on humans. If you don't want to stay in space long enough for the bad effects, take a balloon, it's been done and looks like it was a lot of fun.

2) Air. There's air pretty much everywhere here. You won't run out. Dig a hole, it fills with air. Climb a mountain, there's usually enough air.

3) Water, food and a technological infrastructure. You know astronauts are usually highly trained, super smart and physically fit people, almost a class by themselves. You think you're gonna get your couch-potato ass to stay up there with no infrastructure?

And if you still want some fast planes, clicky click. (new window)

Because flying without atmosphere is free, dumbass. An efficient, affordable spaceplane could go anywhere in the world in under an hour. The trick to making it efficient is to get said vessel into LEO using air-breathing engines as far as fundamentally possible.

I'm not sure how you failed to understand the point.


Oh ho hohoho hohoo!!! "FREE"???? Ah hahahahaha hahaa1!!! HAHAHA!!!!

You *must* be a software type to be so completely clueless. Tell me, where is there *no* atmosphere? Free clue: It's a hell of a lot higher than you think.

Another thing, with truly no atmosphere, how do you manoeuver? Suddenly you have a monster of complexity on your hands, with no room for paying passengers...

You seem to the type of person who gets his science and engineering from sci-fi and movies... Dumbass, indeed.

You poor, sad, deluded, clueless Space Nutter/software moron.

Guess what, shiatstain? You can't just engineer things in the real world like you add layers and layers of unreal complexity like in software, or delude yourself with special effects in movies.

Anyways I better let you return to watching Thuderbirds. I hear if you make your own whooshing noises at the screen it's even more fun.

costermonger: Don't let anybody tell you Concorde was killed because of safety issues; if the type economics supported it, they'd still be around.

If. Sure thing, Space Nutter. We can't even afford Mach 2 flight in the atmosphere, and you've got free-range lunatics like Sojourner who think we'll get space flight???

Someone better tighten the straps on his gurney before he hurts himself.
 
2010-05-10 01:07:07 PM
Quantum Apostrophe: sojourner: Quantum Apostrophe: Bacontastesgood: This or something like it is the breakthrough needed to get into space at reasonable cost per mass. It's silly to carry all those heavy oxygen-containing molecules when there's perfectly good O2 in the air. And as the air thins out, you go faster and the engines breathe more.

Tricky stuff but looks promising.

So you want one unrealizable fantasy to help with the other utterly unrealistic delusion? I see, I see. Tell me about your mother.

There's nothing in space. Why you would want to go there is baffling. Send some probes to take pretty pictures. Wait on Earth for signals. Here on Earth we have:

1) Gravity. This is required for human health. Do your own research on the effects of free-fall on humans. If you don't want to stay in space long enough for the bad effects, take a balloon, it's been done and looks like it was a lot of fun.

2) Air. There's air pretty much everywhere here. You won't run out. Dig a hole, it fills with air. Climb a mountain, there's usually enough air.

3) Water, food and a technological infrastructure. You know astronauts are usually highly trained, super smart and physically fit people, almost a class by themselves. You think you're gonna get your couch-potato ass to stay up there with no infrastructure?

And if you still want some fast planes, clicky click. (new window)

Because flying without atmosphere is free, dumbass. An efficient, affordable spaceplane could go anywhere in the world in under an hour. The trick to making it efficient is to get said vessel into LEO using air-breathing engines as far as fundamentally possible.

I'm not sure how you failed to understand the point.

Oh ho hohoho hohoo!!! "FREE"???? Ah hahahahaha hahaa1!!! HAHAHA!!!!

You *must* be a software type to be so completely clueless. Tell me, where is there *no* atmosphere? Free clue: It's a hell of a lot higher than you think.

Another thing, with truly no atmosphere, how do you manoeuver? Suddenly you have a monster of complexity on your hands, with no room for paying passengers...

You seem to the type of person who gets his science and engineering from sci-fi and movies... Dumbass, indeed.

You poor, sad, deluded, clueless Space Nutter/software moron.

Guess what, shiatstain? You can't just engineer things in the real world like you add layers and layers of unreal complexity like in software, or delude yourself with special effects in movies.

Anyways I better let you return to watching Thuderbirds. I hear if you make your own whooshing noises at the screen it's even more fun.

costermonger: Don't let anybody tell you Concorde was killed because of safety issues; if the type economics supported it, they'd still be around.

If. Sure thing, Space Nutter. We can't even afford Mach 2 flight in the atmosphere, and you've got free-range lunatics like Sojourner who think we'll get space flight???

Someone better tighten the straps on his gurney before he hurts himself.


I'm a physicist by training. I know very well that there's a residual atmosphere. I'm not going to respond to the rest of your obnoxious trolling since it's just covering for the fact that my assertion was correct and that you'd totally missed the point.
 
Displayed 40 of 40 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report