Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Impenitent · Mar 27, 2004, 03:46 pm

this scram jet does mach 7...

military applications galore...

Plaything48 · Mar 31, 2004, 12:49 pm

Soon to be mach 15, so thats 15 * 330m/s = 4950m/s
5 km/s impressive

dalin · Mar 31, 2004, 01:44 pm

Quite, but

Two things..

1. Isn't it easier to achieve supersonic speeds at higher elevations?
2. Did anyone else see this as a PR stunt by NASA? I mean the thing was plastered live on almost every available TV news station.

harumscarum · Mar 31, 2004, 01:52 pm

Thought it was pretty cool. I wonder how many mpg it gets?

damnrad · Mar 31, 2004, 01:57 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dalin,)
Quite, but

Two things..

1. Isn't it easier to achieve supersonic speeds at higher elevations?
2. Did anyone else see this as a PR stunt by NASA? I mean the thing was plastered live on almost every available TV news station.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Actually, a lot of the problem is getting things up to higher elevations. Doing so takes speed. The lower in the atmosphere, the greater the tendency for speed to turn a craft into a ball of fire. Airplanes are relatively slow by NASA standards -- and even those that go as 'slow' as mach 3 or so need to be made out of special materials to keep from burning up. Rockets to orbit get payloads up fast, before they can burn up, but this is very inefficient; and there are problems with return to the ground, as evidenced by the last attempted space-shuttle return. Craft that can achieve speeds intermediate between aircraft and spacecraft may indeed be important developments, so I wouldn't dismiss the scramjet out of hand. On the other hand, NASA is known for over-publicizing its limited successes, while ignoring a considerable track-record of failure -- e.g.: (1) to capitalize on the moon landings with any type of ongoing program; (2) to develop its craft beyond the decades-old, obsolete space shuttle; (3) to heed the warnings of its own experts about dangerous undertakings, leading among other things to two space-shuttle disasters in the past two decades. Still, NASA also does have a record of successes. I hope that the scramjet can prove to add to the latter.

Impenitent · Mar 31, 2004, 04:45 pm

imagine the scram jet in space... no gravity or drag... can you say manned mission to mars?

Plaything48 · Mar 31, 2004, 05:09 pm

Impenitent, have you been doing your homework? The scramjet wouldn't work in space, as it takes oxygen out of the air in order to function.

Impenitent · Mar 31, 2004, 05:39 pm

ah phooey... that's right... can't have an oxygen tank feeding the engine oxygen as it feeds it jet fuel... oh wait...

**Pooeypants** · Apr 3, 2004, 08:31 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
ah phooey... that's right... can't have an oxygen tank feeding the engine oxygen as it feeds it jet fuel... oh wait...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
In that case, it's a rocket engine and we already have those. :rolleyes:

Impenitent · Apr 3, 2004, 10:48 am

not at mach 7

Mozart1220 · Apr 3, 2004, 12:42 pm

I feel that if NASA had the funding, it could do amazing things with great succes and benefit to society as a whole. It just seems that as soon as a good idea is proposed, someone decides it should be done with half the money, and then when it fails, or at least fails to meet expectations, everyone,including those who cut the funding, blame NASA.
When the drug companies say they need money for reserch, the government falls over it'sself passing laws to protect the profit margins. When NASA says it needs funding for reserch, congress can't wait to shortchange them.
It might be a utopian vision, but I think if we spent more time on exploration and scientific knowledge, we'd probably worry less about trying to kill each other.

**Pooeypants** · Apr 3, 2004, 12:46 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
not at mach 7<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Are you implying we can't reach mach 7 with rocket engines? :rolleyes:

Impenitent · Apr 3, 2004, 12:55 pm

no, not implying a thing...

Saaam21 · Apr 10, 2004, 02:19 pm

Rockets that dont need to carry the oxidizer! Take off from a runway like an airplane & fly to mars

mojo_the_migo · Apr 10, 2004, 07:15 pm

MMMMMMMMM, SCRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAM jets! I want to put one of these bad boys in my sissy little 93 Ford Taurus ( I like the gas mileage though...) Any who, I would like them much more in our jets, missiles, and bombers, which where they are going to go first. What are the civilian applications of these in the present? I can see this helping with inventions of the future for new engines, but do they have any significance for current applications?

ruiner · Apr 11, 2004, 07:21 am

they arent new, the british were testing them in 2001. they have too many problems to be used realisitically. for a start they dont kick in until you are already at a high velocity, and they eat up hydrogen very quickly. it was just a PR stunt by nasa

Sheephogan · Apr 11, 2004, 04:16 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
MMMMMMMMM, SCRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAM jets! I want to put one of these bad boys in my sissy little 93 Ford Taurus ( I like the gas mileage though...)<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I think you better check the torque specifications on the transmission first, I've had to replace it three times without the scram jet adaption..

mojo_the_migo · Apr 11, 2004, 10:27 pm

Does that mean you have a sissy little 93 Ford Taurus too???? As soon as I can, I'm gonna get myself a BIGOL' SUV, just because of its size so I can put a bunch of right wing bumper stickers on the rear. AAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
it was just a PR stunt by nasa<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I don't know about that. As is, yes scram jets aren't practical. Thing is, we don't throw away MACH 7 tech. Right now, we are working on a project called Hypersoar, a MACH 10 bomber that bounces along the top of the atmosphere. Scram jet tech seems to be what will be kicking it along.

Hypersonic Global Range Recce/Strike Aircraft

PatrickHenry · Apr 14, 2004, 04:46 am

Isn't the Aurora, a secret Lockheed Skunkworks project, powered by scramjet? It may be too fast have any other source for power. Turbine jets don't work well at speeds over mach 5. Here's a rendition, not a photo.

From:
http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/aurora.asp

QUOTE
Aurora - Secret Hypersonic Spyplane

Does the United States Air Force or one of America's intelligence agencies have a secret hypersonic aircraft capable of a Mach 6 performance?

by Simon Gray

Continually growing evidence suggests that the answer to this question is yes. Perhaps the most well-known event which provides evidence of such a craft's existence is the sighting of a triangular plane over the North Sea in August 1989 by oil-exploration engineer Chris Gibson. As well as the famous "skyquakes" heard over Los Angeles since the early 1990s, found to be heading for the secret Groom Lake installation in the Nevada desert, numerous other facts provide an understanding of how the aircraft's technology works. Rumored to exist but routinely denied by U.S. officials, the name of this aircraft is Aurora.

The outside world uses the name Aurora because a censor's slip let it appear below the SR-71 Blackbird and U-2 in the 1985 Pentagon budget request. Even if this was the actual name of the project, it would have by now been changed after being compromised in such a manner. The plane's real name has been kept a secret along with its existence.END QUOTE

I think if "Aurora" exists it would be military, not NASA.

Another site on high speed aircraft:
http://accelerationresearch.tripod.com/articles.html

mojo_the_migo · Apr 14, 2004, 08:12 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Isn't the Aurora, a secret Lockheed Skunkworks project, powered by scramjet?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Wish it were true, but if we had a Mach 6 plane ready and working since the 90s, we would know about it. We migth have a plane that goes that speed, but isn't very good/practical.

I remember watching something the history channel. They mentioned the blackbird being put out of commission and brought back, making people think there is something untold in-between. So there Aurora could be real. Problem is it probably isn't good except for speed.

If we have/had such a plane, why are we open about the technology for an even better planes, but we won't come out on a jet we had years ago with tech that wasn't as good? Also, didn't Clinton make it easier for stuff to be put on public record?

I don't know for sure, we might have a secret plane we have had since the early 90s. Infact, I wish we did, I think that would be neat.

Mar 27, 2004, 03:46 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	this scram jet does mach 7... military applications galore... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Mar 31, 2004, 12:49 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Plaything48 Igneous Magma Location: London baby, yeah! Posts: 198	Soon to be mach 15, so thats 15 * 330m/s = 4950m/s 5 km/s impressive A man has two reasons for doing anything --- a good reason and the real reason. Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed In spite of the cost of living, it's still popular.

Mar 31, 2004, 01:52 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
harumscarum Igneous Magma Posts: 183	Thought it was pretty cool. I wonder how many mpg it gets? under construction....

Mar 31, 2004, 01:57 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dalin,) Quite, but Two things.. 1. Isn't it easier to achieve supersonic speeds at higher elevations? 2. Did anyone else see this as a PR stunt by NASA? I mean the thing was plastered live on almost every available TV news station.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Actually, a lot of the problem is getting things up to higher elevations. Doing so takes speed. The lower in the atmosphere, the greater the tendency for speed to turn a craft into a ball of fire. Airplanes are relatively slow by NASA standards -- and even those that go as 'slow' as mach 3 or so need to be made out of special materials to keep from burning up. Rockets to orbit get payloads up fast, before they can burn up, but this is very inefficient; and there are problems with return to the ground, as evidenced by the last attempted space-shuttle return. Craft that can achieve speeds intermediate between aircraft and spacecraft may indeed be important developments, so I wouldn't dismiss the scramjet out of hand. On the other hand, NASA is known for over-publicizing its limited successes, while ignoring a considerable track-record of failure -- e.g.: (1) to capitalize on the moon landings with any type of ongoing program; (2) to develop its craft beyond the decades-old, obsolete space shuttle; (3) to heed the warnings of its own experts about dangerous undertakings, leading among other things to two space-shuttle disasters in the past two decades. Still, NASA also does have a record of successes. I hope that the scramjet can prove to add to the latter.

Mar 31, 2004, 04:45 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	imagine the scram jet in space... no gravity or drag... can you say manned mission to mars? "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Mar 31, 2004, 01:44 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
dalin Molten Ash Posts: 118	Quite, but Two things.. 1. Isn't it easier to achieve supersonic speeds at higher elevations? 2. Did anyone else see this as a PR stunt by NASA? I mean the thing was plastered live on almost every available TV news station.

Mar 31, 2004, 05:09 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
Plaything48 Igneous Magma Location: London baby, yeah! Posts: 198	Impenitent, have you been doing your homework? The scramjet wouldn't work in space, as it takes oxygen out of the air in order to function. A man has two reasons for doing anything --- a good reason and the real reason. Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed In spite of the cost of living, it's still popular.

Mar 31, 2004, 05:39 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	ah phooey... that's right... can't have an oxygen tank feeding the engine oxygen as it feeds it jet fuel... oh wait... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Apr 3, 2004, 08:31 am	#9 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,469	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) ah phooey... that's right... can't have an oxygen tank feeding the engine oxygen as it feeds it jet fuel... oh wait...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> In that case, it's a rocket engine and we already have those. :rolleyes: War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Apr 3, 2004, 10:48 am	#10 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	not at mach 7 "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Apr 3, 2004, 12:42 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
Mozart1220 Igneous Magma Posts: 687	I feel that if NASA had the funding, it could do amazing things with great succes and benefit to society as a whole. It just seems that as soon as a good idea is proposed, someone decides it should be done with half the money, and then when it fails, or at least fails to meet expectations, everyone,including those who cut the funding, blame NASA. When the drug companies say they need money for reserch, the government falls over it'sself passing laws to protect the profit margins. When NASA says it needs funding for reserch, congress can't wait to shortchange them. It might be a utopian vision, but I think if we spent more time on exploration and scientific knowledge, we'd probably worry less about trying to kill each other. Big Jr is watching you!

Apr 3, 2004, 12:46 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,469	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) not at mach 7<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Are you implying we can't reach mach 7 with rocket engines? :rolleyes: War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Apr 3, 2004, 12:55 pm	#13 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	no, not implying a thing... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Apr 10, 2004, 02:19 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
Saaam21 Sedimentary Rock Posts: 8	Rockets that dont need to carry the oxidizer! Take off from a runway like an airplane & fly to mars

Apr 10, 2004, 07:15 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
mojo_the_migo Molten Ash Location: Michigan Posts: 90	MMMMMMMMM, SCRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAM jets! I want to put one of these bad boys in my sissy little 93 Ford Taurus ( I like the gas mileage though...) Any who, I would like them much more in our jets, missiles, and bombers, which where they are going to go first. What are the civilian applications of these in the present? I can see this helping with inventions of the future for new engines, but do they have any significance for current applications? Meat tastes like murder and murder tastes pretty *** damn good - Denis Leary

Apr 11, 2004, 07:21 am	#16 (permalink) (top)
ruiner Igneous Magma Posts: 180	they arent new, the british were testing them in 2001. they have too many problems to be used realisitically. for a start they dont kick in until you are already at a high velocity, and they eat up hydrogen very quickly. it was just a PR stunt by nasa

Apr 11, 2004, 04:16 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
Sheephogan Sedimentary Rock Location: Pahrump, Nevada, USA Posts: 9	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by MMMMMMMMM, SCRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAM jets! I want to put one of these bad boys in my sissy little 93 Ford Taurus ( I like the gas mileage though...)<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I think you better check the torque specifications on the transmission first, I've had to replace it three times without the scram jet adaption..

Apr 11, 2004, 10:27 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
mojo_the_migo Molten Ash Location: Michigan Posts: 90	Does that mean you have a sissy little 93 Ford Taurus too???? As soon as I can, I'm gonna get myself a BIGOL' SUV, just because of its size so I can put a bunch of right wing bumper stickers on the rear. AAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by it was just a PR stunt by nasa<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I don't know about that. As is, yes scram jets aren't practical. Thing is, we don't throw away MACH 7 tech. Right now, we are working on a project called Hypersoar, a MACH 10 bomber that bounces along the top of the atmosphere. Scram jet tech seems to be what will be kicking it along. Hypersonic Global Range Recce/Strike Aircraft Meat tastes like murder and murder tastes pretty *** damn good - Denis Leary

Apr 14, 2004, 04:46 am	#19 (permalink) (top)
PatrickHenry 9/11: Inside Job Location: Hawai'i, Big Island Posts: 10,435	Isn't the Aurora, a secret Lockheed Skunkworks project, powered by scramjet? It may be too fast have any other source for power. Turbine jets don't work well at speeds over mach 5. Here's a rendition, not a photo. From: http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/aurora.asp QUOTE Aurora - Secret Hypersonic Spyplane Does the United States Air Force or one of America's intelligence agencies have a secret hypersonic aircraft capable of a Mach 6 performance? by Simon Gray Continually growing evidence suggests that the answer to this question is yes. Perhaps the most well-known event which provides evidence of such a craft's existence is the sighting of a triangular plane over the North Sea in August 1989 by oil-exploration engineer Chris Gibson. As well as the famous "skyquakes" heard over Los Angeles since the early 1990s, found to be heading for the secret Groom Lake installation in the Nevada desert, numerous other facts provide an understanding of how the aircraft's technology works. Rumored to exist but routinely denied by U.S. officials, the name of this aircraft is Aurora. The outside world uses the name Aurora because a censor's slip let it appear below the SR-71 Blackbird and U-2 in the 1985 Pentagon budget request. Even if this was the actual name of the project, it would have by now been changed after being compromised in such a manner. The plane's real name has been kept a secret along with its existence.END QUOTE I think if "Aurora" exists it would be military, not NASA. Another site on high speed aircraft: http://accelerationresearch.tripod.com/articles.html "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams

Apr 14, 2004, 08:12 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
mojo_the_migo Molten Ash Location: Michigan Posts: 90	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Isn't the Aurora, a secret Lockheed Skunkworks project, powered by scramjet?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Wish it were true, but if we had a Mach 6 plane ready and working since the 90s, we would know about it. We migth have a plane that goes that speed, but isn't very good/practical. I remember watching something the history channel. They mentioned the blackbird being put out of commission and brought back, making people think there is something untold in-between. So there Aurora could be real. Problem is it probably isn't good except for speed. If we have/had such a plane, why are we open about the technology for an even better planes, but we won't come out on a jet we had years ago with tech that wasn't as good? Also, didn't Clinton make it easier for stuff to be put on public record? I don't know for sure, we might have a secret plane we have had since the early 90s. Infact, I wish we did, I think that would be neat. Meat tastes like murder and murder tastes pretty *** damn good - Denis Leary