)
). it's wild to think about it, that when it stops thrusting it takes a while for this thing to come back down to subsonic speeds.
He didn't say it would TAKE forty years for scramjets to become commonplace, he just said that they WOULD LIKELY be more commonplace then. Kinda like stealth rigged fighter/bomber craft are becomming more and more common now vs ten years ago. The technology used to break the sound barrier was undoubtedly expensive back then, just like stealth rigging today costs a pretty penny. Its just a simple combination of factoring in the cost into the equation.roid wrote:Seriously, i have a hard time believing that it will take a whole 40years for this to go anywhere. It's probabaly just my age talking, but i see things happening sooner than that in the scramjet department. you don't Tyr?
there's plenty of non-military motivation for locomotion technology research, especially of this "limit pushing" caliber.
.Not exactly. If the research team here ran things just like the AU uni did, then your "cutting through my ponit" would work. However, since NASA more than likely does things just a tad bit differently, its undoubtedly going to cost more money here. Remember, the tech is still in its infancy, so its going to cost more until we can find a more efficient way of replicating it.roid wrote:but i already mentioned the australian university's SUCCESSFUL effort, on a meger budget.
cutting through your "you need $!" point like my mouth though a block of cheeze
Yeah, one of them IIRC won't have any forward facing windows. The only way for the pilot to see outside is via hull mounted cameras. However, that itself presents a big problem if power fails to the cameras and they have to make an emergency landing. Then again, they wouldn't be able to see the runway anyways with the steep angle they'd have to come in at to land.roid wrote:iirc there are already supersonic commuter planes in manufacture right now of different safer and more efficient designs, to replace the gap left by concorde. the concordes are a pretty old design.
the concordes were plauged by design flaws. iirc they also wern't designed very efficiently, so they were VERY expensive to run. this isn't the case with in-production supersonic craft.
Yup, they'll have to use conventional means of reaching enough altitude and speed to make use of the scramjets. Even then, they'll have to either take it easy on the gas, or give everyone their own flightsuit.supersonic craft are a lot different to hypersonic craft however. the stresses and dangers involved in hypersonic flight are jawdroping indeed. what makes it even more complex is that a hypersonic "cruise" craft has to first accelerate though supersonic speeds before it can engage it's hypersonic scramjet drives to cruise with.
I haven't done the calcs on the G forces alone, but I imagine they'd be rather high. Not something someone with a large waistsize or an elderly person could handle very well.Wouldn't the structural bracing needed to enable the craft to handle previously mentioned stress add to the weight by quite a bit?sure it's a lot of seperate engines to carry on one craft, but the savings in fuel weight (as well as cost per litre, sir arabs) outweigh it. also the savings of a simple horizontal takeoff.
common payloads and common ppl can goto space. yay for space.
