3 ms·
Speed is not really the issue here: the X-15 was a hell of a lot faster 40 years ago. As usual the media misses the point due to their own ignorance. There are
by run4yourlives 16y ago
Speed is not really the issue here: the X-15 was a hell of a lot faster 40 years ago. As usual the media misses the point due to their own ignorance.
There are two news-worthy items here:
1. The ramjet/scramjet engine. (No moving parts)
2. The lack of a test pilot.
This is what makes this test significant.
- archon 16y agoThat and the fact that the speed was sustained for a longer period with this test vehicle than with previous vehicles.
- run4yourlives 16y agomeh. Build a bigger gas-tank. :-)
- Tuna-Fish 16y agoNot an issue. What makes it fail is the insane erosion it suffers when it rams into air at 2km/s.
- run4yourlives 16y agoGiven that we've been launching rockets and missiles into the atmosphere at speeds much faster than Mach 4 for the better part of a century now, I think we've solved that issue as far as practically required. :-)
- rbanffy 16y agoIt all depends on the altitude. If you are using a rocket, you can avoid the friction problem by going out of most of the atmosphere. Do that with an air-breathing engine and it will not function.
- run4yourlives 16y agoAs I said, solved as far as practically required, as your comment illustrates. The viability of the scramjet being actually useful for anything is up for debate. Either you can fly slower with a jet, or leave the atmosphere altogether with a rocket. Flying at orbital speeds within the atmosphere is of very, very marginal utility, given the number of complexities involved.
- rbanffy 16y agoMaybe scramjets could be used as auxiliary propulsion for launchers. A pound of oxidizer saved is a pound gained.