Hypersonic flight!
Discussion
Whilst this is impressive, don't know if I'd fancy parachuting into New York after a 1hr Atlantic crossing!
I guess we have to start somewhere!
Impressive if it works though!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19257769
I guess we have to start somewhere!
Impressive if it works though!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19257769
MitchT said:
mrloudly said:
What's wrong with a conference call???
Yeah, I could book a couple of weeks off work and spend it sitting at home staring at a live feed of a beach in California.A weekend break in New York would be nice if it only took an hour to get there and an hour to get back.
weapons applications, as the piece eludes, is much more likley, Observations/GPS tracking or such tells you where Mr Target is, Hypersonic missle launched within the hour and hitting target somewhere in the next hour or so means high likleyhood of no more Mt Target or certainly means he has to be on his toes much more often which is much more uncomfortable for Mr Target.
I believe the very long term future for travel may again be at hi-speeds but will be the HOTOL type of thing, but it will take a long time for the technolgies to become cost effective on routes as short (for such fast craft) as LDN > NYK, Trans Pacific i.e. USA > China/Japan and such would be the first to become cost effective imho with absolutely no technical knwledge at all of course.
I believe the very long term future for travel may again be at hi-speeds but will be the HOTOL type of thing, but it will take a long time for the technolgies to become cost effective on routes as short (for such fast craft) as LDN > NYK, Trans Pacific i.e. USA > China/Japan and such would be the first to become cost effective imho with absolutely no technical knwledge at all of course.
Eric Mc said:
Won't be on offer for at least another 50 years.
Bah 
This is the problem with technology... It moves too slowly for my liking.
You get endless threads on PH beamoaning the loss of 'simple times', with people banging on about wishing they were back in the 70's or 80's or whatever, and how things these days are so complicated.
Not me, I love technology
What really, really grates on me is the sheet number of things I won't see in my lifetime because the pace of improvement and exploration just isn't quick enough.
Differing technologies move forward in fits and starts.
From the 1920s to the end of the 1960s was an extremely dramatic time for aviation and space technology. The 1950s to the present day has been an extremely fast paced period for computers and IT. It has also been an amazing time for medicine and health.
Even aerospace has moved forward sa lot since the end of the 60s - it's just that the improvements have been less spectacular - often being based on structures, materials and systems rather than out and out aerodynamics.
From the 1920s to the end of the 1960s was an extremely dramatic time for aviation and space technology. The 1950s to the present day has been an extremely fast paced period for computers and IT. It has also been an amazing time for medicine and health.
Even aerospace has moved forward sa lot since the end of the 60s - it's just that the improvements have been less spectacular - often being based on structures, materials and systems rather than out and out aerodynamics.
NinjaPower said:
I'm 32 and I find it totally mind blowing what has changed since I was a child.
The advance of computing power and data storage.
The Internet.
Battery technology.
Mobile phones.
Medical equipment.
Display technology.
More please
Here's a few moreThe advance of computing power and data storage.
The Internet.
Battery technology.
Mobile phones.
Medical equipment.
Display technology.
More please
Machine technology (5 axis CNC for example)
Car safety
Navigation (GPS)
Metrology using lasers
Brushless motors
Composite structures
It depends on how you define hypersonic. I was referring to the X-15's basic design spec which included a maximum speed of Mach 7. If you want to look on the Mach 3, 4 and 5 flights as "hypersonic", by all means do so.
It was intended that the X-15 would be used as a test bed for carrying a ramjet which would be tested at speeds at or around Mach 7. The ramjet test flights began in 1967 with the X-15 A2 which was painted with an overall white heat protective coating, fitted with extra fuel tanks to provide longer and therefore higher thrust and a dummy ramjet fitted under the rear fuselage.
The speeds were gradually worked up to Mach 6.7 but on that particular flight the airframe heating was so severe that the struts holding the dummy ramjet melted and the ramjet fell of. The lower ventral fin also fell off, the heat protection failed and the fuselage was partly burnt through. The damage was so severe that the Air Force decided to discontinue the programme and the aircraft was retired.
Regarding "vehicle losses" there were three major accidents to the X-15 during its programme. Crossfield broke the first X-15's back in a heavy landing , another X-15 rolled over on landing and Crossfield also had his rocket motor explode during a ground engine test of the XLR-99 rocket motor. In each case the vehicles could have been declared write offs - but NASA and the Air Force thought the programme so important that the aircraft were rebuilt after each of these fairly serious incidents.
It was intended that the X-15 would be used as a test bed for carrying a ramjet which would be tested at speeds at or around Mach 7. The ramjet test flights began in 1967 with the X-15 A2 which was painted with an overall white heat protective coating, fitted with extra fuel tanks to provide longer and therefore higher thrust and a dummy ramjet fitted under the rear fuselage.
The speeds were gradually worked up to Mach 6.7 but on that particular flight the airframe heating was so severe that the struts holding the dummy ramjet melted and the ramjet fell of. The lower ventral fin also fell off, the heat protection failed and the fuselage was partly burnt through. The damage was so severe that the Air Force decided to discontinue the programme and the aircraft was retired.
Regarding "vehicle losses" there were three major accidents to the X-15 during its programme. Crossfield broke the first X-15's back in a heavy landing , another X-15 rolled over on landing and Crossfield also had his rocket motor explode during a ground engine test of the XLR-99 rocket motor. In each case the vehicles could have been declared write offs - but NASA and the Air Force thought the programme so important that the aircraft were rebuilt after each of these fairly serious incidents.
Edited by Eric Mc on Thursday 16th August 09:13
The decision to "polish out" was based on the need for the programme to continue - not on the extent of the damage. Normally, the explosion that ripped apart the X-15 during its ground test would have been considered a terminal incident. But the decision was made to rebuild the aircraft.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXpEPZ6ZZIs
As you say, the decision not to "polish out" after the final incident was to do with the fact that the programme was winding down - although if the heat protection system had worked the X-165 A2 would have continued for a few more flights at least. And of course the ventral fin was disposable. It was designed to be jettisoned before landing. However, it wasn't designed to be burned off.
As ever, I find your tone somewhat abrasive. It is great to chat and discuss such topics. I normally enjoy it. However, with your posts I find that the enjoyment somehow just disappears.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXpEPZ6ZZIs
As you say, the decision not to "polish out" after the final incident was to do with the fact that the programme was winding down - although if the heat protection system had worked the X-165 A2 would have continued for a few more flights at least. And of course the ventral fin was disposable. It was designed to be jettisoned before landing. However, it wasn't designed to be burned off.
As ever, I find your tone somewhat abrasive. It is great to chat and discuss such topics. I normally enjoy it. However, with your posts I find that the enjoyment somehow just disappears.
Eric Mc said:
........on that particular flight the airframe heating was so severe that the struts holding the dummy ramjet melted and the ramjet fell of. The lower ventral fin also fell off, the heat protection failed and the fuselage was partly burnt through. The damage was so severe that the Air Force decided to discontinue the programme and the aircraft was retired.
I can't be alone in thinking that the pilot who flew that thing home must have had titanium b0llocks the size of watermelons.Maximum respect!
In interview with Crossfield is brilliant - if you saw him buying a paper in the store you'd see and old man in Farah slacks - little would you realise that he has been hypersonic.
What a boy.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff