What is Digg?47 Comments
- TheRingmaster, on 10/11/2007, -3/+23I believe the person who posted the story used "air-breathing" in conjunction with the word rocket to make it easier for people who do not know what a ramjet/scramjet is, if you want to be picky it definitely is not a rocket.
"its no more air breathing than any other jet plane." Its no more air breathing than being very dependent on air, i don't see your point in that one. - WaterDragon, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16"a flight between Sydney and London could take just two hours"
...but the passengers turn to pudding. - DeskFlyer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9No matter what method they use to produce their thrust, just remember that all rockets are jets. :P
- sweetrelease, on 10/11/2007, -13/+21air breathing isent exactly the best description.
it a scramjet and once it is brought up to ignition speed its a jet that dosent need a motor to compress the air in the chamber before it is ignited
it speed alone is enough to compress the air.
the problem is that it has to be launched from another plane to be going fast enough to start combustion
its no more air breathing than any other jet plane. - spudnic, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9"...with predictions a flight between Sydney and London could take just two terrifying hours."
Fixed it - warragul, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Just to clear up this rocket/jet business...
The experimental engine was sent up on a two-stage rocket. On the way down, very late in the descent, the scramjet was fired-up.
Last time they tested one they had to dig the remains out of the desert.
The big advantage of the scramjet over rockets is that, once started, it doesn't need to supply its own oxidiser. All rockets carry their own oxidiser.
Of course, the scramjet wouldn't function in space - no ambient oxidiser. - KMye, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5@radu79
I'm pretty sure the idea for commercial travel is based on going quite a bit higher in the atmosphere than the "Concorder" ever did. I'm sure you understand, nevertheless: the higher the craft goes, the less atmosphere it'll have to deal with as far as friction goes. As far as radiation, a combination of extra shielding and dramatically less travel time could compensate for this.
Concerning economics, this will be a different method, and the resulting times are far different. NY to Paris in 3-4 hours is one thing; London to Tokyo in 2 is quite a nother. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4When will they build the Phoenix?
- chi1thook, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Finally a jet engine powerful enough to lift and fly the cast of The View.
- xBDVx, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5So it accelerates to 11,000 km/hr, in about ten minutes. Or about 3056m/s in 600 seconds. So that's an acceleration of 5.09m/s/s. So really that's only about .5G of acceleration (noting that gravity is 9.8m/s/s). It probably wouldn't be a bad flight.
- slayerab, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5You still have to wait till 2063 for that. And the third world war...
- spudnic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3You're right, it does. I hate it when people spam irrelevant links
- radu79, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Well, "breathing" means aquiring it from outside (the air). Not having it implicitly, in their fuel.
- KMye, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Assuming the "rocket" referred to the actual vehicle, I don't know if we have a better lay-word for something we shoot straight up to to higher than the shuttle/space station's altitude.
- Sebach, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Third world war? Dammit, there's always a catch.
- Tippis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Of course "defense" isn't spelled with a 'c' -- defence, however, is.
Also, you might want to check the origin of the piece -- it might clue you in to why it's spelled that way... - jmob, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Nice! next stop, Bussard ramjet
- Sebach, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1If you turn out to be that damn kid in all those commercials...
- Error601, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1That used all it's energy to go straight up and then fell back down. No where near the energy required to travel half way around the globe. It's completely useless for transportation.
- sickswaystop, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2air-breathing rocket was enough for me
dugg! - mikesbaker, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4@radu79
I think that commercial travel like this is the future. Why else would so many people be investing so much money on it? If its a rocket or a scramjet there is no denying that soon there will be space tourism and extremely fast commuting for the people who have enough money to do it. I couldn't afford to take a suborbital flight right now but I think that I will take more than one in my life time.
and lets play semantics that is lots of fun - LANjackal, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Fantastic development for space launch technology and military applications. But regular travel? Hardly. So far, building and operating an affordable civilian supersonic aircraft has proven elusive, much less doing the same for a hypersonic one. Currently the only active civilian supersonic program I know of is the Supersonic Business Jet project, and although the technology exists, I don't think a single nut has hit a bolt yet.
Oh yeah, and even if building such an aircraft were feasible, there's still the problem of FAA regulations prohibiting civilian supersonic flight over land due to the sonic boom. While the problem has apparently been solved for supersonic cases by the SBJ project above, it's likely that a hypersonic aircraft would be a whole new mess to deal with since the shock waves are significantly stronger. - rowlodge, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1next problem, air friction, materials to take the heat.
- TehSwat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Zoom Zoom
- cal0001, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1well it's better than the first test. the first test flew at Mach 10 straight down into the ground. (they were using gravity to help jump start the process)
- johnnynack, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1as opposed to those not air breathing ones we see so often...
- williamdyer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2They meant to say "mouth breathing rocket." It also eats clay. And watches NASCAR.
- FarcicalFart, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1"It reached speeds of Mach 10 - about 11,000km/h - during re-entry to the earth's atmosphere. "
So, it doesn't go Mach 10, except on re-entry? How is this going to fly people commercially between London and Sydney? - sanman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1The problem with scram is that what you gain from combusting the oxygen you're flying through, you lose from the friction of flying through it. The better way is a rocket, because even though you have to store oxidizer onboard, you can steer yourself clear of that pesky atmosphere much more quickly and get it out of the way.
- buhu, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0mmmm .... red custard
- historybuff, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0530 Km = 318 miles. Must be 53 Km.
- greevar, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1I didn't know defense was spelled with a "c"!
- mikesbaker, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Richard Branson and his damn missiles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Branson
I'm mean he is richer that how many countries? But sure I conceded now STFU.
oh and Paul Allen too. I seem to remember talk of a space hotel too. - redpoint13, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Same way the SR71-Blackbird works.....
- ollj, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1marked inaccurate just for "Air breathing rocket" in the title.
- TheGorn, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Mack 10 you guys Mack 10!, fo shizznit.
- Flashman, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4Two hours from London to Sydney? We have enough bloody Pom backpackers as it is, without making it easier to get here.
- radu79, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Their goal is to reach space in a reliable and cheap way that can be exploited comercially. Their goal is not have passanger planes going 10 times the speed of sound, which is not economical at all. In fact, the main passanger supersonic plane was discontinued a few years ago, because it was not economical enough. Google for Concorde, or, since you like Wikipedia, try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde
- mikesbaker, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1oh and I missed the edit on this one: a scramjet is not a rocket .
@radu79
Thats pretty much what I said. - radu79, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1Why would they invest money in it?
Hmm, maybe because they can have faster missiles that can be used to strike the enemy in a shorter time? - swordedge, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2two hours from London to Sydney? slow. The system McCready won the X prise with expanded to global flights would do it in under an hour. SubOrbital will rock.... eerr float.
- iOsiris, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1If your on a jet (using a scramjet) and you say ran into a bird or something of the sort, your that much more likely to be ***** though prob.
- M3RCINIAN, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2sweetrelease is an idiot. How can a rocket NOT breathe air? If you had forgotten, it would DIE otherwise just like us humans.
- mikesbaker, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2air != oxygen.
You can't breath pure oxygen but rockets have to in order to be a rocket (of course not counting chemical rockets). - radu79, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1@mikesbaker
The vast majority of rockets contain their own oxygen in the fuel, in some form or another. Which is why they are so effective in going to space, where there is very little oxygen. - radu79, on 10/11/2007, -10/+2Unfortunately, that can't be used for civilian planes, because:
1. Goin to such high altitudes is dangerous (radiation)
2. The plane will overheat too much. Even the Concorder, which goes only twice as speed as the sound had problems with the overheating, and had to use the fuel to cool it off. Now, imagine going at 10 times the speed of the sound, you'll need some massive thermal shields, like the space shuttle. And those things are big and heavy.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is