What is Digg?38 Comments
- vermin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11That's not what they did. Try reading the article, the scramjet needs to be going at mach 5+ to begin operating, and then it can increase the speed further. If this were to become a means of travel it would be in the form a huge jet airplane that would use normal jets to reach high speeds, then the scramjet engine would kick in.
Also, everyone keeps talking about this as if it's a big breakthrough for air travel. It's not really. It is however a big breakthrough for cruise missile technology. Something that the west is lacking as compaired with Russia who has similar ramjet cruise missiles. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Hypersonic would be a better way to describe it. (5 to 10 times the speed of sound)
- Dust3r, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7The reason they had to drop it is because the rocket needs to be going a certain speed for the engine to start up. At this time we have no other way to reach that speed other then dropping it, so its the best we can do now. Sometime in the future we may be able to achieve the start up speed without dropping it, and that is when the real use comes in.
EDIT:
arg, someone got to this first - usafa87, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I'd like to respond to a few of the above comments. In the interest of full disclosure, my organization gave Dr. Paull a grant, and I was observing the launch from the Instrumentation Building, less than 1km away (pics on my website at http://web.mac.com/wnace/iWeb/HyShotIII ).
"NASA did it first" Actually, it was a DARPA driven project that dumped mucho $$$ and managed to eek out a demo flight before running out of funds and scrapping the project.
Oh, and HyShot II happened in the summer of 2002, so actually the Aussies did it before NASA/DARPA did. HyShot also did it on the cheap -- 1-2 M$ per launch.
"IN A DIVE" yeah, so it's an experiment. You know, science. The point is to get Mach 7+ air flowing into the engine. We are currently embarking on a longer term project that will result in the engine pulling up and doing level flight (hope). As an added bonus, we got data for a wide variety of pressures, since the engine was lit from 35km down to 23km.
Someone wake me when digg users understand exciting, fundamental, breakthrough science. - Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2From TFA: "Defense researchers believe the test of a new jet engine succeeded in hitting Mach 7.6"
From your Wikipedia link: "Concorde had a cruise speed of Mach 2.02"
Your reply is like seeing a Blackbird for the first time and being unimpressed because of a WWII prop plane. - NGNR, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thank you for clearing that up usafa87. I was going to but now you've saved me some time :) .
I can only add http://www.uq.edu.au/hypersonics/?page=19501
Go UQ!
...its a pity I'm not studying mech and space engineering anymore at UQ. - JudgeDredd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thanks! Good information and nice pictures. I am sorry if I offended anyone by thinking the story was a non-story. I am not an aerospace engineer, nor do I play one on the internets. To a layman, such as myself, it seems like NASA did this before. Before attacking us silly non-aerospace engineers, why not back up your attacks with facts to educate us all? This is not directed at usafa87.
- diggAddict, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is whats cool about Digg when the user numbers are get bigger - getting a Digger who really was there - sweet - you cant get better than that!
Thanks for setting us straight usafa87! - hammerattack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Okay, so I read the article and go this: "It is shot 195 miles in the air attached to a rocket, then detaches and crashes down to Earth hitting Mach 8 speeds."
Great. So the british/japanese team tested as scramjet capable of mach 8 in IN A DIVE.
Someone wake me when they have something interesting. - CadMasterAdam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1okay since no one has said it i will:
SuperSonic = Mach 1.0 to Mach 5.0
HyperSonic = Mach 5.0 and higher
Title Incorrect. - joeljkp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah, but it's a scramjet, which literally stands for "supersonic ramjet". The Mach 5 divide is just a convenient place to put it, anyway. Hypersonic is still supersonic, after all.
- MSStategrad2001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Both the Aussies and NASA used rockets to get the scramjet up to "scramjet" speeds. Go back and re-read the articles and you will find that both tests used rockets to get the vehicles up to speed. You cannot get to these speeds (mach 5 +) just by falling.
- JudgeDredd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Really, what is more impressive? A plane that ignites it's scram jet using rockets at a level altitude, or a plane that uses Earth's gravity to possibly ignite the scram jet? On a pedant note, the article should replace supersonic with hypersonic and replace ram with scram.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I am personally tired of seeing stories touted as fact only to read the details--"intial reviews look like the test was successful." Let's determine whether the test was TRULY successful, THEN I'll consider it as a worthy read.
- MSStategrad2001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Go back and check the physics. A plane, lead pipe, big rock, whatever, cannot reach mach 5+ by just using acceleration due to gravity in the Earth's atmosphere (ever hear of something called atmospheric drag and terminal velocity).
- diggAddict, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Cool not only is this story an Australian one, its also from my home town Adelaide ;-)
Go Aussies!
That earlier post about NASA is wrong, NASA used a rocket to get to that speed - this is not just about speed - its about using the air to feed an engine at extremely high speed - something impossible for most jets today. - DWatch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"That's old" adds nothing to the discussion. It only annoys people that are trying to talk about the subject. Try that in real life... tomorrow at work/school/whatever, every time someone starts a discussion about something, butt in and say "That's old!" and see how long they put up with you.
- gamabunta, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Faster than a Blackbird!?
+Digg - JudgeDredd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2http://www.nasa.gov/missions/research/x43-main.html OK, I can see why my post was downgraded because I did not provide a link. Wow, it took 2 seconds to find that NASA did this, and it went at mach 9.6. I do not understand why all comments pointing out that this was already done are downgraded. Link includes videos.
- sky_blue_eyes, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4the only news i see is that the british have figured it out. NASA went to Mach 11.something in november. and the blackbird went Mach 3.77 or whereabouts that.
have a nice day. - rspeed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I was about to say the same thing.
- DigitAl56K, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Enjoy your hibernation.
- adinb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1The Aussies are testing a new hypersonic design. ::sigh:: Does anyone actually RTFA anymore?
- JudgeDredd, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5I could swear NASA did this over a year ago, but I am too lazy to look it up.
- Deuterium, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Just another jackass engineer helping destroy our earth with another contraption that increases global warming. Wake up there Mr engineer! You are part of the problem and not the solution.
- foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7Finally, the 1st Moon Landing
- DougPenn, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Digg for the use of the word "ramjet".
- tsupersonic, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Ah I wish the Concorde was still in service.
- Justice101, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3yup, only two years behind everyone else the Hyper-X X plane that was launched by NASA.
- wtfdan, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1quiet [F-15] DougPenn
quiet is no more. - quiet, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Roger that!
- jamesob5, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1the Batwing
- qwijybo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0test test test (sorry!)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1Gee, I've never heard of a supersonic jet before:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde - ispy, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1who care????
- jemstar, on 10/12/2007, -15/+2I don't get why it is useful to shoot a rocket up in the air and then see how fast it can fall. I don't know about you, but this is not the way I want to travel.
- ohsnapitsbrown, on 10/12/2007, -17/+2Repost of a repost
- unikorn, on 10/12/2007, -16/+1Preview Google's new search interface: (link got lost because it was posted late at night)
http://digg.com/technology/Preview_Google_s_new_search_interface
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is