NASA 'Scramjet' Soars at Almost 7,000 Mph

The Scramjet begs this question. How much different is the scramjet from
the technology of the ramjet plane flown in the 1940"s? The ramjet went
faster and faster as it compressed air greater and greater. It could
reach great speed. Its draw back was it used up its fuel at to great a
rate. The German's used such a plane to shot down bombers. It went up
and down,and wasted a lot of fuel,but was the fastest plane. We went
from the ramjet to the fan jet. Not as fast,but much more practical.
In the late 50's we had blue prints for the dinosaur project. That
should have been given more priority (go figure) Taking this
scramjet up to 40,000 feet under the belly of a big plane(no pilot) and
using up its fuel in 10 seconds to reach a speed of 7,000mph is nice.
Still to me it could have been done after the X1(had a pilot) 50 years
ago. At this spacetime it only proves what I've been preaching about
NASA. Again it smells of Rube Goldberg engineering with a touch of "to
little to late" Bert

[bunnerabbit]
... "Cosmic upheaval is not so moving as a little child pondering the death
of a sparrow in the corner of a barn." -Anouk Aimee, French Actor
_____

"Death is better, a milder fate than tyranny", Aeschylus (525BC-456BC),
Agamemnon
_____

"I wear no Burka." - Mother Nature

....but do you dance
a Chopin Mazurka?

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo"http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo/A

Hi Uncle Al You are our news groups great and best critic. I cheer you
on when you go after fraud at NASA.Not finding evidence is the way NASA
likes it.NASA covers all its corruption up by intimidation. Objects fall
into water and water being a liquid covers them from being viewed.
NASA using these conditions(features) to kill and steal billions and
not have a worry in the world. Bert.

Gee, how did the Concorde ever manage to make it at Mach 2.2 ....?

Brooks

See Thomas Mann,
"Buddenbrooks Books"

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo"http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo/A

I do.

....what?

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo"http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo/A

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
snip
At this spacetime it only proves what I've been preaching about
NASA. Again it smells of Rube Goldberg engineering with a touch of "to
little to late" Bert

Actually Bert, the scramjet has almost no moving parts. It's probably about
as far from Rube Goldberg engineering as you can get.

BV.

BV A solid chemical rocket has no moving parts but NASA was able to kill
7 astronauts by two parts coming apart. they were warned this could
happen in cold weather.It was very cold at launch time,but the new low
chicken brain NASA took the chance.The new head of NASA was not even at
Cape Kennedy.He was in bed sound asleep after all he needs his sleep.
Bert

Can I throw this in here. A guy in the UK invented a substance that does
not allow heat to build up. Is this used on the leading edges of the
scramjet"s wings? Does the scramjet have wings? Bert

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Can I throw this in here. A guy in the UK invented a substance that does
not allow heat to build up. Is this used on the leading edges of the
scramjet"s wings? Does the scramjet have wings? Bert

The NASA X-43 uses carbon carbon on it's leading edges,
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/Fa...-040-DFRC.html, or
http://www.mercorp.com/mercorp/press/index.htmlx.

I think this is the same material used on the shuttle's leading edges, isn't
it?

BV.

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
BV A solid chemical rocket has no moving parts but NASA was able to kill
7 astronauts by two parts coming apart. they were warned this could
happen in cold weather.It was very cold at launch time,but the new low
chicken brain NASA took the chance.The new head of NASA was not even at
Cape Kennedy.He was in bed sound asleep after all he needs his sleep.

I agree Challenger was a horrible event, caused by inadequacies of layers of
management governed by political engines. It is quite awful. BUT!!! And this
is a big J-LO sized BUT...The X-43 is an amazingly simply research vehicle.
NO (or is it very few?) moving parts in the engine. Pretty dern simple, and
you don't need to carry all of that fuel like a solid fuel rocket.

BV.