|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Hypersonics Overhype
That's the theme of my latest column at TechCentralStation:
http://www.techcentralstation.com/033104C.html |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Hypersonics Overhype
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
... That's the theme of my latest column at TechCentralStation: http://www.techcentralstation.com/033104C.html I myself even have doubts about the military applications for the hypersonic bomber the Air Force is envisioning. The goal is to have almost zero decision-to- impact time but a hypersonic vehicle can hardly loiter around and would probably have a huge turning circle travelling at its minimum speed (mach 5). It would take about 10 minutes to get a bomb on target by such as bomber after the 'go' was given. This compares unfavourably compared to a ICBM which can hit any target in the world in 15-20 minutes. A modified ICBM with a conventional warhead would probably be just as effective. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Hypersonics Overhype
"Uddo Graaf" wrote...
I myself even have doubts about the military applications for the hypersonic bomber the Air Force is envisioning. Such a bomber might work if it was rocket only. (But would still take an hour or two to launch.) Or if it was accelerated to M1.0 whilst on a launch rail, upon which a RAM/SCRAM combined-cycle engine could take over. Hypersonics have applications for the army. A M7.0 hydra rocket (the pods used on Apaches) would make a very good anti-tank weapon. Might even be cheep enough to make the hellfire redundant except for precision strikes. On second thoughts the US army would probably hate the idea, as such a cheep and simple weapon would probably make a worthy successor to the RPG-7, which they are still having troubles with. This compares unfavourably compared to a ICBM which can hit any target in the world in 15-20 minutes. This would require the military to think intelligently and not waste money. There is however a very sensible arguement against using ICBMs as conventional weapons. It would set a precident, and could allow someone to covertly launch a nuclear warhead, under the pretence it's merely a conventional warhead. A modified ICBM with a conventional warhead would probably be just as effective. Oh but the USAF couldn't do that! They might accidentally kill someone when the first stage hit the ground... ANTIcarrot. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Hypersonics Overhype
"Rand Simberg" wrote ...
That's the theme of my latest column at TechCentralStation: http://www.techcentralstation.com/033104C.html I understand that scram-jets can work at higher altitudes. The test flight occured at 28.5km (95k ft) which is higher than either concorde or military jets. From memmory a scram-jet could fly even higher. Does anyone know if this woudl have a significant impact on sonic boom at ground level? The point of gathering fuel 'for free' is to reduce the size of the vehicle (which can lead to all sorts of benifits) not to save on fuel or oxidiser costs. I agree though this is a very dumb idea. WTF are they doing cancelling the RS-84 though??! They *NEED* a restartable engine if they're going to go to Mars and stop once they get there!!! It's also a perfect candidate for any kind of luna mission space-tug. Idiots. Bloody idiots... ANTIcarrot. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Hypersonics Overhype
"Uddo Graaf" wrote:
I myself even have doubts about the military applications for the hypersonic bomber the Air Force is envisioning. The goal is to have almost zero decision-to- impact time but a hypersonic vehicle can hardly loiter around Why not? and would probably have a huge turning circle travelling at its minimum speed (mach 5). Which means you start your run from farther away. Oddly enough, that's what you want to do anyhow in order to loiter beyond the reach of enemy radars and AA defenses. It would take about 10 minutes to get a bomb on target by such as bomber after the 'go' was given. This compares unfavourably compared to a ICBM which can hit any target in the world in 15-20 minutes. It also compares favorably with the ICBM in that it has a faster response time, and can be called back. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Hypersonics Overhype
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 12:31:40 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
(Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: (Rand Simberg) wrote: That's the theme of my latest column at TechCentralStation: http://www.techcentralstation.com/033104C.html Yes, and it includes your usual theme of NASA bashing, but you reach a new low by mis-stating the facts and engaging in hyperbole. The very selfsame sin you accuse the mass media of. The difference, of course, is that I make corrections when called on it, which they generally don't (e.g., Gregg Easterbrook). The Hyshot test was a failure. Their intent (like the X-43A) was to demonstrate SCRAM mode. Sadly while producing enough thrust to accelerate the vehicle, the engine burned in subsonic RAM mode. In other words, the Australians *didn't* do anything with a fraction of the X-43A budget, but rather they demonstrated something very different, an improved ramjet. I hadn't seen that follow up. The significance of this flight was not that it was an in-flight test of a scramjet, but that it generated sufficient thrust to actually accelerate the vehicle. If a NASA PAO generated the same statement about X-43A, you'd be among the first to crawl all over them for making a 'failure' a 'sucess'. If I had been aware, yes. I'll research further and see if I can rectify it. Thanks for the correction. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Hypersonics Overhype
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 13:08:02 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
h (Rand Simberg) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: If a NASA PAO generated the same statement about X-43A, you'd be among the first to crawl all over them for making a 'failure' a 'sucess'. If I had been aware, yes. I'll research further and see if I can rectify it. Thanks for the correction. OK, Derek, you're going to have to provide a cite for your claim, because I can't find any references to it. Everything I find indicates a test success. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Hypersonics Overhype
"Uddo Graaf" wrote
"Rand Simberg" wrote That's the theme of my latest column at TechCentralStation: http://www.techcentralstation.com/033104C.html Most excellent. I agree that feeling out the possibilities of scramjets is worth doing, whether by the military or a NACA-ized NASA. But a lot of what's been said about Hyper-X reminds me of the hype about ISS/STS science. Way premature, at best. (I also think that finally getting some experimental aerospikes flying is worth doing, but that's another discussion.) I myself even have doubts about the military applications for the hypersonic bomber the Air Force is envisioning. The goal is to have almost zero decision-to- impact time but a hypersonic vehicle can hardly loiter around and would probably have a huge turning circle travelling at its minimum speed (mach 5). It would take about 10 minutes to get a bomb on target by such as bomber after the 'go' was given. This compares unfavourably compared to a ICBM which can hit any target in the world in 15-20 minutes. A modified ICBM with a conventional warhead would probably be just as effective. Yeah. Again, it's worth doing some R&D, but you do wonder why a scramjet is better than a rocket for the time-urgent Osama- blowing-up mission. A rocket -- like Pegasus -- could be launched from the same aircraft as the scramjet if you didn't want to use an ICBM. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Hypersonics Overhype
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 13:08:02 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away, (Rand Simberg) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: If a NASA PAO generated the same statement about X-43A, you'd be among the first to crawl all over them for making a 'failure' a 'sucess'. If I had been aware, yes. I'll research further and see if I can rectify it. Thanks for the correction. OK, Derek, you're going to have to provide a cite for your claim, because I can't find any references to it. Everything I find indicates a test success. I can't find my reference, it wasn't widely reported. I'll keep digging. (And hopefully not a hole.) Even so, the Australian team with it's tiny fraction of the Hyper-X budget accomplished only a fraction of what the Hyper-X did. They demonstrated ignition and combustion, not flight. (The HYSHOT test vehicle was essentially falling in a near vertical trajectory, not free flight.) Even they themselves describe the test as one of 'hypersonic combustion' (http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/hyshot_020816.html) not 'hypersonic flight'. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|