Re: NASA 'Scramjet' Soars at Almost 7,000 Mph

From: Jack Love (jackxxloveyy_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 11/20/04 

Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 00:02:43 -0800

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:47:57 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
<brooksvmi@notyahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Jack Love" <jackxxloveyy@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:lrqsp0t7uog63te267mjqvchn6ft096i0v@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:36:46 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
>> <brooksvmi@notyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>news:7164002b.0411190410.49881bb6@posting.google.com...
>>>> Jack Love <jackxxloveyy@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:<amhqp0lftd2q4s9kjdm3coq6msq6dgnm99@4ax.com>...
>>>>> On 18 Nov 2004 14:50:36 -0800, jacklinthicum@earthlink.net (Jack
>>>>> Linthicum) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It was actually because of 'SST program expense and environmental
>>>>> effects"...as I was working around the program at the time, there was
>>>>> no particular doubt that the plane could be built at Boeing, after all
>>>>> the B-70 had already been built and flown successfully. The thing
>>>>> was going to cost a fortune to build, and would have been
>>>>> catastrophically expensive to operate AFTER the enormous oil price
>>>>> increases which weren't anticipated then. It was planned to have
>>>>> a 25% cost premium over the 747 which would have soared after the oil
>>>>> crisis of the early 1970s.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't know who you worked with at Boeing, I did a tour with a group
>>>> in 1967 in which the demonstration included a walk-thru of the mock
>>>> up, including a simulated landing, and discussions of the use of
>>>> titanium in the construction and the reasons why Boeing was certain
>>>> they could not build a usable SST.
>>>
>>>Bullpoopie. Please show any evidence to support your assertion that Boeing
>>>was claiming that they could NOT build a "usable SST". FYI, the XB-70
>>>(which
>>>did some SST testbed duty) had been flying at even higher speeds than that
>>>projected for the SST.
>>>
>>>They said they had to get about
>>>> mach 2.7 but that the glues they used then
>>>
>>>"GLUES"??! You think they were gonna GLUE the danged SST together like a
>>>balsawood model? For pete's sake...
>>>
>>>and anything available in
>>>> the near future was inadequate.
>>>
>>>Odd that the Concorde managed to conduct successful operations...
>>>
>>>As to practicality they said they
>>>> could fly two profiles, one where the fully loaded aircraft could get
>>>> about halfway across the Atlantic, the other where the aircraft empty
>>>> could fly a full mission.
>>>
>>>You got anything to back up this claim? I thought this was the preiod
>>>where
>>>you said you were doing spooky stuff at Camp Peary...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> >I would think 3
>>>>> >or more times that velocity would create a heat buildup impossible to
>>>>> >dissapate, either in the air or on the ground. I would imagine the
>>>>> >mission for this device and its follow-ons is a long reach cruise
>>>>> >missile with speed to avoid or negate tracking and intercept.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's why you plan on flying really high...the flight plans for
>>>>> hypersonic transports have been around since the 1970s that I'm aware
>>>>> of: you accelerate out of the atmosphere; engines shut down (no air)
>>>>> and proceed in a fractional orbit to wherever you're going; where the
>>>>> ram effect re-entering the atmosphere restarts your engines for you.
>>>>
>>>> Fly high as you like you still have to come down in the troposphere. I
>>>> didn't hear anyone describe the fractional orbit, although the FOBS
>>>> was an active operation at the time. I presume you have some way of
>>>> restarting 1967 jet engines after shut down with enough certainty to
>>>> satisfy the insurance company?
>>>>>
>>>>> The design teams at Boeing were pretty convinced that there was a
>>>>> no-mans land between Mach 3+ and about Mach 8-10 (it was 30 years
>>>>> ago). Mach 12ish was thought, again IIRC, was thought to be a sweet
>>>>> spot where one could regain enough economic costs by coasting to make
>>>>> it profitable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The no-man's land in 1967 was trying to get from mach 1.8 to mach 2.7
>>>> where the economy of flight would engage. The problem of getting
>>>> passengers on and off a hot airplane and servicing the same hot
>>>> airplane was an important factor in their planning. It would take too
>>>> long for the planned aircraft to cool to make it practical.
>>>
>>>Gee, how did the Concorde ever manage to make it at Mach 2.2 ....?
>>
>> Which used more or less ordinary aluminum; not the titanium leading
>> edges that the 2707 expected to use.
>>
>>>Brooks
>>>
>>
>> Mr Linthicum manufactures bullpoopie nearly every time he opens his
>> mouth....other than when he copies things verbatim from other sources.
>

I was remembering the tour that Linthicum claims to have taken and
remembers so thoroughly: among which was the displays on the topic of
titanium welding which was going to be a vitally necessary process for
the construction. I don't remember anything about glues, not to say
they weren't there.

>Brooks
>>
>>
>

Relevant Pages