Re: Scrapping Scram
From: Paul F. Dietz (dietz_at_dls.net)
Date: 11/01/04
- Next message: Rand Simberg: "Moral Equivalent Of A Space Program"
- Previous message: Alex Terrell: "Re: SPSs and the candidates"
- In reply to: John Thingstad: "Re: Scrapping Scram"
- Next in thread: John Thingstad: "Re: Scrapping Scram"
- Reply: John Thingstad: "Re: Scrapping Scram"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 07:25:45 -0600
John Thingstad wrote:
> You might be right about scram-jets or you might be wrong.
> Can't say I follow your numbers at I don't know how they are computed.
> The military plans to test a scram-jet at Mach 7 in 2005 and
> at Mach 10 by 2007. (I think)
The military wants hypersonic *cruise*. This is a very different
mission from that of launching to orbit, where rapid acceleration
is desired.
> And only for short durations. Certainly more experience with real
> craft operating in the atmosphere is needed before any definite
> conclusion is reached.
Certain conclusions follow directly from the laws of physics.
> (Remember 100 years ago most scientist agreed that rockets could never
> reach orbital velocity
> because the weight of the fuel would be greater than the lifting force
> generated.)
This is the 'they laughed at Galileo' argument. They laughed at Bozo
the Clown too, you know. Most ideas that are dismissed are dismissed
for damned good reason, and are not subsequently revived.
> I find it entirely possible that advances in design and material
> technology might allow
> scram-jets to operate at much higher temperatures than today.
That's nice. It doesn't solve the basic problem, though.
Paul
- Next message: Rand Simberg: "Moral Equivalent Of A Space Program"
- Previous message: Alex Terrell: "Re: SPSs and the candidates"
- In reply to: John Thingstad: "Re: Scrapping Scram"
- Next in thread: John Thingstad: "Re: Scrapping Scram"
- Reply: John Thingstad: "Re: Scrapping Scram"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
