I though a scramjet ment supersonic ramjet, if so then over mach 1 it would be a scramjet, wouldn’t it?
The “supersonic” refers to the combustion, not the vehicle speed. Other jets, even plain ramjets, combust at subsonic conditions (a shock wave develops ahead of the combustion). Combustion at supersonic speeds is more efficient, having to do with using the kinetic energy that would have been lost in passing through the shock, but I’d better leave the details to a physical chemist.
-
While looking through the DARPA web site, one of the request for proposals included a study for what it would take to implement a CONUSA (continental US) based bomber) with a combat radius of anywhere in the world within two hours.
-
The principle reason for the flight was to get some real “outdoor” data as opposed to a laboratory setting. There are, of course, theorectical models, but to validate these assumptions you need to collect empirical data. For the regions that involved Mach 7+ this the first time we’ve ever collected any information as it’s just too difficult to replicated in the lab for an air-breathing machine.
It ppartly falls under the ‘If you have to ask, I can’t tell you’ frame of mind.
Will it lead to more food for our starving kids? Maybe. But only if NASA commits the HUGE amounts of money on Solid Rocket Fuel that the Shuttle currently needs to lift off…or what about the environmental effects of that fuel?
smaller-cheaper-LEO means closer to a space elevator which means EXTREMELY cheap trips to space. THAT means a veritable explosion of new metallurgical and medical advances.
And where would be be without TANG?*
(*=yeah, I know, Cece said it wasn’t strictly developed for the astronauts…go with me here.)
How about traveling from New York to Austrilia, Brazil or Japan in under 18 hours?
That’s a mighty small step in the scheme of things. Incidentally, if a light-speed aircraft were leaving JFK this afternoon, and I had a free ticket, I’d give it away to someone who I really didn’t like all that much.
To those that think the money could just have easily gone to better lawncare or free happy meals to all the children of the world: Research and development is essential to a healthy economy. Nobel prize winner Solow linked more than 50% of economic growth to new innovations. Don’t develop, don’t grow.
As an aerospace/mechanical engineer, I’d like to chime in with a simple explanation…
Because Mach 10 is really freakin’ fast and fast is cool!
Rar!
No. The acceleration would kill everyone inside. It would be cheaper to just crush them in a large press.
Sure cheaper, but not as dramatic for the evening news. Besides, everyone know that the scramjets from “Supersonic Pizza to the World” will be manned by loveable robots.
Ignoring the smartass portion of Hyper’s post, I am for R&D, in general. I am also for space exploration. However, at the moment, there are more pressing needs that the money can be spent on. Learning how to make these vehicles is one thing. Making them (which I assumed is what the OP was talking about) in any capacity beyond research is quite another.