Advertisement
Does anyone think this will be scaled to a passenger version?
Hypersonic Airbreathing Propulsion is all great, but fundamentally we are still in the realms on Newton's 3rd Law.
Is it time for a fundamental rethink for thrust.
Hypersonic Airbreathing Propulsion is all great, but fundamentally we are still in the realms on Newton's 3rd Law.
Is it time for a fundamental rethink for thrust.
posted by:
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: NASAs Scramjet
Wed, March 31, 2004 - 3:47 PMWe designed scramjet engines as a final project in a gas dynamics class I took. I couldn't get the dimensions right, and like 90% of the rest of the class, always ended up with negative thrust. Works great, just flies backwards!
Since then scramjets are just a sci fi dream to me... -
-
Re: NASAs Scramjet
Thu, April 1, 2004 - 1:06 PMWell, a lot of projects work well on small scale but never quite make it to practically for numerous reasons.
Fundamentally, we are still burning explosive, exothermic fuels (often hypergolic) to get theis thrust.
I am not sure what the efficiencies are, but surely there must be better things.
At the risk of offending some of you, has anyone heard of Schauberger and Podkletnov?
-
-
Unsu...
Re: NASAs Scramjet
Mon, April 12, 2004 - 8:00 PMI'm afraid that scramjets aren't going to happen. (I'm not even sure there is a need for them.) Mixing fuel and oxidizer at high-speeds is seriously difficult task, without encountering a huge pressure drop across the combustor. Who will pay for it? Not the government.
-
Re: NASAs Scramjet
Mon, April 19, 2004 - 7:28 PMI'm all for it, but it'll be many decades before we strap one onto a human. Keep in mind that the recent test (go NASA go) was with a vehicle that had a (IIRC) 12 foot wingspan. Read: small test article.
Couple that with the 'supersonic startup' requirement. What do we really need to get moving that fast? Unless we use it as propulsion to break orbit...
