This appears to be a technical breakthrough, although until the telemetry data is analized we should wait before getting too excited about this. At least it didn't blow up this time. :)
1 posted on
03/27/2004 6:28:44 PM PST by
anymouse
To: *Space; KevinDavis
space ping
2 posted on
03/27/2004 6:29:13 PM PST by
anymouse
To: anymouse
3 posted on
03/27/2004 6:35:24 PM PST by
risk
The booster on the hypersonic X-43A ignites after the plane detached from a modified B-52 bomber which had carried the X-43A to an altitude of 40,000 feet, after taking off from Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., on Saturday, March 27, 2004, in this image made from NASA (news - web sites) TV.
Three years after its first test flight ended in an explosion, NASA on Saturday successfully launched the X-43A, an experimental jet designed to reach speeds approaching 5,000 mph.
(AP Photo/NASA TV via APTN)
To: anymouse
Technological hurdles mean it will be decades before such a plane could enter service. And NASA's role in developing the technology remains in doubt, as the agency recently cut funding for more advanced versions of the X-43A. Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid. Sometimes I just stare, slacked jawed, in utter amazement as the bean counters, clerks and jerks undercut such technological achievements.
5 posted on
03/27/2004 6:41:42 PM PST by
Archangelsk
(Shall we have a king?)
To: anymouse
The Department of Defense (news - web sites) also is working on the technology, which it's eyeing for use in bombers that quickly could reach targets anywhere on the globe. To work, the engine must be traveling at about five times the speed of sound — requiring an initial boost that only a rocket can provide.
Now that would be a sight to behold, a rocket boosting a bomber to five times the speed of sound and then have the scram jet kick in.
Wander if they would launch from Cape Canaveral or Vandenberg AFB?
Another question that comes to mind is why not fire the rocket at the target in the first place???
6 posted on
03/27/2004 7:03:49 PM PST by
varon
(Allegiance to the constitution, always. Allegiance to a political party, never.)
To: anymouse
Roger Ramjet (and his American Eagles) would be proud...
7 posted on
03/27/2004 7:23:29 PM PST by
KangarooJacqui
(The Internet - it's a jungle out there... *brushes vines away from screen*)
To: scott7278; concentric circles; NewRomeTacitus; Centurion2000; ZGuy; dljordan; BaBaStooey
Ping
10 posted on
03/27/2004 7:43:09 PM PST by
BenLurkin
(Socialism is slavery.)
To: anymouse
So the scramjet worked. Excellent. Sure, it's only the first successful test, but it's better than an unsuccessful test.
16 posted on
03/27/2004 11:34:50 PM PST by
FierceDraka
(Service and Glory!)
To: anymouse
I watched it on TV. Amazing.
A jet with no moving parts. Amazing.
18 posted on
03/28/2004 1:39:39 AM PST by
Fledermaus
(Ðíé F£éðérmáú§ ^;;^ says, "I give Dick Clarke's American Grandstand a 39...you can't dance to it.")
To: Normal4me; RightWhale; demlosers; Prof Engineer; BlazingArizona; ThreePuttinDude; Brett66; ...
19 posted on
03/28/2004 2:51:29 PM PST by
KevinDavis
(Let the meek inherit the Earth, the rest of us will explore the stars!)
To: anymouse
For once NASA is on the right track.
20 posted on
03/28/2004 2:52:21 PM PST by
KevinDavis
(Let the meek inherit the Earth, the rest of us will explore the stars!)
To: anymouse
Hey, I am already using the scramjet in a story. =o)
25 posted on
03/28/2004 9:29:19 PM PST by
GeronL
(www.armorforcongress.com..... put a FReeper in Congress)
To: anymouse
Technological hurdles mean it will be decades before such a plane could enter service.Translation: The government doesn't have the budget or the interest to actually work on it.
26 posted on
03/28/2004 9:55:03 PM PST by
irv
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
