Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 1/27/2006 8:46:20 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 8:54:49 AM EDT
Suddenly, the SR-71 doesn't seem so hot...
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 8:55:53 AM EDT
LINK

More info!!!
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 10:46:42 AM EDT
That'll be as quick as the first time I had sex.
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 11:06:36 AM EDT
This thread is useless without pics
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 11:12:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Brohawk:
Suddenly, the SR-71 doesn't seem so hot...


Link Posted: 1/27/2006 11:20:02 AM EDT
If they are telling the public about it,.......
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 11:23:16 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 11:23:43 AM EDT
jebus
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 11:26:26 AM EDT
wow
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 11:37:31 AM EDT
Put that in yer pipe and smoke it.

Link Posted: 1/27/2006 12:24:04 PM EDT
Here's your assignment -

Team 1: Design a tracker and a lasing device that can put energy on target at an insertion speed that is higher than the vehicle's average cruise speed. Must be able to lase off bore sight.

Team 2: Design a store that can be released from the vehicle at its maximum dynamic pressure (probably around Mach 6).

Team 3: Figure out how to make this vehicle without a thermal protection system glued on the oute moldline.


Link Posted: 1/27/2006 12:32:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AeroE:
Here's your assignment -

Team 1: Design a tracker and a lasing device that can put energy on target at an insertion speed that is higher than the vehicle's average cruise speed. Must be able to lase off bore sight.



Superhornet



Team 2: Design a store that can be released from the vehicle at its maximum dynamic pressure (probably around Mach 6).



Superhornet



Team 3: Figure out how to make this vehicle without a thermal protection system glued on the oute moldline.



Superhornet
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 12:45:12 PM EDT


Team 3: Figure out how to make this vehicle without a thermal protection system glued on the oute moldline.



Superhornet







ANdy
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 12:56:32 PM EDT
So Aroura is getting declassified and turned into a bombtruck? Isn't Mach 20 a waste of fuel inside the atmosphere, would it not be smarter to go into space? Methane-based fuel I assume? I know it will have to be a coldfuel.
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 1:00:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mattl:
So Aroura is getting declassified and turned into a bombtruck? Isn't Mach 20 a waste of fuel inside the atmosphere, would it not be smarter to go into space? Methane-based fuel I assume? I know it will have to be a coldfuel.



Mach 20 means you are as near space as you can get without calling it that.
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 1:01:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KA3B:

Originally Posted By AeroE:
Here's your assignment -

Team 1: Design a tracker and a lasing device that can put energy on target at an insertion speed that is higher than the vehicle's average cruise speed. Must be able to lase off bore sight.



Superhornet



Team 2: Design a store that can be released from the vehicle at its maximum dynamic pressure (probably around Mach 6).



Superhornet



Team 3: Figure out how to make this vehicle without a thermal protection system glued on the oute moldline.



Superhornet



Even the Super Hornet ain't that fast.
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 1:09:59 PM EDT
What I don't understand is.... all these hyper sonic aircraft look like knife edges whereas the space shuttle looks like a school bus or dump truck: big front end, conventional looking front facing windows, thick wings.... and yet when that bad boy re-enters earth's atmosphere to a glided landing it's coming in at way over Mach. 7

My point/question is.... since the space shuttle has long handled the types of heat and other forces related to hyper speed re-entries and it's geometry is as non-super-sleek looking as an aircraft can get... what am I missing with all these articles about how super hard it is for companies to design and construct aircraft that will be able to avoid melting or disintegrating as such speeds (which are lower air speeds than the shuttles handle).
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 1:13:07 PM EDT
Mach speed is a relative number. Especially at the altitudes we're talking about.

In fact, I think you MUST be above a certain altitude to travel above a certain mach number without risking the body of the craft melting from the heat produced by friction with the air.
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 1:16:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JusAdBellum:
What I don't understand is.... all these hyper sonic aircraft look like knife edges whereas the space shuttle looks like a school bus or dump truck: big front end, conventional looking front facing windows, thick wings.... and yet when that bad boy re-enters earth's atmosphere to a glided landing it's coming in at way over Mach. 7

My point/question is.... since the space shuttle has long handled the types of heat and other forces related to hyper speed re-entries and it's geometry is as non-super-sleek looking as an aircraft can get... what am I missing with all these articles about how super hard it is for companies to design and construct aircraft that will be able to avoid melting or disintegrating as such speeds (which are lower air speeds than the shuttles handle).



The heat tiles on the shuttle are the reason it doesn' fry, and they are a really clumsy and temporary way of doing it.

Shuttle's also taking advantage of gravity to go so fast, it's basically gliding like a set of car keys.

If you sat on a brick and got a nice shove towards earth, you'd haul ass, too.

Link Posted: 1/27/2006 1:19:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/27/2006 1:20:33 PM EDT by 52brandon]

Originally Posted By JusAdBellum:
What I don't understand is.... all these hyper sonic aircraft look like knife edges whereas the space shuttle looks like a school bus or dump truck: big front end, conventional looking front facing windows, thick wings.... and yet when that bad boy re-enters earth's atmosphere to a glided landing it's coming in at way over Mach. 7

My point/question is.... since the space shuttle has long handled the types of heat and other forces related to hyper speed re-entries and it's geometry is as non-super-sleek looking as an aircraft can get... what am I missing with all these articles about how super hard it is for companies to design and construct aircraft that will be able to avoid melting or disintegrating as such speeds (which are lower air speeds than the shuttles handle).

gravity plays a big part in the space shuttles speed when it is coming to earth. The jets have to propel themselves away from earth and forward at the same time. Think about a prop plane, going sideways it will be going a lot slower than it would be with the same amount of propultion going down.

ETA: Damn I read and type slow
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 1:19:51 PM EDT
tag for after my nap
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 1:27:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CITADELGRAD87:

Originally Posted By JusAdBellum:
What I don't understand is.... all these hyper sonic aircraft look like knife edges whereas the space shuttle looks like a school bus or dump truck: big front end, conventional looking front facing windows, thick wings.... and yet when that bad boy re-enters earth's atmosphere to a glided landing it's coming in at way over Mach. 7

My point/question is.... since the space shuttle has long handled the types of heat and other forces related to hyper speed re-entries and it's geometry is as non-super-sleek looking as an aircraft can get... what am I missing with all these articles about how super hard it is for companies to design and construct aircraft that will be able to avoid melting or disintegrating as such speeds (which are lower air speeds than the shuttles handle).



The heat tiles on the shuttle are the reason it doesn' fry, and they are a really clumsy and temporary way of doing it.

Shuttle's also taking advantage of gravity to go so fast, it's basically gliding like a set of car keys.

If you sat on a brick and got a nice shove towards earth, you'd haul ass, too.






Bob
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 1:33:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JusAdBellum:
What I don't understand is.... all these hyper sonic aircraft look like knife edges whereas the space shuttle looks like a school bus or dump truck: big front end, conventional looking front facing windows, thick wings.... and yet when that bad boy re-enters earth's atmosphere to a glided landing it's coming in at way over Mach. 7

My point/question is.... since the space shuttle has long handled the types of heat and other forces related to hyper speed re-entries and it's geometry is as non-super-sleek looking as an aircraft can get... what am I missing with all these articles about how super hard it is for companies to design and construct aircraft that will be able to avoid melting or disintegrating as such speeds (which are lower air speeds than the shuttles handle).



It's complicated. The most basic answer I can think of is that the shuttle is designed to decelerate, not cruise, hence its shape needs to approach a bluff body. The shuttle also has to shed far more total energy than any atmospheric vehicle will and the Mach numbers are much higher.

I have to tell you that designing the vehicle described here is more difficult than you can imagine, but at least the.gov appears to be starting down the correct path by concentrating on a vehicle optimized for atmospheric flight. If NASP showed anything, it's that two vehicles are required, one for sub-orbital flight and another for flight in the atmosphere. The fuel fraction required to takeoff from a runway and fly to orbit is so high that there is room left for only very small payloads, so small that the mission is probably not worth flying.

I worked on the Full Scale Assembly for a while - this was a giant titanium matrix/silicon carbide fiber composite panel that represented the upper surface of the MDC NASP. Well, the heat loads were so high that I have no idea how a semi-monocoque fuselage is ever going to work - the overall vehicle is a body that can grow unconstrained in the heat, but the individual panels between frames, stringers, and so on are indeterminate and they suffer thermal buckling anyway, ruining the fidelity of the outer moldline, not to mention other structural problems it causes. This is one reason the Shuttle has tiles.

After that unsatisfying answer, here's a link that describes the entire mission profile of a shuttle flight -
spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/events/
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 1:42:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AeroE:
Even the Super Hornet ain't that fast.



But the Super Duper Hornet will be.
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 4:58:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:

Originally Posted By AeroE:
Even the Super Hornet ain't that fast.


But the Super Duper Hornet will be.


LOL.
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 7:06:25 PM EDT
I probably should get a patent on this first...but I'm feeling generous.

If the problem is friction, why doesn't some engineering genius come up with a leading edge system akin to the supercavitating torpedo concept - injecting gas flow into the on rushing air so as to allow the edge to not take the brunt of the friction.... or if that's impossible, why not pumb whatever liquid you're using for fuel across the leading edge and then into the engine as we did on the Saturn V nossle?

If neither is possible no biggie. If one is and you make a fortune remember me.
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 7:29:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JusAdBellum:
I probably should get a patent on this first...but I'm feeling generous.

If the problem is friction, why doesn't some engineering genius come up with a leading edge system akin to the supercavitating torpedo concept - injecting gas flow into the on rushing air so as to allow the edge to not take the brunt of the friction.... or if that's impossible, why not pumb whatever liquid you're using for fuel across the leading edge and then into the engine as we did on the Saturn V nossle?

If neither is possible no biggie. If one is and you make a fortune remember me.




lol! Sorry, but they already thought about that a looooooooooooong time ago.
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 7:40:21 PM EDT
X-15
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 7:47:41 PM EDT
Or possibly a cooling system that has a network of pipes and channels that run coolant throughout the ship to take away the heat..............or even use the super cold fuel as a heat sink......


Originally Posted By JusAdBellum:
I probably should get a patent on this first...but I'm feeling generous.

If the problem is friction, why doesn't some engineering genius come up with a leading edge system akin to the supercavitating torpedo concept - injecting gas flow into the on rushing air so as to allow the edge to not take the brunt of the friction.... or if that's impossible, why not pumb whatever liquid you're using for fuel across the leading edge and then into the engine as we did on the Saturn V nossle?

If neither is possible no biggie. If one is and you make a fortune remember me.

Link Posted: 1/27/2006 7:52:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/27/2006 7:53:02 PM EDT by Stainless]
and we care... why?

i can think of MANY better uses for the money.

what's the point of doing this? what will it do for us? WHY do we need it? why don't we spend the funds allocated to this on.... ANYTHING else.
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 8:00:55 PM EDT
tag
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 8:29:19 PM EDT
Stainless - While many would argue, pursuing scientific discovery for the sake of discover is a noble goal. Research is one of the few things that I think should be done with our tax dollars.

This project will produce more than a bigger-better-bomber that will be used to blow up grass huts along the Euphrates. Think about Mach 20 passenger planes. Balistic trajectories, New York to Sydney in 2 or 3 hours. Concepts gained in aerodynamics research could be used in fluid dynamics. Maybe we'll be able to put more water through a pipe faster, or find a more efficient means to pump crude from the ground by reducing the friction between the liquid and the pipe. Or a thousand other things that we haven't even imagined yet.

Think about it, when Kennedy said we're going to the moon, do you think anyone out there had any clue that we'd end up with things like Tang, teflon, memory foam, MRE rations, etc? How about the economic impact? Each research job probably ends up creating quite a few engineering jobs, which in turn create manufacturing jobs, which creates sales jobs, which creates repair jobs - see what I'm saying here? I don't have the figures, maybe no one does, but every dollar spent on research generates far-reaching dividends in the US and world economies. Better economies make higher standards of living.

Hell, beyond that, you have to realize that this country, this civilazation, and everything you see around you are only a TINY part of the whole of history. We are creating today the knowledge that will be required to colonize the stars. In the next thousand years, much less the next million, there will be changes that we today cannot BEGIN to imagine. In 100 years, we will probably have the capability to control the genetic heritage of our offspring. Another 100 from now, maybe we'll have the ability to transfer our conciousness from our bodies to electronic mediums. We could have effective immortality. We, as a race, are destined to either destroy ourselves, or become masters of all we see. Science gives us hints now, that on a very small scale, we can effect physical objects through thought. Results of tests on a certain subatomic particles have been shown to be influenced by the pre-concieved ideas of the experimenter. Matter is only a state of energy, like solid, liquids and gases are states of matter. Imagine what will happen when we are able to control objects around us as easily as we control the flow of electricity today!

Eh... I went off on a tangent, as usual. Anyhow, science is one of the few things that creates wealth when you throw money at it.
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 9:40:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SimonPhoto:

This project will produce more than a bigger-better-bomber that will be used to blow up grass huts along the Euphrates.



Oh gosh.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA thank you for the laugh. I haven't laughed this hard in a long time.


I do see your point. I just think we spend money foolishly. I don't think we as a nation have our priorities straight. How about a better school system, how about a stronger border between mexico and the US? I think we should be focusing inward, not outward.

BUT, you can argue that this new reasearch, will allow us to make advances which will better our country.... and our society... and I can't really argue with that idea.
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 9:47:31 PM EDT
So are they gonna rub some Astroglide on the wing edge to cut down on the friction generated
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 4:54:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By cyclone:
Or possibly a cooling system that has a network of pipes and channels that run coolant throughout the ship to take away the heat..............or even use the super cold fuel as a heat sink......




The heat load on this type vehicle is far to large to handle this way. On the other hand, using aircraft fuel to cool engine and gearbox oil is common practice in modern airplanes.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 6:27:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SimonPhoto:
In 100 years, we will probably have the capability to control the genetic heritage of our offspring.


More like 20 years. (and no, I don't think it's necessarily a good thing)

BTW, I started this thread because I thought it was interesting that this information was leaked or otherwise released.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 6:42:07 AM EDT
Archived [ARCHIVED THREAD] - Air Force plans to test MACH 20 jet next year
Page General » General Discussion
ZonaTactical
jt
laRue
brownells
geissele
bravocompany
22Mods4All
alienGearHolsters
Faxxon
aeroPrecision
silencerShop
JRH
samson
EagleLite
blackhills
Xtreme
gemtech
CA
dsa
BearCreek
delton
handgunGrips
apex
primaryArms
Top Top