Roger Ramjet He's Our Man....

November 19, 2004 4:00 PM

Roger Scramjet, he’s our man!! Mach 10, 7000mph New York to Tokyo in 2 hours! The future of global air travel? Or something else? What does Russia think of our new precision time-critical strike weapons with significant stand off capability as well as prompt global reach? Oh, nothing really...
posted by BrodieShadeTree (20 comments total)

I liked the New York to LA in 20 minutes they were talking about. That would mean you could spend easily five times as much time getting to and from the airport as the flight itself.

ScramJet, it even sounds cool to say!
posted by fenriq at 4:35 PM on November 19, 2004

Yes, but remember that George W. Bush canceled funding for the X-43/scramjet research program in favor of the Mars mission.

I'm not making this up.
posted by adamgreenfield at 4:38 PM on November 19, 2004

So, will Russia actually be constructing new nuclear weapons this time, or will they stick with printing new cardboard stand-ups?
posted by Plinko at 4:48 PM on November 19, 2004

It will take probably about 10 years to put this tech into actual use in human-carrying aircraft of any kind, and of course it will start with military applications. You'll probably see it used in some kind of missile first.

To make a self-contained plane that can take off from the ground, climb to altitude, accelerate to scramjet speed, and hold enough fuel to make a trip of any distance, while carrying even a single pilot, is going to require a whole hell of a lot of R&D. Remember, this test was flown with an unmanned computer-piloted vehicle that had to be carried aloft by a B-52 and accelerated up to speed by a rocket booster.

That said, I think the speed angle is pretty impressive. Just don't expect to see passenger liners carrying 300 people at 7200 mph within about 25-30 years.
posted by zoogleplex at 5:00 PM on November 19, 2004

O.K.
First of all, sorry for the OT post and links, but due to a lack of FPP ability [long time reader, noob poster], I submit these mildly related, oddly placed items for your review:

Maybe it's just me, but doesn't this seem weird?
posted by numlok at 5:29 PM on November 19, 2004

Numlok: Nice derail!
posted by eriko at 6:13 PM on November 19, 2004

Why are we concerned about setting the Russians off? Surely they'll consider our sane, sensible foreign policy and our policy of thinking things out and . . . oh, dear.

Dear.
posted by John of Michigan at 6:30 PM on November 19, 2004

Randy Scramjet
posted by Zurishaddai at 6:30 PM on November 19, 2004

super derail. So, um, am I supposed to want the anal massage before or after I read about medical management of chemical/biological casualties?


(can somebody with more disposable income than me [none] please please order one?)
posted by cmyr at 6:48 PM on November 19, 2004

That would mean you could spend easily five times as much time getting to and from the airport as the flight itself.

Aw, that's nothing - I can do that today if you let me count all the time I waste getting through "security".
posted by Mars Saxman at 8:18 PM on November 19, 2004

The American scientific community has been instrumental in the rise of American military dominance since 1943. Revolutionary sceince has been applied to offensive and defensive weapons systems, communications, and electronics first. Civil and commercial applications have always become a distant second.

Hypersonic, and sub-orbital craft will be no different.

The United States is posturing itself to militarize space with non-nuclear weapon systems, both defensive and offensive. I speculate that the cancelled X-34 "Venture Star" may well come back as a USAF manned orbital bomber or laser equipped interdictor platform.

All those billions were not spent for nothing.

Will we see civil craft evolving into the hypersonic arena? Yes. In my lifetime? That depends.

However, such an aggressive posture on the part of my countrymen makes me nervous. All good things.....
posted by PROD_TPSL at 8:47 PM on November 19, 2004

Here's a story about the project from NPR (audio).

They sheer joy that is obvious from the scientists voice as he talks about the jet is amazing. They refer to it as 'mothballing' the technology because they're not going to use any of it for years.
posted by Arch Stanton at 10:03 PM on November 19, 2004

Come on, adding that link about Russia was a total post-hoc fallacy. The Russians probably want more small, quick nukes to make themselves feel like a forward-looking country that can do something right, or threaten Checnya more fully. Any potential external factor would more likely be China or North Korea. If America is a motivation at all, it would more likely be the missile defense sheild (mentioned in the article!) than the scramjet doing the motivating.
posted by rkent at 11:03 PM on November 19, 2004

Oh! I want it! That would be just SO COOL!

Here's to hoping it's in this lifetime that we can actually fly on one of these.

I have many friends far and wide and it would be just awesome to say: "OK, I'll be there in an hour!" and just hop on a fast flight. I am totally "IN."
posted by erratic frog at 11:26 PM on November 19, 2004

Won't it have the same constraints as did the Concord? I would imagine that flying at mach 10 would create a serious sonic boom meaning you can't really fly it over populated area's.
posted by Timeless at 1:05 AM on November 20, 2004

As adamgreenfield said, the Bush admin has turned its focus on Mars at the expense of the scramject project. One of my lawschool classmates worked on the scramjet and had to temper his thrill at seeing it in action with the knowledge that in the end all they'll have is data. He's still pretty damn happy, though.

Timeless: sonic booms may be a problem, but the real constraint is heat. A passenger jet made of the same thin, heat-resistant materials as the scramjet wouldn't last long. One bump from a baggage carrier and you've got a heck of a hole. So don't book your ticket until we see some major advances in materials science, which, as zoogleplex said, might take another 25 years.
posted by schoolgirl report at 5:02 AM on November 20, 2004

The only way I'm willing to spend ANY tax money on going to Mars is if they turn the entire project over to Burt Rutan.
posted by Enron Hubbard at 6:06 AM on November 20, 2004

rkent: Come on, adding that link about Russia was a total post-hoc fallacy

with less than 48 hours between the two stories i disagree: ergo propter hoc.
posted by RockyChrysler at 9:38 AM on November 20, 2004

"time critical strike missions"? What, as opposed to all those "oh we'll get around to blowing them up sometime, someday" strike missions?
posted by wilful at 6:27 PM on November 21, 2004

Errr, as dead dino power becomes more expensive, exactly how is this NOT going to be a 'product of the rich'? (ie Military)
posted by rough ashlar at 5:47 PM on November 23, 2004