Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

2 major science breakthroughsFollow

#1 Nov 17 2004 at 11:37 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
16,160 posts
First one, the scramjet, was launched yesterday and broke the world speed record by flying 7,000 mph. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6504898/

The second one is the anti-missle defense where an airborne laser shoots down in inbound ballistic missle. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6473144/

Totem
#2 Nov 17 2004 at 11:44 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,163 posts
Sweet!
#3 Nov 17 2004 at 11:46 AM Rating: Decent
*
124 posts
I thought I remembered reading a while ago that missile defense systems werent allowed because of something we signed. (vague I kno)

I donno ill try looking around for it. But the whole Idea was that if a nation thought it could protect itself from retaliaiton that it wouldnt worry as much about using nuclear weapons. you kno the whole mutual destruction thing.
#4 Nov 17 2004 at 11:47 AM Rating: Good
Mach 9+ speeds and Laser Missle Defense...

Couple that with the research posted yesterday on Psychic Teleportation...and we've got a Starship Troopers -meets- Star Trek future. Makes me all warm in fuzzy to know we can fire lasers and teleport molecules. Where do I sign up to be a guinea pig? hehe
#5 Nov 17 2004 at 11:47 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,930 posts
Stuff like that is extremely important to us. The defense system in particular. If you are on the side that says Iraq was a threat and did have WMD ready to fire, then this would keep us from having to actually go over there. They can just shoot em down as they come. That rocks.
#6 Nov 17 2004 at 11:50 AM Rating: Good
*****
12,735 posts
Ryneguy, pet mage of Jabober wrote:
Mach 9+ speeds and Laser Missle Defense...

Couple that with the research posted yesterday on Psychic Teleportation...and we've got a Starship Troopers -meets- Star Trek future. Makes me all warm in fuzzy to know we can fire lasers and teleport molecules. Where do I sign up to be a guinea pig? hehe



Smiley: lol

Well, I have a Flux Copasiter that I've been dieing to hook up to my Toyota...
#7 Nov 17 2004 at 11:52 AM Rating: Decent
**
312 posts
Quote:
thought I remembered reading a while ago that missile defense systems werent allowed because of something we signed. (vague I kno)


The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty we signed with the USSR/Russia.
#8 Nov 17 2004 at 11:53 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,163 posts
and we've got a Starship Troopers

We need more Starship Trooper conventions
#9 Nov 17 2004 at 11:53 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
NASA said it had no plans to recover Tuesday's test craft. Instead, the remains sank into the Pacific, in accordance with standard procedure for the scramjet tests.


Alright whose up for a little salvage diveing?? Any one got any crash(pun unintended)space on the left coast, I'll come out for a visit. I bring my own tanks.
#10 Nov 17 2004 at 11:54 AM Rating: Good
***
1,847 posts
We do actually have a missile defense system in place using thermite. This would be a hell of a lot more accurate, and more cost effective.

However, as far as I know these lasers aren't actually meant to be ground mounted (yet), they're meant for deployment on the new US Naval fleet which is under construction. Along with Phalanx cannons, these lasers would make the ships all but inpenetrable from the air. Good news for my friends in the Navy!
#11 Nov 17 2004 at 12:01 PM Rating: Decent
*
124 posts
Quote:
NASA said it had no plans to recover Tuesday's test craft. Instead, the remains sank into the Pacific, in accordance with standard procedure for the scramjet tests.


All that money wasted... they could at least have taken out another fishing boat...
#12 Nov 17 2004 at 12:15 PM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Quote:
All that money wasted


yeah, since their hanging up the ScramJet technology anyway.
not that it matters much since it converts oxygen to get to it's speeds... and un high altitudes don't contain enough oxygen to really work (thus still requiring rockets)... so the whole thing wasa pretty much *************
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#13 Nov 17 2004 at 12:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
Scramjets are cool! Back at Embry riddle when i was in aerospace engineering a bunch of us tried (as a mostly theoretical and somewhat pointless excercise) to figure out how to make a convertable turbine to scramjet engine. We figure the scramjet part is easy, just build an afterburner can that could reconfigure to a compression scramjet. The engine part would be harder. making a turbine with retractable turbine vanes would add something on the order of 1/3 more mass to the engine. We finally settled upon a shroud that would cover the center section of a bypass turbine, leaving the outer channel as an air inlet back to the scramjet portion. It could work with some rerouting of the airflow around the thrust stage of the turbine I think. The conversion might take too long though. You would need to kill the engine, get the baffle in place on the turbine section, and still maintain enough speed to ignite the scramjet, prefferably without losing control or altitude.


The other idea was a massive engine compartment like the xb-70 with two wngine channels, inner for turbine, outer for scramjet, and just a swing baffle between them.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#14 Nov 17 2004 at 12:26 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,755 posts
Kaosaidwhat? wrote:
Scramjets are cool! Back at Embry riddle when i was in aerospace engineering a bunch of us tried (as a mostly theoretical and somewhat pointless excercise) to figure out how to make a convertable turbine to scramjet engine. We figure the scramjet part is easy, just build an afterburner can that could reconfigure to a compression scramjet. The engine part would be harder. making a turbine with retractable turbine vanes would add something on the order of 1/3 more mass to the engine. We finally settled upon a shroud that would cover the center section of a bypass turbine, leaving the outer channel as an air inlet back to the scramjet portion. It could work with some rerouting of the airflow around the thrust stage of the turbine I think. The conversion might take too long though. You would need to kill the engine, get the baffle in place on the turbine section, and still maintain enough speed to ignite the scramjet, prefferably without losing control or altitude.

The other idea was a massive engine compartment like the xb-70 with two wngine channels, inner for turbine, outer for scramjet, and just a swing baffle between them.


Nerd. Smiley: smile
#15 Nov 17 2004 at 12:27 PM Rating: Good
***
1,847 posts
Dread Lord Kaolian wrote:
Scramjets are cool! Back at Embry riddle when i was in aerospace engineering a bunch of us tried (as a mostly theoretical and somewhat pointless excercise) to figure out how to make a convertable turbine to scramjet engine. We figure the scramjet part is easy, just build an afterburner can that could reconfigure to a compression scramjet. The engine part would be harder. making a turbine with retractable turbine vanes would add something on the order of 1/3 more mass to the engine. We finally settled upon a shroud that would cover the center section of a bypass turbine, leaving the outer channel as an air inlet back to the scramjet portion. It could work with some rerouting of the airflow around the thrust stage of the turbine I think. The conversion might take too long though. You would need to kill the engine, get the baffle in place on the turbine section, and still maintain enough speed to ignite the scramjet, prefferably without losing control or altitude.


The other idea was a massive engine compartment like the xb-70 with two wngine channels, inner for turbine, outer for scramjet, and just a swing baffle between them.


I understand most of that... namely the "and," "the," and "is" parts Smiley: lol
#16 Nov 17 2004 at 12:58 PM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Quote:
making a turbine with retractable turbine vanes would add something on the order of 1/3 more mass to the engine. We finally settled upon a shroud that would cover the center section of a bypass turbine, leaving the outer channel as an air inlet back to the scramjet portion. It could work with some rerouting of the airflow around the thrust stage of the turbine I think. The conversion might take too long though.



lol, the technology reminds me of the Bussard RamScoops on the ends of the Warp Nacelles on the Enterprise D. in case of the need for an alternate auxilliary power source, they would collect particles from space and extract energy from them with some type of fusion.

Same concept.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#17 Nov 17 2004 at 1:02 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,755 posts
Quote:
lol, the technology reminds me of the Bussard RamScoops on the ends of the Warp Nacelles on the Enterprise D. in case of the need for an alternate auxilliary power source, they would collect particles from space and extract energy from them with some type of fusion.

Same concept.


Trekkie Smiley: smile
#18 Nov 17 2004 at 2:03 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Quote:
LOS ANGELES - An unmanned experimental jet broke a world record for speed on Tuesday, cruising over the Pacific Ocean at just under 7,000 mph (11,000 kilometers per hour) in a NASA test of cutting-edge “scramjet” engine technology.

The X-43A aircraft flew at a speed of around Mach 9.6 — nearly 10 times the speed of sound — after a booster rocket took it to around 110,000 feet (33.5 kilometers) and then separated. A modified B-52 airplane had carried the experimental plane and its booster aloft.

I'd be more impressed if it was manned, and could take off from the ground. And if it didn't need a booster rocket that would surely have to be replaced every time it was used.

#19 Nov 17 2004 at 2:04 PM Rating: Good
***
1,847 posts
trickybeck the Sly wrote:
Quote:
LOS ANGELES - An unmanned experimental jet broke a world record for speed on Tuesday, cruising over the Pacific Ocean at just under 7,000 mph (11,000 kilometers per hour) in a NASA test of cutting-edge “scramjet” engine technology.

The X-43A aircraft flew at a speed of around Mach 9.6 — nearly 10 times the speed of sound — after a booster rocket took it to around 110,000 feet (33.5 kilometers) and then separated. A modified B-52 airplane had carried the experimental plane and its booster aloft.

I'd be more impressed if it was manned, and could take off from the ground. And if it didn't need a booster rocket that would surely have to be replaced every time it was used.


Can it even be manned at that velocity? I'm not sure about the limits of a human body under that kind of force. Hey Kaolian, any idea about that? Anyone for that matter?
#20 Nov 17 2004 at 2:07 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
I vote Varrussword for Test Pilot!!
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#21 Nov 17 2004 at 2:10 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Quote:
Can it even be manned at that velocity? I'm not sure about the limits of a human body under that kind of force. Hey Kaolian, any idea about that? Anyone for that matter?

Velocity doesn't affect the human body, only acceleration.

Although I guess every time the plane turns, that causes acceleration.




Edited, Wed Nov 17 14:11:04 2004 by trickybeck
#22 Nov 17 2004 at 2:26 PM Rating: Decent
The question is, how much oxygen can it scoup up on the way up? If you can scoup more than you need, this thing could reach space without a booster rocket by a storage tank.
#23 Nov 17 2004 at 2:29 PM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Quote:
every time the plane turns, that causes acceleration.


I'm not so sure about this one.

Quote:
how much oxygen can it scoup up on the way up


i think it burnes it as it takes it in, so no go.

Now if they can find a way to store that energy for later, now that would be a money maker.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#24 Nov 17 2004 at 2:37 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
The silvery-black scramjet, just 12 feet (3.65 meters) long by 5 feet (8 meters) wide, took off from Edwards Air Force Base in the desert north of Los Angeles early Tuesday afternoon, perched below NASA’s B-52 research plane.


It's pretty bad when NASA can't even do Imperial to Metric conversion, but they can fly at MACH 10.. [:tounge:]
#25 Nov 17 2004 at 2:44 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,110 posts
Let's not forget the particle accelerator for breast cancer treatment...

Quote:
Can it even be manned at that velocity? I'm not sure about the limits of a human body under that kind of force. Hey Kaolian, any idea about that? Anyone for that matter?


Do people not realize the earth is traveling at thousands of miles per hour around the sun, not to mention rotating on an axis? We're always moving, it's just that it's constant so people don't notice it. We can't detect velocity with our bodies, only acceleration.

Edited, Wed Nov 17 14:48:25 2004 by Keibah
#26 Nov 17 2004 at 2:46 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

The second one is the anti-missle defense where an airborne laser shoots down in inbound ballistic missle.


Nothing got shot down. Missle defense is a bad joke and a waste of money. It doesn't work. It's not going to work anytime this century.

They FIRED the laser. That's all.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 229 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (229)