Nasa Scramjet Smashes Speed Record
Taken from Daily Express Monday 29th 2004:
"Called a supersonic-combustion ramjet, or scramjet, it sucks oxygen out of the air.
Conventional jet aircraft must carry fuel and oxygen. But instead of being weighed down with both ingredients the scramjet carries just hydrogen fuel and extracts the oxygen needed to burn the fuel from the atmosphere"
So why am I always being told to take minimum fuel when that just leaves the tanks full of all that weighty air?
"Called a supersonic-combustion ramjet, or scramjet, it sucks oxygen out of the air.
Conventional jet aircraft must carry fuel and oxygen. But instead of being weighed down with both ingredients the scramjet carries just hydrogen fuel and extracts the oxygen needed to burn the fuel from the atmosphere"
So why am I always being told to take minimum fuel when that just leaves the tanks full of all that weighty air?
For all those debating who did it first, note this sentence from the first post:
"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."
No money, no project.
"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."
No money, no project.
It's a good thing jets get their oxygen for engines and pax from the air. Imagine if planes had to carry oxygen for the pax.. Then the beancounters would be reducing the amount of oxygen carried!
"Sorry folks, I had to turn on the 'Meditate' sign so that we'll conserve our oxygen..."
"Sorry folks, I had to turn on the 'Meditate' sign so that we'll conserve our oxygen..."
By the way, some people at NASA would still like to find some way to keep the Hubble going (though Administrator O'Keefe seems pretty down on the idea).
I would presume that there are plenty of astronauts quite willing to fly a repair mission for the Hubble.
Plus, again purely as my own opinion, many people might view landing people on Mars as a riskier mission than a previously scheduled repair mission to replace batteries and gyroscopes on the Hubble.
I would presume that there are plenty of astronauts quite willing to fly a repair mission for the Hubble.
Plus, again purely as my own opinion, many people might view landing people on Mars as a riskier mission than a previously scheduled repair mission to replace batteries and gyroscopes on the Hubble.
Last edited by visibility3miles; 30th Mar 2004 at 18:14.
