Nasa plane to try Mach 7 flight

bbc ^ | Saturday, 27 March, 2004

[concentric circles]

NASA TV Online (RealAudio Media)

Take off: 12:00 p.m. PST

X-43A launch: 1:00 p.m. PST

More here.

[samtheman]

It is hoped this technology could one day dramatically reduce the length of long-haul passenger flights ...

Ahhh... I'm not in that much of a hurry.... Gimme a ticket for an aeroplane... The old-fashioned kind.

[BykrBayb]

It is hoped this technology could one day dramatically reduce the length of long-haul passenger flights and make it much cheaper to launch space payloads.

Holy Cow!!! Who in their right mind would volunteer to be a passenger on anything that goes Mach 7?!!!

[Aeronaut]

[Fiddlstix]

[Husker24]

Well, at least if anything happend, youd bed dead in a tenth of a second.

[BykrBayb]

But I want time to call 911, so I can have my last words (and screams) recorded for playback on the evening news.

[Elsie]

If that brown thing on the bottom is the ENGINE, it appears that there will be quite an offset to the thrust vector, creating a 'pitch-up' condition...

[Calvin Locke]

Ahhh... I'm not in that much of a hurry.... Gimme a ticket for an aeroplane... The old-fashioned kind.

Not susceptible to blood clots? (-;

I remember a Cessna owner saying how depressing it is, to be following a highway, then hit a strong headwind, and have the cars below "pass" you by.

[ecurbh]

Thought you might be interested in this.

[samtheman]

Maybe propellors are a bit too old-fashioned. But I'm quite satisfied with the average run-of-the-mill jet airliners of today.

What's NASA doing here, anyway? Are they off on a thousand different projects at the same time? Just how big a budget do they think they have? (Newsflash: not that big.)

Is this really something they should be squandering funds on? I have my doubts.

Let the airline passengers fend for themselves, NASA. Keep your eye on the planets. And the moon.

[Calvin Locke]

What's NASA doing here, anyway?

Attempting to find a cheaper way to achieve orbit? Not having to carry as much oxidizer is a plus.

I'd have to spend some time thinking about the cost/benefit/application of a intermediate stage-only
scramjet in launches. Or maybe it would only be used for launches from an airborne platform?

Maybe it's funded from the DoD?

[TomB]

Is this really something they should be squandering funds on? I have my doubts.

Let the airline passengers fend for themselves, NASA. Keep your eye on the planets. And the moon.

If you would have read this article, or in fact ANY article on scramjet technology, you would know that this is the future of getting things into leo, cheaply and easily.

[samtheman]

I thought about that, too. There's long been talk about a "space plane". I guess this is a step towards that. Which would make sense. And anything that boosts the military is good for all of us. But I would prefer they not do it in the name of faster passenger service. Not the same year that I just watched the Concord behind towed up the Hudson river to its final resting place. We don't need faster passenger travel. We do need cheaper space flight. And we always need a stronger military.

[TomB]

For anyone watching Nasa-TV and got tired of the interminable checklists, the -52 is taking off now.

[null and void]

Holy Cow!!! Who in their right mind would volunteer to be a passenger on anything that goes Mach 7?!!!

Me! Oh wait, you said in their right mind. *nevermind*

[jpsb]

How did the test go?

[TomB]

How did the test go?

It won't be going off for another hour or two.

The damn launch plane isn't even off the ground yet.

(They must be taxiing to the test area)