Two-Hour New York-Tokyo Flights Coming Soon?
Chances are you've never heard of a scramjet, and if you have, we can almost guarantee you've never seen one in action (unless you happen to work for NASA or DARPA). The concept of scramjets has been around for a while -- President Reagan even announced a major scramjet project, the National Aerospace Plane, in his 1986 State of the Union address. Reagan envisioned the scramjet replacing the space shuttle, military bombers and commercial aircraft. The program never got off the ground and was canceled by President Clinton in 1994.
Recent advances, however, have moved the scramjet from the lab to field tests. While researchers have been testing scramjets for a couple years, the most recent tests have been extremely favorable.
Scramjets work by sucking air to a chamber that narrows until the air is so condensed it ignites. Just before ignition, standard jet fuel is injected into the chamber. The lack of moving parts and modern construction materials mean that scramjets can withstand much more heat and force than a standard turbine-powered jet engine. Standard jet turbines would melt around Mach 3, but theoretically scramjets should be viable up to Mach 15, or around 10,000 miles per hour. That means that a two-hour flight from New York to Tokyo is theoretically possible.
Of course, the interest in scramjets isn't just about transportation. The military foresees scramjet-powered intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of hitting targets around the globe before an enemy would even have a chance to respond. And, of course, America isn't the only one racing for the prize. The governments of China, Australia, and others are in hot pursuit of the first practical scramjet engine.
From Slashdot and Popular Science
Related links:
_thumbnail.jpg "Vintage Keyboards")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
marknew91 said 7:06PM on 2-19-2008
I'm with Jess, Bob and Carolyn.
They spoke on the subject of "Two hour scramjet flight to Tokyo?"
Here is the original post:
Bob Rosen says:
Please God...May I never, never be in that much of a hurry to get to Toyko.
12/17/07 6:02 PM
Reply
Bob Rosen said 6:02PM on 12-17-2007
Please God...May I never, never be in that much of a hurry to get to Toyko!!!
Reply
Carolyn Graham said 7:19PM on 12-17-2007
I'm with you, Bob!
Reply
johnrwhitehurst said 9:25PM on 12-17-2007
This means it will take longer to get through aiport security than the trip itself.
Reply
Jess L said 11:07PM on 12-17-2007
I'm with Bob & Carolyn! and just how safe are these anyways?
Reply
GLO said 5:31AM on 12-18-2007
GREETINGS WELL I LIKE IT ! THIS PROJECT CAN BE WONDERFUL, B'CUZ I NEED TO TRAVEL 18 HOURS WHEN I FLY TO VISITED MY SON,& HIS FAMILY, I'M VERY SCARE OF FLY BUT I THINKING 2 HOURS IS BETTER THEN 18 (ô_ô) HAVE A NICE DAY EVRY BODY SAYONARA !
Reply
Phillip B. Lamb said 7:41AM on 12-18-2007
Dramatically-faster flights could overwhelm the air-traffic control system and require the FAA too hire specially-bred chimpanzees to man the screens in control centers. Since most flights serve mainly peanuts, flying may become merely monkey business. If apes were ever trained as low-cost pilots, then beware! The friendly skies could turn into a real jungle.
Reply
Bill said 8:02AM on 12-18-2007
JUST WHAT WE NEED, MORE WAR MACHINES THAT PRETEND TO BE GOOD FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC. WHEN IS EARTH GOING TO SMARTEN UP AND START TAKING CARE OF THEIR PEOPLE. PEOPLE STARVING AND DYING OF DISEASE AND ALL OF THE MONEY GOES TO A PIECE OF METAL. I JUST DON'T GET IT.
Reply
Fran said 12:19AM on 12-19-2007
Is it just me or does anyone else notie that none of the posters I've read even indicate they understand the import of the last few lines, the slipped in at the end of this article?
Here we go again...
St Reagan tried to get us all killed with his "Star Wars" Plan that seems to have resurfaced as "Scramjet".
2hour flight to Tokyo, Hah!
Reply
Daniel Gaunt said 10:14AM on 12-19-2007
Yes the faster the better! planes are never very comfy so you want the journey to be over as quickly as possible!
http://r.yuwie.com/naturistdaniel
http://drrockisback.spaces.live.com/
http://www.freewebs.com/dr_rock/
Reply
@#$%&! said 1:38PM on 12-19-2007
Just what we need: Faster, cheaper, deadlier missiles that are harder to track. Way to go, you warmongering technonazis. May the first ones fall on you and your scumbag offspring.
Reply
Rick said 5:01PM on 12-19-2007
Fear of technological advancement is still alive and well, I see. You cannot name a natural or man-made device or concept that put into the wrong hands cannot be used for some diabolical purpose. It's the nature of the warped mind, not of technology. With any increase in an item's usefulness, the more devastating the consequences when misused by those bent on destroying their fellow man.
Reply
john mournian said 3:01AM on 12-21-2007
I recall trying to build a small "scramjet" for a university project, but never heard about results. What is slowest speed that a "scramjet" powered aircraft would be able to land? I other words; how far down can you control power output?
Reply
Dorene said 11:35PM on 12-19-2007
Does it come with a complimentary bib?
Reply
mike weber said 9:47AM on 12-20-2007
As to landing - no, scramjets (which are just an improvement of the ramjet, one of the earliest designs) - cannot be throttled back sufficently for landing, nor can they operate at all at sppeds less than some percentage Mach (i forget the precise numbers), since they have to be moving fairpy fast to get the air compression necessary for operation (current airliners use turbojet or turbofan jet engines, which have a compressor in front that allows them to operate whan the aircraft is not moving at all).
The answer is dual-mode designs, in which a conventional engine gets the aircraft off the gtound and up to speed for the scramjet to kick in, or else some form of catapault launcher...
Reply
John Grundy said 2:51PM on 12-20-2007
I only hope I live long enough to see one crash. Now that should be a scene never before witnessed. For sure there will be no survivors.
Reply
John Grundy said 2:52PM on 12-20-2007
I can't wait to see one crash. Now that will be something to see! And 100% sure there will be no survivors!
Reply
grn said 10:11PM on 12-20-2007
Scram jets have been around a lot longer than whats being portrayed. However; till now they have been cost prohibitive except for military and other deep pockets. As for safety, once the material concerns are worked out, it would be much safer as there are minimal moving parts. If you research on the ground and in the air failures of aircraft, you'll find many related the turbines/compressors as found in normal jet engines.
Reply
grn said 10:22PM on 12-20-2007
Look to the SR 71 for further insight
Reply
grn said 10:23PM on 12-20-2007
war mongering technonazis is it?
Well to the tree-hugging liberal morons think this is just for military, think again.
The cold reality is, this media that you are posting on, the materials in your car, the calculator you figure up your yuppie salary on, and many other things all had their roots in military research. You people have obviously missed the boat on common sense, and sense of self, as you continuously chose to follow lockstep in with the ultra liberal left.
Reply