Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 211 to 240 of 249

Thread: Passenger market for suborbital, hypersonic transports.

  1. #211
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    506

    Red face Cost

    That's alot of cosmetics for the cost of one flight initially. Certainly as we progress the cost will come down.

  2. #212
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    8,018
    Actually, I think there was something called ASTRO or three.

    http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/astro.htm
    http://www.astronautix.com/craft/astro.htm
    http://www.astronautix.com/craft/orbastro.htm
    http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/sdoc54ani.jpg

    And there is this--the Martin Astrorocket among other things
    http://www.epizodsspace.narod.ru/bibl/shun/shun2.html
    http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers...60-80/1960.htm
    http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/spacefighters0.htm
    http://www.up-ship.com/apr/volume3.htm
    http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/sdoc17ani.gif
    http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/marocket.htm
    http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/drawndocspaceother.htm
    http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/ch2.htm


    Why Roton was a bad idea
    http://www.optipoint.com/far/rotary.htm

    What the USAF might look into for small payloads
    http://www.responsivespace.com/Paper...ER%5C6006P.pdf

    http://www.cyrus-space-system.com/

    Spaceplanes
    http://www.darpa.mil/tto/solicit/BAA...sentations.pdf
    http://www.astronautix.com/data/saenger.pdf
    http://www.bautforum.com/science-tec...mechanism.html


    New propulsion
    http://www.amazon.com/Future-Spacecr...1834599&sr=8-1
    http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.co...es-part-v.html Boostback
    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...topic=1139.180 Nuclear methods
    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...?topic=17984.0 Profac
    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...?topic=18104.0

    Nuclear DC-X
    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...?topic=17522.0
    http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...c=GetTRDoc.pdf

    Diborane for Mars
    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...?topic=18657.0


    Stabilo
    http://www.arcaspace.ro/
    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...?topic=18951.0


    Sea Dragon
    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...?topic=9733.75
    Smaller water rockets
    http://home.people.net.au/~aircomman...opAwayBoosters

    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...?topic=14392.0 China spacelab

    History Channel Space Wars
    http://www.history.com/shows.do?acti...isodeId=488264
    http://www.history.com/content/universe

    http://www.bautforum.com/science-tec...ml#post1593804

    RLV develpment http://nasawatch.com/archives/2009/1...rcial-rlv.html
    Last edited by publiusr; 2009-Oct-15 at 06:43 PM.

  3. #213
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,604
    Quote Originally Posted by publiusr View Post
    I would love to be able to go to the conference mentioned:

    NASA Announces Commercial RLV Technology Roadmap Project.
    PRESS RELEASE
    Date Released: Tuesday, October 13, 2009
    Source: NASA HQ
    "NASA is committed to stimulating the emerging commercial reusable launch vehicle industry," said Lori Garver, deputy administrator at NASA Headquarters in Washington. "There is a natural evolutionary path from today's emerging commercial suborbital RLV industry to growing and developing the capability to provide low-cost, frequent and reliable access to low Earth orbit. One part of our plan is to partner with other federal agencies to develop a consensus roadmap of the commercial RLV industry's long-range technology needs."
    ...
    "This NASA and Air Force study will begin at the Commercial and Government Responsive Access to Space Technology Exchange 2009, held in Dayton, Ohio, Oct. 26-29. NASA and the Air Force Research Lab, with participation from the Federal Aviation Administration's Office of Commercial Space Transportation, will meet with representatives from the commercial RLV industry to explore and understand their long-range growth plans and the technology they could use to implement those plans successfully."
    http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=29390

    2009 Commercial and Government Responsive Access to Space Technology Exchange (RASTE) Oct. 26-29, Dayton, OH.
    http://www.usasymposium.com/craste/cfa_extend.htm

    But attendance fees are in the range of $650. Why do such aerospace conferences such as the AIAA meetings always have such high attendance fees? Do they think the only people interested would have the fees picked up by their industry firms?

    Bob Clark

  4. #214
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    8,018
    Their way of keeping the 'riff-raff' out. Here are the things you would probably hear if you were a fly on the wall:

    __________________________________________________ ____________________

    One Blue-suit
    "Well if we can get Constellation killed we can free up some money for responsive space."

    Another Blue-suit
    "Yeah, once we get NASA to toe our line, the funds can keep coming in. Too bad about F-22. And that tanker mess! The cost of in-flight refueling on force projection is higher than that spent on missile defense!"

    "Shhh, a missile advocate might hear you... Ah! here comes one of those starry-eyed scramjet engineers. Look interested."

  5. #215
    Quote Originally Posted by publiusr View Post
    Their way of keeping the 'riff-raff' out. Here are the things you would probably hear if you were a fly on the wall:

    __________________________________________________ ____________________

    One Blue-suit
    "Well if we can get Constellation killed we can free up some money for responsive space."

    Another Blue-suit
    "Yeah, once we get NASA to toe our line, the funds can keep coming in. Too bad about F-22. And that tanker mess! The cost of in-flight refueling on force projection is higher than that spent on missile defense!"

    "Shhh, a missile advocate might hear you... Ah! here comes one of those starry-eyed scramjet engineers. Look interested."
    Thanks! I haven't laughed that hard in about a week.

  6. #216
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    8,018
    Wat 'till I tell you about some of these X-prize events, where everyone is selling and no one is buying.

    A few space advocates use what little money they've raised in making nice glossy hand-outs, and one lone Venture Capitalist walks in, eats the steak they offer, then still says no, rolls his eyes at another true believer, laughs at a few more.

    He then goes home and watches CNBC, screams at the TV set over a new tax, then when a story about how NASA needs money comes on, he says to himself. "Aw, private initiative can do a better job than gov't"--forgetting that he himself refused to invest in anything of the kind earlier in the day, thus debunking himself unknowingly.

    Then, as head of the Aerospace Corp or whatever, he hires the first two blue-suits I mentioned earlier--calls his two old room-mates "space experts"--and they all head for the links.

    If you want to know about what really goes on in this world--ask a caddy. Or be one. A better education you will never have.

  7. #217
    Quote Originally Posted by publiusr View Post
    Wat 'till I tell you about some of these X-prize events, where everyone is selling and no one is buying.
    Your levels of pessimism never fail to amaze me.

    If the government unleashes the Entrepreneurs of this great nation no other country in the world will be able keep up. But yes, it does have to start with the Government funding the private companies in order for them to get the legitimacy that NASA funding brings.

    Times they are a changin' whether you like it or not.
    http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/in...p?itemid=16103

  8. #218
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    8,018
    I hope you are right, I really do. But look at some of the problems Elon Musk has faced. The is a real firestorm leveled against ATK, just like that leveled at Northrup Grumman when Boeing lost THAT competition. My guess is that, should Ares fall, the COTS folks will also start to feel hostility from the usual suspects. Musk has surprised me. He has more staying power than Beal ever did. But his success came from avoiding wings. As far as hypersonic passenger markets, the all rocket design I link to below is probably the best way to go:


    http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ce-travel.html

    Here are some other links to this and similar concepts:
    http://www.popsci.com/scitech/articl...ceships?page=1
    http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/04/eur...nic-plane.html
    http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-to...tml?c=y&page=1
    http://www.dlr.de/en/desktopdefault....4/3681_page-2/
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01...ies/print.html

    Also in the news
    http://www.space-travel.com/reports/...ustry_999.html
    http://www.space.com/businesstechnol...estflight.html
    http://www.space.com/businesstechnol...ce-rocket.html
    Last edited by publiusr; 2009-Oct-23 at 07:49 PM.

  9. #219
    Quote Originally Posted by publiusr View Post
    the usual suspects.
    Which are?

    Note, the single most publicised plan as an alternative to Ares 1+V is the Direct plan, which still uses SRB's from ATK.

  10. #220
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    8,018
    I wish that were true. I mean of course the EELV only advocates, but that's for another thread. In terms of rocketplanes we all remember Von Brauns designs. The closest thing I have seen to his early winged LV plans is this craft from the sites listed below:

    http://www.astronautix.com/stages/n1mok.htm
    http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/n/n1var.gif
    http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/n1.htm

    The lifting body looks to be revived under the 305-1 http://www.buran.ru/htm/history.htm http://www.buran.ru/htm/family.htm

    It really isn't that tall. Still too expensive--for now...
    Last edited by publiusr; 2009-Oct-19 at 08:24 PM.

  11. #221
    Quote Originally Posted by publiusr View Post
    I mean of course the EELV only advocates,.
    Who are, exactly? Who's doing this campaigning, where and who is this ATK attacking going on. Bearing in mind, once again, at least one of the EELV's writes cheques to ATK each time it uses GEM's.

  12. #222
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    8,018
    Quote Originally Posted by djellison View Post
    Who are, exactly? Who's doing this campaigning.
    Well ULA wouldn't be campaigning at all now would they? No way they'd be pushing their product and scmoozing behind the scenes, or shouting down foes on message boards, for example.

    Getting back on topic--if we can--what do you think of DLRs liner concept? No airbreathing, and a flyback that can just as easily be used to boost non-winged LVs I wonder if this might be the new definition of Oural...
    Last edited by publiusr; 2009-Oct-19 at 09:16 PM.

  13. #223
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    754
    Quote Originally Posted by publiusr View Post
    Well ULA wouldn't be campaigning at all now would they? No way they'd be pushing their product and scmoozing behind the scenes, or shouting down foes on message boards, for example.
    No more than you do with your clueless posts.

  14. #224
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    754
    Quote Originally Posted by publiusr View Post
    Their way of keeping the 'riff-raff' out. Here are the things you would probably hear if you were a fly on the wall:

    __________________________________________________ ____________________

    One Blue-suit
    "Well if we can get Constellation killed we can free up some money for responsive space."

    Another Blue-suit
    "Yeah, once we get NASA to toe our line, the funds can keep coming in. Too bad about F-22. And that tanker mess! The cost of in-flight refueling on force projection is higher than that spent on missile defense!"

    "Shhh, a missile advocate might hear you... Ah! here comes one of those starry-eyed scramjet engineers. Look interested."
    That is so wrong.

    You have no credible information to base these asinine points on. You have no insight into the DOD nor the experience to make comments like these. These only exist in the warped and twisted world that you live in and have no basis in a reality that everybody else shares.

    You denigrate the very people that protect your freedom with these unsubstantiated lies that you create. You post this crap all over the internet. Unless you have real information that backs your points, I demand that you refrain from making them.

    They are nothing more than lies since they misrepresent the truth.

  15. 2009-Oct-19, 09:25 PM
    Reason
    Jim can't be reasoned with.

  16. #225
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    8,018
    Like the lie you said against me writing that certain letter to Av week? And that is just one of your falsehoods.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Jim View Post
    You denigrate the very people that protect your freedom...
    That's an old one. Wrap yourself in a flag and question the patriotism of others.

    "How dare you use the freedom of speech that was fought for." A self negating statement if there ever was one.

    If the freedom of speech itself--so much as tell a harmless joke--- is under assault, then what were folks fighting for? The last folks who actually fought for my freedom of speech (in a war we actually needed to fight) were the WWII vets, only some of whom were part of the US ARMY Air Corp--back in the days before the Air Force was formed. The USAF gets the lions share of the Pentagon budget, and I am not the only person critical of that. The "purple" thing never fooled me. Purple is closer to 'blue' than any other color. But I wasn't speaking to you at all Jim, I was talking to the gentlemen on this board.

  17. #226
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    38,590
    Quote Originally Posted by The Jim View Post
    No more than you do with your clueless posts.
    If you can't discuss this topic like adults, it won't be discussed at all. Please review the rules of this forum, particularly as they regard politeness. Consider this an official warning.

    And by the way, though that was first aimed at The Jim, that goes for everyone on all sides of this issue.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  18. #227
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    754
    Quote Originally Posted by publiusr View Post
    1. If the freedom of speech itself--so much as tell a harmless joke--- is under assault, then what were folks fighting for?

    2. The last folks who actually fought for my freedom of speech (in a war we actually needed to fight) were the WWII vets, only some of whom were part of the US ARMY Air Corp--back in the days before the Air Force was formed.

    3. The USAF gets the lions share of the Pentagon budget, and I am not the only person critical of that.

    4. The "purple" thing never fooled me. Purple is closer to 'blue' than any other color.

    5. But I wasn't speaking to you at all Jim, I was talking to the gentlemen on this board.
    1. It is not harmless joke. You keep pushing the same agenda which is not based on anything in reality

    2. You conveniently omit the Cold Warriors which kept us safe from the Soviets. It was the mostly USAF that kept the USSR in place. You seem to align yourself more with the Soviets that the US Armed Forces.

    3. You don't know enough to make that judgment. Your posts back me up.

    4. What the H does that have to do with anything? What does purple have to do with it?

    5. They aren't listening to you

  19. #228
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    754
    Quote Originally Posted by publiusr View Post

    That's an old one. Wrap yourself in a flag and question the patriotism of others.
    Yes, your patriotism is questionable. You make claims about our armed forces without any data to back it up.

    You have no idea about the inner workings of the DOD and USAF space program, yet you make unsupported comments about them.

  20. #229
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    38,590
    Quote Originally Posted by The Jim View Post
    Yes, your patriotism is questionable.
    The Jim,

    This is my final warning. I don't know quite what your beef is, or what exactly you two are arguing about (and I'm not reviewing 8 pages of this thread to figure it out), but it doesn't seem to have much to do with the suborbital market for passenger flights - more like re-living the Cold War.

    But it doesn't matter. Politeness is the primary rule in this forum and you will keep this discussion civil. We are not rude to other members and we do not question their ideals, or their motivations. Debate the concepts, not the people.

    If you can not discuss this matter civilly, maybe you shouldn't participate in this thread. If you continue to break the rules, you will be suspended.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  21. #230
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,604
    Quote Originally Posted by RGClark View Post
    We might make a guess on the time frame on the development of a hypersonic commercial transport if the X-51 test is successful based on the case of the jet engine.

    Interesting articles on the developers of the jet engine:

    Frank Whittle
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Whittle

    Hans von Ohain.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Ohain

    Frank Whittle in England first came up with the idea for a jet engine in 1929. There was a lot of skepticism for the idea and he did not come up with a working prototype then. He was able though to get a patent on it in 1930. He was first able to come up with a working prototype in ground tests in 1937.
    Hans von Ohain in Germany independently came up with the idea in 1933. He was also able to produce a working ground prototype in 1937. After some more refinements, it was first tested in aircraft in 1939, only 2 years after the first successful ground tests.
    After finally getting funding and support from the British government Frank Whittle, was able to get the first tests in aircraft in 1941.
    Actual deployed jet fighters for both countries came only a couple of years after these first flying prototypes.
    The first jet airliner was first tested in 1949 and came into service in 1952:

    Jet airliner.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_airliner

    So a prototype commercial jet transport was produced only 10 years after a prototype jet fighter, which came only two years after the first jet engine ground tests. Following this model, we might expect a prototype hypersonic jet fighter within 2 years, and a prototype hypersonic transport within 10 years after that.
    The X-15 which flew up to Mach 6.7 in the 1960's was already able to withstand the thermal heating at those speeds and likely could be an already existing airframe to test the scramjet engine on. More advanced airframes to optimize range and lift-to-drag ratios would be waverider lifting body shapes.
    A more detailed discussion of the Wednesday test flight of the X-51A hypersonic scramjet:

    Scramjet Success.
    Aviation Week and Space Technology, May 28, 2010
    By Graham Warwick
    Washington
    http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...mjet%20Success

    This mentions the key advance that this is over the X-43A flight that ran on hydrogen even though that earlier flight reached higher speeds. The X-43A flight only lasted 10 seconds before the engine melted from the heat. The X-51A engine could run indefinitely at hypersonic speeds, a key requirement for a engine used for transport.

    I like the way Charlie Brink X-51A program manager described the Wednesday test flight:

    May 26, 2010, 6:18 p.m. EDT
    Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne Scramjet Powers Historic First Flight of X-51A WaveRider.
    "Charlie Brink, X-51A program manager with the Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, said: 'We are ecstatic to have accomplished many of the test objectives on the X-51A's very first hypersonic mission. We equate this leap in engine technology as equivalent to the post-World War II jump from propellers to jet engines."
    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/pra...k=MW_news_stmp

    My opinion is that prototype scramjet flight vehicles will be fielded in similar time frames to how soon jet aircraft prototypes were flown after the first working jet engines were made.


    Bob Clark
    Last edited by RGClark; 2010-May-28 at 07:56 PM. Reason: clarity

  22. #231
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    19,018
    Quote Originally Posted by RGClark View Post
    My opinion is that prototype scramjet flight vehicles will be fielded in similar time frames to how soon jet aircraft prototypes were flown after the first working jet engines were made.
    Although I do see a lot of parallels in the two, I think there's going to be a few differences that may make the time frame longer.
    The biggest is the need for multiple engine types, or a carrier vehicle. It may take time for the passenger market to warm up to this, or make it efficient enough.
    Also; the jet aircraft were not much different in material or design than thier propeller counterpart. I'm not sure how much expensive materials would need to go into one of these.

  23. #232
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,604
    Air Force Sees Hypersonic Weapons and Spaceships in Future.
    By Jeremy Hsu
    SPACE.com Staff Writer
    posted: 17 June 2010
    05:30 am ET
    "Rise of the space planes.
    "If scramjet technology advances far enough, it could become part of a system that helps propel unmanned or manned vehicles into space. Space planes might even emerge that can fly into space at just about any time, without launch window constraints.
    "A scramjet-powered vehicle would need to rely upon a regular rocket or jet engine to reach Mach 4, so that the scramjet could take over for hypersonic speeds during the first stage to Earth orbit.
    "The X-51A scramjet engine would not be enough by itself to allow a vehicle to reach orbit, said Joseph Vogel, hypersonics director and X-51 program manager at Boeing Phantom Works/Defense, during the teleconference. Both Boeing and Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne formed part of the private consortium that helped design and build the X-51A.
    "Any future space-lift system would also need a more energetic hydrogen-based fuel, rather than the JP-7 jet fuel used in supersonic aircraft, Vogel explained.
    "I would say that within the next 15 to 30 years — I'll give you the broad side — but probably 15 to 20 years, you could start to see this technology being expanded to the point where you could get aircraft into outer space," Vogel said."
    http://www.space.com/businesstechnol...re-100617.html

    This time estimate is for space ships. Then we would estimate the time frame for transports just within the atmosphere to be shorter.

    Bob Clark

  24. #233
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    19,018
    Quote Originally Posted by RGClark View Post
    This time estimate is for space ships. Then we would estimate the time frame for transports just within the atmosphere to be shorter.
    Space ships? The article also says "into outer space". I think we need to be careful with those words. I don't see how the scramjet (alone) is going to get it out of suborbital.

  25. #234
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    R.I. USA
    Posts
    7,523
    The scram jet will never exceed 8000, never mind 18,000 MPH, minimum escape velocity. You run out of air .

  26. #235
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    19,018
    Quote Originally Posted by danscope View Post
    ... You run out of air .
    Or the engine will.

  27. #236
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    3,935
    Quote Originally Posted by danscope View Post
    The scram jet will never exceed 8000, never mind 18,000 MPH, minimum escape velocity. You run out of air .
    And I don't know why Bob is pushing scramjets when there's a better solution to the same problem in the shape of SABRE.

  28. #237
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,604
    Quote Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
    And I don't know why Bob is pushing scramjets when there's a better solution to the same problem in the shape of SABRE.
    Er, because it's been proven to work?
    I fully expect the Skylon Sabre engine also to be successful when it is full-up tested. Nothing wrong at all with having more than one hypersonic airbreathing technology operating at the same time.


    Bob Clark

  29. #238
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    R.I. USA
    Posts
    7,523
    I think we will all enjoy seeing the test results from the Sabre engine. All things take time.
    Miracles take a little longer. Money is the accelerant.

    Dan

  30. #239
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    1,564
    Scramjet's work for cruise missiles, but they are not proven as a viable stand alone technology for space launch at all.
    Unless you can use it as an upgrade to existing engine technology the entire concept ends up adding more complexity than airbreathing at beyond mach 5 speed will be able to make in gains.
    It is the first part of flight that has the highest oxidizer mass demands. (an obvious consequence of the rocket equation) making an oxidizer saving in the mach 5 to 10 range has a far lesser impact on overall mass than saving it from 0 to mach 5.

    Here is the synergistic technologies in SABRE: Rocket propulsion. Ramjet thrust augmentation and pre cooled turbo compresors.
    Turbo compressors are a proven technology in high performance jet aircraft. only the precooling is a new addition. That is a 3 technologies in one design. can you do the same with a scramjet? maybe. Nobody has attempted to marry a scramjet to a jet engine yet. while ramjet's have been combined with jet engines several times already. LACE proved that a rocket engine could use air as oxidizer. so the last step is to marry the components into a working system. the biggest hurdle was to make a functional extreme performance precooler that could work troughout the flight regime of a viable SSTO launcher. This hurdle is almost over. they have a working prototype, and a facility for mass production has been comissioned and assembly techniques are being investigated for efficient reliable manufacture of said heat exchangers. As far as making the SABRE engine a reality. we can be very confident that it will indeed be built.

  31. #240
    While this is straying a tiny bit, I think that eventually we are going to see some kind of super-fast transportation technology. But I think that there are two potential models. One is the hypersonic transport discussed here. I think the other is a sort of maglev train in an evacuated tunnel. I think the advantages of hypersonic aircraft is that there is less need for infrastructure and more freedom of where you can go, so it should win initially. A maglev network would require tremendous infrastructure, and wouldn't have as much freedom, but I think there would be advantages in terms of being able to locate stations in city centers and perhaps in terms of safety.
    As above, so below

Similar Threads

  1. What transports the material to heal bones?
    By tashirosgt in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2011-Jun-02, 03:43 AM
  2. Hypersonic aircraft
    By Paul Leeks in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 2008-Jun-18, 02:09 PM
  3. British Engineers Design Hypersonic Passenger Jet
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2008-Feb-05, 10:00 PM
  4. X-43A Goes Hypersonic
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2005-Sep-11, 06:31 AM
  5. Discussion: X-43a Goes Hypersonic
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2004-Apr-02, 05:04 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: