Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Australian Scramjet

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    140
    Well, this is another recent scramjet test that didn't work out...
    http://www.space.com/spacenews/Scramjet_103101.html
    Funny... In both this test and the x-43 that flew a few months ago, it wasn't the test itself that messed up, but the booster carrying it. Have the feeling there's some stability issues there...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    197
    Yeah, I was not happy when I heard that the second test failed. Here's to hoping that they get these things working soon. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    845
    Yawn. Well known principle my butt.

    When does it not fail? They might just as well ditch the scramjet idea entirely if they're never going to get it right.

    It's as if these people aren't driven by anything. If it fails, oh well, we tried our best and failed miserably. Another statistic plus another test to do.

    If it works then yay, maybe we'll see our names in some future engineering book.

    I can point at least a thousand things wrong with that attitude.

    They make me madder than a... YAK in heat. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,683
    On 2001-11-01 19:21, Mr. X wrote:
    Yawn. Well known principle my butt.
    Well now, I really must disagree with this statement. The principle is sound. What failed was the test.

    You seem to be thinking that if they can't get it right in a short period, they should stop trying at all. But that's just an impatient, defeatist attitude.

    How long did it take to get rockets into orbit? How many failures did they have? How many exploded on the launch pad? If the people working on them had had this attitude, we wouldn't have a space program at all.

    The truth is, these are NOT failures. They didn't achieve the goal of the test, that's for sure, but they did give more information and showed weaknesses in the technology. Things which can be addressed in the next round of testing.

    These people are taking a practical approach and not seeing a single failure as a sign that it can't be done. Just a sign that they have to get back to work. They know from experience. They don't see it as a disaster, just a fact of life. It didn't work. Let's find out why and try again.

    They will succeed eventually, and when they do, we'll have another, faster, more efficent means of propulsion. The promise of that is enough to keep the tests going.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    140
    I think Mr. X is being sarcastic. Its sorta hard to tell with just text.

    But the main reason I posted this here was I thought something was odd: In both tests, it wasn't the scramjet itself that failed, it was the booster. The scram didn't even get started.

    Talk about annoying... you spend years building the thing, then IT doesn't blow up on the test, the supposedly-well-tested rocket that carried it blows up...

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,683
    On 2001-11-02 03:51, Simon wrote:
    I think Mr. X is being sarcastic. Its sorta hard to tell with just text.

    But the main reason I posted this here was I thought something was odd: In both tests, it wasn't the scramjet itself that failed, it was the booster. The scram didn't even get started.

    Talk about annoying... you spend years building the thing, then IT doesn't blow up on the test, the supposedly-well-tested rocket that carried it blows up...
    Well, if he is being sarcastic, I apologise. It wasn't clear from just one little smiley what he really meant.

    Still, I think my point is clear. Don't worry about a failure or two when you're designing a revolutionary new system. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, as they say.

    But yeah, it really is a bummer when you can't make the omelet because your basket split open and dumped the eggs on the ground before you could do any cooking. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    845
    Well I was being sarcastic. Sorry for no smileys. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

    Well I was and I wasn't.

    It's just that I don't tolerate failure or errors, from myself or others. I know I do some occasionally and I HATE myself for it. And when I make a mistake I stop talking, wondering "Where did it go wrong?", "How did it ever happen?". When I get over it, I feel guilty, like I have betrayed myself. Dishonorable, humiliated and incompetent.

    If I realize that my logic is sound, then it goes away, technicalites I find just annoying.

    I shouldn't really expect the same I expect of me from others, so David is probably right.

    I wouldn't go as far as to call that attitude defeatist, though. Impatient, maybe.

    Consider me insane if you want, it's just the way I think. Personal philosophy if you will.

    You just wouldn't believe how often I've been said to be "insane".

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mr. X on 2001-11-02 08:55 ]</font>

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    7,816
    "Insanity is a sane response to an insane world"
    M. Scott Peck Ph.D.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    845
    Thanks Kaptain K! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,304
    I kind of share Mr. X's sentiment in at least one respect. The condition of the Australian Space/Rockets industry is deplorable. For a country that was at one stage near the forefront of developing this type of technology, over 30 years ago now, the lack of investment and interest by industry and government in this country has been absolutely shocking to behold. As much as I'd love to hear a succesful story involving Australians & Rockets, I don't doubt that there won't be any such stories anytime soon.

    And when I say succesful, I mean truly ground-breaking, and I should add that I respect the people working in these fields in Australia but it must really be a struggle to get anywhere given all the basically insurmountable hurdles that are put in your way.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,258
    It apparently works on the testbed. My desktop pic is ablaze with it working on the testbed.

    It's in flight they have some difficulties. Fuel? Temps? Pressures?

    All are in fairly finicky balance in a scramjet compared to that of a jet engine.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    14,065
    Scramjets have worked in flight since 2002 (the australian team was first; NASA did it as well and achieved positive thrust and hence effectively speed-keeping propulsion).
    Last edited by Nicolas; 2006-Jan-11 at 12:55 AM.

  13. 2005-Dec-01, 09:07 AM

  14. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    14,065
    Added tto my previous post: the fastest HyperX vehicle did not reach positive thrust.
    Last edited by Nicolas; 2006-Jan-11 at 12:56 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. Discussion: Scramjet Prototype Has a ...
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2006-Jan-10, 04:44 PM
  2. X-43A Proves Scramjet Technology
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2005-Sep-07, 07:17 AM
  3. Nasa Scramjet test
    By zebo-the-fat in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 2004-Nov-16, 03:01 AM
  4. X-43A successfully tests scramjet
    By BigJim in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 2004-Mar-29, 09:33 PM

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: