speed record set by scramjet - fair?

How fast was the rocket going when it released the record-setting
scramjet? If the rocket was going Mach 9 in the thin atmosphere at
100,000 feet and released a stone, for example, the stone would travel
several seconds at close to Mach 9. I assume that the rocket was not
going Mach 9, but I haven't seen any information on how fast it was
going.

Regardless, it seems to me that the rocket's speed has to be
subtracted from the jet's speed to arrive at the actual jet speed when
you talk about the world's record for speed of a jet plane.

-- Don French

"Don French" wrote in message

Regardless, it seems to me that the rocket's speed has to be
subtracted from the jet's speed to arrive at the actual jet speed when
you talk about the world's record for speed of a jet plane.

Hmm. Would you say the same for Yeager and the X-1, it having been dropped
from the belly of another aircraft, or is your particular question related
just to the rocket?

Would this same sort of criteria apply to the X-prize given that Space Ship
One was given a lift to an intermediate altitide?

Interesting.
-c

The press report I read said that the scramjet wouldn't even start below
Mach 4.0.

Bob Gardner

"Don French" wrote in message
om...
How fast was the rocket going when it released the record-setting
scramjet? If the rocket was going Mach 9 in the thin atmosphere at
100,000 feet and released a stone, for example, the stone would travel
several seconds at close to Mach 9. I assume that the rocket was not
going Mach 9, but I haven't seen any information on how fast it was
going.

Regardless, it seems to me that the rocket's speed has to be
subtracted from the jet's speed to arrive at the actual jet speed when
you talk about the world's record for speed of a jet plane.

-- Don French

In article ,
"gatt" wrote:

Would this same sort of criteria apply to the X-prize given that Space Ship
One was given a lift to an intermediate altitide?

You could interpret the White Knight as a manned first stage of the
launch system. Since it's also reusable within the prize parameters, the
complete launch system would still qualify.

Whether or not you subtract the rocket's speed from the X-43, it's still
quite an accomplishment to have an air-breathing engine running at Mach
10. This is the proof of concept stage, right? Now we know that the
scramjet design doesn't just blow itself out.

- Nathan

Don French wrote:

How fast was the rocket going when it released the record-setting
scramjet? If the rocket was going Mach 9 in the thin atmosphere at
100,000 feet and released a stone, for example, the stone would travel
several seconds at close to Mach 9. I assume that the rocket was not
going Mach 9, but I haven't seen any information on how fast it was
going.

Regardless, it seems to me that the rocket's speed has to be
subtracted from the jet's speed to arrive at the actual jet speed when
you talk about the world's record for speed of a jet plane.

-- Don French
Quoted from some web site.

"The telemetry showed the X-43A was set free by the booster at a speed
well in excess of Mach 9 but was able to maintain its cruising velocity
under the thrust from its scramjet.

Engineers followed the X-43A as it travelled more than 1,000km (620
miles), eventually losing speed and plunging into the Pacific. "

Now if the rock went 620 miles after release

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:22:14 -0500, Aardvark
wrote:

Don French wrote:

How fast was the rocket going when it released the record-setting
scramjet? If the rocket was going Mach 9 in the thin atmosphere at
100,000 feet and released a stone, for example, the stone would travel
several seconds at close to Mach 9. I assume that the rocket was not
going Mach 9, but I haven't seen any information on how fast it was
going.

Regardless, it seems to me that the rocket's speed has to be
subtracted from the jet's speed to arrive at the actual jet speed when
you talk about the world's record for speed of a jet plane.

-- Don French
Quoted from some web site.

"The telemetry showed the X-43A was set free by the booster at a speed
well in excess of Mach 9 but was able to maintain its cruising velocity
under the thrust from its scramjet.

Engineers followed the X-43A as it travelled more than 1,000km (620
miles), eventually losing speed and plunging into the Pacific. "

Now if the rock went 620 miles after release

That's interesting. I wonder how far it would have glided without
lighting the scramjet. At mach 9, the miles go by pretty quickly...

Regardless, it seems to me that the rocket's speed has to be
subtracted from the jet's speed to arrive at the actual jet speed when
you talk about the world's record for speed of a jet plane.

On a deeper level, I find the enthusiasm about this scramjet flight to be,
in many ways, pathetic.

I mean, c'mon -- we're talking about an unmanned, rocket-assisted, 10 second
flight here -- which is somehow trumped up to be some sort of a huge success
for NASA? Worse, they're claming that they've "beaten the speed record set
by the X-15 some 40 years ago..."

Compare this sad little program to the heady days of the manned X-15, with
dozens of suborbital flights over a period of years, and you soon see what I
mean. It's hard to watch this new generation getting all excited about a
program that, in the 1960s, wouldn't have merited mention on the nightly
news.

But I suppose that's all they really have to get excited about nowadays,
with the space program completely shut down.

NASA has sunk so far since I was a boy...it is to weep.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On 11/17/04 9:47 PM, in article 03Umd.45151$V41.23702@attbi_s52, "Jay
Honeck" wrote:


On a deeper level, I find the enthusiasm about this scramjet flight to be,
in many ways, pathetic.

I mean, c'mon -- we're talking about an unmanned, rocket-assisted, 10 second
flight here -- which is somehow trumped up to be some sort of a huge success
for NASA? Worse, they're claming that they've "beaten the speed record set
by the X-15 some 40 years ago..."

Compare this sad little program to the heady days of the manned X-15, with
dozens of suborbital flights over a period of years, and you soon see what I
mean. It's hard to watch this new generation getting all excited about a
program that, in the 1960s, wouldn't have merited mention on the nightly
news.

But I suppose that's all they really have to get excited about nowadays,
with the space program completely shut down.

NASA has sunk so far since I was a boy...it is to weep.

I feel the same way. I have a hard time calling the thing a plane since it's
unmanned. In my mind, a plane has a pilot sitting at the controls.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:03Umd.45151$V41.23702@attbi_s52...
Regardless, it seems to me that the rocket's speed has to be
subtracted from the jet's speed to arrive at the actual jet speed when
you talk about the world's record for speed of a jet plane.

On a deeper level, I find the enthusiasm about this scramjet flight to be,
in many ways, pathetic.

I mean, c'mon -- we're talking about an unmanned, rocket-assisted, 10
second flight here -- which is somehow trumped up to be some sort of a
huge success for NASA? Worse, they're claming that they've "beaten the
speed record set by the X-15 some 40 years ago..."

Compare this sad little program to the heady days of the manned X-15, with
dozens of suborbital flights over a period of years, and you soon see what
I mean. It's hard to watch this new generation getting all excited about
a program that, in the 1960s, wouldn't have merited mention on the nightly
news.

But I suppose that's all they really have to get excited about nowadays,
with the space program completely shut down.

NASA has sunk so far since I was a boy...it is to weep.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

It typical NASA hype. Note that they claimed to have "invented" virtually
everything new in the '60s.

Mike
MU-2

Jay Honeck wrote:
On a deeper level, I find the enthusiasm about this scramjet flight to be,
in many ways, pathetic.

I mean, c'mon -- we're talking about an unmanned, rocket-assisted, 10 second
flight here -- which is somehow trumped up to be some sort of a huge success
for NASA? Worse, they're claming that they've "beaten the speed record set
by the X-15 some 40 years ago..."


The excitement is about the technology. I think the press is making a
bigger thing about the "record" than NASA really cares about. The ability
to run a jet engine, at close to Mach 10, without bringing along an
oxygen tank, is the REAL achievement. There will undoubtedly be many
more unmanned test flights before a manned flight is attempted with this
engine.

--- Jay



--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com