Russia to Build World’s First Commercial ScramJet

[space_dreamer]

From Next energy news . com<br /><br />http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news-russian-scramjet-1.21b.html<br /><br />Russia is in a fierce battle with the US to be the first country to build a ScramJet aircraft. The newly formed mega company United Aircraft Building Corporation (UABC) wants to upstage Boeing and Airbus to become the World’s premiere aircraft maker and they want their new ScramJet to be the jule in their crown.<br /><br />Scramjet technology is nothing new for Russia, in November of 1991 they flew the GLL Holod ScramJet at a speed of mach 5.8, but they have let the technology langish since then because of lack of funding. However Russian President Vladimir Putin has set a new set of priorities with the establishment of the 75% state owned UABC . With plans for making the World’s fist commercial Scramjet, UABC’s supersonic marvel will be able to seat 200 passengers and fly at speeds approaching mach 8 (6000mph), carrying them from Moscow to New York in 45 minutes.<br /><br />ScramJet engines are the Holy Grail of engine technology because they use no moving parts, they are brilliantly elegant and simple in design, consisting of a constricting tube through which air is compressed by the supersonic speed of the vehicle, a combustion chamber where fuel is combusted, and a nozzle through which the exhaust jet leaves at higher speed than the inlet air<br /><br />The fastest conventional air-breathing, manned vehicle, the U.S. Air Force SR-71, achieves approximately Mach 3.4 so building a civilian aircraft that can seat 100 passengers traveling at greater than mach 5 would represent one of the greatest technological leaps in history and both countries know it and so the race continues.<br /><br />

 

[MeteorWayne]

kind of odd they can't spell "jewel" <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[jschaef5]

I like how their graphic has a picture of the X-43 in it <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[l3p3r]

haha<br />they even bother making this up when everyone knows why the concord died...<br /><br />websites like this really really annoy me. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacelifejunkie]

I'll believe it when I see it. It would cost billions to design, test and manufacture this aircraft. Billions that Russia doesn't have. There is no explanation as to how this craft will reach Mach 4-5 in order to light the scramjet. There is no mention of a thermal protection system. Will they use hydrocarbon fuel? LH2? My guess is that a scramjet powered, 200 passenger plane with Mach 8 capability is 20+ years away. They won't commit that long.<br /><br /><br />SLJ

 

[alpha_centauri]

<font color="yellow"> It would cost billions to design, test and manufacture this aircraft. Billions that Russia doesn't have. </font><br /><br />Times have changed, there's quite a few petrodollars floating around Russia now.

 

[l3p3r]

Yeah, in the pockets of the corrupt government officials who are floating around in planes <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[no_way]

"russia" will do a lot of amazing things, especially if you read every article that Pravda prints. Pravda means Truth, if you didnt know.<br />For example, one of the mighty russian areospace companies is already half-way to manned Mars landing <br /><br />Ive also heard that in addition to scramjets, they have also come up with even better scamjets.

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>they even bother making this up when everyone knows why the concord died... <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Concord died because it couldn't go supersonic over land, thus restricting its operataions. A Scramjet plane should operate in the suborbital realm, which gives it more versatility than the concord. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>they can't spell "jewel"<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />maybe their feeling 'energetic' (ie jule) with this project. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

IF anybody has the actual resources to build a true scramjet powered craft capable of even carrying one test pilot, at this time, using this new Pratt Whitney Rocketdyne engine it would be Boeing, and not the Russians!<br /><br />Does anybody that understands the thought process of congress actually think that congress is going to allow this kind of technology out of the US?<br /><br />I don't think so!!<br /><br />Besides, not only does Boeing have the necessary resources to even attempt such a thing, they are quite probably the only company in the world with the financial resources to even take a chance on it!<br /><br />Even so, I think it would be as much as a decade before even a demonstrator with the ability to carry even one human being is going to be built. <br /><br />This is indeed a truly great technology that could eventually lead to the holy grail of rocket type power to LEO eventually. That is a Horizontal Take Off and Landing Reusable Single Stage to Orbit Vehicle! A vehicle that uses conventional (or scramjets that can actually start as conventional jets) jets to get to scramjet speed, switch to actual scramjets, and when such a craft reaches some 15 mach, then cut in something like a low powered linear aerospike engine to get to LEO, deposit passengers at a space station, turn around and be back on the ground within a day or two, and then within another day or two be ready to go again. Such a craft would quite possibly be able to bring the per pound to orbit cost down to such a low number (about $100 per pound to LEO) as the shuttle was originally supposed to be able to!<br /><br />Please don't take me to be negative here, I think this is a truly fantastic development, but I do think it is going to be pure private industry that is going to take the development work and do this, or it isn't going to be done at all (except for possible military uses)!!!!<br /><br />

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Does anybody that understands the thought process of congress actually think that congress is going to allow this kind of technology out of the US? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Its already out of the US. Australia and Russia have been developing their own. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[Pooua]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Concord died because it couldn't go supersonic over land, thus restricting its operataions. A Scramjet plane should operate in the suborbital realm, which gives it more versatility than the concord.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>I think you are confusing Concorde with the U.S. SST program. <br /><br />Concorde died because it could not get enough paying customers after 9/11/01. <br /><br />"On 10 April 2003, British Airways and Air France simultaneously announced that they would retire Concorde later that year. They cited low passenger numbers following the 25 July 2000 crash, the slump in air travel following 9/11 and rising maintenance costs."<br /><br />Wikipedia: Concorde

 

[frodo1008]

Have Russia or Australia the actual resources to build such a vehicle in any reasonable time frame?<br /><br />At this time all of the efforts are very nacient and beginning. So we are a long way from even having a single seat test pilot in these areas! Call back in about a decade, and maybe we can start to see some true progress!

 

[danhezee]

Europe is working on a mach 5 commercial jet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAPCAT. A more in depth article is February issue of PopSci magazine. <br /><br />As far as Russia goes; "Russia posted gross domestic product growth of 6.4% in 1999, 10% in 2000, 5.1% in 2001, 4.7% in 2002, 7.3% in 2003, 7.2% in 2004, 6.4% in 2005, 6.8% in 2006 with industrial sector posting high growth figures as well. Russia became the fastest growing economy in the G8. It is expected to grow about 7% in 2007." <br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia<br /><br />An average growth rate of 7% for the GDP is damn good. Russia has bounced back, they aren't as powerful as they once were but they shouldn't be dismissed because their government collapsed in the 90's either. i feel your arguments against Russia are based on their collapse and not on the current state of their economy.<br /><br />So of course when I read "Russia's 2006 GDP was $1.723 trillion (est. PPP), the 8th highest in the world" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia#Economy I think Russia is in a better position than Boeing to fund a Scramjet. Not only that but a commercial Sramjet seems a little risky for an established corporation to fund. Usually technology like that would come from a startup with a lot of captial. If boeing already had developed or was working on a Sramjet Fighter or bomber, i could see them transfering the tech to a commercial market.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[igorma]

l3p3r is absolutely right - this is a fake made up by authors of that site. Probably loosely based on 2003 possibility study conducted by students of moscow aviation institute.

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Concorde died because it could not get enough paying customers after 9/11/01. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />That's just the straw that broke the camel's back. Concord has been fledging along for years. The dream still lives though. I read that Honda, I think, or someone is building a supersonic transport that has a quiet sonic boom. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>At this time all of the efforts are very nacient and beginning. So we are a long way from even having a single seat test pilot in these areas! Call back in about a decade, and maybe we can start to see some true progress!<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Agreed. The thing that alarms me about Russia is that they may come up with a down and dirty way to make the craft and bring it up to velocity.....could use rockets to do it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

err joule <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[j05h]

the original article is totally spam. Even if there is a program, it's still spam. X-43 graphics and all that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[space_dreamer]

The underline point of the story is that Russia is putting money into hypersonic scramjet research again.<br /><br />They are not starting from scratch as they flew the GLL Holod ScramJet at mach 5.8 in 1991.<br />

 

[space_dreamer]

With renewed competition from Russia, NASA and the USAF should be able to get more money for scramjet research. I personally hope they restart the X-43B program.

 

[j05h]

scramjets have been flown as research and ICBM engines. None has ever been realistically proposed for passenger craft. Lots of viewgraphs, no bent metal. <br /><br />The article might have at least found russian viewgraphs. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>