Scramjet research

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jschaef5

Guest
Does anyone know where there is research/work being done on hypersonic/scramjet technology? Like universitys/private companies? I know of the DARPA/air force one but I was wondering if anything is going on elsewhere in this area. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
H

hiro2002

Guest
>>HyShot is a Japanese/Australian effort. I'm sure you could find a few more via google. <br /><br />It isn't research of engine, but research of body shape of SST.<br />http://www.apg.jaxa.jp/res/stt/0a03_03.html<br />This plane used solid rocket motor for increasing speed.<br />
 
J

jschaef5

Guest
Ragnorak, that was a pretty nice article, thanks.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />The british/australians seem to be on the right track...<br /><br />now what makes me wonder is why would congress cut a project that just got started, the X-43. If they would have kept funding NASA to make the B and C models it would have cost much less than having the military build a whole new design. It seems like a waste when we could have just built off of what we learned from the X-43A rather than just cutting the whole thing pretty much. Althought they did give them 25 mil this yr, doubt that will be enough to keep it alive though. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
R

rocketman5000

Guest
The reason that the funding to the X-43 got cut is because of the Military project. I believe that the military project has the intent/goal of using it to develop a weapons system for future use.
 
E

elguapoguano

Guest
Yep, you hit the nail on the head. Scramjet cruise missles are pretty attractive to the Military. Ya know, quick response, hit anywhere in the world within 2 hours. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>
 
J

josh_simonson

Guest
x-43 was also hydrogen powered, which isn't very useful for military applications. The military hyshot and falcon programs should have more NASA applicability than the NASA programs would have military applicability. The FALCON program even plans to develop a small launch vehicle.
 
M

mlorrey

Guest
Yes. Hydrogen, despite its high Isp, is a terrible fuel for hypersonic vehicles, because it mandates large volume fuel tanks.
 
R

rocketman5000

Guest
I agree, many NASA projects have great planning but have the tendency of always aiming at the target but never pulling the trigger. They seem to constantly refine a project till it runs out of money and never develops into a viable system. Witness the X-34, 38, and I am sure a host of others I can't think of off the top of my head
 
R

rocketman5000

Guest
Yes and no, It is the easiest to combust which is a problem at supersonic speads since supersonic flow is inherintly stable and therefore the fuel and air doesn't mix well. hydrogen is one of the easier fuels to combust so in initial designs of scramjet engines with limited engine burns (initial flight only burned 10 seconds) tank size isn't that big of an issue.
 
J

jschaef5

Guest
It just seems to me that hypersonic jets would pay off in the long run. It would be much easier to get into space if you can get a jet to speed you up to hypersonic speeds while still in earth atmosphere, why don't the people handing out money realize this... <br /><br />mlorrey, I like your idea a lot. I have been meaning to read the long post over in the other forum on it for a long time but I never seem to have the time to site down and read through it, usually just 5-10 minutes here and there. Maybe one of these weekends I will because for a long time I have thought that what if you combined the best of several technologies for the areas they are best at. Like turbines could be considered best for low speed, ramjets/scramjets as you get faster in air, then switch over to rockets as you get higher and less in air. Kind like Scaled using white knight and then dropping SS1. Putting them all in one seems to be what you are doing except for the turbine part.<br /><br />I just wish more research was being done on scramjets. It seems like theres mainly just the few projects. I wanted to see the scramjet with moving intake to change forms. That seemed like a neat idea, yet I am sure it would be very complicated to design.... WHICH IS WHY WE NEED MORE RESEARCH!!! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

mlorrey

Guest
True, but if it is going to become a launcher, you don't want any factors that are going to uncessarily inflate airframe volume, which is what LH2 does, or consume limited airframe volume that could go to cargo or passenger space, which LH2 also does. The X-43A's fuel tank contained only gaseous hydrogen, which is why it only had 10 seconds of combustion. The B and C models were supposed to be hydrocarbon burning models, which is why I believe they were cancelled by the pro-hydrogen mafia in NASA: they would have exposed the claims of hydrogen proponents as lies.<br /><br />LH2 has several times the BTU/kg that RP-1 has, but RP-1 has three times the BTU/Liter that LH2 has. This means its easier for an RP-1 scramjet SSTO to meet the mass fraction requirements of its average Isp than it is for an LH2 scramjet SSTO to meet its mass fraction requirements.<br /><br />The only claimed practical advantage that LH2 has is that it can be used as a coolant for the hot structures of the airframe before being used as fuel, however denser hydrocarbons can do the same thing. Methane, propane, methylacetylene, cyclopropane, etc are all dense hydrocarbons that have superior coolin capacity, and JP-10's anti-coking additives allow it to be used as a coolant to significant temperatures, due to its high flashpoint. <br /><br />BTW: I'm currently compiling all my thoughts, ideas, and arguments in this area for a major report on my X-106 project that will be made available on my website. When that happens, I'll post something to space.com.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts