Talk-Polywell.org

http://www.businessinsider.com/lockheed ... ne-2013-11

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx? ... acb834b2e9

GIThruster wrote:http://www.businessinsider.com/lockheed ... ne-2013-11

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx? ... acb834b2e9

I'm iffy on this one. They may plan - but funding's got to come from somewhere. We'll see if it gets off the ground, so to speak.

Yes, but the fact Lock-Mart is saying they known how to build a hypersonic aircraft is a bit astonishing. Given the miserable results with such craft to date, they must feel they have learned much more than anyone knows. That or they're looking for handouts DOD is not going to grant.

They'd know for sure if they had mathematical rather than numerical solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations.

Meanwhile, I wonder how they intend to arm it? At Mach 6, opening the bomb-bay doors will rip the plane apart. Stealthed aircraft generally have to carry their armaments internally to be stealthy.

And if they slow down they're a target; the entire point of going Mach 6 is that missiles can't catch you. There aren't any SAMs or AAMs that go Mach 6.

Worth mentioning it'll be a drone.

GIThruster wrote:Yes, but the fact Lock-Mart is saying they known how to build a hypersonic aircraft is a bit astonishing. Given the miserable results with such craft to date, they must feel they have learned much more than anyone knows. That or they're looking for handouts DOD is not going to grant.

It'll be interesting to see if it'll go anywhere. From what I saw reported about the hypersonic testers. the tests were iffy - with only one that could be counted as a 'success'.

That's not exactly a good test run. But I guess we'll see - first it's got to get funding, then it's got to get built.

Well, first, it has to have a skin. And that's turning out to be the hard part.

Not that I can't see five different techniques for getting around it. Speculating on those methods is my interest.

Schneibster wrote:There aren't any SAMs or AAMs that go Mach 6.

The Federation of American Scientists is among those calling you a liar.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/s-400.htm

S-400 SA-20 Triumf... -- it can intercept targets with velocities of up to 4.8 km/sec

Numbers don't lie. Schneibster lies.

But since he has no Peers, how can he be reviewed?

It's not hard to make a rocket go hypersonic. To make a combined cycle engine that can transition through the dead zone around Mach 3 is the hardest part. Also though we're talking about a drone, it will have to think on its own like a cruise missile, since plasma generated by the high speed will likely cut off the ability to receive commands.

But yeah, if Lock-Mart can make a reasonable case, they'll get finding. DOD has been wanting a hypersonic attack craft for more than a decade. They'd like it to be able to be able to deliver ordinance or a squad of men anywhere on the planet in a couple hours. I'm intrigued. Any engines that would work for this, would work extremely well for a first stage reusable launcher. Makes me wonder too if NSA hasn't been spying on Skylon. Those bastards really are out of control.

GIThruster wrote:It's not hard to make a rocket go hypersonic. To make a combined cycle engine that can transition through the dead zone around Mach 3 is the hardest part. Also though we're talking about a drone, it will have to think on its own like a cruise missile, since plasma generated by the high speed will likely cut off the ability to receive commands.

I think they have that problem solved, Ultra Wide Band Communication through Plasma but the worst of plasma effect start at/around mach 10

GIThruster wrote:http://www.businessinsider.com/lockheed ... ne-2013-11

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx? ... acb834b2e9

So they're finally dumping info on Aurora.

USAF never dumps a manned mission profile without a better airframe to fill it, and USAF FOUGHT to dump the SR-71 1989-'98.

TBCC, turbine to M3 and ram (not scram) to M6 looks to be a far easier propulsion system design than the scamjets. Late '80s tech; "fly by 2018" is smokescreen.

DeltaV wrote:

Schneibster wrote:There aren't any SAMs or AAMs that go Mach 6.

The Federation of American Scientists is among those calling you a liar.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/s-400.htm

S-400 SA-20 Triumf... -- it can intercept targets with velocities of up to 4.8 km/sec

Numbers don't lie. Schneibster lies.

I thought we agreed we weren't going to do that.

My bad, I should have said "There aren't many."

OTOH the next question is, what's their range? And the one after that, since this is going to be a stealth drone, is how far can their radar see it?

Now stop temper tantrumming.

paperburn1 wrote:

GIThruster wrote:It's not hard to make a rocket go hypersonic. To make a combined cycle engine that can transition through the dead zone around Mach 3 is the hardest part. Also though we're talking about a drone, it will have to think on its own like a cruise missile, since plasma generated by the high speed will likely cut off the ability to receive commands.

I think they have that problem solved, Ultra Wide Band Communication through Plasma but the worst of plasma effect start at/around mach 10

Lasers. They'll go through plasma without even noticing it. Light is unaffected by electric charge, and even Mach 10 plasma isn't going to cut it off. I think they might even be able to punch through to re-entering spacecraft, but we'd have to do research to find out. That plasma, IIRC, is pretty bright. In these matters that corresponds to a lot of noise.

I posted an article on here about a week ago on tests currently going on with interplanetary laser communications.