Russia has recently tested a new ‘hypersonic flying vehicle’ that could probably be a first strike weapon that could carry or deliver nuclear weapons that would defeat any ‘missile shield’ or ‘early warning system’ from the U.S.
Mystery over new Russian weapon
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/29/russia.weapon.ap/
Adding some credibility to the ‘Titor’ version of a devastating first strike against most U.S. cities.
From what JT described Russia shouldn’t need it.
Man, you sure are selective in what you pay attention to!
Did you bother to hear about the NASA Hyper-X vehicle flight test a couple of weeks ago? It was the first successful test of a SCRAMJET engine. Do you think, possibly, that this “noise” you hear about a new Russian hypersonic vehicle could be a “response” to Hyper-X?
History would say yes. Recall their “answer” to our Space Shuttle? It looked an AWFUL lot like our Space Shuttle. Only difference was that it never flew.
RainmanTime
RainManTime,
You state It was the first successful test of a SCRAMJET engine.
You don’t really believe that?.. And Skunkworks didn’t develop the Aurora, the hypersonic spy plane, many years ago…
Its old technology anyway..
By the way, Boeing commercials are interesting lately… The catch phrase is great..
Boeing - We can defy gravity
Are you gonna pull another Creedo on me, CigMan?
And I suppose you are going to tell me that you know precisely what technology Aurora uses, eh? I’d have to ask to see your credentials (other than being CigMan) before I believed you.
Yes, I DO believe what I said, and I know for a fact it is true. You see, you make the technical error of believing that “hypersonic” must equal “SCRamjet”. You make that error out of ignorance.
Yes, Aurora is hypersonic, but I am afraid to have to correct your assumption in saying it is conventional turbine engine technology (which means the combustion chamber speeds are all subsonic). If you’d like a little lecture on SCramjets, I’d be happy to oblige. The concept may be old, but it has not been tested in a live vehicle until a few weeks ago.
Better make sure you know what you’re talking about before you challenge me on my career turf. Just a friendly piece of advice.
Regards,
RainmanTime
I know you didn’t mean me but thanks for the advice.
I for one hate to look like an idiot by challenging an expert in any field I am no expert in.
This is the mark of intelligence…knowing what you don’t know. There are other folks around here who have not learned that lesson, as yet. 
Kind Regards,
RainmanTime
Rainman said>History would say yes. Recall their “answer” to our Space Shuttle? It looked an AWFUL lot like our Space Shuttle. Only difference was that it never flew.
Creedo adds>I think that there was print, that told that infact they did launch, their version of their shuttle.
These were unmanned flights though.
I read this once and have not accessed reentry profile data, in any manner for the Russian held aerospace agencies.
Because Burien was very similar to the Columbia line of shuttles, there would be the same high speed aerodynamic principle that would have made itself known.
This is where after hyper-reentry, from high pitchup maneuvers, into lower density altitudes, the passage of denser air-flows over volume and density of per battery placements of shuttles tiles, causes add- sometimes perlift phenomenon’s, per batteries of thermal protection layer tiles.
e.g. release of either entire segments of tiles, and or possible aerodynamic inversed uplift pressure, per upward fractional micro-moments, so eliminating method of current technology attachments.
Old data, widely known.
So rather than continue to chance loss of continued space vehicles, which would have effected public support of their said variant prime asset reentry vehicles, the Russians chose to remotely pilot these vehicles.
Other sources said, >Mc Donald Douglas Boeing Consortiums, of YF-23 Black Widow experimental jet, most advanced attempt at outer aerofrme design ever taken, not applied as source in parallel promoted structure, i.e. advance in atmosphere high speed aero concepts, unilaterally.
Prime vehicle, re-do TU-2000 promotions, to re-design TU-2000 internal X crafts, rapid payloads insertions.
RainmanTime,
I hear 
the Aurora uses a ‘pulse detonation engine’ that generates the infamous ‘donuts on a rope’.
As for ScramJet engines, they are old and have been around [in testing form] since the 1930s with Germany.
For an exercise in logic, If ‘pulse detonation engines’ exist in a flying vehicle and they are the next generation engine beyond the scramjet.
How could NASA’s first public official test be the first live demonstration vehicle?
Unless the ‘pulse detonation engine’ is a leapfrog project that bypasses standard technological development. Possible but not likely.
Pulse Detonation Engine Technology Project
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/AERO/base/pdet.htm
Pulse Detonation Technology Versus ScramJet
http://tonytalkstech.com/2003/08/pulse_detonation_engine_technology.php
Black Aircraft
http://www.lowobservable.com/Black.htm
TheCigMan
Dear Cig Man’
Saw the Russian scram in an AWST a while back.
Was photo on the ground as in-flight proof of principles as a free to release in-flight engine, think it was rocket mounted, to start in-flight energy consumption of fuels equilibrium?
Engine was shown on ground after it chored and vehicle was beat-up.
Nobody paid any attention, however this vehicle now seems to be an asset?
Thanks for the austere spook flight sights.
Makes my mouth water more than nice lookin babes.
An electrohulled vehicles, using eltricfied plasma pulse, heck that can take you to other systems.
Who cares about speed records here, when you can see other systems.
Thank you Cig Man
Creedo,
My pleasure…
I think I answered his ‘question’
‘Hypersonic’ and ‘ScramJet’ are commonly used to describe a variety of ‘platforms’
TheCigMan
It looks like you want to continue to display your naivete. Fine by me. I think you ought to read and comprehend your own reference material a little better. This “been around since the 30s” quote that you lifted from one of your references was referring to the pulse-jet, not SCramjets. As you are fond of saying “Reading Is Fundamental”. If you want to continue to believe SCramjets have been around a long time, go right ahead. You’ll just be wrong in your thinking.
The reason pulse jets have been around so long is because their combustion tech is still subsonic. The tough part in combusting supersonically is in sustaining the reaction. Inlet geometries must be very finely tuned in order to create stable shock/expansion patterns under all conditions of airflow angle of attack and angle of sideslip at the inlet entrance. Ask any Aero major who has had to perform “method of characteristics” supersonic flow analysis by hand. It takes a long time, and so only with the advent of supercomputers in the 80s could the computational flowfield analysis be performed quickly enough to support the many design cycles necessary to properly design inlet geometries.
I hope you don’t think this is the only thing that generates this contrail pattern. Those of us who live in SoCal, south of Vandenburg AFB, are often treated to dusk launches over the Pacific that show the same characteristic in their sunset-illuminated contrails. A very beautiful sight, generated by pulsed rocket engines.
Nope. Your logic does not fit the physics. See above discussion of subsonic vs. supersonic combustion.
Technically, it wasn’t. The first vehicle experienced a failure of the Orbital Sciences booster package back in 2002. That vehicle never reached the test point at which the SCramjet would be lit and the vehicle separate from the booster. So this test of a few weeks ago was the 2nd attempt, 1st success.
Maybe in amateur circles, but not by professionals! Again, it is obvious you have never studied as an Aero engineer, nor made this your profession. Professionals do not throw terms around like these interchangeably, especially when neither of these describe “platforms” and both describe different things. “Hypersonic” is a flight regieme, not a platform. It’s how fast you go (> Mach 5), not how you achieve it. “SCramjet” is a form of propulsion technology that can take you to the hypersonic regieme. If you’d like to learn about how the linear assumptions of supersonic flow theory break down and become highly non-linear in the hypersonic regieme, I can give you references. One of the best textbooks is “Modern Compressible Flow, With Historical Perspective” by Anderson (1982 - ISBN 0-07-001654-2).
Class dismissed! (Yes, I do teach Aero, including supersonic wind tunnel labs).
RainmanTime
RainManTime,
Touchy… Touchy…
I speak in terms for the general population not the ‘propeller head’ crowd such as yourself…
I believe without a doubt are the ONLY one who understands or CARES about the technical differences…
As for the ‘One of the best textbooks is “Modern Compressible Flow, With Historical Perspective” by Anderson (1982 - ISBN 0-07-001654-2).’ does it come with a blue and yellow hat with a horizontal opposing blades propulsion unit?
I believe history will demonstrate SkunkWorks First Nasa Second
As Triumph ‘The Insult Comic’ Dog says…
‘I kid… because I love…’
TheCigMan
Hi RainmanTime,
Yea, I read about this as per your suggestion!
It makes me wonder what is in the works or not public knowledge yet.
You are in the field, any hints?
Can’t you tell us more about what you do? It would be fascinating in a real hands on science sort of way. You said you work in aerodynamics. What are the new cool things you have been working on?
[[Also note, there is this thing in special operations which they call mirroring. They write reports about homegrown inventions, but attribute it to the USSR or whoever is the current enemy. The report is then used to “validate” the project.]]
The Appropriateness of Chance is Astounding
Persephone
“There are great ideas undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth’s protective layers” by Neil Armstrong
RainmanTime,
Boy you can be snippy, and I don’t think it is truly indicative of your natural character, but I could be wrong.
If you want to call spade a spade, go ahead and say who you think is not acknowledging the level of their knowledge or intelligence.
I am feeling really vulnerable here, because I bet you are talking about me.
Let us just set the record straight! I am ignorant of what I do not know! I am sorry for that!
Or maybe you were referring to some other poor soul.
Please, just have patience with us.
On the other hand, damn, if it isn’t common knowledge that the US flies machines for probably a decade before it acknowledges their existence. This has happened over and over again. AND, in the wind has been rumors of a craft that can travel to the outer atmosphere, our craft, for years now. I can only assume in my ignorant fashion that the HyperX may be that vehicle.
(Note, I first heard of it on my Disclosure Project tape. I keep posting the web site, like that is how I first found out about it. But, that isn’t so. But, sending people to the web site seems to hold no legitimacy, I guess because one could find anything on a web site with no concrete basis af reality behind it. It is my great sorrow, that I can not be more convincing to the folks on here about this.)
The Appropriateness of Chance is Astounding
Persephone
“There are great ideas undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth’s protective layers” by Neil Armstrong
And so we see one of the many reasons why the general population can be so easily taken in by pseudoscience: People who do not understand technical distinction of terms talking as if they do, and talking as if some terms are interchangeable when they are not. I’ll proudly wear the “propeller head” moniker if it means I am seeking technical accuracy, especially as it pertains to teaching the general population real science, not pseudoscience.
If you wish. But it comes with something much more important to self and society: A degree that attests to your scientific abilities in a given area…that is, if you can hack the entire curriculum. Our country is in a world of hurt because all the technical geniuses from the last 40 years are retiring…and not enough kids have sought to become part of the “propeller head” crowd. One of the primary reasons for a call to explore Mars is to entice enrollments in these fields, so we do not have to import technical abilities. Reduced graduations in these areas are actually a personal benefit for me, as the salary I can command keeps going up. But I am more concerned for the loss of technical abilities as a whole, for as goes this population, so goes a society’s ability to think deeply and critically. We don’t need more lawyers!
You are living in the past. The Skunk Works is a shell of what it used to be in the SR-71 and F-117 days. They were permitted to waste away because the division was “not profitable” (read: in the short term demanded by impatient stockholders). Skunk Works is still there, but I work with several of the guys who left there, and they tell me “there is virtually nothing left there.”
RainmanTime
You bet wrong, Persephone! I am not talking about you at all!
There is someone else here, and he knows who he is, who likes to make pronouncements with regards to aerospace technology. Then when he is shown to be spewing nothing but hot air, he avoids admitting he doesn’t know what he is talking about.
RainmanTime
The only hint I would give relates to why “black” programs exist: To develop technologies to keep our military supremacy. Technologies as wild as conspiracy theorists seem to THINK are available and working in “black programs” would be seeing a LOT of use if they really existed. Think about it…what good would it do for our military, currently fighting a war against terrorism, to keep unbeliveably advanced technology under wraps? Yes, the F-117 stealth fighter was kept under wraps until it completed Development Test/Operational Test (DT/OT). But once this was complete, the thing was USED, and it was reported as such (Panama invasion to oust Noriega was one of the first times it saw action). So…if we HAD such wildly advanced technology, don’t you think we’d be irresponsible in not deploying it?
My career focus has been developing flight controls for aircraft, and that requires a solid understanding of aerodynamics, stability, and frequency domain mathematics. I am currently working on a team defining space architectures and infrastructures that we will develop in the coming years to return to the moon for long periods of habitation, as a way to prove the technologies so we can go on to Mars. The “cool things” are involved with understanding how to apply non-linear technologies to make space travel (a) More affordable, and (b) More effective.
And as much as some people will say this is a bad thing: Chemical propulsion for interplanetary travel is just terribly inefficient. NASA is already heading down a path to develop nuclear propulsion as the “workhorse” that will push large amounts of mass between our planets. Google “Project Prometheus” to learn about it.
Yes, but please don’t be like some conspiracy theory folks who think that only the US is guilty of employing “deep counter-intel” practices such as this. My point in this thread has been to tie the “release” of “new Russian hypersonic technology” to the event of the successful Hyper-X test. Can you at least conjecture that this “release” by Moscow might be nothing more than a counter-intel move to make gullible people THINK they actually have something? Do you not think that the timing of their “release” as so close to the Hyper-X success might just suggest it was reactionary?
Kind Regards,
RainmanTime
Ray, at one time I had enjoyed this technology, however because of directions pushed, I am not so much in that camp any more.
Calm down, let it go.