Scramjets !!!! It works

"Omar E. Vega" wrote:
>
> > If raw speed was an issue everyone wodl be using ground-based mass
> drivers.
> > I must confess I remain skeptical as to the utility of a
> airplane/spaceship
> > compromise.
> >
> > John
>
> I don't believe so, John. I think that if the guys develop a motor
> that is able to work as a jet engine, then the whole matter of
> sending loads to the space will become more easy than today.
>
> I see the following advantages:
>
> (1) There is a large saving in fuel. In an important part of the path
> the motor consumes oxygen from the atmosphere.
>
> (2) In the future a 3-phases scramjet could start firing as a rocket,
> switch to scramjet mode in the critical part of the path and back to
> rocket again when it leaves the atmosphere. If that is done, the
> savings in engine hardware and load will be very large indeed.
>
> (3) If things goes well, that kind of motors could be used in regular
> hypersonic planes for hurried executives. So, they could be mass
> produced (the motors, not the executives :) ). Making the cost of
> going up there a lot cheaper.
>
> The point is. If going to the space became cheaper then, space
> tourism, SPS, and finally space settlements, will be at reach.
>

Omar, I'd agree with you ... except that (3) makes me remember the
Concorde, and the stink that was raised around the world against it when it
first started to fly. Even before the crash in France, it was losing
money, becoming pretty much only a fun thing to do for people who could
afford to pay $8k US to make the trip. Now video-conferencing solves most
of the "I need to see you tomorrow!" problems, and anything beyond tomorrow
or the day after can get by with ordinary, subsonic jet flight.

And it's a NASA project, which means that it will be over-engineered, but under-constructed.

Steve