USAF Hypersonic Scramjet Successfully Scrams 201
cold fjord writes "It looks like another milestone for hypersonic flight has been reached. From the story: 'The final flight of the X-51A Waverider test program has accomplished a breakthrough in the development of flight reaching Mach 5.1 over the Pacific Ocean . . ."It was a full mission success," said Charlie Brink, X-51A program manager for the Air Force Research Laboratory Aerospace Systems Directorate. The cruiser traveled over 230 nautical miles in just over six minutes over the Point Mugu Naval Air Warfare Center Sea Range. It was the longest of the four X-51A test flights and the longest air-breathing hypersonic flight ever. . . This was the last of four test vehicles originally conceived when the $300 million technology demonstration program began in 2004. The program objective was to prove the viability of air-breathing, high-speed scramjet propulsion. The X-51A is unique primarily due to its use of a hydrocarbon fuel in its supersonic combustion ramjet, or Scramjet, engine. ... The use of logistically supportable hydrocarbon fuel is widely considered vital for the practical application of hypersonic flight.'"
That's the last unit (Score:3)
That's the last of 4 test units built and there's no immediate successor to the program (TFA). Thank god it worked.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry. China already has hypersonic missiles, and India/Russia are jointly developing one. The US will be forced to develop something comparable, although you might have to wait for the Republicans to get back in.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait for the Republicans? Have you listened to Rand Paul or the Svengali of the Republicans, Grover Norquist? These guys are essentially isolationists and figure the U.S. doesn't need much of military because the rest of the world will leave us alone if we leave it for the Chinese to rule.
Hydrocarbon fuel (Score:2)
JP-7 (Score:2)
Ethylene to get it started.
Next up... (Score:4, Funny)
Ludicrous speed!
longest flight.... (Score:5, Informative)
A short definition for all those non-native speakers who wonder - like me - how 6 minutes of flight are more than hours of flight by a Concorde:
Supersonic: Above speed of sound but only up to Mach 5
Hypersonic: Above Mach 5
The fact that both the latin Super [latinwordlist.com] and the greek Hyper [answers.com] translate into the same word does not really help the distinction.
Re: (Score:2)
Supersonic: Above speed of sound but only up to Mach 5
Hypersonic: Above Mach 5
The fact that both the latin Super [latinwordlist.com] and the greek Hyper [answers.com] translate into the same word does not really help the distinction.
Wait. What? I fail to see why two words having the same definition in two languages (Latin/Greek), but different definitions in a third (English), is a problem or is in anyway confusing, unless your endeavor is to speak in all three languages at once.
Re: (Score:2)
but different definitions in a third (English)
So hyper- and super- mean different things in English? Did the English loosen themselves from the fixation of the Western World of the sacrosanctity of the classical languages and recycled those prefixes into new meanings? Let's check: ......
super- [wiktionary.org]: 1. above, over, or upon; 2. superior in size, quality, number, degree, status, title, or position
hyper- [wiktionary.org]: 1. over, above or beyond; 2. excessive
Hmm, maybe its the ordering
Note that I do understand that supersonic and hypersonic mean different things. That's why I
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that both the latin Super [latinwordlist.com] and the greek Hyper [answers.com] translate into the same word does not really help the distinction.
Wait. What? I fail to see why two words having the same definition in two languages (Latin/Greek), but different definitions in a third (English), is a problem or is in anyway confusing, unless your endeavor is to speak in all three languages at once.
We English-speaker hide the meaning of technical words by using Latin or Greek. If you know some Latin or Greek that can often help understand the meaning of English.
What's "oxygen"? Greek for "acid maker". That corresponds to the German "Sauerstoff", "acid material". Many German technical words are made from normal German words, which helps understanding, IMO.
"Petroleum" = "rock oil", Greek and Latin. German: "Erdöl" -- earth oil, but Erd and Öl are normal, everyday words.
(I only speak a littl
Uncleftish Beholding (Score:2)
Many German technical words are made from normal German words, which helps understanding, IMO.
Only if you're used to it. Otherwise, you end up with Poul Anderson's "Uncleftish Beholding" [wikipedia.org] from a 1989 issue of Analog.
Re: (Score:2)
Is Mach 5 just an arbitrary number, or does something interesting happen at that speed from an aerodynamic perspective ?
Re: (Score:3)
The air starts to burn the nitrogen with the oxygen giving nitrates; this takes energy and tends to be rather inefficient and changes the aerodynamics.
Re:longest flight.... (Score:5, Informative)
It's the first success with a radically new regime of flight surface/engine. The SR-71 was the evolution of the Wright Flier pushed to its very limit (well, the ramjet represents a slight break, but not a tremendous leap).
Once you start getting a long way over the speed of sound combustion cannot propagate fast enough to push you along. Your airfoils don't work the same at supersonic speeds either.
The principles on which slower than air flight works don't really apply over about mach 3. A scramjet produces lift in a different way, the engine is based on different principles. Your engine is this bizarre thing which is formed partly by the airflow around the aircraft and much of the useful combustion/fuel heating happens on the outside in order to stop your intake melting.
A working scramjet allows evolution from that platform (ie. now that there is one to modify, you can tweak it to get the ignition speed down, the thrust up, and so on). They're also the only other option to rockets that can provide a meaningful amount of energy to a spacecraft (learn the rocket equation, then realise that your propellant in an air breathing engine comes pretty close to free to understand why this could make a big difference).
Re:longest flight.... (Score:4, Insightful)
The SR-71 was the evolution of the Wright Flier pushed to its very limit (well, the ramjet represents a slight break, but not a tremendous leap).
I think you'll find that the jet engine was a "tremendous leap" over the Wright Flier...
Re: (Score:2)
I think you'll find that the jet engine was a "tremendous leap" over the Wright Flier...
There were a few other key step changes along the way, such as the switch away from using wing warping to create control surfaces, the first rotary engines, the first engines to use air compressors (which may have preceded jet engines; I'm not sure), and the first supersonic aircraft (which need radically different wing shapes). Scramjets are still an interesting addition to that line of key changes though.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Also the fact that Air is no longer Air but more like water at those speeds. Around Mach 10 it starts to act like brick walls.
Re:longest flight.... (Score:5, Informative)
Now, ~50 years later, a missile flies at Mach 5.1 for 6 minutes. That is a 50% increase in speed in ~50 years. This is hardly the tremendous breakthrough that is claimed.
What kind of comparison is that?
The technology behind the Blackbird topped out at about the speed you mention. The technology that has made this scramjet possible is just getting started at mach 5.1.
If that doesn't convince you, bear in mind that at this level even the difference between mach 5.0 and 5.1 is rather considerable, much like the difference in required engine power between 300kph and 350kph.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if you're not understanding the increased technology and materials science needed to accomplish this. I also wonder if I, too, am not understanding those same things. In other words, I don't know if you're correct in your statement and I don't know if I am but, from what I understand, this is actually quite a breakthrough that has taken quite a while due to the difficulty involved.
Even still... Could it have been done faster? Most likely, but there doesn't appear to have been a pressing need for th
To circle the globe (Score:4, Informative)
The average radius of the Earth is 3,959 miles (6,374 kilometers).
The equitorial diameter of the Earth (distance from one side of the Earth to the other at the equator) is about 7,926 miles.
The ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle (circumference/diameter)
is written as the symbol pi.
Pi is approximately 3.141592.
3.14159265
3.1415926535
Therefore, to determine the circumference from the diameter given above:
equitorial diameter x 3.141592 = equitorial circumference
| |
7,926 x 3.141592 = 24,900
| |
The earth has a circumference of approximately 24,900 miles.
More precisely the circumference of the earth
at the equator is 24,902 mi / 40,076 km.
Source:http://lyberty.com/encyc/articles/earth.html
5.1Mach = 1.7355km/s
Source: http://www.metric-conversions.org/speed/mach-to-kilometers-per-second.htm [metric-conversions.org]
It depends on what type of plane you are flying in and what air routes you plan to take. The typical duration is usually 2 days to 4 days.
For instance, an F-16 could theoretically circumspect the world in slightly less than 78 hours. But that's only possible if all the refuellings are conducted as in-flight refuellings, via airborne tankers. With luck and some good currents around, it might shave 2 hrs or so off the total time needed. But then again, unless you can stay awake for 3 days without sleep, its damn near impossible to do that.
For a civilian airliner like a Boeing 747 or an Airbus, it would take around the same amount of time, largely due to the need to bring it down to an airstrip for refuelling. But because of its huge internal fuel capacity, it could remain airborne far longer than an F-16.
To help you with your essay, I'm going to list the conditions required to accomplish this in a realistic manner:
1) Type of aircraft and its configuration
A civilian airliner jet (like those 2 mention earlier) typically have intercontinental ranges in excess of 3,000km. Also, they are capable of carrying huge quantities of internal fuel. Assuming you take a Boeing 747, removed all the seats in the passenger compartment and turn them, along with the cargo area into fuel storage, that range will be increased dramatically, from 3,000km to 7,000km.
Taking it further, by adding a refuelling receptor to the jet itself, similar to those used by the Air Force for its planes like the C-17 Globemaster III, the maximum range effectively becomes unlimited.
2) The human factor
Flight operations are no trivial task. While computers and automated intelligent system have made it easier for modern day pilots, the task of flying itself is still a tiring activity. Pilots need to maintain vigilance not only over the flight systems on the aircraft but also need to keep an eye out for weather conditions. Although the availability of long range radar and weather satellites have made detection of distance storms easier and earlier, its ultimately a human that takes actions to avoid it.
Maintaining wakefulness is a mentally exhausting affair, especially when is also an extremely dull affair, since an un-occupied mind is a bored mind, which translate into mental lethargy, which is also sleepiness. A human being usually loses his ability to react quickly after 12 hours of continuous flying. After 18 hours, that ability falls by 10% for every 2 hours after that.
3) Flight profile and weather conditions
The reason why airliner jets can sustain long range flights is because it cruises along at high altitudes. This is one of the aspects of aerodynamics, the higher you fly, the less fuel you burn, thus allow maximum milage per pound of fuel.
Air currents can aid and also hinders an aircraft's performance. With the proper air currents available (dependant on the time of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> 5.1Mach = 1.7355km/s
Summary: so it's a little over a mile a second, 24500/3600 = ~6.8 hours.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the orbital velocity is nearly 8km/s at the surface. So at that velocity you'd feel weightless, as long as you made an aircraft with 0 lift and exactly enough thrust to counter air resistance.
Applications? (Score:5, Informative)
A fascinating development, but I worry that the applications are limited to delivering bombs. Since the engine doesn't even function below hypersonic speeds, a plane and rocket are necessary to even launch them, and that naturally limits the size. As such, I don't particularly see the development as a positive thing in the near term, nor does it make me feel any better that the US military is the one doing it.
A hybrid jet/rocket engine like the SABRE [wikipedia.org] is far more attractive, as it can deliver Skylon [wikipedia.org] from runway to space, and is efficient throughout. The remarkable enabling technology is a precooler which cools incoming air from 1000C to -150C in milliseconds, and has already been successfully demonstrated.
Furthermore, there is a also a variant optimized for atmospheric flight called Scimitar [wikipedia.org], which uses the precooler with a high-bypass turbofan engine, giving it good efficiency and subsonic exhaust velocities at low speeds. This flexibility and broad efficiency allow the A2 [wikipedia.org] to operate over land as well, overcoming the limitations of the Concorde. It has the potential to make commercial hypersonic flight ubiquitous.
Theoretical (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Theoretical (sound concept) (Score:4, Insightful)
SABRE is a sound concept which combines proven technologies in a new way, enabled by the novel heat exchanger. Not only has the heat exchanger has been demonstrated, the ESA has thoroughly examined the concept and finds no fault with the engine. The helium (which is not liquid by the way) is not consumed, nor are prohibitively large quantities required.
By your reasoning, there would never be any innovation at all, and we would live in a technologically static world. I do not understand the compulsion of people to endlessly and vehemently complain about the impossibility of perfectly sound concepts. Progress still happens, though probably at a considerably reduced rate thanks to this prevailing mindset.
Seriously, what is with the total lack of vision these days? Why is it that everything that can't already be purchased, is considered to be impossible? If not a sound concept with demonstrated components, what, if anything, will convince people to support innovation? I'm genuinely curious, as this seems to be holding up other critically important innovations such as molten salt reactors.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe try talking to the guy who says the following [slashdot.org]
(emphasis mine) Maybe he can explain it to you.
Maybe you'll claim that it's not a sound concept, but there are quite a few experimental reactors that exist now.
I like SABRE, I also like Tokamak. Will either one actually succeed? I don't kn
Re: (Score:2)
I considered including an explanation to head off this inevitable response, but thought it was off topic. The reason is not a matter of technological advancement, but of the fundamental physics of the tokamak. When the physics makes something impossible, I occasionally resort to the term "never".
The tokamak has to be enormous for it to work, and that has a direct impact on the economics. Even today, for 1GW fission reactors, financing is difficult, and they are nowhere near as complex. Beyond the prohib
Re: (Score:2)
They've tested it at the test rig and it works fine.
The engine has a far easier time than scramjet engines, they should be able to keep the running for hours; good luck with getting a scramjet engine to do that!
SABRE idea has also got a huge advantage that the cycle works with excellent thrust and efficiency from zero speed all the way up to Mach 5.5. Scramjets ONLY work above Mach 4 or so.
Re: (Score:3)
The big barrier is that it doesn't scale down well at all: you can't built a small vehicle that you can actually use for launching anything, you have to stump up the
Plenty of applications? (Score:2)
I would like to point out however that you are writing about those theoretical designs as if a test model exists but it is not the case, while scramjet models have been performing in tests since the 1980s. It's a bit misleading to write as if the engine exists when only the precooler has been tested. They may be the way of the future but
Political shoot-in-foot (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, SABRE sounds great, in the exact same sense that fusion sounds better than fission-based nuclear power.
Of course, like that comparison, scramjets are a relatively simpler technology that's already been conceptually proven, while the hybrid engine you're talking about is - despite the proof of concept for the cooling function - largely vapour.
And, by the way, the hybrid engine programme WAS originally a military concept development, but was set aside for other more promising developments. To fear that
Re: (Score:2)
Your analogy doesn't work, as SABRE is actually a sound concept, with well understood physics. It is an involved, but tractable engineering problem. Tokamak fusion is not, and will never produce economical power, even if it works. Nor are most other fusion options attractive when compared to the simplicity and economics possible with molten salt fission reactors. (The exception being aneutronic pB11 fusion in a Polywell, DPF, or such, but those are a much harder nut to crack, if they are even possible.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't bother to read those sections I mentioned, did you? Nowhere did I say that scramjets work well in theory, quite the opposite. Why would you pursue something that doesn't work well even in theory, at such great cost? What makes SABRE a better design is a sound concept offering greater potential efficiency across the spectrum, and general usefulness.
Cooling the incoming air has very real advantages in the thermodynamic cycle as well relaxing requirements for materials.
Fuel (Score:4, Funny)
For those of you who asked what fuel it uses:
Mg(OH)2
Top Secret.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was "OMg - thats fast"
A milestone! A breakthrough! (Score:3, Informative)
Ease off the hyperbole.
1991: The first recorded successful scramjet test, when a modified Russian SAM was used as a booster for an engine which achieved supersonic combustion for 5 seconds.
1992: Another similar test, with French funding, pushed that out to 15 seconds.
2002: HySHot demonstrated the first controlled flight with supersonic combustion ...
2013: A milestone! A breakthrough!
Re:A milestone! A breakthrough! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I think this latest X-51 flight may have been longer than the sum of hypersonic burns on all tests thus far, but I may have overlooked some of the more recent ones.
Suffice it to say, a several-minute burn, with acceleration, is not a trivial accomplishment.
So what's your beef?
Re: (Score:2)
I was in school when the Russians did it, and that was nice and unique because it happened in flight. Except that they had to accelerate to beyond M5 before they turned it on because the net thrust was effectively negative (it slowed down quickly as soon as the SCRAMjet was fired). It buried itself in the Siberian tundra (as planned) as part of a simple ballistic trajectory.
Even the HyShot was not designed to produce actual thrust.
The Waverider produced net positive thrust, accelerating the vehicle from Mac
Oh good! (Score:2)
Now we have another, faster way to deliver death to people we don't like.
Re: (Score:2)
Or who don't like us.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Goodness me! Was that a Whooosh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Really?
They supposedly are having trouble buying plain jet engines for their fighters, so they haven't even got to cloning jet engines at a reasonably high level.
I suppose they'll steal the plans for making one once the US perfects it.
Or did you mean that China is close to developing it on their own, in secret?
Way to go! (Score:4, Insightful)
The way you're framing it, you consider the Chinese your opponents (the more "sports-like" view, hopefully) or your enemies (the more military view, less hopefully).
In any way...
I suppose they'll steal the plans for making one once the US perfects it.
you are underestimating your opponents. Mistake number one. Way to go!
Re:Way to go! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, this makes sense because America is the most ethical country on the planet.
Re:Goodness me! Was that a Whooosh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I realize it is fun to shit on America (and America does have its faults) but that wasn't their statement. Their statement was that China is less ethical. Beating up on strawmen is easy but isn't very intellectually stimulating.
It's not a strawman. (Score:4, Insightful)
He's just pointing out that "lees ethical" is a comparison.
So, less ethical than who or what?
You seem to acknowledge that it's not the USA, with it's faults and all.
Such an acknowledgment would actually recognize the original poster's ethics comment as a strawman.
Cause... If it's not USA and China ethics we're comparing, tossing in ethics is a meaningless digression in a form of a generalization that borders on chauvinist propaganda on one side and racism on the other.
"Chinese have fewer ethics! BAM! We've beaten them on the moral battlefield already!"
A strawman if I ever saw one.
Though, in OP's defense, probably an unconscious one.
Heck, his post is actually praising Chinese an prophesying them as winners or at least on the same level as the USA, in some imaginary battle.
It's just that Chinese have been memed into that position of inherently lower morality through centuries of sinophobic propaganda.
They've been yellow peril and godless commies for generations (and if that doesn't mean they have no morals...).
It's perfectly understandable that they are also nothing but thieves and copiers of other people's tech and makers of cheap junk practically incapable of creativity.
And that they would fight harder and with fewer ethics - i.e. fight dirty.
Re:It's not a strawman. (Score:5, Insightful)
It appears obvious that the comparison was the ethics of the United States in comparison with those of China. Given the state of affairs and some of the ethics violations going on (or in the recent past) here in American government it is a truly sad statement when I am able to point out that China's ethics are demonstrably worse than America's.
I mean, yeah, I get it - more so than people may think. America has had some serious ethical violations recently and I believe our country is less because of them. I am ashamed and dishonored on behalf of my country. What we have done is horrific and may have consequences for years to come. I believe that our continued meddling as self-designated World Police is going to continue having detrimental effects well into the lives of my grand children and perhaps even great grand children (longer if we don't make some serious policy changes soon).
However, yeah, China is demonstrably worse than America by every possible metric one can come up with. The only way one could be convinced it is otherwise is to be completely delusional or intellectually dishonest.
Either way, it appeared to be an obvious comparison of ethics between the United States and China and that's where I was going from.
Finally, I am unable to decide which is worse. If their strawman was unintentional then that's rather ignorant. If their strawman was intentional then that's pretty dishonest. I see strawmen and a lot of people assuming either/or (I can't recall the Latin name of the logical fallacy at the moment) being tossed around /. lately. I haven't any states and it could be confirmation bias on my part but I'm seeing an increase in both of those here as of late and that's a drawback in my opinion.
I guess that wasn't the final bit - I feel obligated to continue though it is off-topic.
Anyhow, as I mentioned, I've noticed a lot of those logical fallacies lately and I'm disappointed. One of the things I pride myself on is being open to debate and to being able to change my mind when I'm faced with new information. That's something that was re-enforced by Slashdot actually. In the days of old I came to Slashdot and I made my argument and, sometimes, I got my ass handed to me as people piled on with the various logical arguments that they had. They'd debate with well-reasoned and well articulated responses quite frequently.
From this, from you, I learned to be more logical myself. I learned to view my arguments with suspicion and to examine them more clearly before postulating them.
These days it seems those debates and learning experiences are rare. Seldom do experts opine from behind their obscure education. It seems that there are fewer posting who have a profession in academia while more people are posting with little thought to accuracy, honesty, and logic. The signal to noise ratio has increased and reasoned debate is rarer. Fewer people are willing to change their views even when shown the faulty logic and the accurate conclusions.
It is disappointing though it isn't disappointing enough for me to do the whole threaten to leave or whine about it thing. (I hope it doesn't seem like whining, I'm just observing and reminiscing.) No, I'll remain here and continue posting and learning. The chances to learn may be less in number but they are still there. I make it a point to be grateful and to make my gratitude known when someone posts something of considerable value. I also have excellent karma and get an abundance of mod points so I try to moderate fairly and use that to help with the signal to noise ratio. So, there's that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
China isn't demolishing several countries in the world as we speak, while loudly proclaiming to be the paragon of peace. US is.
If that doesn't make it far more unethical, I don't know what you mean by "ethics" but it sure doesn't come from a dictionary.
Re: (Score:2)
No? China backing North Korea, Iran, Tibet, and Syria may all indicate that China is involved in destroying countries. They may be less effective but that's not for lack of trying. Your hyperbole is cute though. I'm also skeptical about their actions in Africa, I'd like to have some monitoring done to ensure they're not polluting the hell out of the countries over there. That's without getting into the human rights violations.
America has its faults, way more than it should, but to attempt to favorably compa
Re: (Score:2)
How much of this GDP is actual product, and how much is foreign aid being pumped into the country just to keep it from slipping through the fingers and back into chaos?
Re:It's not a strawman. (Score:5, Insightful)
I come from a country that stayed neutral during cold war and therefore avoided much of propaganda brainwashing you were clearly subjected to. As a result I have quite a bit of insight of the outsider that can see all the countries through the same lens, rather then an insider seeing "my side and their side". To me, there is no "good West" and "bad East" that you were clearly raised with. There were merely two huge evil empires that sought to pervert everyone caught in the middle to be their pawns in one way or the other, and we had to balance our relations with both not to get hit hard.
And from my point of view, US is currently the most unethical country on the planet by a large margin, simply due to its power projection being all over the world, and much of this being military projection. Which is always unethical, as it is aimed to force its own goals onto others at a barrel of a gun. It is also understandable, because in terms of realpolitik, they have by far the most military and financial power in the world and such power has always corrupted the wielder, no matter how good intentions he started with.
In comparison, China's power projection is currently mostly soft power. The main reason why they're expanding their circle of influence so fast is because they basically do not bring their ideology on the barrels of their guns like US and USSR likes/liked to do, but through economic incentives and power of its trade. Many of the current conflicts, such as Libya were largely caused by China getting a solid foothold in what Europe and US used to think of as their back yard being essentially taken over by Chinese interests. And the answer is more often then not a military one, which is again, far less ethical then commercial.
And frankly, while their culture is far more alien to me then that of US, due to a mix of US culture being mainly sourced from mainland Europe and subsequent massive cultural invasion from US-influenced mass media after WW2, I'm not at all convinced that it's actually worse. Different, yes. Worse, perhaps, perhaps not. We'll see in a couple of decades when they get enough progress to be able to get a proper military muscle to see if they start imitating US in exporting their ideology at a barrel of a gun. Considering what I know about their culture, this is possible but somewhat unlikely. I suspect what they will end up with is something that is even more Westernised then what they have now, because that's the direction they've been heading to culturally for last thirty or so years and as a result, even more comfortable for me to cohabit with.
But they are not doing the military projection now. And that is far more damning then any argument about "potential threat in the future".
Re: (Score:2)
I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I too had the luxury of growing up with a great deal of exposure to other societies and, even as an adult, I continued to travel and broaden my horizons. I do not see the use of military or even killing to be unethical by default. I see depriving human rights to their citizens as a far greater ethical violation. I see the taking of land and people (Tibet) as an ethical deficit that can't be overcome. (I see the same stain on America with their treatment of the native
Regarding general state of Slashdot... (Score:2)
Well... that's several things, but mostly observer bias and rosy retrospection
In the days of old I came to Slashdot and I made my argument and, sometimes, I got my ass handed to me as people piled on with the various logical arguments that they had. They'd debate with well-reasoned and well articulated responses quite frequently.
What about those that didn't "pile on with the various logical arguments"? Or did you not make any logical arguments of your own, refuting others' illogical points?
These days it seems those debates and learning experiences are rare. Seldom do experts opine from behind their obscure education. It seems that there are fewer posting who have a profession in academia while more people are posting with little thought to accuracy, honesty, and logic. The signal to noise ratio has increased and reasoned debate is rarer. Fewer people are willing to change their views even when shown the faulty logic and the accurate conclusions.
Nah... it's just that there is more people here, so you have a greater chance of reading something written by a troll or an extremist as they are more active.
As for willingness for change... You shouldn't even be looking for that.
On one hand admitting one's faults is no
Sorry mate, but you're not making valid points. (Score:3)
I'm talking here about the first part of your post. The whole strawman thing.
All you're doing is going round-and-round inside a circular argument.
China's ethics is bad, cause compared to America's ethics which IS bad China's ethics is bad, disagreeing is "completely delusional or intellectually dishonest" - ergo, China is "demonstrably worse".
BTW... do you even recall what was it you called a strawman? Here, let me refresh your memory.
Yeah, this makes sense because America is the most ethical country on the planet.
And this is you, just now.
America has had some serious ethical violations recently and I believe our country is less because of them. I am ashamed and dishonored on behalf of my country. What we have done is horrific and may have consequences for years to come.
So... Questioning comparison to USA's ethics is
Re: (Score:2)
His was a straw man in that he misrepresented his opponents position. His opponent never stated that he America was the most ethical. Here's the definition and a description of a straw man argument:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman [wikipedia.org]
By asserting that his opponent had claimed America was most ethical he built a straw man which, of course, is easy to defeat. His statement was:
Yeah, this makes sense because America is the most ethical country on the planet.
The person he was responding to never made any such claim and such is indeed a straw man.
I never stated that comparison was a straw m
You're missing the point. (Score:2)
His was a straw man in that he misrepresented his opponents position.
The person he was responding to never made any such claim and such is indeed a straw man.
I never stated that comparison was a straw man...
1 - It is not a strawman when you're pointing out a flaw in one's logic. OP was questioning GP's logic of comparison.
2 - GP was implying higher ethical standards for one side. OP was using sarcasm to question that implication and to point out the case of "pot meet kettle".
3 - Questioning the comparison with some imaginary notion of "USA ethics" as if it is some kind of a measurable standard IS THE POINT of OP's comment.
You are seeing a strawman in a "Yeah? Who died and made YOU a judge of ethics?" statement
Re: (Score:2)
It appears obvious that the comparison was the ethics of the United States in comparison with those of China.
Yes, but it isn't clear which system of ethics are being used for the comparison. Ethics in China and America are different. In both countries, honesty and loyalty are considered important traits. But in America, honesty is more important. If you lie or cheat to help your friends and family, that is unethical. But in China, loyalty is considered more important. So if you bend the rules to enrich yourself, that is unethical, but if you do it to help your friends and family, that is often considered acc
Re: (Score:2)
While that's true it seems we can likely agree on a basic standard with which to approach it and could establish a qualitative scale and go from there. They are indeed subjective though but I think we have a fairly well understood group of rights and freedoms as well as a decent enough grasp of civility and what society has deemed acceptable behavior. Going by any of those and not some obtuse opinion of someone who's devoid of ethics or morals would be a fairly obvious starting point and is easily enough as
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't feel too cocky yet, my American friend. The difference between America and China is that China doesn't make the headlines with such a military/scientific/technical achievement. When time will come, they'll show up..
Okay, fair enough... but seriously. This is the tech the United States Government is letting the public sector show off. We haven't had a public breakthrough weapons technology as good as megaton nukes, since the 60's. Not that China hasn't done its share of economic catch up, but I'm sure there's a lot of powerful tech available to our governments and they've not been needed lately.
Don't care who shows it off... travelling over 1km/s in our atmosphere at that efficiency is bloody outstanding. These guys
Re:Goodness me! Was that a Whooosh? (Score:5, Informative)
We haven't had a public breakthrough weapons technology as good as megaton nukes, since the 60's.
I don't think that is correct. The impact of precision guided munitions has already had a huge impact, and it continues to grow. The following except refers to events around Operation Desert Storm in 1992. At that time precision guided munitions were largely bombs and missiles, and a few expensive anti-tank artillery rounds. Now that capability is finding its way to more mundane artillery and mortars as well, not to mention much smaller missiles. The devices are becoming smaller, lighter, more precise, easier to use, and cheaper, so there will be a lot more of then in the future. A large strike by precision weapons could easily reverse the tide of battle in a way that nothing short of a nuclear weapon could in the past. Compared to nukes there are few drawbacks and many substantial advantages, such as not contaminating the battlefield and the fact that their use doesn't really have any of the political problem that nuclear weapons have.
IMPACT OF PRECISION WEAPONS ON AIR COMBAT OPERATIONS [af.mil]
We are writing a new and exciting chapter on air power--a chapter made possible in part by precision guided munitions (PGM). Air power advocates have long dreamed of a day when the weapon, platform, and willingness to use them properly would come together to make air power a decisive force. Today, those dreams are reality. One need only look back to our raids on Schweinfurt, Germany, in World War II to see how dramatically precision weapons have enhanced our capabilities over the last 50 years. Two raids of 300 B-17 bombers could not achieve with 3,000 bombs what two F-117s can do with only four. Precision weapons have truly given a new meaning to the term mass.
To shut down an industry in World War II, we were forced to target entire complexes because of the inaccuracy of our weapons; today we would need to hit only a couple of key buildings. What we historically achieved with volume we now can accomplish with precision. After all, the objective has never been to see how many bombs we could drop, but to produce results.
Precision weapons may also constitute a revolution in mobility. Of the 85,000 tons of bombs used in the Gulf War, only 8,000 tons (less than 10 percent) were PGMs, yet they accounted for nearly 75 percent of the damage. If we had wanted to, we could have airlifted all of our PGMs with just five C-5s or nine C-141s a day.2 . . . more [af.mil]
Re: (Score:2)
They found out that Germans were pretty good at rebuilding bombed factories. It takes much longer to replace a bombed civilian.
Re: (Score:2)
I am Russian. Don't even try this shit on me.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, after what Stalin did to the USSR, my guess is you folks aren't that scared of death at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Well those bombed Germans and Japanese civilians must have known something you don't because at end of the war they were falling all over each other to surrender to the US and western allies rather than be overrun by the Russians.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you forgot Comrade, we were allies in the Great War.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, we should have left those civilians alive so your side could get them in some rapin' time.
It's war, we kill people. That includes civilians if we believe we can get them to convince their government to call off the war sooner. How did you guys treat those prisoners of war? How is a man-made disaster a natural disaster? How did all those rapes of German women affect the war effort anyhow?
This is seriously not a game you can win or a claim you can make and get away with. The truth has great power to def
Re:Goodness me! Was that a Whooosh? (Score:5, Informative)
Four things. First, Professor Ray Stalker is indeed a credit to Australia and I look forward to his continued success.
Second, the article is about the successful test of a US Air Force test vehicle. They are entitled to celebrate their success.
Third, your history is a bit off.
Scramjets integrate air and space [aip.org]
Scramjets have a long and active development history in the United States. On the basis of theoretical studies started in the 1940s, the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and NASA began developing scramjet engines in the late 1950s. Since then, many hydrogenand hydrocarbon-fueled engine programs have helped scramjet technology evolve to its current state. The most influential of these efforts was NASA’s National Aerospace Plane (NASP) program, established in 1986 to develop a vehicle with speed greater than Mach 15 and horizontal takeoff and landing capabilities. The program ended in 1993, but the original NASP engine design, significantly modified by NASA, provided the foundation for the power plant used during the X-43A’s recent flight.
Fourth, you diminish yourself when you associate yourself with Alex Belits' bile filled, historically illiterate, diatribes.
Re: (Score:3)
Rockwell worked on plans for a hypersonic spaceplane powered by a scramjet, using DARPA funds, starting as far back as the early 1980s. The X-30 project was scraped, but later revived into the X-43 project. The X-43 was actually tested first in June 2001, over a year before the Australian HyShot, although admittedly, the test was a failure, and HyShot was the first successful scramjet flight.
No one is questioning the Australian's expertise and merit in the field of scramjet propulsion, but it's foolish to
Re:Goodness me! Was that a Whooosh? (Score:4, Interesting)
That's probably because they didn't have an effective bomber in that range.
Shall we speak of soldiers raping citizens and massive atrocities against prisoners of war or would you rather close the conversation now and accept your defeat? You're going to claim ethics and try to claim the moral high ground as a Russian? Really? Some of us know our history.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't feel too cocky yet, my American friend. The difference between America and China is that China doesn't make the headlines with such a military/scientific/technical achievement. When time will come, they'll show up..
Although it is possible they'll invent their own - assuming they feel a need to have it - the more likely outcome is they'll wait till it is perfected by the US and then use espionage to steal the design and make their own copy. In the unlikely event that the US is able to foil the Chinese attempt at stealing the design, the Russians will probably build their own at some point and the Chinese will steal it from them. It is an old pattern.
China also has more than 3,000 front companies in the U.S. “fo [bloomberg.com]
Re:Goodness me! Was that a Whooosh? (Score:4, Insightful)
China has an emmense population of genius level citizens and have basically perfected mass production. Hell most of the top talent in the US is Chinese decent. As for the money spent on defense you have to remember China is basically Communist, they don't have to pay your ass to build shit. So just because you heard a news wire that China just built a prop plane pull your head out of your ass and wake up to reality. If this shit does get serious it will become overwhelmly serious quick. The Middle East has problems with the US, the far East has problems with the US and your dumbass is sitting back just playing these guys off.
That my friend is a dumbass thing to do.
Re:Goodness me! Was that a Whooosh? (Score:4, Informative)
The middle east has the same problem china has: The US Navy and lots of deep, deep water inbetween us and their hatred.
Mass producing american goods != coming up with new ones of their own. I don't think they're still fighting with bamboo sticks. I think they're fighting with Su-30 aircraft with a range of 3k miles and the j-20 with a range of 1,400 miles. They have a single aircraft carrier, but only a handful of either have a navallanding package. Their main battle tank was developed during the cold war and probably does not have active armor as all pictures of them have been shown with blocks of laminate armor (it's larger than active armor) and relies on lazer dazzlers to block incoming mistles, but cannot stop heat seaking, GPS guided, or visually guided weapons. It's a joke, but they have lots and lots of them.
Their infantry fights with the type 88 LMG, Type 81 (AK Clone), and QBZ-95 bullpup. The first two are great guns, the last is crap according to all reports I've ever seen. Either way, they have no soldiers with experience using them while people are shooting back and no way to get those soldiers to our shores.
They can launch mistles at us, but we can drop many of them into that large, wet ocean I've previously mentioned. Those that do make it to the US would be retaliated against with our own mistles which the chinese have no way of shooting down. They can launch chemical and nuclear weapons, but as Pearl Harbor and 9/11 both showed the world, when you attack the US, the US attacks back at a much higher ratio. We have the equipment and the men who are willing to use them. We have armies of volunteer citizen soldiers instead of conscripted subjects. Citizens fight much harder than subjects and run away far less often.
I sith "back just playing these guys off" after a long carrer sitting in wet damn holes with a rifle in my hand. I'm a nerd and slashdotter as a hobby, war has always been my profession. When I speak of war, it's as an expert, not an armchair general.
Sharks with lasers, etc.... (Score:2, Interesting)
"Mistles", eh?
So now the TLAs are secretly training Mistles [wikipedia.org] to home in on the hated enemy? At least they're a good choice, the poor little bird ranges "over all of Europe and much of Asia. Many northern birds move south during the winter", perhaps this new strain of Avian flu that seems to be affecting a part of Asia is the result of an ongoing proof of concept exercise?
As for conscript armies, ill-trained or otherwise, just consider the use of human wave tactics. In Korea the US and its Allies were technic
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't that I don't agree with your conclusions but if you're an expert and not an armchair general why would you be unable to spell "missile?" It seems strange to claim to be an expert but to be unfamiliar with the basic tools involved in that field.
3 for 3 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I will address your points by pointing out your ignorance of basic facts of warfare: there can be no large scale conflict between two nations armed with strategic nuclear weaponry. Reason: MAD.
That leaves proxy wars. How much impact does weapon quality have to do with winning or losing these? Little. The only military aspect important to winning proxy wars is military force projection ability, and these can be won without it against a power with it (example: Vietnam war).
What matters is funds you can pump i
Re: (Score:2)
China wins "ability to project military might directly?" They only have one shitty aircraft carrier! How are they projecting "military might?"
I'm making no comment on the manner in which the US chooses to exercise its might, but you can't deny that the US military is the most agile and effective war fighting force in the world by orders of magnitude. We've got carriers in every ocean, 10000 mile range stealth bombers that can drop orrdinance anywhere on the planet, drone aircraft assassinating people, and t
Re: (Score:2)
Learning comprehension. I clearly stated that they currently lose in both espionage and military might.
Re: (Score:2)
No. USA has resilience because of the culture of "banding together against outside threat" from colonial ages properly used by local propaganda machine.
China has similar culture sourced from even harsher hardship from the same period, but currently their propaganda is weaker. But they're getting there.
Re:Goodness me! Was that a Whooosh? (Score:5, Insightful)
China has an emmense population of genius level citizens and have basically perfected mass production.
This is funny! The Company I worked for sent several china manufacturers clear plans that were accurate for a product, a LED replacement for a 4' fluorescent fixture.
We ordered a case as a trial from 8 different manufacturers there, They knew that we would order 100,000 more if the product was right and good.
7 of the companies made them in the wrong size. 1 inch too long, 1 inch too short, one looked like they used people with hacksaws as none of the cuts on the extruded aluminum was straight. etc.. Pretty much all of them were garbage from all makers. 1 had them the right length but designed them for 120V AC and not the 208 volts that is common in office buildings here and was PRINTED CLEARLY ON THE DRAWINGS and in the specification documentation that was very clear.
I am guessing that the China definition of "perfection" is not what we see in Europe or in the USA.
No they cant manufacture anything "perfect"..
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Goodness me! Was that a Whooosh? (Score:5, Interesting)
I can tell you what happened at the Chinese companies, as I have seen this done before:
"We have a small order we don't really want, but we do not want to insult the person asking for the example by refusing outright. We'll send them something that looks terrible so they pick someone else".
Because frankly, 100.000 fluorescent fixtures is a tiny order for manufacturing that is going on Chinese scale right now. Most will simply not want to take it.
Re: (Score:2)
"Nobody is afraid of China"? Oh? Have you quizzed the Japanese, Taiwanese, Vietnamese, Laotians (ask about the new dams China plans on rivers flowing into Laos), Burma (similar water hegemony fears), India (they have found a way to revive their border conflict now that China is moving into contested territory), Filipinos (check out the S. China Sea claims of China), etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Or the Tibetans... oh wait, there aren't really any Tibetans anymore. OK, how about the Nepalese, who share a border with the part of China that was once Tibet, and who the Chinese have built a large modern road (with bridges capable of supporting tanks) to their border?
China's grip on their part of the world is growing slowly, not (mostly) in the crushing impact of military combat that people see on TV, but in the slow subjugation of the nearby countries' economies and military potential, until there reall
Re: (Score:2)
They could march here and we wouldn't have enough bullets to stop them if they did, they could build a bridge of corpses across the Barring straits into Alaska.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Goodness me! Was that a Whooosh? (Score:4, Informative)
This whole thread ^ is the reason why we have Governments. If regular people were left in charge, the entire world would be choking to death from a Nuclear Winter.
Re:What about the skin temp ? (Score:4, Interesting)
It does mean however that carbon fibre reinforced plastic is probably a very bad idea for the skin while aluminium or titanium are going to conduct surface heat away at a rapid rate. There's going to be a lot of volume compared with the surface area of the leading edges so there's a lot of places for the heat to go.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)