Slashdot Mirror
India Plans Hypersonic Space Plane by 2007
MaximusTheGreat writes "While India has announced plans for a hypersonic plane (speeds greater than mach 5) before, this is the first time a firm date for test of an unmanned plane has been given. Final version of this plane called Aerobic Vehicle for Hypersonic Aerospace Transportation (AVATAR) is envisaged to deliver a 500 kg to 1,000 kg payload to low earth orbit. It will reduce the cost of space travel to a fraction to what it is today, by being completely reusable. Also, by allowing hypersonic speeds, it would for example reduce the travel time from Sydney, Australia to New York to less than 3 hrs. The crucial technology in the development of Hypersonic planes is supersonic combustion ramjet (scramjet). India has already demonstrated the basic technology of ramjets by the development of world's fastest cruise missile Brahmos which outspeeds famous US Tomahawk by three times, and by ground tests of scramjets. US, Australia and Japan are also pursuing similar programs."
I don't understand the combination of "hypersonic" and "space plane." I thought the key behind the US hypersonic plane was its ability to compress and use oxygen to increase its speed and function.
Here's a couple of links that compares and contrasts these two.
I don't understand the way the combination of the two would work.
Space Plane Link
Hypersonic Plane Link
Davak
Slight quibble: Concorde was *not* grounded for safety reasons. Concorde was grounded for financial reasons - after 30 years of service, major investment would have been necessary to keep Concorde aloft. With only one major accident, Concorde has (had?) a better safety record than most major commercial aircraft.
This is where the serious fun begins.
Being a Canadian, and having several Australian friends, I think you're so far off base it's amazing. Australia is far more American than European, and Canada is actually becoming more Asian influenced then most realize.
I've got to laugh at your opinion that until 1903 the US wasn't imperialistic. I guess the Lousiania Purchase, the American-Indian wars, the Spanish-American war, and the Mexican-American war isn't something you're too familiar with. Try a little research before you make a complete jackass out of yourself.
Ever been to mississippi? Georgia? Alabama? Texas? Wyoming? These all have levels of povery that make places in Mexico and India look rich.
India is doing the right thing. They are raising themselves by their bootstraps and doing it well. By getting business to come there, they are providing jobs for their locals.
As to building a space plane, they have the right idea. We have also tryed it, but it was embroiled in politics and extreme greed.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
One of the very important issues I see neglected in many of the news reports relating to SCRAMjet-powered craft is the issue of getting the damned things up to a speed where the SCRAMjet can actually start working.
With a small unmanned craft the solution could be to use rocket boosters to get the vehicle up to around Mach 1 -- at which speed the SCRAMjet would be able to start producing sufficient thrust to continue the acceleration.
However, what do you do with a passenger craft filled with people. The acceleration to 0.9M is going to need to be done far more gently (or they'd spill their prawn cocktails and Bucks Fizz). Perhaps they plan to use conventional turbojet engines -- in which case you're now talking about a whole heap of additional weight (engines plus fuel) and drag that will penalise the hypersonic performance. and range.
Then there's the issue of landing...
Since the SCRAMjet will not provide any useful thrust at mid to low subsonic speeds, what safety margins are built in for aborted landings or other problems. Sure, the space shuttle can glide to a landing -- but it has a dedicated runway, clear airspace and only seven lives at risk.
Finally, one has to ask: just because we *can* build something, does that necessarily mean it's a sensible idea to do so?
Increasing the flight-speed of a craft is an expensive business in terms of energy consumption. To double the speed requires four times the power (all other aspects being equal) so to push a craft along at mach 5 would require 256 times as much thrust as it takes to push it along at mach 1.
Unless there's some clever magic involved, that means 256 times as much fuel being used to travel five times as fast -- making it 50 times *less* efficient in terms of miles to the gallon.
Now think about this for a minute.. would you pay 50 times as much as it presently costs to fly from one place to another if it meant saving a few hours?
The Concorde service died because it was too expensive and they only flew at Mach 2. How on earth then, could a hypersonic passenger service be economically viable?
And don't make the mistake of thinking that liquid hydrogen is going to be cheaper than Jet-A fuel, last time I checked it was almost identical.
A final note, even if this all panned out and India was able to introduce a hypersonic passenger jet service, would anyone use it? After all, just look at their railway safety record
20 years is actually not that very long. I've worked on military research before, and while I was doing so a report stated that the average time between the start of a military research project and a deliverable hitting even limited deployment was 10 years (in the UK and USA). Given that a lot of projects are quite simple upgrade to existing technology, 20 years isn't that bad.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Once upon a time, way back when space and aeronautical engineering was cool,(er, you remember a thing called engineering?), there was a similar project called HOTOL.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/6 133/hotol.html
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/hotol.htm
WTF happened.....
TSR2 Fan
My hyperlinks aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
They're actually Su-30 MKI (M- Modified, Advanced, K-Export, I-India), but they're damn good planes all the same.
Germany has a weak military compared to both the UK and France.
:w
References? Germany and UK spent $38.8 billion and $31.7 billion on the military in 2002. France spent $46.5 billion. Perhaps you're referring to Germany's lack of nuclear weapons?
>Never happened. India has been buying Crays >going back to at least 1988.
Did happen. India's CDAC (www.cdacindia.com) started development of the PARAM supercomputer when the US refused to sell a Cray to India. The first PARAM was launched in 1991 IIRC, and some were sold to Germany, Russia and Canada.
Just putting some of the parent-post's rebuttal statements in perspective. India is self sufficient as regards food grains and does export a lot of food products. Note that the link contains more recent stats..
The Expansionism link is from a website which is a mouthpiece of the for the ultra left and rebellious Communist Party of Nepal (CPN), which has been known to spread propagandist statements against India (and the US!!).
Cray computers: Never happened.
US did refuse to give India Cray super computers and we invented the Param supercomputer to do the same job in much cheaper and more efficient manner. Hell, I had classmates in undergrad who worked on many of the projects to develop Param and its successors.
It takes a lot more than a technological accomplishment in design to compete with the likes of Boeing and Airbus.
But its definitely a start. Something similar happened in the Pharma industry 15-20 years back. But Indian pharma companies are beginning to compete with American pharma giants in their own markets due to technologies and expertise they developed.
Public healthcare in India is lacking, but as was the original posters claim, there is still FREE public healthcare available to the common man. Hopefully, as India as a country matures and becomes richer, the quality of healthcare will improve.
However your 'facts' and arguments are completely false.
Not quite...See above.