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."
From the article: "Brahmos which outspeeds famous US Tomahawk by three times, and by ground tests of scramjets."
The Tomahawk cruise missile was intentionally made subsonic. The sound from a supersonic cruise missile with a range in exceess of 800 miles would negate much of the stealth aspect of the missile.
If you want to compare it to a US missile, compare it to some of our anti-ship or anti-air missiles.
You don't need to be a superpower to experiment in this area. The University of Queensland here in Oz has the HyShot program which, despite a few teething problems, is producing world class results. The US has yet to see any results from its X-43 series. It will be interesting to see if India can live up to its own hype. Good luck to them.
Probably because India and Pakistan appeared to be very close to going to war fairly recently, and there are sufficiently advanced weapons on both sides to make people nervous.
:-)
Even if you assume that India will never use thier nukes, won't an increase in power on thier part make thier neighbors feel that they need to increase thier military power as well?
On the other hand, cheap space travel is really cool no matter who is developing it..
Twenties Retirement
Regarding those missles, yes, India's missle is indeed faster, but the article states that it has a range of only 280km. That, compared to the American Tomahawk of anywhere between 1100km to 2500km, is just a drop in the bucket. The article states that had India been able to fire off some missles at the same time as the Americans that their chances of getting Bin Laden would have been greater. The problem is with a range of only 280km, they'd have to get pretty close to or within the country. With the Tomahawks extremely long range, the American's can fire from the Ocean without taking any land. Although its slower, the fact that it has between 4 and 9 times the range of the BrahMos, the Tomahawk would realistically 'get there sooner' because of its longer firing range in a real world situation.
Oh yes, I'm not American, I'm Canadian. This is an objective perspective.
To make a pun demonstrates the highest understanding of a language
Pray explain what noise would make it audible before it physicaly arrives.
It's Supersonic i.e, faster than sound!!
The fact that the bang might be heard and the news radioed ahead is rather trivial as cruise missiles don't need to follow a straight line of attack.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
I would agree with some of your points, but this almost reads like a troll given some blazing factual errors.
Blocking advancement in 3rd world countries by covering every rubbish with patents.
Patents currently work on a per-country basis. The Chinese can develop whatever they like under their own system. If Western civilization does crumble, as you predict, then China won't be interested in selling to the US so much anymore, but to its own citizens and neighbours, whose patents will be different to those of the US.
The military advantage is already gone in thecase of e.g. France or UK or is already decreasing like e.g. US and Germany.
Germany has a weak military compared to both the UK and France. I'm not sure where you're getting your statistics from. You're also confusing military power with power in general. Israel has a very powerful army by international standards, but they're hardly a superpower in any sense.
You have also missed that the UK (and the US, to a point) holds an advantage over its European peers by being the world's largest creditor, raking in billions from ever growing third world debt.
I do not see the gloom and doom you seem to, however. I think the development of the second and third worlds will improve the world as a whole, even if it puts a little dent into our own standard of living. As a supplier, myself, I'll take a dip in my standard of living if it means I can have the whole world as a giant marketplace, rather than just the US and Europe.
*cough*Until about 100 years ago the US was way behind Europe in general and the UK in particular.
Countries catching up is perfectly normal. In any case - what makes you so special ? Is there something you did that makes you deserve to be "ahead' of Indians, Chinese, whatever ? Or was that just an accident of birth ?
Personally I look forward to the day the whole world is without poverty and want. And there isn't one dominating military super-power.
Zero sum gain (to win someone else has to lose) as an economic theory was discredited a long, long time ago.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Bollocks, there is no free access to basic medical care for all the population in the US. This would be a remarkable step forward for the US but it's not going to happen.
Europe is somewhat different. Western Europe is very much a post-modern society, whose power is economic and diplomatic (and in those areas FAR exceeds the US's power). And has little interest in Imperialism of any kind.
Ok, first of all--Europe is a post-modern society?? What the hell does that mean?!
Not interested in Imperialism? Really? Tell that to the French neo-colonies in West Africa. I wish I still had the link, I saw a great picture after France unilaterally sent troops in Cote d'Ivoire of Ivoirians holding up signs saying "Bush! Save us from the French!" Better yet, tell that to all the struggling 3rd world farmers who are oppressed by subsidized European agricultural goods. Economic imperialism at its finest!
You think European economic and diplomatic power far exceeds the US? Well, the economic point is so laughable as to not even deserve refutation, and the I'll refute the second below!
Also, show me some European led international diplomacy that has gone succesfully without US participation? They've certainly managed to do a bang up job in the middle east! Who is spear heading peace in the Middle East right now? The US. Who was responsible for peace between Israel and Egypt. Largely the US! Who is responsible for Libya opening? The US! Who is responsible for recent NK negotiations? The US. Show me ANY comparable European led initiatives.
Which is strange as the US just over a 100 years ago also lacked imperial ambition - but then post WW2 took serveral major steps backwards (imo): Vietnam, Panama, Iraq 2003.
Inaccurate representation of American history--you need to go much farther back. Hell, start looking back to the 1840's if you want to see American imperialism in its nascent form. You absolutely cannot say that American imperialism starts post-ww2. I can list examples if you don't know them, or are interested, just reply, I'd be glad to.
So personally I'm relaxed about West European countries (and I include Canada, Australia and New Zealand in that group as culturally they are) having nukes. The US, India and Pakistan owning nukes however scares the crap out of me.
If you're European all I can say is, WW2 would have been much nicer had the US not joined the European front, and had the US not nuked Japan. Things would have been rosy and happy all around! And since then, America's nuclear atrocities are absolutely unforgivable. Your post is truly insightful!
Sure. The rich in India are better off than the poor in the US. Now, for a fair comparison, contrast the poorest/middle/richest in both countries.
(A)erobic (V)ehicle for (H)ypersonic (A)erospace (T)ransportation == AVATAR?
/. tradition, I've not yet read the article... I'm satisfied with just making fun of the summary. :)
To what extent are we allowed to arbitrarily select letters to form a cool acronym?
Maybe they felt that AVHAT was a little too close to "asshat"?
On the other hand, since "avatar" is derived from Sanskrit and can mean "the incarnation of a Hindu deity, especially Vishnu, in human or animal form"... and since Vishnu is the "protector and preserver of worlds", perhaps AVATAR is meaningful symbolically rather than acronymically (is that a word?... didn't think so).
Of course, in
I know one shouldn't believe uncritically what one reads in the papers, but in a recent piece discussing the display of the "Enola Gay" the topic of the necessity of the use of the bombs was brought up.
... :(
According to the article, there is evidence showing that at the time the bombs were dropped, Japan was communicating with Russia with the aim of having Russia act as an intermediary in negotiating a peace in the US. Further, the USA knew of this.
At that point in time, Japan was in a very poor position, running low on resources and having its cities severely bombed conventionally. Again, according to the article, provided that the terms of a peace would allow them to keep the Emperor, Japan was all too willing to surrender.
The choice wasn't between using atomic bombs or a land invasion. Given this situation, a land invasion, along with the concommitant loss of life, would have been simply unnecessary.
Note also: even if there had been a land invasion, the lives lost would have been chiefly confined to those in the armed forces of the two nations (note also that this figure as estimated today would have been similar to or less than the 160000 casualties of the Hiroshima bombing.) Dropping an atomic bomb on a city of course kills mainly civilians. Whether this is significant or not depends on your attitudes towards war.
PS: For comparison, the firebombing of Tokyo is said to have killed about 80000 to 100000 people. The firebombing of Dresden, between 25000 and 150000. With such attrocities it demonstrates that the actions of the victors in WWII were in the end no better than that of their foes, as regards the deliberate targetting of civilian populations. I guess you can always point a finger at the Germany and say 'they started it'
Not interested in Imperialism? Really? Tell that to the French neo-colonies in West Africa. I wish I still had the link, I saw a great picture after France unilaterally sent troops in Cote d'Ivoire of Ivoirians holding up signs saying "Bush! Save us from the French!"
Like others have pointed out, such pictures can be misleading. How do you know the people asking for Bush's "protection" weren't supporters of one or the other faction in the civil war?
You think European economic and diplomatic power far exceeds the US? Well, the economic point is so laughable as to not even deserve refutation.
Actually, the EU's total GDP as of 1999 was about the same as that of the US; once EU enlargement takes place this year, with the accession of Poland, Hungary et. al., the EU's GDP will actually be larger than that of the US (though per capita GDP will be rather lower). Many member states export proportionally far more than the US as well -- such as Germany, for example.
Furthermore, the Euro has succeeded in becoming the largest reserve currency after the US dollar, and continues to grow in usage (one reason for the dollar's decline in value recently -- many countries are partially switching reserves to Euros to spread out their risks).
Oh, and half of the G8 are in the EU -- France, the UK, Germany and Italy.
The EU's economic influence is thus hardly "laughable" at all...
As for European diplomacy succeeding with or without American participation, one can quite easily turn your statement on its head and point out that American diplomacy doesn't work in a vacuum -- American initiatives tend to work far, far better when the Europeans are on board. Think of it as the "good cop, bad cop" routine. Worked brilliantly in Iran recently, as the Iranians agreed top open up to the IAEA (after intense consultations with EU members as well as having American troops on its borders).
A final point about 'European' diplomacy: don't forget that the EU is really just a collection of nation-states, and can only act as a unit in nearly all cases when a consensus amongst those states has been reached.
In that light, to blame "Europe" for diplomatic weakness is misguided: the EU is weak, but its individual members still have quite a lot of influence abroad -- far, far more than other countries of similar size. France, Spain and the UK all punch far above their weight, and Germany is also taking an ever higher profile in recent years.
No offense intended, but such blinkered remarks are why many non-Americans get so exasperated with us -- factually wrong (or iffy) boasts, filled with misinformed chest-pounding about our supposed achievements and so on. We as Americans do have much to be proud of, but that doesn't mean we need to overdo it -- nor does it mean we need to rub everyone else's faces in it (especially not when we claim too much credit). Not a good way to make friends and keep them.
Cheers,
Ethelred
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.