Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ISRO Successfully Test-fires Scramjet Rocket Engine (thehindu.com)

Posted by msmash on from the good-to-know dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Indian Space Research Organisation (Isro), on Sunday, successfully tested two indigenous scramjet engines. India has become the fourth country to demonstrate the flight testing of scramjet engine after the US, Russia and European Space Agency.
According to a report, the scramjet will bring down the launch cost of weather satellite INSAT-3DR which is a weather forecast system designed for enhanced meteorological observations and disaster warning. The satellite scheduled to be launched in August earlier, but it has been postponed to September.

54 comments

  1. Can this be weaponized? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Attach a warhead to a scramjet and send it towards the enemy?

    1. Re: Can this be weaponized? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      You're sorely lacking in imagination. A real manly man's man would attach the scramjet to the enemy and send it screaming towards the warhead. You wimp!

    2. Re:Can this be weaponized? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tells you something about the cultural differences. In Americah, the scramjets are always attached to warheads, and AI and menacing robots start bloody revolutions. It does produce some entertaining media content, though.

    3. Re:Can this be weaponized? by RenderSeven · · Score: 2

      Apparently India and Americah [sic] think alike. According to Dr Saraswat (the head of the program) "This is dual-use technology, which when developed, will have multiple civilian applications. It can be used for launching satellites at low cost. It will also be available for long-range cruise missiles of the future."

    4. Re:Can this be weaponized? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      Actually, I don't see how scramjet research could be non-military. Scramjets for launch vehicles are effectively stillborn. There's a number of cheaper, more prospective, less fancy but efficient alternatives to the use of scramjets on a launch vehicle, such as for example a combination of a ramjet and a rocket engine for a two-phase ascent. (Even PDR engine research would probably be more fruitful for non-military propulsion.)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    5. Re:Can this be weaponized? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the burning disappointment of reality! Well, at least the Japanese still think that the robots are not necessarily evil. :)

    6. Re:Can this be weaponized? by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

      1944 called... they want their V1 back https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --

      I'm not repeating myself
      I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
    7. Re:Can this be weaponized? by jwdb · · Score: 1

      What about high-speed long-distance travel, say a suborbital from NY to Shanghai? Or is it still better to go via a ballistic trajectory?

  2. More than half ? by religionofpeas · · Score: 3, Informative

    Scientists say that the scramjet technology effectively cuts down the cost of launching rockets by reducing its weight by more than half

    Not really. Scramjets have a limited speed range, so you need a rocket (or perhaps another type of jet engine) to bring it up to the lower limit, and then another rocket to take it from maximum speed to orbital speed. This add extra complexity, weight and drag.

    1. Re:More than half ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you save weight and complexity of bringing your own LOX, so there's that.

    2. Re:More than half ? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      You save even more complexity if you ascend into stratosphere at Mach 3-4 using a plain old ramjet and then use a rocket engine to loft you into a suborbital trajectory at around Mach 10. That keeps your thermal protection simple for reentry (quite important given the complex geometry of a plane), keeps your mass fraction low for the first stage, and allows you to use cheap second stages without disposable payload fairings if the first stage has a payload bay. Scramjets just may not be worth it.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:More than half ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A multi-stage unit:
      1. Rockets (or possibly jet) for getting enough speed to start the scramjet
      2. scramjet as long as there is enough air - no need to bring oxidizer for this
      3. Rockets for getting out of the atmosphere

    4. Re:More than half ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you need rockets to do far more than get out of the atmosphere. You need then to get speed. Orbit is about speed. 7500m/s of speed. Even the most optimistic scram jets don't get close.

  3. indigenous? by gfxguy · · Score: 1

    I know what was meant, but it seems a funny word to use on a non-living thing. But it's cool to learn that the European Space Agency is now considered a country. Way to go, European Space Agency!

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
    1. Re:indigenous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The term indigenous capability is often used in military/space context, even by native speakers.

    2. Re:indigenous? by hey! · · Score: 2

      Indigenous means "originating where it is found", or "naturally occurring in a particular place". It can be used referring to individuals, groups of people, flora, fauna, minerals -- pretty much anything. It shares many of the same dictionary definitions as "native".

      The word usage problem is using "indigenous" for an artificial, mobile invention, which is a bit unusual. You wouldn't say "indigenous airplane" because it's not something naturally found in a place or confined to a place. That would be an unusual usage, but people would understand what you meant -- you'd mean "domestically produced".

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:indigenous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What is non-native about this? (Are you saying that Indians speaking and writing english are non-native speakers? In which case so are Americans.)

    4. Re:indigenous? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I've noticed that in US-speak, rocket engines are often "domestic" if manufactured in the US (when the RD-180's replacement is the topic, for example) but often "indigenous"" if manufactured in developing countries. Kind of reminds me of "expats" vs. "immigrants".

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    5. Re:indigenous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is an accepted metaphorical use of the word. Here is an example from the merriam webster dictionary.

      Though Gilded Age architecture was not indigenous to America, at least it was borrowed from belle epoque Europe, from which much of America's late-nineteenth-century culture evolved. —Robert D. Kaplan, An Empire Wilderness, 1988

    6. Re:indigenous? by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      That's true - it's why I didn't say it was wrong, just funny (or, awkward, really) to me.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
  4. How about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make any sense?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaks

    1. Re:How about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-51

  5. Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IRSO, thank you for doing the needful.

    1. Re: Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL

  6. welcome to the 1950's by micahraleigh · · Score: 0

    Glad to hear India has caught up to where the US was 60 years ago.

    I also question the military significance of scramjet engines. Why would you want a jet to travel that fast? It's not like you're going to get much of an edge on an ICBM's speed. You can use sats to recon pretty much anything.

    1. Re:welcome to the 1950's by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Presumably ballistic trajectories are slower for <1000 km firings and hypersonic weapons could be more suitable for fast attacks in the 300-500 km range or something like that (think anti-ship missiles like BrahMos-II). They might also be detected by their targets later compared to a ballistic weapon high above the horizon.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:welcome to the 1950's by tomhath · · Score: 1

      hypersonic weapons could be more suitable for fast attacks in the 300-500 km range

      Which, coincidentally, is roughly the width of Pakistan along its border with India.

    3. Re:welcome to the 1950's by rubycodez · · Score: 2

      nope, the first scramjet program in USA was in 1960s but done inside testing facility

      the first successful scramjet flight was done by HyShot team in 2002 by U. of Queensland, Australia

    4. Re: welcome to the 1950's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I was gonna say I thought Australia should have been in that list of Nations..

    5. Re: welcome to the 1950's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonono, google kholod 1961

  7. Scramjet's aren't rocket engines by brambus · · Score: 2

    Scramjets are, by definition, air-breathing, and are therefore not rocket engines. Admittedly a nit of terminology, but the /. crowd are generally more technically/engineering minded people and those tend to care about proper use of jargon.

    1. Re:Scramjet's aren't rocket engines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the /. crowd are generally more technically/engineering minded people "

      Uhhh, have you been around a Space Nutter ceremony, where everyone thinks the Species (tm) is in grave danger of extinction by staying on This Rock (tm)? Suddenly, based on a Cold War stunt of sending 12 people to the Moon for a week, somehow, because computers got better we'll live on Mars?

    2. Re:Scramjet's aren't rocket engines by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the headline left out a slash, and it should read "scramjet/rocket engine". Scramjets (as I'm sure you're aware) need a way to get to supersonic speeds before they start working.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    3. Re:Scramjet's aren't rocket engines by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Admitting to the fact that the species is in danger of extinction is not a nutter thing. Constantly ranting against space nutters, is a nutter activity though.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  8. Good Cover by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 0

    The real intent of course, is a better weapons platform to defend against Pakistan. Sadly, it is just a matter of time before some fundie moles get their trigger fingers on Islamabad's nukes and return the entire world to the 12th Century.

  9. INSAT-3DR by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

    According to a report, the scramjet will bring down the launch cost of weather satellite INSAT-3DR which is a weather forecast system designed for enhanced meteorological observations and disaster warning. The satellite scheduled to be launched in August earlier, but it has been postponed to September.

    No fucking way. INSAT-3DR will be launched on a GSLV Mk II vehicle which doesn't have any scramjets. Even more obvious should be the fact that a successful engine test now can't possibly bring down launch costs a few months later. That timeline is like an order of magnitude more optimistic than what commonly happens in aerospace.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
    1. Re:INSAT-3DR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless...unless they are jumping through the hoops like a chemical factory would in the city of Bhopal.

    2. Re:INSAT-3DR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BURN!

    3. Re:INSAT-3DR by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      The stupid in the summary burns. The stupid in the article is a glaring bright bonfire. Especially the part where they say "cutting through the technical jargon, here's all you need to know...."

    4. Re:INSAT-3DR by fuzzywig · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing there was a bit of a translation mix up there. They probably made an example of the upcoming launch as the type of payload that they could save costs on in the future.

    5. Re:INSAT-3DR by robinsc · · Score: 1

      The two statements aren't related. The delay in launch was due to a technical problem , not due to change of launch technology.

      The other statement was that the use of scramjets would bring down the cost of satellite launches such as the INSAT by 50%.
       

      --
      Linkedin http://in.linkedin.com/in/robinsaikatchatterjee
  10. already answered yesterday by tomhath · · Score: 1

    Yes, as discussed in the exact same story yesterday the only real use of a scramjet is in weapons. It's a lousy booster for spacecraft.

  11. Now it's official by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The European Space Agency is a country. European Space Agents unite!

    1. Re:Now it's official by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many medals did they win in the Olympics?

    2. Re:Now it's official by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      https://www.google.com/search?...

      Do the math, I don't know off the top of my head who participates in ESA, but likely they earned more medals than the US.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  12. Isn't India the 5th country to have the technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't China also have scramjet technlogy?

  13. Meanwhile in the US... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *Crickets chirping*

    1. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, in the US, this technology was invented around 50 years ago.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  14. Re:Isn't India the 5th country to have the technol by Dantoo · · Score: 1

    Yep in about 2014.

    I can't see why this wouldn't also count:
    http://www.itwire.com/science-...

  15. Sorry, fifth country to demonstrate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "India has become the fourth country to demonstrate the flight testing of scramjet engine after the US, Russia and European Space Agency. "

    Actually, they are the fifth.

    "On July 30, 2002, the University of Queensland's HyShot team (and international partners) conducted the first ever successful test flight of a scramjet."