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.

27 of 54 comments (clear)

  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. 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 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. 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 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. 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."

  5. 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
  6. 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
  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 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});
    2. 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. 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 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...."

    2. 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.

    3. 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
  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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

  12. 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
  13. 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-...

  14. 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?

  15. 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?
  16. 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?