Flying From Sydney To London Could Soon Take 4 Hours (Thanks To Hypersonic ‘Space’ Planes)

The space agencies of Australia and the UK have announced a partnership, which they’re calling “a world-first Space Bridge”. At the core of this agreement is a new kind of rocket engine which could enable flights between Sydney and London in “as little as four hours”. Here’s what you need to know.

more…

Tau.Neutrino said:

Flying From Sydney To London Could Soon Take 4 Hours (Thanks To Hypersonic ‘Space’ Planes)

The space agencies of Australia and the UK have announced a partnership, which they’re calling “a world-first Space Bridge”. At the core of this agreement is a new kind of rocket engine which could enable flights between Sydney and London in “as little as four hours”. Here’s what you need to know.

more…

Excellent. Want that soon (not Heathrow though, yuk).

It doesn’t have to be hypersonic. Just an old fashioned ramjet at Mach 2 will do for starters.

But see what Grollo aerospace is coming up with.

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Flying From Sydney To London Could Soon Take 4 Hours (Thanks To Hypersonic ‘Space’ Planes)

The space agencies of Australia and the UK have announced a partnership, which they’re calling “a world-first Space Bridge”. At the core of this agreement is a new kind of rocket engine which could enable flights between Sydney and London in “as little as four hours”. Here’s what you need to know.

more…

Excellent. Want that soon (not Heathrow though, yuk).

It doesn’t have to be hypersonic. Just an old fashioned ramjet at Mach 2 will do for starters.

But see what Grollo aerospace is coming up with.

I could be mistaken, my memory isn’t the greatest now, but didn’t the UK and France have a passenger plane that would have done the trip in not much more than that time, way back in the 70’s?

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Flying From Sydney To London Could Soon Take 4 Hours (Thanks To Hypersonic ‘Space’ Planes)

The space agencies of Australia and the UK have announced a partnership, which they’re calling “a world-first Space Bridge”. At the core of this agreement is a new kind of rocket engine which could enable flights between Sydney and London in “as little as four hours”. Here’s what you need to know.

more…

Excellent. Want that soon (not Heathrow though, yuk).

It doesn’t have to be hypersonic. Just an old fashioned ramjet at Mach 2 will do for starters.

But see what Grollo aerospace is coming up with.

I could be mistaken, my memory isn’t the greatest now, but didn’t the UK and France have a passenger plane that would have done the trip in not much more than that time, way back in the 70’s?

Qantas cancelled its orders for that plane because of pressure by chemtrails protesters.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Flying From Sydney To London Could Soon Take 4 Hours (Thanks To Hypersonic ‘Space’ Planes)

The space agencies of Australia and the UK have announced a partnership, which they’re calling “a world-first Space Bridge”. At the core of this agreement is a new kind of rocket engine which could enable flights between Sydney and London in “as little as four hours”. Here’s what you need to know.

more…

Excellent. Want that soon (not Heathrow though, yuk).

It doesn’t have to be hypersonic. Just an old fashioned ramjet at Mach 2 will do for starters.

But see what Grollo aerospace is coming up with.

I could be mistaken, my memory isn’t the greatest now, but didn’t the UK and France have a passenger plane that would have done the trip in not much more than that time, way back in the 70’s?

¿looking down ‘ur nose at these young upstarts, eh?

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Excellent. Want that soon (not Heathrow though, yuk).

It doesn’t have to be hypersonic. Just an old fashioned ramjet at Mach 2 will do for starters.

But see what Grollo aerospace is coming up with.

I could be mistaken, my memory isn’t the greatest now, but didn’t the UK and France have a passenger plane that would have done the trip in not much more than that time, way back in the 70’s?

¿looking down ‘ur nose at these young upstarts, eh?

“Peering over my glasses” at them, if you don’t mind.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I could be mistaken, my memory isn’t the greatest now, but didn’t the UK and France have a passenger plane that would have done the trip in not much more than that time, way back in the 70’s?

¿looking down ‘ur nose at these young upstarts, eh?

“Peering over my glasses” at them, if you don’t mind.

Nice paint job though.

> Synergetic Air-Breathing Rocket Engine (SABRE), technology

Concorde didn’t have that.

It makes perfect sense, though. There is no difference between a liquid-fuelled rocket engine and a jet engine that is so great that the two can’t be hybridised into a single engine. That would be a step even beyond the SR-71’s engine which hybridises two types of jet engine.

> is working on the hydrogen air-based rocket

Hydrogen, yuk. Nothing wrong with using jet fuel in a rocket engine. With hydrogen you’re setting the implementation date back ten years.

> could propel a plane at Mach 5.4, then speed up to Mach 25 in space.

Hmph. As i say, setting the implementation date back. Too high a speed and the plane melts.

mollwollfumble said:

> is working on the hydrogen air-based rocket

Hydrogen, yuk. Nothing wrong with using jet fuel in a rocket engine. With hydrogen you’re setting the implementation date back ten years.

What about all the CO2 emitted?

Why would H2 set it back 10 years?

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

¿looking down ‘ur nose at these young upstarts, eh?

“Peering over my glasses” at them, if you don’t mind.

Nice paint job though.

> Synergetic Air-Breathing Rocket Engine (SABRE), technology

Concorde didn’t have that.

It makes perfect sense, though. There is no difference between a liquid-fuelled rocket engine and a jet engine that is so great that the two can’t be hybridised into a single engine. That would be a step even beyond the SR-71’s engine which hybridises two types of jet engine.

> is working on the hydrogen air-based rocket

Hydrogen, yuk. Nothing wrong with using jet fuel in a rocket engine. With hydrogen you’re setting the implementation date back ten years.

> could propel a plane at Mach 5.4, then speed up to Mach 25 in space.

Hmph. As i say, setting the implementation date back. Too high a speed and the plane melts.

Or to put it another way, they’re trying to keep the interior of the plane below the boiling point of hydrogen (-253 degrees celsius, 20 degrees kelvin) while keeping the outer surface of the plane near a massive plus 1,650 degrees celsius.

Haven’t they heard of thermal expansion?

Why !?

The SR-71 blackbird at Mach 3.5 had external remperatures of up to 510 degrees celsius, which is plenty hot enough, and internal temperatures didn’t have to be below ambient. But even that had big problems with thermal expansion.

Hypersonic ‘Space’ Planes…

Hyperbolic rhetoric…

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

> is working on the hydrogen air-based rocket

Hydrogen, yuk. Nothing wrong with using jet fuel in a rocket engine. With hydrogen you’re setting the implementation date back ten years.

What about all the CO2 emitted?

Why would H2 set it back 10 years?

That question doesn’t deserve a serious response.
But out of respect for Rev D, I’ll give a serious reply.

First a civil engineering analogy.
What about all the CO2 emitted from concrete? Concrete production is a major emitter of CO2.

Let’s suppose you had to make all the civil engineering works that had previously been made using concrete to use glass (made without CO2 emission) as a direct replacement for all concrete. Could you get the glass technology up to code in under 10 years?

Glass as a non-CO2 emitter replacement for concrete in civil engineering is exactly the same as H2 as a non-CO2 emitter replacement for jet fuel in aeronautical engineering.

There is 70 years of technology in making jet aircraft using jet fuel. Replacing that with H2 would require, I estimate, about 10 extra years of technological catch-up.

In addition, it is very very much easier to fuel a rocket with jet fuel than to fuel a rocket with hydrogen.

So, time to do all civil engineering structures without concrete? And without steel, which is another big CO2 emitter? And without timber, think of the forests. Don’t say it can’t be done, it can, but it’s far from trivial, and not without a cost penalty.

The superior specific impulse over H2/Lox means your launch weight is much lower than it would be under Avgas/Lox.

On the other hand, H2 is more expensive than Avgas and harder to store.

They’d have to weight these things up.

dv said:

The superior specific impulse over H2/Lox means your launch weight is much lower than it would be under Avgas/Lox.

On the other hand, H2 is more expensive than Avgas and harder to store.

They’d have to weight these things up.

Lock in “harder to store”.