Tenebrae Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 You're greatly over-stating the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steveo Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 A couple of small points: 1. There is no guarentee that those technologies, or better ones, wouldn't have emerged without the space program. I do admit that is mere speculation, but vaild speculation all the same. 2. Have these technologies actually ofset the costs to society of the space program. As well as the money spent, there have been good men and women lost as a result of the space program. The 14 people lost in the Challenger and Columbia shuttle accidents. I, personally, don't see enough justification for going deeper into space right now when there are pressing issues to be dealt with closer to home, the risk is massive, and the cost is huge (monetary and otherwise). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megalith Posted April 14, 2006 Share Posted April 14, 2006 More advances have been made due to war than the space race. I'm sure no one would advocate having wars to improve technology well except George W maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCOLancer Posted April 16, 2006 Share Posted April 16, 2006 NASA havent dumped X-43 project its just that it takes alot of prep between flights since they have no way of following the jet so they have to lay planes out for absolute miles it is also far ahead of the one being tested in Queensland. i have been following this project for what seems to long but last record broke was mach 9.6 just shy of 7000 mph and they reckon it can go upto mach 15 which would mean london to sydney in 30 mins. here is an extract from nasa's page Supersonic combustion ramjets - or scramjets - promise more airplane-like operations for increased affordability, flexibility and safety for ultra high-speed flights within the atmosphere and for the first stage to Earth orbit. The scramjet advantage is that, once they are accelerated to about Mach 4 (four times the speed of sound) by a conventional jet airplane engine, it is believed that they can be flown in the atmosphere up to about Mach 15 without having to carry heavy oxygen tanks as rockets must. Also, rockets tend to produce full thrust or nearly full thrust all the time; scramjets can be throttled back and flown more like an airplane. here is nasa's X-43 link http://www.nasa.gov/missions/research/x43-main.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now