Fly From New York To Dubai In 22 Minutes

[Rlyeh]

The only jet close to that speed would be NASA's X-43A unmanned scramjet which set a record of Mach 9.6 at 33,223 meters for 10 seconds.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/jun/HQ_05_156_X43A_Guinness.html

[Timothy]

The only jet close to that speed would be NASA's X-43A unmanned scramjet which set a record of Mach 9.6 at 33,223 meters for 10 seconds.

http://www.nasa.gov/...A_Guinness.html

Yep, not even close @ 100,000+ ft.

Good luck Charles, your surname may be significant, but your claims will hurt.

[Peter B]

NOw that is just scary!! Why on earth would anyone want to fly to such a horrible, cruel, criminal country?

I think you'll find the technology would work in such a way that the craft could travel to other locations too.

[skookum]

Sell the idea to Virgin, with Bransons name on the project everyone will believe it will happen.

[BeastieRunner]

Appropriately named gent.

[regeneratia]

I wont fly on this lol

Me neither. Only a fool would.

I think you'll find the technology would work in such a way that the craft could travel to other locations too.

Now THAT would be very nice. Paris for dinner.

[Hawken]

I think the military already have aircraft capable of such speeds but the design and materials are kept classified.

Totally agree. If the SR71 was flying at Mach 3 in the early 1960's, Then there's surely something much faster that we don't know about.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

If the Concorde was too expensive to run flying at mach 2, I fail to see how this would be able to make any financial sense. With only 10 passenger it would be even less economical than Concorde.

Don't get me wrong the Concorde was a beautiful plane and an impressive technological feat, but it was never an affordable passenger transport.

[Derek Willis]

If the Concorde was too expensive to run flying at mach 2, I fail to see how this would be able to make any financial sense. With only 10 passenger it would be even less economical than Concorde.

Don't get me wrong the Concorde was a beautiful plane and an impressive technological feat, but it was never an affordable passenger transport.

Perhaps the target market for the super-fast plane is billionaires. People like Bill Gates have incomes of millions of dollars each day. Perhaps they would happily pay to get from continent to continent twenty times faster than everyone else.

[GlitterRose]

I wonder what size creator would this jet make, if crashed at the speed of 13,000 mph

They could probably do away with that ridiculous...in the event of a "water landing" speech.

[Derek Willis]

Totally agree. If the SR71 was flying at Mach 3 in the early 1960's, Then there's surely something much faster that we don't know about.

NASA and Lockheed Martin spent over a $1.3 billion developing the X-33, an unmanned sub-orbital "space plane". A prototype was almost finished before the program was cancelled in 2001. Much of the technology needed for the Skreemr will be hidden in a hangar somewhere.

[Derek Willis]

The heat and pressure are caused by atmospheric drag and space crafts do not reach Mach10 in the lower atmosphere. The

Space Shuttles, for example, reduced their engine thrust level down to 67% after around 50 seconds into the flight and short

b4 passing the sound barrier to reduce the dynamic pressure to the space crafts structure. After passing the barrier of sound

and being in the higher atmosphere, so less drag, the engine thrust level was increased to 100% again.

I remember reading somewhere that the throttling down at max-q was more to do with the loads transferring to the structures holding the external tank to the shuttle, rather than the loads on the shuttle itself.

I would imagine the Skreemr would be pretty high before it reached Mach 10, in the same way Concorde had to be at 60,000 feet to reduce drag and heating at Mach 2.

[toast]

I remember reading somewhere that the throttling down at max-q was more to do with the loads transferring to the structures

holding the external tank to the shuttle, rather than the loads on the shuttle itself.

Of course the q-max factor was also related to the piggyback structures of the ET but it was also relevant to the orbiters structures

as the q-max factor is relevant for all kind of rockets/shuttles rockets heading orbit.

I would imagine the Skreemr would be pretty high before it

reached Mach 10, in the same way Concorde had to be at 60,000 feet to reduce drag and heating at Mach 2.

Yeah but I dont think that scramjet technology will be used in the near future for commercial applications for various reasons so the

Mach20 dream for private individuals will remain a dream. To date, the use of this still not fully developed technology is limited to

military devices like Cruise Missiles and AAMs which just reach speeds around Mach4 to 5 or so. Military R&D is active on devices

to reach Mach speeds above 10. Even if the techology would result into devices capable for this speeds, the patents and the technology

will be classified and kept hidden to the commercial public because devices capable to make Mach20 would be of a very high military

strategic and tactical value.

[Derek Willis]

Of course the q-max factor was also related to the piggyback structures of the ET but it was also relevant to the orbiters structures

as the q-max factor is relevant for all kind of rockets/shuttles rockets heading orbit.

Yeah but I dont think that scramjet technology will be used in the near future for commercial applications for various reasons so the

Mach20 dream for private individuals will remain a dream. To date, the use of this still not fully developed technology is limited to

military devices like Cruise Missiles and AAMs which just reach speeds around Mach4 to 5 or so. Military R&D is active on devices

to reach Mach speeds above 10. Even if the techology would result into devices capable for this speeds, the patents and the technology

will be classified and kept hidden to the commercial public because devices capable to make Mach20 would be of a very high military

strategic and tactical value.

I realize max-q is relevant to any rocket heading for orbit, but as I understand, the Saturn-V etc. didn't throttle back for that reason, they simply endured the maximum dynamic pressure. But then again, they were essentially no more than pointed cylinders. The article I read emphasized that with the shuttle the danger was more a case of the external tank and SRBs being torn off rather than the shuttle itself breaking up. I don't know if that was the case, but it was what I read.

The point you make about classified technology is interesting. There is a British company called Reaction Engines Limited that has been developing scram-jets for many years. They were given government support in the 1990s, only to find that the government decided the technology was an official secret and put a ban on further development!