ISRO Successfully Test-fires Scramjet Rocket Engine

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.

Re: Can this be weaponized?

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:

[RenderSeven]

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."

Re:

[K. S. Kyosuke]

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.)

Re:

[jwdb]

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?

already answered yesterday

[tomhath]

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.

Re:

[knorthern knight]

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

More than half ?

[religionofpeas]

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.

Re:

[K. S. Kyosuke]

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.

indigenous?

[gfxguy]

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!

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

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.)

Re:

[hey!]

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 un

Re:

[K. S. Kyosuke]

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".

Re:

[gfxguy]

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

Re:

[K. S. Kyosuke]

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.

Re:

[tomhath]

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.

Re:

[rubycodez]

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

Scramjet's aren't rocket engines

[brambus]

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.

Re:

[Coren22]

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.

Re:

[Pseudonym]

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.

Good Cover

[ThatsNotPudding]

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.

INSAT-3DR

[K. S. Kyosuke]

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.

Re:

[ceoyoyo]

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...."

Re:

[fuzzywig]

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.

Re:

[robinsc]

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%.
 

Re:

[Coren22]

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

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.

Re:

[Dantoo]

Yep in about 2014.

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

Re:

[Coren22]

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