Close enough for government work.
On 10/15/20 3:27 PM, Anthony Cesaroni wrote:
Working on a hypersonic project with one of the usual suspects recently, we ran
into a payload mass issue. Like that never happens. In any event, the payload
vehicle simmed out at Mach 4.92. The PM went nuts insisting that it's not
hypersonic unless it goes Mach 5. I asked everyone in the room for a scientific
citation that says that. I got crickets. Does anybody know or is it like
nano-particles?
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x1004 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
-----Original Message-----
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of
Henry Spencer
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 1:52 PM
To: Arocket List <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [AR] Re: Hypersonics have finally arrived
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020, roxanna Mason wrote:
A somewhat different animal -- in most ways, a better one. Not least in beingDon't forget that the first hypersonic weapon was tested in 1942,If you mean the V-2, that's in ballistic free fall not sustained and
and several thousand were made and fired in 1944-45.
controled flight, a whole different animal. Right?
much cheaper and needing rather less exotic technology.
If you insist that something with aerodynamic lift just has to be better (and
never mind all those unpleasant numbers suggesting that ballistic flight is
generally superior at such speeds), don't forget that von Braun's crew did fly
a couple of winged V-2s, the second of which made a successful transition to
hypersonic gliding flight. (Didn't last long thereafter, but that was hardly a
surprise -- wooden wings at Mach 5!!
Just a proof of principle.)
Henry