How true/funny.
K
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 11:30 AM Rand Simberg <simberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
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?
Behalf Of Henry Spencer
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
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 1:52 PMbeing much cheaper and needing rather less exotic technology.
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 inDon'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?
(and never mind all those unpleasant numbers suggesting that ballistic
If you insist that something with aerodynamic lift just has to be better
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