TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Reaction Engines brings us a step closer to Mach5 commercial air travel

48 点作者 kareemm将近 11 年前

10 条评论

idlewords将近 11 年前
We&#x27;re not going to have Mach 5 commercial air travel for the same reason we don&#x27;t have Mach 2 or 3 commercial air travel. The economics just don&#x27;t work.<p>That reason is much more boring than the technical obstacles, which are formidable, fun to try to solve, and kind of beside the point. In that sense, this problem resembles a lot of software engineering.<p>But just to keep this comment from being too depressing, here&#x27;s one technical gripe: consider that liquid hydrogen is an extremely bulky fuel, even if you don&#x27;t include the necessary insulation. Notice how nearly the entire volume of the satellite launcher in the diagram consists of hydrogen tank. There&#x27;s not a lot of room in there for passenger lounges and drink trolleys.
评论 #8209985 未加载
评论 #8210137 未加载
评论 #8210127 未加载
ChuckMcM将近 11 年前
The trick is, and it is a trick, to &quot;instantly cool the air&quot;. Think about that for a moment. Generally the way most &#x27;air breathing&#x27; engines work is that they take air, heat it (which expands it (thanks Boyle!)) and toss it backwards which imparts a forced in the forward direction (thanks Newton!). The difference in temperature between the inlet and exhaust temperature of a jet engine is a component of its efficiency. (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_engine#Energy_efficiency" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Jet_engine#Energy_efficiency</a> for some math :-)<p>But basically if you&#x27;re suddenly cooling air it gets smaller, which creates a lower pressure, and was used effectively in steam pumps to create the vacuum needed to lift water out of mines.<p>So the Reaction Engines concept takes really hot air that is compressed because it is being pushed out of the way by the air frame, then super cools it which causes it to become much smaller, and then dumps that into the engine. Which then heats it up again and pushed out.<p>If I understand the theory correctly, it takes heat from the air, removes it and puts it into liquid hydrogen (which then becomes vaporous(sp?) hydrogen) and then burns that hydrogen with residual oxygen to put the heat back into the air plus what ever is extra from the hydrogen. What bugs me about it is that it seems to double count the energy in the air rather than single count it. But I&#x27;m interested in seeing one of their machines in action. If someone knows whether or not there is a violation of thermodynamics in there I&#x27;d like to understand that.<p>That said a mach 5 vehicle with a range of 12,000 miles and a payload capacity of 15 tons has much more interesting uses than carrying passengers I think. Would make a heck of a cruise missile.
评论 #8210331 未加载
评论 #8210214 未加载
评论 #8210325 未加载
parley将近 11 年前
In a previous post (a little over a year ago) about the same engine I posted a link to a video with a Q&amp;A with Elon Musk where he was a bit pessimistic about the idea.<p>I&#x27;m not a rocket scientist so I wouldn&#x27;t know the first thing about it, but if anyone is interested in his (then) opinion it&#x27;s after 48m55s in the video here: <a href="http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/videos/view/211" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk&#x2F;videos&#x2F;view&#x2F;211</a>
评论 #8210094 未加载
trhway将近 11 年前
the thermodynamic economics of ram&#x2F;scram jets at the Mach5+ speeds is almost killed compare to the rocket engines by the fact that oxygen is only 20% of the incoming air, while the whole incoming air needs to be processed through the engine, ie. compressed&#x2F;(may be cooled interstage)&#x2F;heated&#x2F;expelled. Various unavoidable losses on this 80% (nitrogen) of the incoming air eat deeply into end-result efficiency of such engine when compared to a rocket engine.
ufmace将近 11 年前
Sounds a little odd. I&#x27;m not really an expert on this area or anything, but it sounds plausible that if they are able to cool the incoming air stream to that temperature, then they might be able to make the speeds they&#x27;re claiming. But I have to wonder, not only how they made a heat exchanger capable of cooling the incoming air that fast, but what are they doing with those megawatts of heat that they&#x27;re taking out of the air? They claimed air temperatures coming out of the heat exchanger of -150, so where are they getting a cooling fluid colder than that to do exchange with?
评论 #8209988 未加载
findjashua将近 11 年前
I&#x27;m assuming this can&#x27;t be used for flying over land due to sonic boom?
评论 #8209934 未加载
sp332将近 11 年前
So they can cool the engine, but what about the heat on the rest of the plane?
评论 #8209892 未加载
评论 #8209748 未加载
lubesGordi将近 11 年前
the video is 2 years old
soperj将近 11 年前
I&#x27;ve read about this before, and I do think it sounds pretty neat, but a small part of me hopes it doesn&#x27;t work for putting satellites into space, only because the technology doesn&#x27;t help us land on other planets.
评论 #8209732 未加载
评论 #8209764 未加载
评论 #8210032 未加载
TeMPOraL将近 11 年前
Nitpick about the title[0], but it&#x27;s a kind of thing that really irks me. It&#x27;s &quot;Reaction Engines&quot;, not &quot;Reaction engines&quot;. It&#x27;s a <i>proper name</i> of a private limited company, not a class of engines.<p>[0] - at the time of writing this, the title was: &quot;Reaction engines bring us a step closer to Mach5 commercial air travel&quot;.
评论 #8210608 未加载
评论 #8210111 未加载