I love how people completely take my comment out of context. The guy I replied to was talking about the huge CRTs for desktop monitors...lazy internet people.
0:00-0:09 i thought that they just dropped the scramjet without letting it fly.................after 0:09 i keep thinking how can something so small carry that much...........rocket fuel or something idk what it was using for flight.
so..........can anyone tell me(bcause i suck at aviation knowledge) what is the maximum speed a human can go in a jet before they pass out? (i think thats how you word it out)
Well, that aircraft should be planted with tungsten, it gets hotter when aircraft gets faster. Mach 10 would be super fast. I hope airplanes reach 10 mach lol; pops their eye out ;)
@SlugAbuse OK id rather have WAR over Sicence.....K here me,,,MSN.Com K,about a mounth ago there Whats new list i call it had somthing about a VIRUS that is worse then the swin flu...They said it kills ...not in the air today BUT Y THE FUCK WOULD YOU MAKE SOMETHING LIKE THAT...so war over sicence this Gov. shit about zombie apocallips History Chanle,,,gov. geting prepared wtf is that about 2012 witch is now C,mon wtf are we in for
@SlugAbuse It's the same in the U.K a wanker stuck em there because of something they started. But I would much prefer the money was spent on them while they're their and get them home safe than, having a Mach 10 plane which only a very limited amount of people will ever use.
@SlugAbuse The most amazing scientific development is from war, many of the things you take for granted is derived from the technology of the battlefield. Biggest R&D projects come from it. So Essentially the government is funding science, FYI. I'm not saying, war is good. It's just a fact.
@wadopotato33 That was in reply to the old school CRT monitors in the other featured comment. When will you YouTube idiots figure that out and quit spamming my inbox with common knowledge?
@windfish113 What would they need flat screen lcd's for? As long as the screen works they're much better off spending ALL of their funds on improving space and aeronautical equipment
OK you can't go to the moon moron. No air. lol. But you CAN use them for low space flight. They basically jump out of the atmosphere go into orbit, as they reenter scam back on and "skip like a stone" again and again across the outer edge of space.
And this is what the US government likes to waste money on. NASA is nothing more than the 1% making a bomb off of stupid Americans.... I mean what has NASA achieved that has helped our everyday lives? Nada. The only good thing about NASA is the cutting edge computers, we all get them eventually.... should just turn themselves into a computing company.
@Joppsta360 what about that space race(during the cold war i think) that they were going against the soviet union just to get to the moon and back to earth? i called that a fail.soviets won (i think).
@requiem957 well actually there was no clear objective, or finish line, for the space race. each country was trying to outperform the other with bigger and better toys. the soviets started the space race with sputnik, which got the US interested in space. the soviets were winning at first, as the americans encountered many difficulties. but they came back toward the end. some say apollo 11 moon landing ended the race, others say the space shuttle. either way, the USA won.
Satellites travel around 31068.55 mph. But insane, the aerodynamics and the structure have to withstand that impressive forces. Nice little plane ^^ :)
And for what they going to be used for? Faster nuclear weapons?!? Shooting spy satellites into space?
@requiem957 It depends on the altitude, because as you go higher the pressure, temperature and density changes. So the speed of sound depend on all these variables. At standard sea level conditions it is about t 761 mph.
@m4rkyboy the earth revolves around the sun at ~66,xxx miles and hr and the Milky Way is travelling at ~300million miles an hr towards the Andromeda Galaxy.
Acceleration is a factor but speed is not. This is a general statement for everyone here.
Currently I believe we already have a working prototype, which can also launch objects into orbit. Pretty handy piece of hardware in case we need to take out a satellite.
@gamerboyy720 SR-71 is no where near the fastest manned flight. It might be the fastest jet powered flight, and it was the fastest operational aircraft, but the speed doesn't compare to the many experimental (mostly rocket powered) flights (even manned ones). Look up x-15 for just one example.
@camilian123 do you understand any of the laws of physics whatsoever?you cannot go the speed of light. as you approach the speed of light, time slows down for the speeding object, so it does not pass the speed of light. you can get infinitely close to the speed of light, but you can never quite reach it.
@usaf4ever1824 That's true, but the idea is for it to reach a speed greater than the Earth's espace velocity before it exits the atmosphere. It takes a speed of about 11 km/s, roughly mach 32, to escape Earth's gravity. If scramjet technology can get a plane to that speed, they may be a viable replacement for rockets.
@usaf4ever1824 Obviously you and the people who made this the top comment didn't understand the history behind scramjets. One of the main reason research was done for scramjets was to use it to replace rockets (space access vehicles). Scramjets can achieve speeds well over to reach space, without the need of the extra weight of carrying all the fuel and oxidizers. So of course what she said wasn't out of her knowledge. Btw space is defined to be 340k feet +/- and there is air above it.
@usaf4ever1824 there are still gases in higher levels of the Earth's atmosphere. I don't think this plane would travel at space shuttle altitude, so most likely there would be enough air to be able to slightly maneuver the plane while still being high enough to be considered "space."
@500205 uh bro...I was making a point of reference. I never said this was the optimal way to travel by any means. And the Space Shuttle goes about 17,500 MPH at top speed just so you know.
@blazerx900 It would be nice if you read my previous comments. Yes, of course we can move faster, as I never said this was the most ideal way to travel...I was simply giving a point of reference!
@THIRT33THR33 - Don't forget that the Apollo spacecraft was traveling in the vicinity of 17,000 mph and took longer than 1.5 days to reach the Moon...but that's because they travel on a parabolic path. It's an interesting concept, but no craft would fly a straight line from the Earth to the Moon.
Please read my previous comments...I am using this as a point of reference! There are so many things faster than this aircraft. I was simply commenting on how fast something that small could travel and what it could do, and giving an example of what it could do at that speed.
@skiendog How about the millions and millions of jobs space exploration has created?? does that not help the economy and our advancement as a society? i'm sure space exploration is more than a "hobby".
watch?v=ioVRN8Zbxq0&feature=related please watch, wake up. The video details the New World Order dangerous agenda. Time's running out. The federal reserve is planning on inflating our currency then collapsing it, then replacing N. and S. American currency with the Amero. Ron Paul 2012 infowars.co m
@sevenrats no what cant. if you are talking about the previous conversation and actually READ it you would have learned we sorted it out. yes I had been misinformed. so SHUT UP
@bud467 I actually read the whole post thread and don't see anywhere where that anything is sorted out other than you are an idiot. Telling someone to shut up because you are a stupid idiot doesn't make you right or even wrong. Just more stupid. So you shut the fuck up you dick head. Maybe next time you post something you might want to know what you're talking about. Moron. Oh. and STFU.
anything the goverment tells us is the tip of the iceberg. 1960 sr71 was mach 3.5 now add lets say .25 mach per year since then thur research and development thats 51 years so 51 X .25 = 12.5 mach plus the existing 3.5 from 1960 = 16 mach is probably wut there working with and at the very least. Im sure they have manned aircraft flying mach 8, Now minus the 3.5 from 1960 leaves you with 4.5 mach that would be .08 mach per year they would have developed since 1960 doesnt sound like very much
@skiendog so you think if the goverment discloses mach 10 to the general public. you honestly believe thats all thier working with.. now thats laughable ......
in the 60's the yanks were 5 years away from making this usable everyday technology, the X-15 was hitting mach 8 back then and that was with a pilot in it...but then came the race for the moon instead, which directed all funding to this one goal,overnight the x-15 project was shelved and thus killing of the hypersonic research programme that lead to these great aircraft such as the X-15..ok getting to the moon was great but imagine what we could of really done..
@FutureGIGN Eh bien ce qu'il ya quelqu'un monsieur peut dire n'importe quoi sur le wiki obtenir des faits Gour droite. votre chance, je suis Canadien et je peux parler peu le français
...and THIS is why our country is broke. Our public education system is getting worse by the day, our elderly can't afford care, section 8 housing is breeding crime, and our government is dumping absurd money into making planes go Mach 10.
@TheZombieSlay3rs Remind me why a plane needs to go Mach 10 to defend my country? Modern fifth-generation fights only go 2.5M, and even cold war reconnaissance planes (that are now obsolete due to the latest satellite technology) only went 4M. There is no reason, whatsoever, to continue dumping retarded amounts of money into these useless 'white elephants'. If you're going to give a reason, stop using "defend our country!" because we both know it's bullshit.
@skiendog Cold war reconnaissance planes only went at mach 4 did they? You got a source for that? Have you got any idea what speed the blackbird can do? ....Yeah, didn't think so.
@TheChannelOfCrap The SR-71 can't do any speed right now, they are piles of rusting metal and have been for nearly 15 years. They were only capable of 3.3M. Do you know something the rest of the world doesn't?
@skiendog Hmm 3.3M you say? That's taken from wikipedia I bet! And I know a little bit more than the rest of the world, yes....Let's just say the engines were capable in excess of Mach 5. And before you question my source, I indirectly worked one way or another with this plane.
@TheChannelOfCrap I'm raising my 'bullshit' flag, and here is why. Those engines are capable of 5M, but what is the rest of the plane capable of? From one aerospace major to another (unless you were a janitor at Beale AFB and that is your only connection to the SR...) you ought know well enough that factors of heat and strength play a much bigger role on the speed of a craft than the engine does. Hell, a PT-6 has was proven at 1M, but it doesn't mean that a PC-12 has near that capability, HAHAHA
@JRGoehring23 Ah ha! Exactly my point, finally. At billions of dollars, don't you think we can put that money toward better use? Space exploration, really?? I, for one, think we need to cut off NASA for a few years, and start putting that money to good use. We can pick back up "space exploration" when we have money for it.
@Uunster ...Where did that come from? All I am advocating is shutting off space exploration for a few years. Defense is fine, but making a scramjet go 10M is not defense. Defense is keeping gas in our aircraft carriers. Defense is doing training drills. Defense is keeping satellites in the sky. A 10M scramjet is pointless.
@JRGoehring23 Space exploration is NOTHING more than a multi-billion dollar hobby of our government. Useless. We have existing aerospace technology to keep us kicking for a few years while we redirect that funding to much more desperately needed areas. When we have a few billion dollars in surplus, then we can go put a man on mars. Any existing aerospace research needs to be done in the private sector.
I bet you would have said that back in the 50s and we would have never had Computer Aided Design, scratch resistant lenses, memory foam, ear thermometers, shoe insoles, anything to do with satelites (phones, weather radar, etc.), smoke detectors, safety grooves in cement/blacktop, cordless tools (drills, screwdrivers, etc.), charcoal water filters (i.e. Brita), fire resistant materials, bar codes, and dozens of other items.
@RetSquid What's your point? My point is that space exploration is grossly over funded considering our current troubles. I'm struggling to find out your point... that scientific research toward technological advancement is important? That's all fine and dandy, and most of it can be done in the private sector. But considering our current situation, space exploration is a horrible, insane, poor choice of government spending.
if you were inside that plane going mach 10, you would literally collapse into yourself
super4chicken 3 days ago
That´s not a plane, that´s a rocket :S
FALLEROMAYOR 5 days ago
she said ramjet hahaha she hornay
idkyoo 1 week ago
I love how people completely take my comment out of context. The guy I replied to was talking about the huge CRTs for desktop monitors...lazy internet people.
SlugAbuse 1 week ago
can they somehow put me inside of that when they detach from it lol
TheZoelzer2 1 week ago
rainbow dash already did it let's see do a sonic rainboom
namenotfound404error 2 weeks ago
A rocket traveling at that speed could circle the earth around the equator and come back in a little over an hour: Absolutely insane.
demonhalo67 2 weeks ago
@demonhalo67 More like 3 or so, I think.
Orbital velocities make it under an hour and a half, and this is about half that, so expect 3 hours. BUT STILL!
SingularlyDatarific 1 week ago
Was it unmanned or what?
82ndairborne100 2 weeks ago
@82ndairborne100 unmanned.
wadopotato33 4 days ago
@wadopotato33 What i figured.
82ndairborne100 3 days ago
0:00-0:09 i thought that they just dropped the scramjet without letting it fly.................after 0:09 i keep thinking how can something so small carry that much...........rocket fuel or something idk what it was using for flight.
requiem957 2 weeks ago
so..........can anyone tell me(bcause i suck at aviation knowledge) what is the maximum speed a human can go in a jet before they pass out? (i think thats how you word it out)
requiem957 2 weeks ago
@requiem957 ludicrous speed, just don't pull more than 8 g's.
stolpsgti 2 weeks ago
Space shuttles and Saturn rockets were like the muscle cars of the 70' and 80's. The scramjets are the veyron and aero of today!
feellost1 3 weeks ago
Well, that aircraft should be planted with tungsten, it gets hotter when aircraft gets faster. Mach 10 would be super fast. I hope airplanes reach 10 mach lol; pops their eye out ;)
TheNSattack 3 weeks ago
@ 0:27 is it 1992? Or NASA can't afford flatscreen LCD's?
windfish113 3 weeks ago 39
@windfish113
That's the US government directing funds to war instead of science.
SlugAbuse 3 weeks ago 31
@SlugAbuse OK id rather have WAR over Sicence.....K here me,,,MSN.Com K,about a mounth ago there Whats new list i call it had somthing about a VIRUS that is worse then the swin flu...They said it kills ...not in the air today BUT Y THE FUCK WOULD YOU MAKE SOMETHING LIKE THAT...so war over sicence this Gov. shit about zombie apocallips History Chanle,,,gov. geting prepared wtf is that about 2012 witch is now C,mon wtf are we in for
Codythecartaker 3 weeks ago
@SlugAbuse It's the same in the U.K a wanker stuck em there because of something they started. But I would much prefer the money was spent on them while they're their and get them home safe than, having a Mach 10 plane which only a very limited amount of people will ever use.
ProjectSanctum 1 week ago
@SlugAbuse The most amazing scientific development is from war, many of the things you take for granted is derived from the technology of the battlefield. Biggest R&D projects come from it. So Essentially the government is funding science, FYI. I'm not saying, war is good. It's just a fact.
killerracernos 1 week ago
@killerracernos
Old news, besides, NASA has invented TONS of stuff for a minute fraction of the cost of the DoD's R&D funding as well.
SlugAbuse 1 week ago
@SlugAbuse war is science..for example internet,was firstly used by US army
RYOGERG 1 week ago
@RYOGERG
Captain Obvious to the rescue, and no, the internet was not used by the army first. It was in the DoD, but with DARPA, not the army.
SlugAbuse 1 week ago
@SlugAbuse thx for correcting me but to your info,i'm not american,by the way nice profile pic
RYOGERG 1 week ago
@SlugAbuse Takes science to conduct war. This scramjet has more than military uses.
wadopotato33 4 days ago
@wadopotato33 That was in reply to the old school CRT monitors in the other featured comment. When will you YouTube idiots figure that out and quit spamming my inbox with common knowledge?
SlugAbuse 4 days ago
@windfish113 The government would rather spend our money on EBT than LCD these days.
GetOutMyBidness 2 weeks ago
@windfish113 What would they need flat screen lcd's for? As long as the screen works they're much better off spending ALL of their funds on improving space and aeronautical equipment
TheZohaun 2 weeks ago
@windfish113 Scientists and engineers work with what they are usually used to.
undertake782 1 week ago
@windfish113 Also, more taxpayers money would go to LCDs. Would yu like that?
undertake782 1 week ago
@windfish113 if you notice she says more than 4 generations of work right as they cut to that shot of the old monitors...
Connah126 1 week ago 4
@windfish113 why would they need lcd flatscreen tvs for?
requiem957 4 days ago
The Mach 10! HUAHHAAAAAAAA?!!
EthanNin0 4 weeks ago
..just what we need...a reusable, stealthy ICBM.
.....uh, guys, is this trip really necessary?
eaterofclams 4 weeks ago
OK you can't go to the moon moron. No air. lol. But you CAN use them for low space flight. They basically jump out of the atmosphere go into orbit, as they reenter scam back on and "skip like a stone" again and again across the outer edge of space.
duf101101 4 weeks ago
And this is what the US government likes to waste money on. NASA is nothing more than the 1% making a bomb off of stupid Americans.... I mean what has NASA achieved that has helped our everyday lives? Nada. The only good thing about NASA is the cutting edge computers, we all get them eventually.... should just turn themselves into a computing company.
Joppsta360 4 weeks ago
@Joppsta360 what about that space race(during the cold war i think) that they were going against the soviet union just to get to the moon and back to earth? i called that a fail.soviets won (i think).
requiem957 4 weeks ago
@requiem957 A gigantic ego competition. America should have invested in military and took them out but oh wait.. never mind.
Joppsta360 3 weeks ago
@requiem957 well actually there was no clear objective, or finish line, for the space race. each country was trying to outperform the other with bigger and better toys. the soviets started the space race with sputnik, which got the US interested in space. the soviets were winning at first, as the americans encountered many difficulties. but they came back toward the end. some say apollo 11 moon landing ended the race, others say the space shuttle. either way, the USA won.
fatty1443 3 weeks ago
a scramjet in every driveway
MisterIanPickering 4 weeks ago
Imagine that hitting a birf...
19bw97 4 weeks ago
Title correction: X-43A Goes 700 MPH
GtaCd321 1 month ago
@GtaCd321 LOL. State of the art scramjet goes 2x faster than exotic cars, and slower than the fastest land vehicle!
RussianWilderness 1 month ago
@RussianWilderness lol.
GtaCd321 1 month ago
@GtaCd321 .... No, it goes 7000 mph. If you've ever been in a commercial jet you've probably gone over 600mph.
TheSethcoleman 4 weeks ago
Insane speed, it flyes like 3000 meters a second :O
watch out for mont everest!
7.000mph to kmh, and rounded DOWN = 11.000 kmh
11.000/60= 183km each minute
11.000/60/60 = 3km each second.
RobinMr292 1 month ago
3 hours later... Japanese: KAMIKAZE!!!!!!!!
Crickin4 1 month ago
@Crickin4 don't joke about that kid.
dragonxanimation 1 month ago
did she really just say affordability. Hahaha
Rainman654321 1 month ago
how is this history? it was a none maned flight ..stick person behind the wheel then we can talk ..this just a missile
Ebolacrash 1 month ago
@Ebolacrash if someone was in that they would die or be seriously injured
dragonxanimation 1 month ago 2
Satellites travel around 31068.55 mph. But insane, the aerodynamics and the structure have to withstand that impressive forces. Nice little plane ^^ :)
And for what they going to be used for? Faster nuclear weapons?!? Shooting spy satellites into space?
bobbyvader 1 month ago
one question how fast is the speed of sound? yeah i know its stupid but seriously.
requiem957 1 month ago
@requiem957 Mach 1...
MrEclecticTech 1 month ago
@MrEclecticTech thank you...=)
requiem957 4 weeks ago
@requiem957 333 meters per second :)
bobbyvader 1 month ago
@bobbyvader thank you :)
requiem957 4 weeks ago
@requiem957 It depends on the altitude, because as you go higher the pressure, temperature and density changes. So the speed of sound depend on all these variables. At standard sea level conditions it is about t 761 mph.
Indianmalujl 1 month ago
@Indianmalujl about 761 mph? good enough :)
requiem957 4 weeks ago
@requiem957 Yes why not :)
Indianmalujl 3 weeks ago
Chuch Norris' grocery getter
Jmarley912 1 month ago
at least NASA is doing something that doesn't involve telescopes and probes for once
thnk4urself 1 month ago
@thnk4urself That's kinda what NASA, you know, does.
ninjastalker92 1 month ago
@ninjastalker92 I know, that's why I'm glad they're doing something like this, something tangible to regular people like us
thnk4urself 1 month ago
forget this. when are they going to commercialize the stargates?
dzkahs 1 month ago
@usaf4ever1824 untrue, you could take a suply of air but that would require oxygen :P
DarkPrince946 1 month ago
Rumor has it Jimmy John's are purchasing several of these to make ultra-fast deliveries.
NiceNineMillimeter 1 month ago
damnnnnn
FallingSky7 1 month ago
14000kmh !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
boss26701 1 month ago
Your body couldn't take the stress
m4rkyboy 1 month ago
@m4rkyboy according to the laws of inertia, it could so long as you accelerated in a smooth transition.
usarmyguntersville 1 month ago
@usarmyguntersville well tell that to the astronauts who already went that fast on their way to space. Duh.
usarmyguntersville 1 month ago
@m4rkyboy the earth revolves around the sun at ~66,xxx miles and hr and the Milky Way is travelling at ~300million miles an hr towards the Andromeda Galaxy.
Acceleration is a factor but speed is not. This is a general statement for everyone here.
TEDDERAMA 1 month ago
FUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
blackops7878 1 month ago
@philonetic
Then go on a YouTube video about the SR-71 instead and talk about it there.
THIRT33THR33 1 month ago
Currently I believe we already have a working prototype, which can also launch objects into orbit. Pretty handy piece of hardware in case we need to take out a satellite.
waislandres 1 month ago
I want one!
TheRotax9 1 month ago
emmm....... the speed of sound is 700 mph not 7000
sonyfucker 1 month ago
@sonyfucker hence why the woman said '10x the speed of sound'... Jesus christ there are so many idiots on the internet.
xHurrendous 1 month ago
i used to fly, then i took an x-43 in the knee.
RCllamadude 1 month ago
@RCllamadude I just read that yesterday but was, use to hunt Jaguar's but took an arrow in the knee, sound familiar ?
waislandres 1 month ago
@waislandres look up skyrim knee quote. then all will be revealed.
RCllamadude 1 month ago
Best plane in history and still holds for fastest maned flight SR-71 Blackbird 2,193.2 mph which is mach 3+
gamerboyy720 1 month ago
@gamerboyy720 so, one third the speed, but somehow i agree with you that the sr71 is more epic.
RCllamadude 1 month ago
@gamerboyy720 SR-71 is no where near the fastest manned flight. It might be the fastest jet powered flight, and it was the fastest operational aircraft, but the speed doesn't compare to the many experimental (mostly rocket powered) flights (even manned ones). Look up x-15 for just one example.
442hoeky 1 month ago
and still.. we can't travel through time? Should we wait till an aircraft that can beat the light speed?
camilian123 1 month ago
@camilian123 do you understand any of the laws of physics whatsoever?you cannot go the speed of light. as you approach the speed of light, time slows down for the speeding object, so it does not pass the speed of light. you can get infinitely close to the speed of light, but you can never quite reach it.
RCllamadude 1 month ago
Lol Affordability, I know what I want for Christmas.
kakamadrid22 1 month ago
But why do you need to travel at Mach 10? Where would it go? What would it do? What is its purpose?
pbsmick 1 month ago
we haz ion engines naow fer space. :D we are working on solar sails XD
bud467 1 month ago
it still wont keep pace with Chuck Norris
SuperEnterprise01 1 month ago
Scramjets can't be used for space planes because scramjets need air, and there is no air in space =P
usaf4ever1824 1 month ago 27
@usaf4ever1824 its a prototype XD
bud467 1 month ago
@usaf4ever1824 That's true, but the idea is for it to reach a speed greater than the Earth's espace velocity before it exits the atmosphere. It takes a speed of about 11 km/s, roughly mach 32, to escape Earth's gravity. If scramjet technology can get a plane to that speed, they may be a viable replacement for rockets.
ChillPenguin2 1 month ago
@usaf4ever1824 Obviously you and the people who made this the top comment didn't understand the history behind scramjets. One of the main reason research was done for scramjets was to use it to replace rockets (space access vehicles). Scramjets can achieve speeds well over to reach space, without the need of the extra weight of carrying all the fuel and oxidizers. So of course what she said wasn't out of her knowledge. Btw space is defined to be 340k feet +/- and there is air above it.
Indianmalujl 1 month ago
@usaf4ever1824 but it is an efficient way to get into space, then regular LOX rocket fuel could take over!
999Tornado 1 month ago
@usaf4ever1824 there are still gases in higher levels of the Earth's atmosphere. I don't think this plane would travel at space shuttle altitude, so most likely there would be enough air to be able to slightly maneuver the plane while still being high enough to be considered "space."
AutoDidactic26 1 month ago
Comment removed
derekfc 4 weeks ago
@usaf4ever1824 theres an air in space museum..
derekfc 4 weeks ago
@usaf4ever1824 but you could use them for launch vehicle motherships
xXGoDxiSxdEaDx666Xx 4 weeks ago
At 7,000 MPH, you could travel around the Earth at the equator in about 3 hours, or fly to the moon in about a day and a half. Wow.
THIRT33THR33 1 month ago 24
@THIRT33THR33 uh bro with the space shuttle we get to the moon in about 10 hours at 25,000mph
500205 1 month ago
@500205 uh bro...I was making a point of reference. I never said this was the optimal way to travel by any means. And the Space Shuttle goes about 17,500 MPH at top speed just so you know.
THIRT33THR33 1 month ago
@500205 The space shuttle doesn't go to the moon.
sevenrats 1 month ago
@THIRT33THR33 WE CAN STILL MOVE FASTER >O<
blazerx900 1 month ago
@blazerx900 It would be nice if you read my previous comments. Yes, of course we can move faster, as I never said this was the most ideal way to travel...I was simply giving a point of reference!
THIRT33THR33 1 month ago
@THIRT33THR33 - Don't forget that the Apollo spacecraft was traveling in the vicinity of 17,000 mph and took longer than 1.5 days to reach the Moon...but that's because they travel on a parabolic path. It's an interesting concept, but no craft would fly a straight line from the Earth to the Moon.
Flooner75 1 month ago
@THIRT33THR33
SR-71 already did the earth in a little under 4 hours.
philonetic 1 month ago
@philonetic
@Flooner75
Please read my previous comments...I am using this as a point of reference! There are so many things faster than this aircraft. I was simply commenting on how fast something that small could travel and what it could do, and giving an example of what it could do at that speed.
THIRT33THR33 1 month ago
@THIRT33THR33
Not really interested, was just making a point about the time.
philonetic 1 month ago
@THIRT33THR33 or get to the shop in 0.5 seconds
rogo2484 1 month ago
@THIRT33THR33 lol good luck paying for fuel
doggy3322 1 month ago
I've always thought rockets to get to outer space is a HUGE waste of energy...
going from a dead-stop to outer-space is obviously not ideal...
LightGesture 1 month ago
Why people havent developed aster aircrafts? Like gj with the blackbird, but oits more than 3 times slower plus 1000mph...
FailDrummer 2 months ago
FUCK THATS FAST!!!!!!
ShadowZekromX 2 months ago
Without vision the people perish
domanselm 2 months ago
@skiendog How about the millions and millions of jobs space exploration has created?? does that not help the economy and our advancement as a society? i'm sure space exploration is more than a "hobby".
helio988 2 months ago
@helio988 Was that a joke? Millions of jobs?
skiendog 1 month ago
any one online
camisado05 2 months ago
damn that is fast
camisado05 2 months ago
and farts dont travel faster
camisado05 2 months ago
yo fuckers i have that air plane in my fast jet plane book on page 29
camisado05 2 months ago
@bud467 is your source currently getting injected into your arm about now by any chance???? Muppet!!
ohbollox2it 2 months ago
waste of time and resources, but an interesting hobby.
batmandeltaforce 2 months ago
If this flew over my house it would --
ShadowZekromX 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
watch?v=ioVRN8Zbxq0&feature=related please watch, wake up. The video details the New World Order dangerous agenda. Time's running out. The federal reserve is planning on inflating our currency then collapsing it, then replacing N. and S. American currency with the Amero. Ron Paul 2012 infowars.co m
flinch5549 2 months ago
the SR-71 can pass mach 12... the pilot is dead or passed out bye then.. but it can
bud467 2 months ago
@bud467 Either you're 8 or you don't read.
The SR 71 top speed is mach 3.2
Zvesda 2 months ago
@Zvesda the top speed that has been aquired with a human pilot in it was mach 3.2 it has the potential is mach 12. thats what I meat
bud467 2 months ago
@bud467 Not even close. You're not even remotely close. Mach 12? Where's your source?
skiendog 2 months ago
@skiendog oh my hold on this was a while ago so i cant remember.
bud467 2 months ago
@bud467 Yeah, you are off by nearly 4 fold.
skiendog 2 months ago
@bud467 No. It. Can't.
sevenrats 1 month ago
@sevenrats no what cant. if you are talking about the previous conversation and actually READ it you would have learned we sorted it out. yes I had been misinformed. so SHUT UP
bud467 1 month ago
@bud467 I actually read the whole post thread and don't see anywhere where that anything is sorted out other than you are an idiot. Telling someone to shut up because you are a stupid idiot doesn't make you right or even wrong. Just more stupid. So you shut the fuck up you dick head. Maybe next time you post something you might want to know what you're talking about. Moron. Oh. and STFU.
sevenrats 1 month ago
@sevenrats I had admitted I was wrong. the argument stopped it was RESOLVED.
bud467 1 month ago
add some weapons to it and i thin we can survive a alien invasion :p
DRoWedFiSh234 2 months ago
Lunch lunch lunch!!!! PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPSSSSSSSSSSSSSGGGGGGGGKKKKKKKKKKKKK
driftability 2 months ago
awful computer 0:26
miffymichael8 3 months ago
I shoot poop Faster than that !
TheKaundere 3 months ago
Mach 10.. so... its not like they're going to be used as a fighter.. the pilot probably die at mach 10
fube432 3 months ago
Find Steve Austin
Charrister 3 months ago
My farts travel faster than that.
e081194eng 3 months ago 66
@e081194eng OMG u Chuck Norris?
TheUltimateDown1 2 months ago
@e081194eng Thats funny because it's true.
TuttyFruttynuts 2 months ago
@TuttyFruttynuts Did you confirm it?
e081194eng 2 months ago
@e081194eng oh yea i also bet ur ass cheeks would hurt after that.
SuperBmxbadass 1 month ago
@SuperBmxbadass Sometimes
e081194eng 1 month ago
scramjets is for pussies.. ths shuttle is dead!?! long live the space shuttle!
CmdShepard 3 months ago
Comment removed
collguyjoe99 3 months ago
google x-37C
collguyjoe99 3 months ago
i hope you all burn in hell for not understanding the purposes behind these kinds of experiments.
brandonbld17 3 months ago
@FutureGIGN This isn't a thing to have humor on,
TheZombieSlay3rs 3 months ago
@VinnieDain424 No they haven't you moron
TheZombieSlay3rs 3 months ago
@FutureGIGN Wow your an idiot, When has france made a aircraft that can go 7000 mph? Never So shut the fuck up you troll
TheZombieSlay3rs 3 months ago
anything the goverment tells us is the tip of the iceberg. 1960 sr71 was mach 3.5 now add lets say .25 mach per year since then thur research and development thats 51 years so 51 X .25 = 12.5 mach plus the existing 3.5 from 1960 = 16 mach is probably wut there working with and at the very least. Im sure they have manned aircraft flying mach 8, Now minus the 3.5 from 1960 leaves you with 4.5 mach that would be .08 mach per year they would have developed since 1960 doesnt sound like very much
justwired 3 months ago
@justwired You don't know much about aerospace engineering, do you? Mach 16? That's laughable.
skiendog 2 months ago
@skiendog so you think if the goverment discloses mach 10 to the general public. you honestly believe thats all thier working with.. now thats laughable ......
justwired 2 months ago
Someone get these guys black computer monitors, this isn't 1996 anymore!
kweechy 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
something china will never have
USAmilitarypower 3 months ago
in the 60's the yanks were 5 years away from making this usable everyday technology, the X-15 was hitting mach 8 back then and that was with a pilot in it...but then came the race for the moon instead, which directed all funding to this one goal,overnight the x-15 project was shelved and thus killing of the hypersonic research programme that lead to these great aircraft such as the X-15..ok getting to the moon was great but imagine what we could of really done..
t1000eg 3 months ago
@FutureGIGN Eh bien ce qu'il ya quelqu'un monsieur peut dire n'importe quoi sur le wiki obtenir des faits Gour droite. votre chance, je suis Canadien et je peux parler peu le français
spencerhopkins91 3 months ago
...and THIS is why our country is broke. Our public education system is getting worse by the day, our elderly can't afford care, section 8 housing is breeding crime, and our government is dumping absurd money into making planes go Mach 10.
skiendog 3 months ago
@skiendog Would you rather have your country defended or would you rather die?
TheZombieSlay3rs 3 months ago
@TheZombieSlay3rs Remind me why a plane needs to go Mach 10 to defend my country? Modern fifth-generation fights only go 2.5M, and even cold war reconnaissance planes (that are now obsolete due to the latest satellite technology) only went 4M. There is no reason, whatsoever, to continue dumping retarded amounts of money into these useless 'white elephants'. If you're going to give a reason, stop using "defend our country!" because we both know it's bullshit.
skiendog 3 months ago
@skiendog Cold war reconnaissance planes only went at mach 4 did they? You got a source for that? Have you got any idea what speed the blackbird can do? ....Yeah, didn't think so.
TheChannelOfCrap 2 months ago
@TheChannelOfCrap The SR-71 can't do any speed right now, they are piles of rusting metal and have been for nearly 15 years. They were only capable of 3.3M. Do you know something the rest of the world doesn't?
skiendog 2 months ago
@skiendog Hmm 3.3M you say? That's taken from wikipedia I bet! And I know a little bit more than the rest of the world, yes....Let's just say the engines were capable in excess of Mach 5. And before you question my source, I indirectly worked one way or another with this plane.
TheChannelOfCrap 2 months ago
@TheChannelOfCrap I'm raising my 'bullshit' flag, and here is why. Those engines are capable of 5M, but what is the rest of the plane capable of? From one aerospace major to another (unless you were a janitor at Beale AFB and that is your only connection to the SR...) you ought know well enough that factors of heat and strength play a much bigger role on the speed of a craft than the engine does. Hell, a PT-6 has was proven at 1M, but it doesn't mean that a PC-12 has near that capability, HAHAHA
skiendog 2 months ago
@skiendog This has nothing to do with defense, but rather space exploration. If you think that is a waste of money, I suggest you go back to school.
JRGoehring23 2 months ago
@JRGoehring23 Ah ha! Exactly my point, finally. At billions of dollars, don't you think we can put that money toward better use? Space exploration, really?? I, for one, think we need to cut off NASA for a few years, and start putting that money to good use. We can pick back up "space exploration" when we have money for it.
skiendog 2 months ago
@skiendog Yeah and dumping all our money into defense is such a good idea too then, huh?
Uunster 2 months ago
@Uunster ...Where did that come from? All I am advocating is shutting off space exploration for a few years. Defense is fine, but making a scramjet go 10M is not defense. Defense is keeping gas in our aircraft carriers. Defense is doing training drills. Defense is keeping satellites in the sky. A 10M scramjet is pointless.
skiendog 2 months ago
@JRGoehring23 Space exploration is NOTHING more than a multi-billion dollar hobby of our government. Useless. We have existing aerospace technology to keep us kicking for a few years while we redirect that funding to much more desperately needed areas. When we have a few billion dollars in surplus, then we can go put a man on mars. Any existing aerospace research needs to be done in the private sector.
skiendog 2 months ago
@skiendog
So is the military. Nobody's going to fucking invade amurrika, so why do we even need to spend so much on "security?"
And military spending is in the trillions!
Zvesda 2 months ago
@skiendog eh but its fun as hell watching people up there eh?
bud467 2 months ago
@skiendog
I bet you would have said that back in the 50s and we would have never had Computer Aided Design, scratch resistant lenses, memory foam, ear thermometers, shoe insoles, anything to do with satelites (phones, weather radar, etc.), smoke detectors, safety grooves in cement/blacktop, cordless tools (drills, screwdrivers, etc.), charcoal water filters (i.e. Brita), fire resistant materials, bar codes, and dozens of other items.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid What's your point? My point is that space exploration is grossly over funded considering our current troubles. I'm struggling to find out your point... that scientific research toward technological advancement is important? That's all fine and dandy, and most of it can be done in the private sector. But considering our current situation, space exploration is a horrible, insane, poor choice of government spending.
skiendog 2 months ago