XPost: sci.space.shuttle, sci.space.policy   
   From: no-spam@thank-you.com   
      
   Jake McGuire wrote:   
      
   > Richard Schumacher  wrote in message ne   
   s:<406971AA.3672C8A8@thank-you.com>...   
   > > I was about to write "cruise missle", but hell: why would the military   
   want a   
   > > vehicle whose propellant is extraordinarily difficult to store?   
   >   
   > Any military scramjet powered missile would probably use hydrocarbon   
   > propellants.  Sure, that doesn't work yet, but until recently,   
   > hydrogen propellants didn't work either.   
      
   The engine geometry until recently didn't work, but at least it was clear that   
   hydrogen can sustain a   
   sufficiently rapid flame front.  Hydrocarbons don't, which eventually will   
   drive the fanatics toward that   
   other old money-sink day-dream, pulse-detonation engines.  It's an admirable   
   scheme: scramjet   
   investigations can be milked for another eight years or so before it becomes   
   obvious to Congress that   
   scramjets will never be practical for anything, and then the investigators can   
   start asking for funding   
   for PDE work...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)