He doesn't sound bored, he sounds like he's confident in what he's saying and saying it in a encouraing, interesting way to get viewers to feel excited.
+Pete W What happens to the passengers when their vehicle is traveling at Mach 5? Are they expected to wear G-Suits? I know it won't be making sharp banks or turns like a fighter jet- but you're still accelerating a mass. The more kinetic energy that's imparted to a mass- the heavier it becomes.You can throw a 10oz. weight further than a 1oz. weight. Mass acts like a capacitor- in this aspect. No bashing- just a question. Not everyone on RUclips is a dumbass.
+Pete W And a bunch of moon-landing conspiracy theorist assholes creep out of the woodwork and attack scientists who've been studying the field for decades.
Except that both tests didn't last long at all and were purposely crashed into the ocean. Scram jets are awesome but the friction created at mach 5 is insane.
The V-1 used a pulse jet; the SR-71 uses a ram jet. The scram jet is new in the sense that R & D on it has been going on for several years with only a few successes with small experimental models.
As an Aerospace Engineer, the Scram Jet propulsion system has been known about for decades. It has been known as only as "theory" in which military applications have limited the access to this technology. (Aura spy plane, etc). Its quite possible that this has been a reality since the early 90's, but has not been a public possibility until recently.
If my understanding of how the scram jet works is correct it needs an atmosphere to operate in correct? So how would it help us get to another planet or further into space if it relies on having an atmosphere
David Phillips It has been, the problem is money. Scramjet technology is so expensive to just get it to work, that no company has been willing to put serious research dollars into it. The military won't do it either as they already have various rockets that already do the job anything a scramjet would look to replace.
The nice thing about scram jets is they theoretically can run up all the way to orbital velocity. Perfect for a Magnetohydrodynamic and Atmospheric jet hybrid space plane.
That will be ok since from the video you are already on the stratosphere, gravity will offset the G forces sufficiently....It's the slowing down that will be the issue! Too fast and you can sever a spine or too slowly and you miss the target by Xmiles. I would love this challenge.
this technology is for future flight, defense and offense purposes, much like the X-1 and X-15 was for. This is advancement of technology that will shape our future in transportation, for what ever its purpose may be - this craft much like the X-15 will develop into another form of aircraft that will blow our minds, I think its a pretty kewl concept.
Yuri Gagarin did it in 1961. He was the first man in space. At that time there were no space stations, and Yuri was not wearing a space suit, since safety regulations did not enforce it. Space suits were only introduced later.
It is absolutely unbelievable how we were able to go from the Wright Flyer to this stuff straight out of Star Wars in less than 100 years. Where can I get one?
If you go to extreme altitudes the air resistance won't be as large and you could go faster, although I am not sure what the fuel cost would be to go to such heights, or what kind of planes it would require.
This video is named :"The Warp Speed of Today: Boeing's X-51A WaveRider" NOT "My philosophy about Boeing's challenges as they pertain to the Boeing X-51A WaveRider"
As much as I like Boeing mach 5 is a huge ask. The SR71 at mach 3 was incredibly difficult to make work and expensive to fly. Surface friction meant they were scared they were going to cook the pilot. The pilot wore a space suit like an astronaut. Making a cabin that will allow normal clothing will be very hard. If Boeing could make even mach 3 in a commercial air liner that would be a huge achievement. I'd like to hear more in depth information about Boeings progress.
I'm never the type to pour cold water on innovation but how safe does that concept scram jet passenger plane look? It's not whether we can achieve those speeds, it's whether we can do so with the safety of today's conventional jet planes.
I don't care if it safe, I what a go. ;-) It is a great idea, safely comes later, it is the striving for the next step that's important, don't you think.
Chasen Kukuda "Boeing only makes technology that kills people, it's as simple as that" You must have been hired by Airbus to say that since statistics show that Boeing airliners are very safe!
Great wonderful..So while the 98% are NOT enjoying the pursuit of life liberty and happiness because of the 2% We struggle to pay for even the most minor luxury's of life like food, housing , heating, it's so deeply moving & reassuring to know we can all greatly rely on Boeing to get us there faster . Well done ....
Wow you sound like a Nichelback song. A few things wrong with this rant: 1. 98% of Americans are not without the minor luxury's that you mention 2. If your talking about a world population, there is no world constitution or founding document guaranteeing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 3. The Declaration of Independence which that phrase (life, lib, happ, ect) comes from is not a legal document, it's a declaration of principles. The principle being declared is not guaranteeing that everyone will have life, liberty, and happiness, just that governments should not stop you from your pursuit of those things, and punish individuals that try to interfere with your pursuit. 4. Since life, liberty, and happiness are objectives that require resources in a world where resources are finite, and the resources and conditions necesary to make you happy must be unknowable to to others by virtue of their nature, and because each individual is presumably carrying out their own search, the only entity theoretically capable of distributing those resources to match that supposed guarantee (in your mind) is government, a government that can't know what makes you happy, and a government that would necessarily have to take those resources from someone else to satisfy your theoretically happiness, thus depriving others of theirs, the entire concept is on doable, poorly thought out, and never intended to mean what you wish that it would. That is not to say there are not power structures in place designed to help some individuals at the expense of others, like the Federal Reserve, lobbying interests, or severe allocations of resources at all levels of government....but the idea that companies pushing the limits of technology need to be broken to give you your happiness is ridiculous.
Do you even fathom that those 2% pay approximately 60% of all tax burden in the USA? Quit complaining about those that pay for the welfare and food stamps and go make something of your life.
flight at mach speeds like that causes a whole other list of safety issues. The friction from the air moving across the airframe at that speed alone causes massive amounts of heat. But I would so still strap into that thing and push the little red button.
This project is really so the military can have missiles/UAVs/planes that go extremely fast sooner rather than later. Although, this machine in particular is just a technology demonstrator and test-bed. Technically, this could have civilian uses, but how often do you see supersonic private or commercial planes? The most likely civilian use is to help launch objects into space.
Mike Hawk There are ongoing issues of military aircraft being released......So I would prefer a lot of test measures more than usual on this type of aircraft is what I am saying.
Breaking the sound barrier is easy, Concorde achieved this ages ago, and almost any modern day fighter jet can. What we're talking about is something faster than that.
Couldn't we put this as a under carriage to a much larger aircraft for refueling and minimizing the travel length from one thing to another? What if a space craft starts with full fuel from close to out of atmosphere by air/air refueling and then using gravity to the IS?
I can completely understand how this directly relates to space access because of my Kerbal Space Program experience. Something like that could easily go sub orbital or even make orbit!
The "parts" coming off is the booster stage. A scram jet engine will not work at sub sonic speeds. You use an airplane to get it high enough that a relatively small rocket booster will accelerate it past the "sound barrier" and up to about Mach 3where the scram jet can take over.
The Concorde Supersonic was the first supersonic commercial jetliner was the first type of commercial jet that broke the sound barrier. Surprisingly it was banned. For having radar troubles.
Yeah, the way it detaches from the Boeing B-52 Bomber and fires its rocket. An actual plane that works like that does exist. It's called a Bell X-15, and it is faster than a Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird. If you are gonna fly one, I recommend you bring a clean pair of underpants.
I was thinking the same thing. Before (if ever) this technology comes to passenger planes, it'll spend a few decades as a way of killing lots and lots of people without having to look at them. So, yea, missiles or drones.
The rockets we use now to send nuclear weapons can already travel in space and are mush faster than the x51A would travel. So why put nuclear weapons on the x51a? LMFAO. You're just another conspiracy weirdo sitting there with your tin foil hat on.
I think Boeing is overall a good company. They provide thousands of good jobs for skilled workers. Their planes are of good quality. Their black programs are kind of lame. Companies are based around making money. They are not their to feed the poor. However the wealth they produce will make it possible to take care of the poor. The communist have failed at all. Well except spin. They are kings of spin.
Man, McDonnell Douglas had this going in the 1960s and where sure that they could build the single stage to orbit NASP. But it got canceled in favour of less advanced and capable technologies.
Such is the story of all advanced technology, too advanced for it's time, held back by disbelief and skepticism, even when it can be demonstrated. It's like the powers that were, decided these people were into parlor tricks... Oh it's neat, now go build us something useful.
People who know this is Gatekeeping propaganda, to make you think this is some kind of cutting-edge tech, when in fact it's years old, and "rocket-fuel"-based aeronautics is bunk.
Sometimes you can read comments and see why our founding fathers never sought to hear the voice of the people for the majority of the electoral process.
***** Did anyone else have an issue with your "Wikipedia" reference? Believe it or not Wikipedia does not know all things. Jane's defense does not know all things in development either, they know most things globally when it comes to hardware, but not all.
As with most technologies that have to do with speed, new fuels or power source at first the danger is higher but as you learn how to do implement these technologies you also learn how to make them safer.. So over time they will become safer........ simple logic.
Propulsion technology ain't going much further while still operating on oil and combustion. Its almost as refined as its going to get. Need lightweight fusion power.
What some people may not relize in this comment section is that Boeing is trying to make this available to the public. This could be used for more than military uses. Yes, NASA has used this technology before. Yes, they can be used as speed strike weapons. No, that is not the only things it has potential to do. Like he said in the video,"this helps promote transportation in new ways". You may not realize it, but maybe Boeing is trying to find a way to make this technology, or service, relatively inexpensive. Hold your tongues, you may make all your conspiracies, but there may be more to this...
The SR-71 used a Pratt & Whitney J58 turbojet. Two of them technically. It was not even close to being a scramjet. The scramjet takes air in at freeflow speed. The SR-71 had multiple devices to slow the air going into the engines down so that it never entered the engine above mach 0.4. Not to mention the fact that the SR-71 obviously used turbine engines, and the scramjet has virtually no moving parts.
Maybe I'm behind, but is the sonic boom still a problem, and have we combined matter with antimatter to observe a result? I was at a C. store about 4AM on a major US interstate, and something flew by so fast the doors to the store blew 1/2 open from the pressure dynamics. Sounded cool, too, for no sonic boom occurred, I don't know if it was traveling that fast, though.
Bravo Boeing! ....Bravo! Anyone who says flights 1-3 were failures are only partially correct. The failure data collected is invaluable, if you ask me. Without such "failures" experienced in flights 1-3, massive amounts of super value information would be missing still.
For the first time we actually have to possibility to looses a commercial airliner into your space. With that being said I would be willing to volunteer for the first flight
He doesn't sound bored, he sounds like he's confident in what he's saying and saying it in a encouraing, interesting way to get viewers to feel excited.
RUclips: The place where people with no engineering knowledge whatsoever join the comments section to bash innovative technology.
lmao
That's great...lmao!!
+Pete W What happens to the passengers when their vehicle is traveling at Mach 5? Are they expected to wear G-Suits? I know it won't be making sharp banks or turns like a fighter jet- but you're still accelerating a mass. The more kinetic energy that's imparted to a mass- the heavier it becomes.You can throw a 10oz. weight further than a 1oz. weight. Mass acts like a capacitor- in this aspect. No bashing- just a question. Not everyone on RUclips is a dumbass.
Hahaha
+Pete W And a bunch of moon-landing conspiracy theorist assholes creep out of the woodwork and attack scientists who've been studying the field for decades.
I wonder, is it practical to use solar energy to electrolyze water, then use that as fuel?
The difficult gets done every day. The impossible just takes a little longer.
Awesome technology
Scram Jet technology has taken a whole new level
Scramjet has been around a while, I'm excited that it's finally maturing to the point where non-military applications are under consideration.
if anything is possible if you set your mind to it I challenge you to slam a revolving door
"It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen"
Except that both tests didn't last long at all and were purposely crashed into the ocean. Scram jets are awesome but the friction created at mach 5 is insane.
"Beam me up, Scotty"
The cutting edge!........BRAVO!
i feel bad for the lucky bird that flies infront of that thing
0
+Blaze Von.Wolfsburg A bird that high is probably suffocating and freezing to death anyways
That would really hurt...
The V-1 used a pulse jet; the SR-71 uses a ram jet. The scram jet is new in the sense that R & D on it has been going on for several years with only a few successes with small experimental models.
As an Aerospace Engineer, the Scram Jet propulsion system has been known about for decades. It has been known as only as "theory" in which military applications have limited the access to this technology. (Aura spy plane, etc). Its quite possible that this has been a reality since the early 90's, but has not been a public possibility until recently.
Most likely because it will never work in a practical application or there is already secret technology to replace it.
If my understanding of how the scram jet works is correct it needs an atmosphere to operate in correct? So how would it help us get to another planet or further into space if it relies on having an atmosphere
and so the saying goes, "it's old news when it's new news to the public"
I think taco bell is assisting in funding do they can harness this power for taco delivery.
David Phillips It has been, the problem is money. Scramjet technology is so expensive to just get it to work, that no company has been willing to put serious research dollars into it. The military won't do it either as they already have various rockets that already do the job anything a scramjet would look to replace.
Good luck keeping that match lit boys
nice piece of machinery.
The nice thing about scram jets is they theoretically can run up all the way to orbital velocity. Perfect for a Magnetohydrodynamic and Atmospheric jet hybrid space plane.
ok like the idea but at mach 5 how does a peson handle the presure that a couple 100 or 1000 of g force
That will be ok since from the video you are already on the stratosphere, gravity will offset the G forces sufficiently....It's the slowing down that will be the issue! Too fast and you can sever a spine or too slowly and you miss the target by Xmiles. I would love this challenge.
Gu
V yv tvv
if u dont accelerate too hard or desealerate it should be fine right?
this technology is for future flight, defense and offense purposes, much like the X-1 and X-15 was for. This is advancement of technology that will shape our future in transportation, for what ever its purpose may be - this craft much like the X-15 will develop into another form of aircraft that will blow our minds, I think its a pretty kewl concept.
Yuri Gagarin did it in 1961. He was the first man in space. At that time there were no space stations, and Yuri was not wearing a space suit, since safety regulations did not enforce it. Space suits were only introduced later.
Thank you, guys! :)
Ram-jet and scram-jet technology isn't new. I worked on the NASP ram-jet program back in the late 80's. Glad to see someone working on it...
It is absolutely unbelievable how we were able to go from the Wright Flyer to this stuff straight out of Star Wars in less than 100 years. Where can I get one?
How high up was it? It looked like the edge of the atmosphere.
+ChrisEvan Tapman Not even close, even the ISS still experiences some atmospheric drag.
+ChrisEvan Tapman It activated the scramjet at around 70,000 feet.
+IAN 4000 50,000 ft is "technically" space right?
Adam Degrace No, Global Hawk can get to 60K, U2 can get to 70K.
70-80K is about 1/8th of the way the the lowest limit of a Low Earth Orbit.
Technically, space is about 60 miles from the surface, passed the atmosphere.
Look what happened with concord though
If you go to extreme altitudes the air resistance won't be as large and you could go faster, although I am not sure what the fuel cost would be to go to such heights, or what kind of planes it would require.
How long do you think before we put warheads on these? 2 years? 3?
i like the idea of how the engine works
This video is named :"The Warp Speed of Today: Boeing's X-51A WaveRider"
NOT
"My philosophy about Boeing's challenges as they pertain to the Boeing X-51A WaveRider"
Congrats to ALL the other Winners!!
Beautiful.
Awesome High-Technology
If their going to use this for commercial flights how will the passengers handle the G -Force ?
It's probably considered a lifting body. Lift is proportional to speed, among other factors so... faster = less wings
I like that question! Cause BOEING has been R/D'ing for like 25 years!
As much as I like Boeing mach 5 is a huge ask. The SR71 at mach 3 was incredibly difficult to make work and expensive to fly. Surface friction meant they were scared they were going to cook the pilot. The pilot wore a space suit like an astronaut. Making a cabin that will allow normal clothing will be very hard. If Boeing could make even mach 3 in a commercial air liner that would be a huge achievement. I'd like to hear more in depth information about Boeings progress.
I'm never the type to pour cold water on innovation but how safe does that concept scram jet passenger plane look? It's not whether we can achieve those speeds, it's whether we can do so with the safety of today's conventional jet planes.
You would honestly say that the Saturn V was as safe as a normal commercial flight? REALLY? I think the guys that hitched a ride on it would disagree.
I don't care if it safe, I what a go. ;-) It is a great idea, safely comes later, it is the striving for the next step that's important, don't you think.
Well I don't think we'll be using today's conventional airplanes when this technology is commercially available.
Chasen Kukuda "Boeing only makes technology that kills people, it's as simple as that" You must have been hired by Airbus to say that since statistics show that Boeing airliners are very safe!
How would that feel comfortable? It sounds very uncomfortable but very cool
No Matter The risk i would want to be a test pilot
Great wonderful..So while the 98% are NOT enjoying the pursuit of life liberty and happiness because of the 2% We struggle to pay for even the most minor luxury's of life like food, housing , heating, it's so deeply moving & reassuring to know we can all greatly rely on Boeing to get us there faster . Well done ....
Wow you sound like a Nichelback song. A few things wrong with this rant:
1. 98% of Americans are not without the minor luxury's that you mention
2. If your talking about a world population, there is no world constitution or founding document guaranteeing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
3. The Declaration of Independence which that phrase (life, lib, happ, ect) comes from is not a legal document, it's a declaration of principles. The principle being declared is not guaranteeing that everyone will have life, liberty, and happiness, just that governments should not stop you from your pursuit of those things, and punish individuals that try to interfere with your pursuit.
4. Since life, liberty, and happiness are objectives that require resources in a world where resources are finite, and the resources and conditions necesary to make you happy must be unknowable to to others by virtue of their nature, and because each individual is presumably carrying out their own search, the only entity theoretically capable of distributing those resources to match that supposed guarantee (in your mind) is government, a government that can't know what makes you happy, and a government that would necessarily have to take those resources from someone else to satisfy your theoretically happiness, thus depriving others of theirs, the entire concept is on doable, poorly thought out, and never intended to mean what you wish that it would.
That is not to say there are not power structures in place designed to help some individuals at the expense of others, like the Federal Reserve, lobbying interests, or severe allocations of resources at all levels of government....but the idea that companies pushing the limits of technology need to be broken to give you your happiness is ridiculous.
Do you even fathom that those 2% pay approximately 60% of all tax burden in the USA? Quit complaining about those that pay for the welfare and food stamps and go make something of your life.
That is beautiful
We call it SED-WR, single engine demonstrator. It is a proof of concept.
When are we gonna see some results cause BOEING has been R/D'ing for like 25 years!
I wish I wasn`t 70. I won`t b around to see the fantastic future of aviation.
Human ingenuity gone bonkers.
Such a simple concept, i imagine the supersonic fluid dynamics are a lot more complicated to implement however.........
flight at mach speeds like that causes a whole other list of safety issues. The friction from the air moving across the airframe at that speed alone causes massive amounts of heat. But I would so still strap into that thing and push the little red button.
Just don't give out too many details, Airbus might slap their name on it and call it theirs
is warp speed possible? How fast really is it going?
This project is really so the military can have missiles/UAVs/planes that go extremely fast sooner rather than later. Although, this machine in particular is just a technology demonstrator and test-bed. Technically, this could have civilian uses, but how often do you see supersonic private or commercial planes? The most likely civilian use is to help launch objects into space.
Hope a lot of tests will be conducted before it flies.
+pauljackowacko552 Well of course there will be. Why wouldn't they???
Mike Hawk There are ongoing issues of military aircraft being released......So I would prefer a lot of test measures more than usual on this type of aircraft is what I am saying.
how do you expect to turn this?
Breaking the sound barrier is easy, Concorde achieved this ages ago, and almost any modern day fighter jet can. What we're talking about is something faster than that.
I love this new technology that have come into play this is great what is the world coming to
Speed of sound, at sea level, at what temp,density, humidity?
ISA: +15ºC, 1013.2HPa and 50% humidity.
3,600 miles an hour. Amazing where technology has gotten us.
the warheads will have to be either super small and compact or very light and aero dynamic
The 1990s called they want their CGI back
Space Dandy!!!
Why is there audio only?
this is AWESSSSOME!!!!
Couldn't we put this as a under carriage to a much larger aircraft for refueling and minimizing the travel length from one thing to another? What if a space craft starts with full fuel from close to out of atmosphere by air/air refueling and then using gravity to the IS?
okay? wenn it fly and how fast?
I can completely understand how this directly relates to space access because of my Kerbal Space Program experience. Something like that could easily go sub orbital or even make orbit!
well mach 4 is a long way from orbital speeds
and kerbal space program rocks hehe
It's at least enough to go sub-orbital.
+Bowen Ault (Generalstarwars333) hbhu
hbhu?
The "parts" coming off is the booster stage. A scram jet engine will not work at sub sonic speeds. You use an airplane to get it high enough that a relatively small rocket booster will accelerate it past the "sound barrier" and up to about Mach 3where the scram jet can take over.
Amazing, I shared.
The Concorde Supersonic was the first supersonic commercial jetliner was the first type of commercial jet that broke the sound barrier. Surprisingly it was banned. For having radar troubles.
Yeah, the way it detaches from the Boeing B-52 Bomber and fires its rocket. An actual plane that works like that does exist. It's called a Bell X-15, and it is faster than a Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird. If you are gonna fly one, I recommend you bring a clean pair of underpants.
This technology is for delivering nuclear weapons. Not passenger planes.
I was thinking the same thing. Before (if ever) this technology comes to passenger planes, it'll spend a few decades as a way of killing lots and lots of people without having to look at them. So, yea, missiles or drones.
The rockets we use now to send nuclear weapons can already travel in space and are mush faster than the x51A would travel. So why put nuclear weapons on the x51a? LMFAO. You're just another conspiracy weirdo sitting there with your tin foil hat on.
If this tech was for such a purpose, why in the hell would they even bother to announce it to the general public?
Russia, China and the US are all working on this technology for delivery purposes. Boeing is public friendly company.
I think Boeing is overall a good company. They provide thousands of good jobs for skilled workers. Their planes are of good quality. Their black programs are kind of lame. Companies are based around making money. They are not their to feed the poor. However the wealth they produce will make it possible to take care of the poor. The communist have failed at all. Well except spin. They are kings of spin.
Vogel is right. The x51 wave rider should be built in concomitance with a combustion jet output of 3.5 Mach in synergy of reliable overlap scram jet.
Man, McDonnell Douglas had this going in the 1960s and where sure that they could build the single stage to orbit NASP. But it got canceled in favour of less advanced and capable technologies.
Such is the story of all advanced technology, too advanced for it's time, held back by disbelief and skepticism, even when it can be demonstrated. It's like the powers that were, decided these people were into parlor tricks... Oh it's neat, now go build us something useful.
+OpinionAt TheReady or just money, The more advanced something is the more expensive it is.
Never in history have people been so pathetically non intellectual.
Look at the comments.
Who would possibly thumbs down this?
People who know this is Gatekeeping propaganda, to make you think this is some kind of cutting-edge tech, when in fact it's years old, and "rocket-fuel"-based aeronautics is bunk.
Sometimes you can read comments and see why our founding fathers never sought to hear the voice of the people for the majority of the electoral process.
Matthew Wetta Didn't they discover that the concord was damaging the ozone ?
Unfortunately, these techniques are applied against humans. Americans again kill civilians.
***** Did anyone else have an issue with your "Wikipedia" reference? Believe it or not Wikipedia does not know all things. Jane's defense does not know all things in development either, they know most things globally when it comes to hardware, but not all.
As with most technologies that have to do with speed, new fuels or power source at first the danger is higher but as you learn how to do implement these technologies you also learn how to make them safer.. So over time they will become safer........ simple logic.
doint listen to those pinheads this is a revolutionary discovery
it's the future guys :)
who does the music soundtrack to this video?
Propulsion technology ain't going much further while still operating on oil and combustion. Its almost as refined as its going to get. Need lightweight fusion power.
Of course it's possible. How can you even think that this is not possible? :)
This is the perfect weapon. :)))
What some people may not relize in this comment section is that Boeing is trying to make this available to the public. This could be used for more than military uses. Yes, NASA has used this technology before. Yes, they can be used as speed strike weapons. No, that is not the only things it has potential to do. Like he said in the video,"this helps promote transportation in new ways". You may not realize it, but maybe Boeing is trying to find a way to make this technology, or service, relatively inexpensive. Hold your tongues, you may make all your conspiracies, but there may be more to this...
Wait a minute, you sound way too rational, what are you doing in here....lol
Awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The SR-71 used a Pratt & Whitney J58 turbojet. Two of them technically. It was not even close to being a scramjet. The scramjet takes air in at freeflow speed. The SR-71 had multiple devices to slow the air going into the engines down so that it never entered the engine above mach 0.4.
Not to mention the fact that the SR-71 obviously used turbine engines, and the scramjet has virtually no moving parts.
One Mile A Second. Yes. One Mile A Second.
FUSION Get on it boeing :D
Why does it start upside down then roll over after igniting? hahaha
It's like, "Hold on folks, if you're done vomiting, we are about to accelerate."
Maybe I'm behind, but is the sonic boom still a problem, and have we combined matter with antimatter to observe a result? I was at a C. store about 4AM on a major US interstate, and something flew by so fast the doors to the store blew 1/2 open from the pressure dynamics. Sounded cool, too, for no sonic boom occurred, I don't know if it was traveling that fast, though.
Bravo Boeing! ....Bravo!
Anyone who says flights 1-3 were failures are only partially correct.
The failure data collected is invaluable, if you ask me.
Without such "failures" experienced in flights 1-3, massive amounts of super value information would be missing still.
Should be routine and affordable..cant wait!!! Heeee heeeee
Bring that on now already. NOW!
please release it already
I want one..
You want to find a challenge try to figure out how to get it (the plane) stop.
Weirdly enough I actually got an idea like this when i was younger.
don le what i cant see anything
this video pops up so much.
If the acceleration isn't very high then you can go as fast as you want. Eg. 0 - 1000mph in 2 seconds vs. 120
I like to hear you can't do it. I don't believe in impossible. Hats off to that. # challenge
Anyone else thinking star trek?
No? Only me? okay fine I'm a total nerd 😂😂😂
Helm, Warp one, engage!
this thing would be so expensive to run i doubt it will ever be used for anything but milliary aps
For the first time we actually have to possibility to looses a commercial airliner into your space. With that being said I would be willing to volunteer for the first flight
We already have light year jump ships. US Navy Space command and. DARPA Project Pegasus Time Travel program