this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2024
33 points (85.1% liked)

Technology

35136 readers
53 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.

Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.

Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
33
China’s hypersonic jet shatters Mach 6.5 speed in Gobi desert test (interestingengineering.com)
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
42 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I am willing to believe that this may have actually been developed...

But a better source sure would be neat.

Interesting/Wonderful Engineering both claim this was posted on 'Social Media' by the Chinese Academy of Sciences... with no link.

South China Morning Post also claims a video posted by CAS on social media... with no link, no video.

The english version of the CAS website is updated every couple of days, but this isn't on it.

Granted, they could be taking their time doing a proper translation.

Does anybody know where to see this video?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I mean sure, thats a related research paper, but that isn't the same thing as an official press announcement or video saying 'Hey we actually built this thing, it works, take a look.'

I know that the CAS has specifically been researching/developing a hypersonic, passenger liner sized craft for around a decade... and the US has been doing the same with the SR 72, both attempting to develop ... something like turbo ramjet that transitions to scramjet at high speeds/altitudes.

But a link to a research paper from 6 years ago is not actually a primary source to what your original link claims, but does not actually source.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Sure, and if it works I'm sure we'll get videos and announcements at some point.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Ok so 24+ hours later and I now see a few different websites I've never heard of before that basically have the same article as this:

https://scienceinfo.net/chinese-hypersonic-aircraft-prototype-reaches-mach-6-speed.html

Still no actual link to the apparently original source somewhere on some social media site.

Now whats being said is that this was a flight test that actually occured 3 years ago, and was classified until now.

And they do provide an image, and credit it to CAS (without an actual link, I still can't find this on CAS' english site, but again maybe they are still writing a proper English post?)

This is a test article, that doesn't appear to have any intakes for scramjet. I think I can make out two small rocket bells inside the thing, but the image quality is very low.

It's just a test article, launched by a rocket, that Inwould guesstimate to have a wingspan of about... 4 meters, ish?

This new article also mentions that Cui, the team lead, did not mention anything about the current status of the hypersonic passenger jet which this was a test article for.

So... this test article got up to mach 6.5, 3 years ago.

Absolutely nothing about whether or not a successful test flight of a passenger jet sized craft achieved hypersonic speeds with an air breathing turbo ramjet / scram jet or something like that.

Completely different than the originally report.

... This is why I wanted an actual source.

If this very poorly sourced article from this random, clickbait style website is more accurate than the OP article (another poorly sourced article from another clickbait style website) is more accurate, that would mean SCMP, and everyone in this thread saying China has built an air breathing hypersonic jet liner is wrong, and everyone saying that this is basically comparable to the X15 is correct.

(Differences being the X15 was carried up to 45 thousand feet by a B52 instead of a rocket, and the X15 was manned, and this test article is presumably unmanned.)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah, if they're reporting on the test from three years ago then it is basically similar tech to X15.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So... then... you agree that this entire Interesting Engineering article you posted is wrong?

Are you going to apologize to Sarah Brown for calling her a 'sad racist' when she expressed doubt as to the veracity of the dubious article you posted?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That's assuming that the random article you found is correct, the veracity of which I can't verify any more than the interesting engineering article, and assuming they're talking about the same test. Sarah Brown didn't substantiate the doubts in any meaningful way, so no I'm not going to apologize for my assumption on what those doubts are based on.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

So, you just assumed a unsourced, unverified story is true because you have a bias in favor of China, and put the burden of proof onto the other person to disprove it, and are completely fine with calling the other person a 'sad racist', despite now admitting that the veracity of the claim they are skeptical of is in fact not well established.

This is the argument/personality style of a fanatic, a religious fundamentalist, a QAnon adherent, an Elon Musk simp.

This is how we got 'the Trump assasination attempt was staged!'

Please stop posting trash tier misinformation as 'technology news', please stop jumping to 'everyone who disagrees with me is rascist', this level of unjustified vitriol only makes you appear manic.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So, to sum up, you found a completely unsourced article, and on that basis you're attacking the article I posted. The fact that you don't see the irony in that is really a cherry on top. However, you, unlike Sarah Brown, at least went to the trouble to attempt to substantiate your position.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Neither of the two articles are well sourced.

But you acted like yours was credible, until I presented another one, whereupon you admitted they are both equally valid.

That's assuming that the random article you found is correct, the veracity of which I can't verify any more than the interesting engineering article...

That is to say, you cannot verify either of these articles at all, ie, they are both of dubious legitimacy.

You accused someone of being racist based of an article you admit you cannot verify, posted a bunch of related research papers that indicate, sure, they're trying to develop the thing your article claimed they did... but doesn't indicate that they actually developed it.

...

I can link you a patent for a triangular shaped aircraft, listed as filed by a US Navy Scientist that claims to outline how to create an electromagnetic, gravity negating field around the craft.

That would not be evidence that the US Navy officially announced that they basically built a UFO, that it works, and there's a video of it, all officially documented and released.

But to you, it would be, if China had done all those things.

...

I am not saying China certainly has or has not developed a hypersonic passenger liner.

I am saying your source for this claim is dubious.

I am saying that you believe(d?) it credulously, without any skepticism, got very hostile with people who doubted its claim less tactfully than I did, and now you admit you got hostile based on a claim that you now admit is dubious, and shifted the burden of proof from the article making the claim to the skeptic questioning it.

Again, this is the logic of a fanatic.

If we just pick which dubiously sourced claims we believe based on vibes, truth stops existing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

But you acted like yours was credible, until I presented another one, whereupon you admitted they are both equally valid.

Every article I've seen aside from the one you found says the same thing. These articles come from fairly mainstream sources, so if somebody is arguing that this is impossible then they can at least provide some evidence for the claim.

You went through the effort of finding something that makes different claims, but it's in no way authoritative. I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt saying that it's plausible.

You accused someone of being racist based of an article you admit you cannot verify, posted a bunch of related research papers that indicate, sure, they’re trying to develop the thing your article claimed they did… but doesn’t indicate that they actually developed it.

I accused someone of being a racist based on their vacuous comment that dismissed the claim without substantiating their position in any way. My reaction would've been quite different had Sarah said something along the lines of I don't find the source convincing, here's another source claiming something different.

But to you, it would be, if China had done all those things.

No it wouldn't, but if a mainstream US publication came out and said that the US built an aircraft like that my first reaction wouldn't be to just dismiss it as impossible as Sarah did.

I am saying that you believe(d?) it credulously, without any skepticism, got very hostile with people who doubted its claim less tactfully than I did, and now you admit you got hostile based on a claim that you now admit is dubious, and shifted the burden of proof from the article making the claim to the skeptic questioning it.

Again, I had a hostile reaction to the style of argument. The same way you're having a hostile reaction to my style of argument.

Again, this is the logic of a fanatic.

Certainly would be, but that's not my actual position. My whole point from the start is that it is plausible that China may have developed what they say they developed. You're seemingly intentionally misrepresenting what I actually said to make me sound like a deranged lunatic.

If we just pick which dubiously sourced claims we believe based on vibes, truth stops existing.

And nobody is actually doing this.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Uhh OK, they've matched something the X-15 was doing 65 years ago. What's the endgame here? Build a ludicrously inefficient passenger aircraft?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Seems like it. No mention of the fuel efficiency either, which leads me to assume it's significantly worse than existing flights.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It probably is, the whole reason supersonic passenger flight looked feasible for a bit was that turbine technology hadn't caught up so slower jets weren't that much less efficient than supersonic jets.

But fuel concerns aside, it's kinda silly to compare a billion dollar fighter jet built with 60s technology to a 747-sized aircraft built for passenger flight with modern technology. Just wildly different environments, purposes, and resources.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Based on the renderings (as there are no actual photos of this thing, other than the blurry-ass pic of what appears to be a rocket taking off vertically) it's nowhere near the size of a 747. It actually looks rather like an elongated SR-71, which makes me very skeptical that it can actually hit Mach 6.5 because ramjet engines have a hard limit due to something called "physics". That fact, plus the rocket-like takeoff, are why I think this is more like the X-15 and can't sustain its top speed for long.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

The rendering in interestingengineering article is a stock image. An older SCMP article gives a much weirder rendering which matches the whitepaper the lead researcher published on I-shaped hypersonic configurations.

So I have no idea what the blurry ass rocket pic is supposed to be, maybe it was a test vehicle for just the engine, maybe SCMP misattributed it, maybe the team dumped the whole "I-shaped configuration" thing.

Presumably any ram or scram-jet engine will require a rocket engine or other assist, assuming it's not a hybrid like the SR-71.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Nice, thanks for this extra background! My first thought was scramjet too, but it would be nice of them to mention how it takes off and lands.

The original rendering looks awesome, in a bonkers sci-fi kind of way.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

@yogthos Did it though?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It did

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

@yogthos And I'm the queen of England.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Just a sad racist.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

@yogthos No, just someone who can smell obvious bullshit. SCRAMjets basically don't work for any real world application, and can't. They inherently have utterly useless power to weight performance.

None of this shit works on anything that's not a scale model.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I guess we'll see won't we. Pretty much same thing was confidently said about lots of technology in modern use, like the high speed train network in China. Plenty of western geniuses derided it as not being cost effective.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

High speed rail can be cost effective. High speed planes however cannot.

The amount of air resistance at higher speeds is insane. Instead of relying on wing lift for efficiency the entire aircraft has to remove all wings and it literally becomes a missile.

Efficient planes have long wings to create lift and cruise at lower speeds. This is the opposite where all lift is generated from the fuel.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Given that China has high speed rail all across the country, I suspect that there's going to be little market for short flights. I would expect this sort of a plane would go all the way to the edge of space where it doesn't need to worry about air density.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That's going to cost a lot of fuel, maintenance and spare parts. Rebranding an ICBM as a passenger plane is not that big an invention.

The high spees rail is much more impressive as it can be used by the general population. Whereas these top speed planes will only be for the elites.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

It's not really an ICBM, it's likely a hypersonic glide vehicle. I imagine people building this stuff have thought of obvious things like cost of fuel and parts before trying to build it. Maybe it will work or maybe it won't, I think we'll learn something interesting one way or another.

I also don't think it'll just be for elites. All successful technology becomes cheaper over time, and it sounds like they're explicitly building a large capacity vehicle here. I imagine it's going to be a long haul vehicle that could go anywhere in the world in about an hour.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

@yogthos Oh, their rail network is impressive and I wish it was being copied elsewhere.

But this ... is not credible.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Well since you obviously must be an aeronautics engineering expert, perhaps you can explain what aspects of the paper aren't credible for a dumdum like me

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321943882_Hypersonic_I-shaped_aerodynamic_configurations/link/5a9933c5a6fdccecff0e4504/download

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Their high speed train network is impressive, but none of it was new technology when they built it. The first train sets they bought were Siemens Velaro D, a mature high speed train system that has been around in Europe for almost a decade prior.

It ISN'T cost effective, but in China that doesn't matter: what the state wants the state gets. No matter the cost. And I'm willing to bet that in 10 years time a lot of the stuff just doesn't work anymore, line speeds get reduced and stops cancelled due to infrastructure not being maintained.

We have seen chinese prestige projects fall into disrepair time and again, and their extensive transport network will see the same fate.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

China absolutely has done a lot of innovation in HSR tech. Building stuff is how we develop and improve technology. It's absolutely incredible that you think China hasn't innovated in this area.

It ISN’T cost effective, but in China that doesn’t matter: what the state wants the state gets. No matter the cost. And I’m willing to bet that in 10 years time a lot of the stuff just doesn’t work anymore, line speeds get reduced and stops cancelled due to infrastructure not being maintained.

That shows just how utterly clueless you are. The reason China wants to have the whole country connected by rail is because it stimulates the economy. It makes it easy to transport goods across the country, and for people to move around. To suggest that China would abandon its rail network is sheer idiocy.

We have seen chinese prestige projects fall into disrepair time and again, and their extensive transport network will see the same fate.

It's not a prestige project, it's critical infrastructure. You're gonna be doing a lot seething and coping in your future.