Yeah, no. Just no. Absolutely no. Faster than everything else.and higher than everything else and all of that by burning less energy? Come on people, stop falling for this kind of crap.
this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2024
54 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
1083 readers
50 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
This article is bullshit: they're reporting that a blueprint was made. No demonstration, no proof of it working.
Rotary detonation isn't a new concept and GE has demonstrated a rotary detonation scramjet for 0 - Mach 5.
If you really think that 0 to Mach 16 is within reach with current technology RDEs I have a bridge to sell you.
Darpa has all the money of God and they've been throwing billions at the exact problem of rotary detonation. Everybody knows that detonation is more fuel efficient than deflagration and that turbine engines are holding jet aircraft back from hypersonic flight.
When they make a Mach 16 demonstrator I'll believe them. Until then I'm still very excited for the demonstrated and actual capabilities of RDE Scramjets.
Fuck the CCP with a bucket of rusty nails.
You need to draw the line between a country's government and some of its brightest minds. This is a scientific breakthrough, and should be celebrated as such. Period.
No. Sorry, but if the government is horrific then any scientific advancements will be used in unethical ways. It’s unfortunate but true.
The CCP is brutally evil and that’s that.
The research has been published. Everybody in the world is free to replicate it. The CCP is no more or less capable of doing so, just because it happened on their turf.
It has been published, but a staggering number of scientific "papers" coming out of China are turning out to be complete fabrications.
Correct, so it should be independently reviewed and recreated to validate the claims. Crying wolf just because there were issues before wouldn't be fair.
The trick is that they're literally spamming papers at this point.
So you don’t base any of your decisions on past experiences?
Not when it comes to scientific research.
If the same person or someone acting under the same supervisor in the same faculty published some more amazing sounding research after previous ones had been debunked, I'd be sceptical.
But in a country with 1.4bn people and more than 3.000 universities? There's gotta be some bad eggs, but you can't discredit every single one due to the actions of a few.
I've met brilliant scientists in and from China.
Most of these inventions will be used by military first, in China as also in the USA, which isn't an atom better in this and other aspect. It's precisely the USA which use more investment in weapons and defense as any other country and not precisely for humanity reasons.
The US is committed to free speech, the CCP is not.
Are we? The current wave of book bans would say different.
It must be those two gay penguins’ fault
LOL
I trust no articles from SCMP.
That's a different story, but you can simply look up the research paper.
If that engine actually works, it would be cool to see it on a space plane. Mach 16 is nearly 2/3rds of orbital velocity. If you could go that fast on an air breathing engine, you wouldn't need to carry nearly as much oxygen to get into LEO.
I imagine that theoretical speed could only be used for drone planes.
load more comments
(3 replies)