Aurora becomes first Kiwi-made aircraft to go supersonic

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Aurora becomes first Kiwi-made aircraft to go supersonic

johno1234

2801 posts

Uber Geek

#317824 19-Nov-2024 08:26

Aurora becomes first Kiwi-made aircraft to go supersonic

I think this story is amazing and am surprised it hasn't garnered more attention. Quite good onboard video and beautiful landing at the end.

82,000' looks like being in space.

pdh

341 posts

Ultimate Geek

#3310559 19-Nov-2024 09:48

Great tech and a great kiwi involvement.

I wish the 'tech writers' in mainstream media could/would fact-check a bit though...

It's far from 'the highest climb-rate vehicle ever built' (20 km in 119 seconds) - hey, the slightly larger starship gets there sub 90, as have 400 Falcon launches (since 2010). And those are just the re-usable ones ! Aurora has great performance - why spoil it with false claims ?

Also a bit of a stretch labelling it just an 'aircraft'; when that term historically carries a pilot.

eracode

Smpl Mnmlst
8853 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#3310570 19-Nov-2024 10:50

pdh:

Great tech and a great kiwi involvement.

I wish the 'tech writers' in mainstream media could/would fact-check a bit though...

It's far from 'the highest climb-rate vehicle ever built' (20 km in 119 seconds) - hey, the slightly larger starship gets there sub 90, as have 400 Falcon launches (since 2010). And those are just the re-usable ones ! Aurora has great performance - why spoil it with false claims ?

Also a bit of a stretch labelling it just an 'aircraft'; when that term historically carries a pilot.

Yes - great achievement but it's a model aircraft.

Sometimes I just sit and think. Other times I just sit.

Dingbatt

6756 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3310573 19-Nov-2024 11:05

Reminds me a bit of the line from Monty Python and The Holy Grail

”Behold Camelot”

”It’s only a model”.

Quite an achievement, but until it carries a human it’s not an aeroplane (imo). At best a supersonic drone at the moment.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

eracode

Smpl Mnmlst
8853 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#3310582 19-Nov-2024 12:08

I don't think it's planned to ever carry a human(s). They're talking about satellite deployment and their website shows payload specs. The CEO says: "... we are now achieving this [hypersonic flight] and will start commercial payload operations in the coming months...".

It's not clear whether they are going to use Aurora II for that - it sort of doesn't look suitable - but maybe. The website does not mention any other vehicle.*

I wish them all the best but I can't help thinking about the Seagliders story that arose a couple of years ago and was discussed in this thread. They too had a model and it's unclear whether it ever got beyond that.

*Edit: Correction - the website does refer to "Dawn Mk-III; an orbital satellite launch vehicle". This is described as a "... full-scale Mk-III vehicle, capable of deploying an expendable second stage which delivers a 250 kg satellite to orbit." Can't see any other info or details on design, timing and so on.

The 'coming months' will be interesting.

Sometimes I just sit and think. Other times I just sit.

ezbee

2405 posts

Uber Geek

#3310596 19-Nov-2024 12:56

If you are talking about low cost small payload launches, space teddy got to about 93,000 ft by looks of it.

https://space-teddy.com/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lzCP0CQmYU&t

johno1234

2801 posts

Uber Geek

#3310612 19-Nov-2024 13:52

pdh:

Great tech and a great kiwi involvement.

I wish the 'tech writers' in mainstream media could/would fact-check a bit though...

It's far from 'the highest climb-rate vehicle ever built' (20 km in 119 seconds) - hey, the slightly larger starship gets there sub 90, as have 400 Falcon launches (since 2010). And those are just the re-usable ones ! Aurora has great performance - why spoil it with false claims ?

Also a bit of a stretch labelling it just an 'aircraft'; when that term historically carries a pilot.

The distinction is that it is indeed an aircraft as opposed to a ballistic rocket. "Aircraft" meaning it can take off, fly and land via its own thrust and aerodynamic lift. I don't think it is relevant whether it has a pilot onboard or not. So it is different to a rocket or something like the space shuttle that can't take off and fly by itself.

TwoSeven

1623 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#3310625 19-Nov-2024 14:12

eracode:

pdh:

Great tech and a great kiwi involvement.

I wish the 'tech writers' in mainstream media could/would fact-check a bit though...

It's far from 'the highest climb-rate vehicle ever built' (20 km in 119 seconds) - hey, the slightly larger starship gets there sub 90, as have 400 Falcon launches (since 2010). And those are just the re-usable ones ! Aurora has great performance - why spoil it with false claims ?

Also a bit of a stretch labelling it just an 'aircraft'; when that term historically carries a pilot.

Yes - great achievement but it's a model aircraft.

I would have called it a rocket, however, I understand that it's called a 'space plane'.

I think at 24km altitude, the speed of sound is a little over 1000km/h.

It looks pretty interesting from a design perspective.

Software Engineer
(the practice of real science, engineering and management)
A.I. (Automation rebranded)
Gender Neutral
(a person who believes in equality and who does not believe in/use stereotypes. Examples such as gender, binary, nonbinary, male/female etc.)

...they/their/them...

GoodSync

GoodSync. Easily back up and sync your files with GoodSync. Simple and secure file backup and synchronisation software will ensure that your files are never lost (affiliate link).

pdh

341 posts

Ultimate Geek

#3310671 19-Nov-2024 15:45

Exercising the pedantic gene...

Rockets carry their own oxidiser, jets use atmospheric oxygen.
Angle of take-off (horizontal or vertical) doesn't seem decisive for an air vehicle.
Harrier-type aircraft, helicopters & many drones do vertical, airships did neither...

As we move toward robot trucks and cars (some say we're already there), pilot-less passenger-carrying aircraft (eg: Boeing / Airbus) are probably only a decade or two away. I'd guess they're technically easier than urban motorway traffic and I'm surprised carrier landings aren't already automated. As the highest bar of piloting, perhaps they're retained to weed out the idiots.

So yes, I'm probably old-fashioned wanting 'aircraft' to require a pilot.

AFAIK, speed of sound reduces as the atmosphere thins/cools.
At a hot sea level it's 1280 kph, at 10 km up it's dropped to 1060 odd.
Above that it gets very non-linear - for waaay more than you ever wanted to know, see the graph here:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/192996/at-what-altitude-would-the-air-be-too-thin-to-carry-a-sound-wave

Short answer is that above 100 km, you won't notice sound speeding ;-)

Handle9

11388 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3310799 20-Nov-2024 04:36

eracode:

I don't think it's planned to ever carry a human(s). They're talking about satellite deployment and their website shows payload specs. The CEO says: "... we are now achieving this [hypersonic flight] and will start commercial payload operations in the coming months...".

Correct, it's a launch vehicle not an aircraft. The University of Canterbury have been heavily involved in the company from day one and they employ a fair few of their grads (a family member did his masters through them and is still there.)

johno1234

2801 posts

Uber Geek

#3310800 20-Nov-2024 06:21

Look it up. The definition of aircraft is a device capable of flight in air. I.e. by aerodynamic lift.
The purpose is irrelevant. Whether it has a person onboard is irrelevant.
This thing is an aircraft by commonly accepted definition. It is not a rocket and a rocket is not an aircraft. A toy RC drone is an aircraft.

Handle9

11388 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3310802 20-Nov-2024 06:36

johno1234: Look it up. The definition of aircraft is a device capable of flight in air. I.e. by aerodynamic lift.
The purpose is irrelevant. Whether it has a person onboard is irrelevant.
This thing is an aircraft by commonly accepted definition. It is not a rocket and a rocket is not an aircraft. A toy RC drone is an aircraft.

Very good. I hope you feel better now.

johno1234

2801 posts

Uber Geek

#3310806 20-Nov-2024 07:12

Not sure why the snark was called for?

TwoSeven

1623 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#3310817 20-Nov-2024 09:12

As I mentioned, I would have called it a rocket, because it is powered by a rocket motor - its form factor is not really relevant from a powertrain perspective. From a form-factor perspective and the idea being to launch things into space - the classification I would use would be space plane.

...they/their/them...

Stu

Hammered
8336 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3310820 20-Nov-2024 09:31

It's a rocket plane flying thing that goes faster than a Delorean in a thunderstorm. Whatever. Does it really matter?

People often mistake me for an adult because of my age.

Keep calm, and carry on posting.

Referral Links: Sharesies - Backblaze -

Are you happy with what you get from Geekzone? If so, please consider supporting us by subscribing.

No matter where you go, there you are.

eracode

Smpl Mnmlst
8853 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#3311698 22-Nov-2024 08:02

TwoSeven:

eracode:

Yes - great achievement but it's a model aircraft.

I would have called it a rocket, however, I understand that it's called a 'space plane'.

There has been a lot of debate here as to whether it's an aircraft, a rocket, space plane, whatever.

That doesn't really concern me - the main point of my comment was that it's just a model.

Sometimes I just sit and think. Other times I just sit.