How Fast Is Mach 10, And Can A Human Survive The Speed?

[rangerrebew]

 
How Fast Is Mach 10, And Can A Human Survive The Speed?
Story by Tom Clark • 1w

Humankind was once determined to break the sound barrier, as it was considered the ultimate achievement in speed. But our technology didn't stop there, as we've built experimental vehicles that can reach incredible speeds measured in terms of Mach, a unit that compares an object's speed to the speed of sound. As we push the boundaries of speed, we must understand what it means while also acknowledging what the human body can endure.
 
For an aircraft to hit Mach 10, it would need to travel about 7,600 miles per hour. This is 10 times the speed of sound, which is around 761 miles per hour and far exceeds any manned aircraft. But even if we do create a vehicle that hits Mach 10, a human probably wouldn't be able to survive the ride, as that speed would obliterate the pilot's body. Proper safety equipment would need to be developed and if that happens, then such a trip could perhaps become a reality.

If surviving Mach 10 while in an aircraft was somehow currently possible, ejecting at that speed definitely wouldn't be. So if something went wrong, there would be no way to escape. No matter how you look at it, Mach 10 is just not a survivable speed for humans, at least for now.
 

Manned And Unmanned Mach Speed Records Remain Unbeaten

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/how-fast-is-mach-10-and-can-a-human-survive-the-speed/ar-AA1EfUaX?ocid=widgetonlockscreen&cvid=65088bd589b94b08ab21204f80008eb5&ei=57

[Free Vulcan]

Uh, haven't we already launched people into space at must faster speeds?

[andy58-in-nh]

Uh, haven't we already launched people into space at must faster speeds?

In zero gravity and zero atmosphere: yes. Astronauts have traveled at speeds of around 25,000 miles per hour.

In atmospheric conditions, the human body has to endure both gravitational effects and depending upon altitude, wind resistance.

[MeganC]

Uh, haven't we already launched people into space at must faster speeds?

Yes, we have. The author of this article missed that fact. 

[MeganC]

In zero gravity and zero atmosphere: yes. Astronauts have traveled at speeds of around 25,000 miles per hour.

In atmospheric conditions, the human body has to endure both gravitational effects and depending upon altitude, wind resistance.

Nonsense. This same claptrap was used by so-called scientists over and over in history. They said that the human body could not withstand the awesome speed of 60mph when it looked like trains would surpass that velocity.

Then they came up with the dreaded Sound Barrier the speed beyond which no mere mortal could survive!

Cutting to the chase, it is very likely that the US already has an aircraft capable of hypersonic speeds in excess of Mach 10 at flight level 500 or higher.

[GtHawk]

Uh, haven't we already launched people into space at must faster speeds?

Manned rockets need to reach a speed of 17,800 miles per hour (28,690 km/h) to escape Earth's atmosphere and achieve low Earth orbit, or approximately 25,000 mph (40,000 km/h) to escape Earth's gravity altogether. This speed is known as escape velocity. In practice, rockets need to exceed these speeds due to atmospheric drag, according to NASA and Wikipedia.

I would imagine that to safely eject at mach 10 would require the entire cockpit to act as a ejection capsule. What I am curious about is the use of a mach 10 aircraft, I can’t imagine it would be maneuverable at that speed so what would be the advantage, to get to a distant site in moments and then slow to a manageable speed?

[andy58-in-nh]

Nonsense. This same claptrap was used by so-called scientists over and over in history. They said that the human body could not withstand the awesome speed of 60mph when it looked like trains would surpass that velocity.

Then they came up with the dreaded Sound Barrier the speed beyond which no mere mortal could survive!

Cutting to the chase, it is very likely that the US already has an aircraft capable of hypersonic speeds in excess of Mach 10 at flight level 500 or higher.

I did not say it was impossible. It is quite likely in fact, and the author of this piece greatly overstated and under-explained the issues involved.

That said, we're talking about an aircraft here, not a space capsule, which is designed to go basically up and down at determined angles so as to avoid excessive G-forces and heat upon re-entry.

Such an aircraft would need to operate at high altitude, although not so high up that one would no longer be able to maintain stable flight. It gets dicey around 104,000 feet, where the atmosphere is so thin (around 10 millibars) that maintaining aerodynamic pressure becomes impossible. Jet thrusters aren't strong enough to overcome the lack of atmosphere at such a point. Chuck Yeager famously encountered this situation while testing the NF-104, going into a flat spin and having to bail out, miraculously without serious injury.   

Flying hypersonically at lower atmosphere presents another problem: friction caused by the atmosphere. The SR-71 Blackbird did it many times, but did so using an aerodynamic design and also titanium leading edges on its wings, which often glowed red due to the incredible heat caused by the friction.   

These are of course technological problems, and they will likely be overcome at some point by advances in power sources and design specifications.  But for now, they are real.     

[The_Reader_David]

In think the author is confusing velocity and acceleration (and as such doesn't understand even Galilean relativity).  There is not difference to the human body (or any other physical system) between traveling at any constant speed relative and standing still with respect to some frame of reference (e.g. the earth).  The problems come from accelerating to the speed too rapidly or decelerating from it too rapidly (g-forces) or from interacting with something not moving along with you at the high speed (friction, collisions,...)