Technology
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
view the rest of the comments
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?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321943882_Hypersonic_I-shaped_aerodynamic_configurations/link/5a9933c5a6fdccecff0e4504/download
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.
Sure, and if it works I'm sure we'll get videos and announcements at some point.
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.)
Yeah, if they're reporting on the test from three years ago then it is basically similar tech to X15.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And nobody is actually doing this.