Slashdot Log In
NASA Tests Hypersonic Blackswift
Posted by
timothy
on Fri Jun 27, 2008 02:40 AM
from the for-a-romantic-honeymoon-cruise dept.
from the for-a-romantic-honeymoon-cruise dept.
dijkstra writes "Blackswift was previously rumored to be a super secret hypersonic scramjet-based aircraft co-named HTV-3X, essentially a 21st century version of the SR-71. Today NASA has unveiled the real Blackswift (video link), which uses pulse detonation engines (PDEs). A PDE is essentially a modern version of the old V-1 buzz bomb engine. This engine requires significantly fewer moving parts and achieves much higher efficiency than a turbofan, and is technically able to go hypersonic without any kind of 'dual-stage' engine."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
I feel dirty (Score:5, Informative)
Please warn us when linking to Fox News. Jesus those people are dumb.
Re:I feel dirty (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I feel dirty (Score:5, Insightful)
Please warn us when linking to Fox News. Jesus those people are dumb.
It's not that THEY'RE dumb (which they are so very dumb) but rather they feel the need to dumb down everything for their audience.
I want to punch that Fox man in the face. And I feel so bad for Ken Christiansen (sp?). It seemed apparent he was not prepared to deal with such a moron.
Parent
Re:I feel dirty (Score:5, Funny)
NO, I don't want to punch him in the face. I want to watch it again and again. My favorite part is:
"How does a human beein stand that at six times the speed of sound?"
I believe the right answer to that question would've been: "Well it is bearable but you need to speak veeeery slooooowly or people sitting next to you can not understand what you say."
Parent
Re:I feel dirty (Score:5, Funny)
My favorite part was "Check that out! You see that go off the runway? It was gone."
Yes, what an amazing new technology that allows planes to get off the runway. Computer animated planes, no less!
Parent
Re:I feel dirty (Score:5, Insightful)
The alarming thing is not that Fox News readers do not reflect upon the standard of intelligence at Fox News Studios, rather, it reflects upon the intelligence of the American Public in general. After all, this is a free market, and Fox News is only delivering the quality that people are demanding in that free market.
*That* is what frightens me.
Parent
Re:I feel dirty (Score:5, Funny)
No, they're dumb. Fox News was unable to find people who could act dumb, so now they just hire people who really, (really, really) are dumb.
From my extensive corporate background, I can tell you that if somebody that has been hired acts dumb, he's usually dumber than he seems; all a matter of cost efficiency, a smart guy acting dumb would cost between twice and three times as much, and you'd risk him saying clever things once in a while anyway.
Parent
Re:I feel dirty (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact is that liberals have control of the networks - I saw poll that showed essentially all journalists at CNN, ABC, CBS etc vote for the Democrats.
You might want to rethink that assertion. The journalists certainly do not control the networks.
Parent
Re:I feel dirty (Score:5, Insightful)
http://news.google.com/news?q=blackswift [google.com]
I'm somewhat confused as to what has been "unveiled".
Everything I've read so far says that this plane is still in the "sketches and mock-ups" [wired.com] stage.
Though I guess someone found the time to do a slick render.
Maybe the PR push is an attempt to keep Congress from cutting their funding.
Parent
Re:I feel dirty (Score:5, Informative)
DARPA project overview of HTV-3X: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MhtLWB0dJ8 [youtube.com]
Register article on the hydrocarbon-burning scramject (DCR): http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/11/darpa_hypersonic_blackswift_details_released/ [theregister.co.uk] and how Congress cut its funding in June [theregister.co.uk]
NASA test of X-43A (operation in Mach 6 regime): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFHbjpc_dJ4 [youtube.com]
IMHO it's real, it's being tested at NASA, and it's probably going to burn through $1 billion before the end of 2009... unfortunately...
Parent
Don't use science talk (Score:5, Funny)
I'd prefer to stay stupid. Thanks.
Here's the science free explanation! (Score:5, Funny)
this is AWESOME (Score:5, Funny)
The AIR FORCE is conStructing this HYPER sonic jet exploder thingy, with the help of JESUS, in order to fly at 10 times the speed of sound over countries where POOR people who HATE us live, in order to deliver with very high efficiency SWEETS and other confections which they need to live. They'll drop right out of the bom...CANDY bar bay. The Pentagon calls this the SNICKER candy bomb. At least they were snickering when they told the story to Fox News. Praise the lord
"Why yes, I HAVE been watching Fox news lately. How can you tell?"
Could this be the Aurora (Score:5, Interesting)
Could this be the Aurora, the "triangular shaped" airplane with the "donuts on a rope" contrail that various people have reported seeing over the years? (I saw something on discovery channel about it)
Not even in the same class as the SR-71 (Score:5, Informative)
now, don't get me wrong. this is a cool bird. but I wouldn't say it was cooler than the SR-71.
I've found a few better articles and videos, here [wired.com], here [youtube.com] , here [youtube.com] & here [youtube.com].
It's probably designed to be the replacement for the "blackstar [aviationweek.com]" program, which doesn't exist, but is hands-down the very coolest thing out there, the only thing cooler would be a functioning Orion [wikipedia.org] spacecraft.
But this looks like it might have the capability of taking the place of the blackstar "mothership [astronautix.com]", although I bet with less performance & payload; as this isn't designed to be a Mach 3+ cruise nuclear bomber [vectorsite.net], that's understandable. but those cold-war birds have got to be tired by now, and looking forward to retirement. i think one would look great in my driveway as a static display.
I do wonder what they are going to use to replace the orbital component, which was probably based on the X-20 [wikipedia.org]. Maybe a NASP [wikipedia.org]? The X-43 [wikipedia.org]?
Build your own jet (Score:5, Interesting)
Pulse jets are surprisingly easy to build, and I'm going to flagrantly link to my own build log of my engine being built with videos of it running/imploding here. [frenchgeek.com]
Videos are all here. [frenchgeek.com]
Cheers.
Air Force Research Laboratory's Propulsion (Score:5, Informative)
Air Force Research Laboratory's Propulsion Directorate
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/afrl/rz/ [af.mil]
I thought I'd post a useful link rather than bashing some corporate spew machine.
Re:Fox news giving away state secrets? (Score:5, Informative)
It's no secret, nor is it new...
http://www.darpa.mil/tto/programs/Falcon.htm [darpa.mil]
August 2007
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/08/blackswift-retu.html [wired.com]
March 2008
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/11/darpa_hypersonic_blackswift_details_released/ [theregister.co.uk]
It's also been on the Military Channel, and Discovery...
Parent
Re:Air Force != NASA (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Awful (Score:5, Informative)
What a fucking jackass. How can someone that stupid be put out there as a news-person? On national television?
I'm guessing you don't watch morning TV?
It's okay, I can't stand it either.
Fox's "America's Newsroom" shares a timeslot with shows like Good Morning America (ABC), Today (NBC), and The Early Show (CBS).
They're very info-lite because the demographic is mostly women age 25-54
(loaded towards the 54 yr old end)
IMO, morning and daytime television is a wasteland.
Fark is both more entertaining and more informative than TV.
Parent
Re:Awful (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Awful (Score:5, Insightful)
They are part of and help feed the "scientists don't know everything," "They're elitists," "I didn't come from no damn monkey," and "God wouldn't let the earth get too hot" crowd.
They are and speak to those who are afraid of knowledge, especially if it contradicts their own assumptions, thus wounding their little egos.
These are the "don't look it up in a book, look it up in your gut" people that Colbert satirizes.
Parent
Re:Awful (Score:5, Funny)
Mach? What does that mean?
It refers to Gillete MACH 3 Shaving System to shave your #@$$%
Parent
Re:fewer uses of less (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe the parts really are moving less. Or we are less moved by them.
Parent
Let's put it like this (Score:5, Informative)
The difference is that they're very very different kinds of engines really. Sorta like the difference between a turbofan and a piston engine in an aircraft. Both suck in fuel and use a propeller to push the air towards the back, but they're very different engines anyway.
A scramjet is, sorta, an afterburner without the turbojet in front of it. Think just a de Laval nozzle, sorta, where the airplane's own speed shoves the air from the front, and you inject the fuel and light it in the back. It can only operate at hypersonic speeds, because it does need the air coming in really hard and fast, and it burns fuel continuously. There is no need for pulses or detonations.
A pulsejet, well, think a pipe with a valve in front. Sorta like this, with "front" being downwards:
The T is the valve.
Air comes in, you inject the fuel, and ignite it. The pressure closes the valve, so the only way the burnt gasses can go is backwards, pushing your aircraft forward. Then the pressure equalises, the valve opens again, and the cycle starts all over again.
This one can _only_ operate in pulses. On the up side, it can operate at subsonic speeds too. It's also a very simple and robust engine. The V1's pulsejet could be riddled with holes and still generate most of the thrust. The RAF found it easier to just tip it over, with the tip of the fighter's wing pushing the V1's wing upwards, than shoot them.
Downside, also generates massive vibrations. The buzz of the V1s could be heard from the ground. It's a bit like flying a jackhammer. Which is one reason it never got too popular for manned aircraft, or aircraft which were supposed to fly more than once.
Well, that's the simple explanation anyway. There are more modern designs which, for example, do away with the valve and essentially just choke the flow via a nozzle to achieve the same effect. But that's the general gist of it.
Parent