Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

NASA Tests Hypersonic Blackswift

Posted by timothy on Friday June 27, @02:40AM
from the for-a-romantic-honeymoon-cruise dept.
Transportation NASA The Military Science Technology
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

Firehose:NASA tests hypersonic Blackswift by dijkstra (89758)
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

NASA Tests Hypersonic Blackswift 25 Comments More | Login | Reply /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.

  • I feel dirty (Score:5, Informative)

    by QuantumG (50515) * <qg@biodome.org> on Friday June 27, @02:46AM (#23963523) Homepage Journal

    Please warn us when linking to Fox News. Jesus those people are dumb.

  • Don't use science talk (Score:5, Funny)

    by jasontheking (124650) on Friday June 27, @02:50AM (#23963553)

    I'd prefer to stay stupid. Thanks.

  • Jesus built this hot rod.

  • 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)

    by jonwil (467024) on Friday June 27, @03:26AM (#23963809)

    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)

  • 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)

    by loic_2003 (707722) on Friday June 27, @04:16AM (#23964099) Homepage
    The V1 flying bomb used a pulse jet engine rather than a pulse detonation engine - the difference being that a PDE burns at a supersonic rate whereas a regular PJ wouldn't be able to get to those speeds.

    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 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:Air Force != NASA (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 27, @03:18AM (#23963743)
      Actually it's neither NASA, nor the Air Force developing this. It's a DARPA program and the Skunk Works is the primary contractor. The contract doesn't officially begin until September of this year. The footage shown in the video is also not real--artists conceptions at best. Furthermore, the vehicle doesn't employ pulsed detonation engines for hypersonic flight. The so-called NASA analyst in the video just saw a request for money in the 2009 budget, stole some artist conception used for market assist, and tried to put the pieces together--poorly I might add.

    • Re:Awful (Score:5, Informative)

      by TubeSteak (669689) on Friday June 27, @03:42AM (#23963915) Journal

      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.

    • Re:Awful (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jafafa Hots (580169) on Friday June 27, @04:05AM (#23964043) Journal
      That's just the thing. They ARE proud of their stupidity. They are of and cater to that segment of society that distrusts education, knowledge and science.

      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.

    • Let's put it like this (Score:5, Informative)

      by Moraelin (679338) on Friday June 27, @04:21AM (#23964115) Journal

      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:

      |.|
      |.|
      |.|
      |T|
      +.+

      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.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 SourceForge, Inc.