NASA to Attempt Mach 10 Flight Next Week 357
Dirak writes "NASA intends to break its own aircraft-speed record for the second time this year by flying X43a scramjet ten times faster than sound. On November 15 the X-43A supersonic-combustion ramjet - or scramjet - will again take to the skies aiming for Mach 10."
To Bad for the sonic Boom. (Score:5, Interesting)
Lets hope for success (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:To Bad for the sonic Boom. (Score:3, Interesting)
Or is the point of your post that the Government shouldn't fund research unless it's fruits can be made readily available to the public?
Still less than 0.0001 Warp Speed (Score:1, Interesting)
Final Flight (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,65671
NASA is "phasing out its hypersonic engine program to free up funding for President Bush's 'Vision for Space Exploration,' which calls on NASA to focus its energy on sending humans to the moon and Mars."
Therefore,
"As of now, next week's X-43A flight is the final flight in the $230 million program."
I can't help but wonder if these priorities are correct as I'm not quite sure what we intend to do after we reach the moon and Mars.
Re:What is the Speed of Sound? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Very Cool, But... (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure, they don't work outside the atmosphere, but what about a next-gen shuttle that develops most of its thrust during the scramjet phase, uses a small rocket motor to get that extra bit of velocity at the upper end, and still has enough room left over for some worthwhile payload?
I imagine that's the kind of thing NASA's interested in.
Space Ship Two, anyone?
Blackbird and the Swedish fighter Viggen (Score:5, Interesting)
The Swedish fighter jet, Viggen (which is built by SAAB) was the first fighter plane to ever get a "lock" on the blackbird.
The Swedish radar systems got it on radar. The Viggen flew to intercept it with after burners on the whole time.
It got a lock on it and then had to turn back because it was out of fuel. There was of course never any intention of firing a missile, but still.
The black bird crew sent a box of chocolate to the Swedish air base and said "Congratulations!".
At least, this is what I heard. Whether it really is true, I couldn't tell you for sure.
Re:Too Bad for the sonic Boom. (Score:3, Interesting)
First, we sill can not outfly some of the enemy's missiles and have to outmaneuver and/or outsmart them. Second, the faster we can go the farther we can fly on time. For example, the planes can be based on the comfortable island [tiscali.co.uk] but still be able to timely reach some of the theaters, where expensive and uncomfortable carriers have to be used now.
Lastly, using the technology for our missiles would be great too -- for example, once information comes in where a thug can be hit, this missile can reach his bunker in 20-30 minutes, rather than 2 hours. Not to mention the potential of replacing the "old-and-boring" ICBMs.
Re:Fast times at tax-payers' expense (Score:2, Interesting)
It always irked me that in psychology, research done for the basis of learning stuff and not really improving anything is referred to as "basic" research (in most other disciplines, it's referred to as "pure" research). Whether you call it pure or basic, this sort of research may not have any immediate uses, but it may very well be something that spurns someone to do some applied research.
-Jenn
Another interesting propulsion design (Score:2, Interesting)
is it REALLY an "Aircraft"? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What is the Speed of Sound? (Score:5, Interesting)
Precisely - Mach 1 is the local speed of sound. Specifically, it's the velocity at which shockwaves propagate. If you are flying at Mach 1 (plus delta) you are encountering a medium which is uninfluenced by your motion until you encounter it - it doesn't have time to get out of the way. That makes a huge difference to the behavior, a little like the difference between swimming in water and swimming in concrete!
There is, of course, a FAQ [aerospaceweb.org] on this Frequently Asked Question.
Re:What is the Speed of Sound? (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, they begin to appear when there is transonic airflow anywhere. This can be well before the aircraft is exceeding the speed of sound, since air flows around the aircraft at different rates depending on location.
Sonic "booms", as heard on the ground, are more dependent on the shape of the aircraft than the speed at which it is travelling. I can generate a sonic boom by swinging a piece of notebook paper folded appropriately. If my hand were actually travelling at the speed of sound, I'd have a healthy collection of Cy Young awards at this point.
It means Mach 10 at the altitude it will be flying (Score:3, Interesting)
You can't take the sea level speed of mach and multiply it by 10, because that would be incorrect. The speed of sound is about 760 mph at sea level, while at 95,000 feet (where the HyperX flies), the speed of sound is about 677 mph.
So when it flies Mach 10 it is not going 7,600 mph, it is going 6770 mph.
This is a common mistake that I see being made. Same thing with the SR-71...it is often quoted by dumb journalists as going 2280 mph, which is Mach 3 at speed level. But it can't go Mach 3 at speed level, it would break apart. It goes Mach 3 at 85,000 feet, which is about 1992 mph.
There's a cool utility for calculating Mach here: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/sound.h
Re:To Bad for the sonic Boom. (Score:2, Interesting)
The U.S. would love to have a mach 10 cruise missile to counter this threat since their Tomahawk cruise missiles are inferior as they fly at subsonic speeds. As it is now, a Chinese or Russian destroyer/sub/plane could take out an aircraft carrier with one Sunburn missile that flies at a cruising altitude of 40 feet and is too fast for on board (phalanx) anti-missile systems to defend against.
Re:Very Cool, But... (Score:3, Interesting)
So if the rocket only has to get from Mach ~20 to Mach ~23, I would imagine the payload increase to be significant (the increase is, of course, offset by needing to have the scramjet and initial lifting bodies as well as fuel therefore...but the initial/scramjet stages don't have to carry oxidizer or reaction mass, which gives them a huge mass advantage over conventional rockets).
Re:Great (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:To Bad for the sonic Boom. (Score:2, Interesting)
The space plane as a concept is flawed. People like it because they like the idea of flying into space, but in reality it means you have to do a lot more work pushing through atmosphere and carrying useless atmospheric engines and control surfaces into orbit. It's also vastly more complex, and atmospheric flight places far greater strains on the structure. Rather than a tank full of fairly cheap LOX, you carry even more expensive and highly complex engine and aircraft structure which all has to be maintained, and which adds many possible possibilities of catastrophic failure.
The main application of this engine is likely to be an atmosphere-skimming cruise missile, flying relatively low (very suborbital) to stay below the horizon of the target as fast as possible and retain maneuvering capability until the last minute. It's not very useful at all for getting into space, or even for human transportation between points on Earth.
cool (Score:2, Interesting)
Tell ya WHUT though, along this whole thread on "this is the most advanced evar" and stuff, I wonder when they will finally admit to such things as aurora and brilliant buzzard and release some official pics and specs? I mean, the 117 and b2 are old hat now, and the sr 71 is so old it is medium retired, you can't tell me they don't have a few other models developed already.... smoke=fire usually
Re:cool (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, mind you, I don't know that's what they did here. And in fact, using air pressure to pressurize the fuel might prove to not be the best way to do it; still, it's an interesting concept that you could create a nonmechanical jet engine of almost any size that can operate at Mach 10, simply due to its shape.
Commercial Jets can do Mach 10 in a few years (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:To Bad for the sonic Boom. (Score:2, Interesting)
You can't dogfight at Mach 10 (or really Mach anything), so what's left? A bomber. This would seriously ease a nation's dependence on foreign bases since the airfield could be halfway around the world. I'm sure the various air forces would love this kind of thing since it would partially take back some of what aircraft carriers have removed from air force influence.