X-43A Mach 10 Mission Scrubbed For Today

An anonymous reader writes "NASA's third X-43A hypersonic research mission has been scrubbed for today due to technical glitches with X-43A instrumentation. When the issues were addressed, not enough time remained in the launch window."

SpaceFlightNow has much better updates

[xmas2003]

SpaceFlightNow's X-43 coverage [spaceflightnow.com]

Re:Some questions I have...

[TheGavster]

The first supersonic aircraft were carried to test altitude by bombers as well. With any technology like this, you want to be testing just the new part; we know that ground->40,000ft->100,000ft is doable with current tech, the new bit is accelerating to mach 10 once you get there. The Bell X-1 was a flying gas tank, so is this. But an F-22 is a complete system, integrating existing technology with new advances in supersonic airframe and engine design. I expect much the same from the scramjet technology being developed on X-43.

Re:Some questions I have...

[ravenspear]

the new bit is accelerating to mach 10 once you get there

Actually no. The rocket booster accelerates it to Mach 10. We've had rockets that could do that since the 60s. The new bit is maintaining that velocity with an air breathing engine.

X-43A design theory

[jd]

• Waverider theory [aerodyn.org]
  
• More Waverider theory [aerospaceweb.org]
  
• My God, Hardware! [easynet.co.uk] - the experience of a Scottish Astronautics research group (I suggest reading the whole piece, the link points to the middle of the story, 'cos of the great quote!)
  

The NASA design is example 4 on the summary page [aerospaceweb.org] and is quoted there as having a theoretical top speed of Mach 20.

The BBC [bbc.co.uk] has some good pics and information too.

Re:Some questions I have...

[rebelcool]

Unfortunately jet engines only work up to around mach 3 and a little past. See the SR-71's engine, which is pretty much the pinnacle of what can be done.

After that, its like trying to light a match in a hurricane. Oh, and the sonic shockwaves bouncing around inside your engine tend to tear it apart too.

Scramjets don't ignite till around mach 5 though, so you need some kind of boost inbetween what a jet engine can do, and scramjet ignition.

Mechnically speaking, scramjets are very simple. They have no moving parts. Just a fuel injector and essentially a tin can with which to ignite in. Its the *shape* of that tin can though that has required decades of research. Its geometry is extremely complex and touchy.

Movie clip

[No_Weak_Heart]

This 1 minute, 16 second narrated movie provides an overview of the X-43A as it prepares for a Mach 10 flight. [nasa.gov]

Is this the long fabled "Aurora"?

[Brad1138]

It looks very similar to the artists conceptual pictures of the Aurora [firstscience.com] I have seen over the years.