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."

Re:99% success?

[ravenspear]

I don't think anyone is really sure what the probabilities are. The speed they are trying to achieve is too fast to simulate on the ground, so there are a lot of unknowns.

Re:99% success?

[Anubis350]

more like a good test, where if 99% of the compenents work but 1% doesnt they dont fly until they solve that 1%. Haste is no reason for sloppiness, NASA's engineers are doing things properly here

Some questions I have...

[Capt'n Hector]

I've had some doubts about this aircraft:

1) It cheats. It uses a booster rocket to get 90% of its velocity.
2) it's smaller than a car

So.... can the thing physically scale up enough to carry fuel and a seperate mode of propultion to reach the right altitude/speed, and have enough space to carry passengars and/or payload? Or, does its design specifically rely on being small?

Re:99% success?

[omb]

No, the reliability needed is much greater than 99%, which is just better odds at Russian Roulette,

how do you think the Civil Airline industry would work if 1 plane in 100 crashed?

There are two interesting questions here:

1: Who was responsible for this incompetance.

Where is the effective oversight?

2: When will effective competition to NASA deploy itself

Given Posting Guidelines it is hard to be pejoritive and rude enough about this totally failed organization.

Re:Some questions I have...

[nicnak]

1) It cheats. It uses a booster rocket to get 90% of its velocity.

It is not a test to see how fast it can get going, but rather a test to see if it can sustain flight at a speed faster than any other air breathing vehical has ever done.

2) it's smaller than a car

It is mearly a test. If they built one full size and then threw it away in the ocean, the public would be screaming bloody hell about all the wasted money. They are trying to be as efficiant as possilbe with these tests on a limited budget.

NASA knows that if it screws up too much it's funding will be cut. I know what it's like to work under such circumstances and it makes you not take risks. That's the sadest thing is that NASA is supposed to be about pushing the limits. About discovering new things, breaking new records and now they are strugling just to stay alive.

Re:99% success?

[Rei]

How, exactly, is "fixing a problem in a hand-made experimental craft, that was revealed by a well-planned and thorough inspection" considered "incompetance"? I'd call that about as good of an organizational plan as you could have for an experimental project like the X-43.

> how do you think the Civil Airline industry
> would work if 1 plane in 100 crashed?

Awful analogy. Airplanes are mass-produced, mass operated commodity machines.

Better analogy: How would people react in the middle ages if 1 ocean exploration mission out of 100 sank?

Answer: They'd cheer for their astounding success, and give proper credit where it was due, unlike you people that know almost nothing about rocketry or NASA experimentation beyond the shuttle and ISS, who never miss an opportunity to bash all that NASA has accomplished.

Re:unless

[Moofie]

I find it hard to believe that there will be a man in the loop. Do you have any idea how fast bad things can happen at Mach 10?

You know that all the "pilot" does on rocket launches is not push the abort button, right?

You know what happens if you pull back too hard on the stick of a scramjet powered aircraft? You upset the shock wave system that is compressing the air, you get a normal shock wave in the throat of the engine, the drag on the aircraft increases by a MONSTROUS factor, and the engine unstarts.

"catastrophic" is one way to describe the results.

Taking nothing from Burt and Company... but...

[Simkin1]

I don't want to take anything from Burt and his groups achievement, but ... taking the words from Simon on 'American Idull' -- "So what?". Burt used technology almost 40 years old, on a moderately novel design concept, popped the cork on his booster and stuck his nose into the lowest possible altitude, considered low earth orbit, for about 5 seconds total, and then came plummeting back to earth in a glider concept reminiscent of early shuttle designs. So what? I think that a private company with enough money should be able to achieve at the very least a low earth orbit altitude... I'm just surprised it's taken so long considering the technology available. In all honesty, NASA is yawning at their 'achievement'... put a man on the moon, land a rover on Mars... put a space station into orbit, and put people on it! Then lets get excited about Burt & Co. Personally I'm glad they did it, but put the success on the scale it deserves, and give credit to NASA for the amazing achievements that most folks never get to see. Hell... 90% of what NASA does feeds into US products in one form or other... anyone who'd like to challenge this feel free to... but first take a look sites like www.beowulf.org, or how about all the composite materials designed? There are tons of spin off products in your homes that you never knew got their origins in work done at NASA... and probably will go on living your lives never knowing about. But please, feel free to bash NASA and the work it does in the same ignorant fashion. I'm not going to bother modding what you wrote as troll... it would be a waste of mod points when there are so many interesting commentaries out there.