NASA Tests Hypersonic Blackswift 487
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."
I feel dirty (Score:5, Informative)
Please warn us when linking to Fox News. Jesus those people are dumb.
Air Force != NASA (Score:4, Informative)
Just because Fox interviews a NASA analyst doesn't mean NASA developed the thing. The video clearly says it's the air force that's developing this.
Awful (Score:4, Informative)
Holy shit that was a pain to watch. Billy is a fucking retard.
"Can you explain in english not in science-talk."
Oh, you mean english to people who aren't slack-jawed idiots. The way he says it makes it sound like he's proud that he's so fucking stupid.
What a fucking jackass. How can someone that stupid be put out there as a news-person? On national television?
I'm hoping for the one day when the scientist being interviewed tells the guy to get a fucking education and then explains what's going on in adequate detail with plenty of scientific concepts.
fewer uses of less (Score:3, Informative)
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...
Re:Video broken on Linux obviously (Score:1, Informative)
If you don't feel like disabling noscript, the appropriate sites to temporarily allow would be mavenapps and Fox's website itself.
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...
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]?
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.
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What's the main difference (Score:1, Informative)
ram/scram jet: continually running engine. flame always on.
this thing? well... look at a car engine. x times a second it ignites.
Take a look at what faults existed with the SR71. the inlet had to be continually adjusted to avoid flameout. past a certain speed and the shockwave / wake choked out the engines by being outside of where the engines were.
this thing doesn't have an inlet as far as I understand. this means they only have to worry about the outer skin and the 'reaction chamber' when it comes to heat. with inlets, at those speeds??? you are introducing a heck of a lot of heat into the inside and have a lot more metal expanding and wearing out.
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.
Re:Slick reporting (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I feel dirty (Score:2, Informative)
I have to agree with you there after reading this [wired.com]. They truely have some retards working at Fox and it's funny the message they put out is the exact opposite Fox sends with the rest of its broadcasting.
Re:Could this be the Aurora (Score:1, Informative)
Beyond just the looks of it, the reported sounds of the Aurora is a pulsating sound...which is apparently in line with the propulsion of the Blackswift.
Or maybe the boys at Skunk Works couldn't come up with anything so they basically decided to create the Aurora. They are probably laughing their asses off about this right now.
Re:Pulse detonation engines AKA piston engine (Score:3, Informative)
Correct, except these don't have the pistons, rods, flywheel, or cam shaft(s).
It's more like a bunch of PVC potatoe guns duct-taped together, sans potatoes, hooked up to a distributer cap and battery.
There, I just dumbed it down enough for FOX news.
BBH
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.
Video link leads to commercials (Score:4, Informative)
For me (German ISP/IP address) the link leads to random commercials. Each time I try it another one.
Fuck Fox News, and thanks to the posters who provided alternative links about the project...
Re:I feel dirty (Score:4, Informative)
Uh, no it was that around 90% of journalists that make campaign contributions contribute to the Democrats. But the number of journalists making campaign contributions was around 10%.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp [mediaresearch.org]
It's absurd to suggest that journalists don't overwhelmingly vote for left wing parties.
Re:I feel dirty (Score:5, Informative)
I understand now...
I wonder how these people survive. Are they actually smart enough to breathe on their own?
Re:I feel dirty (Score:5, Informative)
It is all about context. When we say left and right on a US centric site (and yes, Slashdot has a disproportionate number of America readers), they are talking about the American system of politics. It is true that it is a large mistake to think that the American system has ANYTHING to do rest of the world's "left" and "right", but that doesn't mean that it isn't internally consistent.
The entire left/right scale is a tad silly simply because it stuffs a whole bunch of utterly unrelated ideals into a binary system. You can have a free market capitalist who believes in gay marriage, abortions, and a lack of sex and drug regulation. You can also have someone who advocates socialist economics want to outlaw those very same things.
Tossing American parties on a European left/right scale is pointless. The American right is absolutely nothing like the European right or ultra-right. The European ultra-right would likely be quickly slapped with a label of fascist or crazy ass ultra nationalist label in the US. The American right doesn't have the ultra-nationalistic tendencies that the European far right has. Le Penn and other such ultra-nationalist would get the cold shoulder in the US for their frantic obsession over immigration. Other European ultra-right parties would get the cold shoulder for being viewed as being far to socialistic in terms of economic issues.
My point? You are better off trying to understand parties, both in the US and Europe, as they are, not trying to slap them on a left-right scale. American and European parties don't belong on the same binary scale together. What makes Republican's "ultra right" in European eyes is that they are not left and not that they have any commonality to European ultra right parties.
If you desperately want to plot them on the same scale, I would suggest looking at the libertarians favorite scale, the two axis "social liberty" and "economic liberty" scale. The American right will appear in the right corner, the American left and European right in the center, the European left on the left, and the European ultra-right on the bottom.
Re:I feel dirty (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Since you aren't from America, you might have a skewed view on how the cable networks operate here. Just about any cable channel can survive due to the channels being sold in packages, thus everyone gets a nickle, even if nobody is watching. Also, with such a diverse number of backgrounds and sheer magnitude of population, just about any network can get enough viewers to look popular.
What I find scary, other countries broadcast this same crap network to their citizens. If the average American hates Fox (just look at the thread or ask the next American you meet), why would anyone from another country even consider tuning in?
To clarify for those who don't know: Fox News is cable-only. It's not a broadcast channel, nor could it survive as one.
Re:Here's the science free explanation! (Score:3, Informative)
video of DynaJet [youtube.com]
Re:Could this be the Aurora (Score:1, Informative)
That's it exactly. I'll bet Aurora was the military name for the project. The 'donuts on a rope' is exactly what results from this 'thousands of explosions'. I wouldn't be surprised if the Aurora version just does away with the human element altogether and is an unmanned vehicle.
Re:Slick reporting (Score:4, Informative)
Only example I know of something flying with PDE is Long-EZ [af.mil] and the technology still has a ways to go.
Re:Awful (Score:4, Informative)
Personally, I'd say it's somewhat insulting how the programming turns lightweight and airy once the menfolk have gone off to work, but that seems to be what the morning viewers are interested in, even accounting for their political/religious/philosophical bent.
Notice that it's not just when the "menfolk" go to work. It's when working people go to work. The only ones left at home are pre-preschoolers and career housewives.
There are plenty of women who would be insulted by this talking down, but a large percentage of them go off to work too. Some are left at home, women who choose to take care of their family instead of a career, but I bet the morning crowd is dominated by non-college educated, artsy, low-ambition types.
So it's not necessarily sexism going on but a reflection of the demographics of the society.
Re:I feel dirty (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Let's put it like this (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Build your own jet (Score:3, Informative)
He lost his shirt because he's a great inventor but a lousy businessman, and his attempts to monetize his invention bankrupted him. He's still active sometimes on pulsejet discussion boards, but every time he posts a hundred people reply with "WHERE ARE MY {plans, parts, whatever} THAT I PAID YOU FOR THREE YEARS AGO AND YOU NEVER SENT?" replies, which is sad, because he designed and built some great stuff.
His website is here. [aardvark.co.nz]
Too simplistic (Score:3, Informative)
This view is overly simplistic.
The Ashari school of thought came in early, and gained a lot of support perhaps from the 10th century onwards.
At the time, the other schools of thoughts, which are not "sects", within the majority Sunni Islam were as follows:
a) the Mu'tazili, which were supposed to a rationalist theological branch. They had followers among the elite, but very little among the majority. They managed to be the "state religion" under Al-Ma'moun. This caused severe oppression of the traditionalists, going to extremes, such as crucifying leaders of opposing sects, making them more popular among the public at large, and refusing to pay ransom for Muslim prisoners of war of Byzantium who were tested for their creed and did not confirm to Mu'tazilism. They are touted today by some factions in the West as an alternative to the literalist Hanbalis, forgetting that they were so oppressive when in power. Their school of thought lived on among a few scholars and elite, but faded from existence. Some of their thought got absorbed into other schools, for example the Shi'a Twelvers of today.
b) the Hanbalis (traditionalists), which have a literalist legalistic interpretation of theology based mainly on scripture and tradition. Their thought lives on within the contemorary Salafi/Wahhabi, which is not necessarily militant, although Al-Qaeda subscribes to that thought.
c) the Asharis, which sought to merge aspects of the above two in theology, retaining both tradition and reason. This was the majority thought from the 10th century on. One famous Ash'ari scholar was Al Ghazali of Persia in the late 1000s. He sought to refute many of the theology of the philosophers, and was also a Sufi. He is incorrectly blamed for the decline in scientific thought.
d) the Sufis (mystics), with a whole spectrum ranging from just "I am not interested in materialism" to "I get my revelation directly from God". They were mainly interested in ethics, conduct and sometimes esoteric practices (like the Whirling Dervishs), and there were Sufi strains within sects, e.g. Shi'a. It is important to note that Sufis were very prevalent in the 18th to early 20th century. Many anti-colonial leaders of "Jihad" were Sufis, such as Omar Al Mukhtar in Libya, Abdul Qadi in Algeria, the Mad Mullah in Somalia, Al Mahdi in Sudan, and Shamil in the Caucasus. Again, some in the West advocate Sufism as a replacement for the literalist Hanbali, forgetting that Sufis were the main religious opposing force, to the extent that Russia outlawed all the Sufi orders!
e) the philosophers, who were really a few, but had a lot of influence. They went beyond Mu'tazilis and wrote commentaries on Aristotle and Plato's work. The adherents to those were mainly medical doctors who were polymaths, such as Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Al Farabi, Ibn Rushd (Averroes), and others. They were often close to rulers, but did not seek to make their thought a mass thing like the Mu'tazilis did.
f) the Zahiri (literalist jurists), which never gained popularity, apart from the famed debates of Ibn Hazm of Cordova. Although literal in Sharia, they were not so in matters of theology, more of a mix between Mu'tazilis and Ash'aris.
The golden age of science under Muslim rule between 900s and 1200s, and carried over to the 1400s in some areaas. Ash'aris were well established during that time, with most rulers and the public being Ash'aris.
Read the articles of Dr. George Saliba of Columbia University sometime. They detail how scientific thought continued well into the 15th century.