NASA Tests X-43A 263
An anonymous reader writes "NASA TV has live coverage of the
launch of the X-43A
scram jet flight. Hopes are that the unmanned vehicle will reach speeds in
excess of mach 7-10. The last flight a few years ago failed." Stephen Watts sends this link for X-43A background information.
launch it allready! *dammit* (Score:2)
"Launch it allready! *dammit*"
... how any confirmations/checks to they have to go thru? They've done like a zillion +one checks/confirms... by now.
Re:launch it allready! *dammit* (Score:4, Insightful)
good idea
Re:launch it allready! *dammit* (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, don't turn it off. As I was typing this they said it's launching in the next 9 minutes.
Re:launch it allready! *dammit* (Score:3, Informative)
Re:launch it allready! *dammit* (Score:4, Informative)
And probably irrelevent, since there's no funding for future tests.
Re:launch it allready! *dammit* (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah, but if it is successful, they may direct more funding towards this kind of research. Even if it isn't successful, they might learn enough to still warrant putting in more funding.
Re:launch it allready! *dammit* (Score:3, Interesting)
How about the idea that's been floating around of a hypersonic bomber capable of reaching any target in the world within two hours?
Re:launch it allready! *dammit* (Score:2)
I got caught by the sift rotation monster, and I'm at work. We have a Dish network setup, and I was watching it on NASA TV. My break ended before I could see it launch.
Re:launch it allready! *dammit* (Score:4, Interesting)
They should have launched 2. One with the camera and one doing the test.
Good call.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Where am I going with this? 44 miles per frame is a pretty good clip. It really makes me wonder (when you watch the clip) that any person could recognize enough land marks over the flight path for the images to have
Re:Good call.. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good call.. (Score:2)
2.38203 kmps / 30 fps, not 2.38203 kmps / (1/30 fps)
Re:launch it allready! *dammit* (Score:2)
Because if it works you can then take the video to Congress and say "Look! Shiney! Now gimme money!"
Nooooooooo!!! (Score:5, Funny)
I was getting a great feed of the boring pre-launch stuff for the last 2 hours, now y'all'll've gone and ruined it
Re:Nooooooooo!!! (Score:2)
Re:Nooooooooo!!! (Score:5, Funny)
How does this help? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How does this help? (Score:2)
Same thing happened with the Mars Rovers landed. You could view web pages just fine, but good luck watching the videos.
nonononono (Score:3, Funny)
awesome picts (Score:5, Informative)
Bird's in the air (Score:2, Funny)
Fun (Score:2)
Re:Fun (Score:2)
Inside the ram file (Score:4, Informative)
TiVo'ing NASA TV? (Score:2)
But Mach 7-10? That's worth putting on the TiVo. Fortunately, it's an incredibly still picture, so this thing compresses well and doesn't take up much space on the disk.
2 mins to LV L (Score:2)
Speed doesn't matter (Score:5, Funny)
Regards
elFarto
Re: (Score:2)
$185 million dollar project... (Score:5, Funny)
Well it looks like that is it... (Score:2)
play by play (Score:5, Informative)
"10 seconds launch on my mark"
"5 4 3 2 1 launch"
"Ignition!"
"Guidance on"
"we are supersonic"
(bunch of everything is nominal)
past mach 3
separation of booster
fuel is off
recovery complete
"Good job"
"Really pretty"
Re:play by play (Score:2)
Re:play by play (Score:4, Funny)
*Slashdotted* NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Re:play by play (Score:3, Informative)
Re:play by play (Score:3, Funny)
Buffering....
Buffering.......
Buffering..........
)(*#$!!!
Re:play by play (Score:2)
Sorry (Score:2, Informative)
Launch (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Launch (Score:2)
Tell that to the NASA engineers who announced recovery scant moments after pegasus booster seperation and about 40 seconds before I posted. Point being: the recovery we're talking about has nothing to do with recovery of the X-45's body after sinking into the ocean.
my stupid cable copany...... (Score:2)
Only 7-10? (Score:2, Funny)
Congratulations to NASA!! (Score:2)
Mach Freakin' 5 (Score:5, Informative)
mach 5 = 6,125.22 km/h [google.com]
Re:Mach Freakin' 5 (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Mach Freakin' 5 (Score:2)
Re:Mach Freakin' 5 (Score:3, Informative)
Childhood Memories... (Score:5, Funny)
It would take about 6 and a half hours to get from here and back again.
So in "Hare We Go" when Bugs Bunny threw the baseball around the world to show Christopher Columbus that the world is round, he threw the ball at about Mach 785 or so. Somehow he managed to put enough spin on it that it orbited the planet, the natives applied the stickers, AND he caught the ball.
um, booster rocket took it to Mach 6 (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Mach Freakin' 5 (Score:3, Funny)
I can't wait to installed the scramjet roof panel on my Civic!!!!!
Re:Mach Freakin' 5 (Score:3, Informative)
Speed of sound at 1 atm pressure != speed of sound at obnoxiously high altitudes and near vacuum pressures. And that doesn't even begin to consider the non-uniform variations in temperature with altitude or the different mix of gasses in the air that high up.
At the very least you have way too many decimal places in both your numbers.
Re:Mach Freakin' 5 (Score:3, Informative)
All those numbers are in the same ballpark.
Some of us remember that the speed of sound is affected chiefly by temperature and not pressure.
It's easier to go to higher mach speeds at higher elevation becauset here is less resi
CP24 Coverage (Score:2)
While all the other news channels, Canadian and American, were just replaying the same news over and over, CP24 [pulse24.com] chose to stick with about 20 minutes of continuous live coverage from NASA, with scientists commenting over the phone.
It's heartening to know that there's still a bunch of people in that company who don't think we're all clueless morons.
We need to (Score:3, Funny)
Windows Media Stream working fine in xine.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyone else's bandwidth jumps up and down? (Score:2)
My player shows a real saw on the bandwidth chart -- from the minimum of 32.1Kbps to the astounding maximum of 274.8Kbps with the average being 147.5Kbps -- just a notch below 150Kbps at which the thing is encoded :-(.
I'm wondering, is it the speedera.net -- NASA's ISP -- or speakeasy.net -- my ISP?
Post Flight Press Briefing (Score:2)
Amusing terminology (Score:5, Interesting)
Still chuckling a bit. =)
Re:Amusing terminology (Score:4, Funny)
Just like "Read The Friendly Manual".
Does anyone know where it landed... (Score:2)
Re:Does anyone know where it landed... (Score:2)
If you missed out on the launch (Score:3, Interesting)
Mach 7 was reached (Score:3, Informative)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/35
It broke the speed record... (Score:5, Informative)
BBC [bbc.co.uk]
Re:It broke the speed record... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Clip of launch at BBC (Score:4, Informative)
The BBC page is here [bbc.co.uk]. There's a link to the right of the photo at the top of the page.
if you missed it (Score:2, Informative)
AirForce saying: new engine makes possible new ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:AirForce saying: new engine makes possible new (Score:3, Insightful)
most rockets in work by combining oxygen and hydrogen and detonating them. To launch sizeable craft from the ground to orbit though, you need alot of oxygen - and its quite heavy. However, if you use normal turbofans to get into the air, then fire a smaller rocket to get you to scramjet speed, and then use the scramjet to ride your way to the top of the atmosphere (where you'll f
they broke Mach 7 ! ! ! (Score:2)
this is from prelim data, but i am sure NASA will release some factoids as soon as everything is verified.....
Australian radio documentary on this. (Score:2)
Picture (Score:2)
account name is xenon
and the domain is arcticus.com
More Details on Successful Flight (Score:5, Informative)
"The hypersonic aircraft, a cross between a jet and a rocket, was dropped from the wing of a modified B-52 bomber, boosted by an auxiliary rocket to an altitude of nearly 100,000 feet (30,000 meters) and flew on its own power for 10 seconds, said the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
"After the 10-second test firing, the X-43A glided through the atmosphere conducting a series of aerodynamic maneuvers for about six minutes before plunging into the Pacific Ocean, as planned."
Channel News Asia: Experimental hypersonic aircraft breaks world speed record, flies at Mach 7 [channelnewsasia.com]
"A minute before 2 p.m., the craft was dropped from 40,000 feet. A few seconds later, the rocket flared, boosting the jet skyward on a streak of flame and light. At about 100,000 feet, the rocket was dropped away.
"The scramjet then took over, using up about two pounds of gaseous hydrogen fuel before it glided and then plunged into the Pacific Ocean about 400 miles off the California coast."
Mercury News: Preliminary data shows NASA jet streaked 5,000 mph in test flight [mercurynews.com]
Un-Real video (Score:2)
overview quicktimes here:
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Movie/Hyper-X/
Kinda expensive cruise missile, donchathink? (Score:3, Interesting)
Now reconissance I can see. A small mach 7 spy plane is going to be damn hard to hit. but cruise missile? That is one expensive shot. I mean, a tomahawk is something like $500,000 a piece, right? You gotta be having something awfully important to be hitting in a hurry to be shooting of an X-Missile. And what kind of warhead are you mounting on it to make it worth the while?? I guess for first strike shock value, they'll work. Instant retaliation. But damn, you'd better have a good reason....
Re:Audio? (Score:2, Informative)
mind bogglingly detailed step by step audio tho.
I'm waiting for the v/o to be drowned out by the scram jet.
Sweet feed though.
G.
Re:Audio? (Score:2, Funny)
>
> That would be nice.
My guess is that would depend on how well the test goes. =P
Re:Audio? (Score:2)
Unfortunatly, the stupid news anchors and the private scientific people they had on kept talking the whole time through. They did said NASA should have a press conference in 1-2 hours.
Re:Audio? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Place your bet. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Place your bet. (Score:2)
"Looks like we are in a shooting war with the Ruskies. [imdb.com]" Loved that guy...
Passed Mach 5 before the loss of signal (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Passed Mach 5 before the loss of signal (Score:2, Informative)
Mach 6.7 with the X15A-2. It was a manned aircraft.
The date ? Third of October 1967 !!!
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/History/Speeches/x-15_
Re:Passed Mach 5 before the loss of signal (Score:5, Informative)
What they tested today doesn't carry oxygen, instead scooping it out of the atmosphere.
Re:Passed Mach 5 before the loss of signal (Score:3, Informative)
Not too bad at all.
Re:Passed Mach 5 before the loss of signal (Score:3, Informative)
A ramjet has the air-fuel mixture traveling at sub-sonic speeds in the combustion chamber. The air is compressed by a system of shock waves in the inlet. As the air is compressed, it slows down and heats up. Then you light a fire in there, with an apparatus similar to an afterburner flame holder.
A scramjet keeps the flow moving supersonically throughout the combustion chamber (hence Supersonic Combusting RAMJET). Mixing in fuel, and successfully igniting the mixture b
Re:Passed Mach 5 before the loss of signal (Score:2)
Re:Just watched the Jet (Score:2)
"Touching" down? (Score:2)
Seriously, we have how many tonnes of steel hitting the water at what speed?
Re:"Touching" down? (Score:2)
Re:mach 5?!? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not that fast (Score:2, Informative)
The point is that this was an air breather and those were all rocket based.
Re:Not that fast (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, it did. However the scram jet is a significant improvement just in terms of fuel savings. Not having to carry the oxygen itself and having the system work means more then the final speed it reached.
Re:Not that fast (Score:2)
Re:Not that fast (Score:5, Insightful)
A supersonic combusting ramjet is way way way incredibly more technically challenging than a regular ramjet.
Managing the shock wave systems to provide adequate fuel mixing and ignition is only barely possible today with the biggest computer simulations on the planet.
I don't know what you consider "revolutionary", but sustained supersonic combustion is a Really Big Deal.
Ramjet != Scramjet (Score:5, Informative)
When the air inside a ramjet exceeds the speed of sound (meaning an aircraft speed of around Mach 5+) combustion fails to occur properly. This is overcome in a scramjet (supersonic combustion ramjet). Scramjets are a new concept still in the research stages. Usually, the inlet is much wider (typically the entire underside of the craft) so the compression is less and the air remains at supersonic speeds. Some designs use reactive chemicals or gases other than standard jet fuel. Normally, the design of the jet is much more complex. Like a ramjet the scramjet must already be moving extremely fast before it will start working, but theoretically, speeds in excess of Mach 20 are possible.
Re:Ramjet != Scramjet (Score:2)
Re:Launch successful (Score:5, Funny)
Well yeah, but that's with overclocking.
Re:Free ramjet? (Score:5, Informative)
Scramjets are very simple (mechanically) devices. No moving parts. However, they are geometrically, extremely complex and precise. The speed it would hit the ocean would damage the combustion chamber to the extent it would be about as useful as a scramjet made from a tin can.
Re:Mach? What is that? (Score:3, Informative)
Vs = 332 + 0.6 * t
(Where Vs is in Meters/Sec, and t is in ^C)
For example, an aircraft travelling at Mach 2 with an atmospheric temperature of 20^C would be travelling at:
2(332 + 0.6 * 20)
2(332 + 12)
2(334)
688m/s
Whilist Warp speeds vary per series. In the original series, warp factor was a multiplier. So Warp 3, Kirk's enterprise would be travelling at:
3(3.0 * 10^8)
3(300000000)
90