Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News Science

X43-A on to Mach 10 459

Posted by CmdrTaco from the place-hands-on-cheeks-and-pull-back dept.
Cat_Byte writes "On March 28 we read about the X43-A hitting Mach 7 with a successful scramjet test. Prior to that on June 2, 2001 the craft tore itself to pieces during a trial run. Well now they are preparing to hit Mach 10. The upcoming Mach 10 run of the X-43A appears to mark an end of the program. The seven-year, approximately $250 million Hyper-X program was created to provide unique "first time" data on hypersonic air-breathing engine technologies. "At Mach 7, the front leading edge of the vehicle would see about 2,400 degrees Fahrenheit. At Mach 10, its probably twice that -- twice the heat load essentially," Sitz explained FYI, Mach 10 is about 2 miles per second."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

X43-A on to Mach 10 More

X43-A on to Mach 10

Comments Filter:

  • Mach 10? (Score:4, Funny)

    by lpangelrob2 ( 721920 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @03:38PM (#9710971) Journal
    Mach 10? Isn't that the speed at which you hit advanced evolution and evolve 10 million years in moments?

    Wait, maybe I'm thinking of something else...

    • Re:Mach 10? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 15, 2004 @03:41PM (#9711001)
      Nah, it's Gillette's new blades that are scheduled for release in the year 2038.

    • Re:Mach 10? (Score:4, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 15, 2004 @03:42PM (#9711009)
      Mach 10? Isn't that the speed at which you hit advanced evolution and evolve 10 million years in moments?

      No, it's actually the closest, most comfortable shave you can get.
      • Mach 10? Isn't that the speed at which you hit advanced evolution and evolve 10 million years in moments?

        No, it's actually the closest, most comfortable shave you can get.

        Actually, I think its the 5th car Pops Racer built for his son Speed, complete with in trunk seatbelts for Sprittle and Chim Chim...

    • "Mach 10? Isn't that the speed at which you hit advanced evolution and evolve 10 million years in moments?"

      It's a razor, dumb ass. /Butthead Voice

    • Re:Mach 10? (Score:5, Informative)

      by radixvir ( 659331 ) * on Thursday July 15, 2004 @03:51PM (#9711116) Homepage

      FYI, he was referring to the episode of Star Trek Voyager, where they test out the new engine technology on the shuttle. It goes Warp 10 which apparently causes 2 of the characters to "evolve" into gecko-like creatures. another completely ridiculous plot that took place around the time of the episode where they found Amelia Earhart

    • Re:Mach 10? (Score:5, Funny)

      by CrystalFalcon ( 233559 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @04:30PM (#9711523) Homepage
      Wait, maybe I'm thinking of something else...

      Yes, you're thinking of 88 miles per hour.

      Now give me back the keys to my DeLorean, please.

  • Glad to see it (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 15, 2004 @03:39PM (#9710974)
    It's great to see the Air Force putting that Ga'ould and Asgard technology to good use. That Stargate program is really paying off.

  • I'm impressed (Score:2, Interesting)

    by TheAdventurer ( 779556 )
    I'm some one who is impressed by interesting numbers, and I just get a thrill out of the idea of travelling 2 miles per second. That is incredibly cool.

    I could do my daily commute in 15 seconds. That would be fun.
  • i hope that thing has killer A/C...

  • Anyone... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) <akaimbatman@gmaiBLUEl.com minus berry> on Thursday July 15, 2004 @03:39PM (#9710983) Homepage Journal
    ...have data on its trajectory? It seems to me that if you want to reduce heat, you need to fly it in a steep climb. Of course, the air then gets thinner, thus providing less boost. Your lifting body is also less effective with that sort of trajectory.

    • I think it's interesting that they are wondering how the engine will perform. I am much more interested how the human body reacts to this.

      I don't know any reason why it would harm ones body but it sure doesn't sound like it would be good for it.

      • Re:Anyone... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by AKAImBatman ( 238306 )
        I think it's interesting that they are wondering how the engine will perform. I am much more interested how the human body reacts to this.

        That's actually pretty well known. Rockets have been capable of giving a hellva lot more Gs, and experiments with Jet Pilots have pretty well established human's capacity for acceleration tolerance.

        The thrust to weight ratios are interesting, however. A 15-20 to 1 ratio would provide one serious kick in the pants. :-)

    • Re:Anyone... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by RPI Geek ( 640282 )
      Lifting body? With that kind of speed and that duration of flight, you don't need much lift.

      • Re:Anyone... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by AKAImBatman ( 238306 )
        Lifting body? With that kind of speed and that duration of flight, you don't need much lift.

        The final craft is supposed to be of a lifting body design. This is to provide as smooth of an airframe as possible. Even the slightest corner or dent could be a potential heat buildup hazard.

        • Re:Anyone... (Score:5, Informative)

          by larkost ( 79011 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @04:50PM (#9711699)
          At that speed a brick is a "lifting body". Reminds me of the F-15 a.k.a. the "Aluminum Lawn Dart" (or world's most expensive lawn dart) because if you turn off the engine thats what your flight path looks like.

  • Blinkx? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 15, 2004 @03:40PM (#9710988)
    Blinkx and You Will Miss It?

  • Fuel economy? (Score:5, Funny)

    by a10t2 ( 718106 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @03:41PM (#9710996) Homepage
    Ah, but does it get 1700 miles per gallon?

  • Mach 10? (Score:3, Funny)

    by GuyMannDude ( 574364 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @03:41PM (#9711000) Journal

    Holy crap, they're up to Mach 10 now? I guess I'm going to have to throw my old razors away. You'd think that a razor with 10 blades would be rather unweildy but I sure as hell am not going to let my neighbor Jones beat me in the male-gromming-department! Man, those old Mach 3 blades were already pretty expensive. I hate to see how much this new shit is gonna cost...

    GMD

    • Re:Mach 10? (Score:2, Informative)

      by strictnein ( 318940 ) *
      well, they already upped it to a razor with a fricken battery in the razor handle. It's called the Gillette M3Power [gillette.com] !

      Knock yourself out:

      Gillette M3Power -- a MACH3 innovation -- is a groundbreaking, powered wet shaving system for men that delivers a totally new shaving experience resulting in Gillette's best shave ever.

      M3Power builds on the heritage of MACH3 and combines Gillette's latest and best razor and blade technologies. M3Power outperforms all other blades and razors in closeness, comfort and s

      • ...a moisturizing Indicator® Lubrastrip(TM)...

        ...features Micro-Power(TM), a gentle pulsing action powered by a Duracell AAA battery.

        ...allowing a man to shave wherever he prefers.

        ...and the Duracell AAA battery is easy to insert...

        Ugh. Did anyone else get a little creeped out reading some of this shit? They really need to fire whoever came up with stuff like that. Unless they are trying to subliminally market it as something other than a razor.

        GMD

      • Re:Mach 10? (Score:5, Funny)

        by TomorrowPlusX ( 571956 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @04:24PM (#9711473)
        Does it bother anybody else that they've (essentially) taken a vibrator and put razor blades on it?
    • You'd think that a razor with 10 blades would be rather unweildy...

      It's for shaving your face and the rest of your body -- at the same time .=P

  • Front leading edge.... (Score:4, Funny)

    by YankeeInExile ( 577704 ) * on Thursday July 15, 2004 @03:42PM (#9711016) Homepage Journal

    At Mach 7, the front leading edge of the vehicle
    ... as opposed to the rear leading edge? Or the front trailing edge? Go to the Automatic ATM Machine and enter your Personal PIN Number?
  • So how long until they can give us 30 minute flights across the atlantic? :)

  • Big deal... (Score:5, Funny)

    by tinrobot ( 314936 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @03:42PM (#9711018)
    Two miles per second means you can cross the Pacific in under an hour.

    It's still going to take 4 hours just to get to the airport, check your baggage and get through security.
    • somehow, I doubt this is for passenger transport. However, if you want to sit in a rocket that throws itself at multi-g forces, be my guest.

    • Re:Big deal... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Elwood P Dowd ( 16933 ) <judgmentalist@gmail.com> on Thursday July 15, 2004 @03:54PM (#9711160) Journal
      This is unrelated to passenger travel. We are conducting this research so that we can drop a bomb on any location on Earth in under an hour. From Wired Magazine [wired.com]:
      Ron Sega
      Director, Office of Defense Research and Engineering, DOD

      ADVISES: Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld

      WHY HE MATTERS: Responsible for bringing the missile shield to life.

      TECH CRED: IEEE fellow and NASA astronaut who used to teach electrical and computer engineering at the University of Colorado.

      ON HIS RADAR: Dominating outer space through hypersonics. He foresees superfast missiles and spaceships that can zap any target. His goal is to increase US flight capabilities by one Mach a year until 2012.
      Why is that his goal? You tell me. (Nice way of avoiding ICBM treaties, BTW.)

      • Re:Big deal... (Score:5, Funny)

        by hoggoth ( 414195 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @03:57PM (#9711205) Journal
        > Nice way of avoiding ICBM treaties

        Hell, I could do this much easier.
        Take an ICBM, put a stewardess inside.
        Ta da' It's an airplane, not a missle.


    • And that's why supersonic travel is still something of a white elephant. When you have to add two-to-four hours of "overhead" to each end of a trip, reducing your flight time by 75% doesn't really save you that much time.

      If it costs five or ten times as much, no one except the stupidly-rich will pay for it. And, of course, if they can't market it to the masses, it will always cost that much.

  • mach 10 (Score:2, Insightful)

    by trb ( 8509 )
    Sitz explained FYI, Mach 10 is about 2 miles per second.

    Most children are taught that you can count the seconds between a seeing a lightning strike and hearing a thunderclap and divide by five to determine how far the strike was in miles. This means that the speed of sound (Mach 1) is 5 seconds per mile, i.e., .2 miles per second (.5 km per second, I know...). It should therefore be well known to the same child that Mach 10 (10x the speed of sound) is 2 miles per second.

    • Re:mach 10 (Score:2, Informative)

      by mattjb0010 ( 724744 )
      They forgot to teach you that the speed of sound varies with air density and hence altitude, so it's not quite as trivial. Of course the number of seconds and divide by 5 rule is an approximation anyway.

    • So? (Score:2)

      by adb ( 31105 )
      Yes, a reasonably well-informed and thoughtful person should compute that. No, they're not going to bother in the course of that sentence, but having a sense of scale is relevant, so a good writer will tell them.

    • Re:mach 10 (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Or you could just know that the speed of sound through air is 343 m/s, that there are 1609m in 1 mile, and that 3443/1609 ~= 2.

      Hmph, children's games in old unit systems - you know, if the US switched completely to metric (never mind the impossibility of winning old people's hearts and minds), we'd save millions of dollars and avoid funny embarrassments like that Mars Pathfinder nonsense.

    • Re:mach 10 (Score:3, Funny)

      by Kallahar ( 227430 )
      However, the actual speed of mach varies. Mach is the speed of the object vs the speed of sound. The speed of sound changes with medium and temperature, so if they fly at 95,000 feet then mach 10 is 6730mph vs 7610mph at sea level. 6730mph is 1.8 miles/second vs 2.1 miles/second at sea level. - Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]

      And after all that work I realize that your method is indeed close enough for most people :)

  • How soon (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 15, 2004 @03:48PM (#9711081)

    How soon before someone overclocks it to get Mach 11?

  • Just the thing (Score:2, Insightful)

    by JesseL ( 107722 )
    to bridge the gap (cost and speed) between current cruise missiles and ICBMs.

  • A Third of the Way There... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by apikoros ( 774290 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @03:50PM (#9711104)

    "At Mach 10 -- or 10 times the speed of sound -- the X-43A is traveling at about two miles per second. Thats in the range of 7,500 miles per hour."

    Which sounds really impressive until you realize that escape velocity is 25,000 miles per hour and we are less than a third of the way to an air-breathing launch vehicle.

    186,000 mi/sec... it's not just a good idea, it's the law!

    • That's the speed you need if you decide to turn off the engines and still want to leave earth's gravity. Achieving LEO is easier - you only need to go 17k mph and you can use a second rocket powered stage to help you get there. What a scramjet helps you do is use atmospheric oxygen rather than carrying your own. That saves a lot of mass.

      • Re:A Third of the Way There... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Moofie ( 22272 ) <.moc.nrutasfognir. .ta. .eel.> on Thursday July 15, 2004 @04:34PM (#9711565) Homepage
        Saves a lot of mass, costs you a lot of drag. Say I need to have a rocket applying a 1000 lb force to do my mission. (Yes, I am radically simplifying numbers). In order to get that 1000 lb force out of a scramjet, the frontal area of the vehicle needs to be about four times as big as the rocket. Since wave drag (the primary component of the drag force on a body travelling supersonically) goes as the square of frontal area, you can see that this is not a winning strategy.

        I don't believe air-breathing engines will ever make productive parts of the high-speed boost phase of a satellite launch. Now, something like Pegasus or SpaceShip 1 that uses a low speed air-breathing craft to get above lots of atmosphere, that's a pretty good idea.

  • Previous test aborted... (Score:4, Informative)

    by bchernicoff ( 788760 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @03:53PM (#9711146)
    ...the craft tore itself to pieces during a trial run.

    I was under the impression that the Pegasus boost missle went out of control so they self-destructed it...not that there was a problem with the X-43.

  • why is this public knowledge? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by spacerodent ( 790183 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @03:54PM (#9711156)
    why do we even know about this? Shouldn't this be some classified secret or do they already have craft that handily surpass mach 10 and thus don't care if we know about it? The stealth project was a secret for over 40 years and they're just parading this around (arguable if equal importance) for the cameras...what gives? What secret shit are they NOT telling us about I wonder.

  • But can it do... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Alzheimers ( 467217 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @03:56PM (#9711182)
    the Kessel run in under twelve parsecs?

    • Re:But can it do... (Score:4, Funny)

      by BillNyeTheScienceGuy ( 797318 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @04:32PM (#9711547)
      YES! Also... I weigh 180 seconds and My PC's power supply is rated at 300 Angstroms... Uhhh yeah. 1 parsec = 3.26 light years = 30856776000000000 meters. Mr. Lucas needs to check his units...
  • ... but there is still a 2 hour checkin

  • eeerh... i hate to say this (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 15, 2004 @04:07PM (#9711318)
    but Mach 10 won't be 2 miles per second because they are not flying at sea level.

    Mach number is the square root of the product of gamma, R, and T. Being:

    gamma a propertie of the gas (1.33~1.44 aprox for air),

    R the constant of the gas (universal R over Molecular Mass for every kilo ... )..... (sorry, i know it's bad expressed) being about 287.15 for air

    And T is the absolute temperature of the gas;
    According to the International Atmosphere model, the temperature of air drops 6.5K every kilometer until you reach 11Km, beyond it remains constant until 22km, where it again rises.

    So, if depending of the height (and particular condition of the day and the state of atmosphere) the Mach speed varies

    As i haven't seen at what height they are flying, you can calculate yourself the Mach speed if you find the numbers.

    So is very probable that they are flying at really great heights where the mach value greatly differs from sea level Mach, what is taught to children, as other poster suggested

    Values of temperature of atmosphere can be found looking for ISA model (International Standard Atmosphere)

    By the way, i am using SI; so, if you find a table with Farenhait (or whatever it is spelled) you can convert a farenheit degree to kelvin via:

    (TF-32)/1.8+273 = kelvin

    PD: Sorry for my bad english

    • Re:eeerh... i hate to say this (Score:5, Informative)

      by gerardrj ( 207690 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @05:51PM (#9712119) Journal
      I went and did some research to post the actual ground speed in miles per hour of the ship traveling at mach 10 at 95,000 feet and I learned an interesting thing which astonished me.

      Actually, until you get very high in the atmosphere the speed of sound stays relatively constant compared to the speed of sound at sea level. Pressure and density decrease, but so does temperature.

      You can plug in some number in a calculator at
      http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/soun d.ht ml

      The actual ground speed number (assuming no head/tail wind) of travelling at mach 10 at 95,000 feet is 6,777MPH or 1.887 miles per second.

      Up until now I, perhaps like most, though that since pressure decreases exponentially with altitude, that the speed of sound must also decrease at some constant, or at least predictable, rate with altitude. This was a real eye opener for me.

  • How long untill we go plaid? (Score:3, Funny)

    by bigfinger ( 536378 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @04:10PM (#9711343)
    I can hear it now ludacriss speed GO! To me Spaceballs 2 coldnt come fast enough.

  • Overheard at the press conference... (Score:5, Funny)

    by paiute ( 550198 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @04:28PM (#9711515)
    General Tufnel: The Mach numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and...
    Reporter: Oh, I see. And most planes go up to ten?
    General Tufnel: Exactly.
    Reporter: Does that mean it's faster? Is it any faster?
    General Tufnel: Well, it's one faster, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most pilots, you know, will be flying at ten. You're on ten, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your airspeed. Where can you go from there? Where?
    Reporter: I don't know.
    General Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
    Reporter: Put it up to eleven.
    General Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One faster.
    Reporter: Why don't you just make ten faster and make ten be the top number and make that a little faster?
    General Tufnel: [Pause] These go to eleven.

  • Oh jeeze (Score:5, Funny)

    by festers ( 106163 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @04:41PM (#9711615) Journal
    "from the place-hands-on-cheeks-and-pull-back dept."

    How in the world did the goatse.cx guy convince Taco to post that caption?

  • Correction (Score:4, Informative)

    by MouseR ( 3264 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @05:23PM (#9711944) Homepage
    Prior to that on June 2, 2001 the craft tore itself to pieces during a trial run

    Actually, it's the rocket launcher that veered out of control.

    A plane takes the rocket+X43 into a given altitude, the rocket launches bringing itself and the X43 to about Mach 3 and then the scram jet can take action, bringing the X43 up to Mach 7 after separation from the rocket.

    It's the rocket that failed on the first attempt. Not the X43-A.

  • Mach Question.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by imsabbel ( 611519 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @05:27PM (#9711968)
    Are those mach speeds representing the actuall factor at flying altitude or is there a standart altitude?

    Because if its at traveling altitude, your mach 6 35km altitude vehicle would be faster then your mach 7 15km vehicle (speed of sound is presure dependent).
    But if it were otherwise, you could travel at mach 1.1 and still be subsonic if you are high enough, which doesnt make sense either.

    So why dont they just give the speed in km/h (or mph)? Mach may be usefull if you are dodging around the speed of sound, but at mach 2,3 (or 10), who cares?

Slashdot Top Deals

To be awake is to be alive. -- Henry David Thoreau, in "Walden"

Close