X-43A Mach 10 Mission Scrubbed For Today 98
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:"Scrubbed?" (Score:2)
When you scrub a mission you have cancled it for the day. I think it refers to scrubbing the mission planning board, usally a white board or chalk board.
Once the board is scrubbed clean, you don't know where you are going.
Okay it's a bit of a stretch.
SpaceFlightNow has much better updates (Score:5, Informative)
That's not what happened (Score:2, Funny)
Re:That's not what happened (Score:4, Funny)
Re:That's not what happened (Score:1)
Re:That's not what happened (Score:2)
When I patent this, I'll be RICH!
Re:That's not what happened (Score:1)
Ok, you go for a one minute drive or something while I just sit here. ok done yet? Well if you did then in your frame of referance I just moved foward more than one minute in the minute you were driving. Oh ya i got too prove it too, hmmmm ok. e=mc^2, or some form of that anyways.
Re:That's not what happened (Score:2)
Re:That's not what happened (Score:1, Funny)
it's the flux capacitor
Re:That's not what happened (Score:1)
Re:That's not what happened (Score:1)
Any excuse... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Any excuse... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Any excuse... (Score:2, Funny)
99% success? (Score:1, Interesting)
What 1% failed here?
Re:99% success? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:99% success? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:99% success? (Score:2)
Re:99% success? (Score:2)
Re:99% success? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:99% success? (Score:2, Insightful)
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:99% success? (Score:5, Insightful)
> 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:99% success? (Score:2)
They'd be devastated. Despite the conditions at the time, the ships were generally quite safe, with only one or two out of a thousand actually sinking.
The same was not, of course, true for the crew. Generally speaking such ships set out with two complete crews and were lucky to come back with one. This happened in part because many would die along the way, but also because many sailors made just a s
Re:99% success? (Score:2)
Re:99% success? (Score:2)
If you are in the neighbourhood, visiting is highly recommended, BTW...
Lies (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Lies (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Lies (Score:3, Funny)
So in true slashdot-reader fashion, nobody gets laid as a result
Re:Lies (Score:3, Funny)
unless (Score:1)
Re:unless (Score:1)
and no, I'm not going to read the article.
Re:unless (Score:1)
NASA has been kind enough to provide numerous videos explaining the technology and what X-43A is about. Don't tell me you're too lazy to click the button on the webpage, and watch the 2 minute clip?? That would be pathetic...
Re:unless (Score:1)
Re:unless (Score:3, Insightful)
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 unstart
Re:unless (Score:2)
Re:unless (Score:1)
Re:Lies (Score:2)
--
Wiki de Ciencia Ficcion y Fantasia [uchile.cl]
Re:Lies (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Lies (Score:1)
Technical difficulty, sure.. I bet the pilot was busy getting laid or somthing. Pilots always get the women, especially when chicks know you fly a big powerful mach 10 jet!
Somehow I doubt this. The plane is only 12 feet long. That's virtually nothing compared to most planes, and you know what they say about the length of your aircraft
Mine goes to 11 (Score:1)
Some questions I have... (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Some questions I have... (Score:2)
It also relies on another aircraft (B-52) to lift it to the required initial altitude.
Re:Some questions I have... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Some questions I have... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Some questions I have... (Score:4, Interesting)
2. Its a flying engine.
The point is to test the engine at a new, insanely fast speed to demonstrate that it can be done. It is not intended to have anything to do with passengers. Its so new, the engine has never been flown in the atmosphere at that speed.
Anything involving passengers is many years away.
Re:Some questions I have... (Score:2)
does anyone honestly think the government would spend all this money to haul passengers around at mach 10? no- this technology is being developed for one thing only- missiles. it's so we can launch all our cruise missiles from the "homeland" at a moment's notice and not need carriers, foreign bases, long-range bombers, etc. so that we can wage wars on the (relatively) cheap and pull back much of the resources we've got committed on foreign soil.
i don't kno
Re:Some questions I have... (Score:1)
1> thrust air-to-ground missiles to target deeply buried targets (maybe like saddam's crumbling molehole.. remember $1000 toilet and $500 hammer?)
2> like others have mentioned, intercontinental ballistic interceptor.. (almost sounds as cool as CONTINUUM TRANSFUNCTIONER)
jokes aside, I know that they're testing this thing high in the sky.. but wouldnt it achieve faster speed if they fly it near sea-level, since air density is hig
Re:Some questions I have... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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:Some questions I have... (Score:3, Interesting)
As to the size, I assume that's because of problems with thermal dissipation - at that speed within the atmosphere, the body is going to get seriously hot
Re:Some questions I have... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Some questions I have... (Score:2)
Re:Some questions I have... (Score:2)
The answer to your question, according to that speaker, was yes.
Re:Some questions I have... (Score:3, Interesting)
> jet engine can do, and scramjet ignition
It's called a ramjet.
Of course, you can always go from zero to mach >5 in the barrel of a gigantic gun [astronautix.com].
Also, when you said "a tin can", were you referring to a flameholder? Scramjets don't use flameholders; they either use hyperglolics (like silane) or just simple heat and pressure of high velocity compression fo
Re:Some questions I have... (Score:2)
Re:Some questions I have... (Score:2)
Re:Some questions I have... (Score:2)
J. Prop. Power V4 N4 1993, p502
Shock Waves (DOI) 10.1007/s00193-002-0147-0
J. Spacecraft V17 N5 1980 p416-424
Amongst many, many, others. Just the sreestream has to be supersonic. After all the BL is always going to be subsonic, no matter what you do.
Re:Some questions I have... (Score:2)
Yes, it does. Right now, the trick is to see if a working scramjet can work. Normal jets suck in air and use that to increase the amount of combustion. Kind of like blowing on a fire. So technically it's cheating as well. There is a limitation to the velocity of air coming in. To have big fires (jets, rocket engines), you need to add more oxygen. Rockets carry their own oxygen, which can get heavy.
The scramjet gets around this, and bu
Re:Some questions I have... (Score:1)
Re:Some questions I have... (Score:1)
X-43A design theory (Score:5, Informative)
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:This is bad news for NASA. (Score:1)
Delaying a mission because something needs sorting is not a failure. It's common sense. It's like you might, finding your moped tire a bit soft in the morning, delay your trip to the welfare office until you've gotten some air in it.
Taking nothing from Burt and Company... but... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Taking nothing from Burt and Company... but... (Score:1)
NASA's been running around in little circles since 1980. While their robotic program has had some stunning successes, up til now, they have done very little to advance the presence of humans in space. That's what makes the private space industry compelling--they're working to get everyone into space for relatively little money, not just those who can pay $20M to Russia or complete the decades of training (including postgraduate degrees or milita
Wussies (Score:2)
Design by committee. Gauranteed to fail on their flagship product, but always careful with their experimental stuff.
I thought TFA said... (Score:3, Funny)
Movie clip (Score:4, Informative)
This 1 minute, 16 second narrated movie provides an overview of the X-43A as it prepares for a Mach 10 flight. [nasa.gov]
not enough time in the launch window? (Score:5, Funny)
We've all heard about the short uptime of Windows, but this is ridiculous.
eh.. (Score:1)
Re:eh.. (Score:1)
Not the one I want to hear about (Score:3, Funny)
I watch too much TV
Instrumentation (Score:4, Funny)
Mine goes to 11! (Score:2)
Re:Instrumentation (Score:2)
Is this the long fabled "Aurora"? (Score:2, Informative)
Which would you prefer? (Score:1)
launch window? (Score:1, Funny)
Re:launch window? (Score:1)
WRONG! (Score:1)
Have a look at:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/x43a/status.html [spaceflightnow.com]