Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA 'Hyper-X' Series Scramjets

Posted by michael on from the ginger-ale-peanuts-and-oxygen-mask dept.

swight1701 writes "Sciencedaily.com is reporting that NASA has revealed its plans for developing Hypersonic aircraft within 2 decades. These plans include planes that could routinely go Mach 5+ and capable of taking off from an airport and visiting the IIS, or for you earthbound folk, from one airport to any other within 2 hours. And you thought your luggage gets lost NOW.:)" NASA's release includes some graphics showing what the test vehicles look like.

6 of 58 comments (clear)

  1. Wow, new airplane designs! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The flying tube really hasn't had much design change for the past 50 years. Oh, I forgot, "Winglets, yay!"

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  2. Ozone Layer? by EvilBudMan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How is this going to affect the ozone layer in the future, if hundreds of these things are flying through it every day?

  3. PULSEJET: Combines Air Breathing and Rocket by justanyone · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Pulse jets (like the WWII German V-1 "cruise missle") could transition between air-scoop and rocket. Features:
    • using atmospheric oxygen as oxidizer at low altitude & speed
    • use onboard oxygen as oxidizer at higher altitudes and speeds;
    • climb to 50-60 K feet altitude and refuel conventionally (subsonic of course);
    • change air scoop / inlet geometry with increasing speed / air density (model this in wind tunnel);
    • Add oxidizer as needed to optimize fuel efficiency;
    • Fuel/oxidizer drop-tanks if necessary (cheap, conventional);
    • pulsejets are non-continuous burn, can shut them down easeier than turbine / rocket engines;
    • Can use variable-sweep wings for different mach numbers and to optimize wing loading;

    Just some ideas.

    ALSO: How come we don't see postings on Nasa websites with "what we've considered and why it didn't work" so outside engineers can solve their problems for them...

    --
    Unitarian Church: Freethinkers Congregate!
  4. Re:Stupid designs. by spike+hay · · Score: 3, Interesting

    At those speeds, wings are a hindrance. One finds that the leading surfaces must be made of unobtanium.

    One of the ways around this is to use plasma. If you generate plasma ahead of an aircraft with a welding-torch type of thing, you can reduce the drag by as much as 30%. The Russians are using plasma in their next generation of MiGs. (BTW, plasma also absorbs radar)

    Another thing is to use carbon-carbon composites. C-C's are very expensive but can withstand many thousands of degrees. They are used in rocket nozzles.

    --
    If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
  5. Re:May I ask... by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Well, liquid hydrogen costs about $5/kg. You need much less than 30 kg to launch 1kg of payload. (2.2 pounds to the kg btw). You do the maths. And incidentally, hydrogen is pretty expensive. LOX is under 4c per kg, and kerosene is not much more than LOX. The fuel is totally negligable.

    Your numbers are a bit off BTW. The cost to launch a man is generally reckoned to be about $10,000 per kg. The russians charge less than $20 million, basically because they can. Their whole rocket costs about $5 million. There's a big difference between cost and price...

    The real cost goes into the salaries of the employees. There's about 10,000 or more involved with the Space Shuttle. But don't get the impression that the Russian rockets are cheaper just because the Russians are paid a lot less- they are, that's a big factor, but the way they put their rockets together is more efficient as well. NASA don't seem to care about low cost in quite the same way.

    Please don't mention the external tank... it gives me a headache just thinking about that much waste.

    SLI? Hah!

    --

    -WolfWithoutAClause

    "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  6. Re:Lets think about this for a moment... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You should be thinking instead about the X-15.

    http://www.x15.com/program.html

    "The X-15 was carried to an altitude of 12,000 meters (40,000 feet) under the wing of a Boeing B-52 bomber. During one test, it attained an altitude of over 108 kilometers (67 miles), flying so high that it functioned more as a spacecraft than an airplane. In 1967 it reached Mach 6.72 (7,297 kilometers or 4,534 miles per hour). "

    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-60/ co ver.html

    http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/modern_flight/mf5 7. htm

    http://www.astronautix.com/craft/x15a2.htm