Slashdot Mirror
Second Hypersonic X43 Scramjet Ready for Testing
Dan writes "I am sure most of you remember how NASA was forced destroy their first hypersonic X43 seconds in it's maiden flight, which was a big setback for the american hypersonic scramjet program. Well NASA just finished one of the final tests and is preparing to launch it as early as February 21! I wish them the best."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Happy Trails,
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
I think scramjets are really the solution to low cost travel, including to low-earth orbit and space. I only hope that travel with scramjets will not end up going the way of the Concorde...
...though I bet Bush will fund it so he can land one on an aircraft carrier!! *rimshot*
webpage
This is great technology, but remember, it's not for *us*, it's for the military. Faster jets, bigger killing radius, when will this benefit freedom and peace?
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Looks like they were forced to destroy their server on its maiden Slashdot voyage.
I don't know for you, but I find manned high speed flights (X1, X15) much more exciting to witness from a human perspective than those remote-controlled ones. I realize the objective is to test an engine and that there's no need to put a human being in danger to achieve that anymore, but it doesn't produce heroic stories and certainly doesn't make children dream like it used to.
I find the old crappy 1969 b/w pictures of the first man on the moon much more appealing than the Spirit panoramas, yet the probe went much further than Armstrong, and probably did a lot more science. But still, it's not the same thing, and NASA should send actually people up-diddly-up instead of drones, just because (1) there would be volunteers and (2) they would strike the public's imagination and generate sympathy for that kind of research, which in turn would turn into funding...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Clickey-clickey
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
For the several earlier posters who seem to think that this is the Holy Grail of Earth-to-orbit transportation -- well, maybe they're right in that it's about equally unattainable. Rockets work a hell of a lot better - as has been demonstrated by almost 47 years of orbital flight.
Any airbreathing technology suffers a couple of fundamental flaws when it comes to suborbital, let alone orbital, transport. Most obvious, the air is mighty thin up there -- so you've got to stay where the air is thicker to support combustion. (Which basically means you can't make orbit with out at least some kind of apogee kick rocket).
Secondly, pushing through all that air creates drag. Now, you either aggravate the problem by slowing the relative airspeed enough to support combustion -- meaning increasing the drag on that air (supersonic combustion alleviates this somewhat), or you don't slow it down (relatively, actually you're speeding the air up), have a harder time maintaining combustion, and more significantly, have a much lower momentum delta in the exhaust -- meaning less push to the vehicle.
Scramjets have some limited use for high speed short range flight but rockets are far more efficient and the only practical way to get to orbit.
(And while I may not be a rocket scientist, I've had long talks about just this with some very expert rocket scientists, such as Max Hunter.)
-- Alastair
this will be THE means to get to a station in Earth orbit, and from there, nuclear rockets out into the farther reaches of the solar system. I'd love to see colonies on Mars as much as the next geek, but until we get it through our heads that we need to have stepping stones along the way, we aren't going to be successful. It is simply too damn expensive to develop an entirely new system for every "space objective". We need a new way into Earth orbit... and a space station whose primary objective is to be a way station where deep space nuclear propulsion systems can launch for the rest of the solar system without contaminating the environment here on earth. Maybe someday materials science will make possible the space elevator (and it may be closer than I think, but until they're spinning line, I'm not counting on it....) but until then, we need a different solution beyond out brute force approach. This could be the technology that opens up just these sorts of possibilities.
Supersonic is Mach 1.0 to 4.9, Hypersonic is Mach 5.0+. I'm not an aerospace engineer, but I vaguely remember an article in Popular Science that talked about how over Mach 4, the airflow through the engine would disrupt combustion.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Scramjets combust the air at supersonic velocities rather than diffusing it prior to combustion the way most other engines in supersonic vehicles do. There's a lot of promise here. But in a society that can't make the Concorde profitable, will it be worth it in the end? I'd love to be able to fly to the other side of the world in something less than 24 hours. The economics of the situation seem to be against us, though.
"You can never have too many elephants on your team."
Been there done that.
Basically, yes.
The thing about getting to orbit isn't so much the vertical velocity required, its your horizontal velocity. Rockets going to orbit don't go straight up; if they did they would end up coming straight back down... The trick is getting enough horizontal velocity so that as gravity pulls you down towards the earth you are moving fowards fast enough that you are continually "falling over the edge" of the horizon.
With a scramjet you only need half the fuel of a traditional rocket, as you burn oxygen from the atmosphere instead of carrying it all with you. Yes, a traditional rocket IS needed to get you out of the atmosphere, but using a scramjet for the initial acceleration would end up saving a lot of fuel, and hence weight.
The liquid fueled rockets that nasa uses today use liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen in the reaction:
2 H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O
Which means that by mass modern rockets use about 8 times as much oxygen as they use hydrogen.
at that speed air becomes very different due to frictional heating. the aerodynamics are also somewhat different than supersonic flight which are much different than subsonic.
the main problems are heat though. the SR-71 flew around mach 3 and heat was its biggest enemy. also keeping the engines going at that speed was a challenge - few jet engines operate with those air speeds without self destructing.
-
This one, IIRC, is built for use by Halliburton to deliver water to Iraq.
It's all no-bid, hush-hush, very patriotic and stuff.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I work for the Air Force, everything I do goes into this mad, mad machine. It pays my bills, but in a way it is like a drug. I work with the best technology, but as much as I love the toys, I hate the end. I guess that makes me a whore. I accept it, but I don't like it.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
So, why carry the oxygen, why not get oxygen from the air? For LH2-LO2, that eliminates most of the mass and solves the mass fraction problem right away. The 1960's Aerospaceplane project originally considered liquifying the O2 from the air -- careful tweaking can be enriched on LO2 over LN2 on account of boiling point differences. You used (boiled off) some of your LH2 to get the coolant.
The trouble with LACE (liquid air cycle engine) is that you have to slow down the air rushing into the inlet (or speed it up to your rushing vehicle). If you are going fast enough relative to orbital velocity, slowing the O2 down in the inlet will heat it so much that you cannot burn it with H2 and get any energy -- the stagnation temperature of the shock front gets higher than your flame temperature. Hey, if this were not the case, orbital velocity would be low compared to rocket exhaust velocity and mass fraction would not be a problem.
Ah, the scramjet, and scramjet was also considered for Aerospaceplane. It is literally the taking a drink from a fire hose. You only slow down the inlet air stream a little bit so you get some compression, and burn H2 in that hypersonic air blast and 1) hope that the flame doesn't blow out and 2) hope that you get any positive net thrust out of the works.
If you could get any single-stage-to-orbit vehicle built that had reasonable engineering margins, you could fly it like an airplane, and even if it had a very small payload, you could fly it often enough to make a profit. NASA blew a wad in the late 80's, early 90's with National Aero Space Plane (NASP) and pulled the plug. But forget the scramjet -- if you could build a rocket out of composite materials, you could get the mass fraction. NASA blew a wad in the late 90's on the X-33 and then pulled the plug.
Jerry Pournelle states that the Strategic Defense Office (which needed a way to loft Star Wars into orbit) could have done the job -- the DC-X demonstrated the control of vertical-takeoff vertical-landing (lands tail first on rocket flames just like in Buck Rogers -- maybe not so wasteful of fuel because reentry is mainly aerobraking and landing is to last applying the brakes on a mainly empty vehicle), and he talks about a program called Have Region (don't know the source of Air Force code names, although NASA these days seems to have projects code named Have Boner) that proved that the mass fraction target was achievable and one didn't need scramjets.
... because scramjets don't work at subsonic speeds, you'd need something BEFORE the scramjets to get to mach, what, 7.
I'm sorry, i'm not seeing this as a solution to the cost of space travel at all.
Does anyone else think that the X43 looks like a death star? Am I going crazy or have I been hanging around the Comp Sci labs too much?
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
This is only relevant for scramjets that use hydrogen as a fuel. If there were a scramjet which used jet fuel B, then that type of savings would be much smaller.
However, the X-43A vehicle does indeed use hydrogen for its fuel. (Perhaps for that very reason?)
Better to simply make the fuel and oxidizer tanks bigger (because fuel and oxidizer is -so- much a -tiny- part of a launch cost) and stick bigger engines on it.
Whoever modded this as interesting knows even less about physics and aerospace technology than did the writer. The heat generated by friction at high speed is an issue that must be addressed, but while there will be drag it's not going to rip anything apart unless it's not designed properly in the first place. That's one of the things wind tunnels and computer modeling help deal with long before a model is test-flown.
The SR-71's fusalage expanded from heat, true. The material is going to have to deal with heat, true. The NASA shuttle deals with the heat of mach 25 on re-entry, and it is not torn apart by drag unless something goes wrong, but the same happens when a commecial airliner gets seriously out of shape in-flight. Like the one that lost its rudder over Long Island Sound a couple years ago.
The stealth bomber (B-2) is subsonic. Carbon fiber is used due to its strength-to-weight and radio-frequency transparency, not heat resistance. I would be looking at exotic metal alloys, metal composites, ceramics (which is what the space shuttle tiles are) and use of circulating fuel for cooling of critical areas. The flight profile for a long duration hypersonic craft would probably involve extended flight at altitudes where drag is less of an issue, further reducing friction heating.
To hear the gods laugh tell them your plans.
That's not entirely correct. The O2 is a third of the mass. Keep in mind that in addition to eliminating the weight of the 02, scramjets push such an amazing amount of air out the back that they are far more efficient than rocket engines.
The main problem with space launches is the initial climb and acceleration, when you are pushing forward all of the craft's stages and fuel. By eliminating the 02, it translates into vastly, vastly smaller requirements.
Better to simply make the fuel and oxidizer tanks bigger (because fuel and oxidizer is -so- much a -tiny- part of a launch cost) and stick bigger engines on it.
Scramjets are far simpler than rocket engines. It would be much cheaper to build boosters that use a scramjet as a first stage as opposed to a rocket engine. The fuel savings, the increased payload, and the cheaper cost all make the scramjet a superior option.
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
Scramjet technology began around the 1950's. It has been since the 1970's research in to plasma torches in supersonic flows. The plasma torch servers as an igniter and combustion enhancer. Plasma torches offer a couple of advanrages. The plasma torch servers as an ignition source for the fuel and combustion enhancing radicals produced by the plasma torch.
Scramjets also use the hypersonic shock wave for compression. A high compression "point" is where the forebody and engine fence shock waves cross. One of the problems faced it is how to design the inlets to maximise the compression. To keep things simple many scramjet engines are designed as 2D engines.
Designs my attempt to use air stream swirl to enhance fuel and oxidizing air mixing.
For more details please see http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/cache/papers/cs/3623/ft p:zSzzSztechreports.larc.nasa.govzSzpubzSztechrepo rtszSzlarczSz1998zSzaiaazSzNASA-aiaa-98-2506.pdf/r ogers98experimental.pdf
I am an vegan and my Ike you is
Wat was the queschin?
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
That's not entirely correct. The O2 is a third of the mass.
...twice as many hydrogens as oxygen but
I'm not sure what relavence the % of Oxygen's mass is. The main point is that the mass doesn't matter if it is fuel/oxidizer mass. Typically you want -more- of it because it makes life so simple if you can have more powerful engines that consume it in large quantities.
--You are both wrong. In a Liquid Hydrogen/Liquid Oxygen rocket, 8 times as much oxygen mass is needed compared to hydrogen mass.
4H + O2 => 2H2O
Oxygen is 16 times more massive.
Rocket engines are -very- efficient, but of course they have to push their own oxidizer along.
--I dont know how you define efficiency but in my aproximation having to lift 20x the payload mass because of extra fuel is an inefficency.
Vastly smaller requirements for what? O2 which is amazingly cheap? Why bother?
--Going back to the previous point. Its not a matter of the price of oxygen, but the bulk that it causes to carry it. This results in hugely more complex lift vehical, which is... um... huge, and expensive.
You don't get very far up before you run out of oxygen to power a scramjet
--In fact it cant operate at low altituteds because there is too much oxygen.
scramjet... weighs quite a bit itself.
--Compared to fuel weight ???? Are you nutts ?
Sir, I dont think you understand this at all.
Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
Ahem. That's what's called the stochiometric ratio, which is NOT used for rockets. Rockets burn very fuel rich; because (to oversimplify somewhat) the light, hot, hydrogen gives better thrust than the water (less places to hide the energy in simple molecules like hydrogen- rockets want the energy to go into kinetic energy of the molecules rather than internal vibration modes of the molecules).
The upshot is that rockets typically run with about 2/3 by mass of the propellent oxygen, with the rest made up of the fuel.
IRC This translates in the case of Apollo as 6 moles of hydrogen per mole of oxygen- but 8 gives a higher exhaust velocity, but hydrogen tanks are too heavy so the *vehicle* optimises at a lower ratio.
I dont know how you define efficiency but in my aproximation having to lift 20x the payload mass because of extra fuel is an inefficency.
It's so not as simple as that though- scramjets suffer from incredible heating effects from going mach 8 in the atmosphere, they suffer enormous drag effects, they end up using more *fuel* (as opposed to propellent), and the scramjet engine is bigger and heavier than a rocket engine for the same payload- furthermore engines cost money, whereas LOX and LOX tanks don't. (Fuel is pretty cheap too in fact).
This results in hugely more complex lift vehical, which is... um... huge, and expensive.
No. Perversely perhaps, it's bigger, but cheaper; because 60% of the mass is LOX, and the rocket engines are smaller and cheaper.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"Nope. That's the stochiometric ratio, nothing like that is ever used. Actually it's more like:
4 H2 + O2 -> 2H20 + 2 H2
(Actually, it's much messier than that, you really get a bunch of HO's O's H's H2O2's but that's the gist of it).
The point is rockets run very fuel rich, because that gives a much higher exhaust velocity (the hydrogen has less places to hide energy than complex molecules- you want as much energy as possible to be in kinetic form), the scramjet would do the same thing. So your fuel/oxidiser ratio is way off.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"