Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA's X-43A Vehicle Ready for Flight

Posted by michael on from the fore! dept.

Aielman writes "NASA has set March 27 as the date for testing the X-43A vehicle over a Navy range in the Pacific. It will be testing a non-rocket air breathing scramjet engine at approximately 5,000 mph. This is the second attempt, the first ending in intentional destruction due to course deviations shortly after launch."

7 of 57 comments (clear)

  1. I got to wondering what the fastest flight was... by dukarukus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    (all from guinnessworldrecords.com)

    Fastest Winged Aircraft
    On October 3, 1967, an X-15A-2 piloted by USAF Major William J. "Pete" Knight, was released from its B-52 mother plane at 10,668 m. (35,000 ft.) above the Mojave Desert where it achieved an absolute speed record of Mach 6.7. (4,520 mph)

    Fastest Airliner
    The Tupolev Tu-144, first flown on December 31, 1968, was reported to have reached Mach 2.4, or 2,587 km/h (1,600 mph), but normal cruising speed was Mach 2.2. The Tupolev TU-144, which Nato codenamed 'Charger', was built as a competitor to the British and French Concorde supersonic jetliner, however one of the aircraft crashed during a presentation at the Paris Air Show in 1973.

    Fastest Biplane
    The fastest biplane was the Italian Fiat CR42B. The plane had a 1,100-hp (753-kw) Daimler-Benz DB601A engine, which propelled the craft to speeds of 520 km/h (323 mph) in 1941. Although only a single CR42B prototype was built, 1,780 of the CR42B Falco were produced. It proved invaluable to the Italian Air Force in World War II.

    I realize this last one isn't about speed, i just thought it was cool :)
    Longest Paper Airplane Flight
    The level flight duration record for a hand-launched paper airplane is 27.6 sec., by Ken Blackburn of the USA, at the Georgia Dome, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, on October 8, 1998.

  2. BOMARC Ramjet missle by G4from128k · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The BOMARC was a early ramjet-powered missle from 60s. You can see one in Dayton Ohio at the Wright-Patterson Air Forcebase Museum. One can walk up to the BOMARC and look up inside the ram jets which are nothing more than a hollow tube with a grid of fuel injection nozzles.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
  3. Re:I don't mean to sound bitter ... by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 3, Interesting
    ... but why weren't we doing this 40+ years ago? The X-43 seems to me like a logical evolution of the X-15, which is the kind of thing we should have been working on all this time.

    My question is why anyone is doing this now. AFAIK there's still no useful way on the horizon that a scramjet can help you get to orbit, it's not obviously useful as a way of carrying passengers, it has a *really*, really horrible tendency to melt the vehicle, it maxes out at maybe mach 7.0-9.0 (n.b. orbit is mach twenty five!), the vehicle shape is deeply constrained and the materials to make this concept useful are pretty much beyond the state of the art.

    I mean transportation? Concorde died because it was uneconomic and that ran at 3x lower velocity. Drag is a square law... you do the math.

    Whatever you may think of rockets, they actually do work, whereas, right now, scramjets flat-out don't do anything useful.

    Personally, I think the investment in this technology is missile related. That's the only thing small enough to fit into the shell, and one of the only things that can't leave the atmosphere because their target can't either.

    --

    -WolfWithoutAClause

    "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  4. Re:I don't mean to sound bitter ... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was under the impression that they were eventually hoping to get scramjets up to Mach 15 or so -- which isn't orbital velocity, but it's a hell of a lot closer. And you can gain a lot of altitude, too, which makes a difference; the less atmosphere you have to punch through when you light the rocket, the better. Put simply, Mach 15 at 200,000 feet beats 0 at sea level every time.

    I don't have anything against rockets; they do indeed work, and I think we should keep doing everything we can to develop rocket technology in parallel with air-breathing engines. But not having to carry oxidizer for a large portion of the trip to orbit is inarguably a Good Thing.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  5. Re:I don't mean to sound bitter ... by jwriney · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The touchy bit about airbreathers, though (well, one of them) is the tradeoff between the speed you can gain and frictional heating. Airbreathers won't do you much good if there's no air. But if you get to going too fast where the atmosphere's thick enough to sustain combustion, you quickly get outside the capabilities of existing materials to keep from melting. It's a tricky balance.

    It's cool research, no doubt. But the analyses I've seen seem to indicate that with the added weight of the scramjet itself, and the extra thermal protection you need to run one, it ends up being less efficient then just starting from zero-zero (altitude-speed) and carrying more fuel and oxy.

    --riney

  6. Faster than a speeding bullet by phamlen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I started wondering about how fast 5000 mph really is. From simple math, thatt's 1.38 miles per second. That is, in fact, faster than the fastest speeding bullet (how fast is a speeding bullet?) So what could you do with a vehicle that fast?

    Well, my commute (from Brooklyn to Manhattan) takes 35 minutes to go 7.63 miles. I could cut that commute by 34 minutes and 54 seconds. On the other hand, if I didn't mind the commute but wanted to live a little further out from the city, I could live in Los Angeles - my commute to Manhattan would still be just 33 minutes.

    Segway, shmegway! I want a personal scram jet!

  7. Re:I don't mean to sound bitter ... by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I was under the impression that they were eventually hoping to get scramjets up to Mach 15 or so -- which isn't orbital velocity, but it's a hell of a lot closer. And you can gain a lot of altitude, too, which makes a difference; the less atmosphere you have to punch through when you light the rocket, the better.
    It's not as close as you might think, in terms of energy, starting at Mach 15 saves you about 5%. But to get that 5%, you end up being heavily constrained by what the aircraft can carry. The same goes for altitude, a rocket actually spends very little of it's fuel gaining altitude, the bulk of it goes to gaining horizontal velocity. (Without horizontal velocity, you don't get orbit.) Again, you get a slight gain, but at a great cost.
    Put simply, Mach 15 at 200,000 feet beats 0 at sea level every time.
    Put simply, that's what commonsense would seem to dictate. But in reality, the numbers don't add up. It turns out that to launch a Soyuz sized payload, you need an aircraft larger than any ever seriously contemplated. (Think something the equivalent of six to eight C5A Galaxies. Imagine how much it will cost to develop and support such a beast.) In the end, an airbreathing and recoverable first stage turns out to be uneconomical as hell.
    But not having to carry oxidizer for a large portion of the trip to orbit is inarguably a Good Thing.
    It would be - if airbreathers could do that. But in the end, they best they can do is a very small fraction of the trip.