Second Test of X-43A Scramjet Tomorrow

pinkUZI writes "NASA says its new Hyper-X, a jet capable of flying some 5,000mph - seven times the speed of sound - will be ready to take a test cruise across the Pacific this Saturday. This is actually NASA's second attempt; the first, in 2001, failed when stabilizing fins flew off the plane's booster rocket and controllers ordered the craft destroyed. CNN has the story." NASA's mission web page has more information, photos, etc.

Comments

Favorite Quote on Hypersonic Travel

[ansible]

Gordon D. Pusch wrote in sci.space.tech: "Hypersonic travel combines all the disadvantages of airplanes with all the disadvantages of rocket flight and all the disadvantages of re-entry --- continuously."

Re:Favorite Quote on Hypersonic Travel

[Anonymous Coward]

Leaving the surface of a planet combines all the disadvantages of being inconceivably distant from an energy source, with all the disadvantages of being inconceivably distant from a food source, with all the disadvantages of being exposed to continual hard radiation, with all the disadvantages of having your body waste away from lack of gravity - continuously.

Re:Sonic-boom?

[youlogee]

Aren't there laws governing mach speeds over populated areas?

Why?

[Wind_Walker]

Forgive me for being so stupid, but what's the point of making a craft that can go Mach 7? The article claims travel benefits, going from New York to London in 2 hours. But honestly, travelling that fast, if anything went wrong you're toast. Turn a little bit to the wrong side, and suddenly you've lost a wing from the shock. No commercial airliner would stand for that.

The only possible use I can think of is hyper-range weapons. Ground-controlled planes armed with lethal cargo (nuclear or not) could be flown around the globe faster than any ICBM, and guided with better accuracy.

I'm all for "Science for Science's sake" but I think this is worthless for any practical purposes.

Re:Why?

[Hektor_Troy]

You know, if anything goes wrong with a regular transatlantic airliner while it's over the North Atlantic, I think it's fairly safe to say you're toast as well.

Granted, the nice stewardesses tell you that you can use your seat cushion as a floatation device, but two things strike me in that scenario:

1) What are the chances of surviving initial impact into the ocean when the plane is in a 600 mile an hour vertical dive
2) Do I really want to float around in the North Atlantic for several days, clinging to a pillow full of beer farts

And yet, we still do this on a regular basis because guess what - it's actually fairly safe. As will hypersonic travel be, once we get around to getting better materials etc.

In the 1700's people really believed that if you traveld faster than a horse, you'd die from the shock and that it would be impossible to build a heavier than air flying machine. Guess what - they were wrong, and you will be as well. Some day (if we don't manage to blow up ourselves first).

Re:Why?

[meringuoid]

The article claims travel benefits, going from New York to London in 2 hours.

This is the most tragic thing I've ever read on Slashdot. We USED TO be able to go from New York to London in two hours. It was sixties technology, hacked together by two dying empires looking for some prestige. Now we're looking at a little dart fired off a B-52 and dreaming of flying that fast again someday... What the hell went wrong?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

what's the point of making a SUV that can go over 80MPH or have an engine bigger than a 4 CYL?

what's the point of making a supersonic passenger jet?

what's the point of driving around in a circle for 200 laps?

what's the point of the olympics?

we do things as humans because we can... it's insane to send people underwater into deep waters... but we go there to look at the wierd creatures...

Dive?

[bluGill]

Mostly I agree, but your first question starts with an incorrect assumption: a 600mph vertical dive. Pilots are trained at ditching an airplane at sea, and planes do float for a short time after this happens. In fact (though I don't know of any specific cases off hand) it has happened before, and many passangers have survived ditching at sea. Vertical dives do not happen in a significant amount of emergency situations, wings are simple devices and don't break all that often, and a wing is all you need to prevent a vertical dive.

Airplanes have backup batteries, and backup radios. You can be sure that before the plane hits the water emergency people know that it is going down, and about where. They might not be able to get to you in time to save you, but they at least know where to look just in case.

I'd prefer to float around the North Atlantic than die. Though I think it is safe to assume that if it really is several days before rescure workers find you they will find a dead body. However depending on where the crash happens, rescure workers may find you sooner.

Deja Vu ?

[AftanGustur]

The article claims travel benefits, going from New York to London in 2 hours. But honestly, travelling that fast, if anything went wrong you're toast.

I imagine this is almost exactly what was claimed when the combustion engine was being developed..

Just think about it:
The inventors claim travel benefits, going from New York to Bostin in 3 hours. But honestly, travelling that fast, if anything went wrong you're toast.

Is it just me...

[Jexx Dragon]

or are prototype names getting stupider? Really Hyper-X? Sounds like the name for a fighter in a cheap sci-fi. Even Star Trek uses a letter(s) followed by numbers.

Maybe since Sci-fi authors started using the normal system NASA felt they needed to distence themselves from the logical way of doing things so as to gain/keep credibility?

Re:Space flight?

[Gunfighter]

I have a friend who works on this project for NASA and I asked the same question. His answer was quite simple: it's not supposed to aid space flight efforts. Keep in mind the first 'A' in NASA: Aeronautics.

I'm sure we'll eventually be able to deploy scramjet technology to boost space-bound vessels into the upper atmosphere and release them from there to continue under their own power. Given that the scramjet itself currently needs a boost, I think it will be a while before we see such a feat.

Re:Circumference

[Anonymous Coward]

rwiedower: But if the earth's circumference is around 25,000 miles, and this jet can go 5,000 miles an hour, that would mean it would take only 2.5 hours to get from any location to any other...

BZZTT Wrong: Earth circumference is 25K miles at GROUND LEVEL. Are you trying to skim the surface? If you just go up 1 mile then you will find the circumference is ~31K etc. etc.

Re:still need ...

[HokieJP]

I think they're using it because its cheaper than designing a whole new rocket just for three flights.

Plus, the plane is the subject of the experiment, so you want to minimize the number of possible failure points in all the other systems. Using a booster thats already proven is a great way to do this. Of course, in flight one it was the booster that failed...

Re:Why? its a bomb of course...

[Diclophis]

Like everything else the govt pays for... its an offensive weapon. take a look at the calculations

((1 / 2) * (1 000 kg)) * ((7 000 mph)^2) = 4.89619666 x 10^09 Joules

a 20 kiloton bomb is ~10^13 joules...

What these means is... if they can put these engines on largers chunks of mass (i.e. increase the mass of the object flying at 7 times the speed of sound). They could have a bomb, with the explosive power of an atomic weapon... without using atomic methods. There is no need to strap a atomic warhead to this missle.... the missile is the warhead. And the best thing is... you would never hear it coming (radar wouldnt give you enough time to react (bleep bleep boom)).