Slashdot Mirror
NASA Tests X-43A
An anonymous reader writes "NASA TV has live coverage of the
launch of the X-43A
scram jet flight. Hopes are that the unmanned vehicle will reach speeds in
excess of mach 7-10. The last flight a few years ago failed." Stephen Watts sends this link for X-43A background information.
Is anyone getting audio for this feed? Perhaps it will start up near the launch.
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
That should read "warp 7-10," correct? Pretty funny after all those Star Trek haters claimed such speeds were impossible.
True story.
So... Who wants to bet that it'll ignite the atmosphere? ;-)
"Launch it allready! *dammit*"
... how any confirmations/checks to they have to go thru? They've done like a zillion +one checks/confirms... by now.
I don't claim I know more than I know, and if you know you know more than I know, then by all means, let me know.
Noooo, don't Slashdot it, you insensitive clods!
;-(
I was getting a great feed of the boring pre-launch stuff for the last 2 hours, now y'all'll've gone and ruined it
They are about to launch the actual scramjet...
I have audio(.wmv). Right now its just the chase plane following the carrier aircraft. 10 minutes until release (@ 5:00 EST) according to the radio comms.
and destroy it again because they forgot something
good idea
And, no, I should not have used the goddamn Preview mode first.
Please give us the verbal rundown. I'm on a system without Realmedia.
Heej, this is really good stuff. First time a good post on slashdot. Live video, flying beside it with another plain. 9 minutes from now!! DONT F*CKING SLASHDOT IT, I WANNA SEE IT :-P It's eleven @ my place :-)
We've been watching this feed for 90 minutes and now it will be slashdotted, insensitive bastards :(
/me prays for nasa's bandwidth
He who defends everything, defends nothing. -- Fredrick The Great
Nasa has a lot of interesting pictures of the X-43A posted.
The last time they launched the (unmanned) scramjet, it crashed.
Well, don't turn it off. As I was typing this they said it's launching in the next 9 minutes.
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
They're getting ready to launch. Begin nailbiting. They're transferring to internal power now.
Wow this is fun... lvl to internal
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
If this happens to get slashdotted in the next 8ish minutes, FoxNews is covering the scramjet live.
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
I have DirecTV and I have a multisat dish. Mainly this is so that I can get HD content, but you get a few extra channels. Most of which are useless most of the time. E.g. Rural Farm Channel. Occasionally, NASA TV has something interesting on it, but nothing that I've ever thought to TiVo.
But Mach 7-10? That's worth putting on the TiVo. Fortunately, it's an incredibly still picture, so this thing compresses well and doesn't take up much space on the disk.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
And probably irrelevent, since there's no funding for future tests.
Yeah, I was going to mention something about a Mars probes and the Hubble, but... club; horse carcass...
:(
I got caught by the sift rotation monster, and I'm at work. We have a Dish network setup, and I was watching it on NASA TV. My break ended before I could see it launch.
The party's over
Launch vehicle launch (the booster rocket).
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
Um, to those of you that are bitching about the feed... it's on directv live channel 376 ...
Most likely on a decent cable provider too.
Even if its moving at mach 7...we can still slashdot it!
Regards
elFarto
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...and they can't show a readable countdown timer on the screen.
IGNITION && SUPERSONIC
Here we go. Let's see how well it does.
The funny part, when they finally did launch you couldn't see the damn thing.
They should have launched 2. One with the camera and one doing the test.
Rod Taylor
Everyone at NASA is clapping, looks like it went well! Definately better than last time! No word yet on how fast it got up to.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
"All stations we are a go for launch at this time..."
"10 seconds launch on my mark"
"5 4 3 2 1 launch"
"Ignition!"
"Guidance on"
"we are supersonic"
(bunch of everything is nominal)
past mach 3
separation of booster
fuel is off
recovery complete
"Good job"
"Really pretty"
They really do exist.
Sorry for spamming, but it worked, nasa is cheering on the newsfeeds!! Short flight btw
Success. Launch and recovery went off without a hitch. There's a lot of happy looking people in control right now.
... shares the channel with Philadelphia Park Horse racing.... so instead of scramjets i saw ponies. yay for broadband!
Congrats NASA!!!!! Could this be used for take out Chinese from China to Oregon??
__________ Leave me alone I'm compiling a RPG II program on my S/36...Thanks to metamucil I'm a Regular Meta Moderator
looks like mach 5
He's got that J Lo skank on his crank.
Now you fuckers will have some fast as hell cruise missles coming your way.
I get the NASA channel in my home, and I just watched the vehicle hit a peak of Mach 5. Does this mean the test was unsucessful? Also, was what I was watching live or not? I just got up from the TV about a minute ago and they were beginning the return checklist.
Looks like it topped out just over Mach 5. Not too damn bad.
I'll be really impressed when it goes to 11.
Seems that it lost data a bit after Mach 5, but they got what they wanted :)
Not only for the successful launch, but for the high quality Real Video feed. I wonder how many clients they were feeding simultaneously? I am quite impressed.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
Tests completed through Mach 5, it seems. I thought this would go to Mach 7?
wowwwy, mach 5 it's a shame that they have lost data from the rv though, hopefully they will get it back
I've always liked stuff that goes fast. I have one son that is really into anything science. I have another that is into anything that goes fast and/or blows up, so we were all pretty happy.
Matt
it all uses the same bandwidth pool right?
mach 5 = 3,806.03525 mph
mach 5 = 6,125.22 km/h
the vehicle is down, in the water.
Save time now so you can waste it later
Actually, it didn't really crash. I'm pretty sure they blew up before it had time to crash. IOW, it didn't blow up itself, they saw the deviation and had it self destruct.
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
Didn't the Australians do it already in 2002?
I watched via WMP (bleck) and heard about the cowl opening and Mach 5....then another call about the cowl being closed and now it sounds like they closed shop...?
Anyone who's more familiar with this wanna chime in?
While all the other news channels, Canadian and American, were just replaying the same news over and over, CP24 chose to stick with about 20 minutes of continuous live coverage from NASA, with scientists commenting over the phone.
It's heartening to know that there's still a bunch of people in that company who don't think we're all clueless morons.
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
well, its in the ocean now :)
And probably irrelevent, since there's no funding for future tests.
Ah, but if it is successful, they may direct more funding towards this kind of research. Even if it isn't successful, they might learn enough to still warrant putting in more funding.
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
obviously is a prick, or unfamiliar with the various fake-moonlanding conspiracy theories.
*sigh*
give NASA credit for keeping their servers up during that. That, or not too many of you guys were watching. I sure wish they put a camera on the thing, though.
What?
I'm actually watching the windows media stream live in totem as we speak, works like a charm without the real player linux vulnerabilities...
How about this:
As a retired general, he is still a member of the US Military. As a member of the US Military, he is still covered by the UCMJ. Article 88 of the UCMJ prohibits contemptuous use of words by commissioned officers against the President. I have personally seen video of him violating this article.
Of course, no one would ever prosecute him for it, because it would look very bad on the current administration.
They should have launched 2. One with the camera and one doing the test.
I'm pretty sure they only had one remaining test vehicle. Also, why waste money sending two (one with a camera) when you're not even sure one would even be successful? Also, at that high of speeds, and all that, video might not be the best information gathering tool.
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
mach 7 = 5 328.44936 mph
mach 7 = 8 575.308 km/h
mach 10 = 7 612.07051 mph
mach 10 = 12 250.44 km/h
Don't know where you got mach 5...
010010100110010101110011011100110 110010100100000010100110110110101 1010010111010001101000
Take that you wanna-be nerds!
If you zoom in into one of the control room monitors, you can see goatse-guy on it!
My player shows a real saw on the bandwidth chart -- from the minimum of 32.1Kbps to the astounding maximum of 274.8Kbps with the average being 147.5Kbps -- just a notch below 150Kbps at which the thing is encoded :-(.
I'm wondering, is it the speedera.net -- NASA's ISP -- or speakeasy.net -- my ISP?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Oh... nevermind. I know where you got mach 5 now. I lost sound while I was watching the video feed so I didn't realize quite what happened.
I reckon mach 5 is still better than what happened last time though.
010010100110010101110011011100110 110010100100000010100110110110101 1010010111010001101000
If you've got evidence, prosecute the President, if not, shut the fuck up and stop being a professional victim.
so, the apollo missions did mach who knows how much faster than mach 5 with THREE pilots.
The point is that this was an air breather and those were all rocket based.
We don't have a legitimate president at present.
Is Scheduled for 4:00 pm PST
Interesting (well to me anyway) - I watched this (cause I could that's why) using realplayer on a linux box and on windowsmedia on a windows box next to it. The windowsmedia feed lagged (and still is) the realmedia feed by a good 60 seconds.
I think windowsmedia feed was being monitored to ensure no more unsightly janet jackson like incidents in the mission room.
Conspiracy theories anyone?
I had to laugh out-loud when one of the NASA folks (S2?) referred to the B52 as a BUFF. (Air Force jargon: Big Ugly Fat Fscker ...)
Still chuckling a bit. =)
James
> Mach 5 is kinda meh. X15-A2 did mach 6.8 with pilot, in the 1960's
Yes, it did. However the scram jet is a significant improvement just in terms of fuel savings. Not having to carry the oxygen itself and having the system work means more then the final speed it reached.
They couldn't have launched it yet, it's only 4:28 pm cst. if it is scheduled to launch at 4pst they've got another hour an a half at least.
If it's not down too far underwater, it might be worth salvaging and auctioning on E-bay.
NASA TV is going to replay the launch soon. Right now they are showing a board stating that they will replay the launch shortly...
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
If you missed it they are going to show it again. Also dont miss press briefing at 4PM pacific time.
They did it!7 5561. stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/35
Sky News
BBC
Why don't you shut your fucking pie hole and be proud of your country and The President like everyone else?
I am proud of my country, but not of the pretender to the presidency who is a fucking biblethumbing moron on a "holy quest".
nasatv. We can get the details then.
This space available.
What's wrong with exploiting other countries when we can do it? Come on, don't tell me you care about the Iraqis...
I found a clip of the launch at the BBC. I can't seem to figure out where NASA would be hiding the clip.
The BBC page is here. There's a link to the right of the photo at the top of the page.
No, but I concerned about our foreign business, goodwill abroad and the civil rights at home. The monkey and his thugs in the government are harming all those three.
Damn it. Get a clue. This is a new type of propulsion. Well, not that new, but it's the first time it's worked this well. For me, using a rocket propelled object to reach high speeds isn't all that impressive.
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
Hopes are that the unmanned vehicle will reach speeds in excess of mach 7-10.
...speeds in excess of mach 7.
What is that supposed to mean? Shouldn't it possibly read:
...speeds from mach 7-10+.
etc.
Speed in excess of a range doesn't make any sense, the smaller number is irrelevant.
//Blessed are they that run around in circles, for they shall be known as wheels.
I am _not_ going to defile my Mac with Real. Not for pr0n, not for science, not for anything.
Anyone have a link to a format that doesn't suck? Or do I have to bother booting a Windows box.
"None of us are as dumb as all of us." - meeting mantra
Boy, are you ever wrong. The press conference is at 4:00 PST (according to the splash screen on my TV). The flight was at 4:00 CST.
How do I know? I watched it.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
From Wikipedia:
When the air inside a ramjet exceeds the speed of sound (meaning an aircraft speed of around Mach 5+) combustion fails to occur properly. This is overcome in a scramjet (supersonic combustion ramjet). Scramjets are a new concept still in the research stages. Usually, the inlet is much wider (typically the entire underside of the craft) so the compression is less and the air remains at supersonic speeds. Some designs use reactive chemicals or gases other than standard jet fuel. Normally, the design of the jet is much more complex. Like a ramjet the scramjet must already be moving extremely fast before it will start working, but theoretically, speeds in excess of Mach 20 are possible.
Be faithful to your obsessions. Identify them and be faithful to them, let them guide you like a sleepwalker. JG Ballard
Did you even read what he posted? Ramjet technology has been around for a while. This isn't new, it is not that impressive. Great that it can work, but it's nothing revolutionary.
//Blessed are they that run around in circles, for they shall be known as wheels.
Circumfrence of Earth / Mach 5
It would take about 6 and a half hours to get from here and back again.
So in "Hare We Go" when Bugs Bunny threw the baseball around the world to show Christopher Columbus that the world is round, he threw the ball at about Mach 785 or so. Somehow he managed to put enough spin on it that it orbited the planet, the natives applied the stickers, AND he caught the ball.
But can it run Doom III? Yeah, i didn't think so.
The "Insert Quote Here" line is almost as predictable as inserting an actual quote.
110mph in a Winnebago? That's ludicrous...
Wonder if NASA is using liquid schwartz in this thing.
Study everything, you'll find something you can use - Jason Bourne
You are wrong.
A supersonic combusting ramjet is way way way incredibly more technically challenging than a regular ramjet.
Managing the shock wave systems to provide adequate fuel mixing and ignition is only barely possible today with the biggest computer simulations on the planet.
I don't know what you consider "revolutionary", but sustained supersonic combustion is a Really Big Deal.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
if you missed it, BBC has a story and a video clip here
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
MPlayer seems to be able to handle the WMA stream just fine for me. But there's nothing going on right now; it just says that there's going to be a press briefing at 4:00 Pacific.
..would be mindbuggeringly fast. Imagine you're standing in the middle of the Bonneville Salt Flats on a day with perfect visibility in all directions:
The X-43A would cross from (visible) horizon to horizon in about 10 seconds.
Not to put a damper on things, but according to the BBC article, it was already going at about Mach 6 at final seperation thanks to a conventional rocket booster. Then the scramjet took it up another Mach in 10 seconds. That is an excellent demonstration of the scramjet IMHO, but if it hadn't made Mach >5 (or >6) something would have been very wrong! ;)
This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.
..would be mindbuggeringly fast. Imagine standing in the middle of the Bonneville Salt Flats, with perfect visibility in all directions:
The X-43A would cross from (visible) horizon to horizon in about 10 seconds.
..I've been round the globe once already and managed to post the same damn thing twice. Sorry.
Your ASF video feed runs anywhere from 8 to 30 frames per second (lets assume 30 fps, broadcast standard). Mach 7 is 2.382 km/s, and Mach 10 is 3.403 km/s (lets assume it's a marginally successful test at Mach 7). A little algebra and you've got 71.46 km per frame, or 44.4 miles per frame.
Where am I going with this? 44 miles per frame is a pretty good clip. It really makes me wonder (when you watch the clip) that any person could recognize enough land marks over the flight path for the images to have any impact, especially given how compressed the images would be. I just found that in the clear air of the midwest USA, the average visibility is 140 miles. So, in 3 frames (1/10 of a second), you've covered the farthest landscape a person would normally be familiar with.
Suppose you want a 2nd live feed... How are you going to transmit the data out of the plane? I'm pretty sure that nothing ground based can do it, so you need a satellite or something to receive the broadcast, but then you have to worry about targeting. With that much trouble, you might as well keep the recorded data on board and download it after the flight. In which case, you'd still only need one feed on the website.
There's an old Airforce saying: A new plane doesn't make a new engine possible, A new engine makes a new plane possible. That's why when NASA went for the moon a critical development was the F-1 first stage rocket engine. Capable of 1.5M lbs. of thrust it allowed the Saturn V first stage to be built with only 5 engines. Compare this with the Russian failed manned lunar rocket the Energia (I think) which had 20 engines. They never were able to work all together (vibrational problems) and abandoned it after several launch disasters. So why is NASA cancelling this program in particular? Are we (under Bush's program) sacrificing everything to plant a flag on Mars and not making space flight practical? It might be worth it if we ever got to Mars but it looks highly doubtful that his proposal is a serious attempt at anything but votes!
it's not. of course. phew.
I hope I didn't brain my damage.
notice the two F-18's next to the B52??? they both had cameras focused on the x43a.. I watched it on skynews and saw it perfectly, even at mach7, but they had trouble keeping up with it i'll admit.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
"Also, why waste money sending two (one with a camera) when you're not even sure one would even be successful?"
Because if it works you can then take the video to Congress and say "Look! Shiney! Now gimme money!"
Let's see the nearest stellar neighbor, Proxima Centauri, is 4.3 light years away.
1 light year = 5.9 x 10^12 miles
(5.9 x 10^12 miles) x 4.3 light years = 2.5 x 10^13 miles
then
2.5 x 10^13 miles/7.6 x 10^3 mph = 3.2 x 10^9 hours
3.2 x 10^9 hours/24 hours = 1.3 x 10^8 days (give or take a leap day)
1.3 x 10^8 days/365 days = 3.8 x 10^5 years
It will only take 4 years to reach the Proxima Centauri system!!
This is the first time I've checked out NASA TV. I don't get it on cable, so I used their Windows Media feed. It's the best-looking streaming video I've seen yet! Decent resolution and a high frame rate, no tearing when people walk around.
:)
Unfortunately, I missed the launch and just caught the news conference afterward. Apparently, "nominal" roxors NASA hard.
-Rich
... black ops birds probably faster (higher-farther whatever), and did it years ago. I find it incredulous to assume that the DOD doesn't already have aircraft capable of even better performance. I mean, how many examples does it take to bingo to the fact they don't admit *things* until years after accomplishing them? That's their SOP, and always has been. And it wouldn't surprise me any if they were running at least a few protoype electro-gravitic craft as well. Chemical reaction engines are old now. They DID abscond with Tesla's notes after all.....
zogger
- here's a screenshot
...buffering...
If there were only some way to work scramjets into the war on terrorism....
Bzzzzzt - WRONG ANSWER!
t ml
Energia is the *current* Russian Heavy-lift launch vehicle.
The Rocket you are thinking of is the N-1:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1883348.stm
http://members.aol.com/nodin/N1pages/N1index1.h
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/n1.html
--ScottKin
I don't give a rat's behind about "karma" here or anywhere else. Don't like what I have to say here? Deal with it!
the press conference is on right now and they broke Mach 7, and climbed to over 95,000 feet.....
this is from prelim data, but i am sure NASA will release some factoids as soon as everything is verified.....
I stand corrected, thank you I counldn't remember the name!
"It can't be assault! I just touched him!" At Mach 2...
Seriously, we have how many tonnes of steel hitting the water at what speed?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
If you listen to the ABC news radio either streaming radio or on the old fashion light spectrum then tonight, Australian time, there will be a documentary about this.
Does it go on forever?
Nothing was against Bush. He simply told the truth about what happened. That is not contempt against the president or a superior officer.
I have a poor-quality picture of the vehicle itself under thrust (after seperation) that I grabbed from NASA TV. I haven't seen it posted anywhere, but my server can't handle a slashdotting. Anymody who might be able to host it for me, drop me a note.
account name is xenon
and the domain is arcticus.com
-- There is no truth. There is only Perception. To Percieve is to Exist.
http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/documents/digestx iv.html
"The hypersonic aircraft, a cross between a jet and a rocket, was dropped from the wing of a modified B-52 bomber, boosted by an auxiliary rocket to an altitude of nearly 100,000 feet (30,000 meters) and flew on its own power for 10 seconds, said the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
"After the 10-second test firing, the X-43A glided through the atmosphere conducting a series of aerodynamic maneuvers for about six minutes before plunging into the Pacific Ocean, as planned."
Channel News Asia: Experimental hypersonic aircraft breaks world speed record, flies at Mach 7
"A minute before 2 p.m., the craft was dropped from 40,000 feet. A few seconds later, the rocket flared, boosting the jet skyward on a streak of flame and light. At about 100,000 feet, the rocket was dropped away.
"The scramjet then took over, using up about two pounds of gaseous hydrogen fuel before it glided and then plunged into the Pacific Ocean about 400 miles off the California coast."
Mercury News: Preliminary data shows NASA jet streaked 5,000 mph in test flight
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
Literally
H TM L/EM-0015-06.html
overview quicktimes here:
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Movie/Hyper-X/
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
It's not floating, it sank, and they didn't throw it overboard for purposes of lightening a ship.. they threw it out, with no intention of ever recovering it.
The vehicle used in Saturday's test will not be recovered from the ocean due to the high cost of such an effort. (Reuters)
Seems kinda strange, I wonder if they blew it up so that no one can salvage it even it did wash ashore. There are explosives onboard the vehicle... since they had to blow up the plane during the last test.
A lot of posts are commenting on how fast this is.
Speed is not the point of this experiment.. there have already been a number of aircraft faster than this, much faster.
The point is that, after boosting it to mach 5 with a conventional engine, it was set free for the scramjet to work, and it boosted it another mach or two.. meaning the scramjet worked.
Not having to carry liquid oxygen means you can now carry more fuel, cargo, whatever.
If there were only some way to work scramjets into the war on terrorism....
How about the idea that's been floating around of a hypersonic bomber capable of reaching any target in the world within two hours?
As reported in the mercury news story, With TWO POUNDS of gaseous hydrogen, it accelerated from 3,500 mph to to over 5,000 mph in TEN seconds!..... ZOUNDS!
So why is NASA cancelling this program in particular? Are we (under Bush's program) sacrificing everything to plant a flag on Mars and not making space flight practical?
;)
I'm not entirely clear what you were asking here, but I don't think a scramjet is going to help make space flight practical anyway. A scramjet still requires oxygen to burn its fuel, and there isn't much of that in space.
If you were referring to the cancellation of a different program, my apologies.
p
In Korea, long hair is for old people!
...how this guy feels right now! :)
Repeat after me: We are all individuals
3,500 to 5,000 mph -mach 7-in ten seconds with 2 pouds of fuel? I defy anybody not to be impressed by that perfomance and fuel economy!.... manned or unmanned-It will be perfectly feasable for a full size payload carrying vehicle using one of these types of engines to also carry along powerful H2 burning jet engines for takeoff and acceleration to high supersonic, and a linear aerospike rocket engine or two plus enough LOX for the short additional boost to orbit! only if they are all using the same fuel though.
Interesting in how they mentitoned we probably won't be seeing this in the civilian sector for some time because of size constriants (ie; more unstable the larger the craft is), but it has potential crusie missile applications and other military stuff.
Now reconissance I can see. A small mach 7 spy plane is going to be damn hard to hit. but cruise missile? That is one expensive shot. I mean, a tomahawk is something like $500,000 a piece, right? You gotta be having something awfully important to be hitting in a hurry to be shooting of an X-Missile. And what kind of warhead are you mounting on it to make it worth the while?? I guess for first strike shock value, they'll work. Instant retaliation. But damn, you'd better have a good reason....
You need a FREE iPod Nano
See how much better metric is. In metric you go almost twice as fast.
Imagine a conventional LOOKING rocket, with 3 or 4 scramjets in nacelles mounted around it's perimeter and a single rocket engine at its base. Boosted off the pad by solid rockets,(this is just for cargo, not humans) and accelerated to mach 3 at SRB burn out, the scramjets would then propel it to the upper atmosphere near orbital velocity where it would finally need its rocket engine and oxidizer to make orbit. I believe you could launch quite a heavy payload very efficiency with this configuration. Any real rocket scientists have a thought on this?
with a scramjet you no longer need several million lbs of liquid oxygen to lift comparatively light space cargo off the ground.
most rockets in work by combining oxygen and hydrogen and detonating them. To launch sizeable craft from the ground to orbit though, you need alot of oxygen - and its quite heavy. However, if you use normal turbofans to get into the air, then fire a smaller rocket to get you to scramjet speed, and then use the scramjet to ride your way to the top of the atmosphere (where you'll fire one last set of small rockets to propel yourself into orbit), you still have a substantial weight savings over lifting off from the ground with several million lbs of LOX.
This basically means you can lift more cargo into space easier, cheaper, and more frequently.
The only way for the 'space plane' to become a true economic reality is through scramjets.
-
couldn't have said this better myself! (could you confirm that since the atomic weight of hydrogen is 1 whereas the atomic weight of oxygen is 16, the ratio BY WEIGHT of hydrogen fuel to oxygen is 1:8 on a spacecraft since the reaction is H2+O -> H2O. Doesn't this mean that there will be a HUGE savings of weight or increase in payload since the scramjet gets the oxygen "for free"?)
did anyone manage to find any statistics anywhere about the average fuel consumption on that trip? It's probably not quite the first issue on most peoples' minds but it'd be interesting to know anyway.
Sigs for Nerds. Sigs that Matter.
Don't pay too much attention to that Google conversion from Mach to speed. It only works if the temperature is 15 deg C (i.e. sea level under the International Standard Atmosphere). The speed of sound varies with the square root of the temperature, and it is a lot colder up where the X-43 was flying than it is at sea level, so the speed of sound is slower.
Mach 7 at sea level is about 8575 km/h, but Mach 7 at 100,000 ft it is only about 7615 km/h ( assuming the mythical day with standard temperature at both altitudes).
See Variation of speed of sound with altitude
Kevin Horton
Bzzzzzt - YOU'RE A FUCKCHOP!
How's that busy "life" of yours going, Correcto?
without that captured Goa'uld Death Glider.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Actually, it's going just fine, Tim.
/.?
Yeah, you...Tim Irwin.
Shall I put your home phone # here on
Did you enjoy the phonecall from the nice policeman? I'm sure that your mommy did.
What a fsckwhit.
--ScottKin
I don't give a rat's behind about "karma" here or anywhere else. Don't like what I have to say here? Deal with it!
hey fag commie useless asshole skeptic bullshit fuckface. NASA, and organization that would SPIT IN THE FUCKING FACE OF USELESS FAGS LIKE YOU COMMIE PIG, has taken a scram jet and set a new air breathing record, fuckface. Read it and weep, fuckface.
4 12219554.html
Aircraft sets world speed record
San Francisco, California
March 28, 2004
A revolutionary jet engine flew faster than seven times the speed of sound in a high altitude test over the Pacific today, marking what NASA scientists hailed as a milestone in developing the "Holy Grail" of space travel.
"It's been an outstanding, record-breaking day," lead propulsion engineer Lawrence Huebner told a post-flight briefing.
NASA's 3.6 metre X-43A research vehicle - resembling a winged surfboard - hit slightly over Mach 7, about 8,000 kph, during 11 seconds of powered flight before gliding at hypersonic speeds for several minutes and finally plunging into the ocean.
The test, conducted off the southern California coast, marked the first time that a "scramjet," or supersonic-combustion ramjet, has powered a vehicle at such high speed.
"The ramjet-scramjet is the Holy Grail of aeronautics in my mind," project manager Joel Sitz told the briefing. "If you go from ground to space, you need to use a ramjet-scramjet if you're going to do it in the most efficient way you can."
Rather than carrying both the fuel and oxygen needed to provide acceleration, like a conventional rocket engine does, scramjet engines carry only hydrogen fuel and pull the oxygen needed to burn that fuel from the atmosphere.
Researchers at the NASA Dryden Flight Research Centre at Edwards Air Force Base, on the western edge of the Mojave Desert north of Los Angeles, hope the new engine will revolutionise aviation, speeding the development of significantly faster aircraft and lowering the cost of launching payloads.
Huebner said the test had set a world speed record for a craft powered by an air-breathing engine.
"To put this in perspective, a little over 100 years ago a couple of guys from Ohio flew for 120 feet (36.3 metres) in the first controlled powered flight," he said, referring to the Wright brothers.
"Today, we did something very similar in the same amount of time, but our vehicle under air-breathing power went over 15 miles (24km)."
Project members said the successful test had important commercial and military implications.
"Efficient access to space opens up a whole new world for industry in the future, to be able to get to space and get back, quickly, and do it several times a month," Sitz said.
Project chief engineer Griffin Corpening said NASA had shown what was possible. "Now business and industry and the military can come forward with confidence that they can now use this kind of a propulsion system," he said.
The first test of the X-43A in June 2001 ended in failure after a malfunction in the booster rocket attached to the test vehicle forced NASA scientists to blow up the plane.
During today's test, a modified B-52 bomber dropped the X-43A at an altitude of around 12,000 metres.
A rocket attached to the 1,270 kg research vehicle then boosted it to an altitude of 30,000 metres, setting the stage for the scramjet engine test.
Later this year, NASA researchers hope to test the engine at Mach 10, or about 11,265 kph, as part of their Hyper-X program.
The vehicle used in today's test will not be recovered from the ocean due to the high cost of such an effort.
-Reuters Reuters
This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/28/1080
Tim who?
Knock yourself out, butt plug!
And now, we see why some lower mamals kill their young.
/. login instead of being a happless prick?
/. is now mostly used by pimply-faced geeks ("geek" as in the originsl term: a side-show freak that bites the heads off of live chicken and eats them) to be rude and show how immature they are and how their parent's failed at teaching them what the rest of the world calls "respect" and "manners". It's become nothing more than an online version of "Crank Yankers".
How about being a brave soul and using your
Oh, that's right - that wouldn't be fair for me to verbally accost you like you have done to me.
It's too bad that
Have fun, you clueless putz!
--ScottKin
I don't give a rat's behind about "karma" here or anywhere else. Don't like what I have to say here? Deal with it!
And yet you still come here, recycling the same old gags, doing the same geeky shit we all do. Sorry, but that whole "I'm better than you" routine only works if you don't participate regularly in the activies you're condemning as so inferior.
Take a look at your own posts; there's a reason you regularly get labeled flamebait and troll. Manners and respect indeed. Pot, kettle, kettle, pot; you're black!
Escuse me? "same old gags"?...
Since when did I say that I was "better than you"?
Now, who's calling the kettle black? Who's the twit who kept on putting the "Get a job" lyrics after every one of my posts? You? I'd put money on it. There are thousands of IT/MIS people who are out-of-work, and you have the utter AUDACITY to post that drivel? SCREW YOU!
People who throw stones shouldn't live in glass houses, my friend.
Everyone here knows that the Moderators here are either high on foot-powder or are Linux fans who don't like it when someone tries to undo the brainwashing they've been subjected to by "The Community". I'm pretty sure that they get tagged/moderated in the same fashion when they post their pro-penguine comments on Windows-related sites & message-bases.
Up until the last few months, my Karma was quite positive - but thanks to (probably) you and others who enjoy post-stalking and inane moderating, my karma has dropped significantly - hence my previous post of my new crusade to obtain the lowest "karma" possible.
BTW - for the unenlightened:
Kissing
Ass
Rubs
Malda's.....nah.....
Kissing
Ass
Receives
Malda's
Admiration
Chew away, pug-boy.
--ScottKin
I don't give a rat's behind about "karma" here or anywhere else. Don't like what I have to say here? Deal with it!