Slashdot Mirror
X-43A Hits Mach 7
quiggy writes "As previously reported, NASA tested the X-43A yesterday. The results are in, and the scramjet hit Mach 7, setting a new speed record. CNN is also reporting the story, with a note that a similar jet could be tested by the end of the year, hopefully reaching Mach 10."
And, to keep a little more on topic:
18 tiems the speed of light!
is 3402 meters per second
or 12247 kilometers per hour
or 7610 miles per hour
basically the higher you go, the less air there is, and the slower sound travels. So, the mach number, which is the ratio of your speed to the speed of sound, will be higher at high altitudes if the speed is constant.
It also could drastically cut the time of commercial flights -- perhaps shortening the trip between New York and London to less than five hours.
Considering Concorde did that in three hours, thit wouldn't be much achievement. I make it that it could do NY-LON in just over one hour.
What I think they should have said is that it could go from any point on the earth to any other, including the antipodes, in less than five hours.
Mind you, it would take three hours to get through security on departure and an hour on arrival to collect your baggage, if it had arrived with you.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Mach 10, projected speed to the end of the year is about 1/3 of the orbital velocity. While already in the same order of magnitude it is still a long way toward the space plane...
I think this finally points to a replacement for the space shuttle that was sorely needed. The shuttle is a decent space truck, but we need a cheaper (and safer) space "bus."
Hopefully it will be designed with a space station or dock in mind. It's my understanding that the shuttle was retrofitted for in-space docking such that the International Space Station almost had to be built around it.
"And how much more black could it be? None more black." - Spinal Tap
"Simple words such as 'better' or 'faster' are best used by simpletons. Life [...] is more complicated." - TMC
SCRAM stands for Supersonic Combustion Ram (jet). What makes this different is that the combustion is taking place in air which is moving faster than the speed of sound inside the engine. Conventional Ram jets require that the air inside the engine be moving at less than sonic velocities for combustion to occur.
Conventional Ram jets are limited in top speed by the necessity to slow the incoming air down to sub sonic velocities.
Not only does the SCRAM jet have potential military applications, it can also serve as a 'midrange' stage for a lower cost to orbit booster.
Yeah, Pete Knight went to Mach 6.7 in Oct 67....STILL a record to this day, for a MANNED airplane (X-15 isn't "really" a traditional airplane since it is air launched). Also Pete Knight earned astronaut wings by flying the X15 near 300,000 feet. Several of the X15 pilots received astronaut wings by flying near or over 300,000 feet. Joe Walker, went the highest to 320,000 feet! Sadly, he was killed in the 60's when he was in a formation of planes for an Ad for the general electric engines that all the planes were flying. His "tiny" in comparison jet got too close to the XB-70 bomber (which was suppose to be a Mach 3+ bomber) and it went inverted and smashed into the tail of the bomber, and exploded. Sorry, the early years of test pilots, NASA has always fasinated me, and buddies of mine call me a walking encyclopedia of aircraft knowledge ;)
There's one fundamental difference between an ordinary jet engine and a scram jet engine: The Ramjet has no moving parts.
The all jet engines,operate according to Newton's Third Law of Motion:
For every action, there's an equal opposite reaction
The standard jet engine, invented by Sir Frank Whittle, sucks in air at the front. Then this air is mixed with fuel, and made to combust. The combustion causes the air to exit the engine at a velocity greater than when it came in, thus creating thrust. The escaping air causes the turbine to spin, and this intern activates the compressor, sucking more air in.
The Ramjet has no turbine and compressor unit. Ramjets fly supersonically and have an inlet which injests subsonic air after it goes through a shock wave in front of the inlet. The intake is slowed down aerodynamically, and then mixed with fuel and made to combust. But after about Mach 5, ramjets don't work so well.
The scramjet is almost but not quite entirely like a ramjet. The only difference being in a scramjet the combustion takes place as the air is travelling through the chamber at supersonic velocities.
More about the scram jet. Or another more concise explanation.
Moderate this comment
Negative: Offtopic Flamebait Troll Redundant
Positive: Insightful Interesting Informative Funny
Nothing to see here
Taken from the CNN article:
"It also could drastically cut the time of commercial flights -- perhaps shortening the trip between New York and London to less than five hours."
Wow... Concorde used to cover the distance in about 3.5 hours...With turbojets. Now that's progress!
A flight at mach7 between NYC and London should take less than an hour... with most of the time spent circling over the destination in the holding pattern before landing...
Instead of a rocket launching this vehical, it's big brother could launch a rocket then return to earth for reuse. Bigger satellites, smaller cheaper, simpler rockets, both.
And BOOYA think of the cruise missles. KE=vmv/2.
Shit hits the fan, but the battle group isn't on station? No worries. Diplomacy is en route. Maybe paint a little picture of gerry-curl sam jackson smoking a cigar on the front of each one.
If you want some something that will help understand the scram jet and you have a little aerospace knowledge check out this paper on combustion on a supersonic stream, http://www.anu.edu.au/Physics/aldir/publications/H yslop_hons_thesis_1998.pdf. Its amazeing that this jet can sustain a burn with out a flame holder, at least it looks like it does.
Faith_Healer -- The antethsis to almost everything, and the worlds worst speller.
And just how do you keep something going that fast from burning up in the atmosphere?
...by travelling in the exosphere.
Indeed. You need to account for friction, though. Wikipedia article on escape velocity.
Uhm.... no. You are correct in your definition of escape velocity, but orbiting spacecraft reach speeds just about as fast.
Orbital mechanics tells us that the velocity of an orbiting object is dependent on the mass of the object you're orbiting, and the distance you are from the surface. Thus, when Shuttle is orbiting at 300km altitude, it is traveling at 7.73 km/sec. In order to achieve that orbit, it has to achieve that speed, tangential to the direction of gravity. It can do this (neglecting friction) in one burst at ground level, or over time, but it has to hit that speed to hit orbit.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
Mach 10 is a record for powered flight; it is not even close to the record of a man-maned craft; IIRC that goes to the Apollo reentry capsules that routinely hit Mach 27 on re-entry. So the heat problem has been solved for quite a while.
The real problem here is that a scramjet engine is very sensitive to its input (the air coming in) as it only spends literally milliseconds in the combustion chamber. So you have to wonder what aerodynamic tricks the X-43A designers are pulling to smooth that flow before it goes into the intake. Notice the side-view of the aircraft; the belly is smooth and curvy in order to produce many small shocks ahead of the intake and slow down the air as much as possible. A terrific aerodynamic feat, I just have to wonder if it will be reproducible (i.e. stable enought and robust to any aerodynamic event) for a manned aircraft. [Yes, I am an aerodynamicist].
Not that massive.
,you will already be cruising at mach 7.
Shall we calculate?
Let's say for rough estimation purposes mach is about 1000km/h, or 277.8 m/s
So mach 7 is 1944m/s
Let's say that G is 9.8m/s^2 (It is)
1944/9.8= 198.4 seconds
In other words, at 1G, after 3 minutes and a bit
IN that time, you would have gone approximately 193km.
Factor in the same for deceleration... and we could say.
You could comfortably go 400km in about six minutes. Less than that and this speed is not practical.
For that matter, you spend more time in preparation and airports than you do on an aircraft for a 400km flight in the first place... so mach 7 would be really practical for longer flights.
It is a speed record for a vehicle driven by an air breathing engine (ie, it gets its oxygen from the atmosphere)
Rockets have gone faster, but they carry their own oxygen.
If I jumped in a '57 Space Coupe (2457) and gunned it for the stars at a constant 120 MPH, after a very long time, I'd be far enough away that escape velocity would have come down to 120 MPH and it would be safe to switch off the ignition.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Let's sum it all up. 1) Escape velocity is IRRELEVANT in the discussion. That applies to unpowered vehicles - not a vehicle under constant power such as this one.
2) As has been already posted. The speed record isn't for ANY vehicle. The record is for a vehicle with an air breathing engine (ramjet, scramjet, etc). It doesn't apply to vehicles such as the X-15, Apollo capsules, the space shuttles, etc as their speeds were/are either rocket powered or unpowered reentry.
3) During the first test the scramjet engine did NOT fail. It was never even fired. The booster engine that was supposed to get the scramjet to mach 5 is what failed. If I remember right the fins or something fell off and it went out of control so the remote detonated the booster and consequently the scramjet testbed attached to it.
4) The toyota corolla attachment won't be out until 2006.
I don't have a physics book handy, but I'm pretty sure mass has nothing to do with the velocity.
Actually, you don't need escape velocity to escape the earth. Any velocity will do if you carry on for long enough. Escape velocity is a measure of how fast you need to be moving to leave *if no additional thrust is applied*, which, given the fact that you are probably strapped to a huge big rocket if these things are relevant to you, is rarely the case.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
From cnn It is the first time a supersonic-combustion ramjet, or scramjet, which uses air for fuel, had traveled so fast, flight engineer Lawrence Huebner told reporters. The University of Queensland Launched the HYSHOT in July 2002. It Hit Mach 7.6. The first people who did this
brrrrrrrrrppp 'Ey Homer...Why don't girls like me?
Take a look at the photo of the actual X-43.
All the pics were of the Pegasus booster rocket which was dropped from a B-52. You can't even resolve the X-43 in those photos.
That X-43 is smaller than most of the bombs that B-52 has dropped in its lifetime.
In 1994, a paper was written by Miguel Alcubierre which detailed a possible way of obtaining warp drive.
The current problem is that of relitivty, at which there is a certian point where energy stops creating speed, and goes into increasing the mass of the moving object, thus making light speed impossible.
Alcubierre's idea was that the ship doesn't move. Instead, it modifies the space around it much like an esclator. Since the ship doesn't move in relitive terms, it doesn't gain mass or suffer time dialation.
However, at this time, there was a problem with obtaining the required energy, which was quite alot [think total solar output of the sun in its current life, per second].
In 1999, however, Thomas Valone spotted an answer. Zero Point Energy. In a nutshell, one can theoretically harness the binding energy of a particle. This energy, if harnessed, would be enough energy to power an Alcubierre warp drive.
However, both ideas are still in the working stage, and I think we will see Duke Nukem Forever before we see warp drive from either of these two concepts.
NeoThermic
Use my link above, or to view my server, NeoThermic.com
One G is about 22 mph/s, so 1400 mph/10s is a about 6.4 G's.
"A worthy cause has never been harmed by the truth" - Gandhi
According to their press conference yesterday, the maximum speed was attained at booster burn out. The scramjet achieved positive thrust, but it was decelerating the whole time (10 seconds). The speed was therefore the result of the booster and not the scramjet.
Not exactly true. When solving the two-body system, a number of coordinate transformations change the equations of motion into a simple one-body equation that can be solved exactly. The mass in the transformed one-body system is called the reduced mass, which is defined as mu=(A*B)/(A+B), where A and B are the masses of the two bodies in question.
Assuming A>>B (ie, Earth is much greater than the mass of a satellite), this can be rewritten exactly as mu=B/(1+B/A), or w/ a first-order taylor expansion as mu=B-B^2/A. For a standard communications satellite, the second term is approximately 10^-18 times smaller, and can realistically be dropped, and the mass of the satellite is to within measurable uncertainties B.
But you're wrong in general when you say it's independent of the mass of the object it's orbiting. In the system of the moon orbitting Earth, there's about 1% error by replacing the reduced mass by moon's mass. For a more dramatic example look at a binary star system where one star has 3x the mass of another.
make world, not war
It was taken to mach 5 by the Pegasus, then it accelerated under the scramjet to mach 7
This is not true. The pegasus booster took it all the way to mach 7. The scramjet proved it could make positive thrust, but it did not accelerate, it actually decelerated during those 10 seconds. Maximum speed was at booster burn out. This is according to their press conference yesterday.
Also, see this video: (remove the space in the URL)
http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/videos/metafi les/ksc_032504_x-43.ram
Orbital velocity is damn near escape velocity, and thats the whole point. Getting to orbit economically is the key to making space travel pay instead of cost. It takes WAY more energy to get to orbit than to get from orbit to anywhere else in the solar system. Think about the Saturn V moon stack. You needed all the fuel in the 1st and 2nd stages, and most of the fuel in the 3rd, just to make orbit. only a small additional thrust from the third stage was required to send it on its way. We have all sorts of economical solutions for interplanetary travel, such as ion engines, solar sails, and nuclear engines. We need an economical booster technology, and this is it! 3500 mph to 5000+ mph in ten seconds with TWO POUNDS of fuel! Thats outstanding power and fuel economy In my opinion.
In the scramjet reasearch buisiness, 10 seconds is an eternity. Most institutions who are researching this technology are universities and the like who don't have access to B-52s, rocket boosters, and the other equipment needed to actually flight test scramjets. Rather, they are forced to rely on less expensive wind tunnels. To simulate >mach 6 airflow (scramjet operational range), they either use an enourmous piston driven system, or a series of pressure build ups with a simultaneaous release. Regardless of the method, these techniques generally can't provide more than 5 milliseconds of flow time to test the engine. If you compare testing engines in 5 ms bursts to one sustained 10 s flight, the perspective kind of changes your opinion on how long 10 s is.
If you want a good paper on the subject, I suggest this one from the Australian National University.
I think the X-43 is 12-feet-long. This quote:
"The unpiloted 12-foot-long vehicle, part aircraft and part spacecraft, will be dropped from a B-52,aircraft. It will be boosted to nearly 100,000 feet by a rocket..."
from this NASA page is one source.
I think you are underestimating the size of the Pegasus rocket and B-52 bomber. I know I did. A quick google search found a page on the Pegasus rocket: it is 55.4 feet long and about 4 feet in diameter.
Compare this to liquid oxygen which is (IRC) more like 1100 kg/m^3; or water 1000kg/m^3. Gasoline or kerosene is slightly lighter than water, but not a lot. Liquid Hydrogen is seriously not dense- that's actually the biggest problem with it.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"The whole point of the Taylor expansion was to give an estimate of the difference between B and mu, and in this case it's -B^2/A (to 1st order). If you don't like the expansion then keep the exact form, or take the taylor expansion to higher orders.
Anyway, since you missed the mathematics of my post, here's a recap of simple Taylor expansions.
Binomial expansion : for 1>>|x| (and n not insanely large), (1+x)^n ~= 1+(x*n)
So 1/(1+x) ~= 1-x
Recall mu=B/(1+B/A) exactly. To within some specified precision, mu~=B-(B^2/A). You can compare exact to approximate answers to see what the error terms will be.
make world, not war