Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

X-43A Hits Mach 7

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the doing-it-and-doing-it-well dept.

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."

4 of 405 comments (clear)

  1. sublight speed ;) by Janek+Kozicki · · Score: 5, Interesting

    1 mach = 334 m/s ,
    10 mach = 3340 m/s = 3.3 km/s ,
    speed of light c = 300 000 km/s ,
    (3 km/s)/(300 000 km/s) = 1/100 000 of c

    this engine travelled at aprox 0.00001c !

    good work scientists :)

    --
    #
    #\ @ ? Colonize Mars
    #
    1. Re:sublight speed ;) by slim-t · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Then how did that original post get modded informative? I thought physics was pre-requisite for reading slashdot.

      Seriously, there's a need for a "wrong" modifier, so people can mod such posts down without fear of recourse from meta-moderators who think the post is correct.

  2. Mach10?! by DigiShaman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And just how do you keep something going that fast from burning up in the atmosphere?

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  3. THE PROGRAM IS BEING HALTED! by wisebabo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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 N-1 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 stopping development? (The successor the X-43C will not be flown). Why are we freezing this enabling technology? 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!

    Sorry for the (mostly) repost but I really wish we would move "faster" towards developing the technologies towards practical* spaceflight.

    *As noted in previous posts, by not carrying the oxygen on board you save a LOT of weight. Remember the reaction is H2 + O = H2O (and energy) and since the atomic weight of oxygen is 16 compared to hydrogen for every kilo of hydrogen you carry you carry EIGHT of oxygen. The weight savings (could be in the millions of pounds) makes up for the turbo-fans/rocket engines you must carry for the takeoff/orbital transition parts of the flight.