Slashdot Mirror


X43-A on to Mach 10

Cat_Byte writes "On March 28 we read about the X43-A hitting Mach 7 with a successful scramjet test. Prior to that on June 2, 2001 the craft tore itself to pieces during a trial run. Well now they are preparing to hit Mach 10. The upcoming Mach 10 run of the X-43A appears to mark an end of the program. The seven-year, approximately $250 million Hyper-X program was created to provide unique "first time" data on hypersonic air-breathing engine technologies. "At Mach 7, the front leading edge of the vehicle would see about 2,400 degrees Fahrenheit. At Mach 10, its probably twice that -- twice the heat load essentially," Sitz explained FYI, Mach 10 is about 2 miles per second."

98 of 459 comments (clear)

  1. Mach 10? by lpangelrob2 · · Score: 4, Funny
    Mach 10? Isn't that the speed at which you hit advanced evolution and evolve 10 million years in moments?

    Wait, maybe I'm thinking of something else...

    1. Re:Mach 10? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nah, it's Gillette's new blades that are scheduled for release in the year 2038.

    2. Re:Mach 10? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Mach 10? Isn't that the speed at which you hit advanced evolution and evolve 10 million years in moments?

      No, it's actually the closest, most comfortable shave you can get.

    3. Re:Mach 10? by radixvir · · Score: 5, Informative

      FYI, he was referring to the episode of Star Trek Voyager, where they test out the new engine technology on the shuttle. It goes Warp 10 which apparently causes 2 of the characters to "evolve" into gecko-like creatures. another completely ridiculous plot that took place around the time of the episode where they found Amelia Earhart

    4. Re:Mach 10? by TomorrowPlusX · · Score: 5, Funny

      Does it bother anybody else that they've (essentially) taken a vibrator and put razor blades on it?

      --

      lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
    5. Re:Mach 10? by CrystalFalcon · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wait, maybe I'm thinking of something else...

      Yes, you're thinking of 88 miles per hour.

      Now give me back the keys to my DeLorean, please.

    6. Re:Mach 10? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's right, ten blades, they rip your fucking head off and you never have to shave again.

    7. Re:Mach 10? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don`t you feel even slightly ashamed you actually know that ?

    8. Re:Mach 10? by JabberWokky · · Score: 5, Funny
      It goes Warp 10 which apparently causes 2 of the characters to "evolve" into gecko-like creatures. another completely ridiculous plot that took place around the time of the episode where they found Amelia Earhart

      Yeah, but they saved a lot of money on car insurance. That came in handy when they found the Chevy... floating in... space.

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
  2. Glad to see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's great to see the Air Force putting that Ga'ould and Asgard technology to good use. That Stargate program is really paying off.

  3. I'm impressed by TheAdventurer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm some one who is impressed by interesting numbers, and I just get a thrill out of the idea of travelling 2 miles per second. That is incredibly cool.

    I could do my daily commute in 15 seconds. That would be fun.

    1. Re:I'm impressed by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Funny

      I could do my daily commute in 15 seconds. That would be fun.

      Oh, you can have a commute like that right now. It's the stopping that's the problem.

    2. Re:I'm impressed by ViolentGreen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Two miles per second is an almost unfathomable speed to me. It's like me trying to fully grasp the vast distances of the universe. I just can't do it.

      --
      Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
    3. Re:I'm impressed by Hatfieldje · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just wait until everybody has one of these. Rush hour traffic will really be a rush. Will they make these as convertibles? I love the feeling of wind blowing by as I drive.

      --
      for maximum effect, the preceding post should be read monotone and at a steady cadence
    4. Re:I'm impressed by strictnein · · Score: 4, Funny

      because slashdot outsourced their moderator duties

      Knowing English is not a requirement.

    5. Re:I'm impressed by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Informative
      NanoGator wrote:
      Imagine going to Neptune and back in 6 minutes.
      At mach 10 you won't get there in your lifetime. Even at light speed, it takes 8 minutes for light to get from the sun to the earth. Neptune is WAAAY more distant.
    6. Re:I'm impressed by ryanvm · · Score: 2, Funny

      He's talking about Neptune, West Virginia.

    7. Re:I'm impressed by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Funny

      As long as he's not talking about zooming to uranus...

    8. Re:I'm impressed by bsd4me · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm sorry, Fry, but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all ...

      --

      (S(SKK)(SKK))(S(SKK)(SKK))

    9. Re:I'm impressed by JesseL · · Score: 4, Funny

      What's it called now?

      Urectum.

      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    10. Re:I'm impressed by proj_2501 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      sorry, it's the clueless who actually continue to watch that show!

    11. Re:I'm impressed by Short+Circuit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure, but at what point does "interaction between molecules" cease being considered continuous and start being considered as discrete events?

    12. Re:I'm impressed by Mad+Marlin · · Score: 3, Funny
      Actually it's less then Mach 24. 23.6 to be exact :)

      I thought they killed off Data in the last movie. I guess not.

    13. Re:I'm impressed by servognome · · Score: 2, Informative

      Density affect on the speed of sound in different mediums different materials

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    14. Re:I'm impressed by ckaminski · · Score: 3, Funny

      He's Q. He can resurrect Data if he wishes...

  4. 4,800 degrees farenheit.. by seagar · · Score: 2, Funny

    i hope that thing has killer A/C...

    --

    home of the original cupholder
    1. Re:4,800 degrees farenheit.. by mattjb0010 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      4,800 deg. F is not twice as hot as 2,400F. Use SI units: 2,400 ~=1589K, so twice as hot is 3178K

    2. Re:4,800 degrees farenheit.. by xvash · · Score: 3, Funny

      I hear they are planning use the heat dissipation techniques from this project in heatsinks for prescott processors.

    3. Re:4,800 degrees farenheit.. by sixteenraisins · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's incorrect to use temperature to describe something as "twice as hot," since temperature is an intrinsic value - not a "quantity" to be counted like length, mass, etc, but rather a relative scale, defined by the Zeroth law of Thermodynamics to describe the direction of heat transfer.

      It would be somewhat more correct to possibly describe something as having twice as much internal energy (heat), because units of heat (joules or BTU's) are quantifiable units. Keep in mind that this still wouldn't lead to twice the temperature on an absolute scale, since the specific heat of virtually anything is variable with temperature - hence, you can't correctly surmise that just because there's twice as much heat then there must be twice as much temperature.

      --
      When you're not looking, this sig is in Latin.
  5. Anyone... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...have data on its trajectory? It seems to me that if you want to reduce heat, you need to fly it in a steep climb. Of course, the air then gets thinner, thus providing less boost. Your lifting body is also less effective with that sort of trajectory.

    1. Re:Anyone... by RPI+Geek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lifting body? With that kind of speed and that duration of flight, you don't need much lift.

      --

      - "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
    2. Re:Anyone... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think it's interesting that they are wondering how the engine will perform. I am much more interested how the human body reacts to this.

      That's actually pretty well known. Rockets have been capable of giving a hellva lot more Gs, and experiments with Jet Pilots have pretty well established human's capacity for acceleration tolerance.

      The thrust to weight ratios are interesting, however. A 15-20 to 1 ratio would provide one serious kick in the pants. :-)

    3. Re:Anyone... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lifting body? With that kind of speed and that duration of flight, you don't need much lift.

      The final craft is supposed to be of a lifting body design. This is to provide as smooth of an airframe as possible. Even the slightest corner or dent could be a potential heat buildup hazard.

    4. Re:Anyone... by larkost · · Score: 4, Informative

      At that speed a brick is a "lifting body". Reminds me of the F-15 a.k.a. the "Aluminum Lawn Dart" (or world's most expensive lawn dart) because if you turn off the engine thats what your flight path looks like.

    5. Re:Anyone... by MemoryAid · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's the F-16 Lawn Dart. The F-15 has two engines, and has made much less of a reputation as a ground penetrator, perhaps because of the redundancy. The F-16 has only one, which typically fails, rather than being turned off.

      --
      Language students: Don't try to learn English here. This ain't it.
  6. Blinkx? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Blinkx and You Will Miss It?

  7. Fuel economy? by a10t2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ah, but does it get 1700 miles per gallon?

    1. Re:Fuel economy? by Nurseman · · Score: 2, Funny
      Ah, but does it get 1700 miles per gallon?

      And does it run Linux? Just imagine how fast Gentoo will compile on this sucker !

      --
      Save a Life. Donate Blood. Please.
    2. Re:Fuel economy? by blackmonday · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, but it will install Gentoo on your home PC.

  8. Mach 10? by GuyMannDude · · Score: 3, Funny

    Holy crap, they're up to Mach 10 now? I guess I'm going to have to throw my old razors away. You'd think that a razor with 10 blades would be rather unweildy but I sure as hell am not going to let my neighbor Jones beat me in the male-gromming-department! Man, those old Mach 3 blades were already pretty expensive. I hate to see how much this new shit is gonna cost...

    GMD

  9. Front leading edge.... by YankeeInExile · · Score: 4, Funny

    At Mach 7, the front leading edge of the vehicle
    ... as opposed to the rear leading edge? Or the front trailing edge? Go to the Automatic ATM Machine and enter your Personal PIN Number?
    --
    How does the Slashdot Effect happen given that no slashdotters ever RTFA?
    1. Re:Front leading edge.... by Xentax · · Score: 4, Informative

      On a serious note, there are at least technically multiple leading edges on most craft (including this one).

      There's the leading edge of the wings, the horizontal stabilizers, the vertical stabilizer, etc. A combat aicraft might have more leading edges for external hardpoints - really, the front-facing part of any protrusion from the fuselage. Whether the nose/front of the fuselage itself is 'technically' a leading edge or not.

      Xentax

      --
      You shouldn't verb words.
    2. Re:Front leading edge.... by hcdejong · · Score: 2, Funny

      You shouldn't verb words.
      Let me guess: you shouldn't, because verbing weirds language?

  10. Big deal... by tinrobot · · Score: 5, Funny

    Two miles per second means you can cross the Pacific in under an hour.

    It's still going to take 4 hours just to get to the airport, check your baggage and get through security.

    1. Re:Big deal... by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 4, Interesting
      This is unrelated to passenger travel. We are conducting this research so that we can drop a bomb on any location on Earth in under an hour. From Wired Magazine:
      Ron Sega
      Director, Office of Defense Research and Engineering, DOD

      ADVISES: Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld

      WHY HE MATTERS: Responsible for bringing the missile shield to life.

      TECH CRED: IEEE fellow and NASA astronaut who used to teach electrical and computer engineering at the University of Colorado.

      ON HIS RADAR: Dominating outer space through hypersonics. He foresees superfast missiles and spaceships that can zap any target. His goal is to increase US flight capabilities by one Mach a year until 2012.
      Why is that his goal? You tell me. (Nice way of avoiding ICBM treaties, BTW.)
      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    2. Re:Big deal... by hoggoth · · Score: 4, Funny

      > Nice way of avoiding ICBM treaties

      Hell, I could do this much easier.
      Take an ICBM, put a stewardess inside.
      Ta da' It's an airplane, not a missle.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    3. Re:Big deal... by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 3, Informative
      Your point is correct.

      So is mine:
      "One of the joint transformational technology initiatives is the National Aerospace Initiative (NAI), which consists of research and development in hypersonic flight technology, affordable and responsive space launch, and enhanced on-orbit space technologies. In the FY04 budget request, the Department focused the increased investment into hypersonic technology, investing over $150M additional funds in hypersonics. We seek Congressional support for the FY04 budget request for the increased hypersonic technology work and the integrated technologies of NAI. Hypersonic technology could be truly transformative as it could provide increased capability through speed in several mission areas. For example, hypersonics could provide the opportunity to conduct tactical strikes from strategic distance in a short amount of time. Technology has progressed to the point where we believe that demonstrations of a Mach number per year, reaching Mach 12 by 2012, are within reach. The development of hypersonic technology could reduce vulnerability of future systems, while potentially providing a flexible capability to strike quickly and effectively deny enemy sanctuary anywhere in the world. Additionally, a hypersonic roadmap, developed cooperatively by DoD and NASA provides long term potential for affordable access to space. In short, the National Aerospace Initiative is one of those technology opportunities that has the potential to capture American interest in technology, much like the race to the moon in the 1960's, while providing needed technical capability for the warfighter. The National Aerospace Initiative is the right initiative for America as we celebrate the first century of manned flight."
      There are not supporting facts in the Wired blurb because it's public record. The thing in Wired is a little easier to read.
      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
  11. mach 10 by trb · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Sitz explained FYI, Mach 10 is about 2 miles per second.

    Most children are taught that you can count the seconds between a seeing a lightning strike and hearing a thunderclap and divide by five to determine how far the strike was in miles. This means that the speed of sound (Mach 1) is 5 seconds per mile, i.e., .2 miles per second (.5 km per second, I know...). It should therefore be well known to the same child that Mach 10 (10x the speed of sound) is 2 miles per second.

    1. Re:mach 10 by mattjb0010 · · Score: 2, Informative

      They forgot to teach you that the speed of sound varies with air density and hence altitude, so it's not quite as trivial. Of course the number of seconds and divide by 5 rule is an approximation anyway.

    2. Re:mach 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or you could just know that the speed of sound through air is 343 m/s, that there are 1609m in 1 mile, and that 3443/1609 ~= 2.

      Hmph, children's games in old unit systems - you know, if the US switched completely to metric (never mind the impossibility of winning old people's hearts and minds), we'd save millions of dollars and avoid funny embarrassments like that Mars Pathfinder nonsense.

    3. Re:mach 10 by Kallahar · · Score: 2, Funny

      However, the actual speed of mach varies. Mach is the speed of the object vs the speed of sound. The speed of sound changes with medium and temperature, so if they fly at 95,000 feet then mach 10 is 6730mph vs 7610mph at sea level. 6730mph is 1.8 miles/second vs 2.1 miles/second at sea level. - Wikipedia

      And after all that work I realize that your method is indeed close enough for most people :)

  12. How soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    How soon before someone overclocks it to get Mach 11?

    1. Re:How soon by nate1138 · · Score: 2, Funny

      11, that would make it perfect for spinal tap's new tour plane.....

      --
      Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
  13. Just the thing by JesseL · · Score: 2, Insightful

    to bridge the gap (cost and speed) between current cruise missiles and ICBMs.

    --
    "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
  14. A Third of the Way There... by apikoros · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "At Mach 10 -- or 10 times the speed of sound -- the X-43A is traveling at about two miles per second. Thats in the range of 7,500 miles per hour."

    Which sounds really impressive until you realize that escape velocity is 25,000 miles per hour and we are less than a third of the way to an air-breathing launch vehicle.

    186,000 mi/sec... it's not just a good idea, it's the law!

    1. Re:A Third of the Way There... by Big_Breaker · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's the speed you need if you decide to turn off the engines and still want to leave earth's gravity. Achieving LEO is easier - you only need to go 17k mph and you can use a second rocket powered stage to help you get there. What a scramjet helps you do is use atmospheric oxygen rather than carrying your own. That saves a lot of mass.

    2. Re:A Third of the Way There... by maxume · · Score: 2, Informative

      Check out wikipedia on the subject:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velo city

      Assuming it is somewhat accurate, escape velocity at 5,592 miles is closer to 15,882 mph. That is to say, if you can accelerate from the ground, you only need to reach a top speed of 15,882 mph in order to obtain an orbit at a distance of 5592 miles. So 7,500 mph is more like 1/2 of the way there...

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:A Third of the Way There... by Moofie · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Saves a lot of mass, costs you a lot of drag. Say I need to have a rocket applying a 1000 lb force to do my mission. (Yes, I am radically simplifying numbers). In order to get that 1000 lb force out of a scramjet, the frontal area of the vehicle needs to be about four times as big as the rocket. Since wave drag (the primary component of the drag force on a body travelling supersonically) goes as the square of frontal area, you can see that this is not a winning strategy.

      I don't believe air-breathing engines will ever make productive parts of the high-speed boost phase of a satellite launch. Now, something like Pegasus or SpaceShip 1 that uses a low speed air-breathing craft to get above lots of atmosphere, that's a pretty good idea.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    4. Re:A Third of the Way There... by Moofie · · Score: 2, Informative

      OK, that was a little too flip. More details.

      Consider a coordinate system fixed to the aircraft, with a Mach 10 flow passing around it.

      A scramjet (supersonic combustion ramjet) uses a series of oblique shock waves to compress (and slow down) air in order to get it to combust. In a ramjet, the throat of the engine sets up a shockwave perpendicular (normal) to the free stream velocity. Any time you have a so-called "normal" shock wave, the downstream flow is always subsonic. With an oblique shockwave (oblique relative to the free stream velocity), you can have that shock wave compress and slow down the flow, but it will remain supersonic.

      The problem with ramjets is that as they get closer to around Mach 5 or 6, their drag starts increasing in a non-linear fashion (meaning that going a little faster gets you a lot more drag), because the normal shock wave won't permit the downstream air to go a little bit faster (since it MUST be subsonic).

      So, you have to figure out a way to allow the flow in the combustion chamber to remain supersonic. To do this, you arrange for the airframe and the engine intake to set up a series of oblique shock waves that compresses the flow, but allows it to remain supersonic. You then attempt to start a fire in that supersonic airflow (imagine trying to light your zippo while holding it out a car window and multiply that difficulty by about a million).

      That's a scramjet. The drag comes from all those shockwaves (hence wave drag) and is related to the frontal area of the aircraft (which usually looks rather like a doorstop in profile, the entire frontal area is basically the ramp to the inlet of the engine). Wave drag is proportional to the square of frontal area. (never mind the skin friction drag, which will get worse and worse as you go faster and faster and eventually make your airframe go melty melty).

      To make matters worse, consider what would happen if you're hurtling along at Mach 10, and you make a sudden correction in pitch. In all likelihood, you're going to upset the carefully orchestrated shock waves that are making the air play nice in your engine. If you're lucky, the aircraft just slows down (HARD) and resumes stable operation. If you're unlucky, one of the shockwaves will become a normal shock wave at the narrowest part of your engine, and it will be exactly like you hit a mountain. At Mach 10.

      Does that clear things up? Honest, I don't mean to be patronizing. I'm far from an expert on this subject, but I do know more than your average Joe.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    5. Re:A Third of the Way There... by grozzie2 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      You then attempt to start a fire in that supersonic airflow (imagine trying to light your zippo while holding it out a car window and multiply that difficulty by about a million).

      This is a HUGE problem in some speed ranges, and it's _trivial_ in others. The neat thing about shock waves is, you get a rapid temperature rise during shock compression. One of the 'tricks' to the design of a scramjet, is to plan out the shock wave pattern in such a manner, the ambient temperature in the vicinity of your fuel injectors, is higher than the ignition point of your fuel. Then the only trick is, getting the system up to the velocities required for ignition to be spontaneous. Standard igniters just wont work in those velocity regimes.

      As you suggested in the initial post, the problem of escaping atmosphere is huge for the orbital equation. Aerodynamic drag is 'inconsequential' whilst subsonic, but grows exponentially once you start playing with shock waves. 50% of the atmosphere (by mass) lives below 6,000 meters (18,000 feet) altitude. In the range of 80% lives below 13,000 meters (40,000 feet). The most efficient path out of the atmosphere is to utilize atmospheric lift at subsonic speed until well above these altitudes, to get past most of that sticky stuff called air. The messy problem of all that sticky air living below 40,000 feet really makes a single stage runway to orbit vehicle impractical. Efficient lift and reduced hypersonic drag are diametrically opposed concepts when designing the airframe. For the former, you want large smooth rounded surfaces, for the latter you want sharp edges and zero curves, as curves promote 'lotsa little shocks' and a 'shock fan', whereas an abrupt square corner still produces but a single shock wave.

      If you look at modern heavy lift, long range airframes, they tend to all operate most efficiently between 32,000 and 40,000 feet. A 747 loaded to the max cannot climb above 32,000 till it's burned off a chunk of fuel (lower for older models), and then it MUST climb higer to be able to achieve it's maximum range, to take advantage of reduced fuel burns at 36 and 38 thousand. it's not really an accident that the transoceanic airways are 'busy' in the 32 to 38 thousand range, with virtually no traffic below or above those altitudes, except a few big ones in the early stages of step climbs as they burn off fuel. The combination of modern jet engines, and aerodymanic lifting bodies, this is the altitude range that is the 'sweet spot' for fuel efficiency. Aerodymanics prevent them from going higher (atmosphere gets to thin to generate the lift required), and engine efficiencies prevent them from operating lower. It's also not completely co-incidental that these are the tropopause altitudes, where you run into things like jet streams, which can give you a significant 'free ride' enroute. 80's and earlier vintage equipment operates 'at jet stream altitudes' eastbound, and 'just below them' westbound typically. Late 90's vintage equipment is slightly more efficient, so you operate above jet streams rather than below, when going westbound.

      There have been many trillions of dollars spent on the engineering required for subsonic heavy lift above the majority of the atmosphere. We've got the point where it's efficient enough to be widely deployed. for a wide deployment of orbital transport, it doesn't make sense to NOT leverage this knowledge/technology base for the lower portion of the flight.

      Scramjets are cool, but, they want to operate in the atmosphere, and at velocities that produce problems with the rest of the materials. In theory it's more efficient to not carry your oxidizer like a rocket does, but there's this little 'reality' problem with scramjets. We dont know how to build the tankage to carry the fuel for it, in a manner it wont melt from continued exposure to the hypersonic airstream that's presenting stagnation temperatures in the thousands of degrees (and at those high numbers, doesn't really matter if you are using C, K, or

  15. Not for commercial flight by GuyMannDude · · Score: 2, Informative
    1. Re:Not for commercial flight by Rei · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It may not be an official goal, but that's beside the point. Scramjets may well be a technology that finally enables suborbital commercial travel. Unlike getting to orbit, getting on a long-range suborbital trajectory isn't nearly as hard, and reentry requirements aren't nearly so severe. The benefits are really incredible, though - you can visit anywhere in the world within a little more than an hour, and you use no propellant mid-flight. It'd be perfectly silent, and you'd be near weightless, enabling the average person to not only get where they want to go, but to experience "space". The benefits would justify significantly lower payload-per-dollar-of-investment (to an extent, of course).

      What I find interesting is that the leading edge heating only doubles between mach 7 and mach 10. For macroscopic objects, drag is proportional to v^2, so the drag coefficient must decrease a lot faster than I thought.... I should modify my rocket simulator. :) Unless, of course, they're travelling at a different altitude (?).

      --
      Very well; let this abomination unto the Lord begin!
    2. Re:Not for commercial flight by tsotha · · Score: 2, Informative

      I doubt it. It will take less fuel to simply use a rocket to get out of the atmosphere as soon as possible and coast for a larger portion of the flight. In any case fuel isn't the cost driver with sub-orbital flight.

    3. Re:Not for commercial flight by dierdorf · · Score: 3, Informative

      What I find interesting is that the leading edge heating only doubles between mach 7 and mach 10. For macroscopic objects, drag is proportional to v^2, so the drag coefficient must decrease a lot faster than I thought.... I should modify my rocket simulator. :) Unless, of course, they're travelling at a different altitude (?).

      Uhh... 7 squared is 49 and 10 squared is 100. What's your problem?

      --
      -- John Dierdorf, Austin TX
  16. Previous test aborted... by bchernicoff · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...the craft tore itself to pieces during a trial run.

    I was under the impression that the Pegasus boost missle went out of control so they self-destructed it...not that there was a problem with the X-43.

  17. why is this public knowledge? by spacerodent · · Score: 3, Interesting

    why do we even know about this? Shouldn't this be some classified secret or do they already have craft that handily surpass mach 10 and thus don't care if we know about it? The stealth project was a secret for over 40 years and they're just parading this around (arguable if equal importance) for the cameras...what gives? What secret shit are they NOT telling us about I wonder.

    1. Re:why is this public knowledge? by JesseL · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because we didn't want people knowing there were stealth planes up there spying on/bombing them, but it's pretty obvious when somthing goes across your radar screen at mach 10. If you can't hide it you might as well show it off.

      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    2. Re:why is this public knowledge? by Cecil · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That was during the cold war, when the US had an enemy who actually had the capability to destroy them. Now they're at war with terrorism instead, and the the combat strategy seems to run more along the lines of "shock and awe".

    3. Re:why is this public knowledge? by bs_testability · · Score: 2, Insightful


      Who should it be kept secret from, the Afghans? Phillipino rebels?

      The arms race is over, we won by a nose.

      Besides, brute strength doesn't win conflicts anymore.

      Craftiness rules the current battlefeild;
      expendable scouts (unmanned)
      accurate weapons (gps, laser)
      situational awareness (combat command systems)
      psi-ops (photos, pamphlets, radios)
      weapons that are secret because they weren't
      weapons 30 minutes ago (airplanes, bird flu, etc)

      I doubt any of our enemies even care exactly
      how fast our planes can fly unless they are
      planning to take over the controls.

  18. But can it do... by Alzheimers · · Score: 5, Funny

    the Kessel run in under twelve parsecs?

    1. Re:But can it do... by BillNyeTheScienceGuy · · Score: 4, Funny

      YES! Also... I weigh 180 seconds and My PC's power supply is rated at 300 Angstroms... Uhhh yeah. 1 parsec = 3.26 light years = 30856776000000000 meters. Mr. Lucas needs to check his units...

    2. Re:But can it do... by krlynch · · Score: 4, Informative

      It is a true statement that a Parsec is a measure of distance. But that doesn't rule it out as a unit of time. Special Relativity tells us that time and distance units are interchangeable, because the speed of light is a constant value in all reference frames.

      So, while I'm sure the original Star Wars quote wasn't meant to delve into the intricacies of modern physics, it certainly isn't technically wrong. Of course, since a Parsec is about 39 years, I certainly wouldn't want to be piloting for that amount of time...

    3. Re:But can it do... by krlynch · · Score: 3, Informative

      Oops ... that should have read "... since 12 Parsecs is about 39 years..." You must actually READ your post when you preview it :-)

    4. Re:But can it do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      The whole big deal with the parsec thing is that Han essentially skimmed the event horizons of black holes to get to kessel faster, shaving off time, but in the end, it actually shaved off distance due to spatial anomolies. (sp.)

      Read the Han Solo star wars books for it to make sense.

    5. Re:But can it do... by acq3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've always been amused by this as the claim may in fact be valid and boastable...

      Now I'm not claiming Lucas knew what he was doing but....

      Suppose that the Kessel Run is getting from point A to point B, but the difficulty is not the distance per se but some 'stuff' between the two points. Maybe a vast dangerous asteroid field, or globs of a mysterious sticky substance, or lions, and tigers, and bears, oh my!

      Regardless, most people are forced to fly around the 'stuff' and so the the Kessel Run is a long distance, but the truely skilled can go through with a shorter distance implying higher skill and so more impressive....

      Just a random thought...

    6. Re:But can it do... by JoeShmoe950 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Kessel run is in fact around extremely dangerous things. It is near the "Maw", a black hole complex, full of hundreds of black holes. In one perticuler book, he sets it. He is racing his friend, who performs a hyperjump, and damages his ship. Han jumps in closer than ever rescues his friend. He thus sets the record for the kessel run, going the shortest distance and closest to the Maw.

  19. Naively, it should be x16. by adb · · Score: 2, Informative

    The energy radiated by a blackbody is proportional to the fourth power of temperature. But since there's a probably whole lot of convection going on, cooling is probably more a matter of moving the heat from the front of the thing to the back, and the naive idea of how things work is probably not too useful.

    1. Re:Naively, it should be x16. by Moofie · · Score: 2, Informative

      Interesting. My heat transfer book calls it convection.

      according to Google's definitions:

      Advection: " The horizontal transfer of any property in the atmosphere by the movement of air. Examples include heat and moisture advection. "

      Convection: " fluid circulation driven by large temperature gradients; the transfer of heat by this automatic circulation. "

      In my aerodynamics classes, we talked exclusively about heat transfer via convection (mostly forced convection, with a moving airflow, as opposed to freee convection with a still airflow.)

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  20. Mach 10 in the air.... by WebfishUK · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... but there is still a 2 hour checkin

    --
    -- "Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!"
  21. Commercial human use? Probably not. by Bones3D_mac · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Every time I hear about these scram jet things, I keep picturing the Ghost fighter/Guld Bowman fight from Macross Plus, where Guld's body ends up crushed like a tin can just before his suicide collision with the Ghost fighter.

    While it may be possible to control the rate of acceleration to human-tolerable limits, I can't see this being open to anyone who isn't trained and endurance tested prior to flight. How would you explain a flight where half the passengers end up having strokes or heart attacks from the stresses such a beast would generate during an instance of turbulence?

    --


    8==8 Bones 8==8
  22. Shave wherever he prefers? by GuyMannDude · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...a moisturizing Indicator® Lubrastrip(TM)...

    ...features Micro-Power(TM), a gentle pulsing action powered by a Duracell AAA battery.

    ...allowing a man to shave wherever he prefers.

    ...and the Duracell AAA battery is easy to insert...

    Ugh. Did anyone else get a little creeped out reading some of this shit? They really need to fire whoever came up with stuff like that. Unless they are trying to subliminally market it as something other than a razor.

    GMD

    1. Re:Shave wherever he prefers? by Penguinshit · · Score: 2, Funny


      It's so your lady can pleasure herself while she prepared the landing strip...

  23. Hrm by philv2 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sounds like one hell of a razor, I'll wait for other people to test it before bringing it anywhere near my face though.

  24. eeerh... i hate to say this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    but Mach 10 won't be 2 miles per second because they are not flying at sea level.

    Mach number is the square root of the product of gamma, R, and T. Being:

    gamma a propertie of the gas (1.33~1.44 aprox for air),

    R the constant of the gas (universal R over Molecular Mass for every kilo ... )..... (sorry, i know it's bad expressed) being about 287.15 for air

    And T is the absolute temperature of the gas;
    According to the International Atmosphere model, the temperature of air drops 6.5K every kilometer until you reach 11Km, beyond it remains constant until 22km, where it again rises.

    So, if depending of the height (and particular condition of the day and the state of atmosphere) the Mach speed varies

    As i haven't seen at what height they are flying, you can calculate yourself the Mach speed if you find the numbers.

    So is very probable that they are flying at really great heights where the mach value greatly differs from sea level Mach, what is taught to children, as other poster suggested

    Values of temperature of atmosphere can be found looking for ISA model (International Standard Atmosphere)

    By the way, i am using SI; so, if you find a table with Farenhait (or whatever it is spelled) you can convert a farenheit degree to kelvin via:

    (TF-32)/1.8+273 = kelvin

    PD: Sorry for my bad english

    1. Re:eeerh... i hate to say this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I forgot... the formula gives the mach speed in m/s

      Since in aeronautics the nautical mile is used, a mile (nautical) is 1852 m.

      So, for going from speed in m/s to mps (miles per second) you must divide by 1852

      and, miles per hour is speed in m/s multiplied by 3600 and divided by 1852

    2. Re:eeerh... i hate to say this by gerardrj · · Score: 4, Informative

      I went and did some research to post the actual ground speed in miles per hour of the ship traveling at mach 10 at 95,000 feet and I learned an interesting thing which astonished me.

      Actually, until you get very high in the atmosphere the speed of sound stays relatively constant compared to the speed of sound at sea level. Pressure and density decrease, but so does temperature.

      You can plug in some number in a calculator at
      http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/soun d.ht ml

      The actual ground speed number (assuming no head/tail wind) of travelling at mach 10 at 95,000 feet is 6,777MPH or 1.887 miles per second.

      Up until now I, perhaps like most, though that since pressure decreases exponentially with altitude, that the speed of sound must also decrease at some constant, or at least predictable, rate with altitude. This was a real eye opener for me.

      --
      Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
  25. How long untill we go plaid? by bigfinger · · Score: 3, Funny

    I can hear it now ludacriss speed GO! To me Spaceballs 2 coldnt come fast enough.

  26. Re:AWESOME! by darth_MALL · · Score: 2, Funny

    Since it will probably be a suicide mission, let me be the first to nominate Ballmer! DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPAAAGGHHHHHHH!

  27. Overheard at the press conference... by paiute · · Score: 5, Funny

    General Tufnel: The Mach numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and...
    Reporter: Oh, I see. And most planes go up to ten?
    General Tufnel: Exactly.
    Reporter: Does that mean it's faster? Is it any faster?
    General Tufnel: Well, it's one faster, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most pilots, you know, will be flying at ten. You're on ten, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your airspeed. Where can you go from there? Where?
    Reporter: I don't know.
    General Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
    Reporter: Put it up to eleven.
    General Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One faster.
    Reporter: Why don't you just make ten faster and make ten be the top number and make that a little faster?
    General Tufnel: [Pause] These go to eleven.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  28. Oh jeeze by festers · · Score: 5, Funny

    "from the place-hands-on-cheeks-and-pull-back dept."

    How in the world did the goatse.cx guy convince Taco to post that caption?

    --


    -------
    "Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
  29. Must leave the computer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I thought that was about X11 and Gnu Mach. Must leave... Go outside.... Air...

    So why am I still typing?

  30. Correction by MouseR · · Score: 3, Informative

    Prior to that on June 2, 2001 the craft tore itself to pieces during a trial run

    Actually, it's the rocket launcher that veered out of control.

    A plane takes the rocket+X43 into a given altitude, the rocket launches bringing itself and the X43 to about Mach 3 and then the scram jet can take action, bringing the X43 up to Mach 7 after separation from the rocket.

    It's the rocket that failed on the first attempt. Not the X43-A.

  31. Re:Speed for Escaping Earth's Gravity? by antispam_ben · · Score: 2, Informative

    And how does that 2 miles per second size up compared to the speed required in order to escape the Earths Gravity and reach orbit?

    The Earth is about 8,000 miles diameter, so LEO (about 100 miles above the surface) is 8,200 miles diameter, or 8100*3.1416=25447 miles around. Something in LEO orbits approximately every 90 minutes, it goes 25447/(90*60)=4.7 miles per second. So this 2 miles per second is a little less than half the speed needed to be in orbit.

    So while getting into outer space (as SpaceShipOne recently did) is a big achievement, getting enough speed to be in orbit is much more so, requiring even more acceleration.

    --
    Tag lost or not installed.
  32. Mach Question.... by imsabbel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Are those mach speeds representing the actuall factor at flying altitude or is there a standart altitude?

    Because if its at traveling altitude, your mach 6 35km altitude vehicle would be faster then your mach 7 15km vehicle (speed of sound is presure dependent).
    But if it were otherwise, you could travel at mach 1.1 and still be subsonic if you are high enough, which doesnt make sense either.

    So why dont they just give the speed in km/h (or mph)? Mach may be usefull if you are dodging around the speed of sound, but at mach 2,3 (or 10), who cares?

    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    1. Re:Mach Question.... by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Mach 1 = exactly the speed of sound in the medium of travel. Always.

      This is useful because the way the medium flows changes significantly at the speed of sound - you have subsonic flow (what airliners fly in), transonic flow (what no one flies in because its ugly), and supersonic flow (what jet fighters fly in). There's also hypersonic flow, but its not as well defined a transition, and has a lot in common with supersonic flow.

      Anyway. Mach numbers are useful because they're a similarity number; so much of flight is dependent on the aerodynamic properties of the flow, and equal Mach numbers implies equal aerodynamic flow properties, even if the actual atmosphere is different.

      A jet pilot at 10km will produce a sonic boom at > Mach 1. A jet pilot at sea level will produce a sonic boom at > Mach 1. Any object at any altitude will produce a sonic boom if its moving faster than Mach 1. That's why the Mach number is useful.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
  33. Re:AWESOME! by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Trouble with the concord wasn't a technical issue though. It was more of a social/political issue involving the "sonic boom" that it generated over cities and towns. But super sonic flight over water wasn't an issue. As for the scramjet, being that it would be partially in space this may not be an issue. But I wouldn't be the one to give you an answer on that. Anyone else claim to know the answer on this?

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  34. Re:Speed for Escaping Earth's Gravity? by iggymanz · · Score: 2, Informative

    something in earth's orbit hasn't escaped earth's gravity at all. Escape velocity is 11.2Km / sec or over 25,000MPH to leave the earth and never return on an unpowered trajectory. The common weather satellites I read about only have to achieve 17,000+ MPH, so 6Km/sec or almost 4 miles/sec seems a good answer

  35. Re:Fahrenheit, some ancient term? by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Informative
    Temperature is in degrees Celsius or degrees Kelvin.

    No, temperature is in degrees Celsius or in Kelvin. There's no such thing as a 'degree Kelvin'.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.