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."

50 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. Blinkx? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Blinkx and You Will Miss It?

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

    Ah, but does it get 1700 miles per gallon?

  5. 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

  6. 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.

  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. How soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    How soon before someone overclocks it to get Mach 11?

  12. 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 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!
    2. 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

  13. Re:I'm impressed by strictnein · · Score: 4, Funny

    because slashdot outsourced their moderator duties

    Knowing English is not a requirement.

  14. 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.

  15. 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!"
  16. 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.

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

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

  18. 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 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
  19. 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.

  20. 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))

  21. 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.

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

    What's it called now?

    Urectum.

    --
    "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
  23. 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
  24. 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.
  25. 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."
  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. Re:I'm impressed by ckaminski · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  29. 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.

  30. 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