Slashdot Mirror
NASA to Attempt Mach 10 Flight Next Week
Dirak writes "NASA intends to break its own aircraft-speed record for the second time this year by flying X43a scramjet ten times faster than sound. On November 15 the X-43A supersonic-combustion ramjet - or scramjet - will again take to the skies aiming for Mach 10."
Just above the atmosphere, what is the speed of sound? I guess when an article says 10 times the speed of sound it means the speed of sound at sea level right? But this aircraft isn't at sea level. This aircraft skips on top of the atmosphere pulsing the scramjets while dropping into the atmosphere.
The speed of sound isn't a good tool to measure the speed, as the speed of sound without an atmosphere is either infinite, undefined, zero or a combination of the choices. I mean once you get into space, should you add the speed the earth is rotating plus the speed around the sun using a basis of sound?
So how big will the sonic boom be? RM
Nobody's as dumb, as I appear to be
And the Aurora aircraft will be the chase planes correct :)
Didn't you see what hapened to Picard when they went faster then light? are they going to travel in time or sligshot off the sun gravity?
I don't know how this can be risky. No one will be in the thing when they fly it. How is that risky?
Mike
Now they can hurtle spacecraft towards Mars even faster before they malfunction and drift into outer space :D
Mach 10? Call me when you hit Warp 1, then we'll talk.
I wonder if Vegas is taking bets on if it will work or not?
I don't think it will. I just doubt the plane will hold together with that much pressure on it.
Sort of a ho-hum TFA.
A paragraph and a blurry picture: sure to inspire flame wars.
All this extra speed will not be available for the common public until they can resolve the problem with the sonic boom. Once that is resolved I think it would be a lot more interesting where they could have supersonic flights that go over land as well. And the general public will advance. Right now having an airplain that can go at Mach 10 is somewhat useless because we can already out fly our enemies planes which most were build during the cold war times.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I am waiting for the day when those airbreathing scramjets will be incorporated into our Ferrari's, BMW's ... it will give a new dimension to F1 Racing ... we'll all have to watch the recordings at low frame rates!!
-bg-
... this is also known as "wicked f-ing fast".
Going straight to 10. From Mach 6.83 to 10! yeah thats pretty fast.
Black Sky
2D Elite Inspired Game
Ludicrous Speed!
I'm all for fast cool stuff, and technical gadgetry, but anyone know of any practical uses for this? I mean, wouldn't it run into the same sonic boom issues as the concorde? Perhaps even worse?
Or is this just a method for getting something to go fast enough to put it into orbit without a rocket? (which would be quite useful)
— darco
So this technology will be available for use in SUV's by mid 2005 right? Mach 10 Ford Escape. Sign me up!
The Property of One's : "The Oneitude is directly proportional to the Colditude of the one." - S.B.
This is apropos.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The B-52, the American workhorse for over 50 years. So called 'Weapons of War' can be used for other, good purposes, like this.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
NASA really needs this technology. If it can be made practical it should largely solve the inexpensive-access-to-LEO problem tat has plagued us since the beginning of the space age.
"There's no set architecture in Linux. All roads lead to madness" -Microsoft
Haven't you read any of Dan Brown's books? It's vital that we be able to rush obscure professors around the globe at ludicrous speed so that they can save the world and score with hot chicks.
"Leeching?" DARPA has their own budget which they have been using to fund the various projects they have taken over from NASA. And it's not as if USAF/DoD hasn't contributed directly and indirectly to both NASA and DoE in the past.
I'm tired of hearing people yap about tax money when they waste money on frivolous things. Not to say that video games are bad, but do you know how much health care or education $125 Million will purchase? And the general public dropped that in one day! Do you know how much good research $125 M will purchase? I haven't looked it up, but I'm guessing the X-43A project is on the same order of magnitude cost-wise as what the public spent on this one single video game.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
While I agree that an engine that's running at supersonic speeds on the *inside* is maybe the coolest engine ever built, I wonder what real-world application NASA sees in this.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this thing wouldn't work any better in space then the engine in my Volvo. If the only applictaion is high performance aircraft (Air Force Fighters) why isn't it being developed by DARPA, leaving NASAs (much smaller) budget for projects that might actually benefit space exploration?
I'm sure this aircraft will create a lot of wind when it goes by. This wind can then be harnessed by windmills, which will produce electricity. The electricity can be used for electrolysis, producing hydrogen. The hydrogen can be converted into jet fuel. It's the perfect cycle!
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
"We can rebuild him. Make him better."
"Better?"
"Better, stronger .... faster!
Cchhcchhhooonnnggooonnnggooonnnggooonnngg.
sigs, as if you care.
Thanks, I really needed that one:)
/. almost dying today. What a coincidence
btw. NASA breaking speed barrier, and
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
Stanley Spadowski: George, you know I was wondering, like if you were traveling through outer space, I mean like you're going real fast, like the speed of light, you know ...hoooohhhhh... and all of a sudden you started screaming ...aaaahhhhh aaaaahhhhh... Do you think your brain would blow up?
Bob: Guys, I'm trying to work... Do you mind?
Stanley Spadowski: I don't mind. Go right ahead... Do you mind, George?
I was curious, so I checked here.
For FY 2002 and FY 2003, The X-43A program only cost a combined $52 M; the total budget for the project is $227 Million.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
what everyone wants to know is, what does it run the quater in
http://www.thegreynomads.com
If successful it would be a great accomplishment. However, according to this Wired article, 00.html?tw=wn_tophead_3,
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,65671
NASA is "phasing out its hypersonic engine program to free up funding for President Bush's 'Vision for Space Exploration,' which calls on NASA to focus its energy on sending humans to the moon and Mars."
Therefore,
"As of now, next week's X-43A flight is the final flight in the $230 million program."
I can't help but wonder if these priorities are correct as I'm not quite sure what we intend to do after we reach the moon and Mars.
Ludicrous speed? Let's not get ahead of ourselves. It will be a long time before they can go plaid.
Next thing you know, the pilot will be bedridden with an unknown disease, grab his captain chick and leave again at that speed.
They'll subsequently be found to have mutated into giant lizards and will have made weird lizard babies together.
It's damned liberals like you that just don't get it. It's one thing for individuals to spend money on what they want to spend money on. It's another to be forced to give your hard-earned money to the government, and then that government proceeds to squander the money on truely useless projects.
If these projects were so important, than the private sector would be willing to fund them for themselves. Since the private sector is not clamoring for a Mach 10 SCRAM jet, why is government????
Building a fast jet plane isn't research. It's building a fast jet plane. Research is quite a bit more boring than a fast jet.
This is a liberal toy. Now that the Gops are in power, I think we'll see a little more sanity in terms of "research" spending.
All (of) this extra speed
I think it would be a lot more interesting where (if) they
airplain
our enemies(') planes
which most were build (most of which were built)
The concorde solved this by reaching mach speeds over the ocean. That is not why it failed. It failed because of the costs and lack of a significant market. I for one wouldn't mind saving $10,000 for spending an extra 10 hours on a plane.
How's NASA not the right agency to do this? They are the National Aeronautics and Space Administration after all. Just because space gets all the publicity doesn't mean they don't still do aeronautics.
Why would the liberals want a fast plane? Is it so they can outrun the defeat in state after state?
-Patrick
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
to think that mach 10 = this thing can go round the earth in 3.5 hours.
Mach number is not just the speed of sound in air at sea level. It is used by mechanical engineers all the time because it applies to ALL fluids. Every fluid (yes, air is a fluid) has a Mach number. Mach numbers are useful in many types of calculations other than "the speed when you hear the boom"
Yeah, but imagine what Burt could do if the White Knight was powered by a scramjet and capable of mach 15 and much higher altitude.
He would be a lot closer to putting Space Ship One into orbit, although obviously he would have a little trouble getting it back in its current incarnation.
What you're missing is this little boundry that has to be pierced on the way to space called "The Atmosphere". The idea which was mentioned in the article I read is to boost with a rocket up to where the scramjet can kick in, then, as you exit the atmosphere, another rocket kicks in. This could save some of the load where not as much liquid oxegen is needed for the launch. Sorry for the sarcasm. I can't help it, it's a speech impediment.
www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
www.fairtax.org
Maybe we can practice other completely unnecessary acts of money waste.
You mean like spend $125 Million on a video game? That does almost absolutely nothing to advance society at all?
I'm tired of hearing people yap about tax money when they waste money on frivolous things. Not to say that video games are bad, but do you know how much health care or education $125 Million will purchase? And the general public dropped that in one day! Do you know how much good research $125 M will purchase? I haven't looked it up, but I'm guessing the X-43A project is on the same order of magnitude cost-wise as what the public spent on this one single video game.
I had promised my 12 year old nephew that I would wait in line with him, and treat him to Halo at midnight the other night. At 11:45 it dawned on me that my $49 would better benefit society if we donated it to some university doing good research. So we went home.
I'm still trying to figure out who left that flaming bag of poo on my stoop last night.
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
Yeah, a couple of Band-aid's and a pencil or two for every citizen.
You could build, maybe, 8 schools with that kinda cash.
Woooooo!
The U.S. Blackbird spy plane was _really_ fast when it came out. It is still probably one of the fastest aircrafts out there. Maybe still the fastest.
The Swedish fighter jet, Viggen (which is built by SAAB) was the first fighter plane to ever get a "lock" on the blackbird.
The Swedish radar systems got it on radar. The Viggen flew to intercept it with after burners on the whole time.
It got a lock on it and then had to turn back because it was out of fuel. There was of course never any intention of firing a missile, but still.
The black bird crew sent a box of chocolate to the Swedish air base and said "Congratulations!".
At least, this is what I heard. Whether it really is true, I couldn't tell you for sure.
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
Is it so they can outrun the defeat in state after state?
Kerry won in Ohio. In a landslide. I don't see how Bush could possibly have won, because nobody I know voted for him. Nobody here in Islington voted for him. Nobody. Any fool who reads the Guardian knew not to vote for that moron and everybody reads the Guardian, at least everybody one knows.
It was those dreadful neoconservatives. They faked the results. Americans are morons. Have you heard how they talk? They even sound American. Morons, all of them.
First, we sill can not outfly some of the enemy's missiles and have to outmaneuver and/or outsmart them. Second, the faster we can go the farther we can fly on time. For example, the planes can be based on the comfortable island but still be able to timely reach some of the theaters, where expensive and uncomfortable carriers have to be used now.
Lastly, using the technology for our missiles would be great too -- for example, once information comes in where a thug can be hit, this missile can reach his bunker in 20-30 minutes, rather than 2 hours. Not to mention the potential of replacing the "old-and-boring" ICBMs.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
NASA's new $128 trillion SUX2100 is expected to successfully reach C8. The SUX2800 utilizes NASA's CAMC (light antimater*matter light) engine. /. posters complain that:
-$128 trillion could provide 6 hobo's in rags and washer fluid for a year
-because the neutrino cone will wipe out interstellar communications there is no practical use
-it's a waste of energy when we only have a 10,000 year supply of deuterium reactor fuel left
-it's not gonna cut their 10 hour Earth-Mars commute
-it's just too damn fast
-it might tear the fabric of space (democrats comment)
-microsoft will never allow NASA to license the technology because it will compete with their legacy C2 product
-it doesn't have a good beat and you can't dance to it
Don't forget the Delta IV heavy launch, whose latest postponement has it lifting off on Nov 18. This should be the most powerful rocket to lift off from the area of land between Bermuda and Hawaii since the 70's. It's supposed to be able to hurl 48,000 lbs of payload to low Earth orbit, almost 1/4 the capacity of the Saturn V. What an accomplishment.
Not to downplay Burt Rutan's acomplishment, but he didn't come anywhere close to getting into orbit. He just did what NASA did 50 years ago with the X-15 rocketplane.
SpaceShipOne isn't anywhere close to replacing the shuttle, sending a probe to mars, anything. All it can do is barely touch space.
Everything seemed to be going so nice
'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
Who knows, there may be a good use for this.
It always irked me that in psychology, research done for the basis of learning stuff and not really improving anything is referred to as "basic" research (in most other disciplines, it's referred to as "pure" research). Whether you call it pure or basic, this sort of research may not have any immediate uses, but it may very well be something that spurns someone to do some applied research.
-Jenn
Here is another interesting propulsion design. Anyone have any insight into this technology. Glow Discharge Plasma. Does this technology have promise? How about for space travel? Obviously a scramjet needs oxygen which makes space travel a little difficult.
:)(smile)
...where every time anything doesn't go your way, it's a conspiracy!
And these hysterical, tantrum-throwing toddlers think they're competent to run the country. You're picking up a lot of votes there with that attitude, kid.
In a hole? Just keep digging.
--I smoked my sig.
Then some smartass hillbilly with nine-inch sideburns can make use of their research to build a rocketplane and proclaim : "Spaceship 2, Government 0"!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Miscellaneous anti-filter crap.
Yes, but the shuttle is launched by rockets, not jet engines.
/. standards, but my understanding of the situation is that rockets carry both fuel and oxygen, whereas jets carry just fuel and breathe oxygen from the atmosphere. What I think this means is that to the degree you can get the speed you need to access space using a jet in the atmosphere, you can dispense with carrying some of the oxygen.
I am not an aeronautical engineer or even much of a space buff by
Again, in my naive, non expert way, I look at a typical rocket and see a huge cylinder of fuel and oxidant with a teeny tiny payload on top. Even a marginal reduction in the size of the non-payload part has got to make a big difference in cost per pound of payload. I'm guessing this is leading to systems in which the first stage to orbit consists of a reusable scramjet powered vehicle that takes the next stage above the atmosphere.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
MINE goes up to eleven.
This sig is a test. If this had been an actual sig, you would be reading something quite a bit wittier than this now.
My buddy sent me this, this morning... http://www.sexualphysics.com/
Since, I don't know how SlashDot handles the legalities of such, subject matter, I'll take it upon myself. YOU MUST BE 18 OR OLDER TO VIEW THE LINK ABOVE!
I suppose you could ask the same questions about Mach 10.
--I smoked my sig.
Can someone explain to me how this 12-foot "Aircraft" is not referred to as a rocket? I'm just curious how you draw these lines of definition.
At Mach 10, it is going 0.00005c. Warp# is the cube root of lightspeed.
It will be 10 times the speed of sound at the altitude the craft will be flying.
t ml
You can't take the sea level speed of mach and multiply it by 10, because that would be incorrect. The speed of sound is about 760 mph at sea level, while at 95,000 feet (where the HyperX flies), the speed of sound is about 677 mph.
So when it flies Mach 10 it is not going 7,600 mph, it is going 6770 mph.
This is a common mistake that I see being made. Same thing with the SR-71...it is often quoted by dumb journalists as going 2280 mph, which is Mach 3 at speed level. But it can't go Mach 3 at speed level, it would break apart. It goes Mach 3 at 85,000 feet, which is about 1992 mph.
There's a cool utility for calculating Mach here: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/sound.h
Oh, MACH Ten. Nevermind.
The X-15 was mostly a USAF/private sector (North American) collaboration. NASA's role was minimal, and mostly restricted to data collection and analysis.
dude, that website, did you write that yourself ? it's fucking hilarious :-)
When will I end this grieving ? When will my future begin ?
Yeah, maybe I should have said, "Do you know how much health care or education $125 M would buy without corruption?"
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Your understanding is not correct.
NASA and the Air Force were going to co-operate on the X43-C project (a follow on to the X43-A), but it was cancelled. However, hypersonics research at NASA is not over. You can read all about it here.
One reason why it makes sense for NASA to work on this is that the technology may be used to improve access to space. This is not an avenue the USAF is likely to pursue.
Also stated in the ATW was that there wasn't (or shouldn't) be any animosity between the Scramjet team and the Rocket technology teams, in that affordable scramjet is projected to top out in the 20,000 lbs to LEO range and have a $1,700 per pound price tag vs $2,200 for expendable rocket, but with rocket being able to heft much larger loads. Still, the 20,000 lbs range is projected to meet 80% of future lift needs.
This figures struck me has oddly pessimistic, but they see problems scaling with this technology. They think the real advantage to scramjet will be reliability, with current unmanned failures rates (and manned it would seem also) at one in 50, and scramjet figured at 1 in 4000 or so (assuming a return to Earth on propulsion failure). Of course the Shuttle was projected to have a low failure rate also.
Still I would think a four-tier approach would be near ideal for now.
Maglev assist takeoff to Mach 1 or 2
Jet assist to Mach 3 or 4 (stubby winged, high-speed, jet wouldn't have enough lift for loaded takeoff on it's own)
Scramjet to Mach 8 or 10
Rocket final stage to Mach 22 orbit.
Maybe Congress doesn't want to fund this because they're misreading Scramjet as Scam-Jet.
Letter To Iran
You know, when Jerry Seinfeld asked why they just couldn't make the whole plane out of black box flight recorder material, at least he was joking.
Plus, the other thing people don't realize is that we can't devote all of our money to schools or medicine, etc. If we did that society would collapse. Plus, you should try researching how many important technologies we take for granted today were the result of projects of fancy.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Basically an air breathing craft that can hit mach 10 would make a great 1st stage for a spacecraft.
Rocket fuel weighs 17 times as much as jet fuel per unit energy due to the need for oxidizer. So you could build a craft that carried a rocket up to mach 10 then have it shoot into space and the rocket would need a lot less fuel so it would weigh less so your scramjet would not need as much fuel to lift it ect. You end up with a lot of fuel savings and jets tend to be safer than rockets, which also helps.
You can also save a lot of energy by using some form of wings to carry the craft up the first 20miles vs. wasting that much thrust on a craft that basically wastes 1g of thrust on overcoming gravity to lift the craft the first 20 miles altitude. And once you hit mach 10 you're a little over 45% orbital velocity so at that point your velocity start's to over come some of that 1g downward acceleration due to gravity.
PS: Pseudo physics geeks yea it takes the same amount of energy to gain altitude but I am talking about energy to maintain altitude at which point a harrier takes much more in hover than in flight.
I'm tired of Slashdot running these scramjet articles.
Each and every time, a bunch of people who didn't pay attention last time, act as if scramjets are a good idea.
They aren't. They can only operate if they stay 'way low, where there's air. At those speeds, that's a *dumb* place to be - there's humongous skin-heating problems and humongous control-surface problems. And humongous efficiency problems, because that "free" oxygen doesn't have zero velocity, relative to the craft: it's rushing by at Mach Whatever, and has to be slowed down (!) so it has *time* to react with the fuel. The craft travels its own length in around a millisecond - just how long is the combustion area, again?
Even if they get a scramjet to work, the equivalent rocket would actually be simpler and have a lower takeoff weight.
Which was said the last time, and the time before.
For one thing, flying at Mach 10 doesn't devolve you into a reptile.
...they are projecting a first stage rocket to get up to hyper ludicrous speed,that falls off, then the scramjet kicks in and carries the payload to the edge of space where it runs out of O2, then back to a final stage pure rocket for the last push into orbit or whatever. Yes, it would still save a lot of weight, that middle stage part normally needs tons of liquid oxygen to be carried along with it (or an oxidiser of some sort). Conceivably it could drop the weight to cost ratios way way down.
Did everybody wake up and take a stupid pill this morning or something? The arguments about this being too fast for commercial flight are in the same vein as early arguments that noboby would ever need more than 64KB of memory. Of course this is acceptable speed for commercial flights. It'll take a while to get there, but it will happen
Only if I could get a beowulf cluster of X43-A's.
Mod me offtopic, but after reading these posts, I wonder why so many people feel the need to bash NASA. Basic research costs money. Sometimes it turns into nothing, other times it turns into the next big thing... as in the next big thing you wouldn't have thought about unless someone else made a leap of faith. NASA does that.
This would make an incredibly formidable cruise missile. You could launch it basically from anywhere in the world and it would arrive on target within a couple of hours.
I don't think that's on the cards, seeing as they're phasing out cruise missiles in favour of railguns anyway.
the great thing about this is that the research is done. you can stop it and start it again any time you want. knowledge is forever as long as it is recorded.
I've read plenty of stories from Blackbird pilots on usenet, and it sounds like getting a lock on a Blackbird is not hard at all. You can track satellites by radar, too, but you'll have a hell of a time trying to shoot one down. The problem is getting your missile to reach it. By the time you get a lock and the missile is fired, the Blackbird has already put quite some distance on you. You need to remember that it flies at 80-100,000 feet in altitude, so the missile will have to climb about 30-40,000 feet vertical just to be at the same level. Also, most air-air missiles have a top speed of Mach 3-4. Basically the missile won't catch up to it very fast, and it will run out of fuel before it ever does. I think the common stat that I've heard is that the Blackbird was fired at over 3,000 times, but was never hit.
More seriously, the /. story reads:
It should be understood that these little babies are disposable.All my previous sigs now look like this one, I wish they were permanetly recorded when used.
There are some pretty good conversations about the Blackbird existing on usenet by people who have flown them.
I remember reading how they flew the aircraft by engine inlet temperature and not Mach number, since the limiting factor in their speed was the engine inlet temperature. They could keep accelerating until that max temperature was reached, and that varied with atmospheric conditions. Basically Mach 3.3-3.3 is the max speed it could ever safely go.
They have invented a new shaped nose cone for planes which reduce the sonic boom GREATLY!!!
Besides if your up so high that there is barely any atmosphere, then the boom wont propogate down 30 miles from up there.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
The speed of sound in a gas is related to the temperature of the gas and the gas properties molecular weight and heat capacity (cp/cv).
The relationship is:
c = sqrt(j * R * T / M)
where:
c = speed of sound
j = ratio of heat capacity (cp/cv)
R = Universal gas constant
T = Temperature (for gases always use absolute temperature)
M = Molecular weight
The Mach number is the ratio of the speed of an object over the speed of sound of the medium that the object is moving trough.
The X-43A will be released at 40,000 ft and climb to 110,000. I am not very sure about the temperature at this altitude but I think is about -100 C or 173K. At that temperature speed of sound is:
264 m/sec
So Mach 10 would be:
2640 m/sec or 5900 mph
If X-43 could fly that fast lets say at, 1000 ft, mach 10 would be about 3400 m/s or 7600 mph. Unfortunately the air density at 1000 ft would not allow X-43 to go that fast.
That's actually what my numbers were based on.
With 250+ million people that's 50 cents per person. Not a lot you can do with that.
My hometown built a new high school back in 1998 -- it was 17 million dollars. That doesn't go into 125M too many times.
Maybe the solution is something else. Much of the focus has been on high acceleration, "You have to be made of the right stuff to use this or you'll puke" technology. What if the solution isn't rocketing into space, but coasting into (or gradually reaching ) space. The obvious candidate is the space elevator. But there might be other technologies out there just waiting to be ./ed.
I'm a sci-fi vegan: I don't want the aliens to think we have as much right to live as the fried chickens we eat.
One correction:
The speed of sound is the speed at which infinitesimal shockwaves (like sound waves) propagate. However, if a compression shockwave is strong enough that the fluid properties behind it are significantly different from the fluid properties in front of it, then it will propagate (relative to stationary fluid) faster than the speed of sound in front of it. That's why a shockwave doesn't have to be attached to a moving vehicle creating it, even if that vehicle is supersonic - the vehicle's motion influences the fluid between it and the shockwave (not very far, admittedly); it just can't influence fluid in front of the shock.
interesting pics, thanks. That's just a nasty cool looking little engine, isn't it?
Tell ya WHUT though, along this whole thread on "this is the most advanced evar" and stuff, I wonder when they will finally admit to such things as aurora and brilliant buzzard and release some official pics and specs? I mean, the 117 and b2 are old hat now, and the sr 71 is so old it is medium retired, you can't tell me they don't have a few other models developed already.... smoke=fire usually
If its retired and not flying, then whats the damn problem telling us the top speed?
Unless it is just painted white and upgraded and running in secret on pacific island bases where no one is allowed with in 100miles of the "island".
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Doesn't going Mach 10 cause you to turn into a lizard, abduct your captain and mate with her?
and it's going to be "Need Another Seven Astronauts"...
NASA, stop with the Theatre, pull your thumb out of your ass, and stop kowtowing to the Contractors...
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
There used to be good information about the Beaumark missile on Google (lots of it, but it mysteriously has all gone away). This type of test isn't really all that great as an airplane, as you are going really fast, and adding any weapons would really screw up the aerodynamics (slow down plus become unstable). Solution: Make the entire device a weapon (high explosives never studied aeronautical engineering). At 7000 miles per hour (roughly), a 6 minute burn time gives you a range of about 700 miles, and you know quick-like-a-bunny if you got the incoming bad guy or not. The only down side is fuel. This bad-boy looks like it needs a liquid type of fuel. A solid fuel which thaws (melts) in flight and produces masses of gas (which then combines with oxygen to form the combustable propellant) would be ideal.
You didn't really think they were building an airplane did you?
Hummmmm. Should we turn over Kennedy and Houston over to the DOD?
Your math is wrong. If you use LOX, the maximum oxidizer/fuel weight ratio is 8 (or less if you fly on kerosene fuel as opposed to LH). If you use a heavy oxidizer like nitrous oxide (Spaceship One) the ratio will be likely higher than 8
I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
You linked to a wikipedia ripoff site, with annoying java ads. Just use en.wikipedia.org.
Coat a commercial jet with plasma actuators (like a skin over the aircraft), and it will drastically reduce drag and a jet could feasible fly Mach 10 from California to Japan (or other global travel) and take minutes. Keep acceleration lower and it will not be noticeable to passengers. Here's a website that discusses this (I've also heard a presentation at Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, NJ where this is being researched currently at a local company). http://www.poly.edu/glance/research.cfm?men=m11
This sig donated to Pater. Long live
It's not that DoD is leeching off other agency's budgets, it's that other agencies know where the money is. This "great" country of ours, which just re-elected Dubya, will happily pay billions to defend our "allies" in OPEC, and a pittance for energy independence.
This is the reason why companies like Boeing are getting more and more of their revenue from defense contracts: it's a lot easier than trying to compete with Airbus in civil aviation.
Oh, since when does the government spend the exact same amount of money on everyone? Most of the "blue" states are net contributors to the federal budget, while money goes to prop up tobacco farmers and into other wasteful agricultural subsidies for the most productive farmland on the planet.
The problem with this stuff as a commercial flight technology is that it takes longer to go up and down than to actually fly across the country. You can get the same performance cheaper.
Mach 10 is what is being tested. It is expected that the engine will ultimately go to Mach 15. Ever closer to needing little rocket action.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Thanks, I was thinking the test ship is using hydrogen so that works out as H + 0 vs H but it's H2 + 0 vs H2.
Atomic weight: 2 + 16 vs
Atomic weight: 2
18 vs 2 = 9 : 1
So the fuel weighs 1/9th as much with a oxidizer/fuel weight ratio is 0:1 vs 8:1.
But, that does not effect the arguemnt all that much it's still usefull to have a first stage rocket that uses a scram jet to hit mach 10 abd hopefuly mach 15.
"Ten times the speed of sound" is just a way of saying Mach 10, so people who don't know what Mach 10 is can understand.
You must know what Mach 10 is.
This is how they'll achive the speed of light. Rockets wont go near the speed of light.
First step is to find out how to safely contain anti-matter.
Combine with matter, anti-matter produces an insane amount of energy.
Using this theory, star trek ships are powered using anti-matter.
Once they harnest this technology they'll find a way to convert that power into speed. Just give them about 50 to 100 years and we'll be living like Star Trek. (Heck they've already built a transporter -- and actually transported one atom or molecule from point a to point b! -- its just a matter of time and money before Star Trek becomes a reality!)
The performance characteristics of the blackbird were declassified years ago. You can even buy the Dash-1 (operating manual) for it which tells you all the details about it.
If you do a search on Usenet, look up posts by Mary Shafer, who works at the Dryden flight research center for NASA. She has tons of info about it, since she worked with it. After the Air Force stopped flying the SR-71, NASA continued to use them for flight research.
The flight characteristics are now public, and nothing about the aircraft itself is still classified. The only thing still classified is information about the missions it flew. That's understandable since legally it couldn't fly over enemy territory, it had to fly around the fringes and shoot photos from the side, but they said the same thing about the U2 until the Soviets produced the wreckage of one shot down over their territory.
About its speed, the upper limit is Mach 3.2-3.3. The speed is limited by the engine inlet temperature and bad things would happen if you tried to push it faster. In addition, due to the design of the aircraft, the shock cone generated by the nose would begin to impinge on the wings a little over that speed. As you can imagine, the airframe wouldn't hold up very long if that happened.
To sum it up, the aircraft was engineered from the ground up to be a Mach 3 aircraft. It can cruise at Mach 3 but its top speed is not much higher. Other stories and rumors you've heard didn't come from anyone who flew or had any knowledge of the aircraft and are just fantasy.
The aircraft is retired from the airforce and all information about the aircraft itself has been declassified for years. From the years of secrecy, the aura of secrecy still exists even after it was declassified. In reality you can look up all data about it and even buy the Dash-1. Its performance is limited by operating constraints that would be considered common sense to anyone used to working with such aircraft. The SR-71 is a great design, but it's not magic. It's no longer a secret plane and you can now scour over all the information you want about it. Remember, this is early 1960's US technology, I'm sure we have a better "weather balloon" now.
Got to work with a guy who was on this project early on. He mentioned that in an effort to get the X43 to fly in a straight line, it was designed like a dart. The nose is a huge wedge of solid tungsten, weighing many hundreds of pounds. Sounds like the worlds most powerful bullet to me.
The X-43 would never get above the stratopause, so the temperature would be somewhere toward the warm end of a scale from -3C and -57C.
interesting comment