Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA to Attempt Mach 10 Flight Next Week

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the hello-john-val-says-hi dept.

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."

23 of 357 comments (clear)

  1. To Bad for the sonic Boom. by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:To Bad for the sonic Boom. by Saltine+Cracker · · Score: 3, Interesting

      At an altitude of 110,000 feet, I don't think surface dwellers need to worry too much about sonic booms.

      Or is the point of your post that the Government shouldn't fund research unless it's fruits can be made readily available to the public?

    2. Re:To Bad for the sonic Boom. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The primary military application for this technology would be for cruise missiles. The U.S. is by their own account 10 years behind Russia in cruise missile technology. The Russian SS-N-22 Sunburn Missile uses airbreathing ramjet technology and flies at roughly Mach 3, making it the most feared cruise missile in the world. The Russians have exported this (primarily anti-ship) missile technology to China and is also jointly developing a similar cruise missile with India which was test fired recently.

      The U.S. would love to have a mach 10 cruise missile to counter this threat since their Tomahawk cruise missiles are inferior as they fly at subsonic speeds. As it is now, a Chinese or Russian destroyer/sub/plane could take out an aircraft carrier with one Sunburn missile that flies at a cruising altitude of 40 feet and is too fast for on board (phalanx) anti-missile systems to defend against.

    3. Re:To Bad for the sonic Boom. by cjameshuff · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Jets are not more efficient than rockets. Actually, because they have to obtain their oxidizer from the surrounding atmosphere, they are quite a bit less efficient. The atmosphere is mostly useless nitrogen, varies in density with altitude, and is blasting against the craft at supersonic speeds. Jet engines are only useful in conjunction with wings when you're flying in the atmosphere for extended periods and at constant speeds. Since you don't have to carry your oxidizer and are supported by the air, you can cruise for extended periods. Orbital rockets constantly accelerate and get out of the atmosphere as fast as possible.

      The space plane as a concept is flawed. People like it because they like the idea of flying into space, but in reality it means you have to do a lot more work pushing through atmosphere and carrying useless atmospheric engines and control surfaces into orbit. It's also vastly more complex, and atmospheric flight places far greater strains on the structure. Rather than a tank full of fairly cheap LOX, you carry even more expensive and highly complex engine and aircraft structure which all has to be maintained, and which adds many possible possibilities of catastrophic failure.

      The main application of this engine is likely to be an atmosphere-skimming cruise missile, flying relatively low (very suborbital) to stay below the horizon of the target as fast as possible and retain maneuvering capability until the last minute. It's not very useful at all for getting into space, or even for human transportation between points on Earth.

    4. Re:To Bad for the sonic Boom. by PantsWearer · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Yeah, but how often do bombers get into dogfights?

      You can't dogfight at Mach 10 (or really Mach anything), so what's left? A bomber. This would seriously ease a nation's dependence on foreign bases since the airfield could be halfway around the world. I'm sure the various air forces would love this kind of thing since it would partially take back some of what aircraft carriers have removed from air force influence.

      --
      Be glad life is unfair, otherwise we'd deserve all this.
  2. Lets hope for success by CrashPanic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
  3. Still less than 0.0001 Warp Speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I was curious, so I checked here.

  4. Final Flight by SimURL · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If successful it would be a great accomplishment. However, according to this Wired article
    http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,65671, 00.html?tw=wn_tophead_3,
    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.

  5. Re:What is the Speed of Sound? by mog007 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's not really a speed record, considering the space shuttle hits, what, around 22,000 miles per hour?

    --
    Learn something new.
  6. Re:Very Cool, But... by susano_otter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think that if the theoretical parameters of the ideal scramjet play out in practice, they'll be a very efficient motor for getting things into low earth orbit.

    Sure, they don't work outside the atmosphere, but what about a next-gen shuttle that develops most of its thrust during the scramjet phase, uses a small rocket motor to get that extra bit of velocity at the upper end, and still has enough room left over for some worthwhile payload?

    I imagine that's the kind of thing NASA's interested in.

    Space Ship Two, anyone?

    --

    Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

  7. Blackbird and the Swedish fighter Viggen by 3770 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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!!!
  8. Re:Too Bad for the sonic Boom. by mi · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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.

    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.
  9. Re:Fast times at tax-payers' expense by audacity242 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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

  10. Another interesting propulsion design by azcoffeehabit · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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)
  11. is it REALLY an "Aircraft"? by WndrBr3d · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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.

  12. Re:What is the Speed of Sound? by ab762 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Precisely - Mach 1 is the local speed of sound. Specifically, it's the velocity at which shockwaves propagate. If you are flying at Mach 1 (plus delta) you are encountering a medium which is uninfluenced by your motion until you encounter it - it doesn't have time to get out of the way. That makes a huge difference to the behavior, a little like the difference between swimming in water and swimming in concrete!

    There is, of course, a FAQ on this Frequently Asked Question.

  13. Re:What is the Speed of Sound? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "but most obviously, sonic booms always appear as soon as the aircraft goes as fast as the speed of sound"

    Actually, they begin to appear when there is transonic airflow anywhere. This can be well before the aircraft is exceeding the speed of sound, since air flows around the aircraft at different rates depending on location.

    Sonic "booms", as heard on the ground, are more dependent on the shape of the aircraft than the speed at which it is travelling. I can generate a sonic boom by swinging a piece of notebook paper folded appropriately. If my hand were actually travelling at the speed of sound, I'd have a healthy collection of Cy Young awards at this point.

  14. It means Mach 10 at the altitude it will be flying by i41Overlord · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It will be 10 times the speed of sound at the altitude the craft will be flying.

    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.ht ml

  15. Re:Very Cool, But... by Control+Group · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Exactly. Somewhat apocryphally (from the reader's POV) since I can't be bothered to dig up the links: I seem to recall theoretical max on scramjet tech being Mach ~20. I also recall reading a paper on orbiting tethers for boosting into LEO stating that you could increase the payload from ~1% of total launch mass to ~4% of total launch mass if you could drop the target velocity from Mach ~23 to Mach ~18.

    So if the rocket only has to get from Mach ~20 to Mach ~23, I would imagine the payload increase to be significant (the increase is, of course, offset by needing to have the scramjet and initial lifting bodies as well as fuel therefore...but the initial/scramjet stages don't have to carry oxidizer or reaction mass, which gives them a huge mass advantage over conventional rockets).

    --

    Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
  16. Re:Great by IHateSlashDot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

  17. cool by zogger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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

    1. Re:cool by Rei · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One of the beautiful things about this concept (combined gun/scramjet) is that if you engineer them properly, you don't need a single moving part, even a fuel pump. You can use air pressure to force the fuel into the combustion chamber, where it's pressurized enough and heated enough by the oncoming air that, like a diesel engine, it burns without needing a spark.

      Now, mind you, I don't know that's what they did here. And in fact, using air pressure to pressurize the fuel might prove to not be the best way to do it; still, it's an interesting concept that you could create a nonmechanical jet engine of almost any size that can operate at Mach 10, simply due to its shape. ;) If you're using hydrogen, you only need 1/4 of a rocket's propellant mass; if you're using, say, kerosene, you need somewhere around 28% of the propellant mass you'd need for an equivalent rocket. It'd really be an incredible boost either way.

      --
      That's it, Mr. Giraffe, get all the marmalade.
  18. Commercial Jets can do Mach 10 in a few years by dantheman82 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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 /.