Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

X-43A Mach 10 Mission Scrubbed For Today

Posted by timothy on from the so-it-will-be-nice-and-shiny dept.

An anonymous reader writes "NASA's third X-43A hypersonic research mission has been scrubbed for today due to technical glitches with X-43A instrumentation. When the issues were addressed, not enough time remained in the launch window."

30 of 98 comments (clear)

  1. SpaceFlightNow has much better updates by xmas2003 · · Score: 4, Informative

    SpaceFlightNow's X-43 coverage

    --
    Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
  2. That's not what happened by asadodetira · · Score: 2, Funny

    It flew so fast that it traveled forward in time. Have you noticed that the X-43A has a little box attached. What do you think the little box does? (Reference to Primer movie)

    1. Re:That's not what happened by Nermal6693 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I travel forward in time every day, and I don't need a little box to do it.

  3. Any excuse... by Mendy · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... to have the day off "visiting the Black Mesa research facility" ;)

    1. Re:Any excuse... by Zorilla · · Score: 3, Funny

      You go take vacation leave to play Half-Life 1 while the rest of us visit the abandoned plant in eastern Europe, fighting baddies with a crowbar.

      --

      It would be cool if it didn't suck.
    2. Re:Any excuse... by kko · · Score: 2, Funny

      In other news, Colin Powell resigned today. White House sources say he spent all his time talking about a "Gold edition" and a "steam cache".

      --
      No, seriously, I just come here for the articles.
  4. Re:99% success? by ravenspear · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't think anyone is really sure what the probabilities are. The speed they are trying to achieve is too fast to simulate on the ground, so there are a lot of unknowns.

  5. Re:99% success? by Anubis350 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    more like a good test, where if 99% of the compenents work but 1% doesnt they dont fly until they solve that 1%. Haste is no reason for sloppiness, NASA's engineers are doing things properly here

    --
    "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
  6. Re:Lies by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 3, Funny

    Its a pilotless plane

  7. Some questions I have... by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've had some doubts about this aircraft:

    1) It cheats. It uses a booster rocket to get 90% of its velocity.
    2) it's smaller than a car

    So.... can the thing physically scale up enough to carry fuel and a seperate mode of propultion to reach the right altitude/speed, and have enough space to carry passengars and/or payload? Or, does its design specifically rely on being small?

    --
    Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
    Africus aut Europaeus?
    1. Re:Some questions I have... by TheGavster · · Score: 2, Informative

      The first supersonic aircraft were carried to test altitude by bombers as well. With any technology like this, you want to be testing just the new part; we know that ground->40,000ft->100,000ft is doable with current tech, the new bit is accelerating to mach 10 once you get there. The Bell X-1 was a flying gas tank, so is this. But an F-22 is a complete system, integrating existing technology with new advances in supersonic airframe and engine design. I expect much the same from the scramjet technology being developed on X-43.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    2. Re:Some questions I have... by ravenspear · · Score: 4, Informative

      the new bit is accelerating to mach 10 once you get there

      Actually no. The rocket booster accelerates it to Mach 10. We've had rockets that could do that since the 60s. The new bit is maintaining that velocity with an air breathing engine.

    3. Re:Some questions I have... by rebelcool · · Score: 3, Interesting

      1. No kidding! Its a scramjet. Perhaps you should look up what that is and how it works.

      2. Its a flying engine.

      The point is to test the engine at a new, insanely fast speed to demonstrate that it can be done. It is not intended to have anything to do with passengers. Its so new, the engine has never been flown in the atmosphere at that speed.

      Anything involving passengers is many years away.

      --

      -

    4. Re:Some questions I have... by nicnak · · Score: 5, Insightful
      1) It cheats. It uses a booster rocket to get 90% of its velocity.

      It is not a test to see how fast it can get going, but rather a test to see if it can sustain flight at a speed faster than any other air breathing vehical has ever done.

      2) it's smaller than a car

      It is mearly a test. If they built one full size and then threw it away in the ocean, the public would be screaming bloody hell about all the wasted money. They are trying to be as efficiant as possilbe with these tests on a limited budget.

      NASA knows that if it screws up too much it's funding will be cut. I know what it's like to work under such circumstances and it makes you not take risks. That's the sadest thing is that NASA is supposed to be about pushing the limits. About discovering new things, breaking new records and now they are strugling just to stay alive.

    5. Re:Some questions I have... by KliX · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's not 'cheating' - that type of propulsion/engine simply doesn't work until the craft's body is moving very fast indeed. Any craft wanting to use this type of engine, would require a booster before it could operate [using current technology, maybe at some point in the future, the scramjet could be hybridised with a jet within the same body, who knows].

      As to the size, I assume that's because of problems with thermal dissipation - at that speed within the atmosphere, the body is going to get seriously hot. I don't think we have materials capable to handling the heat flux that'd flow through them [or of the strength required at those temperatures] for a large.. ship, but you've got to start somewhere :)

      Hey, at least we know this type of engine works.

      50 years down the line, this might be 75% of the form of all LEO launches.

    6. Re:Some questions I have... by rebelcool · · Score: 4, Informative

      Unfortunately jet engines only work up to around mach 3 and a little past. See the SR-71's engine, which is pretty much the pinnacle of what can be done.

      After that, its like trying to light a match in a hurricane. Oh, and the sonic shockwaves bouncing around inside your engine tend to tear it apart too.

      Scramjets don't ignite till around mach 5 though, so you need some kind of boost inbetween what a jet engine can do, and scramjet ignition.

      Mechnically speaking, scramjets are very simple. They have no moving parts. Just a fuel injector and essentially a tin can with which to ignite in. Its the *shape* of that tin can though that has required decades of research. Its geometry is extremely complex and touchy.

      --

      -

    7. Re:Some questions I have... by Rei · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > you need some kind of boost inbetween what a
      > jet engine can do, and scramjet ignition

      It's called a ramjet.

      Of course, you can always go from zero to mach >5 in the barrel of a gigantic gun. ;) And before you say that it wouldn't work with a scramjet, you might want to think again

      Also, when you said "a tin can", were you referring to a flameholder? Scramjets don't use flameholders; they either use hyperglolics (like silane) or just simple heat and pressure of high velocity compression for ignition (like a diesel engine). Flameholders (of which the can-type is no longer considered to be a very effective model) are generally only viable in subsonic flows.

      --
      Nobody pushes buttons like our bunny. Big red buttons with labels that say "IGNITION", apparently.
  8. Re:Lies by wasted · · Score: 3, Funny

    Its a pilotless plane

    So in true slashdot-reader fashion, nobody gets laid as a result

  9. Re:99% success? by omb · · Score: 2, Insightful
    No, the reliability needed is much greater than 99%, which is just better odds at Russian Roulette,

    how do you think the Civil Airline industry would work if 1 plane in 100 crashed?

    There are two interesting questions here:

    1: Who was responsible for this incompetance.

    Where is the effective oversight?

    2: When will effective competition to NASA deploy itself

    Given Posting Guidelines it is hard to be pejoritive and rude enough about this totally failed organization.

  10. X-43A design theory by jd · · Score: 4, Informative


    The NASA design is example 4 on the summary page and is quoted there as having a theoretical top speed of Mach 20.


    The BBC has some good pics and information too.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  11. Re:99% success? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    NASA Langley has a Mach 20 wind tunnel. I used to work in the transsonic facility there, and that tunnel is basically an integral part of the building. I also worked in another building right next to the scramjet testing facility. That used to shake books off the shelf when they fired it up

  12. I thought TFA said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...technical glitches...and...Windows...and thought, "Oh, well, that explains it."

  13. Re:Lies by tool462 · · Score: 3, Funny

    So the pilot no longer gets laid, he just plays with his joystick?

  14. Movie clip by No_Weak_Heart · · Score: 3, Informative

    This 1 minute, 16 second narrated movie provides an overview of the X-43A as it prepares for a Mach 10 flight.

  15. not enough time in the launch window? by chochos · · Score: 4, Funny
    not enough time remained in the launch window

    We've all heard about the short uptime of Windows, but this is ridiculous.

    --
    Go hug some trees.
  16. Not the one I want to hear about by kettch · · Score: 2, Funny

    Where's the X-303?

    I watch too much TV :D

    --
    Opportunities multiply as they are seized. --Sun-Tzu
  17. Re:99% success? by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How, exactly, is "fixing a problem in a hand-made experimental craft, that was revealed by a well-planned and thorough inspection" considered "incompetance"? I'd call that about as good of an organizational plan as you could have for an experimental project like the X-43.

    > how do you think the Civil Airline industry
    > would work if 1 plane in 100 crashed?

    Awful analogy. Airplanes are mass-produced, mass operated commodity machines.

    Better analogy: How would people react in the middle ages if 1 ocean exploration mission out of 100 sank?

    Answer: They'd cheer for their astounding success, and give proper credit where it was due, unlike you people that know almost nothing about rocketry or NASA experimentation beyond the shuttle and ISS, who never miss an opportunity to bash all that NASA has accomplished.

    --
    Nobody pushes buttons like our bunny. Big red buttons with labels that say "IGNITION", apparently.
  18. Re:unless by Moofie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I find it hard to believe that there will be a man in the loop. Do you have any idea how fast bad things can happen at Mach 10?

    You know that all the "pilot" does on rocket launches is not push the abort button, right?

    You know what happens if you pull back too hard on the stick of a scramjet powered aircraft? You upset the shock wave system that is compressing the air, you get a normal shock wave in the throat of the engine, the drag on the aircraft increases by a MONSTROUS factor, and the engine unstarts.

    "catastrophic" is one way to describe the results.

    --
    Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  19. Instrumentation by marko123 · · Score: 3, Funny

    The speedometer only went up to Mach 8

    --
    http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
  20. Is this the long fabled "Aurora"? by Brad1138 · · Score: 2, Informative

    It looks very similar to the artists conceptual pictures of the Aurora I have seen over the years.

    --
    If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people