Slashdot Mirror
X-43A Mach 10 Mission Scrubbed For Today
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."
SpaceFlightNow's X-43 coverage
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
... to have the day off "visiting the Black Mesa research facility" ;)
I travel forward in time every day, and I don't need a little box to do it.
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
Its a pilotless plane
Its a pilotless plane
So in true slashdot-reader fashion, nobody gets laid as a result
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
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)
...technical glitches...and...Windows...and thought, "Oh, well, that explains it."
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.
-
So the pilot no longer gets laid, he just plays with his joystick?
This 1 minute, 16 second narrated movie provides an overview of the X-43A as it prepares for a Mach 10 flight.
We've all heard about the short uptime of Windows, but this is ridiculous.
Go hug some trees.
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.
The speedometer only went up to Mach 8
http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood