Slashdot Mirror
Mach 10 X43A Flight Successful
Sector Bug writes "NASA's X43A research aircraft made its third and final flight today, firing its scramjet engine at Mach 10 (7,000 MPH) or close to it, setting a new record. "
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
A (possibly stupid) question: How does this compare to the speed of orbital rockets?
Random is the New Order.
X43A blurs past the camera. It is silent.
Marvin: "Where's the kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom!"
EARTH SHATTERING KABOOM!
Marvin: "At last!"
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
we shall call it the ludicrous speed.
You can't handle the truth.
Since their first scramjet, the A-1A, flew at 7 feet per second.
The B-52B (tenth off the assembly line) first flew on June 11th, 1955 and among other things, has carried the X-15, Shuttle solid rocket booster, and finally the X-43A (on the same pylon as used by the X-15). Read more about the ol' BUFF at NASA.
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
I understand he was a very fast guy, much to his wife's chagrin.
Now, when I tell those guys I want my pizza in 30 minutes or less, there is no excuse!
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
By the way (and massively OT), doesn't a "Guinness Record" sound like something you'd like to break yourself, at least if it involved consumption?
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
...had to hunt for it, but here it is:
/ x43.jpg
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0106/02x43failure
Steve Jobs invented mach speed.
Let's hope that this type of engine isn't adopted by commercial arlines. If it were, a flight cross country would take less than an hour, and the flight crew wouldn't have time to get us all drinks and peanuts.
HexaByte - he's a square and a half!
(sorry I know this debate is a classic but miles say nothing to me and I guess that many international slashdoters feel the same)
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
It takes a while for them to catch up because CNN is only operating at Mach 9.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
The important question is, what would Mach 10 be in warp speed?
Nothing disturbs me more than blind loyalism towards some unrealistic and over-idealistic notion of one's nationality.
For all the shit theyve been through, NASA still fucking rocks.
Kudos to the Alpha geeks.
We bow.
no
Not even close.
Hubbles orbital speed is approximately 16,900 miles per hour.
You are not even close. He was asking about orbital ROCKETS! Not objects in orbit. Orbital rockets are the things that lift the satellites into orbit.
The space shuttle does not get anywhere near 16,900 mph on lift off. That is the speed it gradually gets to once in orbit, NOT ON LIFT OFF.
After 60 seconds, the Shuttle has accelerated to Mach 1 (the speed of sound). About one minute later (two minutes into the flight), the solid rockets burn the last of their fuel. By this time the shuttle is over 25 miles high. The now-empty solid rockets are released in order to reduce the weight carried the rest of the way to orbit. [They parachute into the ocean off the Florida coast, and are recovered to be refilled with fuel and used again.]
After the solid rockets are released, the shuttle is still attached to the external tank and its launch engines are still being fed propellants from the tank. When the shuttle reaches an altitude of about 57 miles, it changes trajectory to fly more horizontally, and pick up speed. In order to achieve orbit, it needs to accelerate to approximately 17,500 mph (~5 miles/sec). Once it reaches this critical speed (about 8-1/2 minutes after lift-off), the shuttle launch engines are shut off, and the shuttle separates from the external tank. The tank re-enters the atmosphere and burns up on re-entry. It is the only part of the Shuttle system that cannot be used again.
Please, if you are pretending to supply information, make it at least vaguely close to correct. :-(
The rocket boosted it all the way up to max speed. The scramjet wasn't even lit at quite the max speed, though close (the research vehicle decelerates slightly in the few seconds after separation from the rocket before the scramjet lights).
The scramjet *MAYBE* did as well as stopping the deceleration for a few seconds. One of the researchers, who I was talking to as we watched the B52 flyby and landing, said that he thought perhaps they got just a little positive acceleration (i.e. it sped up slightly), but small enough that he couldn't tell for sure from the quick look he took so far.
But then, that is what was being aimed for.
So, at Mach 10, can anyone hear you scream?
> Circumference of Earth at equator = 24,900 miles = 3 hours 33min 26 seconds
Please, if you get a scramjet of your own, take the extra time to go around the earth and fly above sea level! You'll enjoy the trip a whole lot more.
John.
An USCS episode can be dramatic, depending on the Km/h value. At high Km/h values, the victim is running so fast that the bucket carriers cannot catch him. On top of that, the wind of his frantic run vents the fire, which of course burns even hotter, quickening his race. After a certain threshold, the poor guy's genitals burns to a crisp. The critical speed is called "Mach speed" (pronounced Mack), after an early victim.
So unless you are referring to these sad but uncomon accidents, the metric unit you want to use is km/h, with a small k meaning kilo, not the capital K of Kelvin.
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
The speed of sound is approx. sqrt((gamma)RT)
Assuming Ideal Gas
Gamma (roughly constant for air (1.4))
R = Ideal Gas Constant
T = Absolute Temperature (relates to density, etc)
(somehow I knew those thermodynamics and aerodynamics courses would pay off someday)
At 100,000 ft, the temperature is only somewhat lower. This only marginally lowers the speed of sound, but also lowers problems with skin heating at high speed, parasite drag, etc.
So, no, noone is pulling a fast one. This is an impressive achievement for an air-breathing vehicle. Now if anyone can find an article detailing if they got any positive thrust out of it or if it was all the pegasus booster.
--Kei
"What I don't understand is why you spend so much money in fuel and oxidiser to get the external tank nearly into orbit, then for the additional cost of presumably not very much (in the scheme of things), let the thing fall back to earth and burn up?
Would it not make more sense to take the tank into orbit and use it for something? It's got to be (at least nearly!) air-tight, why not add it to the Space Station as another module for something? Use it for spare parts - got a leak, hack a suitable sized bit off the old tank and stick it over the hole. Just stack them up in orbit somewhere for raw material to build a interplanetary space ship?"
You're absolutely correct. Unfortunately, a lot of factors and events have stopped any of these things from happening.
The ET itself is completely space-worthy. It was designed to operate in space long after reaching orbit. Early plans for space stations and platforms included the ETs since they remain completely useable. What's more, the tanks still have a lot of H2 and O2 left after a launch. So in reality, the shuttle could reach much higher orbits if it _kept_ the ET attached on orbit. This was purposely designed-in, since the original plans for what's now the ISS called for a higher orbit than usual. So any visit to the space station would require one to keep the ET. Even if it was just hanging around LEO, the H2 and O2 in the tank are extremely valuable and are worth leaving in orbit.
So why don't they do this? Well, they just don't have a reason to anymore...
First, the shuttle no longer needs access to the higher orbit, since the ISS we have is in a much lower orbit. This was done to accomodate the Russian launch sites. This has crippled a lot of the usefulness of the ISS compared to it's original goals, but that's a whole other post.
Second, managing the ETs and their contents are more trouble than they're worth. What I mean is that the only immediate usefulness of the H2 and O2 would be for the ISS, but it's just less of a planning headache to have the supplies sent up by Progres than mapping out astronaut time to transfer stuff from the ET through the shuttle to the station (and having to manoeuver with the ET attached). We can say that making orbital warehouses of the tanks and their contents for future missions and projects is a great idea, but it brings up the question of where and how. Do you store them at the ISS, or at some designated point out of the way? If the ISS, you've just added another headache to the crew. If at some other point in space, you have to have station-keeping thrusters to maintain orbit and attitude. NASA has no need for any of these headaches currently.
Thirdly, the whole idea is moot since the shuttle's death warrant has already been signed. Well, it was signed a long time ago, but suffice it to say that the shuttle isn't going to be around much longer. There's no incentive to change their operations now, so they'll just keep chucking everything away until the program is over.
It's really quite sad to look back at the past thirty years* of the shuttle and ISS programs and realize how poorly they've been executed and how many opportunities and resources have been squandered needlessly. I have the utmost respect for the engineering teams and all the people who put the shuttles together and made them fly, but the shuttle program really has ruined NASA for decades.
Blah.
* - the shuttle fleet has only been flying since '81, but the design work began in the early 70's
...instead you'd have your house, garden and neighbourhood replaced with a huge crater with a squashed packet from amazon in the centre?