Slashdot Mirror


Brits To Crash Test a Scramjet

hywel_ap_ieuan writes "The BBC is reporting that a the "Hyshot consortium" will be testing a scramjet called Hyshot III in Australia on Friday. The fun part: "If everything goes to plan, the experiment will begin at a height of 35 km. As the engine continues its downward path the fuel in the scramjet is expected to automatically ignite. The scientists will then have just six seconds to monitor its performance before the £1m engine eventually crashes into the ground.""

35 of 314 comments (clear)

  1. They should pool resources by Locke2005 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Perhaps they could team up with some Earth Sciences researchers doing work on crater formation...

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:They should pool resources by Benzido · · Score: 3, Funny

      They could have skipped that and teamed up with some researchers doing work on *wings*.

  2. The best kind of Science! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    All expeirements should end in some kind of explosion! What good is being a scienctist if you don't get to blow shit up?!?

  3. Pilot's motto: by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Funny
    Old pilot's motto: "Airspeed, altitude or brains. Two are always needed to successfully complete the flight."

    > "If everything goes to plan, the experiment will begin at a height of 35 km. As the engine continues its downward path the fuel in the scramjet is expected to automatically ignite. The scientists will then have just six seconds to monitor its performance before the £1m engine eventually crashes into the ground."

    Revised for 2006: "We'll settle for one out of three these days... as long as you have a hell of a lot of it to compensate."

    1. Re:Pilot's motto: by LunaticTippy · · Score: 4, Funny
      OK, we've got 35km. Altitude, check.

      Scramjet pointed straight down. Airspeed, check.

      Getting paid to destructively test a million pound device, wow. That'd be so cool. Brains, check.

      Looks like they've got 3/3.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    2. Re:Pilot's motto: by mctk · · Score: 4, Funny
      Old pilot's motto: "Airspeed, altitude or brains. Two are always needed to successfully complete the flight."

      New pilot's motto: "Always review the flight plan before committing to a mission."

      --
      Paul Grosfield - the quicker picker upper.
  4. not the right way to start by blastard · · Score: 5, Funny
    Somehow, paving "the way for ultrafast, intercontinental air travel" by crashing your very first example does not sound like the way you want to start things off.

    Then again, the British did usher in the passener jet age with the Comet.

    1. Re:not the right way to start by gjuk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To be fair - the Comet was revolutionary in many ways - especially being the first commercial jet airliner. The metal fatigue which caused it to crash was not known about until the crashes. First mover disadvantage. Because the British investigated the crashes so thoroughly, subsequent airliners could ensure they weren't prone to the issue. A great shame that DeHavilland did all the work and a bunch of people died for Boeing to benefit.

    2. Re:not the right way to start by rilister · · Score: 3, Informative

      err. more importantly, the freakin' jet engine!
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Whittle

      entertainingly, the new US show "American Inventor" credited the invention of the motor car and the computer to the Americans last week. doooooh!

      meanwhile, this scramjet isn't even by the brits, it the aussies. It's being reported by the BBC, hence the confusion

      --
      'This writing business. Pencils and what-not. Over-rated if you ask me. Silly stuff. Nothing in it' - Eeyore
    3. Re:not the right way to start by AJWM · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A great shame that DeHavilland did all the work and a bunch of people died for Boeing to benefit.

      They weren't the first, although Boeing did do a lot of early work.

      During WW-II Boeing thoroughly analyzed the bombers that returned shot up from missions, noting carefully where the damage was. Then they improved the design of the places where the damage wasn't*, because planes which had been damaged there obviously hadn't made it back.

      (* For the pedantic, in some cases they made the design change elsewhere, e.g. putting redundant systems in a different place. Douglas didn't learn that lesson until a DC-10 cargo door tore loose, simultaneously ripping all three "redundant" hydraulic lines to the tail because they routed through the same area.)

      --
      -- Alastair
    4. Re:not the right way to start by sbryant · · Score: 3, Informative

      The automobile is one of those trophy inventions that every country would like to take credit for and no one country really can. Considering that Henry Ford made it practical with the assembly line, I think we've got at least as much claim as the frenchmen who made an off-road steam engine or the British who poked around with internal combustion.

      Actually, it would seem that the Germans can quite legitimately take credit for the car. Three people in particular are responsible for inventing the major components of the car engine: Gottlieb Daimler, Wilhelm Maybach and Karl Benz. They had a whole automobile industry on the go before Henry Ford streamlined the production process (1913). Ford did do a great deal to make cars much more popular, but he was more an industrialist than an inventor.

      The French industry was based largely on designs by Maybach, and I'm not sure that the English had very much to do with the internal combustion engine used in cars - the valve gear came from George Stephenson (the Englishman who also invented the steam engine), but the use of petroleum, the injection system, accelerator and so on were all developed by the three Germans. We do, of course, have to thank the English for pneumatic inflatable tyres (some guy by the name of John Dunlop, in particular) - without which, we'd have a very bumpy ride.

      -- Steve

  5. I know nothing about this stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    and that will be obvious after my question........

    but couldn't they build it to survive impact into the ocean, and then retrieve it?

    I seem to remember the US space program doing this when they first went to the moon. And that man who singlehandedly built the rocket and went to the moon. What was his name? Apollo Creed? Anyways Tom Hanks was really great in that movie. Forest Gump I think it was.

    1. Re:I know nothing about this stuff by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 3, Informative

      At the speed the craft is traveling, crashing into a body of water isn't that different from crashing into a concrete wall. To allow the craft to survive, it has to decelerate first.

      --
      ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    2. Re:I know nothing about this stuff by ChrisA90278 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "couldn't they build it to survive impact into the ocean, and then retrieve it?"

      Why spend the money to land it safely and retreive it? What would you do with it? There is no need to fly it again they already did the test. There are no plans to fly a second test with the same hardware they will do that with other hardware. Also, and more importently an aircraft that can fly at both hypersonic and slower speeds is _much_ more complex then one that can fly at only one speed

  6. Crash! by Colgate2003 · · Score: 5, Funny
    From the article

    On its descent the engine is expected to reach a top speed of Mach 7.6 or over 9,000km/ hour.

    I think crash is a bit of an understatement!

    1. Re:Crash! by techno-vampire · · Score: 3, Funny
      I think crash is a bit of an understatement!

      How right you are! I'd expect something more like an Earth-Shattering KABOOM!

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
  7. Not the first time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    This has been done before, at Woomera test range. The University of Queensland launched HyShot in 2002, and had a major success.

    http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/hyshot/default. htm

  8. you know... by heatdeath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    i realize everyone thinks they're cute by making cracks about how we don't want to test planes by crashing them, but it's actually pretty awesome that we're to the point where we can get all of the info we need about in-flight stuff in just 6 seconds, and that we don't have to worry about making the plane able to land in order to test the engine. it should speed up development time, and who knows, maybe a plane flight to tokyo won't put you in danger of deep vein thrombosis. =p

    good job, brits.

    --
    I'm sorry. The number you have reached is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again.
    1. Re:you know... by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      a plane flight to tokyo won't put you in danger of deep vein thrombosis.

            Sure blame the plane flight for DVTs. I mean, forget about the fact you weight 300 lbs (around the same as your cholesterol level), smoke, take birth control pills and are diabetic. It's the plane trip that caused it...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  9. They should have just talked to the Americans by Expert+Determination · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm sure they could suggest hundreds of places where they'd like to see a new crater. Two birds with one stone 'n' all that.

    --
    "The White House is not an intelligence-gathering agency," -- Scott McClellan, Whitehouse spokesman.
  10. It would have seemed more logical... by jd · · Score: 3, Interesting
    To give the engine a fast initial velocity, rather than use a parabolic orbit in which the engine essentially has a standing start at 35 Km up. The engineers presumably know what they're doing, so I guess they've thought all this through, but I'd have strapped a couple of standard ramjets either side of the scramjet. At peak altitude, it would then be possible to accelerate the scramjet to near-ignition point using the ramjets. You've then got virtually the entire 35Km descent to do the scramjet testing.


    (Hydrogen-fuelled ramjets are useless above Mach 5, but that's about when the scramjet should ignite, so you really wouldn't need a whole lot of additional acceleration at that point. If they've got the ignition point within the limit, you could even switch directly from one to the other.)


    The other thing I don't like is that this is destructive testing. It's inescapable, given the approach they're using, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. Their data collection has to be wireless, since no recording device is going to survive a mach 7 impact, but wireless is relatively slow. This means that they're going to be limited in what they can collect - what parameters, what accuracy, what resolution, etc.


    Normally, this wouldn't matter a great deal. But we're talking mach 7 speeds in a far denser atmosphere than most existing hypersonic travel (such as the shuttle re-entry) have taken place in. I believe there have been two successful scramjet flights in the past, so we have a little information on what happens under those conditions, but it seems somewhat... brave... if they are assuming they can interpolate between the few data points they'll be able to collect -and- extrapolate beyond the six seconds of flight.


    Again, I'm sure they have their reasons, but for novel engines under novel conditions, I'd have thought that getting as much data as humanly possible would be worth almost any additional effort.

    --
    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)
    1. Re:It would have seemed more logical... by jayteedee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd have thought that getting as much data as humanly possible would be worth almost any additional effort.

      Ah....This ending pretty much explains the whole comment. You must be a physicist....certainly NOT an engineer. There is always diminishing returns on investment. You must pick a price point evaluate what you will get out of any test. More data is almost always better, but somebody has to pay out in the real (non-university) world.

      Other errors:
      There are solid state data recorders specifically made for high speed impacts. On the order of 100,000 G's. Place one in the back behind something heavy/solid and you shouldn't have any problem.

      Wireless can hit 10,000,000 bits/second with one channel. Throw a couple of S-band channels and you have a stout communication line to the ground. Plus the hardware (Rx stations) is already in place at most ranges.

      I assume they are doing the burn on the way down because they couldn't afford a rocket big enough to accelerate up to M=7.6 in a dense atmosphere. Plus they don't have to deal with all the heating issues while they are accelerating. Take a nice gentle ride at speeds up to M=3 or 4 and then use gravity to assist you up to the desired speed for the test. As an ENGINEER, I like their simple, low-cost solution to their test.

      --
      Religion and science are both 90% crap..but that doesn't negate the other 10%.
    2. Re:It would have seemed more logical... by MyNymWasTaken · · Score: 3, Informative

      The test scramjet will be attached to a rocket that takes it up to 330km being dropping back to Earth. It should hit the requisite speed at 35km.

      Also, what do you propose for a simple up & down trajectory that isn't parabolic?
      As for destructive testing, there would need to be a lot more work done to save a prototype that will never be used again and the primary datapoint they are looking doesn't require much resolution.

      "Did it light? Good."

      KISS!

  11. Does this mean that by thejeek · · Score: 4, Funny

    it can only be deemed a failure if it *doesn't* crash? -- jeek

  12. Re:Not the Brits by AeroIllini · · Score: 3, Informative
    Not to mention that this appears to be a five year old dupe

    Not a dupe. They tried this 5 years ago and it didn't work. Now they're trying it again.

    FTA:

    It is the first of three test flights planned for this year by the international Hyshot consortium.

    The first Hyshot engine was launched in 2001 but the test flight failed when the rocket carrying the engine flew off course.
    --
    For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
  13. Re:Not the Brits by Haeleth · · Score: 4, Informative

    ScramJet is the work of Australians Ray Stalker and Allan Paull who achieved the phenomenon with a budget of tins cans, string and glue

    RTFA: "The scramjet engine, known as Hyshot III, has been designed by British defence firm Qinetiq."

    There's this concept called "international collaboration". It's not actually impossible for a project to involve people from more than one country. Yes, and one of the Australians you name is in charge. But the scramjet engine that's being tested on Friday was designed by the British. A few days later they'll be testing another one that was designed in Japan. After that, there's an Australian-designed one lined up too.

    We're talking big money international collaboration here. Stalker and Paull aren't working with a budget of tin cans any more.

  14. I can't wait... by martinultima · · Score: 4, Funny

    Until MythBusters decides to try this one!

    --
    Creative misinterpretation is your friend.
  15. Re:Not the Brits by AeroIllini · · Score: 4, Informative

    Nasa failed with a team of hundreds and a 9 figure budget.

    The first much-ballyhooed flight may have failed (because the Pegasus rocket exploded, not because of a problem with the scramjet), but the Hyper-X program is considered a rousing success, with two successful hypersonic flights and a new jet-powered speed record of Mach 9.6.

    That being said, I applaud the efforts of the University of Queensland, who is helping push the limits of aerospace knowledge. If they can do that on a shoestring budget, then that's all the better.

    --
    For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
  16. Re:One million GBP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    The third one burned down, fell over, then crashed into the ground. But the fourth one stayed up!

  17. Only on Slashdot by dsci · · Score: 5, Funny

    Do you see a comment by "heatdeath" responded to by "LiquidCoooled."

    --
    Computational Chemistry products and services.
  18. Re:One million GBP? by tsotha · · Score: 4, Informative
    If you had RTFA, you would have seen this:

    However scramjets do not begin to work until they reach five times the speed of sound.

    All scramjets, including this one, use rockets to get the engine up to speed - scramjets don't work at subsonic speeds.

    They're trying to test an engine design here. Would you rather have them spend 200M building a whole craft to test an engine that's likely to be used only once? They're a long way from an anything that could actually be used for something practical, so cheapest is best as long as it moves the ball forward.

  19. Some hurdles by quanminoan · · Score: 4, Informative
    Scramjets are really interesting. They are just as powerful as rocket engines should they work properly, but they don't have to carry around nearly as much fuel. Liquid hydrogen/oxygen fuel for a rocket has most of it's weight stored as the heavier oxygen. The scramjet and ramjet engines intend to scoop the oxygen from the atmosphere, reducing the weight of the aircraft by several times.

    The engineering behind the ramjet and scramjet couldn't be any more different. Ramjets are basically scramjet engines that purposefully slow the air intake so that combustion can occur. In a scramjet the big problem is that the air is moving so fast that when you ignite the fuel/air mixture, the combustion will actually take place outside the engine. It would be ridiculous to slow the air, so the problem lies in how you get the mixture to ignite sooner. To this end they are testing ionizing mixtures, etc. Some scramjet geometries are highly classified.

    Here's a good link that talks about the combustion issue: http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-10/iss-4/p24.htm l

    And of course some general information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramjet

  20. I'll tell you the same thing I tell my wife....! by JustASlashDotGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Anything worth doing can be done in 6 seconds! ;)

  21. Sounds like... by slughead · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... Windows 98. No, seriously, think about it:

    The scientists will then have just six seconds to monitor its performance before the £1m engine eventually crashes into the ground.

    Replace the word "scientists" with "consumers", "£1m" with "$5b", and "engine" with "OS." Also, add the phrase "If it boots," before the statement.

  22. cranky! by nightsweat · · Score: 3, Funny

    And yet, when I tried to apply this in my Biology labs, the professors got REAL cranky...

    --

    the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White