Slashdot Mirror
NASA Tests Hypersonic Blackswift
dijkstra writes "Blackswift was previously rumored to be a super secret hypersonic scramjet-based aircraft co-named HTV-3X, essentially a 21st century version of the SR-71. Today NASA has unveiled the real Blackswift (video link), which uses pulse detonation engines (PDEs). A PDE is essentially a modern version of the old V-1 buzz bomb engine. This engine requires significantly fewer moving parts and achieves much higher efficiency than a turbofan, and is technically able to go hypersonic without any kind of 'dual-stage' engine."
Please warn us when linking to Fox News. Jesus those people are dumb.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Just because Fox interviews a NASA analyst doesn't mean NASA developed the thing. The video clearly says it's the air force that's developing this.
Holy shit that was a pain to watch. Billy is a fucking retard.
"Can you explain in english not in science-talk."
Oh, you mean english to people who aren't slack-jawed idiots. The way he says it makes it sound like he's proud that he's so fucking stupid.
What a fucking jackass. How can someone that stupid be put out there as a news-person? On national television?
I'm hoping for the one day when the scientist being interviewed tells the guy to get a fucking education and then explains what's going on in adequate detail with plenty of scientific concepts.
Sorry, but 'fewer' moving parts? :)
It's no secret, nor is it new...
http://www.darpa.mil/tto/programs/Falcon.htm
August 2007
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/08/blackswift-retu.html
March 2008
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/11/darpa_hypersonic_blackswift_details_released/
It's also been on the Military Channel, and Discovery...
If you don't feel like disabling noscript, the appropriate sites to temporarily allow would be mavenapps and Fox's website itself.
now, don't get me wrong. this is a cool bird. but I wouldn't say it was cooler than the SR-71.
I've found a few better articles and videos, here, here , here & here.
It's probably designed to be the replacement for the "blackstar" program, which doesn't exist, but is hands-down the very coolest thing out there, the only thing cooler would be a functioning Orion spacecraft.
But this looks like it might have the capability of taking the place of the blackstar "mothership", although I bet with less performance & payload; as this isn't designed to be a Mach 3+ cruise nuclear bomber, that's understandable. but those cold-war birds have got to be tired by now, and looking forward to retirement. i think one would look great in my driveway as a static display.
I do wonder what they are going to use to replace the orbital component, which was probably based on the X-20. Maybe a NASP? The X-43?
Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
yes.
This space available.
ram/scram jet: continually running engine. flame always on.
this thing? well... look at a car engine. x times a second it ignites.
Take a look at what faults existed with the SR71. the inlet had to be continually adjusted to avoid flameout. past a certain speed and the shockwave / wake choked out the engines by being outside of where the engines were.
this thing doesn't have an inlet as far as I understand. this means they only have to worry about the outer skin and the 'reaction chamber' when it comes to heat. with inlets, at those speeds??? you are introducing a heck of a lot of heat into the inside and have a lot more metal expanding and wearing out.
The difference is that they're very very different kinds of engines really. Sorta like the difference between a turbofan and a piston engine in an aircraft. Both suck in fuel and use a propeller to push the air towards the back, but they're very different engines anyway.
A scramjet is, sorta, an afterburner without the turbojet in front of it. Think just a de Laval nozzle, sorta, where the airplane's own speed shoves the air from the front, and you inject the fuel and light it in the back. It can only operate at hypersonic speeds, because it does need the air coming in really hard and fast, and it burns fuel continuously. There is no need for pulses or detonations.
A pulsejet, well, think a pipe with a valve in front. Sorta like this, with "front" being downwards:
The T is the valve.
Air comes in, you inject the fuel, and ignite it. The pressure closes the valve, so the only way the burnt gasses can go is backwards, pushing your aircraft forward. Then the pressure equalises, the valve opens again, and the cycle starts all over again.
This one can _only_ operate in pulses. On the up side, it can operate at subsonic speeds too. It's also a very simple and robust engine. The V1's pulsejet could be riddled with holes and still generate most of the thrust. The RAF found it easier to just tip it over, with the tip of the fighter's wing pushing the V1's wing upwards, than shoot them.
Downside, also generates massive vibrations. The buzz of the V1s could be heard from the ground. It's a bit like flying a jackhammer. Which is one reason it never got too popular for manned aircraft, or aircraft which were supposed to fly more than once.
Well, that's the simple explanation anyway. There are more modern designs which, for example, do away with the valve and essentially just choke the flow via a nozzle to achieve the same effect. But that's the general gist of it.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
VxD Source news is hugely better than Fox, I agree with you.
Beyond just the looks of it, the reported sounds of the Aurora is a pulsating sound...which is apparently in line with the propulsion of the Blackswift.
Or maybe the boys at Skunk Works couldn't come up with anything so they basically decided to create the Aurora. They are probably laughing their asses off about this right now.
Pulse detonation engines: This used to be called "piston engine"
Correct, except these don't have the pistons, rods, flywheel, or cam shaft(s).
It's more like a bunch of PVC potatoe guns duct-taped together, sans potatoes, hooked up to a distributer cap and battery.
There, I just dumbed it down enough for FOX news.
BBH
Air Force Research Laboratory's Propulsion Directorate
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/afrl/rz/
I thought I'd post a useful link rather than bashing some corporate spew machine.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
For me (German ISP/IP address) the link leads to random commercials. Each time I try it another one.
Fuck Fox News, and thanks to the posters who provided alternative links about the project...
C - the footgun of programming languages
video of DynaJet
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
That's it exactly. I'll bet Aurora was the military name for the project. The 'donuts on a rope' is exactly what results from this 'thousands of explosions'. I wouldn't be surprised if the Aurora version just does away with the human element altogether and is an unmanned vehicle.
Only example I know of something flying with PDE is Long-EZ and the technology still has a ways to go.
He lost his shirt because he's a great inventor but a lousy businessman, and his attempts to monetize his invention bankrupted him. He's still active sometimes on pulsejet discussion boards, but every time he posts a hundred people reply with "WHERE ARE MY {plans, parts, whatever} THAT I PAID YOU FOR THREE YEARS AGO AND YOU NEVER SENT?" replies, which is sad, because he designed and built some great stuff.
His website is here.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
This view is overly simplistic.
The Ashari school of thought came in early, and gained a lot of support perhaps from the 10th century onwards.
At the time, the other schools of thoughts, which are not "sects", within the majority Sunni Islam were as follows:
a) the Mu'tazili, which were supposed to a rationalist theological branch. They had followers among the elite, but very little among the majority. They managed to be the "state religion" under Al-Ma'moun. This caused severe oppression of the traditionalists, going to extremes, such as crucifying leaders of opposing sects, making them more popular among the public at large, and refusing to pay ransom for Muslim prisoners of war of Byzantium who were tested for their creed and did not confirm to Mu'tazilism. They are touted today by some factions in the West as an alternative to the literalist Hanbalis, forgetting that they were so oppressive when in power. Their school of thought lived on among a few scholars and elite, but faded from existence. Some of their thought got absorbed into other schools, for example the Shi'a Twelvers of today.
b) the Hanbalis (traditionalists), which have a literalist legalistic interpretation of theology based mainly on scripture and tradition. Their thought lives on within the contemorary Salafi/Wahhabi, which is not necessarily militant, although Al-Qaeda subscribes to that thought.
c) the Asharis, which sought to merge aspects of the above two in theology, retaining both tradition and reason. This was the majority thought from the 10th century on. One famous Ash'ari scholar was Al Ghazali of Persia in the late 1000s. He sought to refute many of the theology of the philosophers, and was also a Sufi. He is incorrectly blamed for the decline in scientific thought.
d) the Sufis (mystics), with a whole spectrum ranging from just "I am not interested in materialism" to "I get my revelation directly from God". They were mainly interested in ethics, conduct and sometimes esoteric practices (like the Whirling Dervishs), and there were Sufi strains within sects, e.g. Shi'a. It is important to note that Sufis were very prevalent in the 18th to early 20th century. Many anti-colonial leaders of "Jihad" were Sufis, such as Omar Al Mukhtar in Libya, Abdul Qadi in Algeria, the Mad Mullah in Somalia, Al Mahdi in Sudan, and Shamil in the Caucasus. Again, some in the West advocate Sufism as a replacement for the literalist Hanbali, forgetting that Sufis were the main religious opposing force, to the extent that Russia outlawed all the Sufi orders!
e) the philosophers, who were really a few, but had a lot of influence. They went beyond Mu'tazilis and wrote commentaries on Aristotle and Plato's work. The adherents to those were mainly medical doctors who were polymaths, such as Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Al Farabi, Ibn Rushd (Averroes), and others. They were often close to rulers, but did not seek to make their thought a mass thing like the Mu'tazilis did.
f) the Zahiri (literalist jurists), which never gained popularity, apart from the famed debates of Ibn Hazm of Cordova. Although literal in Sharia, they were not so in matters of theology, more of a mix between Mu'tazilis and Ash'aris.
The golden age of science under Muslim rule between 900s and 1200s, and carried over to the 1400s in some areaas. Ash'aris were well established during that time, with most rulers and the public being Ash'aris.
Read the articles of Dr. George Saliba of Columbia University sometime. They detail how scientific thought continued well into the 15th century.
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.