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."

Comments

I feel dirty

[QuantumG]

Please warn us when linking to Fox News. Jesus those people are dumb.

Re:I feel dirty

[dch24]

A summary of Blackswift's project status:

DARPA project overview of HTV-3X: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MhtLWB0dJ8
Register article on the hydrocarbon-burning scramject (DCR): http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/11/darpa_hypersonic_blackswift_details_released/ and how Congress cut its funding in June
NASA test of X-43A (operation in Mach 6 regime): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFHbjpc_dJ4

IMHO it's real, it's being tested at NASA, and it's probably going to burn through $1 billion before the end of 2009... unfortunately...

Re:I feel dirty

[Hal_Porter]

The fact is that liberals have control of the networks - I saw poll that showed essentially all journalists at CNN, ABC, CBS etc vote for the Democrats.

Uh, no it was that around 90% of journalists that make campaign contributions contribute to the Democrats. But the number of journalists making campaign contributions was around 10%.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp
It's absurd to suggest that journalists don't overwhelmingly vote for left wing parties.

Re:I feel dirty

[JustKidding]

Not living in the USA, I never understood why you people were complaining about Fox news.

I understand now...

I wonder how these people survive. Are they actually smart enough to breathe on their own?

Re:I feel dirty

[Shihar]

It is all about context. When we say left and right on a US centric site (and yes, Slashdot has a disproportionate number of America readers), they are talking about the American system of politics. It is true that it is a large mistake to think that the American system has ANYTHING to do rest of the world's "left" and "right", but that doesn't mean that it isn't internally consistent.

The entire left/right scale is a tad silly simply because it stuffs a whole bunch of utterly unrelated ideals into a binary system. You can have a free market capitalist who believes in gay marriage, abortions, and a lack of sex and drug regulation. You can also have someone who advocates socialist economics want to outlaw those very same things.

Tossing American parties on a European left/right scale is pointless. The American right is absolutely nothing like the European right or ultra-right. The European ultra-right would likely be quickly slapped with a label of fascist or crazy ass ultra nationalist label in the US. The American right doesn't have the ultra-nationalistic tendencies that the European far right has. Le Penn and other such ultra-nationalist would get the cold shoulder in the US for their frantic obsession over immigration. Other European ultra-right parties would get the cold shoulder for being viewed as being far to socialistic in terms of economic issues.

My point? You are better off trying to understand parties, both in the US and Europe, as they are, not trying to slap them on a left-right scale. American and European parties don't belong on the same binary scale together. What makes Republican's "ultra right" in European eyes is that they are not left and not that they have any commonality to European ultra right parties.

If you desperately want to plot them on the same scale, I would suggest looking at the libertarians favorite scale, the two axis "social liberty" and "economic liberty" scale. The American right will appear in the right corner, the American left and European right in the center, the European left on the left, and the European ultra-right on the bottom.

Awful

[Robert1]

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.

Re:Awful

[TubeSteak]

What a fucking jackass. How can someone that stupid be put out there as a news-person? On national television?

I'm guessing you don't watch morning TV?
It's okay, I can't stand it either.

Fox's "America's Newsroom" shares a timeslot with shows like Good Morning America (ABC), Today (NBC), and The Early Show (CBS).

They're very info-lite because the demographic is mostly women age 25-54
(loaded towards the 54 yr old end)

IMO, morning and daytime television is a wasteland.
Fark is both more entertaining and more informative than TV.

Re:Fox news giving away state secrets?

[Vectronic]

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...

Not even in the same class as the SR-71

[paganizer]

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?

Let's put it like this

[Moraelin]

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:

|.|
|.|
|.|
|T|
+.+

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.

Air Force Research Laboratory's Propulsion

[mrmeval]

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.