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: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.

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.