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

Re:I feel dirty

[LoudMusic]

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

It's not that THEY'RE dumb (which they are so very dumb) but rather they feel the need to dumb down everything for their audience.

I want to punch that Fox man in the face. And I feel so bad for Ken Christiansen (sp?). It seemed apparent he was not prepared to deal with such a moron.

Re:I feel dirty

[TubeSteak]

http://news.google.com/news?q=blackswift

I'm somewhat confused as to what has been "unveiled".
Everything I've read so far says that this plane is still in the "sketches and mock-ups" stage.

Though I guess someone found the time to do a slick render.
Maybe the PR push is an attempt to keep Congress from cutting their funding.

Re:I feel dirty

[MrNaz]

The alarming thing is not that Fox News readers do not reflect upon the standard of intelligence at Fox News Studios, rather, it reflects upon the intelligence of the American Public in general. After all, this is a free market, and Fox News is only delivering the quality that people are demanding in that free market.

*That* is what frightens me.

Re:Awful

[Jafafa Hots]

That's just the thing. They ARE proud of their stupidity. They are of and cater to that segment of society that distrusts education, knowledge and science.

They are part of and help feed the "scientists don't know everything," "They're elitists," "I didn't come from no damn monkey," and "God wouldn't let the earth get too hot" crowd.

They are and speak to those who are afraid of knowledge, especially if it contradicts their own assumptions, thus wounding their little egos.

These are the "don't look it up in a book, look it up in your gut" people that Colbert satirizes.

Re:I feel dirty

[ppanon]

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%. So you can only say for certain that <10% of those journalists support Democrats. The party orientation of those who donate doesn't necessarily match those who don't. I could conceive of a scenario where those who don't donate are greedy and figure they're sufficiently supporting the Republican party through biased news worth far in excess of the monetary contribution of their Democratic-donating counterparts. Not saying that's the case, just that the data that's available could be consistent with either scenario.

Now, most contemporary journalists are also pretty scientifically illiterate, which make them an easy target of ridicule in the technical community. And their understanding of economics and far too much else is often not much better. However, that Fox talking head in the linked video seems like a particularly egregious example. Fox News appears bad to anybody who isn't blind since they seem to insist on giving equal or more time to the emperor and his tailors than to the small child and his observations.

Nevertheless, you might also want to consider that many journalists get to see and hear about the raw information before it gets massaged by editorial boards that are selected by corporatist management. So when it comes to coming to conclusions that only require facts and common sense, not technical knowledge, like the general state of the country and how various political parties influence it, they're likely to be better informed than you.

Re:Slick reporting

[adpsimpson]

WOW, did you SEE that thing lift off the RUNWAY??!? It was GANE!!OMGZERSone11one

Surely the correct response would have been 'no, that was an artist's impression.'

The news anchor may be employed to use baby-talk, but there's no excuse for a supposedly informed correspondent to go along with the idiocy. The pride in ignorance is obviously annoying him, why doesn't he challenge it?

Equally when asked to explain in 'English, not science-talk,' perhaps he should have said 'Yes, perfectly possible. Let me explain' and delved into some of the simpler theory of reciprocating engines, turbojets, high and low bypass fans and scramjets. When challenged he could then say, "what with words less than 3rd grade level? Ah, no sorry, not possible.'

Re:I feel dirty

[somersault]

That reporter definitely didn't seem like he was acting. He's either a genius, or an idiot. I'm guessing the latter.