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

[vectorian798]

I logged in for the first time in forever to post exactly that lol...

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

[QuantumG]

No, they're dumb. Fox News was unable to find people who could act dumb, so now they just hire people who really, (really, really) are dumb.

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

[ToraX242]

NO, I don't want to punch him in the face. I want to watch it again and again. My favorite part is:
"How does a human beein stand that at six times the speed of sound?"
I believe the right answer to that question would've been: "Well it is bearable but you need to speak veeeery slooooowly or people sitting next to you can not understand what you say."

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: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

[gadget junkie]

No, they're dumb. Fox News was unable to find people who could act dumb, so now they just hire people who really, (really, really) are dumb.

From my extensive corporate background, I can tell you that if somebody that has been hired acts dumb, he's usually dumber than he seems; all a matter of cost efficiency, a smart guy acting dumb would cost between twice and three times as much, and you'd risk him saying clever things once in a while anyway.

Re:I feel dirty

[amRadioHed]

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.

You might want to rethink that assertion. The journalists certainly do not control the networks.

Re:I feel dirty

[amRadioHed]

My favorite part was "Check that out! You see that go off the runway? It was gone."

Yes, what an amazing new technology that allows planes to get off the runway. Computer animated planes, no less!

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: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

[somersault]

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

Re:I feel dirty

[Bert64]

No, they just get hired by the people that do control the networks. Those people will hire people who are likely to promote the same viewpoint.

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

[jacquesm]

the really interesting bit is that *NEITHER* the democrats or the republicans are very far from what the rest of the world would consider 'ultra right wing' or 'conservative'. The fact that even here on ./ people with an probably above average intelligence have swallowed that left/right bullshit hook line and sinker.

In any other country there would be a real left wing and something close to your democrats or republicans as right wing or ultra right wing.

 

Re:I feel dirty

[DrLang21]

This assumes that the political/social interests and standards in the US match those of the rest of the world, which they most certainly do not. You do make a valid point though that the Democratic and Republicans parties are not nearly as different in practice as they would like us all to believe.

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.

Re:I feel dirty

[MrKaos]

a smart guy acting dumb would cost between twice and three times as much, and you'd risk him saying clever things once in a while anyway.

W.

Re:I feel dirty

[ruiner13]

George Carlin said "think of how dumb the average person is. Now remember that half of all people are dumber than that."

apologies if I've butchered it a bit, but damn if it isn't spot on.

Don't use science talk

[jasontheking]

I'd prefer to stay stupid. Thanks.

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:Awful

[freedom_india]

Mach? What does that mean?

It refers to Gillete MACH 3 Shaving System to shave your #@$$%

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:Awful

[EvilMonkeySlayer]

It's not news, it's Fox.

Re:Awful

[Anonymous Coward]

Islam was the pinnacle of science and technology (9-14th centuries) until the Ash'ari movement became popular.

The Asharites questioned the value of evidence and scientific method, because they believed that the deep properties of nature were (and should stay) beyond the realm of human comprehension. Very much like your "God fearing" Midwestern Christians.

Sadly, i fear that the irony of the situation would be lost on these people, even if it were explained in very simple concepts.

Re:Awful

[TubeSteak]

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.

You mean women aged 25-54?
Because that's the main demographic of morning shows like America's Newsroom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakfast_television

Breakfast television programs normally feature regular news briefs and information reports on business and the stock market, and weather and commuter travel (traffic in North American usage)--particularly in the 'early half', when the bulk of the workforce demographic is still home. Later in the program, programming will shift to more homemaker-oriented entertainment programming, to reflect a dominantly female demographic.

Personally, I'd say it's somewhat insulting how the programming turns lightweight and airy once the menfolk have gone off to work, but that seems to be what the morning viewers are interested in, even accounting for their political/religious/philosophical bent.

So while it must feel nice to rant about Fox and the "segment of society that distrusts education, knowledge and science" which watches them, what you just saw is pretty much par for the course during the 9:00-10:59 AM time slot.

Re:Awful

[Jafafa Hots]

Bullshit. Yes scientists don't know everything, they're the first to admit that - which is why they search the truth and science progresses.

Whereas those who reject science say "science doesn't know everything" and so they reject science and instead embrace the thing that starts out with NO knowledge, insists it knows EVERYTHING, the ultimate truth, and thus makes no further effort to learn, makes no progress for centuries. Religion.

And its complete BULLSHIT that intellectuals have been behind the genocides and murders.

Intellectuals, scientists discovered evolution... and through sequencing the genome have discovered that there is NO SUCH THING AS RACE. Scientists have found that if you take a white frenchman, a black nigerian, and a white englishman, sequence their genes, you're just as likely to find that the frenchman is more closely related to the nigerian than the englishman as vice versa.

It's the anti-intellectuals who distorted this. Just like they do with their bible, they rejected the parts they didn't like (we came from apes) and distorted the parts the suited them (social darwinism.)

It's not SCIENCE that said that blacks were created inferior to whites, it's religion. It's not SCIENCE that divides people and tells the to slaughter the "others," it's religion.

Religion was behind the "blacks are inferior" thing, the preachers were preaching against interracial marriage, now they're preaching against gay marriage.

It's not scientists and intellectuals who are behind this "fight against islamofacism."

And ya know what Stalin and Hitler did with intellectuals? They KILLED them. Slaughtered them ny the thousands, felt they were a threat. (Which of course they were, a threat to fascism.)

Hitler used religion, and Stalin eliminated religion not to replace it with intellectualism (ever hear of Lysenko?) but rather to replace the power of religion with his own.

Here's the science free explanation!

[TheMiddleRoad]

Jesus built this hot rod.

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...

this is AWESOME

[Profane MuthaFucka]

The AIR FORCE is conStructing this HYPER sonic jet exploder thingy, with the help of JESUS, in order to fly at 10 times the speed of sound over countries where POOR people who HATE us live, in order to deliver with very high efficiency SWEETS and other confections which they need to live. They'll drop right out of the bom...CANDY bar bay. The Pentagon calls this the SNICKER candy bomb. At least they were snickering when they told the story to Fox News. Praise the lord

"Why yes, I HAVE been watching Fox news lately. How can you tell?"

Re:Air Force != NASA

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it's neither NASA, nor the Air Force developing this. It's a DARPA program and the Skunk Works is the primary contractor. The contract doesn't officially begin until September of this year. The footage shown in the video is also not real--artists conceptions at best. Furthermore, the vehicle doesn't employ pulsed detonation engines for hypersonic flight. The so-called NASA analyst in the video just saw a request for money in the 2009 budget, stole some artist conception used for market assist, and tried to put the pieces together--poorly I might add.

Could this be the Aurora

[jonwil]

Could this be the Aurora, the "triangular shaped" airplane with the "donuts on a rope" contrail that various people have reported seeing over the years? (I saw something on discovery channel about it)

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?

Re:fewer uses of less

[ratbag]

Maybe the parts really are moving less. Or we are less moved by them.

Build your own jet

[loic_2003]

The V1 flying bomb used a pulse jet engine rather than a pulse detonation engine - the difference being that a PDE burns at a supersonic rate whereas a regular PJ wouldn't be able to get to those speeds.

Pulse jets are surprisingly easy to build, and I'm going to flagrantly link to my own build log of my engine being built with videos of it running/imploding here.
Videos are all here.

Cheers.

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.

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:Slick reporting

[somersault]

Yeah, I'd heard American news was bad, but I didn't realise just how bad.

"How can a human cope with going that fast?"

What is this, 1850? The scientist didn't explain very well that you only feel any force under acceleration admittedly, maybe he thought that when the guy said 'going fast' he meant 'accelerating fast'. But OMFG, some people obviously just don't think... don't notice that travelling at 500mph on a plane feels no different to being at a 'standstill' (ignoring the earth/galaxy's rotation), it's only the acceleration that stresses the body. Later on he was saying "Surely they need some kind of special equipment?" :/ sure, they need a hypersonic plane..

It's Murdoch

[lysse]

Everything that Rupert Murdoch does is avowedly anti-intellectual. Over there it's FOX News and the New York Post; over here it's the Sun, the News of the World, and the current Labour government.

Doesn't burn fuel, it explodes it!?

[argent]

What, you mean like in your car's engine?

(yes, I know what a pulse jet is, I'm making fun of Fox News)

sekrit planes!

[jollyreaper]

I really do wonder what they're dicking around with out there. The two bits of evidence I heard of supporting the idea of a fancy post-SR-71 wonderplane were the donuts-on-a-rope contrails (which the link says can be produced by conventional aircraft under the right conditions) and linear earthquakes picked up on seismographs that do not follow any existing fault line that seemingly originate in the atmosphere. I've seen that "fact" mentioned before but have no idea how accurate it is.

http://tinwiki.org/wiki/Aurora#Contrail

I have no proof one way or the other, I just think it would be surprising for the government to retire something as valuable as the Blackbird without having an even better replacement in the works. Then again, using logic to explain government decisions is often a losing proposition.

Re:Slick reporting

[DrLang21]

Please do not equate American News with Fox News. Our news may be lacking, but Fox News is that media cousin that's always getting wasted at family picnics and no one likes.

Re:Slick reporting

[DrLang21]

Religion is easy. It is obsurd to think that the car came into existance through millions of random design mutations that somehow did not cause it to blow up. The only reasonable explanation for the existance of the car is that it was designed and created by some intelligent being. Therefore God exists. QED.

Explanation of engine fuel for FOX viewers

[autophile]

The fuel has electrolytes. It's what planes crave.

Re:Slick reporting

[reallocate]

It's FOX News. They've all had their frontal lobes removed. Be happy they didn't ask if the plane could get close to heaven.

Re:Slick reporting

[R2.0]

In fairness, humans DO have a problem with high speeds, but it's biological, not physical. A person's reaction time has a lower limit, and it is quite possible to exceed that limit and cause problems with a person's control of a vehicle regardless of gee forces. If this were not the case, then all it would take to be a race car driver would be an extra capacity bladder.

That being said, I'm pretty sure the anchor meant "wouldn't they be crushed?" Given that the main viewers of morning news programs are soccer moms killing time after their spawn have gone off to what passes for education in this country, I'm sure tat was their interpretation as well. After all, minivans are DANGEROUS when you go fast - that's why you have car seats and a cell phone. For emergencies.