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.
I'd prefer to stay stupid. Thanks.
Jesus built this hot rod.
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?"
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
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, 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)
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.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Mach? What does that mean?
It refers to Gillete MACH 3 Shaving System to shave your #@$$%
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
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.
This space available.
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.
http://www.frenchgeek.com/
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.
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
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.'
Is crushing a suspect's child's testicles illegal?
John Yoo: "No, [if] the President thinks he needs to do that."
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.
What, you mean like in your car's engine?
(yes, I know what a pulse jet is, I'm making fun of Fox News)
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.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
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.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
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.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
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.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson