Slashdot Mirror


Air Force Sets Date To Fly Mach-6 Scramjet

coondoggie writes "The US Air Force said it was looking to launch its 14-foot long X-51A Waverider on its first hypersonic flight test attempt May 25. The unmanned X-51A is expected to fly autonomously for five minutes, after being released from a B-52 Stratofortress off the southern coast of California. The Waverider is powered by a supersonic combustion scramjet engine, and will accelerate to about Mach 6 as it climbs to nearly 70,000 feet. Once flying, the X-51 will transmit vast amounts of data to ground stations about the flight, then splash down into the Pacific. There are no plans to recover the flight test vehicle, one of four built, the Air Force stated."

48 of 252 comments (clear)

  1. Great step forward by ravenspear · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The next generation in civilian transportation.

    There are no plans to recover the flight test vehicle

    NY to Paris in 30 minutes! However, only one way tickets are allowed.

    1. Re:Great step forward by Fluffeh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, there is a vast amount of data that could be applicable to civilian transport. If they can indeed get scramjets really working - and by really, I mean around five times fast as this bad boy, it could mean a DRASTIC price reduction to get things into orbit. A scramjet needs to get to about mach 25 to reach escape velocity, which is significantly faster than this test, but give it time. Let them run this thing, let them run data and the next one might be looking at another mach or two and so on.

      A mach here, a mach there and soon you are talking real machs.

      The first scramjet based engine that gets into orbit will be a milestone for space industry, exploration and all future generations to remember. Scramjets require a tiny fraction of the fuel (read: price) that a normal engine needs to achieve a similar speed, they just need to be going fast already to fire up, hence why all these test vehicles generally use attached booster rockets to get them up to a few mach. With luck, the day that space travel no longer requires massive solid boosters just got one day closer.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    2. Re:Great step forward by SEWilco · · Score: 4, Funny

      There are no plans to recover the flight test vehicle

      They can't recover it because it already came back yesterday.
      So the test flight will be a resounding, albeit puzzling, success.

    3. Re:Great step forward by OrangeCatholic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Indeed, I never figured out why the Concorde was banned in America. Unless it was purely for economic protectionism. Mythbusters tested sonic booms and they had to fly like 100 feet over a shed to blow out the windows. They started at 1000 feet and got no result. I think the Concorde flew a little higher than that.

    4. Re:Great step forward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "not blowing out windows" and "highly annoying" are two totally different things.

    5. Re:Great step forward by RockoTDF · · Score: 4, Informative

      It was banned on and off throughout its career. It didn't do too many supersonic flights in the states even when it was allowed. It wasn't even that loud on takeoff, and flew higher than regular airliners.

      --
      There is more to science than physics!

      www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
    6. Re:Great step forward by RockoTDF · · Score: 4, Informative

      According to the wikipedia article on the concorde, it was actually quieter than many other models in service at the time.

      --
      There is more to science than physics!

      www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
    7. Re:Great step forward by phishtahko · · Score: 3, Funny

      A mach here, a mach there and soon you are talking real machs.

      Old McDonald had a scramjet?

    8. Re:Great step forward by RockoTDF · · Score: 3, Informative

      15 to 20? Citation needed there. That is between 2000-3000 lbs on a 150 pound person. Fighter pilots have to train to maintain high Gs, which even then they only pull for a matter of seconds (at the highest levels) when flying, and for maybe a few minutes in a centrifuge. They have to wear g-suits to avoid blacking out. Early on during the Korean war, the Mig pilots from the North didn't have g-suits. So the American pilots quickly figured out that if you just get them to follow you into a very high g turn they would black out and crash.

      --
      There is more to science than physics!

      www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
    9. Re:Great step forward by amorsen · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't see this as cutting air drag, which goes up to the fourth power as speed increases

      In a flow without flow separation, drag increases linearly with speed. With flow separation, drag increases ~ with the square of the speed. Nowhere near the fourth power in either case.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    10. Re:Great step forward by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Informative

      It seriously annoys me that people take Mythbusters psuedo-scientific results and applies them to everything possible - they used the F/A-18A, which at 35,000lb would be 1/10th the weight of Concorde (and I bet that the F/A-18A in the test had a significantly lower loading than that), and the test was done at significantly lower speeds than Concorde cruises at.

      I am doubtful as to the validity of the results the Mythbusters came up with, as it was already proven during the Oklahoma City Sonic Boom tests in 1964 caused hundreds of broken windows (windows in skyscraper structures were broken routinely over the course of the tests, with no significant occurances before and after the tests - make your own conclusions).

      Apart from physical damage, you seriously have to consider the environmental impact - can people live with loud bangs as a routine? Again, the Oklahoma City tests showed that no, people are not willing to put up with routine sonic booms as they are disruptive and invasive.

    11. Re:Great step forward by amorsen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The atmosphere ends before gravity has diminished significantly. We're 6000km+ from the center of gravity, and a mere 100km out I can guarantee you that the engine won't work (likely it won't work higher than 20km). 6000km vs. 6100km just isn't going to make a significant difference.

      And again, escape velocity is much worse. I'm only talking about getting to orbit.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    12. Re:Great step forward by Pinckney · · Score: 2, Informative

      Again, horozontal Gs (e.g. normal to the spine). Fighter pilots experience vertical Gs (parallel to the spine). From wikipedia "Early experiments showed that untrained humans were able to tolerate 17 g eyeballs-in (compared to 12 g eyeballs-out) for several minutes without loss of consciousness or apparent long-term harm."

      You might want to take a look at the Gloster Meteor F8 Prone Pilot, an experiment to control a plane from a prone position to better cope with Gs.

    13. Re:Great step forward by yabos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He said horizontal Gs as in you're sitting upward and being thrusted forwards. Pulling Gs in a fighter jet is downward Gs which causes the blood to rush out of your brain.

    14. Re:Great step forward by settantta · · Score: 5, Interesting

      According to the wikipedia article on the concorde, it was actually quieter than many other models in service at the time.

      I can confirm that.

      At one time I lived directly under the flight path to Darwin Airport (in Australia). That airport is also the local Air Force base and runway, so we had not only Boeing 747s and other passenger planes flying directly overhead at an altitude of less than 500 feet, but we also had Air Force Mirages on the same flight path.

      During the time I lived there, the Concorde visited, landing and taking off twice (or it might have been 3 times). I'll tell you straight, the Concorde made less noise on take-off than the Jumbo (and they were much quieter than the Mirages).

    15. Re:Great step forward by ZosX · · Score: 3, Funny

      can people live with loud bangs as a routine?

      The evidence where I live (Valencia, Spain; a city addicted to pyrotechnics) is that yes, we can.

      Welcome to hong kong. ;)

      Welcome to my hood!

    16. Re:Great step forward by ZosX · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, for air breathing engines you would need a long run in the atmosphere to get anywhere near escape velocity. I don't think we are anywhere near the mach 25-30+ we would need. Air friction is a serious problem. Even the SR-71 was highly designed to cope with the increased temperatures. The X-15 basically flew into the very upper reaches of the atmosphere (to the point of nearly losing any sort of control, and a few of them did) just to contend with the heat and friction. Look at the shielding capsules use for reentry and the apollo capsules came in at a mere 17,000 mph or so. It is FAR easier to launch a rocket straight up to space have have it do most of its acceleration once it leaves the atmosphere.

    17. Re:Great step forward by nacturation · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'll tell you straight, the Concorde made less noise on take-off than the Jumbo (and they were much quieter than the Mirages).

      I would take an educated guess that it's because at take-off the Concorde engines are running very much under capacity, whereas a 747 at take-off is running its engines close to capacity. Much like how a fan in a 1U server screams just to push the same amount of air that a larger fan in a 4U server does leisurely.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  2. Geotaggers, your mission should you choose to.. by qwerty8ytrewq · · Score: 5, Funny

    ..accept it, is to go and get this baby. It should fetch a good price on ebay. I can only imagine the difficulties of finding this craft in the Pacific Ocean, but if you could... Legend status is yours.

    --
    Waiting for the other shoe to...
  3. Wait a minute.... by mikesd81 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There are no plans to recover the flight test vehicle, one of four built, the Air Force stated."

    I would suspect that there is some secret stuff in this plane....so unless it plans on breaking up into a huge fireball right before it hits the ocean.....wouldn't it be foolish to drop something like that and not retrieve it?

    --
    That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
    1. Re:Wait a minute.... by Jaysyn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If it's going to hit the ocean anywhere near Mach 6 (3900+ MPH), it will be a huge fireball. At the very least it will disintegrate.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    2. Re:Wait a minute.... by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 2, Funny

      to be honest, they have dumped and abandoned nuclear weapons in the ocean.
      one plane wont worry the big cheeses

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
  4. Re:Umm... by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Funny

    In this case, it's splash!

  5. Old Tech but New Challenges by BrightSpark · · Score: 2, Informative

    The concept is not new but it is very difficult to turn it into practice. These guys at University of Queensland and others have been working on this for several years and have trialled severa prototypes before. http://www.uq.edu.au/news/index.html?article=20718 Not bad without military budgets - beat them to the punch!

    1. Re:Old Tech but New Challenges by pushing-robot · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's a different kind of test, and the X-43a beat them to it by a few years.

      On top of that, the GGP claims "Not bad without military budgets" when your link states "The launch was a collaborative effort between the United States' Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO), also representing the research collaborators in the Australian Hypersonics Initiative (AHI)."

      Not to belittle their efforts, mind you; it's a spectacular project and I wish them the best. Just correcting bad information.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  6. Re:Nuke Engines by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yeah so now every time a plane overshoots a runway we have a radiation leak...

    Nuclear energy is great for things like space travel and for generating electricity. It isn't so great for earth-bound transportation where it could easily leak. Not to mention the restrictions on a plane. Who cares if it can go from New York to Paris in an hour if it won't be able to be landed in Paris due to the fact it has nuclear material...

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  7. Re:Nuke Engines by Hadlock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    nuclear...isn't so great for earth bound travel

    quick! Nobody tell the Navy they've been using numerous nuclear powered aircraft carriers for earth bound travel for almost 50 years without incident!

    --
    moox. for a new generation.
  8. Re:Always money for military space projects by rubycodez · · Score: 4, Informative

    "We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

    This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

    In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

    We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

    Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

    In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

    Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

    The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. " -- Dwight D Eisenhower, 1961

  9. Assasination by michaelmalak · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The purpose of the weapon is to assassinate:

    Every strategist remembers Aug. 20, 1998, when the USS Abraham Lincoln Battle Group, stationed in the Arabian Sea, launched Tomahawk cruise missiles at an Al Qaeda training camp in eastern Afghanistan, hoping to take out Osama Bin Laden. With a top speed of 550 mph, the Tomahawks made the 1100-mile trip in 2 hours. By then, Bin Laden was gone -- missed by less than an hour, according to Richard A. Clarke, former head of U.S. counterterrorism.

    Putting aside this strawman example, the idea of push-button assassination is terrifying. "Comrade, you will sell me your oil. Remember what happened to your predecessor?"

    1. Re:Assasination by ravenshrike · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, that's what the railgun is for.

  10. Re:Nuke Engines by sznupi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Aren't you forgetting about nuclear subs? Quite a few incidents.

    And airplanes not only are more prone to those, they also don't enjoy the comfort of generous weight budgets and being essentially buried after any accident.

    All of this is beside the point though - experiments with nuclear aircraft propulsion were performed by both the US and Soviet Union (the latter apparently actually had it propelling an aircraft, at least partially). If there's one thing they have shown, it is that even with the small crew and lack of comfort of a bomber, radiation shielding is a major concern. You simply don't have enough weight budget for it.

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
  11. About time..... by Brad1138 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does anyone else think it is odd that the fastest plane in the world is still the SR-71, which came into service in 1964.

    --
    If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
    1. Re:About time..... by El+Capitaine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or that we landed a man on the moon in 1969 and yet we no longer have that capability?

    2. Re:About time..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or that cheese comes in a can? Wait, what were we talking about again?

    3. Re:About time..... by fishexe · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or that cheese comes in a can? Wait, what were we talking about again?

      Not just any can. A spray can.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  12. Reconnaisance by jamrock · · Score: 2, Informative

    I don't see much of a military need for this tech, however, when we've had military launch capability that could reach any location on earth well within a day, including the time it takes for authorization, for close to half a century.

    You're presuming that it's solely for weapons delivery. The first application that came to my mind was reconnaisance. It's all well and good to be able to deliver a warhead to "any location on earth well within a day", but intel as near-real time as you can get it is just as critical to the military, and the ability to get sensors over an area of concern as quickly as possible is immeasurably valuable. That's the reason the SR-71 Blackbird was built, and it performed it's mission admirably for decades.

  13. Re:Nuke Engines by EdIII · · Score: 2, Insightful

    quick! Nobody tell the Navy they've been using numerous nuclear powered aircraft carriers for earth bound travel for almost 50 years without incident!

    Insightful? That's the US Navy, not a public or private corporation. Your sarcastic remark would seem to indicate that we could trust corporations to use nuclear technology to create transportation solutions for us.

    Well if air travel is any indication, and the massive screw ups there with security theater, maintenance irregularities, cheap greedy bastards that would not outfit their planes with technology that could of prevented PanAm Flight 103, I doubt the airlines have the competency or the interest in our safety and security to pull off nuclear travel.

    Sorry, if they can't afford to give me more than 6 fucking Styrofoam peanuts on a flight, I am not going to trust them to give me a nuclear plane flight either.

    Of course, that is just the airlines. Car manufacturers could come in save us being paragons of humanitarian virtues and competence right? Hmmmm, maybe not. Well then we could trust the rail road system to.... Uh... Amtrack.... Huh.... Well maybe let's give a company not involved in transportation a shot at this.... Microsoft?

    The reason why we don't have nuclear based transportation outside of a few dozen (at most) instances of military transports is that as a people and society we lack the responsibility, attention to detail, and competency to deal with something as dangerous as nuclear based power at that large of a scale.

    Not that I am against nuclear power. Let's just be careful and limit it to reactors providing us the electricity where it would be a more manageable endeavor.

    Personally, I am very inspired by Aluminum-Galium based power sources for travel that is extremely safe compared to the alternatives, and nuclear power is very appropriate to allow us an easy way to provide such an infrastructure to deliver refurbished AG power sources that can deliver on-demand hydrogen to transport vehicles.

  14. Re:Always money for military space projects by Gerzel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While true government investment in research is vital for our growth and continued economic performance it is not solely responsible for it. The government did start the first internet, but it was business investment that also largely pushed the further development and refinement of the microcomputer.

    The solitary inventor is largely pushed out of state of the art engineering. Like it or not much of science and cutting-edge research is a large, time-consuming and labor intensive practice that requires more work than a single man or woman can provide these days. Though it is still possible for a single person to "invent" something truly revolutionary it is exceedingly difficult and far more revolutions will come from organized large-scale efforts.

    There also is the myth of the "Great Inventor" just coming up with an idea that revolutionizes the world and without whom that revolution would never have come. If you look at history, this is rarely the case as often many scientists are working on similar lines and the credited inventor is just the first to succeed. If they hadn't someone else would have; it might have taken longer and been slightly different but it would have come.

  15. Would a faster SR-71 even be publicly known? by WoTG · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If there was a plane faster than an SR-71, there's no guarantee that it would be public knowledge.

    That said, a fast plane isn't as necessary for spying as it was in the 60's. Who knows what kind of crazy tech is out there doing the hard spy work now, the geek in me hopes that there's something more interesting than satellites...

  16. Re:Always money for military space projects by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 4, Informative

    You have no clue... A mach 6 fighter/bomber would very much be useful in the armament. At that speed it can outrun most missiles used to shoot it down. Very few weapons platforms can track and engage an aircraft flying faster than mach 4 at the moment, let alone something flying mach 6. There are only a handful of missiles (surface-to-air or air-to-air) which can even travel mach 6 or faster, which means you can only attach from a forward vector and once it passes your position or is flying away from you, your missiles will not be able to catch the plane. This assumes that your radar system can even detect a plane that fast and can instruct the missile how to intercept the target.

    --
    We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
  17. Re:Aurora by Libertarian001 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Seriously? Please tell me you're kidding. That's the F/A-37 Talon from the movie, "Stealth." I know it was a lousy movie, but, come on.

  18. Re:Always money for military space projects by T+Murphy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hypersonic technology isn't just blow-stuff-up research- this is closer to just plain science. It is extremely difficult to maintain stable flight over mach 5 or so, not to mention the feats in engine and materials technology required to reach such speeds. This is interesting science and engineering, so I think it is a good thing there is military interest to fund this- it is too expensive to very easily get funding otherwise.

  19. French have had this for 30 years by copponex · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They have had this in France for years. France is largely nuclear powered and sells electricity to it's neighbors. The train is a very sensible tech platform - uses existing rail lines for up to 140mph, and can go up to 200mph on specially graded track. I took the TGV from Paris to Marseille - a few hours for what would have been a six or seven hour drive and at least 3 or 4 hours through an airport.

    Most Americans have no idea how convenient rail travel is. I bought my ticket 10 minutes before the train left, and a few minutes after boarding I was enjoying a cup of coffee while I sat in the equivalent of first class on an airplane for about $50. I had a table, a full size restroom nearby, and dining car at my disposal. If you've really got the dough or don't have the time, you can walk on without a ticket and pay the conductor the highest rate.

    Planes are still the way to go for cross-continental travel, but a regional electric train system is a no brainer. Well, if you have a society that wants reality based solutions instead of empty rhetoric like "Drill, baby, drill."

    1. Re:French have had this for 30 years by copponex · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Most Europeans have no idea how big America is or how much denser the population of Europe

      A majority of Americans live in urban areas. The population density of nearly the entire east coast is comparable to that of Europe.

      is or how much train tickets are subsidized

      Virtually every road and highway in the United States is constructed with tax dollars.

      or how government controlled mass transit allows the government to control where people live and how they move about.

      I always thought it was the UFOs or the communist party that lives inside of Pelosi's teeth!

      The nuclear power industry in the US was largely killed by environmental activists who were being manipulated by Soviet agents during the cold war... Environmental activists in the US have stifled and curtailed the development of every type of currently viable large scale domestic energy production with the result that the US is much more dependent on foreign energy sources now than it has ever been before.

      Is the hospital really allowed to give you unfettered access to the internet?

      Just as a similar synthetic rubber corporation helped us win World War II, so will we mobilize American determination and ability to win the energy war. Moreover, I will soon submit legislation to Congress calling for the creation of this nation's first solar bank, which will help us achieve the crucial goal of 20 percent of our energy coming from solar power by the year 2000. -Jimmy Carter, 1979

      Fuck solar power. -Ronald Reagan, 1986

      Thanks Ronnie! -OPEC, 2010

  20. Re:At least. by fishexe · · Score: 2, Funny

    How long we have been waiting for this? 10, 20 years?

    Maybe you've been waiting that long. Some of us have faithfully adhered to the proverb, "never wait for a scramjet."

    --
    "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  21. Re:Always money for military space projects by vbraga · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If DARPA never funded Internet we would use probably other set of protocols (like BITNET) but a global computer network would still exists.

    --
    English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
  22. Why No Over the US Supersonic? by WED+Fan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I grew up when and where the U.S. Navy and Air Force tested and flew supersonic on a daily basis. I was a navy brat. On many days there were a number of sonic booms, sometimes as many as 5 or 6 a day.

    My father, a range director, once told me that the purpose of some of the tests were to see if changes in aircraft design could result in smaller sonic footprints. They were never successful.

    Now, imagine a somewhat regular commercial aircraft route going supersonic. The public wouldn't put up with regular booms.

    --
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.