NASA Testing Supersonic X-51A Jet Tomorrow

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Testing Supersonic X-51A Jet Tomorrow

Posted by Unknown on Monday August 13, 2012 @12:30PM from the but-does-it-go-to-plaid? dept.

First time accepted submitter littlesparkvt writes "The NASA and the Pentagon's experimental aircraft could go from NY to London in about an hour. With a cost of 140 million dollars USD. During the test the X51-A will reach speeds of 1700 meters a second and climb to an altitude of 70,000 feet."

46 of 214 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Cost by Hydrated+Wombat · 2012-08-13 12:32 · Score: 5, Interesting

Still costs less than a F22 Raptor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor
1. Re:Cost by gagol · 2012-08-13 12:35 · Score: 2
  
  Add the radars, armoring, weapons and maintenance cost of a fleet and we have comparable figures.
  
  --
  Tomorrow is another day...
2. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-13 12:38 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Still costs less than a F22 Raptor
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor
  
  That's probably because the F-22 is an operational aircraft capable of take-off/landing under its own power and houses a human pilot (among many other things).
3. Re:Cost by bolthole · 2012-08-13 12:50 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  UNLIKE the f22- raptor, though, this is basically an "unmanned vehicle". The title implies "jet aircraft" )ie: passenger vehicle) to most people, but in reality, this is not much more than "an oversized, air-launched missile".
  Which makes it sadly way less interesting
4. Re:Cost by R3d+M3rcury · 2012-08-13 12:51 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  This isn't a jet-plane. It's a fucking missile.
  Okay. So it could blow up London in about an hour.
5. Re:Cost by amiga3D · 2012-08-13 12:54 · Score: 2
  
  Foam at the mouth like this much? Maybe some Xanex or something would help. I wouldn't call the F-22 a piece of shit but it looks like the cost of maintenance will be astronomical. I'd just call it overpriced and underwhelming.
6. Re:Cost by amiga3D · 2012-08-13 13:00 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's really just a test bed for scramjet research. It's a long way to an actual manned version.
7. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-13 13:31 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  But it will still take NBC 6 hours to report it.
8. Re:Cost by BadgerRush · 2012-08-13 13:36 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  No, they are crashing the f22's into the desert
9. Re:Cost by filthpickle · 2012-08-13 14:30 · Score: 2
  
  Here comes the Eurofighter love. Except even the eurofighter pilots said they can't handle the raptor at long distance. (the only way it would ever be used)
10. Re:Cost by jamstar7 · 2012-08-13 14:32 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Sounds to me like they could use a few dozen Russian engineers.
  
  The way the Russkis used to do things was, design and build a prototype with all the bells and whistles and kitchen sink. Get it working. Then re-engineer it back to something a goat herder in Kazikstan could use with 5 minutes' training. Case in point? The MiG-23. They could crank them out for a cost of about 3.3 mil per, when the nearest Western equivilent was the Kfir C2 coming in at 4.5 mil and the F16 at 14. They used aircraft grade aluminum and stainless steel where Western aircraft were using titanium. They couldn't engage as many targets, but you could have 90%+ of them available to fly at a moment's notice where maintanance cycles grounded up to 2/3rds of the F16s at a time.
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
11. Re:Cost by MacBurn11 · 2012-08-13 14:59 · Score: 2
  
  Hard to believe the KISS principle wax born in the USA
  yeah, you'd think they would stick to it...
12. Re:Cost by cheesybagel · 2012-08-13 17:37 · Score: 2
  
  After the Meteor missile and the AESA radar get into service this could change. The Raptor can launch a long range missile but there are active defenses against radar guided missiles besides passive stealth features. The history of fighters is littered with people who thought short range dogfighting was not going to happen because they had superior missiles and got proven wrong over and over again. The Eurofighter wins in dogfighting because it has helmet sights and IRST (Infrared Search and Track) sensors.
13. Re:Cost by ozmanjusri · 2012-08-13 18:04 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Or you could compare it to something similar:
  The original University of Queensland's HyShot hypersonic tests were done for less than $2 million. Even better well-funded followup flights were around $4.5 million.
  http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2004/s1127540.htm
  
  --
  "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
14. Re:Cost by frosty_tsm · 2012-08-13 18:57 · Score: 2
  
  no they aren't.
  We've been at war for 10 years and they haven't seen combat. If they were usable they would have been involved (instead, they were restricted because of the oxygen system issue). Hell, we sent B-2s over Afghanistan. You think they were flown because of their sophisticated anti-aircraft system?
15. Re:Cost by SplashMyBandit · 2012-08-13 19:11 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Correct. Turns out that the 'Raptor' problem is, in fact, related to incorrect inflation of the "Combat Edge" chest corset of G-suits. This incorrect inflation also occurred on F-15s and F-16s but no one noticed. Only on the F-22 was it noticed/significant.
  Just in case you think I'm full of shit, here's a citation quoting USAF sources:
  http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/08/01/air-force-confident-f22-oxygen-riddle-solved.html
  With that (apparently 20-year old) problem solved, Raptor is back in the air and back to Top Dog.
16. Re:Cost by Dins · 2012-08-13 23:22 · Score: 2
  
  The F-22 is an air superiority fighter. It is designed to quickly establish air superiority against the best fighters currently available. In all of our current conflicts, we have controlled the skies completely from the first several days of each campaign. So there really hasn't been a need for F-22s in those conflicts. The F-22 would be useful in a war against China, Russia, or any other country with a more modern air force capable of challenging the US for air superiority.
17. Re:Cost by hackertourist · 2012-08-14 00:06 · Score: 2
  
  It seems that the USA has become the neonazi military regime. It barely worked in Korea, failed miserably in Vietnam and hasn't even got started yet in Iraq or Afghanistan.
  Actually it worked brilliantly in Iraq. The Iraqi army, war-hardened and no slouch, was blitzed in a matter of days. Any regular army would fare badly against the US.
  The problem the US keeps having is that its opponents aren't regular armies but guerilla fighters. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan are/were all insurgencies, and you can't win those if you're not prepared to kill everyone who opposes you, and even then your tactics will ensure that plenty of formerly neutral civilians will resent this enough that they'll take up arms against you, so you get caught up in a vicious circle which doesn't end until everybody's dead or you give up.
  The Russians with their cheap, plentiful warplanes wouldn't have fared any better in these circumstances (case in point: Afghanistan), because your weapons basically don't matter in an insurgency.
huray for proofreading by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-13 12:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

Pretty sure it won't go 1700 miles per second
1. Re:huray for proofreading by gagol · 2012-08-13 12:34 · Score: 2
  
  it should read 1 mile per second actually
  
  --
  Tomorrow is another day...
2. Re:huray for proofreading by Narrowband · 2012-08-13 12:40 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, if it were "per second," they'd be better off calling it ~1%C.
3. Re:huray for proofreading by fustakrakich · 2012-08-13 12:41 · Score: 2
  
  The craft will be tested over the Pacific Ocean after being flown there on the wing of a B52 bombers wing.
  Mod article redundant..
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
4. Re:huray for proofreading by hargrand · 2012-08-13 13:21 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Dad: Max, why does the word "wing" appear twice in this sentence?
  Max (6yrs old): Because the B-52 has two wings.
5. Re:huray for proofreading by budgenator · 2012-08-13 13:30 · Score: 2
  
  actually 1,700 meters per second or 3,800 Mi/Hr, one mi/S is 3600 Mi/Hr or 1 088.9 m/S
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
6. Re:huray for proofreading by Mindcontrolled · 2012-08-13 21:42 · Score: 2
  
  Yo dawg, i heard you like to wing it, so I put wings on your wings, so you can wing it while you wing it?
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
1700 miles a *second* ??? by gaspar+ilom · 2012-08-13 12:35 · Score: 4, Interesting

> 1700 miles a second

This is obviously a mis-print, right?
1. Re:1700 miles a *second* ??? by Hartree · 2012-08-13 12:37 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, the military would love it if we had something that could go 1/100th the speed of light in the atmosphere. *vroom*
2. Re:1700 miles a *second* ??? by Quiet_Desperation · 2012-08-13 12:38 · Score: 2
  
  And this...
  
  With a cost of 140 million dollars USD.
  ...is a sentence fragment.
  It's all just one big.
3. Re:1700 miles a *second* ??? by similar_name · 2012-08-13 12:43 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Warp .01 sound way cooler.
4. Re:1700 miles a *second* ??? by jbeaupre · 2012-08-13 12:48 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Nope. It's correct. They are launching over the Pacific ocean. They expect it to disappear off the left side of the map and reappear on the right side of the map about 14 seconds later. 24,000 miles divided by 14 seconds gives you 1700 miles/sec.
  Maybe they should use a globe.
  
  --
  The world is made by those who show up for the job.
5. Re:1700 miles a *second* ??? by hargrand · 2012-08-13 13:23 · Score: 2
  
  The whole article is a misprint.
6. Re:1700 miles a *second* ??? by jbeaupre · 2012-08-13 13:33 · Score: 2
  
  Hear that whooshing sound? That's not the X-51. That's a joke going over your head.
  
  --
  The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Another article with more background... by daveschroeder · 2012-08-13 12:35 · Score: 4, Informative

...is here
Re:1700 miles a second????? by Sparkio · 2012-08-13 12:42 · Score: 4, Informative

Mach 5 = 1,701.45 m / s... still pretty crazy fast - LA to NY in ~42 minutes - but no, not LA to NY in 2 seconds. Methinks someone plugged it into google and thought 'hey, m must mean miles, right?'
Re:Math by fustakrakich · 2012-08-13 12:43 · Score: 3, Funny

You have to account for jet lag.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:NY to Israel/Iran in 1 hour and a modest price by istartedi · 2012-08-13 12:52 · Score: 2

Yeah, it can get to Iran fast enough to beat them into submission so that we... have enough gas to get back.
I'm pretty sure there are more cost effective ways to achieve military... umm... Oh crap. Yeah. You're right. It's a weapon.

--
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Re:Math by similar_name · 2012-08-13 12:52 · Score: 2

1700miles / second or almost .1C ... ...
You might want to check your math.
Re:1700 miles a second????? by R3d+M3rcury · 2012-08-13 12:58 · Score: 4, Funny

Mach 5 = 1,701.45 m / s
Yup. m = miles, s = seconds. That's 1700 miles per second.
I mean, what else could m possibly stand for? There's only one unit of measurement that starts with the letter 'm'...
Re:huray(sic) for proofreading by ukemike · 2012-08-13 13:11 · Score: 2

With a cost of 140 million dollars USD.

That's a nice complete sentence!

--
-- QED
Re:1700 miles a second????? by R3d+M3rcury · 2012-08-13 13:18 · Score: 5, Funny

m is metre moron
It's an American missile. Why would they be talking in weird foreign measurements? I mean, "metre"?! R before E? Who spells like that? Sounds like some kind of cheese-eatin' surrender-monkey socialist kind of measurement. Certainly not the kind of measurement that freedom lovin' people from the Good ol' USA would use.
So there you have it. 1700 miles per second. That'll put the fear of God into those godless commies.
(I was going to mark my original post as sarcasm but I thought, "Nah. People will get it.")
Re:1700 miles a second????? by stepho-wrs · 2012-08-13 13:34 · Score: 2, Funny

1,701.45 big Macs per second.
Wow!
This is why NASA can't have nice things... by bjwest · 2012-08-13 13:36 · Score: 2

The Pentagon is using them to develop military projects like this. This is what the frigging Military Industrial Complex and DARPA are for. Leave NASA and they're limited and continuously dwindling funds for space research, or we're going to be left in the dust by China, India and the other space faring nations.
Note: If this and projects like it are funded separately and outside of NASAs budget, then, never mind. Carry on...

--

--- Keep the choice with the user..
1. Re:This is why NASA can't have nice things... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2012-08-13 14:00 · Score: 2
  
  Why do you think they dumped billions into NASA rocketry? Or the USSR did for that matter?
  Military -- The civilian stuff is just memetic misdirection to get you go go along with it.
  See also cars and highways.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Let me know... by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-08-13 13:45 · Score: 2

When they add three more zeros to that speed. I wanna go to Alpha Centauri.
Re:Congrats... by tnk1 · 2012-08-13 15:56 · Score: 2

You mean like every rocket that has ever launched a human into space? Or the SR-71 which wasn't as fast, but operated at a higher ceiling than this test?
Putting a human in a Mach 5 aircraft is not going to be that difficult. Getting the damn thing to be anywhere near economical running at Mach 5 will be the problem.
It's not supersonic, it's hypersonic by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2012-08-13 18:22 · Score: 5, Informative

Above Mach 5 or so you have to start considering different physics about the air flow.