Slashdot Mirror
Boeing's X-51 WaveRider Jet Crashes In Mach 6 Attempt
An anonymous reader writes "Boeing's experimental hypersonic X-51 WaveRider aircraft crashed today during an attempt to hit Mach 6 while traveling over the Pacific Ocean. The cause of the crash was a faulty control fin, which compromised the test before the Scramjet engine could be lit. A vehicle traveling at Mach 6 (six times the speed of sound) would be able to travel from New York to London in just one hour."
So we have somebody to play missle command with.
Third time's the charm?
Or not.
Boeing's stock will plummet faster than a X-51 WaveRider aircraft with a faulty control fin.
Have gnu, will travel.
Why not build several, perhaps 3, at the time?
I doubt it would make the project three times as expensive.
"A vehicle traveling at Mach 6 (six times the speed of sound) would be able to travel from New York to London in just one hour."
Except if it crashes.
It takes 2-3 hours to get through security at the airport, and 1-2 hours to get bags and transportation at the other end, plus an hour commute time to the hotel. I'd rather have a big plane with a lay flat bed, and show up the next morning.
I don't believe we ever need to go this fast in an airplane (in our atmosphere). There is simply too much risk going this fast for a consumer based vehicle. The hypersonic public transport will never see the public market. - it may make it briefly, but will shut down after the first one disintegrates and they can't even find ashes of the crew and passengers.
I believe the current aircraft are sufficent for our current travel around the globe.
i also believe the future of transportation is in fully automated driving cars/trucks/buses. once this has been mastered, we'll work on fully automated consumer based flying vehicles.
It's always a little strange to see the 'New York to London' figure given for something that is fairly clearly intended for blunt-force diplomacy, not passenger travel.
We ditched the Concorde years ago because there weren't enough customers to make flying that fast economic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-15
First flew in 1959. Reached Mach of 6.04 at one point. Had a pilot in it, not just a drone.
Why is this obviously Not Gonna Happen concept *constantly* trotted out in regards to hypersonic flight, when writers should be acknowledging that such meaningful (ie, passenger and cargo) flights will never happen.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
but be at the airport 3 hours before departure for screening process and allow for 3 hours of screening at the destination
I got to the chocolate box before you, that's why the hard ones have teeth marks.
"While the hypersonic flight test didn't go very well, we're making excellent progress in artificial coral reef dispersion."
They include that bit about "from LA to NY in one hour" so that people can grasp how fast the speed is.
It isn't meant to make you conjure up a day where you'll be flying that speed. It isn't meant to sell you on an airline ticket in the future...it's simply a way to communicate speed to a broader audience. Anything you think of beyond the raw speed involved is *you* day dreaming.
PS: I don't reply to ACs.
The FLIGHT time is 1 hour, down from 5ish hours. You will still have 2 hours of crap security and airport "stuff" to do on either end. This is not a game changer for intercontinental flight. It's not like there's legions of people screaming "If you can get me there in an hour I'll pay a million dollars!" Concorde failed for a reason.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
It's not about flying that fast, it's about operating a supersonic combustion engine to produce positive net thrust. Anyone can stick a rocket on the back of a tube and fly fast, but you have to carry all of your oxidizer with you (or use a monopropellant). With this you just carry the fuel and let the shock transition form the compressor for your jet engine. Of course, it's not quite that simple, since you can't slow down the flow to be subsonic and still achieve + thrust, so you've got to make combustion occur in a flow that's faster than the speed of sound.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
So a scramjest gets you to the scene of the accident faster?
That's progress.
It's always a little strange to see the 'New York to London' figure given for something that is fairly clearly intended for blunt-force diplomacy, not passenger travel.
Yeah, shouldn't the canonical flight-time be from the Hauge to London?
what, too soon?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Am I the only one who doesn't see why suborbital point-to-point isn't a thing? Anywhere on the planet in 90 minutes, and less air resistance on the way.
Sad that they didn't even get to fire the scramjet. If they are still having this much trouble it may put to bed rumors of a scramjet operating in the 90s. I'd still love a good explanation for the contrails, the cotton balls with a string through ones. They haven't been seen before or since so it was obviously some kind of military test. The most logical still would be a scramjet given the pulse nature of the trails.
...survivors bury YOU!
At 6x the speed of sound, no-one can hear your baby scream.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
In that case, its a success, because the only non-alarming manner I can think of delivering warheads is crashing long before the intended target.
Well, non-alarming to the target, at any rate.
The retirement wasn't over fuel efficiency, since if you were paying to fly that fast, you'd pay a premium anyway. According to Wikipedia: "As a result of the type’s only crash on 25 July 2000 and other factors, its retirement flight was on 26 November 2003."; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde
Fuel is not cited as one of the factors. It might well have been retired for that reason in the current cost climate, and fuel economy prevented them being purchased by airlines after the 707, 747, and DC-10, but they were profitable up to the day they were retired.
If you can afford 1st class it's really worth looking into, especially if considering more than one seat. With a smaller plane many more airports are open to you, including all the ones without the security theatre. You arrive find your pilot in the lounge and you are on up in the air a few minutes later.
There is a reason airlines are reducing and eliminating their 1st class cabin on domestic routes (though they usually call their business class "domestic first class" or some such). Most of the 1st class seats are filled with upgrades from business class or miles redemptions. The 1st class seats that sell tend to only be on a few routes like NYLA because union rules require that actors be booked in the 1st class cabin. http://www.onesky.com/ and http://www.rsvpair.com/ can help you find a charter.
A lot of people can't visualize 4,300mph. Saying, "New York to London in an hour" makes it easier to visualize.
For me, it's about two weeks' worth of driving per hour. I'm not sure how you would visualize it.
Considering this is an unmanned drone, any passengers would have to be strapped to it. Somehow I doubt anyone willing to try that would have been the same type of customer the Concorde was designed for (but probably the type of customer padded rooms were designed for).
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
Yes, back in 1980 my computer had limited-length filenames too.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Wave rider lol ... The name is right btw..