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."
Boeing's stock will plummet faster than a X-51 WaveRider aircraft with a faulty control fin.
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
Why not build several, perhaps 3, at the time?
I doubt it would make the project three times as expensive.
yeah, probably more like 4-5 times more expensive. government-run projects, you know...
Four were built, three have been tested, one remains.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
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.
Why not build several, perhaps 3, at the time?
I doubt it would make the project three times as expensive.
They actually built 4. The first one flew for 143 seconds at hypersonic speeds, during the 2nd flight the engine shut down prematurely due to airflow disruption, and the 3rd flight is discussed in the linked article that no one is reading. They still have one more, and I am guessing they documented the design somewhere so they could probably build additional vehicles in the future if need be.
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
First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?
End of line..
Depends where it crashes.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
"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.
Development costs are typically the most significant sink when it comes to project development. Building additional craft will be much cheaper, especially as more are built. (Economies of scale)
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.
That's the thing - it has to be able to keep going at that speed for an hour.
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?
How's life in orbit these days?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Whooooosh!
It's a quote from Contact.
End of line..
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.
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
So in this case (of an unmanned plane) all parties decided to forego pilot representation in exchange for the lucrative systems integration sub contract...
Considering that this things is meant for delivering warheads in a non-alarming manner .. New York to London is an interesting route.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
I am guessing they documented the design somewhere so they could probably build additional vehicles in the future if need be.
you think? or maybe they will have to start from scratch, and see what they can remember from when they built the first four.
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.
A misquote, in fact. The real quote refers to military spending.
I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
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.
yeah, talk to me when you are building scramjets and let me know how that works out.
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.
The only system to be derived from it is a much faster cruise missile. Nothing more, nothing less. Considering that the rest of the worlds advanced militaries already employ supersonic cruise missiles, and hypersonic ones like BrahMos-2 are in development, its the logical step.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
Ahh...I can't believe that someone actually remembered any quotes from that stinker!
Actually, not.
End of line..
Yes, back in 1980 my computer had limited-length filenames too.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
It's pretty clear that in the age of any "practical" hypersonic aircraft, endoatmospheric or semiballistic, passengers who can afford the service will NOT be ambling through security lines with the hoi. Regardless of how capacious the aircraft are.
In fact, I'd expect that along with the technology would come a 'pre-approved' security list, with some combination of biometrics and other ID data, that will permit the 'privileged' to pass quickly through the airport infrastructure... WITHOUT compromising the level of security that supposedly exists today. (And if this technology comes at a higher price to the travelers concerned... well, if they had to ask, they couldn't afford it, either... ;-})
yeah, talk to me when you are building scramjets and let me know how that works out.
I started building scramjets last night, but the build failed complaining:
Error: unresolved symbol 'Math::BigInteger::Unlimited' in funds.c: 2012
I searched the mailing lists for the project, and it seems I need lib-mil-ind-complex-dev to make warmachine.so, but that isn't in any of the public repos.
So, I found the sources and started to compile my own. Moments later I was accused of being a terrorist and thrown in gitmo. Thanks, prick.
-- sent from my aPhone.