Boeing's X-51 WaveRider Jet Crashes In Mach 6 Attempt

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Boeing's X-51 WaveRider Jet Crashes In Mach 6 Attempt

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @08:35AM from the unscheduled-water-landing dept.

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."

26 of 190 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:Prediction: by DroolTwist · 2012-08-15 08:42 · Score: 3, Funny

Looks like they found the offinding piece of hardware.
Worse yet, ... by PPH · 2012-08-15 08:43 · Score: 5, Funny

...there were no survivors.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
1. Re:Worse yet, ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-15 09:24 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Can you imagine how loud the woooshing would have been had the scramjet enjine been lit?
  Oh the humanity.
What's the hurry? by xzvf · 2012-08-15 08:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:What's the hurry? by KiloByte · 2012-08-15 08:58 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  And what about individual rooms on a Zeppelin?
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
2. Re:What's the hurry? by alienzed · 2012-08-15 08:59 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  It doesn't matter anyway, they won't let you through security with the warhead you'd need to make that kind of speed worthwhile.
  
  --
  Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
3. Re:What's the hurry? by sjames · 2012-08-15 09:20 · Score: 3
  
  Personally, I think that would be a great way to travel. Not necessarily a private room, but a nice recliner with leg room, a table and some entertainment would be good.
4. Re:What's the hurry? by Hadlock · 2012-08-15 09:33 · Score: 4, Interesting
  I have family that lives near Fredricksburg, Texas. About 10 times a year (nearly every month!) we drive the 5.5 hours, and then drive home about 5.5 hours. Google Maps says it's only 4.3, but eventually you need to get out and stretch your legs, country stop lights, etc.
  
  So finally I graduated and got a real job, announced "this time we're going to fly, since it's only a 40 minute flight from Dallas to San Antonio, and another hour by car! We'll save at least four hours!"
  
  Yeah. About that.
  
  Wait for mom to arrive to carpool to airport.
  Drive time to airport
  Park at airport
  Walk to security
  Go through security
  Wait at gate for 45 min - 1 hour
  Board
  Wait to leave gate
  Taxi
  Actual freakin' 40 minute flight
  Taxi to gate
  Wait for everyone to unload their overhead luggage and deplane
  Walk to car rental place
  Flag down a rental person
  Wander the parking lot looking for our rental
  Drive another hour to our destination
  Finally arrive.
  Total transit time: 7 hrs 15 minutes. We've driven the 5.5 hour journey ever since.
  
  Now, I fly about 2-3 times a year, but my mother doesn't. Neither do many of the people flying airplanes on any given day. You could speed up the process, be like the guy "up in the air", but that sort of efficiency just isn't realistic for "trip to grandma's with mom".
  --
  moox. for a new generation.
5. Re:What's the hurry? by geekoid · 2012-08-15 11:24 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  But the 1 hour 45 minutes waiting, and the flight, can be spent reading, or watching a movie.
  we live in an era of entertainment everywhere.
  I'm not telling you flying is better, only pointing out there are other possible benefits.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Why not build several, perhaps 3, at the time? by Jeng · 2012-08-15 08:55 · Score: 4, Informative

Four were built, three have been tested, one remains.

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
How curious... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-08-15 08:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:How curious... by couchslug · 2012-08-15 09:34 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  "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."
  Lest we forget, US has fought two wars against Britain, which killed thousands more American civilians than any aggressor since.
  The only thing keeping the Brits in their box is DETERRENCE!!
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
2. Re:How curious... by Grishnakh · 2012-08-15 10:38 · Score: 3
  
  No, we ditched it because of fuel efficiency. SSTs use a ridiculous amount of fuel. The Concorde had no trouble with sonic booms over the Atlantic (no one cares out there), and transatlantic flights are very popular these days (why do you think they have so many 747s that make the trip every day?). But that demand wasn't enough to make up for the insane ticket price caused mostly by all the fuel needed.
  Heck, even jet aircraft use a lot of fuel compared to piston-driven aircraft; they only get really economical when they carry lots of people. The only way a supersonic plane would be economical is if it carried a few thousand people somehow.
Re:I don't think we need to go Mach 6 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-15 08:56 · Score: 3, Funny

Yeah, 640 mph oughta be enough...
Re:I don't think we need to go Mach 6 by Jeng · 2012-08-15 08:57 · Score: 3, Informative

Initially this will be for better cruise missiles, only after the technology has matured would they consider it for human transport.

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Re:Why not build several, perhaps 3, at the time? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-15 08:57 · Score: 5, Informative

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.
we reached that speed in the 1950's! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-15 08:57 · Score: 3, Informative

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.
1. Re:we reached that speed in the 1950's! by jacknifetoaswan · 2012-08-15 09:14 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The X-15 was a rocket-powered aircraft. This is a Scramjet, and it's a technology demonstrator. It's not about the speed, it's about developing the technology to achieve workable Scramjet designs.
Re:Why not build several, perhaps 3, at the time? by Drathos · 2012-08-15 09:00 · Score: 4, Funny

First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?

--
End of line..
Re:"just one hour" by pixelpusher220 · 2012-08-15 09:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

Depends where it crashes.

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
why they post the speed in LA-NY terms by ThorGod · 2012-08-15 09:07 · Score: 3

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.
It's not about the speed by Overzeetop · 2012-08-15 09:13 · Score: 5, Informative

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?
1. Re:It's not about the speed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-15 09:41 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Scramjets are only efficient to operate aver Mach 3 to 4. They need that level of speed since they get all of their compression from shaping the incoming flow. While the thrust to weight ratio is worse than a rocket but its specific impulse is greater it can fire for much longer than a rocket since it only needs to carry fuel and not oxidizer. The thrust to weight ratio is pretty much fixed by the flow velocity and combustion thermodynamics.
Re:travel from New York to London in just one hour by Baloroth · 2012-08-15 09:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

when writers should be acknowledging that such meaningful (ie, passenger and cargo) flights will never happen.
"Never" encompasses a very long period of time, and should almost never be used in speaking about technology. I'm sure 250 years ago people would have also said it would never be possible to communicate with another person on the other side of the planet in real-time, and yet here we are.

--
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Finally a flight with no screaming infants. by SuperKendall · 2012-08-15 10:13 · Score: 3, Funny

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
Re:Why not build several, perhaps 3, at the time? by farble1670 · 2012-08-15 11:23 · Score: 4, Funny

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.