Crashed X-51A Test Results Released

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Crashed X-51A Test Results Released

Posted by Unknown on Thursday October 25, 2012 @02:07PM from the better-luck-next-time dept.

cylonlover writes "The United States Air Force (USAF) has released the results of last August's third test of the X-51a Waverider, which resulted in the crash of the unmanned scramjet demonstrator. At a press teleconference featuring the Program Manager for Air Force Research Laboratory, Charles Brink, it was confirmed that a malfunctioning fin was the cause of the crash. However, engineers are confident of correcting the fault in time for the fourth test flight scheduled for (Northern Hemisphere) late spring or early summer of next year."

25 of 48 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Short Report: by Penguinisto · 2012-10-25 14:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

This should be easy, no?
1) Procure working torque wrench of sufficient size and strength.
2) *use* the damned thing next time.
I mean, really - not even one page of paper for the summary.

--
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
1. Re:Short Report: by The+Grim+Reefer · 2012-10-25 14:57 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  This should be easy, no?
  1) Procure working torque wrench of sufficient size and strength.
  Are you kidding? With hammers costing the gov't $600 a pop, how much do you think a "working torque wrench of sufficient size and strength" goes for? It's probably cheaper to just build another X-51.
2. Re:Short Report: by ackthpt · 2012-10-25 15:51 · Score: 2
  
  This should be easy, no?
  1) Procure working torque wrench of sufficient size and strength.
  2) *use* the damned thing next time.
  I mean, really - not even one page of paper for the summary.
  Wrong tool.
  These are Engineers .
  If the BFH you used didn't work, get a bigger one.
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
3. Re:Short Report: by Eezyville · 2012-10-26 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  You knoe those hammers don't actually cost $600. The extra money is going into black projects ;)
No by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-25 14:48 · Score: 5, Informative

This is not as simple as a loose bolt.

..the upper right-hand fin unlocked and deployed while the booster was still firing...but the booster’s guidance system managed to maintain the proper angle...After the other three fins on the cruiser deployed and powered up, the booster fell away, but the cruiser’s onboard computer couldn't maintain control because the electrically-driven actuator of the fourth fin was damaged or locked in place...
So here is the proper summary:
1. fin deployed early, but that was somewhat okay
2. three more fins deployed normally
3. the last fin did not deploy at all due to an electrical/solenoid problem
So no this would not require a torque wrench, unless you tape a multimeter to it and start whacking the solenoid mid-flight for good measure.
1. Re:No by roc97007 · 2012-10-26 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  > unless you tape a multimeter to it and start whacking the solenoid mid-flight for good measure.
  That needs to go straight to youtube...
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Re:I figured out the problem. by bogaboga · 2012-10-25 14:57 · Score: 2

You don't make any sense.
Code for:
"I'm sorry I don't understand!"..."Can you put it in simpler English, please?"

Learn to use paragraphs, they are your friend.
Write better English thus:
Learn to paragraph...
Waverider Failed... by ChefJeff789 · 2012-10-25 15:25 · Score: 1

...but on the other hand, the Dragon Rider was successful in defeating John Malkovich... oh $%!#...I was supposed to finish that program for the fins! Aerospace Engineers are easily distracted by mediocre fantasy novels...
RTFA by Required+Snark · 2012-10-25 15:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

http://www.gizmag.com/x-51a-waverider-third-test-results/24665/

However, about 15.5 seconds into the flight the upper right-hand fin unlocked and deployed while the booster was still firing. ... Indications are that the fin deployed because a random vibration issue caused the assembly to vibrate harmonically while in boost phase, so that the actuator responded and sprang open. ... Brink says that the simplest fix will be to deploy the fins on the cruiser about one or two seconds after being dropped from the B-52 instead of later when the vibration problem occurred so that the fins are powered up and protected from damage.

You're assertion is that the problem is the same as tightening the lug nuts on a car tire. The only lug nuts I see are the ones rattling around in your empty skull.
This aircraft needs to achieve almost Mach 5 before the engine even starts, so it requires an air drop and a rocket booster even to start working. It operates in a test domain that cannot be completely simulated or created in a ground test. This is exactly the kind of failure that can only be encountered by a live lest. You have to build it, fly it, and see if it breaks. There is no other way.
Given you complete lack of technical understanding, I would suggest that you stop wasting people's time on Slashdot and go somewhere more suited to your mental level. I hear that Disney has a lot of nice stuff for children. I think you would fit right in.

--
Why is Snark Required?
1. Re:RTFA by tehcyder · 2012-10-26 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  You're assertion is that the problem is the same as tightening the lug nuts on a car tire.
  Your grammar is poor.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
2. Re:RTFA by Thud457 · 2012-10-26 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  Given you complete lack of technical understanding, I would suggest that you stop wasting people's time on Slashdot and go somewhere more suited to your mental level.
  Do you realize you just told 80% of the slashdot readership to fuck off?
  It's a start.
  Maybe he should just spring for the /. platinum account.
  
  --
  the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
X51 by sunderland56 · 2012-10-25 15:46 · Score: 4, Funny

Jeez, I know slashdot has been ragging on X11 all week... but they're already testing X51?
1. Re:X51 by RightwingNutjob · 2012-10-25 15:56 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  And it crashed! Stick to X11.
Re:Do not attempt to land by Zawash · 2012-10-25 20:05 · Score: 2

..Which is a moon.

--
File not found. Fake it(Y/N)? _
Long ago, a malfunction Finn caused crashes... by Mister+Liberty · 2012-10-25 21:20 · Score: 1

of my Linux v0.99 box.
Re:Do not attempt to land by RaceProUK · 2012-10-25 23:27 · Score: 2

'All these worlds are yours except Europa. Attempt no landing there. Use them together. Use them in peace.'
Someone will be by later to revoke your geek card :P

--
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
Re:Do not attempt to land by jgtg32a · 2012-10-26 00:23 · Score: 2

Says the man who quoted the movie and not the book
Re:Do not attempt to land by RaceProUK · 2012-10-26 00:26 · Score: 1

How is it different in the book? I've not read it for a while.

--
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
Re:Do not attempt to land by nitehawk214 · 2012-10-26 01:50 · Score: 1

All the planets are yours, except Europa.
But it is ok to crash on Europa?

--
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Re:Acronym expansion by PPH · 2012-10-26 03:16 · Score: 2

I think you are wandering a bit off topic (OT) with this one.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Optomists by PPH · 2012-10-26 03:27 · Score: 1

From TFA:

However, engineers are confident of correcting the fault in time for the fourth test flight
but then

Until the exact cause of the fault is determined it won't be possible to correct it with certainty,
Makes you wonder which statement was intended to keep funding alive and which one was aimed at securing more engineering time in the schedule.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
And then... by chfriley · 2012-10-26 04:32 · Score: 1

And then you'd get part way done and the government would want it an ounce lighter, 1.23 inches shorter, and .08 inches narrower.
You see, this was not COTS, but custom.
Re:Do not attempt to land by roc97007 · 2012-10-26 05:20 · Score: 1

The book was better.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Re:Acronym expansion by AF_Cheddar_Head · 2012-10-26 06:27 · Score: 1

Sometimes you define the acronym if used only once because the acronym is more recognizable to the majority than the fully spelled out term. You use both the full term and the acronym to be certain that everyone can understand what you are referring to.
For example: as a military network guy I immediately recognize the term NIPRNET but you, as a civilian network guy better recognize Non-Classified Internet Protocol Network, or maybe not :-O
Re:Do not attempt to land by im_thatoneguy · 2012-10-29 05:48 · Score: 1

Says the man who forgot that the book was an adaptation of the screenplay co-written by Clarke and Kubrick and released after the film.