Slashdot Mirror
USAF Hypersonic Scramjet Successfully Scrams
cold fjord writes "It looks like another milestone for hypersonic flight has been reached. From the story: 'The final flight of the X-51A Waverider test program has accomplished a breakthrough in the development of flight reaching Mach 5.1 over the Pacific Ocean . . ."It was a full mission success," said Charlie Brink, X-51A program manager for the Air Force Research Laboratory Aerospace Systems Directorate. The cruiser traveled over 230 nautical miles in just over six minutes over the Point Mugu Naval Air Warfare Center Sea Range. It was the longest of the four X-51A test flights and the longest air-breathing hypersonic flight ever. . . This was the last of four test vehicles originally conceived when the $300 million technology demonstration program began in 2004. The program objective was to prove the viability of air-breathing, high-speed scramjet propulsion. The X-51A is unique primarily due to its use of a hydrocarbon fuel in its supersonic combustion ramjet, or Scramjet, engine. ... The use of logistically supportable hydrocarbon fuel is widely considered vital for the practical application of hypersonic flight.'"
Ludicrous speed!
Really?
They supposedly are having trouble buying plain jet engines for their fighters, so they haven't even got to cloning jet engines at a reasonably high level.
I suppose they'll steal the plans for making one once the US perfects it.
Or did you mean that China is close to developing it on their own, in secret?
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
A short definition for all those non-native speakers who wonder - like me - how 6 minutes of flight are more than hours of flight by a Concorde:
Supersonic: Above speed of sound but only up to Mach 5
Hypersonic: Above Mach 5
The fact that both the latin Super and the greek Hyper translate into the same word does not really help the distinction.
The way you're framing it, you consider the Chinese your opponents (the more "sports-like" view, hopefully) or your enemies (the more military view, less hopefully).
In any way...
I suppose they'll steal the plans for making one once the US perfects it.
you are underestimating your opponents. Mistake number one. Way to go!
If you think China has some kind of mailing list that covers exactly what they are doing you have got to be the most naive person on the net. Personally I don't know of any uber projects they have but sitting behind a computer and saying they are 40+ years behind tech and still fight with bamboo sticks you are really giving yourself a disservice. I just realize the likely hood that China really doesn't like the west all that much and they would love you to think they are just training their troops in a new kind of Kung-Fu.
China has an emmense population of genius level citizens and have basically perfected mass production. Hell most of the top talent in the US is Chinese decent. As for the money spent on defense you have to remember China is basically Communist, they don't have to pay your ass to build shit. So just because you heard a news wire that China just built a prop plane pull your head out of your ass and wake up to reality. If this shit does get serious it will become overwhelmly serious quick. The Middle East has problems with the US, the far East has problems with the US and your dumbass is sitting back just playing these guys off.
That my friend is a dumbass thing to do.
A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
We haven't had a public breakthrough weapons technology as good as megaton nukes, since the 60's.
I don't think that is correct. The impact of precision guided munitions has already had a huge impact, and it continues to grow. The following except refers to events around Operation Desert Storm in 1992. At that time precision guided munitions were largely bombs and missiles, and a few expensive anti-tank artillery rounds. Now that capability is finding its way to more mundane artillery and mortars as well, not to mention much smaller missiles. The devices are becoming smaller, lighter, more precise, easier to use, and cheaper, so there will be a lot more of then in the future. A large strike by precision weapons could easily reverse the tide of battle in a way that nothing short of a nuclear weapon could in the past. Compared to nukes there are few drawbacks and many substantial advantages, such as not contaminating the battlefield and the fact that their use doesn't really have any of the political problem that nuclear weapons have.
IMPACT OF PRECISION WEAPONS ON AIR COMBAT OPERATIONS
We are writing a new and exciting chapter on air power--a chapter made possible in part by precision guided munitions (PGM). Air power advocates have long dreamed of a day when the weapon, platform, and willingness to use them properly would come together to make air power a decisive force. Today, those dreams are reality. One need only look back to our raids on Schweinfurt, Germany, in World War II to see how dramatically precision weapons have enhanced our capabilities over the last 50 years. Two raids of 300 B-17 bombers could not achieve with 3,000 bombs what two F-117s can do with only four. Precision weapons have truly given a new meaning to the term mass.
To shut down an industry in World War II, we were forced to target entire complexes because of the inaccuracy of our weapons; today we would need to hit only a couple of key buildings. What we historically achieved with volume we now can accomplish with precision. After all, the objective has never been to see how many bombs we could drop, but to produce results.
Precision weapons may also constitute a revolution in mobility. Of the 85,000 tons of bombs used in the Gulf War, only 8,000 tons (less than 10 percent) were PGMs, yet they accounted for nearly 75 percent of the damage. If we had wanted to, we could have airlifted all of our PGMs with just five C-5s or nine C-141s a day.2 . . . more
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
A fascinating development, but I worry that the applications are limited to delivering bombs. Since the engine doesn't even function below hypersonic speeds, a plane and rocket are necessary to even launch them, and that naturally limits the size. As such, I don't particularly see the development as a positive thing in the near term, nor does it make me feel any better that the US military is the one doing it.
A hybrid jet/rocket engine like the SABRE is far more attractive, as it can deliver Skylon from runway to space, and is efficient throughout. The remarkable enabling technology is a precooler which cools incoming air from 1000C to -150C in milliseconds, and has already been successfully demonstrated.
Furthermore, there is a also a variant optimized for atmospheric flight called Scimitar, which uses the precooler with a high-bypass turbofan engine, giving it good efficiency and subsonic exhaust velocities at low speeds. This flexibility and broad efficiency allow the A2 to operate over land as well, overcoming the limitations of the Concorde. It has the potential to make commercial hypersonic flight ubiquitous.
The middle east has the same problem china has: The US Navy and lots of deep, deep water inbetween us and their hatred.
Mass producing american goods != coming up with new ones of their own. I don't think they're still fighting with bamboo sticks. I think they're fighting with Su-30 aircraft with a range of 3k miles and the j-20 with a range of 1,400 miles. They have a single aircraft carrier, but only a handful of either have a navallanding package. Their main battle tank was developed during the cold war and probably does not have active armor as all pictures of them have been shown with blocks of laminate armor (it's larger than active armor) and relies on lazer dazzlers to block incoming mistles, but cannot stop heat seaking, GPS guided, or visually guided weapons. It's a joke, but they have lots and lots of them.
Their infantry fights with the type 88 LMG, Type 81 (AK Clone), and QBZ-95 bullpup. The first two are great guns, the last is crap according to all reports I've ever seen. Either way, they have no soldiers with experience using them while people are shooting back and no way to get those soldiers to our shores.
They can launch mistles at us, but we can drop many of them into that large, wet ocean I've previously mentioned. Those that do make it to the US would be retaliated against with our own mistles which the chinese have no way of shooting down. They can launch chemical and nuclear weapons, but as Pearl Harbor and 9/11 both showed the world, when you attack the US, the US attacks back at a much higher ratio. We have the equipment and the men who are willing to use them. We have armies of volunteer citizen soldiers instead of conscripted subjects. Citizens fight much harder than subjects and run away far less often.
I sith "back just playing these guys off" after a long carrer sitting in wet damn holes with a rifle in my hand. I'm a nerd and slashdotter as a hobby, war has always been my profession. When I speak of war, it's as an expert, not an armchair general.
The whole Sabre engine is still conceptual and not one working engine has flown anywhere. Also, the SABRE relies totally on liquid helium to cool air and can't use any other gas. Since Helium supplies are very limited and the price is kept artificially low, no large commercial flight will ever be possible with this technology.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
I realize it is fun to shit on America (and America does have its faults) but that wasn't their statement. Their statement was that China is less ethical. Beating up on strawmen is easy but isn't very intellectually stimulating.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Running on something other than H2 outside the lab is a breakthrough You can't rely on your cryogenic fuel to cool your engine, you need to build a chamber that will handle massive shockwaves at hilarious temperatures.
Four things. First, Professor Ray Stalker is indeed a credit to Australia and I look forward to his continued success.
Second, the article is about the successful test of a US Air Force test vehicle. They are entitled to celebrate their success.
Third, your history is a bit off.
Scramjets integrate air and space
Scramjets have a long and active development history in the United States. On the basis of theoretical studies started in the 1940s, the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and NASA began developing scramjet engines in the late 1950s. Since then, many hydrogenand hydrocarbon-fueled engine programs have helped scramjet technology evolve to its current state. The most influential of these efforts was NASA’s National Aerospace Plane (NASP) program, established in 1986 to develop a vehicle with speed greater than Mach 15 and horizontal takeoff and landing capabilities. The program ended in 1993, but the original NASP engine design, significantly modified by NASA, provided the foundation for the power plant used during the X-43A’s recent flight.
Fourth, you diminish yourself when you associate yourself with Alex Belits' bile filled, historically illiterate, diatribes.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
China has an emmense population of genius level citizens and have basically perfected mass production.
This is funny! The Company I worked for sent several china manufacturers clear plans that were accurate for a product, a LED replacement for a 4' fluorescent fixture.
We ordered a case as a trial from 8 different manufacturers there, They knew that we would order 100,000 more if the product was right and good.
7 of the companies made them in the wrong size. 1 inch too long, 1 inch too short, one looked like they used people with hacksaws as none of the cuts on the extruded aluminum was straight. etc.. Pretty much all of them were garbage from all makers. 1 had them the right length but designed them for 120V AC and not the 208 volts that is common in office buildings here and was PRINTED CLEARLY ON THE DRAWINGS and in the specification documentation that was very clear.
I am guessing that the China definition of "perfection" is not what we see in Europe or in the USA.
No they cant manufacture anything "perfect"..
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
It appears obvious that the comparison was the ethics of the United States in comparison with those of China. Given the state of affairs and some of the ethics violations going on (or in the recent past) here in American government it is a truly sad statement when I am able to point out that China's ethics are demonstrably worse than America's.
I mean, yeah, I get it - more so than people may think. America has had some serious ethical violations recently and I believe our country is less because of them. I am ashamed and dishonored on behalf of my country. What we have done is horrific and may have consequences for years to come. I believe that our continued meddling as self-designated World Police is going to continue having detrimental effects well into the lives of my grand children and perhaps even great grand children (longer if we don't make some serious policy changes soon).
However, yeah, China is demonstrably worse than America by every possible metric one can come up with. The only way one could be convinced it is otherwise is to be completely delusional or intellectually dishonest.
Either way, it appeared to be an obvious comparison of ethics between the United States and China and that's where I was going from.
Finally, I am unable to decide which is worse. If their strawman was unintentional then that's rather ignorant. If their strawman was intentional then that's pretty dishonest. I see strawmen and a lot of people assuming either/or (I can't recall the Latin name of the logical fallacy at the moment) being tossed around /. lately. I haven't any states and it could be confirmation bias on my part but I'm seeing an increase in both of those here as of late and that's a drawback in my opinion.
I guess that wasn't the final bit - I feel obligated to continue though it is off-topic.
Anyhow, as I mentioned, I've noticed a lot of those logical fallacies lately and I'm disappointed. One of the things I pride myself on is being open to debate and to being able to change my mind when I'm faced with new information. That's something that was re-enforced by Slashdot actually. In the days of old I came to Slashdot and I made my argument and, sometimes, I got my ass handed to me as people piled on with the various logical arguments that they had. They'd debate with well-reasoned and well articulated responses quite frequently.
From this, from you, I learned to be more logical myself. I learned to view my arguments with suspicion and to examine them more clearly before postulating them.
These days it seems those debates and learning experiences are rare. Seldom do experts opine from behind their obscure education. It seems that there are fewer posting who have a profession in academia while more people are posting with little thought to accuracy, honesty, and logic. The signal to noise ratio has increased and reasoned debate is rarer. Fewer people are willing to change their views even when shown the faulty logic and the accurate conclusions.
It is disappointing though it isn't disappointing enough for me to do the whole threaten to leave or whine about it thing. (I hope it doesn't seem like whining, I'm just observing and reminiscing.) No, I'll remain here and continue posting and learning. The chances to learn may be less in number but they are still there. I make it a point to be grateful and to make my gratitude known when someone posts something of considerable value. I also have excellent karma and get an abundance of mod points so I try to moderate fairly and use that to help with the signal to noise ratio. So, there's that.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I can tell you what happened at the Chinese companies, as I have seen this done before:
"We have a small order we don't really want, but we do not want to insult the person asking for the example by refusing outright. We'll send them something that looks terrible so they pick someone else".
Because frankly, 100.000 fluorescent fixtures is a tiny order for manufacturing that is going on Chinese scale right now. Most will simply not want to take it.
I come from a country that stayed neutral during cold war and therefore avoided much of propaganda brainwashing you were clearly subjected to. As a result I have quite a bit of insight of the outsider that can see all the countries through the same lens, rather then an insider seeing "my side and their side". To me, there is no "good West" and "bad East" that you were clearly raised with. There were merely two huge evil empires that sought to pervert everyone caught in the middle to be their pawns in one way or the other, and we had to balance our relations with both not to get hit hard.
And from my point of view, US is currently the most unethical country on the planet by a large margin, simply due to its power projection being all over the world, and much of this being military projection. Which is always unethical, as it is aimed to force its own goals onto others at a barrel of a gun. It is also understandable, because in terms of realpolitik, they have by far the most military and financial power in the world and such power has always corrupted the wielder, no matter how good intentions he started with.
In comparison, China's power projection is currently mostly soft power. The main reason why they're expanding their circle of influence so fast is because they basically do not bring their ideology on the barrels of their guns like US and USSR likes/liked to do, but through economic incentives and power of its trade. Many of the current conflicts, such as Libya were largely caused by China getting a solid foothold in what Europe and US used to think of as their back yard being essentially taken over by Chinese interests. And the answer is more often then not a military one, which is again, far less ethical then commercial.
And frankly, while their culture is far more alien to me then that of US, due to a mix of US culture being mainly sourced from mainland Europe and subsequent massive cultural invasion from US-influenced mass media after WW2, I'm not at all convinced that it's actually worse. Different, yes. Worse, perhaps, perhaps not. We'll see in a couple of decades when they get enough progress to be able to get a proper military muscle to see if they start imitating US in exporting their ideology at a barrel of a gun. Considering what I know about their culture, this is possible but somewhat unlikely. I suspect what they will end up with is something that is even more Westernised then what they have now, because that's the direction they've been heading to culturally for last thirty or so years and as a result, even more comfortable for me to cohabit with.
But they are not doing the military projection now. And that is far more damning then any argument about "potential threat in the future".