Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NASA Tests Hypersonic Blackswift

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the for-a-romantic-honeymoon-cruise dept.

Transportation 487

dijkstra writes "Blackswift was previously rumored to be a super secret hypersonic scramjet-based aircraft co-named HTV-3X, essentially a 21st century version of the SR-71. Today NASA has unveiled the real Blackswift (video link), which uses pulse detonation engines (PDEs). A PDE is essentially a modern version of the old V-1 buzz bomb engine. This engine requires significantly fewer moving parts and achieves much higher efficiency than a turbofan, and is technically able to go hypersonic without any kind of 'dual-stage' engine."

cancel ×

487 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Slick reporting (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23963519)

Wow, I really can't stand Fox news.

Re:Slick reporting (4, Informative)

FAEK (1313539) | more than 6 years ago | (#23964187)

VxD Source news [source.vxd.fr] is hugely better than Fox, I agree with you.

I feel dirty (5, Informative)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#23963523)

Please warn us when linking to Fox News. Jesus those people are dumb.

Re:I feel dirty (5, Funny)

vectorian798 (792613) | more than 6 years ago | (#23963563)

I logged in for the first time in forever to post exactly that lol...

Re:I feel dirty (5, Insightful)

LoudMusic (199347) | more than 6 years ago | (#23963581)

Please warn us when linking to Fox News. Jesus those people are dumb.

It's not that THEY'RE dumb (which they are so very dumb) but rather they feel the need to dumb down everything for their audience.

I want to punch that Fox man in the face. And I feel so bad for Ken Christiansen (sp?). It seemed apparent he was not prepared to deal with such a moron.

Re:I feel dirty (4, Funny)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#23963613)

No, they're dumb. Fox News was unable to find people who could act dumb, so now they just hire people who really, (really, really) are dumb.

Re:I feel dirty (5, Funny)

gadget junkie (618542) | more than 6 years ago | (#23963857)

No, they're dumb. Fox News was unable to find people who could act dumb, so now they just hire people who really, (really, really) are dumb.



From my extensive corporate background, I can tell you that if somebody that has been hired acts dumb, he's usually dumber than he seems; all a matter of cost efficiency, a smart guy acting dumb would cost between twice and three times as much, and you'd risk him saying clever things once in a while anyway.

Re:I feel dirty (2, Interesting)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 6 years ago | (#23964181)

No, they're dumb. Fox News was unable to find people who could act dumb, so now they just hire people who really, (really, really) are dumb.

  From my extensive corporate background, I can tell you that if somebody that has been hired acts dumb, he's usually dumber than he seems; all a matter of cost efficiency, a smart guy acting dumb would cost between twice and three times as much, and you'd risk him saying clever things once in a while anyway.

I dunno though. I used to post on politics where people used to post things like

"Everything I needed to know about the Middle East I learned on 9/12 when I listed to Jackyl's song 'Open Invitation' [lyricsmode.com] and got drunk on Budweiser with my buddies"

(fuck yeah, BTW)

But when I went to meet up with some of them they were all expert internet trolls and quite well read. None of them would dream of drinking Budweiser or listening to Jackyl. All of them had gone to college.

And it's quite possible that Fox just exists to make liberals rage and conservatives laugh. The head of Fox said that the "Fair and balanced" slogan was adopted because "it drives liberals wild".

The fact is that liberals have control of the networks - I saw poll that showed essentially all journalists at CNN, ABC, CBS etc vote for the Democrats.

So a right wing troll minority network trolling the majority was pretty much inevitable.

Re:I feel dirty (4, Insightful)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 6 years ago | (#23964231)

The fact is that liberals have control of the networks - I saw poll that showed essentially all journalists at CNN, ABC, CBS etc vote for the Democrats.

You might want to rethink that assertion. The journalists certainly do not control the networks.

Re:I feel dirty (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23964283)

I don't think liberals would care if

1) They knew that it was an intentional troll
2) They were sure no-one (outside of a mental institution) was watching it and actually taking it seriously.

The problem with such trolling on such an epic scale is that America is a democracy (and has a democratic mindset) - so that people who believe trolls actually affect us at the polls, and in every other facet of public life that's based on democratic principles (from flooding various companies with angry calls, to NOT getting outraged when someone in a position of power abuses it - whatever that may be). This also applies to the "liberal media", but for whatever reason, Fox News seems to be by far the worst offender of fabricating bias, inappropriately inserting emotives, and misquoting science/facts to suit their own bias (maybe because there are more science factions/studies biased to liberal viewpoints, maybe because reality itself is liberal, who knows?).

Apart from anything, if people did believe even only half of what they saw, it's terrifying to think how much power the newsmedia holds. It's amazing to think that it's potentially several orders of magnitude more destructive than even the most dangerous illegal weapon someone could obtain - sure a bomb may kill a buildings' worth of people, but can it change an election?

Re:I feel dirty (5, Insightful)

ppanon (16583) | more than 6 years ago | (#23964391)

The fact is that liberals have control of the networks - I saw poll that showed essentially all journalists at CNN, ABC, CBS etc vote for the Democrats.

Uh, no it was that around 90% of journalists that make campaign contributions contribute to the Democrats. But the number of journalists making campaign contributions was around 10%. So you can only say for certain that <10% of those journalists support Democrats. The party orientation of those who donate doesn't necessarily match those who don't. I could conceive of a scenario where those who don't donate are greedy and figure they're sufficiently supporting the Republican party through biased news worth far in excess of the monetary contribution of their Democratic-donating counterparts. Not saying that's the case, just that the data that's available could be consistent with either scenario.

Now, most contemporary journalists are also pretty scientifically illiterate, which make them an easy target of ridicule in the technical community. And their understanding of economics and far too much else is often not much better. However, that Fox talking head in the linked video seems like a particularly egregious example. Fox News appears bad to anybody who isn't blind since they seem to insist on giving equal or more time to the emperor and his tailors than to the small child and his observations.

Nevertheless, you might also want to consider that many journalists get to see and hear about the raw information before it gets massaged by editorial boards that are selected by corporatist management. So when it comes to coming to conclusions that only require facts and common sense, not technical knowledge, like the general state of the country and how various political parties influence it, they're likely to be better informed than you.

Re:I feel dirty (2, Informative)

ya really (1257084) | more than 6 years ago | (#23964239)

I have to agree with you there after reading this [wired.com] . They truely have some retards working at Fox and it's funny the message they put out is the exact opposite Fox sends with the rest of its broadcasting.

Re:I feel dirty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23963681)

"...not prepared to deal with such a moron."

Hey, none of us were. BTW, I think the intention in linking to the Fox News video from the front page was to make a DDOS attack. Having watched the video myself, I fully believe that they deserve to have their servers melted.

Re:I feel dirty (5, Funny)

ToraX242 (455331) | more than 6 years ago | (#23963737)

NO, I don't want to punch him in the face. I want to watch it again and again. My favorite part is:
"How does a human beein stand that at six times the speed of sound?"
I believe the right answer to that question would've been: "Well it is bearable but you need to speak veeeery slooooowly or people sitting next to you can not understand what you say."

Re:I feel dirty (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23963815)

I like the incredulous question "So you can take off, fly and six times the speed of sound, then come home?"

Re:I feel dirty (2, Funny)

gadget junkie (618542) | more than 6 years ago | (#23963877)

NO, I don't want to punch him in the face. I want to watch it again and again. My favorite part is: "How does a human beein stand that at six times the speed of sound?" I believe the right answer to that question would've been: "Well it is bearable but you need to speak veeeery slooooowly or people sitting next to you can not understand what you say."



you forgot to say that if you are facing backwards, it's the other way around!! [wikipedia.org]

SNL Harry Caray moment (2, Funny)

joetheappleguy (865543) | more than 6 years ago | (#23963933)

Right after the FOX talking head asked "How much would this cost?" I seriously expected him to ask the NASA guy if he would eat the plane if it was made of barbecue spare ribs.

Re:I feel dirty (4, Funny)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 6 years ago | (#23964255)

My favorite part was "Check that out! You see that go off the runway? It was gone."

Yes, what an amazing new technology that allows planes to get off the runway. Computer animated planes, no less!

Re:I feel dirty (1)

Angostura (703910) | more than 6 years ago | (#23964279)

That was exactly the point at which I could take it no more and reached for the close widget.

Re:I feel dirty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23964421)

Maybe we need to inform him that the earth (and therefore us also) is traveling at 67,000 MPH (107,000km/h) http://curious.astro.cornell.edu [cornell.edu]
Far more than 6 times the speed of sound. Or maybe he isn't able to bear that speed.

Re:I feel dirty (5, Insightful)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 6 years ago | (#23963823)

The alarming thing is not that Fox News readers do not reflect upon the standard of intelligence at Fox News Studios, rather, it reflects upon the intelligence of the American Public in general. After all, this is a free market, and Fox News is only delivering the quality that people are demanding in that free market.

*That* is what frightens me.

Re:I feel dirty (1)

LoudMusic (199347) | more than 6 years ago | (#23963969)

My point precisely. Now how do (or perhaps, 'should') the intelligent members of our society tell the Fox News viewers that they are being delivered CRAP because the network thinks that's all their viewers are capable of comprehending?

Re:I feel dirty (1)

damburger (981828) | more than 6 years ago | (#23964145)

The market (I won't use the term 'free market' because it doesn't liberate us at all, that is just a propaganda term) isn't actually any good at deciding what to transmit, so Fox News doesn't necessarily reflect badly on Americans intelligence.

It reflects on Fox News managements opinion of Americans intelligence.

Re:I feel dirty (3, Insightful)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 6 years ago | (#23964199)

It reflects on Fox News managements opinion of Americans intelligence.

So no Americans choose to watch Fox?

Re:I feel dirty (1)

damburger (981828) | more than 6 years ago | (#23964251)

They choose is from a limited selection of choices. The limitations are imposed by a tiny majority of the population, and frame the choice of media in such a way that people who wouldn't necessarily align themselves with the Fox party line in the first place watch it, and begin to be turned towards the Fox line.

Re:I feel dirty (1, Offtopic)

sunspot42 (455706) | more than 6 years ago | (#23963637)

If you think the Faux News clowns are stupid, check out their audience. They're two tacos and an enchilada short of a combination platter.

The Faux News goons sure have smarm down to an art, though. They remind me exactly of the newsthugs the government installed at ISN following President Clark's little coup on Babylon 5. Life imitates art.

Re:I feel dirty (5, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 6 years ago | (#23963679)

http://news.google.com/news?q=blackswift [google.com]

I'm somewhat confused as to what has been "unveiled".
Everything I've read so far says that this plane is still in the "sketches and mock-ups" [wired.com] stage.

Though I guess someone found the time to do a slick render.
Maybe the PR push is an attempt to keep Congress from cutting their funding.

Re:I feel dirty (5, Informative)

dch24 (904899) | more than 6 years ago | (#23963829)

A summary of Blackswift's project status:

DARPA project overview of HTV-3X: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MhtLWB0dJ8 [youtube.com]
Register article on the hydrocarbon-burning scramject (DCR): http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/11/darpa_hypersonic_blackswift_details_released/ [theregister.co.uk] and how Congress cut its funding in June [theregister.co.uk]
NASA test of X-43A (operation in Mach 6 regime): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFHbjpc_dJ4 [youtube.com]

IMHO it's real, it's being tested at NASA, and it's probably going to burn through $1 billion before the end of 2009... unfortunately...

Re:I feel dirty (2, Insightful)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 6 years ago | (#23964317)

Terrorists beware! We can now go six times the speed of sound!

Lets see you take that bomb into the market square now!

Re:I feel dirty (1)

tchiseen (1315299) | more than 6 years ago | (#23963849)

Wow. I didn't know that it was possible to make this technology sound so stupid. I am an Aeronautical Engineer, but really, anyone could do a better job reporting on this.

Re:I feel dirty (1)

rts008 (812749) | more than 6 years ago | (#23964355)

I don't know...I mean I liked the part where 'it makes noises like the Jetson's car' bit.
Sheesh, what a pair.

Re:I feel dirty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23963981)

Can I get An A-men!?!

          "AAA-Men!!!"

Video broken on Linux obviously (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23963527)

Why does every news website feel the need to design their own broken video player?

Re:Video broken on Linux obviously (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 6 years ago | (#23963545)

It works fine. Disable NoScript.

Re:Video broken on Linux obviously (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23963693)

If you don't feel like disabling noscript, the appropriate sites to temporarily allow would be mavenapps and Fox's website itself.

That was horrible (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#23963551)

The guy couldn't even tell the audience how fast Mach 5 to Mach 10 was. Like what? 3,500,to 7,500 miles an hour? Approximately, ok? Oooo, ten thousand..That's fast.. Thanks babe. You're not that ugly either.

Don't use science talk (5, Funny)

jasontheking (124650) | more than 6 years ago | (#23963553)

I'd prefer to stay stupid. Thanks.

Air Force != NASA (3, Informative)

rsidd (6328) | more than 6 years ago | (#23963575)

Just because Fox interviews a NASA analyst doesn't mean NASA developed the thing. The video clearly says it's the air force that's developing this.

Re:Air Force != NASA (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23963743)

Actually it's neither NASA, nor the Air Force developing this. It's a DARPA program and the Skunk Works is the primary contractor. The contract doesn't officially begin until September of this year. The footage shown in the video is also not real--artists conceptions at best. Furthermore, the vehicle doesn't employ pulsed detonation engines for hypersonic flight. The so-called NASA analyst in the video just saw a request for money in the 2009 budget, stole some artist conception used for market assist, and tried to put the pieces together--poorly I might add.

Awful (4, Informative)

Robert1 (513674) | more than 6 years ago | (#23963579)

Holy shit that was a pain to watch. Billy is a fucking retard.

"Can you explain in english not in science-talk."

Oh, you mean english to people who aren't slack-jawed idiots. The way he says it makes it sound like he's proud that he's so fucking stupid.

What a fucking jackass. How can someone that stupid be put out there as a news-person? On national television?

I'm hoping for the one day when the scientist being interviewed tells the guy to get a fucking education and then explains what's going on in adequate detail with plenty of scientific concepts.

Re:Awful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23963797)

"Can you explain this by only drooling, not in English-talk"

Re:Awful (0, Redundant)

jonabbey (2498) | more than 6 years ago | (#23963879)

Mach? What does that mean?

Re:Awful (5, Funny)

freedom_india (780002) | more than 6 years ago | (#23963939)

Mach? What does that mean?

It refers to Gillete MACH 3 Shaving System to shave your #@$$%

Re:Awful (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 6 years ago | (#23964307)

So this story is about DARPA going to five blades? That's not news, it's been done before [theonion.com] .

Re:Awful (5, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 6 years ago | (#23963915)

What a fucking jackass. How can someone that stupid be put out there as a news-person? On national television?

I'm guessing you don't watch morning TV?
It's okay, I can't stand it either.

Fox's "America's Newsroom" shares a timeslot with shows like Good Morning America (ABC), Today (NBC), and The Early Show (CBS).

They're very info-lite because the demographic is mostly women age 25-54
(loaded towards the 54 yr old end)

IMO, morning and daytime television is a wasteland.
Fark is both more entertaining and more informative than TV.

Re:Awful (1)

Donniedarkness (895066) | more than 6 years ago | (#23964003)

It's not just Fox's "morning TV" block.

The in-laws watch this crap all day long.

Re:Awful (4, Funny)

EvilMonkeySlayer (826044) | more than 6 years ago | (#23964133)

It's not news, it's Fox.

Re:Awful (1)

Dracos (107777) | more than 6 years ago | (#23963959)

How can someone that stupid be put out there as a news-person? On national television?

Two words: Contessa Brewer.

Re:Awful (5, Insightful)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 6 years ago | (#23964043)

That's just the thing. They ARE proud of their stupidity. They are of and cater to that segment of society that distrusts education, knowledge and science.

They are part of and help feed the "scientists don't know everything," "They're elitists," "I didn't come from no damn monkey," and "God wouldn't let the earth get too hot" crowd.

They are and speak to those who are afraid of knowledge, especially if it contradicts their own assumptions, thus wounding their little egos.

These are the "don't look it up in a book, look it up in your gut" people that Colbert satirizes.

Re:Awful (1, Offtopic)

kaizokuace (1082079) | more than 6 years ago | (#23964095)

the dumb jocks in high school figured it out! They got a news station (Fox News) and are using it to dumb down america. If they make everyone as dumb as them then they will not be dumb! What a dumb idea! Brilliant!

Re:Awful (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 6 years ago | (#23964291)

The way he says it makes it sound like he's proud that he's so fucking stupid.

I'm sure he's quite proud. Just you're every-day idiot doesn't get a comfy job as a news reader on Fox. Nope, his mom was right. He's very special.

Re:Awful (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 6 years ago | (#23964325)

Wow. It's not just me. I was thinking the same thing.

The moment I saw the link was footage of a Fox Newscast I immediately felt, "This is great. I won't get anything but vague stupid terms trying to describe an awesome technology in 90 seconds or less".

That first sentence was just grating. I thought the same exact thing. How did this fucktard get on the air? The analyst did not seem that bright either. Or it was possible that he was not prepared to dumb it down to a 2nd grade level.

Maybe next time they should prep the "science guys who use way too big words that make our heads feel funny" and provide them with cute bright colored stuffed/plastic toys to demonstrate for us.

"You see boys and girls.. the plane makes a lot of big boom-booms very fast and thats what makes it fly up in the air in the clouds with Jesus. Just like all those farts that Uncle Ed gives off after lunch that lifts him a few inches off the couch. Well imagine if Uncle Ed bent over and did that very very fast. Then he would fly like the shiny new plane we made so our soldiers could kill tewwarists".

On another note: Is there REALLY anybody left that does not believe the movie Idiocracy is not prophetic in even the smallest amount? Cuz this video like reminded me of that and stuff. Oooh. Kicked in the Nads in on TV!

fewer uses of less (3, Informative)

planet_guru (716691) | more than 6 years ago | (#23963591)

Sorry, but 'fewer' moving parts? :)

Re:fewer uses of less (4, Funny)

ratbag (65209) | more than 6 years ago | (#23963927)

Maybe the parts really are moving less. Or we are less moved by them.

Article is wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23963607)

This article is wrong in so many ways. Let's just say, that the previous rumor mentioned was closer to the truth than whatever this is that Fox News is reporting.

All this new high technology... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23963609)

...and we still can't find a certain Muslim hiding in a cave, or defeat his low-tech followers. We spend millions just to kill one terrorist, while they achieve their missions with a handful of dollars. And every convert to their side is in essence another kill to us.

Fox news giving away state secrets? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23963611)

rather surprised... Cheney must have approved (or leaked it)

but this does explain all the UFO sightings lately eh? LOL!

Re:Fox news giving away state secrets? (4, Informative)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 6 years ago | (#23963653)

It's no secret, nor is it new...

http://www.darpa.mil/tto/programs/Falcon.htm [darpa.mil]

August 2007
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/08/blackswift-retu.html [wired.com]

March 2008
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/11/darpa_hypersonic_blackswift_details_released/ [theregister.co.uk]

It's also been on the Military Channel, and Discovery...

Re:Fox news giving away state secrets? (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 6 years ago | (#23963747)

Good lord I had no idea there were so many traitors. AM Radio had better step up their game!

Re:Fox news giving away state secrets? (3, Insightful)

confusedneutrino (732640) | more than 6 years ago | (#23963765)

I don't think any of the links you provided mentioned the use of a pulse detonation engine, only dual-mode scramjets for hypersonic flight and turbofans/jets for takeoff and landing.

Yup. That's hella quick. (0, Offtopic)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 6 years ago | (#23963623)

...only one small problem that I can see.

With the current trend in price hikes for fossil fuels, would this also be reflected in (presumably to be used in this vehicle) cryogenic fuel? If so, then a tank full of hydrogen is gonna cost a bomb (pun intended) and this will be reflected in seat prices. Hypersonic travel is going to be prohibitively expensive. If you're not in Government and taking bribes, or you're not obscenely rich to begin with, or you're not dipping your hands in someone else's pockets in some other way, or you're not flight crew, then forget about getting within spitting distance of one of these aircraft.

While I'm pissing on rugs here, what new infrastructure (if any) will be required to accommodate these skyliners? Ten mile runways?

Re:Yup. That's hella quick. (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 6 years ago | (#23963725)

Who said anything about airliners? It's my understanding that this thing will be unmanned.

Here's the science free explanation! (5, Funny)

TheMiddleRoad (1153113) | more than 6 years ago | (#23963633)

Jesus built this hot rod.

Re:Here's the science free explanation! (3, Funny)

thermian (1267986) | more than 6 years ago | (#23963769)

what worries is is how are they going to get tests to compare its performance with the V-1?

I live near London you see...

Re:Here's the science free explanation! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23963985)

Does that mean the Air Force spends their time ding a ding, danging their dang a long ling long?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RBKTo5K14M [youtube.com]

Re:Here's the science free explanation! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23964323)

ah yeah, you liked that song too!?

this is AWESOME (5, Funny)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 6 years ago | (#23963731)

The AIR FORCE is conStructing this HYPER sonic jet exploder thingy, with the help of JESUS, in order to fly at 10 times the speed of sound over countries where POOR people who HATE us live, in order to deliver with very high efficiency SWEETS and other confections which they need to live. They'll drop right out of the bom...CANDY bar bay. The Pentagon calls this the SNICKER candy bomb. At least they were snickering when they told the story to Fox News. Praise the lord

"Why yes, I HAVE been watching Fox news lately. How can you tell?"

American news? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23963749)

My favorite part was how the news anchor was so aggressively stupid that my brain pulled itself out of my head and strangled itself with my ears. Good gods, is this what American "news" is like?

Re:American news? (2, Informative)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 6 years ago | (#23964075)

yes.

Re:American news? (3, Insightful)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 6 years ago | (#23964357)

Sadly yes. The last 8 years make a bit more sense now, don't they?

Could this be the Aurora (5, Interesting)

jonwil (467024) | more than 6 years ago | (#23963809)

Could this be the Aurora, the "triangular shaped" airplane with the "donuts on a rope" contrail that various people have reported seeing over the years? (I saw something on discovery channel about it)

Re:Could this be the Aurora (1)

hcdejong (561314) | more than 6 years ago | (#23963867)

AFAICT, Blackswift doesn't exist yet, so no. It's probably related, though.

Re:Could this be the Aurora (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23964031)

Delta wings and Mach Diamonds? It must be one of those new, ultra secret "jet planes".

Re:Could this be the Aurora (2, Interesting)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 6 years ago | (#23964301)

Could this be the Aurora, the "triangular shaped" airplane with the "donuts on a rope" contrail that various people have reported seeing over the years? (I saw something on discovery channel about it)

Yup, I think so
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_aircraft#Steven_Douglas_sighting [wikipedia.org]

Re:Could this be the Aurora (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23964303)

Beyond just the looks of it, the reported sounds of the Aurora is a pulsating sound...which is apparently in line with the propulsion of the Blackswift.

Or maybe the boys at Skunk Works couldn't come up with anything so they basically decided to create the Aurora. They are probably laughing their asses off about this right now.

Not even in the same class as the SR-71 (4, Informative)

paganizer (566360) | more than 6 years ago | (#23963859)

now, don't get me wrong. this is a cool bird. but I wouldn't say it was cooler than the SR-71.

I've found a few better articles and videos, here [wired.com] , here [youtube.com] , here [youtube.com] & here [youtube.com] .

It's probably designed to be the replacement for the "blackstar [aviationweek.com] " program, which doesn't exist, but is hands-down the very coolest thing out there, the only thing cooler would be a functioning Orion [wikipedia.org] spacecraft.

But this looks like it might have the capability of taking the place of the blackstar "mothership [astronautix.com] ", although I bet with less performance & payload; as this isn't designed to be a Mach 3+ cruise nuclear bomber [vectorsite.net] , that's understandable. but those cold-war birds have got to be tired by now, and looking forward to retirement. i think one would look great in my driveway as a static display.

I do wonder what they are going to use to replace the orbital component, which was probably based on the X-20 [wikipedia.org] . Maybe a NASP [wikipedia.org] ? The X-43 [wikipedia.org] ?

gaaaaaaaaaahhh (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23963861)

"This engine requires significantly less moving parts"

Fewer is for quantities you can count. Less is for quantities you can't count. So unless you're implying that NASA scientists took a V1 Buzz Bomb engine (whatever that is) and poured out a heterogeneous liquid stream of moving parts until only puddles remained inside, it's FEWER moving parts!

What's the main difference (1)

DollyTheSheep (576243) | more than 6 years ago | (#23963893)

between a scramjet and the PDE? Both seem to operate by burning the fuel at supersonic speed ?

Re:What's the main difference (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23964083)

ram/scram jet: continually running engine. flame always on.
this thing? well... look at a car engine. x times a second it ignites.
Take a look at what faults existed with the SR71. the inlet had to be continually adjusted to avoid flameout. past a certain speed and the shockwave / wake choked out the engines by being outside of where the engines were.
this thing doesn't have an inlet as far as I understand. this means they only have to worry about the outer skin and the 'reaction chamber' when it comes to heat. with inlets, at those speeds??? you are introducing a heck of a lot of heat into the inside and have a lot more metal expanding and wearing out.

Re:What's the main difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23964151)

of course I should probably add the reason ram/scram jets were so great was that the faster it went they more fuel efficient it was because of the greater compression of the incoming air. This thing? heh. I don't see how this would be a step forward, unless they use it as a proof of concept for orion.
After a certain point, isn't the only justifiable reason to make something go faster would be to escape gravity?
can this be anything other than a testbed for something else? with Ion drives being already used, the concern about changing orbit of a spy sat eating up valuable fuel will soon be gone, making recon by plane, or at least plane with pilot on board obsolete. I would hope no one would be thinking of making a UAV that is that fast... you know commercial use is out of the question. Even as a "to the the edge atmosphere and to peer out to space thrill ride" we see since spaceship one it doesn't need something this expensive.
Military wants to put its people into orbit it seems, or a sub orbit.... are we looking to use this to kill sats?
What is the practicality / use of this development?
really hoping this is a lead up to orion

Let's put it like this (5, Informative)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 6 years ago | (#23964115)

The difference is that they're very very different kinds of engines really. Sorta like the difference between a turbofan and a piston engine in an aircraft. Both suck in fuel and use a propeller to push the air towards the back, but they're very different engines anyway.

A scramjet is, sorta, an afterburner without the turbojet in front of it. Think just a de Laval nozzle, sorta, where the airplane's own speed shoves the air from the front, and you inject the fuel and light it in the back. It can only operate at hypersonic speeds, because it does need the air coming in really hard and fast, and it burns fuel continuously. There is no need for pulses or detonations.

A pulsejet, well, think a pipe with a valve in front. Sorta like this, with "front" being downwards:

|.|
|.|
|.|
|T|
+.+

The T is the valve.

Air comes in, you inject the fuel, and ignite it. The pressure closes the valve, so the only way the burnt gasses can go is backwards, pushing your aircraft forward. Then the pressure equalises, the valve opens again, and the cycle starts all over again.

This one can _only_ operate in pulses. On the up side, it can operate at subsonic speeds too. It's also a very simple and robust engine. The V1's pulsejet could be riddled with holes and still generate most of the thrust. The RAF found it easier to just tip it over, with the tip of the fighter's wing pushing the V1's wing upwards, than shoot them.

Downside, also generates massive vibrations. The buzz of the V1s could be heard from the ground. It's a bit like flying a jackhammer. Which is one reason it never got too popular for manned aircraft, or aircraft which were supposed to fly more than once.

Well, that's the simple explanation anyway. There are more modern designs which, for example, do away with the valve and essentially just choke the flow via a nozzle to achieve the same effect. But that's the general gist of it.

Could this explain the Role of Jesus/god assgasam (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23963925)

Could this be the big black cock I sucked off last night that various people have reported seeing over the years?

Scary (1)

lordofwhee (1187719) | more than 6 years ago | (#23963937)

I was laughing so hard I thought I would start coughing up blood, until I realized a majority of the American population is EXACTLY as smart as those news anchors. Then I realizes something truly terrifying: those same Americans have access to nuclear arms.

UFO over Yakima Wa. in the 90's (2, Interesting)

jimmydevice (699057) | more than 6 years ago | (#23963965)

We saw a strange object in the sky over Goldendale Wa. (USA) while stargazing from our yard. It seemed to change velocity rapidly and was followed by a biz-jet at est 2000' AGL at full throttle about a minute behind. Multiple sightings were reported in Yakima and Spokane. I always figured it was some spook project.

"Essentially" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23964001)

There's that word. "Essentially".

amusing or offensive? (1)

indi0144 (1264518) | more than 6 years ago | (#23964005)

I don't know what to feel, I feel dirty allowing NoScript to access fox, And then this guy: "In English not in science please" I feel offended, English is not my first language and i feel offended. America deserves better! and you know the sad part? Fox hands this "Know-How" to other TV station in other countries and all you see it's Fox clones babbling and drooling and making up local news. I always have wondered if theres any way to stop that. 4th power should be accountable for misleading people intelligence. Someday they will be put in a wall, no make up, no lights, no power ranger sets.. plain old soviet Russian wall >First plane to the face and make them ONE BY ONE admit that they have been deceiving and misinforming the people, and they have to apologize and leave for ever. It's information anyway isn't it? This is a forum about the freedom of information isn't it?

.. excuse my rant... now i feel better :)

Re:amusing or offensive? (3, Funny)

Patrik_AKA_RedX (624423) | more than 6 years ago | (#23964319)

Someday they will be put in a wall, no make up, no lights, no power ranger sets.. plain old soviet Russian wall >First plane to the face and make them ONE BY ONE admit that they have been deceiving and misinforming the people, and they have to apologize and leave for ever.

I thought the idea was to put them against the wall and then shoot them. But sealing them inside a wall and then flying a plane against it might work too. However I don't think they will be doing much apoligizing afterwarts.
In conclusion: I like your plan, but I suggest letting them apoligize first.

Re:amusing or offensive? (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 6 years ago | (#23964427)

Someday they will be put in a wall, no make up, no lights, no power ranger sets.. plain old soviet Russian wall >First plane to the face and make them ONE BY ONE admit that they have been deceiving and misinforming the people, and they have to apologize and leave for ever

I'm sure if Russia had won the cold war that's what would have happened to US journalists that didn't toe the party line, but I can't see how anyone could think that was a good thing.

Pulse detonation engines AKA piston engine (0)

viking80 (697716) | more than 6 years ago | (#23964053)

Pulse detonation engines: This used to be called "piston engine"

Re:Pulse detonation engines AKA piston engine (2, Informative)

BigBuckHunter (722855) | more than 6 years ago | (#23964315)

Pulse detonation engines: This used to be called "piston engine"

Correct, except these don't have the pistons, rods, flywheel, or cam shaft(s).

It's more like a bunch of PVC potatoe guns duct-taped together, sans potatoes, hooked up to a distributer cap and battery.

There, I just dumbed it down enough for FOX news.

BBH

Build your own jet (5, Interesting)

loic_2003 (707722) | more than 6 years ago | (#23964099)

The V1 flying bomb used a pulse jet engine rather than a pulse detonation engine - the difference being that a PDE burns at a supersonic rate whereas a regular PJ wouldn't be able to get to those speeds.

Pulse jets are surprisingly easy to build, and I'm going to flagrantly link to my own build log of my engine being built with videos of it running/imploding here. [frenchgeek.com]
Videos are all here. [frenchgeek.com]

Cheers.

Holy SMOKE! (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 6 years ago | (#23964183)

That's potentially around the earth in two and a half hours!!!!

Did anyone watch the end of the video?? (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 6 years ago | (#23964195)

What was that UFO thing at the end? I know FOX news has some stupid people but that blonde had a good point about the relative velocity given the positioning and parallax of the camera, the movement of the background and such.

What have we learned here? (1)

ya really (1257084) | more than 6 years ago | (#23964273)

Do not post Fox news links, the topic will be almost ignored and replaced by our hatred of Fox News. Really, I was hoping for a more interesting discussion, but sure, I can vent on Fox with the best of them.

American TV (-1, Flamebait)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 6 years ago | (#23964305)

Is that the usual level of intelligent interviewing you Americans have to put up with on TV? My 3 year old kid asked more insightful questions than those news presenters (honestly).

Re:American TV (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 6 years ago | (#23964403)

Until now, I believed that a local Czech commercial TV (that I will not name here since everybody knows what TV I am talking about :-)) is as dumb as one can get, but, wow, THIS was an eye opener... I sympathize with all the inteligent Americans. Poor you... (There must be quite a lot of them, though, MIT seems to prosper quite well.)

Air Force Research Laboratory's Propulsion (5, Informative)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 6 years ago | (#23964353)

Air Force Research Laboratory's Propulsion Directorate

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/afrl/rz/ [af.mil]

I thought I'd post a useful link rather than bashing some corporate spew machine.

OMGOMGOMG (1)

peas_n_carrots (1025360) | more than 6 years ago | (#23964397)

The cavalier attitude of the puppets at Fox News are exceedingly annoying. I can't decide if I'm upset or sad that the American public eats up their garbage.

Near the beginning when they are showing a COMPUTER GENERATED animation of the plane, the dim-witted Fox anchor crows "Check that out, you see that go off the runway?". Wow, everything shown on TV and in movies must be real!

Fox turd also spouted "In English, not in science talk". Instead of inferring that scientists don't speak English, he would've done the public a much better service by using a phrase like "in layman's terms". Maybe the Fox clowns need take some remedial English classes instead of hiding behind their condescending attitudes.

outdated technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23964437)

Whatever NASA/the Air Force/DARPA is admitting to, they already have new secret technology that makes what you know about obsolete.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>