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 Testing Supersonic X-51A Jet Tomorrow

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the but-does-it-go-to-plaid? dept.

NASA 214

First time accepted submitter littlesparkvt writes "The NASA and the Pentagon's experimental aircraft could go from NY to London in about an hour. With a cost of 140 million dollars USD. During the test the X51-A will reach speeds of 1700 meters a second and climb to an altitude of 70,000 feet."

cancel ×

214 comments

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

Cost (5, Interesting)

Hydrated Wombat (1314267) | about 2 years ago | (#40979515)

Still costs less than a F22 Raptor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor [wikipedia.org]

Re:Cost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40979541)

but they aren't crashing f22's into the water...

Re:Cost (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40980135)

No, you're right, they're not. They're grounded because they're still unusable.

Re:Cost (1, Informative)

filthpickle (1199927) | about 2 years ago | (#40980513)

no they aren't.

Re:Cost (2)

gagol (583737) | about 2 years ago | (#40979551)

Add the radars, armoring, weapons and maintenance cost of a fleet and we have comparable figures.

Re:Cost (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40979709)

You fucking idiots. This isn't a jet-plane. It's a fucking missile. You know, like the Wired article said it was, able to carry out global surgical strikes in minutes, without tripping enemy ICBM alarms?

This now makes sense on Slashdot, as it has been bought out by Rob Malda and his neoconservative buddies at The Washington Post. A pro-Israel, anti-Islam agenda is being so very obviously pushed here that its disgusting. Former WaPo boss Katharine Graham [wikipedia.org] was a Bilderburg attendee and pushed the neocon agenda of the newspaper. Her daughter, Lally Weymouth, continues to push the neocon agenda through her loaded interviews ( " So, $ARAB_LEADER, why are you and your friends assholes?! " ) published in Newsweek and WaPo. Rob Malda and his friends here at Slashdot are an anti-freedom, fifth-columnist shill army pushing the neocon agenda on all of you.

I served in the Air Force and I speak with authority when I say F-22's are pieces of shit. Long live the F-15 Eagle in all of its glorious formes!

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:Cost (4, Funny)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | about 2 years ago | (#40979759)

This isn't a jet-plane. It's a fucking missile.

Okay. So it could blow up London in about an hour.

Re:Cost (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40980131)

But it will still take NBC 6 hours to report it.

V3 ? (1)

formfeed (703859) | about 2 years ago | (#40980643)

This isn't a jet-plane. It's a fucking missile.

Okay. So it could blow up London in about an hour.

Since in the goodol'days NASA got a jump-start with rockets originally designed to reach London, blowing up London adds a very nice touch.

Re:Cost (2)

amiga3D (567632) | about 2 years ago | (#40979787)

Foam at the mouth like this much? Maybe some Xanex or something would help. I wouldn't call the F-22 a piece of shit but it looks like the cost of maintenance will be astronomical. I'd just call it overpriced and underwhelming.

Re:Cost (1, Interesting)

Shavano (2541114) | about 2 years ago | (#40979995)

Foam at the mouth like this much? Maybe some Xanex or something would help. I wouldn't call the F-22 a piece of shit but it looks like the cost of maintenance will be astronomical. I'd just call it overpriced and underwhelming.

Cost of maintenance astronomical == piece of shit.

Re:Cost (0)

gagol (583737) | about 2 years ago | (#40980339)

Overengineering is a very bad thing. Hard to believe the KISS principle wax born in the USA when you look at things like the Shuttle (High costs, high coolness factor, the people's taxes get siphoned by contractors...)

Re:Cost (5, Interesting)

jamstar7 (694492) | about 2 years ago | (#40980553)

Sounds to me like they could use a few dozen Russian engineers.

The way the Russkis used to do things was, design and build a prototype with all the bells and whistles and kitchen sink. Get it working. Then re-engineer it back to something a goat herder in Kazikstan could use with 5 minutes' training. Case in point? The MiG-23. They could crank them out for a cost of about 3.3 mil per, when the nearest Western equivilent was the Kfir C2 coming in at 4.5 mil and the F16 at 14. They used aircraft grade aluminum and stainless steel where Western aircraft were using titanium. They couldn't engage as many targets, but you could have 90%+ of them available to fly at a moment's notice where maintanance cycles grounded up to 2/3rds of the F16s at a time.

Re:Cost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40980661)

Nobody put wings on the shuttle because they wanted to keep it simple. They knew what they were asking for when they did that.

Re:Cost (2)

MacBurn11 (2430370) | about 2 years ago | (#40980695)

Hard to believe the KISS principle wax born in the USA

yeah, you'd think they would stick to it...

Re:Cost (2)

filthpickle (1199927) | about 2 years ago | (#40980533)

Here comes the Eurofighter love. Except even the eurofighter pilots said they can't handle the raptor at long distance. (the only way it would ever be used)

Re:Cost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40981005)

All you need to do is wait for the f22 pilot to do a victory roll, pass out and crash, since there are so few of them, they wont last long....

Re:Cost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40979865)

This now makes sense on Slashdot, as it has been bought out by Rob Malda and his neoconservative buddies at The Washington Post. A pro-Israel, anti-Islam agenda is being so very obviously pushed here that its disgusting. Former WaPo boss Katharine Graham

huh, the washington post is not even washington's conservative paper.
please do tell us what you think of that so we can godwin's law this thread.

Re:Cost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40979913)

u mad?

Re:Cost (0)

thunderclap (972782) | about 2 years ago | (#40980401)

I'm confused. Are you suggesting Arab leaders aren't assholes? they repress women, kill homosexuals, and slaughter their own people if it suits them. History records their religious leader as a misogynistic pedophile. One country is buiding nukes to blow up another not for resources but the the sake of doing so. Those are the definition of assholes. Also since when was any Bilderburg attendee a conservative? Are they supposed to the be secret masters according the crazies on the net? Smh

Re:Cost (1)

Hadlock (143607) | about 2 years ago | (#40980929)

Sure, but this device has no human pilot to asphyxiate when the life support system goes haywire. So there's all those wrongful death lawsuits you get to avoid.

Re:Cost (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40979597)

Still costs less than a F22 Raptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor [wikipedia.org]

That's probably because the F-22 is an operational aircraft capable of take-off/landing under its own power and houses a human pilot (among many other things).

Re:Cost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40980441)

Still costs less than a F22 Raptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor [wikipedia.org]

That's probably because the F-22 is an operational aircraft capable of take-off/landing under its own power and houses a human pilot (among many other things).

They are located on airbases so that someone can chase the squatters off.

Re:Cost (3, Interesting)

bolthole (122186) | about 2 years ago | (#40979747)

UNLIKE the f22- raptor, though, this is basically an "unmanned vehicle". The title implies "jet aircraft" )ie: passenger vehicle) to most people, but in reality, this is not much more than "an oversized, air-launched missile".

Which makes it sadly way less interesting

Re:Cost (3, Insightful)

amiga3D (567632) | about 2 years ago | (#40979855)

It's really just a test bed for scramjet research. It's a long way to an actual manned version.

Re:Cost (1)

budgenator (254554) | about 2 years ago | (#40980003)

Yes but does an F22 go 6 million miles an hour like the X 51-A? That's what the article said, 1,700 miles /second * 60 seconds / minute * 60 = 6,120,000 miles / hour! Well perhaps the author, William, was metric impaired and mistook 1,700 meters / sec for miles / second; which works out to 1700 m/S / 1.609.34 m/mi = 1.05 mi/ S * 3600S/hr = 3,802.80 I did notice when you type mach 5 into a google search it replys "mach 5 = 1 701.45 m / s"

huray for proofreading (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40979529)

Pretty sure it won't go 1700 miles per second

Re:huray for proofreading (2)

gagol (583737) | about 2 years ago | (#40979537)

it should read 1 mile per second actually

Re:huray for proofreading (1)

gagol (583737) | about 2 years ago | (#40979605)

The original article is very very wrong... is journalism dead? I think so, will look into obituaries to check it up.

Re:huray for proofreading (0)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 2 years ago | (#40981063)

Why are you on a blog asking about the state of journalism?

Re:huray for proofreading (2)

budgenator (254554) | about 2 years ago | (#40980119)

actually 1,700 meters per second or 3,800 Mi/Hr, one mi/S is 3600 Mi/Hr or 1 088.9 m/S

Re:huray for proofreading (2)

Narrowband (2602733) | about 2 years ago | (#40979621)

Yeah, if it were "per second," they'd be better off calling it ~1%C.

Re:huray for proofreading (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#40979633)

The craft will be tested over the Pacific Ocean after being flown there on the wing of a B52 bombers wing.

Mod article redundant..

Re:huray for proofreading (1)

Spy Handler (822350) | about 2 years ago | (#40979779)

like Crime Scene: Scene of the Crime?

Re:huray for proofreading (4, Funny)

hargrand (1301911) | about 2 years ago | (#40980055)

Dad: Max, why does the word "wing" appear twice in this sentence?

Max (6yrs old): Because the B-52 has two wings.

Re:huray(sic) for proofreading (2)

ukemike (956477) | about 2 years ago | (#40979959)

With a cost of 140 million dollars USD.

That's a nice complete sentence!

Re:huray(sic) for proofreading (1)

bob zee (701656) | about 2 years ago | (#40980765)

I agree! if you fix the acronym, how does it read? 140 million dollars United states dollars. redundant?

Re:huray(sic) for proofreading (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about 2 years ago | (#40981177)

Not to mention the lack of a SUBJECT!

1700 miles a second????? (1, Informative)

stox (131684) | about 2 years ago | (#40979535)

That would be 6.12 MILLION miles per hour. Somehow, I doubt that.

Re:1700 miles a second????? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40979569)

almost 1% the speed of light. wonder if they're taking measurements for any relativistic effects

Re:1700 miles a second????? (4, Informative)

Sparkio (944072) | about 2 years ago | (#40979647)

Mach 5 = 1,701.45 m / s... still pretty crazy fast - LA to NY in ~42 minutes - but no, not LA to NY in 2 seconds. Methinks someone plugged it into google and thought 'hey, m must mean miles, right?'

Re:1700 miles a second????? (4, Funny)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | about 2 years ago | (#40979833)

Mach 5 = 1,701.45 m / s

Yup. m = miles, s = seconds. That's 1700 miles per second.

I mean, what else could m possibly stand for? There's only one unit of measurement that starts with the letter 'm'...

Re:1700 miles a second????? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40979871)

m is metre moron....wake up and look around eh??

Re:1700 miles a second????? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40979971)

Sonic WHOOSH!!

Re:1700 miles a second????? (5, Funny)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | about 2 years ago | (#40980029)

m is metre moron

It's an American missile. Why would they be talking in weird foreign measurements? I mean, "metre"?! R before E? Who spells like that? Sounds like some kind of cheese-eatin' surrender-monkey socialist kind of measurement. Certainly not the kind of measurement that freedom lovin' people from the Good ol' USA would use.

So there you have it. 1700 miles per second. That'll put the fear of God into those godless commies.

(I was going to mark my original post as sarcasm but I thought, "Nah. People will get it.")

Re:1700 miles a second????? (1)

formfeed (703859) | about 2 years ago | (#40980683)

It's an American missile. ...

So there you have it. 1700 miles per second. That'll put the fear of God into those godless commies.

But second is also used in the Socialist International (SI) System. To be truly American you would have to replace it with something more patriotic.

Re:1700 miles a second????? (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | about 2 years ago | (#40980997)

Yeah, more likely 1700000 furlong per fortnight.

Re:1700 miles a second????? (1)

Rob_Bryerton (606093) | about 2 years ago | (#40981083)

How many hogsheads does that work out to?

Re:1700 miles a second????? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40980979)

God Bless America!

Re:1700 miles a second????? (1)

Artifakt (700173) | about 2 years ago | (#40981001)

Always indicate humor, sarcasm, or irony - this is the new Slashdot. While you are at it, if you are using Morrisetteian Irony instead of the real thing, you must add a link to a scholarly article about lamas, instead of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironic_(song) [wikipedia.org]

For a while, I was starting to think Slashdot was attracting the attention of a lot of Aspergers sufferers, but I finally realized that most of these people don't have the highly functioning part, or even the autism part. They just don't 'get it', and I suspect some of them go through life irritating every single person they meet.

Re:1700 miles a second????? (2, Funny)

stepho-wrs (2603473) | about 2 years ago | (#40980165)

1,701.45 big Macs per second.
Wow!

Re:1700 miles a second????? (1)

Rob_Bryerton (606093) | about 2 years ago | (#40981127)

I got a good laugh out of that...

It turns out McDonald's runs at "only" 17 Big Macs per second. I'm sure they're thrilled to hear the fuel consumption rate of the X-51A... http://www.google.com/search?q=big+Macs+per+second [google.com]

Re:1700 miles a second????? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40979671)

Try shooting that down! Sounds like a winner for the Pentagon.

1.21 Jigawatts? (1)

sanman2 (928866) | about 2 years ago | (#40979819)

The Libyans will never catch you

Re:1700 miles a second????? (0)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 2 years ago | (#40981073)

Nope, it's true, CNN reported [ggpht.com] it.

1700 miles a *second* ??? (4, Interesting)

gaspar ilom (859751) | about 2 years ago | (#40979549)

> 1700 miles a second

This is obviously a mis-print, right?

Re:1700 miles a *second* ??? (2)

Hartree (191324) | about 2 years ago | (#40979583)

Yeah, the military would love it if we had something that could go 1/100th the speed of light in the atmosphere. *vroom*

Re:1700 miles a *second* ??? (1)

thunderclap (972782) | about 2 years ago | (#40980071)

Whose to say we didnt built it? It obvious;y has no people in it but still its possible. Not probable, but possible.

Re:1700 miles a *second* ??? (1)

Rob_Bryerton (606093) | about 2 years ago | (#40981159)

What degree (amount?) of time dilation would a traveler aboard such a craft experience I wonder...

Re:1700 miles a *second* ??? (2)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | about 2 years ago | (#40979601)

And this...

With a cost of 140 million dollars USD.

...is a sentence fragment.

It's all just one big.

Re:1700 miles a *second* ??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40979607)

well 1700 *metres per second* is 5 times the speed of sound... so presumably the author of the article mixed up miles and metres...

Re:1700 miles a *second* ??? (1)

gagol (583737) | about 2 years ago | (#40979663)

Are the figures coming from the same team that blew a mars rover years ago?

Re:1700 miles a *second* ??? (1)

Martin Blank (154261) | about 2 years ago | (#40980063)

The unit mix-up was for the Mars Climate Orbiter, not a lander. The Mars Polar Lander failed, but that was probably due to an early engine cutoff due to a false sensor reading.

Re:1700 miles a *second* ??? (4, Funny)

similar_name (1164087) | about 2 years ago | (#40979665)

Warp .01 sound way cooler.

Re:1700 miles a *second* ??? (4, Funny)

jbeaupre (752124) | about 2 years ago | (#40979723)

Nope. It's correct. They are launching over the Pacific ocean. They expect it to disappear off the left side of the map and reappear on the right side of the map about 14 seconds later. 24,000 miles divided by 14 seconds gives you 1700 miles/sec.

Maybe they should use a globe.

Re:1700 miles a *second* ??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40979839)

no....1700 miles/second is not correct. 1700 metres/second is the proper speed.

Re:1700 miles a *second* ??? (1)

thunderclap (972782) | about 2 years ago | (#40980091)

1.7 km/s is far slower. sadly thats about 1.056 miles/second.

Re:1700 miles a *second* ??? (2)

jbeaupre (752124) | about 2 years ago | (#40980159)

Hear that whooshing sound? That's not the X-51. That's a joke going over your head.

Re:1700 miles a *second* ??? (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 2 years ago | (#40979837)

Somebody saw m/s and figured miles starts with an m....

Re:1700 miles a *second* ??? (2)

hargrand (1301911) | about 2 years ago | (#40980067)

The whole article is a misprint.

Another article with more background... (4, Informative)

daveschroeder (516195) | about 2 years ago | (#40979559)

...is here [wired.com]

Re:Another article with more background... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40980727)

Just not a very good article. For example,

If it fails -- and the last two tests of this X-51A Waverider have fallen short -- then the Pentagon will have sent something on the order of $300 million to the bottom of the Pacific.

Right, so all the data and all the people who work on this thing are riding in it?

Rubbish sensationalist crap. By morons, for morons.

Nearly 1% c!! That's awesome!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40979563)

I can't wait to see something go almost 1% of the speed of light!

Math (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40979603)

London to NY = ~ 3400 miles ...
1700miles / second or almost .1C ... ...
In one hour.

Re:Math (3, Funny)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#40979659)

You have to account for jet lag.

Re:Math (2)

similar_name (1164087) | about 2 years ago | (#40979769)

1700miles / second or almost .1C ... ...

You might want to check your math.

NY to Israel/Iran in 1 hour and a modest price tag (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40979657)

More importantly, it can get from NY to Israel or Iran in an hour.
140 million USD is not a crazy price tag for a supersonic plane.
In fact, it might be a bargain.

In comparison, the NASA Curiosity rover costs $2.5 Billion USD.
You could build 17 X51-A jets for that price.

Re:NY to Israel/Iran in 1 hour and a modest price (2)

istartedi (132515) | about 2 years ago | (#40979767)

Yeah, it can get to Iran fast enough to beat them into submission so that we... have enough gas to get back.

I'm pretty sure there are more cost effective ways to achieve military... umm... Oh crap. Yeah. You're right. It's a weapon.

Re:NY to Israel/Iran in 1 hour and a modest price (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 2 years ago | (#40980333)

In comparison, the NASA Curiosity rover costs $2.5 Billion USD.
You could build 17 X51-A jets for that price.

Yeah, but you don't get as many dead brown people with the NASA Curiosity. That's how Congress measures these things. Dead foreigners per million dollars.

Guess which type of project is going to disappear first with our new austerity-minded overlords?

1700 miles/second? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40979807)

me thinks that's a little ways down the road yet...

Um, wait, what? (1)

tool462 (677306) | about 2 years ago | (#40979811)

Surely that's more likely 1700 m/s (meters per second), not miles per second. Though if the latter, sign me up for a test ride!

Re:Um, wait, what? (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 2 years ago | (#40980835)

Surely that's more likely 1700 m/s (meters per second), not miles per second. Though if the latter, sign me up for a test ride!

Well, what if it were 10,221,904.1 furlongs per fortnight? Would you sign up then?

progrenn (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40979825)

the x-7 from 1960:
Performance

        Maximum speed: Mach 4.31 (2,881 mph, 4,640 km/h)
        Service ceiling: 106,000 ft (32,317 m)

glad to see what darpa came out with after absorbing the x-43.

In all seriousness, i do hope this does well. We could use this type of launch vehicle.

1700? (1)

talon540 (2707435) | about 2 years ago | (#40979851)

Is this thing powered by neutrinos?

This is why NASA can't have nice things... (2)

bjwest (14070) | about 2 years ago | (#40980191)

The Pentagon is using them to develop military projects like this. This is what the frigging Military Industrial Complex and DARPA are for. Leave NASA and they're limited and continuously dwindling funds for space research, or we're going to be left in the dust by China, India and the other space faring nations.

Note: If this and projects like it are funded separately and outside of NASAs budget, then, never mind. Carry on...

Re:This is why NASA can't have nice things... (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 years ago | (#40980361)

Why do you think they dumped billions into NASA rocketry? Or the USSR did for that matter?

Military -- The civilian stuff is just memetic misdirection to get you go go along with it.

See also cars and highways.

The Concorde Beater! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40980193)

Typical Yanks - 50 years late to the party!

Let me know... (2)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 2 years ago | (#40980249)

When they add three more zeros to that speed. I wanna go to Alpha Centauri.

Weaponization and First Strike Advantage (0)

popo (107611) | about 2 years ago | (#40980371)

Am I the only one who looks at this thing and thinks the whole "Jet" and "Plane" terminology is pentagon spin for what is really being built here?

Aside from the fact that it looks exactly like a missile -- which I understand is a matter of aerodynamics -- the ability to first strike is going to be enhanced enormously with this development. I can't help noticing that these "New York to London" metrics spouted by the Pentagon are carefully constructed "spin" to frame the X-51 in a "civilian transport" context.

The X-51 is decades away from transportation use. But it's probably usable in a much closer timeframe as a weaponized delivery system.

This "jet" is a *military* game-changer, IMHO. And it won't be changing the face of transportation any time soon.

Re:Weaponization and First Strike Advantage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40980529)

Nah, let's just get that rail gun mounted on a ship already. The projectiles and 'fuel' are much cheaper and it would be total funniez as we can just knock out targets all the live long day and no one will know it's us -- until they develop technology to spot the massive use of electricity on the ship. But hey, this sort of competition is what moves us forward people!

Re:Weaponization and First Strike Advantage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40980583)

No, you are not alone.

The pentagram doesn't spend money developing new systems for peace, yet. ("We don't do nation building," said Donald Rumsfeld. They left it to exiled bankers, like Chalabi.)

The military development of peace only comes after shock, awe and total domination; it will come later. First they have to finish the evolution their title, from Department of War, to Department of Defense and thence on to Department of Peace.

By then you won't be able to tell the difference between war and peace times because we'll have military bases all over the world, and our troops will be monitoring peaceful transitions from old world regimes to newly upgraded summertime democracies that we can count on to help us fulfill the mandate of worldwide rule of law under kinder friendlier adherents to free trade and equal opportunity for all who can afford it.

Re:Weaponization and First Strike Advantage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40980619)

FALCON (Force Application and Launch from CONtinental United States)
  two major components:
1) a vehicle for launching the hypersonic weapons platform
2) the hypersonic vehicle itself.

that's (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40980431)

that's wasting billions while millions die of starvation each year: USA, USA, USA...
death to the world basically, egotistical ASSWIPES!!!

Austin's chances this time around? (1)

TempestRose (1187397) | about 2 years ago | (#40980545)

I hope Steve has a better bail-out option this time around. All I've seen so far are some half assed bionic eyes, unless the OSS is keeping the best for their own agents... No running at this point baby!

140 million? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40980699)

funny how it takes the yanks 140 million to build something the Australians at qut invented for under a million.

Re:140 million? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40981093)

How far and what was the top speed of it? How did it handle mach 9 and mach 20? X51A did just fine with mach 7, but suffered a flame-out after 3 minutes of flight time. And how was the rocket that they bought to fly it on? I mean for that cool million, they DID build an interesting craft to test the engine, as well as send up multiple missions. Right?

Congrats... (1)

Nexion (1064) | about 2 years ago | (#40980785)

On your uber fast missile. I'll be impressed when you can put a human in it without killing him/her.

Re:Congrats... (2)

tnk1 (899206) | about 2 years ago | (#40980953)

You mean like every rocket that has ever launched a human into space? Or the SR-71 which wasn't as fast, but operated at a higher ceiling than this test?

Putting a human in a Mach 5 aircraft is not going to be that difficult. Getting the damn thing to be anywhere near economical running at Mach 5 will be the problem.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>