NASA to Attempt Mach 10 Flight Next Week 357
Dirak writes "NASA intends to break its own aircraft-speed record for the second time this year by flying X43a scramjet ten times faster than sound. On November 15 the X-43A supersonic-combustion ramjet - or scramjet - will again take to the skies aiming for Mach 10."
What is the Speed of Sound? (Score:5, Insightful)
The speed of sound isn't a good tool to measure the speed, as the speed of sound without an atmosphere is either infinite, undefined, zero or a combination of the choices. I mean once you get into space, should you add the speed the earth is rotating plus the speed around the sun using a basis of sound?
Re:What is the Speed of Sound? (Score:2, Funny)
Just a guess.
Re:What is the Speed of Sound? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What is the Speed of Sound? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What is the Speed of Sound? (Score:3, Funny)
Of course it does, otherwise we could not hear the Tie-Fighters screech past.
Re:What is the Speed of Sound? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What is the Speed of Sound? (Score:4, Informative)
The final flight in the Hyper-X program is scheduled to take place in October, when another X-43A aircraft will attempt to fly at Mach 10 -- ten times the speed of sound -- or 7,200 mph.
So if 10x the speed of sound is 7,200 mph, then the speed of sound is roughly 720 mph.
--
Free Flat Screens [freeflatscreens.com] | Free iPod Photo [freephotoipods.com] | It really works! [wired.com]
Re:What is the Speed of Sound? (Score:3, Interesting)
Rockets vs. Jet Engines (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not an aeronautical engineer or even much of a space buff by
Again, in my naive, non expert way, I look at a typical rocket and see a huge cylinder of fuel and oxidant with a teeny tiny payload on top. Even a marginal reduction in the size of the non-payload part has got to make a big difference in cost per pound of payload. I'm guessing this is leading to systems in which the first stage to orbit consists of a reusable scramjet powered vehicle that takes the next stage above the atmosphere.
Re:cool (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, mind you, I don't know that's what they did here. And in fact, using air pressure to pressurize the fuel might prove to not be the best wa
Re:What is the Speed of Sound? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What is the Speed of Sound? (Score:5, Informative)
--
Free Flat Screens [freeflatscreens.com] | Free iPod Photo [freephotoipods.com] | It really works! [wired.com]
Re:What is the Speed of Sound? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:What is the Speed of Sound? (Score:5, Funny)
In Space... No One Can Hear You Scram
Re:What is the Speed of Sound? (Score:2)
Re:What is the Speed of Sound? (Score:5, Interesting)
Precisely - Mach 1 is the local speed of sound. Specifically, it's the velocity at which shockwaves propagate. If you are flying at Mach 1 (plus delta) you are encountering a medium which is uninfluenced by your motion until you encounter it - it doesn't have time to get out of the way. That makes a huge difference to the behavior, a little like the difference between swimming in water and swimming in concrete!
There is, of course, a FAQ [aerospaceweb.org] on this Frequently Asked Question.
Re:What is the Speed of Sound? (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, they begin to appear when there is transonic airflow anywhere. This can be well before the aircraft is exceeding the speed of sound, since air flows around the aircraft at different rates depending on location.
Sonic "booms", as heard on the ground, are more dependent on the shape of the aircraft than the speed at which it is travelling. I can generate a sonic boom by swinging a piece of no
Re:What is the Speed of Sound? (Score:3, Funny)
I am mauling an Aeronautical Engineer?
It means Mach 10 at the altitude it will be flying (Score:3, Interesting)
You can't take the sea level speed of mach and multiply it by 10, because that would be incorrect. The speed of sound is about 760 mph at sea level, while at 95,000 feet (where the HyperX flies), the speed of sound is about 677 mph.
So when it flies Mach 10 it is not going 7,600 mph, it is going 6770 mph.
This is a common mistake that I see being made. Same thing with the SR-71...it is often quoted by dumb journalists as going
Re:What is the Speed of Sound? (Score:2)
The "skip-glide" mode of flight you describe has been proposed [space.com] but never demonstrated.
Re:What is the Speed of Sound? (Score:2)
Re:What is the Speed of Sound? (Score:2)
Re:What is the Speed of Sound? (Score:5, Informative)
Interestingly enough, according to Google Math [google.com], Mach 10 is ~127 miles a minute. Assuming it takes them at least 5 or 10 minutes to achieve Mach 10 (I have no frigging idea), they are going to cover some serious distance [google.com]. Sheesh.
At Mach 10, you will circle the Earth [lyberty.com] in under 200 minutes [google.com].
Damn I love Google math.
Re:What is the Speed of Sound? Its related to temp (Score:3, Informative)
The speed of sound in a gas is related to the temperature of the gas and the gas properties molecular weight and heat capacity (cp/cv).
The relationship is:
c = sqrt(j * R * T / M)
where:
c = speed of sound
j = ratio of heat capacity (cp/cv)
R = Universal gas constant
T = Temperature (for gases always use absolute temperature)
M = Molecular weight
The Mach number is the ratio of the speed of an object over the speed of sound of the medium that the object is moving trough.
The X-43A will be released at
Re:What is the Speed of Sound? (Score:3, Informative)
The speed of sound "above the atmosphere" is undefined. There is no sound. There are no air molecules to a) fly on top of or b) propagate shock waves through. The spee
Re:What is the Speed of Sound? (Score:5, Informative)
Mach "speed" is expressed as a ratio and is usually relative to the local environment. You can increase your Mach ratio either by climbing at a constant absolute speed or by accelerating at a constant altitude (although climbing at an increasing absolute speed works best :-P).
The problem with using altitude to improve your Mach ratio is that it decreases your indicated airspeed (the air felt by the wings). There comes a certain point with some high-performance aircraft where the indicated airspeed is just above stall and the Mach ratio is just below the aircraft's design limit. This is called the "coffin corner" because once you reach that speed/altitude it's virtually impossible to descend or slow down without losing control of (or destroying) the aircraft.
Rutan's Space Ship One solved this problem by intentionally stalling the aircraft in a stable high-drag attitude and staying in that configuration until safely back into the flight envelope.
Not that archaic (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What is the Speed of Sound? (Score:2, Informative)
Let's see:
Speed of sound [wikipedia.org]
And then you have the fun of working out its real air speed vs ground speed (its progress in going from A to B on surface), which is why you were flying to beg
Risky? (Score:2, Funny)
Mike
Re:Risky? (Score:2)
W00T! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:W00T! (Score:2)
Flying faster than a first post... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Flying faster than a first post... (Score:2)
warp .037 (Score:2)
To Bad for the sonic Boom. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:To Bad for the sonic Boom. (Score:3, Interesting)
Or is the point of your post that the Government shouldn't fund research unless it's fruits can be made readily available to the public?
Re:To Bad for the sonic Boom. (Score:5, Informative)
I believe the idea behind a functional vehicle would be something like a standard jet engine getting a craft up to mach 1 or 2, then a ramjet taking over and getting a craft up to mach 5 or so, and then a scramjet taking a ship up to mach 10-15, at which point a rocket boost pushes it through the last bit of thin atmosphere into orbit. I may be wrong, as my knowledge on this was material read 4-5 years ago, but that seems to be what I remember.
Supposedly a nother great thing about scramjets is their simplicity, very few moving parts, which allows for high reliability. Or as high reliability as can be expected for something working under the strain of Mach 10.
Re:To Bad for the sonic Boom. (Score:2)
You can't do any low altitude flight either, because the denser air would quickly melt and tear apart the aircraft at those speeds. What this is great for, is a potentially cheape
Re:To Bad for the sonic Boom. (Score:2, Interesting)
The U.
Re:To Bad for the sonic Boom. (Score:2)
Re:To Bad for the sonic Boom. (Score:2)
Concorde??? (Score:2)
Re:Concorde??? (Score:2)
Re:Concorde??? (Score:2)
Imagine if they mounted those engines on a fighter or something.
Re:Concorde??? (Score:2)
The Concorde's Olympus engines put out more thrust (169 kN beak) than Project Pluto [wikipedia.org]'s nuclear powered ramjet did (156 kN peak)
Hah.
Re:Concorde??? (Score:2)
Once the UK and French governments had written off all the development costs, British Airways was able to make an operating profit from it. With only 14 functional airframes, it never needed that big a market.
Oops! bang goes my mod points!
Re:To Bad for the sonic Boom. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Too Bad for the sonic Boom. (Score:3, Interesting)
First, we sill can not outfly some of the enemy's missiles and have to outmaneuver and/or outsmart them. Second, the faster we can go the farther we can fly on time. For example, the planes can be based on the comfortable island [tiscali.co.uk] but still be able to timely reach some of the theaters, where expensive and uncomfortable carriers have to be u
Re:To Bad for the sonic Boom. (Score:2)
That, however, was one of them.
One step closer to (Score:4, Funny)
Re:One step closer to (Score:3, Informative)
Practical application (Score:3, Funny)
Or is this just a method for getting something to go fast enough to put it into orbit without a rocket? (which would be quite useful)
Re:Practical application (Score:4, Insightful)
This would make an incredibly formidable cruise missile. You could launch it basically from anywhere in the world and it would arrive on target within a couple of hours. No near-deployment required.. you could launch it from your backyard in Nebraska. I'm all for peace, smiles and sunshine but the military uses for this are incredible.
Re:Practical application (Score:2)
Scramjets are less efficient than ramjets, much less efficient than turbojets, and way, way less efficient that the turbofans used in the longest-range cruise missiles and civilian aircraft. And what's worse is, you need some other form
Re:Practical application (Score:2)
Basicly an air breathing craft that can hit mach 10 would make a great 1st stage for a space craft.
Re:Practical application - Preview not post... (Score:2)
Rocket fuel weighs 17 times as much as jet fuel per unit energy due to the need for oxidizer. So you could build a craft that carried a rocket up to mach 10 then have it shoot into space and the rocket would need a lot less fuel so it would weigh less so your scramjet would not need as much fuel to lift it ect. You end up with a lot of fuel savings and jets tend to be safer than rockets, which also helps
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Poor budget managment. (Score:3, Insightful)
NASA and the Air Force were going to co-operate on the X43-C project (a follow on to the X43-A), but it was cancelled. However, hypersonics research at NASA is not over. You can read all about it here [aviationnow.com].
One reason why it makes sense for NASA to work on this is that the technology may be used to improve access to space. This is not an avenue the USAF is likely to pursue.
The B-52 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The B-52 (Score:2)
Just as the airforce refers to plane as a BUFF(Big Ugly Fat Fucker), meaning it in the best possible way?
Lets hope for success (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Lets hope for success (Score:2)
So what you'd need for this craft is a jet engine or rocket to get you fast enough for the scramjet to kick in, which would then get you to 7,000 MPH, when a rocket has to kick in to get you the other 10,000 MPH and out of the atmosphere.
Basically such a craft would have to carry a regular jet engine, a scramjet, and a rocket, Or perhaps just a scramjet and a liqu
Perfect cycle (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Perfect cycle (Score:3, Funny)
Which will it be? (Score:2)
"We can rebuild him. Make him better."
"Better?"
"Better, stronger .... faster!
Cchhcchhhooonnnggooonnnggooonnnggooonnngg.
Seemed appropriate... (Score:2)
Bob: Guys, I'm trying to work... Do you mind?
Stanley Spadowski: I don't mind. Go right ahead... Do you mind, George?
Final Flight (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,65671
NASA is "phasing out its hypersonic engine program to free up funding for President Bush's 'Vision for Space Exploration,' which calls on NASA to focus its energy on sending humans to the moon and Mars."
Therefore,
"As of now, next week's X-43A flight is the final flight in the $230 million program."
I can't help but wonder if these priorities are correct as I'm not quite sure what we intend to do after we reach the moon and Mars.
Blackbird and the Swedish fighter Viggen (Score:5, Interesting)
The Swedish fighter jet, Viggen (which is built by SAAB) was the first fighter plane to ever get a "lock" on the blackbird.
The Swedish radar systems got it on radar. The Viggen flew to intercept it with after burners on the whole time.
It got a lock on it and then had to turn back because it was out of fuel. There was of course never any intention of firing a missile, but still.
The black bird crew sent a box of chocolate to the Swedish air base and said "Congratulations!".
At least, this is what I heard. Whether it really is true, I couldn't tell you for sure.
Re:Blackbird and the Swedish fighter Viggen (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Blackbird and the Swedish fighter Viggen (Score:2)
That's like sending over a jar of Prego to Italy.
Re:Blackbird and the Swedish fighter Viggen (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Blackbird and the Swedish fighter Viggen (Score:3, Informative)
The Swedish radar systems got it on radar. The Viggen flew to intercept it with after burners on the whole time.
They would have had to have picked it up on radar (on approach) a LONG way out, given how insanely fast SR-71s are. From the wiki [wikipedia.org]:
On July 28, 1976, an SR-71 set two world records for its class: an absolute speed record of 2,193.167 mph (3,529.56 km/h) and an absolut
Re:Blackbird and the Swedish fighter Viggen (Score:2)
Hahaha.... I love it!
Don't forget the Delta IV (Score:2)
Another interesting propulsion design (Score:2, Interesting)
Please MOD NASA redundant! (Score:2)
That's nice, but (Score:2)
is it REALLY an "Aircraft"? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:is it REALLY an "Aircraft"? (Score:3, Insightful)
*Actually, it's possible that the term "rocket" specifically means that the fuel and the reaction mass are the same thing, but I'm not certain of that, since I've seen terms like "nuclear rocket" used quite often (though perhaps incorrectly), and those do decouple fuel and reactio
Re:is it REALLY an "Aircraft"? (Score:2, Informative)
plane - carries fuel but takes oxygen from atmospher
Aviation Technology Week's take on Scramjet (Score:5, Insightful)
Also stated in the ATW was that there wasn't (or shouldn't) be any animosity between the Scramjet team and the Rocket technology teams, in that affordable scramjet is projected to top out in the 20,000 lbs to LEO range and have a $1,700 per pound price tag vs $2,200 for expendable rocket, but with rocket being able to heft much larger loads. Still, the 20,000 lbs range is projected to meet 80% of future lift needs.
This figures struck me has oddly pessimistic, but they see problems scaling with this technology. They think the real advantage to scramjet will be reliability, with current unmanned failures rates (and manned it would seem also) at one in 50, and scramjet figured at 1 in 4000 or so (assuming a return to Earth on propulsion failure). Of course the Shuttle was projected to have a low failure rate also.
Still I would think a four-tier approach would be near ideal for now.
Maglev assist takeoff to Mach 1 or 2
Jet assist to Mach 3 or 4 (stubby winged, high-speed, jet wouldn't have enough lift for loaded takeoff on it's own)
Scramjet to Mach 8 or 10
Rocket final stage to Mach 22 orbit.
Maybe Congress doesn't want to fund this because they're misreading Scramjet as Scam-Jet.
Re:Fast times at tax-payers' expense (Score:4, Informative)
I'm tired of hearing people yap about tax money when they waste money on frivolous things. Not to say that video games are bad, but do you know how much health care or education $125 Million will purchase? And the general public dropped that in one day! Do you know how much good research $125 M will purchase? I haven't looked it up, but I'm guessing the X-43A project is on the same order of magnitude cost-wise as what the public spent on this one single video game.
Re:Fast times at tax-payers' expense (Score:2)
You mean like spend $125 Million on a video game? That does almost absolutely nothing to advance society at all?
I'm tired of hearing people yap about tax money when they waste money on frivolous things. Not to say that video games are bad, but do you know how much health care or education $125 Million will purchase? And the general public dropped that in one day! Do you know how much good research $125 M will purchase? I haven't look
Re:Fast times at tax-payers' expense (Score:2)
Re:Fast times at tax-payers' expense (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, a couple of Band-aid's and a pencil or two for every citizen.
You could build, maybe, 8 schools with that kinda cash.
Woooooo!
Re:Fast times at tax-payers' expense (Score:2)
Plus, the other thing people don't realize is that we can't devote all of our money to schools or medicine, etc. If we did that society would collapse. Plus, you should try researching how many important technologies we take for granted today were the result of projects of fancy.
Re:Fast times at tax-payers' expense (Score:2)
Re:Fast times at tax-payers' expense (Score:2, Interesting)
It always irked me that in psychology, research done for the basis of learning stuff and not really improving anything is referred to as "basic" research (in most other disciplines, it's referred to as "pure" research). Whether you call it pure or basic, this sort of research may not have any immediate uses, but it may very well be something that spurns someone to do some applied research.
-Jenn
This is what NASA is meant FOR (Score:5, Insightful)
Then some smartass hillbilly with nine-inch sideburns can make use of their research to build a rocketplane and proclaim : "Spaceship 2, Government 0"!
Re:Boom, BIG bada boom! (Score:2)
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMM
But you should expect larger fonts in this comic
Re:Great (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Great (Score:2)
btw. NASA breaking speed barrier, and
Re:Very Cool, But... (Score:3, Informative)
Well, NASA stands for National Aeronautics and Space Administration; this is well within the original (1915) charter of the organization, which was called the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) [nasa.gov] before space exploration was added to their role along with the name change in 1958.
Besides
Amazing new study finds Oxygen in atmosphere! (Score:2)
Re:Very Cool, But... (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure, they don't work outside the atmosphere, but what about a next-gen shuttle that develops most of its thrust during the scramjet phase, uses a small rocket motor to get that extra bit of velocity at the upper end, and still has enough room left over for some worthwhile payload?
I imagine that's the kind of thing NASA's interested in.
Space Ship Two, anyone?
Re:Very Cool, But... (Score:3, Interesting)
So if the rocket only has to get from Mach ~20 to Mach ~23, I would imagine the payload increase to be si
Re:NASA who? (Score:2)
SpaceShipOne isn't anywhere close to replacing the shuttle, sending a probe to mars, anything. All it can do is barely touch space.
Re:What are the Vegas Odds of this working? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not? The Space Shuttle goes more than twice that fast during reentry into the atmosphere, and held together under "that much pressure" more that a hundred consecutive times. It only failed last time because of gross damage to the leading edge of a wing.
You don't think NASA's engineers are smart enough to calculate the pressure at mach 10 and build accordingly?
I wouldn't be too stunned if the flight fai
Re:How does this compare to (Score:2)