PDA

View Full Version : Nasa Scramjet Smashes Speed Record


Brown Starfish
28th Mar 2004, 10:15
Are we pilots doomed as a species?

I can't paste the picture of this

I hope this is what you wanted. Heliport
http://cdn.digitalcity.com/aoluk_articles/0b/00/20040328034209990010.4066a26a-0011a-07034-400cbb49

Nasa Scramjet Smashes Speed Record
http://channels.aolsvc.co.uk//news/article.adp?id=20040328034209990010

Three years after its first test flight ended in an explosion, Nasa successfully launched an experimental jet that the agency believes reached a record-setting speed of about 5,000mph.

The unpiloted X-43A made an 11-second powered flight, then went through some twists and turns during a six-minute glide before plunging into the Pacific Ocean about 400 miles off the California coast.

It was fun all the way to Mach 7, said Joel Sitz, project manager at Nasa's Dryden Flight Research Centre.

Flight engineer Lawrence Huebner said preliminary data indicated the needle-nosed jet reached a maximum speed of slightly over seven times the speed of sound, or about 5,000 mph, after a rocket boosted it to about 3,500 mph.

Huebner said it was the first time an air-breathing jet had ever travelled so fast. The rocket-powered X-15 reached Mach 6.7 in 1967.

It's a great way to end, certainly all the sweeter because of the challenges we've had to step up to and overcome through the life of this project, said Griffin Corpening, Dryden's chief engineer on the project.

The first X-43A flight ended in failure on June 2, 2001, after the modified Pegasus rocket used to accelerate the plane veered off course and was detonated.

An investigation board found pre-flight analyses failed to predict how the rocket would perform, leaving its control system unable to maintain stable flight.

Nasa built the X-43A under a 250 million dollar (£140 million) programme to develop and test an exotic type of engine called a supersonic-combustion ramjet, or scramjet.

In theory, the air-breathing engine could propel an airplane to speeds of Mach 7 or faster, enabling around-the-world flights that would take several hours.

The Pentagon is also working on the technology, which its eyeing for use in bombers that quickly could reach targets anywhere on the globe.

The 12ft long, 2,800lb X-43A was mounted on a Pegasus rocket booster and carried to an altitude of 40,000ft by a modified B-52 bomber, which took off from Edwards Air Force Base in the high desert.

A few seconds after the craft was dropped, the rocket flared, sending the jet skyward on a streak of flame and light.

At about 100,000ft, the rocket dropped away. The scramjet took over, using up about two pounds of gaseous hydrogen fuel before gliding.

Applause rang out in the control centre at Dryden Flight Research Centre at Edwards. Technological hurdles mean it will be decades before such a plane could enter service.

And Nasa's role in developing the technology remains in doubt, as the agency recently cut funding for more advanced versions of the X-43A.

18-Wheeler
28th Mar 2004, 13:24
Already done in Australia in 2002.
Here's a link -> http://www.uq.edu.au/news/index.phtml?article=3469

It hit mach 7.6.

mattpilot
28th Mar 2004, 13:59
yea, but didn't it get destroyed during flight (theHyshot) ? could be wrong though...

18-Wheeler
28th Mar 2004, 14:02
The first one had the booster play up, the second one in August worked well.

Machdiamond
28th Mar 2004, 15:06
18-Wheeler, I don't think it's a fair comparison.

The HyShot did not accelerate under its own power. It is merely an attempt to achieve combustion in supersonic flow, riding on a rocket.
The Russians have been doing this during the early 90's.
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/DTRS/1996/PDF/H-2115.pdf
Nothing really new there.

In the case of the X-43A, the vehicle was actually generating thrust, and flew autonomously.

--Machdiamond

swh
28th Mar 2004, 16:07
Machdiamond,

I personally know the chief engineer on the Australian .Hyshot (http://www.mech.uq.edu.au/hyper/hyshot/) project, my understanding is that their craft did accelerate under its own power to about 2.2 km/sec (M7.6).

This was a worlds first, the US failed just days prior.

I read the report you linked, it was for proposed test, I agree many people have proposed to fly scramjet tests, however the Hyshot was the first craft I am aware of to validate computational and shock tunnel results in flight.

Hypersonic flight within the atmosphere by an air breathing engine is not common run of the mill news, that’s why this story made the press to start with, this new one flying autonomously is news worthy.

Well done guys!

:ok:

P.S. Hypersonic controlled flight is not uncommon, the space shuttle does it every time its returns to earth, that still makes the news.

Genghis the Engineer
28th Mar 2004, 21:44
Looks like the Americans won the debrief.

Seriously, two different teams have both achieved some very impressive things with technology that could revolutionise parts of military and transport aviation in decades to come. Whether it will of-course, remains to be seen.

I don't think it'll put pilots out of work, but it might in the long term change the nature of some pilots jobs - but that's been happening constantly due to technology changes since about 1912 anyway and needs understanding rather than panicking about.

G

FJJP
28th Mar 2004, 22:05
They've still got to figure out how to get it to height and accelerate it to the point where the scramjet becomes viable. And that with a bombload or a bunch of talking freight...

karrank
29th Mar 2004, 04:40
Is this like the Kiwi (Richard Pease???) who flew before the Wright brothers, but Yanks only believe their own newspapers???

FlyboyBen
29th Mar 2004, 06:01
P.S. Hypersonic controlled flight is not uncommon, the space shuttle does it every time its returns to earth, that still makes the news



Can't say I agree with that. I would prefer to call it a controlled fall, or even a controlled crash?!?! The pilot is merely steering it in the correct direction, he has no throttle to open if he needs a bit of extra power!

Jinkster
29th Mar 2004, 08:02
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1055286,00.html

This sounds jolly interesting :)

Jinkster

Buster Hyman
29th Mar 2004, 08:18
I know a beer that can make it seem like 2 hours!:E

Bre901
29th Mar 2004, 10:10
FlyboyBen

Would you mean that there are thousands of gliders flying uncontrolled around the world ?
You are scaring me, I should quit gliding right now :}

Are you aware that two chaps flew 2174.5 km in straight line and more 3009 km in closed circuit, sans noise generator ?

he has no throttle to open if he needs a bit of extra power
who cares if he is high enough and has a way to control energy dissipation, namely airbrakes or similar.

BoeingMEL
29th Mar 2004, 10:30
Mmmm ... well maybe but not in our lifetime methinks. A side-bar in the same story quotes the French GTV as doing 320 mph! Ah well, I guess a kilometre is the same as a mile to a journo. In recent years the Times and Sunday Times would have us believe that:

1: Russian designed jet-powered seaplanes were going to be built in Wales
2: Every UK airport would soon have many single-engine air taxis (Farnborough) sitting and just waiting for pax to arrive.
3: A US company was about to certificate and sell "flying cars" capable of 350kts, vertical take-off and landing & operation by folks without flying experience or training. It's all done by computers you know.

And to think that the great unwashed believe every word of it. bm

yintsinmerite
29th Mar 2004, 10:35
I'm told the next one aims for Mach 10 - almost as fast as a Ryan Air 737 on a taxiway

FlyboyBen
29th Mar 2004, 11:07
Bre901,

I was trying to say that there was no real comparison between controlling what is effectively a shuttle falling out of the sky (I've never seen or heard about one trying to gain height on thermals!!!) with this scramjet flying at Mach 7 under it's own steam.

I am fully aware how gliders work having gained many hours myself as a youngster.

Some people on this website are far to padantic and nit-picky!!!!

CHILL OUT!:mad:

CBLong
29th Mar 2004, 13:23
I think you meant "pedantic".

(sorry, someone had to do it)

swh
29th Mar 2004, 14:19
Flyboyben,

Umm, the shuttle gets into space under its own power .... it does "throttle up" and roll on its way into space.

I take my hat off to NASA for this flight, and the space shuttle, I find them amazing pieces of technology.

The X43 also "glided back" to earth...not sure what you point is here...

For you info, this is a general accepted definition of the term flight ...

The motion of an object in or through a medium, especially through the earth's atmosphere or through space.
An instance of such motion.
The distance covered in such motion.

The act or process of flying through the air by means of wings.
The ability to fly.
A swift passage or movement.
A scheduled airline run or trip.
A group, especially of birds or aircraft, flying together.
A number of aircraft in the U.S. Air Force forming a subdivision of a squadron.
A round of competition, as in a sports tournament.
An exuberant or transcendent effort or display
A series of stairs rising from one landing to another.

18-Wheeler
29th Mar 2004, 19:33
Is this like the Kiwi (Richard Pease???) who flew before the Wright brothers, but Yanks only believe their own newspapers???


Yep, the very same thing.

Pax Vobiscum
29th Mar 2004, 19:45
BoeingMEL

Journos may know nothing about flying, but the TGV figures are correct!

"On 18 May, 1990, the last scheduled day of testing, the TGV Atlantique hit a top speed of 515.3 km/h (320.3 mph), setting a new world speed record"

Source: h2g2 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A711785)

Bre901
29th Mar 2004, 19:56
FlyboyBen

sorry, I was a bit in a hurry and I forgot the [pedantic ON] tag. :p

happyjack
30th Mar 2004, 14:35
Taken from Daily Express Monday 29th 2004:

"Called a supersonic-combustion ramjet, or scramjet, it sucks oxygen out of the air.
Conventional jet aircraft must carry fuel and oxygen. But instead of being weighed down with both ingredients the scramjet carries just hydrogen fuel and extracts the oxygen needed to burn the fuel from the atmosphere"

So why am I always being told to take minimum fuel when that just leaves the tanks full of all that weighty air?

visibility3miles
30th Mar 2004, 16:25
For all those debating who did it first, note this sentence from the first post:

"And Nasa's role in developing the technology remains in doubt, as the agency recently cut funding for more advanced versions of the X-43A."

No money, no project. :(

FakePilot
30th Mar 2004, 16:26
It's a good thing jets get their oxygen for engines and pax from the air. Imagine if planes had to carry oxygen for the pax.. Then the beancounters would be reducing the amount of oxygen carried!

"Sorry folks, I had to turn on the 'Meditate' sign so that we'll conserve our oxygen..."

visibility3miles
30th Mar 2004, 16:36
By the way, some people at NASA would still like to find some way to keep the Hubble going (though Administrator O'Keefe seems pretty down on the idea).

I would presume that there are plenty of astronauts quite willing to fly a repair mission for the Hubble.

Plus, again purely as my own opinion, many people might view landing people on Mars as a riskier mission than a previously scheduled repair mission to replace batteries and gyroscopes on the Hubble.

4dogs
1st Apr 2004, 13:58
Folks,

Given that the X-43A program cost $US 250 million, does anyone know what the Australian project cost?

Stay Alive,

Tinstaafl
1st Apr 2004, 22:12
A six pack, two meat pies & some parts left over from the last time the Monaro was hotted up?