NASA mission sets world speed record

Pradeep

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
3,845
Location
Runny glass
An experimental pilotless plane has broken the world speed record for an atmospheric engine, briefly flying at 7,700 kilometres per hour - seven times the speed of sound, NASA says.

The hypersonic X-43 aircraft, a cross between a jet and a rocket, was dropped from the wing of a modified B-52 bomber, boosted by an auxiliary rocket to an altitude of nearly 30,000 metres and flew on its own for about six minutes before plunging into the Pacific Ocean.

NASA says the prototype engine is destined to eventually power a new generation of space shuttles.

The previous world speed record was established by a US Blackbird spy plane, which flew at three times the speed of sound.

The tiny scram jet is part of a research project into alternative propulsion technologies.

But David Learmount from Flight International Magazine says rumours of hypersonic passenger flights to come are way off the mark.

"This is aimed at space, it's aimed at powering whatever follows today's space shuttle and possibly military applications," he said.

"But certainly this technology ... is not being aimed at powering something which is going to replace Concorde in the future."

Leslie Williams, from the NASA Flight Research Centre in California, explained how the jet works.

"It doesn't have any moving parts. You have to get it up to at least Mach 5 because the air must go through supersonically to make it work," she said.

"It scoops the oxygen, rams oxygen into the inlet and then comes out the end, out the nozzle in the back as thrust.

"It really has no moving parts except for the front engine door.

"Scram jets have been around for 30 something years, but it's only been done in ground testing facilities. It's never been done in free flight."

--AFP/BBC

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1075392.htm
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,527
Location
Horsens, Denmark

time

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
4,932
Location
Brisbane, Oz
I wonder what the review had to say...

Why not ask NASA?

The HyShot test achieved scramjet hypersonic operation for six seconds. The X-43A managed 10 seconds.

By way of comparison, this article points out the first flight by the Wright Brothers only lasted 12 seconds, and Robert Goddard's first rocket flight in 1926 lasted just 2.5 seconds.

The difference is that HyShot was considered a "vehicle", but the X-43A was an "aircraft". :)

Either the journalist used excessive license, or "Leslie Williams" is a clueless PR drone. Or NASA is desperate to celebrate a win.
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,527
Location
Horsens, Denmark
time said:
The HyShot test achieved scramjet hypersonic operation for six seconds. The X-43A managed 10 seconds.

Speakign of artistic liscence, the story I heard was:

"NASA today flew their new X-43 test aircraft across the pacific at speeds over 7 times the speed of sound"

:roll:
 

LiamC

Storage Is My Life
Joined
Feb 7, 2002
Messages
2,016
Location
Canberra
Another difference is the University of Queensland researchers (HyShot) built their engine on about 1/100th of the resources and budget of NASA :mrgrn:
 

sechs

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
4,709
Location
Left Coast
It's a bit easier to build something that travels vertically, versus something that goes horizontally.
 

LiamC

Storage Is My Life
Joined
Feb 7, 2002
Messages
2,016
Location
Canberra
Not by the factor of the difference in budgets/resources it isn't. BTW, my 1/100 figure was just pulled out of my arse. But the HyShot budget is tiny, I'm betting NASA's isn't.
 

sechs

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
4,709
Location
Left Coast
Well, how much do you think it would cost to build a rocket to carry 10kg 100m into the air?

And how much do you think it would cost to build a plane that can get to 100m in the air and carry 10kg 100m at that level?
 

LiamC

Storage Is My Life
Joined
Feb 7, 2002
Messages
2,016
Location
Canberra
Strawman argument. The atmosphere is too thin for anything to "fly" - aerodynamics - at 100 miles.

If I was trying to test out a new concept - I'd choose the the cheaper offering, and spend the savings on more flights, improving the engine, whatever. It seems you are being argumentative for the sake of it. What is the point of your post other than the fact that NASA chose a different delivery mechanism to test out their SCRAM jet?
 

Pradeep

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
3,845
Location
Runny glass
NASA are prob trying to take attention away from the fact that they are abandoning Hubble because it would be more risky than just going up to the ICC. Thereby turning the Shuttle into a glorified Greyhound Bus in Space (GBIS).
 

Fushigi

Storage Is My Life
Joined
Jan 23, 2002
Messages
2,890
Location
Illinois, USA
Pradeep said:
NASA are prob trying to take attention away from the fact that they are abandoning Hubble because it would be more risky than just going up to the ICC. Thereby turning the Shuttle into a glorified Greyhound Bus in Space (GBIS).
Vs. the Shuttle's current job as extra-planetary UPS delivery truck?
 

sechs

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
4,709
Location
Left Coast
LiamC said:
The atmosphere is too thin for anything to "fly" - aerodynamics - at 100 miles.

What's that have to do with anything? Neither the NASA experiment nor my example take place that high.
 

LiamC

Storage Is My Life
Joined
Feb 7, 2002
Messages
2,016
Location
Canberra
Sechs wrote:

And how much do you think it would cost to build a plane that can get to 100m in the air and carry 10kg 100m at that level?

I am assuming that 100m means 100 miles and not 100 metres, so if it has no relevance, why did you mention it?
 

sechs

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
4,709
Location
Left Coast
metres = m
miles = mi

I thought you Aussies knew something about metric....

The point is that rockets are cheaper than planes.

[Unnecessary bolding omitted.]
 

LiamC

Storage Is My Life
Joined
Feb 7, 2002
Messages
2,016
Location
Canberra
We do, but 100 metres in the context of the discussion makes no sense. So what exactly were you talking about? HyShot certainly went higher than 100 metres into the the air.

So rockets are cheaper than planes. Not by the factor of the differences in budgets - which was my original post.

Bolding is for emphasis. Unnecessary is in the eye of the beholder.
 

sechs

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
4,709
Location
Left Coast
Pick another number for the altitude, then. It was just an example.

Planes are, in fact, far more expensive than simple rockets -- which you failed to grasp from my straightforward example, because you didn't even pay attention to what it said.

If you want to keep arguing about what you can't even be bothered to understand, keep going.
 

LiamC

Storage Is My Life
Joined
Feb 7, 2002
Messages
2,016
Location
Canberra
No, I grasped that early. Your points were made with irrelevant examples, and you still haven't grasped my post.
 

Splash

Learning Storage Performance
Joined
Apr 2, 2002
Messages
235
Location
Seaworld
Scramjets have been talked about for decades, but not built and tested until recently. An old-fashioned ramjet motor works essentially the same way a scramjet motor works, when it is going at supersonic speeds.

It's nearly impossible to properly test a scramjet motor in a wind tunnel, so you strap one on a high-speed rocket and test it in flight. These pure scramjet motors must be zipping along at a high speed before they will even fire up.

A hybrid design that could operate a low speeds then shift into scramjet mode would be great, if feasible. If it is indeed feasible, it would probably be a ramjet / scramjet hybrid -- something with a turbine that could tuck itself away at mach 2. Otherwise, it will take a booster rocket to get moving along.

As far as the NASA X-43A goes, there WAS an X-43B, but it got cancelled. X-43C is currently on the drawing board.

x-43a-engine-comparison.jpg
 

Buck

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Messages
4,514
Location
Blurry.
Website
www.hlmcompany.com
Yup, great concept. The Ram or air-acceleration principle has been used in automobiles and motorbikes for some time. I remember when I subscribed to Cycle World in the mid-80s about different intake angles on bikes that would help accelerate air, ramming it into the combustion chamber. Although this was used to improve performance at lower speeds.
 

Computer Generated Baby

Learning Storage Performance
Joined
Dec 16, 2003
Messages
221
Location
Virtualworld
Buck said:
The Ram or air-acceleration principle has been used in automobiles and motorbikes for some time.

I remember when I subscribed to Cycle World in the mid-80s about different intake angles on bikes that would help accelerate air, ramming it into the combustion chamber.

Although this was used to improve performance at lower speeds.

Ram Air Induction for the civilian motorcar and motorcycle are a tad overrated.

It's true that you'll get a *very* mild boost in horsepower at the upper range of legal US highway speeds, but nothing more. Some of the ram air scoops employed on certain automobiles cause enough aerodynamic drag to cancel most of the positive effect gained through combustion efficiency by the elevation of relative atmospheric pressure via ram air induction.

Employing air scoops for ram air induction on motorcycles is a lot more tricky than some might expect. A "bad" scoop could significantly change the high-speed stability of a motorcycle. A small-ish unrestricted carburetor air intake somewhere up high on the chassis away from the roadway -- one that's well separated from any cooling air intakes -- is all you need on a motorcycle. Anything larger and all you'll have is a nice bug / pebble / sand / water scoop for your thirsty carburetors, and that definitely ain't good when you are halfway between Barstow and nowhere.
 

Computer Generated Baby

Learning Storage Performance
Joined
Dec 16, 2003
Messages
221
Location
Virtualworld
The most scoop-a-licious motorcycle ever made, the late great Yamaha V-Max musclebike, had a scoop on both sides of its inhumanely potent V-4 mill (read: big throbbing tricked-out motor that was more powerful than most automobile engines, attached to frame with two wheels).

The US Congress nearly banned the V-Max back in the late 1980s, along with a couple of Ferrari models and a Lamborghini, because of their excessive performance potential.

jasonbloomer1.jpg
jasonbloomer2.jpg


 

Santilli

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 27, 2002
Messages
5,078
Didn't Kelly, and Skunkworks, come up with a hybrid jet/ramjet for the SR-71? IIRC, once up, and moving at 2500 mph, the turbines were taken out of the airflow, their angle was changed, so the engines became ramjets?

I do remember the pilots talking about the nozzles, or entry ports, for the oxygen moving and 'seating' into place, once up, and really moving, giving an optimal angle for air enterning the engines.

IIRC< the SR-71 used a kerosenne based fuel, non-combustible at normal condition, that had an added oxygen atom to the normal molecule. The result was when shot into the combustion chamber, the fuel brought it's own source of oxygen to burn, and would work at the super high altitudes the SR-71 went to.

The fact these guys thought this stuff up in the early 60's, built the planes, and had them flying for over 30 years, (Splash: doesn't NASA still use the SR-71 for shuttle component testing) while the rest of the world was still in the dark ages, is just amazing. In my opinion, rates right up their with the Genius of John Browning, etc.

s
 

LiamC

Storage Is My Life
Joined
Feb 7, 2002
Messages
2,016
Location
Canberra
Ever seen the movie Pitch Black? Vin Diesel? Now you know what hundreds of kilometeres around Woomera looks like. Though faintly radioavtive courtesy of the British.
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,527
Location
Horsens, Denmark
LiamC said:
HyShot IV launched today

http://finance.news.com.au/story/0,10166,18655222-31037,00.html

HyShot III got close to Mach 8 under scram jet power

Awesome. For the first time in a long time the scientists in the field are moving faster than I would expect them to. The previous that comes to mind was the Ansari X-Prize...or maybe the DARPA grand challenge.

...all of which the US govornment weren't in charge of the research in. Hint, hint.

Keep the updates coming, I am interested in this stuff.

PUI
 

Santilli

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 27, 2002
Messages
5,078
Doesn't anyone see the small detail, that it requires going mach 5 before it starts working? Just a minor detail. At Mach 3 Titanium starts flowing. I want
to know what materials will take sustained speeds at Mach 5, much less Mach 8.

s
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,527
Location
Horsens, Denmark
Santilli said:
Doesn't anyone see the small detail, that it requires going mach 5 before it starts working? Just a minor detail. At Mach 3 Titanium starts flowing. I want
to know what materials will take sustained speeds at Mach 5, much less Mach 8.

s

Well, if the whole point is trying to go above mach 5, than it's less of an issue. A regular ramjet will get you to there, and a regular jet engine will get you to the ramjet range. See? Simple ;)
 

Will Rickards

Storage Is My Life
Joined
Jan 23, 2002
Messages
2,011
Location
Here
Website
willrickards.net
I think this for passenger stuff is way off if possible at all. I mean all these prototypes have the same problem, no brakes. How do you even stop a ramjet? No moving parts so you'd have to shut off the flow of air. But going that fast what would be able to sustain the pressure and the force of the ramjet?
 

LiamC

Storage Is My Life
Joined
Feb 7, 2002
Messages
2,016
Location
Canberra
Will Rickards said:
I think this for passenger stuff is way off if possible at all. I mean all these prototypes have the same problem, no brakes. How do you even stop a ramjet? No moving parts so you'd have to shut off the flow of air. But going that fast what would be able to sustain the pressure and the force of the ramjet?

I am not sure that passenger vehicles are the first use priority. I'd expect heavy lifting vehicles (rockets) are the first target. I also expect that after much more research is done, prototypes built, early production examples, the odd crash etc. that the velocity needed for a functioning will come down. It would make a very cheap and reliable mach 1.5/2 power plant
 

LiamC

Storage Is My Life
Joined
Feb 7, 2002
Messages
2,016
Location
Canberra
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21910626-1702,00.html

..."
The test was overseen by the Australian government's Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO), supported by Australian and US scientists.
"Everything went according to plan," DSTO spokesman Steve Butler said.
"It will take about two weeks to process the data and see how successful the test was."
The scramjet spent 12 minutes and 15 seconds in the air, reaching a height of 530km, Mr Butler said."...
 
Top