| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Tech |
| X43A: Next step Mach 10 |
| 2004-07-16 |
| Edited for brevity. Much more at link. EDWARDS, CALIFORNIA -- Engineers here are on the fast-track, readying the next flight of NASA's X-43A, a super-sleek, high-speed craft powered by a scramjet engine. Earlier this year, the unpiloted 12-foot-long, 5-foot-wide surfboard-looking vehicle howled its way into the history books. The X-43A reached its test speed of Mach 7 -- seven times the speed of sound, or about 5,000 miles per hour. In doing so it set a world-record speed for "air-breathing" flight, the rocket technology advanced by NASA's Hyper-X program. The X-43A's air-breathing scramjet "breathes in" oxygen from the atmosphere rather than toting along an oxidizer, mixing it with a cache of onboard rocket fuel to produce combustion and forward thrust. Being the hypersonic air-breather it is, the X-43A also caused some hyperventilation among project leaders when they watched the vessel tear itself apart on its inaugural flight on June 2, 2001. On that day the X-43A never reached test conditions. But on a successful second flight, the X-43A flew freely for several minutes following scramjet engine operation. The vehicle's supersonic combustion ramjet, or scramjet, ignited as planned and operated for the duration of its hydrogen fuel supply. Now it's full speed ahead to Mach 10. |
| Posted by:Dar |
| #6 Wonder if you can fry bacon and eggs on the skin? |
| Posted by: raptor 2004-07-17 10:16:47 AM |
| #5 #4 hmmmm what were we discussing about penetration speed necessary to destroy bunkers? That's what I've been suggesting lately. Excellent military application of hypersonic flight technology. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-07-16 10:38:14 PM |
| #4 it would make one hell of a kinetic energy weapon; hmmmm what were we discussing about penetration speed necessary to destroy bunkers? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-07-16 10:08:47 PM |
| #3 Actually Yank several perfectly good uses for such a platform come immediately to mind: 1) it would make one hell of a kinetic energy weapon; 2) ditto an unmanned surveillance platform; but the best is probably 3) if it can be scaled up it might present a very attractive option for replacing the current space shuttle fleet. The "extra engines" problem isn't quite as bad as it seems since the current space shuttle requires two solid fueled rocket boosters, a normal liquid fueled burn via the shuttles main engines, and then a separately powered orbital maneuvering system (monomethyl hydrazine + nitrogen tetroxide which spontaneously combust when mixed). And this sort of vehicle could (in theory) do something the current shuttle cannot: fly back in under its own power. Clearly for use #3 there's a ways to go in finding an efficient way to get the craft to the necessary speed to light the scramjet but the cost/benefit potential of such a system is breathtaking. Well worth the pittance it'll cost us to continue the research IMHO. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2004-07-16 10:02:04 PM |
| #2 The X-43 technology never really made sense and had limited practical use. It doesn't work until you get up to a certain speed so you need to piggy-back your way with another plane or you have to have a second set of engines to get you up to speed. Then its no good in space because its an air breather, so you need a rocket engine there as well. So we're talking two or three engines. |
| Posted by: Yank 2004-07-16 4:45:14 PM |
| #1 This is almost a eulogy... NASA's real value: Seed Corn. Do you eat it in fits of faux-sociology foolishness - or save it for planting next spring, so you eat for another year? Find the funding Dubya, Frist, et al. Congress, after the election, should yank it out of some of those idiot programs - there are certainly plenty to choose from. A line item veto approach is essential to good governance - puhleeze bring it back before it's too late. Make it so, Capt Picard. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-07-16 2:29:18 PM |