X-43A

Moderator: Mike Everman

Hank
Posts: 539
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2003 4:34 pm
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Florida, USA

X-43A

Post by Hank » Tue Nov 16, 2004 3:34 am

Hello- The third launch of an X-43A scramjet powered airframe is due to occur tommorrow, Tuesday, after todays launch was scrubbed. CNN stated technical problems, NASA said bad weather conditions caused the stand down.
The mission goal is controlled flight at Mach 7 after release from a B-52 carrier aircraft at 40,000 ft.
Hank
Attachments
57306main_x43booster.jpg
The successful second attempt to launch the X-43A
57306main_x43booster.jpg (24.61 KiB) Viewed 9161 times

Hank
Posts: 539
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2003 4:34 pm
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Florida, USA

Re: X-43A

Post by Hank » Wed Nov 17, 2004 4:12 pm

Hello- Well, it worked. The X-43A slogged along at Mach 9.6 for about ten seconds before a ten minute glide towards the Pacific. Project director Joel Sitz of Dryden stated that the amount of data gained in those ten seconds equalled years of bench tests, which are measured in milliseconds.
Hank

yipster
Posts: 141
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 1:56 pm
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: netherlands
Contact:

Re: X-43A

Post by yipster » Wed Nov 17, 2004 9:09 pm

just saw it on television and calculated the mediteranea is at mach 10 than only 6 minutes away beating the tgv by a long way. it would be a nice idea visiting monte carlo, have coffee at the harbour and be back here (1200 km) within an hour...

Tom
Posts: 603
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 12:55 pm
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: UK

Re: X-43A

Post by Tom » Wed Nov 17, 2004 9:11 pm

into the ocean. it's such a saddening thought, that this thing will be pretty much destroyed on impact, even if not that, still damaged beyond repair i'd imagine.
Experience speaks more then hypothesizing ever can. More-so in chemistry.

Hank
Posts: 539
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2003 4:34 pm
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Florida, USA

Re: X-43A

Post by Hank » Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:00 am

Coffee wrote:into the ocean. it's such a saddening thought, that this thing will be pretty much destroyed on impact, even if not that, still damaged beyond repair i'd imagine.
Hello- Yes, Coffee, no doubt the X-43A has been destroyed on impact. There is also no doubt that some Seal Team or another, along with Navy Salvage, is earning their paychecks as we write. The stuff we don't see on the news. Hank

Bruno Ogorelec
Posts: 3542
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 7:31 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

Re: X-43A

Post by Bruno Ogorelec » Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:19 pm

Ben wrote:How many Chinese/Russian/Whatever submarines do you think were in the area when it went down? It would be very valuable wreckage.
I wonder if you have noticed, but Russians seem to be completely absent from the scramjet race. Looks like their technology has veered off in a different direction.

The last I heard, they were into nuclear-heated ramjets. Now, that would be something, wouldn't it? You get that thing up and then if flies at Mach speeds for weeks and months and years...

Next refueling stop in 2008 or so.

Hank
Posts: 539
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2003 4:34 pm
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Florida, USA

Re: X-43A

Post by Hank » Fri Nov 19, 2004 4:34 am

Hello- Bruno, Mr. Putin was on the news here this morning to mention that Russia is pursuing a new "nuclear missile using technology no one else is using". No specifics as to whether the technology mentioned was the warhead or the propulsion system. This news release probably in response to certain middle eastern r&d efforts. Hank

Bruno Ogorelec
Posts: 3542
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 7:31 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

Re: X-43A

Post by Bruno Ogorelec » Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:21 am

Hank wrote:Hello- Bruno, Mr. Putin was on the news here this morning to mention that Russia is pursuing a new "nuclear missile using technology no one else is using". No specifics as to whether the technology mentioned was the warhead or the propulsion system. This news release probably in response to certain middle eastern r&d efforts. Hank
Damn. I don't like that. I hate to see bilions go into weapons systems. But, that has been the way of the world since the man first learned to swing a club...

Hank
Posts: 539
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2003 4:34 pm
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Florida, USA

Re: X-43A

Post by Hank » Sun Nov 21, 2004 7:56 am

Hello- Yeah. Weapons research seems to be getting more important to the segment that runs our lives.

I found this link a year or so ago. Another line of investigation that disappeared and has been resurrected.

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1957/ ... 56i24a.pdf

There is enough detail in the drawings for someone to cobble together their own Mach 4 vehicle.

Hank

Bruno Ogorelec
Posts: 3542
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 7:31 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

Re: X-43A

Post by Bruno Ogorelec » Sun Nov 21, 2004 2:13 pm

An impressive little vehicle. Mach 1.7 to Mach 3.8 in 13 seconds. 6g acceleration. A good thing I was not riding it. I'd have weighed almost 1300 pounds. A very large pancake.

steve
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:29 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Clinton Conneticut / Melbourne Flordia
Contact:

Re: X-43A

Post by steve » Sun Nov 21, 2004 3:54 pm

let's see, 1300 devided by 6 equals... wow!
just kidding Bruno! ;-)
Image

larry cottrill
Posts: 4140
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 1:17 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Mingo, Iowa USA
Contact:

Re: X-43A

Post by larry cottrill » Sun Nov 21, 2004 6:08 pm

Hank wrote:Hello- Yeah. Weapons research seems to be getting more important to the segment that runs our lives.

I found this link a year or so ago. Another line of investigation that disappeared and has been resurrected.

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1957/ ... 56i24a.pdf

There is enough detail in the drawings for someone to cobble together their own Mach 4 vehicle.

Hank
Hank, Mark et al -

I still think we need to make an engine that has a bar or grid of aluminum with lye sprayed onto it / through it. Cheap hydrogen, plus some radicals, etc. When I first suggested this, it was pretty much panned, but what would be so weird about this, in a ramjet [or even pulsejet] setup, if the geometry were carefully worked out?

L Cottrill

Mike Everman
Posts: 4930
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:25 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: santa barbara, CA
Contact:

Re: X-43A

Post by Mike Everman » Sun Nov 21, 2004 7:06 pm

I think it's fascinating that the vehicle is only 12' long, and weighs 3,000 lb.

I'm curious if the speed attained is ground speed or a multiple of the high altitude speed of sound? If the latter, it would be a very high ground speed indeed.
Mike
__________________________
Follow my technical science blog at: http://mikeeverman.com/
Get alerts for the above on twitter at: http://twitter.com/mikeeverman

Hank
Posts: 539
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2003 4:34 pm
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Florida, USA

Re: X-43A

Post by Hank » Sun Nov 21, 2004 11:41 pm

Mike Everman wrote:I think it's fascinating that the vehicle is only 12' long, and weighs 3,000 lb.

I'm curious if the speed attained is ground speed or a multiple of the high altitude speed of sound? If the latter, it would be a very high ground speed indeed.
Good point, Mike. The velocity figures are at altitude in this report.

No, Bruno, I'm not suggesting you ride the thing. Which brings up this question. Has anyone here ever heard of the knucklehead who strapped a brace of sidewinder rockets to his Chevy sedan and ignited them while driving down a two-lane road in Arizona. This happened a few years back.
Hank

Tom
Posts: 603
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 12:55 pm
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: UK

Re: X-43A

Post by Tom » Sun Nov 21, 2004 11:44 pm

I heard about the Dawin award winner who did pretty much the same thing using a take off assist rocket for (I think) a Hercules. Left a 3 metre deep crater in the cliff face where they found him, that is after he left the road and flew for a mile or so...

Tom
Experience speaks more then hypothesizing ever can. More-so in chemistry.

Post Reply